Coca Cola

The manager in charge of the project, John Fisher was accused of paying somebody to buy the frozen drinks worth 10000 dollars to help in convincing the Burger King to become a pioneer in frozen Coke promotion that would take place nationally the following year (Lovell, 2012).
From this case study, several stakeholders are involved in the malpractice. There is the Burger King franchise that was the organ to help in the testing as a business partner. From their point of view, they felt cheated and moved to court to seek compensation for the loss and expenses incurred. They also were angered that a partnering company used their reputed business name in malpractice in business. The other stakeholder was the customer that was taking the frozen coke. The customer in this scenario was neither aware of the malpractice nor harmed by the malpractice. The customer, however, was betrayed by the fact that the biggest beverage company could afford to generate false results to promote a new brand. Though the research was not done to evaluate the drop in the customer loyalty of Coca-Cola then, this angered the customer and made the customer question the trust of other famous products of Coca-Cola (Laufer and Coombs, 2006).
The other main stakeholder was Coca-Cola itself. Given the reputation of the company, it was hard for the company to explain the malpractice as well as the firing of employees who attempted to blow the whistle on the company. From the employees’ perspective, the question of ethics in this scenario is whether to quit or to blow the whistle. For the employee, Matthew Whitley, who blew the whistle the dilemma was in either choosing his job or his integrity. In the end, when he chose his integrity, he and other employees lost their job. The management of the company had a decision to either preserve their name and fire the then manager, John Fisher or retain the manager and deny the claims of malpractice.