In our "Public Relations" course at SFSU my group and I analyzed Coca-Cola's problems with the CSE in 2003 and came up with an alternative to handle the situation.

1. Coca-Cola India
San Francisco State University
MKTG 432-02
Fall 2010
Professor Veronica A. Papyrina
Group 3

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Problem Definition .................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Coca-Cola’s Concerns ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.2 Coca-Cola’s Problem .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Coca-Cola’s Decisions........................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Company’s Challenges ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Company’s Opportunities ................................................................................................................... 5
2. Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Who found out what, when and how? ................................................................................................ 5
2.2 Timeline and events that produced the current the situation .............................................................. 5
2.3 Opinions anchored by evidence from the case ................................................................................... 7
3. Solving the problem ................................................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Alternative Generation........................................................................................................................ 7
3.1.1 Where the causes of the problem identified properly? .................................................................... 7
3.1.2 Were other alternatives analyzed? ................................................................................................... 8
3.1.3 Was the decision implemented carefully? ....................................................................................... 8
3.1.4 Suggested Alternatives..................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 The Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................. 10
3.3 Implementation Plan ......................................................................................................................... 10
3.3.1 Who, what, where, when, and how? .............................................................................................. 11
3.3.2 Short term and long term actions ................................................................................................... 12
4. References .............................................................................................................................................. 12
2

3. 1. Problem Definition
1.1 Coca-Cola’s Problem
Coca-Cola, deemed the “#1 Brand in the World,” has been a successor in the soft drink industry
for over 100 years. Along with their success they have incurred crises along the way. One in particular is
the Coca-Cola India Case Study. On August 5, 2003, Coca-Cola India was attacked by The Center for
Science and Environment (CSE), an activist group of engineers, scientists, journalists and
environmentalists in India, for unsafe products, said to contain pesticide residues which surpassed global
standards. Coca-Cola India’s products were attacked in a press release stating: “Twelve major cold drink
brands sold in and around Delhi contain a deadly cocktail of pesticide residues.” The tests done on three
samples of 12 PepsiCo and Coca-Cola brands were said to contain 30-36 times the global standards of
pesticide residue. The pesticides found were known to cause disease such as cancer, birth defects, and
severe disruption of the immune system, among other health conditions.
1.2 Coca-Cola’s Concerns
As any company this accusation posed great fear and concern for Coca-Cola Company and their
future standing in India. After the discovery of the pesticide residue, the Indian Government banned Coke
and Pepsi products. Thus, Coca-Cola stock dipped $5 in the New York Stock Exchange. Pepsi and Coke’s
response to the accusations were denying CSE’s validity. Pepsi conducted their own tests independently
and results showed no detectable signs of pesticides.
1.3 Company’s Challenges
Because of the attacks by the CSE and NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) on Coca-Cola,
the brand faced many challenges. First, being the world’s most valuable brand whose value is greatly
influenced by the image of the company and its products, their primary problem was trying to rebuilding
their image to the Indian public and regaining Indian consumers’ trust. This was a hard task because
3

4. NGOs have high instinctive credibility and reliance by the people, making it difficult for companies to
compete with such trustworthiness given to NGOs. Another problem posed is the socially responsible
reputation of Coca-Cola as a corporate company in the U.S. The United States is a flourishing, developed
country; yet, India is a developing nation with a different set of standards. Should Coca-Cola withhold
their social responsibilities internationally? Is the company economically upheld to do so?
1.4 Coca-Cola’s Decisions
Coca-Cola is faced with an enormous crisis so many decisions face them as well. Does action
need to be taken? Is so, what type and how aggressive? The implications of these possible decisions are
outlined below.
1.5 Implications for profitability, corporate reputation and image
Without a doubt, this issue is of great importance to the organization. These allegations are not
only threatening to Coca-Cola’s customers, but to the company’s reputation as well. The effects of the
pesticides could be devastating to Coca-Cola’s customers. Coca-Cola’s advertising and marketing
messages have always given customers a reason to trust their products. “Can’t beat the real thing” was a
longstanding message and is one that proclaims authenticity and authority. The pesticide claims go
against everything Coca-Cola has advertised to their customers. If action was not taken, Coca Cola’s
customer base could diminish, the brand’s name tarnish and their reputation completely demolished.
Revenue could decrease significantly if customers think Coca-Cola is not a reliable or safe product to
drink. The pesticides contain chemicals which have devastating outcomes, including causing cancer. If
customers begin to get ill, this will be a huge tragedy for Coca-Cola. The customer’s well-being is in
jeopardy, as well as the economic performance of the company. Just within a few days after the initial
reports came out, Coca-Cola stock dipped by $5 on the New York Stock Exchange. Additionally, their
sales dropped 30-40% just within two weeks. Prior to the CSE reports, Coca-Cola boasted a 25-30%
4

