IndexAbstractIntroductionContextRepercussionsThe anti-Coca Cola fightStakeholder theoryConclusionBibliographyAbstractIn March 2000, Coca Cola, under its Indian subsidiary Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Limited (HCCBPL), began operations in its bottling plant in Plachimada, in the southern state of Kerala. In the years that followed, the area surrounding the plant began to feel its dangerous effects, as groundwater became contaminated and toxic waste was released. What followed was a long struggle by the population of Plachimada, interest groups and NGOs, which led to the closure of the plant's operations. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay This report is a reflective piece of writing and will attempt to outline the events that occurred during the course of the fight in Plachimada, which occurred at two levels: grassroots and judiciary. An attempt will then be made to further answer questions relating to the ethical responsibilities of the company towards the community around it and society in general. IntroductionMilton Friedman stated that "there is one and only one social responsibility of business: to use its resources and engage in activities aimed at increasing its profits as long as it respects the rules of the game, that is, it engages in open and free competition , without deception or fraud” This statement, for a long time, had been the firm belief of multinationals around the world. Seen in this way, it has not always been prevalent there are “responsibilities” for the company other than to produce economic value for its shareholders. Therefore, it must lead to the belief that a company certainly has no ethical responsibilities but only legal obligations agents of shareholders, managers have the sole duty to increase their own wealth This topic has been attacked by many scholars on several fronts. First, try to completely ignore any ethical obligations. In other words, as long as they comply with the law they do not have to worry about any other impact their actions might have on their stakeholders other than shareholders. Second, it is not clear that shareholders have actually given such a mandate to management. They may have invested purely with a speculative motive. Indeed, some shareholder surveys in the United States revealed that the majority did not want pure profit maximization by companies to the exclusion of all other considerations. Third, if you accept that the mandate is to maximize shareholder value, then this is not a long-term initiative. This is only achieved by adopting sustainable proactivity and developing a long-term relationship with stakeholders and the community. The Plachimada v. Coca Cola case demonstrates this belief. It also examines the repercussions of not taking into account the well-being of the community in which it thrives. Background Plachimada is a small village in Palakkad district of Kerala. The majority of the population is made up of Adivasis (indigenous people) whose main occupation is agriculture. About 80% of the villagers are engaged in agricultural work, while 20% are engaged in other work activities. In 1998, HCCBPL acquired 34.4 acres of land (mostly paddy fields) to set up a bottling plant in Plachimada. On January 25, 2000, the Perumatty Panchayat (whose constituency includes Plachimada) granted permission to build the plant and theoperations began in March. The Kerala State Pollution Control Board has granted permission to produce 561,000 liters of beverages per day, with an average requirement of 3.8 liters of water for every liter of beverage. The water source was mainly groundwater from 6 drilled wells and two open ponds and approximately 2 million liters of water was extracted per day. In the six months after the plant began operations, villagers complained that the water was unfit for drinking or cooking. Over the next few months, several villagers complained of unusual stomach pains. Farmers have complained about wells emptying unusually quickly and crop yields declining. A public interest group called Corpwatch India, found that there were high levels of calcium and magnesium in the water, caused by excessive water extraction. Bottle washing carried out at the plant involved the use of chemicals and the resulting sludge was removed from the plant. Initially the sludge was sold as fertilizer to unsuspecting farmers, after which it was given away for free and, to growing resentment among villagers, simply dumped by the roadside. In the few months since it began, more than 1,000 families in surrounding villages have been affected. Impact According to the agreement reached by the company with the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB), up to 1.5 million liters of water was commercially withdrawn from 6 boreholes located within the plant. The permit granted Coca-Cola the right to extract groundwater to meet its production demand of 3.8 liters of water for every liter of Cola. As a result, the water table has receded, as has the quality of groundwater. Detailed sampling of water collected in the region revealed high concentrations of calcium and magnesium ions. Furthermore, the colloidal slurry generated as a by-product