In the last couple of weeks, a JPG has been making the internet rounds and, in the process, has

gathered more than 6,500 Diggs (not that that is any measure of successful success, but still) and has been mentioned in dozens of design and culture blogs, including many which I frequent and respect. The problem is that the JPG is wrong and disingenuous. It comparatively illustrates the evolution of the Pepsi and Coca-Cola logos from their beginnings in the late nineteenth century to their current state at the end of the 2000s. The comparison chart mocks the ever-changing personality of the Pepsi logo in contrast to Coca-Colas stoic script logo, unaffected by the effects of time. The philosophical point it makes is indeed funny and, for the most part, accurate: Coca-Cola has long been the steady brand that triumphs over Pepsi as the latter attempts to gain ground with brand gimmicks and changes. And I will be the first to admit that the Coca-Cola logo and its consistency over the years is far more supreme than Pepsi, but every time I saw this JPG come up in more and more web sites and blogs I couldnt help but cringe at the inaccuracy and deception it engenders.

Pepsi vs. Coca-Cola Logo Evolution chart with a fat X from Brand New.

True, no one will die and the lasting effects of this JPG mean nothing, really. But I felt a burden of duty to correct a few things. The biggest problem is that the chart puts the same logo in 1885 as it does in 2008. This is not only wrong but idiotic. Technically, the Coca-Cola logo as it exists today can

not be replicated with the tools of 1887 which, by the way, is the year the script logo was introduced. Not 1885. Coca-Cola was first served in 1886 and even then, the first official logo of Coca-Cola was not the script logo. It first appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in 1886 as both a slab serif and chunky sans serif it wasnt until mid-1887 that Frank Robinson, Coca-Colas bookkeeper, drew the first traces of the Spencerian script logo that we all know.

First Coca-Cola logo appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution on Saturday May 23 1886.

The chart, for comic and poignant effect, then leaves a 120-year gap between the first and last logos. It makes for a great viral JPG, but not for telling the real story. For the first ten to twenty years you could probably find a dozen different executions of the Coca-Cola script as the logo was probably drawn over and over for different applications. It isnt until the 1930s and 1940s that a clear interpretation of the logo appears and is used consistently. During the late 1950s and early 1960s the script logo is placed within a shape, referred to as the fishtail logo, which is as off-brand as anything that Coca-Cola has ever done. The chart also fails to mention the introduction of the wave, a ubiquitous visual today, that was first implemented in the 1960s when Lippincott Mercer was in charge of making the Coca-Cola identity more consistent. More than any Pepsi blunder, the chart ignores the introduction of New Coke in 1985 with a new formula marketing and set of logos that completely ignored the script logo that left a bad taste in their consumers mouths. Around the same time, in 1986, Landor began rolling out an even more developed brand identity that modified the wave among other subtle changes. Missing from the chart in the Coca-Cola evolution is the penchant for Coca-Cola to use the shape of its bottle as an icon, acting on and off as the logo or complementary logo or subsidized logo of the main script logo, sometimes to a confusing fault. Todays Coca-Cola logo is, of course, amazingly similar to what it was 124 years ago but its not quite fair to idolize them for a flawless consistency that they havent actually earned.

Once more, I will say that the Coca-Cola evolution is admirable and few companies probably just GE can claim to have extended their identity heritage across three centuries, but Coca-Cola isnt perfect and as much as I despise the new Pepsi identity which in no way am I trying to defend I believe a fair comparison is in order. So, here is the new chart. Its not ideal, since I didnt have a document as clean and specific as this onefor Pepsi (scroll to last page of PDF) and I had to cobble the logos from different sources. The reds are all over the place and some are in black and white.

Coke vs Pepsi: The ultimate battle of two major players competing for the top spot in a massive global market. The cola and carbonated beverage industry reaches to virtually all corners of the planet, and the vast majority of the market share belongs to the two giants Coke and Pepsi. With such a huge market and enormous revenue potential in an industry such as this, it is no wonder that the Coke vs Pepsi competition is so fierce.

Coke vs Pepsi: Who Gets Your Vote?

When it comes Coke vs Pepsi, nearly everyone has a preference or an opinion about which one is better. There is really no arguing the fact that the two soft drinks are very similar in terms of flavor. The flavor difference between them is subtle at most, so it is interesting that so may people have such strong feelings about which one is superior. Global market analysis on the cola industry shows that Coca Cola typically has a slight advantage over Pepsi in market share. In some regions Pepsi is winning the war, however overall it seems that more people are choosing Coke versus Pepsi. Looking at a wide range of data shows that Coca Cola owns somewhere between 40-43% of the US market, while Pepsi gets in the neighborhood of 30%. Of course different studies will produce different results so it is difficult to get a truly accurate picture. The one thing that is certain is that Coke and Pepsi continue to blow away any other form of competition. The cola wars are truly a two horse race.

Coke vs Pepsi blind taste tests have also proven unsuccessful in determining a clear cut winner. Both companies have used them, as well as independents.The results are typically very even, with about half the votes going to both Pepsi and Coke. What is interesting to note is that in a Coke vs Pepsi blind taste tests the voting results are almost always 50/50 split, however prior to the test significantly more people will state that prefer Coke. Does this mean that Coca Cola does a better job marketing than Pepsi? It almost seems that way. If the results are evenly split and many people cant even distinguish between the taste of the two colas, why do so many more people claim to prefer Coke over Pepsi? When you order a cola in a restaurant without knowing if they serve Coke or Pepsi, which one will you order? This is purely subjective and based only on my personal experience, but it seems as though Coke is the go to request. I believe that more people will order a Coke, and then if the restaurant serves Pepsi they will be asked if Pepsi is ok. It is almost as though the name Coke is a replacement for the word cola in many cases. That says a lot about how effectively Coca Cola has branded themselves. Coca-Cola History

Coke vs Pepsi: All About Taste?

