Welcome back to the Deep Dive. This is the show
where we try to give you the essential, surprising
and sometimes pretty uncomfortable truths behind
the world's biggest brands and ideas. Yet we
take a huge stack of sources. We're talking articles,
financial reports, historical documents, and
we boil it all down for you. And today we are
opening up a file. On a company that is, I mean,
it's pretty much global capitalism in a can.
The Coca -Cola Company. It was founded in Atlanta,
Georgia, way, way back in 1892. And it has become
this multinational machine that's really unlike
anything else. And when you talk about the scale,
the numbers almost don't make sense. Not at all.
The company sells its products in over 200 countries.
And if you look at their daily output, they account
for something like 1 .3 billion beverage servings.
Every single day. Every single day. That's why
we have to do this deep dive. Our mission today
is to look way beyond just the red logo. We really
need to trace the company's history, which is,
well, it's genuinely bizarre and complex. It
starts as a drug, basically. It does. And we'll
dissect its unique operational model, which is
sort of the genius of the whole thing. We'll
map out its huge portfolio. And then critically,
we have to analyze the big criticisms. Right.
Especially around environmental impact. and corporate
influence on public health. That stuff really
defines its reputation today. So let's just start
with that central tension, this titan of industry.
It began as a medicinal tonic, a cure. It's hilarious
and a little unsettling. But what's maybe less
unsettling, especially if you were an early investor,
is the financial return. Oh, the investment stability
is the stuff of legend. Our sources note that
a single share of Coca -Cola stock, if you bought
it back in 1919 for just $40. 40 bucks. And you
just reinvested all the dividends, that one share
would have been worth a staggering $9 .8 million
by 2012. That's insane. It's a 10 .7 % annual
return adjusted for inflation for almost a century.
That is the very definition of a blue chip stock.
Yeah. But here's the point, and we're going to
keep coming back to this. throughout the dive.
That immense, sustained financial power, that
deep, steady river of cash is what funds every
other part of this company. Including its ability
to defend itself. Exactly. Defend itself against
some really existential criticism. It's true.
The company's wealth gives it this colossal influence,
but that success is, you know, it's tied to equally
massive responsibilities. And liabilities. And
liabilities. I mean, just as a preview of the
scale here, consider this. The Coca -Cola company
produces over 3 million tons of plastic packaging
every year. Which translates to 110 billion plastic
bottles. 110 billion. They've been labeled the
worst plastic polluter in the world. And for
good reason. They're churning out 200 ,000 plastic
bottles every single minute. So you have this
company that's built on a kind of a dark origin
story, producing world -changing wealth. Which
then funds this machine that is now facing a
global environmental reckoning. That contrast,
that tension is what makes this deep dive so
vital for you to understand. Okay, let's rewind.
Let's go all the way back to 1886 and uncover
this foundational story. It sounds less like
a business startup and more like a period drama,
really. Yeah, we're calling this part the tonic
and the takeover. It begins with the inventor,
right? A pharmacist named John Stith Pemberton
from Columbus, Georgia. And to really get why
he invented Coca -Cola, you have to understand
the context of his life. It was pretty devastating.
Pemberton was severely wounded in the American
Civil War. And like so many men from that era.
That injury led to a really severe addiction
to morphine. So the whole genesis of Coca -Cola
was explicitly medicinal. He developed it as
a patent medicine, a health tonic that was specifically
aimed at controlling his dependency on opioids.
Which sounds kind of crazy now, but it wasn't
a totally crackpot idea at the time. No, it was
rooted in this popular, though, you know, devastatingly
wrong belief that cocaine could be used as a
substitute or even a cure for opioid addiction.
Hence the original formulation. It was a powerhouse
of stimulants. A real powerhouse. It had cocaine
from coca leaves and caffeine from cola nuts.
And these two ingredients worked together synergistically.
Which is why it was immediately promoted as this
healthy tonic, something that would, you know,
invigorate you and lift your spirits. And chemically
speaking, it absolutely did. The name itself
was pretty straightforward, but also genius.
