英语论文网

have the whole product made in a country where cheap labour is available. If the cost of labour is cheap, then the average price of a unit can be brought down even further making the product even more cheaper and thus this would prove to be beneficial for the company in competing with its global rivals where price is the key. India and China are the perfect examples where cheap labour is found and most of the global firms such as Nokia, Nike, Coca Cola and Addidas have their products made in those countries so that the individual price of the product can be further brought down.

Although Economic Globalisation does bring in fierce competition which leads to companies which leads to companies finding cheaper and easily available resources but what most companies fail to realize that although these resources are available cheaply they are mostly obtained through illegal means and poor people are exploited during the process. Because the resources obtained are meant to be cheap the technology and the method used to cultivate or mine these resources often damage the eco-system of the local land/environment. A company that has its factory in a foreign land and mines the raw materials from that land becomes obliged to re-invest in the environment to make sure the eco-system is balanced and maintained. Coca Cola is a perfect example of a company that operates its production factory in India and failed to fulfil its ethical commitments that it claims to have.

In Perumatti (Biz/ed, no date) in the southern state of Kerala, in 1998, Coca- Cola set up a bottling plant. As soon as it opened the villages started to complain that there was less amount of water available to them and blamed it on coca cola who according to them use up up one million litres of water per day however the company dismissed those claims and said it the regions weather was at fault because there had been no rain for a long time. According to the company it even sends round tankers of water to the region to help the local community. Another accusation made on the company was that after the cleaning of a bottles a toxic liquid was released which was disposed on the land of the local farmers and it was claimed by the company that it was a useful fertilizer.

The scientists (Ethical Consumer Magazine, no date) analysed the samples of sludge at Exeter University in the south-west of England and found to contain toxic chemicals including lead and cadmium - both of which can be harmful to humans - and even suggested that there was little or no benefit of the sludge as a fertiliser. The tests conducted by the local state laboratories explored that the levels of toxic chemicals are within safety levels but that it should not be used as a fertiliser. It is also put forward by campaigners that drinks produced in India have higher levels of pesticide residues. A large number of groups have joined in the community's campaign forcing the plant be shut down and that tests be carried out on Coca-Cola to use of safety in its plants. A lawsuit was also filed that forced Coca-Cola to give an angry comment that the reports have scared Coca-Cola's customers and put thousands of jobs linked with Coca Cola at stake.

To sum up we can say that in the world of ruthless competition and capitalism, multinational companies do avoid their ethical responsibilities and look forward to gaining more and more material gains because ,for them, in busin