Struggles of water usage in Kaladera

(1)

S T R U G G L E S O F W AT E R U S A G E I N

K A LA D E R A

A C A SE STUDY ON C OC A -C OLA 'S SOC IA L A N D HYDR OLOGIC A L R OLE A N D IMP A C T IN K A LA DE R A , IN DIA

Jim Boonman 10735143

Thijs Gieben 10892907

Tsi Kwan Lam 10327568

University of Amsterdam

Future Planet Studies

Interdisciplinary Project

Anneke ter Schure

Andres Verzijl

23-12-2016

(2)

(3)

ABSTRACT

Coca-Cola has experienced substantial growth in India over the course of the 90s, which has gone paired with social resistance from local, national and global protest groups. One of the major issues argued by protesters and action groups is that Coca-Cola is 'stealing' large amounts of water for its production, in areas where water is scarce. These protests affected Coca-Cola's image and production, but also led the company to offer recourse, in forms of social support and also support in water management. The aim of this research is to assess the impact that Coca-Cola has had on Indian water and social structures in the village of Kaladera, as well as the role it played in the three-way-dynamics between water, the Indian people and itself. Because the bias of literature on this topic is unsure, a priority in the approach is the extensive scope of literature. This is analysed in an interdisciplinary approach, in order to pinpoint the intersection between hydrology, business and human geography. The results of this case study can contribute to a wider range of case studies on the topic, in order to form a complete picture of the social and hydrological role and impact of Coca-Cola in India. The results show that Coca-Cola's impact on water level and quality in the area has been minimal and the impact on the water level has even been overcompensated by the introduction of drip irrigation. In spite of this, the social resistance was relatively large and persevering. This could be traced back to Coca-Cola's role as a symbol of liberalisation and globalisation in India, which has a negative connotation in many rural areas.

(4)

INTRODUCTION

In 2011, 45% of the Indian population did not have access to a secure and clean water source (Carroll, 2013). According to NASA data, Indian groundwater depletion is the largest of the world and rising due to climate change, demographic growth and economic development (Richey et al., 2015). The size of this issue proposes large challenges for India, both in terms of health and wellbeing as in terms of social unrest.

In the North of India, the negative trend in water availability is growing explicitly. Tiwari et al. (2009) stated that the wide spread negative trend is the largest on earth, not caused by melting of ice. The loss of the Ganga-Brahmaputra basin in Northern-India (including Kaladera, Rajasthan) is around 34 km3_/year.

The 1990s represent the time of liberalization in India. During this time, the heavily interventionist post-colonial policies were dismantled and foreign investments were attracted. This sudden shift from public to private also meant, however, that state-controlled economies quickly disappeared and small industries suffered heavily. Because of this, the 1990s became a time of polarisation in India, where the elite, middle-class city workers and mainstream media where in favour of the liberalization, but the lower classes, the poor and those who lost their jobs only suffered from it (Tukdeo, 2006).

This unequal distribution led to social resistance, especially against large multinational companies, of which Coca-Cola was one of the most tangible. In Kaladera, Coca-Cola has been blamed by local inhabitants and farmers for polluting and depleting water, making it difficult for them to continue their agricultural practices since the opening of the Kaladera bottling plant in 1999 (Berglund & Helander, 2015).

Previous papers have been studying pollution, water withdrawal of and protest against bottling plants and the reaction of Coca-Cola in India nation-wide. However, research bias from Coca-Cola cannot be ruled out in this small range of large-scale research papers that could also easily overlook local implications. In order to tackle these problems, this research aims to contribute to a larger range of case-specific researches on the social and hydrological role and impact of Coca-Cola bottling plants. Moreover, this paper is contributing to an understanding of the water problem in Northern India in general. The research question is: What is the role and impact of Coca-Cola on the social and hydrological environment in Kaladera?

To fully cover the problem and draw a relevant conclusion, the intersection between the social and hydrological aspects would have to be integrated in an analysis of Coca-Cola as a company. Therefore, this research will have an interdisciplinary character, combining earth sciences, human geography and business studies. Results will be integrated as much as possible by the extending concept of role and impact. At first, theoretical concepts and theories are discussed. Secondly, the methodology is presented. Thirdly, the results on water quantity and quality issues, the corporate social responsibility of Coca-Cola and the social role and impact will be discussed. Finally, a short conclusion and discussion will be presented.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In the theoretical framework most important concepts and theories that are used in this paper are explained. For this paper, these include the following definitions: Aquifer, corporate social

responsibility, stakeholder theory, social resistance and diversional framing. Furthermore, the concept ‘role and impact’ will be discussed in the methodology.

