Coke and Pepsi in India: Issues, Ethics, and Crisis
Management
There is nothing new about multinational corporations (MNCs)
facing challenges as they do business around the world, especially
in developing nations or emerging markets. Royal Dutch Shell had to
greatly reduce its production of oil in Nigeria due to guerrilla
attacks on its pipelines. Cargill was forced to shut down its
soy-processing plant in Brazil because of the claim that it was
contributing to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Tribesmen
in Botswana accused De Beers of pushing them off their land to make
way for diamond mines.
Google was kicked out of China only to be later restored.
Global business today is not for the faint hearted.
It should not come as a surprise, therefore, that MNC giants
such as Coca-Cola and PepsiCo—highly visible, multibillion dollar
corporations with well-known, iconic brands around the world—would
encounter challenges in the creation and distribution of their
products in some countries. After all, soft drinks are viewed as
discretionary and sometimes luxurious products when compared to the
staples of life that are often scarce in developing countries. One
of those scarce staples is water. Many observers think a shortage
of water is the next burgeoning global resource crisis.
Whether it is called an issue, an ethics challenge, or a
scandal, the situation confronting both Coke and Pepsi in India,
beginning in 2003, richly illustrates the many complex and varied
social challenges companies face once they decide to embark on
other country’s shores. Their experiences in India may predict
other issues they may eventually face elsewhere or trials other
companies might face as well. With a billion-plus people and an
expanding economy, and with markets stagnating in many Western
countries, India, along with China and Russia, represent immense
opportunities for growth for virtually all businesses. Hence, these
companies cannot afford to ignore these burgeoning markets.
Initial Allegations
Coke and Pepsi’s serious problems in India began in 2003. In
that year, India’s Center for Science and Environment (CSE), an
independent public interest group, made allegations that tests they
had conducted revealed dangerously high levels of pesticide residue
in the soft drinks being sold all over India. The director of CSE,
Sunita Narain, stated that such residues could cause cancer and
birth defects as well as harm nervous and immune systems if the
products were consumed over long periods of time.
Further, CSE stated that the pesticide levels in Coke’s and
Pepsi’s drinks were much higher than that permitted by European
Union standards. On one occasion, Narain accused Pepsi and Coke of
pushing products that they wouldn’t dare sell at home.
In addition to the alleged pesticides in the soft drinks,
another special interest group, India Resource Center (IRC),
accused the companies of over consuming scarce water and polluting
water sources due to its operations in India.
IRC intensely criticized the companies, especially Coca-Cola,
by detailing a number of different “water woes” experienced by
different cities and regions of the country. IRC’s allegations even
more broadly accused the companies of water exploitation and of
controlling natural resources, and thus communities. Examples
frequently cited were the impact of Coke’s operations in the
communities of Kerala and Mehdiganj.
In 2004, IRC continued its “Campaign to Hold Coca-Cola
Accountable” by arguing that communities across India were under
assault by Coke’s practices. Among the continuing allegations were
communities’ experiencing severe water shortages around Coke’s
bottling plants, significant depletion of the water table, strange
water tastes and smells, and pollution of groundwater as well as
soil. IRC said that in one community Coke was distributing its
solid waste to farmers as fertilizer and that tests conducted found
cadmium and lead in the waste, thus making it toxic waste. And the
accusation of high levels of pesticides continued. According to
IRC, the Parliament of India banned the sale of Coca-Cola in its
cafeteria.
In December 2004, India’s Supreme Court ordered Coke and Pepsi
to put warning labels on their products. This caused a serious
slide in sales for the next several years.
Sunita Narain
One major reason that Indian consumers and politicians took
seriously the allegations of both CSE and IRC was CSE’s director,
Sunita Narain—a well-known activist in New Delhi. Narain was born
into a family of freedom fighters whose support of Mahatma Gandhi
goes back to the days when Gandhi was pushing for independence in
India over 60 years ago. She took up environmental causes in high
school. One major cause she adopted was to stop developers from
cutting down trees. Her quest was to save India from the ravages of
industrialization. She became the director of CSE in 2002.
