# data[].attributes.body
Coca-Cola is an international corporation owned by Berkshire Hathaway, Vanguard Group, and BlackRock, which produces several beverages such as soda, water, coffee, tea, and more Dr. John Pemberton founded Coca-Cola in 1892 in Atlanta, Georgia. Using the PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental) analysis, Coca-Cola has highlighted these specific factors and issues affecting them. As well as responding to these factors, this analysis allows us to go deeper into the company from a business standpoint.   

Several political impacts affect Coca Cola such as government, FDA, and taxes. Especially in the United States, where a ton of research has gone toward the health of their citizens. Which means the US has tight regulations. Coca-Cola works closely with the government and the FDA to get everything approved since they have passed all the tests to sell to other countries, which makes it easier to sell to other countries since they do not have as tight regulations as the US. Every country has its rate of taxes; therefore Coca Cola has made lots of deals with countries, and they adapt to the culture of each country so they can make sure the price of taxes is worth their time and money selling there.  

Coca-Cola is very well off economically, and they have a fantastic income of 70%. This is what allows them to be the corporate giant they are. In addition, the company's worth allows Coca-Cola to expand its business to other countries and US allies. An additional bonus is that their stocks are always very high and never really drop, which intrigues investors and allows them to have multiple shares within the business.  

Cultural and social environments impact all international companies. All of the cultural factors force Coca-Cola to consider all the values, etiquette, thinking patterns, decisions, practices, and processes that the business should have. This company always considers the cultural differences in each country so that they can distribute and appeal to each customer. Since they appeal to the customer, they have to alter how they market their products for them to be able to make the most satisfactory appeal.  

Through the years of technological differences, Coca-Cola has had to adapt to this to generate the most wealth possible. All of this new technology has helped them manufacture their products more efficiently. In addition, it has made it even easier to advertise and connect to their audience through social media. In the 21st century, there are several platforms where they can sell their products, increasing their revenue significantly. 

From a legal standpoint, they have several lawsuits that can be filed against them. An example of a lawsuit is that they can have too much caffeine in their products. Also, by targeting specific communities such as African Americans and Latinos. By advertising directly to that specific community which has plagued this part of America more severally with diabetes, obesity, and death due to overconsumption of these sugary drinks. 

 Looking at Coca-Cola from an environmental standpoint Coca Cola does not have many eco-friendly packaging, disputing, or production. Coca-Cola needs to start implementing eco-friendly packaging. As well as implementing a waste management technology to cut down carbon emissions. One thing that Coca-Cola does is use an intelligent farming method called Rain and Care. Lastly, they need to invest in a more sustainable version of their company to get more consumers to try their drinks and collaborate with more companies. 

After using the PESTLE analysis, Coca-Cola has grown its business significantly and expanded to nearly every single country in the world. As a group, we have concluded that Coca-Cola has considered all factors with global trading and was able to find a solution to every single one that came into their path. 

# data[].attributes.body
PESTLE
- Political
- Economic
- Social
- Technological
- Legal
- Environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Coca Cola is a soft drink empire and serves customers around the world. To supply customers with their soda, they follow strict regulations, adhere to customer demands, and use the best technology available.

More information about the company is in this PESTLE analysis of Coca Cola.

Political factors

Coca Cola products are at the mercy of the FDA. They must meet regulations, given by the government, to put products on store shelves.

Changes in established laws may prevent Coca Cola from distributing drinks. Accounting, taxes, internal marketings, and changes in labor laws can affect Coca Cola in this way.

Economical factors

Coca Cola products are distributed to hundreds of countries. These countries have different customs, cultures, tastes, and desires. Coca Cola has changed and updated how it handles its products by creating new flavors to accommodate these customers.

They have $80+ billion worth of equity. The majority of that comes from the beverage industry. And their income (roughly 70%) is from countries outside the United States.

But people are looking for healthy alternative drinks. Coca Cola is making minimal efforts to move in that direction.

Social factors

Coca Cola distributes the majority of its products in cultured countries. And they meet the demands of these customers. In Japan, they created 30 alternative flavors to appeal to Japanese consumers. In China, they are making similar efforts.

But in America, people focus on their health. They're swapping sugary drinks for waters and teas. Because these drinks are better for their health. Coca Cola needs to respond to these needs by creating a product the healthy American public will respond to.

Technological factors

Machinery have helped Coca Cola manufacture products in better and higher quantities. Coca Cola has factories in Britain with top of the name machinery to ensure fast delivery times and quality product development.

Coca Cola has used social media technology to connect with audiences. When they launched their name campaign - putting real names on their bottles - customers lined up to take photos of bottles with their name on it. These photos trended on social media sites like Facebook, providing social proof and encouraging Coca Cola sales.

Legal factors

Coca Cola retains all rights related to their business, including past and future products developed with a patented process.

Environmental factors

Coca Cola is affected by water accessibility. Water is necessary for soft drink development. But should something happen, like climate change, the company may be under fire.

This affects their competitor, Pepsi, as well. But since Coca Cola's products are primarily soft drinks, with a water accessibility issue, the company will suffer losses.

Coca Cola has to adhere to environmental laws as they manufacture their products. If anything is amiss, it can affect how they distribute products - or stop production completely.

Additionally, they can take advantage of humid climates who would enjoy Coca Cola drinks as a means to cool down. This works well in developing countries where Coca Cola would have very little "premium" competition.

Image " Buvez Coca Cola" by Ioan Sameli is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coca Cola is a soft drink empire and serves customers around the world. To supply customers with their soda, they follow strict regulations, adhere to customer demands, and use the best technology available. More information about the company is in this PESTLE analysis of Coca Cola.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Coca-Cola has been accused of dehydrating communities in its pursuit of water resources to feed its own plants, drying up farmers' wells and destroying local agriculture. The company has also violated workers' rights in countries such as Colombia, Turkey, Guatemala and Russia. Only through its multi-million dollar marketing campaigns can Coca-Cola sustain the clean image it craves.

