Does Coca-Cola have a moral obligation to the people of Colombia?

Question

Coca-Cola has a policy in the country of Colombia in which they intentionally sell coke cheaper than water so that if a family has to choose between water and coke for their children, they buy coke. Coke is not healthy for children to drink on a regular basis.

Do American corporations have an obligation to conduct business ethically in other nations?

Do American citizens have an obligation to insure decent conduct by their corporations doing business overseas?

If they don't, what do we say in 30 years when a bunch of angry Colombians hijack airplanes and crash them into prominent buildings in our country?

WHY OR WHY NOT?

Answer 1

Yes, they havea social obligation, as does anyone else, to operate in such a way as to not unduly foster illegal activity and violence. I am actually referring to the practice of Coke to pay paramilitary squads to attack labor leaders, not their practice of selling cheap Coke (which is cynical but not nearly as bad).

To all those who say 'no', you have to realize that your attitude is sociopathic and amoral. Perhaps you all believe that a business' sole purpose is to make money. If that were the case, we'd all go into selling drugs, running gambling rings, owning slaves, etc. But, we live as a civilized society, and that is why it is not permissible to make our living doing things that harm others in society. If you still don't think this is compelling, then move to a country where civilized behavior is the exception rather than the norm, then I think your stance will change considerably. Economic activity should not be a zero sum game of 'He with the biggest gun wins'. That is a stupid, worhtless way to live a life, and if you advocate what you are saying, then that is what will eventually happen, as a society without values basically will just devolve into a criminal madhouse.

It is easy to sit in the comfort of the USA and thumb your nose at your brethren in other countries. That's fine, karma will catch up to you too. Right now the american standard of living is slowly being chipped away, and the fiscal disaster that ensues after the babyboomers start retiring is going to teach us all a collective lesson in humilty.

Answer 2

Coca-Cola, and all publicly traded companies, have ethical obligations to their investors.

Why should any company institute policies that lose money, especially if the government in that nation chooses to allow their people to live that way.

It is the Columbian government's obligation to provide clean drinking water to their citizens, not Coca-Cola.

And if the Columbian's crash planes into our buildings, it will be because of the destruction our ridiculous drug laws have brought to their country. The US government's laws cause a hell of a lot bigger problems than cheap cokes.

Answer 3

So the healthy alternatives are more expensive? And? No, Coke has a moral obligation to report truthful figures to its shareholders. It has a moral obligation to operate within the interests of its owners and the confines of the laws of the land. No one is responsible for individual choices but the individual.

Answer 4

I think the government of Columbia has an obligation to provide its citizens with affordable drinking water. There is the obligation.

Answer 5

I think this is an extreme situation. I think the question should be why does the Columbian government charge so much for water. If your people can not afford water, that's pretty serious. To blame this on Coca-Cola circumvents the real issue.

Answer 6

It isn't really unethical to sell your product cheaply. You might lose money if you sell it too cheaply but that's your own fault. And doesn't Coke have a bottled water product?

Answer 7

Ethically, sure, but I see nothing unethical about the example you cite.

Answer 8

Nope.

And it's not "unethical" to sell a product as cheaply as possible, btw.

Answer 9

I would say no.

Answer 10

no.