MEMO

To: CEO, Gerard Pannekoek

From: Team Goyal Internal Consultants
Date: April 17, 2019
Re: Coca-Cola Polar Bear Fund

This memo aims to provide guidance on how the board should decide to proceed with the Polar
Bear WWF fund the company donates to every year.
The problem at hand if increased activism over its use of polar bears in its advertising is harming
the company and whether Coca-Cola should do more to help with the conservation of Polar
Bears. We have been using polar bears in our holiday advertising for 27 years. In 2017 we
dedicated $2 Million to the WWF, yet even as we have increased our contributions people
continue to criticize the company for not doing enough. After careful analysis we believe that
Coca-Cola can take a bigger role to mitigate any harm due to activism, and also improve its
brand image through demonstrated corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Coca-Cola began using the polar bear in holiday print ads in 1992. The bears then made their
first TV appearance in 1993 for Coke. The white bear embodies an icon that connects consumers
with the brand. The Polar bear is depicted as soft, cuddly, and full of happiness. The historic icon
has deep roots in American culture, and fits in to the Coca-Cola campaign of “Open Happiness”.
This has been used to connect consumers hearts and minds from the holidays to the beverage
brand.
Even though the Coca-Cola corporation has been able to help raise over $5 million to help the
polar bear conservation public outcries and activism over the companies exploitation of the
endangered animal have recently increased. These complaints are mainly with regards to the
magnitude of the company’s efforts and that they are not contributing enough for how much they
earn off the icon. There is little to no outrage over the use of the bears, or any claims that coke is
directly responsible for the decreased bear population. In fact, the company began using the
image of the bear well before their title of “threatened species”, and have been taking strides to
raise awareness ever since. Scientists believe it is the dying population of seals that is actually
credited to the decline and starvation of the polar bears. One such effort is the Arctic Home
program launched in 2013 and outline in Appendix 1.

The actual effects of the actual effects of these activist are minimal. We have not seen any
serious declines in sales, public image, or brand loyalty that can be directly attributed to
activism. However, our current $2million contribution is a very small percentage of the sales we
expect that come from the polar bear holiday campaign.
While are company is not being harmed by the activism propaganda, we do find that Coca-Cola
has a moral and social obligation to increase efforts to raise awareness for the polar bears. The
animal is certainly a stakeholder in the company, or can be a stakeholder as our conservation
efforts increase. We have been making money off the icon of the bear for over 27 years and has
become a part of coke as the red label. It is our duty to ensure this animal continues to survive.

Recently we have increased our efforts for sustainability, and corporate social responsibility
When fans of Coke come to our website they are greeted with powerful messages about
everything the company is doing to help society and the environment. If we want this to be a part
of our corporate culture and identity, we must hold ourselves accountable for backing it up.
While Coca-Cola is involved in many causes, the polar bear conservation is one that has a direct
effect on the company.

In addition to a CSR, increasing our polar bear conservation efforts can land a huge boost to our
revenues and brand equity. Research shows that cause-related marketing (CRM) efforts work
best if the for-profit informs consumers about exactly what percent of the purchase goes to the
specific non-profit. It also should use its various publicity platforms to advertise the specific
effects of that money on the social cause. Together these factors link the company in the minds
of consumers to the cause and increases their likelihood of doing future business with the for-
profit company. Coca Cola is right to team up with WWF. Other research into the effect of
CRM suggests that consumers are more likely to purchase in support of a social cause when both
the for-profit and non-profit entities are well-known. This implies that any CRM conducted by
Coca Cola should name WWF as its partner. Additionally, consumers’ willingness to pay
(WTP) for a socially-packaged product goes up when both partners are well-known. In short,
they will pay significantly more when they believe that they will get a quality product and when
the believe that the non-profit will spend their money effectively.

We have several options as a company to increase our efforts and generate more awareness to
our consumers. The first is to simply increase our donations to the current campaigns. We do not
believe this will be a long term solution to help the bears or bare a positive impact on the brand.
One idea we do feel is mutually beneficial is an advertisement campaign that includes a
percentage of all revenues from polar bear coke products purchased during the campaign that
will be donated to building an active polar bear conservation platform. This action would not
only allow consumers to take an active role, but it gives Coca-Cola more of a direct
responsibility or control of the efforts. This will resonate with consumers and can reinforce the
SCR efforts and mission of the company.

APPENDICES
Coca cola teamed up with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 2013 to launch Arctic Home, the
three-year
campaign to help protect the polar bears’ habitat.
Money raised contributes directly towards six areas:
1. Tracking polar bear mothers
2. Monitoring polar bear den sites
3. Mapping polar bears’ future habitats
4. Co-existing in the Arctic
5. Educating on threats from industry
6. Preserving the Arctic food chain

Sources:

1. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/01/polar-bears-climate-change
3. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6375/514
4. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/polar-bears-to-face-extinction-by-2030-
researcher-says/article18160674/