The company admits that without water it would have no business at all. Coca-Cola's operations rely on access to vast supplies of water, as it takes almost three litres of water to make one litre of Coca-Cola. In order to satisfy this need, Coca-Cola is increasingly taking over control of aquifers in communities around the world. These vast subterranean chambers hold water resources collected over many hundreds of years. As such they the represent the heritage of entire communities.

Coca-Cola's operations have particularly been blamed for exacerbating water shortages in regions that suffer from a lack of water resources and rainfall. Nowhere has this been better documented than in India, where there are now community campaigns against the company in several states. research carried out by War on Want in the Indian states of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh affirms the findings from Kerala and Maharastra that Coca-Cola's activities are having a serious negative impact on farmers and local communities.

Coca-Cola established a bottling plant in the village of Kaladera in Rajasthan at the end of 1999. Rajasthan is well known as a desert state, and Kaladera is a small, impoverished village characterised by semi-arid conditions. Farmers rely on access to groundwater for the cultivation of their crops. but since Coca-Cola's arrival, they have been confronted with a serious decline in water levels. Locals are increasingly unable to irrigate their lands and sustain their crops, putting whole families at risk of losing their livelihoods.

Local villagers testify that Coca-Cola's arrival exacerbated an already precarious situation. Official documents from the government's water ministry show that water levels remained stable from 1995 until 2000, when the Coca-Cola plant became operational. Water levels then dropped by almost 10 metres over the following five years. Locals fear Kaladera could become a 'dark zone', the term used to describe areas that are abandoned due to depleted water resources.

Other communities in India that live and work around Coca-Cola's bottling plants are experiencing severe water shortages as well as environmental damage. Local villagers near the holy city of Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh complain that the company's over-exploitation of water resources has taken a heavy toll on their harvests and led to the drying up of wells. As in Rajasthan and Kerala, villagers have held protests against the local Coca-Cola plant for its appropriation of valuable water resources.

In the now infamous case of Plachimada in the southern state of Kerala, Coca-Cola's plant was forced to close down in March 2004 after the village council refused to renew the company's licence, on the grounds that it had over-used and contaminated local water resources. Four months earlier, the Kerala High Court had ruled that Coca-Cola's heavy extraction from the common groundwater resource was illegal, and ordered it to seek alternative sources for its production.

In 2003 the independent Centre for Science and Environment tested Coca-Cola beverages and found levels of pesticides around 30 times higher than European Union standards. Levels of DDT, which is banned in agriculture in India, were nine times higher than the EU limit. In February 2004 Indian MPs who investigated CSE's studies upheld these findings and the Parliament went on to ban Coca-Cola from its cafeterias.

Besides these issues, War on Want's Alternative Report on Coca-Cola also details how Coca-Cola is having a devastating impact of water resources elsewhere. In El Salvador, the company has been accused of exhausting water resources over a 25-year period. In Chiapas, Coca-Cola is positioning itself to take control of the water resources. The Mexican government under Vicente Fox - himself a former President of Coca-Cola Mexico - has given the company concessions to exploit community water resources.

Coca-Cola's own workers have also suffered and the company is being increasingly associated with anti-union activities. The most notable case is in Colombia, where paramilitaries have killed eight Coca-Cola workers since 1990. The main Coca-Cola trade union Sinaltrainal is seeking to hold Coca-Cola liable for using paramilitaries to engage in anti-union violence.

Coca-Cola is being sued on behalf of transport workers and their families for its part in the alleged intimidation and torture of trade unionists and their families by special branch police in Turkey. In Nicaragua, workers of the main Coca-Cola union SUTEC have been denied the right to organise and the General Secretary of SUTEC, Daniel Reyes, believes the objective of this ongoing and escalating campaign is to crush the union.

Guatemalan workers have been struggling against Coca-Cola since the 1970s. In the years between 1976 and 1985, three general secretaries of the main union were assassinated and members of their families, friends and legal advisers were threatened, arrested, kidnapped, shot, tortured and forced into exile. The violations of workers' rights continue. And Coca-Cola workers and their family members, with ties to unions, have reportedly been subjected to death threats. Elsewhere in countries such as Peru, Russia and Chile, Coca-Cola workers have been protesting against the company's anti-union policies. Coca-Cola claims to exist "to benefit and refresh everyone it touches" and to try to sustain this positive image, the company spends $2 billion a year on advertising alone. Yet there are signs that the image is beginning to crumble. The relay carrying the Olympic flame was repeatedly disrupted by protests at Coca-Cola's role as the principal sponsor, with the Turin council actually declaring the city a no-go zone for the company (a decision subsequently overruled by the mayor).

University campuses throughout the USA and Europe have voted to cancel contracts with Coca-Cola in protest at its operations, and in solidarity with the community resistance which has escalated in many countries across the world. It is up to us to keep up the pressure on Coca-Cola and also send a strong message to our elected leaders to rein in irresponsible business practices.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coca-Cola has been accused of dehydrating communities in its pursuit of water resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tech and Big Data Accelerate Innovation Strategy - News & Articles

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coca-Cola North America finds ways to ensure its beverages keep up with marketplace. Check out this story and more news from The Coca-Cola Company.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Net Revenues Grew 16% for the Quarter and 9% for the Full Year;

Organic Revenues (Non-GAAP) Grew 7% for the Quarter and 6% for the Full Year

Operating Income Grew 19% for the Quarter and 10% for the Full Year; Comparable Currency

Neutral Operating Income (Non-GAAP) Grew 23% for the Quarter and 13% for the Full Year

Fourth Quarter EPS Grew 134% to $0.47 and Comparable EPS (Non-GAAP) Grew 1% to $0.44;

Full Year EPS Grew 38% to $2.07 and Comparable EPS (Non-GAAP) Grew 1% to $2.11

Cash from Operations Was $10.5 Billion for the Full Year, Up 37%;

Full Year Free Cash Flow (Non-GAAP) Was $8.4 Billion, Up 38%

Company Provides 2020 Financial Outlook

ATLANTA, Jan. 30, 2020 - The Coca-Cola Company today reported another quarter of strong growth, along with achieving or exceeding all guidance for the full year 2019. The company continued to execute its growth strategy, allowing it to deliver strong revenue and profit growth for the quarter and full year while gaining value share globally.

