THis is really interesting times. First of all you have a 'national' newspaper which invited the chief of a deadly multinational as guest editor. would it ever invite a rep of the lakhs of near-slavery workers in the sezs and elsewhere. will it ever invite a rep of the victims of coca cola to edit the paper for a day..... The point is the country's elite have reached a stage where they openly argue that avarious money making is the only means to national respect. all else is nonsense. well, this has always been their position, but never in the past did they dare say so openly. unfortunately the people have no media, and cannot have it for it requires capital. so we are bound to be ruled by ET and the likes.... until a natural end.
The article by Mr Sinha only shows the need of ET for outsourcing newspaper editing. Any senbible editor would ask the PR manager of the company to give a rejoinder, and not an 'independent expert' as Mr Sinha. he admits he is sponsored by the cola, but thats another matter. Presenting those who thrive on corporate charity to argue for the corporates in the garb of objective arguements makes a mokery of the whole enterprise of informed debate. He was using his former affiliation with the central groundwater board to give some legitimacy to the pathetic arguements he makes. Reading this article alone makes one discern how he might have become member of this national body. One who can shamelessly sing hymns for the deadly cola, more shamelessly than the cola pr man could possibly stoop to, could easily become member of any such body in the country. And we know that professional competence and integrity are the last things that count in recruiting membrs to such bodies. Anyway, we shall overcome ET and the likes, the cola and the likes, and Sinha and the likes... one day, as the poor inhabitants of Plachimada did.
Shanawaz


On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 mediavigil@yahoo.co.in wrote :
>Only a model for good PR
>
>Amit Srivastava, Economic Times
>
>The Coca-Cola company and its CEO, Mr Neville Isdell, must be congratulated for some excellent public relations work lately, and in particular, in India. Neville Isdell was the “guest editor” of ET (March 17, 2008) and he used the platform to pull off a wonderful public relations coup - create an image of itself that it clearly is not.
>
>In his edit ‘A new model of sustainability’
>, Mr Isdell writes that we must view business from a “broader context” and that if the communities are not sustainable, then the business is not sustainable. We must agree. But Coca-Cola is the least qualified company to talk about new ways of operating and building sustainable communities, given its track record in India.
>
>Not once in the entire issue, which also included a lengthy section on corporate social responsibility, did the crisis that Coca-Cola creates and faces in India find mention. We feel it is time to set the record straight and away from the spin of Coca-Cola.
>
>Coca-Cola’s bottling plants in India are the target of many community-led campaigns, accusing the company of worsening water shortages in areas where it operates and polluting the scarce remaining water and soil. In a very high profile case, one of Coca-Cola’s largest bottling plants in India, in Plachimada, Kerala, has been shut down since March 2004 because government and independent agencies have confirmed that the bottling plant has polluted the water and soil in the area.
>
>Coca-Cola, in the past, has rejected the campaigns against it in India as being not based on facts and the agenda of anti-globalisation activists. But the momentum has turned against Coca-Cola, as various government and independent studies confirm what the communities who live around the bottling plants have been saying all along -that the company is responsible for exacerbating water crises and pollution.
>
>In what must have been a shocker for Coca-Cola, a study that it paid for (and conducted by TERI) released earlier this year was a scathing indictment of the company’s operations in India. The company was forced to agree to an assessment of its operations in India, a result of a sustained international campaign to hold Coca-Cola accountable.
>
>Not surprisingly, the study found no mention in Mr Isdell’s edition. Coca-Cola’s own study has recommended that it shut down its bottling plant in Kala Dera in Rajasthan. The study found that the “plant’s operations in this area would continue to be one of the contributors to a worsening water situation and a source of stress to the communities around.”
>
>Noting that Coca-Cola has not respected the rights of farmers and groundwater conditions, the study also warned Coca-Cola about declining water conditions around another campaign hotspot - Mehdiganj in Uttar Pradesh. Bolstered by the study, the community of Mehdiganj will be holding a demonstration against the bottling plant later this month.
>
>The study by TERI also found that in the plants assessed, not one plant had met the Coca-Cola company’s own wastewater treatment standards. What is the point of having your own standards, we ask, if you don’t meet them? And the study found an alarming incidence of pollution in the immediate vicinity of Coca-Cola’s bottling plants.
>The assessment, which covered only six plants (out of fifty) is very clear that the Coca-Cola company has located its bottling plants in India from strictly a “business continuity” perspective that has not taken the wider context into perspective.
>
>So where is the placing of the business in a “broader context” that the Coca-Cola CEO talked about in his edit? Surely not in India. And sustainable communities? Coca-Cola’s own study has confirmed that the company is responsible for exacerbating water crises, and recommended the shutdown of one of its bottling plants. Coca-Cola has not respected the rights of farmers, and has exploited the groundwater to such an extent in some areas that thousands of farmers have lost their livelihoods.
