Consider the cases "Pepsi's Burma Connection" & "Levi Strauss & Co. and China." Levi Strauss and Pepsi are each trying to strike a balance between profit and protecting human rights (or at least corporate image) while still participating in the nations where human rights abuses are certainly taking place. Can a business operate ethically in an area that condones HR abuses? If so, how? If not, why not? What is our responsibility, as consumers, towards people suffering HR abuses in foreign lands? Should government relieve the temptation to do participate in HR abuses through law (trade embargo, etc)? Why or why not? No, businesses cannot operate ethnically in areas that condone HR abuse. If a business continues to work in a place that violates human rights it would appear as if they are supporting these conditions. As a consumer, it is our responsibility to refuse products that support or allow unethical activities. Our responsibility is to protect the society we live in by making sure that the products we are consuming does not violate human rights. As said in "Pepsi's Burma Connection\" many college students boycotted Pepsi products. This shows that we have the power and pressure to make a difference in our world. We have the power to voice our opinion on the suffering HR abuses in foreign lands, especially if it is dealing with an American company. I think that the government should not relieve the temptation to do participate in HR abuse through law because without these laws in place, business would have no guidelines for some basic human rights. It is important that American companies do not support the practices in foreign countries. If the government stopped many companies would not manage their business \"Ada '1 111' n11 lnnnl n? nikirml nfnnrlnrrlc