1

ASSIGNMENT NO: 02

BUSINESS ETHICS

NAME & ID’S:

MUHAMMAD ALEEB (15603)

MUHAMMAD HUNAIN (15610)

ABDUL SAMI (15612)

MUHAMMAD AMMAR KHAN (15785)

SAIF MUSTAFA (15872)

HAMMAD SOHAIL (15873)

TEACHER NAME: MISS SAHAR KHAN

DATE: 5th August 2022

 2

Un-Ethical Code of Conduct:

Introduction:
Nestlé is a multinational food and drink processing corporation. It is the
largest publicly held food company in the world, measured by revenue
and other metrics. Nestlé's products include baby food (some
including human milk, medical food, bottled water, breakfast cereals,
coffee and tea, confectionery, dairy products, ice cream, frozen food, pet
foods, and snacks. Twenty-nine of Nestlé's brands have annual sales of
over 1 billion. Nestlé was formed in 1905 by the merger of the "Anglo-
Swiss Milk Company" which was established in 1866 by brothers George
and Charles Page.

BABY MILK ISSUE:

The most resounding and far-reaching unethical international business practices that Nestlé has been
involved in is the marketing and sale of infant milk formula in developing countries in the 1970s. This
practice resulted in several premature infant deaths because uneducated and poor mothers ceased to
breastfeed and instead fed their babies Nestlé’s formula. Unable to understand the instructions for
preparing the formula and having insufficient money to afford adequate doses of it, led several of them
to unknowingly starve their children to death. Groups such as the International Baby Food Action
Network (IBFAN) and Save the Children claim that the promotion of infant formula over breastfeeding
has led to health problems and deaths among infants in less economically developed countries.

There are four problems that can arise when poor mothers in developing countries switch to formula:

• Formula must normally be mixed with water, which is often contaminated in poor countries, leading
to disease in vulnerable infants. Because of the low literacy rates in developing nations, many mothers
are not aware of the sanitation methods needed in the preparation of bottles. Even mothers able to
read in their native tongue may be unable to read the language in which sterilization directions are
written.

•Although some mothers can understand the sanitation standards required often do not have the
means to perform them: fuel to boil water, electric (or other reliable) light to enable sterilization at
night. UNICEF estimates that a formula-fed child living in disease-ridden and unhygienic conditions is
between six and 25 times more likely to die of diarrhea and four times more likely to die of pneumonia
than a breastfed child.
 3

• Many poor mothers use less formula powder than is necessary, in order to make a container of
formula last longer. As a result, some infants receive inadequate nutrition from weak solutions of
formula.

•Breast milk has many natural benefits lacking in formula. Nutrients and antibodies are passed to the
baby while hormones are released into the mother's body. Breastfed babies are protected, in varying
degrees, from a number of illnesses, including diarrhea, bacterial meningitis, gastroenteritis, ear
infection, and respiratory infection Breast milk contains the right amount of the nutrients.

Essential for neuronal (brain and nerve) development. The bond between baby and mother can be
strengthened during breastfeeding. Frequent and exclusive breastfeeding can also delay the return of
fertility, which can help women in developing countries to space their births.

CONSEQUENCES FACED BY NESTLE:

When news of this reached the global public in the late 1970s, it caused
a boycott of Nestlé products in the United States and several European
countries, which has, to this day, not yet completely ceased. Nestlé has
since stopped marketing the formula in third world countries and in
their marketing policy they now maintain that breast milk is the most
appropriate form of nutrition for infants, but that women who can’t or
choose not to breastfeed can find a good substitute in using the
formula.

Current status of the boycott: The Nestlé boycott is currently coordinated by the International Nestlé
Boycott Committee, the secretariat for which is the UK group Baby Milk Action. Company practices are
monitored by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), which consists of more than 200
groups in over 100 countries. In parallel with the boycott, campaigners work for implementation of the
Code and Resolutions in legislation, and claim that 60 countries have now introduced laws implementing
most or all of the provisions. Many European universities, colleges, and schools have banned the sale of
Nestlé products from their shops and vending machines. In the United Kingdom, 73 student unions, 102
businesses, 30 faith groups, 20 health groups, 33 consumer groups, 18 local authorities, 12 trade unions,
education groups, 31 MPs, and many celebrities support the Nestle boycott.
 4

