Recently, Coca-Cola apologized for printing “You Retard” on the cap of a bottle of Vitamin Water, a premium juice/supplement product, which it did accidentally as part of a promotional initiative in which words were printed on bottle caps in both the English and French languages; “retard” means late in French.

The fallout that has ensued after the complaint of the customer, a man with an autistic daughter who took great offense to the r-word, has lead to Coke deciding to destroy and recall all Vitamin Water with the random word printing.

This is a case of a simple oversight error in editing the list of words to be printed on the bottle caps, with a significant loss of product necessary to provide the appropriate public response. The lesson learned is that such a small error can cost much more than anticipated.

However, what is also interesting to analyse the social media reaction to the incident. Online comment sections have had a great number of disparaging comments about the horrendousness of the incident, and have provided a place for the ‘haters’ to bash the inutility of Coke products, and a number of quite long and involved postings both supporting the family of the Edmonton complainant, and Coca-Cola. What Coke’s marketing team must keep in mind is that for the most part, such comments likely do not reflect the majority of reactions to the articles, which is that the mistake is simple and forgivable and the media reaction is pointless.

See related articles and comment boards:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/coca-cola-apologizes-for-offensive-bottle-cap-message-1.1861022

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/09/18/coca-cola-you-retard-cap_n_3951264.html

The often cited paper of Milton Friedman, in which he blasts the notion of social responsibility being held by corporations, seems to lead me to claim by extension that corporations, not being humans, have no responsibilities towards other people other than their shareholders.

However, such a claim fails to recognize that businesses, though technically only responsible to their shareholders, are capable of holding deeply ingrained relationships with their suppliers, clients, employees and other stakeholders. Though the corporation is not human, law designates it a virtual human, able to own property and carry on debt like a human, thus meaning it by extension may also be expected to conduct its activities pursuant to the moral codes of society. Although the corporation itself may be only directly responsible to its shareholders, those human owners have an ethical obligation to consider the consequences of their corporation’s actions, and conduct that business accordingly. A fair, considerate and honest businessman who stands by their moral code develops a positive reputation with clients and colleagues; corporations, by way of the people who represent them, allow people to develop a relationship with their organization as a whole.

Correct ethical behavior should be seen as a cornerstone of long-term success. Corporations which engage in ruthless and inconsiderate violations of ethical decision-making, making choices which for instance improperly treat employees or the environment, will find that the short term means to gain may also hinder their long term viability, whether by reducing the health and productivity of those employees, or the level of extraction available from that environment. Friedman’s Machiavellian corporation may seem to serve the best interests of its shareholders; however, corporations must exist as the arms of shareholders, who are morally obligated to uphold ethical standards which will govern the success of their relationships. Therefore, these corporations must follow the same ethical codes that fairly govern their human owners.