"We made good progress in 2019 by delivering on our financial commitments and growing in a more sustainable way," said James Quincey, chairman and CEO of The Coca-Cola Company. "We continue to transform the organization to act with a growth mindset, which gives us confidence in our 2020 targets and our ability to create a better shared future for all of our stakeholders."

Highlights
Quarterly / Full Year Performance

Revenues: Net revenues grew 16% to $9.1 billion for the quarter and 9% to $37.3 billion for the year. Organic revenues (non-GAAP) grew 7% for the quarter and 6% for the year. Revenue growth for the quarter was driven by concentrate sales growth of 2% and price/mix growth of 5%. The quarter included one additional day, which resulted in an approximate 1-point benefit to revenue growth. Revenue growth for the year was driven by concentrate sales growth of 1% and price/mix growth of 5%.

Margin: For the quarter, operating margin, which included items impacting comparability, was 23.9% versus 23.4% in the prior year, while comparable operating margin (non-GAAP) was 24.8% in both the current and prior year.For the year, operating margin, which included items impacting comparability, was 27.1% versus 26.7% in the prior year. Comparable operating margin (non-GAAP) was 27.9% versus 28.8% in the prior year. For both the quarter and full year, strong underlying margin expansion was more than offset by headwinds from currency and net acquisitions.

Earnings per share: For the quarter, EPS grew 134% to $0.47, and comparable EPS (non-GAAP) grew 1% to $0.44. For the year, EPS grew 38% to $2.07, and comparable EPS (non-GAAP) grew 1% to $2.11. Both fourth quarter and full year comparable EPS (non-GAAP) performance included the impact of an 8-point currency headwind.

Market share: The company continued to gain value share in total nonalcoholic ready-to-drink (NARTD) beverages.

Cash flow: Cash from operations was $10.5 billion for the year, up 37% largely due to strong underlying growth, accelerated timing of working capital initiatives and the reduction of productivity and restructuring costs. Full year free cash flow (non-GAAP) was $8.4 billion, up 38%.

Company Updates

Gaining share across the total portfolio: In 2019, the company continued to grow its total portfolio, which led to the largest value share gains in almost a decade, with contribution from both sparkling and non-sparkling offerings. In sparkling, trademark Coca-Cola grew 6% retail value globally as it continued to scale innovative offerings such as Coca-Cola Plus Coffee, now available in more than 40 markets. Coca-Cola Zero Sugar continued to expand its footprint, achieving another year of double-digit volume growth. In the non-sparkling portfolio, innocent, one of the company's juice and smoothie brands, continued to perform well led by innovative products such as innocent plus, a premium juice offering with added vitamins. The innocent brand scaled beyond its flagship market of Europe, launching in Japan during 2019 with more expansion planned in 2020.

Enabling growth through M&A: The company continues to expand its portfolio and capabilities through strategic acquisitions of brands in on-trend categories. Most recently, the company acquired full ownership of the value-added dairy business, fairlife, LLC. Value-added dairy products have been one of the fastest-growing categories in the United States, with fairlife being a large contributor to sales growth. fairlife's continued success has been supported by new product innovations, ranging from lactose-free, ultra-filtered milk with less sugar and more protein than competing brands, to high-protein recovery and nutrition shakes and drinkable snacks. The brand has been supported by the reach of the U.S. Coca-Cola system, with products distributed through the Minute Maid distribution system and Coca-Cola bottlers across the country. The acquisition closed at the start of 2020.

Continued progress toward a World Without Waste: Packaging remains an ongoing focus, and there were many examples of advances during the year. Bottles made from 100% recycled PET (rPET) were available in 12 markets. Coca-Cola Sweden announced it would be the first market in the world to transition to 100% rPET for all plastic bottles made in-country. The company's investments included $19 million for a new bottle-to-bottle recycling facility in the Philippines. In the United States, the company teamed with partners and major competitors to launch the "Every Bottle Back" program during the fourth quarter. This includes a new $100 million industry fund that will be used to improve sorting, processing and collection in areas with the biggest infrastructure gaps to help increase the amount of recycled plastic available to be remade into beverage bottles.

Growing revenue while reducing calories: Coca-Cola has teamed with industry counterparts to reduce the amount of calories Americans consume. The Balance Calories Initiative, launched in 2014, is the single-largest voluntary effort by an industry to help fight obesity. Coca-Cola is using its marketing resources and distribution network to boost awareness of, and interest in, the company's ever-expanding portfolio of low- and no-calorie beverages and smaller packaging options, such as 7.5-oz. mini cans. These efforts are yielding results, as consumption of beverage calories has declined, driven by a reduction in calories consumed from full-sugar beverages, even as sales of sparkling soft drinks continue to grow.

Notes

All references to growth rate percentages and share compare the results of the period to those of the prior year comparable period.

All references to volume and volume percentage changes indicate unit case volume, unless otherwise noted. All volume percentage changes are computed based on average daily sales, unless otherwise noted. "Unit case" means a unit of measurement equal to 24 eight-ounce servings of finished beverage. "Unit case volume" means the number of unit cases (or unit case equivalents) of company beverages directly or indirectly sold by the company and its bottling partners to customers.

