Introduction
The notorious case of the “Killer Coke” (Richard Ivey School of Business, 2007, p. 1) is quite basic. In one of the Coca-Cola departments and their partner company specializing in bottling services, both located in Colombia, a region disturbed by military confrontations at the time, three workers were tortured and murdered by the paramilitary forces (Kovalik, 2004). The members of the Coca-Cola trade union, as well as the proponents of human rights, filed a case against Coca-Cola and the Colombian bottlers. The jury, however, ruled the case out in favor of the Coca-Cola Company, since no connections between the paramilitary forces and the company had been found and the issue did not pertain to accidents in the workplace.
Problem Analysis: What Went Wrong
On the one hand, the court solution was impeccable. Indeed, the company could not have any possible responsibility for the actions of the military men, who were in the vicinity at the time. Moreover, the company could not affect the military conflict that had been developed by the time and, thus, could not prevent the murder of the three workers in question. On the other hand, the situation is still ethically challenging. It was obvious that the workers were murdered while performing their tasks. In the specified case, the ethical approaches and theories used to address the case of the Killer Coke can be viewed as the independent variables (i.e., the changeable ones), whereas the problem of the company’s ethical code – or the lack thereof – is assumed to be the dependent (measured) variable.
Data Collection and Interpretation: What Must Be Born in Mind
When addressing the case, one must bear in mind that the case offers a lot of information, which only seems relevant, yet leads to even more confusion. Among the key facts that need to be incorporated into the analysis, the data concerning the military conflict in Colombia, the actions of the company’s manager, and the consent of the three murdered workers must be taken into account. The rest of the information can be viewed as supplementary.
Critical Ethical and Legal Issues: Individual, Organizational and Societal Concerns
Speaking of the ethical issues that the case raises, one must mention the individual aspect of the problem. The people working for the Coca-Cola Company located in Columbia knew about the rates of aggression within the area of the military conflict. More to the point, the specified affiliate of the company knew what kind of partners they were chosen as the partners for bottling services. Consequently, it would be logical to suggest that, when giving the three workers the order to deliver the specified product to the bottling company, the manager in question should have warned them about the possible issues that might arise in the process.
In the realm of the military conflict that Columbia was at the time, such a note would have been more than adequate. The workers in question, however, had not been given any warning before conducting the operation specified and, as a result, were attacked and apprehended by the paramilitary forces. Such a type of conduct is not acceptable from a company manager; it displays clearly that no principles of personal responsibility have been established in the Columbian Coca-Cola affiliate.
The case also provides a lot of food for thoughts when considered on an organizational level. Indeed, the fact that the Coca-Cola Company allowed for the business interaction between the members of the bottling company and the people employed in the Colombian Coca-Cola department without investigating the military conflict within the state before carrying out the company operations at the local level. In other words, the case displays the obvious problems with Coca-Cola’s information management, as well as the company’s care for the well-being of its personnel.
On the societal level, however, the ethical issues are even more complex in the specified case. The Killer Coke case displays the way, in which the political conflicts within the state not only disrupt its economic sustainability but also threaten the lives of hundreds of people, who happen to work for the companies that one of the sides of the conflict disapproves of. Therefore, on a societal level, the Coca-Cola Company’s ethics also seems to be quite flawed.
Ethical Frameworks: Viewing the Issue from Different Angles
The Killer Coke Case represents the breach of the Utilitarianism principle since Coca-Cola should have been viewed the threat of the staff’s murder as more of a threat than violating the agreement with the partner company (Lowry & Peterson, 2011). The Individual Rights theory principles have also been trodden upon, seeing that it was the workers’ irrefutable right to learn the information about the potential threat and refuse from the work (Phua, 2013).
The Justice Ethics principle also seems to have been broken, as the risks and benefits have not been distributed proportionally among the members of the company, and three particular people were exposed to a major threat (Simola, 2003). Finally, the ethical issues for society show that demanding from the staff to work in the areas of military conflict must be prohibited as an entrepreneurial practice (Morrison & Driggs, 2007).
Relevant Law and Company Policy: Safety First
The case could have been addressed from a variety of perspectives and legal frameworks, including the ACTA (Alien Tort Claim Acts, as the means to protect the human rights of the employees outside the U.S.); TPVA (Torture Victims Protection Act, the perspective of basic human rights). Both laws have been included in the legal process; however, of all the laws that should have been used to analyze the case, the so-called “law of nations” must be mentioned as the basic concept to view the conflict form, seeing how the representatives of different nations were featured in the case.
Selecting the Best Solution: What Should Have Been Done
In the area of a military conflict, a company must be extremely cautious in carrying out its operations. Sending the staff and concealing their murder afterward would have been an illegal solution to the situation. Providing the workers with the information about the threat and stating that they would be dismissed if not completing the task would have been legal, yet unethical. As far as a decision that is both ethical and legal is concerned, a better security system should have been created.
The Coca-Cola Company should have made more thorough research when launching its Colombian project. In addition, the Colombian affiliate should have chosen its strategic partners more carefully. Finally, the staff should have been provided with additional safety (e.g., armed guards should have escorted them to the point of destination and back). Economically, it would have been more reasonable, since the costs would have been much lower (paying for the escort instead of going through a devastating trial); legally, it would have been appropriate, since it would have provided the staff with personal safety; ethically, it would have shown the concern of the firm for its employees.
Reference List
Kovalik, D. (2004). War and human rights abuses: Colombia & the corporate support for anti-union suppression. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 2(2), 392–413.
Lowry, R. & Peterson, M. (2011). Cost-benefit analysis and non-utilitarian ethics. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 1(1), 1–22.
Morrison, R. N. & Driggs, T. D. (2007). Virtue ethic and the sustainability policies. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, 12(1), 147–162.
Phua, K.-L. (2013). Ethical dilemmas in protecting individual rights versus public protection in the case of infectious diseases. Infectious Diseases: Research and Treatment, 1(6), 1–5.
Richard Ivey School of Business. (2007). Killer Coke: The campaign against Coca Cola. Ontario, CA: The University of Western Ontario.
Simola, S. (2003). Ethics of justice and care in corporate crisis management. Journal of Business Ethics, 46(4), 351–361.