Village communities across India raised a united cry in protest of Coca-over-mining Cola's of

groundwater from common sources, which was causing serious water shortages in areas near
practically all of the factories. The harshest retaliation took place at Rajastan's Kala Dera, Uttar
Pradesh's Mehdiganj, and Kerala's Plachimada, with several of the manufacturing sites
progressively becoming hotbeds of unrest. The protestors also condemned the contamination of
the remaining water, which rendered it unsuitable for home use and irrigation. In addition, the
extraordinary practice of distributing toxic wastes to the farmers as fertilizers was denounced.
With no way to dispose of these factory wastes, the company dumped them indiscriminately in
nearby areas, causing soil and groundwater pollution in the immediate vicinity of the bottling
plant. This was compounded by the discharge of wastewater from the plants, which contributed
pollution to the drinking water.

Roughly two years after the manufacturing of cola products commenced in Plachimada, the
effects of the massive groundwater mining and the disposal of treated effluents became
manifest. The surrounding adivasi and dalit families were faced with acute scarcity of water, and
the little that remained was unfit for drinking or cooking. Even worse, the consumption of this
polluted water had resulted in widespread sickness and ill health, with the villagers becoming
highly prone to a variety of skin and stomach disorders. In the words of the villagers, “Our own
health departments told us not to use the water as it contains hazardous wastes … then how can
we use it … Will they use it?” The harassed villagers, deprived of their very livelihood and
resources, unable to tend their cattle and milch animals, and attacked now by new and unknown
diseases, finally gave vent to their frustration. Their protests attracted the support of human
rights activists and other socially concerned groups, who together initiated the Anti-Coca-Cola
Campaign, which took up the task of informing the factory authorities of the ill-effects of their
operations and requesting them to halt production. The various protest campaigns that had
sprung up in different parts of the country, demanding that Coca-Cola leave their villages, now
began to mesh together and grow into a massive post-development social movement (Ravi
Raman 2007), through which the scattered communities developed a solidarity of ‘everyday’
forms of resistance (see Scott 1985).

The manner in which Coca-Cola responded to the villagers’ demands and the extent to which this
response agreed with the principles of CSR are matters Community–Coca-Cola Interface | 109
that merit closer inspection. It was through its report titled Our Environmental Values (Coca-Cola
2003) that the company sought to counter each of the allegations leveled against it: the
depletion of the aquifer in Kerala by an unreasonable withdrawal of groundwater, the presence
of heavy metals far in excess of prescribed limits in the biosolids generated at the local bottling
plants, and unsafe levels of pesticide residues in the carbonated soft drinks it produced. In its
report, the company asserts: “We take these concerns seriously and we continually work to
ensure that our products and practices are world class and safe.” In fact, the characterization of
the hazardous factory wastes as biosolids is in itself an illustration of the power politics played by
hegemonic forces. "We feel that these concerns develop as a result of operating in merging
economies," the research concludes. The balance of evidence, including testing and analysis by
independent laboratories as well as the Indian government, reveals that the charges against
Coca-Cola have not been proven.”
While acknowledging the objections raised against its environmental management policies and
practices in India, Coca-Cola is firm in its stand that its “quality standards not only meet, but often
exceed, applicable laws.” In its Corporate Responsibility Review, Coca-Cola (2006) states that it
had reduced water use ratios in India by 24 percent between 2000 and 2004. It highlights its role
in the commissioning of massive rainwater harvesting systems in various plant locations,
particularly in India, within communities, and on school and farm premises. Moreover, the
company also draws attention to its involvement with social projects such as HIV/AIDS, launched
by global organizations that include UNICEF, Population Services International, and the Global
Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS. It also points out its contribution to the co-founding of the Global
Water Challenge, a multi-stakeholder coalition to leverage collective strength in addressing water
and sanitation issues, and its role in initiating Global Community–Watershed Partnerships with
USAID to support a wide variety of water-related programs

