Coca-Cola started using the GRI Guidelines and initiated sustainable reporting. By 2003, the business had previously experienced some CSR-linked conflicts in various parts of the globe. Though, none of them had serious effects on the business revenues. By denying these charges and attempting to show its truthfulness rather than showing concern for the circumstances, Coca-Cola was unable to get back consumers’ faith.
Even though Coca-Cola did not accept most of the accusations, the reputational harm due to the controversy within India made Coca-Cola to apply harm-control process. For example, Coca-Cola bestowed a document in the Corporate Responsibility Review of 2006 to deal with the disagreement. The report had most details to support its great practices and water management of its procedures in India. However, this report did very less to struggle the dropping sales and rising losses beyond investments. Slowly, Coca-Cola transformed its approach to take in damage-control process that managed the Indian societies ‘complaints. In the year 2008, the business published its initial ecological performance report on India’s operations, which had all the acts from 2004 to 2007 (Sauerbronn, Faria and Barros, 2014).
For assuring the enforcement of new ethical structure, Coca-Cola made and applied a board for ethics and compliance. This board is accountable for making sure that the business and workers are held responsible for following the lately applied Code of Business Conduct (explicitly besides their system of ethics). Coca-Cola performed ethically as per the ethical structure of egoism. Knowing the reality that ethics is exceptionally subjective, one could establish that Coca-Cola’s judgment were encouraging instances of actions taken by the business. Irrespective of the impacts that were on Coca-Cola due to litigation or a flawed repute, Coca-Cola was still capable of raising their earnings per share from around $4 for each share to around $6.5 per share in the last ten years.