Coke India Case
Autor: hhaappyy • June 17, 2015 • Coursework • 383 Words (2 Pages) • 1,111 Views
In February 2003, the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), a non-governmental organisation reported tests showing that the major leading brands of bottled water were polluted. The CSE after six months, produced another report tested for 12 soft-drink brands of Pepsi and Coca-Cola. It reported that Pepsi contained 36 times more and Coke contained 30 times more pesticides (toxins) than the standards set by the European Union. The reports indicated that those chemicals included lindane, DDT, malathion and chlorpyrifos, which when taken in sufficient volume could cause cancer, and damage the immune and nervous systems in humans. They also mentioned that the samples of those products in America did not contain those chemicals. (The Economist, 2003)
These allegations were denied by the Cola-Cola and Pepsi. The director of CSE, Ms. Sunita Narain accused Coca-Cola and Pepsi of taking advantage of India’s no regulation governing the quality of water used for the production of soft drinks. CSE suggested an independent review of its research and claimed that its tests were conducted in accordance to the established protocol of the US Environmental Protection Agency. (EDWARD LUCE, 2003)
These carbonated products were banned from several educational institutes and in the Parliament. Also, many departmental stores stopped keeping Pepsi and Coca-Cola products reducing their sale by one third. Pepsi filed petition with the High court for an independent inquiry to determine the validity of CSE’s report and Coca-Cola appealed to the Supreme Court. After the tests, the Indian health ministry did not find any high levels of pesticides and ruled the accusation to be false. (The Economist Intelligence Unit 2003)
Again in August 2006, CSE presented reports showing the presence of pesticides in the soft drinks of Coca-Cola. This resulted in considerable drop of sales for 15%. The Government consequently rejected CSE’s examination on the grounds of being "inconclusive" and "erroneous". (Rathore 2007).
Bibliography
Business: What's your poison?; fizzy drinks in India.(2003, Aug 09). The Economist, 368, 56-56. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/224030471?accountid=11578
EDWARD LUCE IN, N. D. (2003). Pepsi and coca-cola deny pesticide claims. FT.Com, , 1-1. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/228749253?accountid=11578
...