Reference no: EM132306805

The Guardian article, “Heineken claims its business helps Africa” describes a globally recognized brand operating a business unit in a commercially challenging continent, where many countries struggle with bad infrastructure, low education levels, corruption and political instability. Heineken has forced a narrative in which their achievements are admired by companies throughout the world by operating in such difficult circumstances while doing so many good things for the people and planet. However, Heineken fails to mention how very little they pay entry-level employees (approximately 2K USD per year) and the workplace safety concerns they have created in their African operations (26% of all global incidents). Despite operating in a continent dominated by Africans, senior managerial roles are often filled by Caucasian staff. Additionally, Heineken’s reliance on utilizing subcontractors and zero-hour workers has increased dramatically. The benefits and salary are extremely poor, working conditions are facing increased scrutiny and complaints of sexual abuse and harassment are rampant. So why is Heineken continuing to force a narrative that simply isn’t true?

Describe 3 Ethical issues that Heineken created in the African market and why they are problematic?

Why do you think Heineken didn’t put more effort into controlling the environment for its “promotion girls”?

Is Corporate Social Responsibility practiced when a multinational corporation utilizes cheap labor in other countries? What if jobs are lost in the home country because the corporation chooses to utilize the cheap labor vs using labor in the home country?