Extracting Coca-Cola: An Environmental History

In its early days, Coca-Cola established key relationships in the supply chain ranging from natural resources to pharmaceuticals to achieve market dominance.

An advertisement for Coca Cola from 1919

A charismatic soda and the branding to match, Coca-Cola is more than just a beverage. Today, the Coca-Cola Company is one of the largest food and beverage corporations, reporting nearly $10 billion in profits in 2023 . But, as historian Bartow J. Elmore argues in a 2013 article in Enterprise & Society , the company and its signature product’s rise to dominance from its relatively humble origins in 1886 in the hands of a broke Atlanta pharmacist was no coincidence. Instead, it resulted from a deliberately calculated plan to extract and acquire natural and social resources at minimum cost for maximum profit.

JSTOR Daily Membership Ad

Elmore tracks how, in the early days of the company, Coca-Cola established key relationships in the supply chain ranging from public commodities to Monsanto to the Federal Bureau of Narcotics to drive down production costs. Ultimately, Elmore writes, Coca-Cola’s secret formula was a particular brand of capitalism based on the company’s “ability to embed itself in technological supply and distribution systems built, maintained, and financed by others.”

Though the recipe for Coke is famously proprietary, Elmore easily traces the environmental history of the company and beverage’s widespread success through a handful of well-known ingredients, such as water, sugar, caffeine, and coca . Elmore argues that Coca-Cola savvily siphoned resources from public and private entities to cheaply procure these key ingredients and establish a lean, mean global supply chain and market for their product.

Coca-Cola’s tactics began with an ingredient as fundamental as water, which we now experience as freely and widely available. But, in the early twentieth century in America, public commodities such as waterworks were just starting to emerge—and Coca-Cola seized the opportunity to prop up the systems through its franchised bottling model, and, conveniently offload upfront costs of bottling and shipping their “water-dense” product. Beginning in 1900, the company recruited local businessmen to rouse up $3,000 to establish regional franchises that would serve as regional bottling plants. Elmore recounts that many bottlers took out loans to start and consequently relied on the expanding public water systems to save on costs. This cost savings was then passed on to Coca-Cola, “broaden[ing] its bottling empire at low cost.” Indeed, Elmore notes that “as public water systems expanded into less-densely populated areas of the country by the 1910s, so too did Coke’s franchisees.”

Later in the twentieth century, Coca-Cola used a similar tack to expand business abroad. Elmore writes that the company secured foreign assistance loans by “argu[ing] that it could bring hydration to communities lacking basic water infrastructure” such as in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Africa through its earlier experience supporting American water infrastructure. Reviewing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) records, though, Elmore found that “these projects often helped Coke sell bottled water and other products rather than encourage the development of large-scale public water works.”

Most iconically, Coca-Cola used coca leaf extract in their secret recipe—sourced early on from a partnership with the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. This, as Elmore puts it, “exposes yet another federal-corporate partnership that enabled Coke to purchase a key ingredient at low cost.” DEA-declassified documents in the National Archives show how Coca-Cola “secure[d] exclusive access to legal coca imports” after coca imports were criminalized in 1914. The FBN gave Coca-Cola “special exemptions” that allowed the company to purchase decocainized coca leaf extract, while denying exemptions for the same ingredient to other buyers.

“By restricting buyer access to coca leaves,” Elmore writes, “the federal government helped to create a monopsony for Coca-Cola,” ensuring they were the only buyers for the “exotic ingredient” and forever linking the substance with the brand.

Elmore outlines how Coca-Cola established similar low-cost and low-commitment relationships to source ingredients like caffeine—initially from agricultural giant Monsanto, then from decaf coffee maker General Foods—or to abdicate social responsibility, such as the endless plastic and aluminum waste their products generate. More broadly, the story of Coca-Cola told from a natural resources perspective demonstrates how, like consumer goods and agriculture, food and beverage production at scale was and is an extractive enterprise with substantial social and environmental impact.

For Elmore, with its emergence at the turn of the twentieth century, Coca-Cola heralds “a new type of corporation that emerged in the Gilded Age,” with few fixed assets but extraordinary market reach. Indeed, a product like Coca-Cola—and many of our processed foods today—“gained life by finding a way to market the excesses of mass-producing industrial firms,” Elmore writes, further distancing consumer habits from their resource-intensive origins.

Three Tips for Teaching

Cooking with Coke . Discuss the spread of the soft drink in the culinary world. Bring your favorite recipe to class!

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our membership program on Patreon today.

JSTOR logo

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Privacy Policy   Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.

More Stories

An illustration of a globe being heated over a fire on a spit

Grilling the Globe

People gather at the Federal Reserve building to call on financial institutions to divest from fossil fuels on the ninth anniversary of Superstorm Sandy on October 29, 2021 in New York City.

Divest or Invest? A Climate Change Question

Woman pushing shopping trolley on red background, smiling, portrait

Free Wheeling: Shopping Carts and Culture

businessman paints industrial plant sign in green color with the use of roller

What Is Greenwashing?

Recent posts.

  • The Most Dangerous Woman in the World
  • A Night at the Oscars
  • A Cold War Baby: Happy Birthday, Alvin !
  • The Annotated Oppenheimer
  • Not All Forms of Carbon Removal Are Created Equal

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

“Always read the small print”: a case study of commercial research funding, disclosure and agreements with Coca-Cola

  • Original Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 08 May 2019
  • Volume 40 , pages 273–285, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

  • Sarah Steele 1 ,
  • Gary Ruskin 2 ,
  • Martin McKee 3 &
  • David Stuckler 3 , 4  

42k Accesses

14 Citations

871 Altmetric

82 Mentions

Explore all metrics

Concerns about conflicts of interest in commercially funded research have generated increasing disclosure requirements, but are these enough to assess influence? Using the Coca-Cola Company as an example, we explore its research agreements to understand influence. Freedom of Information requests identified 87,013 pages of documents, including five agreements between Coca-Cola and public institutions in the United States, and Canada. We assess whether they allowed Coca-Cola to exercise control or influence. Provisions gave Coca-Cola the right to review research in advance of publication as well as control over (1) study data, (2) disclosure of results and (3) acknowledgement of Coca-Cola funding. Some agreements specified that Coca-Cola has the ultimate decision about any publication of peer-reviewed papers prior to its approval of the researchers’ final report. If so desired, Coca-Cola can thus prevent publication of unfavourable research, but we found no evidence of this to date in the emails we received. The documents also reveal researchers can negotiate with funders successfully to remove restrictive clauses on their research. We recommend journals supplement funding disclosures and conflict-of-interest statements by requiring authors to attach funder agreements.

Similar content being viewed by others

research on coca cola

How Competition for Funding Impacts Scientific Practice: Building Pre-fab Houses but no Cathedrals

Stephanie Meirmans

research on coca cola

Funding and Stakeholder Involvement

He who pays the piper calls the tune setting the stage for an informed discourse on third-party funding of academic business research.

Matthias Fink, Isabella Hatak, … Simon Down

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

In the wake of criticisms about a lack of transparency of financial support for medical and scientific research, several multinational corporations (MNCs) recently committed to publishing relevant information on the scale and nature of their investments in research, publishing lists of projects they fund and developing principles to apply to their relationship with researchers. But are these measures sufficient to disclose the potentially complex nature of these relationships and associated contractual obligations?

To answer this question, we have undertaken a case study about one of the corporations that seeks to position itself at the forefront of this process, The Coca-Cola Company. The company is an appropriate example to study because, following criticism of its activities, it has published a ‘Transparency List’ of researchers whom it funded from 2010 to 2017. It also progressively refined an explicit set of principles for the researchers it funds, providing a basis for comparing its stated intentions and its practice. In 2016, it brought together its principles formally [ 1 ]. It also released the list of partnerships and research funding with an explicit statement that those researchers that it funded on the list were:

“expected to conduct research that is factual, transparent and designed objectively”;

to have “full control of the study design, the execution and the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data”;

“encouraged to publish” and

“expected to disclose their funding sources in all publications and public presentations of the data”. It added that the company did not “have the right to prevent the publication of research results” and that funding was not “conditioned on the outcome of the research”.[ 2 ]

These four major assertions provide a base for comparing Coca-Cola’s stated intentions to its actual practices. We see on Coca-Cola’s own website that it makes these claim around its research funded since 2010 [ 2 ](Fig.  1 ):

figure 1

At least on the surface, these principles conflict with anecdotal reports of the corporation’s activities following their publication. As one example, in 2015, a New York Times exposé revealed that Coca-Cola designed its funding of the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN) to divert attention from the role that sugar-sweetened beverages play in the obesity epidemic by excessively emphasising the role of lack of exercise [ 3 ]. The Times article asserted that Coca-Cola, just like Big Tobacco, had sought to influence public health and medical researchers, and to deploy them to promote the Company’s agenda, even though some of these researchers reported the funding to be ‘unrestricted’, meaning that it can be used for any purpose or by an organisation, rather than being given for a specific project or purpose [ 3 , 4 ]. GEBN was subsequently closed in November 2015, on which Coca-Cola declined to comment [ 5 ]. A 2019 article revealed Coca-Cola’s funding of bodies like the International Life Sciences Institute in China, showing how the latter organisation is deployed to shape obesity science and related policy [ 6 , 7 ]. A feature in the British Medical Journal suggested also that the transparency list was incomplete, and highlighted how Coca-Cola acts to exercise ‘soft power’ by using its funding to influence everything from conferences to academic positions [ 8 ]. So how can these pieces of information be reconciled? Does Coca-Cola really uphold its public commitments on research funding? Have its grants—past and present—really allowed researchers to operate free from influence as Coca-Cola suggests on its website?

Here, we seek evidence supporting or rejecting Coca-Cola’s four major research principles detailed above, using information obtained from United States (US) state and federal, as well as Australian, British, Canadian and Danish Freedom of Information (FOI) requests for communications between Coca-Cola and leading public health academics or federal or state agency employees who were known to receive funding from or to collaborate with the company. Our FOI requests yielded a large volume of material on Coca-Cola’s engagement in public health-related issues. These include five agreements between researchers or their host organisation and Coca-Cola, plus a large amount of related correspondence that enables us to assess whether these principles were being observed previously as asserted, and are now being upheld in relations with researchers. We look both at the legal (or de jure ) aspects of the agreements and how they were operationalised in practice in the relationships with researchers (de facto).

A non-profit consumer and public health research group in the United States, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), based in Oakland, California, investigates the food and agrichemical industries, examining their public relations, political and lobbying campaigns, as well as the health risks associated with their products [ 9 ]. (One author, GR, is a co-director of USRTK). Drawing on the approach used in past studies of corporate behaviour and related litigation [ 10 ], between 2015 and 2018, USRTK sent 129 FOI requests to United States (US), Australian, British, Canadian and Danish public bodies related to Coca-Cola’s links with public health actors, including academics. USRTK selected the higher education institutions because they were governed by FOI laws (that exist in many jurisdictions around the world to encourage openness and transparency by public bodies, including at the state and federal level in the US, as well as in Australia, Britain, Canada and Denmark where USRTK also sent requests), or because USRTK identified these institutions as having received funding from Coca-Cola through its recent public disclosures [ 2 ].

The responses yielded 87,013 pages of documents, including five research agreements made with Louisiana State University [ 11 , 12 ], University of South Carolina [ 13 ], University of Toronto [ 14 ] and the University of Washington [ 15 ]. The research team archived the FOI responses using document discovery software used across the legal services industry, extracted the research agreement and then two members of the research team read the documents to assess the concordance between Coca-Cola’s principles detailed above. One of these researchers is trained as a lawyer (SS) and the other is a public health researcher (DS).

Inevitably, the sample has potential limitations to its external validity. First, the sample is not comprehensive, as redactions and removal of some emails from the batch are allowed in line with certain legislative exemptions, and it is impossible to ascertain whether FOI responses form a complete sample of communications and other contractual documents between Coca-Cola and associated researchers. As with a small number of cases, quantitative study was not feasible, we thematically and legally evaluated the agreements by testing whether there existed evidence to confirm or refute Coca-Cola’s four major assertions on research transparency and independence of researchers. To limit the scope for personal biases in interpretation, the entire research team engaged in reflexivity, reviewing the selection and interpretation of the source material. Second, the five research agreements pre-date Coca-Cola’s publication of its transparency principles in 2016, although its own website states that all of the disclosed health and well-being research complied with these four assertions. Furthermore, several researchers themselves publicly claim that the funding had no influence on their research, which we examine more fully below [ 16 ]. Third, we report extracts as they appear in the agreements and quote any related emails “in their own words” to allow readers to assess critically our interpretations. To ensure reproducibility of our study, all agreements and cited communications are posted on Internet.

We summarise our findings in as they pertain to each of Coca-Cola’s four major research transparency assertions [ 2 ].

Researchers retain full control over the design, execution, analysis and interpretation of research

The documents obtained by FOI indicate that, although it does not have the capacity to direct and control the day-to-day conduct of studies, Coca-Cola retains varied rights throughout the research process, including the power to terminate studies early without giving reasons. Several agreements reveal that the company maintains the right to receive and comment on research prior to submission for publication. However, the researchers may reject these changes. Thus, the company can influence but not direct the research output, but may use termination provisions as a mechanism to discontinue research.

The emails we obtained reveal that academic partners recognise Coca-Cola’s influence on the research it funds, even where it is not directing the research. For example, Tommy Coggins, Director of University of South Carolina’s (USC) Sponsored Award Management and Research Compliance, in an email to Professor Tom Chandler of USC’s Norman J. Arnold School of Public Health, explained that several of the research agreements entered into at the University allowed Coca-Cola to have:

a substantial say in how it [the research] was conducted and how results are handled, including ownership of all IP. None of this is wrong or unusual, but it is a typical industry research agreement. Also, contains a good bit of language about confidentiality and sharing results with Coca-Cola, but no bar on publication [ 17 ].

Coggins was commenting on a study that aimed to uncover the “extent to which variation in total energy expenditure and variation in total energy intake contribute to changes in body weight and fat among young adults”. The agreements we obtained specify that Coca-Cola’s comments are non-binding unless its suggested revisions to drafts pertain to information covered in the confidentiality provisions in the agreement, under which Coca-Cola retains the right to redact content accordingly.

Taking a specific example, as part of the “Sponsored Clinical Trial Research Agreement” between Coca-Cola and the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, represented by Pennington Biomedical Research Center (PBRC), we find a 2012 research agreement for a study with Timothy Church as Principal Investigator related to fluid balance and performance with ad libitum water, flavoured placebo or carbohydrate-electrolyte beverage intake during exercise in the heat (known henceforth as the “The APEX Study”) [ 18 ]. The contract sets out mutual obligations of all parties as including regular reports to and data sharing with Coca-Cola, as well as the standard termination provision, which allows Coca-Cola to retain all data. Article 6.1 specifies:

Publication prior to delivery of the final report of any information gained in the course of performing the Project must be in a peer reviewed journal, must be approved in writing by both parties prior to such publication, and must acknowledge that the Study was funded by The Coca-Cola Company. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Sponsor will not be approving the content of the publication, but has a right to review and provide comment before submission for publication [ 12 ].

Thus, while Coca-Cola contends that its guidance is not tantamount to approval, it does retain the right to comment on papers prior to publication, and holds the ability to terminate studies at any time without reasons.

Indeed, Coca-Cola may simply terminate an agreement if the findings are not in its interests or if its comments and revisions are rejected. Such provisions do, however, vary amongst the research agreements we obtained. As one example, we show a “Research Agreement” between Coca-Cola and the South Carolina Research Foundation, a non-profit entity that accepts donations for USC, to fund a study entitled “Energy Balance” in 2010–2015. Section “ Discussion ” of the agreement provides that Coca-Cola can make non-binding suggestions and may only redact information covered by its confidentiality provisions in Section “ Results ”. According to Section “ Results ”, “Confidential Information” includes disclosures made “orally or in writing” pertaining to “technical or business information regarding the Sponsor’s products, marketing plans, public relations plans or Protocol”. Notably, this agreement empowers Coca-Cola to terminate the agreement with notice and to require the return or destruction of all of this Confidential Information. Specifically, Section 6.2 states that, as long as 15 days written notice is given and with no need to give a reason:

6.3.4: SCRF shall immediately discontinue any work and shall take such precautions as requested by Sponsor, including returning to Sponsor or certifying in writing to Sponsor that it had destroyed all documents and other tangible items containing Sponsor Confidential Information [ 13 ].

