Critical Evaluation of Coca-Cola Response to Corporate & Ethical Forces in the Environment - Assignment Example

Critical evaluation of Coco-Cola’s response to Corporate & Ethical forces in the environment Table of Contents Introduction 2 Company briefing 2 SWOT analysis 3 Strength 4 Weakness 4 Opportunity 4 Threat 5 Organizational competencies and environmental factors 5 PESTLE analysis 6 Political Legal scenario 6 Economic scenario 7 Socio-cultural factors 7 Technological issues 7 Environmental issues 8 Coca-Cola’s remedial strategy regarding external issues 8 Management of interest conflict at Coca-Cola 10 Stakeholder Theory 10 CSR pyramid theory 11 Conclusion 12 Reference list 13 Bibliography 16 Introduction Coca-Cola is one of the early entrants in the history of beverage industry. The product was created and marketed in 1886 in Atlanta and presently, the brand is omnipresent in every corner of the world. However, it is noteworthy that the journey of Coco-Cola has not been very smooth as the company continues to make effort to establish its footing in various geographical locations. The corporation has been part of a series of ethical and legal controversies in recent time. Consequently it was determined that the company will be an appropriate selection for this considering its continuous dilemma between stakeholder’s wealth maximization and corporate citizenship (World of coca-Cola, 2014). The paper is an elaborate analysis of Coca-Cola with respect to its external environmental factor and its internal competencies. The paper briefly discusses the company, its product division, brands and target market. Moving forward, the paper will conduct PESTLE and SWOT analysis to determined competencies and strategies of the firm and its environmental factors and establish relationship between the outcomes and strategies of the company so that contribution of Coca-Cola towards operational problem solving is stated. The paper assesses scope of power struggle between CSR and Stakeholders’ interest at Coca-Cola and management tactics will be discussed thereof with respect to basic theories such as Stakeholder theory and CSR pyramid. Lastly, the paper will discuss specific recommendations regarding unsolved issues and future development of the company. Company briefing Coca-Cola is one of the prominent companies in the beverage industry having revenue close to $50 billion and gross profit of approximately $30 billion. The company has 17 brands and more than 3500 products in 200 plus countries. The products of the company includes carbonates, bottled drinking water, functional drinks, juices, ready-to-drink tea and coffee, flavoured and unflavoured soda and concentrated syrups for preparing beverages such as non-alcoholic drinks and smoothies. The well known brands of the company are Coca-cola, Sprite, Fanta, Diet Coke, Coca-Cola zero, Dasani, Del Valle, Minute Maid, Fresca, Georgia, Aquapure and others (World of coca-Cola, 2014; Coca-Cola, 2014a). Coca-Cola has a very flexible business structure as indicated by the management of the company. The company is aware of the changing global scenario in terms of consumer needs and market structure. Consequently, they are gradually adopting various changes and incorporating them to the company’s business model. The business mission of the company is value creation and delivering happiness and the same is reflected in the company’s campaign message which states ‘open happiness’ (Coca-Cola, 2014b). The organizational culture at Coca-Cola inculcate inspiration, optimism, diversity, leadership, creativity, accountability, commitment towards organization, quality and continuous change among its employees and other organizational members (Coca-Cola, 2014b). The company is strongly focused towards serving needs of its business associates such as general consumers, franchising partners and business customers with respect to the market. Coca-Cola emphasize that product development should be heavily dependent on market trend, market demand and consumer expectations. Presently, Coca-Cola is making significant effort towards ensuring corporate citizenship and sustainability to overcome various industrial criticisms it has received in recent time. Innovation is given extreme priority in the organization and a holistic innovation model has been implemented within the firm by integrating product innovation, marketing innovation, system innovation and sustainability innovation (Coca-Cola, 2014b; 2014c). Continuing ahead based on company description, Strength-Weakness-Opportunity-Threat analysis has been conducted on Coca-Cola in the following section. SWOT analysis SWOT analysis has been considered essential for this paper because it presents management of Coca-Cola, the scope of assessing external possibilities of growth and hindrance and neutralizing business threats while grasping opportunities using organizational capabilities, competencies and strategies. Strength The primary strength that was recognized for Coca-Cola is its market share. The company is a market leader in the global beverage industry and owns most preferred beverage brands worldwide. The core capabilities of the company which it has pioneered over the time include consumer marketing, bottling and distribution operation, franchise leadership and commercial leadership. The company has