Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates
do a 2 part qualitative content analysis on all attached documents provided.
The documents provided are statements and pledges from the coca-cola company
regarding their response to water neutrality and sustainability. Please do a qualitative
content analysis on the provided documents based on the problem area and
formulation question bellow.
Second part(ONLY PARTS 4 & 5 of the document)–>
The documents provided are claims from other sources contridicting coca colas claims. Please do a qualitative content analysis on the provided documents based on the problem area and formulation question bellow.
provide a summary explaining your findings using the following theories: triple bottom line theory, legitimacy theory, and stakeholder theory
Also here are
directions on how to do a proper qualitative
The Coca-Cola Company is the world’s largest
producer of soft drinks, and its manufacturing methods rely on water. Water is
also an important part of the company’s supply chain, which covers the
production of other ingredients like coffee and sugar.
Water quality and the availability of safe and
reliable water are major business considerations for the company, in addition
to being an essential aspect of the company’s operations. For example, the
company’s top priority is guaranteeing the security of its 200 global
businesses’ water supply.
As the company’s activities expand into more
water-intensive items like coffee and tea, its water stewardship goals become
more difficult to meet. (BSR, 2008)
Coca-Cola said in 2007 that it would return water
to nature and communities by 2020. To achieve this goal, the company
collaborated with The Nature Conservancy and LimnoTech, outside consultants.
The two organizations were able to establish a mechanism that will aid in
estimating the quantity of water returned to environment and communities
because of their work.
The company’s programs aim to give local
populations with access to water supplies for a variety of purposes, including
agricultural and drinking water. It also intends to improve its business’ water
use techniques in order to reduce consumption. (The nature conservancy, 2021)
Several organizations, including the World Wide
Fund for Nature, the TCCC, and the UNESCO-IHE, collaborated in 2007 to
investigate the benefits of the idea of water neutrality. By performing a
detailed investigation of the subject, they were able to establish a
significant milestone. (BSR, 2008)
1. Defining, measuring
and reporting one’s “water footprint”.
2. Taking all action
that is “reasonably possible” to reduce the existing operational water
3. Reconciling the
residual water footprint (amount remaining after a company does as much as
possible to reduce footprint) by making a “reasonable investment” in
establishing or supporting projects that focus on the sustainable and equitable
use of water.
a prevailing statement, but can a corporation with water-containing products
truly become water neutral? Coca cola has released a statement in response to
their claims of “For every drop we use, we give one back,” with a vague
statement claiming to be water neutral. Coca-Cola has frequently used the term
“water neutral” since their cooperation with WWF began in Bejing
Coca-Cola Chairman and CEO Neville Isdell stated that the company’s goal was to
cut water usage by replacing all of its water with renewable resources.
However, it is difficult to predict how this aim will be met. Coca- Cola’s
water use has been steadily reducing since 2002, according to the company.
Nonetheless, despite improvements, the company’s efforts have yet to bear
fruit. For example, the drop in water usage from 2006 to 2007 was only 2%. (Pearce, 2008) Water consumption has
increased since 2005 due to the company’s ongoing increase in the number of
products it produces. This is hardly an indicator that the company’s efforts
toward water neutrality are bearing fruit. Despite the company’s declarations
about its dedication to water neutrality, it is unclear how it would cut its
water usage. It also claims to use less water and to recycle what it does use.
Sadly, despite its pledges, Coca-Cola does not seem to be water neutral
anywhere it operates. This is hurting the communities in India, where many of
the company’s plants are. (ibid)
water offset is a sort of transaction that allows a corporation to claim water
neutrality when it uses the same quantity of water in a different place as it
did previously. For example, it would be deemed water neutral if water was
pumped from a dry lake into a desert and then utilized the same amount of water
in a rainforest river. (ibid) Indians residents, on the other hand, are
unlikely to be placated by Coca-Cola’s proposal to operate in Cambodia’s
forests, where their wells remain dry. The term “water neutral” was
chosen by the corporation as an effective and inspiring method to communicate
its commitment to lowering its water usage. It has the same impact on the media
and other public figures. Even though the corporation used the term “water
neutral,” they were warned against using it without a scientific
definition. They also argued for an open process to develop a long-term
strategy for water neutrality. (ibid) Considering doubts about the scientific
definition of water neutrality, experts believe they may produce a more
accurate and relevant definition. If a well is filled back up with water
that was used from said well, it should be considered water neutral.
Unfortunately, water neutrality is in risk of being fatally misunderstood.
How can coke claim to be water neutral, when
their most used resource is water?
How does Coca-Cola fare in terms of
their claims to water waste sustainability?
Has coca-cola participated in greenwashing?