UNIVERSITY OF BOTSWANA

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES

MPA-601
FOUNDATION OF PUBLIC MANAGEMENT & INSTITUTION

STUDENT NAME: SOLOMON SAMUEL ADETOKUNBO

STUDENT NUMBER: 201502535

LECTURE: PROFESSOR LEKORWEM

TERM PAPER

TITLE:
ORGANIZATION EFFECTIVENESS ASSESMENT OF COCA-COLA USING
THE GOALS APPROACH MODEL & PARTICIPANT SATISFACTORY
MODEL

1
This paper discusses organizational effectives and assesses the Coca-Cola Company
using the goals approach and participant satisfaction model. This paper goes on to
argues that using two out of the numerous organization approaches to assess an
organization most times might not yield affective and objective results due to the
diverse culture that exists in Organizations.

INTRODUCTION

Businesses spring up every day all over the World necessitating the need for a

competitive drive amongst corporations and business organizations worldwide, this

further results in organization effectiveness amongst various brands, products and

services.

Staying globally competitive and at the top performance is an outcome of being excellent

in all ramification, to include productivity, cutting edge techniques, leadership etc.

The word ‘Organizational Effectiveness ’ is an equivocal term, which has sprung as one

of the most controversial issues in organization studies and research; various scholars

have given different definition and interpretations based on the context it is being used.

The definition of Organizational effectiveness is hard, due to its constantly changing

nature; often times it necessitates the organization to define the measurement for

effectiveness. (Cameron, 1986, p.87). Other complications that come with organization

effectiveness is the criteria chosen by researchers that might often seem right to them but

systematically inapplicable in a wider framework; meaning there is no generic criteria

anywhere in the world.

2
This term paper takes a cursory look at the ideology and concept behind organizational

effectiveness, the second section presents the five concepts of organization effectiveness

studied in class and finally the third section examines the goals approach and participant-

satisfactory approach model in assessing the effectiveness of Coca-Cola Company. It

furthermore elucidates on the strength, weakness, opportunities and threat (SWOT) of the

global brand.

CONCEPT OF ORGANISATION EFFECTIVENESS

Organizational effectiveness has been studied for a long time. The concept of

organizational effectiveness is sometime referred to as organizational worth or goal-

attainment. “In this sense it is rather functional than structural” (Basil & Arnold, 1957, p

534).

The task of defining organizational effectiveness spurred various researchers across the

globe to formulate models of various dimensions that was used as a yardstick to measure

effectiveness in an organization rather than providing a definition (Burton, 2009, p 55).

The different models developed came with its own limitations, because the criterion of

effectiveness was predetermined and limiting to the specific organization for which it was

tested on, so when used in another settings it posed some challenges because it wasn’t

dynamic enough to attend to the needs of other organization.

The ideology of organization effectiveness is concerned with issues such as an,

organizations ability to have access to resources, optimize it and use it in achieving it

long and short term goals (Ashraf, 2012, p 80). Simply put Organization effectiveness

3
refers to the ability of an organization to use its limited resources to achieve stated goals

and objectives.

To clear doubts, it is critical to state that organizational effectiveness is not the same as

organizational efficiency; the latter simply denotes how a company can use money

profitably. Organizational efficiency is about how well a company can maximize profit

based on the capital obtained through equity and debt. An Organizations return on

investment serves as a good measurement tool of organizational efficiency.

Brian & Company (2009) highlighted five key areas that help determine effective

organization they are: leadership, decision-making & structure, people, work process and

systems and the organization culture.

Source: Framework developed by Bain & Company (2009)

Scotch & Forbes (1998, p 121), in their review of empirical studies of effectiveness in

4
organization observed the trends amongst researchers, they pointed out that researchers

tend to often draw from one, or more, of the three key approaches to measure

organizational effectiveness; the goal approach model, system resource approach and

reputational approach model.

Cameron and Whetten (1983, p.262), both arrived at two conclusions about

organizational effectiveness. First, they opined that there cannot be a single general

model for measuring organizational effectiveness; secondly they stated that it is

important that framework for assessing organization effective ness is developed rather

than trying to propound theories of effectiveness (Cameron & Whetten, 1983, p. 267).

As Organizational culture differs so does approaches to measuring organization

effectiveness vary, depending on the products or services, organizations mission,

customer demands, nature of work etc. Thus before embarking on assessing

organizational effectiveness it is imperative to first understand the organization -

functions of the organization, structure and focus.

