Statement: Kristin Urquiza, Think Outside the Bottle Campaign

CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY INTERNATIONAL
ANNUAL SHAREHOLDERS’ MEETING OF COCA-COLA, DULUTH, GA—APRIL 22, 2009

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Kristin Urquiza, and I’m with Corporate Accountability International.

Mr. Kent, in response to global concerns about Coca-Cola’s practices, your corporation has attempted to protect its public image and avoid accountability by recasting itself as a responsible steward of water resources and as a leader in the global effort to address water issues. Unfortunately, Coke’s efforts are more of a distraction than a sincere attempt to address the issues at hand.

We believe that water is a human right and, as such, should be governed by democratic institutions that will safeguard this precious resource so that everyone has access. In contrast, corporate driven water initiatives, such as the CEO Water Mandate, which Coke has played a lead role in developing, are a way for corporations to advance their ability to manage global water resources for profit.
 
As you know, Corporate Accountability International and water justice allies from around the world raised concerns about this initiative last month at meetings held by the CEO Water Mandate participants that coincided with the Fifth World Water Forum in Istanbul, Turkey.  Much of the discussion there was about transparency and how corporations report their overall water use.  We have concerns about how valid the claims made regarding transparency were at this meeting.  

More broadly, however, our concern is that transparency is being seen as the same as ‘accountability.’  This is not the case; like many voluntary initiatives this so-called ‘Mandate’ lacks real enforcement mechanisms that help people hold corporations directly accountable, is fraught with conflicts of interest, and, risks implicating the United Nations in corporate green-washing. That is why more than 125 public interest leaders from 30 countries have challenged it as a “thinly veiled public relations effort.”

Initiatives such as the CEO Water Mandate are less about transparency and more about advancing corporate control of water, which is fundamentally at odds with our collective ability to meet basic human needs. Ultimately, this scenario allows a private corporation to decide who will have access to water and at what expense – a disturbing scenario.

For example, when a 2008 report funded by Coke suggested the corporation stop bottling in water scarce areas in India, Coke’s India Division told a reporter the answer was, “not to stop bottling”... and the pumps keep pumping. Water scarcity is very real in many of the areas in which Coke bottles from Kaladera, India to Atlanta, Georgia, yet Coke’s bottling operations continue to receive priority access to water over the needs of neighboring communities.

As one illustration of this, during the 2007 drought, while the city of Atlanta took extreme measures to deal with water shortages, such as canceling festivals in Piedmont Park, Coke continued to bottle at the same rate, using the same rationed municipal waters.

Coke continues to claim it is being unfairly singled out – that other industries use far more water and do far less to protect it. This misses the point. Coke and other industries need to take responsibility for their own contributions to the global water crisis, including a business model that at its heart is based on buying and selling water for big profits.  When it comes to water bottling, we are talking about a non-essential use of an essential resource, which is why Coke needs to meet a higher bar than other users.

So, as Coke sets out to play the role of water steward, we must ask, how will you account for the true costs of your business on people and communities around the world as you continue to prioritize your operations over people’s fundamental human right to water?