Other agreements contain provisions that do allow for recall of all research documents and materials on termination. In the Church APEX study, detailed above, the termination provisions of this agreement are stronger, stating in Article 4.4 that:

Upon receipt of a notice of early termination, PBRC will immediately discontinue all work under this Agreement and return all copies of Sponsor data, or other materials, and deliver to sponsor all work in progress, including incomplete work… [ 12 ]

Such termination provisions could, hypothetically, allow Coca-Cola to quash studies progressing unfavourably, or allow Coca-Cola to pressure researchers using the threat of termination. However, we found no evidence that this has occurred in our FOI batches. In one instance, we did find Coca-Cola had ended a study with little or no information being sent to researchers or their institutions. For example, emails between researchers at USC pertaining to the Active Healthy Living Programme funded by Coca-Cola, state:

As you know, the contract with Coca-Cola to develop and evaluate the Active Healthy Living Program has terminated. While I am not sure, because they have not communicated with us in several months, it appears that Coca-Cola has dropped the program. We put a lot into development of the program, and if possible, I would like to obtain/retain the intellectual property. Please look into where we stand with this, and let’s figure out next steps. Thanks [ 19 ].

Our FOI, however, does indicate that Coca-Cola may be willing to negotiate the terms of agreements to moderate language regarding pre-publication communication and consultation with Coca-Cola. In emails between University of Toronto Professor John Sievenpiper and Coca-Cola’s Susan Roberts regarding a proposed, then signed, research agreement, Sievenpiper requests revision of provisions he regards as restrictive. The original text, which Sievenpiper requests to be deleted in its entirety, states:

U of T will afford TCCC [The Coca-Cola Company] the prior right to review and approve (or reject) any communication or other material developed by U of T or its employees, contractors or agents discussing this Agreement or the underlying grant, the related work or accomplishments of U of T and/or TCCC, or any related or other association between U of T and TCCC, or otherwise mentioning TCCC’s name or displaying TCCC’s trademarks [ 14 ].

Sievenpiper comments that it is “very restrictive for being an ‘unrestricted grant’”, and Coca-Cola agreed to change the wording to “consult with each other in good faith regarding any communication with third party/ies…”. This involved significant back and forth emails and discussion, suggesting that the original wording may be standard wording in other Coca-Cola research agreements.

Researchers are encouraged to publish and Coca-Cola does not have the right to prevent the publication of research results

Our research confirms that Coca-Cola encourages researchers to publish in peer-reviewed publications and generally only retains limited rights to delay publication to protect its proprietary interests or to obtain a patent. However, many agreements contain the above-discussed termination provisions, allowing either fixed-notice period termination, or early termination according to the agreement’s terms (as described above), some restricting publication following such a termination.

For example, in the agreement pertaining to Church’s APEX study, Article 6.1, provided above in full, states that publication “ must be in a peer reviewed journal, must be approved in writing by both parties prior to such publication, and must acknowledge that the Study was funded by The Coca - Cola Company”. While this indicates that Coca-Cola does encourage publication as it states, and does not have a right to prevent publication, only providing comments, Article 6.2 makes clear that Coca-Cola can issue a written notice to require a delay to publishing where its proprietary interests are at stake; but there is no general right to control publication of results unfavourable to Coca-Cola’s commercial interests [ 12 .] The provisions do, however, convey a right of Coca-Cola to comment and prompt revisions, as discussed above.

Similar provisions are found in a “Research Agreement” between Coca-Cola and the South Carolina Research Foundation [ 13 ]. Section “ Discussion ” on “Publication Rights and Use of Project Results” states similarly that Coca-Cola can require a delay where it wishes to file a patent or protect its proprietary interests, and that such a delay should not exceed 120 days. Retention of a capacity to delay publication is consonant with ordinary industry-funded research provisions, but in public health research it may delay significant findings from reaching the public.

Notably, the APEX study agreement does not contain provisions that allow Coke to prevent publication absolutely, but does require written permission for publication of all peer-reviewed publications where such publication would be prior to the final report to Coca-Cola (Art 6.2). This, in concert with the termination provisions that require cessation of research and the full and complete handover of all study documents, may enable Coca-Cola to shape unfavourable findings in advance of publication (Art 4.4). Thus, while Coca-Cola cannot stop publication, termination provisions could allow it to prevent publication through termination and recall of documents, along with the written consent requirement obligation in Article 6.2. Notably, this provision only has effect prior to the report to Coca-Cola, and thereby is not absolute in its effect. The agreements themselves are unclear as to the nature of the required reports and whether they will be made public and subject to peer review.

Researchers are expected to disclose their funding sources in all publications and public presentations of the data

We found that the agreements identified in our study routinely allow for the attribution that a study, paper or report was “funded by The Coca-Cola Company”. For example, Article 6.3 of the research agreement between Coca-Cola and the South Carolina Research Foundation states:

Publication shall acknowledge authorship according to generally accepted criteria for authorship and subject to journal requirements, if applicable. PBRC agrees that if Sponsor so requests, and only if Sponsor requests, substantive releases and/or written reports contemplated by this Article 6 may include language to the effect that, “The Study was funded by The Coca-Cola Company” [ 13 ].

Notably, the phrasing “PBRC agrees that if Sponsor so requests, and only if Sponsor requests…” does not grant the University the right to use this attribution on all outputs. However, the peer-review provisions in Article 6 seem to imply that Coca-Cola expects the disclosure of funding sources in publications, as this is routine practice amongst reputable journals. The provision extends to publicity related to the research, placing the funding attribution within the hands of Coca-Cola rather than with the host or researcher. The contracts allow for a funding declaration to be phrased in a way that does not extend to a complete and detailed declaration of Coca-Cola’s input into the research, although the agreements are silent as to whether more robust statements are allowed.

Coca-Cola does not make funding conditioned on the outcome of the research

The research agreements contain no provisions on any outcomes of any study. However, as noted above, this could hypothetically be exercised through the termination provision. Thus, while we found no direct conditions pertaining to outcomes of the research, the effect of permissive termination provisions and recall of data provisions could indirectly have a ‘chilling effect ‘on researcher’s work, influencing what researchers conclude. Past research has revealed that researchers do strive to maintain positive relations with Coca-Cola and produce results favourable to them [ 20 ].

Our review of Coca-Cola’s research agreements reveals that it uses terms in line with standard funding agreements seen with other corporate actors. Specifically, these contractual agreements contain no provisions granting the company absolute control over the studies it funds, but they could allow it to assert influence over studies and resultant publications. We found that Coca-Cola requires regular reports and input into projects, and maintains the ability to terminate agreements early and without reason. Of course, in some cases such early termination provisions are justifiable; for example, when there is improper behaviour like harassment or bullying, a failure to deliver work in accord with the contract or the other such examples, which tend to be given as reasons for termination. In contrast, the contractual terms for early termination  without  reasons are arguably beyond the legal scope needed to address such justifiable concerns, although they are not uncommon in commercial agreements generally and there is no evidence of their use in our batch. In light of past evidence of ‘soft influence’, whereby researchers sought to please funders in ways which, albeit not contractually specified, in practice operated to the same effect, the company’s continued input and early termination provisions undermine its public assertions of researcher independence [ 20 ].

Before interpreting the implications of our study for research, policy and improving management of COIs, we must acknowledge several limitations. First, our case studies focused on Coca-Cola may not generalise to other segments of food and beverage industries. However, the contractual agreements appear to be commonly employed between private actors and public researchers. Second, several recipients of USRTK’s FOI requests returned or did not respond to them, or, in some cases, they redacted material submitted. It is possible that we have been unable to detect contracts, which may have existed but were not obtainable through FOI, thus creating an omission bias in our analysis. The direction of such bias, however, would likely be to hide particularly egregious contracts. Third, despite a large document set, we only identified five research contracts. There may be heterogeneity in Coca-Cola’s contracts with researchers given our observations that researchers could negotiate their terms. That said, there was relatively limited variation across the five agreements.

Our research reveals a need to improve reporting of COIs. Many declarations of funding and routinely employed COI statements fail to specify the true amount of input and influence Coca-Cola has (irrespective of whether it chooses to exercise it). While it is beyond the scope of our study to review all Coca-Cola funded research, we note that concerns have been raised elsewhere about the completeness of COIs in studies funded by Coca-Cola on topics of nutrition and physical inactivity [ 21 ]. Examples include publications arising from the Energy Balance grant at USC state “ Supported by an unrestricted research grant from The Coca - Cola Company” [ 22 ]. Stephen Blair, one of the leads at USC, records that he has received funding from Coca-Cola, amongst others, in the preceding 5 years, as does co-author Gregory Hand. However, nowhere in the article is there a statement setting out the nature and amount of input Coca-Cola had, only that the funding was “unrestricted”, which, as the email discussions between Coggins and Chandler indicate, was not how the grant was understood by USC. Coggins, as Director of Sponsored Award Management and Research Compliance at USC, makes clear the “ the Energy Flux and Balance studies were conducted under the terms of Research Agreement with SCRF… [and] are not “un - restricted” …” [ 17 ]. Such attributions of funding are similarly made with regards to the results of Timothy Church’s APEX study, and are a reflective example of the agreement provisions regarding funding statements across the agreements we received and resultant publications [ 23 , 24 ].

Our research points to particular concerns about early termination provisions. The termination provisions in some of the agreements that allow Coca-Cola to discontinue the studies it funds if results are unfavourable, in contrast to the assurances it makes on its website about not being able to prevent publication, should be cause of concern. Although not all agreements we reviewed allow for full recall of research documents and materials, we identified several agreements that in effect allow Coca-Cola to terminate a study, if the findings are unfavourable to Coca-Cola. We observed push-back by researchers receiving unrestricted grants regarding restrictive provisions, revealing that the researchers were aware that there could be a problem. Coca-Cola was receptive to requested revision, but this may be due to the ongoing relationship the Company had with this particular researcher. Certainly, some of the agreements allow for unfavourable developments or findings to be quashed prior to publication. Future research will be needed to identify when and the extent to which funded studies were not published. This is but one source of potential ‘publication bias’, whereby only positive results are made publicly visible. Given the hidden nature of unpublished, funded studies, this is an extremely challenging area of research as there is no way for researchers to ascertain who produced the studies, why they remain unpublished and what their results may be.

We acknowledge that many provisions in Coca-Cola’s research funding agreements are standard, including its early termination provisions. While recent termination of a non-industry-funded United Kingdom study due to findings of bullying by a primary investigator evidences how these provisions may be exercised to encourage positive research environments [ 25 ], we note that early termination may be used to discontinue studies in a less positive way. We found evidence that in at least one study Coca-Cola discontinued funding, seemingly without reason given to those involved, but found no evidence that this related to unfavourable findings or prospective publications. We did find evidence suggesting that Coca-Cola exerts influence on the design, conduct and write-up of studies, retaining rights to comment and have input throughout the research process.

Turning to implications for COIs, this study adds to a growing body of literature of their limited usefulness. Qualitative studies with researchers reveal diverse interpretations of what COIs and influence mean [ 26 ]. It is also easy for COIs to be inadequately reported. Most of what is detected comes to us through journalistic exposés [ 27 ]. Our study adds to these insights, showing that such general (and notably brief) declarations may fail to capture Coca-Cola’s full involvement in the studies they fund, from design through to publication.

To remedy these weaknesses, we propose far more ‘hard’ information about funding, rather than relying on self-reports. Specifically, we call for journals to require authors receiving Coca-Cola or other industry financial support to provide more robust COI and funding statements, including declaring the specifics of input allowed in the study’s research agreements. In addition, journals should require authors of funded research to upload the research agreements for studies as appendices to any peer-reviewed publication, allowing these to be published with ease and at little expense on the existing electronic platforms where supplemental information is commonly provided. A reader’s appraisal of a study’s scientific objectivity would best be supported by knowledge that Coca-Cola has input at various stages of the research and publication processes, an understanding facilitated by access to the research agreement governing the study.

For medical and public health professionals, the lack of robust information on the details of input by industry and on studies terminated before results enter the public realm makes it impossible to know how much of the research that enters the public realm reflects industry positions and content, as opposed to fully unbiased and uninfluenced research results. It is critical that professionals and scholars be able to appraise influence. We know that people trust studies with an industry partner less and approach these studies with greater suspicion about bias [ 28 ]. Greater information is needed to appraise influence.

Where studies are terminated without having been registered in advance, as should be the case with clinical trials, it may be that termination acts as suppression of critical health information. We therefore call for industry funders to publish complete lists of terminated studies as part of their commitment to act with integrity, and for clear declarations of involvement as standard publication practice.

Data availability

All cited responses received to our Freedom of Information requests have been web-linked to allow the response to be read in full by all. The Freedom of Information responses are available online on the USRTK website and links have been provided to allow the individual FOI response referenced to be read in full. These are PDF copies of the documents we received in conjunction with the relevant state laws. There are no additional data to provide.

The Coca-Cola Company. Guiding Principles for Well-Being Scientific Research and Third Party Engagement. 2017. https://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/guiding-principles-for-well-being-scientific-research-and-third . Accessed 24 Jan 2019.

The Coca-Cola Company. Our Commitment to Transparency. 2018. https://www.coca-colacompany.com/transparency/our-commitment-transparency . Accessed 18 Oct 2018.

O’Connor A. Coca-Cola funds scientists who shift blame for obesity away from bad diets. NY Times Blog. 2015.

Navarro A. Coke-funded anti-Obesity Research Group GEBN to shut down. Tech Times. 2015.

CBS News. Anti-obesity group funded by Coke, Global Energy Balance Network, disbanding. CBS News [Internet]. New York. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-obesity-group-funded-by-coke-global-energy-balance-network-disbanding/ . Accessed 4 Apr 2019.

McKee M, Steele S, Stuckler D. The hidden power of corporations. BMJ. 2019;364:l4.

Article   Google Scholar  

Greenhalgh S. Making China safe for Coke: how Coca-Cola shaped obesity science and policy in China. BMJ. 2019;364:k5050.

Thacker P. Coca-Cola’s secret influence on medical and science journalists. BMJ. 2019;357:j1638.

Google Scholar  

US Right To Know. US Right To Know [Internet]. 2018. https://usrtk.org/ . Accessed 18 Oct 2018.

Nestle M. Unsavory truth : how food companies skew the science of what we eat [Internet]. https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/marion-nestle/unsavory-truth/9781541617315/ . Accessed 24 Jan 2019.

USRTK. Sponsored Research Agreement 2010 [Internet]. 2010. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Coke-PBRC-ISCOLE-agreement.pdf .

USRTK. Sponsored Clinical Trial Agreement 2012 [Internet]. 2012. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Church-APEX-PBRC-Coke-agreement.pdf .

USRTK. Research Agreement 2013-2014 [Internet]. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/SCRF-Coke-energy-balance-agreement.pdf .

USRTK. University of Toronto Alumni Mail - FW: lnteum Request- Coca Cola Company Agreement [Internet]. 2016. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Sievenpiper-Coke-agreement-emails.pdf .

USRTK. Coke Washington Gift Agreement [Internet]. 2015. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Coke-Washington-gift-agreement.pdf .

Peters JC. Response: conspiracy or good education? BMJ. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1638 .

USRTK. University of South Carolina Freedom of Information Response [Internet]. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/USC-Blair-Coggins-Chandler.pdf .

Clinicaltrials.gov. Carbohydrate Ingestion during Endurance Exercise Improves Performance in Adults [Internet]. 2013. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01893853?term=apex&cntry=US&state=US%3ALA&rank=1 . Accessed 19 Oct 2018.

USRTK. University of South Carolina Freedom of Information Response on Active Living Programme [Internet]. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/AHLP-intellectual-property.pdf .

Stuckler D, Ruskin G, McKee M. Complexity and conflicts of interest statements: a case-study of emails exchanged between Coca-Cola and the principal investigators of the International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment (ISCOLE). J Public Health Policy. 2018;39(1):49–56. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-017-0095-7 .