According to a BusinessWeek writer, Narain strongly holds
forth on the topic of MNCs exploiting the natural resources of
developing countries, especially India. She manifests an alarmist
tone that tends toward the end-is-near level of fervency. She is
skilled at getting media attention. In 2005, she won the Stockholm
Water Prize, one of a number of environmental accolades she has
received.
In addition, she has been very successful in taking advantage
of India’s general suspicion of huge MNCs, dating back to its
tragic Bhopal gas leak in 1984. Narain claims she does not intend
to hurt companies but only to spur the country to pass stricter
regulations.
Sacred Water
Coke and Pepsi’s problems in India have been complicated by
the fact that water carries considerable significance in India. We
are often told about cultural knowledge we should have before doing
business in other countries. Water is one of those issues in India.
Although the country has some of the worst water in the world, due
to poor sewage, pollution, and pesticide use, according to UN
sources, water carries an almost-spiritual meaning to Indians.
Bathing is viewed by many of them to be a sacred act, and tradition
for some residents holds that one’s death is not properly noted
until one’s ashes are scattered in the Ganges River. In one major
poll, Indians revealed that drinking water was one of their major
life activities to improve their well-being.
Indians’ sensitivity to the subject of water has undoubtedly
played a role in the public’s reactions to the allegations.
Coke’s and Pepsi’s Early Responses
Initially, Coke and Pepsi denied the allegations of CSE and
IRC, primarily through the media. It was observed that their
response was limited at best as they got caught up in the technical
details of the tests. Coke conducted its own tests, the conclusion
of which was that their drinks met demanding European
standards.
Over the next several years, the debate continued as the
companies questioned the studies and conducted studies of their
own. The companies also pointed out that other beverages and foods
in the Indian food supply, and indeed water, had trace pesticide
levels in it and they sought to deflect the issue in this
manner.
The IRC also attacked Coke and Pepsi for not taking the crisis
seriously. They argued that the companies were “destroying lives,
livelihoods, and communities” while viewing the problems in India
as “public relations” problems that they could “spin” away. IRC
pointed out that Coca-Cola had hired a new public relations firm to
help them build a new image in India, rather than addressing the
real issues. According to IRC, the then-new CEO of Coke, Neville
Isdell, immediately made a visit to India, but it was a “stealth”
visit designed to avoid the heavy protests that would have met him
had the trip been public. IRC also pointed out that Coke had just
increased its marketing budget by a sizable amount in India. IRC
then laid out the steps it felt Coke should take to effectively
address its problems.
Pesticide Residue and Partial Bans
The controversy flared up again in August of 2006 when the CSE
issued a new study. The new test results showed that 57 samples
from 11 Coke and Pepsi brands contained pesticide residue levels 24
times higher than the maximum allowed by the Indian government.
Public response was swift. Seven of India’s 28 states imposed
partial bans on the two companies, and the state of Kerala banned
the drinks completely. Officials there ignored a later court ruling
reversing the ban.
During 2006, the United Kingdom’s Central Science Laboratory
questioned the CSE findings. Coca-Cola sought a meeting with CSE
that it denied. Also that year, India’s Union Health Ministry
rejected the CSE study as “inconclusive.”
The Companies Ratchet up Their Responses
As a result of the second major flurry of studies and
allegations in 2006, both Coke and Pepsi ratcheted up their
responses, sometimes acting together, sometimes taking independent
action. They responded almost like different companies than they
were before. Perhaps they finally reckoned this issue was not going
to go away and had to be addressed more forcefully.
Coke’s Response
Coke started with a more aggressive marketing campaign. It ran
three rounds of newspaper ads refuting the new study. The ads
appeared in the form of a letter from more than 50 of India’s
company-owned and franchised Coke bottlers, claiming that their
products were safe. Letters with a similar message went out to
retailers and stickers were pressed onto drink coolers, declaring
that Coke was “safety guaranteed.” Coke also hired researchers to
talk to consumers and opinion leaders to find out what exactly they
believed about the allegations and what the company needed to do to
convince them the allegations were false.