It is important to use a wide array of approach when assessing organization effectiveness

to get the objective and detailed results.

In the course of the MPA 604 class on organizational effectiveness, Hal Rainey’s

classification of organizational effectiveness model was studied and will be the adopted

model for this term paper. According to Rainey (2008), the subject, organizational

effectiveness centers around the following approaches, they include: the goal approach,

systems-resource approach, participant-satisfaction models, human resource and

internal process models and the competing values approach. Other approaches for

5
measuring organization effectiveness are the process approach, strategic constituency

approach, Cameron’s model of organizational effectiveness etc.

MODELS FOR ASSESSING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

The above listed organization effectiveness model by Rainey (2008), will guide us

through the process of this study, a close focus will be thrust at the goals approach model

and the participant-satisfaction model which will be used to assess the organizational

effectiveness of the Coca-Cola Company.

GOALS APPROACH MODEL:

The most widely used model in assessing organizational effectiveness is the goals

approach. It is an effectiveness framework that is more concerned with the output side of

organization, their ability to excel at a single or multiple output goals and how

organizations succeed in achieving its stated goals in line with desired output levels. In

general it is the bottom line that counts in the goals approach model

According to Forbes (1998, p. 186), the goal-attainment approach defined effectiveness

“as the extent to which organizations excel in attaining their goals”. Forbes further

pointed out that organization goals are commonly used to identify matching indicators of

effectiveness in organizations.

The goals approach model is often used for assessment as a result of the ease that comes

with measuring output goals. Business organizations usually assess performance in terms

of the return on investment, growth rate, market share and profitability (Daft, 1998, p.27).

6
There is some fundamental postulation about the goal approach. The first postulation is

has to do with the limited number of goals and accomplishing them demands certain

essential resources in addition to that there should be an agreement on the specific goals

& all the parties involved should feel obligated to fulfilling them.

The goal approach nonetheless has its limitations. The most evident is that an

Organization may have multiple goals, which might be conflicting each other. In addition

to that organizations goal may change over time especially the short-term goals (Edyi,

2015, p. 461).

SYSTEMS RESOURCE APPROACH

The systems resource approach as a means of assessing Organizational effectiveness

provides the organizational – environmental interface, these approach sees organization

as an interconnected open system; it is believed that firms and corporations get inputs

from valued resources available within their environment, which is then transformed, into

outputs used to sustain itself. In essence what the system resource approach does is

emphasize input over output.

Yuchtman and Seashore (as cited by Rainey, 2009, p 155) formulated the systems-

resource model. They focused on how possible it would be for Organization to exploit

and leverage on its environment for valued resources to sustain itself. Organizations are

not presumed to possess goals, nor are a goal accomplishment a relevant consideration

rather an organization is deemed effective based on the level to which it can exploit its

resources from its environment.

The system-resource approach explicated effectiveness as “viability or survival” (Forbes,

7
1998). This model is a dynamic framework that operates in different environments

including political, economic, environmental, etc. The systems approach uses quantitative

data like annual general report, financial reports amongst other to indicate levels of

effectiveness in an Organization.

This systemic approach encourages executives to see the organization not only as a whole

but as a part of a bigger system as well. The dominating attitude is that any part of the

activities of an organization has a ripple effect on all other parts.

PARTICIPANT SATISFACTORY MODEL

Rainey (2009, p.157), posits that the participant satisfactory approach involves the

process of asking participants who make up an Organization about their work experiences

and satisfaction in the organization. It seeks to find out whether members (employees,

customers suppliers, regulators etc.) of an Organization get the accomplishment and

sense of fulfillment feeling or if the organization is contributing towards fulfilling their

dreams and aspiration.

It is believed that individual contribute their activities to Organizations in return for

decent incentives and motivation which is expected to be sufficient to foster further

contributions from members of the organization.

HUMAN RESURCE & INTERNAL PROCESS

This approach centers effectiveness on the healthiness of internal activities in an

organization. According to Universal Teacher, Internal-Process approach is the ability to

become better at internal efficiency, co-ordination, commitment and staff satisfaction.

This model measures effort and is largely accepted as an approach that should be used

8
only where comparable organization results proves difficult to be measured accurately.

Rainey (2009, p 157), asserts that that this approach assesses organization effectiveness

by referring to elements such as the leadership style, internal communication link,

interpersonal relation, motivation etc.