Serôdio PM, McKee M, Stuckler D. Coca-Cola – a model of transparency in research partnerships? A network analysis of Coca-Cola’s research funding (2008–2016). Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(09):1594–607.

Shook RP, Hand GA, O’Connor DP, Thomas DM, Hurley TG, Hébert JR, et al. Energy intake derived from an energy balance equation, validated activity monitors, and dual X-ray absorptiometry can provide acceptable caloric intake data among young adults. J Nutr. 2018;148(3):490–6.

Lowe AC, Lind E, Earnest C, Johannsen N, Church T. Beverage composition influences ad libitum consumption, hydration status and affect during exercise in the heat. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2016;48:941.

Johannsen NM, Buyckx M, Cocreham S, Earnest CP, Kramer K, Lupo M, et al. Fluid balance and performance are improved with ad libitum carbohydrate-electrolyte beverage intake in the heat. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2014;46:483–4.

Devlin H, Marsh S. Top cancer scientist loses £3.5 m of funding after bullying claims [Internet]. The Guardian. 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/aug/17/top-cancer-scientist-has-35m-in-grants-revoked-after-bullying-claims . Accessed 26 Oct 2018.

Mecca JT, Gibson C, Giorgini V, Medeiros KE, Mumford MD, Connelly S. Researcher perspectives on conflicts of interest: a qualitative analysis of views from academia. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015;21(4):843–55.

Ornstein C, Thomas K. Top Cancer Researcher Fails to Disclose Corporate Financial Ties in Major Research Journals. NY Times [Internet]. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/health/jose-baselga-cancer-memorial-sloan-kettering.html . Accessed 8 Sep 2018.

Besley JC, McCright AM, Zahry NR, Elliott KC, Kaminski NE, Martin JD. Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(4):e0175643. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175643 .

Download references

This work was funded by Laura and John Arnold Foundation. The sponsor had no input on the study design, conduct, analysis or write-up, and has not commented on, or received, the submission.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Politics and International Studies and Jesus College, University of Cambridge, Jesus Lane, Cambridge, CB58BL, UK

Sarah Steele

U.S. Right to Know, Oakland, CA, USA

Gary Ruskin

Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Martin McKee & David Stuckler

Dondena Research Centre and Department of Policy Analysis and Public Management, University of Bocconi, Milan, Italy

David Stuckler

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

GR collected the data via Freedom of Information Requests. SS and DS analysed the data. All authors contributed to the writing and revision of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Steele .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

SS and MM have no competing interests to declare. DS is funded by a European Research Council Grant: 313590-HRES and the Wellcome Trust. GR is a co-director of U.S. Right to Know, a non-profit public interest, consumer advocacy and public health organisation. Since its founding in 2014, USRTK has received the following contributions from major donors (gifts of $5000 or more): Organic Consumers Association $554,500; Laura and John Arnold Foundation: $198,800; Dr. Bronner’s Family Foundation: $183,000; CrossFit Foundation: $50,000; Westreich Foundation: $25,000; Panta Rhea Foundation: $20,000; Community Foundation of Western North Carolina (Little Acorn Fund – M): $5,000.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Steele, S., Ruskin, G., McKee, M. et al. “Always read the small print”: a case study of commercial research funding, disclosure and agreements with Coca-Cola. J Public Health Pol 40 , 273–285 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-019-00170-9

Download citation

Published : 08 May 2019

Issue Date : 01 September 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-019-00170-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Research funding
  • Transparency
  • Industry funding
  • Conflicts of interest
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research
  • The Magazine
  • Stay Curious
  • The Sciences
  • Environment
  • Planet Earth

Study Uncovers How Coca-Cola Influences Science Research

shutterstock_231270928.jpg

Coca-Cola has poured millions of dollars  into scientific research at universities. But if the beverage giant doesn’t like what scientists find, the company has the power to make sure that their research never sees the light of day.

That’s according to an analysis published in the Journal of Public Health Policy that explains how Coca-Cola uses contract agreements to influence the public health research it financially supports. The paper explains that Coca-Cola uses carefully-constructed contracts to ensure that the company gets early access to research findings, as well as the ability to terminate studies for any reason. 

Researchers say this gives the beverage company the ability to squash unfavorable research findings, such as studies that connect the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages to obesity.

The study’s authors are affiliated with the University of Cambridge, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of Bocconi, and U.S. Right to Know, a nonprofit organization that advocates for greater transparency in the food system. They based their report on Coca-Cola research contracts obtained through numerous Freedom of Information requests, which uncovered over 87,000 pages of documents.

In the stack, the study’s authors found five Coca-Cola research agreements with four universities: Louisiana State University, University of South Carolina, University of Toronto and the University of Washington. Much of the research Coca-Cola supports  is related to nutrition and physical activity. While their analysis focused on Coca-Cola, the researchers say that these types of contracts aren’t unique in the world of corporate-sponsored science.

As the U.S. government spends less on research , corporate sponsors are kicking in — but not always for the common good. POM, Monsanto and PepsiCo have sponsored health studies related to their products. But by revealing how just one company can influence and even kill studies without reason, the study's authors make the case for greater transparency in corporate-sponsored scientific research.

The Fine Print

In parsing the fine print of these contracts, researchers found that Coca-Cola is entitled to review studies before they’re published, can provide comments on the research, and has the right to terminate research projects at any time, without reason. Contractual provisions also ensured that Coca-Cola maintained intellectual property rights connected to the research.

Although the researchers didn’t uncover concrete examples of Coca-Cola concealing research findings that could be harmful to the company, the researchers say it’s telling that these restrictive contractual clauses exist in the first place. “Coca-Cola is writing into some of its research agreements the ability to influence — and even kill — its research projects. 

"This is very significant,” said study author Gary Ruskin, who is also co-director of U.S. Right to Know, in an email. “One of the tenets of the scientific method is that the outcomes of experiments are not predetermined. But in some cases, Coca-Cola had the power to predetermine scientific outcomes, in that it could kill the studies if they turned out badly for Coca-Cola and its profits. That's not science. It's public relations.”

The study’s authors uncovered email exchanges showing scientists and university officials discussing Coca-Cola contract agreements. In one such email, a scientist expressed uncertainty over a study termination and expressed concerns over intellectual property ownership. In another email exchange, a scientist at another university remarked that their contract was "very restrictive for an unrestricted grant."

Corporate Interests

It’s not the first time the public is hearing about Coca-Cola’s questionable involvement in scientific research. A few years ago, Coca-Cola disbanded its Global Energy Balance Network , a group led by scientists and created by Coca-Cola.

The group was criticized by the public health community for promoting the idea that lack of exercise, not poor diet, was primarily responsible for the obesity epidemic. The paper's authors say the findings call into question the company’s motivations for funding health research. 

They are calling on Coca-Cola and other corporate backers of scientific research to publish lists of terminated studies. Ruskin said that journals should require scientists to share any research agreements with corporate funders and make them accessible.

In a statement from the company, Coca-Cola said “we agree research transparency and integrity are important,” but did not comment on specifics for this story.

Already a subscriber?

Register or Log In

Discover Magazine Logo

Keep reading for as low as $1.99!

Sign up for our weekly science updates.

Save up to 40% off the cover price when you subscribe to Discover magazine.

Facebook

  • Coke Studio
  • For The Love Of Breakfast
  • World Of Coca‑Cola Attraction
  • +one App
  • Sustainability

Want a personalized experience and access to exclusive content?

Select Location

Why does Coca‑Cola fund scientific research?

Rigorous scientific research is essential to support our innovation efforts, but also ensures we offer products that are safe and meet global regulatory requirements, and allows us to address questions of public health and consumer interest.

We agree that research transparency and integrity are important. That’s why in 2015 we committed to posting all our funding for well-being scientific research and partnerships, going back to 2010. This list can be found here .

Whether it is the research we fund independently or when we work in partnership, our company associates and others with whom we engage are required to adhere to the highest level of scientific integrity and to align with our research principles. For the latest updates on our approach to stakeholder engagement and scientific research, please visit our Transparency in Partnerships page.

research on coca cola

  • Above the Fold
  • The Daily Climate
  • See all newsletters
  • Plastic Pollution
  • Children’s Health
  • Energy & Health
  • EHN en Español
  • Science Saturday
  • The Weekend Reader
  • Population Weekly
  • Pittsburgh Weekly
  • From our newsroom
  • Plastic pollution
  • Children's health
  • Biodiversity
  • PFAS on our shelves and in our bodies
  • Exposed: BPA science
  • Agents of Change
  • Cutting edge of science
  • Climate catastrophe in the South
  • Cancer risk in Pittsburgh
  • PFAS contamination
  • Breathless: Childhood asthma
  • Peak Pig: The soul of rural America
  • Sacred Water
  • Winged Warnings
  • Pollution, Poverty, People of Color
  • About EHN.org
  • Privacy and terms
  • Environmental Health Sciences
  • Endocrine-disrupting chemicals
  • BPA pollution
  • Cleaning products
  • Coronavirus
  • Environmental health
  • Environmental justice
  • Grocery shopping
  • Health care justice
  • Household items
  • Mental health
  • Ocean plastic pollution

research on coca cola

New study details Coca-Cola’s big influence on public heath organizations, conferences and events

An investigation reveals the beverage giant gives big bucks to influence research and policy through events and conferences..

Coca-Cola is directly influencing public health conferences and events via sponsorships — sometimes undisclosed — that could give the multinational company say in speaker selections and conference agendas, according to a new study.

The study, published in the Public Health Nutrition Journal , uncovered previously unknown collaborations between Coco-Cola and major health institutions including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the Institute for Excellence in Pediatrics, the Obesity Society and the American Academy of Family Physicians. It builds upon a 2020 study that showed the company helped shape the International Congress on Physical Activity and Public Health, an international effort to promote physical activity.

The findings, based on documents uncovered by 22 Freedom of Information requests by the U.S. Right to Know organization, suggest that Coca-Cola’s influence could suppress research and viewpoints unfavorable to the company and its suite of unhealthy products, advance messaging that physical inactivity is the key cause of obesity and bolster its image as science-friendly.

“The effect of this industry involvement is to expose professionals to the brands and marketing of certain products, including ultra-processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages, while also allowing the brands to build their image by affiliating with scientific and research communities,” the authors wrote.

Conflicts of interest 

The study found Coca-Cola gave three types of support: funding conference organizers, non-profit organizations or conference speakers. These contributions gave the company perks such as proposing topics, suggesting speakers, marketing opportunities or lunchtime seating with conference VIPs.

The documents even show a Coca-Cola vice president stating that, "As you know AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] is a great partner of ours..." @AmerAcadPeds   https://t.co/8kaUpqqk7U   pic.twitter.com/Q6c62Aaz5w — Gary Ruskin (@garyruskin) December 1, 2022

The study points out that some of the funding came through third-party organizations so researchers may not know they’re sponsored by Coca-Cola.

Researchers and events that fail to declare conflicts of interest and clearly state their funding sources, “obscures corporate influence over what is said and to whom it is stated” in these events and conferences, the authors said.

Direct and indirect funding 

The study looked at 239 public and private events. Coca-Cola provided some funding, directly or indirectly, to 158 — including 98 conferences, 21 symposia, 10 lectures, 14 private meetings, one workshop, three webinars, three seminars, three forums and three panels.

Of the 158 events partially funded by the company, Coca-Cola gave money directly to 28 of them. Meanwhile, 70 were funded via third parties that received Coca-Cola money and the company funded speakers for the remaining 60.

Payments for organizers ranged from $2,500 to $100,000 per event.

The emails showed Coca-Cola would occasionally encourage researchers favorable to its interests to also talk to the media, as well as promoting researchers, programs and events that stressed a lack of physical activity, instead of sugary beverages, as a major cause of obesity.

“We are concerned about several connection of funding to media coverage,” the authors of the study wrote. “By pushing speakers towards the media, a company’s influence over science communication may be significant, and therefore should be fully disclosed.”

The study recommends “robust financial and conflict-of-interest disclosures for public health conferences, not only for the conference organizers, but also for speakers.”

See the full study at the Public Health Nutrition journal.

research on coca cola

About the author(s):

research on coca cola

Brian Bienkowski is the senior news editor at Environmental Health News.

  • Commentary: Coca-Cola’s “war” with the public health community ›

SUBSCRIBE TO EHN'S MUST - READ

Daily newsletter: above the fold, fossil fuels and petrochemicals may be making us sicker, research says, “these chemicals may be invisible, but they are having visible impacts.”, houston neighborhood struggling with dangerous air pollution critiques state’s “lack of action”, “it’s a slap in the face.”, senate passes bill to enhance compensation for nuclear contamination victims, the hidden hazards of microplastics in our blood.

research on coca cola

Discount cinnamon contains unsafe lead levels, FDA advises

research on coca cola

Los combustibles fósiles y petroquímicos podrían estar enfermándonos, según reporte

“estos químicos pueden ser invisibles, pero están teniendo impactos visibles”., this will be a big year in shaping the future of chemical recycling, the controversial practice looms large in state environmental laws, federal regulation and global plastic treaty negotiations., what is chemical recycling, while industry claims it could be part of a circular plastics economy, experts say that chemical recycling is extremely damaging to the environment and provides no real benefits., cleaner steelmaking can’t come fast enough for this northern ontario city, algoma steel continues to exceed canada’s standard air pollution limits for cancer-causing compounds and struggles with spills as it pushes toward a “green” makeover., listen: kristi pullen fedinick on how a commitment to service guides her work, “i’m guided by contributing in whatever small way i can to making the world better than how i found it.”, stay informed, sign up for above the fold.

research on coca cola

Root out friction in every digital experience, super-charge conversion rates, and optimize digital self-service

Uncover insights from any interaction, deliver AI-powered agent coaching, and reduce cost to serve

Increase revenue and loyalty with real-time insights and recommendations delivered straight to teams on the ground

Know exactly how your people feel and empower managers to improve employee engagement, productivity, and retention

Take action in the moments that matter most along the employee journey and drive bottom line growth

Whatever they’re are saying, wherever they’re saying it, know exactly what’s going on with your people

Get faster, richer insights with qual and quant tools that make powerful market research available to everyone

Run concept tests, pricing studies, prototyping + more with fast, powerful studies designed by UX research experts

Track your brand performance 24/7 and act quickly to respond to opportunities and challenges in your market

Explore the platform powering Experience Management

  • Free Account
  • For Digital
  • For Customer Care
  • For Human Resources
  • For Researchers
  • Financial Services
  • All Industries

Popular Use Cases

  • Customer Experience
  • Employee Experience
  • Employee Exit Interviews
  • Net Promoter Score
  • Voice of Customer
  • Customer Success Hub
  • Product Documentation
  • Training & Certification
  • XM Institute
  • Popular Resources
  • Customer Stories
  • Market Research
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Partnerships
  • Marketplace

The annual gathering of the experience leaders at the world’s iconic brands building breakthrough business results, live in Salt Lake City.

  • English/AU & NZ
  • Español/Europa
  • Español/América Latina
  • Português Brasileiro
  • REQUEST DEMO

Brand Experience

Market Research Example: How Coca-Cola Lost Millions with This Mistake

In the mid-1980s, the Coca-Cola Company made a decision to introduce a new beverage product (Hartley, 1995, pp. 129–145).

The company had evidence that taste was the single most important cause of Coke’s decline in the market share in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

A new product dubbed “New Coke” was developed that was sweeter than the original-formula Coke.

Almost 200,000 blind product taste tests were conducted in the United States, and more than one-half of the participants favored New Coke over both the original formula and Pepsi.

The new product was introduced and the original formula was withdrawn from the market. This turned out to be a big mistake! Eventually, the company reintroduced the original formula as Coke Classic and tried to market the two products simultaneously.

Ultimately, New Coke was withdrawn from the market.

What went wrong with Coke's market research?

Two things stand out.

First, there was a flaw in the market research taste tests that were conducted: They assumed that taste was the deciding factor in consumer purchase behavior.

Consumers were not told that only one product would be marketed. Thus, they were not asked whether they would give up the original formula for New Coke.

