Coke india case

Coca-Cola India
On August 20, 2003 Sanjiv Gupta, President and CEO of Coca-Cola India, sat in his office
contemplating the events of the last two weeks and debating his next move. Sales had
dropped by 30-40%1 in only two weeks on the heels of a 75% five-year growth trajectory
and 25-30%2 year-to-date growth. Many leading clubs, retailers, restaurants, and college
campuses across the country had stopped selling Coca-Cola3 and only six weeks into his new
role as CEO, Gupta was embroiled in a crisis that threatened the momentum gained from a
highly successful two-year marketing campaign that had given Coca-Cola market leadership
over Pepsi.

On August 5th, The Center for Science and Environment (CSE), an activist group in India
focused on environmental sustainability issues (specifically the effects of industrialization
and economic growth) issued a press release stating: "12 major cold drink brands sold in and
around Delhi contain a deadly cocktail of pesticide residues" (See Exhibit 1). According to
tests conducted by the Pollution Monitoring Laboratory (PML) of the CSE from April to
August, three samples of twelve PepsiCo and Coca-Cola brands from across the city were
found to contain pesticide residues surpassing global standards by 30-36 times including
lindane, DDT, malathion and chlorpyrifos (See Exhibit 2). These four pesticides were known
to cause cancer, damage to the nervous and reproductive systems, birth defects, and severe
disruption of the immune system.4

In reaction to this report, the Indian government banned Coke and Pepsi products in
Parliament and state governments launched independent investigations, sending soft drink
samples to labs for testing. The Coca-Cola Bottling Company (Coke) stock dipped by five
dollars on the New York Stock Exchange from $55 to $50 in the six sessions following the
August 5 disclosure, as did shares of Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCA).5

Pepsi and Coca-Cola called the CSE allegations “baseless” and questioned the method of
testing but the CSE claimed it had followed standard procedures documented by the US
Environmental Protection Agency including Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry.
Pepsi’s own tests conducted at an independent laboratory showed no detectable pesticides
and led Pepsi to file a petition with the high court questioning the credibility of the CSE’s
claims6 while Coke’s Gupta commented: “The allegation is serious and it has the potential to
tarnish the image of our brands in the country. If this continues, we will consider legal
recourse.”7

Despite Coke and Pepsi’s early responses denying the validity of the CSE’s claims and
threatening legal action, a survey conducted in Delhi a few days after the CSE
announcement found that a majority of consumers believed the findings were correct and
agreed with parliament’s move to ban the sale of soft drinks.8 It was clear that the $1 billion
Indian soft drink market9 was at stake and Gupta had to act.

Coca-Cola India no. 1-0000

History of Coke

The Early Days
Coca-Cola was created in 1886 by John Pemberton, a pharmacist in Atlanta, Georgia, who
sold the syrup mixed with fountain water as a potion for mental and physical disorders. The
formula changed hands three more times before Asa D. Candler added carbonation and by
2003, Coca-Cola was the world’s largest manufacturer, marketer, and distributor of
nonalcoholic beverage concentrates and syrups, with more than 400 widely recognized
beverage brands in its portfolio.

With the bubbles making the difference, Coca-Cola was registered as a trademark in 1887
and by 1895, was being sold in every state and territory in the United States. In 1899, it
franchised its bottling operations in the U.S., growing quickly to reach 370 franchisees by
1910.10 Headquartered in Atlanta with divisions and local operations in over 200 countries
worldwide, Coca-Cola generated more than 70% of its income outside the United States by
2003 (See Exhibit 3).

International expansion
Coke’s first international bottling plants opened in 1906 in Canada, Cuba, and Panama.11 By
the end of the 1920’s Coca-Cola was bottled in twenty-seven countries throughout the world
and available in fifty-one more. In spite of this reach, volume was low, quality inconsistent,
and effective advertising a challenge with language, culture, and government regulation all
serving as barriers. Former CEO Robert Woodruff’s insistence that Coca-Cola wouldn’t
“suffer the stigma of being an intrusive American product,” and instead would use local
bottles, caps, machinery, trucks, and personnel contributed to Coke’s challenges as well with
a lack of standard processes and training degrading quality.12

Coca-Cola continued working for over 80 years on Woodruff’s goal: to make Coke available
wherever and whenever consumers wanted it, “in arm’s reach of desire.”13 The Second
World War proved to be the stimulus Coca-Cola needed to build effective capabilities
around the world and achieve dominant global market share. Woodruff’s patriotic
commitment “that every man in uniform gets a bottle of Coca-Cola for five cents, wherever
he is and at whatever cost to our company”14 was more than just great public relations. As a
result of Coke’s status as a military supplier, Coca-Cola was exempt from sugar rationing
and also received government subsidies to build bottling plants around the world to serve
WWII troops.15

Turn of the Century Growth Imperative
The 1990’s brought a slowdown in sales growth for the Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD)
industry in the United States, achieving only 0.2% growth by 2000 (just under 10 billion
cases) in contrast to the 5-7% annual growth experienced during the 1980’s. While per capita
consumption throughout the world was a fraction of the United States’, major beverage
companies clearly had to look elsewhere for the growth their shareholders demanded. The

2


looming opportunity for twenty-first century was in the world’s developing markets with
their rapidly growing middle class populations.

The World’s Most Powerful Brand
Interbrand’s Global Brand Scorecard for 2003 ranked Coca-Cola the #1 Brand in the World
and estimated its brand value at $70.45 billion (See Exhibit 4). 16 The ranking’s methodology
determined a brand’s valuation on the basis of how much it was likely to earn in the future,
distilling the percentage of revenues that could be credited to the brand, and assessing the
brand’s strength to determine the risk of future earnings forecasts. Considerations included
market leadership, stability, and global reach, incorporating its ability to cross both
geographical and cultural borders.17

From the beginning, Coke understood the importance of branding and the creation of a
distinct personality.18 Its catchy, well-liked slogans19 (“It’s the real thing” (1942, 1969),
“Things go better with Coke” (1963), “Coke is it” (1982), “Can’t beat the Feeling” (1987),
and a 1992 return to “Can’t beat the real thing”) 20 linked that personality to the core values
of each generation and established Coke as the authentic, relevant, and trusted refreshment
of choice across the decades and around the globe.