The Human resource and internal process framework integrates multiple models of

effectiveness such as the system resource approach, the goal approach and process model

with their complete focus on the input, output and throughput division of an organization.

(Giti, 2012).

Connolly et al. (1980) argued and is of the opinion that the goal approach and other

approaches are insufficient because they only make use of use of single model for

assessment.

THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT

The Government Performance Project (GPP) is a dynamic tool used for measuring

efficiency of the government and its agencies. According to Park (2012, p 71), GPP is a

hub of information about state managements activity to improve service delivery to the

public by consolidating government policies and performance. This is achieved through

systematic evaluation of State management of public funds, information, human

resource, and infrastructure; the four core areas that guarantee that the states’ policy,

decisions and performance produce a timely and professional delivery of the States

intended outcomes.

Rainey (2009, p 158), stated that the GPP does not assess performance directly; rather

what it evaluates is the competence of management structures in government

9
establishments and hence characterizes a variant of an internal process model. The

Government performance project assesses five areas of management in government they

are: human resource management, financial management, information technology

management, capital management, and managing for results.

ABOUT COCACOLA COMPANY

The History of Coca-Cola dates back to May 8, 1886 when an Atlanta pharmacist, Dr.

John S. Pemberton, created a distinctive tasting soft drink in Atlanta Georgia (Hess,

2008, p 4). Prior to Pemberton’s death in 1888, two years after creating what was to

become the world’s best selling beverage, Dr. Pemberton sold shares of his business to

various parties, with the Lion share sold to Atlanta businessman, Asa G. Candler. Under

the auspice of Mr. Candler’s leadership, supply of Coca-Cola increased to soda fountains

beyond Atlanta (Coca-Cola, 2015).

In 1894, Chandler being overwhelmed by the rapidly increasing demand for Coca-Cola

and the aspiration to make the drink portable, Joseph Biedenharn came up with the idea

of installing bottling machinery in the rear of the soda fountain, thus becoming the first to

put Coca-Cola in bottles. Five years down the lane in 1899, an industrialized large-scale

bottling system was put in place when three Chattanooga businessmen in Tennessee

obtained the sole rights to bottle and sell Coca-Cola. Benjamin Thomas, Joseph

Whitehead and John Lupton purchased the bottling rights from Mr Candler at the rate of

one dollar ($1). The three entrepreneurs developed what became the Coca-Cola global

bottling system (Coca-Cola, 2015).

Coca-Cola Company is widely known as the global foremost producer and supplier of

10
non-alcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups, used to produce nearly 400 beverage

brands in more than 200 Countries where it operates brands; the Company’s beverage

products comprise of bottled and canned soft drinks (Hariharan, 2014). Coca-Cola the

world's number one manufacturer of soft drinks, selling 1.3 billion beverage servings

every day ranks among the worlds top 10 private employers with 146,200 employees and

over 700,000 associates in Countries they operate (CNN, 2015).

The Company aspires to increase shareowner value over time. This is achieved by

working with its business partners to deliver customer satisfaction and brand value

through a worldwide system of superior brands and services, leading to an increase in

brand equity on a global basis (Schwer, 2012, p 7).

“Coca-Cola aims at managing their business well with people who are strongly
committed to the Company values and culture and providing an appropriately
controlled environment, to meet business goals and objectives. The associates of
this Company jointly take responsibility to ensure compliance with the framework
of policies and protect the Company’s assets and resources whilst limiting
business risks” (Schwer, 2012, p 7).

ASSESMENT OF COCACOLA COMPANY

The Organizational effectiveness of Coca-Cola will be assesses using the goals approach

and the participant Satisfaction approach.

GOAL APPROACH

The Coca-Cola Company continues to excel and grow due to lessons learnt from many

years of mistakes and failures. The Company is a front-runner in the beverage industry

with an outstanding and remarkable array of products coupled with an excellent global

presence. According to the Company’s mission statement & vision, its official goals are:

11
1). To be a great place to work where people are inspired to be the best they can be. 2).

To bring to the world a portfolio of quality beverage brands that anticipate and satisfy

people's desires and needs. 3). Nurture a winning network of customers and suppliers,

together we create mutual, enduring value. 4). Helping to build and support sustainable

communities. 5). Maximize long-term return to shareowners while being mindful of our

overall responsibilities. 6). Be a highly effective, lean and fast-moving organization

(Coca-Cola, 2015).