5. growth. Financially, these allegations could lose Coke a significant amount of revenue. Taking action is a
necessity against the pesticide allegations.
2. Data Analysis
2.1 Who found out what, when and how?
August 5, 2003, CSE issued that three samples of 12 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; pesticides known to cause cancer, damage to the nervous and
reproductive systems, birth defects, and severe disruption of the immune systems. The results were based
on tests conducted by the Pollution Monitoring Laboratory (PML) of the 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 analyzed the contents of 12 cold drink
brands sold in and around the capital. They were tested for organ chlorine and organ phosphorus
pesticides and synthetic pyrethroids – all commonly used in India as insecticides. However, the process in
which was used to determine these allegations were declared “baseless” by Coca-Cola.
2.2 Timeline and events that produced the current the situation
Regulations on soft drinks were weak in India, and there were no standards to define ‘clean’ or
‘portable’ water. An NGO such as the CSE 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. Moreover, The CSE turned to the United States and the European Union
for “international norms”. However, Coca-Cola Company argued that:
“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 [the Bureau of Indian Standards (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.”
5

6. From 1993-2003, the Coca-Cola company expensed $1 billion (US) in Coke India making them
one of the country’s highest investors. A large portion of this allowance was used to test quality of its
products. Over 400 tests were done to assure that the quality of Coca-Cola was nothing short of the best.
The Coca-Cola Company uses the same state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities in India as they do in the
US. Though the company was in a public scare, it deeply expressed that the company is constantly
monitoring its ingredients.
“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.”
Despite Coca-Cola’s confidence, On August 20, 2003, President and CEO of Coca-Cola India,
Sanjiv Gupta, had faced a period of crisis due to environment sustainability problems that issued a press
release stating, “Twelve major cold drink brands sold in and around Delhi contain a deadly cocktail of
pesticide residues”. In only two weeks, sales had dropped by 30-40 percent, because many leading clubs,
retailers, restaurants, and college campuses across the country had stopped selling Coca-Cola. The initial
response of Coke and Pepsi denied of the validity of the CSE’s claims, and the companies attacked the
credibility of the CSE and their lab results, citing regular testing t independent laboratories providing 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. 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.
6

7. 2.3 Opinions anchored by evidence from the case
The allegations against Coca-Cola were based on consumer confusion, and the labs that were said
to have done these tests on soft drink companies were internal unaccredited facilities, the Pollution
Monitoring Laboratory. Coca-cola addressed that:
“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”,
and provided “Myths and Facts from Coca-Cola India” on the Coca-Cola India Web site. Furthermore,
Coca-Cola hired a public relations firm, Perfect Relations, to rebuild the company’s reputation, and the
head of communications for Coca-Cola Asia moved to India from Hong Kong to try to deal, in a PR way,
with the growing resistance in 2004. After the time of the incident, the company launched Coca-Cola
India eKO Management System, an initiative to translate environmental policy into action in daily
operations, in order to regain public trust as well.
3. Solving the problem
3.1 Alternative Generation
3.1.1 Were the causes of the problem identified properly?
When the CSE issued their report on bottled drinking water, Coca-Cola faced image problems in
both Indian and American markets. In India, consumers lost their trust in the company after the report
declared that Coca-Cola’s bottled water was extremely dangerous. In the U.S., Coca-Cola risked losing its
reputation as a socially responsible corporate citizen. Coca-Cola, along with Pepsi, chose to attack the
CSE’s credibility. Both companies did not realize the power of NGOs, something that they should have
recognized prior to attacking the CSE. Most NGOs have a high level of credibility around the world and
the general public often takes their side rather than that of a large multi-national organization.
7

