About Coco Cola Case Study

About Coco cola Case Study For most countries, the lack of explicit reference to a right to water in the national legislation necessitates creativity in enforcing the right through the courts. In many such countries, cases have been brought under environmental or public health legislation or courts have interpreted the right to water under other constitutional rights, such as the right to life or a healthy environment. In India, where the right to water is not enshrined as a fundamental right in the national Constitution, courts at both state and federal level have interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to life, as encompassing the right to safe and sufficient water and sanitation. In 1990, for example, The Kerala High Court in Attakoya Thangal v. Union of India recognized the fundamental importance of the right to water. In this case, the petitioners claimed that a scheme for pumping up ground water for supplying potable water to the Laccadives (now known as the Lakshadweep Islands) in the Arabian Sea would upset the fresh water equilibrium, leading to salinity in the available water resources and causing more long-term harm than short-term benefits. The Kerala High Court, in its judgement, requested deeper investigation and monitoring of the scheme and the judge clearly recognised the right of people to clean water as a right to life enshrined in Article 21, observing that: "...the administrative agency cannot be permitted to function in such a manner as to make inroads into the fundamental right under Art 21. The right to life is much more than a right to animal existence and its attributes are manifold, as life itself. A prioritization of human needs and a new value system has been recognized in these areas. The right to sweet water and the right to free air are attributes of the right to life, for these are the basic elements which sustain life itself." Case against Coca-Cola Kerala State, India In a number of districts of India, Coca Cola and its subsidiaries are accused of creating severe water shortages for the community by extracting large quantities of water for their factories, affecting both the quantity and quality of water. Coca Cola has the largest soft drink bottling facilities in India. Water is the primary component of the products manufactured by the company. There have been numerous public protests of The Coca-Cola Company's operations throughout India, involving thousands of Indian citizens and several non-governmental organizations. Protests against the Coco Cola factories have taken place in a number of

districts including: Mehdiganj near the holy city of Varanasi; Kala Dera, near Jaipur, Rajistan; Thane district in Maharashtra; and Sivaganga in Tamil Nadu. The protests by villagers from Plachimada, in the southern state of Kerala have shown the strength of community-led activities, even against this global multi-national company. Through round-the-clock vigils outside the factory gates, they have managed to 'temporarily' shut down Coca-Cola's local bottling plant. As of early 2007, the factory had remained closed for a number of years and a combination of community action and legal redress was aimed at permanent closure. Background to Coca Cola ground water exploitation case in Kerala In 1999, the Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited, a subsidiary of the Atlanta based Coca-Cola company, established a plant in Plachimada, in the Palakkad district of Kerala, southern India. The Perumatty Village Council gave a licence to the company to commence production in 2000. Coca Cola drew around 510,000 litres of water each day from boreholes and open wells. For every 3.75 litres of water used by the plant, it produced one litre of product and a large amount of waste water. Two years after production began protest by local residents became common place. Local communities complained that water pollution and extreme water shortages were endangering there lives. In 2003, women from the Vijayanagaram Colony in the village of Plachimada, protested that their wells had dried up because of the over exploitation of groundwater resources by the Coca-cola plant. They complained that they now had to walk nearly five kilometres twice a day to fetch water. They also argued that the little which was left was undrinkable and when used for bathing the water burned their eyes and lead to skin complaints. Aside form these health issues; the depletion of groundwater resources also affected the ability of local residents to raise their crops of rice and coconuts. In April 2003, the Perumatty Grama Panchayat (Village Council) refused renewal of Coca-Cola's licence to operate on the grounds that it was not in the public interest to renew the licence stating: "...the excessive exploitation of ground water by the Coca-Cola Company in Plachimada is causing acute drinking water scarcity in Perumatty Panchayat and nearby places..." The Village Council considered revocation of the licence to be necessary in order to protect the interests of loIn August 2005, the plant was closed once again, this time by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board. The Board had sought clarification from Coca Cola of the excessive amount of Cadmium in the effluent. G Raja Mohan, the President of Kerala State Pollution Control Board stated: "In the waste water treatment sludges we have found contents of Cadmium abnormally high. It goes up to 600 percent above the permissible limit. In the ground water the content of Cadmium is not that much. So, there is something which they are using in the raw materials."