The Coca-Cola Company aims to be an organization rated globally for a good working

environment, earlier in 2014 the multinational corporation was placed in the top 25 places

to work by Essence magazine (CNN, 2015).

Coca-Cola has been able to achieve the goal of good work place through various

engagement strategies e.g. human & workplace rights, workplace safety, encouraging

open communication, rewarding and developing employees amongst others. An instance

of the good working system put in place for employees of the company is the regular

dialogue system with the Coca-Cola associates, which is made possible through the

Global Employee Insights Survey (GEIS). In the year 2010, the results of Coca-Cola’s

global GEIS showed tremendous progress across all the categories; including an 84%

associate engagement score – (Coca-Cola, 2015).

Over the last few decades, there has been a growing increase in the health awareness,

which has resulted to a drive towards a healthier lifestyle all over the World. Soft drinks

have been particularly pointed to as the cause of the type-two diabetes, which has

resulted in buyers of such products to migrate towards healthier alternatives (Walter,

2012). Though this has led to decrease of Coca-Cola market share, market research was

carried out by the organization which has brought about production of products like Coke

12
Zero, Graceu Vitamin water, Fuze tea, Simply Orange, Power Ade zero and Diet Coke to

meet the needs of the health-mindful consumers and sustain its market shares.

Coca-Cola now offers reduced (low or no calorie substitute drinks) in 191 Countries they

operate in (Coca-Cola, 2015). Coca-Cola’s decision to proactively act fast by carefully

meeting the needs of the varying member of the public and providing alternative soft

drink that meets the need of every segment is very laudable and every organization

should take a cue from them to readily plan for alternative product and services that can

meet the needs of the minority or the marginalized. A relative scenario was when

Promasidor introduced Cowbell Milk to the Nigerian market; they sold milk in sachet as

opposed to the market front-runner at that time Peak, manufactured by Wamco who were

selling in can and were patronized by the above average Nigerians. Peak made mockery

of Cowbell, calling it “milk for the poor” but they were absolutely right, Cowbell made

milk affordable for three million Nigerians, two years down the line Cowbell toppled

Peak as the market Front-runner of Milk in Nigeria, even Peak had to start producing

milk in sachet to survive in the market (Vanguard, 2013).

Over the past few decades Coca-Cola have developed vast tremendous relationship with

consumers and suppliers; relationships that represents strategic mutually beneficial

partnership across the globe (Hess, 2008, p 12). This synergized partnership has

continued to help bolster their sales and increase their market share. Suppliers of the

Coca-Cola, provide the company with raw materials (labels, closures, glass bottles, sugar,

carton, pallets, PET performs, various films) including ingredients as well as goods and

services (Coca-Cola, 2015). Coca-Cola ensure suppliers work in accordance to the

defined standards of the Suppliers Guiding Principles (SGP) which communicates the

organizations core values and emphasize the importance of contributing towards a

13
responsible environment and workplace practices, in addition the SGP also clearly

defines standards in terms of labour and human right (which outright states that Child

labour and forced labour are explicitly prohibited). In order to minimize broader

environmental impacts, Coca-Cola works closely with suppliers on our three priorities:

packaging and water stewardship, energy and climate protection (Coca-Cola, 2015). This

partnership has continue to yield cutting edge industry innovation from the ‘quad-

generation’ combined heat and power (CHP) plants plus CO2 capture for industrial uses

which has helped to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 50%. The partnership Coca-Cola

developed with Customers has fetched both parties a win-win approach that has also been

beneficial to he public in the area of sustainable development and climate change, which

has enormously contributed towards goal achievement in the multi-national Company.

Coca-Cola has been contributing towards building and supporting sustainable

communities around the globe through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

(CSRWire, 2015), The management of the organization ensure that people living in the

various community where they operate get as much benefit, where possible more than

what the company gets from the environment, this has immensely contributed to their

growth over the years. Coca-Cola’s commitment and drive towards giving back inspired

them to launch a ten- year CSR aimed at giving back to the society; the CSR is

categorized under three areas; women, water and wellbeing (Coca-Cola, 2013). The

Organization is currently working towards a goal of empowering five million women

entrepreneurs worldwide before year 2020 through their Women Economic

Empowerment Initiative, also referred to as 5by20. In 2014, the company empowered

approximately 313,000 women, making a total of nearly 865,000 since 2010 when the

initiative was launched; so far they have implemented programs in a total of 52 countries

14
in Africa, Asia, Central America, South America, North America and Europe (Coca-

Cola, 2015).