Indian History
India is home to one of the most ancient cultures in the world dating back over 5000 years.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century, twenty-six different languages were spoken
across India, 30% of the population knew English, and greater than 40% were illiterate. At
this time, the nation was in the midst of great transition and the dichotomy between the old
India and the new was stark. Remnants of the caste system existed alongside the world’s top
engineering schools and growing metropolises as the historically agricultural economy
shifted into the services sector. In the process, India had created the world’s largest middle
class, second only to China.

A British colony since 1769 when the East India Company gained control of all European
trade in the nation, India gained its independence in 1947 under Mahatma Ghandi and his
principles of non-violence and self-reliance. In the decades that followed, self-reliance was
taken to the extreme as many Indians believed that economic independence was necessary to
be truly independent. As a result, the economy was increasingly regulated and many sectors
were restricted to the public sector. This movement reached its peak in 1977 when the Janta
party government came to power and Coca-Cola was thrown out of the country. In 1991, the
first generation of economic reforms was introduced and liberalization began.

Coke in India
Coca-Cola was the leading soft drink brand in India until 1977 when it left rather than reveal
its formula to the government and reduce its equity stake as required under the Foreign

3


Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) which governed the operations of foreign companies in
India. After a 16-year absence, Coca-Cola returned to India in 1993, cementing its presence
with a deal that gave Coca-Cola ownership of the nation's top soft-drink brands and bottling
network. Coke’s acquisition of local popular Indian brands including Thums Up (the most
trusted brand in India21), Limca, Maaza, Citra and Gold Spot provided not only physical
manufacturing, bottling, and distribution assets but also strong consumer preference. This
combination of local and global brands enabled Coca-Cola to exploit the benefits of global
branding and global trends in tastes while also tapping into traditional domestic markets.
Leading Indian brands joined the Company's international family of brands, including Coca-
Cola, diet Coke, Sprite and Fanta, plus the Schweppes product range. In 2000, the company
launched the Kinley water brand and in 2001, Shock energy drink and the powdered
concentrate Sunfill hit the market.

From 1993 to 2003, Coca-Cola invested more than US$1 billion in India, making it one of
the country’s top international investors.22 By 2003, Coca-Cola India had won the
prestigious Woodruf Cup from among 22 divisions of the Company based on three broad
parameters of volume, profitability, and quality. Coca-Cola India achieved 39% volume
growth in 2002 while the industry grew 23% nationally and the Company reached break-
even profitability in the region for the first time.23 Encouraged by its 2002 performance,
Coca-Cola India announced plans to double its capacity at an investment of $125 million
(Rs. 750 crore) between September 2002 and March 2003.24

Coca-Cola India produced its beverages with 7,000 local employees at its twenty-seven
wholly-owned bottling operations supplemented by seventeen franchisee-owned bottling
operations and a network of twenty-nine contract-packers to manufacture a range of products
for the company. The complete manufacturing process had a documented quality control and
assurance program including over 400 tests performed throughout the process (See Exhibit
5).

The complexity of the consumer soft drink market demanded a distribution process to
support 700,000 retail outlets serviced by a fleet that includes 10-ton trucks, open-bay three
wheelers, and trademarked tricycles and pushcarts that were used to navigate the narrow
alleyways of the cities.25 In addition to its own employees, Coke indirectly created
employment for another 125,000 Indians through its procurement, supply, and distribution
networks.

Sanjiv Gupta, President and CEO of Coca-Cola India, joined Coke in 1997 as Vice
President, Marketing and was instrumental to the company’s success in developing a brand
relevant to the Indian consumer and in tapping India’s vast rural market potential. Following
his marketing responsibilities, Gupta served as Head of Operations for Company-owned
bottling operations and then as Deputy President. Seen as the driving force behind recent
successful forays into packaged drinking water, powdered drinks, and ready-to-serve tea and
coffee, Gupta and his marketing prowess were critical to the continued growth of the
Company.26

4


The Indian Beverage Market27
India’s one billion people, growing middle class, and low per capita consumption of soft
drinks made it a highly contested prize in the global CSD market in the early twenty-first
century. Ten percent of the country’s population lived in urban areas or large cities and
drank ten bottles of soda per year while the vast remainder lived in rural areas, villages, and
small towns where annual per capita consumption was less than four bottles. Coke and
Pepsi dominated the market and together had a consolidated market share above 95%. While
soft drinks were once considered products only for the affluent, by 2003 91% of sales were
made to the lower, middle and upper middle classes. Soft drink sales in India grew 76%
between 1998 and 2002, from 5,670 million bottles to over 10,000 million (See Exhibit 6)
and were expected to grow at least 10% per year through 2012.28 In spite of this growth,
annual per capita consumption was only 6 bottles versus 17 in Pakistan, 73 in Thailand, 173
in the Philippines and 800 in the United States29.

With its large population and low consumption, the rural market represented a significant
opportunity for penetration and a critical battleground for market dominance. In 2001,
Coca-Cola recognized that to compete with traditional refreshments including lemon water,
green coconut water, fruit juices, tea, and lassi, competitive pricing was essential. In
response, Coke launched a smaller bottle priced at almost 50% of the traditional package.

Marketing Cola in India
The post-liberalization period in India saw the comeback of cola but Pepsi had already
beaten Coca-Cola to the punch, creatively entering the market in the 1980’s in advance of
liberalization by way of a joint venture. As early as 1985, Pepsi tried to gain entry into India
and finally succeeded with the Pepsi Foods Limited Project in 1988, as a JV of PepsiCo,
Punjab government-owned Punjab Agro Industrial Corporation (PAIC), and Voltas India
Limited. Pepsi was marketed and sold as Lehar Pepsi until 1991 when the use of foreign
brands was allowed under the new economic policy and Pepsi ultimately bought out its
partners, becoming a fully-owned subsidiary and ending the JV relationship in 1994.30

While the joint venture was only marginally successful in its own right, it allowed Pepsi to
gain precious early experience with the Indian market and also served as an introduction of
the Pepsi brand to the Indian consumer such that it was well-poised to reap the benefits when
liberalization came. Though Coke benefited from Pepsi creating demand and developing the
market, Pepsi’s head-start gave Coke a disadvantage in the mind of the consumer. Pepsi’s
appeal focused on youth and when Coke entered India in 1993 and approached the market
selling an American way of life, it failed to resonate as expected.31

2001 Marketing Strategy
Coca-Cola CEO Douglas Daft set the direction for the next generation of success for his
global brand with a “Think local, act local” mantra. Recognizing that a single global strategy

5


or single global campaign wouldn’t work, locally relevant executions became an
increasingly important element of supporting Coke’s global brand strategy.

