Profit before principles

For decades, Bangladesh treated multinational companies as models of ethical business. They were regarded as finishing schools for corporate integrity, with polished offices and thick codes. Employees signed every page, suppliers promised sainthood, and consumers paid for trust. The corporations appeared to keep the only exemption certificate.

Consider Fair & Lovely. For decades, Unilever sold aspiration in a tube, reinforcing the idea that lighter skin could bring a brighter life. After years of criticism over colourism, the company renamed it Glow & Lovely in 2020. Communication became more inclusive; the product remained. A masterclass in corporate repentance: change the adjective, retain revenue.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

BAT and Nestlé have faced controversies internationally. In 2023, British American Tobacco agreed to pay $629 million after a subsidiary pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate US sanctions on North Korea. In 2024, Public Eye and IBFAN alleged that Nestlé baby foods in lower-income countries contained added sugar while comparable Swiss products often did not. Nestlé said its products complied with local laws and that it was reducing sugar. Compliance is a floor, not a halo.

Then came regional telecom operators. Regulators fined operators hundreds of crores for illegal VoIP. BTRC audit claims against Grameenphone and Robi total Tk 13,447 crore. Both dispute the sums and deny evasion; cases remain unresolved. Former employees have pursued profit-sharing claims for 15 years. Delay does not prove corruption; companies deserve due process. Yet when cases drag on, a perception grows: corporate giants can afford lawyers, advertising and access that exhaust claimants and keep court files ageing gracefully. A headline is not a verdict; nor should litigation become a business strategy. Justice delayed may prove nothing, but it steadily destroys public confidence.

Business Insider’s August 2026 documentary, “How Uber Uses AI to Charge You More”, examines Uber’s opaque upfront pricing system. Eleven colleagues requested the same journey simultaneously; the highest quote was nearly 21 percent above the lowest. A Consumer Reports exercise found gaps reaching 50 percent on some routes. Uber disputed the methodology and denied personalising fares. In New York, its app disclosed that an algorithm used personal data, which Uber said meant location.

Drivers face Uber’s other black box. The documentary shows a passenger paying $70.52 while the driver was offered $25, although drivers bear fuel and insurance. Uber disputes claims that its take rate has increased. Yet the problem remains: Uber knows the rider’s ceiling and the driver’s floor, while neither sees the staircase.

This is neither an Uber nor a Bangladesh story. After privacy penalties, Meta agreed to pay up to $18 billion to settle US lawsuits alleging its platforms were designed to addict children and misled the public.

Meta denied wrongdoing. Google has faced monopoly judgments. Should Bangladesh investigate whether its children face harm and consider comparable action? Across platforms, convenience becomes data, data becomes dependence, and dependence becomes profit. Profit does not merely come first; it writes the queue.

Profit is not the crime; concealed extraction is. Bangladesh needs enforceable algorithmic accountability: plain-language disclosure of pricing and pay logic, independent audits for discrimination, minimum net earnings for gig workers, a right to challenge automated decisions, data portability, and penalties tied to turnover. Regulators need technical talent and independence; workers need collective representation; boards must report partner welfare alongside shareholder return.

Most importantly, one ethical standard must travel everywhere. If a practice is unacceptable in London or Zurich, Dhaka should not become its discount outlet. A code signed only by the weak is not ethics. It is evidence that the strong knew exactly what they were doing.

The writer is founder of BuildCon Consultancies Ltd and BuildNation Ltd