Commentary: Obscured Authority
In the case discussion of Heineken and the promotion girls in Cambodia we address the question to what extent Heineken is responsible for the well-being of promotion girls in Cambodia. Heineken’s authority in Cambodia is obscured: at best it has a shared authority, in this case with Heineken’s Asian partners, the Cambodian government and the establishment owners. In examining Heineken’s responsibilities, we rely on two fundamental moral principles: the first is to do no harm and the second is the principle of autonomy. Furthermore we examine the extent of Heineken’s authority and the significance of its obscured authority. Our conclusion is that the fact that authority is primarily indirect, does not relieve Heineken from all moral responsibility.
KeywordsMoral Responsibility Sexual Contact Establishment Owner Employment Position Distribution Chain
- Bernard, G., Culver, C. and Clauser, K.D. 1997. Bioethics. A Return to Fundamentals. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Donaldson, T. 1992. The Ethics of International Business. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Jeurissen, R. and van der Putten, F.P. 2006. Ethiek en internationaal zaken doen. In: Jeurissen, R.J.E. (ed.), Bedrijfsethiek een goede zaak. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
- Luijk, H. van 1993. Om redelijk gewin: Oefeningen in bedrijfsethiek, 139–140. Amsterdam: Boom.Google Scholar