Chapter III: Coca-Cola's Marketing of Corporate Social Responsibility

When Coca-Cola introduced the Always Coca-Cola campaign in 1993 it ran twenty-seven different commercial designs. Even though each design was different, the final message was the same: Always Coca-Cola (Coca-Cola Television Advertisements). As Mark Pendergrast explains, “Coke has created ‘patterned advertising’ which, with little or no modification, can appeal to any culture in the world. The Coke message has universal appeal- by drinking this product, you will be self-assured, happy, popular, sexy, youthful…” (464). Coca-Cola markets and implements Corporate Social Responsibility in a similar fashion. The Coca-Cola Company has developed a kind of CSR portfolio of issues they work on which are implemented differently depending on the location. These CSR initiatives are then heavily publicized through company reports, press releases, the Coca-Cola website, and advertising campaigns. In short, there is a global blueprint for CSR initiatives which is tailored to the specific region, nation or locale and then these initiatives are broadcast widely through Coca-Cola’s media network.

The company’s 2007/2008 Sustainability Review includes one page summaries of each of the six regions in which Coca-Cola operates. Contributions towards CSR initiatives are divided into six categories; community, water stewardship, education, HIV/AIDS, health & wellness, and the environment. Depending on the region, Coca-Cola contributes a different amount to each focus area. For example, in Latin America the charitable contributions are divided as follows:

Education – 55%
Community – 38%
Water Stewardship – 3%
HIV/AIDS – 2%
Health and Wellness - 2%

In Latin America, the bulk of the contributions are focused on education (55%) whereas, in North America the majority of contributions are dedicated to community (71%) and in the Pacific the bulk of the contributions are directed towards health and wellness (56%) (The Coca-Cola Company 2007). The themes for the CSR initiatives remain the same from region to region, but the combination and distribution of funds varies depending on location.

The Coca-Cola Company has published over 35 reports on Corporate Social Responsibility since 2003. The reports are divided by theme, date, region, and bottling partner. In Latin America, the Coca-Cola Company has published 11 CSR reports (See Table I). Close to one-third of the CSR reports released have been targeted towards Latin America, which means Latin America is heavily targeted in comparison to the other six regions in which Coca-Cola operates globally (Coca-Cola splits its global operations into the following regions: Africa, Eurasia, European Union, Latin America, North America, and Pacific). Latin America is the second highest targeted area after the U.S. There appears to be a correlation between CSR reports and Coca-Cola sales. In 2007, Coca-Cola sold 22.7 billion unit cases worldwide. Latin America had the highest amount of sales (27%) followed closely behind by the U.S. (25%), meaning that 52% of all Coca-Cola sales come from Latin American and the U.S. combined (See Figure 3).

Within most CSR reports, initiatives are divided into four categories; workplace, marketplace, community, and governance (See Figure 4). These four categories appear to coincide with the four connections outlined in Isdell’s speech entitled “Connected Capitalism: Growing Sustainability for the 21st Century.” Below are the four connections, which are part of implementing “Connected Capitalism” as highlighted by Isdell. I added the CSR categories in parenthesis following each connection:

1. Connect your business to the communities that you serve. (Community)
2. Connect your business with civil society and governments to address relevant large scale problems. (Governance)
3. Connect your philanthropy -- your sustainability agenda -- with the core of your business, not tangential, but related to the core of your business. (Marketplace)
4. And finally connect your business with the values of your own employees. (Workplace)
(Isdell 2009)

Using “Connected Capitalism” as a foundation for business operations, Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives operate as the vehicle for creating the four connections, allowing Coca-Cola to rewire its operations and image in an attempt to encourage a friendly environment for transnational capital. Then “patterned advertising” is used to communicate the new image and initiatives to a wider audience.

In 2006, the Coca-Cola Company launched its ad campaign entitled The Coke Side of Life, which intended to showcase its new image as a socially responsible corporation. One company press release describes the launching of the new ad campaign stating “Through The Coke Side of Life creative strategy, the Company is using its global resources to drive a multi-media, multi-cultural platform in markets across the world” (The Coca-Cola Company March 2006). Patterned advertising is the logic driving The Coke Side of Life campaign on the global scale, yet by soliciting active collaboration from consumers around the world the company is able to create and produce hundreds of variations of the initial ad. Esther Lee, chief creative officer of Marketing, Strategy and Innovation for the Coca-Cola Company commented “because Coca-Cola is a global brand with local connections and meanings, The Coke Side of Life offers each country an opportunity to interpret their own moments of happiness and the brand’s role in those… we are inviting countries to add to the effort through joint global initiatives” (The Coca-Cola Company March 2006).

