PESTICIDES IN COCA-COLA AND PEPSI - Cultural Anthropology

CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY 22:4
672
of The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo in a joint press conference. The Coca-
Cola Company CEO added that “the allegation is serious and it has the potential to
tarnish the image of our brands in the country. If this continues we will consider
legal recourse” (Economic Times 2003a). The offensive continued in several full-page
advertisements taken out, including one by The Coca-Cola Company that declared,
even as the government investigations were pending, that “the most valuable brand
in the world makes no compromises on the quality of beverages it serves Indian
consumers” (Telegraph 2003). Soon afterward, there was a shift in the strategy when
The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo quietly decided to drop their libel suit against
CSE, an action the CEO of PepsiCo justified as a step to reduce the risk of harm to
their brand equity. “Taking CSE to court won’t improve our brand image” (Business
Line 2003a).
The trajectory of the response to CSE’s findings indicate MNC efforts aimed
at damage control, especially after the initial reaction, which was widely described
as arrogant, dismissive, and self-injurious even by the staunchly corporate-friendly
business press. Probusiness newspapers felt compelled to offer advice that they
considered to be sensible, for once shedding their cynicism. Despite the reluctance
to engage in what they called “MNC-bashing,” the business and financial media
blamed MNC response for their woes. “Sensitive brands are built by sensitive people
. . . sensitive brands make for themselves a future that is pretty much insulated
from the vagaries of the market at large” (Business Line 2003b). Comments such as
“it is a pity that the Cola giants have failed to see the basic point about building
trust and relationship with their customers” (Bhattacharya 2003), had the tone of
disappointment writ large over them and sought to drill in what was perceived
as the missing common sense in the action of The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo.
This is “not consumer raj,” (Business Standard 2003d) was uttered as a damning
indictment of state-bureaucratic failure, in a manner reminiscent of the utopian
idealism that the media often accused votaries of leftist politics of espousing. Ultimately,
however, there was broad agreement that the solution to the pesticide
problem lies in wholeheartedly embracing neoliberalism regimes of discipline, and
in swearing allegiance to the primacy of brand image as the new currency. Despite
the recognition that the markets may not work well without the requisite regulatory
safeguards, all-round self-interested behavior could provide the solution: “In
the long run we need stronger accountability from both NGOs and corporations.
Till then, let society levy penalties through loss of reputation, on NGOs as well
as corporations. CSE depends on brand value no less than Pepsi” (Economic Times
2003b).