Vincent Pennavaria Sustainability: Saints, Scoundrels, and Scientists, OH MY!

Final Essay: Business Ethics PHL:248 Introduction Multinational corporations interact with the lives of so many people on so many different levels. Whether it is economically, physically, mentally, or environmentally the impact of these corporations can be tremendous. A popular reference to the impact that corporations can possibly have is referred to as the triple bottom line. What the triple bottom line specifically is, is the impact corporations have on people, the planet, and economically. With the great impact that these corporations can have accountability for their actions has been increased in all areas. In an attempt to show past, present, and future impacts on the triple bottom line multinational corporations may produce a document called a sustainability report. The definition of sustainability is: meeting current needs without compromising the ability of others, or future generations to meet their needs. In this essay I will break down the 2009-2010 Coca Cola sustainability report and reveal its underlying motives and ineffectiveness from the viewpoints of many continental philosophers. In the first section we will discuss ontology(the physical study of what it means to be) and the viewpoints of Emmanuel Levinas and Zygmunt Bauman as it pertains to Coca Cola and their interactions with communities and stakeholders. Simply put, a stakeholder is any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by, the achievement of a corporations purpose. Stakeholders include employees, customers, suppliers, stockholders, banks, environmentalists, government, and other groups who can help or hurt the corporation. ~R. Edward Freeman.

In the second section we will counter arguments brought on from the perspective of John Stuart-Mill in regards to utilitarianism. Miriam-Websters dictionary defines utilitarianism as a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

Following in the third section we will focus on the works of Immanuel Kant, the categorical imperative, rationality, autonomy, , and what his standpoint might be about Coca Colas sustainability report. Furthermore we will discuss the study of moral obligation or deontology. What the categorical imperative is, is a moral obligation or command that is unconditionally and universally binding. Rationality simply broken done is the quality or state of being agreeable to reason; this goes along with autonomy which is self-directing freedom and especially moral independence.

The fourth section will consist of the point of view from Bruno Latour as we discuss matters of fact, matters of concern and science. Matters of fact according to Latour are object with clear boundaries, a well defined essence, and well recognized properties; objects are things with a hard kernel that is rigorously separated from their environment. He describes matters of concern as objects that have no clear boundaries and no hard kernel; that are tangled beings or quasi objects that belong to a world of networks and rhizomes.

The final fifth section will cover the stance of Jacques Derrida and we will include intentionality, undecidability, gift-giving and aporias, moral guidelines, and possible motives behind the Coca Cola report. An aporia is described as being at an impasse, and this is exactly what undecidability refers to; being at an aporia or at a decision that cannot be calculated in advance. In regards to philosophy intentionality

can be described as The property of being about or directed toward a subject, as inherent in conscious states, beliefs, or creations of the mind.i

Emmanuel Levinas and Zygmunt Bauman: In our readings many similarities were drawn using Levinas and Baumann, sometimes as a single entity, so for all intents and purposes I will mostly refer to them together. Within our readings Levinas and Baumann attack sustainability as it pertains to moral responsiveness beginning with an ontological standpoint; this can relate to Coca Colas sustainability report on many levels. Starting right away with Coca Colas

sustainability framework, Living Positively, whose creation is ex plained on page 10 of the report. According to the report Living Positively in addition to other reasons was created to help Coca Cola consider sustainability in everything they do. I think Levinas and Baumann would point out that he lack of moral responsiveness created by this set of goals/rules. By setting these rules it eliminates the opportunity for each individual to make a moral decision on their own. For example if a moral decision were to arise one would simply check to see if it was in the rules instead coming to the resolution themselves. It is through this type of behavior that the moral impulse can be taken away. I think Levinas and Baumann would also observe how Coca Cola reduces all of their stakeholders into groups (distributors, manufacturers, etc.). Although there are similarities within these groups they are not all the same and therefore cannot ethically be dealt with in the same manner. This grouping also can imply that the stakeholders have equal footing, even within specific groups this may not be the case. They would tell us that we must focus on individual needs and not group needs. For Levinas and Baumann the responsibility of a corporation for stakeholders must be ongoing and never-ending. Specific dates and time frames within Coca Colas sustainability report imply that it is not. Also within Coca Colas sustainability report an effort to help small mango farmers called project nurture is mentioned. According to Levinas and Baumann this could be a form of sustainability used to control and subjugate stakeholders. A few examples of this could be; getting the farmers to sell Coca Cola mangos at a cheap price, or bottlenecking their economy around mango production. Depending on the area and situation the reliance on Coca Cola purchasing mangos could leave certain communities devastated in the event that Coca Cola had to pull out. Increased demands to provide for Coca Cola could also potentially cause resources to be diverted from other areas of need.