Right. Pemberton's bookkeeper, a man named Frank
Mason Robinson, gets the credit for that. He
chose the name Coca -Cola for the alliteration
and the ingredients. And he also created that
iconic script logo that we still see everywhere
today. And Robinson was really the marketing
mind here. They had very little cash. So he used
advertising that just perfectly captured the
product's effect. That famous tagline, Coca -Cola,
delicious, refreshing, exhilarating. It wasn't
advertised as a fun drink. It was advertised
as a boost. Exactly. Now, unfortunately for Pemberton,
he was ill. He was struggling with money and
he started selling off parts of the formula and
the brand rights to different people. But the
person who really turned this patent medicine
into a commercial empire was Asa Griggs Candler.
Right. Candler saw the potential. He stepped
in. And by 1889, he'd managed to buy the full
formula and all the brand rights. For how much?
A mere $2 ,300. Now, in today's money, that's
more, obviously. Yeah, our sources say it's about
$73 ,000 in 2024 dollars. But even with that
adjustment, it's an absolute historical bargain
for what would become one of the most valuable
brands on the planet. So Candler incorporates
the Coca -Cola Company in Atlanta in 1892. And
he didn't just sell the drink. He sold the idea
of the drink. He was an early marketing pioneer,
one of the first businessmen to really go all
in on merchandising, you know, calendars, clocks,
signs, all sorts of decorative items. He was
cementing the brand's visual identity everywhere
people looked. And that strategy, that aggressive
marketing. it paid off almost immediately yeah
by 1895 coca -cola was being sold all across
the u .s and this relentless expansion just kept
going until 1948 when the company claimed an
astonishing 60 of the entire american soft drink
market 60 that's almost a monopoly but you know
that figure also tells another story a story
of vulnerability exactly because that 60 share
It dropped sharply. By 1984, it was down to 21
.8%. Which shows that even with brilliant branding,
you're not immune to new competitors and changing
tastes. That's what led to the infamous Cola
Wars. But despite that market share fight. The
company's financial foundation was just rock
solid. It went public in 1919, underwritten by
Ernest Woodruff's Trust Company of Georgia. We
mentioned the IPO success earlier, but it's worth
saying again just to set the scale. Right. The
bank that underwrote that 1919 offering for only
$100 ,000, huge sum then, but still, they later
sold the remaining stake for over $2 billion
in 2012. It's just an almost unparalleled story
of corporate value creation in American history.
And you see that value consistently in the stock
behavior. The stock KO on the New York Stock
Exchange is a staple of the Dow Jones and the
S &P 500. And for investors, this is the key.
Coca -Cola has paid a dividend every year since
1920. And as of 2019, they had increased that
dividend annually for 57 straight years. That's
what institutional reliability looks like. That
is exactly why they call it a blue chip. It's
a company that generates cash so reliably that
you can literally count on it for over half a
century. So we've covered the chaotic and kind
of dark origin story and we understand the financial
success. But none of that really makes sense
until you get the engine that runs it all. Right.
So let's shift focus to the structural genius
of their business, the syrup enfranchising model.
This is the critical insight for you, the listener.
Most people think Coke sells bottles of soda.
But that's not really their business, is it?
Structurally, they're in the business of selling
concentrate and brand protection. Precisely.
The core business model is brilliantly simple.
The Coca -Cola company, the mothership, they
largely produce only the syrup concentrate. Or
they source the bases for other drinks, tea leaves,
coffee beans, that sort of thing. They intentionally
avoid most of the expensive, heavy operational
work. They sell that concentrate to a global
network of franchise bottlers. And this system
goes way back to 1889. And these bottlers, they
hold exclusive contracts for certain geographic
areas. And they're the ones who do all the heavy
lifting. Yeah. The franchise bottlers take on
all the capital intensive risk. They're the ones
mixing the concentrate with filtered water and
sweeteners, packaging the final product. And
then handling the entire infrastructure of selling
it. distributing it, and getting it into every
single store, restaurant, and vending machine
on earth. So what's the profound result of this
setup? It lets the Coca -Cola company focus only
on the highest margin activities. Managing the
brand identity, executing that massive global
ad spend we talked about, and protecting the
secret formula. They get to shed all the low
-margin, capital -intensive work of owning the
factories and the trucks and all that. It's an
incredibly elegant, highly profitable model.
