Case Study: Review the case study and comprehensively answer the accompanied question. Give full descriptive paragraphs and avoid using bullet points when answering.

In 2007 Coca-Cola launched its sustainability framework "Live Positively" embedded in its system at all levels, from production and packaging to distribution. The companys CSR policy "Live Positively" establishes seven core areas where the company sets itself measurable goals to improve the business sustainability practices.

The core areas are beverage benefits, active healthy living, the community, energy and climate, sustainable packaging, water stewardship, and the workplace. Coca-Cola has a Code of Business Conduct that aims at providing guidelines to its employees on amongst other things competition issues and anti-corruption. The company has adopted international CSR guidelines such as Global Compact, but these guidelines do not seem to be integrated into the Code of Business. However, these CSR initiatives are included in other activities or policies of the company. For instance, the UN Global Compact principles are cross-referenced in the companys annual Sustainability Reviews is partly adopted in the companys Human Right Statement.

Coca-Colas conflicts

Several campaigns and demonstrations followed the publication of a report issued by the Indian NGO Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in 2003. The report provided evidence of the presence of pesticides, to a level exceeding European standards, in a sample of a dozen Coca-Cola beverages sold in India. With that evidence at hand, the CSE called on the Indian government to implement legally enforceable water standards. The report gained ample public and media attention, resulting in almost immediate effects on Coca-Cola revenues. The main allegations made by the NGO against Coca-Cola were that it sold products containing unacceptable levels of pesticides, it extracted large amounts of groundwater and it had polluted water sources.

The presence of pesticides

Regarding the allegation about Coca-Cola beverages containing high levels of pesticide residues, the Indian government undertook various investigations. The government set up a Joint Committee to carry out its own tests on the beverages. The tests also found the presence of pesticides that failed to meet European standards, but they were still considered safe under local standards. Therefore, it was concluded that Coca-Cola had not violated any national laws. However, the Indian government acknowledged the need to adopt appropriate and enforceable standards for carbonated beverages.

In 2006, after almost three years of ongoing allegations, the CSE published its second test on Coca-Cola drinks, also resulting in a high content of pesticide residues (24 times higher than European Union standards, which were proposed by the Bureau of Indian Standards to be implemented in India as well). CSE published this test to prove that nothing had changed, alleging that the stricter standards for carbonated drinks and other beverages had either been lost in committees or blocked by powerful interests in the government. Finally, in 2008 an independent study undertaken by The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) ended the long-standing allegations by concluding that the water used in Coca-Cola in India is free of pesticides. However, because the institute did not test the final product, other ingredients could have contained pesticides.

Water pollution and the over-extraction of groundwater.

Coca-Cola was also accused of causing water shortages in among other areas the community of Plachimada in Kerala, southern India. In addition, Coca-Cola was accused of water pollution by discharging wastewater into fields and rivers surrounding Coca-Colas plants in the same community. Groundwater and soil were polluted to an extent that Indian public health authorities saw the need to post signs around wells and hand pumps advising the community that the water was unfit for human consumption. The long legal procedures against the Indian government that Coca-Cola had to face were not the only consequence of the conflict. The brand suffered a great loss of consumer trust and reputational damage in India and abroad.

Coca-Colas CSR policies post-conflicts

According to consultants Pirson and Malhotra, the main reason why this controversy ended so badly for Coca-Cola lies in its response to the problem. Coca-Cola denied having produced beverages containing elevated levels of pesticides, as well as having over-exploited and polluted water resources.

By denying all claims and trying to prove its integrity, instead of demonstrating concern towards the situation, Coca-Cola failed to regain consumers trust. The Indian population viewed Coca-Cola as a corporate villain who cared more about profits than public health. In comparison, previous conflicts experienced by the company in the US and Belgium were better handled because it included stakeholder engagement in its strategy. It appears that the company became aware of its mistake after the controversy had been ongoing for a couple of years. In 2008 Jeff Seabright, Coca-Colas vice president of environment and water resources, recognized that the company had not adequately handled the controversy. He acknowledged that local communities perception of their operation matters, and that for the company to have goodwill in the community is an important thing.

Question: Critically assess the systemic approaches, standards, and systems that the Coca Cola management can consider to address and overcome their difficulties, efficiently and effectively.