Communications in Coca-Cola Amatil - Case Study Example

Coca Cola Amatil Name Institution Name Date Coca Cola Amatil is one of the largest non-alcoholic company that is located in Asian Pacific Region. It incorporates in six countries that include Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Samoa, Fiji, Australia and New Zealand. The company borrows its approach in doing business from the Coca Cola Company. The company was established in 1904 but bought the Coca Cola franchise later own to produce and supply numerous Coca Cola related products. The purpose of this paper is to review the Coca Cola Amatil business operations relative to the wider Coca Cola operations and other components that define the way business is done. Pesticide contamination has been reported in numerous regions (Visvanathan et al., 2004). For example, the Centre for Sciences and Environment, which is a non-governmental organisation that is located in New Delhi, attributes the soft drink company with containmanition of its products (Holland & Ramsay, 2003). Some of the contaminants include chlorpyrifos, malathion, DDT and lindane (Levy & Tapsell, 2007). These pesticides have been associated with immune system and cancer. The contamination has been attributed in India and it is estimated that the pollutants are 30 times more serious when compared to the residues in America (Cuganesan, Guthrie & Ward, 2010). After the production of the report, the Asian representative of the company alleged that the CSE was against its brand, and it attributes to “brandjacking” (Dorling, Scott & Deakins, 2006). In 2004, the parliament in India backed the findings of CSEs (Visvanathan et al., 2004). A committee was established and reviewed numerous drinks include Pepsi products and decided that the contamination based on the pesticides was a major issue (Levy & Tapsell, 2007). On the other hand, Coca Cola has continued to say that its plants employ a distinctive strategy that removes potential contaminants (Holland & Ramsay, 2003). The technology ensures that the health standards are upheld but the revenue and sales decreased immensely after passage of the resolutions (Wu et al., 2006). Moreover, some sections in India have banned consumption of Coca Cola such as in the state of Kerala (Dorling, Scott & Deakins, 2006). However, the High Court revoked the ban and said the federal government had prerogative to ban food products (Seow & Thong, 2005). In 2004 and in the state of Kerala, a bottling plant was closed because the plant was attributed with decline of quality and quantity of water that was available to both the villagers and farmers. The Coca Cola company appealed and the Kerala High Court in 2005 refused the directive. The decision was premised on the fact that the low amounts of water were attributed to shortfall of rainfall (Dorling, Scott & Deakins, 2006). The Kerala jurisdiction appealed and the case is still in courts waiting for its determination. The Indian government especially in five or six states have controlled the supply and consumption of Coca Cola products (Cuganesan, Guthrie & Ward, 2010). For example, Mr. V. Kamson who was Gangainondan panchayat had continuously advocated for banning of Coca Cola products. He categorically said that he was under pressure from the police, the public and other stakeholders. His campaigns and from other stakeholders resulted in partial bans of consumption of the soft drink in some hospitals, colleges and schools. Another environmental concern is about the packaging. Reports have indicated that Coca Cola’s packaging process affects the environment. However, the company has continued to oppose these accusations and have advocated on measures associated with container deposit legislation (Cuganesan, Guthrie & Ward, 2010). Coca Cola has continued to influence the decision making and other legislatives through lobbying interested parties. Economically, Coca Cola has faced numerous issues. For example, in 2000, PepsiCo had filled a suit accusing Coca Cola having monopoly in dispensation of the soft drink in United States (Dorling, Scott & Deakins, 2006). In addition, the European Opinion in 2005 ended numerous deals with Coca Cola because of stifling competition. Coca Cola used to stock bars and shops and this process was seen as a monopoly. In 2005, Coca Cola Mexico branch was fined because of unfair commercial practices. Coca Cola has appealed the case and waits its determination (Levy & Tapsell, 2007). In 2008, there was a lawsuit that was brought by shareholder based on “channel stuffing” settlement. Coca Cola was forced to pay $137.5 million at the Northern District of Georgia since the acquisitions since the company had forced the producers to purchase unnecessary beverage concentrates with the purpose of increasing its sales. The investors went to the courts based open the aspect of “channel stuffing”. The strategy was also attributed to creating a false image about the company’s financial health (Visvanathan et al., 2004). In 1938, Coca Cola entered South Africa and capitalised on apartheid South Africa regime (Cuganesan, Guthrie & Ward, 2010). The government of South Africa had championed apartheid policy that favoured some sections of the country and Coca Cola grew immensely (Holland & Ramsay, 2003). The racial oppression and discrimination increased the Coca Cola sales since it was a monopoly company in South Africa (Dorling, Scott & Deakins, 2006). The company employed 4,500 workers but the employees had to endure wages, workplace policy, housing and other factors associated with