Generally speaking, the paper "Killer Coca-Cola - Legal, Ethical and Management Issues" is an outstanding example of a business case study. Killer Coca-Cola case study is based on Coca-Cola workers oppression that ranges from denial of being in any workers union to threat, violence, and death in Columbia. Although this was being performed by paramilitaries as part of political crisis, there are some elements of paramilitary’ s collaboration with part of the management team in ensuring that workers have no power to fight for their rights in the company. The situation gets completely out of hand, causing human right activities in America to chip in and use the empowered young students in United State Universities to campaign against Coca-cola products, and cancellation of Universities contracts with the company until the situation is resolved.
The main reason for the campaign is the stop cases of extrajudicial killing, torture and threat mostly to workers unions’ leaders and workers who are protected by the union in Columbia Coca-Cola bottlers. The company defends its self by stating that it is not involved in paramilitary’ s acts and the hateful campaigners have no base at all.
To them, the paramilitary situation is beyond them, and it should only be handled by powerful governance such as government. The case illustrates incidences where the company is taken to the court of law to answer for some of the worker's mistreatments, and where the company overall management is challenged by activists campaigning against the company. This paper reviews the case study and evaluates various aspects discussed in it, and how they influenced the company’ s growth and performance. Legal, Ethical and Management Issues In the case study, the Coca-Cola Company refuses to be responsible for illegal activities taking place in the bottler plants at Columbia.
In their website developed to counter the killer Coca-Cola campaign, the company claimed that it has very unionized multinational corporations in Columbia and in the entire world, and thus there are not violating any workers right regarding joining the workers union. The company also claimed to have signed a mutual statement with the international organization for food and beverages unions, IUF, confirming that the company’ s workers are permitted to exercise rights to collective bargaining and union membership without interference or pressure.
To the company, this was clear evidence that the Coca-Cola Company could not be ill-treating union leaders or workers in the union in any of its companies. In addition, the company allegation was said to be supported by two varying Columbian judicial inquires that found no evidence to back the claims that bottler management conspired to threaten or intimidate trade unions. In addition, another independent evaluation conducted by Cal-safety compliance corporation confirmed that the Columbia coca-cola plant workers enjoy an anti-union intimidation free atmosphere, collective bargain right and freedom of association.
In the company’ s view, the problem in Columbia was politically based, and all the legal claims were by foreigners who did not understand the political trend of Columbia. Regarding the ethical issue, the company denied all the illegal claims and cases associated with it. The company refused to be responsible for intimidation of workers at Bebidas bottlers where workers in the union were forced to resign and to go to the hiding for the fear of being executed by paramilitary empowered by the company’ s management team.
In their statement through a company’ s spokesman, Coca-Cola claimed that it adheres to the highest ethical standards of conduct as well as the conduct of business practices. The company added that they have set requirements to all its companies, suppliers and operating units to abide by the regulations and laws in their founded countries. Therefore, irrespective of all the reported deaths of union leaders and the resignation of workers, the company maintained that all the set ethical standards that govern their company in all corners of the world were being observed even in Columbia bottler plant.
Bartlett, C. A. and Beamish, P. W., 2011. Transnational Management: Text, Cases, and Readings in Cross-Border Management (Sixth Edition). McGraw-Hill.
Dunphy, D, 2011. Chapter 1 conceptualizing sustainability: the business opportunity. Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability, 3, p. 3-34.
Feldman, S., 1986. Management in context: an essay on the relevance of culture to the understanding of organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 23(6), p. 587-607.
Gray, R., 2006. Social, environmental and sustainability reporting and organizational value creation? Whose value? Whose creation. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 19(6), p.793-819.
Grayson, D. 2011. Embedding corporate responsibility and sustainability: Mark & spencer. Journal of management Development, 30(10), p.1017-1026.
Harrington, B. and Ladge, J.J., 2009. Of work life integration: present dynamics and future directions for organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 38(2), p.148-157.
Hopwood, A., Unerman, J. and Fries, J., 2010. Accounting for Sustainability. London: Earthscan.
Kpmg.com, 2011. Risk management and the transition of projects to “business as usual”. KPMG LLP.
Longenecker, C.O. and Fink, L.S. 2011. The new HRM reality: HR leadership in trying economic times. HR Advisor Journal, p.19-28.
Longenecker, C. O. and Fink, L. S., 2013. Creating human-resource management value in the twenty-first century: Seven steps to strategic HR. Human Resource Management International Digest, 21(2), p. 29-32.
Loorbach, D. and Wijsman, K., 2013. Business transition management: exploring a new role for business in sustainability transitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, p. 20-28.
Luecke, R.,2003. Managing change and transition. Harvard Business Review Press.
n.a., 2004a. Internal auditing and human resource management: Going strategic boosts competitive advantage. Human Resource Management International Digest, 12( 3), p.20 - 22
n.a., 2004b. Maximizing the return on HR investment: The benefits and challenges of global strategic human resource management.Human Resource Management International Digest, 12 (3),p.8 – 10.
Neumann, B. R., Cauvin, E. and Roberts, M. L., 2012. Management control systems dilemma: Reconciling sustainability with information overload. Advances in Management Accounting, 20 , p.1-28.
Panagiotakopoulus, A., 2013. Mina makes the most of human-resource management: Mini-market switches from competing on price to competing on services. Human Resource Management International Digest, 21(1), 26-27.
Sirgy, M.J., Efraty, D., Siegel, P. and Lee, D.J., 2001. A new measure of quality of work life (QWL) based on need satisfaction and spillover theories. Social Indicators Research, 55(3), p.241-302.
Sisaye, S. 2012. An ecological analysis of four competing approaches to sustainability development: integration of industrial ecological and ecological anthropology literature. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 8(1), p. 18-35.
Tattersall, A., 2013. Business process transition. Managing a successful business process transition in a multinational organization. Information Services Groups.
Yeo, R. and Li, J., 2011. Working out the quality of work life: A career development perspective with insights for human resource management. Human Resource Management International Digest, 19(3), p.39-45.