Every member of society[0] (including corporations) actions within the social contracts of that society. Society provides corporations certain affordances, in return corporations contribute to society (by paying taxes, reasonable wages and so on). Corporations don't have any god-given rights of their own, they merely have the privileges granted to them by society (via laws and regulations).
I realise HN is a weird place to argue this, but corporations don't exist in a vacuum. They can't exist in a vacuum. Without a state guaranteeing its rights and the means to enforce those rights, a corporation is just a group of individuals. This is not only true for corporations. You don't have any rights other than those afforded to you by society (whether on a local level like the US or a global level like the UN). If there's no-one who's going to enforce your rights, they become purely philosophical (cf. Guantanomo -- unless you believe the UN is going to take on the US government and bail you out of there).
The social contract is primarily between an individual and society at a local level. Thanks to globalization it now extends to other societies across the globe, but the responsibilities of a local corporation to residents of a country on the other side of the globe they don't already have any business relationships with is only secondary at best.
That said, you're kidding yourself if you are trying to argue that increasing profit (or cutting costs, which boils down to the same effect) by outsourcing to cheaper markets could even remotely be considered something ethically positive.
[0] I'm using the terms "society" and "state" or "government" interchangeably here based on the democratic principle that a state derives its legitimation from the people, i.e. the society it governs.
The social contract is primarily between an individual and society at a local level.
What makes the social contract local? Why not say the social contract is primarily between and individual and his race, his class, his clan or his religion?
At one time it was considered a violation of the "social contract" for a white man to hire cheaper negro workers (language chosen to evoke that era). Many folks still consider it a violation of the "social contract" to hire someone who isn't Marathi. Why do you choose geographic locality rather than race?
Outsourcing to cheaper markets reduces poverty and inequality. As a person who doesn't consider Debbie more valuable than Deepika (both are real people that I know personally), I consider helping Deepkia (born into dire poverty and with little chance to escape) far more ethical than helping Debbie.
You're asking questions that have been discussed at length by philosophers, and while there is no definitive "answer", there are some thought frameworks you can think in. Questions of ethics are hard because they're dependent on culture, and their axioms do not stem from nature (although a few philosophers claim they do) but from human psychology and social-psychology. Still, they're not completely arbitrary. You can say your values make you prefer ethical framework A over ethical framework B, but each framework -- while may not 100% logically sound and 100% consistent -- at least frames the discussion.
So, to get back to your question, there are certainly reasons -- within a given ethics framework -- to prefer local responsibility. The reasons start with the question, "why do I have a responsibility towards the Other[1]?" Some philosophers (like Levinas[2], I think), take a very total approach. Others may say that the responsibility stems from relationship and mutual influence (my wellbeing is affected by the Other, and the Other's is affected by mine). If you prefer the second approach, it is clear that you have greater responsibility towards those whose lives are more affected by yours and vice-versa, and as mutual effects can travel through the economy or legislation (you both vote for the same government), and those are local, it stands to reason that the measure of responsibility grows with locality. Other ethical frameworks may agree with this notion of locality in principle, but say that locality only takes precedence when the needs are the same (of the local and remote), but if the remote person/community has greater needs, then that takes precedence over locality.
All of these can make sense, and different people can subscribe to different ethical frameworks. But each of them has to be consistent, or at least have good reasons for breaking the consistency in some circumstances.
I realise HN is a weird place to argue this, but corporations don't exist in a vacuum. They can't exist in a vacuum. Without a state guaranteeing its rights and the means to enforce those rights, a corporation is just a group of individuals. This is not only true for corporations. You don't have any rights other than those afforded to you by society (whether on a local level like the US or a global level like the UN). If there's no-one who's going to enforce your rights, they become purely philosophical (cf. Guantanomo -- unless you believe the UN is going to take on the US government and bail you out of there).
The social contract is primarily between an individual and society at a local level. Thanks to globalization it now extends to other societies across the globe, but the responsibilities of a local corporation to residents of a country on the other side of the globe they don't already have any business relationships with is only secondary at best.
That said, you're kidding yourself if you are trying to argue that increasing profit (or cutting costs, which boils down to the same effect) by outsourcing to cheaper markets could even remotely be considered something ethically positive.
[0] I'm using the terms "society" and "state" or "government" interchangeably here based on the democratic principle that a state derives its legitimation from the people, i.e. the society it governs.