This is an extraordinary statement. How odd it is that the CEO of an multinational corporation – the sort of organisation that says it only thinks globally – uses the pretext of local law to claim……
And he claims that it is local law – and not the law of the state where his company is quoted – and not the power of international regulation – that must apply.
Umm, he seems to be saying that a multi-national company should deliberately break the local laws in a/some of the countries in which it operates.
If, for example, Angola passes a law stating that an oil company must not reveal what it is paying in royalties for oil (which, if memeory serves, they did at one point) then BP and any other company operating in Angola must break that law.
There is something of a problem with this attitude. With a company operating in the UK Richard insists that both the letter of the law and its spirit must be obeyed by all. For this is the law of the land.
Apparently laws passed by darkies elsewhere don\’t have the same power, are not subject to the same test of sovereignty, as those written by us pink types.
There are countries where women may not drive. This is of course in breach of (and quite rightly in breach of) our own laws on sex/gender discrimination. Must all UK companies now deliberately break Saudi Arabian law by insisting that their female employees there may drive?
Insert example of your choice, but he really does seem to be being colonial here. The laws around the world, whatever the independence or otherwise of other nations, should be determined in a Norfolk parsonage.