Coca-Cola Unethical Practices

Introduction
Established in 1886, Coca-cola is the globe’s biggest beverage
company operating in over 200 nations and territories.
Consequently, the company sells more than 450 different
brands and achieving the top ten (10) drinks being produced
in America (Coca-Cola 2018). These include sprite, Fanta,
Coke, and diet coke. With support from bottle partnership,
Coke has recruited more than 690,000 local individuals; thus,
helping to create modern economic opportunities to various
societies worldwide. To reduce health challenges, Coke is
striving to decrease sugar in all their drinks. To conserve the
environment, the company is promoting recycling and water
conservation. However, this has not always been the case. In
recent years, Coke has gained increased criticism and attention with many concerns about how
it conducts business, manages health and environmental issues.

Coca Cola unethical code of conduct and their consequences

Violation of Human Rights

Companies and enterprises violate human rights in different ways. Coke has been identified by
the International union of food (IUF), WHO, and World trade organization (WTO) as a serial
offender of human rights. In his article, for example, outlined that in the Philippines and
Indonesia, IUF alleged that Amatil bottler violated and systematically abused workers’ rights.
Further, in the Philippines, the Coke-FEMSA, as the local bottler illegally and unlawfully
dismissed over 600 workers following the significant implementation of taxes on sugar. The
unlawful termination of workers is an unethical practice that violates employees’ rights.
Similarly, the recent demonstrations in Atlanta as an emerging international campaign against
Coke indicates the level of unethical practices by the organization.

Pollution in the environment

Coke is among the most recognizable brands across the globe. The firm claims to observe
ethical standards in all its operations. Nonetheless, the company’s services and products across
the world are severely polluting the environment. Embedded in Coca-Cola’s culture to achieve
 5

its vision, mission, and goals is the secure environments where the company focuses on
reducing water consumption, carbon emission, and producing unhealthy drinks (Coca-Cola,
2014). Based on its environmental policy, Coke’s strategy is a blueprint for more success.
Nonetheless, Coke is the leading polluter of the environment due to weak waste disposal
mechanisms, higher water consumption, and increased production of non-recycled packaging
tools.

Coke has been named the globe’s leading polluter of the environment. The company produces
over 2.9 million tonnes of plastic packaging that amounts to over 108billion bottles per year.
(Coca-Cola, 2018) The plastics have not been renewable until many allegations by the world
health organization (WHO) about weak disposal systems of the company. According to Lion and
Ramström (2018), in America and other global nations, the leading manufacturers of plastic
pollution include Coke, Starbucks, solo cup, Heineken, and Nestle. Due to severe pollution, in
2019, the environmental justice team requested over 72, 300 volunteers in over 50 nations to
collect the plastic wastes (Suprapto, 2020). Subsequently, approximately 53% of marked brands
were from the Coca-Cola Company, with over 13, 00 coke products found in thirty-eight nations
across the globe.

Unethical water consumption

The Company depends on water for increased production of various types of beverages; thus,
without water, the company has terminated its plants in multiple regions. Coke’s products and
operations depend on increased access to the vast distributions of water. To ensure a
continuous water supply, Coke is considering taking active control of all aquifers in societies
across the world. Due to the high demand for production, Coke is increasingly accused of
dehydrating societies in its continuous pursuit of reliable water sources to sustain the plants.
Coke’s activities are being blamed for severely aggravating water shortages in areas like Indian
that suffer from adverse lack of rainfall and water resources.

Another ethical issue was found in Belgium where school children became ill after drinking Coca
Cola products in 1999. The company considered this as a minor issue which led to withdraw of
the company’s products from Belgium. The company sold the banned cans to Africa and no
harm was reported. The media learned about this act of selling banned cans to Africa and
reported it to the public. Consumers received this news with a lot of bitterness arguing that it
was not human for the company to sell contaminated products to Africa. They considered this
act as racial discrimination and they withdrew their shares from the company. The company
lost 50% of its value of shares (Kidd, 2007). The company’s brand deteriorated as consumers
argued that cans make up ten percent of the product while brand made 90% of the product.
The company lost its brand by selling contaminated cans to Africa.
 6

CONCLUSION
Coca Cola Company has been experiencing ethical crises due to lack of leadership skills, poor
economic performance, lack of corporation by employees and competitive malpractices. The
company has been trying to solve these issues by engaging in community development and
forming public relations exercise. The company has assured customers of better and quality
products and services.

