Analysis
Under this chapter CSR will be applied to the case and analyzed through different authors perspectives.
According to Siegel and McWilliams (2001) CSR is a development of commonweal beyond the interests of a corporation. In Coca-cola case, the company has a developed principle list for their suppliers, which the company expects to be followed. The principles consist of diversity regarding labor law and regulations, safe working environment, employees’ rights, environmental practices, intolerance of racial or sexual discrimination and many more. At some point these principles could be viewed as a way of promoting the company’s CSR and awareness of sustainable development, but as Siegel and McWilliams (2001) state “a company that avoids …show more content…
They argue “a firm can create a certain level of CSR by embodying its products with CSR attributes (such as pesticide-free fruit) or by using CSR-related resources in its production process (such as naturally occurring insect inhibitors and organic fertilizers)”, (Siegel, McWilliams, 2001:119). In this regard the fact that Coca-cola claimed its sludge in India was a good fertilizer for farmers lands was some form of CSR promotion, although the later consequences that arose in toxin contaminated vegetables and fruits basically proved it wrong. In connection with the previously mentioned point, environmental pollution or food contamination can not been viewed as a way of attainment of …show more content…
In other words, they attempt to use a win-win paradigm that they fail at (they obviously caused a damage to society and environment due to excessive use of water and pollution of water), which according to Hahn et al could be “improved” by considering the trade-offs in corporate sustainability. According to Hahn et at “in trade-off situations it is impossible to achieve two or more desirable objectives simultaneously; rather decision makers need to weigh a loss in at least one dimension against a gain in other dimensions”, (Hahn et al 2010:219); thus, considering Coca-colas water related actions, their performance within sustainability practically transformed into profit maximization. As Hahn et al state, achieving several objectives simultaneously is unmanageable and in that regard Coca-cola India could prioritize their
Under this chapter CSR will be applied to the case and analyzed through different authors perspectives.
According to Siegel and McWilliams (2001) CSR is a development of commonweal beyond the interests of a corporation. In Coca-cola case, the company has a developed principle list for their suppliers, which the company expects to be followed. The principles consist of diversity regarding labor law and regulations, safe working environment, employees’ rights, environmental practices, intolerance of racial or sexual discrimination and many more. At some point these principles could be viewed as a way of promoting the company’s CSR and awareness of sustainable development, but as Siegel and McWilliams (2001) state “a company that avoids …show more content…
They argue “a firm can create a certain level of CSR by embodying its products with CSR attributes (such as pesticide-free fruit) or by using CSR-related resources in its production process (such as naturally occurring insect inhibitors and organic fertilizers)”, (Siegel, McWilliams, 2001:119). In this regard the fact that Coca-cola claimed its sludge in India was a good fertilizer for farmers lands was some form of CSR promotion, although the later consequences that arose in toxin contaminated vegetables and fruits basically proved it wrong. In connection with the previously mentioned point, environmental pollution or food contamination can not been viewed as a way of attainment of …show more content…
In other words, they attempt to use a win-win paradigm that they fail at (they obviously caused a damage to society and environment due to excessive use of water and pollution of water), which according to Hahn et al could be “improved” by considering the trade-offs in corporate sustainability. According to Hahn et at “in trade-off situations it is impossible to achieve two or more desirable objectives simultaneously; rather decision makers need to weigh a loss in at least one dimension against a gain in other dimensions”, (Hahn et al 2010:219); thus, considering Coca-colas water related actions, their performance within sustainability practically transformed into profit maximization. As Hahn et al state, achieving several objectives simultaneously is unmanageable and in that regard Coca-cola India could prioritize their