been successful in undertaking marketing programs that resulted in increased consumer awareness regarding the products and increase in sale. The company owns the largest bottling and distribution operations and has developed its capabilities in franchising and licensing. Commercial leadership enables the company to enhance consumer value and meet consumer needs through its business network (Coca-Cola, 2013). Weakness The primary weaknesses that were recognized from the company’s portfolio include excessive emphasis on carbonated drinks, lack of diversification in product portfolio and negative publicity of its products. The brands of Coca-Cola indicate that most of the products are fizzy in nature. The carbonated water in these drinks is relatively unhealthy and the company require working in this regards. Additionally, product diversification is very limited at Coca-Cola compared to its competitors such as PepsiCo, Nestle and Kraft Foods. Consequently, decline in consumption of bottled beverage can have significant negative impact on the business of the company. Coca-Cola has recently been exposed to large scale negative publicity based on human rights abuse, water pollution and obesity (Beverage Daily, 2006; Coca-Cola, 2013). Opportunity Changing face of global demographics and consumers needs to present significant amount of opportunity for Coca-Cola. Presently, consumers are health-conscious and empowered with greater sources of information than ever. One of the eminent opportunities for Coca-cola is rising demand and increasing consumption of juices and bottled water worldwide. Consumers are also increasingly showing interest in purchase of healthy choices in terms of food and beverage. Coca-cola can diversify in the food segment in this regard as well as can make effort to minimize sugar content in its products. Another opportunity that Coca-cola should note is rapid growth of emerging markets such as that of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries (Coca-Cola, 2013). Threat Coca-Cola is a beverage company and it is natural for the company to depend significantly on water sources. The growing depletion in quality and quantity of water resources can pose significant threat to the company. Hyperinflationary economies such as Venezuela can also pose threat to growth and robustness of the company. Another threat associated with sustainability was recognized in context of Coca-Cola’s operations. Increasing lifestyle disorder, poor diet and obesity can result in reduced consumption of various bottled drinks with high sugar level. Food security is another facet of this situation and Coca-Cola need to adopt new strategies to ensure that they live up to the ongoing revolutionary changes in the food and beverage industry (Coca-Cola, 2013). Organizational competencies and environmental factors As discussed previously, Cola-Cola has been exposed to a significant level of negative publicity with respect to violation of human right codes, water pollution and obesity. These legal and essentially ethical issues have been mitigated by Coca-Cola in a strategic manner. Core competencies that have made significant contribution in this regard are functional coordination, global business relationship, functional integration, shared decision making process, brand management, responsible marketing and effective distribution channel. The company has divisional organizational structure which further contributes towards corporate sustainability and achievement of its goals, which are profitability and shareholders’ wealth maximization (Coca-Cola, 2013; 2014b). The company is strongly committed to global wellbeing. The company is a brand leader in the beverage industry and it has leveraged its reputation and talent significantly to create products that are most preferred by consumers. The company is well aware of growing rate obesity across communities, countries and society as a whole. Consequently, the company is offering sugar alternative in its beverages, zero calorie or low calorie drinks in more than 15 countries. Under its marketing policy, the company pursues the policy of no direct advertisement for children under the age of 12 years. Considering health issues, Coca-Cola publishes nutritional information in its product packaging. The company has integrated supports from various stakeholders such as government and consumers for health promotion (Coca-Cola, 2014d). Water management is an essential goal for Coca-Cola and the company is working towards maintenance of water quality and quantity by collaborating with other organizations, government, employees and consumers. The company along with its global partners is making effort towards development and implementation of water sustainability projects. Coca-Cola in collaboration with its more than 300 bottling partners in 200 countries has undertaken operational advancement so that water efficiency and replenishment is conducted (Coca-Cola, 2013; 2014e; 2014f). One of the global visions of Coca-Cola is commitment towards development of human rights within the organization. The company is considerably involved in establishment of workplace rights at its organizations located across various geographical locations. The corporation officially endorses the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The human rights framework