Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines Inc. Essay

1. S hitholders1.1. The five-year girl and the injured as because of this consequent a five year girl lost her life and nothing is more uncommon that life.1.2. Customers because mickle were resting their futures in the hands of this number fever promotion campaign.1.3. Victoria Angelo, her family and families like hers these passel who didnt watch enough money to eat were purchasing Pepsi in the consent of changing their whole life. The rich company Pepsi was making money by making these volume believe that they susceptibility win a lot of money. kind of of using their scarce resources for something more real, these people worn out(p) it on Pepsi building up dreams of get rich and leading a dandy life.1.4. Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines Inc.- as the campaign was launched by Pepsi-cola, it is responsible for the outcomes like deaths, lawsuits, injured etc.1.5. Pepsi-Cola International as Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines Inc. is a part of the multinational firm with b ranches all e realplace the world, this resultant might negatively effect the sales in other countries.1.6. PepsiCo Inc.- as it owns 19% of the company.1.7. restitution companies The insurance companies argon affected by this incident as a lot of the Pepsi-cola cars, trucks and wagons were destroyed by the angry populace and these companies might stir to pay for it.1.8. Competitors especially Coca-Cola- as a result of this incident coca-cola might be able to snatch away a huge chunk of the market from Pepsi.1.9. Government It has to make sure that companies follow the laws andthey have to encourage the innocent consumers. The government has to make sure illegal and un honest activities do not happen. It has to make sure that the laws are implemented without any exceptions.1.10. Judicial clay in Philippines as it is responsible for making sure that no violations of laws and regulations happen and people who do it are dealt with in the proper manner.1.11. Company Employees they might bear their jobs as a result of the riots and losses that Pepsi had to face.1.12. People who ran the figurer or made the computer architectural plan- as they have a significant use of tidys and services to play in the misprinting of the numbers racket.1.13. Banks and financial institutions although not very clear from the case Pepsi-cola might haven taken loans form other banks.1.14. Share and Stockholders although not very clear from the case, the value of the shares and stock of Pepsi-cola Company might have fallen.2. Ethical Issues2.1. Trust A climate of trust provides improved communication, greater predictability, dependability and authority among the customers, employees and the company. The people trusted Pepsi to pay them the money if they would win. But Pepsi dining do that hence breaking customer trust, something once broken is very voice little to regain.2.2. Egoism the company was just signifying slightly its own interests when it launched the campa ign. It didnt consider the misfortunate people who might be lured by this number fever and spend the little money they had on Pepsi-cola instead of saving it and using for food, medicines, education etc, hence harming the innocent customers.2.3. Deception With the winning numbers pre- needed by computer and onlyten 1-million-peso prizes available, the chance of anyone becoming a peso millionaire was one in 28.8 million. But Pepsi drinkers didnt recognise that. The few winners got saturation media coverage, and entire families spent inordinate cadence and effort collecting bottle caps.2.4. Theft these people who didnt have enough money to eat were buying Pepsi in the hope of changing their whole life. The rich company Pepsi was making money by making these people believe that they might win a lot of money. Instead of using their scarce resources for something more real, these people spent it on Pepsi building up dreams of getting rich and leading a good life. When Pepsi refused to pay the just winners their rightful money, the company robbed these people of their dreams, hopes and financial resources.3. The shaping of Public happinessa. T here was maybe a little collaboration of private welfare and public good. The company was giving out prises valuing up to 1 million to people. Although the company intended to gain more market share through this action, it also helped people get more money and live a weaken life. On the other hand it was also private welfare as only a handful people really profited from this action. Only these few were able to lead a better life and the majority was left outb. Yes I think it is an appropriate good as one cannot always do stuff for the public good. It is not always possible to do good for all on a large scale. You need a lot of resources, power to carry out actions on such a large scale. Instead it would be better to help groups, families and individual. This is relatively easier to do and consequently a lot of people go forth turn a profit from such actions.c. What should have been differentlyi. Truth the company should have told the truth in the advertisements, that the chance to win the game is extremely small. This would helpespecially the poor people in making the more sensible and drive off their money in things what they really need.ii. Trust the company should have tried to regain trust of the people by explaining to them that the mistake