PEPSI BURMA CASE: A CASE OF VIOLATION OF ETHICS

Q1>>>> 1> The situation in Myanmar in the first half of the 90s represented the pinnacle of human rights violation. The extremist iron handed approach of the STORC dictators was creating an extreme economic and humanitarian crisis. The influx of foreign companies due to the opening economy did bring the much required foreign exchange but at what cost? 2> These companies including PepsiCo further exploited the already rotting situation in Burma. The tax paid by PepsiCo and other companies was at the disposal of the STORC dictators who used them to further strengthen their situation. 3> Due to no value of Burmese money in the international market PepsiCo engaged n counter trade resulting in rapid depletion of Burmas natural resources and food stock. 4> Looking at the situation it is no revelation that PepsiCo was only interested in making their cash reserves look better. It had absolutely no concern regarding its standing on the grounds of human rights and business morale. PepsiCo all the time had a moral obligation to divest itself of its Burmese assets which is seconded by the student protests in top Ivy League college, US state municipalities, shareholders etc. Just because business is synonymous with profits doesnt mean the very notion of concern and appreciation of sensitive world issues should be absent. PepsiCo was so blinded by its profit making motivation that it didnt give a second thought to how it was adding to the agony of the Burmese people who were already facing unimaginable drudgery. So the wrongdoing of PepsiCo can be best categorised as a violation of ethics concerning human rights. Q2>>> 1> What PepsiCo did in its act of selling its 40% stake was just a reshuffle of paper work. Thats it. It was a very shrewd act by the PepsiCo management. It looks as if it agreed to bend to the mass protest and discontent but in reality if we dig deeper we see that in its announcement Pepsi covered more facts than it revealed. It was still to continue selling its concentrate and the bottling plant will continue to make Pepsi beverages in Burma. So the very reasons the world stood for and forced Pepsi to withdraw from took a shot in their face. The tax money would still go to the STORC. Depletion and exploitation would still continue and whatever situation was existing will continue to exist and may even worsen as the entire ownership would have passed to Tun who was a close ally of the STORC. 2> So if PepsiCo really has to honour its moral obligation a complete out stage with no further involvement of any kind is the only potent answer. Only then will the supporters of human rights all across the world and Burmese people can hope of weakening of The STORC both financially and politically which would ultimately lead to democracy and jubilant future in Burma.