Download the India Briefing - National Union of Students

Accusations of water shortages and negative environmental impacts
caused by nine bottling operations / factories used in the manufacture
of Coca-Cola products in India
First published: 12 January 2004
Last updated: 14 January 2008
1 NUS Services contract details
Contracts
Compulsory deal on natural stills (starts August 2006, finishes April 2009)
Compulsory on colas (starts August 2006, finishes April 2011)
Compulsory on fruit carbonates (starts August 2006, finishes April 2011)
Brands
Coca-Cola (including vanilla variant), Diet Coke (including lemon variant), Cherry Coke, Fanta,
Lilt, Sprite, Dr Pepper, Oasis, Minute Maid, all Schweppes-branded drinks, Canada Dry Ginger
Ale, Roses lime, Capri-sun and Appletiser.
Contacts
• Harry Ott (Director, Global Environment, The Coca-Cola Company)
• David Cox (Communications Director, Coca-Cola Asia)
• Kari Bjorhus (Director of Communications, The Coca-Cola Company)
• Tim Wilkinson (Public Affairs & Communications Director, Coca-Cola Great Britain)
• Lauren Branston (Head of Strategic Communications, Coca-Cola GB)
• Liz Ramm (Senior Communications Manager)
2 The accusations against Coca-Cola
In April 2002, local residents from Plachimada village and human rights activists formed a
‘struggle committee’ to campaign against the Coca-Cola factory in the Plachimada in the
Palakkad District of Kerala, India. Since their protest began, two charities, CorpWatch and
ActionAid, have led in detailing observations and allegations on the impacts of nine bottling
operations/factories used in the manufacture of Coca-Cola products in India. A summary of all the
allegations for each bottling operation/factory is provided in this briefing.
In November 2003, Middlesex University SU tabled a resolution for the 2004 NUS Conference
that would end the NUS Services Coca-Cola contract. The issue was referred to NUS Services
Convention. Middlesex Students’ Union and the School of African and Oriental Studies Students’
Union submitted a motion to NUS Services Convention 2004 imposing conditions on Coca-Cola
that would need to be met before any new contract could be signed. This motion was rejected in
favour of a statement & motion from NUS Services’ Ethical & Environmental Committee.
Convention 2005 mandated the Committee to continue the process of constructive engagement,
with guidelines concerning future contracts to be presented at Convention 2006.
NUS Services’ Ethical & Environmental Committee is currently involved in constructive
engagement with The Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) in relation to the issues outlined in this
briefing. As part of the dialogue, Coca-Cola has been invited to respond to all the allegations
against it. Coca-Cola has reviewed the accusations in this document and submitted the
paragraphs in italics.

2.1 Coca-Cola bottler in Plachimada, Palakkad District, Kerala
2.1.1 Introduction
In 1999, the Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd (HCBL) established a factory in India at
Plachimada on approximately 40-acres of multi-cropped paddy lands 1 . Six bore wells were sunk
in the factory compound to extract water from a large aquifer at a depth of 40-80 metres, although
it is understood that no more than three of these six bore wells are used at any one time. Two
open shallow wells were also dug to extract water from shallow ground water. In 2003, the factory
manufactured Coca-Cola, Thums Up, Limca, Fanta, Sprite, Maaza for around 32,000 outlets. It
employed 150 permanent staff and 250 contract labourers. It should be noted that Plachimada
village is in a monsoon area that is prone to drought.
2.1.2 Well water shortage and quality
According to CorpWatch, six-months after the factory was opened, villagers and farmers living
around the bottling factory began noticing changes in the quantity and quality of well water. Water
from a well in Plachimada (a village with nearly 100 families living along the eastern wall of the
factory) turned brackish, milky white in colour and tasted bitter. Many local people reported
stomach-aches. Because of concerns over water quality, local officials tested the well waters.
This confirmed the presence of high levels of dissolved salts. CorpWatch has since stated that it
is likely that this was caused by Coca-Cola’s rapid extraction of water from the aquifer, making
water flow through surrounding limestone or clay at an increased rate resulting in additional
limestone or clay particles entering the water supply.
“According to a University of Rajasthan study, the entire beverage industry in India (of
which Coca-Cola is part) is responsible for just 0.002% of the country’s total water use.
Agriculture alone is responsible for 81% of water consumption in India. The Coca-Cola
Company agrees that there has been a decrease in both water quality and quantity in the
Kerala area since it located there, but agrees with Government studies which have
concluded that severe deficiencies in rainfall during that period are the main cause of
water depletion and subsequent decrease in quality. The Company asserts that the
amount of water it draws is not significant enough to be responsible for the large-scale
impact on local water, which is also a problem throughout the entire State of Kerala 2 . In
addition, the Company points out that the plant uses 17 horsepower pumps to extract
groundwater. These are of a similar power capacity as those used by farmers and other
industries in the area so it is erroneous to regard this as a ‘rapid extraction’. There are 200
open shallow wells and 150 bore wells all using the same water resource (i.e. within 5kms
of the plant) as the Coca-Cola plant. These are owned by farmers and the 27 other water
based industries in the same area.”
On 13 May 2003, the District Medical Officer of the Public Health Centre in the village announced
that people should not drink water from the three wells next to the Coca-Cola factory because the
hardness, chlorides and concentration of total dissolved solids were beyond tolerable levels for
drinking water, domestic use (bathing and washing) and irrigation 3 . A similar study by
Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide found that water from two of the wells was ‘very hard’.
“The Coca-Cola Company agrees with the assessment that water quality around its plant
is poor, but says that this is the case throughout the State of Kerala and not just around its
plant.”
Crop yields also started to decline. There was a reported six-fold decrease in the local coconut
yield 4 . A People's Commission report found that 250 hectares of wet paddy fields in the
1 Note that Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd and Bharat Coca-Cola Bottling are both 51% owned
by The Coca-Cola Company.
2 India’s Central Ground Water Board study on water stressed areas in Kerala, 2003
3 www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2003/continuingbattle.html
4 www.corpwatchindia.org
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 2