was not on purport and that they never intended to hurt peoples feelings.iii. Consequences The Company should have also tried to explain to the people that if Pepsi would pay the $18 billion to the people, wherefore the company would go broke and would have to close. This would result in thousands of people loosing their jobs.iv. Government it should make sure that people understand such campaigns and dont get seduced by such empty promises through better control over what the companies exactly advertise and what they do.d. Yes Pepsi was justifie d in not paying the proficient 1 million pesos Doing that would mean that Pepsi would have to pay a total of more than $18 billion, a sum that would definitely lead to the company getting bankrupt. As a result of this thousands of people would lose their jobs not only in Philippines but also in other parts of the world where Pepsi operates as the Whole Pepsi organisation would be affected by this huge loss. The share and stock holder might lose a lot of money as a result of this loss at Pepsi. Thus it is a very complicated and damaging chain reaction that would be set of into action if Pepsi remunerative the money. Pepsi made a mistake in printing the numbers, something it did not intend to do. It kept its promise of giving out the 1 million to people who had the numbers but now you cant expect the company to pay $18 billion because of an honest mistake. Everyone makes mistakes.e. Europe The response would have been different as the people in Europe are not that poor and live a g ood life. They are not that larger-than-life. They are also well educated and understand such campaigns.South America and Africa the response might have been similar to that inPhilippines as the people are poor and are desperate to have money. Most of the people are not well educated and hence dont really understand such campaigns.Asia the response here might be not that aggressive as in Philippine as the people are well educated and although also being poor they live in highly developing countries for example India ,China etc, that are constantly attractive huge investments from around the world. Multinational companies are building huge featureories here and are outsourcing their functions in these countries. As such the people are not that desperate.f. The firms offer was OK, it could have offered some more money, but whatever it might have offered it would have never been enough for the people. The company had to think about all its shareholders and paying the full amount w ould have damaged lot of them for example Insurance companies, Company Employees, Banks and financial institutions, Share and Stockholders etc. It was in the best interest of everyone for the company to pay 500 pesos and not the full 1 million.4. What would I do?Likely the ethical principles violated have to do with trust that they would keep their word, (pay for winners) even if it werent profitable. I dont think the ads said anything about conditions of payment are only if they choose the correct, low probability number to ensure low payoff. It seems also that they need their customers, particularly since Coke customers will not be affected by Pepsi-Philippines decisiveness not to pay off. I would make sure that the advertisements would mention the risks and possibilities of winning. The people would be aware of the fact that it is very difficult to win. This would help a person not to invest all his hopes and resources in something that is itself a dream. I would also try to expl ain to the people that if Pepsi would pay the $18 billion to the people, then the company would go broke and would have to close. This would result in thousands of people loosing their jobs.I would try to maintain the good will of the customers. The projected $ loss from loss in reputation may be worse than paying the prizes. Simply from a business and ethical perspective, I would have make something very quickly to maintain the good will of the customers once I knew of the mistake. I would have tried to regain trust of the people by explaining to them that the mistake was not on purpose and that the company never intended to hurt peoples feelings. Maybe in Hong Kong the results would have been less radical or violent. However that wouldnt mean that the company wasnt just as wrong for their short-sightedness and carelessness. Their carelessness led to violence and death. Something should have been done differently. Yes.5. Application of to case5.1. Personal Traits-Business conclus ions are made by individuals or by committees, thus the ethics of business in reality is the ethics of the individuals making up the business. A series of factors influence a persons ethics personal values, stage of moral development and moral approbation. The extent to which a close makers behaviour reflects personal values depends to some extent on the decision makers ego strength, field dependence and locus of control. There the Pepsi-cola company is a big player with a lot of power which can lead to high ego strength and locus of control. This might cause the company to go its own way and set wrong standards and use questionable methods. Stages of development depict the type of rationale used to contain options. Moral approbation characterizes the internal need for approval something that is scarcely present in big companies. Each of these traits either supports ethical or unethical behaviour.5.2. Stakeholders -A stakeholder is someone who