Essay about Coca-cola and Corporate Social Responsibility

Submitted By vickyd88
Words: 521
Pages: 3

Victoria Dominguez
Case Two 1. Historical aspects in my opinion were and are the main problem when it comes to MNC’s in India. India’s history of colonization puts them in a position where they have to scrutinize even the smallest inconsistency because their natural resources, their people, and their country can be at risk if something were to go wrong or get out of hand. For example, in 1984 DOW chemical company had a huge chemical spill that contaminated the whole town of Bhopal and is still contaminated to this day. DOW has not fully compensated still, three decades later and due to DOW’s power including its role as a key sponsor in the Olympics, it has not received as much public scrutiny that it deserved. Due to India’s history of colonization and situations like the DOW chemical spill, they are reluctant to allow MNC’s, especially those with a lot of power like Coca Cola to do as they please. They feel the small amount of rules they do have must be enforced strictly. Another aspect that differs between US and India in regards to culture is language. Although businesses use English as a common denominator, communication will always be somewhat difficult. 2. Coca-Cola could have negotiated terns instead of pulling out in 1977 when India demanded its secret formula. This was the first of all incidents that could have smoothed the pavement out for future relations. Pulling out shows arrogance of a sort by not trying to work with the government at all. After this issue was resolved and Coca Cola invested millions into India they ran into the pesticide contamination problem that could have also been resolved better than it was. Instead of stating that, “No Indian soft drink makers have been tested for similar violations even though pesticides could be in their products such as milk and bottled tea’s if pesticides are in the groundwater, why isn’t anyone else being tested? We are continuously being challenged because of who we are.” They should have proved and reassured the government that the procedures they use do not contaminate local waters and that their