neighbourhood of the factory had also dried up. According to local estimates 5 , the water
shortages had affected the land of more than 2,000 people residing within 1.2 miles of the factory.
“The Coca-Cola Company agrees that local agriculture is suffering as a result of a
dramatic decrease in rainfall. It has however received the written support of local farmers
in the form of a letter from the National Farmers Protection Committee in which its
President, Mr. Ravi Kumar, states, “None of the charges against the Company could
withstand serious scrutiny”.”
HCBL and Coca-Cola have consistently denied responsibility for the water shortages and water
quality issues in surrounding wells. In an article in The Guardian (25 July 2003), the Vice-
President of Coca-Cola-India, Sunil Gupta, states that it is lack of rainfall that has caused local
water supplies to be exhausted, and that the Company has been the target of a handful of
extremist protesters. It claims to have the written support of local tribal leaders and says that the
vast majority of local people support the factory. Coca-Cola states that, unlike a mineral extraction
business, and for commercial reasons, it does not locate a factory unless it is indefinitely
sustainable, and that it therefore has no interest in simply using all the water resources.
2.1.3 Contradictory evidence
In 2002, the Kerala State Groundwater Department (KSGD) reported that only three wells showed
quality problems and a drop in water levels 6 out of a total of twenty tested. They also found that
there had been a reduction in the average annual rainfall in the area - from 2137 mm in the year
2000 to 1147 mm in 2001 and just 670 mm in 2002 – and that the depletion of water in the open
wells was due to reduced rainfall and the high density of irrigation bore wells. In November 2002,
the KSGD added, ‘any depletion in ground water was due to less than normal levels of rainfall
and could not be attributed to the [Coca-Cola] plant’.
CorpWatch responded to this report by stating that the findings were based on insufficient field
data (only eight months' rainfall) collected from too small an area (one square kilometre).
In February 2003, the national water regulator, The Central Groundwater Authority (CGA) tested
33 wells around the Coca-Cola factory and concluded that the factory operations have not
adversely affected that quality of groundwater. In September 2003, the CGA stated, ‘there were
no abnormal changes in ground water levels around the factory that can be attributed to its
operations.’ A report commissioned by Coca-Cola in 2002 7 supports this and states there is ‘no
evidence of overexploitation of the groundwater reserves in the factory area’.
Conversely, in March 2004, The Department of Ground Water found that the changes in well
water quantity surrounding the Plachimada factory were due to excess drawing of water by the
Company and less rainfall. This was based on evidence collected from 18 wells between March
2002 and March 2003.
2.1.4 Water extraction – the figures
All the water used in the factory comes from either shallow water supplies (60%) or the
underground aquifer (40%).
• The Kerala Government told Coca-Cola that it is safe to draw up to 880,000 litres of
groundwater per day.
• The Government of India provided HCBL with a licence to extract up to 560,000 litres of
groundwater per day.
• According to HCBL, the factory’s maximum extraction capacity is 450,000 litres per day.
Conversely, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) has estimated that the factory
could extract 1,500,000 litres of water a day at full capacity. Similarly, a People’s Commission
team that entered the factory in 2002 has claimed that the factory can extract 1,000,000 litres
in ten hours. HCBL claims that it usually averages 400,000 litres per day 8 . In the 16 December
5 www.corpwatchindia.org
6 www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2003/continuingbattle.html
7 Report by an Emeritus scientist from the National Geophysical Research Institute.
8 In 2002, the factory extracted an average of 386,342 litres per day, every day of the year.
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 3

Court ruling, an expert is cited as quoting the average daily water consumption at 510,000
litres.
• In January 2004, Coca-Cola claimed that, due to the rainwater harvesting and new
efficiencies, it recharged the aquifers with the equivalent of all the water it used.
“The aquifer is recharged naturally each year by monsoon rains, but to help accelerate this
recharge, HCBL voluntarily installed the State’s largest rainwater harvesting facility in the
plant. In 2002, HCBL recharged over 50% of the amount of water extracted from the
aquifer amount through its rainwater harvesting technology. HCBL have recently acquired
an additional 30 acres of land that they hope to put to use for additional rainwater
harvesting. It should be noted that the Coca-Cola plant has also provided this technology
free of charge to five local farms and a school. It is the only industry of the 27 water-based
industries in the area to have adopted rainwater harvesting on this scale and to have
freely shared it with the community.”
Coca-Cola claims that, when the new 30 acres of rainwater harvesting are completed, it will
recharge more than it uses. It should be noted that CorpWatch states that no effort has been
made to independently verify either the quantity of water extracted by the factory, or the amount
of water the Company to gains through rainwater harvesting.
“The Coca-Cola Company, the Kerala State Groundwater Department and the Central
Groundwater Authority have denied this, as all water usage on the site is metered and
recorded by the authorities. The amount of water recharged by rainwater harvesting is
also monitored and recorded by the authorities. Water meters are housed in locked boxes
only accessible to the authorities.”
2.1.5 Allegations of chemical discharges
In addition to these reports, there is an unconfirmed report that the factory washes out bottles with
chemicals that are then released, without treatment, into local groundwater 9 .
“The Coca-Cola Company has said that this is entirely inaccurate and that the plant, unlike
others in the locality, is a zero discharge plant. Despite no legal requirements in India to
treat its wastewater, the plant uses state-of-the-art effluent treatment facilities. Eight
Government reports since the opening of the plant have confirmed the safety of the
wastewater created by the plant and the system used to treat wastewater by Coca-Cola in
India won the country’s prestigious Golden Peacock Environmental Award in 2003.”
The factory is ISO 14001 certified and has passed all the Government and Coca-Cola Company’s
regulatory tests since it began operating.
2.1.6 The sludge issue
The factory generates approximately 0.15 tonnes 10 of semi-liquid and dry sediment slurry wastes
through the wastewater and waste treatment process, including the washing of sugar cane. HCBL
initially stated that these wastes were a good fertiliser, and the sludge-like material was given to
local farmers. After a short period, reports appeared that the sludge had damaged crops, and led
to the development of lumps, welts and sores on people’s skin 11 .
“The Coca-Cola Company has apologised for the use of the word ‘fertilizer’. It is likely that
the local Indian spokesperson (whose first language is not English) was unaware of the
importance of getting this term exactly right. The United States Environmental Protection
Agency states that this type of material is suitable as a soil ‘conditioner’ and therefore the
use of the word ‘fertiliser’ was wrong.”
A report on Radio 4's Face the Facts programme (25 July 2003) investigated the sludge issue.
One Sample analysed as part of the programme showed high levels of cadmium in the sludge 12 .
9 www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17592
10 Figure obtained from the summary of the environmental impact assessment completed prior to
construction
11 Christian Aid News, Winter 2004
12 Analysed by the Greenpeace research laboratories at Exeter University in July 2003.
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 4