But since the 80s, they haven't been entirely
hands -off. No, they've actively encouraged and
even participated in the consolidation of these
bottlers. They often keep a minority share in
these huge regional entities, which they call
anchor bottlers. And that gives them a seat at
the table, right? They don't have the full financial
liability, but they can still influence strategy
and maintain quality control through their contracts.
They even formalized this in 2006. They created
something called the Bottling Investments Group,
or BIG. And the role of BIG is pretty crucial.
Very. It temporarily takes over bottling operations,
uses the company's leadership to invest in them
and improve them, and then they often just sell
them off again, a process they call re -franchising.
So it's like an internal corporate surgery team.
They go in, fix the broken parts, streamline
everything, and then spin the improved asset
back out, keeping a small stake but getting rid
of the operational cost. And it accelerates efficiency
across the globe. You can see the result in these
huge multinational bottling partners that exist
today. Like Coca -Cola, Euro Pacific Partners.
They operate across 29 countries in Europe and
Oceania. And Coke still holds a nearly 20 % stake
in them. Or Coca -Cola Femso, which serves a
huge part of Latin America. The mothership has
a 27 .8 % stake there. And then there's Coca
-Cola HBC, based in Switzerland, which covers
28 countries from Nigeria to Eastern Europe.
Coke holds a 23 .2 % stake in that one. So this
whole complex web of ownership, it ensures control.
They don't own all the physical assets, but they
direct the flow and they benefit massively from
selling the syrup. Which brings us back to the
power we mentioned in the intro. Let's look at
the financial snapshot from 2024. This model,
this concentrate model, generated annual revenue
of over $47 billion. And that led to a net income,
pure profit, of $10 .63 billion. Think about
that. Over $10 billion in profit from selling
essentially a flavored water base. And it's all
backed by $100 billion in total assets. And the
operational overhead for the main company is
pretty lean considering the scale. They only
employ about 59 ,700 people globally. And where
that money comes from in 2024 is also revealing.
North America is still the biggest piece of the
pie at 38 .7 % of sales. But it's genuinely global.
Europe, the Middle East and Africa are at 16
.8%, Latin America at 13 .4 % and Asia Pacific
at 11 .5%. And if you look at who owns this massive
financial engine, it's all about long term institutional
trust. As of March 2025, the top owner is Berkshire
Hathaway with 9 .3%. Followed by the Vanguard
Group at 8 .4 % and BlackRock at 5 .6%. So that
means the long term direction of this company
is heavily influenced by three of the most powerful
investment entities in the world. And when you
combine that guaranteed high margin revenue with
that kind of entrenched ownership, you get a
corporate entity with incredible. And we'll see
how they use that leverage later on. OK, let's
shift gears now to the sheer breadth of the business.
Part three, from cola to global portfolio. Because
even with that financial engine humming, if all
you sell is sugary soda, you're eventually going
to stall out. Right. Consumer tastes change and
Coca -Cola had to diversify and they did it aggressively.
As of 2020, they had something like 500 brands
in over 200 countries. But then, you know, responding
to the pandemic and the need for efficiency.
They strategically announced huge cuts. They
got rid of more than half of those brands. But
the need for that diversification was so clear.
By 2017, sales of the main Coca -Cola brand were
actually down 11%. People were actively moving
away from sugary soft drinks, especially in developed
countries. It forced the company to pivot into
healthier categories, specialty drinks, things
like that. So to show how adaptable they are,
let's look at some of their other big soft drink
brands. Some of them have these origin stories
that are just, well... pure historical accidents.
The classic example is Fanta. It was introduced
around 1941. And Fanta is basically a World War
II story. It is. A trade embargo against Germany
made it impossible for the German office to get
the cola syrup concentrate. So Max Keith, the
head of the German operation, basically said,
we have to create a new product using only what
we have available here. And they created Fanta.
It was pure necessity. But it was a huge hit
in wartime Germany. After the war, when the main
Coca -Cola company came back, they realized they
had a global winner on their hands and they just
adopted the brand worldwide. Great lesson in
corporate resilience. And then you have Sprite,
which came out in 1961. That was their lemon
-lime answer to the popularity of 7 -Up. It quickly
became another global giant. And for a bit of
misology, we should talk about Tab. Ah, Tab.