"Concentrate sales" represents the amount of concentrates, syrups, beverage bases, source waters and powders/minerals (in all instances expressed in equivalent unit cases) sold by, or used in finished beverages sold by, the company to its bottling partners or other customers. In the reconciliation of reported net revenues, "concentrate sales" represents the percent change in net revenues attributable to the increase (decrease) in concentrate sales volume for the geographic operating segments and the Global Ventures operating segment (excluding Costa non-RTD sales) (expressed in equivalent unit cases) after considering the impact of structural changes. For the Bottling Investments operating segment, this represents the percent change in net revenues attributable to the increase (decrease) in unit case volume computed based on total sales (rather than average daily sales) in each of the corresponding periods after considering the impact of structural changes. The Bottling Investments operating segment reflects unit case volume growth for consolidated bottlers only.

"Price/mix" represents the change in net operating revenues caused by factors such as price changes, the mix of products and packages sold, and the mix of channels and geographic territories where the sales occurred.

First quarter 2019 financial results were impacted by one less day as compared to the same period in 2018, and fourth quarter 2019 financial results were impacted by one additional day as compared to the same period in 2018. Unit case volume results for the quarters are not impacted by the variances in days due to the average daily sales computation referenced above.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coca-Cola Reports Strong Growth in Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Net Revenues Grew 16% for the Quarter and 9% for the Full Year; Organic Revenues (Non-GAAP) Grew 7% for the Quarter and 6% for the Full Year Operating Income Grew 19% for the Quarter and 10% for the Full Year; Comparable Currency Neutral Operating Income (Non-GAAP) Grew 23% for the

# data[].attributes.body
It has a video within the article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Background on Coca-Cola

Coke is one of the most recognizable brands in the world. The goal of the company's international marketing team is to help expand global sales. The company sold its first Coke in 1886 at Jacobs' Pharmacy, but the company's mission hasn't changed; the goal is to sell the highest number of beverages to the most people.

Based in Atlanta, Georgia, the company focuses on making non-alcoholic beverages accessible. With hundreds of brands, some of the more popular examples are Diet Coke, Sprite, Dasani, Nestea, and Fanta. Worldwide, nearly 10,000 Coke beverages are consumed every second. The more Cokes the international marketing team sells, the more revenue the company makes.

Much of the company's 40 billion dollars in revenue growth now comes from globalization, not just growth within the borders of the United States. Globalization is the expansion and development of international markets outside of the company's home country. Let's look at how Coke has gradually globalized into the international market.

The Globalization of Coca-Cola

Coke, like many successful global companies, focuses on those regions with the greatest potential for growth. Coke started branching out internationally in the 1920s but really began its global expansion in the 1980s. This is when Coke implemented its strategic plan to gain entry into untapped, previously hostile, or undeveloped environments. Let's look at Coke's gradual geographical expansion, then we will address what strategies Coke implements when it wants to capitalize on a new market.

Coke started with widening its production, primarily bottling facilities, in friendly areas like Guam and Europe. As people became more familiar with Coke's products, the company decided to expand to Australia, Austria, Italy, Norway, and South Africa. These were the areas that had good relationships with the United States, which meant implementing trade, transportation, and communications networks went a lot smoother.

Surprisingly, even World War II brought an increase in demand for Coke products. The federal government worked out a deal with Coke to supply the troops with its products for no more than a nickel a beverage. In preparation for widening its base, Coke focused on creating relationships with global stakeholders, like the Olympics and United Nations. The Olympics, for example, took Coke's name wherever the Games went.

By the 1970s, Coke also entered into partnerships with the Special Olympics, Tour de France, NASCAR, and FIFA. As these sporting events broadened their fan base worldwide, Coke followed. Enlarging its consumer base in the 1980s and 90s demanded more planning from Coke. The company brought production operations to previously less stable areas like Russia, Germany, India, and Vietnam. This is when Coke began looking to expand into China.

The 2000s brought about Coke's involvement in social issues. This is a different type of marketing effort for the international team. The company provided relief related to the UN AIDS initiatives, September 11th terrorist attacks, and earthquake relief in Haiti. Since this time, the company has entered into additional philanthropic ventures, as well as sponsorships with the NBA and co-marketing with popular television shows like American Idol.

To market to an international audience, Coke has adapted its marketing strategy. Coke's international marketing team continues to look for ways that Coke can diversify its production, marketing, and outreach methods. Let's take a look at these strategies in more detail.

Coke's International Business Strategy

It's clear that Coke's international business strategy, the process Coke uses to sell products in foreign lands, is working. For example, in 2015, Latin America and South America sales totaled 29% of Coke's volume, while North America had 22%. The international division accounted for nearly 75% of Coke's growth. It's also important to note that Coke has consciously run its international division differently than its domestic.

Domestically, beverages are fully prepared and then distributed. Whereas for Coke's international sales, a concentrate is prepared and sold to local bottlers. A local contractor then creates the final beverage, choosing to add ingredients suitable to that particular region, and finally it is distributed. The beverage can taste different, depending on the likes and dislikes of the specific market.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
business case study: globalization of coca-cola - video & lesson transcript | study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Business Case Study: Globalization of Coca-Cola - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coke is one of the most recognizable brands in the world. The goal of the company's international marketing team is to help expand global sales. The company sold its first Coke in 1886 at Jacobs' Pharmacy, but the company's mission hasn't changed; the goal is to sell the highest number of beverages to the most people.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not know if this is what Professor Dinter means when he says political.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
i Campaign finance totals for the current election cycle were released by the FEC on October 28, 2022 and by the IRS on April 03, 2019, lobbying data was released by the Senate Office of Public Records on March 19, 2019, outside spending data was released by the FEC on November 11, 2022, and personal finances data was released by the House, Senate, and US Office of Government Ethics starting in June 2011.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit OpenSecrets. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact OpenSecrets: info[at]crp.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
i Campaign finance totals for the current election cycle were released by the FEC on October 28, 2022 and by the IRS on April 03, 2019, lobbying data was released by the Senate Office of Public Records on March 19, 2019, outside spending data was released by the FEC on November 11, 2022, and personal finances data was released by the House, Senate, and US Office of Government Ethics starting in June 2011.