Second, no one realized the symbolic value and emotional involvement people had with the original Coke.

The bottom line on this is that relevant variables that would affect the problem solution were not included in the research.

Check one of these old school Coke commercials.

So what's the lesson?

Market research matters.

When done correctly you gain decision making power. If done incorrectly, it could end up costing your company millions.

eBook: 5 practices that improve the business impact of research

Scott Smith

Scott Smith, Ph.D. is a contributor to the Qualtrics blog.

Related Articles

November 7, 2023

The 4 market research trends redefining insights in 2024

September 14, 2023

How BMG and Loop use data to make critical decisions

August 30, 2023

Which brands have the most loyal customers?

June 22, 2023

Small tasks, big ambitions: How Airtasker designed a brand for global growth

February 26, 2023

When consumers are friction-free how can you build brand loyalty?

December 6, 2022

Academic Experience

How customer experience helps bring Open Universities Australia’s brand promise to life

November 24, 2022

How Impossible is driving the meatless revolution

November 10, 2022

Impossible: The science of experience

Stay up to date with the latest xm thought leadership, tips and news., request demo.

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?

  • Consumer Goods & FMCG ›
  • Non-alcoholic Beverages

Coca-Cola Company - statistics & facts

Coca-cola company revenue, coca-cola company market share, key insights.

Detailed statistics

Revenue and financial key figures of Coca-Cola 2010-2022

Revenue distribution of the Coca-Cola Company worldwide 2022, by operating segment

Brand value of the most valuable soft drink brands worldwide 2023

Company Insights Top 100 consumer goods & FMCG companies

  • The Procter & Gamble

Editor’s Picks Current statistics on this topic

Current statistics on this topic.

Coca-Cola Company's net operating revenues worldwide 2007-2022

Brands & Leaders

Coca-Cola: brand value 2006-2023

Related topics

Recommended.

  • Restaurants in the U.S.
  • Bottled water market in the United States

Recommended statistics

  • Basic Statistic Biggest companies in the world by market value 2023
  • Premium Statistic Brand value of the most valuable soft drink brands worldwide 2023
  • Premium Statistic Coca-Cola: brand value 2006-2023
  • Premium Statistic Revenue of the soft drinks market worldwide by country 2022
  • Premium Statistic Per-capita volume sales in the soft drinks market worldwide by country in 2022

Biggest companies in the world by market value 2023

The 100 largest companies in the world by market capitalization in 2023 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Most valuable soft drink brands worldwide in 2023, based on brand value (in million U.S. dollars)

Coca-Cola's brand value from 2006 to 2023 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Revenue of the soft drinks market worldwide by country 2022

Revenue of the soft drinks market worldwide by country in 2022 (in million U.S. dollars)

Per-capita volume sales in the soft drinks market worldwide by country in 2022

Per-capita volume sales in the soft drinks market worldwide, by country in 2022 (in liters)

  • Premium Statistic Revenue and financial key figures of Coca-Cola 2010-2022
  • Premium Statistic Coca-Cola Company's net operating revenues worldwide 2007-2022
  • Basic Statistic Revenue distribution of the Coca-Cola Company worldwide 2022, by operating segment
  • Premium Statistic The Coca-Cola Company: global unit sales volume share 2022, by region
  • Premium Statistic Coca-Cola's global workforce 2007-2022
  • Premium Statistic Coca-Cola Co.: ad spend 2014-2022
  • Premium Statistic Global packaging distribution mix of Coca-Cola's products by type 2022

Global revenue and financial results of the Coca-Cola Company from 2010 to 2022 (in million U.S. dollars)

Coca-Cola Company's net operating revenues worldwide 2007-2022

The Coca-Cola Company's net operating revenues worldwide from 2007 to 2022 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Revenue distribution share of the Coca-Cola Company worldwide in 2022, by operating segment

The Coca-Cola Company: global unit sales volume share 2022, by region

Unit sales volume share of The Coca-Cola Company worldwide in 2022, by region

Coca-Cola's global workforce 2007-2022

Number of employees of the Coca-Cola Company worldwide from 2007 to 2022 (in 1,000s)

Coca-Cola Co.: ad spend 2014-2022

Coca-Cola Company's advertising expense from 2014 to 2022 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Global packaging distribution mix of Coca-Cola's products by type 2022

Packaging distribution mix of the Coca-Cola Company worldwide in 2022, by type

Competitors

  • Premium Statistic Market share of leading CSD companies in the U.S. 2008-2022
  • Premium Statistic PepsiCo's net revenue worldwide 2007-2022
  • Premium Statistic Keurig Dr Pepper's net sales worldwide 2017-2022
  • Premium Statistic Global revenue of Red Bull 2011-2023
  • Premium Statistic Global net sales of Monster Beverage 2008-2022
  • Premium Statistic Global sales of the Nestlé Group 2005-2022

Market share of leading CSD companies in the U.S. 2008-2022

Market share of leading carbonated soft drink (CSD) companies in the United States from 2008 to 2022*

PepsiCo's net revenue worldwide 2007-2022

PepsiCo's net revenue worldwide from 2007 to 2022 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Keurig Dr Pepper's net sales worldwide 2017-2022

Keurig Dr Pepper's net sales worldwide from 2017 to 2022 (in million U.S. dollars)

Global revenue of Red Bull 2011-2023

Revenue of Red Bull worldwide from 2011 to 2023 (in billion euros)

Global net sales of Monster Beverage 2008-2022

Monster Beverage's net sales worldwide from 2008 to 2022 (in billion U.S. dollars)*

Global sales of the Nestlé Group 2005-2022

Nestlé Group's sales worldwide from 2005 to 2022 (in billion CHF)

Further reports Get the best reports to understand your industry

Get the best reports to understand your industry.

  • Coca-Cola Company

Mon - Fri, 9am - 6pm (EST)

Mon - Fri, 9am - 5pm (SGT)

Mon - Fri, 10:00am - 6:00pm (JST)

Mon - Fri, 9:30am - 5pm (GMT)

Logo

How Coca-Cola became one of the most successful brands in history

Table of contents.

Coca-Cola has an impressive track record of innovation which has helped propel the company to become one of the most successful brands in history. Through skillful advertising efforts, Coca-Cola is widely recognized as a symbol of American culture through its influence on politics, pop culture, and music around the globe.  

Key statistics and facts about The Coca-Cola Company: 

  • Owns 43.7% of the US carbonated soft drinks market
  • Net operating revenue of $38.7B
  • Present in more than 200 countries and territories
  • Employs over over 700,000 along with its bottling partners
  • Ranked #93 in the Fortune 500
  • Μarket value of $259.77 billion as of February 2023 

Who owns Coca-Cola?

There is no sole owner of Coca-Cola as it is a publicly listed company. However, the largest shareholder is Warren Buffett. Read on as we dive into the history of Coca-Cola's owners and much more below!

{{cta('eacab09c-3f45-4c05-84ef-a8bdc5ba474b')}}

The history of The Coca-Cola Company

How it all started.

The story of The Coca-Cola Company had humble beginnings in the late 1800s, in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. John Pemberton, a local pharmacist, had developed a recipe for a sweet syrup that was originally advertised to cure headaches. It was eventually mixed with carbonated water to create a fizzy drink that was served at a soda fountain in Jacobs’ Pharmacy. The first glass of Coca-Cola was served on May 8, 1886. In the first year, Pemberton served approximately nine drinks per day which were sold for 5 cents a glass. 

While the ingredient list today is a highly guarded secret, it is well known that the original version contained extracts from the Coca leaf and Kola nuts for caffeine. The combination of these two ingredients is where the name comes from. Dr. Pemberton’s partner and bookkeeper, Frank M. Robinson, felt that spelling the name with double “C’s” would look better in advertising. So, he scripted out the logo which even today displays Mr. Robinson’s unique handwriting. 

Dr. Pemberton didn’t realize the potential of his new product. He took on several partners and sold portions of his business to various owners. Sadly, Dr. Pemberton died just two years after the creation of Coca-Cola. Prior to his death, he sold his remaining interests to an Atlanta businessman, Asa Griggs Candler. Candler knew there was something special about this new product, but little did he know that his $2,300 investment (roughly $67,000 today) would be the start of one of the most powerful brands on the planet. 

Birth of The Coca-Cola Company

The Coca-Cola Company was officially founded by Asa Candler in 1892. It didn’t take long for the Coca-Cola product to quickly spread outside of Georgia and across the nation. By 1895, Coca-Cola was being sold in every state of the union. In 1919, the company was sold to Ernest Woodruff. Woodruff's sons would continue to run the company for many years, transforming the company into a major international brand. The Coca-Cola Company was officially listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 1919 under the ticker symbol KO. 

International expansion of The Coca-Cola Company

The first export of Coca-Cola was to Cuba in 1899. It wasn’t until the 1920s, that international expansion of the brand began to take off. During World War II, Coca-Cola’s President, Robert Woodruff, wanted to ensure that US service members stationed all over could have the comforts of home and pledged to transport Coca-Cola to the various bases in the European and Pacific theatres on the company’s dime. This introduction of the Coca-Cola product increased international demand. With people all over the world craving a taste of American culture, Coca-Cola began establishing partnerships with bottling companies and distributors all over the world. Today, the brand operates in more than 200 countries and territories. 

Early competition

In the early years, Coca-Cola had a lot of competition. In fact, the late 1800s and early 1900s was the most active period in the development of new soft drinks. Some of these companies went out of business or were bought out by other larger companies. However, many of these brands are still in existence today as more novelty brands and hold a very small percentage of the market. 

The most prominent competitors to Coca-Cola throughout its history have been Pepsi and Dr. Pepper. They were both created around the same time as Coca-Cola (Pepsi in 1898 and Dr. Pepper in 1885). Over time, these three giants bought up many of the smaller beverage companies. For example, Vernor’s Ginger Ale, Hires Root Beer, and Royal Crown Cola still exist but are now owned by Dr. Pepper. 

The Coca-Cola beverage was created in 1886 by Dr. John Pemberton, a pharmacist from Atlanta, Georgia. The recipe was purchased by Asa Griggs Candler and The Coca-Cola Company in 1892. The brand quickly became popular and was sold all over the United States. By the early 20th century, Coca-Cola began a rapid expansion across the globe.

The Coca-Cola system- a global franchise distribution network 

The Coca-Cola Company’s rapid expansion around the world can be attributed to its unique franchise distribution system (known as the Coca-Cola System ) that they have operated since 1889. Coca-Cola produces syrup concentrate which is then sold to various bottlers around the world. This helps the company maintain control over its top-secret recipe without the burden of having to run many of the independent bottling facilities. 

The Coca-Cola System is a network of over 900 bottling plants that produce 2 billion servings of Coca-Cola every day. The bottlers each hold contracts that allow them to exclusively operate in a predetermined territory. This reduces the need for the competition from multiple companies that sell the same product. 

These distributors handle all aspects of the production and distribution process including mixing the syrup with carbonated water and sweeteners, placing the finished product in cans or bottles, and distributing Coca-Cola to supermarkets, vending machines, restaurants, and movie theaters. Although Coca-Cola produces the main syrup, the franchise companies also control the soda fountain business in their territory. 

The exception to this model is the North American market where The Coca-Cola Company directly owns most of the bottling and distribution. Outside of the United States, Coca-Cola has continued to encourage the consolidation of its various bottling companies. Over time, Coca-Cola has acquired a percentage of ownership in many of the companies in the Coca-Cola System. 

Top 5 independent bottling partners, representing 40 percent of the Coca-Cola System distribution network:

  • Coca-Cola FEMSA (Latin America)
  • Coca-Cola Europacific Partners, plc (Western Europe, Australia, Pacific, and Indonesia)
  • Coca-Cola HBC AG (Eastern Europe)
  • Arca Continental (Latin America and North America)
  • Swire Beverages (Asia and parts of North America)

Here's an example video from Coca-Cola HBC AG explaining their business model:

The Coca-Cola Company leverages a network of independently owned and operated bottlers around the world. This has enabled the company to quickly expand without having to invest billions of dollars into building facilities and navigating international rules and regulations unique to each region.

Evolution of the Coca-Cola product

The formula for Coca-Cola has undergone a few changes since its creation. Some of these changes were driven by necessity. Some were an attempt to reduce costs or gain market share. While the brand does not make changes often, some have been better received than others. 

Removal of cocaine

During the late 19th century, there were many Cocoa-based beverages available on the market. At the time, drugs like cocaine and opium were perfectly legal and used quite frequently for medicinal purposes. Since Coca leaves were used to make Coca-Cola, there were small quantities of cocaine that could be found in the drink. 

The public eventually became aware of the addictive properties of these substances, so Coca-Cola was pressured to remove this drug from its list of ingredients. The Coca-Cola Company made steps to gradually phase out sources of cocaine from its production until it was finally eliminated in 1929.

File:New Coke can.jpg

On April 23, 1985, The Coca-Cola Company took a huge risk that shocked the world. They announced that they would be changing the formula of their world-famous soft drink. Despite its massive success, the company had been losing ground to one of its main competitors, Pepsi. Pepsi’s success wasn’t just in the United States. They were quickly expanding into markets that were once considered untouchable. At the height of the Cold War, Pepsi became the first Western product to be permitted in the Soviet Union . 

Based on surveys and taste tests, consumers seemed to prefer the sweeter taste of Pepsi-Cola. So, Coca-Cola set out to rework the formula to improve its ability to compete. According to Coca-Cola’s website, their goal was to “re-energize the Coca-Cola brand and the cola category in its largest market, the United States”. After receiving positive feedback from nearly 200k customers in taste tests, New Coke was released to the market. 

The public’s response to the new version of their product was outrage. Unfortunately, Coca-Cola miscalculated its customer’s bond with the original brand. Massive protests were staged and the company was flooded with thousands of angry phone calls and letters. The backlash was so fierce that it forced the company to revert back to the old formula after only 79 days on the market, branded as Coca-Cola classic. 

This graph demonstrates PepsiCo’s rapid expansion of market share from 1970 to 1990 and subsequent fall.

Coca-Cola Zero Sugar

File:Coca Cola Zero 02.jpg

While Coca-Cola has vowed not to make any changes to its original product, the company plans to update the recipe and packaging for their popular zero sugar variation, Coca-Cola Zero Sugar . The company has been cautious in its promotion of the new version as to not create a blowback like the 1985 New Coke fiasco. Coca-Cola has reiterated that the new version will not be a major overhaul, rather an “optimization of flavors and existing ingredients”. The rollout is expected to hit the US market by August 2021.

Sweetener changed to high fructose corn syrup

Traditionally, the Coca-Cola recipe called for cane sugar as the primary sweetener. During the 1970s, the United States saw a massive increase in corn production. This forced the prices of corn to drop significantly. In addition, corn was heavily subsidized by the US government. This made sweeteners like high fructose corn syrup more affordable. 

In an attempt to reduce costs, Coca-Cola slowly started substituting cane sugar for high fructose corn syrup during the 1980s. The transition took place over the course of approximately 5 years. 

Today, cane sugar is still used in the production of Coca-Cola in certain regions of the world. The most popular example is Coca-Cola produced in Mexico. This version of Coca-Cola is still made with cane sugar. Some critics argue that “Mexican Coke” has a flavor that is closer to the original formula.

In 1935, Coca-Cola was certified as kosher after the company replaced the source of glycerin used in production . This was originally derived from beef tallow but was replaced with a plant-based version. However, with the change of sweetener in the 1980s to high fructose corn syrup, its kosher status was removed. Today, bottlers in markets with large Jewish populations will temporarily substitute high fructose corn syrup during Passover to obtain Kosher certification.

Recipe and flavor variations

Despite the utter failure of New Coke in 1985, The Coca-Cola Company has introduced new flavors over time in addition to Coca-Cola classic. 

Some consumers avoided Coca-Cola classic because of the high sugar or caffeine content. In 1982, the company released a diet version of their product for consumers who were concerned about consuming too much sugar. A caffeine-free version was also introduced a year later. 

The company has also tried different flavor combinations. The first was Coca-Cola Cherry in 1985 which was a huge success and remains popular today. Other flavors included lemon, lime, vanilla, orange, ginger, cinnamon, and coffee. Many of these were attempts to bring local flavors to international markets. 