(6)

AQUIFER

An aquifer is an underground layer which consists of permeable materials, having a high hydraulic conductivity. Due to the permeability, groundwater is available between the fragments. Using a water well, this water can be extracted. Aquifers differ in permeability, size and depth and can also be confined. This means that water cannot or hardly enter or leave the aquifer, because overlying layers with a low hydraulic conductivity are present. Over time, communities build a balanced relationship with the specific characteristics of their water resource/aquifer so that they can rely on it. A

disturbance in use of the aquifer can therefore lead to social unrest if it affects the communities’ stability. The balances of these aquifer uses and their cultural values are prone to change due to liberalisation and demographic change in a more interconnected world. These new times call for a new balance of the aquifer use, which can only be achieved if the new users find common ground. Getting there is a matter of discussing equity and equality, but also of changing one’s perspective. Neither of these are easy issues for people to give in to, which is the reason that aquifer conflict is inherently enlarged by its human aspect. Shriver & Paden (2009) analyse the role of opposing perspectives in aquifer framing and argue its unproductiveness. It is for this reason that aquifer disputes must be entered with a note of human reasonability.

CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) develops when corporations go beyond making profits and contribute positively to society and/or the environment (Dahlsrud, 2008). The concept of CSR however remains unclear since the term is broad and academics and corporations each have their own perspective on what should be considered the social responsibility of the organization. CSR has been described as an elusive, vague, ill-defined concept lacking theoretical integration, empirical

verification and a dominant paradigm (Lee, 1987; Preston and Post, 1974; Defillipi, 1982; Preston 1987; Jones, 1983). The perspective of CSR varies from conceptions of minimal economic and legal obligation and accountability to stockholders to a broader spectrum of responsibilities in the wider social system of which the corporation is embedded (McWilliams, 2000). The various definitions of CSR can be accounted to the term having evolved through the decades. One of the earliest contributor on the CSR concept was Howard Bowen. Bowen et al. published the article “Social responsibilities of a businessman” in 1953 which will later form as one of the pillars on which CSR theories are based on. He introduced the concept of corporate social responsibilities and the relevant theories. The underlying assumptions of his concept of CSR is that corporations are of great importance for society and they have significant impact on the (social) environment they operate in (Carroll, 1999). Later on CSR was characterized by the focus of corporations on the emerging environmental issues regarding climate change and pollution (Carroll, 1999). The use of models was introduced in this period to explain CSR concepts which has been of increasing importance. One of main model developed is the three layers’ concentric circle created by the committee of Economic development in 1971 (Carroll, 1991). The model visualizes the different layers of CSR, namely the economic function, the

awareness of changing social value and the involvement of improving the social environment. This changes again when CSR was defined by the corporate social performance model in 1979 by Carroll. The model was considered significant due to being useful by specifying the different types of

dimensions of social responsibility. However, this model was later criticized for outlining the range of responsibilities that managers are expected to fulfil in contradiction to the achievable reality. In the last period, the concept of CSR has evolved in a more inclusive term. This was also the time the stakeholder theory (McWilliams et al., 2001) was introduced and has offered a new organize thinking about the organizational responsibilities. This theory has become dominant in the last decade but the approach vary from execution since each organization has their own interpretation of the term stakeholders.

(7)

Due to the different models and definition throughout the decades, a definition of the CSR concept that embodies all these different theories is still lacking today. Since the concept of CSR is too broad for analysing environmental influences, this research will focus on one of the theory instead, namely the Stakeholders theory. The stakeholder theory fit within the research field of Coca cola since the case is focused on water management. The use of stakeholder theory offers a more inclusive approach on water resource management issues and is therefore is a sensible choice in analysing environmental influence of actors within this field.

MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDER PLATFORM

Today’s CSR is merely focused on the stakeholder theory. A theory based on the idea that firms have relationships with different constituent groups of “stakeholders”, and these stakeholders are affected or affects the organization’s actions (Roberts, 1992). The assumption of this theory lays within the assumed value of the stakeholder and the importance of their relationship with the corporation as critical for the operational success of the corporation. Since Freeman published his landmark book on stakeholder theory ‘’Strategic management: A stakeholder approach’’ in 1984, the concept of

stakeholders’ theory has become embedded in managerial scholarship and practices. After the publication of Freeman different interpretations of the stakeholder theory have been proposed. Even though all the different interpretations all had different perspectives, an agreement can be found in the bottom line, which is that analysis using the theory can be useful to guide and explain the structure and operations of the established corporations (Donaldson and Preston, 1995).

For the purpose of this research the focus of the stakeholder theory is placed on the diversity of stakeholders who perceive the same resource management problems. This approach is adopted by Warner (2006) for the purpose of researching a way of water resource management in a multi stakeholder environment. This approach named the multiple stakeholder platform (MSP) helps to form networks for dispute settlement, adaptive management and democratization (Warner, 2006). MSP can offer dialogues in situations where multiple stakeholders are perceiving the same resource management problem, are interdependent for solving the issue and are willing to cooperate together to solve the problem (Röling & Woodhill, 2011). This approach is aligned with the Coca-Cola case and can be found in their effort in holding stakeholder dialogues.

The critical part of MSP approach is the acknowledgment of the stakeholders, the definition of Freeman is focused on the corporate environment but in the case of water management a more inclusive definition is needed that reflect on actors outside of the corporate operation environment. Therefore, the definition of stakeholders by the World Bank (1996) for water resource management will be used; ‘‘Stakeholders are individuals, groups or institutions that are concerned with or have an interest in the water resources and their management.’’. This definition acknowledges next to water users also the parties that are affected by the usage and the parties that are concerned with water resource development, management and planning. This definition also involves NGO’s institutions etc. This definition notes stakeholders not as parties that can actively raise of lower their stakes since some parties just can’t switch their water stakes in the short run of the water resource management issue and acknowledge a more inclusive network of stakeholders in an environment outside the corporate operation environment that are affected by the corporation’s activity.