The company cannot become the next Enron because it is managing its crises by trying to
regain customer trust and improving on the product and services. The company is still ranked as
the best branded company in the world despite the ethical issues that surround it. Its brand
image is enough to assist the company through the crisis.

The company should try and regain its reputation by providing quality goods and services. It
should assure its stakeholders on presenting true and fair financial status of the company. They
should not engage in competitive malpractices that would lower their level of fame. The
company should set strict rules and procedures that will guide the actions of executives and
employees in order to prevent ethical crisis in future.

Unethical Practices of Nike

The world's largest athletic apparel company, Nike is best known
for its footwear, apparel, and equipment. Founded in 1964 as
Blue Ribbon Sports, the company became Nike in 1971 after the
Greek goddess of victory. One of the most valuable brands
among sport businesses, Nike employs over 76,000 people
worldwide.As one of the world’s largest athletic brand, Nike
faces great criticism in regards to their use of labor sweatshops
in Asia. The public was astounded by the allegations of physical
and verbal abuse taking place in Nike’s sweatshops. It was found
that up to 50% of the factories limited their employees’
bathroom and water usage. Employees were forced to work
over sixty hours each week and were punished if they refused to work overtime. In these
sweatshops, women are much underpaid, hardly enough to cover their basic living. Workers
have claimed to be both verbally and physically abused by their employers. Although the use of
sweatshops in Asia reduce production costs and enable companies to rake in a much greater
revenue, the importance of morals and ethics still come into play. Being such a popular and well
 7

known brand, Nike has an image to uphold. Though Nike claims to put effort into resolving
these issues of abuse among their factories, some are skeptical as to how dedicated Nike really
is to put an end to the horrendous working conditions of their Asian factories.

How Nike solve its sweatshop problem:

From 2002-2004, they conducted 600 factory audits and revisited problem factories. Nike also
allowed human rights groups and organizations to come into their factories and inspect them.
This showed their new commitment to transparency and corporate ethics.

In 2005, Nike produced a full list of its factories. In the same year it published a report
acknowledging it still had to improve its Southeast Asian factories. This was a contrast from just
eight years previously when activists accused them of abuse of workers there. From 2005 till
the present day, it has been producing corporate social responsibility reports, as part of its
commitment to continued transparency.

Today, Nike had made huge improvements in the way they treat their workers. They have
continued to be financially successful as a brand. This shows that it is possible to be both an
ethical company and a profitable one.

WALMART
Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of hypermarkets,
discount department stores, and grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in Bentonville,
Arkansas.
 8

UNETHICAL CODE OF CONDUCT

Unethical conduct means behavior that falls below or violates professional standards. This may include
violations of Board policies, regulations, and/or the Standards of Conduct in the ACPS Employee
Handbook. Unethical conduct means conduct that violates the Code of Professional Ethics and
Standards of Practice.

WALMART’S UNETHIAL BUSINESS PRACTICES

Wal-Mart is one of the biggest retailers in the United States. It sells its products all over the world and is
considered to be a kind of a role model for the vendors nationwide and worldwide. Regardless of Wal-Mart’s
popularity, its image among the clients is not that optimistic. It is even worse if one asks a Wal-Mart employee
about how they are being treated (Wal-Mart Unethical Business Practices). This company is a controversial
topic for its numerous unethical business practices. Despite the advantage of the lowest prices in the market,
it may seem like Wal-Mart is not able to offer anything else.

For some reason, Wal-Mart does not let its employees join labor unions. Also, their salary is not as big as
opposed to the employees working in unionized companies. Wal-Mart has also been found paying its
employees who set up their colleagues that favored a union (Wal-Mart Unethical Business Practices). It
should be reasonable for Wal-Mart to treat its workers properly and encourage them instead of
imposing on them a totalitarian type of management.

Another problem that is recurrently encountered by Wal-Mart’s employees is gender discrimination.

