Pesticide Charge in India Hurts Pepsi and Coke
NEW DELHI, Aug. 22 — When claims were first published on the front
pages of Indian newspapers this month that Coca-Cola and PepsiCo beverages
were contaminated with pesticides, executives at the two companies
were breezily confident that they could handle the issue.
Three weeks later, though, they are still struggling to win back Indian
consumers. One-quarter of India’s component states have imposed partial
bans on their products, and a complex legal battle to overturn those
bans is only just beginning.
Both companies acknowledge that they miscalculated, and stumbled badly,
in their initial response to the pesticide allegations, raised in
a report by an Indian environmental group. They underestimated how
quickly the matter would spiral into a nationwide scandal. They misjudged
how quickly local politicians would seize on the issue, in a country
that tried for decades to shield its economy from multinational corporations
and still views them with some suspicion. And they did not move swiftly
themselves to quell the anxieties of their customers.
In short, two of the world’s biggest brand names failed to do what
they do best: pitch the virtues of their products directly to their
customers. In some ways, the immediate response from Coke and Pepsi
came right out of a crisis-management text book. As soon as the environmental
group, known as the Center for Science and the Environment, announced
its finding that soft drinks manufactured by the two companies in
India contained, on average, more than 24 times the amount of pesticide
residue that is considered safe, the companies formed committees in
India and the United States to deal with the issue. They commissioned
their own laboratory tests to rebut the report and worked in parallel
around the clock on legal and public-relations responses.
But they decided early on to wait for the lab results before commenting
in detail on the accusations, and that decision seems to have backfired
badly. The companies’ reticence merely fanned consumer suspicions,
and they soon got bogged down in the technicalities of the allegations,
instead of focusing on winning back the emotional support of their
“They got behind the curve, and now they are chasing the crisis,”
said Richard Levick, president and chief executive of Levick Strategic
Communications, a Washington-based consulting company specializing
in advising businesses in crisis.
Executives concede that the situation has been difficult for them.
“We have some way to go to restore consumer confidence in our brands,”
said Kari Bjorhus, Coca-Cola’s communications director in India. Rajeev
Bakshi, who heads Pepsi’s Indian operations, agreed that there was
much work to be done. “Has our side of the story got across to the
consumer yet?” he said. “Not really. I am concerned about that.”
The two companies initially thought they knew how to handle the problem,
in part because they had been through it once before. A similar report
from the same environment group in 2003 also claimed pesticide contamination
in Coke and Pepsi drinks.
Even so, both companies appeared to be unprepared for the political
fallout this time.
One state after another banned the sale of Coke and Pepsi products
in government offices, hospitals and schools within days of the group’s
report. In Kerala in the south, a left-leaning state government went
even further, banning all production and sale of colas, but populist
denunciations of the cola companies have come from politicians of
all stripes, not just the left. “We were a little surprised and disappointed
by the bans,” said Kenth Kaerhoeg, group communications director for
Coca-Cola Asia, who flew in from Hong Kong to help tackle the problem.
“These decisions are unfair. We would have expected politicians to
make their decisions on the basis of facts and not reports.”
The companies are asking themselves whether corporate heirarchy and
the need to clear important decisions with headquarters on the other
side of the world may have hampered their response.
“After any big event, we do learning sessions, videoconferenced meetings,
to discuss how we can improve,” Mr. Kaerhoeg said. “Definitely there
will be learnings for us as a company this time around.”
But Coke and Pepsi should have known better, said Suhel Seth, a leading
public relations expert in India and an adviser to Coca-Cola India.
“Fringe politicians will continue to be publicly hostile to big Western
companies, regardless of how eager they are for their investment,”
Mr. Seth said. “Large multinational corporations are still seen by
pockets of consumers and opinion makers as marauders and not as contributors.”
Mr. Levick, the American consultant, agreed. “They underestimated
their own importance,” he said. “Much more than companies, they are
symbols of the West. They don’t realize how powerful that is.”Because
they failed to anticipate the political potency of the story, Coke
and Pepsi said too little in the first days of the crisis, Mr. Seth
“In the U.S. and the West, there is a certain dignity to silence,”
he said. “But here people interpret silence as guilt. You have to
roll up your sleeves and get into a street fight. Coke and Pepsi didn’t
Coca-Cola officials in Delhi also tried to attack the allegations
indirectly, by giving briefings for reporters in which they questioned
the scientific credentials of their accusers, directing reporters
to Web logs filled with uniformly pro-Coke entries, and handing out
the cellphone number for the director of an organization called the
Center for Sanity and Balance in Public Life.
The founder of that group, a management-college graduate named Kishore
Asthana, gave callers a Coke-friendly gloss on events, while insisting
he was not in the pay of the industry. “One can drink a can of Coke
every day for two years before taking in as much pesticide as you
get from two cups of tea,“ he told reporters.
But public relations experts said this indirect approach on Coke’s
part may have been unwise.
“Crisis abhors a vacuum,” Mr. Levick said. “They needed to show leadership.
These minimalist statements were not adequate.”
In any case, the strategy did not stop the crisis from growing much
worse, as newspapers printed images of cans of the companies’ drinks
with headlines like “Toxic Cocktail” and news channels broadcast images
of protesters pouring Coke down the throats of donkeys.
Although India accounts for only around 1 percent of Coca-Cola’s global
sales volume, the country is seen as central to Coke’s long-term growth
strategy. So, sensing the situation was getting out of control, Coke
eventually decided to change tack and address customers directly,
printing an advertisement asking, “Is there anything safer for you
to drink?” and inviting Indians to visit its plants to see how its
beverages are made.
Coke officials said the company had received about 2,000 calls from
people interested in a tour, and said that consumers are often reassured
by the sight of the water filtration system used in its factories.
It did not help that the pesticide issue is a complex one. Standards
for safe pesticide levels in drinks have been agreed on in India but
never made a legal requirement. The industry continues to argue over
whether to test the water going in to the drinks or the finished product.
There is also debate over how to cleanse sugar of pesticide traces,
and a recognition that India’s ground water generally is so badly
contaminated that most food products contain some pesticide residue.
Asim Parekh, a vice president of Coca-Cola India, said his heart sank
when he heard first heard the allegations, because he knew consumers
would be easily confused .
“I have tried my level best to communicate this information,” he said.
“But even terminology like PPB — parts per billion — is difficult
to comprehend. This makes our job very challenging.”
Mr. Bakshi, the Pepsi executive, also struggled with the message.
“The subject is extremely technical,” he said “It is hard to explain
the entire story."
FAIR USE NOTICE. This document contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. India Resource Center is making this article available in our efforts to advance the understanding of corporate accountability, human rights, labor rights, social and environmental justice issues. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.