# data[].attributes.body
They show everything in a broad spectrum but once you click you get an article.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Better Shared Future | The Coca-Cola Company

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our people and communities are the core of The Coca-Company. Explore how The Coca-Cola Company strives to improve people's lives and create a better shared future.

# data[].attributes.body
Has environmental and legal factors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This detailed PESTEL analysis of Coca-Cola examines some of the external factors that impact on the operations of the Coca-Cola company. It aims to explore some of the macro-environmental factors such as political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal that have been influencing both the strategic and the operational decisions of the company.
Political factors affecting Coca-Cola
The products of the Coca-Cola company are old in over 200 countries and territories. This massive operations offer the company both opportunities and challenges. For instance, it has been thriving extremely well for so long in the USA and Europe because of political stabilities.

However, sometimes political decisions by the U.S government impact on the operations of the Coca-Cola company and many others abroad. For instance, according to the CEO of the company (cited in Jr., 2018), the tariffs imposed on steel and aluminium on numerous nations including Canada, Mexico and the European Union have incurred retaliatory measures that resulted in increases in prices for many products including soft drinks.

The rise of sugar tax on soft drinks in the UK is also a problem for the Coca-Cola company. However, many analysts report that this has not much impacted on sales. It is worth mentioning that the Indian state of Kerala banned the production and sale of Coca Cola in 2006 because of health concerns.

As the Coca-Cola company operates in many countries, its operations are affected differently. For instance, its products are generally affordable for customers in developed countries; however, many customers in developing and poor countries may not be able to afford them.

Lucas (2020) reports that the CEO of the Coca-Cola company is concerned about economic conditions around the world and how they may impact on consumer behaviour. As many customers are losing their jobs and have financial limitations, they may reduce their consumption of soft drinks like many other less important products. Likewise, the rising cost of raw materials and labour is another important factor affecting the company.

As Coca-Cola operates in many countries, the taste of its drinks may slightly vary to reflect the local cultures, customs, and tastes. The basic ingredients and process used to make the end products are the same in all countries; however, the same soft drink may vary slightly in taste due to factors such as temperature and storing conditions (Coca-Cola company, 2022).

More and more people are becoming health conscious and concerned about the impact of fizzy drinks on their health. This may reduce the demand for fizzy drinks; however, it may also increase the demand for healthier drinks. This is evident from the increasing demand for products such as Gold Peak tea and Simply Light juice. It is worth mentioning that many people consider sugary drinks to be a big contributor to many illnesses.

Technology is another important element to address in the PESTEL analysis of Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola has been using digital technology to create new consumer experiences via innovative programs. An innovative programme like the sip & scan lets consumers unlock experiences and prizes by scanning icons on Coke packages with their mobile phones (Coca-Cola company, 2022).

Coca Cola has made significant investments in research and development. It is using artificial intelligence (AI) to ensure that it can gain significant insights into consumer behaviour from the data it collects. Introducing Cherry Sprite as a new flavour was a result from that data collection effort (Marr, 2017). It is worth mentioning that 105 million Facebook followers and many more millions in other social networking sites work as a particularly important data source for the company.

As a beverage company, Coca-Cola relies on substantial availability of water. Therefore, shortage of water in a given location may impact on its operations. On the other hand, it has been accused of creating water shortages in some places. For instance, one of its bottling plants was ordered to close in northern India in 2014 as local farmers blamed it for using too much water (Chilkoti, 2014).

Likewise, in 2019, it was named the worst company for plastic pollution in the word by Break Free From Plastic, an environmental pressure group (Petter, 2019). This is certainly bad for its brand image and the environment.

Legal environment is the last part in the PESTEL analysis of Coca-Cola. The Coca-Cola company has been fined substantial amount of money in some countries over breaches of certain rules and regulations. It was sued in 2021 by Earth Island Institute for allegedly having deceptive marketing claims regarding its sustainability activities. Therefore, it is very important for the company to ensure that it meets and fulfils all the local and international rules and obligations to run its operations smoothly.

We hope the article 'PESTEL analysis of Coca-Cola' has been helpful. If you have liked it, please share it with others to support our work.

You may also like reading and Other relevant articles for you are:

Last update: 27 January 2022

References:

Chilkoti, A. (2014) Water shortage shuts Coca-Cola plant in India available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/20/water-shortage-shuts-coca-cola-plant-in-india.html (accessed 26 November 2020)

Jr, B. (2018) Coca-Cola CEO says company sees cost pressures from Trump's tariffs, available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/coca-cola-ceo-company-sees-cost-pressures-from-trumps-tariffs.html (accessed 21 November 2020)

Marr, B. (2017) The Amazing Ways Coca Cola Uses Artificial Intelligence And Big Data To Drive Success, available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2017/09/18/the-amazing-ways-coca-cola-uses-artificial-intelligence-ai-and-big-data-to-drive-success/?sh=36ad734178d2 (accessed 25 November 2020)

Petter, O. (2019) COCA-COLA named worst plastic polluter for second year in a row by environmental group, available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/coca-cola-pollution-plastic-environment-coke-a9168921.html (accessed 26 November 2020)

Coca-Cola company (2022) Who we are, available at: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/careers/who-we-are (accessed 27 January 2022)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
howandwhat.net welcome to the world of easy-to-use information!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
PESTEL analysis of Coca-Cola (The Coca-Cola company)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This detailed PESTEL analysis of Coca-Cola examines some of the external factors that impact on the operations of the Coca-Cola company. It aims to explore some of the macro-environmental factors such as political, economic, social, technological, environmental, and legal that have been influencing both the strategic and the operational decisions of the company.