However, Coca-Cola stated that none of the samples were collected directly from their factory,
and that all the samples came from the surrounding area.
“The Coca-Cola Company has also stated that it believes the BBC programme presented
the results of one test out of context given that eight separate tests on the material from
within the plant by the regulator (Kerala State Pollution Control Board) have cleared it of
any harmful levels of heavy metals. The BBC is currently investigating the conduct of this
programme.”
Following the BBC programme, the KSPCB also tested the waste products from the factory in
August 2003 and found that there was lead and cadmium in the waste 13 , although Coca-Cola
points out that these levels were within international and Indian safety limits. Following the August
tests, the KSPCB ordered Coca-Cola to treat the sludge as hazardous waste.
Coca-Cola’s own investigation in August 2003 found the levels to be ‘well below permissible
levels’ and, in September 2003, the KSPCB tested the water in surrounding wells and the land
where the sludge was applied and found that they were ‘not contaminated with heavy metals’. In
December 2003, the Central Pollution Control Board of India (CPCBI) confirmed that the levels of
heavy metals traces are within the norms for classification as non-hazardous, although it did
concede that the presence of heavy metals might cause harm over a period of time.
If the sludge does have high levels of toxicity, repeated applications to farmlands could lead to a
build-up of toxic metals in the soil from where they could be transferred to plants and into the food
chain. Lead is particularly bad for children, affecting their nervous system, and cadmium is toxic
to the kidneys and liver and can cause cancer.
There are also allegations that sludge has been indiscriminately dumped along the riverbanks, in
dry riverbeds and on other public lands. This allegation was supported by observations voiced in
the second BBC Radio 4 Face the Facts programme (02 January 2004).
“The Coca-Cola Company has denied this, stating that the materials only left the farms at
the specific request of five farmers who wanted it applied to their land as a soil conditioner
having seen the beneficial affects it was having on the gardens within the plant.”
In the same programme, Coca-Cola stated that, if any farmers had asked Coca-Cola to remove
the sludge from their sites, the Company had done so, and stored the sludge in the factory
grounds.
“The Coca-Cola Company has received letters from all farmers confirming that all
remaining material was removed by the Company from their land.”
Although Coca-Cola has collected the sludge, the Company has not cleaned up the sites as if
they were contaminated with hazardous waste.
Coca-Cola is now disposing of biosolids as hazardous waste 14 , although the Company describes
this measure as ‘cautious in the extreme’.
On 14 August 2004, the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes published a
report with recommendations on their visit to Kerala. In the report, the committee stated that they
were ‘disturbed that the company had, without prior approval of the authorities concerned with
agriculture, disposed of its sludge (containing heavy metals) to farmers in the neighbourhood as
fertiliser. The company was unable to convince the Committee of the source of the toxic heavy
metals found in the sludge.’
2.1.7 Local agitation
Local people established the ‘Anti Coca-Cola Peoples Struggle Committee’ in early 2002. At the
end of February 2004, the ongoing vigil outside the factory had been running for over 650 days.
13 www.downtoearth.org.in/
14 Christian Aid Report, Behind the mask (January 2004)
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 5

On 22 April 2002, 1,300 people set up a blockade and picket of Coca-Cola’s bottling factory 15 .
This figure is disputed by Coca-Cola, who claims that only 100 people were present on the day.
On 26 April 2002, Coca-Cola petitioned the High Court to declare the protest illegal. The Court
rejected Coca-Cola’s petition and directed the police to provide protection to both the protesters
and the factory.
On 30 April 2003, HCBL started to distribute water in tanker lorries to the adjacent settlements,
supplying two truckloads of water each day to the two worst affected villages. According to
CorpWatch, the adivasi and dalit women stated that they would rather walk 2-kilometres to nearby
wells rather than accept water provided by HCBL.
“The Coca-Cola Company does not agree with the facts as reported that local people are
shunning the water supplies. It says that the trucks are welcomed each day. Again, the
Company has the written support of the local tribal leaders In an attempt to help the
situation, the plant has promised to supply as much clean drinking water as required by
the local people and, up until the plant recent closure, the plant was supplying two tankers
of water a day. The Coca-Cola plant has also provided pipelines for drinking water to six
local villages and prior to the closure of the plant, it had plans to extend this to more
villages.”
On 17 December 2003, to mark 600 days of protest against the factory in Plachimada, protestors
met in Kochi and walked backwards to the High Court symbolise the Government turning a blindeye
to the hazards caused by the Coca-Cola factory.
Between 11 and 20 January 2004, comedian Mark Thomas visited the factory at Plachimada in
conjunction with ActionAid. Mark has a nationwide comedy tour in 2004 that refers to his visit to
the site.
On 18 January 2004, over 500 protesters marched against Coca-Cola as part of the World Social
Forum in Kerala.
Between 21 and 23 January 2004, the Panchayat, working with Indian environmentalists, held a
World Water Conference in Plachimada.
In March 2004, Norwegian Church Aid started to lobby Coca-Cola Norge over the water issues at
Plachimada. It is calling for a boycott until Coca-Cola finances a compensation plan for 10,000
affected farmers.
On 30 March 2004, Associated Press reported that, in Cochin, 300 workers from the Coca-Cola
factory held a hunger march to protest about the Government ban that prevents the extraction of
groundwater until 15 June 2004 (see section 2.1.9).
Towards the end of 2005, the India Resource Centre published a list of demands bveing called for
by the Plachimada Solidarity Committee:
• The permanent shutting down of the bottling plant.
• Compensation for affected community members who have lost their livelihoods as a result
of the water shortages and pollution.
• Remediation of the area until the groundwater achieves the quality and quantity prior to
the establishment of the factory.
• Admit long term liability for the health impacts to the community as a result of the pollution.
• Initiation of criminal proceedings against the Coca-Cola company for destruction of lives,
livelihoods and environment.
• Introduction of appropriate government rules and regulations that ensure that such abuses
do not happen again.
• Dropping of all criminal charges filed against activists engaged in the campaign.
15 www.corpwatchindia.org/bulletins/PBD.jsp?articleid=1323
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 6