In 2014, the 5by20 women empowerment program was launched in eight new countries:

Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, Ghana, Lesotho, Botswana, Malawi and Burundi. In a bid to

ensuring sustainable society, The Coca-Cola Foundation and the Company together gave

back 1.3% of the Company’s operating income amounting to $126 million (Foundation

grant - $91 million; Coca-Cola Company - $35 million) (Kraft, 1991, p.488). These funds

were earmarked on replenishing water in a nature preserve in Belgium; Establishing

rainwater-harvesting structures in water-stressed areas in Greece, Italy, Cyprus and

Malta; Increasing access to sports and physical activity for young people in France;

Supporting a youth mentoring and employment skills training program for at-risk youth

in Spain; Hosting a leadership program for young African leaders and disaster relief

projects like the deadly Ebola outbreak in West Africa (Liberia, Sierra Leone & Guinea)

to the natural disasters that struck the Philippines etc. It is imperative to note that CSR is

a vital component for the survival of an organization whether big or small because all

organization have a binding connection with society in which they operate; every

organization in every market strive to win and hold on to the blessing of societies to

remain in business and that blessing will only be gotten if the society where the

organization operates believes the organization contributes a beneficial impression on the

environment (human and natural). What seems most evident in various scenarios is that

Corporate Social Responsibility is a complex construct that influences and is influenced

by various organizational characteristics (Kraft, 1991, p.488).

“Soft drinks have the major segment of the world beverages industry, and it accounts for

not less than thirty-five percent of the industry cumulative aggregate value” (MarketLine,

15
2013). In their 2014 financial statement, Cocacola reported revenues of $45,998 million a

decrease of 1% compared to 2013 ($46,854). However the net income in 2014 was

$7,098 a decrease of 15% compared to 2013 (Coca-Cola Company, 2015). The 1.3%

decrease in the Net operating revenue of the company was due to “critical impact of

foreign currency instabilities in U.S.” however the company has taken five tactical

strategy to help make up for the in the coming financial year, they include targeted,

disciplined investments in their brands; the multinational corporation is currently ramping

up on spending’s to promote their brand which includes a double multiplied digit in

media spending while focusing on their most promising opportunities, Secondly, Coca-

Cola has taken an added concentration to revenue and profit growth, by adopting a more

definite and segmented roles for their markets, Thirdly, the company began to re-

strategize on their essential business model of developing brands and promoting a unique

system of bottling partners worldwide. Fourthly, Coca-Cola vehemently increased

productivity efforts; the plan was to ensure they deliver on cost savings to invest in their

brands and businesses $3 billion in increased annual savings by 2019 this action was

initiated in 2014.

Coca-Cola got it right from the on-set, they have been able to set realistic official goals

that are, Relevant, Attainable, Measurable, Specific and Time-bound. This has helped the

company grow over the years from selling 25 bottles in its first year to current daily sales

of 1.8 billion bottles and maintaining the front runner position in the beverage industry.

Despite the fact that the Coca-Cola goals are a bit diversified and a bit much they have

been able to leverage its multi-national nature coupled with the effective utilization of its

workforce in giving each goals the desired attention they deserve. The Company over the

years has made remarkable progress by continuously holding the frontline position in the

16
Industry with a good goal achievement rate, they can continue at this pace and if possible

do better if they don’t fail to raise their standards and carry outa regular review system.

According to Locke and Latham (2002, p 706), an essential connection exists between

goals and performance. In addition the authors added that goals performance is possible

when goals are specific and challenging with feed back incorporated. Coca-Cola’s goals

achievement rode largely on workers performance, which was stimulated by motivation

of various forms. The place of motivation should never be under-estimated in an

organization willing to meet with time-bound goals and objective.

PARTICIPANT SATISFACTION APPROACH

The Participant Satisfactory approach seeks to look at how workers who contribute to the

goals attainment of an organization achieve and derive job satisfaction in doing so. Job

satisfaction is a very fundamental element for participant’s productivity in an

Organization, because its only when workers are satisfied with their job, then it will

transform to productivity in their working hours.

Participants of the Coca-Cola Company include; the consumers, suppliers, customers etc.

Coca-Cola professes to make it their priority to treat their participant well and develop

them by giving them the benefit of a rewarding working life (Coca-Cola, 2015).

