It seems reasonable to state that the industry of soft drinks is under considerable surveillance due to a number of health-related issues such as obesity and diabetes. Authorities inevitably consider any charitable actions of the actors with an exact extent of suspiciousness, assuming that they cannot be founded on goodwill. However, it should be admitted that such companies as Pepsi and Coca-Cola pay attention to charity in terms of their CSR policy significantly. Nowadays, transnational corporations cannot perform without the mentioned responsibilities and conduct a plethora of health-advocating campaigns. It is not surprising that many civil rights groups, health advocacy organizations, and small enterprises expressed in favor of soft drink entities within the given scope (Wilcox 187). Hence, it might be suggested that harmful effects that the industry causes are – to a great degree – compensated by the actors’ transparency, involvement in many important projects, and provision of less harmful alternatives like Cola that contains no sugar.
Nevertheless, if I were public relations counsel for Pepsi or Coca-Cola, I would treat the situation seriously. The public will get acquainted with the conflict, and some will definitely start perceiving the companies’ charitable affairs as cynical and disingenuous. This will substantially harm the actors’ reputations, which cannot be allowed in the current conditions of severe competition. I would recommend arranging the public performance of a CEO who will report and present the following: charitable activities, the related investments, and positive outcomes to which these activities have led. It is essential to deliver the idea that the companies are not involved in charity in order to obtain support from various organizations.
Works Cited
Wilcox, Dennis, et al. Public Relations: Strategies and Tactics (11th Ed.). Pearson, 2014.