• Setting up of funds to ensure retraining and relocation of workers currently working in the
Coca-Cola bottling plant in Plachimada, including contract workers.
2.1.8 Positive initiatives by Coca-Cola in India
Coca-Cola provided NUS Services with a letter from Markku Niskala, Secretary General of the
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in Geneva (IF) to Douglas
Daft, then CEO of Coca-Cola, dated 05 April 2004. The letter commended Coca-Cola India’s
social programmes (including public health initiatives, water conservation and potable water
supply) and the sharing of best practices such as CSR training for senior management and
defining and measuring CSR through self assessment tools developed by the IF. The letter ends
with an invite to explore further areas of collaboration between the two organisations globally.
The Coca-Cola Company wishes to point out that, prior to the closure of the plant, it took
an active role in the health of the local community and has said that it would not
contemplate operating if any of the allegations were true. Prior to its closure the plant:
• Arranged for free delivery of purified water from the plant to the local community twice
a day;
• Introduced rainwater harvesting to local farms and schools free of charge;
• Funded health measures to help earlier detection of Tuberculosis in 1,500 local village
children;
• Ran health clubs and provided free medicine to over 300 local villagers
• Paid for corrective eye surgery to 45 villagers.
• The plant had plans to provide a free Ambulance for the community as well as extend
its free medicine and medical camps programme.
In September 2004, the Company outlined how it had restored a traditional water harvesting
structure used to collect and store water in Anoopura village temple, near Jaipur; how it provided
free medical treatment and advice to more than 5,000 women and children in Rajasthan, near the
Anoopura village; and how its employees from Guwahati helped distribute more than 8,000
bottles of drinking water and 2,300 packets of biscuits to flood victims in Assam, as well as
helping elderly, women and children to safer ground. Additionally, in an eastern state of Bihar
bordering Nepal, Coca-Cola India provide 3,000 cases of water and free medicine to flood
victims.
In 2004, HBCL was honoured as ‘best private company’ in the state by the Government of Tamil
Nadu for providing employment opportunities for physically challenged people.
2.1.9 Key developments timeline
• 1999
The Coca-Cola Company claims that HCBL filed for permission to use water from local dam 16
for production. The Company claims that, despite assurances to the contrary, no permission
was granted, forcing the company to rely on groundwater. The Company does not have any
documents to support its claim that it intended to source water from the nearby dam. In
addition, the Company cannot provide NUS Services with the original sections of the due
diligence report relating to the environment (environmental impact assessment) carried out
prior to construction because it contains commercially sensitive data.
• 07 April 2003
The Perumatty Grama Panchayat (village governing Council that granted HCBL a licence to
operate) decided not to renew the licence on the grounds of ‘protecting public interest’ as the
Company was ‘causing shortage of drinking water in the area through over-exploitation of
ground water sources’.
“It should be noted that the Perumatty Panchayat invited the plant to locate within its
district in the first place and has only moved to act against the plant since changing
allegiance to a political party which wishes to see Coca-Cola and other American
16 The main branch of the Moolathara Canal, from the Kambalathra Dam, runs close to the northern
boundary of the factory.
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 7

multinationals leave India. Despite the plant using less water than many other local
industries and despite the plant’s investment in rainwater harvesting technology, the
council has so far taken no action against the other water-based industries in the area.
The plant lies equidistant between this council and another council. The second council
(Pattencherry Panchayat) remains supportive of the plant.”
In response to the above, NUS Services has been informed that the party controlling
Perumatty Panchayat, the Janata Dal (People’s Party), changed its position on Coca-Cola in
late 2002 in response to the growing protests in Plachimada and elsewhere.
It should be noted that, on 16 May 2003, the Pudusseri Panchayat announced a similar
decision regarding the Pepsi unit situated in Wise Park, within the Kanjikode Industrial
Development Area.
• 12 June 2003
The Panchayat decides to cancel the licence, stopping production from 17 May 2003.
• 15 June 2003
HCBL appeals the licence cancellation to the Government, and the Governments grants a
‘stay’.
• September 2003
A Joint Parliamentary Committee forms to investigate pesticides in colas in India.
• 19 September 2003
The Perumatty Panchayat issues a second ‘show cause’ notice to close the factory on the
grounds that it violated its licence by using six borewells instead of one, and that the factory
had endangered the health of villagers by dumping hazardous materials.
• 13 October 2003
The Local Self Government Department (LSGD) passes an order questioning the panchayat’s
07 April decision not to renew the licence because it was not based on any scientific
evidence. It orders the panchayat to constitute a team of experts from the Groundwater and
Public Health Department and the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to investigate the
claims that the factory is depleting the aquifer, reporting within three months.
• 29 October 2003
The Panchayat takes the LSGD’s 13 October decision to the Kerala High Court. The court
rules that the Panchayat can only take a decision after their scientific investigation team
reports. Until then, the 15 June stay is upheld.
• 17 November 2003
The Panchayat met again to decide whether to renew the licence for the factory in
Plachimada. Representatives from Coca-Cola Atlanta, Georgia, testify before the Panchayat
that the factory was not depleting groundwaters. Some residents testified against Coca-Cola.
The result of the hearing is that the Panchayat again rule to close the factory. Coca-Cola state
that they will appeal.
• 18 November 2003
Coca-Cola was advised by a senior official of the CPCBI not to dispose of its sludge in
agricultural fields following the detection of metal content, despite it being within prescribed
limits. Coca-Cola had voluntarily stopped distributing this sludge for a month by this stage.
• 16 December 2003
In relation to the 17 November ruling, a single bench at the Kerala High Court rules that HCBL
has ‘caused a severe drain on the water resources of the entire area’. The court held that the
extraction of groundwater, even up to the admitted limit by the Company, was ‘illegal’, and
that the Company had no right to extract so much water.
The court ruled that the State Government had no power to allow a private party to extract
such huge quantities of groundwater. The judge stated that ‘groundwater under the land of the
Company does not belong to it’, but is a national resource that belonged to the entire society.
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 8

