.

Coca-Cola Ethical Case/Human Resources

Coca-Cola Ethical Case/Human Resources

Why Do You Think Coca-Cola Has Had One Ethical Issue To Resolve After Another Over The Last Decade Or So?

During the last decade, Coca-Cola has gone through many difficulties. They have had one CEO after another, several adverse ethics and health problems that have known and have been trapped in a few cases of "trick" to stakeholders to make it look better financially. It seems that the public is aware of the problems going on; therefore, it becomes difficult for Coca Cola to return to neutral. When Douglas Ivester took over in 1997, it had many problems on his plate, and hoped to have the capacity to handle and overcome them. This seems to be the first challenge presented to Coca-Cola to the public. Unfortunately, Ivester had no expertise to overcome all the problems, because of the lack of leadership and other reasons, which put the company to great risk. This was the beginning of what became a slow drop in Coca-Cola.

This company was found with one ethics problem after another, including being involved in cases of racial discrimination, falsify evidence of market manipulating earnings and interrupt the contractual agreements on long-term distributors. It seems that Coca Cola have simply not been able to get a handle on its problems, and it had a kind of snow ball effect. Once there is some negative publicity, especially from the number 1 beverage company in the world, every little thing that happens will be considered as a big problem.

I also believe that Coca-Cola has had several problems and tried to fix them, but haven't had the management experience to solve them. It seems that Coca-Cola's problems began in 1999 with the "fear of contamination". After that, it was really difficult to get back on their feet, then did what they thought it was correct to compensate for this catastrophic situation. As shown in the case study, coca-cola executives were not soon to respond to this situation, which studied more than one problem in the eye of the public. This is probably the worst way to handle a situation like this. It shows that the company is guilty and is trying to find a way, or a lie to get out of it (Ferrell et.al, 2008).

In my opinion, the best way to handle a bad situation is through addressing the public immediately and give some information as to what is happening inside the company. Once occurred this contamination fright, the company encountered problems of flow of cash, the ethical issues that were made public, problems of discrimination, etc. Rather than be ethical, or be sincere and honest about them, creates doubts for the public and stakeholders of the company, which, in the end it results in the company spending of millions of dollars to correct these problems publicly. Being honest with the public would have been a more favorable way. This can be very well received by the public because all the facts were ...