Rubenfeld, S. (2019). Cognizant Case Shows How Firms Can Avoid Charges Even Amid Alleged Wrongdoing.
Case Study: Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp.
Issue
When involved in an alleged wrong doing, companies are today able to avoid criminal charges. Top executives of a company, also known as C-Suite are most often than not responsible for taking care of the company’s interest. When these C-Suites are involved in criminal activities to further promote the cause of the company, the company itself is mostly not charged of any wrongdoing under specific circumstances. In the case of Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp, its C-Suite, the former president and chief legal officer were allegedly involved in giving out illicit payments that would help construct a corporate campus in India (Rubenfeld, 2019). The company itself avoided criminal charges since it voluntarily disclosed the issue to the Justice System within two weeks after learning about the matter. However, the ethical question in this respect should be: Should prosecutors have charged the company, setting it as an example of all corporate organizations biding to avoid criminal charges by having scapegoats?
Moral Theory
The moral theory that I choose in this case study is Kant’s Ethics. The theory posits that certain actions are strictly prohibited. Kant believed that virtues are traits possessed by individuals that are steadfast and fulfil their given duties diligently. In retrospect, Kant’s theory does not believe an action can be deemed right or wrong depending on its consequences but only whether or not the actions fulfil a given duty. Kant assessed that morality had a supreme principle known as ‘The Categorical Imperative’. The Categorical Imperative denotes that there are unconditional commands that should always be followed. When one fails to follow these commands, they are unethical and immoral.
Application
The United States government have strict mandates against bribing foreign officials. The act according to Rubenfeld (2019) is enforced by two joint arms, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Justice Department. An analysis of this act through Kant’s ethics reveals that its mandates are categorical imperatives. It means that every company or individual in the United States are strictly prohibited from these acts and those that fail to obey them will suffer prosecution.
There is a link between the categorical imperative, ethics, and morality. Both morality and ethics are based on categorical imperatives since company and individuals are commanded by it. The company, Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp, is therefore also liable for bribery as its C-Suites. Since the two C-Suites were working on behalf of the company, it is only logical that the company be prosecuted for the part that it played in the matter. The Kantian Ethics note that irrespective of the situation or context, moral principles applies to everyone. In this case, the moral principles apply to the company too.
Not pressing charges on the company based on its enforcement policies and disclosure therefore sets bad precedence. It may mean that other corporate companies can also have scapegoats when they have run-ins with the authority. Further, Kant’s ethics has two principles that supports this argument. One, it assesses that rules are universally applicable to everyone. Secondly, individuals must never be treated as a means to an end, they can be only treated as an end. As such, the Cognizant and the prosecution cannot treat the two official as a means to an end of the legal suite.
Conclusion
There is one ethical question that arises in this case study. Should prosecutors have charged the company, setting it as an example of all corporate organizations biding to avoid criminal charges by having scapegoats? Through an evaluation of Kant’s Ethics, categorical imperatives apply to both the company and the two officials. It means that the company must also be accountable and prosecuted for the part it played in the issue.