>
>The Coca-Cola company did not even bother to share the environmental impact assessments (that it should have conducted prior to locating its bottling plants across India) for the study after repeated requests. Coca-Cola cited legal and confidential reasons for not sharing the reports.
>
>The environmental impact assessments look at the various factors including water availability, existing stresses on water and potential impacts on the community. The fact is that the Coca-Cola company has located many of its bottling plants in India strictly from a business and profit motivated principle, and has given scant, if any, attention to the impacts on the community. Such a company cannot and must not be allowed to talk about new models of sustainability. Coca-Cola must walk the walk before it can talk the talk.
>
>Water shortage is the issue
>
>By S P Sinha Ray Economic Times
>
>The guest column by Amit Srivastava, ‘Only a model for good PR’ (ET, March 28) was a good piece of fiction and this writer intends to make some observations on the subjects broached by him.
>
>By their very nature, global issues like water and environment are too complex. A simplistic expression of the situation, as done by Srivastava, exposes his level of understanding on the subject and thought process. Such national/global issues have to be addressed through a combination of initiatives, involving all major stakeholders in society. Public private partnerships (PPP) are the only way where mass support for such efforts can be mobilised for significant results.
>
>As NGOs we do raise issues, but try to find inclusive solutions as well within the given frame work. Having got an opportunity to experience the corporate approach for doing things, one can say that they are excellent in teamwork and partnerships. Perhaps this essential trait has led many companies to successfully implement sustainable development models.
>
>In this context one must say that the support from Coca-Cola has been overwhelming. In Centre for Ground Water Studies, we have been closely working with this company and one is inclined to believe that the company has chosen the right path in building sustainable communities along with other stakeholders.
>
>Much has been written and bragged about Kerala plant issues with claims and counter claims, but over the years life has moved on. Still even if we look at all the on-ground facts, we need to remember that Plachimada in Kerala and the surrounding areas have been studied by various government and non-government agencies since 2002.
>
>In every instance, allegations with respect to excessive ground water usage were found to be correct. Central Ground Water Board confirmed in September 2003 that there were “no abnormal changes in water level around the plant”. Centre for Water Resources Development and Management (CWRDM), Kozhikode, has concluded in its study (February 2005) “that under normal rainfall conditions the planned groundwater withdrawal of 500,000 litres per day by Coca-Cola factory will not adversely affect the availability of groundwater in and around the factory complex”.
>
>This writer has read the independent study report conducted by TERI on Coca-Cola’s practices in India and have realised that the company has taken a very bold step of exposing itself to such an independent study. The TERI report mentions that “irrigation withdrawals are estimated to be higher (up to 100 times) than the average annual withdrawals by the plant. The problem gets further aggravated due to the challenges imposed by erratic rainfall, semi-arid climate regime, and increasing demands from various sectors”. As far as plant water usage is concerned, detailed studies were conducted by Central Ground Water Board in Kaladera Village/ Jaipur district where soft drink factory is located.
>
>Study findings indicate that agriculture pumpage is contributing the maximum for decline of groundwater in Kaladera village.
>
>In fact, it takes a lot of guts for any individual or corporate to subject itself to external/third party scrutiny. TERI assessment went beyond regulatory compliance and it was The Coca-cola Company, which accepted the recommendations. TERI study was an opportunity for the company to assess and possibly look into ways of improving its environmental performance. How many Indian or global companies have subjected themselves to such external studies?
>
>I would sincerely ask NGOs like India Resource Center to rise to the occasion and look at suggesting ways to address the issue of water shortage in the national context where ground water in more than 200 blocks of India stand over-exploited. We should not conveniently forget that ground water level is declining steadily in major metros and cities of India for which contribution from water intensive industries are almost negligible.
>
>The need of the hour is to mobilise our wisdom in solving water scarcity problems of our country by implementing pro-active measures like rain water harvesting, ground water recharging, changing crop pattern to less water intensive crops, efficient use of irrigation water, etc.
>
>What we need to do is to make informed choices, bring efficiency in how we use all resources, learn, relearn and innovate, bring all stakeholders together for positive sustainable and inclusive development, encourage all those including companies to improve and most importantly discourage forces who are too keen to project their own interests.
>
>The question is how we as a society are contributing towards the issue of water shortage issue. The challenge is also to look at ways of responding to this situation both as a responsible individual and or organisation.
>
>(The author is a former member of Central Ground Water Board and Authority and president of Centre For Ground Water Studies)
>
>