John Stuart-Mill When looking at Coca Colas sustainability report from the standpoint of John Stuart-Mill you can see many similarities within the framework and ideas of the report and Mills theory of utilitarianism. Given the nature of the report (specifically statistics; et pages 5-7) it obviously at one point was a cost-benefit calculation. I say this because specific numbers are given in dollar amounts and someone had to make the decision on

that dollar amount or a given dollar range. With this being said you can immediately see how it undermines the very values that it is trying to get its company to consider. Putting the future of another human being in a cost-benefit scenario does not in any way seem ethical. Immanuel Kant would agree with this saying that people must not be used as a means to an end. With reference to the aforementioned amount chooser and others involved in the process of creating this sustainability program one can begin to see how this is a case of a select few deciding the greatest good for others. This utilitarian idea can be very dangerous of course because power can fall into the wrong hands, cultural bias can interfere with decisions, etc. An example in the Coca Cola attempting this is referred to on page 16 of the report where Coca Cola talk about The problem of obesity in society. This is a subjective statement and may not be an opinion that is shared by everyone. Another problem with Coca Colas sustainability report is its failure to include low income people how may not even be able to afford Coca Cola. Although this could potentially align with Mills utilitarian society where the goal is the most good for the most people it still poses the problems of people being left out simply due to financial status. The final argument that Mill and utilitarianism might suggest is Coca Colas dedication to physical(bodily) improvement is very beneficial to a wide range of people. This begins to cross into the territory of pleasures and pain being able to be measured on the same scale. Coca Cola seems to imply that there is a correlation between weight loss/calorie reduction and happiness. (example, statistics on page 16). Although some may agree there are many people across the world who suffer from eating disorders and it is exactly this type of physical appearance based mentality which can contribute to these diseases. This could also be another example of subjugating stakeholders. I say this because many of the weight loss/calorie reduction statements have the potential to induce fear-based advertising. Fear based advertising can be powerful as it draws on the insecurities of others manipulating them to buy certain things.ii

Immanuel Kant Many of the aforementioned Mill arguments would be immediately refuted by

Immanuel Kant and his Categorical Imperative. Kant was very against rules because, as chapter 4 on moral decision making states, he felt what makes humans unique is their capacity to give themselves rational, moral commands completely autonomously. The seven core beliefs of the Living Positively framework are in direct conflict with this way of thinking. A direct example of this could be Coca Colas campaign five by twenty which refers to their goal of empowering 5000 women by 2020. This is a case of using someone as a means to an end. Coca Cola is using the empowering or even implied goal of empowering 5000 women to project a certain image for their company, create new business opportunities, etc. Whatever the reason may be it still begins with using a person as a means to an end. It is a situation where a moral judgment is made based on a projected consequence which is in direct conflict with Kants deontological beliefs. Another point about Coca Colas sustainability report that Kant would argue against is its way of getting people to instrumentally think. An example of this can specifically be found on page 40 where the report refers to the companys anti-bribery policy. Policies such as this can create a situation in which an employee turns an ethical decision opportunity into a task of checking off items on a list. Rules such as these in the long run cannot be properly universalized because there are many different situations into which ambiguity or split second time frames could create a multitude of possible resolutions. It is stated within Coca Colas sustainability report that employees must read and follow the Companys Code of Business Conduct. This being said I believe Kant would oppose because many workplace situations which could be outlined in the Companys Code of Business Conduct have the potential to be subjective and situation based; this would mean it could pass Kants universalization test. To opponents of this claim chapter 4 states that Kant would reply by saying there are situations in which morality cannot apply. Opponents of these arguments might say that moral rules are necessary to keep order, but this is not always the case because not only can rule-making power fall into the wrong hands society would become banal lose all its moral instincts.

