Course Title: Introduction to Business Law

Case: The Dark Side of Chocolate

Details: In 2005, the cocoa industry was, for the first time, under the spotlight. The International
Labor Rights Fund filed a lawsuit against Nestle (among others) on behalf of three Malian
children. The suit alleged the children were trafficked to Côte d’Ivoire, forced into slavery, and
experienced frequent beatings on a cocoa plantation. A report by an independent auditor, the Fair
Labor Association (FLA), says it found “multiple serious violations” of the Nestle’s own
supplier code. It was reported that Nestle hadn’t carried out checks against child labor and abuse.
Additionally, many injuries caused by machetes, which are used to harvest cocoa pods, have
been reported. Nestle’s excuse can be summed up broadly as ‘everybody does it’:

“The use of child labour in our cocoa supply chain goes against everything we stand for,” says
Nestle’s Executive Vice-President for Operations Jose Lopez. “No company sourcing cocoa
from the Ivory Coast can guarantee that it doesn’t happen, but we can say that tackling child
labour is a top priority for our company.” Most people love chocolate, but few know the dirty
deals behind chocolate production. The 2010 documentary The Dark Side of Chocolate brought
attention to purchases of cocoa beans from Ivorian plantations that use child slave labour. A
Nestlé spokesperson told the Guardian: “To date we have identified 3,933 children working on
their family farms (around 10% of the children surveyed) who were involved in hazardous tasks
classified as child labour. We have
included half of them in our Child
Labour Monitoring and Remediation
System, which includes providing
school kits, obtaining birth
certificates and developing income
generating activities for the families
of 312 identified children.
Unfortunately, the scale and
complexity of the issue is such that
no company sourcing cocoa from Ivory Coast can guarantee that it has completely removed the
risk of child labour from its supply chain.” She added: “Where we have evidence that we’re
making a difference, we will seek to scale up efforts in these areas. We are already planning to
scale up the Monitoring and Remediation system to other producing countries, with a near-term
priority being Ghana. We’ll continue to work with the government and our partners to improve
standards across the industry.

Strategy of Social Responsiveness: Accomodation

We know one of the strategy Accomodation means the corporation accepts responsibility and
does what is demanded of it by relevant groups. The corporation may adopt an approach based
on superficial public relations rather than positive actions An accommodating stance signifies
that a company believes social responsibility is important -- and perhaps as important as making
a profit. These companies satisfy all legal requirements and attempt to meet ethical standards. An
accommodating company does not attempt to hide its actions and remains open about why it
takes specific actions.We can see Nestle accepts their fault and also realized it was a grave
mistake and also took action.They started taking care of the children and started helping the
government to stand against child labor.

Do you agree with the company’s response to the criticism or do you think they should
have adopted a different strategy? Justify your answer.

Yes I agree with the company’s response. They took the correct decision by helping the children
to overcome from child labor. Additionally they already planned to scale up the Monitoring and
Remediation system to other producing countries.

References:
There are no sources in the current document

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/sep/02/child-
labour-on-nestle-farms-chocolate-giants-problems-continue

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQvEX2Xait4
Case: Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal

Facebook has a complicated track record on privacy. Its business model is built on gathering
data. It knows your real name, who your friends are, your likes and interests, where you have
been, what websites you have visited, what you look like and how you speak.On the other hand,
Facebook very much wants to keep that data – its competitive advantage – to itself, and so
guards it carefully. Facebook has yet to face a major hack like.So protective is the site of its user
data that it makes it very difficult for scholars to study its impact on society.

In December 2015, The Guardian reported that United States Senator Ted Cruz was using data
from this scandal and that the subjects of the data were unaware that companies were selling and
politicians were buying their personal information. In March 2018, The New York Times, The
Guardian and Channel 4 News made more detailed reports on the data scandal with new
information from former Cambridge Analytica employee Christopher Wylie, who provided
clearer information about the size of the data collection, the nature of the personal information
stolen, and communication among Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and political representatives
who hired Cambridge Analytica to use the data to influence voter opinion.[5][6]

The scandal was significant for inciting public discussion on ethical standards for social media
companies, political consulting organizations, and politicians. Consumer advocates called for
greater consumer protection in online media and right to privacy as well as curbs on
misinformation and propaganda.

Cambridge Analytica stated that the data obtained from Kogan was not used in the 2016
presidential campaigns of Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz.

Unfortunately for researchers, the newly reported misappropriation of data is likely to make that
even harder. The 50m user profiles were harvested by a Cambridge University researcher,
Aleksandr Kogan – separately from his work at the university – but passed to Cambridge
Analytica for ad targeting purposes.“This is about a company breaking Facebook’s terms of
service and going rogue,” said Sarah T Roberts, a UCLA assistant professor of information
studies. “That’s a pitfall that will exist no matter what policies are implemented.

Facebook director Mark Zuckerberg first apologized for the situation with Cambridge Analytica
on CNN calling it an "issue," a "mistake" and a "breach of trust." Other Facebook officials
argued against calling it a "data breach", arguing those who took the personality quiz originally
consented to give away their information. Zuckerberg pledged to make changes and reforms in
Facebook policy to prevent similar breaches.On March 25, 2018, Zuckerberg published a
personal letter in various paper newspapers apologizing on behalf of Facebook.In April they
decided to implement the EU's General Data Protection Regulation in all areas of operation and
not just the EU. Facebook is changing the way it shares data with third-party applications, “We
have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can’t then we don’t deserve to serve you,”
Zuckerberg wrote. He noted that the company has already changed some of the rules that enabled
the breach, but added: “We also made mistakes, there’s more to do, and we need to step up and
do it.”

Strategy of Social Responsiveness: Defense

The strategy Defense explains The Corporation admits responsibility. But fights it. The
corporation may adopt an approach based on superficial public relations rather than positive
actions. Here the changes they do are very temporary. In most cases, companies that take a
defensive stance towards social responsibility are not particularly responsible. These companies
may consider themselves neutral, and they make profits a more important motive than
performing actions in a socially responsible way. These companies make a point of following the
law to ensure that others cannot take legal action against them.Facebook did the same

Do you agree with the company’s response to the criticism or do you think they should
have adopted a different strategy? Justify your answer.

No .Facebook should have followed the strategy Accommodation.They should have taken proper
steps in order to respect people’s privacy.
Reference:
1.https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/06/what-we-know-about-facebooks-latest-
data-scandal/561992/

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDR8qGmyEQg