8. 3.1.2 Were other alternatives analyzed?
Instead of attacking the CSE, calling their findings “misleading and unaccredited,” Coca-Cola
should have identified the NGO’s power and chosen to collaborate with them. Coca-Cola did not analyze
other alternatives before attacking the CSE and denying their own liability.
3.1.3 Was the decision implemented carefully?
When the CSE’s report was published, Coca-Cola was under pressure and decided to attack the
findings right away. Coca-Cola felt that they were wrongly accused of serving the Indian people a
“deadly cocktail of pesticide residues.” Before aggressively stressing their innocence, Coca-Cola should
have thought more carefully about their options. Even though the company was in no doubt that the lab
results were incorrect, they should have realized whom they were up against.
3.1.4 Suggested Alternatives
Instead of attacking the CSE, other alternatives to handle the situation would be:
- Alt. 1: Collaboration with the CSE: Instead of attacking the CSE, joining forces with them to solve the
problem, which could have prevented the loss of consumers’ trust. Coca-Cola could have proposed that
the CSE have the tests performed by an independent third party. The company would have shown
reduced offensiveness and consumers would believe that Coca-Cola took the report seriously and cared
about the public’s health. Coca-Cola would not state that the CSE’s findings were either correct or
incorrect or make any apologies, but this alternative would have strengthened the company’s image. If
tests showed no signs of pesticide residues, Indian consumers would be likely to show even higher trust in
Coca-Cola according to the Recovery Paradox (Papyrina, 2010). This conclusion might backfire though,
which would be a disadvantage. It might also be hard to collaborate with the CSE if they resisted doing
so. Though it would be in the CSE’s interest to protect consumers and solve the problem. There are
downsides to this alternative. One would be if the results from the second round of tests proved that
8

9. beverages contained pesticide residue. Another is the possibility that by agreeing to collaborate with the
CSE and performing a second round of tests, Coca-Cola could be perceived as admitting that the CSE’s
report was actually correct the first time.
- Alt. 2: Status Quo: This alternative is denial through argument from ignorance and would entail Coca-
Cola remaining silent and waiting for the buzz to go away. After all, Coca-Cola is a large organization
and is probably the target of many investigations by several NGOs. Coca-Cola is a powerful brand
though, and the company should deny the CSE’s claims by simply ignoring them. Indian consumers are
likely to forget about it after a while anyway. In fact, in rural areas consumers might not even hear about
the report. This alternative is easy to implement; Coca-Cola has to do nothing at all. Even so, there is a
risk that this alternative will go wrong. Reporters like to criticize large, powerful corporations and are
likely to give the issue media attention. Also, NGOs might be small in size, but consumers tend to trust
them and this issue could turn out to be devastating for Coca-Cola’s brand. American consumers might
also take the report seriously and see the company as another multi-national corporation that just wants to
sell more products and does not care about consumers’ health. Eventually they might abandon Coca-Cola
in favor of competitors such as Pepsi.
- Alt 3: PR campaign: Just as in Belgium a few years earlier, Coca-Cola could implement a PR-campaign
to retain consumer loyalty. The PR campaign could include “vouchers and coupons for free product
delivered to [all households], sponsored [events], and significant television advertising.” This might have
been successful in Belgium, but Belgium is a small country with 4.4 million households. India has a
population of 1 billion and sending every household a coupon for free product would be impossible. Due
to both cultural and infrastructure differences, the same campaign could not be carried out in India. A PR
campaign could produce many benefits, but it would need to be tailored to meet the parameters of the
Indian market. Another PR campaign in the US could inform the American public about Coca-Cola’s
efforts as a global citizen who gives back to communities. This ingratiation strategy, an argument by
example, would show that Coca-Cola is not just a large, greedy corporation, and would demonstrate the
company’s social and environmental responsibility.
9