was initially sold to villagers as fertilizer. In 2003, the BBC, in its program Face the Facts, declared that samples of sewage used as fertilizer contained dangerous substances. levels of toxic metals and the known carcinogen cadmium. “The agricultural industry in the area has been devastated and jobs, as well as the health of local people, have been put at risk,” said John Waite, the show's presenter, as he read the verdict of scientists from the University of Exeter, where the samples collected by Plachimada were sent for analysis. The events mentioned above are of serious concern as they demonstrate how companies would neglect the well-being of the community to maximize profit. It is clear that Coca-Cola did not believe it was important to have a meaningful dialogue with the community in which it operated. True to Friedman's concept of a company having no ethical responsibilities but only legal obligations, Coca-Cola perhaps thought about what was within its legal rights and did not bother to take into consideration the fact that the community might react. The events that followed show us why it is essential for a company to interact positively with its community. The Anti-Coca-Cola Struggle On April 22, 2002, the "Coca Cola Virudha Janakeeya Samara Samithy" (People's Anti-Coca Cola Struggle Committee - from now on Samithy) began its protest against the plant, with over 1500 people, mostly Adivasis, demanding the immediate closure of the plant due to the grave danger it was causing to their daily lives. The Committee was responsible for a series of protests, anti-Coke demonstrations and other disruptions of the Coca-Cola plant's operations. Many followedmeetings on street corners and intense campaigns. On 9 June 2002, the People's Union for Civil Liberties and the National Alliance for Popular Movements organized a demonstration and public meeting in solidarity with the Samithy. Meanwhile, starting from April 2003, the fight against the cola giant took a decisive legal turn. On April 7, the Perumatty Panchayat decided not to renew the license of the HCCBPL. The panchayat secretary canceled the license, citing the following reasons: excessive exploitation of groundwater by the company, environmental problems due to the presence of dangerous and toxic substances in the waste emitted by the company and scarcity of drinking water. This was challenged by the Kerala High Court, which directed the company to approach the Local Self Government Department (LSD) which stayed the cancellation issued by the Panchayat, saying it had exceeded its powers. The BBC Radio 4 program "Face the Facts" reported the presence of carcinogens in waste deposited from the plant. This waste had been dumped in nearby areas on the pretext of providing fertilizers to farmers. On August 5, 2003, the Delhi-based Center for Science and Environment released a report showing that 12 soft drinks contained a significant amount of pesticides. On 7 August 2003, KSPCB confirmed the BBC report and ordered Coke to stop supplying waste to adjacent areas and to immediately recover all waste and store it in secure containers within the plant premises. On March 8, 2004, the Kerala government ordered the cessation of operations of the plants until June 15, 2004. Numerous newspapers such as The Guardian, The Times and Financial Times of the United Kingdom, The New York Times of the United States, Le Monde of France and Asahi Shimbun of Japan covered the events and happenings of Plachimada. Overall, Coca-Cola seemed to come off in a bad light from the episode. Not only the factory, but also the company suffered a serious blow. The Plachimada plant has not been reopened to date. Stakeholder Theory Nowadays companies are transforming from being simply an agency for shareholders. They are replaced by a stakeholder model that includes many other groups, including the community in which the company is located and the broader society that may be affected by how the company's business works. Any business, even the most prosperous one, cannot exist in a vacuum. They require investors to give them money, customers to buy their goods/services, employees to serve customers, suppliers to sell them the goods they will sell, and a community within which they can thrive. absence of one of these groups. Of course, these groups could interact in hostile ways. However, the interests of all involved would be better represented if everyone's preferences could be satisfied. This approach to business is known as the stakeholder model. It can easily be argued that to a large extent stakeholder theory is a better representation of the network of relationships that exists in the interactions of any company. After all, it certainly entails more responsibilities than the shareholder theory. Therefore, it includes more groups than just shareholders. Any company that follows Stakeholder Theory is responsible for taking into consideration the needs and desires of a large number of people. Conclusion The fight in Plachimada continues today as villagers try to recover their lost livelihoods and counteract the extreme damage to water resources in the area. The struggle represents the efforts of villagers and”