Coca-Cola has achieved enormous amounts of growth by tailoring its products to local tastes and demands. They have also been able to reduce production costs by substituting expensive ingredients such as cane sugar for lower-cost alternatives. Not every change has been well received by the public. Coca-Cola infamously changed their original recipe to replace it with “New Coke”. This change faced fierce backlash and forced the company to bring back the original product after only 79 days on the market. 

Coca-Cola Growth Strategy

The company has outlined a list of key objectives that they plan to execute in the coming years to spur additional growth. This strategic plan is intended to guide the company in refocusing efforts and being more intentional with its actions.  

Focus on developing markets

Coca-Cola has identified that there is huge growth potential in the developing world. Seventy percent of all beverages being consumed in the developed world are commercialized compared to only 30 percent for the developing world. Considering the developing world contains 80 percent of the world's population, growth is expected to be exponentially higher. 

One identified area of opportunity is brand diversification. While Coca-Cola has a strong foothold globally, this is only due to its strong presence in major markets. Outside of sparkling water, Coca-Cola is trailing competitors. The focus will be on gaining momentum in other beverage categories through the experimentation of new products. 

Brand portfolio optimization

Bigger isn’t always better. The Coca-Cola Company is realizing that its efforts may be spread across too many individual brands. Their goal is to rebalance their portfolio and consolidate products into fewer master brands. They have already reduced this number from approximately 400 to 200. By having fewer master brands, they can better focus their efforts. 

Networked organization

Operating a large corporation comes with challenges. In many cases, there can be inefficiencies and duplicated efforts. Coca-Cola plans to address this by reorganizing its support and operational teams to provide better support and work more effectively. 

Brand building

The company plans to deliver world-class marketing through targeted resource allocation. The goal is to be more intentional with the way advertising and marketing investments are made. 

Coca-Cola has a goal to increase the frequency that new or existing consumers drink their products. To do this, the company has set targets to significantly increase innovation by bringing more trial products and projects into the pipeline. The goal is to increase this by 40 percent over 2020. 

Digital transformation

Coca-Cola understands that data is a powerful tool. They are in the process of undergoing a digital transformation to help the company operate more effectively and leverage data to drive decision-making. 

Revenue growth management

With this new data and digital tools available, the company can place a renewed focus on which areas have the most potential for growth. They will focus on understanding which markets, consumers, product lines, and competitors should be addressed.

The Coca-Cola Company is dedicated to growing the business through a skillfully designed and executed strategic plan. Their long-term goals are to focus on expanding the commercial beverage industry in developing countries. They also plan to optimize their product line by reducing the number of master brands, creating new innovative products, changing their internal operations teams to streamline processes, and better leverage data.

The power of advertising- Coca-Cola becomes a household name

A big part of Coca-Cola’s success over the years has been its focus on innovative marketing and advertising campaigns. In 2020, Coca-Cola was ranked as the 6th most powerful brand in the world. This accomplishment didn’t come overnight. Over the years, Coca-Cola has had to work diligently to evolve and bring fresh, new ideas to marketing and advertising.

Large contributions to advertising 

Even early on, Asa Griggs Candler spent a considerable amount of money on advertising. His original budget for advertising was $11,000 (over $300,000 in today’s money). By 1900, the budget increased ten-fold to $100,000 and again to $1 million by 1910. 

Large advertising budgets are important when a new brand is getting established. As a company grows and becomes well-known, they typically scale back on their advertising budget since most consumers recognize the brand. Coca-Cola, however, has continued to keep the pressure on its competitors. Today, the company spends about 10 percent of its revenue on advertising and marketing. This equates to approximately $4 billion in commercials, print advertising, sponsorships, and other promotional merchandise. 

Focus on the brand and human connection

Much of Coca-Cola’s advertising success comes from the way they present their brand. Instead of focusing on the actual product, they emphasize the feeling and camaraderie of making the brand part of one’s identity. Their advertisements are intended to make people feel good about themselves and want to be a part of the experience. 

Human connection is an important part of the brand message. One great example of this was the “Hilltop” commercial from 1971 that featured people from different cultures singing “I’d like to buy the world a Coke”. This showed the Coca-Cola brand as one that was intended to unite people around the world.

Celebrity endorsements

Celebrity endorsement is a way to help a brand stand out, especially when targeting specific groups. For example, sports fans will be more likely to purchase a product if their favorite athlete promotes the brand. Over the years, Coca-Cola has been endorsed by numerous high-profile celebrities, athletes, and pop culture icons. 

Hilda Clark, an American model, and actress was the first celebrity to endorse the brand in 1900 and was featured in early advertisements. Since then, Coca-Cola has received endorsements from many big-name celebrities such as Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, Magic Johnson, and Elvis Presley. 

Coca-Cola in pop culture

The Coca-Cola brand has been a prominent part of American culture for decades. Coca-Cola has skillfully attached itself to key historical events, music, movies, and major holidays. 

Coca-Cola and many of its other brands have been featured in numerous films and television programs. For a short time, Coca-Cola even owned Columbia Pictures (from 1982 to 1989) and inserted Coke products into many of its productions.  A few examples include:

  •  The 1933 film King Kong displays a Times Square billboard advertisement in several of the scenes.
  • Coca-Cola products being used in the 1982 film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.
  • The modern TV series Stranger Things which takes place in the 1980s displays and makes reference to New Coke. 

The Coca-Cola Company has also made its way into music across the globe. Elvis Presley promoted Coca-Cola during his last tour in 1977. The UK sensation, The Beatles, made mention of Coca-Cola in a line of their hit song “Come Together”. In addition to lyrical references, the brand has featured musical superstars such as David Bowie, Elton John, and Whitney Houston in Diet Coke commercials. 

The Coca-Cola brand has also cleverly attached itself to popular holidays. Some of its most successful campaigns have been displayed over the Christmas holiday. One of the most iconic campaigns started in 1931 with illustrations of St. Nicholas drinking a Coca-Cola. Many credit Coca-Cola with inspiring the modern-day version of Santa Clause. 

Clever campaigns and promotions

Coca-Cola has been one of the top innovators in the advertising space. On many occasions, they have used never before seen tactics that both surprised and delighted consumers. Creating an additional buzz around their advertising campaigns helps to amplify whom the campaign reaches directly. 

During the 2012 NFL Superbowl, Coca-Cola decided to take a non-traditional approach. The Superbowl is one of the most sought-after advertising opportunities. Each year, approximately 95 million people tune in to watch the championship game. Typically, major brands spend over $5 million for a single 30-second commercial. With the rise of cell phones and other mobile devices, Coca-Cola knew that consumers would be juggling multiple devices during the game. So, they created a family of animated polar bears that would react to the game in real-time on digital media banners and a microsite. The bears would laugh, respond to audience tweets, and make faces. The campaign was a huge success. During the game, over 9 million viewers spent an average of 28 minutes engaging with and watching the polar bears in action. 

In 2011, Coca-Cola decided to take a personalized approach to advertise in Australia with their Share a Coke campaign. They selected 150 of the most popular names and printed them on the side of their bottles along with the message “Share a Coke with…”. The campaign encouraged people to share a bottle of Coke with a friend or tag them in a social media post with the hashtag #shareacoke. The campaign was so successful that it was expanded to over 80 countries and led to Coca-Cola’s first sales growth in over 10 years. 

Collectible memorabilia 

Coca-Cola has created and distributed numerous pieces of branded memorabilia that are highly sought after by collectors including toys, clothing, antique bottles, signs, household items, and old vending machines. The collectible nature of these products has nostalgia of traditional Americana and has further helped to amply the prestige and cultural connection of Coca-Cola to US history. Rare and well-preserved items can fetch tens of thousands of dollars. 

The Coca-Cola Company has created one of the most powerful and well-known brands in the world. Over the years, they have embedded themselves as an icon of American culture through music, television, and films. The company spends a significant portion of its annual revenue on advertising efforts including television commercials, social media, and other advertising. 

Growth through mergers, acquisitions, and partnerships- becoming an unstoppable force in the food and beverage industry

While The Coca-Cola Company is known for its main products such as Coca-Cola and Diet Coke, the company owns, produces, and distributes over 500 individual brands worldwide. Some of these brands are a result of new products that they created. Others were obtained through mergers, acquisitions, and special partnerships with other major companies. 

Key mergers and acquisitions

  • 1960 - Coca-Cola acquires Minute Maid, a producer of juices, soft drinks, and other beverages such as the popular Hi-C brand. 
  • 1993 - When Coca-Cola was struggling to gain a foothold in the Indian market, they purchased the popular local brand, Thums Up. Their business now makes up over 40 percent of the cola business in India. 
  • 1995 - Acquisition of Barq’s which produces a line of root beers and cream sodas. 
  • 1999 - Coca-Cola purchased 50 percent of Inca Kola for $200 million and took control of its marketing and bottling operations. 
  • 2001 - Odwalla, a brand of fruit juices, smoothies, and bars was acquired. This company was discontinued in 2020.
  • 2007 - Coca-Cola acquired Fuze Beverage, a producer of teas and fruit drinks that were infused with vitamins and minerals. 
  • 2008 - The company purchased 40 percent of Honest Tea, a popular iced tea producer. The remaining shares were purchased in 2011 giving Coca-Cola full ownership. 
  • 2013 - Coca-Cola purchased the coconut water company ZICO. 
  • 2014 - 16.7 percent of the energy drink manufacturer, Monster Beverage, was sold to Coca-Cola in exchange for a long-term strategic partnership. 
  • 2016 - Coca-Cola purchased a portion of Chi Limited, a major distributor of snacks, food, and beverage products in Nigeria. The remaining shares were acquired in 2019.
  • 2017 - Topo Chico, a Mexican sparkling water brand was acquired by Coca-Cola. 
  • 2018 - Coca-Cola purchased Costa Coffee making it the owner of the second-largest coffeehouse chain in the world after Starbucks Coffee. 
  • 2018 - Organic & Raw Trading Co., the Australian producer of MOJO kombucha was acquired. 

Special partnerships

In addition to owning many brands, The Coca-Cola Company has created many successful strategic partnerships that have allowed Coca-Cola to grow exponentially. 

One of the most famous partnerships is with McDonald’s. When McDonald’s was just getting started in 1955, it needed a beverage distributor. The two companies struck a deal for Mcdonald's to exclusively sell only Coca-Cola products. McDonald’s eventually grew to become the largest restaurant chain (by revenue) and Coca-Cola products are served in nearly 40,000 of their locations around the world. Other notable restaurant chains that carry Coca-Cola products include Burger King, Chili’s, Chipotle, and Domino’s Pizza.

research on coca cola

Coca-Cola has also partnered with numerous venues around the world to sell only Coca-Cola products in their stadiums, theatres, and concert halls. The Coca-Cola Company is a major sponsor of the Olympic Games. In 2017, the company signed a deal with Major League Baseball in which they agreed to drop their competitor Pepsi and only promote Coke products.

Most of Coca-Cola’s growth has come from strategic mergers and acquisitions of companies all over the world. They have been able to expand into new markets by buying companies that already dominate the specialty or space. The company has also developed strategic partnerships with other large companies to exclusively sell Coca-Cola products.

Controversy, regulatory issues, and criticism 

Despite the company’s overwhelming success, Coca-Cola has faced a lot of criticism throughout its history. There are many opinions related to the impacts that The Coca-Cola Company has on the environment and consumers alike. 

Health concerns

It’s no secret that Coca-Cola is a sugary drink. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), half of all Americans will drink at least one sugary beverage each day. This massive consumption of sugar is leading to an epidemic of conditions such as type 2 diabetes and obesity. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that adults consume no more than 6 tsp of sugar each day. A single 12oz can of Coca-Cola contains nearly twice this amount. 

With Coca-Cola being the leading company in the food and beverage industry, they have received a lot of negative attention directed towards their contribution to this serious problem. 

The company has responded by producing sugar-free or reduced-calorie beverages. They have also expanded their product lines to include healthy alternatives like coconut water. 

Environmental issues

Coca-Cola has been identified as the single producer of plastic waste in the world. Much of this plastic is not discarded properly and ends up in the oceans. This has contributed to the ecological disaster due to single-use plastics. This has captured the attention of environmental protection groups who claim that Coca-Cola isn’t doing enough to work toward a reasonable solution. A report from Greenpeace estimates that the company produces over 100 billion plastic bottles every year with no obvious goal to reduce single-use plastic waste. 

Coca-Cola has made some efforts to reduce its environmental impact. First, they redesigned their bottles to use less plastic (a process called “lightweighting”). While this does reduce the amount of plastic used in production, it does not reduce the number of bottles that end up in landfills or the ocean. They have also introduced their “PlantBottle” which is made from plant-based materials.

While these are steps in the right direction, most environmental groups question whether these efforts are enough. Coca-Cola appears to be spending large amounts of money lobbying politicians around the world to block legislation that would encourage more environmentally friendly manufacturing. They have also been accused of spending a considerable amount of money on “green marketing” without efforts to back up their claims.

Over the years, The Coca-Cola Company has been the center of controversy due to environmental impact and health concerns due to their products. Coca-Cola has responded by providing low-calorie, sugar-free, and healthy alternatives. They have also worked to reduce their plastic use and seek alternatives as they are the single largest contributor to single-use plastic waste.

Coca-Cola's social media strategy

Create an abstract image that symbolizes Coca-Cola's social media strategy. The composition should feature vibrant and positive imagery, including a globe to represent their global reach, interconnected nodes or networks conveying social media platforms, and smiling faces or thumbs-up icons to symbolize positivity and customer engagement. There should be a flow of creativity illustrated by dynamic and organic shapes, depicting the user-generated content aspect, such as floating Coca-Cola bottles with hashtags. Include subtle nods to social issues with symbolic ribbons or hands united, and incorporate elements that hint at Coca-Cola’s website traffic, like arrows pointing from social media icons to a central Coca-Cola logo, suggesting the flow of visitors. The overall design should feel optimistic, energetic, and interconnected, reflecting the brand's commitment to being a social media leader.

The Coca-Cola Company is a social media powerhouse with millions of followers across the globe. The company is very intentional with its use of social media platforms and leverages them to drive brand awareness and interaction with customers. There are several key components that have made Coca-Cola’s social media strategy so successful. 

Positivity  

In 2018, Coca-Cola made a commitment to become the ‘most optimistic brand on social media'. They launched their #RefreshtheFeed campaign in which they completely deleted all of their social media content and started fresh. Consumers embraced this new positive approach and encouraged even more followers who wanted to enjoy the feel-good vibes of their social media posts. 

Leverage consumers to create content

While Coca-Cola’s marketing team creates a lot of content for their online platforms, they have successfully leveraged their millions of followers to create content on behalf of the brand. They have used creative hashtag-based campaigns to encourage consumers to post Coca-Cola-themed posts for their friends and family to see. One of the most successful was the #shareacoke campaign which reversed a 10-year stagnant sales record. 

Attachment to social issues

The company has a stringent social media policy to ensure that content aligns with the company’s values. In July 2020, Coca-Cola decided to join many other major brands in temporarily halting social media posts and advertisements for a minimum of 30 days. This decision came as a result of concerns about growing hate speech and misinformation on social networks. They’ve regularly supported important civil rights and other social issues over the past few decades which helps consumer groups connect with the brand. 

Coca-Cola website

The Coca-Cola Company’s main company website contains various resources for consumers, vendors, and investors. The information included in the website discusses the company’s history, its brands around the world, career opportunities, media center, and investor relations. 

According to SimilarWeb, the site is ranked 10th in the Food & Beverage category and receives about 1.8 million visitors each month. 

The Coca-Cola Company’s YouTube channel is a platform that is used to post promotional videos and other advertisements from all over the world. The channel was started in 2006, has 3.6 million subscribers, and has nearly 3.5 billion views. About 8 percent of their website traffic comes from YouTube.

Coca-Cola’s LinkedIn account has over 6 million followers. The company uses this platform to post company updates for the business community. It is also used to promote job openings and attract top talent from the LinkedIn community. 