Based on its research findings, Coke created a TV ad campaign
that featured testimonials by well-respected celebrities. One of
the ads featured Aamir Khan, a popular movie star, as he toured one
of Coke’s plants. He told the people that the product was safe and
that if they wanted to see for themselves they could personally do
so. In August and September 2006, over 4,000 people took him up on
his offer and toured the plants. Opening up the plants sent the
message that the company had nothing to hide, and this was very
persuasive.
The TV ads, which were targeted toward the mass audience, were
followed by giant posters with movie star Khan’s picture drinking a
Coke. These posters appeared in public places such as bus stops. In
addition, other ads were targeted toward adult women and
housewives, who make the majority of the food-purchasing decisions.
One teenager was especially impressed with Khan’s ads because she
knew he was very selective about which movies he appeared in and
that he wouldn’t take a position like this if it wasn’t
appropriate.
In a later interview, Coke’s CEO Isdell said he thought the
company’s response during the second wave of controversy was the
key reason the company began turning things around. After the 2003
episode, the company changed management in India to address many of
the problems, both real and imagined. The new management team was
especially concerned about how it would handle its next public
relations crisis. Weeks later, in December 2006, India’s Health
Ministry said that both Coke’s and Pepsi’s beverages tested in
three different labs contained little or no pesticide
residue.
Pepsi’s Response
Pepsi’s response was similar to Coke’s. Pepsi decided to go
straight to the Indian media and try to build relationships there.
Company representatives met with editorial boards, presented its
own data in press conferences, and also ran TV commercials. Pepsi’s
commercials featured the then president of PepsiCo India, Rajeev
Bakshi, shown walking through a polished Pepsi laboratory.
In addition, Pepsi increased its efforts to cut down on water
usage in its plants. Employees in the plants were organized into
teams and used Japanese-inspired kaizens and suggested improvements
to bring waste under control. The company also employed lobbying of
the local government.
Indra Nooyi becomes CEO Pepsi had an advantage in rebuilding
its relationships in India, because in October 2006, an Indian-born
woman, Indra Nooyi, was selected to be CEO of the multinational
corporation. It is not known whether Pepsi’s problems in India were
in any way related to her being chosen CEO, but it definitely
helped. After graduating from the prestigious Indian Institute of
Management, and later Yale University, Nooyi worked her way up the
hierarchy at PepsiCo before being singled out for the top
position.
She previously held positions at the Boston Consulting Group,
Motorola, and ABB Group.
Prior to becoming CEO, Nooyi had a number of successes in
Pepsi and became the company’s chief strategist. She was said to
have a perceptive business sense and an irreverent personal style.
One of Nooyi’s first decisions was to take a trip to India in
December 2006. While there, she spoke broadly about Pepsi’s
programs to improve water and the environment. The Indian media
loved her, beaming with pride, and covered her tour positively as
she shared her own heartwarming memories of her life growing up in
India. She received considerable praise. Not surprisingly, Pepsi’s
sales started moving upward.
While all the criticism of Coke and Pepsi was going on,
roughly from 2003 to 2006, both companies were pursuing corporate
social responsibility (CSR) initiatives in India, many of them
related to improving water resources for communities, while the
conflict was center stage.
A Commentary on “What’s Going on”
Because of all the conflicting studies and the stridency of
CSE and IRC, one has to wonder what was going on in India to cause
this developing country to so severely criticize giant MNCs such as
Coke and Pepsi. Many developing countries would be doing all they
could to appease these companies. It was speculated by a number of
different observers that what was at work was a form of backlash
against huge MNCs that come into countries and consume natural
resources.
Why were these groups so hostile toward the companies? Was it
really pesticides in the water and abuse of natural resources? Or
was it environmental interest groups using every opportunity to
bash large corporations on issues sensitive to the people? Were CSE
and IRC strategically making an example of these two hugely
successful companies and trying to put them in their place?
Late in 2006, an interesting commentary appeared in
BusinessWeek exploring the topic of what has been going on in India
with respect to Coke and Pepsi.
This commentary argued that the companies may have been
singled out because they are foreign owned. It appears that no
Indian soft drink companies were singled out for pesticide testing,
though many people believe pesticide levels are even higher in
Indian milk and bottled tea. It was pointed out that pesticide
residues are present in most of India’s groundwater, and the
government has ignored or has been slow to move on the problem. The
commentary went on to observe that Coke and Pepsi have together
invested $2 billion in India over the years and have generated
12,500 jobs and support more than 200,000 indirectly through their
purchases of Indian-made products including sugar, packing
materials, and shipping services.