# data[].attributes.body
Gives you a lot of information you just have to read through it to find it. The factors starts on page 18.

# data[].attributes.body
These issues are due to the consumption of these sugary beverages.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Center for Science in the Public Interest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Litigation aims to stop misleading marketing

Despite the scientifically established link between consuming sugar drinks and obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease, the Coca-Cola Company and its trade association, the American Beverage Association, deceive consumers by denying and obscuring soda's link to those diseases, according to a lawsuit filed today.

Bringing the action filed today in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia are Reverend William H. Lamar IV, pastor of the historic Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington, DC; Reverend Delman Coates, senior pastor of Mt. Ennon Baptist Church in Clinton, MD; and the Praxis Project, a nonprofit organization focused on building healthier communities. Praxis had brought, but soon withdrew, similar litigation against Coke and the ABA in California pending the addition of the new plaintiffs.

"For far too long, Coca-Cola has been convincing people, including children, that soda is a source of fun and happiness and that it is safe to drink," said Rev. Coates. "But from my vantage point, Coca-Cola is devastating the African American community by fueling an epidemic of obesity and an epidemic of type 2 diabetes. I visit hospitals and homes, and officiate at funerals. I routinely encounter blindness, loss of limbs, strokes, and even death. Efforts to talk about the role of sugar drinks and advertising in these epidemics, including many of my own efforts-are hampered by the effects of Coca-Cola's deceptive marketing."

The lawsuit quotes Coca-Cola executive Katie Bayne's much-publicized statement that "[t]here is no scientific evidence that connects sugary beverages to obesity" as representative of the kind of deception that Coke and the ABA publicly engage in. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is linked scientifically not only to obesity but also to type 2 diabetes and heart disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the federal government's 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the American Heart Association, the American Medical Association, and numerous other prominent medical and health authorities all acknowledge such links.

"When industry wanted to sell more cigarettes, it used powerful advertising to make smoking seem glamorous, and it tried to muddy the waters and make it seem as if smoking's link to lung cancer were in doubt," said Rev. Lamar. "Soda might not be smoking, but the tactics of the companies are strikingly similar to me: Market heavily. Cast doubt on science. People need and deserve to know the facts about soda consumption. They need to know that the beautiful bodies seen in Coke commercials are not the norm for regular soda drinkers. And they need to know about the possibility of lost limbs, blindness, sexual dysfunction, and premature death."

Coca-Cola and the ABA's larger advertising campaign attacks the science while promoting lack of exercise as the primary driver of obesity and related epidemics. The ABA wrote that "the anti-soda campaign misleads people with unsound science," and that "[A]ll calories are the same regardless of food source," according to the complaint. James Quincey, Coca-Cola's new CEO, claimed in a widely publicized interview that "the experts are clear-the academics, government advisors, diabetes associations ... a calorie is a calorie."

Coke also paid health professionals to promote sugar-sweetened beverages on the Internet, including one dietitian blogger who suggested that an eight-ounce soda could be a healthy snack, like "packs of almonds," according to the complaint. The complaint also cites the widely reported secret funding by Coca-Cola-$120 million between 2010 and 2015-to scientists and projects that publicly advanced the proposition that "energy balance" is more important than reducing soda consumption. Meanwhile, advertising campaigns like "Be OK" misleadingly implied that light exercise, such as laughing out loud for 75 seconds, offsets the health effects of Coke consumption, or, in the words of the ABA-funded campaign known as "Mixify," that some afternoon Frisbee earned players "more" soda.

Other promotions deceptively advance sugar drinks as a safe form of essential hydration. The complaint again cites Coca-Cola's Bayne, who claimed that "What our drinks offer is hydration. That's essential to the human body. We offer great taste and benefits ... We don't believe in empty calories. We believe in hydration."

"We need to put permanent protections into place that protect kids' health by shielding them from Coke's omnipresent and deceptive marketing," said Praxis Project executive director Xavier Morales. "It seems to me that Coke plays the long game and wants to hook consumers young. But its marketing and advertising are putting too many Americans, especially children and teens of color-who are twice as likely to see an advertisement for soda-on a trajectory that includes obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. These medical conditions kill or maim. When one in every two Latino and African American youth born since 2000 are expected to get diabetes in their lifetime, we need to stand up and take action. Praxis is proud to be bringing this lawsuit."

In Washington, DC, more residents die each year from complications related to obesity than from AIDS, cancer, and homicides combined, according to the city's health department.

"When one in every two Latino and African American youth born since 2000 are expected to get diabetes in their lifetime, we need to stand up and take action," says Praxis Project executive director Xavier Morales

The plaintiffs are represented by Maia Kats, Litigation Director, and Matthew Simon, Litigation Associate, of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest; Andrew Rainer and Mark Gottlieb of the Public Health Advocacy Institute; Daniel B. Edelman of the law firm Katz Marshall and Banks, LLP; and Michael R. Reese of the law firm Reese LLP. The suit seeks an injunction under the District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act, which protects District residents from improper trade practices. Such an injunction would stop Coke and the ABA from engaging in the unfair and deceptive marketing of sugar-sweetened drinks-including any direct or implied claim that the drinks do not promote obesity, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

"For decades, the tobacco industry engaged in a systemic campaign of deception to cast doubt on the science connecting smoking to lung cancer," said Kats. "Today Coca-Cola and the ABA are conducting their own campaign of deception to hide the science connecting sugar-sweetened beverages to obesity, and obesity-related diseases like diabetes and heart disease. We seek to protect consumers and to stop the deception."