Twitter is one of Coca-Cola’s most powerful social media accounts. Their Twitter account ( @CocaCola ) was started in 2009 and has posted nearly 300,000 tweets to its 3.3 million followers. Most of the tweets are short inspirational or funny messages to enhance daily brand awareness or encourage engagement. Coca-Cola’s Twitter account generates 62 percent of the traffic to their website. 

Coca-Cola’s Instagram account has 2.8 million followers. The account is mostly used to post promotional stories on the platform. 

Coca-Cola’s Pinterest account is used to post drink and food recipes and promote Coca-Cola products like customizable Coke bottles. Their account has about 30,000 followers and receives over 10 million views each month. 

With over 105 million followers, Coca-Cola’s Facebook account is massive. It’s the 5th most-followed account on the social media platform, only behind Facebook itself, Samsung, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Real Madrid CF. The site is used to post videos and promotional content in many different languages for their followers. 

So, Why is Coca-Cola so Successful?

Few companies can boast the tremendous success and growth that The Coca-Cola Company has enjoyed for over 135 years. This accomplishment can be attributed to industry-leading advertising, innovation of their products, and delivering a positive brand message. Let's take a look at what makes Coca-Cola so successful!

Recap: growth by the numbers

Key takeaways.

  • Coca-Cola has leveraged a network of independent bottlers around the globe to aid in rapid expansion. These distributors have territorial rights which help prevent competition and price wars.
  • The Coca-Cola Company has made changes to its main product over the years but learned a very valuable lesson with the introduction of New Coke in 1985. The launch was a disaster and faced a fierce backlash from consumers who demanded the return of the original product.
  • Coca-Cola’s long-term strategic plan includes focusing on the developing world where consumer beverages have a lot of growth potential, optimizing the number of master brands, revamping their operational network, and leveraging technology and data.
  • Coca-Cola’s advertising focuses on creating human connections and making people feel good. They have led the advertising world in cutting-edge approaches to marketing that have never been seen before.
  • Coca-Cola has inserted its brand and products in films and television to become an easily identifiable American icon.
  • Acquisition of other companies has been a major part of Coca-Cola’s expansion efforts giving them the ability to quickly reach into new markets or acquire existing popular products.
  • The Coca-Cola company has been the target of criticism due to its potential negative impact on consumer health and the environment. 

A business journal from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania

Knowledge at Wharton Podcast

Sizing up coca-cola’s obesity research controversy, august 21, 2015 • 25 min listen.

Coca-Cola is receiving criticism for funding research that backed exercise over cutting calories. As a result, experts are calling for more transparency in sponsored studies.

research on coca cola

Jason Riis and Karen Glanz on Coca-Cola's sponsorship of obesity research

Coca-Cola’s funding for a health advocacy nonprofit that stressed the importance of exercise over diet control in weight loss has backfired into a major PR disaster for the beverage company. Critics say the study’s findings push the message that so long as consumers exercise, they need not worry too much about cutting calories in what they consume — presumably including sugar-packed sodas. The controversy highlights the need for increased transparency in the conduct of such studies and the role of researchers, say experts.

Coca-Cola provided financial and logistics support for Global Energy Balance Network, a new nonprofit organization whose website gebn.org is registered to Coca-Cola’s headquarters in Atlanta, according to a New York Times report. Coca-Cola donated $1.5 million last year to start GEBN and has provided up to $4 million in project funding for two university professors — Dr. Steven N. Blair and James O. Hill — who are the organization’s founding members, the report added. The disclosures have snowballed into a major controversy for Coca-Cola. GEBN’s message “is misleading and meant to deflect attention away from recent studies about sugary drinks and their link to obesity and Type 2 diabetes,” the Times report said.

“Companies do this all the time. They support researchers of various universities looking at problems that relate to them,” said Wharton marketing professor Jason Riis , whose research focus is on consumer health. “Of course they’re going to put the money where they hope the story [would] go in the direction that favors them.”

“From a medical, public health and research perspective, this smells a lot like what we’ve seen with the tobacco industry, and with the drug industry,” said Karen Glanz , professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine. Glanz noted that “a sea change” has occurred in the last decade with doctors being required to disclose the funding they receive from drug companies. “It has become tremendously more open,” she said of the drug industry. “But that change hasn’t seeped in as yet with consumer products.”

Riis and Glanz discussed the takeaways from the controversy on the Knowledge at Wharton show on Wharton Business Radio on SiriusXM channel 111 . (Listen to the podcast at the top of this page.)

The backlash prompted GEBN on Wednesday to pull down a video in which Dr. Blair, its vice president, reportedly criticized the emphasis on sugary drinks. In that video, which the New York Times cited earlier this month, Blair said, “Most of the focus in the popular media and in the scientific press is, ‘Oh they’re eating too much, eating too much, eating too much’ — blaming fast food, blaming sugary drinks and so on. And there’s really virtually no compelling evidence that that, in fact, is the cause.”

In his statement explaining why GEBN withdrew the video, Blair said GEBN is being wrongly portrayed as a network focusing only on physical activity. “This is not true and never has been true,” he wrote. On August 11, as the controversy snowballed, Hill, who is GEBN’s president, stated that media reports have oversimplified a complex issue. “Diet is a critical component of weight control, as are exercise, stress management, sleep and environmental and other factors,” he clarified.

In response to the controversy, Coca-Cola’s chairman and CEO Muhtar Kent pledged to bring more transparency in how his company engages with the public health and scientific communities.

Making Sponsored Research Credible

With the outcry over sponsored research, one big question is: Is it possible to pursue honest research when it is funded by corporations? Glanz and Riis discussed the ways to overcome those hurdles. “We do need to engage with industry, but accepting money from industry and assuming that there are no conditions behind it is a little hard to buy.” Added Riis: “Transparency is the key.”

Glanz highlighted the complications that arise in “funding credible researchers, [and] researchers taking money because money is hard to come by.” She said it is difficult to evaluate exactly how the source of that money may have influenced the research, while realizing “that there is an agenda from the company that is funding it.” Such a scenario is “troublesome,” she added, particularly because of the lack of transparency.

“From a medical, public health and research perspective, this smells a lot like what we’ve seen with the tobacco industry, and with the drug industry.” –Karen Glanz

Glanz advised sponsor companies and researchers “to be uber transparent” about their research, methods and findings, and disclose those annually on their website. To Coke’s credit, Kent said he has instructed Sandy Douglas, president of Coca-Cola North America, to publish on the company website updates every six months of its “efforts to reduce calories and market responsibly, along with a list of health and well-being partnerships and research activities we have funded in the past five years.”

“Disclosure is the way,” said Riis, adding, “I don’t think we should be scandalized by the fact that Coke is giving money to obesity researchers. Consumers need to be savvy about this.” He added that it would help if there were “more consistent standards” about how such affiliations are disclosed.

Other obstacles remain. Glanz said her research found that consultants and scientists that work on sponsored research often have to sign non-disclosure agreements or must have their publications approved. “It means if the results don’t turn out the way that they would like, then they never get published,” she said. “Sometimes [such data] gets killed.”

Fault Lines

Where exactly did GEBN stumble? According to Riis, funding by corporations “probably” has an influence on the outcome of studies. Research shows that “studies that are supported by companies like Coca-Cola are more likely to favor the story that those companies support.”

“It definitely leads to a bias, an attempt to shift the focus,” said Glanz of GEBN’s stance on sugary drinks. She noted that Blair and Hill have been doing research for decades on physical activity, health and obesity. She recalled Blair saying more than once that “the federal government has not invested enough money on the activity side of the equation.” She added: “The questionable part comes up when you take money from ‘big soda’: How does that influence what you are doing?”

Glanz also worried that researchers may decide that they “are not going to focus on any harm that may be [caused by the] products that [the] funders are producing and marketing.” She noted that based on the media reports, GEBN’s research in the current case did not appear to have produced any new findings, and characterized that as a “philosophical perspective … and an attempt to deflect off of sugar and soda.”

At the same time, according to Glanz, physical activity “is great” for prevention and management of not just cardiovascular diseases, but also obesity, diabetes, some types of cancer and cognitive decline, such as Alzheimer’s disease. “But [physical activity] is not the primary driver necessarily for [combating] overweight and obesity,” she said.

“I don’t think we should be scandalized by the fact that Coke is giving money to obesity researchers. Consumers need to be savvy about this.” –Jason Riis

Coke Caught Off-Guard?

Did Coca-Cola miscalculate the public reaction to its research? “The lay belief is that exercise is the best way to lose weight rather than changing your diet, which is what most scientists believe,” said Riis. “So they may have been caught off guard that so many people were surprised by the message.”

The media bashing in the controversy has come on top of other problems for Coca-Cola, Riis noted. Coca-Cola sales are down along with a general decline in soda sales. The sales volume of carbonated soft drinks fell 0.9% between 2013 and 2014, with Coca-Cola losing 1.1% and Pepsi 1.4%, according to latest data from Beverage Digest , a publication focused on the non-alcoholic beverages industry.

“The obesity trends are probably the single biggest threat to Coke’s long term profitability,” said Riis. The company’s funding of obesity research “allows them to say they are doing something, but they are not getting good press for it because it is being done in a sneaky kind of way,” noted Glanz. Added Riis: “It’s nice that we live in an age where companies and organizations get punished for that. We need more disclosure; it helps people make informed decisions.”

Riis said he felt “a little bit bad for Coke” in that it failed in its attempts to push Diet Coke products and didn’t get much buy-in from the public health community. “It’s very hard to spend the calories” from a 140-calorie can of regular Coke, compared to four calories in Diet Coke, he explained. With Diet Coke not taking off as expected, “now they have to try other things, and it seems to be now that they are addressing this exercise [aspect],” he added.

Glanz noted the beverage industry’s push for self-regulation. “Is the fox guarding the chicken coop?” she asked. She noted the recent pledge in this regard by a partnership between the American Beverage Association, Coca-Cola and other beverage companies, and the Alliance for a Healthier Generation (founded by the American Heart Association and the Clinton Foundation). That pledge is to reduce beverage calories in the American diet by 20% by 2025, through marketing smaller-sized cans and providing consumers low-calorie options including bottled water, among other measures. “Sounds good. We’ll see,” Glanz said.

More From Knowledge at Wharton

research on coca cola

Pauline Brown, Longtime Leader in the Luxury Goods Sector

Stuart weitzman, founder and chairman emeritus of stuart weitzman shoe company, jeff scott, vice president for hockey development & industry growth at the nhl, looking for more insights.

Sign up to stay informed about our latest article releases.

Research-Methodology

Coca Cola Company Report

research on coca cola

  • Published: July 2015

research on coca cola

  • DESCRIPTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  • COMPANIES MENTIONED

This report contains application of SWOT, PESTEL, Porter’s Five Forces and Value-Chain analytical frameworks towards the case study of Coca Cola Company. The report also comprises analysis of Coca Cola’s marketing strategy and company’s approach towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

The world’s largest beverage company, The Coca Cola Company is owner or licenser of more than 500 non-alcoholic beverage brands. The company sells a wide range of beverages that include waters, enhanced waters, juices and juice drinks, ready-to-drink teas and coffees, and energy and sports drinks . Products belonging to Coca-Cola Company are sold in more than 200 countries around the globe since its incorporation in 1886.

Incorporated in 1919, The Coca Cola Company offers well-known brands such as Coca-Cola, Fanta, Sprite, Minute Maid, Powerade, Del Valle, Schweppers, Aquariues and others. In addition to its core business of manufacturing and selling non-alcoholic drinks, Coca Cola Company is also engaged in some other affiliated businesses such as distribution of Monster Energy beverage drinks, products of DPSG brands and joint venture with Nestle S.A. to produce and distribute Nestea products in Europe, Canada and Australia.

Coca Cola Company’s 2020 Vision is based on its mission that consists of three parts: a) to refresh the world, b) to inspire moments of optimism and happiness and c) to create value and make difference. Recently the company initiated a new marketing campaign ‘One Brand’ that aims to unite four different brands – Coca Cola, Diet Coke, Coca Cola Zero and Coca Cola Life under the umbrella of Coca Cola.

1. Introduction 2. SWOT Analysis 2.1 Strengths 2.2 Weaknesses 2.3 Opportunities 2.4 Threats 3. PESTEL Analysis 3.1 Political Factors 3.2 Economic Factors 3.3 Social Factors 3.4 Technological Factors 3.5 Environmental Factors 3.6 Legal Factors 4. Marketing Strategy 4.1 Advertising 4.2 Sales Promotion 4.3 Events & Experiences 4.4 Public Relations 4.5 Direct Marketing 4.6 Personal Selling 5. Porter’s Five Forces Analysis 6. Value-Chain Analysis 6.1 Primary Activities 6.2 Support Activities 7. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) 7.1 CSR Programs and Initiatives 7.2 Apple CSR Criticism

List of Figures Figure 1 Carbonated soft drinks market share Figure 2 Beverage consumption in the US Figure 3 One Brand” that unities four different brands Figure 4 Porter’s Five Forces Figure 5 Coca Cola spending on supplier diversity program (figures in millions) Figure 6 Value Chain Analysis Figure 7 Distribution of Coca Cola CSR expenses

List of Tables Table 1 Coca Cola SWOT Analysis Table 2 Coca Cola vs. PepsiCo main indicators Table 3 Major bottling partners and areas they serve Table 4 Coca Cola CSR performance

Ajinomoto Co., Inc.

Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc.

Groupe Danone

Kraft Foods Group, Inc.

Mondele-z International, Inc.

Monster Energy

Nestle S.A.

Nutrinova Nutrition Specialties & Food Ingredients GmbH

SinoSweet Co.

Suntory Beverage & Food Limited

Unilever Group

Why this company report is so cheap? 1. Company reports offered in this portal are produced by a small group of academic writers headed by John Dudovski. 2. Our reports are shorter compared to reports produced by large research companies. Company reports are aimed to assist with academic works for business students in particular. Therefore, all points that do not satisfy academic needs of business studies are left out. 3. We do not have massive fixed expanses large research companies do, thus, we are able to deliver reports for a little cost.

How do I receive the report? After completing the payment you will receive a link to the e-mail related to your Pay Pal account or the e-email you have entered when specifying bank details to download the report. The report is downloaded in PDF format. The link will stay active for 7 days.

How can I use the report to complete my academic assignment/research? Reports and essays offered by research-methodology.net are professionally written samples in their respective areas. Reports and essays are intended to be used as guides and sources of secondary data for reference purposes.

I did not receive the link/I can not download the report? If you have any difficulties with downloading reports you have purchased please e-mail us the details of your purchase. We will send the report to you as an e-mail attachment.

Coca Cola Company

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • HHS Author Manuscripts

Logo of nihpa

The pH of beverages available to the American consumer

Avanija reddy, don f. norris, stephanie s. momeni, belinda waldo, john d. ruby.

Dental erosion (DE) is the chemical dissolution of tooth structure in the absence of bacteria when the environment is acidic (pH < 4.0). Recent studies indicate that low pH is the primary determinant of beverage erosive potential although citrate chelation of calcium ions may contribute to erosion at higher pH. The purpose of this study was to determine the erosive potential measured by the pH of commercially available beverages.

A total of 380 beverages were purchased from stores in Birmingham, Alabama, categorized (e.g. juices, sodas) and assessed for pH. An Accumet AR 15 pH meter was used to measure the pH of each beverage in triplicate immediately after opening at 25°C. The pH data were recorded as mean ± standard deviation.

The majority (93%, 355/380) of beverages had a pH below 4.0 and 7% (25/380) had a pH ≥4. Relative beverage erosivity zones based on previous studies of apatite solubility in acid indicated: 39% (150/380) of the beverages were considered extremely erosive (pH <3.0); 54% (205/380) were considered erosive (pH 3.0 to 3.99); 7% (25/380) were considered minimally erosive (pH ≥4.0).

Conclusions

This comprehensive pH assessment of beverages available for human consumption found that the majority are potentially erosive to the dentition. This study will provide dental clinicians and hygienists information regarding the erosive potential (pH) of commercially available beverages.

Practical Implications

Specific dietary recommendations for the prevention of dental erosion may now be developed based on the patient’s history of beverage consumption.

