For weeks animal rights activists have been pummeling Disney for its decision to serve shark’s fin soup at its new theme park in Hong Kong. Seeing as how this soup is a traditional dish for wedding receptions, Disney had committed to creating a fully localized menu for Chinese newlyweds. Enter a variety of environmental groups, both local and international, that objected to the cruel methods by which the fins are harvested. While sharks aren’t as defenseless as baby seals, their fins are gathered by methods that most people would consider cruel.

Disney was caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. As a company that has long localized its offerings to local tastes, it felt that it could not offer a traditional Chinese wedding banquet without all the requisite dishes. Its stand on this matter led to an international e-mail and web campaign.

In early June, Disney acknowledged the furor, saying that it would offer shark’s fin soup only in accordance with “local cultural sensitivities.” Furthermore, it announced that it would hand out a leaflet explaining the cruel methods of harvesting the fins with every bowl it served. That approach was a bit backwards. How would Chinese wedding guests react to a leaflet describing how this soup’s main ingredient was harvested — while it sat steaming tasty vapors in front of them? To be honest, belly for us would win out over conscience — we’d eat the soup. Our rationale would be “when in Rome” and “the shark would have died in vain if we sent it back to the kitchen.” Seriously, this was a no-win situation for Disney — its attempt to act local was challenged by a global campaign of very vocal activists committed to playing out their agenda in very public venues like the internet.

Late last week Disney caved in to the international pressure and announced that it would not serve shark’s fin soup at the wedding receptions it caters at its two Hong Kong theme park hotels. This decision will surely not please tradition-conscious local brides, and getting to this point probably consumed more executive time than Disney would have liked to spend on this local issue. The activists (and the sharks they fought for) won.

One other thing that got us wondering: What did the Chinese think about all this? With Chinese companies like Qingdao Haier and CNOOC bidding on U.S. firms, how will they react when the first whale-loving, pro-gay marriage, anti-smoking, tree-hugging activists show up at corporate headquarters to protest non-eco-friendly fabric softener dispensers or unsightly drilling rigs. Chinese executives will also need to learn that although there is no corruption in the States, they can pay a lot of money for a lobbyist to influence lawmakers. When worlds collide,who’s to say what will happen?

We’ve long thought that companies operating internationally need a chief globalization officer. Now we think that there’s a role for Corporate Ethicist working with a crack SWAT team of cultural specialists studying a matrix of where local customs intersect and conflict with international norms, global political correctness, and the fate of sharks and baby seals. Going global isn’t as easy as it used to be — regardless of which side of the deal you’re on.