Contact Info: Jeff Cronin, CSPI: 202-777-8370 or Mark Gottlieb, PHAI: 617-373-2026

Litigation aims to stop misleading marketing

Despite the scientifically established link between consuming sugar drinks and obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease, the Coca-Cola Company and its trade association, the American Beverage Association, deceive consumers by denying and obscuring soda's link to those diseases, according to a lawsuit filed today.

Bringing the action filed today in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia are Reverend William H. Lamar IV, pastor of the historic Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington, DC; Reverend Delman Coates, senior pastor of Mt. Ennon Baptist Church in Clinton, MD; and the Praxis Project, a nonprofit organization focused on building healthier communities. Praxis had brought, but soon withdrew, similar litigation against Coke and the ABA in California pending the addition of the new plaintiffs.

"For far too long, Coca-Cola has been convincing people, including children, that soda is a source of fun and happiness and that it is safe to drink," said Rev. Coates. "But from my vantage point, Coca-Cola is devastating the African American community by fueling an epidemic of obesity and an epidemic of type 2 diabetes. I visit hospitals and homes, and officiate at funerals. I routinely encounter blindness, loss of limbs, strokes, and even death. Efforts to talk about the role of sugar drinks and advertising in these epidemics, including many of my own efforts-are hampered by the effects of Coca-Cola's deceptive marketing."

The lawsuit quotes Coca-Cola executive Katie Bayne's much-publicized statement that "[t]here is no scientific evidence that connects sugary beverages to obesity" as representative of the kind of deception that Coke and the ABA publicly engage in. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is linked scientifically not only to obesity but also to type 2 diabetes and heart disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the federal government's 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the American Heart Association, the American Medical Association, and numerous other prominent medical and health authorities all acknowledge such links.

"When industry wanted to sell more cigarettes, it used powerful advertising to make smoking seem glamorous, and it tried to muddy the waters and make it seem as if smoking's link to lung cancer were in doubt," said Rev. Lamar. "Soda might not be smoking, but the tactics of the companies are strikingly similar to me: Market heavily. Cast doubt on science. People need and deserve to know the facts about soda consumption. They need to know that the beautiful bodies seen in Coke commercials are not the norm for regular soda drinkers. And they need to know about the possibility of lost limbs, blindness, sexual dysfunction, and premature death."

Coca-Cola and the ABA's larger advertising campaign attacks the science while promoting lack of exercise as the primary driver of obesity and related epidemics. The ABA wrote that "the anti-soda campaign misleads people with unsound science," and that "[A]ll calories are the same regardless of food source," according to the complaint. James Quincey, Coca-Cola's new CEO, claimed in a widely publicized interview that "the experts are clear-the academics, government advisors, diabetes associations ... a calorie is a calorie."

Coke also paid health professionals to promote sugar-sweetened beverages on the Internet, including one dietitian blogger who suggested that an eight-ounce soda could be a healthy snack, like "packs of almonds," according to the complaint. The complaint also cites the widely reported secret funding by Coca-Cola-$120 million between 2010 and 2015-to scientists and projects that publicly advanced the proposition that "energy balance" is more important than reducing soda consumption. Meanwhile, advertising campaigns like "Be OK" misleadingly implied that light exercise, such as laughing out loud for 75 seconds, offsets the health effects of Coke consumption, or, in the words of the ABA-funded campaign known as "Mixify," that some afternoon Frisbee earned players "more" soda.

Other promotions deceptively advance sugar drinks as a safe form of essential hydration. The complaint again cites Coca-Cola's Bayne, who claimed that "What our drinks offer is hydration. That's essential to the human body. We offer great taste and benefits ... We don't believe in empty calories. We believe in hydration."

"We need to put permanent protections into place that protect kids' health by shielding them from Coke's omnipresent and deceptive marketing," said Praxis Project executive director Xavier Morales. "It seems to me that Coke plays the long game and wants to hook consumers young. But its marketing and advertising are putting too many Americans, especially children and teens of color-who are twice as likely to see an advertisement for soda-on a trajectory that includes obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. These medical conditions kill or maim. When one in every two Latino and African American youth born since 2000 are expected to get diabetes in their lifetime, we need to stand up and take action. Praxis is proud to be bringing this lawsuit."

In Washington, DC, more residents die each year from complications related to obesity than from AIDS, cancer, and homicides combined, according to the city's health department.

"When one in every two Latino and African American youth born since 2000 are expected to get diabetes in their lifetime, we need to stand up and take action," says Praxis Project executive director Xavier Morales

The plaintiffs are represented by Maia Kats, Litigation Director, and Matthew Simon, Litigation Associate, of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest; Andrew Rainer and Mark Gottlieb of the Public Health Advocacy Institute; Daniel B. Edelman of the law firm Katz Marshall and Banks, LLP; and Michael R. Reese of the law firm Reese LLP. The suit seeks an injunction under the District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act, which protects District residents from improper trade practices. Such an injunction would stop Coke and the ABA from engaging in the unfair and deceptive marketing of sugar-sweetened drinks-including any direct or implied claim that the drinks do not promote obesity, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

"For decades, the tobacco industry engaged in a systemic campaign of deception to cast doubt on the science connecting smoking to lung cancer," said Kats. "Today Coca-Cola and the ABA are conducting their own campaign of deception to hide the science connecting sugar-sweetened beverages to obesity, and obesity-related diseases like diabetes and heart disease. We seek to protect consumers and to stop the deception."

Contact Info: Jeff Cronin, CSPI: 202-777-8370 or Mark Gottlieb, PHAI: 617-373-2026

Despite the scientifically established link between consuming sugar drinks and obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease, the Coca-Cola Company and its trade association, the American Beverage Association, deceive consumers by denying and obscuring soda's link to those diseases, according to a lawsuit filed today.