In 2001, after almost a decade of lagging rival Pepsi in the region, Coke India re-examined
its approach in an attempt to gain leadership in the Indian market and capitalize on
significant growth potential, particularly in rural markets. The foundation of the new strategy
grounded brand positioning and marketing communications in consumer insights,
acknowledging that urban versus rural India were two distinct markets on a variety of
important dimensions. The soft drink category’s role in people’s lives, the degree of
differentiation between consumer segments and their reasons for entering the category, and
the degree to which brands in the category projected different perceptions to consumers were
among the many important differences between how urban and rural consumers approached
the market for refreshment.32

In rural markets, where both the soft drink category and individual brands were
undeveloped, the task was to broaden the brand positioning while in urban markets, with
higher category and brand development, the task was to narrow the brand positioning,
focusing on differentiation through offering unique and compelling value. This lens,
informed by consumer insights, gave Coke direction on the tradeoff between focus and
breadth a brand needed in a given market and made clear that to succeed in either segment,
unique marketing strategies were required in urban versus rural India.

Brand Localization Strategy: The Two Indias

India A: “Life ho to aisi”
“India A,” the designation Coca-Cola gave to the market segment including metropolitan
areas and large towns, represented 4% of the country’s population.33 This segment sought
social bonding as a need and responded to aspirational messages, celebrating the benefits of
their increasing social and economic freedoms. “Life ho to aisi,” (life as it should be) was
the successful and relevant tagline found in Coca-Cola’s advertising to this audience.

India B: “Thanda Matlab Coca-Cola”
Coca-Cola India believed that the first brand to offer communication targeted to the smaller
towns would own the rural market and went after that objective with a comprehensive
strategy. “India B” included small towns and rural areas, comprising the other 96% of the
nation’s population. This segment’s primary need was out-of-home thirst-quenching and the
soft drink category was undifferentiated in the minds of rural consumers. Additionally, with
an average Coke costing Rs. 10 and an average day’s wages around Rs. 100, Coke was
perceived as a luxury that few could afford. 34

In an effort to make the price point of Coke within reach of this high-potential market, Coca-
Cola launched the Accessibility Campaign, introducing a new 200ml bottle, smaller than the
traditional 300ml bottle found in urban markets, and concurrently cutting the price in half, to

6


Rs. 5. This pricing strategy closed the gap between Coke and basic refreshments like
lemonade and tea, making soft drinks truly accessible for the first time. At the same time,
Coke invested in distribution infrastructure to effectively serve a disbursed population and
doubled the number of retail outlets in rural areas from 80,000 in 2001 to 160,000 in 2003,
increasing market penetration from 13 to 25%.35

Coke’s advertising and promotion strategy pulled the marketing plan together using local
language and idiomatic expressions. “Thanda,” meaning cool/cold is also generic for cold
beverages and gave “Thanda Matlab Coca-Cola” delicious multiple meanings. Literally
translated to “Coke means refreshment,” the phrase directly addressed both the primary need
of this segment for cold refreshment while at the same time positioning Coke as a “Thanda”
or generic cold beverage just like tea, lassi, or lemonade. As a result of the Thanda
campaign, Coca-Cola won Advertiser of the Year and Campaign of the Year in 2003 (See
Exhibit 7).

Rural Success
Comprising 74% of the country's population, 41% of its middle class, and 58% of its
disposable income, the rural market was an attractive target and it delivered results. Coke
experienced 37% growth in 2003 in this segment versus the 24% growth seen in urban areas.
Driven by the launch of the new Rs. 5 product, per capita consumption doubled between
2001-2003. This market accounted for 80% of India’s new Coke drinkers, 30% of 2002
volume, and was expected to account for 50% of the company’s sales in 2003.36

Corporate Social Responsibility
As one of the largest and most global companies in the world, Coca-Cola took seriously its
ability and responsibility to positively affect the communities in which it operated. The
company’s mission statement, called the Coca-Cola Promise, stated: “The Coca-Cola
Company exists to benefit and refresh everyone who is touched by our business.” The
Company has made efforts towards good citizenship in the areas of community, by
improving the quality of life in the communities in which they operate, and the environment,
by addressing water, climate change and waste management initiatives. Their activities also
included The Coca-Cola Africa Foundation created to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS
through partnership with governments, UNAIDS, and other NGOs, and The Coca-Cola
Foundation, focused on higher education as a vehicle to build strong communities and
enhance individual opportunity (See Exhibit 8).37

Coca-Cola’s footprint in India was significant as well. The Company employed 7000
citizens and believed that for every direct job, 30-40 more were created in the supply chain.38
Like its parent, Coke India’s Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives were both
community and environment-focused. Priorities included education, where primary
education projects had been set up to benefit children in slums and villages, water
conservation, where the Company supported community-based rainwater harvesting projects
to restore water levels and promote conservation education, and health, where Coke India

7


partnered with NGOs and governments to provide medical access to poor people through
regular health camps. In addition to outreach efforts, the company committed itself to
environmental responsibility through its own business operations in India including39:

• Environmental due diligence before acquiring land or starting projects

• Environmental impact assessment before commencing operations

• Ground water and environmental surveys before selecting sites

• Compliance with all regulatory environmental requirements

• Ban on purchasing CFC-containing refrigeration equipment

• Waste water treatment facilities with trained personnel at all company-owned
bottling operations

• Energy conservation programs

• 50% water savings in last seven years of operations

Previous Coke Crises
Despite Coke’s reputation as a socially responsible corporate citizen, the Company has faced
its share of controversy worldwide surrounding both its products and its policies in the years
preceding the Indian pesticide crisis.

