In academic affiliation with

GULF COLLEGE MUSCAT SULTANATE OF OMAN UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS PROGRAMME ACADEMIC YEAR: 2012-2013 FRONT COVER ASSIGNMENT/CASE STUDY

Module Title: Contemporary Management Issues Module Code: BLB10042-6 Method of Assessment : Assignment Weighting: 100% Level: 6 Part-Time/Full-Time: Additional Information (if any) Module Credits: 15 Semester/Teaching block: 2 Examiner: Mr. Mutaz

Version 2

Module Title: Contemporary Management Issues Module Code : BLB10042-6 Module Leader: Mutaz Hamed. Weighting: 100% Submission Time and Date: You should hand in one copy of your assignment by the time and date mentioned above to the appropriate hand-in location at the Gulf College. Fill in the front cover (staple together with your assignment). MAKE SURE that you fill in all the relevant details on this form. An acknowledgement will be given to you upon receiving your assignment. This is your receipt, keep it. You can submit work by post, but you must send it recorded delivery, it must be postmarked two days before the deadline date and a copy must be kept by you in case it is lost in the post. Faxed assignments will not be accepted. Assignments must be submitted by the due date. The only circumstance in which assignments can be submitted late is if an extenuating circumstances form is submitted at the same time. In these circumstances work may be submitted up to 2 weeks late only. If the extenuating circumstances are upheld, the assignment will be graded; otherwise a 0 will be awarded. Maximum Word Length: Maximum Word Length: 2500 words State the number of words used at the end of your assignment. You may include diagrams, figures etc. without word penalty. A sliding scale of penalties for excess length will be imposed according to the amount by which the limit has been exceeded. 1-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31%+ excess excess excess excess no penalty 10% reduction in the mark 20% reduction in the mark the work will be capped at a pass i.e. 40% or grade point 4.

NB. None of the above penalties will be used to change a student mark which is above the pass mark, to one that is below the pass mark. Therefore the maximum penalty for exceeding the word limit will be a reduction to a pass grade. This assignment will assess learning outcomes: 1. Demonstrate a systematic understanding of modern developments within business management (Knowledge & Understanding);
Version 2 2

2. Justify the recommendation of alternative approaches to management (Knowledge & Understanding); 3. Demonstrate knowledge and application of international standards relating to sustainability, values & norms, and business ethics within a global context. (Application). A S S I G N M E N T T I T L E :

The business of water

Water ha increasingly become a contentious political issue and a hot issue for business ethics. Water is considered a basic human need, and so access to clean water is typically considered to be a fundamental human right. However, although it appears to be abundant, humans can actually only use 1% of global water resources for drinking. While most developed countries have decent access, 18% of the worlds population has no access to basic safe drinking water and 40% have no access to basic sanitation. A person living in sub-Saharan Africa has to get by with between 10-20 liters of water per day by comparison, the average Canadian uses more than 300 liters of water a day. To meet the UN Millennium Development Goals, which aim to a achieve access to save water for all by 2015, we would need to create access to safe water for 300,000 new people every day. With an issue this contentious, it is no surprise that water has also increasingly an ethical issue for business. Business is deeply involved in the world of water , either on the supply side as a provider of safe drinking water as a raw material, or as a product to sell. Privatizing water utilities On the supply side, we have seen a market increase in privatization of water utilities over the last 30 years. The global market here is dominated by tow French MNCs, Suez and Vivendi, and a handful of other players who have become increasingly involved in the water business in developing countries. The privatization of water supply, however, has become an ever more heated issue. There are, of course, often good grounds for privatization: municipal water companies have often proved to be inefficient and overly bureaucratic, if not outright corrupt and even failing, as has sometimes been the case in developing countries, Bringing in the private sector, so the argument goes, can increase efficiency, improve service levels, and even help to address poor access to water in the developing world. The reality yields a rather mixed picture. While proponents such as Globalization Institute fellow, Mish Balen, argue that the majority of privatizations have actually improved water provision, a number of high profile, and rather spectacular, failures have made activists and politicians more and more opposed to the idea. According to the critics, at the hart of the problem with privatized water supply is the fact that private companies entering the market for water only do so in the long run if they apply what is called in the industry full cost recovery. Ngwelezane in the state of Kwazulu Natal. When the government started to charge full cost recovery for water (allegedly to prepare the water supply system for sale to private company), the mostly poor and diseaseVersion 2 3

