Register to read the introduction…
In addition, India charges the company for its products containing dangerous unacceptable pesticide residues level. The primary stakeholders in this issue are Coca-Cola, local villagers, India’s government and the NGO. Coca-Cola is a famous soft drink company worldwide; the stakeholders have high expectation for the company’s social performance over the year. The stakeholders expect when TCCC operates in their village, they would have a better living, however; CoCa-Cola have taken all their water supplies and depletes groundwater that have negative impact on their living. Moreover, the company has done nothing until local officials from Kerala, India shuts down a bottling plant and in the United States, schools and colleges boycott Coca-Cola’s products (Lawrence & Weber, 2011, p.
…show more content…
Externally, Coca-Cola takes the initiate to reach out to World Wildlife Fund, UNESCO, CARE and other top NGO’s leaders for their advices and partnerships on the water issues. Coca-Cola’s benefits from this engagement are: the company learns about society’s expectation, get the outside expertise, have creative solutions, have stakeholder support for implement the solutions and improve company’s reputation in the eyes of public.
SWOT with Reactive, Proactive and …show more content…
Lobbying with the central government in India as the company’s ally can help TCCC pressures the local government to bypass the issue. However, the cost is money and money, also Coca-Cola may have to face more public critics and rage from stakeholders. Communicating better with internal and external stakeholders can help the company to understand the stakeholder’s concerns so the company can act more proactively and interactively on the matters.
Summary Conclusion Coca-Cola, one of the world’s valuable brands alleges to the public issues of creating water scarcity and produces products with dangerous level of pesticide residues in India. Due to the poor issue management of the company in the early stage of the issue; the company encounter its bottling plant shuts down in India and the boycott of Coca-Cola’s products in USA’s schools and colleges. Guarding one of the world’s most valuable brands, environmental mistakes can cost millions or billions of dollars. This is a lesson for Coca-Cola to learn and it is a costly
Externally, Coca-Cola takes the initiate to reach out to World Wildlife Fund, UNESCO, CARE and other top NGO’s leaders for their advices and partnerships on the water issues. Coca-Cola’s benefits from this engagement are: the company learns about society’s expectation, get the outside expertise, have creative solutions, have stakeholder support for implement the solutions and improve company’s reputation in the eyes of public.
SWOT with Reactive, Proactive and …show more content…
Lobbying with the central government in India as the company’s ally can help TCCC pressures the local government to bypass the issue. However, the cost is money and money, also Coca-Cola may have to face more public critics and rage from stakeholders. Communicating better with internal and external stakeholders can help the company to understand the stakeholder’s concerns so the company can act more proactively and interactively on the matters.
Summary Conclusion Coca-Cola, one of the world’s valuable brands alleges to the public issues of creating water scarcity and produces products with dangerous level of pesticide residues in India. Due to the poor issue management of the company in the early stage of the issue; the company encounter its bottling plant shuts down in India and the boycott of Coca-Cola’s products in USA’s schools and colleges. Guarding one of the world’s most valuable brands, environmental mistakes can cost millions or billions of dollars. This is a lesson for Coca-Cola to learn and it is a costly