Coca Cola
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
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