Introduced in 1963, it was Coke's very first
attempt at a diet soft drink. It used saccharin.
And even though it was completely eclipsed by
Diet Coke and Coke Zero, they kept selling it
until late 2020. which shows a fascinating kind
of loyalty to some of their old brands, even
when they weren't selling much. The company's
global reach also forces them into these really
specific regional battles. Coca -Cola is the
best -selling soft drink in most of the world,
but not everywhere. Right, like in Peru. The
native Inca -Cola, which is this bright yellow,
very sweet soda, was actually more popular. So
what did Coke do? They executed a strategic move.
They bought 50 % of the brand's stakes. So they
basically gained control over its marketing and
production outside of Peru and secured their
access to that market without having to beat
the local favorite. You see a similar thing in
Japan, where consumers are way more interested
in canned tea and coffee. The Coca -Cola company's
number one brand in Japan is not a soda. It's
Georgia coffee. Exactly. It shows they are absolutely
willing to change their portfolio to fit local
tastes. And this need to adapt led to a major...
strategic expansion into so -called healthy beverages
starting in the 90s. Right. They launched Powerade
to compete with Gatorade, Minute Maid juices
to go, and their bottled water brand Dasani.
And this strategy relied heavily on acquisitions.
They'd already bought Minute Maid way back in
1960. But more recently, we saw them buy Barks
in 95. Odwalla in 2001, though they later discontinued
at Fuse Beverage in 2007. And then the huge one,
the $4 .1 billion purchase of Glaceau, the company
that makes vitamin water, in 2007. That vitamin
water deal really signaled how serious they were
about competing in that functional beverage space.
They also bought specialty brands like Zico Coconut
Water in 2013 and took full control of Honest
Tea in 2011. They also just kept... trying to
find that perfect low -calorie formula. Remember
C2 Cola in 2004? Vaguely. It used a blend of
corn syrup and artificial sweeteners. It was
trying to taste more like classic Coke, but with
fewer carbs. It didn't really work. It was eventually
replaced by Coca -Cola Life in 2013. It just
highlights this constant, expensive R &D battle
to adapt the main product to health trends. And
beyond the beverage aisle, Coke has this bizarre,
brief, but very profitable history of non -beverage.
acquisitions. The most famous one is their ownership
of Columbia Pictures. A soft drink company owning
a Hollywood studio. It sounds like a joke. It
does. They bought it in 1982 for $692 million,
partly because the studio was just not worth
much at the time, making it an attractive buy.
And during their ownership, the studio released
massive hits like Ghostbusters, Stripes, and
The Karate Kid. But after the infamous commercial
and critical flop of the movie Ishtar in 1987,
the company decided to get out. They sold the
studio to Sony for an incredible three billion
dollars in 1989. That's almost a fourfold return
on an asset totally unrelated to their main business.
It was a brilliant financial hedge. More recently,
they've made some calculated moves back into
high margin beverage adjacent markets. In 2019,
they bought Costa Coffee for three point nine
billion pounds. This gives them a huge international
platform in the hot coffee sector, letting them
compete directly with Starbucks and expand. their
non -soda revenue. We also have to look at their
strategy in the energy drink sector. This is
interesting. In 2014, Coke bought a 16 .7 % stake
in Monster Beverage for $2 .15 billion. And this
wasn't just a simple investment. It was a strategic
portfolio trade. But let's slow down on this
because it's a great example of corporate chess.
Think of it like swapping trading cards between
two powerful players. Coca -Cola gave ownership
of its smaller energy brands, specifically Full
Throttle and Burn, over to Monster. And in return,
Monster gave several of its non -energy brands,
like Hansen's Natural Sodas and Peace Ice Tea,
to Coke's portfolio. So it allowed Monster to
focus purely on the high -growth energy market,
and it allowed Coke to absorb these successful,
established natural and tea brands without having
to compete. A mutually beneficial deal. And finally,
a clear sign of just pure market pragmatism.