Ingram, et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company- 199940
In the spring of 1999, 4 current and former Coca-Cola employees, led by Information
Analyst Linda Ingram, filed bias charges against Coca-Cola in Atlanta Federal Court. The
lawsuit charged the Company with racial discrimination and stated: “This discrimination
represents a company-wide pattern and practice, rather than a series of isolated incidents.
Although Coca-Cola has carefully crafted African-American consumers of its product by
public announcements, strategic alliances and specific marketing strategies, it has failed to
place the same importance on its African-American employees.”41

In the decades leading up to the suit, both internal and external warnings surrounding Coke’s
diversity practices were issued. In 1981, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, director of the
Rainbow/ PUSH coalition instigated a boycott against Coca-Cola challenging the company
to significantly improve its business relationship with the African American community.42

The Ware report, written by Senior Vice President Carl Ware, an African-American
executive at the Company, cited a lack of diversity at the decision-making level, a basic lack
of workplace diversity, a “ghettoization” among blacks who worked for Cola-Cola, and an
overt lack of respect for cultural differences as well as an implicit assumption that African-

8


American employees lacked the intelligence to meet the challenges of the highest executive
levels.43

Cyrus Mehri, one of the most visible and successful plaintiff advocates in the US,
represented the group and was skilled at leveraging the power of the media, creating a true
crisis for the Coca-Cola Company and exerting tremendous pressure for settlement. In 2000,
the lawsuit was settled for $192.5 million after the company had sent mixed messages and
damaging statements regarding the merit of the suit for over a year. Analysts identified the
bias suit as a prime reason for the $100 billion decrease in Coca-Cola’s stock price between
1998-2000.44

Belgium- 199945
On June 8, 1999, thirty-three Belgian school children became ill after drinking Coke bottled
at a local facility in Antwerp. A few days later, more Belgians complained of similar
symptoms after drinking cans of Coke that had been bottled at a plant in Dunkirk, France
and eighty people in northern France were allegedly stricken by intestinal problems and
nausea, bringing the total afflicted to over 250.

In the days following the first outbreak, seventeen million cases of Coke from five European
countries were recalled and destroyed. It was the largest product recall in Coke’s history and
Belgian and French authorities banned the sale of Coca-Cola products for ten days. Germany
placed a temporary import ban on Coca Cola produced in Belgium and the Netherlands, and
Luxembourg banned all Coca Cola products. Health ministers in Italy, Spain, and
Switzerland warned people about consuming Coke products.

Coca-Cola sources explained that the contamination was due to defective carbon dioxide
used at the Antwerp plant and that a wood preservative used on shipping pallets had
concentrated the outside of cans at the Dunkirk plant. The European Commission, however,
believed production faults and contaminated pipes were more likely to be the cause of the
problem.

Though CEO Ivester was in Paris when the news broke, he flew home to Atlanta and kept
silent, waiting over a week to issue his first public statement on the crisis, citing that “Coke
would do whatever necessary to ensure the safety of its products.” A Netherlands-based
toxicologist Coke had hired issued a report on June 29 exempting the company from blame
for the CO2 impurity in Antwerp and the fungicide at Dunkirk. Though the product ban was
lifted, Coke had a tremendous amount of work to do to win back consumer confidence.

An aggressive PR campaign included vouchers and coupons for free product delivered to
each of Belgium’s 4.4 million homes, sponsored dances, beach parties, and summer fairs for
teenagers, and significant television advertising reinforcing “Today, more than ever, we
thank you for your loyalty.”

9


Kinley Bottled Water
On February 4, 2003 the Center for Science and Environment (CSE) in India released a
report based on tests conducted by the Pollution Monitoring Laboratory (PML) titled “Pure
Water or Pure Peril?” Analysis of 17 packaged drinking water brands sold across the
country revealed evidence of pesticide residues including lindane, DDT, malathion, and
chlorpyrifos. The CSE used European norms for maximum permissible limits for pesticides
in packaged water “because the standards set for pesticide residues by the Bureau of Indian
Standards (BIS) are vague and undefined.”46 Coca-Cola’s Kinley water brand had
concentration levels 15 times higher than stipulated limits, top-seller Biserli had 79 times
and Aquaplus topped the list at 109 times.47 In the wake of this statement, Coca-Cola
remained largely silent and the buzz went away.

Corporate Communications at Coca-Cola
Corporate Communications was a critical function at the Coca-Cola corporation given the
number of constituencies both internal and external to the company. In addition, the
complexity and global reach of the Company's operations could not be centrally managed
and instead demanded a matrixed team organization.

The senior communications position at the company, Senior Vice President, Worldwide
Public Affairs & Communication, sat on the company's executive committee and reported to
the Chairman & CEO at the time of the crisis in India. Director-level corporate
communication functions included: Media Relations, Nutrition Communications, Financial
Communications, and Marketing Communications, but the geographic diversity of the
company's businesses required regionally-based communication leaders in addition to the
corporate resources in place. As a result, five regional communications directors serviced
North America, Latin America, Asia, Europe, and Africa with their own teams of
communications professionals (See Exhibit 9).

NGO Activism48
NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) evolved to influence governments but by the
early twenty-first century many realized that targeting corporations and key corporate
constituents such as investors and customers could be an even more powerful way to effect
change. Along with their ability to focus, gain attention, and act quickly was the high level
of credibility NGOs had cultivated with many constituencies. This credibility stemmed in
part from their emotional, rather than fact-based, appeals and the impassioned nature of their
arguments.

The most common tactic of NGOs was to develop campaigns against business through
which they garnered support from consumers and the media. These campaigns, such as
Greenpeace’s attack on Shell Oil following the company’s decision to dump the Brent Spar
oil rig in the ocean in the 1990s, typically focused on a single issue; targeted companies with
successful and well-known brands such as McDonald’s and Nike; and were augmented by

10


market trends such as the homogenization created by chains like Wal-Mart and Starbucks.
NGOs realized that anti-corporate campaigns could be far more powerful than anti-
government campaigns. Global Exchange’s attack on Nike for sweatshop labor conditions in
the 1990s, for example, was one of the most highly publicized and also one of the most
successful anti-business campaigns in recent years.

