SunCal Developer, Disneyland employers, its union, Affordable Housing Advocates, individuals and groups are in favor of the development because they would like to have less of a commute to work and offer affordable living. Walt Disney Company is against the development. The company didn’t want visitors to notice the real world around them while visiting a fantasyland resort, Disneyland. The Chamber of Commerce and local businesses supported Walt Disney, and opposes the development, due to the position that Disney offers the city; the city relies heavily on the tourist that the company brought into the city.
We will write a custom essay sample
on Brawl in Mickeys Backyard or any similar
topic specifically for you
The City Council was split on the development possibility due to the interest of its citizens and Disneyland is a big taxpayer. 4. What sources of power do the relevant stakeholders have? Stakeholders who oppose the SunCal development have the power to block the developer’s plans through a lawsuit. Employees and their unions can impose great economic power and cause a plan like this to fail. Walt Disney Company, a major taxpayer, will too, have political power. The size of the corporation can influence government officials and general citizens of Anaheim.
Chamber of Commerce and local businesses can also play up the political power and influence their local politicians. Affordable Housing advocates can rally with other activists and throw their weight around. City of Anaheim and government officials can use their ability to either deny or create the development for SunCal. 5. Based on the information you have, draft a stakeholder map in this case. What conclusions can you draw from the stakeholder map? Support (lower salience)Oppose (higher salience) SunCalDisney Disney EmployeesChamber of Commerce
Employee UnionsLocal Businesses AdvocatesSome Public Officials Public Officials 6. Conclusion Disneyland is huge contributor to Annaheim, as a taxpayer, a large employer, and a tourist attraction to draw visitors to the city. Annaheim without Disneyland, may be vital to the city and its reputation. SunCal should look at other property that it is near to Disneyland that suites the Walt Disney Executives. The executives can still maintain their fantasy experience for their patrons and agree to
Page 2 Brawl in Mickeys Backyard Essay
a project at afar for their employees. Coming up with an agreement would benefit all parties and will save taxpayer money by preventing unnecessary lawsuits. Coca-Cola’s Water Neutrality Initiative 1. What was the public issues facing The Coca-Cola Company in this case? Describe the “performance-expectations gap” found in the case-what were the stakeholders’ concerns, and how did their expectations differ from the company’s performance? The major issue facing The Coca Cola Company is the availability of water. Due to the production of Coca Cola, water is a vital source to the product and is key to its profitability.
Locals and environmentalists were not concerned with profit; their concern was the water resource, contamination and the future sustainability of the natural resource. Coca Cola’s stakeholders (local villagers) expected the company to be responsible and respect their resources. However, local villagers became aware of contamination and depletion of the water supply. This caused the performance-expectation gap which has caused Coca Cola fighting to maintain its reputation. 2. If you applied the strategic radar screens model to this case, which of the eight environments would be the most significant, and why?
Appling the strategic radar screens model, Geophysical would be first. Coca Cola should take into consideration their use of a natural resource and the effects that it plays on the locals surrounding the plant. Next Social Environment should be a concern; the company should have done a thorough research on the surroundings of their proposed plant and the economic situation of the area for possible problems. With the lack of water, coca cola’s role in the technological environment would be something else to consider. If the executives, with their extensive research, knew of the water situation, they could implement ways of saving water.
This leads to the customer environment and ensuring knowledge of the demographics and an understanding of their social values. 3. Apply the issue management life cycle process model to this case. Which stages of the process can you identify in this case? All of the life cycle processes can be identified. Coca Cola was able to: identify the issue of impacting the environment of the local community, analyze the issue after it was brought to their attention, negotiate talks with stakeholders, and come up with a solution that would impact the stakeholders and the company.
How did TCCC use stakeholder engagement and dialogue to improve its response to this issue, and what were the benefits of engagement to the company? Serious talks with World Wildlife fund, the UNESCO, nature conservatory and the World Council for Sustainable Development motivated Coca Cola understand its impact on the region and alter the current business process regarding natural resources. They understood that their abundant water usage was causing shortages and they responded. 5. In your opinion, did TCCC respond appropriately to this issue? Why or why not?
Although, the Coca Cola Company should have conducted an extensive market analysis for the region and obtained a better understanding of the demographics upfront. Their quick reaction to begin talks with stakeholders was quick and appropriate for the business. Coca Cola was able to address the concerns, when partnering with the World Wildlife Fund. That partnership had a greater impact than if the company would have went at it alone. By drawing outside expertise, with the World Wildlife Fund, creative solutions were implemented, resulting in stakeholder support of their new business practices.
Coca Cola had set out to reduce, recycle, and replenish the water resource. In five years, Coca Cola was able to report that they had indeed reduced the water resource by 13%. The company had also been able to participate in the restoration of watershed that had replenished 31% of the water used in its finished product. When all parties are happy with the end result, it is a win-win for all. I believe that Coca Cola was successful in their efforts of water neutrality. More importantly, their follow up and reporting is crucial to maintain trust and their reputation, and they have been fulfilling that obligation with its stakeholders.See More on Coca-cola