stricken inhabitants of the township could not afford their water anymore. As result, they resorted to a nearby lake, which led to a cholera epidemic that killed 300 people. Even more famous are the tow so-called water Wars in Bolivia in 2000 and 2005. The World Bank had given the country a loan for improving the water system and as in most contracts, the bank demanded privatization of the system (in 2002, more than four-fifths of world bank contracts required privatization). The system in Bolivias capital La Paz was ultimately taken over by a subsidiary of the US multinational Bechtel, which found it hard in the beginning to recoup their investments because the system they inherited was in such a dismal state. Since the world bank contracts ruled out government subsidies, the only way to full cost recovery were some changes in the pricing and in the law. Finally, not without some lobbying, law 2029 was passed, which granted private water companies monopoly rights in the ridings they operated in. This implied that people were no longer allowed to use water free out of their wells or even to collect rainwater. Law 2029 led to long and violent riots in La Paz and gave rise to a political movement on the left, which culminated in the overthrow of the government in 2006. The privatization of the water system was terminated and reversed in that same year. But problems with privatized supply are not exclusive to the developing world. In 2006, Thames Water, the private company that service London and the South East of England, was find for the second time for missing the government target for cutting down leakages in it is drinking-water supply network still a whopping 894m liters a day at the time. This did not, however, prevent the company from declaring a 31% rise in pre-tax profits of 347m, while customers saw prices rising by 20% from 2005 to 2009. In France, large water companies have, over the last few years, faced multiple allegations and even some convictions for bribery of municipal governmental officials, and similar cases of corruption are reported from other European countries. In the US, the city of Atlanta stands as a salutary example of some of the limitations of water privatization. Here, privatization in 1999 (to the French company Suez) led to low services levels, exclusion of poor consumers, and higher prices so that the system was ultimately put back into public management in 2003. Serving an insatiable thirst Slightly different set of issues enters the corporate agenda on the demand side of the story. As with privatization, these issues are particularly acute in the developing world, where Western MNCs can be seen as competing with local business and the indigenous population for the use of often-scarce water resources. The issue is particularly salient for industries with high usage of water, such as mining and of course, the drinks industry. Perhaps the most well-known and best reported incident concerned CocaColas bottling plant in Kerala in Southern India. As one of the Companys more resent expansions, Coca-Cola is estimated to have invested over $ 1bn in it is Indian business between 1993 and 2004, thus contributing roughly a fifth of the entire foreign direct investment to the country. Against this backdrop, it came as quite a surprise to the company when in 2004 a High Court in the southern province of Kerala ordered the closure of a Coca-Cola
Version 2 4