Center for Science and Environment
The CSE, an NGO, was established in India in 1980 by a group of engineers, scientists,
journalists and environmentalists to “catalyze the growth of public awareness on vital issues
in science, technology, environment, and development.”49 Led by Sumita Narain, a former
schoolmate of Coke India CEO Gupta, the CSE’s efforts included communication for
awareness, research and advocacy, education and training, documentation, and pollution
monitoring.

Spurred by the February 2003 report on bottled water and questions like “if what we found
in bottled water was correct, then what about soft drinks?” the CSE’s August 2003 report
claimed that soft drinks were extremely dangerous to Indian citizens based on tests
conducted at the Pollution Monitoring Laboratory (PML). All samples contained residues of
lindane, DDT, malathion, and chlorpyrifos, toxic pesticides and insecticides known to cause
serious long term health issues. Total pesticides in all Coca-Cola brands averaged 0.0150
mg/l, 30 times higher than the European Economic Commission (EEC) limit. PML also
tested samples of Coke and Pepsi products sold in the United States to see if they contained
pesticides and they did not.

Regulations on soft drinks were weak in India, even compared to bottled water, as neither
the Prevention of Food Alteration Act (PFA) nor the Fruit Products Order (FPO), aimed at
regulating food standards in India, addressed pesticides in soft drinks, and there were no
standards to define ‘clean’ or ‘potable’ water. The report called on the government to put in
place legally enforceable water standards and chastised the multi-nationals for taking
advantage of the situation at the expense of consumer health and well-being.

Indian Regulatory Environment50
The main law governing food safety in India was the 1954 Prevention of Food Alteration
Act (PFA) which contained a rule regulating pesticides in foods but did not include
beverages. The Food Processing Order (1955) required that the main ingredient used in soft
drinks be “potable water” but the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) had no prescribed
standards for pesticides in water. One BIS directive stated that pesticides must be absent and
set a limit of 0.001 parts per million but the Health Secretary admitted, “There are lapses in
PFA regarding carbonated drinks.”51

Indian law enforcement was minimal with virtually no conviction under PFA. In the absence
of national standards, NGOs such as the CSE turned to the United States and the European
Union for “international norms.” The appropriateness and feasibility of these standards for

11


developing nations however, remained a question for many. Under EU food laws for
example, milk, fruit, and basic staples such as rice and wheat would need to be imported into
India to satisfy safety standards.

The Initial Response
The day after the CSE’s announcement, Coke and Pepsi came together in a rare show of
solidarity at a joint press conference. The companies attacked the credibility of the CSE and
their lab results, citing regular testing at independent laboratories proving the safety of their
products. They promised to provide this data to the public, threatened legal action against the
CSE while seeking a gag order, and contacted the United States Embassy in India for
assistance. Coca-Cola India’s CEO Sanjiv Gupta published the following statement for the
Indian public:52

You may have seen recently in the media some allegations about the quality
standards of our products in India. We take these allegations extremely seriously.
I want to reassure you that our products in India are safe and are tested regularly to
ensure that they meet the same rigorous standards we maintain across the world.

Maintaining quality standards is the most important element of our business and we
cannot stand by while misleading and unaccredited data is used to discredit trusted
and world-class brands. Recent allegations have caused unnecessary panic among
consumers in India and, if unchecked, would impair our business in India and impact
the livelihoods of our thousands of employees across the country.

This site is about the truth behind the headlines. It provides some context and facts
on these issues and we hope it helps you understand exactly why you can trust our
beverage brands and continue to enjoy them as millions of Indians do each day.

Sanjiv Gupta, Division President, Coca-Cola India

In the following days, the Delhi High Court asked the government to convene an expert
committee to test and report on the safety of soft drinks within three weeks and to revise
existing standards to include pesticide norms. Coca-Cola and Pepsi launched independent
campaigns to reassure the public, taking out full-page newspaper advertisements and
directing consumers to their corporate Web sites to review test results and safety protocol in
greater detail (See Exhibits 10 and 11). In spite of these actions, the public seemed to believe
the CSE’s claims and the crisis was far from over for the beverage giants. With sales
continuing to experience a precipitous drop, one Delhi medical student’s sentiments
appeared to be widespread: “For a person drinking at least one bottle a day, the report came
as a rude shock. I haven’t picked up a bottle today and most definitely will not consume soft
drinks in the future. The reports of pesticides and other pollutants have made soft drinks a
strict no-no and we will now stick to juices and plain drinking water.”53

12


Gupta’s Dilemma
As he contemplated the crisis at hand, Sanjiv Gupta questioned what action if any was
necessary. Coke India was well within the country’s legal guidelines and the crisis had not
been widely reported outside of India. Gupta knew that the Indian public had a short
attention span and had reason to think that it wouldn’t be long before the CSE’s report faded,
just as the Kinley water issue had earlier this year.

On the other hand, he wondered if the situation might offer the company an opportunity to
display higher standards of social responsibility at a time when it needed to differentiate
itself from the competition. Multinationals had slipped in numerous situations of late and
were blamed for not adhering to the same standards in developing countries as in
industrialized nations. The additive effect of this negative press meant that the potential
damage to Coke’s reputation was even greater. Finally, an ineffective resolution would be a
devastating blow to the momentum Coke had gained after three long years of work on the
marketing front.

13


Exhibit 1: Center for Science and Environment Press Release

Hard Truths About Soft Drinks
New Delhi, August 5, 2003: After bottled water, it’s aerated water that has plugged the
purity test. In another exposé, Down To Earth has found that 12 major cold drink brands sold
in and around Delhi contain a deadly cocktail of pesticide residues. The results are based on
tests conducted by the Pollution Monitoring Laboratory (PML) of the Centre for Science and
Environment (CSE). In February this year, CSE had blasted the bottled water industry’s
claims of being ‘pure’ when its laboratory had found pesticide residues in bottled water sold
in Delhi and Mumbai.

This time, it analysed the contents of 12 cold drink brands sold in and around the capital.
They were tested for organochlorine and organophosphorus pesticides and synthetic
pyrethroids — all commonly used in India as insecticides.

The test results were as shocking as those of bottled water.

All samples contained residues of four extremely toxic pesticides and insecticides: lindane,
DDT, malathion and chlorpyrifos. In all samples, levels of pesticide residues far exceeded
the maximum residue limit for pesticides in water used as ‘food’, set down by the European
Economic Commission (EEC). Each sample had enough poison to cause — in the long term
— cancer, damage to the nervous and reproductive systems, birth defects and severe
disruption of the immune system.

