question_answer

          The following newspaper report was published on 23rd March, 2010. "Beverage giant Coca-Cola must pay $47 million for the environmental damage caused at a bottling plant in the Southern Indian state of Kerala. A committee in Kerala examining the practices of Coca-Cola found the company caused severe damage to farms and the local environment by dumping polluted waste water sludge on area crops from 1999 through 2004. The environmental report found high levels of cadmium in the sludge, caused declining crop yields, forcing substantial migration and steep unemployment in the area. Coca-Cola disputes the findings pending a court ruling." Do you think the company was correct in disputing the findings? If not, what should they have done? Give your reasons.

Answer:

                  The company was not correct in disputing the findings, as the newspaper report clearly states about the presence of cadmium in the effluents. Cadmium is a poisonous metal and can cause damage to the lungs and kidneys as well as irritation of the digestive tracts of humans. It also causes crop damage. Since it is harmful, the company is morally unethical in disputing the findings. What they should have done was to install an effluent treatment plant to remove cadmium and other harmful substances from the effluents before discharging them. In fact, this should have been done when the plant started production.