Numerous lawsuits were filed stating that women were not allowed to take on the manager’s position
simply because Wal-Mart is used to promoting men (Wal-Mart Unethical Business Practices). There is a
critical need to evade gender bias and let women hold more managerial positions than they do now.

Another way in which Wal-Mart discriminates its employees is salary. The workers are usually
underpaid, and the trading giant justifies it by the fact that they are trying to cut costs to offer attractive
prices to its customers (Wal-Mart Unethical Business Practices). At the same time, Wal-Mart’s health
insurance costs so much that the employees do not even have the funds to pay for it. Another issue that
is regularly encountered by Wal-Mart workers is the company’s denial to pay for the overtime hours
worked.

There were even occasions when employees were forced to work overtime without being paid for it.
This might be the most vivid example of Wal-Mart’s unethical business practice. The company’s rules
proclaim that the workers should be paid for every minute that they stay at work, but a vast number of
complaints connected to the salaries might hint at the point that there is something wrong with Wal-
Mart and its wages (Wal-Mart Unethical Business Practices). Unarguably, the company should step up and
 9

realize the issues of gender and age discrimination. This is the sector where most work requires to be
done.

On numerous occasions, Wal-Mart was blamed for using illegal immigrants as workers. The vendor was
accused of breaking several immigration laws (Wal-Mart Unethical Business Practices). Despite the
allegations, the company declared that it was the fault of the contractor. Both Wal-Mart and its
contractor did not do enough background research and dishonestly employed people who were not
allowed to work on the territory of the United States. It may be reasonable for Wal-Mart to check their
applicants’ identification documents, previous work experience, and references (if available) before they
become Wal-Mart employees (Wal-Mart Unethical Business Practices).

To conclude, the company should treat its employees with respect. Wal-Mart might try minimizing the
number of events that involve prejudice and unfair treatment. It is essential to empower the workers
instead of discouraging them.

CONSEQUENCES
Although the company is able to leave its consumers with a saving due to its low price policy, it has
faced a number of sharp criticisms over how it treats its employees and other stakeholders. Wal-Mart
boasts of its ability to save its customers’ money, an average of $950 per year. This, however, has been
criticized as having a negative impact on the community. Also, the feminists’ activists have focused on
Walmart’s misconducts in order to be able to offer low prices.

Walmart has faced various ethical issues and criticism from the public, employees and competitors.
However, the greatest complaint comes from its competitors who blame the company for the predatory
activities. These factors make it hard for local stores to compete with it. It is claimed to be responsible
for the closure of some businesses in the areas in which Walmart operates. The company is also
censured for low wages, which it uses to pay its employees. Walmart has been challenged in court on
several occasions. However, it defends itself on the ground of the saving it leaves for the consumer
through the provision of high quality low priced products.

In regard to its suppliers and other stakeholders, Walmart always tries to continuously improve on the
services and products offered in order to reflect its philosophy. In trying to keep costs low, it has worked
with the suppliers to reduce the cost of packaging by 5%. According to this arrangement, the
manufacturer is expected to comply with all regulations set by the governments of the areas in which
they operate. The manufacturers are also to eliminate the chances of delivering defective items to the
Walmart stores. All these aims at increasing the sustainability of the company’s suppliers. This move has
been criticized on the ground that it transfers substantial costs to the suppliers. Company is said to use
its power to withdraw its orders from companies that fail to comply, in order to intimidate them. The
organization has such a great power over its suppliers due to the volume of purchase its makes, thus
some smaller firms depend on the company’s bulk buying. The regular price reductions by Walmart have
forced many companies to transfer their business from the United States to less expensive countries in
Asia.
 10

Other ethical challenges Walmart has been subjected to include the employment of illegal immigrants as
cleaning crews. The company accepted this accusation and claimed to have cooperated with the federal
government in this. Walmart has also been criticized for the violation of environmental safety
guidelines. This includes issues relating to the way the company receives, handle, recycle, treat, store
and dispose of particular products considered to be hazardous. Walmart has taken a number of steps to
improve its image.

FORD MOTOR
INTRODUCTION:
Ford Motor Company entered the
business world on June 16, 1903, by Henry
Ford and 11 business associates signed the
company's articles of incorporation, with
$28,000 in cash. Henry Ford's insisted that
the company's future lay in the production of
affordable cars for a mass market. In 1908,
the first model of ford (model T) was introduced, since then company has
evolved as one of the best manufacturing concerns globally in all segments.
Today company has 8 vehicle brands namely Ford, Lincoln, Mercury,
Mazda, Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin, which operates in round
about 90 countries all over the world.