SOCIAL RESISTANCE

The MSP approach has proven itself in stakeholder water conflicts, but is bound to certain criteria (Aarts & van Woerkum, 2000). Without consensus on norms & values, the problem becomes ill-structured and without structure, dialogue might not be productive (Warner, 2006). This means that other forms of conflict mitigation can emerge, but it usually leads to social resistance from one group. The existent theoretical framework on social resistance gives us an insight into the influence that social movements have had on water management in Kaladera. Resistance is essentially a form of power struggle, a practice which should be seen within its social and historical context (Vinthagen &

(8)

Johansson, 2013). It is, however, not limited to protests and violence, but also manifests in rhetoric and discourse. Vinthagen (2007) illustrates several different protest-less forms of resistance, among which is discursive resistance, described as "Attempts to convince and communicate through developing good arguments and convincing behaviour (e.g. fact-findings, counter-research reports, symbolic communication, countering enemy- images by counter-arguments and counter-behaviour)". On the other hand, collective resistance often takes the form of protests. These are far less organized social expressions which can have just as large an impact (Piven, 1991).

DIVERSIONAL FRAMING

The use and results of Coca Cola's Corporate Social Responsibility program play a key role in the analysis of the social-corporate-environment intersection. But besides the business-oriented analysis and the geography-oriented analysis, the sociological context could also play an important role. Freudenburg and Alario (2007) compare business agents to magicians, to whom it is essential to divert the attention from the essential. Bywater (2012) used this as a base to analyse 'diversional framing' in Coca-Cola's CSR reports following the protests in Plachimada, which are based on the same arguments as Kaladera (Berglund & Helander, 2015). The analysis shows that the extensive CSR report does, in fact, not show how Coca-Cola's opponent's key points will be addressed. These points are mentioned and it seems as if the problems are being taken seriously, but reading more closely shows that there are no actual plans of fixing them. The analysis of diversional framing of Coca-Cola in Kaladera will not focus on the implementation of the posed CSR program, but about whether if it is used as a diversion tool or as an actual solution for the social implications.

METHODOLOGY

Since this case study is conducted off-site, the validation of the methodology is crucial to validate the results The research will be based on a literature study, using both reports on the specific situation in Kaladera, as well as reports that function as a theoretical base. Using this literature, several analyses will be made as exact as the available data allow. A method has been established to analyse the intersection between the disciplines of business, earth sciences and social studies. The geophysical data will be provided by earlier analyses that are combined to measure the impact of Coca Cola. The social data will be based on a stakeholder analysis and the business data will derive from information about Coca-Cola's CSR. Stakeholder demands, framing and hydrological impact will then be

combined as a way to pinpoint Coca-Cola's role and impact on the area.

The integration of the different disciplines in this paper can be found in the definition of the term role and impact. Each discipline has a different definition of role and impact. For the purpose of this research, the definitions have been integrated according to the strategy of Newell (2000) for extending concepts within different disciplines. In this technique, concepts from one discipline are expanded to include the perspective of all the disciplines involved in this paper.

The relevance of the definitions of role and impact for the cohesion of different disciplines shall be explained in the next section. The impact will be defined as environmental impact (water withdrawal, pollution), but also as social impact (protests, influence on community, water accessibility) and business impact (impact on business operations such as CSR, continuing of business plan). The role is a single concept used to describe the role that Coca-Cola and other actors played in decision-making on the subject of water quality, quantity and social unrest in Kaladera. This concept is thus

interdisciplinary in itself, as it is both influenced by and has an influence on the three disciplines that are used. The position of the role and impact within the dynamics of the actors, the social relations and the water quality/quantity are visualised in figure 1.

(9)

Figure 1. Visualisation of the position of 'role and impact' within the research.

RESULTS

In the following part the results of this research will be presented by linking this to the theory discussed previously in the theoretical framework.

GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS

The small Indian village Kaladera is located 30 km to the north of Jaipur in the province of Rajasthan (figure 2). Here, only 49 over 236 regions have a safe groundwater development. The amount of safe zones is decreasing every year. Regions with thinner aquifers are more prone to impacts of droughts (Narian, Kahn, Singh, 2006). The area of the watershed of Kaladera lies within two tehsils of district Jaipur: Chomo and Amur. The watershed. is 309 square kilometres and lies 420 to 693 meters above sea-level (figure 2).

The average yearly rainfall in the area is about 600 mm (figure 2). The potential evaporation is almost three times as large as the rainfall (1500-1700 mm.) (Srivastava et al. 2006). The monsoon, lasting from July till September, is responsible for over 90% of the total rainfall. Aquifer recharge is completely relying on the monsoon rainfall. Between 1981 and 2006, there were eight years with intense droughts and a failing monsoon (Srivastava et al. 2006; Rather, 2005). Also, the population, farmers and industries have been putting more pressure on the ground water aquifer (Srivastava et al, 2006). As a consequence, surface and groundwater sources have become scarcer. It is likely that climate change will weaken future monsoon strength, enhances potential evaporation and results in more frequent droughts (IPCC, 2014). As a consequence, aquifer recharge is even more challenged in the future.

