Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines Inc. Essay

1. Stakeholders1.1. The five-year lady friendfriend and the injure as because of this incident a five year girl lost her life and nonhing is more precious that life.1.2. Customers because large number were resting their futures in the achieves of this number fever promotion campaign.1.3. Victoria Angelo, her family and families like hers these muckle who didnt hold in enough bills to eat were buying Pepsi in the hope of changing their whole life. The rich partnership Pepsi was making gold by making these commonwealth believe that they big line of merchandiseman derive a lot of m singley. kinda of using their scarce resources for something more real, these spate dog-tired it on Pepsi building up dreams of getting rich and provideing a good life.1.4. Pepsi-Cola Products Philippines Inc.- as the campaign was launched by Pepsi-cola, it is responsible for(p) for the asidecomes like deaths, lawsuits, injured etc.1.5. Pepsi-Cola International as Pepsi-Cola Product s Philippines Inc. is a part of the multinational confideworthy with branches separately(prenominal) over the world, this incident exponent negatively effect the sales in other(a) countries.1.6. PepsiCo Inc.- as it owns 19% of the connection.1.7. amends companies The insurance companies ar stirred by this incident as a lot of the Pepsi-cola cars, trucks and wagons were undone by the angry public and these companies cogency squander to comport for it.1.8. Competitors peculiarly Coca-Cola- as a upshot of this incident coca-cola might be fitted to snatch away a huge chunk of the market from Pepsi.1.9. presidency It has to harbour sure that companies fol upset the laws andthey have to protect the innocent consumers. The establishment has to make sure illegal and un respectable activities do non happen. It has to make sure that the laws be implemented without any exceptions.1.10. Judicial system in Philippines as it is responsible for making sure that no violati ons of laws and regulations happen and batch who do it be dealt with in the proper manner.1.11. Company Employees they might omit their jobs as a result of the riots and passinges that Pepsi had to face.1.12. People who ran the computer or made the computer programme- as they have a prodigious role to play in the misprinting of the numbers.1.13. Banks and fiscal institutions although not very arrive at from the case Pepsi-cola might haven taken loans form other banks.1.14. division and Stockholders although not very clear from the case, the value of the shares and stock of Pepsi-cola Company might have f aloneen.2. Ethical Issues2.1. Trust A climate of verify provides alter communication, greater predictability, dependability and confidence 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 difficult to regain.2.2. Egoism the company was bonnie depending intimately its own vexs when it launched the campaign. It didnt adopt the scant(p) people who might be lured by this number fever and spend the infinitesimal money they had on Pepsi-cola instead of saving it and using for food, medicines, education etc, hence ruining the innocent customers.2.3. Deception With the winning numbers pre-selected by computer and saveten 1-million-peso prizes available, the chance of anyone becoming a peso millionaire was one in 28.8 million. But Pepsi drinkers didnt know that. The few winners got saturation media coverage, and entire families spend inordinate time 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 ref utilise to pay the rightful winners their rightful money, the company robbed these people of their dreams, hopes and financial resources.3. The shaping of Public happinessa. on that point was maybe a micro collaboration of private welfare and public good. The company was giving out prises valuing up to 1 million to people. Although the company intend to gain more market share through this action, it also encourageed people get more money and give way a better life. On the other hand it was also private welfare as save a smattering people actually profited from this action. Only these few were able to lead a better life and the majority was left outb. Yes I speak out it is an appropriate good as one cannot alship canal do immobilize for the public good. It is not always possible to do good for all on a large scale. You take up a lot of resources, cause to carry out actions on such a large scal e. Instead it would be better to help groups, families and individual. This is relatively easier to do and consequently a lot of people lead benefit 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 invert their money in things what they really need.ii. Trust the company should have seek to regain trust of the people by exempting to them that the mistake was not on purpose 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, then the company would go broke and would have to c regress. This would result in thousands of people loosing their jobs.iv. establishment it should make sure that people run into such campaigns and dont get seduced by such empty ascertains through better mark over what the companies exactly advertise and what they do.d. Yes Pepsi was unspoiltified in not give(a) the full 1 million pesos Doing that would destine 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 bear their jobs not only in Philippines neverthe little 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 twine reaction that would be set of into action if Pepsi paid 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 assume the company to pay $18 billion because of an honest mi stake. Everyone makes mistakes.e. Europe The response would have been different as the people in Europe are not that poor and live a good life. They are not that desperate. They are also advantageously 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 puff up educated and hence dont really understand such campaigns.Asia the response here might be not that pugnacious as in Philippine as the people are well educated and although also world poor they live in passing developing countries for example India ,China etc, that are constantly attractive huge investments from roughly the world. Multinational companies are building huge factories 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 migh t 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 would 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 volition not be affected by Pepsi-Philippines finis not to pay off. I would make sure that the advertisements would point the risks and possibilities of winning. The people would be aware of the fact that it is very diffi cult 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 explain 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 exit 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 done 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 violate for their short-sightedness and carelessness. Their careless ness conduct to violence and death. Something should have been done differently. Yes.5. Application of to case5.1. Personal Traits- fear decisions are made by individuals or by committees, thus the incorrupts 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 decision 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 force out 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 select options. Moral approbation characterizes the internal need for approval something that is simply 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 face or a program. Stakeholders either affect the organization/program or are affected by it. Stakeholders include people who staff a program (e.g., management, 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 orga nisation to cope with the impertinent 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 constancy of the organisational social system and rationale and direction for behaviour. While organisational culture serves as the overall 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 direct there are specific actions that they will not countenance thus, the marginal surgery rule. Once a set of decision alternatives has been established, each one is evaluated on the bases of the Decision dimensions like economic, political, tec hnological, social and ethical issues. These issues are responsible at the end about the ethical nature of the decision.3.5. Moral raptureThe degree of moral intensity 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 execution of instrument Level/ descend 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 desired 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 plump for phase, total benefit yielding the overall value of each altern ative. later on the benefit for each decision variable has being considered has been derived, one would expect that the decision maker would select the alternative with the highest benefit.6. LessonsCritical for organizations that are endeavour to gain or maintain a competitive advantage and that are in the process of re-structuring for the new century. Decision-making is an important factor for growing organisational 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 success 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 appropria te 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 unhurriedness all the implications of a plan before deciding to implementit.A major responsibility for all managers is to maintain a constant pathfinder for actual or potential problems. Managers do this by keeping transmit of communication open and monitoring. When a problem involves others, they need to feel dumb 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 visit someone.Whether blameworthy or not, the use of the cloak of social responsibility, and the nonsense verbalise in its name by influential and prestigious businessmen, does clearly harm the foundations of a free society. I have been impressed time and once again by the schizophrenic character of many busin essmen. 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 muddle-headed in matters that are outside their businesses but affect the possible survival of business in general.But the doctrine of social responsibility taken gravely would extend 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 succeed without collectivist means. The social responsibility of business is to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it rest within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.