Alcohol. In 2021, the company debuted a range
of alcoholic hard seltzers under its Mexican
sparkling water brand Topo Chico, launching them
in the UK and the US. It just showed that no
category is really off limits if the market demand
and the profit margins are there. We should also
mention the major strategic deal that didn't
happen. Oh, right. China. In 2009, China's Ministry
of Commerce flat out blocked Coke's $2 .4 billion
bid for Huaiyuan Juice Group. The official reason
was that the deal would create a virtual monopoly
in the Chinese juice market and it would hurt
smaller local companies. But our sources also
cite nationalism as a heavy factor. It highlights
the sensitivity around foreign companies controlling
key local consumer brands in a massive market
like China. OK, so let's pivot now to part four.
advertising sponsorship and influence if the
syrup and franchise model is the engine that
generates the cash then this part is how that
cash gets spent to maintain global dominance
and shape cultural trends coca -cola advertising
is rightly described as among the most prolific
in marketing history it has a huge cultural footprint
and it costs billions to maintain We're talking
about an annual global spend of around $4 billion.
It was $4 .24 billion in 2019 alone. And they
use every possible method to reach you. That
budget is spread across direct marketing, massive
social media campaigns. They report 86 million
global fan engagements and especially mobile
advertising. Every delivery truck is a mobile
billboard. Every red cooler, every vending machine,
it just reinforces the brand right at the point
of sale. That massive marketing budget also pays
for protecting its secrets. Which brings us to
a really remarkable story from 2006. Right, the
trade secrets and security incident. This was
a major corporate espionage attempt. A Coca -Cola
employee and two other people were arrested for
trying to sell proprietary trade secrets to their
arch rival, PepsiCo, for $1 .5 million. And this
was for a new beverage in development, not the
original famous formula. Right. But here's the
interesting part. PepsiCo actually showed some
unexpected corporate ethics here. When the conspirators
came to them, PepsiCo immediately called the
FBI. It was PepsiCo that helped expose the whole
thing, which is... a rare moment of corporate
cooperation against criminal activity. So beyond
defense, their most powerful tool is their use
of global sponsorships. Sports. entertainment
they make sure the brand is always associated
with positive mass market events their sports
portfolio is just immense they have title sponsorships
in nascar they're a key partner for the ncaa
the olympic games and the fifa world cup at the
world cup they've even partnered with panini
for the virtual sticker album for every tournament
since 2006. They're deeply involved in golf,
sponsoring the PGA Tour's season -ending Tour
Championship. They sponsor the McLaren Formula
One team. They've even gotten into esports with
a NASCAR. And they recently shifted their allegiance
in Major League Baseball. In 2017, they signed
a multi -year deal to become the official soft
drink, kicking Pepsi out. And today, you'll find
Coke products in 19 MLB ballparks. They just
added the Chicago Cubs and Milwaukee Brewers
in 2023. Their presence in theme parks is almost
a monopoly. They sponsor and exclusively supply
beverages to six of the nine largest global theme
park operators. That includes Disney Experiences,
Universal, Six Flags, and Cedar Fair. The only
really big high -profile exception to that is
the Shanghai Disney Resort, which serves Pepsi,
a fascinating little anomaly in their global
network. Their history in television also ties
into these huge cultural moments. They sponsored
Walt Disney's very first TV show back in 1950.
They sponsored the holiday classic A Charlie
Brown Christmas in 1960. And they were the main
sponsor for the TV behemoth American Idol from
2002 to 2014. Another key cultural property they
developed is the Coke Studio franchise. It started
in Brazil and has adapted into these massive
regional cultural successes all over the world.
Right, like Coke Studio Pakistan, Coke Studio
India, and Coke Studio Africa. And finally, we
have to look at their civic and political involvement.
This is where the company's influence leaves
the world of entertainment and enters social
history and power dynamics. And the most iconic
example of this involves the civil rights era.
In 1964, Atlanta was still a segregated city.
When Martin Luther King Jr. won the Nobel Peace
Prize, the local business leaders refused to
support an interracial celebratory dinner for
him. And this is where corporate leverage came
into play. Jay Paul Austin, who was the chairman
and CEO of Coca -Cola at the time, called a meeting
with the business elite and the mayor. And the
message he delivered, as it's been chronicled
by Andrew Young, was basically an ultimatum.