INTRODUCTION

Sweetened beverage consumption has increased dramatically over the past 35 years in America with carbonated soft drinks being consumed the most frequently; children, teens, and young adults are the main consumers. 1 – 3 In 1942 the annual production of soft drinks was about 60 12-ounce servings per person, and that number has increased almost 10-fold since 2005. 4 Between 1999–2002 daily carbonated soft drink/fruit drink consumption by 13- to18-year-olds was 26 ounces, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest has reported that in 2004 total consumption of these drinks for every man, woman and child was approximately 68 gallons per year. 4 The prevalence of dental erosion in the 21 st century has also increased due to our enhanced preference for sweet and sour. 5 The consumption of acidic beverages contributes to an erosive oral milieu, and should be of concern to the dental practitioner. 6 – 9

The pH of commercial non-dairy beverages range from 2.1 (lime juice concentrate) to 7.4 (spring water). 10 Commercially available beverages with a pH < 4.0 are potentially damaging to the dentition. 11 Acids are added to beverages and compose a flavor profile giving the beverage a distinctive taste. Acids provide a tartness and tangy taste that helps to balance the sweetness of sugar present in the beverage; they are key factors in the taste of the beverage. Phosphoric acid is added to cola drinks to impart tartness, reduce growth of bacteria and fungi, and improve shelf-life. Citric acid, a substance naturally occurring in citrus drinks and added to many others, imparts a tangy flavor and functions as a preservative. Malic acid occurs naturally in apples, pears and cherries, and is added to many non-carbonated beverages such as fruit drinks, fortified juices, sports drinks and iced teas because it enhances the intrinsic flavor. Malic acid is added to artificially sweeten carbonated beverages to intensify taste and reduce the amount of other added flavorings. These additives give the beverage its distinctive sugar/acid signature taste.

Dental erosion is the irreversible acidic dissolution of surface tooth structure by chemical means in the absence of microorganisms. It primarily occurs when hydrogen ions [H + ] interact with the surface flluoroapatite and hydroxyapatite crystals after diffusion through plaque-pellicle biofilm—a process termed proton-promoted dissolution. 12 Erosion may initially progress through the enamel lamellae exposing dentinal tubules leading to dentinal sensitivity, however, with continuous erosive insult to the surface enamel, larger areas of the enamel-dentin junction will eventually become exposed, leading to enhanced sensitivity. 7 , 13 , 14 As the oral cavity pH drops below 4.0, the tooth surface erodes and with each unit of decrease in pH there is a ten-fold increase in enamel solubility resulting in a 100 fold increase in enamel demineralization as the pH approaches 2.0 from 4.0. 11 Importantly, the consumption of beverages with higher concentrations of available hydrogen ions (pH < 4.0) results in the immediate softening of the tooth surface that becomes quite susceptible to removal by abrasion and attrition. 15

The frequent consumption of acidic beverages is a developing problem for children, teenagers, and adults. The dramatic increase in consumption of acid soft drinks, fruit juices, fruit drinks, sports drinks and carbonated beverages is now thought to be the leading cause of dental erosion observed among children and adolescents. 16 – 18 A recent report of dental erosion in children indicates its prevalence may range from 10% to 80%. 19 Deciduous teeth, having a thinner enamel layer, are more prone to rapid erosion into dentin leading to exposure of the dental pulp. 19 It is evident that erosion causes many clinical problems with restorative treatment being necessary to replace lost tooth structure, eliminate dental pain and restore functional esthetics.

Previous investigations have indicated pH, not titratable acidity, is the critical determinant of beverage erosive potential. 10 , 19 – 24 Citrate may also contribute to dental erosion by removing [Ca ++ ] through ligand-promoted dissolution (chelation) at a higher pH approaching 6. 12 The purpose of this study is to determine the hydrogen ion concentration (pH) of beverages including new products that are commercially available in stores, gas stations and vending machines. Information obtained from this study will enable dental care practitioners to make appropriate dietary beverage suggestions when counseling patients about the damaging effects of acid in drinks.

Beverages were purchased from convenience stores, grocery stores, gas stations and vending machines in the Birmingham, Alabama area. A total of 380 beverages were studied and categorized. Groups included: waters and sport drinks ( Table 1 ); juices and fruit drinks ( Table 2 ); sodas ( Table 3 ); energy drinks, teas and coffee ( Table 4 ). An Accumet AR 15 pH meter (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA) was used to measure the pH of each beverage in triplicate immediately after opening at 25 °C. The pH data were recorded as range and mean ± standard deviation. Nutritional information labels on the containers were used to determine the type of acid(s) added to the beverages.

pH of waters and sports drinks (pH ± standard deviation, n = 3).

Red = extremely erosive, Yellow = erosive, Green = minimally erosive.

pH of (A) fruit juices, (B) fruit drinks (pH ± standard deviation, n = 3).

pH of sodas (pH ± standard deviation, n = 3).

pH of (A) energy drinks, (B) teas and coffee (pH ± standard deviation, n = 3).

All pH data is expressed as: range and mean ± standard deviation. Seventy waters and sports drinks had a pH range of 2.67 – 7.40 and a mean of 3.31 ± 0.77 ( Table 1 ). Fifty-one juices had a pH range of 2.25 – 4.69 and a mean of 3.48 ± 0.47 ( Table 2A ). Seventy-eight fruit drinks had a pH range of 2.43 – 3.87 and a mean of 2.99 ± 0.31 ( Table 2B ). Ninety-five sodas had a pH range of 2.32 – 5.24 and a mean of 3.12 ± 0.52 ( Table 3 ). Sixty-eight energy drinks had a pH range 2.47 – 3.97 and a mean of 3.13 ± 0.29 ( Table 4A ). Seventeen teas had a pH range of 2.85 – 5.18 and a mean of 3.48 ± 0.77; coffee had a pH of 5.11 ( Table 4B ). The majority of beverages tested had a pH < 4.0 (355/380 = 93%) ( Tables 1 – 4 ). Relative beverage erosivity zones based on previous studies of apatite solubility in acid indicated: 39% (150/380) of the beverages tested were considered extremely erosive (pH < 3.0); 54% (205/380) were considered erosive (pH 3.0 to 3.99); 7% (25/380) were considered minimally erosive (pH ≥ 4.0)( Fig. 1 ). The most acidic beverages tested with a pH < 2.4 were: lemon juice (pH 2.25), RC Cola (pH 2.32), Coca-Cola Classic (2.37), Coca-Cola Cherry (pH 2.38), Pepsi (pH 2.39). Citric > phosphoric > malic acids were the most frequently added acids to the drinks.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms731821f1.jpg

Erosion zones based on theoretical solubility of apatite as a function of pH; adapted with permission from Larsen and Nyvad 30

Previous laboratory studies have determined the pH of beverages for human consumption. 6 , 10 , 22 , 24 – 28 Our study determined the pH of 380 beverages available to the American consumer and is the most comprehensive in terms of beverage numbers and diversity. Recently, there has been an increase in beverage diversity in the marketplace that probably accounts for the large number of beverages procured. Our results are consistent with reported beverage pH values by other investigators; for examples, we determined the pH of Coca Cola was 2.37 ( Table 3 ) as compared to (2.46) 21 , (2.45) 24 , (2.48) 25 , (2.53) 29 , (2.39) 22 , (2.40) 30 , (2.49) 31 , (2.53) 27 , the pH of Schweppes Tonic Water was 2.54 ( Table 3 ) as compared to (2.50) 6 , (2.48) 30 , the pH of Gatorade Lemon Lime was 2.97 ( Table 1 ) as compared to (2.93) 31 , (2.95) 26 , (3.01) 21 , (2.90) 10 , (3.08) 28 , (3.17) 24 , (3.29) 22 , the pH of Pepsi was 2.39 ( Table 3 ) as compared to (2.53) 30 , (2.36) 22 , (2.39) 24 , (2.30) 10 , (2.46) 25 , (2.53) 27 , and the pH of apple juice was 3.57 and 3.66 ( Table 2A ) as compared to (3.60) 10 , (3.41) 24 and (3.60) 32 .

The pH of extrinsic solutions (dietary beverages) coming into contact with the dentition appears to be the major determinant of dental erosion; the hydrogen ion concentration [H + ] or acidity, as measured in pH, is primarily responsible for the immediate dissolution and softening of surface tooth structure (erosive potential) by acidic beverages composed of weak acids, e.g. citric and phosphoric acid. 10 , 12 , 19 – 24 The titratable acidity or buffer capacity, intrinsic to these acids, does not play as critical a role in dental erosion as pH due the limited time exposure the dentition has with ingested liquids during each drinking and swallowing episode. 19 , 20 , 22 , 33 , 34 Therefore, pH or [H + ] at the time of dental exposure is the important chemical parameter to assess when determining the erosive potential of beverages.

Teeth erode in the pH range of 2.0 to 4.0, although surface enamel starts to demineralize as the pH drops below 5.5 when the external milieu of the oral cavity becomes under-saturated for hydroxyapatite. 35 Apatite solubility studies indicate a logarithmic increase in apatite solubility as pH drops under laboratory equilibrium conditions as can be seen in the solubility curve ( Fig. 1 ). 30 , 36 Apatite solubility above pH 4.0 is minimal; a drop of 1 unit to 3.0 results in a 10 fold increase in apatite solubility. Moreover, as pH drops from 3.0 to 2.0 there is an increase in apatite solubility that approaches 1000 g/l ( Fig. 1 ). Based on the apatite solubility curve in Fig. 1 , we propose that the chemical erosive potential of beverages be segregated into 3 zones: extremely erosive― pH < 3.0 (red); erosive―pH 3.0 to 3.99 (yellow); minimally erosive―pH ≥ 4.0 (green). The relative erosivity zones (extremely erosive, erosive, minimally erosive) of 380 beverages as determined by pH indicated: 39% (150/380) were extremely erosive (pH < 3.0); 54% (205/380) were erosive (pH 3.0 to 3.99); 7% (25/380) were minimally erosive (pH ≥ 4.0). Although apatite solubility as a function of pH is a continuum, the segregation of erosive potential into 3 discrete zones would be helpful to the dental clinician when providing a dietary guide of relative beverage erosivity to the patient. The prevailing paradigm for dental erosion remains: as the pH of the oral milieu decreases, the solubility of apatite on the tooth surface increases logarithmically. 11

Dental erosion from beverages is primarily caused by either phosphoric acid and/or citric acid, and both are triprotic acids with 3 available [H + ] enabling proton-promoted dissolution. 12 , 37 Chelation or ligand-promoted dissolution by anionic citrate contributes to enamel demineralization by the removal of Ca ++ at a higher pH range approaching 6. 12 At the erosive pH 3 only 3% of citrate ions are appropriately ionized to chelate Ca ++ , indicating their contribution to the erosive process at this pH is minimal. 38 However, if anionic citrate were to remain within the oral cavity for extended time intervals allowing the pH to rise to 6, chelation could play a contributing role in the erosive process; for example the eating of citrus fruits more than twice a day has been associated with dental erosion 43 . Nevertheless, high concentrations of [H + ] reflected by low pH from citric and/or phosphoric acid result in undersaturation for both fluor- and hydroxyapatite leading to dental erosion. Hence, pH is the controlling parameter in determining the erosive potential of beverages. 11 , 19 – 24

Knowledge of beverage pH is essential for the development of preventive strategies for patients with clinical erosion. 7 , 39 , 40 The elimination of extremely erosive drinks (pH < 3.0), minimizing erosive drinks (pH 3.0 – 3.99), and substituting drinks with a (pH ≥ 4.0) would be prudent advice for the prevention of erosion. Fluoride does not prevent erosion since highly acidic environments solubilize fluorapatite and calcium fluoride. 35 , 41 , 42 Xerostomic conditions exacerbate the erosive process due to lack of saliva essential for the dilution and buffering of [H + ] in the oral cavity. 43 , 44 The primary dentition of children is highly susceptible to the erosive process and low pH beverages should not be placed in a baby bottle, especially at sleep time when the mouth is xerostomic. Athletes may have decreased salivary flow rates due to dehydration from profuse sweating after prolonged, intense physical activity and should re-hydrate with water. 45 Geriatric patients on medications with xerostomic side effects are vulnerable to erosion, and the exposure of cementum and dentin due to gingival recession allow for root demineralization and hypersensitivity from contact with erosive drinks. 7 , 14 , 46 Obviously, saliva is an important ameliorating milieu for the abrogation of dental erosion by not only diluting and buffering extrinsic acids, but also providing the source of glycoproteins that coat the tooth surface as the protective acquired pellicle. 20 , 43 , 44 However, when acidic beverage consumption is excessive, saliva may offer the dentition limited protection from erosion. 47

Studies suggest that the pH or [H + ] is the primary determinant of beverage erosive potential. The pH of 380 beverages was determined and assessed for relative erosivity. Relative beverage erosivity zones based on previous studies of apatite solubility in acid indicated: 39% (150/380) of the beverages tested were considered extremely erosive (pH < 3.0); 54% (205/380) were considered erosive (pH 3.0 to 3.99); 7% (25/380) were considered minimally erosive (pH ≥ 4.0). The most acidic beverages tested with a pH < 2.4 were: lemon juice (pH 2.25), RC Cola (pH 2.32), Coca-Cola Classic (2.37), Coca-Cola Cherry (pH 2.38), Pepsi (pH 2.39). Information obtained from this study will enable dental care practitioners to make appropriate dietary suggestions when counseling patients about the damaging dental effects of acid(s) in the beverages they drink.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by Dr. Mary MacDougall and NIDCR training grant T32-DE017607. Ms. Momeni is a Dental Academic Research Training (DART) Predoctoral Fellow under NIDCR Institutional Grant#T-90 DE022736. We thank Mr. David Fisher, Medical Education and Design Services, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL for the creative design and production of the Tables. The authors also thank Karger AG, Basal, Switzerland for granting us copyright permission for the production of Figure 1 .

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

All authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Disclosure. None of the authors reported any disclosures.

  • Our company
  • Sustainability
  • Social impact

years of refreshing the world

The Coca‑Cola Company has been refreshing the world and making a difference for over 136 years. Explore our Purpose & Vision, History and more.

  • Purpose & Company Vision
  • The Coca‑Cola System
  • Our Board of Directors
  • COCA-COLA HISTORY
  • Our Origins
  • Our First Bottle
  • Sustainability History
  • Advertising History

brands worldwide

We've established a portfolio of drinks that are best positioned to grow in an ever-changing marketplace.

From trademark Coca‑Cola to Sports, Juice & Dairy Drinks, Alcohol Ready-to-Drink Beverages and more, discover some of our most popular brands in North America and from around the world.

  • Coca‑Cola
  • + View More
  • COFFEE & TEA
  • Costa Coffee
  • Gold Peak Tea
  • JUICES & DAIRY
  • Minute Maid
  • Fresca Mixed
  • Jack Daniel's & Coca‑Cola
  • Simply Spiked
  • Topo Chico Hard Seltzer

OUR PLANET MATTERS

Our purpose is to refresh the world and make a difference. See how our company and system employees make this possible every day and learn more about our areas of focus in sustainability.

  • Water Stewardship
  • 2030 Water Strategy Key Goals
  • Sustainable Agriculture
  • Principles for Sustainable Agriculture (PSAs)
  • Sustainable Packaging
  • Collection Strategy
  • Packaging Design
  • Partnership
  • In Our Products
  • Sugar Reduction
  • 2022 Business & Sustainability Report
  • Sustainability & Governance Resource Center

We aim to improve people's lives, from our employees to those who touch our business to the many communities we call home.

  • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
  • Leadership Council
  • Employee Groups
  • People & Communities
  • Women Empowerment
  • Project Last Mile
  • HUMAN RIGHTS
  • Human Rights Governance
  • Stories of IMPACT
  • Coca‑Cola Foundation
  • Partnerships
  • Supplier Diversity
  • Sports & Entertainment

We believe working at The Coca‑Cola Company is an opportunity to build a meaningful career while helping us make a real difference on a global scale.

  • LIFE AT COCA-COLA
  • Career Development
  • Work With Us
  • CAREER AREAS
  • Early Career
  • Experienced Professionals
  • Accessible Workplace
  • HIRING PROCESS
  • Application Process
  • Coca‑Cola Company Jobs
  • Coca‑Cola System Jobs

GET THE LATEST

Catch up on the latest Coca‑Cola news from around the globe - from exciting brand innovation to the latest sustainability projects.