The Coke Side of Life campaign is one component of Coca-Cola’s branding strategy. Branding is a relatively new trend, which Naomi Klein dates back to the mid-1980s and describes as “the core meaning of the modern corporation.” Klein states that advertising acts as “one vehicle used to convey that meaning to the world” (5). According to Interbrand, Coca-Cola is the world’s most valuable brand and has been for the last 7 years (Interbrand). The Coca-Cola brand has evolved over time and currently includes a website dedicated solely to the brand. Alongside the Coke Side of Life campaign, the company launched the brand website in 26 countries and in 6 different languages; the brand website is a separate website which invites “visitors around the world to participate in the evolution of the brand’s heritage” (The Coca-Cola Company July 2006). The content of the brand website is partially molded by visitor input and is a wholly separate entity from the corporate website, which contains company news and information. The website allows for intensified localization of the global brand, at least on the level of image production and creation.

Statements from the Coca-Cola Company stress the act of being “seen” while carrying out CSR initiatives and engaging consumers to take part in brand creation. Isdell states “We need to be seen -- and we need to be -- a functioning part of the local communities where we operate” and later he continues “when employees enter a company that is seen to be improving society, employees bring their whole selves to work"[Emphasis Added] (Isdell 2009). The focus on being “seen” to be ethical resonates in their spending on advertising globally versus the company’s spending on CSR initiatives. Coca-Cola spent a total of $2.1 billion on global advertising in 2007 (See Table II for breakdown by region). According to their Sustainability Review, the company spent $81 million globally on CSR initiatives, meaning that it spent over $2 billion more on global advertising than on CSR initiatives (See Table III). In Latin America, Coca-Cola spent $121.4 million more on advertising than CSR initiatives in 2007. Coca-Cola does not publish a detailed breakdown of product or campaign advertising expenditures so it is difficult to know how much was spent on the Coke Side of Life campaign or advertising costs for CSR initiatives specifically.
In Corporate Governance and the Ethics of Narcissus, Roberts deconstructs current notions of business ethics drawing the distinction between being ‘seen to be ethical’ and ‘being responsible for.’ He argues that the act of being seen as ethical and the obsession with projecting an ethical self image is markedly different than the sense of responsibility that comes with the recognition of others. Roberts defines ethics in part as “not a rule to be followed, but as felt responsibility for my neighbor” (109). Coca-Cola’s marketing of CSR, its advertising budget, and its investment in a highly developed brand image all stress the act of being seen versus taking responsibility for the corporation’s impact on others. The company also appears to want to distance the brand from the day to day operations of the corporation by creating a separate website for the brand so the image can be detached from the actions of the corporation.

Coca-Cola’s CSR reports mention its policy statements regarding the environment, labor, and corporate governance. The CSR reports highlight awards and acknowledgements of Coca-Cola’s CSR initiatives around the world, emphasizing how Coca-Cola is “seen” as ethical. In the company’s 2007/2008 Sustainability Review, over 11 awards and recognitions were mentioned throughout the report as evidence that Coca-Cola is acting as a socially responsible company. In 2007, Coca-Cola was named one of the “World’s Most Accountable Corporations” by One World Trust. Yet, One Trust World does not monitor how CSR initiatives are implemented, only how a company’s policy appears through its own publications. In the 2007 Global Accountability Report released by One World Trust Bank, they state “variations between policy commitments made by an organization and what happens in practice on the ground may occur… the study therefore does not claim to offer a full and definite assessment of an organization’s accountability” (Lang 2007). Some of the awards Coca-Cola has received measure how Coke appears through its policies, therefore Coke was awarded for being “seen” to be one of the world’s most accountable corporations.

Roberts also argues that self-obsessed and narcissistic behavior is encouraged within typical business environments through a hierarchical corporate governance structure, including the “progressive instrumentalization of relationships” where others are viewed as vehicles to either leverage or limit the ultimate realization of the self (118). Through the Coke Side of Life campaign, which is partially implemented through the brand website, visitors and consumers are invited to interface with the corporation, but only in a way that creates brand value for the company. Relations with consumers are based on the “instrumentalization of relationships” where the mode of connection is one in which the company provides the tools to leverage consumer ideas into the mass media, but only if their creativity translates to profits for the Coca-Cola Company.