The court stated that the factory could only extract the amounts of water equivalent to those
used by any other landowner with 34-acres, and that HCBL had one month (to 16 January
2004) to find alternative sources of water.
The SGWD was ordered to inspect the factory, including surprise inspections, giving
permission for the media to attend to ensure that the process is transparent.
The court appointed an independent investigation team to investigate the water issues, initially
reporting after 3-months, completing the investigation after one year, and a further two years
as monitoring phase. The team would analyse data on rainfall, water table fluctuations,
groundwater extraction, the groundwater potential of the area, and draw an inference whether
the current level of extraction by the Company could affect the availability of water in the
surrounding areas.
HCBL was ordered to install locks on its water meters on all of its wells to assist the
investigations. The Panchayat gave an undertaking before the court that no further action on
the show cause notice given to Coca-Cola to close down its factory would be taken without
the Court’s permission.
• 19 December 2003
Coca-Cola-India announces that it will appeal against the Kerala High Court ruling of 16
December.
It also announced that is has formed a special team to guide the Company on various
environmentally related matters. The new India Environment Council, headed by the former
Chief justice of India, will comprise of some of the country’s leading professionals and
distinguished personalities, and will guide the Company on various strategies including
corporate citizenship, social responsibility and corporate governance. It will meet four-times a
year.
• 07 January 2004
At the appeal of the single bench ruling, a division bench of the Kerala High Court ordered to
maintain the present status quo with respect to HCBL drawing regular amounts of
groundwater at the Plachimada factory until 12 February 2004.
• 08 January 2004
The Kerala Government declared that seven out of the total fourteen districts in the State
were officially hit by drought 17 . Palakkad (the district that contains Plachimada) is the only
district that has been under drought spell since 1998. Palakkad is not listed as one of the
fifteen most critical areas of water shortage.
• 21 January 2004
The Agriculture Minister informed the Kerala Assembly that the factory in question is
functioning without availing permission as stipulated in the Kerala Land Utilisation Act.
• 05 February 2004
The Joint Parliamentary Committee reports to Government. Its primary finding is that there are
toxins in Coca-Cola and Pepsi drinks, including DDT. The Committee recommends that the
Government set higher safety standards. The Committee also reports on the groundwater
issues. Although none of the recommendations directly relate to the Plachimada factory, the
MP’s comment that ‘Coca-Cola’s and Pepsi’s operations had resulted in pollution of water,
depletion of groundwater, reduced yield in crops, skin disorders and other ailments’. With
reference to claims that both companies recharge the aquifer with rainwater, the MP’s
comment that their efforts were ‘not commensurate enough’. It recommends that the
companies be charged for the water they extract on a unit-by-unit basis; that there are stricter
limits on the amount of water factories can extract; and that the groundwater recharging
claims be investigated further.
17 According to the Central Ground Water Authority, ‘If the water level plummets by four metres over a
period of 10 years in a particular place, it is designated as a notified area’
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 9

• 12 February 2004
The president of the local Panchayat writes to the Kerala Government threatening an
indefinite hunger strike from 21 February in front of the factory unless the Government forces
its closure.
• 17 February 2004
The Kerala Government imposed an immediate ban on the factory using groundwater until 15
June 2004 (the onset of the SW monsoon). According to the Chief Minister, this was issued
due to prevailing drought conditions, and not related to the ongoing controversy.
“No action was taken against the 27 other water based industries and The Coca-Cola
Company described the action as ‘discriminatory’ and as pre-empting the due legal
process in which evidence that would have vindicated the plants operations was
prevented from being presented.”
• Late February 2004
The Coca-Cola Company informed NUS Services that production at the factory has been
suspended, and that all staff are suspended on full pay.
• 08 March 2004
Kerala High Court division bench says that it is not able to legally reverse the Kerala
Government order of 17 February imposing a four-month ban on groundwater extraction. The
Court suggests that the Company appeal to the Supreme Court.
On the same day, some tankers delivering water to the factory were stopped and the water
forcibly emptied. Coca-Cola claims that the Company drivers were physically attacked by a
small number of protestors.
• 22 March 2004 (date report received)
Based on evidence collected from 18 wells between March 2002 and March 2003, the
Department of Ground Water found that the changes in well water quantity surrounding the
Plachimada factory were due to excess drawing of water by the Company and less rainfall.
• 26 March 2004
The Coca-Cola Company informs NUS Services that it is appealing to the Supreme Court
over the 17 February ruling.
• 29 March 2004
The Panchayat Board rejected the factory’s plea to continue operations and set conditions.
The Board also directed the Company not to draw groundwater from the region. Meanwhile,
the Coca-Cola factory workers protest before the secretariat for the sixth day demanding that
the Government take steps to re-open the factory.
• 01 April 2004
The local Self-Government Department overturned the Panchayat’s decision to reject a plea
from HCBL for a new five-year licence. The Government directed Coca-Cola to obtain a fresh
clearance certificate from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board.
• 07 April 2004
The Kerala High Court overturned the 01 April decision.
• 14 May 2004
The independent investigation team, established as part of the 16 December 2003 ruling,
published their interim report. The detailed investigation reports that rainfall in 2002 and 2003
has been much less than the expected average, and that this deficiency is ‘the most
significant factor that has contributed to the acute scarcity of water in the Chittur Block’ [the
area containing the HCBL factory]. However, the unregulated withdrawal of groundwater from
the wells in the HCBL complex had ‘aggravated the water scarcity further’.
The report goes on to state that, under normal rainfall conditions, the factory can ‘very safely’
extract 500,000 litres of water per day without adversely affecting the availability of
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 10

