Mncs Significant Role in The Third World Countries

In my classes, I’ve been exposed to two very different types of reasoning: in my psychology and sustainability classes, I’ve heard reasoning centered on people, the environment, and the idea of being a global citizen. In my business classes, for my international business minor, we’ve talked about people like units of labor, environmental restrictions on pollution like needless barriers, and seen things in terms of profits and losses. While at first, my instincts align with the idealistic worldviews presented in sustainability, I’ve learned to see the meaning and greater good behind some of the more business ways. Though it is hard to turn off initial reservations about doing things that may seem unfair, I can see that, like Machiavelli said, “the ends can justify the means,” and sometimes, what may seem cruel and unfair could still be good overall in the long run. MNCs, though they do exploit cheap labor, also create jobs and opportunities where there were none. Though they aren’t up to United States types of health and safety conditions, they can be better than other available jobs for the people. Cheap labor likes this keeps prices low for home country buyers, makes products available worldwide, and can give them access to technology they wouldn’t otherwise. I’m still not sure exactly where I stand, as I am appalled by the working conditions and wish there was a better way, yet I also see the benefits of MNCs on the third world. Forgive me, fellow classmates, who seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of them being held to the same standards, but I think an argument definitely exists for the other side as well.

However, there are still arguments for increasing current health and safety standards that lie in the fact that sometimes, the home country recipients suffer from poor health and safety regulation in host country facilities. In the Ted Talk, he talks about an example of how poor regulation in the health sector lead to “a scandal which killed about 80 people around the world, because of contaminants that crept into the heparin supply chain” (Heerden). This was because“ the Chinese define these facilities as chemical facilities, not pharmaceutical facilities, so they don't audit them” (Heerden). I am not suggesting that there is no need to have reform at all, but I think we should focus on the positives and help find the best solutions that benefit the host countries of the MNCs, the home country nationals, and the environment itself. As fellow classmates have pointed out, MNCs violate a lot of standards present in the United States and other first world countries for worker conditions, wages, and safety standards of the factories. This may be true, but usually their wages and working conditions are better than their other options (Pettinger). They can also provide capital to the city, create a stronger and more trained workforce, and improve the infrastructure of the economy (Pettinger).

Standards that are written and apply to first-world countries may not always be able to be implemented in every country. For example, some places do not necessarily have running water, yet standards for drinking fountains and number of bathrooms may not apply. Standards that are not easy to reach may prevent countries from investing in FDI in the very places that can benefit from it the most. The question asks if the fact that they’re creating jobs is enough, or should they have to provide those standards as well. If they have impossible standards to meet in that location, then there may not even be jobs given if having labor there is deemed too costly. The question also phrases it as if the only benefit that multinationals can have on a developing country is that of increased jobs, when in fact there are several others. One article I saw, titled “3 Ways Multinational Corporations Can Help Vulnerable Communities Adapt to Climate Change” caught my eye. It showed how multinationals can hep the community by providing a resilient workforce, new goods and services, and redesigning current products to be more environmentally friendly (Terpstra & Ofstedahl). It also gives several examples of MNCs who are helping promote more sustainable farming practices. “ Starbucks is giving trainings to coffee farmers in Indonesia, helping them learn composting, pruning, and shading techniques that help protect coffee plants from rising temperatures. Levi’s is teaching rain-harvesting techniques to cotton farmers in Brazil, Pakistan, India, and West Africa so they can conserve water in dry regions” (Terpstra & Ofstedahl). With many of these countries struggling to adapt to climate change, these companies have ethically helped the host country while also aiding themselves.

The proverbial ethical line should not be set by comparing these corporations to host country national ones or by comparing them to the conditions of the other jobs available in the country. The line should be based on if individual's peoples lives are being made better or worse by the fact that those companies and those factories are there.