UNETHICAL CODE OF CONDUCT IN FORD MOTOR

Unethical business conduct was done by famous car manufacturer
Ford company who misleads and ignore the complaint of Powershift
transmission (PST) by saying it unconscionable and results of driving style of
customer. The user of Ford who bought Fiesta, Focus and EcoSport vehicles
fitted with PST register the complains of excessive shuddering during
accelerating. ACCC reports the problem and consider it unethical of
misleading and ignoring customer complaints for 10 months.
 11

CONSEQUENCES FACED BY FORD MOTOR

 In 2014, Ford was accused by ACCC for the issue of Powershift transmission
issue in their car which was often complaint by the user but remained
unheard.
 There were total quality issues like clutch shuddering and accelerating
shivering, but the company ignored it by putting the driving style as a
reason.
 This was also a consequentialist ethical conduct because the company was
well aware of their quality issues which was often experienced by many
users of Ford in their famous cars.

INTRODUCTION

The Proctor and Gamble Company (P&G) is an American based multinational consumer goods
manufacturing corporation. The Proctor and Gamble (P&G) company have the headquarters in the
downtown Cincinnati, Ohio, United States of America. The Proctor and Gamble (P&G) company were
founded by an English person name William Procter and an Irish American person named James
Gamble. It was founded in the year 1837 in the month of October on 31st. The Proctor and Gamble
company (P&G) is well known and specialized for it s wide range of product especially in the “range of
personal health or consumer health, and personal care and hygiene products”. All the various type of
personal health/consumer health, and personal care and hygiene products are organized and
categorised into various segments. Those segments may include “Beauty products, Grooming products,
Health Care products, Fabric & Home Care products, Baby care products and Feminine & Family Care
products.” In addition, The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G) before it sold the Pringles chips to the
Kellogg company, the product portfolio of the following, multinational consumer goods manufacturing
company also included the foods, snacks, and beverages.
 12

UNETHICAL CODE OF CONDUCT

Deflect, Distract, & Ignore: P&G’s Greenwashing Continues

How P&G’s latest announcement ignores investor concerns and furthers the myth of Canadian
forestry’s sustainability

Procter & Gamble’s (P&G’s) shareholders made history last October. The world’s largest asset managers,
including BlackRock and State Street, voted overwhelmingly to urge P&G, one of the world’s largest
corporations, to eliminate deforestation and intact forest degradation from its supply chains, making it
the first ever forest-related shareholder proposal to pass.

In their shareholder rebellion, investors gave a clear directive: P&G must figure out how to address risk
created by significant impacts of its sourcing of pulp from Canada’s boreal forest and palm oil from
Southeast Asia, both of which are tied to human rights issues, deforestation, intact forest degradation,
and threatened species loss.

But more than five months after that historic vote, P&G appears to be responding to its investors’ urgent
call with intransigence. The company’s new “Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Platform” for
investors indicates the company is choosing to ignore the impacts of its sourcing tissue pulp from intact
forests in the climate-critical Canadian boreal and lag behind peers in action on palm oil. Instead of
action, the company is doubling down on selling a myth of sustainability to consumers. In fact, though a
recent Charmin ad touts the brand’s commitment to “Protect, Grow, and Restore” forests, P&G’s recent
 13

announcements and PR campaigns have more closely resembled a “Deflect, Distract, and Ignore”
approach, once again choosing spin over meaningful action to protect climate-critical forests.

CONSEQUENCES

Deflecting responsibility for intact forest destruction

Perhaps the most notable absence from P&G’s new platform is any plan for how the company will
eliminate intact forest degradation from its supply chain. Half of the resolution shareholders supported
in the fall was dedicated to calling on the company to increase its efforts to eliminate intact forest
degradation, which is a major problem in Canada’s boreal forest.