bottling plant in the village of palchimada. The ruling followed three years of campaigning by local villagers, national NGOs, and research institutes, displaying a truly multifaceted arsenal of campaign tactics, reaching from local demonstrations, sit-ins at the plant gate, and human chains, to ten day marches between various Coke plants, nationwide Quit India campaigns, and political lobbying (the Indian parliament subsequently banned the companys products from its cafeteria). The central issue of the campaign, at least initially, was the fact that since the Kerala plant opened in 2000, groundwater levels had fallen by 25-40 feet, resulting in sever water shortages for rural neighbors of the plant. Harvests allegedly fell by 80-90% and the remaining water became undrinkable in a region where most people are extremely poor and dependent on small-scale local agriculture. Coca-Cola, who extracted about 510,000 liters of water per day from the groundwater around the plant, initially blamed the decline in water on poor rainfalls in the region during the preceding years, and dismissed the protest as anti-capitalist. Still though, the company set up a tanker service providing people around the plant with the daily supply of water. The court, however, ruled that groundwater is a public good and Coca-Cola, in the after math of the ruling, had to reorganize its water supply from other parts of India into the plant. As of 2006, Coca-Cola has reduced its water use by 24% and installed rainwater-harvesting systems in 26 of their plants. Ultimately, Coca-Cola became something of a leader in water management practices, including the introduction of a far-reaching Global Water Stewardship Initiative. In India, this entailed, amongst other things, a commitment to replace all groundwater used in its beverages and their production by 2009. Globally, the firm struck a water conservation partnership with the World Wide Fund for nature (WWF), which in 2007 led to the firms CEO announcing an ambitious goal to return to communities and to nature an amount of water equivalent to what they used in all of their beverages and their production. As the firm says, this means reducing the amount of water used to produce our beverages, recycling water used for manufacturing processes so it can be returned safely to the environment, and replenishing water in communities and nature through locally relevant project. The latter included a $ 30m Replenish Africa Initiative that aim at providing drinking water to the towns and villages where the company has bottling plants. Usually, Coca-Cola works in these projects in partnership with local and international NGOs, community groups, and international aid agencies. Since 1997, the company has successfully engaged in a number of projects in countries such as Angola, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Nigeria, and Rwanda, and effectively brought water supply to many places where governments hitherto had failed to deliver. Similar projects have been started by Nestle, the beer conglomerate SABMiller, and a number of mining companies. The increasing involvement of business in the management of global water resources has led to the UN Global Compact to set up a special forum called the CEO Water Mandate. Here, CEOs of many major companies, including those mentioned in this case, have committed themselves to implement sustainable water management practices in their operations. The world of water though remains an ambiguous terrain for companies. While implementing fairly wide-ranging measures around the conservation
Version 2 5

and accessibility of water, even the best-managed companies continue to demand ever more water as their markets grow. Moreover, beverage companies have raised further criticism for their heavy investment in an other increasingly contentious business, bottled water.

The Assignment Tasks: Task 1. Critically assess the various theories governing the corporate social responsibility based on the four-part model of CSR. Discuss its implication to the case by identifying which part of the model is applicable to the situation.

Task 2. Critically evaluate the impact of corporate social responsibility to the success of the demand and supply of water and the impact of corporate social responsibility initiatives (Partnership agreements) especially the water recycling implemented by some of the companies in the case.

Good luck

Guidelines to Students: Introduction Definitions and concepts of Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics (Author) Brief profile/facts of the case discuss the ethical issues Aim of the assignment/thesis statement (Marks 10) Body (Do not write the word body in your paragraph). Task 1. Critically assess the various theories governing the corporate social responsibility based on the four-part model of CSR. Discuss its implication to the case by identifying which part of the model is applicable to the situation.
Version 2 6

Discuss the theories of business ethics and the various theories governing the corporate social responsibility based on the fourpart model of CSR.

Application of theories to the case by identifying which part of the models is/are applicable to the situation.

(Marks 40)

Task 2. Critically evaluate the impact of corporate social responsibility to the success of the demand and supply of water and the impact of corporate social responsibility initiatives (Partnership agreements) especially the water recycling implemented by some of the companies in the case. Conclusion Summary of the body paragraphs and your own reflection of the case. (Marks 10) Discuss the theories of corporate social responsibility Application of the theories. (Marks 30)

References 10 references with at least 5 books, 3 websites and 2 journals/articles Harvard Referencing will apply to books, internet and journal references All the references should be written in the list of references and in-text referencing should be done. (Marks 10) Writing Format Arial 12 1.5 Spacing

Structure and Heading Guidelines (Bold) Introduction Profile of the case

Version 2

Critical Assessment of the various theories governing corporate social responsibility and its application. Critical Evaluation of the impact of corporate social responsibility to the demand and supply of water. Conclusion

