The Pepsi Generation
In between recent preparations for our just-completed sustainability summit, I found out that PepsiCo has joined Ceres -- not the juice brand but the coalition of non-profit groups, investors, and corporations that are working together on sustainability issues. This is pretty big news if for no other reason that the fact that the company itself is huge. Imagine if Seventh Generation had annual revenues of more than $21 billion a year, employed 100,000 people, and sold its products in 100 countries. That's a size that's almost impossible to imagine. Now double those numbers. That's PepsiCo.
By joining Ceres, Pepsi is making a statement that it's putting sustainability if not on the front burner at least on the stove. Coming from a company so gigantic, one that wields equally enormous influence and that relies so heavily on disposable packaging, not to mention tremendous amounts of water and energy, this is a positive development.
As many of you know, Chuck Maniscalco, our new CEO, worked for Pepsi until quite recently. We talked about his experiences there during our many conversations about him joining our own company. He told me about Pepsi's new "Performance with Purpose" which aims to increase everyone's focus on sustainability issues; cut fuel, electricity and water consumption by 20-25%; analyze product carbon footprints; and even develop a compostable bio-plastic snack food bag.
These and other things represent a dedication to the cause that may not be quite up to the commitment shown by a giant like WalMart, but is certainly moving in the right direction. There's also a larger meaning: Pepsi's membership in Ceres shows solid progress on sustainability in the corporate world. When a company the size of Pepsi decides to take sustainability seriously, it sends a big message. Now we just have to wait, watch, and hope PepsiCo's executives follow through on their Ceres membership by making changes that earn it.









So, this brings up the eternal debate: how much change can a company that makes its money on something fundamentally unsustainable bring to the table? Pepsi makes its money by selling soda. Soda consumes huge amounts of water and energy to addict people to corn syrup and make them fat.
So, the question is: does making a fundamentally unsustainable practice more sustainable represent something that should be lauded by the environmental community? I.e. the core mission of the company vs the processes and practices (which admittedly can be outsourced for the good of other companies)