Skip to main content

COKE in hot water

Oct 6th 2005 -From The Economist print edition

The world's biggest drinks firm tries to fend off its green critics

“WATER is to Coca-Cola as clean energy is to BP.” So declares Jeff Seabright, Coca-Cola's manager of environmental affairs, when asked about the firm's new global water strategy. The fizzy-drinks maker unveiled that strategy as part of its annual environmental report, released this week. “We need to manage this issue or it will manage us,” says Mr Seabright.

At first sight, the analogy with oil may seem odd, but it is not so far-fetched. Big Oil has long been the target of activists clamouring for action on global warming. BP stole a march on its oily brethren by accepting that climate change is a real problem, making smallish investments in clean energy, and grandly proclaiming itself “beyond petroleum”.

Coca-Cola has also been targeted by activists, but over the issue of water rather than energy. The firm has been hit hardest in India. First, experts from Delhi's Centre for Science and Environment, a green think-tank, tested various soft drinks and determined that they contained high levels of pesticide. It turned out that Coca-Cola was not the cause of the problem. But its inept handling of the accusations left the firm exposed to a much more damaging allegation: that it is aggravating the growing global problem of fresh-water scarcity. An ongoing controversy in India concerns allegations that some of the firm's bottling plants use too much water in drought-prone areas, thus leaving poor local villagers with too little. Amit Srivastava of the India Resource Centre, a Californian non-governmental group, has been using the Indian controversies to stoke an international grass-roots campaign against Coca-Cola.

The firm brags that it operates in 200 countries—“more than the UN itself”, says Mr Seabright. But Coca-Cola's global reach and iconic status make it an easy target. Mr Srivastava points with glee to recent decisions at a handful of university campuses in America and Britain to suspend or challenge its contracts on ethical grounds.

Worse may be in store, if some have their way. Corporate Accountability International (CAI), an activist group best known for organising a noisy boycott of Nestlé (for selling infant milk powder in countries without reliable access to clean water), now has its sights set on the world's largest producer of non-alcoholic drinks. CAI turned up at Coca-Cola's last shareholder meeting to grill the firm's management over the water issue. Kathryn Mulvey, CAI's boss, is concerned not only about its fizzy-drinks divisions but also its newish and booming bottled-water business. Echoing the sentiments of other campaigners, she insists that the “misleading marketing campaign” for the bottled water needlessly undermines confidence in tap water, and amounts to the “commodification of something that should not be bought and sold.”

Company officials argue that they started measuring and improving their use of water long before its troubles in India. The firm improved its water efficiency by 6% between 2003 and 2004. In 2002, it took 3.12 litres of water to produce one litre of final product (as much water is used to clean the assembly lines, flush out glass bottles, and so on). In 2004, that global average came down to 2.72 litres. Mr Srivastava is not impressed: he grouses that it is “ridiculous that a firm that calls itself a ‘hydration company’ should waste so much water; most of it does not even end up in the product.”

To improve that situation, Coca-Cola has just completed a detailed assessment of the “water risks” to its businesses and their local communities. Going plant by plant, the firm's boffins have calculated local water-scarcity ratios, depletion levels for local aquifers, water needs for the local plant, and so on. With this new information, the firm is now setting local targets for improving each plant's efficiency of water and energy use. Mr Seabright explains that before this new study, the firm tried to impose “one-size-fits-all” global targets which local bottlers (who are often not owned by Coca-Cola) refused to accept.

Coca-Cola is also working with non-governmental groups such as the World Wildlife Fund and CARE, as well as UN agencies, in an effort to burnish its image. In India, it is now promising to capture enough water via “rainwater harvesting” (an age-old technique for capturing monsoon run-off) to offset all of its water use by 2006. Even the deeply sceptical Mr Srivastava concedes that “if this company were really not to put any strain on local resources then it would be a different matter. Let us see if this is just greenwash.”

The accusation of “greenwash”—environmental window-dressing as a front for business-as-usual—has also been hurled at BP. But there the similarities between Coca-Cola and BP end, for the question of water is far more important to Coca-Cola than the issue of climate change is to BP. That is because if oil and gas run out, or are deemed too dirty to use one day, BP could still peddle ethanol or hydrogen fuel; it is, in the end, an energy company. Coca-Cola, on the other hand, simply would not exist without water. So while BP may yet see life beyond petroleum, Coca-Cola will never get Beyond Water.


Popular posts from this blog

Arundhati Roy: The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture

The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture delivered by Arundhati Roy, at the Seymour Theatre Centre, University of Sydney.

Peace & The New Corporate Liberation Theology

It's official now. The Sydney Peace Foundation is neck deep in the business of gambling and calculated risk. Last year, very courageously, it chose Dr Hanan Ashrawi of Palestine for the Sydney Peace Prize. And, as if that were not enough, this year - of all the people in the world - it goes and chooses me!

However I'd like to make a complaint. My sources inform me that Dr Ashrawi had a picket all to herself. This is discriminatory. I demand equal treatment for all Peace Prizees. May I formally request the Foundation to organize a picket against me after the lecture? From what I've heard, it shouldn't be hard to organize. If this is insufficient notice, then tomorrow will suit me just as well.

When this year's Sydney Peace Prize was announced, I was subjected to some pretty arch remarks from those who k…

Thirst for blood and oil

There is a war going on in the Middle East; one in Iraq and the other in Lebanon. It is a war against innocent civilian population, played out by faceless enemies of humanity. Is it only a war in the name of religion, gods, and land? It is also a war in the name of black gold – OIL!

The United States and Britain are only too happy to occupy Iraq and see various parts of it blow up. Iraq's sin is that it has a lot of Oil. But, then, Iraqis are not enough educated and sophisticated people to understand that no one really cares about whether it is Shia oil or Sunni oil. It is a crying shame that Iraqis kill each other in the name of the two factions of Islam – again their only reason for killing is to set the supremacy – and to gain power. Saddam knew too well that Oil was more powerful than anything else in today's world. And Oil is the very reason why he was toppled and put behind bars. It wasn't Saddam's Human Rights violations that the Western governments were too con…

Where the People Voted Against Fear

by Eduardo Galeano; Inter Press Service; November 18, 2004

A few days before the election of the President of the planet in North America, in South America elections and a plebiscite were held in a little-known, almost secret country called Uruguay. In these elections, for the first time in the country's history, the left won. And in the plebiscite, for the first time in world history, the privatization of water was rejected by popular vote, asserting that water is the right of all people.

* * *

The movement headed by President-elect Tabare Vazquez ended the monopoly of the two traditional parties--the Blanco and the Colorado parties--which governed Uruguay since the creation of the universe.

And after each election you would hear this exclamation: 'I thought that we Blancos won but it turns out we Colorados did"--or the other way around. Out of opportunism, yes, but also because after so many years of ruling together, the two parties had fused into one, disguised as two.