(10)

Figure 2. The long term rainfall averages of Jaipur (Srivastava et al. 2006).

An ephemeral stream is flowing through the village (figure 3). The stream is only active in the summer monsoon, as there is little to no rainfall in the other months (figure 2). Moreover, rain that in drier periods would easily infiltrate in the young alluvial soil (figure 4).

Figure 3. The topography and drainage map from the Kaladera watershed. The bottling plant is indicated with

(11)

The Quaternary alluvial formations constitute unconfined to semi-confined aquifers, with a thickness of 60 to 70 meters. The formations consist of fine to medium sands, calcrete, clays, and gravel. Intercalated clay layers are confining permeability (Narian, Kahn, Singh, 2006; Rathore, 2005). Considering groundwater flow and recharge, the aquifers are moderate in quality (Srivastava et al., 2006).

Figure 4. Ground water provenance from Rajasthan (Rathore, 2005). The watershed of Kaladera is formed on

quaternary alluvial material.

However, groundwater aquifers can be exploited faster than recharged by rainfall. In 1998, the government stated that the underground aquifers of Kaladera were overexploited. In 2004, the government reported that the extraction, natural recharge rate was 2.47. In 2006, independent research concluded that this rate was 1.35 (Srivastava et al. 2006). According to the India Resource Centre, the groundwater level of the aquifer dropped from 12 to 37 meters below the surface between 2000-2010 (figure 5). However, this organization is protesting against Coca-Cola, arguing that the bottling plant in Kaladera is responsible for water overexploitation. Moreover, the original data has not been found, so data has not been verified.

(12)

Figure 5. The groundwater level in time, according to Srivastava et al, (2006). The data has not been verified.

The frequent arid conditions, and the increase of excessive groundwater extraction with higher capacity electric pumps are responsible for the yearly overexploitation of the aquifer (Srivastava et al. 2006). Srivastava et al. (2006) have modelled the annual water balance. The total groundwater availability is 35 to 43 million cubic meters. Approximately ten percent of the monsoon rainfall is infiltrating in the soil. Including seepage from irrigation, the annual recharge is estimated to be 35-42 MCM. In figure 1, an overview of water balance and usage is given.

Figure 6. A simplified total water

balance of the area of Kaladera. Unfortunately, no standard deviations are available. The figure has been created by graphing modelled data from the report of Srivastava et al. (2006). The values represent the means from the modelled estimates. Overexploitation is clearly evident. It also stands out that irrigation is responsible for the major water withdrawal. Total water availability is between 35 and 43 km3.

In Kaladera, the overexploitation of the groundwater was known since 1998. However, according to Srivastava et al. (2006) the Cola company did not notice this and focused on ensuring a large enough supply of water for their business and did not assess the danger for the environment. The

Environmental Due Diligence (EDD) of the bottling plant were not shared with the researchers. Therefore, the view of Coca-Cola on long-term water availability for plants and the environment is lacking.

Available water Used water IrrigationDomestic and indusrial 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Total water use (means from modelled estimate)

(13)

The production of soft drinks in Kaladera peaks every April till June. The off-peak period is from November till January (when there also is no rainfall). In the article of Srivastava et al (2006), it is stated that the bottling plant of Kaladera is influencing the water table within 1.5 km radius around the plant, containing several villages. Between 2004 and 2006, the plant was responsible for 0.4 to 2.0 meters of groundwater depletion in the area, with a peak extraction of 45 Ml per month (figure 7). However, the irrigation is responsible for higher water withdrawal, estimated up to 100 times the average of the withdrawal from Coca-Cola (figure 6) (Srivastava et al., 2006)1_{. Moreover, the area of} 1.5 km around the plant is around 13 km2_{. Considering the total area (309 km}2_{) of the watershed, the} impact is limited to <5% of the area. The ‘cone of depression’ caused by the wells is likely to have an impact on the farmers in the area which are having more shallow wells.

Figure 7 – Water extraction of the bottling plant in Kaladera (Srivastava et al. 2006).

The groundwater is overexploited by at least 35%. Land use change is expected to be the major factor in the increasing groundwater subtraction over time. From 1984 to 2004, the cultivation of water intensive crops (in the Rabi especially groundnut, bajra) has increased from 1600 hectares to over 18000 hectares (figure 8 and 9). Moreover, cropping intensity (gross sown area/not sown area), has increased about 25%. However, Coca-Cola had been extracting lots of water, which has had major influences on the farmers and groundwater balance in a radius of 1.5 kilometres (Tiwari, Wahr & Svensonn, 2009; Srivastava et al., 2006).

1 A large part of the information in this section is relying on information provided by Srivastava et al. (2006). It is important to note that the article has not been peer-reviewed. Therefore, the information has to be handled carefully. An invisible bias in which Cola benefits could have been present because the research is of enormous influence on Coca-Cola and further policies. On the other hand, the article is coming from a third party, and an enormous amount of in-field information, important for this research, has been gathered.