of Coca-Cola comprises due diligence, remediation and commitment towards respecting human rights. The company cooperate with the International Labour organization in this regard and so far have hosted a number of conference regarding forced labour and child labour practices. At Coca-Cola, employees are considered as the primary reason behind success of the company and the company ensures that they are provided with a relatively safe and healthy workplace. A number of measures have been adopted thereof to mitigate scope of accident, health hazard and injury. KORE is the safety associate of Coca-Cola and is chiefly responsible for ensuring workplace safety. Additionally, employees at Coca-Cola are provided safety training for self protection and occupational safety (Coca-Cola, 2014g; 2014h). PESTLE analysis Political Legal scenario Coca-Cola is the largest beverage manufacturer and distributor in the United States as well as is a global leader in the industry. Consequently, the company is significantly affected by world political scenario. The company is present in approximately 200 countries and is affected by legislative regulations and political issues in these countries. For instance, hyperinflationary situation in Venezuela affects the company’s business. From legal perspective, Coca-Cola is involved in practices such as licensing and franchising as well as has indigenous technical know-how, trade secrets which require protection under jurisdictions of different countries (Holstein, 2011). As Patent or trademark loss may affect the business significantly, company needs to main precautions. The company along with its other competitors such as PepsiCo have been victim of various bans against carbonated and artificially sweetened drinks. Such bans and protests affect consumer perception which is again reflected in sales (USA Today, 2009; Coca-Cola, 2013) Economic scenario Any organisation as large as Coca-Cola is significantly affected by global economic situation. Since the company has subsidiaries and franchisees in multiple geographical locations, economic conditions in these countries have negative impact on Coca-Cola’s revenue. According to BBC (2013), Coca-Cola witnessed about 15% drop in its revenue in the US and Europe during economic slowdown. Increase in cost of commodities, raw material and operational processes has affected the company’s gross margin significantly. Additionally, fluctuation in currencies and exchange rate also affects Coca-Cola’s financial positions. Since recession, Coca-Cola has faced rise in operational expenses and is susceptible to various risks such as interest risk, foreign exchange risk and credit risk. Another economic factor, namely, inflation in certain economies has also impacted Coca-Cola’s operations (Coca-Cola, 2013). Socio-cultural factors Being a multinational firm, Coca-Cola is bound to experience cultural diversity within as well as outside the organisational premises. Besides cultural diversity, Coca-Cola has been confronted with numerous social issues such as obesity, unhealthy affects of artificially sweetened drinks and human rights. Such issues have significant negative impact on the corporate reputation of the company. The company is susceptible to various allegations and risk associated with information misrepresentation and misinterpretation, sale of spurious drinks in company bottles and adverse publicity (Coca-Cola, 2013). Technological issues All the patents, copyrights, trademarks, technical know-how and trade secrets of Coca-Cola are accounted collectively as technology. All the technologies of the company are related to its production activities and products and include every aspect of its production process such as packaging design, process and operation design, equipments, quality management software and product formulae. All the technologies are covered under intellectual property rights but are significantly dependent on jurisdictions of countries. In this regard, it is noteworthy that licensing can often be threatening to intellectual property rights (Coca-Cola, 2013). Environmental issues As a responsible corporate citizen, Coca-Cola is expected to abide by a number of environmental regulations. One of the environmental components, water, is a very important raw material for Coca-Cola’s manufacturing process and often complaints have been raised that the extraction process of Coca-Cola has caused water pollution. Growing water scarcity and declining quality of water bodies can have adverse impact on production capabilities and cost of Coca-Cola. The company revealed in its report that environmental issues such as over-grazing, firming, excessive demand for food grains, pollution and climatic changes can be threatening for the company. Population growth and over-exploitation of resources have also been included in the list of environment challenges for the company. Other environmental challenges include carbon footprint and emission of other gases into the atmosphere (Coca-Cola, 2013). Coca-Cola’s remedial strategy regarding external issues Coca-Cola is a globally recognised reputed firm and the company needs to undertake measures for preventing its market reputation from being tarnished. The company had so far acted towards various environmental issues by adopting specific strategies thereof. The financial