groundwater in and around the factory complex, but it is noted that the annual rainfall in the
region varies significantly from the mean, and that the monsoon is unpredictable.
The report recommends that a reference raingauge be established, and that the rainfall during
the monsoon season (between June and November) be monitored and used to determine any
restrictions in groundwater extraction for HCBL during the non-monsoon season (between
December and May).
• 28 May 2004
The Coca-Cola Company told NUS Services that they will not re-open the factory in the
foreseeable future and that they do not want to draw any more groundwater. Coca-Cola state
they are doing this because they want to resolve some of the misunderstanding and negotiate
a solution with the Panchayat and State Government. Coca-Cola maintains their position that
their factory is not responsible for water shortages in the surrounding area. The solution Coca-
Cola would like to negotiate is permission to source an alternative supply of water and
electricity. Coca-Cola added that they will continue to pay the factory workforce whilst they are
optimistic the factory will reopen. They also stated that they are hopeful that the independent
study (16 December 2003) will not be affected because they believe the study is based on
existing data. The company points out the current licence allowing the Kerala factory to
operate will not expire until June 2005.
• July 2004
The local Panchayat brought a case challenging the company’s right to have its operating
licence renewed. The Judge reserved judgement.
• 14 August 2004
The Supreme Court Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes published a report with
recommendations on their visit to Kerala. The Committee stated that they were unconvinced
over HCBL’s claims of the origins of the heavy metals found in the sludge distributed from the
factory. It also ordered the HCBL factory in Kerala, along with four other factories, to supply
water to residents in the local vicinity. The Committee ordered that water should be supplied
through pipeline to all the affected communities, rather than through the existing supply of
tankers or public taps. The Committee also ordered the establishment of four committees
under its regional offices to create a register of persons affected by the contamination of
groundwater. The Committee will prepare an action plan on water supply within two weeks.
The entire process of setting up pipelines will be completed within six months. The Committee
also directed both the local Pepsi and Coca-Cola factories to install reverse osmosis systems
to ensure that the public water used for effluent treatment is returned to its original condition
for re-use within six months.
• 14 September 2004
The Kerala State Pollution Control Board released the following order. ‘The committee [to be
set up as detailed above] shall create a register of persons affected by the disposal of waste
to whom water supply has to be given; ensure that the company installs piped water supply to
the residences of the affected persons; report the address and names of the affected
residents to the KSPCB before 10 October 2004; conduct an Environment audit of the
company; ensure that the company had removed the sludge sent outside their premises and
taken back and land brought back to its original condition’.
“Contradicting all of their existing data and published reports, the KSPCB has made a
number of allegations against the Coca-Cola plant there and has issued a number of
specific directives. We have asked the Board on what they have issued these directives
since they have gathered no new data to back up their allegations, but we have yet to
receive a response. We cannot comment further until we receive a response from the
Board.” (DC, September 2004)
• 31 January 2005
The Coca-Cola Company confirmed that the Factory remains closed with all the employees
remaining on full pay, and that the license to operate had expired, meaning that the Company
cannot operate the factory.
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 11

• 16 March 2005
The Coca-Cola Company informed NUS Services that it is providing funding for three ‘water
sustainability scholarships’ at Linacre College, Oxford. One Scholarship will be for up to three
years for a DPhil in some area of Water research. Two Scholarships will be for one-year MSc
courses 18 .
• 07 April 2005
In relation to the 16 December 2003 ruling, the one-year study is published and concludes
that lack of monsoon rainfall is the key cause of the water problems.
• 08 April 2005
The Kerala High Court permitted the factory at Plachimada to extract up to 500,000 litres of
groundwater a day. A division bench held that the Panchayat was not justified in refusing the
renewal of the licence to the factory (as per the decision on 07 April 2003) before a scientific
assessment had been made. The court also asked the Panchayat to grant licence to the
company within two weeks. The judgment was passed while disposing of a batch of writ
appeals by HCBL seeking permission to start production and challenging the Panchayat's
refusal to renew the licence.
• 01 May 2005
The Committee learns that the Panchayat has appealed to the Supreme Court against the
above decision.
• 15 May 2005
It was reported that the Supreme Court did not overturn the 08 April 2005 decision. It was
reported that the Court ordered the Panchayat to issue the operating licence, but opened the
way for an appeal against the 08 April decision.
• 23 May 2005
The Coca-Cola Company informed NUS Services that the Panchayat has not issued the
operating licence because the Company has not proved that it has all the other necessary
permits and licences. The Company has said that it will be taking all the required permits and
licences to a Court on Friday 27 May 2005. The Company has confirmed that, even if it is
awarded another operating licence, it will not reopen the factory immediately, ideally not until
all interested stakeholder groups have negotiated a solution.
• 02 June 2005
The High Court directed that the President of the Panchayat renew the Kerala factory's
licence. According to reports, the High Court order states that the licence should be granted
for a period of two years. The Coca-Cola Company has informed NUS Services that the
Panchayat subsequently only offered a three-month licence. The High Court Order also
directed the Company to provide a reasonable amount of water drawn (from the wells) to be
utilised for benefit of the local community, as directed from by the Panchayat
• 09 June 2005
It was reported that around 300 people marched from Kannimari to the factory to protest
against the licence issued by the Panchayat. It was reported that police used force when the
agitators turned violent and tried to forcibly open the gates of the company.
• 30 June 2005
The Coca-Cola Company report that their India Division met with the Permuatty Panchayat
and the Patancherry Panchayat to discuss the supply and distribution plan, as per the 02 June
ruling.
• 01 July 2005
The Kerala State Pollution Control Board issued a notice to the Plachimada factory to explain
why it had decided not to renew recently-expired the ‘consent to operate’ licence. The
KSPCB’s main objection was the failure of the Company to explain the source of cadmium in
18 www.linacre.ox.ac.uk/coke.html; http://society.guardian.co.uk/societyguardian/story/0,,1438212,00.html
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 12

sludge samples collected from the factory premises, and in the water samples collected from
nearby wells. Without this licence, the Company cannot resume operations.
• 22 July 2005
The Hindu reported that the Kerala Government has decided to appeal against the Kerala
High Court verdict (of 02 June 2005) that directed the Panchayat to renew the licence. The
article also reported that the Government had decided appeal to the Supreme Court against
the High Court verdict of 08 April 2005. The article quotes the Local Self-Government Minister
as stating that the company had not complied with the Kerala State Pollution Control Board's
directive that it check the cadmium content in its effluents, and the Supreme Court Monitoring
Committee's 15 October 2005 directive that the company take steps to check water pollution
in the area and apprise the Pollution Control Board about the measures taken. It is stated the
KSPCB had stipulated that the company's licence should be revived only if it complied with
these directives, he said.
• August 2005
The Company informed NUS Services that it has obtained all the relevant licenses and has
started carrying out test runs to distribute water to the local community and to produce a small
quantity of Kinley Soda.
• 19 August 2005
The Kerala State Control Pollution Board withdrew a pollution license for the factory’s waste
treatment works, reportedly because of high levels of lead and cadmium, resulting in the
ending of the test runs.
• 24 August 2005
The Company informed NUS Services that the Company is currently appealing against the
above decision. The Company confirmed that the existing operating license expired at the end
of September 2005.
• September 2005
It was reported that the Kerala State Government had challenged the right of the Company to
extract groundwater at the Supreme Court of India.
• 18 October 2005
The Company confirmed that the licensing issue was still in Court, and that the factory
remained closed will all employees suspended on full pay.
• 17 November 2005
In relation to the 02 June 2005 ruling, the Kerala High Court rejected a petition by the
Company which challenged the actions of the Perumatty panchayat in only renewing the
operating license for three months.
• 28 November 2005
Under the Kerala Groundwater Control and Regulation Act, the Kerala state government
notified the Plachimada area as “over-exploited” in its water resources. This will mean that the
Company will have seek additional clearances to draw groundwater. Additionally, the
company must register its wells and borewells within four months to the newly formed Ground
Water Regulatory Authority.
• 05 December 2006
The Coca-Cola Company reportedly met with the Kerala State Government and demanded
that they be allowed to either re-open the factory or move the factory to an industrial estate
40kms away in Puduserry. Subsequently, and the same day, the Panchayat offered the
Company a 90-day conditional license subject to satisfactorily answering seventeen questions
and producing seven certificates. The Company has 15 days to respond.
• 11 April 2006
The University of Michigan accepted a proposal from The Coca-Cola Company that paves the
way for a third-party independent investigation into the issues surrounding Coca-Cola in India.
In the proposal, The Coca-Cola Company recommends that The Energy and Resources
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 13