Continuing Protests, Renewed Priorities, and Strategies
Eventually, the open conflict settled down and sales took an
upturn for both companies, but the issue lingered. In June 2007,
the IRC continued its attacks on Coca-Cola. It accused the company
of “greenwashing” its image in India.
The IRC staged a major protest at the new Coke Museum in
Atlanta on June 30, 2007, questioning the company’s human rights
and environmental abuses. They erected a 20-foot banner that read
“Coca-Cola Destroys Lives, Livelihoods, Communities” in front of
the New World of Coke that opened in May 2007. Amit Srivastava of
the IRC was quoted as saying, “This World of Coke museum is a fairy
tale land and the real side of Coke is littered with abuses.” A
representative of the National Alliance of People’s Movements, a
large coalition of grassroots movements in India, said, “The museum
is a shameful attempt by the Coca-Cola Company to hide its
crimes.”
Piling On
The protestations by these groups apparently motivated other
groups to take action against Coke. It was reported that United
Students Against Sweatshops also staged a “die-in” around one of
Coke’s bottling facilities in India. And more than 20 colleges and
universities in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom
removed Coca-Cola from campuses because of student-led initiatives
to put pressure on the company. In addition, the protests in
Atlanta were endorsed by a host of groups that participated in the
U.S. Social Forum.
Coke’s Renewed Priorities
Undaunted, Coca-Cola continued its initiatives to improve the
situation in India and around the world. Coke faces water problems
around the world because it is the key natural resource that goes
into its products. The company had 70 clean-water projects in 40
countries aimed at boosting local economies. It was observed that
these efforts were part of a broader strategy on the part of CEO
Neville Isdell to build Coke’s image as a local benefactor and a
global diplomat.
The criticism of Coke has been most severe in India. CEO
Isdell admits that the company’s experience in India has taught
some humbling lessons. Isdell, who took over the company after the
crisis had begun, told The Wall Street Journal, “It was very clear
that we had not connected with the communities in the way we needed
to.” He indicated that the company has now made “water stewardship”
a strategic priority, and in a recent 10-K securities filing, had
listed a shortage of clean water as a strategic risk.
In August 2007, Coca-Cola India unveiled its “5-Pillar” growth
strategy to strengthen its bonds with India. Coke’s new strategy
focuses on the pillars of People, Planet, Portfolio, Partners, and
Performance. The company also announced a series of initiatives
under each of the five pillars and its “Little Drops of Joy”
proposal, which tries to reinforce the company’s connection with
stakeholders in India.
Though most of the attention focused on Coca-Cola, it should
also be noted that Pepsi has continued taking steps on a number of
projects as well. One novel initiative is that the company now
gathers rainwater in excavated lakes and ponds and on the rooftops
of its bottling plants in India. The company sponsors other
community water projects as well.
Indian Beverage Association Formed
Though Coke and Pepsi are typically fighting each another in
their longstanding “cola wars,” due to their mutual problems in
India they formed the Indian Beverage Association (IBA) in the
summer of 2010. Other beverage companies were quick to join.
Because of continuous hostility from regulators and activist
groups, the two companies decided that a joint effort to address
issues might make sense.
The IBA was formed to address the issues related to the
government of Kerala’s charge that Coke is polluting the
groundwater in the state and other taxation issues that affect both
companies. Their issues have been ongoing, but Kerala’s government
decided to form a tribunal against Coca-Cola, seeking $48 million
in compensation claims for allegedly causing pollution and
depleting the groundwater level there. Another important issue was
the value-added tax (VAT) by the Delhi government. The IBA brought
in other bottlers and packaging firms that had similar interests
and issues in India.
Question; What are ethical considerations in terms of Kantian
or Utilitarian theory? How should sustainability be
considered?
* If the case involves a company's or a manager's actions,
evaluate what the company or the manager did or did not do
correctly in handling the issue affecting it. How should actions
have been handled?