1. The public issue, defined by Lawrence and Webber as “any issue that is of mutual concern to an organization and one or more of its stakeholders” (p.25), facing The Coca-Cola Company (or TCCC) was their mass consumption of water that was tainted with pesticides, depleting the local ground water supplies and negatively affecting surrounding communities of factories in India.
The performance-expectations gap, or “the gap between what the firm wants to do or is doing and what its stakeholders expect” (Lawrence & Webber, p.25), in this case was operating their business in a cost effective way and consuming enough water to operate at capacity verses producing their product in an ethical ...view middle of the document...
Coca-Cola used stakeholder engagement and dialogue to improve opinions on this issue by bringing in outside expertise from the World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy, CASE, various academic experts, and local governments in order to assess the best course of action together. TCCC then extended these water conservation initiatives to its bottlers and operational groups, which showed that they took this issue seriously. The benefits to TCCC were as follows:
o Built better relationships with their stakeholders, governments their business deals with, and nonprofit organizations
o Capitalized on the opportunity to generate a creative solution with environmental and academic experts that improved their current technology/system
o Reduced company-wide water usage and increased water neutrality.
5. In my opinion, The Coca-Cola Company responded appropriately, even if it took them a few years. It seems that in an effort to both support itself as a business and the communities that...