Coca-Cola in 2014 was rated among top 25 global companies to work for by Fortune (an

organization that ranks workplace comfort) alongside company like Microsoft, FedEx,

Google and Guinness etc. Their organization culture, which they developed over the

years, is one of the contributory factors to the developmental state of the company and

brand.

17
According to Coca-Coca Company, its compensation and benefits packages are among

the best in the world, benchmarked against other global, high-performing employers. The

organization brags to offer limitless array of opportunities for employees and customers,

they provide ability to grow which bring out the best in their employee by affording

associates at all level of the organization education and development programs e.g. Coca-

Cola University (CCU), associates are trained at the company’s virtual global university

representing a one-stop shop for all learning and capability building activities across,

some others are sent out for short –term assignment and other functional development to

hone their skills and make them more effective.

Motivated workforces are usually the engines that drive developments in organization.

Coca-Cola break their associates into groups to carry out operations, making them have a

sense of belongings and feel they are essential to the organization; this inspires them to

contribute innovative ideas that are implemented during operations (Coca-Cola, 2013).

This strategy adopted by Coca-Cola has helped to create an innovative and tremendous

culture that makes it possible for Coca-Cola to rely on the workforce for answers in

maintain a high level global brand reputation.

In 2005 Coca-Cola’s adopted the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights

to help provide human and workplace right for associates of the Company and prevent

workers from being abused, Open communication is another good value the multinational

Corporation is keen about which helps to promote engagement amongst management and

staff of the organization. (Ethical Forum, 2013).

Coca-Cola is a good Company for its associate but suffice to say one might see all this as

just a lip service by the multinational Organization. A lot of human right abuses have

18
been recorded against the giant brand as much as they try to strategically position

themselves as an upright brand before the media. The story of the good working

environment, which is applicable for Coca-Cola’s associate, is not applicable for all of its

over 700,000 “rank and file” (factory) workers, most especially the blacks and Hispanics

who suffer worse fate and don’t have access to most of the good working policies. The

Company doesn’t make adequate provision for this segment of her unskilled workers

most of whom are illiterate.

According to the Rip off report, Coca-Cola forces her workers to work between 10 and 15

hours a day, while the Company claims that the shifts are only 8 hours knowing fully

well the workers cant complete the work in 8 hours and are not allowed to leave until the

work is completed. Other than the violation of human right, there are other cases of

discrimination and segregation against the company’s contract factory workers, ABC

News on November 17 reported that Coke paid $192.5 million to settle a racial

discrimination suit filled by black workers.

In addition to the maltreatment and exploitation Coca-Cola workers face, Coke has been

reportedly involved in the exploitation of over 5000 children working on sugar cane

fields in El Salvador. This illegal exploitation was documented in footage by Human

right Watch (a private American NGO) in 2007 for a British documentary and published

by Mark Thomas’s book "Belching Out the Devil: Global Adventures with Coca-Cola,"

in 2009 (killercoke, 2009).

Authorities of the International Labor Organization (ILO) interviewed Coca-Cola reps at

Colombian Coca-Cola bottling plants in 2009 to find out whether they exercised any

control of suppliers of raw materials (such as sugar) to ensure that there was no

19
involvement of Child labour. The Coca-Cola plant manager in Cali said that the

company’s suppliers are not supposed to use child labour for production but added that

that Coca-Cola did not exercise oversight over the issue. (killercoke, 2009).

CONCLUSION

Coca-Cola Company has over the years built a global brand, which leads the beverage

industry globally. To a large extent the company has put in much effort in achieving its

goals except for the area of her financials where there seem to be few hiccups which has

led to a drop it in its market shares and acquisition. Smart enough, the management has

activated contingency plans to act as a stimulus in reverse the financial downturn.

Coca-Cola brags over good working policies for all its workers but it is evident that it

isn’t fully enforced, segregation and racial discrimination exists in the organization which

helps promote social inequality especially to the blacks and Hispanics. The Organization

should management should walk their talk and bring professionalism to bear, on all round

inclusiveness and social equality should be enforced by the management by putting in

place checks and balances mechanism to curb the excesses of their plant managers

globally.

RECOMMENDATION

In order to accomplish its set goal for 2019, Coca-Cola must look for new areas where it

can start operations and also diversify by increasing their number of products to meet up

with buyers changing preference globally. Retaining its current market size in the

developed market, Coca-Cola also needs to proliferate sales in developing markets

around the world.