(14)

Figure 8- Landuse map for the Kaladera watershed in 2006 (Srivastava et al. 2006). Khariff and Rabi refer to

the sowing period (figure 9).

Figure 9. Cropping patterns in the district Chomu (including Kaladera) (Srivastava et al, 2006). Overall an

increase in agricultural practices is clearly visible. Kharif and Rabi represent different seasons. The Kharif usually season begins in July, when the summer monsoon (with high rainfall) starts. The Rabi season starts when the winter monsoon is starting.

Tiwari et al. (2009) argue that overexploitation of the aquifers in an area can lead to irreversible degradation due to the increased chance of inflow of polluted water. An example of such a case is the arsenic pollution in Bangladesh. The authors conclude that the intense demand for agricultural products and preservation of ecosystem services have to be secured by recharging the aquifers of north India.

(15)

In the research of Sharma & Chhipa (2016), groundwater drinking samples on ten sites in the north eastern of Jaipur have been taken and tested on water standards. The research gives an indication of the present challenges considering water quality in the specific area. Unfortunately, almost all water quality parameters are exceeding the Indian and World Health Organisation standards. As a result of high conductivity, total hardness, total dissolved solids, [Na+_{] [Cl}-_{] and [NO3}-_{] some areas were even} classified as highly contaminated. The leaching of salts causes groundwater post monsoon to be even higher contaminated.

Considering the Coca-Cola bottling plant in Kaladera one would immediately think Coca-Cola would have a negative influence on the state of groundwater quality in the area, because in March 2016 the Coke factories were placed in the red category by the government of India, meaning the factories have a pollution index >60 out of 100 (Press Information Bureau, 2016). Contradictory, Srivastava et al. (2006) concluded Coca-Cola is doing well according to the Indian laws. Moreover, in 2015, Singh, Singh & Singh (2015) published a peer-reviewed paper in which they conclude that all of the monthly measured values of Coca-Cola effluent and sludge (waste) from three Indian factories were below maximum permitted levels. The role of Coca-Cola cannot be excluded in biasing the results of the paper of Singh et al. (2015) or/and Srivastava et al. (2006).

(16)

COCA COLA CSR ANALYSIS

In 2002 Coca Cola Kaladera was facing backlash of the local community, they were convinced their local water scarcity problem has risen since the plant was commissioned in 1999. Coca Cola Kaladera published in response to the backlash their first environmental report as an effort to move towards a more transparent sustainable operation management (Chaklader & Gautam, 2013). However, in 2003 the local community of the plant were still discontent with the operation of Coca Cola and exerted pressure on the plant to close down. Around the same period Coca Cola Kaladera introduced a new environment and water resources department in line with the Global water strategy of the

headquarters (Chaklader & Gautam, 2013). The new department had the strategy to inform the local community on the water use of the Coca Cola plant. They communicated their water consumption operations and conservation operations in order to clarify the misconception of water operations of the plant.

Later that year Coca Cola India held a stakeholder dialogue inviting all the local community members and affected stakeholders to discuss the water situation in Kaladera (Chaklader & Gautam, 2013). After the dialogue Coca Cola India took up a strategy of engaging the local community and working together with them to promote water conservation in the state.

The company has implemented a project to promote drip irrigation in Rajasthan by subsidizing the usage for farmers. Next Coca Cola implemented open door policy, engaging in frequent active consultation with locals, using local resources for all its social projects and improving the local living standards by supporting hospitals, livestock education etc. (Chaklader & Gautam, 2013). Applying drip irrigation is extremely beneficial for farmers, because it will lessen weed growth and soil erosion. Considering water and fertilizer efficiency and plant productivity, even more benefits are existing. For example: In a previous study on drip irrigation in India it was found that productivity of sugarcane was 23% higher, while 45% of the water was saved. Moreover, the increased water efficiency is saving electricity (and fossil fuels), because less water has to be extracted with pumps

(Narayanamoorthy,2004). Sugarcane is a water intensive crop, but, considering the previous given data of water usage and assuming that drip irrigation with a normal crop would save half the amount of water saved in the research of Narayanamoorthy (2004), the savings would outweigh the water consumed by Coca-Cola and all other industries and inhabitants.

SOCIAL ANALYSIS

Coca-Cola had already been introduced in India since 1956, but it is a school example of global liberalization (1990s), which has been feeding India's growing polarization. On one hand, it represented a certain social status that could be achieved in a liberal economy, but for the suffering classes on the other hand, it represented the oppression of large companies that where enabled to exist by a system that no longer represented their interests. It is thus understandable that since the

liberalization, the introduction of Coca-Cola plants led to social resistance in local communities. These people often did not enjoy the luxury of drinking Coca-Cola, neither did they enjoy

employment by the company. All they experienced was a drop in surrounding water levels, making it difficult for them to obtain water for agriculture.

