Choose two of the four organisational theory perspectives and discuss how and why they provide us with alternative ways of understanding and analysing Coca-Cola and its relationship with its organisational environment. Draw upon the required textbook and Coca-Cola readings, and your own research to answer the question.
Words: 2000 Words
Referencing Style: Harvard
Required readings for the Coca-Cola Case Study:
1. Gopinath and Prasad, "Toward a critical framework for understanding MNE operations: Revisiting Coca Cola's exit from India, Organization 20(2), pp.212-232
2. Ciafone, A., 2012 "If ‘Thanda Matlab Coca Cola' Then ‘Cold Drink Means Toilet Cleaner': Environmentalism of the Dispossessed in Liberalizing India" International Labour and Working-Class History, v.81, pp.114-135
3. Moses, C.T., Vest, D., 2010 "Coca Cola and PepsiCo in South Aftrica: A Landmark Case in Corporate Social Responsibility, Ethical Dilemmas and the Challenges of International Business" Journal of African Business v.11, pp.235-251.
4. Gill, L. "‘Right There with You' Coca Cola, Labor Restructuring and Political Violence in Colombia" Critique of Anthropology Vol 27(3), pp. 235-260.
5. Barkay, T., "When Business and Community Meet: A Case Study of Coca Cola" Critical Sociology 39(2), pp.277-293.
6. Ravi Raman, K., 2007, "Community - Coca Cola Interface; Political-Anthropological Concerns on CSR" Social Analysis 51(3) pp. 103-120
7. Regassa, H., & Corradino, L. (2011). Determining the value of the Coca Cola-A Case Analysis. Journal of the International Academy for Case Studies, 17(7).
Please note !
A key point to remember in answering the questions is not to be overly descriptive. In answering the question you will need to develop an argument. An argument requires ‘expressing a point of view on a subject and supporting it with evidence' (see https://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/argument.html) The basic components of an argument include:
1. Making a claim (informed by relevant organisational perspectives and/or theories)
2. Supporting your claim with evidence
3. Recognising and engaging with counterclaims.