Answer: D
Explanation:
I wrote the explanation in the comment section. Check it out if you want. :)
<span>As indicated
by the article, Coca-Cola did not react quickly enough to alleviate and pacify
its purchasers that its Coke items are harmless and lawful. As indicated by
Coke's </span>social
responsibility commitments, the assertions of legislators spread quickly through India.
Nonetheless, the organization neglected to acknowledge how quick news went to.
Rather than looking to recover the trust and support from its clients, Coke
concentrated excessively on different workarounds. Coca-Cola shaped advisory groups
in India and the US. The advisory groups invested energy to run the tests, besides;
Coke was quiet to its shoppers. As specified by Mr. Seth, Coke's Indian
advertising expert, in the Indian culture, "Here individuals translate silence
as crime". Buyers needed to hear the official clarification from Coca-Cola
instantly and they would not like to hold up later. At long last, Coca-Cola
safeguarded their organization by claiming that different organizations have
comparative issues like Coke.
The main way in which mercantilism increased the likelihood of conflicts between European powers was that it led to a dispute over who could trade where, and disputes over the trade agreements themselves, since every country wanted "the best deal".
