Reflection – The Hershey’s and Shell Cases

The Hershey’s and Shell cases bring to light the responsibility of corporations for the effects of their operations. It is important to note that in the Hershey’s case, the company was entirely unaware of the problems which the general public pointed out in the first place. As far as the company was concerned, they purchased their cocoa through valid and legal means. What they failed to account for was the fact that the manner by which the cocoa was being harvested was anything but valid and legal back at home.

On the other hand, Shell knew all along that it was propagating a world of conflict and suffering around its Nigerian refineries. The general public was well aware of this. Unfortunately, it was just the general public of Nigeria. The world’s thirst of crude oil has effectively granted Shell a veritable cloak of immunity. After all, wars have been waged for black gold. Suffering and death for the sake of crude oil is anything but new to the rest of the world.

If anything, these cases allowed me glimpse at the real nature of the power that big businesses hold. Shell is blatantly violating entire bodies of law as is where is and is still let off scot free by essentially the whole world.

The idea is mind boggling for me as my experience as a law student has taught me that even the richest, most powerful individuals can be made to bow before the will of justice through law. And indeed this has happened time and again. Nations have been liberated as mass murderers and genocidal dictators have been subdued by international law. And yet here the world allows a mere multinational company to have death and suffering as part of its daily operations list.

If the courts cannot bring justice to the people of Nigeria or other people oppressed by commercial companies, who will? From the onset, there appear to be innumerable issues on hand. International, local, and even trade nuances for that matter.

In my opinion, the problem really started with the decision makers of Shell. At one point in time, they had the call on what to do given the socio-political plight of Nigeria. They could have as easily done something else rather than simply play along. Logically, they followed the path of least resistance. They get their profits for the least effort exerted. They did not dodge the bullet. They just pushed someone else in to get shot. This was sadly and literally the case.

Hershey’s could have easily done the same thing and turned a blind eye to the cacao farmers and a deaf ear to the protesters. What they did was actually surprising for such a large company. Hershey’s could have used its army of lawyers to do legal acrobatics for it or simply abandon these cacao suppliers. They did neither. They actually listened and decided to help out.

Whether or not the decision makers of Hershey’s did what they did because the world hungers not for chocolate as much as crude oil, we will never know. What we do know is that they took a look at the problem and did what they did best – make business decisions. So they did the math, worked the logistics, and essentially, did the right thing.

Reflection – The Hershey’s and Shell Cases

The Hershey’s and Shell cases bring to light the responsibility of corporations for the effects of their operations. It is important to note that in the Hershey’s case, the company was entirely unaware of the problems which the general public pointed out in the first place. As far as the company was concerned, they purchased their cocoa through valid and legal means. What they failed to account for was the fact that the manner by which the cocoa was being harvested was anything but valid and legal back at home.

On the other hand, Shell knew all along that it was propagating a world of conflict and suffering around its Nigerian refineries. The general public was well aware of this. Unfortunately, it was just the general public of Nigeria. The world’s thirst of crude oil has effectively granted Shell a veritable cloak of immunity. After all, wars have been waged for black gold. Suffering and death for the sake of crude oil is anything but new to the rest of the world.

If anything, these cases allowed me glimpse at the real nature of the power that big businesses hold. Shell is blatantly violating entire bodies of law as is where is and is still let off scot free by essentially the whole world.

The idea is mind boggling for me as my experience as a law student has taught me that even the richest, most powerful individuals can be made to bow before the will of justice through law. And indeed this has happened time and again. Nations have been liberated as mass murderers and genocidal dictators have been subdued by international law. And yet here the world allows a mere multinational company to have death and suffering as part of its daily operations list.

If the courts cannot bring justice to the people of Nigeria or other people oppressed by commercial companies, who will? From the onset, there appear to be innumerable issues on hand. International, local, and even trade nuances for that matter.

In my opinion, the problem really started with the decision makers of Shell. At one point in time, they had the call on what to do given the socio-political plight of Nigeria. They could have as easily done something else rather than simply play along. Logically, they followed the path of least resistance. They get their profits for the least effort exerted. They did not dodge the bullet. They just pushed someone else in to get shot. This was sadly and literally the case.

Hershey’s could have easily done the same thing and turned a blind eye to the cacao farmers and a deaf ear to the protesters. What they did was actually surprising for such a large company. Hershey’s could have used its army of lawyers to do legal acrobatics for it or simply abandon these cacao suppliers. They did neither. They actually listened and decided to help out.

Whether or not the decision makers of Hershey’s did what they did because the world hungers not for chocolate as much as crude oil, we will never know. What we do know is that they took a look at the problem and did what they did best – make business decisions. So they did the math, worked the logistics, and essentially, did the right thing.

Reflection – The Ford Motor Car Case

As a law student, cases hold a very special place in my heart. Cases allows one to see how even the most theoretical or nebulous concepts in law are applied in real life. This is because the cases are actually transcripts which altered the fates and sometimes fortunes of real individual human beings. This idea made me particularly excited to learn that we would be using case studies in MBA classes as well.

The first MBA case for the CSR class was the Ford Motor Car case. For me, it is a significant change of pace from the usual legal cases I read. This is because any answer one produces is deemed a valid answer. This is subject to qualifications, however. The answers are backed with reasonable presumptions and conclusions in light of the facts provided.

With this in mind, however, it became clear to me that this is a “real life” case and not one whose answer can be dug up from the pages of a legal code or textbook. There would be limitless possibilities. Luckily, the class also taught us how to produce Alternative Courses of Action. This procedure provides a system by which one can quantify the best possible solution given one’s priorities in the situation. The issue now becomes a question of what one’s priorities really are. Unfortunately for the victims in the case, the Ford executives prioritized profit over the safety of their customers.

The case also struck me in the sense that in spite of literally putting other people’s lives at risk for the sake of making a quick buck, the Ford executives were actually operating within the bounds of law – American or International. This realization bothered me a little. It highlighted to me a role of business leaders in society. As with law, knowledge and skill in business is highly potent but morally neutral. Whether such knowledge and skill will be for the benefit or detriment of other people is left entirely to the will of the lawyer or business leader.

In spite of this similarity, however, the legal profession differs as it is adversarial by nature. At worst, lawyers can only force a compromise between two parties. Even then, lawyers really only serve one party at a time in any given case – never both sides. In short, as far as lawyers are concerned, the only stakeholder is their client and that they must win.

On the other hand, business leaders are expected to make decisions which would make the company profitable as well as sustainable. In making these decisions, business leaders must take into account not only how to make money through the products or services of their business but also the effect of these products or services upon the end users. It is of note that these two parties are normally at opposing ends in legal cases. I strongly believe that short of an actual violation of rights, this should not be the case. The business must exist to serve a particular need of the customer. The latter must be seen as a partner on the road to prosperity and not a mere cash cow to coax money out of.

Relating back to the Ford Case, the executives perceived their customers as cash cows. For the sake of profit, they gambled on the odds of the survival of their customers in case their cars got involved in an accident.