By challenging consumers to engage in brand creation, the Coca-Cola Company is also attempting to tap into the creativity and diversity of various people, ultimately soliciting labor from loyal and interested consumers. Daniel Miller describes the very act of consumption as a form of labor. His definition could also be expanded to include branding strategies. Miller’s conception of consumer labor is described as “[the] practical activity in which people meet an object world that confronts them as external and foreign and through which they fashion objectifications of themselves as social beings recognizable to themselves and to others” (Foster 11). The Coca-Cola Company asks consumers very directly to re-fashion the brand to fit their personal interpretations and to “interpret their own moments of happiness and the brand’s role in those” (the Coca-Cola Company March 2006) requesting that consumers do the work of localizing and internalizing Coca-Cola’s global image.
Coca-Cola’s preoccupation with being ‘seen’ to be ethical stems from their dependence on consumer trust. According to Coca-Cola’s 2008 10K form, they believe “that our success depends on our ability to connect with consumers” (3). The inability to maintain a valuable brand image and corporate reputation is listed as a potential risk factor that could impact profits. The company’s 10k form states:

adverse publicity surrounding obesity concerns, water usage, labor relations and the like, and campaigns by activists attempting to connect our system to environmental issues, water shortages or workplace or human rights violations in certain developing countries in which we operate, could negatively affect our Company’s overall reputation and our products’ acceptance by consumers(The Coca-Cola Company 2008).

Coca-Cola’s financial statements reflect a cognizance of the company’s dependence on consumer approval. The company’s statements emphasize the importance of connecting with consumers while making sure consumers do not connect the Coca-Cola system to labor, health or environmental issues. Coca-Cola wants to control its image through a highly sophisticated brand, but wants to disconnect its image from the negative externalities of its international operations.

In Coca-Cola’s self-titled, self-published Corporate Responsibility Review (2006) it boasts “we may be best known for the shape of our bottle, but we are also passionate about shaping the world – one community at a time” (3). The report is a compilation of statements asserting what Coca-Cola is and represents, but lacks a detailed explanation of how social responsibility is implemented throughout the corporation. The report asserts that employees of Coca-Cola “respect the human rights principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and strive to ensure that human rights are respected by our business partners” (21). It also asserts that the company has “a single set of global quality standards and an uncompromising commitment to product safety and quality” (22). The assertions lack reference to how those policies came to fruition, making the statements and policies appear divorced from any set of social processes.

By looking at material from organizations, unions, and movements which have critiqued Coca-Cola’s operations alongside Coke’s CSR material illuminates the company’s embedded nature. SINALTRAINAL is a Colombian union which has accused Coca-Cola of severe human rights abuses, including colluding with paramilitary forces to carry out the murder, torture and intimidation of workers in Colombia (SINALTRAINAL). Although the union is nationally based in Colombia, their fight has grown to a global scale winning the support of the International Labor Rights Fund, United Steelworkers of America, United Students Against Sweatshops, and Corporate Campaign Inc. (Colombia Action Network).

Colombia has a long history of violent internal conflict that includes a civil war spanning more than four decades. Richani argues that multinational corporations are part of the “war system” which has perpetuated violence in Colombia. He states, “MCs not only generated violence but also financed opposing forces… wittingly or unwittingly, MCs helped to maintain a balance of forces” (115). Coca-Cola is one example of a corporation that has actively contributed to violence in Colombia. War on Want reported that, “since 1990, eight employees of Coca-Cola bottlers in Colombia have been killed by these [Colombian] paramilitaries” (8). SINALTRAINAL, the union representing 2,300 food workers in Colombia, including 500 Coca-Cola bottling plant employees stated, “another 48 workers have been forced into hiding and 65 have received death threats” (BBC 2001; War on Want 8). Lesley Gill explains that the murder of Isidro Gil and violence against SINALTRAINAL was part of a paramilitary offensive in the 1990s. Gill states:

The paramilitaries seized control of the Urabá region, where Carepa is located, and they decimated the SINALTRAINAL affiliate in 1996. They did so, according to SINALTRAINAL, with the complicity of company officials. Union leaders say that average wages in the plant then dropped from $380 a month to $130 (244).

Despite testimonies from the workers, Coca-Cola has denied culpability because of its relationship with the bottler. Coca-Cola spokesman, Rafael Fernandez Quiros responded to the allegations stating, “Coca-Cola denies any connection to any human-rights violation of this type… we do not own or operate the plants” (BBC 2001). The company has asserted that it is not responsible because it does not own a controlling interest in the particular plants where the violence took place.

