If the SLS Corporation expanded its business endeavors into the United States of America, it would more than likely fall into the government’s business and fiscal practices after a few rounds of trial and error. As it is said in a paper by Nygaard and Dahlstrom (1992), most regulatory policies are based on a centralized model of political administration where Multinational Companies (MNCs) deal directly with the top authorities of the government. Also mentioned in the same paper is the fact that MNCs must have a “keen understanding” of the domestic policies, cultures, and politics of the countries that they are about to do business in (Nyagaard, A., Dahlstrom, R., 1992, pp. 5-6).

Fiscal and regulatory policies aside, SLS Corporation will have to look extensively into the United States ethics and laws on minimum wage, health care, and child labor. In the United States, there are laws pertaining to how often part time employees with no offered benefits can work past a certain amount of hours, the minimum amount of work an employee must do to be offered health care, the minimum age that a child can begin employment, etc. For a MNC like SLS Corporation, adhering to these ethics may incur more expenditures down the road. However, it may be worth it. In an article in the Harvard Business Review that was written by Doz and Prahalad (1980), it is stated that companies must look for “economically optimal solutions” to issues and then find compromises that fit with the demands of governments and the overall objectives of MNCs top level management.

Since SLS Corporation is trying to gain a foothold in the very strong and competitive American economic market, it would benefit them to consider following the ethical boundaries of the government. Companies often compromise their rationalization strategies in favor of gaining a foothold in high infrastructure developing countries such as Brazil, Nigeria, India, and others (Doz, Y., Prahalad, C.K., 1980). If MNCs are willing to compromise to gain footing in those developing markets, then why would SLS Corporation decide not to adhere to the American government’s infrastructure?

One answer to the question would be that host governments often interfere with MNCs’ crucial elements of strategy building such as product and market choice, the use of certain technology, the level of employment, and the national balance of trade (Doz, Y., Prahalad, C.K., 1980). Despite this, many MNCs decide to submit to governments’ economic authority and work out a trading arrangement that benefits both parties as much as possible. As aforementioned, the American economic market is one of the strongest markets in the world. It is also a market that is built almost exclusively on capitalism, free trade, and competition. Therefore, SLS Corporation has an ethical obligation to its stake and shareholders to do what it needs to do to make itself a major factor in the American market within its industry.

Also, as far as SLS Corporation’s home region is concerned, the added revenue from American transactions and trading would help a great deal towards boosting the home region’s economy and providing a template on what other businesses need to do in order to succeed in the bigger economic markets in the world. In closing, SLS Corporation does have an ethical imperative to its stakeholders, home region, and economic growth to adhere to the policies of the United States and to make as many fair compromises as necessary in order to gain a solid place within the American economy.