10. 3.2 The Preferred Alternative
Alternatives Advantages Disadvantages
- Consumers like NGOs - CSE might not be willing to collaborate
Alt 1:
Collaboration with the - Image strengthened - Can be understood as an apology for
CSE actually doing wrong
- Reputation improved
Reducing Offensiveness - Second round of pesticide tests are
- Through the Recovery Paradox higher positive
Recovery Paradox trust for the brand will be built
- Recovery paradox might backfire
- Ease of implementation - Media attention
Alt 2:
Status Quo - Incident quickly forgotten - Brand tarnished
Denial through Argument - Coca-Cola powerful - NGO powerful
from ignorance
- Worked well in Belgium - India not comparable to Belgium
Alt 3:
PR Campaign - Loyal consumers - Very expensive
Ingratiation through - Chance to show Coca-Cola’s corporate
Argument from example social responsibility (CSR)
After analyzing the options outlined in the table above, it is recommended that collaboration with
the CSE, combined with a PR campaign (a modified version of the one used in Belgium), is the most
beneficial strategic alternative for Coca-Cola.
3.3 Implementation Plan
The implementation plan would be to collaborate with the CSE and launch a PR campaign, Coca-
Cola must first gain the trust and the commitment of the CSE, convincing them that Coca-Cola has the
consumer’s best interest in mind. As for the PR campaign, Coca-Cola can utilize the successful aspects of
the Belgium campaign and incorporate them in the India campaign.
10

11. 3.3.1 Who, what, where, when, and how?
Before launching a similar PR campaign to regain customer loyalty, it’s very important that Coca-
Cola first works with the CSE to regain the trust of their customers. If the CSE released these reports with
inaccurate information they are obligated to the public to correct their mistakes. The issue of the upmost
importance is getting the truth out to customers. CSE should conduct independent third party tests to
ensure their results are accurate. Assuming they are inaccurate as suspected, Coca-Cola’s marketing team
should collaborate with CSE to issue an apology and/or retraction of the first study. This needs to be done
as soon as possible so it can be followed with promotional activities so business can pick up swiftly.
These apology letters or corrected reports not only need to be issued immediately, but to trusted
publications throughout the country. These publications will need to be contacted and Coca-Cola’s PR
team needs to find top reporters to cover the apology story. If CSE is willing, they should even make a
public apology to Coca-Cola and make an in-person correct. Again, the apology would need to gain a
great deal of exposure in correction efforts. Coca-Cola would want to make sure they are saturating the
market with CSE apology notices. As the study indicated, the Indian public was very convinced by CSE’s
initial research and press release. Our preferred alternative is that CSE issues another press release with
corrected information as it was so convincing the second time. Also, for Coca-Cola, it’s crucial they work
with the media extensively to ensure there any allegations of conspiracy theory. Some citizens could
assume that CSE’s apology is insincere and is really coming from pressure from Coca-Cola. It would be
essential to monitor coverage and do as much damage control as possible. The next thing Coca-Cola
needs to do is to implement a customer retention program, similar to what was done in Belgium. As India
is a much larger country then Belgium it is essential that the PR campaign is extensive, and targets a wide
range of citizens. Promotional activities, coupons, vouchers and even television advertisement should all
be components of this marketing plan. The promotional activities should include charity work, as well
handing out free beverages at public events. Coca-Cola needs to rebuild their reputation and these will
show citizens Coca-Cola is still a very reputable company that has nothing to hide. Coupons and vouchers
11

12. will also help retain brand loyalty and should be widespread especially in lower-income areas. These
promotional activities, combined with the collaboration with CSE will greatly contribute to rebuilding the
Coca-Cola name throughout the country.
3.3.2 Short term and long term actions
In the short term, the actions that need to taken are working with CSE and then saturating the
market with promotional activities and discounts. The efforts with CSE need to be immediate. The PR
plan to regain customer loyalty should include a variety of activities and should continue for 1-2 years.
It’s crucial these aggressive marketing efforts are long-terms to continue to rebuild the brand’s name.
Then, they need to maintain this level of media presence to keep the Coca-Cola name as one of the
country’s most powerful brands.
4. References
Fraser P. Seitel (2010), The Practice of Public Relations, 11th Edition, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey
Kaye- Jennifer (2005), Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, Coca Cola India, Journal Case
Study Competition in Corporate Communications
12