English

coca-cola's anti-american outsourcing scheme: how big soda gets the public to shoulder its costs - glass and silicone water bottle

by:Koodee      2019-09-03
coca-cola\'s anti-american outsourcing scheme: how big soda gets the public to shoulder its costs  -  glass and silicone water bottle
About keeping America beautiful, many people may not realize that the organization --
Holding "crying Indians" andJunk slogan
Educate Americans to take personal responsibility for pollution: it was created by soda and beer companies.
The organization was established in 1953,
Coke, Pepsi.
Buschand others are switching from recycled glass bottles that they wash and refill themselves to "one-
"We are used to metal and plastic bottles today, it's a cost-
Cuts move to shift responsibility for handling bottles to consumers.
Like Bartow J. , keep the beautiful public service movement in America
Elmore, a professor of environmental history at the University of Alabama, described this and basically helped to reinforce this new message: the garbage problem in the United States is the fault of individuals littering ---
It is not a manufacturer of this garbage.
In Elmore's view, taxpayers end up funding expensive recycling projects for exactly the same reason.
"Citizen Coke: the production of coca
Coca-Cola capitalism, "by relying on companies to unload costs and risks in this way to trace the history of the Coca-Cola Empire, using public goods such as roadside recycling and municipal water supply systems, at the same time, avoid having the resources and infrastructure needed to produce its signature drinks.
Bartow told Salon that this is a model that continues to this day, allowing soda giants to make huge profits while staying away from harm, the environment and public health, and it causes.
For clarity, the interview was slightly edited.
How do you define Coca?
How does Coca-Cola Capitalism and Coca-Cola embody this concept?
Coke capitalism is a system or strategy for making money, including having someone else work for you.
This is a system that makes money by acting as an intermediary between independent producers and independent distributors, making money from transactions, the goods produced by these producers, and then distributing them to these independent distributors.
Coke without sugar-
Manufacturing plants in the Caribbean;
It has no caffeine processing plant in the southeast of the United States;
It's not high on its own
Sugar syrup factory in the Midwest.
It relies on many independent producers to meet the needs of its natural resources, as does the back end.
Most of its history does not have its own bottling plant, nor is it a soda fountain for distributing products, but rather relies on independent merchants in cities and towns across the country to buy machinery, packaging, water, this is 80% of the company's sales to the public at the point of sale.
This is really a fashion business model.
We think Coca-Cola is a big company, but in many ways it is a lean operation that finds ways to embed itself in the infrastructure built by other companies.
I think, at its core, is the real Coca
Coca-Cola Capitalism.
It is often said that Coca-Cola is not the only company to do so.
I said exactly.
I call it "coca"
Coca-Cola capitalism because Coca-Cola follows it well, but you can think of software companies or fast food chains that follow very similar strategies to embed themselves in a technical system built by others.
In fact, it is one of the models that won in the 21 st century, making a lot of money for many companies, not just Coca-Cola.
From the way Coca-Cola is produced, it puts pressure on resources and you can describe a lot of environmental costs.
Do you think this way of doing business is internally developed? I often joke with my advisor that you can read the book in two ways: it's a very smart money-making strategy.
In other words, it can teach people the strategy of making you a lot of money.
On the other hand, you are right.
As an environmental historian, I am interested in the costs that we often do not see behind this system of making money.
I think in the case of coca
They are serious.
Water is a good example. Because Coca-
Coca-Cola's distribution system is very decentralized because of this outsourcing and franchise strategy, Coca-Cola has had to expand to some of the world's driest areas.
Taking water from Atlanta, Georgia, receives a lot of water every year, which may not be as big a problem as India, where groundwater is rapidly drying up, people are really suffering from lack of adequate water supply.
What we have seen is that this ability to outsource these costs has allowed Coca-Cola to enter areas where in some ways it is not suitable for the mining industry they are engaged in.
That's what I said about Atlanta, and of course Atlanta is facing a shortage of water, so even at home, we see that this model may not be sustainable in the long run.
Or California, there's really a shortage of water.
How about Coca-Cola-
Drinking Coke with water is a very valuable resource in a place where there is not much water. With that distance, I think, it must also make it harder for companies to be responsible for these things. Absolutely.
In addition to accumulating financial capital from this system, another benefit is that you also accumulate social capital: the ability to transfer allegations of involvement in your business, such, bad labor practices in Guatemala or bad water practices in India.
You can say, "It's not something we technically have, so it's not something we have a responsibility.
"In Coke's defense, I think they 've done a better job lately, trying to recognize that they can put pressure on suppliers and distributors to do better, but we 've seen in the past, the company uses this separation to shift blame for what happened inside Coca.
Coca-Cola system, but may not be directly funded or operated by Coca-ColaCola corporate.
I agree with you that it is certainly beneficial in this regard.
Take the story of coca leaf as an example.
When you deal with something controversial, such as leaves with known anesthetic ---
As the book shows, the company has been involved in the import of coca leaf throughout the 20 th century.
Long after they took cocaine out of the formula, they still used de-
Edible coca leaves-
That is to say, coca leaves without cocaine-
In their secret recipe, so they had this very strange secret trade with these Peruvian coca farmers in the 20 th century.