Institute (TERI) ‘develops a transparent and impartial independent third party assessment of
water resource management practices at Coca-Cola company facilities in India’.
The India Resource Centre states that TERI is sponsored by a Coca-Cola bottler, also stating
that it has conducted various projects for Coca-Cola India, including ‘Strategies for
Sustainable Water Resource Management in Sub Watersheds around Kaladera village’
(2005), ‘GIS-based diagnostic study for assessing availability and quality of water resources
to address community concerns using a watershed approach’ (January 2006), and ‘Mobilizing
youth for water conservation (MY WATER)’ (April 2005).
It is reported that specific details regarding the plans for the TERI assessment will be
announced by 30 April 2006.
• 14 January 2008
The Coca-Cola Company released the TERI Report. NUS Services released the following
statement on the same day:
NUS Services has examined at the key findings of the TERI report in detail. Whilst we
welcome the transparent nature of the report, we recognise that The Coca-Cola Company has
funded the research, that it is therefore quasi-independent and this may lead some parties to
take a negative view of the report which would be unfortunate given its robustness and depth.
Whilst it is unfortunate that the factory in Plachimada at the centre of the campaign against
the Company was not included in the study, we do understand the Company’s reasoning that
it would have been difficult to do so given that it remains closed due to the campaign against
it.
Whilst Coca-Cola’s Indian bottlers were generally found to be in compliance with Indian laws,
we note that the report makes a considerable number of detailed and specific
recommendations for improvement in policy and practice. We are pleased to see that two of
the issues we have raised with the Company through our constructive engagement – the
thoroughness of environmental impact assessments when locating a new factory; reducing
groundwater extraction in times of drought – are both highlighted as key areas for further
improvement. We note that the Company has pledged to take immediate action on all the
recommendations and we support them in this.
2.2 NeST Foods & Beverages, Manjhapetty, Kerala
This site manufactures Kinley water for Coca-Cola and employs approximately 100 people. On 18
March 2004, the site suspended production following action by local pressure groups. A local
welfare standing committee has passed a resolution recommending a ban on the use of
groundwater for production of Kinley. The Vazhakulam Panchayat committee is calling for an
expert panel to look into allegations of groundwater misuse before it gives final ratification on
imposing a ban to the standing committee. Local pressure groups have accused the Company of
supplying water by tanker to the Plachimada factory, which was ordered to stop extracting
groundwater.
“The Coca-Cola Company has always said that it welcomes any science based
discussion on the operations of its plants. This particular facility has been attacked by
petrol bombs and our staff have been hospitalised as a result. The Coca-Cola Company
condemns any debate which uses violence and continues to encourage science based
decision making around its operations.”
2.3 Coca-Cola bottler in Mehdiganj, near Varanasi
The factory, built in 1995 and now owned by Bharat Coca-Cola Bottling, is accused of discharging
effluent into a canal that emptied into the holy Ganges River, polluting surrounding agricultural
fields causing rashes on human skin and turning fields into breeding ground for malaria-spreading
mosquitoes. In July 2003, the CPCB was investigating this. There are reports that the CPCB has
ordered the Company to stop distributing the sludge because a metal element had been found in
samples 19 .
19 www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17592
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 14

It is also accused of causing serious water shortage as a result of its operations, specifically
lowering of the groundwater level from 15 to 40 feet. The factory is alleged to extract around
250,000 litres of groundwater each day.
In addition, it is accused of illegally occupying a portion of the common property resources of the
village, illegally receiving subsidised electricity because the land was classified as agricultural,
and was found guilty of evading payment of land revenue by a local court.
During subsequent protests, about 200 police, along with 50-armed private security guards,
protected the factory. There are allegations that violence was used against the demonstrators.
“The Varanasi plant, like all our manufacturing units, complies with the local and national
regulations, including those set by the Central and State Pollution Control Boards. The
plant is certified to ISO 14001 environment management system. The unit is subjected to
a regular environmental audit and inspection by the State Pollution Control Board. In fact,
the plant's 'Consent to Operate' has been renewed by the State Pollution Control Board
just this month [January 2004] and is valid till January 2005. This demonstrates the fact
that the country operates in full compliance of regulations and is responsible towards its
eco-commitment. The plant operations have not resulted in any depletion of the
groundwater. And, the official groundwater data, in fact, indicates a rise in groundwater
level from 7.8 metres to 4.8 metres. The plant was set up with all necessary clearances
from Government authorities after paying the statutory dues, including the Stamp Duty to
the Land Revenue Department. The plant is not sited on common village property. The
authorities are conducting an enquiry into the claims of some locals and the matter is
subjudice. As such, we would not like to comment further on this. There was no physical
contact between our security personnel and the protestors outside the plant.”
In November 2004, it was reported that a ten day, 250 km march was taking place the Coca-Cola
factory in Balia to the factory in Mehdiganj to raise awareness of the campaign calling for the
closure of both factories. The report 20 states that Balia is the site of Coca-Cola’s latest bottling
factory, which is scheduled to open in early 2005. On 24 November 2004, it was alleged that
Coca-Cola had in some way colluded with local authorities to break up the protest at their factory.
During the protest, a well-known social activist Sandeep Pandey) was arrested. It is alleged that
the police used canes to beat protestors.
In November 2005, it is reported that 800 protestors gathered outside the factory to campaign for
its closure.
2.4 Coca-Cola bottler in Kudus, Wada taluka, Thane
On 5 June 2003, the Times News Network reported that the Coca-Cola factory (established in
Kudus village in Wada taluka in 1997) was encountering strong opposition from villagers and the
pro-communist ‘All-India Democratic Women’s Association’ because it had deprived water from
thousands of people. Villagers reportedly had to travel long distances in search of water. In
addition, the Company has built a pipeline to transport water from a river to its factory. There are
reports that many local people did not get compensation for the pipeline passing through their
land. The Company has permission to draw 300,000 litres of water per day.
“The Wada plant has not caused any water shortage in the area. Furthermore, contrary to
the allegations, Maharashtra Irrigation Minister Dr. Padamsinh Patil stated in the last
monsoon session of the State Assembly that poor monsoon had caused water shortage in
the area. And, as against its maximum capacity of 11 feet, the water level in the dam,
which supplies raw water to our Wada plant, currently stands at 8 feet. Another survey of
16 borewells in a 5 KM radius around our plant confirms more than adequate water levels.
The unit is not facing any opposition from the local villagers and enjoys a lot of support
from the local community. Moreover, at the ongoing World Social Forum in Mumbai, senior
elected representatives from Kudus, Wada, eminent local journalists and a large group of
villagers expressed their overwhelming support to our bottling operations at Wada. The
20 www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=3186
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 15