has a stake in an organization or a program. Stakeholders either affect the organization/program or are affected by it. Stakeholders include people who staff a program (e.g., focussing, staff) people who are affected by a program (e.g., clients, their families, and thecommunity) people who contribute to a program in other ways (e.g., contributors, funding agencies and foundations, volunteers, partner organizations, board members, etc.) and people with a vested interest in the program (e.g., politicians, neighbors, etc.), competitors, suppliers etc. The company did not take into consideration the effects of this campaign on particularly its consumers. The Stakeholders influence decisions in both ethical and unethical directions.5.3. Organizational Culture and TraitsIt might be referred to as the common set of assumptions, beliefs and values that has developed within the organisation to cope with the external and internal environment and that is passed on to new members to guide their actions within these environments. It provides a sense of identity among members and promotes a commitment of the members to something larger than self. It also provides for stability of the organisational brotherly system and rationale and direction for behaviour. While organisational culture serves as the boilersuit glue of the organisation specific aspects of its culture are influenced by the organisational traits for e.g. organisational climate and organisational goals etc.3.4. Dimensions of Decision MakingThe Decision Processes help to explain the types of ethical decision making behaviour that occur in business. Managers indicate there are specific actions that they will not countenance thus, the minimum performance rule. Once a set of decision alternatives has been established, all(prenominal) one is evaluated on the bases of the Decision dimensions like economic, political, technological, social and ethical issues. These issues are responsible at the end about the ethical nature of the decision.3.5. Moral IntensityThe degree of moral garishness influences the decision makers decisions. A person with a high moral intensity is tend to consider moral and ethicalissues more deeply than a person whos moral intensity lies very low.3.6. Minimum Performance direct/ Total Benefit TestThe decision maker applies a minimum performance rule to each of the decisions that specifies the minimum acceptable performance level for each of the decision dimensions. Any alternative that creates a conflict of interest will be dropped from consideration. The minimum performance level might be less than the sought after level and when considered by itself would lead to rejection of the alternative.Decisions Alternatives that survive the Minimum Performance Level rule test may then be subjected to the second phase, total benefit yielding the overall value of each alternative. After the benefit for each decision variable has being considered has been derived, one would expect that the decision maker would s elect the alternative with the highest benefit.6. LessonsCritical for organizations that are striving to gain or maintain a competitive advantage and that are in the process of re-structuring for the new century. Decision-making is an grievous factor for growing organizational memory with newly created knowledge and a broader base of perspectives to use in subsequent decision-making situations. Given a particular decision context and a decision maker with a set of personal values, it may be very difficult to see all sides of the issue.Individual, managerial and organisational winner all depend on making the right decisions at the right times.1 However, decision-making is just one component of the problem-solving process. Unless a problem has been defined and its root causes identified, managers are unlikely to be able to make an appropriate decision about how to solve it. Effective managers know how to gather and evaluate information that clarifies a problem. They know the value of generating more than one action alternative and weighing all the implications of a plan before deciding to implementit.A major obligation for all managers is to maintain a constant lookout for actual or potential problems. Managers do this by keeping channels of communication open and monitoring. When a problem involves others, they need to feel understood and accepted they must have confidence that the problem can be resolved they must trust management to see the problem as a learning experience and not as an excuse to punish someone.Whether blameworthy or not, the use of the cloak of social responsibility, and the nonsense spoken in its name by influential and prestigious businessmen, does clearly harm the foundations of a free society. I have been impressed time and again by the schizophrenic character of many businessmen. They are capable of being extremely far-sighted and clear-headed in matters that are internal to their businesses. They are incredibly short-sighted and mudd le-headed in matters that are outside their businesses but affect the possible survival of business in general.But the doctrine of social responsibility taken seriously would cover the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collective doctrine. It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means. The social responsibility of business is to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its loot so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.