This image of corporate philanthropy is dear to globalizing corporations, which often assume
responsibility not only for their home bases but also for overseas business sites. Corporate
sponsorship of sporting events is another high-profile investment designed to bring in profits that
far outweigh the investments. Coca-Cola sponsored the 2006 FIFA World Cup as well as the
Olympic Games in Torino in 2006, and with its new pact, it would continue to support the
forthcoming Olympic Movements. But perhaps the most difficult of all its interventions is that of
pushing its products on school and college campuses, where it deliberately positions its vending
machines at key points to lure the gullible youth. In fact, the Coca-Cola logo has now become part
of the global psyche, being stamped on a range of objects and activities, including sports and
countless other events, organizations, and services (see Sklair 2001). The Coca-Cola marketing
system is an example of how the culture of consumerism is rendered essential to individuals’
perceptions of culture and self-worth.

Rechristening ‘Waste’?
Campbell (2006) argues that corporations can be considered acting in socially responsible ways if
they do two things. First, they must not knowingly do anything that could harm their
stakeholders. Secondly, if they do harm the stakeholders, they must seek to rectify the ill-effects,
whosoever it is that brings the situation to their attention. This definition, which sets a minimum
behavioral standard with respect to the relationship of the corporation to its stakeholders, could
be considered as a critical perspective on CSR. Had Coca-Cola even a minimum regard for the
cultural commonsense and everyday experience of one of the most important stakeholders of
CSR as it claimed in its discourse, it would have closed down operations at the first hint of
environmental disruption. New perspectives in political anthropology view organizational
behavior in relation to communities and other stakeholders as crucial, particularly with regard to
trajectories of knowledge/discourse. Hegemonic structures evolve their own discursive strategies
to deploy power in varying disguises (see Gledhill 1994), as illustrated by the articulation of Coca-
Cola on the management of its biosolids.

Coca-Cola’s (2003) report, Our Environmental Values, has its own clarifications that counter the
allegation that the biosolids generated at the bottling plants contained heavy metals above
prescribed limits. It maintains that the company requires that the generation, composition, and
management of biosolids be monitored by managers at Coca-Cola bottling plants, and that they
be routinely tested to determine appropriate disposal options and to meet internal and local
requirements. It is quite interesting to note the company’s handling of its solid wastes and the
way in which it articulates its discourse by treating solid wastes as biosolids. A large number of
studies have repeatedly confirmed that ever since the factory began functioning, the water in
nearby wells has been polluted and unfit for human consumption. Because the effluents
contained hydrochloric acid and 112 | K. Ravi Raman alkaline compounds, it was viewed that the
effects of this on the wells and on the people who used this water would be deleterious, with
some of the pollutants even crossing tolerance limits. With scant regard for the neighboring
locality, the multinational had been disposing of its effluents in the guise of ‘irrigation’ of its
premises. The effluents, however, accumulated as dissolved solids in the soil and polluted the
wells. This was an incriminating piece of evidence that Coca-Cola had deliberately concealed,
thereby violating the policy of transparency that a socially responsible corporate capital should
have adopted. Coca-Cola’s stand that wastewater was being adequately treated in its effluent
treatment plant and that it could not pollute nearby wells since it was being recycled for use in
gardening and other domestic pur poses thus remained exposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
Ravi Raman, K. 2005. “Corporate Violence, Legal Nuances and Political Ecology.” Economic and
Political Weekly, 18 June.

For a critique of Scott (1985), see T. Mitchell (1990), Brass (1999), and Ferguson (2005).

“Coca-Cola’s ‘Toxic’ India Fertilizer,” BBC News, 25 July 2003; “India to Test Coca-Cola Sludge,”
BBC News, 7 August 2003

Raman, K. R. (2007). Community—Coca-Cola interface: Political-anthropological concerns on

corporate social responsibility. Social Analysis, 51(3), 103-120.