Coca Cola case

Submitted By: Group 1 Section B (Sanket Verma 17P105, Aditya Chandrayan 17P064, Arzoo Dalal 17P076, Anmol
Puri 17P069, Jasleen Kaur 17P083, Chirag Pawar 17P094)

The case deals with the exploitation of natural resources – more specifically ownership of water by corporates. It
showcase the battle with corporates for sustainability. Bottling plants of Coca Cola take up 1.5m litres of groundwater a day
thereby denying the poor people of their basic right to clean water. The toxicity due to industrial wastes jeopardized health
and the environment. Also, the poisonous quality hampered wellbeing and nature.

The major impact was the depletion and deterioration in the quality of groundwater, adversely affecting the water
table. The local women had to travel long distance to fetch drinking water because the water supply deteriorated. Coca Cola
also dumped waste outside its premises and during the rainy season, this waste spread into paddy fields, canals and wells
thereby causing a serious health hazard. They were also making fertilizer from the toxic waste and later distributing that to
the villagers for free. The analysis showed that the sludge is rich in both cadmium and lead which are carcinogenic. Another
issue due to the plant was the foul odour and the substitution of maize derived sweeteners by sugarcane equivalents thus
adversely impacting farmers whose subsistence depended on cane crops.

As a result of such ill effects, local Adivasi women were the first to denounce Coca Cola’s hydro-piracy with a sit-in
which sparked national and international expressions of solidarity. Eventually, the Kerala Chief Minister ordered the closure
of the plant. Justice Balakrishnana Nair also ordered to cease illegal groundwater extraction and stated that it would be wholly
unjustified to make natural resources a subject of private ownership. The inaction on the part of the government would
constitute a violation of the right to life guaranteed in the constitution. The Supreme Court of India stated that Coca Cola’s
property rights do not extend to the groundwater below the land it owns. This landmark struggle had women at the centre
and they formed the heart and soul of the resistance.

We believe that whenever people are affected due to crash or low performance of market and private competition,
government should intervene to protect those affected. It is true that the factory offers employment, however more jobs are
lost in the agricultural sector in the region. Improvement in a poor district regularly includes industrialization as a way to
progress financial development. However, introducing industry in a province totally dominated by small-scale farming would
have a far better chance of succeeding if it is done keeping social and environmental justice into account. To avoid conflicts,
the kind of production likely to be accepted is one sensitive to local perceptions of sustainability and equality. Plachimada
case presents a pivotal sentiment of the poor which is that if development means annihilating nature, they do not want it.
When the making of the product include the degradation of natural resources like water, it must also be viewed as an example
of an ecologically unequal exchange. To co-operate on common resources comes more natural to these villagers than
individual competition. Nature does not distribute water uniformly. Our world is built upon diversity and its hydrological cycle
is a democratic system for the distribution of water to all living species. The gap between a small rural community like
Plachimada and a giant global corporation is huge. Nature for subsistence stands against nature for profit. Coca Cola chose
profit over people which is against the ethos of a sustainable business.

Hence, we believe that the case is a typical example of contradiction in a globalized context between the state, market
and civil society. It seems that there is a form of understanding between the state and corporate world to facilitate
industrialization and in this process neglecting the basic surrounding environment and culture and for market and profit. State
and global corporation stand opposed to local people and community. The story of Panchayat's struggle to save its natural
resources and livelihood has brought to the notice one important aspect: it is only when the Panchayat and civil society
organisations come together on issues of public interest, globalization makes way for localization. Usually, it is seen that poor
are always under exploitation, not only by the MNCs, but by many political masters. Hence, it is the responsibility of us – the
civil society to protect the interest of these needy and deprived individuals. We should, therefore, insist and ensure that the
needs of people are prioritized before corporations/industries’ needs and that market should be designed to serve the needs
of people.