Is their CSR misleading? Coca-Cola and Pepsi India offices await answers from the US!

‘Are your corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes misleading? ‘ was the straight question that CauseBecause asked Coca-Cola and Pepsi a day after a PLoS Medicine article pointed fingers at beverage makers saying their CSR is another one of their tactics to gain public support and avert attention from their drinks’ ill effects.

The answers that CauseBecause received are quite intriguing. While Coca-Cola’s corporate affairs handler for India said that while he was sure that the findings of the PLoS research were false, he himself would not be able to answer any queries on CSR, and confirmed that their US corporate office would respond on the matter. The gentleman’s last SMS to CauseBecause, on June 21 evening, was ‘please await response from the US; it is on its way.’ 

It would appear to be ironical that a company that is having some difficulty in explaining its CSR has been gladly lifting the Golden Peacock, among other awards on CSR.

Regarding the other beverage giant, Pepsi, it was no less intriguing. Although prompt in answering calls and responding to emails, all that Pepsi could share was a statement from the American Beverage Association. When CauseBecause asked the company’s communications director to share an example of any one of the many CSR activities that the statement is boasting about, the Indian communication heads forwarded our emails to their US counterparts. As of this minute, the response from them is yet to come.

Why is it that these companies, after spending millions on their CSR, are not yet facing the media with confidence? What is it that is to be read between the lines in their annual CSR reports? The vague responses so far would suggest that the points in the PLoS article may have many answers to these questions.

The article tells us that the soda industry CSR initiatives are explicitly and aggressively profit-seeking. Soda companies use CSR to tout their concern for the health and well-being of the youth while simultaneously building up brand loyalty.The stated goal of PepsiCo’s flagship Refresh Project is to increase long-term sales by engaging the youth in the initiativesand to build loyalty by associating PepsiCo with benevolent, worthwhile ventures. On the other hand, Coca-Cola uses its Spark Your Park programme with heavy emphasis on Facebook and Twitter engagements online, to promote its Sprite product while donating funds to neglected recreation facilities.

These CSR campaigns provide a mechanism for soda companies to evade pledges not to market in schools. While soda companies agreed to remove full-calorie drinks from the US schools, CSR programmes like the Refresh Project keep the brand in front of young people with promises of grants for children’s schools, parks, or other programmes.

The PLoS article compares the practices of these beverage giants to those of tobacco companies, making these points: ‘The overall goal for the tobacco industry’s CSR strategy has been to normalize its products and its corporate image, but it has struggled as public health advocates have de-normalized tobacco use and challenged tobacco companies trying to rehabilitate their /images… The soda industry appears to be improving upon Big Tobacco’s CSR strategy by acting sooner. Unlike tobacco, at the first signs of soda de-normalization, soda companies quickly launched comprehensive, well-funded, international CSR campaigns that take advantage of social media.

‘Tobacco companies launched CSR campaigns to rehabilitate themselves with the public when their image had been tarnished. Because the most comprehensive initiatives were introduced well after intense public outcry, however, their CSR efforts struggled to achieve their aims. As soda de-normalization is nascent, soda companies may enjoy benefits from CSR that Big Tobacco labored to accomplish. In addition to effectively preempting regulation and maintaining its favorable position with the public, the soda industry’s CSR tactics may also entice today’s young people to become brand-loyal lifetime consumers, an outcome that current social norms dictate Big Tobacco cannot explicitly seek.’

The PLoS article concludes by stating: ‘Public health advocates must continue to monitor the CSR activities of soda companies, and remind the public and policymakers that, similar to tobacco, soda industry CSR aims to position the companies, and their products, as socially acceptable rather than contributing to a social ill.’

Is this the reason why CauseBecause queries seeking to probe the CSR of these soda companies are not getting answered in the US?