Using an intermediary--
In this case, Stepan Chemical, which runs in New Jersey-
Importing these leaves really keeps them hidden and also keeps this trade hidden.
Especially after 80 s, when you think about the drug war in the United States and the fear of cocaine, a little distance is really helpful to get what you need through third party operations.
This is something I have never heard of before.
The connection between Coca-Cola and Monsanto is also a new one for me.
Yes, I should say that the next project I am working on is the global environmental history of Monsanto.
I was moved by it too.
I saw this and I thought, "Wow, Monsanto has such a close connection with Coca --
"Coke", which gave me a better understanding of Monsanto, not as a genetically modified company, but as a chemical company.
Without Coca-Cola, Monsanto will no longer exist, because Coca-Cola bought all their powdered sugar as early as 1900.
Before Diet Coke, they used this artificial sweetener to reduce costs in an all-round way.
Calorie sugary drinks, in which case they basically try to reduce costs by using this artificial sweetener.
In any case, Monsanto provided them with all of these sugars, and then eventually provided caffeine, which they were very closely linked.
Monsanto often talks about how important Coca-Cola is to their business, keeping them alive in the first few years.
Coca-Cola eventually abandoned Monsanto because they got a better artificial sweetener, that's right, and there's CCC at work.
The story of coca
Coca-Cola's abandonment of Monsanto's contract is a good example of how Coca-Cola works.
Coca-Cola's money-making strategy keeps them flexible enough to keep them flexible so they can switch to new suppliers when new sources of supply come up.
In this case, decaf coffee really took off, and the company was able to switch the contract to a regular food company that produced decaf coffee under their Maxwell label.
Although Monsanto is a supplier of Coca-Cola, the company realized that they had a better deal from the general food company and said, sorry!
Thank you for your long-term investment in our infrastructure and we will turn to the next best thing.
What you see with caffeine, what you see with sugar.
Why does Coke go to high?
The Portuguese corn syrup flew in 1980 seconds because they could.
They don't have their own sugar plantations or their own sugar refineries.
They are still flexible and will be able to take advantage of new sources of supply as long as they show up.
Obviously, Monsanto was able to recover from the loss of Coke, but is there any other situation, the company does not have a real story in the book like luckyI to deal with a company that is completely overwhelmed by Coca-Cola --
What I want to say is that Coca-Cola has acknowledged its purchasing power throughout history.
By 1910, it is the world's largest buyer of sugar;
It knows where it sends the money, it does have an impact on the price and it also affects competition.
One thing you see is that they are trying to diversify their purchase contracts to prevent them from being vulnerable to market changes in specific regions;
Let's say, diversify their bets so that they don't be with just one supplier. The way Coca-
Coca-Cola's system overseas is very interesting because they don't actually sell Coca-Cola.
Sugar-sweetened cola syrup
They had a sugar-free concentrate in their 1920 s.
As a result, the most expensive ingredient sugar is outsourced to the bottling agent himself, so you will see that the bottling agent has to purchase sugar locally.
Is that the end of Mexican Coke [
Sweet with sucrose]
Of course, this is absolute, and the way Coca-Cola sells is to encourage local businesses and industries, create jobs and support local sugar producers wherever they operate.
What is not known is that this is a huge benefit to them.
When it comes to overseas markets, they don't need to pay for this expensive, sometimes unstable ingredient, and it's good to take this risk from your books.
You describe Cola as a rich product from a large supermarket.
Industrial and agricultural output at the end of the 19 th century.
When to stop sustainable development, is there a way to reform a model that counts on too much work to be done, and I think you have entered the heart of the book, that is, when we think about sustainability, and when we talk about business sustainability within the enterprise today, these conversations are often a historic one.
They do not consider the primary principles of business governance created at a certain ecological moment.
As you said, when Coca-Cola appears, it appears when it is vertical.
The integrated enterprise is producing a lot of sugar, all of which are low cost.
Part of CCC was meaningful at the time, but in our time of focusing on water scarcity in parts of the world, we are considering how to produce crops efficiently and what kind of crops we should produce, and whether sugar cane-
To some extent, this is a highly destructive crop of the type of ecosystem in which it spreads, where it grows and affects . . . . . . We must face the first question of these commercial governance created in the gilded age whether they are applicable to today's ecological reality.
This is a real dialogue on sustainable development that goes beyond efficiency. this is the great concept of sustainable development today: we can become more efficient, we can improve water efficiency and so on.
I think this ignores the deeper underlying trend of generating excess from excess, which is a business model that many of these businesses build on, which is ingrained in their profit title.
You would say, it's more efficient than it is, definitely more than the petrol tax can do, and I think the effort like the gasoline tax and the forced deposit, trying to put pressure on the business in some way, making the business aware that the way it does business is not good for our health or environmental health can help drive the business in the right direction.
But even there, we don't really see how all of these things are connected, from the way companies use excess and excess to make money, the underlying dependencies, in an era when the environmental costs of overproduction are very large, we really have to get rid of this dependence.
Custom message
Chat Online 编辑模式下无法使用
Chat Online inputting...

Hi there! It's very great seeing you. Is there anything I can help? If I cannot reach you in 5 minutes, please leave us a quick message at the page