Style and Format Write down the exact number of words at the end of your essay. You may include diagrams, figures, appendices etc. without word penalty. A sliding scale of penalties for excess length will be imposed. The first page must be designed as a cover page name, student ID and batch. Computer format is compulsory. Make sure you use a consistent format for your essay (font, font size, margins etc.). Referencing Style for the Assessment In the text of your assignment if you quote directly from an article, journal or book this should appear in quotation marks (). The source should then be acknowledged by stating the authors last name and date in brackets at the end of the quotation, e.g. (Rushmore & de Roos, 2002). If you paraphrase or reword from a journal, article or book the source should either be acknowledged within the sentence, e.g. According to Kasavana& Brooks (2001), revenue management is...or at the end of the sentence before the full stop, e.g. (Kasavana& Brooks, 2001). At the end of the assignment all references should be listed on a separate page headed REFERENCES. Make sure that all references are complete; and that all references mentioned in the text are given in the list of references and vice versa. Any items not cited should be listed separately under BIBLIOGRAPHY or FURTHER READING using the Harvard referencing style.

Version 2

Plagiarism Warning Summary Plagiarism occurs if you use somebody else's work in an assignment or exam answer, but fail to state where you got the material from. You need to be also very careful about the amount of words you are using from somebody elses work. It can happen in any type of assessment where you are given the questions or tasks in advance. If another student uses your work in his/her answer(s), both you and he/she will be punished when caught. Punishments for committing plagiarism can be very severe.

The details Plagiarism is a form of cheating in which students use the work of others and present it as their own. Staffordshire University publishes a fully detailed description of what the term plagiarism means on the Universitys main website under the heading Procedures for dealing with suspected cases of academic dishonesty. We strongly recommend that you go and read the full document at the above address. Meanwhile, here is an extract of some of the relevant content. You will have committed plagiarism and may be caught, reported and punished (as described below) if you: Copy extensively from the work of others (from sources such as books, magazines, journals, web-sites for example) and submit the work as your own. NB It is acceptable to refer to the work of others as long as you do not use too much, and reference your sources properly. If you do not know how to do this, please follow the guidelines given in the document entitled Adding quotations and references to your written work at this web-site address: http://www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/business/bsadmin/staff/s3/jamr.htm Copy another students work and submit it for assessment under your own name. Allow another student to copy your work and they then submit it for assessment under their name

This last item is of particular importance; few students seem to understand what it means. If, for example, you allow another student to borrow your work and they subsequently copy some of that work and present it as their own, you and they will both be punished even though someone else copied your work.
Version 2 9

The risks of working with other students Some assessment tasks are explicitly designed for group work, and it will be made clear that a group answer is expected from you. All other tasks are intended as an assessment of your individual comprehension and performance, and group answers are not permitted. In individually assessed forms of assessment your work must be different from that of every other student. Plagiarism can occur in assignments and any examination where the questions are issued to students in advance. In both cases it is possible for you to ask other people about how best to answer the questions or complete the necessary tasks. You should be aware that different modules and subjects may have different requirements. In some subjects, answers to questions may, for example, require every student on a module to employ or refer to the same diagram(s), concepts and the like in order to construct an acceptable answer. You should note, however, that even in these circumstances your explanations of what the diagrams mean, and any other writing referring to any common diagrams and concepts should all be in your own words. Moreover, the situation may be very different on other modules, where the submission of work that has a very similar structure, or the use of very similar materials such as concepts, diagrams, quotations and the like, to that of another student, may lead to you being accused of plagiarism. The picture is complicated and, unfortunately, it is not possible to give advice that is directly relevant to every module you study. If you are unsure about how to avoid plagiarism in any specific module, then rather than hoping and guessing, you should ask for guidance from the member of staff who delivers that module. Our overall advice is straightforward; by all means discuss how best to answer questions or complete tasks with your colleagues, but when it comes to actually writing your answers - DO IT ALONE! What happens if you get caught? Examination Boards may punish offending students in any manner that they deem fit. Typical punishments Boards may choose range from reducing grades, making students re-sit modules, through to failing students on a module or an entire award. The University regards this form of cheating as a serious offence. Full details of the range of likely punishments can be found on the Universitys web-site under the heading Procedures for dealing with suspected cases of academic dishonesty . Please consider yourself warned!

Version 2

10