Bringing the action filed today in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia are Reverend William H. Lamar IV, pastor of the historic Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington, DC; Reverend Delman Coates, senior pastor of Mt. Ennon Baptist Church in Clinton, MD; and the Praxis Project, a nonprofit organization focused on building healthier communities. Praxis had brought, but soon withdrew, similar litigation against Coke and the ABA in California pending the addition of the new plaintiffs.

"For far too long, Coca-Cola has been convincing people, including children, that soda is a source of fun and happiness and that it is safe to drink," said Rev. Coates. "But from my vantage point, Coca-Cola is devastating the African American community by fueling an epidemic of obesity and an epidemic of type 2 diabetes. I visit hospitals and homes, and officiate at funerals. I routinely encounter blindness, loss of limbs, strokes, and even death. Efforts to talk about the role of sugar drinks and advertising in these epidemics, including many of my own efforts-are hampered by the effects of Coca-Cola's deceptive marketing."

The lawsuit quotes Coca-Cola executive Katie Bayne's much-publicized statement that "[t]here is no scientific evidence that connects sugary beverages to obesity" as representative of the kind of deception that Coke and the ABA publicly engage in. Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is linked scientifically not only to obesity but also to type 2 diabetes and heart disease. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the federal government's 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the American Heart Association, the American Medical Association, and numerous other prominent medical and health authorities all acknowledge such links.

"When industry wanted to sell more cigarettes, it used powerful advertising to make smoking seem glamorous, and it tried to muddy the waters and make it seem as if smoking's link to lung cancer were in doubt," said Rev. Lamar. "Soda might not be smoking, but the tactics of the companies are strikingly similar to me: Market heavily. Cast doubt on science. People need and deserve to know the facts about soda consumption. They need to know that the beautiful bodies seen in Coke commercials are not the norm for regular soda drinkers. And they need to know about the possibility of lost limbs, blindness, sexual dysfunction, and premature death."

Coca-Cola and the ABA's larger advertising campaign attacks the science while promoting lack of exercise as the primary driver of obesity and related epidemics. The ABA wrote that "the anti-soda campaign misleads people with unsound science," and that "[A]ll calories are the same regardless of food source," according to the complaint. James Quincey, Coca-Cola's new CEO, claimed in a widely publicized interview that "the experts are clear-the academics, government advisors, diabetes associations ... a calorie is a calorie."

Coke also paid health professionals to promote sugar-sweetened beverages on the Internet, including one dietitian blogger who suggested that an eight-ounce soda could be a healthy snack, like "packs of almonds," according to the complaint. The complaint also cites the widely reported secret funding by Coca-Cola-$120 million between 2010 and 2015-to scientists and projects that publicly advanced the proposition that "energy balance" is more important than reducing soda consumption. Meanwhile, advertising campaigns like "Be OK" misleadingly implied that light exercise, such as laughing out loud for 75 seconds, offsets the health effects of Coke consumption, or, in the words of the ABA-funded campaign known as "Mixify," that some afternoon Frisbee earned players "more" soda.

Other promotions deceptively advance sugar drinks as a safe form of essential hydration. The complaint again cites Coca-Cola's Bayne, who claimed that "What our drinks offer is hydration. That's essential to the human body. We offer great taste and benefits ... We don't believe in empty calories. We believe in hydration."

"We need to put permanent protections into place that protect kids' health by shielding them from Coke's omnipresent and deceptive marketing," said Praxis Project executive director Xavier Morales. "It seems to me that Coke plays the long game and wants to hook consumers young. But its marketing and advertising are putting too many Americans, especially children and teens of color-who are twice as likely to see an advertisement for soda-on a trajectory that includes obesity, diabetes, and heart disease. These medical conditions kill or maim. When one in every two Latino and African American youth born since 2000 are expected to get diabetes in their lifetime, we need to stand up and take action. Praxis is proud to be bringing this lawsuit."

In Washington, DC, more residents die each year from complications related to obesity than from AIDS, cancer, and homicides combined, according to the city's health department.

"When one in every two Latino and African American youth born since 2000 are expected to get diabetes in their lifetime, we need to stand up and take action," says Praxis Project executive director Xavier Morales

The plaintiffs are represented by Maia Kats, Litigation Director, and Matthew Simon, Litigation Associate, of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest; Andrew Rainer and Mark Gottlieb of the Public Health Advocacy Institute; Daniel B. Edelman of the law firm Katz Marshall and Banks, LLP; and Michael R. Reese of the law firm Reese LLP. The suit seeks an injunction under the District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act, which protects District residents from improper trade practices. Such an injunction would stop Coke and the ABA from engaging in the unfair and deceptive marketing of sugar-sweetened drinks-including any direct or implied claim that the drinks do not promote obesity, type 2 diabetes, or cardiovascular disease.

"For decades, the tobacco industry engaged in a systemic campaign of deception to cast doubt on the science connecting smoking to lung cancer," said Kats. "Today Coca-Cola and the ABA are conducting their own campaign of deception to hide the science connecting sugar-sweetened beverages to obesity, and obesity-related diseases like diabetes and heart disease. We seek to protect consumers and to stop the deception."

Contact Info: Jeff Cronin, CSPI: 202-777-8370 or Mark Gottlieb, PHAI: 617-373-2026

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lawsuit alleges Coca-Cola, American Beverage Association deceiving public about soda-related health problems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Litigation aims to stop misleading marketing Despite the scientifically established link between consuming sugar drinks and obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease, the Coca-Cola Company and its trade association, the American Beverage Association, deceive consumers by denying and obscuring soda's link to those diseases, according to a lawsuit filed today.