In 2001, SINALTRAINAL, with the help of the United Steelworkers Union and the International Labor Rights Fund, filed a lawsuit against the Coca-Cola Company in a Florida court under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) (Business Wire 2001). The ATCA raises interesting questions about legal jurisdiction in an increasingly globalized world. Aside from signifying potential legal repercussions for U.S. multinational corporations, lawsuits brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act have also generated significant debate over the scope of corporate social responsibility. Multinational corporations have a vested interest in articulating their liability for environmental, labor, and human rights abuses taking place in, around or in relation to their foreign business operations. Gill explains:

Hiding behind layers of subcontracting is a common defense used by global corporations. It allows them to claim that they do not employ workers and that subcontractors are the sole employers, and thus enables them to avoid any responsibility for providing minimum wages, health care, safe working environments or negotiating in good faith with labor unions (250).

The loss of any legal battles could translate to increased liability, decreased bargaining power with labor unions, and less control in defining the parameters of social responsibility outside the U.S.

In the case of Coca-Cola, the company fought the lawsuit and in 2003 the Coca-Cola Company was dropped from the lawsuit because of issues over jurisdiction. The U.S. District Judge Jose Martinez, who presided over the case, stated “demonstrating indirect liability for human rights abuses on the part of corporate entities is an inherently difficult task,” (Goodman). Coca-Cola commended the judge stating “[Coca-Cola] is gratified by Judge Martinez’ decision to dismiss the cases. We reaffirm our belief that the claims in the suit filed against The Coca-Cola Company and two bottlers in Colombia are inaccurate and based on distorted versions of events” (Coke Facts). Although Coca-Cola asserts itself as a socially responsible company, it refuses to acknowledge or take responsibility for violence taking place at its bottling plants. The lawsuit represents an attempt to control what ‘responsibility’ means in relation to the corporation. Shamir argues:

the strategic maneuvering of corporations in the CSR field consists of two basic moves: one that resists attempts to subject MNCs to an enforceable legal framework, and another that engages in actively consolidating a self-regulatory regime of CSR that is based on a host of voluntary and nonenforceable instruments (660).

Coca-Cola wants to define how it will be responsible by avoiding legal or governmental regulation, like the Alien Tort Claims Act.

Accusations of human and labor rights abuses resonate in Coca-Cola’s social responsibility material, but the connections between social pressure and company policy are not clearly articulated. According to Coca-Cola’s Global Workplace Rights Policy, the company “respects our employees’ right to join, form or not to join a labor union without fear of reprisal, intimidation or harassment” (The Coca-Cola Company). On the surface, it appears that Coca-Cola is capable of managing workers’ rights internally and has taken initiative to ensure its workers enjoy basic rights, yet this is problematic because the majority of Coca-Cola’s workforce is employed at bottling plants where Coca-Cola does not have controlling interest. The company asserts:

The Coca-Cola system is not a single entity from a legal or managerial perspective, and the Company does not own or control most of our bottlers. In 2006, bottling partners in which our Company had no ownership interest or a noncontrolling equity interest produced and distributed approximately 83 percent of our worldwide unit case volume (www.thecoca-colacompany.com).

Self-regulation is inadequate in regards to labor rights because the majority of Coca-Cola’s workforce is not covered by its Global Workplace Rights Policy.

The Coca-Cola Company presents its Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives as an extension of its brand image. Coca-Cola is careful to separate its brand from the corporation, making it difficult to draw connections between the corporate entity and the negative externalities of Coca-Cola’s international operations. Foucault understood this masking of power as a kind of theatrics. As Tagg explains “Power in the West, Foucault says, is what displays itself most and hides itself best. ‘Political life’, with its carefully staged debates, provides a little theater of power – an image – but it is not there that power lies; nor is that how it functions” (Evans 248). CSR initiatives create a space where the Coca-Cola Company can control how social problems are framed and addressed. Coca-Cola has worked to limit what “responsibility” means by maneuvering complex relationships with subcontractors. By detaching itself from local bottlers in a legal sense, the company can avoid culpability for abuses taking place at those plants. It can simultaneously publish progressive CSR policies that cast the Company a leading role in solving global problems. The Company can be the expert, the hero, but never the perpetrator of labor, environmental or human rights abuses.