Here’s my attempt at looking at Coca cola’s behavior using the theories listed: Egoism Coca cola also did not look at the bigger impact on the German economy when it closed 7 plants in Eastern Germany. 2000 jobs were lost which impacted unemployment; however coca cola focused on the bigger picture that machinery was able to produce more at a lower cost by centralizing bottling plants. Coke focused on the global picture rather than the local situation of their factory in India. It tried to show that it was a ‘giver’ by giving something back to the 2006 World Cup fans.
It offered competitions to win world cup tickets which tried to portray the company in a good light. Utilitarianism The video implied that coca cola were more interested in satisfying customers on a global level rather than keeping local people happy. They did not seem to care that: * People were protesting because the water supply was reducing * Farmers were unable to grow crops because of pollution * People were unemployed because most of the work was carried out by machinery * Workers that got injured were not cared for Ethics of duties:
The biggest problem for the locals in the video seemed to be that they believed coca cola were stealing water. If every company came to the area and used the same amount of water (1 liter used for 0. 33l of coke) then where would they be? What would have happened if every local consumed the same amount of water as coca cola? People were also paid the minimum wage of €1. 20 a day. What would happen if people were paid this salary back in the US, especially as the workers seemed to have no rights, as highlighted by the returning man with the injured leg. It appears they were using cheap labour for their own benefit.
Coca cola also refused to pay local tax claiming this was in their tender. However, any other corporation needs to pay tax so why did the rule only apply to coca cola? Ethics of rights Everyone has a human right to life, but if coca cola are taking all of the drinking water as the locals claim, are they taking away that human right? People also have the human right of freedom of speech and expression. But in the video the locals said that they were beaten when the protested. Coca cola also took the freedom of choice away from people visiting the world cup but only selling coke products (Fanta, Sprite, Cola ; Bonaqua).
Not only did coke stop the filming of inside the plant, but any workers’ union was suppressed so that workers lost any rights a union could bring. Theories of justice In the video it was noted that coca cola was making a lot of money from the factory in India, but the distribution of that wealth did not seem to have impacted the people in the area. In fact, notably the opposite seemed to have prevailed with farmers who were once seen as rich, now being at the same level as labourers. In fact, the majority of people in India could not afford the product that the factory was making.
The impact of reverting back to the can rather than the bottle also would have an impact environmentally. Coca cola did not think about the impact to society in the long-term was an important as the profits made in the short term. ACCUSATIONS Coca Cola Coca Cola’s mission statement * To refresh the world in body, mind and spirit * To inspire moments of optimism through our brands and our actions * To create value and make a difference everywhere we engage Ethics:Our Company’s Code of Business Conduct—available in 29 languages—guides our business conduct.
The Code articulates our expectation of accountability, honesty and integrity in all matters Our Company is included in the FTSE4Good Index www. ftse. com/ftse4good. Sustainability Is Key to Our Business. Coca Cola focus on: * Active Lifestyles * Beverage Benefits * Community * Climate * Water Stewardship * Workplace * Sustainable Packaging Coca Cola has an Ethics Line. A website and secure toll-free telephone line for consumers who perceive violations of the Code of Business Conduct. Some areas where Coca Cola have been accused as being unethical are: * Human Rights Violations and Murder in Colombia
Coca-Cola was being blamed for not providing a safe work place and for not taking responsibility for their actions which caused or allowed murders on their properties. Some Colombia officials go on to say or imply Coca-Cola is in someway responsible for these murders of union workers or allowed them to happen which they totally deny. * Biggest Racial Discrimination Payout The federal government found Coca-Cola guilty of the charges and ordered them to pay the biggest racial discrimination payout in history * Coca-Cola’s War on Water
In a number of districts of India, Coca Cola and its subsidiaries are accused of creating severe water shortages for the community by extracting large quantities of water for their factories, affecting both the quantity and quality of water * Coca-Cola & Water Depletion in India In a number of districts of India, Coca Cola and its subsidiaries are accused of creating severe water shortages for the community by extracting large quantities of water for their factories, affecting both the quantity and quality of water. Recommendations
Recommendations in how Coca-Cola could make their business activities more ethical. Human Rights Violations and Murder in Colombia Biggest Racial Discrimination Payout Looking at these 2 issues, if we apply the triple bottom line theory, the area that focuses on people should be applied. Coca-cola should adhere to the following rules: * would not knowingly use child labour. * pay fair salaries to its workers. * provide safe work environment. * provide good working conditions for employees. * contribute to its community with such things as health care and education.
Applying these factors will lead to better human resources. Not only with this give Coca-Cola a better PR presence, but there is a chance they will also attract the best workforce and get the best out of their employees. Coca-Cola’s War on Water Coca-Cola ; Water Depletion in India We can apply the rules of ‘Planet’ to these issues. * would employ sustainable environmental practices. * carefully manage its consumption of energy and non-renewables. * treat toxic chemicals in a safe and legal manner. conduct a life cycle assessment of products (from raw materials to disposal by the end user), which determines the true environmental cost. Coca-cola should be more transparent in what they are doing. If they allowed people to see what water they used then there would be less ‘scandel’ around the topic. If they are indeed using up a lot of water, they should give back to the community by fitting a device for them to get clean water. They should also invest in the surrounding area so that people are still able to make a living.
If they could improve the infrastructure of the area this could give more jobs to the people, yet allow them to still work for a living. In conclusion, when a large corporation goes to a new area it will for sure have an impact and change how things were. However if their impact has a negative impact on locals, they should be seen as how they are trying to give something back, without too much cost on their side. There is also a price to pay for bad PR so sometimes this investment is needed beyond just building a factory and saying they have brought new jobs to the area.