the US and the German governments grossly under-fined the German company especially considering that at the time, Siemens used to accrue over over70 billion Euros of sales annually. A miniature fine of only $ 1.6 billion did only encourage the company to perpetuate the already worse unethical behavior by bribing the US investigators. Had the regulating authorities impose a much heavier fine on Siemens, the company management and to an extension its employees, would have taken a second thought as far as massive corruption and bribery are concerned.
As the new Chief Ethics Officer, I would have taken a slightly different course in that instead of summarily dismissing culpable employees, I would have engaged them in the reform process. Since there is no absolute ethical standard or person, the first step would have been to embark on massive employee training process, sensitizing, and enlightening the employees on the benefits of conducting themselves in accordance to acceptable ethical standards. By indulging all the concerned parties in extensive consultations, communications, and negotiations, I think I would have brought back the company to its original course much faster. This is because empowering and encouraging employees has the overall effect of transforming the employees’ culture and subsequently, the organization’s culture, for the better (Fernando, 2010).
Before the German government put a ban on bribery and corporate corruption, most companies perceived this as an easy way of going about their business operations. Singled out was the electronics giant, Siemens, which took absolute advantage of the situation in order to gain undue competitive advantage. Several reports quote Siemens top executives insinuating that corruption and bribery gave the company the competitive edge that saw it stay ahead of the game for years. As some may want to believe that Siemens was compliant by engaging in corruption, it beats logic to deny that this act is unethical. ...Show more