He said something powerful. It is embarrassing
for Coca -Cola to be located in a city that refuses
to honor its Nobel Prize winner. We're an international
business. The Coca -Cola company does not need
Atlanta. You all need to decide whether Atlanta
needs the Coca -Cola company. And the outcome.
Within two hours, every single ticket to that
dinner was sold. It's an incredible anecdote.
It just reveals the immense power a global cash
rich corporation can have over the social policy
of its hometown. But that influence isn't always
directed towards social progress. In 2012, Coca
-Cola contributed $1 ,700 ,500 to a campaign
opposing Proposition 37 in California. And that
proposition would have mandated the labeling
of foods containing GMOs, genetically modified
ingredients. They have also engaged in positive
global campaigns. They were listed as a partner
in 2012 of the RED campaign, which works to prevent
the transmission of HIV from mother to child.
In the current American political climate, they
maintain their tradition of broad engagement.
In 2024, Coca -Cola sponsored the presidential
campaign of Donald J. Trump and even gifted him
a custom Coke bottle for his inauguration. So
this willingness to engage politically on all
sides just underscores their commitment to securing
a favorable business environment no matter who
is in charge. That remarkable ability to generate
cash and exert political influence brings us
to the inevitable friction point in this deep
dive. Let's pivot now to the immense scrutiny
that follows a company this size. Part five,
the weight of the world criticism and corporate
responsibility. When you're making tens of billions
in revenue from selling syrup, you have the resources
to defend yourself against any threat. And the
biggest threat over the past couple of decades
has been the growing scientific consensus on
the harmful health effects of sugary drinks.
And Coca -Cola's response was sophisticated.
They used a strategy that critics call front
groups. Basically, funding what seemed to be
independent organizations to deflect public attention
away from the link between their products and
diseases like type 2 diabetes. One early example
was the Beverage Institute for Health and Wellness.
What made this problematic was that it was led
by a woman who was simultaneously the Coca -Cola
Company's chief science and health officer. So
this institute sponsored continuing education
for dieticians and nurses. And critics argue
this created a huge conflict of interest, potentially
influencing their public health stances on sugary
drinks. But the most egregious example was the
Global Energy Balance Network, or GEBN. This
group was explicitly funded by Koch to shift
the public narrative away from diet and toward
lack of exercise as the main cause of obesity.
But investigative reports eventually exposed
them. They found that GBN was designing studies
to arrive at conclusions that were predetermined
by the company, and they were cherry -picking
data to support Koch's PR agenda. After it was
exposed in August 2015, the GBN was shut down
very quickly. But the pattern continued. Three
years later... Coke was found to be funding an
initiative in China called Happy 10 Minutes.
And this was through the International Life Sciences
Institute, or ILSI, a group that had previously
promoted the tobacco industry's agenda back in
the 80s and 90s. The goal of Happy 10 Minutes
was pretty clear. Promote physical activity to
the Chinese population while completely avoiding
any discussion of the link between sugary drinks
and diet -related diseases. It's a classic tactic.
You focus on one side of the energy balance equation
to protect your core product. OK, let's shift
now to environmental impact and let's start with
plastic and waste. This is maybe the most visible
and pressing crisis facing the company today.
The production numbers again are just overwhelming.
Coca -Cola produces over three million tons of
plastic packaging every single year. Which translates
to 110 billion. single use plastic bottles. And
the sheer volume is why the company has repeatedly
been labeled the worst plastic polluter in the
world. Forbes magazine called it the world's
most polluting brand, noting their output of
200 ,000 plastic bottles per minute. And our
sources cite real world consequences, like in
Samoa, where residents reported this massive
spike in plastic pollution right after Coca -Cola
switched from using reusable glass bottles to
single use plastic. And compounding the problem
is the company's own stance. In 2019, their global
chief executive stated very plainly that Coca
-Cola had no plans to reduce its use of plastic
bottles because they claim consumers overwhelmingly
prefer lightweight, resealable plastic. They
also actively oppose mandatory bottle bill legislation
that's designed to encourage recycling. And despite
their public pledges, their sustainability goals
are not going well. No. In 2018. Coke pledged
to recycle the equivalent of 100 % of its packaging
by 2030. But by December 2024, the company announced
they were going to fail to meet that initial
goal. And the composition of your packaging really
shows the problem. In 2023, almost half 47 .7
% was plastic, only 26 % aluminum and 10 .4 %
glass. And crucially, the sources note that only
1 .2 % of their packaging was reusable. And their
use of virgin plastics has actually increased
by about 6 % since 2019. The long -term environmental
damage is projected to be huge. A 2025 study
estimated that Coke, along with PepsiCo and Nestle,
collectively contributed between 14 and 21 million
tons of plastic waste into aquatic environments
between 2000 and 2023. And it goes beyond plastic.