position of the company is significantly influenced by currency fluctuations across various operational countries. The company ensures that its various geographical operations are under close observation so that they can closely monitor movement in foreign exchange value. In this regard, the company invested in 81 functional currencies so that weakness of one currency can be offset using others owning to the global nature. The foreign currency exposure of the firm is determined to be mitigated by purchase of derivative instruments. Coco-Cola enters in various foreign exchange contracts such as hedging, forward contract and currency options for minimising its exposure (Coca-Cola, 2013). The political and legal issues are managed by the company by developing local connections and tie-ups. Coca-cola has developed strong local connections at various geographical locations by means of joint venture, franchising and licensing. The company has its presence in countries such as Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt where uncertainty in business environment is very common due to social tensions. The strategy for internationalisation in Coca-Cola significantly focuses on “think global and act local” policy (Coca-Cola, 2014e). Through franchising, the company operate in partnership with local bottlers. The company has functional teams at various locations who work in collaboration with the firm’s global team. These functional teams are also responsible for managing cultural issues thereof as well. Technological issues are managed by the company through intellectual property rights while ensuring that they are valid with the jurisdiction of a particular geographical location (Coca-Cola, 2014e; 2014i). The business activities of the company has been questioned several times in recent years with respect to various social and ethical issues such as calorie loaded drinks, side effects of carbonates and life style diseases. Consequently, Coca-Cola has adopted new strategies in terms of product development for offsetting these issues. With respect to health issues, the company presently supports more than 290 physical activities and nutrition education programs in 125 countries. The firm has diversified its products considerably due to growing emphasis on health consciousness. Coca-Cola presently offers a variety of low calories substitute of the original drinks. Besides, carbonated drinks, Coca-Cola has started marketing bottled water and juices as well for its health conscious consumers (Coca-Cola, 2013; 2014d; 2014j). The company is presently making significant effort towards sustainability of human resources and natural resources. The corporation has employed strong governance so as to make certain food safety and quality. Coca-Cola is committed to local sourcing, sustainable agricultural practices and protection of various communities. Sustainable packaging, water stewardship, employee empowerment and human rights protection are some of the strategic contributions of the company. Coca-Cola is making efforts towards protection of local water bodies, recycling of waste water, delivering clean water in Africa, child education and removal of child labours in various countries. The global and local strategy of Coca-Cola maintains a strong balance between its business motives and sustainability motive. On this note, the following section discusses various tensions between stakeholders’ interest and sustainability at Coca-Cola and measures to mitigate the same (Coca-Cola, 2014j). Management of interest conflict at Coca-Cola Conflicting dilemma between stakeholders’ interest and corporate citizenship has gain significant attention in recent time and is very much in existence in various small and large firms. On this note, authors have developed theories as well, some of which support corporate philanthropy while other emphasize on profit and wealth maximisation (Davis, 1973). Stakeholder Theory Freeman (2001) originally proposed the most controversial theory of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and emphasised that responsibilities of any should not be restricted to that towards its shareholders and investors. Instead, the responsibilities should take into account interest of employees, competitors, suppliers and the society as a whole. Donaldson and Preston (1995) argued that instrumentality in stakeholder theory provide scope for establishing relationship between a firm’s corporate objective and stakeholder management. Donaldson and Preston (1995) further appended that conflict of interest between external stakeholders such as government and communities and shareholders result in managerial dilemma. Contrastingly, Zurburg, Ruff and Ninemier (1995) and Brown (1996) proposed that tension between both parties can be managed through integration of sustainability practices in corporate objectives. Coca-Cola integrates its sustainability practices not only at its operational level but also in its relationship with its corporate partners and suppliers. Coca-cola ensures that all its suppliers comply with regulations of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other local laws prevailing in different locations. Coca-Cola has open policy for its shareholders to convey their disapproval and interest conflicts (Coca-Cola, 2014k). Water is considered as most