segregation and other pollicises that were against ethnicity. The situation in South Africa was worse and in 1982, the trade union played an important role in changing how black people operated. The union and the community supported two work stoppages that resulted in creation of bargain system with the union resulting in Coca Cola changing some policies (Dorling, Scott & Deakins, 2006). For example, Coca Cola divulged about the pension fund and also increase in wages for the employees (Visvanathan et al., 2004). The Coca Cola approach is South Africa resulted in numerous boycotts in California, Penns State and Tennessee State. The slogan was “Coke Free Campus “and the demonstrations also occurred at Coca Cola headquarters. Even though there are numerous complains about Coca Cola in South African, Coca Cola has continuously invested in sustain the requirements and expectations of the South Africa (Cuganesan, Guthrie & Ward, 2010). For example, in 1986, Coca Cola donated $10 million to improve education and housing requirements of South Africa black population. In addition, Coca Cola introduced different approaches and perspectives to the way the business was operated (Visvanathan et al., 2004). Through the processes, Coca Cola increased its market share even though employing some strategic measures. It has resulted in increase of market share in South Africa and other countries across the world. Stakeholders and the society has benefited through the corporate social responsibility. The corporate social responsibility has an important foundation called Coca Cola Foundation (Dorling, Scott & Deakins, 2006). The Foundation provides support to the society through contribution to the society (Visvanathan et al., 2004). For example, Coca Cola has funded numerous social aspects in the region where it operates. Coca Cola has contributed to the welfare of the society through funding education and research, which are important to the society (Cuganesan, Guthrie & Ward, 2010). Many students across the world has benefited immensely through the educational support and other support to the learning institutions (Dunne, 2008). Coca Cola has also contributed to the society through the one percent profit distribution to the society (Holland & Ramsay, 2003). The annual profits are given to the society to sustain the important requirements of the society. The shareholders have continued to benefit from revenues generated from its products and services (Cuganesan, Guthrie & Ward, 2010). The strategic and management policies have contributed positively towards the way the company operates and has continuously fulfilled its strategic requirements (Holland & Ramsay, 2003). The shareholders have benefited economically and investments-wise through the strategic decisions. The government has also benefited from the taxes and employment opportunities that Coca Cola has created and generated (Dorling, Scott & Deakins, 2006). In conclusion, Coca Cola has received numerous criticisms in the way it approaches its business requirements. The issues revolve on environment and economic-society aspects. The business process in India has resulted in numerous problems in the way Coca Cola operates. Coca Cola business process has resulted in court battles with the people. In addition, the government in some states have instituted measures and policies that ban supply of the soft drinks to hospitals, colleges and schools. In South Africa, Coca Cola employed racial policies and the operation of the businesses at that time were against the black community. The community received merge salaries compared to other people working in the same company. In addition, the compensation and other benefits did not favour the requirements of the community and employees. Nevertheless, Coca Cola has continued to support the requirements of the society and the government in forms of social responsibility. Coca Cola supports the requirements of the community in terms of educational support, and other processes that are important to the community. References Cuganesan, S., Guthrie, J., & Ward, L. (2010, December). Examining CSR disclosure strategies within the Australian food and beverage industry. In Accounting Forum (Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 169-183). Elsevier. Dorling, K., Scott, J., & Deakins, E. (2006). Determinants of successful vendor managed inventory relationships in oligopoly industries. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 36(3), 176-191. Dunne, A. J. (2008). The impact of an organization's collaborative capacity on its ability to engage its supply chain partners. British Food Journal, 110(4/5), 361-375. Holland, D., & Ramsay, A. (2003). Do Australian companies manage earnings to meet simple earnings benchmarks?. Accounting & Finance, 43(1), 41-62. Levy, G., & Tapsell, L. (2007). Shifts in purchasing patterns of non‐alcoholic, water‐based beverages in Australia, 1997–2006. Nutrition & Dietetics, 64(4), 268-279. Seow, W. K., & Thong, K. M. (2005). Erosive effects of common beverages on extracted premolar teeth. Australian Dental Journal, 50(3), 173-178. Visvanathan, R., Chen, R., Horowitz, M., & Chapman, I. (2004). Blood pressure responses in healthy older people to 50 g carbohydrate drinks with differing glycaemic effects. British journal of nutrition, 92(02), 335-340. Wu, K. L., Chaikomin, R., Doran, S., Jones, K. L., Horowitz, M., & Rayner, C. K. (2006). Artificially sweetened versus regular mixers increase gastric emptying and alcohol absorption. The American journal of medicine, 119(9), 802-804. Read More