Company has laid the pipeline from Vaitarna River to its plant only after receiving the
necessary permissions and No Objection Certificates from the State Irrigation and Forest
Departments. The pipeline is laid on the Government-owned land and does not pass
through any private land holdings.”
2.5 Coca-Cola bottler in in Goa
In 1999, the Goa Pollution Control Board issued a notice to Coca-Cola for operating its new
factory without securing the official consent. The Company functioned for more than 40 days
without the prescribed effluent treatment systems.
“There is no truth in this allegation. The plant in Goa has operated at all times in
compliance with local regulators.”
2.6 MVR Mineral Water, Mathur, Tiravallur, North Chennai
Mathur, a village in Tiravallur district in North Chennai, is the site of a 15-year campaign against
corporate extraction of groundwater. Private companies use the water to supply bottled drinking
water to the southern city of Chennai. Coca-Cola sources a bulk of its ‘Kinley’ brand of bottled
water from MVR Mineral Water, a contract bottler with a factory in Athur village, 40 kilometres
from Chennai. Campaigners cite that Coca-Cola is therefore responsible for water shortage
issues in the area. It is worth noting that Coca-Cola-India's third-quarter 2001 results mentioned
‘growth of 11 percent had been led by the successful expansion of ‘Kinley’ water.’
“We do not have bottling plant located at Tiravallur, North Chennai, that manufactures any
of our products.”
2.7 Sri Sarvaraya Sugars, Khammam, Andhra Pradesh
Sri Sarvaraya Sugars is a bottling factory located in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh that is
dedicated to producing Coca-Cola's ‘Kinley’ brand of water. The factory draws 225,000 litres of
water per day. As a result, the bore wells in certain areas of Sattupalli village (population of
25,000) are reported to have dried up. A Coca-Cola spokesperson dismissed these allegations as
politically motivated.
“The plant operates with all the relevant approvals granted by the Government authorities.
The monsoons have failed for a long time in this area too and that is the reason for
shortage of water. The plant harvests rainwater to conserve and replenish the local
groundwater reserves.”
2.8 Sakthi Sugar Mills, Sivganga, Tamil Nadu
This relates to a pre-emptive campaign against a sugar mill that entered into a contract with
Coca-Cola to prepare and package products for Coca-Cola, using 75,000 litres of groundwater
per day 21 .
“Shakti Sugars Mills currently uses only 40 per cent of the water allocated by the
Government for its industrial use. And, the total water consumption will be around 70 per
cent of the quantity sanctioned by the Government even after commencement of the
beverage production facility. This Sugar unit supports thousands of farmers and provides
them with the opportunity of farming extension services as well as buying their produce.
The so-called pre-emptive campaign against the plant causing water shortage is
presumptuous, not based on scientific premises and politically motivated.”
2.9 Kaladera Rajasthan, near Jaipur
In June 2004, it was reported that villagers in Kaladera Rajasthan, near Jaipur, had established a
campaign against Coca-Cola. The villagers claim that ground water extraction by the Company
has caused the water table in the region to fall. It is reported that, on 06 June 2004, Gandhian
and Sarvodaya leaders shared the platform with Shiv Sena leaders at a public meeting that called
21 www.indiaresource.org/campaigns/coke/2003/communitiesprotest.html
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 16

for immediate closure of the bottling factory. The local Administration has since put prohibitory
orders on the roads leading to the soft drinks factory.
“According to data provided by the State Ground Water Department, Government of
Rajasthan, to the Chief Minister of Rajasthan, a copy of which is available to us:
• The ground water table at Kaladera has fallen by about 18 feet in the last four years
since the Coca-Cola plant was commissioned. During the same period, the water level
has fallen by approximately 36 feet at Chomu, which is 13 kilometers away from the
plant.
• The water level decline is minimum at Kaladera in the region.
• There is no reason to attribute the fall in ground water levels to Coca-Cola operations.
• The water table stands at 70 feet and not at 125 feet.
• The plant has a fully functional rainwater harvesting system that collects rainwater
from over 14,000 square meters besides installing a complete waste water recovery
system.”
“In addition to the above, we:
• Have commissioned two rainwater-harvesting structures in the local school and
college.
• Helped to set up a water reservoir in a neighbouring village.
• Are conducting weekly health camps for women and children of the area.
• Have donated tri-cycles for the physically challenged.
• Have provided sewing machines to jobless women and young widows to create selfemployment
opportunities.
• Are constructing a road in the local village.
• Are constructing rainwater-harvesting structures in a dry pond that will recharge more
than double the quantity of water consumed by the plant.”
In April 2006, War on Want published a report entitled Coca-Cola, the Alternative Report citing
new research commissioned by War on Want that suggests that the factory in Rajasthan is
having a serious negative impact on local farmers and communities. The report suggests that the
factory is the main reason that water levels have dropped by almost 10 meters in five years. The
report can be read at www.waronwant.org/downloads/cocacola.pdf.
3 Links
www.actionaid.org/
http://citizenship.coca-cola.co.uk/workplace/student.asp
www.coca-cola.co.uk/citizenship/
www.coca-cola.com/worldwide/flashIndex1.html
www.cokefacts.org
www.corpwatchindia.org/
www.IndiaResource.org
www.uksac.revolt.org
DOWNLOADED FROM NUSSL.CO.UK PAGE 17