It is not naive to think that the large companies can be induced to obey the legislation. In fact, numerous people stand to the position that multinational companies are much reluctant to commit corporate crimes in form of frauds or other disruptions. This connection is linked to the perception that the government is not capable to exercise effective governmental control over the activity of the multinational companies. However, this bias is flawless due to the fact that the governments supervise performance of the companies, while the crimes are committed by separate people within different organizations regardless of the size of the company. There is a little chance to the multinational organization to avoid government control. The national authority exercised control over the organization starting from the maintenance of the work arrangements and up to the prevention of the global price fixing in terms of the fulfilment of the international obligations of the state in the trade relations.

You're lucky! Use promo "samples20"
and get a custom paper on
"International Corporate Crime"
with 20% discount!
Order Now

The overview of the performance of the most global companies, residing in the United Kingdom, revealed that there are some organizations acting in violation of the section 501 of the Companies Act 2006. For example, the case with UK subsidiary of Olympus company shows that on some occasions the government lacks resources to be used for prosecution of the corporate fraud or any other criminal activity (Connett, 2015). However, this fact does not prove that the large companies can be induced to violate the legislation because of its unique environment, volumes of profit or any other factor pertaining to the large multinationals. The other recent case with Barclays PLC discovered that the bank intended to hide significant amount of profit in order to manipulate with the interest rate in the financial system. However, this activity failed because of the successful investigation of the British and American government (Binham, 2017).

In this respect, the issue is whether the companies bear moral obligation to follow legal norms. In order to provide response to this question, one should agree with the fact that the companies can not have moral obligations per se. Therefore, there is no any leverage to be used in order to induce companies to obey legislation. At the same time, the companies have an obligation to obey the existing legal norms just because of the fact that the rules are applicable to all subjects of the relations. In case of the engagement in any type of illegal activity, this action will be punished accordingly. Thus, the companies are imposed with the obligation to follow the rules in equal manner as other legal persons. Furthermore, the obligation of the companies to act in compliance with the legal norms extends to the question of the morality of the managers of the company.

In fact, the effective performance of the company depends on the moral commitment of the top leadership of the organization to fulfil its responsibilities before government and individuals. Therefore, it appears that with more power the extended responsibility arises. This implies that the large multinational companies should recognize presence of the corresponding responsibilities that should be invoked in order to avoid any damage to the needs and interests of the people. Following this statement, the multinational companies should accept that there is no any more important corporate moral obligation for the organization than to act in compliance with the legal norms and respect human rights under adopted legal instruments (Radcliffe, 2012).