Bruno Latour & Michel Serres Within our chapter on sustainability Bruno Latour is associated with the ideas of Matters of Fact and Matters of Concern. Latour believes that for a long time science has

only been concerned with matters of fact. Although Coca Colas sustainability report seemingly contains both matters of fact (statistics) and matters of concern (identified problems) it the seems to be instances of science being used to paralyze. Although I feel Latour would agree with the percentage of matters of concern addressed within Coca Colas sustainability report, I feel he would disagree with the use of science and politics to paralyze. Throughout their entire report you can find instances of science being used seeming to invoke small amounts of fear. There are efforts within that use this fear of the scientific statistics to impose certain values. An example of this can be found on page 37 of the Coca Cola report when water risks are mentioned. These statistics could also tie in with fear-based advertising, after someone reads the statistics on water risks they may become slightly alarmed and directly around the statistics are ways Coca Cola claims they are reducing water risks. The same formula is also used on page 31 in reference to the global pressure on our planets resources. This report also has potential to agree with Michel Serres when he says science has lost its privileged position. Consumerism, mass communication, deceptive sales tactics, and failure by consumers to inspect details could also be to blame for this. Certain studies can be published even if they have a very small control group. A companys desire to use minimal statistics to prove a point/sell a product is commonplace nowadays. Consumers take no time to check details on statistics and often time immediately accept them as fact. This also ties into Latour and Serres belief that moral activity cannot be measured properly. There are many examples in the report, (page 13 to give one), basically any statement about a goal or current activity that Coca Cola is participating in that does have set numbers can fall into this category. In Chapter 12 Latour talks about sustainability being used as a moral tranquilizer. This notion is evident during Coca Colas sustainability report. Many of the ideas and goals set by Coca Cola are noble and supportive, but they have the potential to induce people to think that everything is ok when it very well might not be. This is also very similar to Michel Foucaults belief that certain value statements are meant to obscure ethical issues rather than address them. One cannot even be sure if the real problems of the world are being addressed. Latour also mentions how sustainability can be used to blackmail or remove financial aid from stakeholders. An example of this is Coca Cola removing Wayne Rooney from his contract for publicly using foul

language. Coca Cola a company, which prides itself on its family friendly image, are believed to have become increasingly disappointed by the controversy surrounding the footballer.iii A final idea of Latours about only being able to do something properly

once you forget how to do it is in direct conflict with the rule based system from Coca Colas sustainability report. When ethical decisions are presented as a set of rules to follow the actual act of decision making is lost and therefore is not practiced. (a funny example could be using the rules/physics of the game guitar hero in order to play real guitar, this would not fully work.) A final note on Michel Serres leads me to believe that he would disapprove of a sustainability report giving us our global information and would want us to formulate our own opinions through experience.

Jacques Derrida The final philosopher whose eyes we will view Coca Colas sustainability report is Jacques Derrida. Like many of the philosophers we have already mentioned Derrida is opposed to rules guiding our moral decisions. His reasoning slightly differs and has to do with the idea of undecidability. Referring back to Coca Colas employee requirement to read and follow the code of conduct. Derrida would say this hinder the employees opportunity to make a decision. If there are rules in place and consequences for not following them this eliminates the possibility to make a true decision in Derridas eyes. Derrida believes that for a decision making situation to exist there must be doubt. If outcomes are already predetermined then we could program computers to make those decisions for us. Many other examples of decision opportunities being lost can be found throughout the entire report. Any instance in which Coca Cola says that there will eventually be full compliance shows that people are not making moral decisions they are just being told what to do. Another element of the Coca Cola report I feel Derrida would disagree with would be Coca Colas reporting of their donations to charities and other organizations. In chapter 4 Derrida talks about how the act of giving a gift is impossible because in giving a true gift you would expect nothing in return. Continually while reading Coca Colas sustainability report you can find instances in which Coca Cola boasts of donating or providing a service. According to Derrida the very act of reporting these things undermines the very essence of them. One could essentially say that Coca