What we found

• Market leaders Coca-Cola and Pepsi had almost similar concentrations of pesticide
residues. Total pesticides in all PepsiCo brands on an average were 0.0180 mg/l
(milligramme per litre), 36 times higher than the EEC limit for total pesticides
(0.0005 mg/l). Total pesticides in all Coca-Cola brands on an average were 0.0150
mg/l, 30 times higher than the EEC limit.

• While contaminants in the ‘Dil mange more’ Pepsi were 37 times higher than the
EEC limit, they exceeded the norms by 45 times in the ‘Thanda matlab Coca-Cola’
product.

• Mirinda Lemon topped the chart among all the tested brand samples, with a total
pesticide concentration of 0.0352 mg/l.

The cold drinks sector in India is a much bigger money-spinner than the bottled water
segment. In 2001, Indians consumed over 6,500 million bottles of cold drinks. Its growing
popularity means that children and teenagers, who glug these bottles, are drinking a toxic
potion.

PML also tested two soft drink brands sold in the US, to see if they contained pesticides.
They didn’t.

14


The question, therefore, is: how can apparently quality-conscious multinationals market
products unfit for human consumption?

CSE found that the regulations for the powerful and massive soft drinks industry are much
weaker, indeed non-existent, as compared to those for the bottled water industry. The norms
that exist to regulate the quality of cold drinks are a maze of meaningless definitions. This
"food" sector is virtually unregulated.

The Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act of 1954, or the Fruit Products Order (FPO)
of 1955 — both mandatory acts aimed at regulating the quality of contents in beverages such
as cold drinks — do not even provide any scope for regulating pesticides in soft drinks. The
FPO, under which the industry gets its licence to operate, has standards for lead and arsenic
that are 50 times higher than those allowed for the bottled water industry.

What’s more, the sector is also exempted from the provisions of industrial licensing under
the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. It gets a one-time license to operate
from the ministry of food processing industries; this license includes a no-objection
certificate from the local government as well as the state pollution control board, and a water
analysis report. There are no environmental impact assessments, or citing regulations. The
industry’s use of water, therefore, is not regulated.

Source: CSE Press Release, “Hard Truths about Soft Drinks,” 8/5/03.

15


Exhibit 2: Pesticide Content in Twelve Leading Soft Drink Brands

Source: CSE Press Release, “Hard Truths about Soft Drinks,” 8/5/03.

16


Exhibit 3: The Coca-Cola Company Income Statement
(in millions $ except per share data) 2002 2001 2000

Net Operating Revenues 19,564 17,545 17,354

Cost of Goods Sold 7,105 6,044 6,204

Gross Profit 12,459 11,501 11,150

Selling, general, and administrative expenses 7,001 6,149 6,016

Other operating changes 0 0 1,443

Operating Income 5,458 5,352 3,691

Interest Income 209 325 345

Interest Expense 199 289 447

Equity Income (loss) 384 152 (289)

Other Income (loss) --net (353) 39 99

Gains on issuances of stock by equity investee 0 91 0
Income before income taxes and cumulative effect
of accounting change 5,499 5,670 3,399

Income Taxes 1,523 1,691 1,222
Net Income before cumulative effect of accounting
change 3,976 3,979 2,177
Cumulative effect of accounting change for SFAS No.
142 net of income taxes:

Company operations (367) 0 0

Equity investments (559) 0 0
Cumulative effect of accounting change for SFAS No.
133 net of income taxes: 0 (10) 0

Net Income 3,050 3,969 2,177

Basic Net Income per share

Before accounting change 1.60 1.60 0.88

Cumulative effect of accounting change (0.37) 0 0

1.23 1.60 0.88
Diluted net income per share

Before accounting change 1.60 1.60 0.88

Cumulative effect of accounting change (0.37) 0 0

1.23 1.60 0.88
Average shares outstanding 2478 2487 2477
Effect of dilutive securities 5 0 10
Average shares outstanding assuming dilution 2483 2487 2487

17


Exhibit 4: Interbrand’s Global Brand Scoreboard 2003

Rank Company 2003 Brand 2002 Brand Percent Country of
Value ($Billion) Value ($Billion) Change Ownership

1 Coca-Cola 70.45 69.64 +1% U.S.

2 Microsoft 65.17 54.09 +2 U.S.

3 IBM 51.77 51.19 +1 U.S.

4 GE 42.34 41.31 +2 U.S.

5 Intel 31.11 30.86 +1 U.S.

6 Nokia 29.44 29.97 -2 Finland

7 Disney 28.04 29.26 -4 U.S.

8 McDonald’s 24.70 26.38 -6 U.S.

9 Marlboro 22.18 24.15 -8 U.S.

10 Mercedes 21.37 21.01 +2 Germany

Source: Interbrand’s Global Brand Scorecard, 2003. Business Week, 8/4/03.

18


Exhibit 5: Rountine tests carried out by bottling operations and external
laboratories

Process Parameter No. of tests

1 Water 71

2 Water Treatment & Auxiliary Chemicals 68

3 CO2 50

4 Sugar 13

5 Syrup 17

6 Packaging Material 25

7 Container Washing 17

8 Finished Product 18

9 Market Samples 15

10 External Lab 147

TOTAL 441

Source: The Coca-Cola Company; http://www.myenjoyzone.com

19


Exhibit 6: Soft Drink Sales in India

Fiscal Year Million Bottles Sold

1998-1999 5670

1999-2000 6230

2000-2001 6450

2001-2002 6600

2002-2003 10000

Source: “Soft drink sales up 10.4%,” PTI, 9/29/04.

20


Exhibit 7: Thanda Matlab Coca-Cola Advertising Campaign, Print Media

Source: McCann-Erickson Worldwide Web site

21


Exhibit 8: Coca-Cola Principles of Corporate Citizenship
Our reputation is built on trust. Through good citizenship we will nurture our relationships
and continue to build that trust. That is the essence of our
promise - The Coca-Cola Company exists to benefit and refresh everyone it touches.

