The text doesn’t really go there because it seems to be taking CSR at face value - so it’s saying the corporation isn’t really doing CSR. Author isn’t arguing that CSR forecloses anything but that the corporation’s actions foreclose any “real” social responsibility.
They rename the things that people accuse them of, even as they acknowledge the accusation. They keep using the term “biosolids” instead of “hazardous waste” or “toxins”. They produced reports that denied each allegation. From their Our Environmental Values 2003 report: “In our opinion, the balance of evidence including testing and analysis by independent laboratories and the Indian government shows that the allegations against Coca Cola have not been substantiated.” They also tried to show progress against the accusations with their CSR initiatives - including reduction of water use ratio, rainwater harvesting, HIV AIDS projects - cooperating with USAID and UN. They also build up an image of corporate philanthropy with sponsoring sports, especially the Olympics and FIFA, and just branding by having their vending machines on college campuses.
They tried to suppress a report that shows how toxic their waste is, and that it is useless as fertilizer (I did like the “extraordinary practice of distributing toxic wastes to the farmers as fertilizers” quote on 108).
There’s no exploration of what corporate actors are thinking. Or really the villagers either. The corporation here is portrayed as willfully and knowingly destroying the lives and livelihoods of the marginalized people of India. The CSR reports are mostly empty and incorrect responses to the accusations coca cola faced, so they don’t really claim any help.
The corporation really denies its responsibility here… simply refusing to put on their labels the chemical makeup of their product. They do perform an extent of responsibility about the water usage, though they twist the words of the report commissioned by High Court of Kerala to make it seem like it’s really just the low rainfall that’s making a water shortage, and that the court endorses their continued use of the groundwater. The author says “independent study” in quotes - but doesn’t get into to what extent and the study was compromised.
The article points out the differences in how Coca Cola behaves in the US and UK versus in India - the US products don’t contain pesticides and do comply to laws about levels of toxic materials in beverages. In the UK, complaints about the product led to recalls. In India they deny that the consumer has the right to know what poison chemicals are in the beverage even though Indian law does grant this right to consumers, even after the court has found there to be harmful and illegal levels of toxins in the beverages.
The corporation just doesn’t listen to the court demands that the state courts rule in India. The High Court of Rajasthan ruled that coca cola had to test the beverages and disclose on the labels the full composition, including chemicals that were found in the drink. Coca Cola just refused - they said it was not required by law, and didn’t even brand their action as CSR. Elsewhere they claimed that their levels complied with the law or were better. (Even though it was just not true in this case). “Not bound by law to make such a disclosure, and that if the water it uses does contain pesticides, the company could hardly be held responsible for it… ...Divulging information with regard to the presence or absence of DDT from its beverages was not relevant to the debate. It even went so far as to question the material relevance of such information imparted to the consumers, denying that the consumers had any right to an informed choice before selecting, buying, and consuming the products…. Refused to comply…” p114. They just complained this was part of trade war
Author says CSR rises alongside end of “golden age of capitalism” - and along with “accumulation by dispossession” (Harvey 2003). knowledge/discourse of CSR: corporation qualifies itself as a citizen to “live down the crises of legitimation/ confidence” p106.
The policy was the multi-tiered approach designed by New York City officials in the event of an Ebola case. This included designation of eight hospitals as being care centers for Ebola cases, teaching non-designated hospitals or care centers how to identify Ebola candidates, communication with transportation services (both EMS and non-EMS), and running unscheduled drills to practice handling scenes with an Ebola candidate (the example given was someone falling ill in a subway car). The poly aimed to standardize the approaches and protocols used when dealing with a possible Ebola case. It focused on minimizing the excessive risk to citizens, EMS personnel, and healthcare workers in the event of a patient with Ebola. The policy also sought to train and drill these protocols, including unscheduled calls (mentioned above) and continued inspections to ensure preparedness. The obvious end goal was to minimize the possibility of wide-spread infection, either through improper handling or failed detection of an Ebola case.
Several leaders from various New York State agencies convened to outline plans for this policy. This included Governor Andrew M Cuomo, State Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker, State Police Superintendent Joseph D'Amico, Port Authority Executive Director Pat Foye, and representatives from health care centers and agencies around the state.
The policy applies to New York state citizens, health care workers, EMS personnel, and leadership within health care centers. Additionally, the policy has parts that effect transportation agencies and their employees. In many ways, due to Ebola's nature and the nature of New York as a major metropolitan area, these policies will also have a global effect.
As described by Governor Cuomo, Dallas was the first major US city to see an Ebola case. This, in turn, allowed New York leadership to have some semblance of what methods did or did not work when trying to contain the disease. Moreover, the policy was implemented in response to the major Ebola outbreaks occurring at this time. This included those within Africa, Europe, and cases seen in Dallas. Moreover, the policy follows the city's "Safe-than-sorry" methodology discussed by Governor Cuomo; he, along with other state and city leaders, believed assuming an Ebola outbreak would occur within the state would give them the best chance of mitigating its effects and minimizing disease spread.