While P&G highlights its commitment to no deforestation in its new announcement, the company in
effect ignores its Northern supply chains by failing to address intact forest degradation. Canada uses
semantic nuance that exempts its industry’s clearcut logging from standard definitions of
“deforestation.” Because the forest is replanted rather than converted to agricultural use or a built
environment, Canada still classifies barren clearcut areas as forests—meaning there technically was no
“deforestation.” P&G pointedly highlights this definition of deforestation several times throughout its
new website, effectively ignoring the very real, very harmful impacts the logging industry in Canada is
having on Indigenous Peoples, climate and threatened species.

Clearcutting in the boreal leaves scars in the landscape that can last for decades.
Photo courtesy Wildlands League
 14

The reality is that, no matter whether the clearcut land still falls under industry’s definition of a “forest,”
the value of intact, undisturbed forests for the climate and biodiversity is irreplaceable on any
meaningful time frame, especially given the industry-oriented replanting methods. And even the subtle
divide between Canada’s practices and technical definitions of deforestation may, in fact, be
illusory: recent research has shown that vast areas of the boreal that were logged decades ago remain
barren to this day.

P&G seems all too happy to embrace Canada’s claims of sustainable and responsible forestry in its new
platform, despite scientific consensus around the reality of the industry’s impacts. While P&G has known
of the vast destruction caused by logging companies in the boreal for years, the company chooses again
to provide cover to provincial governments that are rolling back environmental protections and
an aggressively misleading industry instead of adopting more stringent sourcing policies that would lead
to meaningful change from its suppliers. Through these failures, P&G is actively contributing to the loss
of the world’s largest remaining intact forest.

Distracting from inaction

P&G has taken little meaningful action since the investor rebellion. But just like
any greenwashing attempt, the company’s new announcement is filled with lofty language that distracts
from its inaction.

Look no further than P&G’s updated “Wood Pulp Sourcing Policy” to understand the implications of such
a distraction. P&G’s latest pulp policy announces the company’s support for free, prior, and informed
consent (FPIC), a vital process for upholding the rights of Indigenous and traditional communities. But it
is still unclear whether P&G actually requires its suppliers to demonstrate their compliance with FPIC in
Indigenous and traditional communities’ lands—or whether it’s empty rhetoric.

In fact, several of the largest logging companies in the boreal that supply pulp to P&G and other U.S.
tissue manufacturers do not require FPIC in their operations, which underscores why a strong,
unequivocal commitment from P&G is so vital.
 15

This begs the question—what does P&G’s support for FPIC actually mean in practice? Has P&G done
anything to enforce this support for FPIC if the company knows its suppliers do not currently require it?
Without transparency of process and timeline paired with clear expectations of consequences for
violators in their supply chain, it’s impossible to know the answers to these questions.

Much of the information on the investor platform, particularly in its section on pulp, fits this trend--long
on words, light on concrete action.

Ignoring the forest for the trees

P&G has been criticized for its role in driving the “tree-to-toilet” pipeline for years, and little has
changed in its latest announcement. Their stubborn adherence to the wasteful practice of making its
toilet paper using trees from climate-critical forests indicates the tenuousness of their ambition around
forest protection. Yet P&G seems unwilling to accept responsibility for ensuring that at least these trees
are logged sustainably.

The company hypes its plans to accelerate its commitment to secure 75% of its pulp from Forest
Stewardship Council-certified (FSC) sources. This is a positive step, but the problem with relying solely
on FSC to ensure supply chain sustainability is that the system was never intended to be the only
solution. FSC is designed to function in conjunction with individual corporate sourcing policies that
reinforce the aspects of FSC that make it strong.

But P&G does not do that. Instead, the company equivocates between FSC and weaker certification
systems; continues to fail to uphold the science underpinning important elements of FSC, like FSC
Canada’s caribou indicator; and continues to source from intact forests.

The bottom line from P&G’s latest announcement is that investors must not be fooled. Despite
understanding exactly what steps the company should take to adopt a sustainable, ethical approach,
P&G has once again kicked the can down the road when it comes to making sure its forest sourcing is
sustainable. But with a raging climate catastrophe and biodiversity crisis, there’s not much road left
before our planet and its inhabitants cannot recover.
 16

P&G’s announcement will test whether investors who are quickly coming to terms with their own
culpability in the climate and biodiversity crises will side with science and decisive action or soft
language and half measures that leave entire biomes at risk. Let’s hope, for all of our sakes, they choose
the former.