  • WHAT OTHERS ARE READING
  • Taste the Transformation: Coca‑Cola and Grammy-Award Winning Artist Rosalía Break Boundaries With Limited-Edition Coke Creation
  • Coca‑Cola Brings Together Iconic Andy Warhol Painting with Illustrious Roster of Master Classics and Contemporary Works in New Global 'Masterpiece' Campaign
  • A Deeper Look  at Coca‑Cola's Emerging Business in Alcohol
  • LATEST ARTICLES
  • Coca‑Cola Zero Sugar Invites Fans to #TakeATaste
  • Simply Mixology Raises the Bar of the At-Home Mocktail and Cocktail Experience
  • Sprite, Fresca and Seagram's Tap Mark Ronson and Madlib to Create a 'Clear' Connection
  • View all news

Why does The Coca‑Cola Company fund scientific research?

Rigorous scientific research is essential to support our innovation efforts, but also ensures we offer products that are safe and meet global regulatory requirements, and allows us to address questions of public health and consumer interest..

We agree that research transparency and integrity are important. That’s why in 2015 we committed to posting all our funding for well-being scientific research and partnerships, going back to 2010. This list can be found  here .

Whether it is the research we fund independently or when we work in partnership, our company associates and others with whom we engage are required to adhere to the highest level of scientific integrity and to align with our research principles. For the latest updates on our approach to stakeholder engagement and scientific research, please visit our  Transparency in Partnerships  page.

Seeking Alpha

Coca-Cola spices things up with first new flavor in three years

C oca-Cola ( NYSE: KO ) is introducing its first permanent soda flavor in three years later this month with Coca-Cola Spiced. The company said Coca-Cola Spiced offers a "unique alchemy" of its iconic cola, raspberry, and spiced flavor. A zero-sugar version of Coca-Cola Spiced will also be sold.

The Spiced strategy was selected because it is seen by Coca-Cola as being on category trend and responsive to consumer preferences. Research by the beverage giant indicated a strong level of interest in trying a spiced beverage. "Growth in sales of flavored sodas has generally outpaced cola for years, which is helped by a growing multicultural population," noted Beverage Digest editor Duane Stanford.

Looking ahead, Coca-Cola ( KO ) is due to report earnings on February 13. Analysts expect revenue of $10.65B and EPS of $0.49. Coca-Cola ( KO ) has topped EPS expectations in 16 straight quarter and also beat revenue marks in 14 of those quarters. Shares of Coca-Cola ( KO ) have underperformed the broad consumer staples sector over the last 52 weeks with a 1% decline.

More on Coca-Cola

  • Coca-Cola: A Dominant Force With High Upside
  • Coca-Cola: Shares Fairly Priced, Strong Yield, Mixed Chart Ahead Of Q4 Earnings
  • Coca-Cola May Suffer A Seismic Bearish Shift On Pharma's New Wonder Drugs
  • Coca-Cola plans to increase investments in India
  • Coca-Cola CEO doesn't see big threat from weight loss drugs

Coca-Cola spices things up with first new flavor in three years

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Service .

Zacks Investment Research Home

New to Zacks? Get started here.

Member Sign In

Don't Know Your Password?

Zacks

  • Zacks #1 Rank
  • Zacks Industry Rank
  • Zacks Sector Rank
  • Equity Research
  • Mutual Funds
  • Mutual Fund Screener
  • ETF Screener
  • Earnings Calendar
  • Earnings Releases
  • Earnings ESP
  • Earnings ESP Filter
  • Stock Screener
  • Premium Screens
  • Basic Screens
  • Research Wizard
  • Personal Finance
  • Money Managing
  • Real Estate
  • Retirement Planning
  • Tax Information
  • My Portfolio
  • Create Portfolio
  • Style Scores
  • Testimonials
  • Zacks.com Tutorial

Services Overview

  • Zacks Ultimate
  • Zacks Investor Collection
  • Zacks Premium

Investor Services

  • ETF Investor
  • Home Run Investor
  • Income Investor
  • Stocks Under $10
  • Value Investor
  • Top 10 Stocks

Other Services

  • Method for Trading
  • Zacks Confidential

Trading Services

  • Black Box Trader
  • Counterstrike
  • Headline Trader
  • Insider Trader
  • Large-Cap Trader
  • Options Trader
  • Short Sell List
  • Surprise Trader
  • Alternative Energy

Zacks Investment Research Home

You are being directed to ZacksTrade, a division of LBMZ Securities and licensed broker-dealer. ZacksTrade and Zacks.com are separate companies. The web link between the two companies is not a solicitation or offer to invest in a particular security or type of security. ZacksTrade does not endorse or adopt any particular investment strategy, any analyst opinion/rating/report or any approach to evaluating individual securities.

If you wish to go to ZacksTrade, click OK . If you do not, click Cancel.

research on coca cola

Image: Bigstock

Are Investors Undervaluing Coca-Cola HBC (CCHGY) Right Now?

The proven Zacks Rank system focuses on earnings estimates and estimate revisions to find winning stocks. Nevertheless, we know that our readers all have their own perspectives, so we are always looking at the latest trends in value, growth, and momentum to find strong picks.

Considering these trends, value investing is clearly one of the most preferred ways to find strong stocks in any type of market. Value investors use fundamental analysis and traditional valuation metrics to find stocks that they believe are being undervalued by the market at large.

Luckily, Zacks has developed its own Style Scores system in an effort to find stocks with specific traits. Value investors will be interested in the system's "Value" category. Stocks with both "A" grades in the Value category and high Zacks Ranks are among the strongest value stocks on the market right now.

One company value investors might notice is Coca-Cola HBC ( CCHGY Quick Quote CCHGY - Free Report ) . CCHGY is currently holding a Zacks Rank of #2 (Buy) and a Value grade of A. The stock has a Forward P/E ratio of 13.41. This compares to its industry's average Forward P/E of 18.98. Over the last 12 months, CCHGY's Forward P/E has been as high as 17.63 and as low as 11.68, with a median of 13.70.

Another valuation metric that we should highlight is CCHGY's P/B ratio of 3.43. The P/B ratio is used to compare a stock's market value with its book value, which is defined as total assets minus total liabilities. CCHGY's current P/B looks attractive when compared to its industry's average P/B of 8.90. Over the past year, CCHGY's P/B has been as high as 3.50 and as low as 2.59, with a median of 3.12.

These are just a handful of the figures considered in Coca-Cola HBC's great Value grade. Still, they help show that the stock is likely being undervalued at the moment. Add this to the strength of its earnings outlook, and we can clearly see that CCHGY is an impressive value stock right now.

See More Zacks Research for These Tickers

Normally $25 each - click below to receive one report free:.

Coca-Cola HBC (CCHGY) - free report >>

Published in

This file is used for Yahoo remarketing pixel add

research on coca cola

Due to inactivity, you will be signed out in approximately:

IMAGES

  1. Report on Coca Cola.pdf

    research on coca cola

  2. The Most Popular: SWOT Analysis Example of Coca Coca , Coca-Cola is the

    research on coca cola

  3. Coca Cola analysis through Kapferer's brand prism Source: Brand Manager

    research on coca cola

  4. Coca Cola Market Research Case Study

    research on coca cola

  5. Coca-Cola Consumer Research Paper

    research on coca cola

  6. Coca Cola analysis through Kapferer's brand prism Source: Brand Manager

    research on coca cola

COMMENTS

  1. The Coca-Cola Company

    The Coca-Cola Company is an American corporation founded in 1892 and today engaged primarily in the manufacture and sale of syrup and concentrate for Coca-Cola, a sweetened carbonated beverage that is a cultural institution in the United States and a global symbol of American tastes.. The company also produces and sells other soft drinks and citrus beverages.

  2. Our Approach to Stakeholder Engagement and Research

    The Coca-Cola Company's purpose is to refresh the world and make a difference. Our vision is to craft the brands and choice of drinks that people love, to refresh them in body and spirit. And done in ways that create a more sustainable business and better shared future that makes a difference in people's lives, communities and our planet.

  3. Transparency Research Report

    The Coca‑Cola Company has been refreshing the world and making a difference for over 136 years. Explore our Purpose & Vision, History and more. Learn more. ... Transparency Research Report. 04-21-2021. Download Report. United States | English. About us. Media Center. Coca‑Cola Foundation. Investors. Policies. Careers. Need help? FAQ ...

  4. Coca-Cola

    Coca-Cola included in its 'Research and Partnerships' lists the names of academics it funded or collaborated with according to the following criteria (these can be found on the company's websites) (6 - 13): (i) funding agreements sourced exclusively from The Coca-Cola Company, The Coca-Cola Foundation, Coca-Cola North America, Coca-Cola ...

  5. Coca-Cola's funding of health research and partnerships

    In a bid to increase transparency, Coca-Cola has disclosed spending US$118·6 million in the past 5 years on scientific research and health and wellbeing partnerships. In a list of organisations funded by Coca-Cola, published on Sept 22, they reveal several influential medical organisations that have received funding, including the American Cancer Society, which received roughly $2 million ...

  6. Extracting Coca-Cola: An Environmental History

    By: May Wang. December 1, 2023. 4 minutes. The icon indicates free access to the linked research on JSTOR. A charismatic soda and the branding to match, Coca-Cola is more than just a beverage. Today, the Coca-Cola Company is one of the largest food and beverage corporations, reporting nearly $10 billion in profits in 2023.

  7. How Coca-Cola Disguised Its Influence on Science about Sugar and Health

    In 2015, the Coca-Cola company gave $1 million to the University of Colorado Foundation, a revenue stream that feeds into the university itself, to fund a research institute called the Global Energy Balance Network. The stated goal of the institute was to provide "a forum for scientists around the globe to come together and generate the ...

  8. "Always read the small print": a case study of commercial research

    Provisions gave Coca-Cola the right to review research in advance of publication as well as control over (1) study data, (2) disclosure of results and (3) acknowledgement of Coca-Cola funding. Some agreements specified that Coca-Cola has the ultimate decision about any publication of peer-reviewed papers prior to its approval of the researchers ...

  9. Study Uncovers How Coca-Cola Influences Science Research

    Coca-Cola has poured millions of dollars into scientific research at universities. But if the beverage giant doesn't like what scientists find, the company has the power to make sure that their research never sees the light of day. That's according to an analysis published in the Journal of Public Health Policy that explains how Coca-Cola ...

  10. Why does Coca-Cola fund scientific research?

    Why does Coca‑Cola fund scientific research? Rigorous scientific research is essential to support our innovation efforts, but also ensures we offer products that are safe and meet global regulatory requirements, and allows us to address questions of public health and consumer interest. We agree that research transparency and integrity are ...

  11. New study details Coca-Cola's big influence on public heath

    The findings, based on documents uncovered by 22 Freedom of Information requests by the U.S. Right to Know organization, suggest that Coca-Cola's influence could suppress research and viewpoints unfavorable to the company and its suite of unhealthy products, advance messaging that physical inactivity is the key cause of obesity and bolster its image as science-friendly.

  12. Case Analysis of Coca-Cola's Sustainability

    Abstract. This paper analyzes Coca-Cola's sustainability status and efforts based on three models: the Triple Bottom Line, the Phrase Model and Carroll's Pyramid. Sustainability is a globally ...

  13. Market Research Example: How Coke Lost Millions

    Market Research Example: How Coca-Cola Lost Millions with This Mistake. In the mid-1980s, the Coca-Cola Company made a decision to introduce a new beverage product (Hartley, 1995, pp. 129-145). The company had evidence that taste was the single most important cause of Coke's decline in the market share in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

  14. Health risks of Coca-Cola: What it does to the body

    Summary. Sugary drinks can contribute to many health conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, and tooth decay. Research has shown that drinking a can of Coca-Cola can damage the body within ...

  15. Coca-Cola Company

    Coca-Cola Company - statistics & facts. The Coca-Cola Company is a key global player in the beverage industry. The firm is headquartered in Atlanta, GA and has over 200 bottling partners worldwide ...

  16. (PDF) Coca Cola Strategy Project

    PDF | On Feb 1, 2019, Naama Al Tunaiji published Coca Cola Strategy Project | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

  17. How Coca-Cola became one of the most successful brands in history

    February 8, 2023. Coca-Cola has an impressive track record of innovation which has helped propel the company to become one of the most successful brands in history. Through skillful advertising efforts, Coca-Cola is widely recognized as a symbol of American culture through its influence on politics, pop culture, and music around the globe.

  18. Coca-Cola's 2021 Marketing Innovation Portfolio Strategy

    02-20-2021. The Coca‑Cola Company is emerging from the pandemic poised for growth with a leaner lineup of high-potential brands and a more disciplined, consumer-centric approach to marketing and innovation, Chairman and CEO James Quincey said Feb. 19 at the Consumer Analyst Group of New York (CAGNY) virtual conference.

  19. Sizing Up Coca-Cola's Obesity Research Controversy

    Coca-Cola sales are down along with a general decline in soda sales. The sales volume of carbonated soft drinks fell 0.9% between 2013 and 2014, with Coca-Cola losing 1.1% and Pepsi 1.4% ...

  20. Coca Cola Company Report

    This report contains application of SWOT, PESTEL, Porter's Five Forces and Value-Chain analytical frameworks towards the case study of Coca Cola Company. The report also comprises analysis of Coca Cola's marketing strategy and company's approach towards Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). The world's largest beverage company, The Coca Cola Company is owner or licenser of more than ...

  21. The pH of beverages available to the American consumer

    The most acidic beverages tested with a pH < 2.4 were: lemon juice (pH 2.25), RC Cola (pH 2.32), Coca-Cola Classic (2.37), Coca-Cola Cherry (pH 2.38), Pepsi (pH 2.39). ... Momeni is a Dental Academic Research Training (DART) Predoctoral Fellow under NIDCR Institutional Grant#T-90 DE022736. We thank Mr. David Fisher, Medical Education and Design ...

  22. Coke vs. Pepsi—how the Cola Wars are changing and who's winning

    Sleek cans began rolling out last year in the New York market and they're now being used with brands such as Coca-Cola Spiced. "The consumer research so far is really fantastic," Mann said ...

  23. Why does The Coca-Cola Company fund scientific research?

    The Coca‑Cola Company has been refreshing the world and making a difference for over 136 years. Explore our Purpose & Vision, History and more. Learn more. Purpose & Company Vision; ... Rigorous scientific research is essential to support our innovation efforts, but also ensures we offer products that are safe and meet global regulatory ...

  24. Coca-Cola's Successful R&D Strategy

    Coca-Cola spends a significant amount of money on research and development (R&D) each year in order to maintain its position as a market leader. In 2017, Coca-Cola's R&D budget was $3.4 billion, which was an increase of 9% from the previous year. The company's R&D spending as a percentage of revenue has been steadily increasing in recent ...

  25. Coca-Cola Co. Research & Ratings

    The Coca-Cola Co. engages in the manufacturing and marketing of non-alcoholic beverages. It operates through the following segments: Europe, Middle East and Africa, Latin America, North America ...

  26. Novolyze Partners with Liberty Coca-Cola to Digitize Food Safety

    WASHINGTON, D.C., — Novolyze, a provider of cloud-based food safety and quality digitalization technology and solutions, announced a collaboration with Liberty Coca-Cola Beverages to digitize the company's Food Safety and Quality (FSQ) program across three of its plants. Liberty Coca-Cola, a major Coca-Cola bottler serving millions of consumers daily, said it selected Novolyze's portfolio ...

  27. Coca-Cola spices things up with first new flavor in three years

    The Spiced strategy was selected because it is seen by Coca-Cola as being on category trend and responsive to consumer preferences. Research by the beverage giant indicated a strong level of ...

  28. Are Investors Undervaluing Coca-Cola HBC (CCHGY) Right Now?

    One company value investors might notice is Coca-Cola HBC (CCHGY Quick Quote CCHGY - Free Report) . CCHGY is currently holding a Zacks Rank of #2 (Buy) and a Value grade of A.