In spite of the fact that the apparent impact of Coca-Cola on water levels in the area is limited, if not overcompensated, protests against this very impact arose, led by farmers and community leaders. For some plants, these protests have led to a complete shut-down, as was the case for the Kaladera plant in 2016. To discover the bottom-line role and impact of Coca-Cola on Indian water, it is important to

(17)

research the role of both Coca-Cola and local communities in these protests, but also the impact of these protests on Coca-Cola and local water quality/quantity.

The protests surrounding Kaladera are led by a local group called 'Kaladera Sangharsh Samiti', as well as a global network of protestors, led by California based Amit Srivastava, operating through his NGO 'Global Resistance' and the India Resource Center. This situation portrays how Coca-Cola is vulnerable to threats on both a local and a global scale, which means that the company has to take serious measures to dampen these threats, e.g. by putting together extensive CSR reports. This combination of local and global obstacles is typical to a corporation operating on both scales and requires more extensive effort to tackle.

However, in spite of all these protests, Coca-Cola has not officially stated that the shutdown of the Kaladera plant is related to civil (or other) pressure. The company only stated that “plant capacity utilization is a derivative of the current market demands and projections.” This is not in line with what is posed by the TERI assessment (2007), which concluded that the Kaladera plant would have to move its water extraction elsewhere or close the plant in order to maintain a reasonably sustainable watershed in the area. Even more surprising is the action that Coca-Cola has undertook to promote drip irrigation in the area surrounding Kaladera. The strange combination of these events make it difficult to precisely analyze what exactly happened and how social movements have influenced Coca-Cola. In order to tackle this problem as many scientific papers have been used on the subject as possible, but that remains a small amount.

For civil society organizations, the protests where mostly based on the mere fact that Coca-Cola is a MNC. This is against the Swadeshi principle, an Indian term that advocates local, domestic

production and use of resources. The Swadeshi movement has fed Indian nationalism and social resistance since around 1900 (Bayly, 1986., Sakar, 1973), but it relives in a time of growing

liberalisation and globalisation in India. Civil organizations representatives stress that it is unfair for a MNC to extract Kaladera's scarce water resources for export. This view of unfairness is shared by local women, farmers and workers who also want their resources to be used within the area instead of being exported. Even though the role of other factories in the area is acknowledged, the local

communities believe that Coca Cola plays the biggest role in water extraction, while also stating that 1 Coca-Cola well takes up as much water as 7000 farmers wells (Srivastava et al., 2006).

Alongside with that, local and national actors argue that the produced beverage is harmful to human health (Srivastava et al., 2006). The beverage's toxicity has been confirmed by the Delhi-based Centre for Science and environment in 2003 and led to large-scale national campaigns (Vedwan, 2007). Even this national coverage of the issue only resulted in internal tests on the toxicity of the product

(Srivastava et al., 2006), until later political pressure (Vedwan, 2007).

On the global scale, Amit Srivastava is the main figure operating to dismantle Coca-Cola's presence in India. Since his operations have access to more knowledge and finance, the impact their actions have on Coca-Cola are bigger than that of local communities on a social, legal and financial scale

(Stecklow, 2005). The other large actor on the global scale is the website killercoke.org, which aims to raise awareness and legally fight Coca-Cola. These two movements combined are believed to have led to the majority of Coca-Cola's CSR projects. Its prior form of resistance is discursive (harmless resistance trough communication, pressure, law etc.), but it also supports the protest-based local resistance groups by mobilizing and consulting. The motives of the global protest network are broad, ranging from the 'stealing of water' in arid areas, to creating inequality, corruption, polluting

agricultural land, poor work conditions and the manufacturing of a toxic product (Killercoke, 2016., India Resource Center, 2016).

(18)

The stakeholders have been selected on the basis of having influence in decision-making or directly being impacted by the made decisions on Kaladera water management. Coca-Cola's own stakeholders (both global and local, e.g. shareholders) are left out of the picture, since they have no direct link with Kaladera's water management issue.

Villagers

The villagers are represented by panchayats, which are village councils. They play an active role in local activism against Coca-Cola, but are also the channel trough which Coca-Cola implements local support programs. They are very afraid of the impact Coca-Cola has on their water resources, which has already manifested itself in decreasing water availability. They are also defending the swadeshi principle, since they feel it is their water that is being exported throughout the world (Srivastava et al., 2006).

Farmers

The farmers are competing over water with Coca-Cola and feel like it is unfair that Coca-Cola extracts as much water as they do. Partially because Coca-Cola's wells are far deeper than theirs and thus have longer access to water. They also complain about pollution, because it affects their

products. In other villages, tests have shown a toxic impact of a Coca-Cola plant on local agriculture (Hills & Welford, 2005).

Jan Sang harsh Samiti

Jan Sangarsh Samiti is an activist group that derives from about 30 villages, organisations, farmers and villagers. They actively fight Coca-Cola's presence with protests and by communication with the state. They fight Coca-Cola because of the excessive amounts of extraction, the export of the water resources, the pollution of the environment and also because they believe that the produced beverage is a danger to human health. Underlying in this organization is a disapproval of multinational

companies. Amit Srivastava

Amit Srivastava puts great pressure on Coca-Cola trough his NGO 'Global Resistance' and the India Resource Centre. He has successfully run lawsuits against the company on different topics. His motives are swadeshi, combined with the pollution and the public health risk.