We have to address their water usage and depletion.
Right. Because of the decentralized bottling
model, the mothership focuses on syrup. But the
franchise bottlers are accused of depleting vital
local water sources all over the world. Our sources
highlight a really stark case in Caledera, Rajasthan
in India. Local government data showed that water
levels were stable there until the Coca -Cola
plant opened in 2000. And in the five years after
that, water levels dropped by almost 10 meters.
It devastated local harvests and dried up local
wells. It's a direct connection between industrial
utes and local environmental impact. We also
have to touch on the energy use, which is linked
to their choice of sweetener. Right. While they
use cane sugar in some parts of the world, their
reliance on high fructose corn syrup in North
America and other places is documented as being
less sustainable. Why is that? Because the manufacturing
process for corn syrup is very carbon intensive.
It requires a lot of fossil fuels for the conversion
process, but also for the heavy machinery, the
irrigation and the fertilization you need to
grow that much corn. It's a systemic energy burden
built right into the recipe. And finally, we
have to turn to the company's long and troubled
history with racial discrimination allegations.
In November of 2000, Coca -Cola agreed to pay
a massive $192 .5 million to settle a class action
lawsuit that alleged racial discrimination. And
that settlement also mandated fundamental changes
to their management, promotion, and how they
treated minority employees in the U .S. But even
after that nearly $200 million settlement, the
problems didn't just go away. Protesters at their
2003 annual meeting claimed that Black people
were still underrepresented in management, paid
less and fired more often. However, the court
mandated changes did eventually force some progress.
By 2004, a diversity rating organization noted
that because of the pressure from the settlement,
Koken implemented management practices that actually
put them in the top 10 for diversity efforts.
But despite those improvements, the litigation
just kept coming, which suggests the problem
was systemic and cultural. In 2012, 16 workers
of color sued the company again, alleging they
were still working in a cesspool of racial discrimination.
And as a final example, just showing how fraught
this has become, in 2021, an employee training
course instructed employees to be less white.
The course materials equated whiteness with being
arrogant and oppressive, and it led to significant
public backlash. So what does this all mean when
you put the whole picture together? We've traced
the Coca -Cola company from this tiny dose of
medicine made by a morphine -addicted pharmacist
through brilliant marketing to an absolutely
dominant financial machine. The central story
of this deep dive is really the tension between
a brilliant, profitable strategy and a massive,
complex global consequence. It's a company that
became a global icon through the genius of franchising
and branding, only to find itself facing intense
scrutiny over its environmental output, its influence
on public health and systemic issues in its workplace.
And when we connect the dots for you, the learner,
the formula for their power becomes crystal clear.
The staggering financial success of Coca -Cola,
which comes from focusing only on that high margin
concentrate and selling off the bottling risk.
That generates a massive global war chest. And
this war chest is what funds their ability to
spend $4 billion a year on advertising, to exert
political leverage like that ultimatum in Atlanta
in 1964, and to finance these sophisticated networks
and front groups designed to defend their product
against scientific criticism. The business model
directly funds the corporate defense strategy.
Exactly. So we're left with this final thought
for you to mull over. Given that the Coca -Cola
company has demonstrated this immense power,
the power to intervene in major moments of civil
rights history, the power to influence global
health discourse, the logistical capability to
deliver billions of servings a day. What are
the inherent responsibilities of a single brand
whose packaging and product are arguably the
most ubiquitous consumer goods on Earth? What
does it really mean when a company says they
need the world to sell their product? When the
data clearly shows that the world, especially
our oceans and our local water sources, is struggling
under the weight of the sheer scale, the volume
and the influential political maneuvering of
that same company. It really demands that we
as consumers look beyond the red logo and scrutinize
the machine. working underneath.