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 article explains how a team of medical staff treated (and consequently killed) a number of patients following the flooding of a hospital in New Orleans. The staff in question overdosed the patients to put them out of their pain as they saved other patients who were more likely to survive. The article calls into question the process of triage and how we go about it. Who has the authority to make these decisions, and what lines do we draw between ethics and compassion. The article provides a play-by-play of the events leading up to the flooding, and relevant policies that existed and have been created related to this incident.
“The smell of death was overpowering the moment a relief worker cracked open one of the hospital chapel’s wooden doors.”
“The physician, Anna Pou, defended herself on national television, saying her role was to “help” patients “through their pain,” a position she maintains today.”
From the links provided within the article, relevant information about Hurricane Katrina can be viewed with the commentary and archival articles that published in The New York Times that written by other authors.
Also the author has made in contact with Memorial Medical Center in Uptown New Orleans to focus on the investigation into the detail situations happened with the floodwaters. Afterwards, gained more information on the lethal injection issues.
[http://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/hurricane-katrina?inline=nyt-class…]
[http://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/hurricanes-and-tropical-storms-hur…]
The article has first emphasis the number of death and corpses during and after the Hurricane Katrina, then with further investigation and research, the issue related to the lethal injection to the patient has raised. From the physician’s perspective, the lethal injection in this case is a way to relief the patient’s pain, as it is a “for” for the lethal injection, which not seems to be violating the medical ethical. From the conclusion parts of the article, the author provided the evidence that “that more medical professionals were involved in the decision to inject patients — and far more patients were injected — than was previously understood.”