In September 2018, American multinational corporation Nike, Inc. released an advertisement featuring American football player Colin Kaepernick with the slogan "Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything." Despite not being an actively professional athlete at the time of the advert, Kaepernick had become well-known to the general public in 2016 for "taking a knee" (kneeling, rather than standing when the American national anthem was being sung at football games as a protest against police brutality and institutional racism in the US). While the advert had mixed responses (some praised Nike's support of a controversial figure as "brave" and "defiant"; others found it insulting to national solidarity and cohesion, and took to burning their Nike shoes on social media), it was nevertheless a great financial success for the company. In the same year, by contrast, Nike publicly refused to sponsor Enes Kanter, a high-profile basketball player - born to Turkish parents, but now American - who was highly critical of the-then Turkish government, claiming that such a sponsorship may hurt Nike's sales in that country (Turkey). This resulted in a number of media articles accusing the company of hypocrisy and a lack of principle. More recent examples of corporations choosing to halt operations in foreign countries on principle include those who have withdrawn from Russia as a result of that country's invasion of Ukraine, while others have chosen to remain in operation despite such political developments. For this assignment, please answer the following question: Do you think that multinational corporations have a moral obligation to observe (and perhaps respond to) "social justice" issues in the countries they wish to operate in, even if doing so could affect their profitability?