Why Do MNCs Like Cadbury and Kellogg's Treat Indian Customers with Disregard?

India, with its rapidly growing economy and vast consumer base, is a prime target for many multinational corporations (MNCs). However, a recurring issue that raises critical questions about corporate responsibility and ethics is the apparent treatment of Indian consumers by these companies. To understand this phenomenon, one needs to delve into the historical context and current practices of MNCs operating within the Indian market.

The Historical Context and Minor Incidents

One significant incident often cited as a prime example is the Bhopal gas tragedy. The incident occurred in 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant in Bhopal, India. The disaster led to severe environmental and public health consequences. Despite the tragic outcome, Union Carbide showed minimal responsibility and failed to address the aftermath effectively. This contrasts starkly with the substantial financial compensation paid by BP following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the United States in 2010.

Double Standards and Quality Issues

Multinational corporations often exhibit double standards when it comes to their operations and products in India. The quality of products they offer in the Indian market is often subpar compared to their global standards. For instance, beverage companies like Cadbury and Kellogg's sometimes use ingredients or production methods that do not adhere to the same standards they maintain in other countries. If a similar incident were to occur in a Western country, the companies would face severe repercussions and would be held accountable for consumer safety concerns.

However, in India, the same companies can get away with such practices. For example, when pesticide residue is detected in drinks, rather than addressing the root cause and ensuring consumer safety, companies focus on marketing and advertising, often blaming the offenders rather than taking responsibility themselves. This approach not only fosters a culture of mistrust but also fails to demonstrate genuine commitment to consumer welfare.

Consumer Empowerment and Changing Attitudes

Another factor contributing to this pattern of corporate behavior is the so-called "chal ta hai" (talk the talk, but not the walk) attitude prevalent in Indian consumer culture. MNCs assume that despite repeated failures and ethical lapses, consumers will continue to purchase their products because of their global recognition and brand value. This attitude reflects a disconnection between the company's policies and the realities on the ground.

However, recent developments suggest a shift in this mindset. Consumers are increasingly becoming more aware of the implications of their purchasing behavior. If Indian consumers start to boycott products from such companies, it could have a significant impact. For example, the discovery of contaminated products often triggers larger discussions about accountability and quality. Instead of relying on celebrity endorsements, companies could benefit from fostering trust and improving their ethical standards.

Conclusion

The treatment of Indian consumers by MNCs such as Cadbury and Kellogg's reflects a broader issue of double standards and disregard for consumer rights. Companies must recognize that the Indian market is not an exception but a crucial segment of their global operations. To build a sustainable and responsible business model, they should strive for consistency in product quality and ethical practices. Consumer empowerment and changing attitudes offer a lively opportunity for MNCs to reflect on their practices and improve their commitment to transparency and accountability.

Ultimately, it is the responsibility of MNCs to rise to the occasion and demonstrate genuine respect for the consumers they serve in India. By doing so, they can build a stronger and more ethical partnership with the Indian market, leading to long-term success and credibility.