pepsico case study
A
Case study
On
PepsiCo Burma connection
Executive summary: The case mentions about how PepsiCo had to withdraw all its assets from Burma despite the fact that they were doing very well in this country.
In July 1988, decline in economic conditions led to large-scale and bloody rioting in cities in Burma. In Sept 1988, the army under General U.Saw Maung replaced the Government with the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), a group of military officers. In 1990, SLORC proposed a new government and allowed free elections with the confidence that it would win, but 80% of the seats were won by the civilian opposition party led by Suu Kyi. But it refused to turn over the power to the civilian government. It outlawed the opposition party, and arrested its leaders including Suu Kyi. It invited foreign private investors and companies to invest in Burma to restore the economy. Pepsi Co responded favourably to the invitations of SLORC and other companies from US also started doing business in Burma. In 1991, Pepsi Co decided to enter a joint venture with Myanmar Golden Star Co, a Burmese owned company by Burmese businessmen named Thein Tun. Myanmar Golden Star would own 60 percent of the venture. This included setting up a bottling plant with 10 year licence to bottle and distributes PepsiCo-owned products in Burma, including Pepsi Cola, 7 up, and Miranda soft drinks.
US department of State accused SLORC of numerous human rights. Citizens continued to live subject at any time and without appeal to the arbitrary and sometimes brutal dictates of the military. Maltreatment of attendants, illness and even death was a standard practice Harsh working conditions to ordinary Burmese which included women and children Forced resettlement of civilians Detention of 400 or more political prisoners including 40 parliamentarians elected in 1990. Restricted basic rights to free speech, association and assembly. They were not bounded by any
Case study
On
PepsiCo Burma connection
Executive summary: The case mentions about how PepsiCo had to withdraw all its assets from Burma despite the fact that they were doing very well in this country.
In July 1988, decline in economic conditions led to large-scale and bloody rioting in cities in Burma. In Sept 1988, the army under General U.Saw Maung replaced the Government with the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC), a group of military officers. In 1990, SLORC proposed a new government and allowed free elections with the confidence that it would win, but 80% of the seats were won by the civilian opposition party led by Suu Kyi. But it refused to turn over the power to the civilian government. It outlawed the opposition party, and arrested its leaders including Suu Kyi. It invited foreign private investors and companies to invest in Burma to restore the economy. Pepsi Co responded favourably to the invitations of SLORC and other companies from US also started doing business in Burma. In 1991, Pepsi Co decided to enter a joint venture with Myanmar Golden Star Co, a Burmese owned company by Burmese businessmen named Thein Tun. Myanmar Golden Star would own 60 percent of the venture. This included setting up a bottling plant with 10 year licence to bottle and distributes PepsiCo-owned products in Burma, including Pepsi Cola, 7 up, and Miranda soft drinks.
US department of State accused SLORC of numerous human rights. Citizens continued to live subject at any time and without appeal to the arbitrary and sometimes brutal dictates of the military. Maltreatment of attendants, illness and even death was a standard practice Harsh working conditions to ordinary Burmese which included women and children Forced resettlement of civilians Detention of 400 or more political prisoners including 40 parliamentarians elected in 1990. Restricted basic rights to free speech, association and assembly. They were not bounded by any