Colas entire report undermines itself because in providing a sustainability report Derrida would say that Coca Cola must expect something in return for its ethical behavior otherwise it would be kept anonymous. Derrida uses the example of gift giving to explain aporias and Coca Colas sustainability report is a perfect example. True altruistic behavior should be done simply for the intrinsic value. According to Deleuze and Guattari corporations are created for one purpose value generation. This leads us to the topic of intentionality. The entire idea of sustainability reports seems to be for a business to become transparent to the public and put its actions out for all to see. While this can seem to be plausible underlying motives could potentially exist. Take for example on pages 15-16 where Coca Cola makes many statements and posts statistics pledging to be a champion of healthy lifestyles, sugar substitutes, and low calorie drinks. While these have the potential to be true looking at other statistics make bring Coca Colas true intentions under scrutiny. According to data published by the US trade magazine beverage digest from 2001-2006 Coca Cola saw a sales drop. Reasons for this drop included consumer concern about the impact to health and weight and weight from drinking sugar-laden drinks.iv This was also coincidentally the around same time that Coca Cola started releasing sustainability reports. On Feb. 7th Coca Cola announced releasing its seventh annual sustainability report which would place its first report in between 2003-2004; a date which falls right into a time period where many businesses (Coca Cola included) were having their sales and reputations harmed by being deemed perpetuators of unhealthy habits. Another example could include Coca Cola boasting about using more efficient packaging which in the long run will save them money anyways. Sometimes knowing a little more of the story can really put things into a different perspective. Whereas it may seem that Coca Cola is doing amazing things for people and the planet who is not to say they arent strictly doing it for the other P of the triple bottom line, profit. With the increase in health concerns nowadays sustainability reports are becoming standard. Whether companies entirely mean everything in their reports or whether they are doing so as John Roberts states, just to be seen as ethical. In tough economic times companies cannot afford to lose face with the public. In certain cases a companys image can go a long way. An interesting side note that is relevant here is Slavoj Zizeks statement on how sustainability reports create a paradox because they

encourage change to ensure that things can stay the same. Conclusion Throughout this essay we viewed Coca Colas sustainability report through the eyes of many different philosophers. We started out with Emmanuel Levinas and Zygmunt Bauman and how they would disagree with Coca Colas living positively program because of its potential to reduce moral responsiveness and moral impulses. We then covered how they would disagree with the grouping and handling of all stakeholders the same way because each individual has different needs. Finally we spoke on how stakeholder responsibility is ongoing and never-ending and how certain Coca Cola practices have the potential to subjugate stakeholders. In our second section we discussed a possible opponent to our argument in John Stuart-Mill with his utilitarian ideology. We pointed out the many similarities between this ideology and the principles implied by the Coca Cola report. We showed how putting people in a cost-benefit analysis is unethical. We explained how the pleasures and pains mentioned in the report cannot be measured on the same scale. Furthermore we illustrated how it is not ideal for a few to decide the greatest good. In our third section we focused on the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and his categorical imperative. We spoke about how Kant would disagree with the rule structure behind Coca Colas code of conduct requirements because it would deny humans the opportunity to make rational decisions autonomously and would force them into an instrumental way of thinking. The fourth section was filled with the philosophies of Bruno Latour & Michel Serres. Within that section we talked on how certain scientific aspects of Coca Colas Sustainability report could possibly be used to paralyze the public. In addition we talked about how scientists are losing their credibility and privileged positions. We also concluded on how Coca Colas Sustainability report could be used as a moral tranquilizer. Another point we brought up was how certain aspects of the Coca Cola report were unable to be properly measured. Also we touched on how the rules behind Living Positivelys seven core beliefs would deny people the ability to practice moral behavior until they could perform it unthinkingly. The last philosopher we discussed was Jacques Derrida. We briefly talked about undecidability and how the rule structure of Coca Colas Sustainability report eliminates the opportunity for decisions to be made because consequences are

already established. Throughout that section we brought up points of intentionality and possible paradoxes lying within all sustainability reports. Finally we brought up the aporia created by Coca Colas reporting of their charitable activities and the aporia consumers and others can be in when trying to find out Coca Colas true intentions.