RIICO

RIICO's aim is to promote industrial development in the area, in order to create local economic growth, jobs and wealth. It is also in their interest that water resources are distributed evenly across companies, as well as villagers and farmers.

Coca Cola

Coca-Cola is settled in the area because of a favourable tax incentive, water access and a growing Indian market. Constant clean water availability is crucial to their production, but a legal and 'social' license to production are evenly important. These two assets are tightly related, because those who compete over the scarce water source are the same ones that provide the social license. This puts Coca-Cola in a position where it is left up to them to provide a solution that guarantees water availability to themselves and the area, while maintaining social acceptance in times of drought and exploitation. The CSR program plays a large part in this solution, as well as the whole MSP process, including the stakeholder dialogue that the company has conducted with those affected by the decreasing water levels.

(19)

In order to analyse whether or not diversional framing took place with Coca-Cola's CSR, the requests that the stakeholders have spoken out are bundled together, to summarize what is asked of Coca-Cola by its opponents. These are cross-referenced with the results of the CSR reports, to see if the original problems have been addressed, or if they have been reframed. These results are bundled in figure 8.

Stakeholder demands CSR Results Diversional framing

Water extraction drip irrigation groundwater depletion

Exporting the product (swadeshi)

local community programs local involvement

Manufacturing a toxic product running internal tests manufacturing a toxic product Polluting the area recycling 7% of its wastewater polluting less than other

companies Creating local jobs local community programs local involvement Figure 8. Framing differences between Coca-Cola's opponents and its CSR.

The stakeholder demands and CSR results have all been discussed earlier in the paper. The framing is purely derived from the former, based on the differences. It should be noted that the concept of framing is inherently subject to interpretation, but the quantity and quality of the reframing examples exceed average expectations and therefore lead to the conclusion that diversional framing could have taken place. Since the motives of Coca-Cola to provide with a CSR program are uncertain, it is impossible to confirm the practice of diversional framing with 100% certainty. However, the results show that it is very likely that Coca-Cola used this as a tactic to eliminate social pressure.

Whether if the framing difference was intended or caused by cultural differences, it has deemed unproductive for finding common ground. In a water framing dispute in Oklahoma, Shriver & Paden (2009) discovered that cultural differences led to conflicting framing methods that eventually

obstructed decision-making, because the motives of both parties where rooted in completely different perspectives (property rights versus social responsibility) and therefore their solutions couldn't resonate with one another. This means that regardless of the cause, the framing difference only enlarged the dispute part of the water problem. Even though the real cause of the shutdown of the plant is unknown, it could be accredited to the lack of shared norms & values in the conflict, deeming the MSP unproductive (Warner, 2006).

CONCLUSIONS

The results provide an insight to the interesting dynamics that took place between local, global and business actors on both a social and hydrological level. In relativity to other local stakeholders, Coca-Cola's water extraction in Kaladera does not have a severe impact on the water levels. When the positive (drip irrigation) and negative (extraction) impact on the local water levels are combined and put in retrospective to other actors, results indicate that the impact ranges between only slightly negative and moderately positive.

The role that Coca-Cola has had on a social level and the impact it has had on communities are however much larger than the relative impact of the water extraction. Large groups have been

mobilized locally and globally, local support programs and drip irrigation have been implemented and the town of Kaladera gained awareness throughout the world. This could all be traced back to the symbolic value of Coca-Cola as globalisation and liberalisation in a time and place where these values have a negative connotation. Another cause for the social stir lies in the framing differences between Coca-Cola and its local environment, leading to conflict in problem-solving. Whether this framing difference is rooted in cultural differences or in diversional framing is unsure, but in both cases it could have been avoided by the intellectual capacity of a company as large as Coca-Cola.

(20)

DISCUSSION

This research is new in its approach by analysing the case question and by integrating three different disciplines. The interdisciplinary approach of this case can be applied to issues involving

environmental problems that arise due to corporate activity in a local community.

However, this research has only looked into the business, human geography and earth science perspective. A more inclusive analysis should include more disciplines such as philosophy, anthropology or political science.

Also, because the research is entirely based on available literature, the reliability cannot be

guaranteed. Since the research focusses on local factors within a contemporary case study, qualitative social and quantitative hydrological research should have been conducted to provide with more reliable data. The reliability of the used data could also be jeopardized by the uncertainty of activist or Coca-Cola bias in certain literature. This issue has been largely avoided by comparing several sources on the same subject.

One thing that has played a major part in the water level impact analysis is that Coca-Cola introduced drip irrigation to farmers. For this reason, the water savings have been credited to Coca-Cola, even though it is unsure whether if drip irrigation would have been implemented without Coca-Cola's help as well. This might very well have been the case, given the decreasing water levels and need for sustainable water usage in the area. This is partly a matter of ethics, which is underrepresented by the used disciplines and is therefore an important example of the inclusion of more disciplines.

Because the bottling plant is now closed, further research focussing on the aftermath of Coca-Cola could provide interesting insights on the impact of Coca-Cola on the hydrological and social environment, since its presence has suddenly disappeared. For this it would be necessary to conduct on-site research in addition to a literature study, which might help explain the reason behind the shutdown.

