Ethics in Eastern Kentucky University - Research Paper Example

Ethics Eastern Kentucky The primary concern of ethics pertain to an individual’s judgment about what is right or wrong, in organizations decisions are either made by individuals or groups, nevertheless, those involved in the process are influenced by the culture of the particular organization (The Times 100, 2002). Whether to behave ethically or not is not always a legal issue; indeed many corporate actions in this respect are not required by any laws; in most cases, decision to be ethical or not are often determined by ones moral compass.

The employees, management in, and organization should do what they think is moral even if it involves deliberately taking actions that impact negatively on the company’s bottom line. A crucial aspect of ethical behavior is embodied in the SCR (Social Corporate Responsibility); by definition, it can be described as voluntary action by firms with the objective of operating in sustainable environment; socially, economically and environmentally (White, 2011). For a firm to be socially responsible it needs to consider the impacts of their production activities to the environment, these means avoid polluting and degrading it.

They should also pay attention to the needs of their customer’s suppliers and neighbors even if they do not result in profit for the firm. Despite the emphasis on the importance of ethical practices by corporate, over the year many companies have blatantly ignored their ethical responsibly and this often results in suffering for the community affected. Coca cola which is the world’s biggest soft drinks manufacturer and one of the most globally recognizable brands , in 2003 there were complains in India after it was accused of producing drinks with a very high level of pesticide chemicals in them (Vedwan, 2007).

In 2006, it was also accused of overusing and subsequently exhausting ground water in the areas where their plants were located; their careless waste disposal methods also polluted the water making it unusable to the local residents. Studies carried out by CSE and NGO in 2006, the discovered despite complains 3 years earlier, Coca-Cola was still supplying products with a level of pesticide that would not have been acceptable in Europe or American and other western nations. The fact that two studies three years apart showed continued use of hazarders products in their products reflected badly on coca cola, it was evident they were only interested in making profit and they even if it meant jeopardizing the lives and health of the community.

Surprisingly, despite the glaring evidence of their environmental pollution and unhealthy beverages, coca cola kept denying that their drinks had too much pesticide and the management claimed they were environmentally conscious. T citizens, their actions resulted in much negative publicity and demonstrations even in America and their sales reduced by over 40 %. It was not until the firm owned up to their mistakes and initiated a massive SCR campaign repairing the environmental damage and helping the Indian farmer makes their land more productive.

They also reduced the amount of pesticide in their beverages and it was only after this that they were able to recover the lost sales and change their negative image in the country and beyond. After considering the case above case, the question of how they can be prevented will no doubt arise; one may also wonder how a firm can keep supplying dangerous products for over 3 years despite the empirical evidence of the fact? If this had happened in America or any of the developed nations in Europe, it is unlikely the firm could have go on operating under those conations for as long, however, Coca-Cola and indeed many other firms feel they can act with impunity in third world countries.

Therefore, in order to prevent similar incidences, firms should be require; as a matter of policy to uphold certain standards irrespective of the country in which they are operating, the fact that the firm could not sell its sodas made for India in Europe is a clear case of double standards. This if they were compelled to treat all their customers and suppliers in a uniform way, cases of third world nations whose legal systems may not be developed enough being exploited would reduce considerably.

Secondly, the fact that firms SCR is a voluntary concept needs to change; in truth, if the situation in India did not affect coca cola’s bottom line, it is probable they may not have made any changes to mitigate their destruction. Thus the idea of volunteerism should be replaced with a legal and policy requirement; that is to say firms should not engage in SCR because they feel want to but because they must whether it affects their earnings in a negative way or not (Goran et al., 2009). Otherwise, firms will continue to relegate the needs of the society to secondary position in favor of satisfying the wishes of the shareholders to make the highest profit with a t minimum cost.

References The Times 100. (2002). Ethical business practices; A Cadbury Schweppes case study. http://businesscasestudies.co.uk/cadbury-schweppes/ethical-business-practices/the-importance-of-ethics-in-business.html#axzz2QW3JC9nc Goran M, Nada B, Aleksandra A. (2009). “Corporate Social Responsibility In The Globalization Era” Economics and Organization Vol. 6, No 2, pp. 89 – 104. Vedwan, N. 2007, "PESTICIDES IN COCA-COLA AND PEPSI: Consumerism, Brand Image, and Public Interest in a Globalizing India", Cultural Anthropology, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 659-684. (Print) White, N. (2011). "Code of Conduct: Governing the Corporates.

" Investment Week. 58-58.