Pepsi/Burma

We are ready to represent the best custom paper writing assistance that can cope with any task like Pepsi/Burma even at the eleventh hour. The matter is that we posses the greatest base of expert writers. Our staff of freelance writers includes approximately 300 experienced writers are at your disposal all year round. They are striving to provide the best ever services to the most desperate students that have already lost the hope for academic success. We offer the range of the most widely required, however, not recommended for college use papers. It is advisable to use our examples like Pepsi/Burma in learning at public-education level. Get prepared and be smart with our best essay samples cheap and fast! Get in touch and we will write excellent custom coursework or essay especially for you.

1. In your judgment, did PepsiCo have a moral obligation to divest itself of all its Burmese assets?


I do believe that Pepsi has a moral obligation to divest itself of all Burmese assets. By continuing to do business in Burma, they are supporting a military regime (SLORC) who regardless of losing an election in 10, refuses to give up dictatorship and denies people of their basic human rights.


In Burma, the military controls all aspects of business and the economy. Forced labor, torture and arbitrary killings are common as a result of the hostile military regime.


The military essentially granted Pepsi a monopoly in Burma. In return, Pepsi provides funds supporting youth and sports activities organized by the military. Pepsi denies allegations of supporting the SLORC. However, their Burmese partner, Thein Tun, is the chairman of JV, a joint venture of the military and was chosen by Pepsi despite knowing his strong military connections.





It appears to be impossible to do business in Burma without directly supporting the SLORC and its continued violation of human rights. If multinational companies such as Pepsi do not divest themselves of Burmese assets, the regressive policies of the military will continue.


What approach to ethics is most appropriate for analyzing the events of this case?


I feel that human rights are being grossly violated in Burma. The people of Burma are acting and living for the self-interest of the military. They are deceived, murdered, manipulated, coerced, raped, abused, and treated as objects as if incapable of free choice.


Human rights demand that every human being should be able to live as free and respected members of society. In Burma, it is the military who determines who shall live and who shall have the right to freedom. This is a direct violation of human rights. Some of the human rights being violated are freedom of speech, freedom of choice, standard of living, no rules of law, right to individual welfare, rationalized food, child labor, forced labor, right to adequate pay, etc etc.


In addition, as a result of the military fixing prices in agricultural, Burma’s monetary system is useless throughout the rest of the world. To capture their profits, Pepsi purchases agricultural products in Burma and sells them to countries abroad where they are then able to transfer the money back to the US. This process is known as countertrading and is morally unjust as most agricultural products are farmed by forced labor. In many instances, the military confiscates the farmland and then forces the owners to work as slaves on their own farms. Although they were asked numerous times to provide details of their agricultural transactions, Pepsi resisted. Their resistance leads me to believe they were well aware of the social concerns in Burma.


In your judgment, does Pepsi have a moral obligation to pull its products and brand name out of Burma?


Yes Pepsi has a moral obligation to pull out of Burma.


When multinational companies invest in Burma, the military receives monetary support. Without funds provided by the multinational corporations, the military would more than likely collapse, allowing democratic forces to carry out the job they were elected to do in 10. Without funding, fewer soldiers would be available. Very few members of the army are there because they willingly enlisted. They are there because the army is the only place a person can receive steady pay and benefits. By cutting off funding to the military, it will weaken and eventually crumble.


Another effective way of cutting funds is to raise public awareness. Public protests and boycotting is a way of communicating to the public that human rights and justice are being violated.


In addition to boycotting products, multinational companies that pull out of countries for morality issues can make a strong statement in favor of human rights. Like governments, large corporations have tremendous power and influence. The presence of a foreign corporation in a country can either support or interfere with the democratization process in that country. If it interferes, it can potentially mean the corporation becomes a source of money in support of evil.


In summary, if multinational corporations pull out of Burma, there is hope that the military will fail in their attempt at creating a vibrant economy and therefore force the military into a democratic reform to attract foreign inventors back in to Burma. Without a radical change in the way Burma is governed, the people of Burma will continue to be denied their basic human rights. More importantly stated, without human rights there is little hope for economic and social justice in Burma.











Mind that the sample papers like Pepsi/Burma presented are to be used for review only. In order to warn you and eliminate any plagiarism writing intentions, it is highly recommended not to use the essays in class. In cases you experience difficulties with essay writing in class and for in class use, order original papers with our expert writers. Cheap custom papers can be written from scratch for each customer that entrusts his or her academic success to our writing team. Order your unique assignment from the best custom writing services cheap and fast!