20
REFERENCES

Ashraf, G. (2012). A Review on the Models of Organizational Effectiveness: A Look at

Cameron's Model in Higher Education. Journal of International Education
Studies, 5(2), 80. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/BQWe10

Burton, E. (2009). Organisational Effectiveness In Selected Grass Roots Sport Clubs In

Western Australia. (M.sc), Edith cowan university, Australia. Retrieved from
http://goo.gl/bvPsOv

Cameron, K. S., & Whetten, D. A. (1983). Organizational effectiveness: A comparison of

multiple models. New York: Academic Press Inc.

Cameron, K. (1986). A Study of Organizational effectiveness and its predictors. Journal

of Management Sciences, 32(1), 87-112.

Coca-Cola,. (2013). Global Reporting Initiative (pp. 14, 21,22,36). Atlanta: Brest &
Mothley. Retrieved from
http://www.socialfunds.com/shared/reports/1390881183_CocaCola_2013_GRI_R
eport.pdf

Coca-Cola Company,. (2015). Sustainability. Retrieved 24 October 2015, from

http://www.coca-colacompany.com/sustainability/our-sustainability-
commitments/

Coca-Cola Company,. (2015). Retrieved 24 October 2015, from http://www.coca-

colacompany.com/content/dam/journey/us/en/private/fileassets/pdf/2015/09/2014
-2015-sustainability-report.pdf

Csrwire.com,. (2015). Coca-Cola Enterprises Virtual Facility Tour Wins PR News CSR
Award – Press Releases on CSRwire.com. Retrieved 5 November 2015, from
http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/29014-Coca-Cola-Enterprises-Virtual-
Facility-Tour-Wins-PR-News-CSR-Award

DAFT, R. L. (1998). Organization Theory and Design. Cincinnati: South-Western

College Publishing.

Edition.cnn.com,. (2015). The Coca-Cola Company facts - CNN.com. Retrieved 24

October 2015, from
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/09/13/cocacola.facts/index.html?
eref=rss_latest

Ethical Forum,. (2013). Embracing the UN Guiding Principles on Business & Human
Rights | The Ethical Fashion Source. Retrieved 5 November 2015, from
http://source.ethicalfashionforum.com/article/embracing-the-un-guiding-
principles-on-business-human-rights

21
Eydi, H. (2015). Organizational Effectiveness Models: Review and Apply in Non-Profit
Sporting Organizations. American Journal of Economics, Finance and
ManagementVol. 1, No. 5, 2015, pp. 460-467, 1(5), 461.

Forbes, D. P. (1998). Measuring the unmeasurable: Empirical studies of nonprofit

organization effectiveness from 1977 to 1997. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 27(2), 183-202.

Hess, E. (2008). The Coca-Cola Company Harvard Case Solution & Analysis. Retrieved
24 October 2015, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/2058950/COKE-CASE-
STUDY#scribd

Killercoke.org,. (2015). Campaign to Stop Killer Coke | Coke's Crimes in El Salvador.

Retrieved 24 October 2015, from http://killercoke.org/crimes_el_salvador.php

Kraft, K. L. (1991). The Relative Importance of Social Responsibility in Determining

OrganizationalEffectiveness: Managers from Two Service Industries. Journal of
Business Ethics, 10, 488.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting
and task motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717.

Park, H. M. (2012). Public Performance Management. International University of Japan,

Public Management & Policy Analysis Program, Graduate School of International
Relations.
Robbins, S. P. (2003). Essentials of organizational behavior: Prentice Hall.

Schwer, B. (2012). The Coca-Cola Company. Presentation, Bangladesh.

Sparrow, P. (2015). Organizational effectiveness, people and performance: new

challenges, new research agendas. Journal Of Organizational Effectiveness:
People And Performance, 1(1), 2-5. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-01-2014-0004

Universalteacher.com,. (2015). Approaches to Organizational Effectiveness. Retrieved 24

October 2015, from http://universalteacher.com/1/approaches-to-organizational-
effectiveness/#sthash.uh5mQusi.dpuf

Vanguard. (2013). Market trend: Pricing and contending issues in milk market -
Vanguard News. Vanguard News. Retrieved 19 October 2015, from
http://www.vanguardngr.com/2013/04/market-trend-pricing-and-contending-
issues-in-milk-market/

Walter, Ben"Soft Drinks and Disease." The Nutrition Source. N.p., 4 Feb. 2012. Web. 14
Mar. 2014. <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks/soft-
drinks-and-disease/>.

22
23