Wherever Coca-Cola does business, we strive to be trusted partners and good citizens. We
are committed to managing our business around the world with a consistent set of values that
represent the highest standards of integrity and excellence. We share these values with our
bottlers, making our system stronger.

These core values are essential to our long-term business success and will be reflected in all
of our relationships and actions - in the marketplace, the workplace, the environment and the
community.

Marketplace
We will adhere to the highest ethical standards, knowing that the quality of our products, the
integrity of our brands and the dedication of our people build trust and strengthen
relationships. We will serve the people who enjoy our brands through innovation, superb
customer service, and respect for the unique customs and cultures in the communities where
we do business.

Workplace
We will treat each other with dignity, fairness and respect. We will foster an inclusive
environment that encourages all employees to develop and perform to their fullest potential,
consistent with a commitment to human rights in our workplace. The Coca-Cola workplace
will be a place where everyone's ideas and contributions are valued, and where responsibility
and accountability are encouraged and rewarded.

Environment
We will conduct our business in ways that protect and preserve the environment. We will
integrate principles of environmental stewardship and sustainable development into our
business decisions and processes.

Community
We will contribute our time, expertise and resources to help develop sustainable
communities in partnership with local leaders. We will seek to improve the quality of life
through locally-relevant initiatives wherever we do business.

Responsible corporate citizenship is at the heart of The Coca-Cola Promise. We believe that
what is best for our employees, for the community and for the environment is also best for
our business.

Source: Coca-Cola Company Website

22


Exhibit 9: Corporate Communications at Coca-Cola

SVP WW Public
Affairs &
Communications

Assistant VP & Director, Health & Director, Financial Director, Marketing Director, North Director, Asia
Director, Media Nutrition Communications Communications America Communications
Relations Communications Communications

Senior Manager,
Public Affairs &
Comm, C-C India

Source: Case writer derived from Coca-Cola Company Web site

23


Exhibit 10: Myths and Facts from Coca-Cola India Web site

Since August 5, 2003 the quality and safety of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo products in India
have been called into question by a local NGO, the Centre for Science and Environment
(CSE). The basis of the allegations are tests conducted on products of Coca-Cola and
PepsiCo by CSE’s internal unaccredited laboratory, the Pollution Monitoring Laboratory.

In India, as in the rest of the world, our plants use a multiple barrier system to remove
potential contaminants and unwanted natural substances including iron, sulfur, heavy metals
as well as pesticides. Our products in India are safe and are tested regularly to ensure that
they meet the same rigorous standards we maintain across the world.

The result of these allegations has been consumer confusion, significant impact on the sale
of a safe and high-quality product, and the erosion of international investor confidence in the
Indian business sector. This situation calls for the development of national sampling and
testing protocols for soft drinks, an end to sensationalizing unsubstantiated allegations, and
co-operation by all parties concerned in the interests of both Indian consumers and
companies with significant investments in the Indian economy.

The facts versus the fiction False statements made in recent weeks have led to false
perceptions by Indian consumers:

Myth Coca-Cola products in India contain pesticide residues that are above EU norms.

Fact Throughout all of our operations in India, stringent quality monitoring takes place covering
both the source water we use as well as our finished product. We test for traces of pesticide in
groundwater to the level of parts per billion. This is equivalent to one drop in a billion drops.
For comparison’s sake, this would also be equivalent to measuring one second in 32 years, or
less than one person in the entire population in India. These tests require specialized
equipment at accredited labs to have accurate results. Even at these stringent miniscule levels
we are well within the internationally accepted safety norms.

Myth Coca-Cola products sold in India are "toxic" and unfit for human consumption.

Fact There is no contamination or toxicity in our beverage brands. Our high-quality beverages are
– and have always been - safe and refreshing. In over 200 countries across the globe, more
than a billion times every day, consumers choose our brands for refreshment because Coca-
Cola is a symbol of quality.

Coca-Cola has dual standards in the production of its products, one high standard for western
Myth
countries, another for India.

24


Fact The soft drinks manufactured in India conform to the same high standards of quality as in the
USA and Europe. Through our globally accepted and validated manufacturing processes and
Quality Management systems, we ensure that our state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities are
equipped to provide the consumer the highest quality beverage each time. We stringently test
our soft drinks in India at independent, accredited and world-class laboratories both locally
and internationally.

Myth In India the soft drinks industry is virtually unregulated.

Fact There are no standards for soft drinks in the US, the EU, or India. In India, water used for
beverage manufacture must conform to drinking water standards. The water used by Coca-
Cola conforms to both BIS and EU standards for drinking water and our production protocols
ensure this through a focus on process control and testing of the water used in our
manufacturing process and the final product quality.

Myth Coca-Cola has put out results for Kinley water only and not for their soft drinks.

Fact The results of product tests conducted by TNO Nutrition and Food Research Laboratory in
the Netherlands is conclusive and is available on The Science Behind Our Quality web page.

Myth International companies like Coca-Cola are “colonizing” India.

Fact The Coca-Cola business in India is a local business. Our beverages in India are produced
locally, we employ thousands of Indian citizens, our product range and marketing reflect
Indian tastes and lifestyles, and we are deeply involved in the life of the local communities in
which we operate. The Coca-Cola business system directly employs approximately 10,000
local people in India. In addition, independent studies have documented that, by providing
opportunities for local enterprises, the Coca-Cola business also generates a significant
employment “multiplier effect.” In India, we indirectly create employment for more than
125,000 people in related industries through our vast procurement, supply and distribution
system.

Farmers in India are using Coca-Cola and other soft drinks as pesticides by spraying them on
Myth
their crops.

Fact Soft drinks do not act in a similar way to pesticides when applied to the ground or crops.
There is no scientific basis for this and the use of soft drinks for this purpose would be totally
ineffective.
In India, as in the rest of the world, our products are world class and safe and the treated
water used to make our beverages there meets the highest international standards.

Source: Coca-Cola Company Website

25


Bibliography

Argenti, Paul A.. Collaborating with Activists: How Starbucks Works with NGOs. California
Management Review, Vol. 47, No. 1, Fall 2004.

Bhatia, Gauri. Multinational Corporations: Pro or Con? Outlook India, October 29, 2003.

Business Week Online, Things Aren’t Going Better with Coke, June 28, 1999

Centre for Science and Environment (CSE): Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Soft Drinks,
August 5, 2003.

