A Case Study of Coca Cola Inc.
Coca Cola Inc. is a multinational beverage company with its headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia. It has many managed and private bottlers globally. Its well-defined distribution has been the cornerstone for its global positioning. The head factory produces the concentrated syrup, which it transports to its local distributors. The syrup and the production process intellectually protected by the intellectual property laws. As such, the head office controls all its products, including safety concerns. The organization produces a variety of carbonated drinks among others, coke, soda and Fanta. These drinks have a high level of sugars, scientifically proven to trigger serious health concerns (Go and Roger 11). The practice of labeling the company’s products as healthy raises many ethical concerns.
Exploring the Ethical Issue
According to World Health Organization, a 300ml of soda contain contains fifteen times more of recommended sugar for daily consumption. Science has established a clear nexus between coke consumption and serious medical complications chiefly diabetes, obesity and related cardiovascular conditions. States that have high rates of use such as Mexico have an especially higher mortality rate arising from these conditions than any other state (Wilhelm 7). The issue has a health dimension and as well as an ethical dilemma. The public and consumers are slowly becoming aware of the threat coke poses to the life. In many regions where the company previously enjoyed dominance, the competitors seem to have joined anti –coke campaigns on allegations of health concerns affecting its sales. As a response, the company has resorted to deceptive practices such as denial of the connection between obesity and coke consumption (Busch 13). These responses raise serious ethical questions. It is essential to acknowledge that there are many dimensions of moral, legal, economic and social nature attached to the issue.
Informing Events
The US and other states with heavy consumption of soda have the highest levels of obesity and overweight. Research ranks soda as among the drinks with the highest levels of calories and sugars, thus posing greater health risks (Go and Roger 15). For instance, in Mexico research has concluded that soda kills twice as many Mexicans than any other coke in the market. However, Coca Cola Inc. uses its 73percent influence in regulating health policy to its favor (Wilhelm 5). In some other states, the company has embarked on massive campaigns to re-brand its products as healthy and safe for human consumption.
Nutritionist and health experts have especially criticized the company for donating $1.5m to the Global Energy Balance Network, a body whose object is to reduce and prevent poor nutrition diseases and obesity. This is a clear deception from the public perspective as they view the company as the main threat to health. Currently, The Times has criticized the company for shifting blame to poor exercise as the sole cause of obesity. In support of the claim, the times alleged that the company has long time funded scientists to make claims that sugar drinks lack deleterious health implications. Negative perception is proving a threat to the future of the company, leading to these unethical practices for survival.
Authors’ Perspective
As the company’s CEO, I find the concern a two-way dilemma. Over time, the company has managed to maintain a strong brand title with the help of its reputation, which is currently under threat. The health implications of our products are too profound to deny or feign ignorance. However, due to the economic dimension attached to the matter, it has been difficult for the company to reconcile with this fact. I acknowledge that the company enjoys a strong base of loyal customers and we should feel obligated to provide correct information whether self-defeating or otherwise. In my capacity, it is my testimony that the company is taking necessary measures to address the issue. We are still to come to this reality though, and the efforts to denounce the threat are unethical and morally unacceptable.
The Issue
The company’s efforts in denouncing the public claims raise two important questions. Firstly, in the light of the available facts is it ethical for it to claim that its products are indeed safe for human use? Secondly, is it ethical for the company to fund health organizations while it is indeed offering ‘poison’ to the public?
Economic and Social Cultural Relevance
Negative perceptions on the same are seriously affecting sales of the company’s once strong brands. The customer’s attitude has changed invariably to the disadvantage of the company. As a result it has given the competitors a competitive edge. The emerging culture of preference for healthy sugarless drinks is an issue the company needs to address thoroughly. Well, a bigger fraction of the global community would wish the company to exercise a complete overhaul of company’s sweetened drinks. This move would be economically dangerous because creating a strong brand takes long and huge sums. However, maintaining the position through misrepresentation is utterly unethical and insensitive to public. Perhaps it is the time we change tact, and tell the public the reality to help them make informed decisions. This may be expensive initially, but may be a tragedy in the future when the truth becomes too bold to suppress. The thing is, there is a need to begin fact based awareness to create an informed society and encourage responsible use of the products as the company seeks for a lasting solution (Busch 10).
Moral, Safety and Legal Significance
Much as the issue is an ethical question, it also has a moral dimension. A multinational company of our nature has an obligation to define the moral standard in the business community to guarantee fair business practices. Often, consumers are ignorant of the harmful potency of the products in the market. However, taking advantage of their ignorance is immoral. Availing the right information to the public helps to make informed decisions especially when assessing the health risks attached. The deception places their safety at risk. Besides, the practice doubles as a misrepresentation and negligence, actionable offenses in law. So far, the company is yet to face such courtroom battles. However, it is a public interest matter and the company might face serious and unmanageable petitions in the future. Now, that will be a tragedy, and it will possibly mark the company’s downfall.
As a conclusion, the modern global business has been faced with numerous ethical issues, which continue to raise questions about the conduct of the business. The issue concerning coca cola and the health implications of their products has continued to elicit different reactions across different stakeholders. However, it is a fact that the products have resulted in numerous health concerns, which the company has not addressed properly. There is a need for the company to address the ethical issues because they might be expensive for the company in the future.
Works Cited
Busch, Matthew. "Pom Wonderful v. Coca-Cola and the Implications of Granting
Competitors the Right to Challenge False or Misleading Food and Beverage Labels
Under the Lanham Act." Loy. LAL Rev. 48 (2014): 525. Print.
Go, A. S., D. Mozaffarian, and V. L. Roger. "Sugar-sweetened beverages initiatives can
help fight childhood obesity." circulation 127 (2013): e6-e245. Print.
Wilhelm, Haley M. "Tipping the Scales: The Public Health Crisis in Mexico." (2016). Print.