In October 2005, the State Government of Kerala announced it would support the Village Council local activists by challenging Coca Cola's right to extract water from common groundwater resources in the Supreme Court of India. In an official press release, Health Minister K. K Ramachandran said: "the Government will stand by the people in whichever court the company goes. The right over water and air is the right to live. The Government will not allow stopping of these two lifelines of the people." On 4 January 2006, following decisions of the Kerala High Court, the Village Council renewed the Coca Cola company's licence for three months but laid out thirteen conditions. The first of these was that the company shall not use groundwater from Perumatty Panchayat for industrial purposes, or for producing soft drinks, aerated carbonate beverages or fruit juice. The Village Council cited the 2004 Supreme Court decision of M C Mehta v Union of India and the notification by the Kerala State Groundwater Department that village is 'over exploited' with regard to groundwater Coca Cola put out a press release stating: "We are completely confident in the safety of our soft drinks in India because they are produced to the same level of purity, regarding pesticides, as the stringent EU criteria for bottled water. We support the adoption of stringent, science-based rules by the Indian government regarding levels of pesticides in soft drinks. The rules should be based on sound and validated testing methodologies. We continue to work with relevant government bodies, industry associations, non government organizations (NGOs) and the scientific community to develop and finalize criteria and associated testing methods for pesticides in soft drinks. We have the same uncompromising commitment to product safety and quality in India and everywhere we offer our beverages around the world, and independent third parties regularly audit all plants for compliance. The Coca-Cola Company has stringent criteria for all of the ingredients used in our beverages. These criteria are backed by internationally accepted analytical testing protocols for these ingredients. Our soft drinks in India have been regularly tested and evaluated by the world renowned and independent Central Science Laboratories (CSL) and all tests show no detectable level of pesticides." - Coca Cola Media Statement Regarding the Safety of Coca Cola Soft Drinks in India, 9 August 2006. However, in September 2006, the High Court of Kerala set aside the orders of the Government of Kerala and the State Food (Health) Authority banning the manufacture and sale of Coca-Cola in the State. The High Court observed that the ban could not be justified since it was based solely on a report by an NGO.

The State Government of Kerala has now challenged the extraction of water by Coca Cola in proceedings before the Supreme Court. The State Government argues that the company is taking water from poor communities, but according to a press article in October 2006, the Village Council was not pressing for the case in the Supreme Court to be listed for hearing. It appears to believe that as long as the conditions imposed by the Village Council are not fulfilled, the plant cannot reopen. Nevertheless, water remains a problem for the villagers. With its groundwater still polluted, Plachimada now gets its drinking water through pipes, that provide water for only a few hours once in two days, and through tanker lorries which also arrive once in two days. Fifteen tanker-lorries of water are supplied by the government, and 15 more by the company. Villagers remain particularly concerned at the pollution of the scarce remaining groundwater and land which they blame on the discharge by the Coca-Cola company of its waste into the surrounding fields. Although the Coca Cola factory in Plachimada has remained closed since 2004, locals are not satisfied with simply closing the plant; they want justice for the damage caused to health and the environment. As the protestors complain: "It's true that the company is not functioning, but that is not enough. We must get compensation for all the crimes committed by the company." Whether or not the ban finally stays, the agitation in front of the factory gate is continuing. As Kaliamma, one of the several tribal women squatting in the temporary 'agitation tent' says: "Our problems have not been solved." This clearly states that the people oriented approach with the political intervention in both civil society and state will make more People-centered Approach for sustainable protection of common property. The political aspect is extremely significant in such movements. Another good experience also exists in the Kozhikode district of Kerala where, the community movement made the Mavoor Rayons factory to close down permanently with both political and civil society intervention.