Q1. Critically analyze the impact of PepsiCo’s CSR strategy on shareholders, consumers, the environment and local communities, and explain how these stakeholders can impact upon the company’s commitments towards promoting sustainability.
Deravative stakeholder
Media, Government, NGOs, competitors, Creditors.
Normative stakeholders
Environment, Community, Suppliers, Customers, Shareholders, Employees
Stakeholder Salience
Connect this to the case study
Q2. Identify the SDGs that PepsiCo should target in order to address the negative effects created by intensive use of palm oil in its products and explain how the company’s corporate governance should contribute to achieving these goals.
SDGs
Reporting to stakeholders in a transparent and public manner is fundamental for companies committed to sustainability. A company’s annual Communication on Progress is a key component of their commitment to the UN Global Compact
Talk about greenwashing, Circular Economy Corporate Governance
Four principles- Accountability, Fairness, Transparency, Independence
Institutional Substitute Hypothesis § Voluntary CSR practices in liberal economies are a substitute for institutionalized forms of stakeholder participation. § National institutional and sectoral-level factors have an asymmetric effect – strongly influencing the likelihood of firms adopting ‘minimum standards’ of CSR, but having little influence on the adoption of ‘best practices’.
§ CSR complements liberalization and substitutes for institutionalized social solidarity.
Social Accounting
1. Inclusivity
2. Comparability
3. Completeness
4. Evolution
5. Management policies and systems
6. Disclosure
7. External verification
8. Continuous improvement Talking about the GRI Report
Connect this to the case study
Q3. Critically analyze the ways in which moral intensity has influenced PepsiCo’s palm oil policy and explain the steps taken by the company to avoid conflict palm-oil using the four-stage ethical decision-making process.
Four-stage process of rationalist ethical decision-making:
1. Awareness: becoming aware that there is a moral issue at stake (interpreting the situation, sensitivity, recognition)
2. Judgment: the decision-making itself (moral evaluation, moral reasoning)
3. Intent: moral intent is established (moral motivation, decision or determination)
4. Behavior: acting on these intentions (action, implementation)
Situational factors: particular features of the context which influence whether an individual will make an ethical or an unethical decision. They include factors associated with the work context (reward systems, job roles, organizational culture) and those associated with the issue itself (intensity or ethical framing of the moral issue).
Situational factors
q Issue-related
§ Moral intensity (Jones, 1991) –
§ Moral framing
Connect this to the case study
Q4. Analyse PepsiCo’s commitment to zero deforestation using a utilitarian ethical perspective.
Outcomes and collective welfare
Act/rule utilitarianism
Humans are motivated by avoidance of pain and gain of pleasure
Utilitarianism – an action is morally right if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people affected by the action.
Act utilitarianism § Looks to single actions and bases the moral judgement on the amount of pleasure/pain this single action causes.
Rule utilitarianism§ Looks at classes of action and ask whether the underlying principles of an action produce more pleasure than pain for society in the long run.