(21)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aarts, N. & van Woerkum, C. Communication in Nature Management Policy Making, In: Reinters, S. (Ed.), Communicating Nature Conservation. Tilburg: European Centre for Nature Conservation, 2000, p. 27-47.

Bayly, C. (1986). The Origins of Swadeshi (Home Industry): Cloth and Indian Society, -. The

social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective, 285-322.

Berglund, H., & Helander, S. (2015). The Popular Struggle against Coca-Cola in Plachimada, Kerala.

Journal of Developing Societies, 31(2), 281-303.

Bywater, K. (2012). ‘Coca-Cola quit India': Resisting CSR as a global management strategy. In The

Second ISA Forum of Sociology (August 1-4, 2012). Isaconf.

Carroll, A. (2013). Have a Coke and a Smile: Is the Aqueduct Alliance Coca-Cola's Solution to Escape Future Liability for Groundwater Depletion. Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. LJ,

26, 475.

Chaklader, B., & Gautam, N. (2013). Efficient Water Management through Public- Private Partnership Model: An Experiment in CSR by Coca-Cola India. VIKALPA,

38(4), 97.

FAO (2015). Water scarcity. Retrieved on 22-11-2016 from http://www.fao.org/nr/water/topics_scarcity.html

Haynes, D. (1992). Contesting power: Resistance and everyday social relations in South Asia. Univ of California Press.

Hills, J., & Welford, R. (2005). Coca‐Cola and water in India. Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management, 12(3), 168-177.

India Resource Center http://www.indiaresourcecenter.org. Visited at 12/12/2017

IPCC, 2014: Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dicken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R.

Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1-32.

Karnani, A. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility Does Not Avert the Tragedy of the Commons-Case Study: Coca-Cola India. Ross School of Business Paper, (1210).

KillerCoke, http://www.killercoke.org, Visited at 12/12/2017

Narain, P., Khan, M. & Singh, G. (2006). Potental for Water Conservation and Havesting Against

Drought in Rajasthan (Vol. 104). IWMI.

Narayanamoorthy, A. (2004). Impact assessment of drip irrigation in India: The case of sugarcane.

(22)

Piven, F. & Cloward, R. (1991). Collective protest: A critique of resource mobilization theory.

International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 4(4), 435-458.

Rathore, M. (2005). Groundwater exploration and augmentation efforts in Rajasthan– a review. Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur, India.

Richey, A., Thomas, B., Lo, M., Reager, J., Famiglietti, J., Voss, K., ... & Rodell, M. (2015). Quantifying renewable groundwater stress with GRACE. Water resources research, 51(7), 5217-5238.

Röling, N., & Woodhill, J. (2001). From Paradigm to Practice: Foundations, Principles and Elements for Dialogue on Water, Food, and Environment. Background Document for National and

Basin Dialogue. Bonn.

Sarkar, S. (1973). The Swadeshi Movement in Bengal, 1903-1908. [New Delhi]: People's Publishing House.

Stecklow, S. (2005, June 7). How a Global Web of Activists Gives Coke Problems in India, Wall

Street Journal. Retrieved at 10-12-2016 from

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111809496051452182

Srivastava, L., Narula, K., Bose, R., Rehman, I., Nandi, S., Pandey, S., . . . Joshi, M. (2006). Independent Third Party Assessment of Coca-Cola Facilities in India. The Energy and Resources Institute. Retrieved on 11-10-2016 from

http://data.ashanet.org/files/Campaigns/FReport.pdf

Shriver, T., & Peaden, C. (2009). Frame disputes in a natural resource controversy: The case of the Arbuckle Simpson Aquifer in south-central Oklahoma. Society and Natural Resources, 22(2), 143-157.

Tiwari, V., Wahr, J., & Swenson, S. (2009). Dwindling groundwater resources in northern India, from satellite gravity observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 36(18).

Tukdeo, S. (2006). Mapping Resistance: Coca-Cola and the Struggle in Plachimada, India. In

Alternative Globalizations: Conference Documents, Selected Papers Delivered at the 5th Annual Conference of the Global Studies Association-North America, De Paul

University, May 12-14, 2006 (p. 248).

Unknown author (2007, November 19). COCA-COLA: DRINKING THE WORLD DRY. Retrieved at 19/12/12 from http://www.waronwant.org/media/coca-cola-drinking-world-dry (image)

Vedwan, N. (2007). Pesticides in Coca‐Cola and Pepsi: Consumerism, brand image, and public interest in a globalizing India. Cultural Anthropology, 22(4), 659-684.

Vinthagen, S. (2007). Understanding “resistance”: Exploring definitions, perspectives, forms and implications. Resistance Studies.

Vinthagen, S., & Johansson, A. (2013). ‘Everyday resistance’: Exploration of a concept and its theories. Resistance Studies Magazine, 1(1), 1-46.

Warner, J. (2006). Multi-stakeholder platforms: integrating society in water resource management?. Ambiente & sociedade, 1(SE), 0-0.

World Bank. (1996). Participation Sourcebook, Washington DC: International Bank for

Struggles of water usage in Kaladera