important resource for the business of the company, which is again a very critical resource for human survival as well. Coca-Cola ensures in its practices that its water stewardship enhances as its revenue grows. The company was observed to minimize its water usage ratio from 2.37 in 2009 to 2.16 in 2011. On the other hand, the water replenishment level has been increased by Coca-Cola from 22% in 2009 and 35% in 2011 based on its usage in company’s finished products. Coca-Cola, as a corporate philanthropic body has evolved noticeably in recent years (Coca-Cola, 2014j). In 2004, the company paid significant amount of damage due to water liability associated with its production facility in Kerala, India. Ever since, the water stewardship of the company has grown significantly (Global Research, 2004). The company has made provisions for delivering safe drinking water in many African countries (Coca-Cola, 2014d). Coca-Cola’s investment in sustainability has increased over the time but has not compromised with interest of its shareholders. The company has adopted numerous innovative measures to meet expectations of its consumers. For instance, each of the original beverages (Coke, Juices and other sweetened drinks) has been diversified into low calorie counterparts (Coca-Cola, 2013; 2014a). CSR pyramid theory Coca-Cola can be considered as an appropriate example of the CSR pyramid theory proposed by Carroll (1991). The author explained that CSR practices can be evaluated from four perspectives namely, legal, economic, philanthropic and ethical. Carroll further explained that economic aspect of CSR is extremely crucial as unless a firm earns economic profit, it will not be about to meet various social costs associated with corporate philanthropy. Additionally, lack of revenue and economic profit, survival of the company in competitive environment will be impossible. Besides, the company will be at a loss from aspects such as resource management and employment generation. Legal aspect reflects validation of practices and conformation to regulations. Ethical and philanthropic implications suggest that a corporation should practice fairness in its activities such as fair wage, healthy work environment, organisational safety and gender equality and should ensure that all its activities are sustainable in nature (Carroll, 1998; 1999; Wood, 1991). In Coca-Cola, the ladder of CSR pyramid is followed in the most innovative manner. The company sincerely abides by various law and regulations in different countries and respect regulatory necessities. Coca-Cola has been successful in integrating opinions of its internal and external stakeholders for better practices towards productivity and environmental accountability. The corporation ensures that regulatory mandates are equally obeyed by its partners such as franchisees, bottlers, suppliers and others. Sustainability practices of Coca-Cola include water replenishment program, promotion of sustainable agriculture, food safety and waste management. The ethical practices of Coca-cola have been blended well with company’s primary activities. Keeping in view the rising health risks such as poor diet, life style disorders and obesity, the company is focusing more on production of juices, zero calorie drink and fizz free beverages. Other ethical practices of Coca-Cola include women empowerment, sustainable packaging, organisational safety practices and healthy work environment (Coca-Cola, 2013; 2014d; 2014e; 2014g). Conclusion The paper was primarily undertaken to assess Coca-Cola strategic response to growing ethical and governance issues in the global food and beverage industry. Coca-Cola has witnessed significant criticism regarding its ethical and sustainable behaviour towards communities and the chief objective of the paper was to study and examine organisational practices thereof and evaluate the resemblance with various well-known CSR theories. For this purpose, organisational competencies, operational strategies against environmental externalities and managerial dilemma with respect to interest conflict between shareholders and stakeholders in Coca-Cola have been discussed in an elaborate manner. Reference list BBC, 2013. Coca-Cola profits lose fizz in Europe. [online] Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. Beverage Daily, 2006. Coca-Cola facing storm on human rights. [online] Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. Brown, M., 1996. Environmental strategy in the hotel sector: Green strategy or stratagem? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(3), pp. 18–23. Carroll, A.B., 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business horizons, 34(4), pp. 39-48. Carroll, A.B., 1998. The four faces of corporate citizenship. Business and society review, 100(1), pp. 1-7. Carroll, A.B., 1999. Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct. Business & society, 38(3), pp. 268-295. Coca-Cola, 2013. Annual report 2013. [pdf] Coca-Cola. Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. Coca-Cola, 2014a. Brands. [online] Available at: [accessed 29 November 2014]. Coca-Cola, 2014b. Our mission and vision. [online] Available at: [accessed 29 November 2014]. Coca-Cola, 2014c. Innovation at Coca-cola. [online] Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. Coca-Cola, 2014d. Infographic: Illustrating Coca-Cola’s Global Commitments to Help Fight Obesity. [online] Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. Coca-Cola, 2014e. Coke CEO on global well being commitments. [online] Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. Coca-Cola, 2014f. One Big, Thirsty World: Coca-Cola Partners to Protect & Conserve Water Resources. [online] Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. Coca-Cola, 2014g. Human workplace rights. [online] Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. Coca-Cola, 2014h. Safety. [online] Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. Coca-Cola, 2014i. Diversity. [online] Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. Coca-Cola, 2014j. Sustainability report. [pdf] Coca-Cola. Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. Coca-Cola, 2014k. Stakeholder engagement. [online] Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. Davis, K., 1973. The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management journal, 16(2), pp. 312-322. Donaldson, T. and Preston, L. E., 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of management Review, 20(1), pp. 65-91. Freeman, R. E., 2001. A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. Perspectives in Business Ethics Sie, 3, pp. 38-48. Global Research, 2004. Coca-Cola Causes Serious Depletion of Water Resources in India. [online] Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. Holstein, W.J., 2011. How Coca-Cola Manages 90 Emerging Markets. [online] Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. USA Today, 2009. Coke & Pepsi fight soda ban. [online] Available at: [accessed 30 November 2014]. Wood, D.J., 1991. Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of management review, 16(4), pp. 691-718. World of coca-Cola, 2014. About us- our history. [online] Available at: [accessed 29 November 2014]. Zurburg, R., Ruff, D. and Ninemier, J., 1995. Environmental action in the United States lodging industry. Hospitality & Tourist Educator, 7(2), pp.45–49. Bibliography Anderson-Fye, E. P., 2004. A Coca-Cola shape: Cultural change, body image, and eating disorders in San Andres, Belize. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 28(4), pp. 561-595. Bansal, P., 2005. Building sustainable value through fiscal and social responsibility. Ivey Business Journal, 8, pp. 11-25. Benn, S., Dunphy, D. and Griffiths, A., 2014. Organizational change for corporate sustainability. London: Routledge. Campbell, J. L., 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of management Review, 32(3), pp. 946-967. Chih, H.L., Shen, C.H. and Kang, F.C., 2008. Corporate social responsibility, investor protection, and earnings management: Some international evidence. Journal of Business Ethics, 79(1-2), pp. 179-198. Daniels, J. D., Radebaugh, L. H. and Sullivan, D. P., 1989. International business: environments and operations. New York: Addison-Wesley. Dyer, J. H. and Singh, H., 1998. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of inter-organizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review, 23(4), pp. 660-679. Dyllick, T. and Hockerts, K., 2002. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business strategy and the environment, 11(2), pp. 130-141. Foss, N. J. and Knudsen, T., 2003. The resource‐based tangle: towards a sustainable explanation of competitive advantage. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24(4), pp. 291-307. Frederick, W.C., 1994. From CSR1 to CSR2: The Maturing of Business-and-Society Thought. Business & Society, 33(2), pp. 150-164. Grant, R.M., 1991. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review, 33(3), pp. 114–134. Haanaes, K., Michael, D., Jurgens, J. and Rangan, S., 2013. Making sustainability profitable. Harvard Business Review, 91(3), pp. 110-115. Koplan, J. P. and Brownell, K. D., 2010. Response of the food and beverage industry to the obesity threat. JAMA, 304(13), pp. 1487-1488. Kroyer, G. T., (1995). Impact of food processing on the environment—an overview. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 28(6), pp. 547-552. McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel., 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), pp. 603-609. McWilliams, A. and Siegel, D., 2001. Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of management review, 26(1), pp. 117-127. Parnell, J. A., 2006. Generic strategies after two decades: a reconceptualization of competitive strategy. Management decision, 44(8), pp. 1139-1154. Peteraf, M. A., 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource‐based view. Strategic management journal, 14(3), pp. 179-191. Porter, M. E. and Kramer, M. R., 2002. The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard business review, 80(12), pp. 56-68. Porter, M. E., 2008. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Simon and Schuster. Schuler, R. S. and MacMillan, I. C., 1984. Gaining competitive advantage through human resource management practices. Human Resource Management, 23(3), pp. 241-255. Sneirson, J. F., 2009. Green is good: sustainability, profitability, and a new paradigm for corporate governance. Iowa Law Review, 94(3), pp. 989-1022. Taylor, M., 2000. Cultural variance as a challenge to global public relations: A case study of the Coca-Cola scare in Europe. Public Relations Review, 26(3), pp. 277-279. Read More