It is condemnable of such actions by the governments amounting to abuses, but it is beyond capacity of many countries to handle the transnational corporations. In a number of countries, the conjunction of insufficient regulations and ineffective enforcement results in clearly wrong behaviour by the unscrupulous companies. For example, in the recent past, there was considerable interest by a group of investors on restoring luxury ocean liner called SSUnited States. The asbestos lining of the ship had to be removed first before restoring can commence. An U.S. company bid to remove the asbestos on the basis of the U.S. standards. The price of the job was fixed at $100 million. At the same time, a company based on Sevastopol, Ukraine gave an offer for the same job at less than $2 million. Within a few months, the ship was moved to Sevastopol.There are problems with the outcome of cultural relativists, even though, they themselves find no problem with it. Although, there is the right for a country in establishing its own safety and health regulations, in the above case, the contract’s terms and standards might not have protected the Sevastopol’s workers from the known risks towards health (Frank 1991). Even in the event of standards of Ukraine are met by the contract, the business persons who are ethical must have objected.
There is moral blindness in the cultural relativism. The companies and cross cultures must upheld some fundamental values. Standing at the cultural relativism’s other end of the spectrum is ethical imperialism. This directs individuals in doing everywhere what they have been doing at home. It is an approach that is understandably appealing, but has the clear indication of inadequacy. For example, a U.S. company producing computer products came up with a course in 1993 on sexual harassment in its facility in Saudi Arabia. Under the global consistency banner, the same approach was used by the instructors in training the managers of Saudi Arabia that had been used with mangers of United States. They were advised in discussing a case, where manager retorted to making a remark that is sexually explicit to new woman employee in a bar over a drink. The instructor had no consideration with respect to the working of the exercise in a culture having stringent principles that governs the relationships between men and women. Consequently, this training session resulted in absurdity. The instructor offended and baffled the participants from Saudi Arabia and the message is lost that involved sexual discrimination and avoidance of coercion.