Coca-Cola India. Marketing: Questioning Paradigms, Internal Company Presentation.

Coke, Pepsi challenge India pesticide claim:
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/coke/0803/06pesticide.html

Coke, Pepsi India deny pesticides in soft drinks:
http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2003/08/05/rtr1049160.html
Coca-Cola, Philips Win Marketing Awards: http://www.financialexpress.com 10/7/04

Dawar, Niraj and Nancy Dai. Cola Wars in China: The Future is Here. HBS Case, August
21, 2003.

Dey, Saikat. Interview on Indian history and economic liberalization. January 10, 2005.

http://www.coca-cola.com/flashIndex1.html

http://www2.coca-cola.com/presscenter/viewpoints_india_situation.html

http://www.coca-colaindia.com/

http://www.indiaresource.org/

http://www.killercoke.org

http://www.myenjoyzone.com/press1/truth.htm

“Global Brand Scorecard 2003: Special Report.” Interbrand, as seen in Business Week
8/04/03.

Kaul, Nymph. Interview of Sanjiv Gupta, President and CEO of Coca-Cola India, June 2004.

Kaul, Nymph. Rai University, multiple interviews.

Kaul, Nymph. Rai University, “Coca-Cola India.”

Keller, Kevin Lane. Strategic Brand Management. Prentice Hall, 1998.

26


Kochan, Nicholas, editor. The World’s Greatest Brands: an International Review by
Interbrand. New York University Press, 1997.

“People’s Forum Against Coca-Cola,” Brochure.

Pendergrast, Mark: For God, Country and Coca-Cola. Charles Scribners, 1993.

Sanghvi, Rish. Interviews on Cola in India before liberalization and marketing/advertising of
Coke and Pepsi in India, November 2004.

Society for Environmental Communications: Colanisation’s Dirty Dozen: Deadly pesticides
found in 12 leading brands of soft drinks, 8/15/03.

“Soft drink sales up 10.4%,” PTI, 9/29/04.

Srivastava, Amit: Coke with a New Twist: Toxic Cola, India Resource Center, February 15,
2004.

The Corporate Web Site as an Image Restoration Tool: The Case of Coca-Cola

Yoffie, David B. and Yusi Wang, Cola Wars Continue: Coke versus Pepsi in the Twenty-
First Century. HBS Case, January 11, 2002.

Yoffie, David B. and Richard Seet, Internationalizing the Cola Wars: The Battle for China
and Asian Markets. HBS Case, May 31, 1995.

27


Endnotes

1 “Toxic effect: Coke sales fall by a sharp 30-40%,” The Economic Times, 8/13/03, p 1.
2 “Controversy-ridden year for soft drinks.” Business Line, New Delhi, 12/30/03, p 6.
3 “Toxic effect.”
4 “Hard Truths About Soft Drinks.” Center for Science and Environment, Press Release, 8/5/03.
5 “No standards for world-wide pesticide residues in soft-drinks.” Business Line, New Delhi, 10/03/03 p 9.
6 “Coke & Pepsi in India: Pesticides in Carbonated Beverages.”
http://www.vedpuriswar.org/articles/Indiancases retrieved 12/7/04
7 “Tests show pesticides in soft drinks, claims CSE,” Economic Times, 8/6/03, p 1.
8 “Coke & Pepsi in India: Pesticides in Carbonated Beverages”
9 http://www.indiastat.com
10 “Coca-Cola India.” Nymph Kaul, 2004. and Coca-Cola Company Website: http://www2.coca-
cola.com/heritage/ and Pendergrast, For God, Country and Coca-Cola. Charles Scribner’s, 1993.
11 http://www2.coca-cola.com/ourcompany/aroundworld.html
12 Pendergrast, 172.
13 Ibid
14 Ibid, 199
15 Ibid, 200-201.
16 “The Top 100 Brands: Interbrand Brand Scorecard 2003.” Interbrand Special Report, as seen in Business
Week 8/4/03.
17 Ibid
18 The World’s Greatest Brands, A Review by Interbrand. Edited by Nicholas Kochan.
19 Strategic Brand Management. Kevin Lane Keller, page 153.
20 http://www.portobello.com.au/portobello/reading/memorabilia_cocacola.htm
21 “Brands of Coca-Cola in India,” Rai University, 11/04.
22 http://www.coca-colaindia.com
23 Sanjiv Gupta Biography, Rai University.
24 “Coca-Cola India to Double Capacity,” Kolkata, 3/8/03.
26 Gupta Bio
27 http://www.indiastat.com
28 Ibid
29 Ibid
30 “Broken commitments: The case of Pepsi in India.” Kavaljit Singh, PIRG Update, May 1997.
31 Interview with Nymph Kaul, 9/20/04.
32 Coca-Cola India Internal Marketing Presentation
33 Ibid

28


34 Kaul
35 Kaul
36 Ibid
38 Ibid
39 Ibid
40 “The Corporate Web site as an Image Restoration Tool.” Nicola K. Graves and Randall L. Waller, 2004.
41 “Coca-Cola accused of a ‘companywide pattern.’” Unger, H, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p H1,
(1999a, April 24).
42 “The real thing: Truth and power at the Coca-Cola Company.” Hays, C.L., New York: Random House
2004.
43 Ibid
44 “Coke crisis: Equity erodes as brand troubles mount.” MacArthur, K., & Linnett, R., Advertising Age, p. 3,
4/24/00.
45 “Coke & Pepsi in India: Pesticides in Carbonated Beverages,” p. 8
46 “Pure Water or Pure Peril,” CSE press release 2/03.
47 Ibid
48 “Collaborating with Activists: How Starbucks Works with NGOs.” Argenti, Paul A., CMR, Fall 2004.
49 http://www.cseindia.org
50 “Coke & Pepsi in India: Pesticides in Carbonated Beverages,” p. 3.
51 “The Gulp War,” Supriya Bezbaruat and Malini Goyal, India Today, 8/25/03, pp 50-53.
53 “Shocked Dehlites Stay Away from Soft Drinks,” The Hindu, New Dehli, 8/07/03 p. 1

29

Coke india case

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (9)

Similar to Coke india case (20)

Coke india case