http://www.answers.com/topic/intentionality Bibliography. -Bowling for Columbine. DVD. Michael Moore. Dog Eat Dog Films, 2002. http://www.periscopepost.com/2011/04/portugal-requests-financial-aid/ http://www.dandad.org/learning/case-studies/coca-cola

ii

iii

iv

As it was explained to me this final paper desires the student to articulate that they understand the views of continental philosophers and how they relate to business ethics. In an attempt to breakdown my paper to show ideas and influences that I have cited from certain philosophers I have compiled an outline/checklist of ideas from philosophers that I found relevant to the argument formed in my paper. I have combined philosophers who were frequently paired together in our readings. Also I have included viewpoints that although relevant to my topic I was unable to include. All of these are either direct quotes or paraphrases from our class readings. I am doing this to emphasize the fact that I understand the views and that I have done research. It is very important for me to pass this class and grades that I received on my mid-term and practice essay have left me with the strong desire to prove to myself and my instructors that I can grasp the material. In addition I would like to thank Mollie and Erik for taking the extra time to answer my many questions as well as offer extra credit assignments. Asterisks will be placed next to points specifically used in my essay.
Bobby Banerjee 1.)rights and freedoms of a corporation sometimes trump those of individual humans 2.)MNCs are like people with a lot of rights and no responsibilities 3.)discourse on sustainability leaves one dejected and cynical about sustainability Crane & Matten 1.)argued for a more rigorous definition on how corporations should be like citizens 2.)listed 3 ways corporations are like citizens pgs 4-5 in agency chapter

3.)MNCs can be like administrators of citizens rights 4.)spoke on how corporations are most interested in stakeholders that have a direct impact on Deleuze and Guattari 1.)Spoke on how corporations are created for one purpose and have no right to existence* 2.)corporations are like bodies without organs Milton Friedman 1.)The one responsibility of a business is to use its resources and partake in activities to increase profits while staying within the rules of the game. 2.)the concept of stakeholders remained a dangerous, socialist concept embracing a fundamentally subversive doctrine approaching corporate fraud. Emmanuel Levinas and Zygmunt Bauman 1.)bureaucracy in corporations is incapable of moral responsiveness* 2.)corporations reduce and totalize stakeholders* 3.)the need for reasonable security becomes justification for business activity 4.)corporations think of all members of a stakeholder group as the same* 5.)sustainability can be used to control and subjugate stakeholders* 6.)responsibility is ongoing and never-ending* 7.)we must look at all needs individually and not as a group* 8.)the rules of sustainability can eliminate the sense for individual moral responsibility* 9.)the rules can distract accountability and interrupt moral impulse* 10.)the stakeholder theory implies that stakeholders can all have equal footing* 11.)Baumann was against rules for decision making*

Michel Foucault 1.)questioning whether value statements address or obscure ethical issues* 2.)a single unified culture will not work, many subcultures have to be integrated John Roberts 1.)these reports can be just a desire to be seen as ethical* John Stuart-Mill 1.)Utilitarianism using a cost benefit calculation* 2.)should the greatest good be decided by only a few people* 3.)assumption that all pains and pleasures are measurable on a single scale* 4.)only most people should be happy* Immanuel Kant 1.)rationality and autonomy* 2.)deontology * 3.)categorical imperative* 4.)humans shouldnt be forced into instrumental thinking* 5.)dont treat people as a means to an end* 6.)rules dont work for all people at all times* Jacques Derrida 1.)formal decisions to be made cannot be set by rules or guidelines* 2.)moral decisions shouldnt be a clean cut rule, it should have some discomfort* 3.)the act of gift-giving and how you should not receive anything in return for it to be a true gift* 4.)many doubt that human beings are capable of selfless behavior 5.)intentionality* 6.)gift-giving as a aporia* 7.)undecidability* Slavoj Zizek

1.)sustainability promotes change to keep things the way they already are Bruno Latour & Michel Serres 1.)Less objectivity (matters of fact) and more matters of concern* 2.)science should not paralyze it should empower* 3.)sustainability should not be a moral tranquilizer* 4.)you cannot perform an act properly by thinking about it, only by not thinking about it (language, swimming, golf swing)* 5.)as politics goes up nature goes down and vice versa 6.)sustainability used to blackmail or remove financial aid* 7.)are the real problems of the world addressed* 8.)scientists can impose their findings like a judge imposes a sentence on a criminal. 9.)science has lost its privileged position* 10.)get out into the world and develop global conscious* 11.)moral activity cannot be measured properly*