Quick Meal is an international fast-food chain that operates in many countries.

Company management wants to apply a uniform standard of business ethics, modeled after U.S. practices, to all of its stores worldwide.

When Quick Meal opened a new store in Country X, initially the local government cooperated fully. Then the government changed hands, and a corrupt group took over. Shortly thereafter, Quick Meal noticed that the general manager of the new store in Country X was providing free food and other concessions to governmental officials “under the table.” The general manager was an American married to a local national. He was trying to get an “in” with the new government.

Store profits were still high, but Quick Meal decided to fire the general manager.

The officials of the new government intervened and told Quick Meal to keep him or they would confiscate the local store. Quick Meal stuck to its decision and let the general manager go. The new government followed through with its threats and took away the local store.

A few years later, the government of Country X changed hands again. Although Quick Meal was promised some indemnity, there was still a considerable financial loss to the company. Despite the fact that these losses were written off, some of the Quick Meal stockholders were unhappy with the company’s decision regarding the general manager.

What should Quick Meal have done?