The following commentary focuses on the difference between immediate and indirect consequences of deeds and on the difference between immediate and indirect responsibilities proceeding from this division. We defend the position that Heineken must refrain from business practices that have immoral behaviour as highly predictable side effect; the trade agreements under which Heineken works may not cause or tolerate these practices. That would make these negative side effects a habitual consequence of doing business. We conclude with some reflections of the intercultural facets of this case study.
CITATION STYLE
Koslowski, P. (2011). Commentary: How to Deal with the Side Effects of Delivering Beer? In Issues in Business Ethics (Vol. 28, pp. 111–117). Springer Science and Business Media B.V. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9334-9_12
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.