Chrysler and Gao Feng: Corporate Responsability for Religious and Political Freedom in China

In the case study Chrysler and Gao Feng: Corporate Responsibility for Religious and Political Freedom in China by Michael Santoro, he states that multinational corporation doing business internationally faces complex ethical issues. The ethical dilemma Chrysler encounters is the corporate responsibility for religious freedom in China. In May 1994, Gao Feng a Christian was arrested in Beijing for planning a private worship service to remember the fifth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. At the time of the event Gao was a 26 year old employee of Chrysler joint venture Jeep. Later, he was accused of violating Chinese laws opposed to practicing religion outside of a state authorized location. Even though, the Article 36 of the Chinese constitution provides the freedom of religion, but the government restricts religious practice. The government restricts the religious practices so they can manage the growth of religious activity. Gao was accused and was not formally charged, but he remained under detention for five weeks. Upon returning to Jeep and informing his supervisor that the Chinese police incarcerated him for a month, Gao was requested to prove proof. The Chinese police gave him proof in a form of a note addressing that he was incarcerated for three days and released without trail.

On the other hand, the company interests are at risk. In China the main key to success is to maintain good relations with the Communist parties, which they mainly control the economy. For multinational corporations they have to spend many years creating good connections in China for their business to function. For example, General Motors, Motorola, and Hewlett-Packard are conscious that they risk billions of dollars if they take a posit...

... middle of paper ...

...his situation I would agree with Milton Friedman idea of no government intervention. Even though government intervention establishes and maintains order for completing contracts, defining property right, and etc…, there should be a line drawn until what point government intervention is necessary. The government should not have any intervention in the freedom of religion.

Lastly, many businesses transfer their employees to work in different countries. This situation causes many individuals to be not able to express or practice their religious beliefs freely. The corporations have some sort of responsibility for their employees to express, and practice religious freedom in whatever country they are. However, when a government imposes a regulation for example; hence, China is a serious situation where one mistake and the business lose its function to work properly.