Being colas, Coke and Pepsi definitely taste very similar. Many people cannot even tell them apart if they dont know which one they are drinking. However there are other people who are very adamant in their preference of either Pepsi or Coke. Some say that Pepsi is sweeter, others feel that Coke has a crisper flavor so they like it better. Some prefer the aftertaste of one over the other. There are even those who prefer one brand when drinking from a can and the other from a bottle. Most people find it more difficult to tell them apart when they are served as a fountain drink in a restaurant. Its all about your own personal taste. Or is it? Both Coca Cola and Pepsi spend untold amounts of money in marketing and trying to create an emotional tie between their products and consumers. This ranges from the image they try to portray through their advertising, to sponsoring sporting and music events, TV shows, and so on. It seems as though in general, Pepsi targets their marketing to the younger generations and tries to brand

themselves as the beverage of choice for them. Remember their slogan The choice of a new generation? When I think of a Pepsi ad I think of the Britney Spears Superbowl commercial.

It seems as though Coca Cola on the other hand aims their marketing towards our nostalgic side. Almost as though Coke is an emotional connection to our youth or the good old days. This would definitely be an effective marketing tactic towards the middle-age and older generations. There are two campaigns that come to mind when I think about Coca Cola advertising. The first is the classic Id like to buy the world a Coke jingle. The second is the Santa Clause themed commercials they use around the holidays. Both appeal to our sentimental sides and this seems to be an approach they like to take. Just consider the huge popularity of retro Coca Cola merchandise and memorabilia if you doubt that their advertising can tug on the heart strings. The actual Coca Cola Bottle is a large part of that. Marketing and advertising are an integral part of the cola wars between Coke vs Pepsi. Both Coca Cola and Pepsi are smart enough to know that the beverage we choose to purchase may not always be based strictly on taste preference. It may be more subliminal than that. The fact that people can have such a strong preference between two such similar products shows how important and effective marketing is. There are of course those who really do favor the taste of either Coke or Pepsi, but you have to wonder how large of a role peoples sub-conscious emotional connection to their favorite cola plays into their choice. Both Coca Cola and Pepsi are big time spenders when it comes to sponsoring sporting events, music events, TV shows and other high profile happenings. They realize that this can play a big role in the product selection with members of these audiences. Youll notice that most of the events they choose to sponsor are highly emotional such as the Super Bowl or American Idol. This is no accident as an emotional connection to their products is what they are looking to create. If you have an opinion in the Coke vs Pepsi debate, do you really think that it is based solely on taste, or are there other emotional factors involved?

Coke vs Pepsi: Product Placement In The Cola Wars

A pivotal aspect of the Coke vs Pepsi battle has to do with where their products are available. Think about restaurants for instance. Restaurants, stadiums, airlines, and other businesses will typically offer either Coke or Pepsi products, not both. So securing contracts with within these industries to feature their line of products is very important for the market share of Coke and Pepsi. Much research also goes into the strategy of vending machine placement and often contracts regarding that. In some locations both Coke and Pepsi will have vending machines, whereas other times there may be a contract involved guaranteeing one company sole placement. It even goes right down to schools. Coca Cola and Pepsi know that marketing to youth means long term business, and having vending machines in schools serves this purpose.

The Coke vs Pepsi Debate Continues

The battle for your cola choice has been going on for years and it isnt about to slow down. Its a huge market with customers spanning the entire globe and from all age groups and economic classes. Of all the corporate battles for market share in various industries, Coke vs Pepsi is probably the main draw. From which one tastes better to whose television commercials are more entertaining, almost everyone has an opinion. And its not just strictly to do with cola either. Both companies feature a wide range of competing products from diet cola to flavored sodas to sport and energy drinks. See Coca Cola Products and Pepsi Products for more information. Tell us what you think. Do you prefer Coke or Pepsi? Leave a comment or cast your vote and tell us which brand of cola you think tastes better and who you think is winning the cola wars. Coke vs Pepsi, the battle rages on, cast your vote today!

Indra K. Nooyi says she still feels guilty filling a bathtub with water. It sounds far-fetched coming from the chief executive of a major multinational corporation, until you consider her early years. Nooyi, the chief executive of PepsiCo Inc. (PEP), didn't get much water growing up during the 1960s in the Indian coastal city of Chennai. Although she describes her family as "very middle class," they still had to rise every morning between three and fivethe only hours that the valves to the municipal water supply were turned onand fill every bucket in the house. Two buckets were set aside for cooking, and two each would go to Nooyi, her older sister, and her younger brother. "You had to think about whether to take a bath," says Nooyi, matter-of-factly. "You learned to live your life off those two buckets." Nooyi left Chennai, propelled by a dream to build a career in the U.S. She headed to the prestigious Indian Institute of Management and later Yale University before moving into the corporate sphere, eventually settling at PepsiCo in 1994. When she was named CEO in October of last year, India's water again became a focus of her life. This time Nooyi was cast as part of the problem. Villagers charged that PepsiCowhich has named India as a top strategic priorityconsumes excessive groundwater in their parched communities. Even worse was the repeated claim that the snack and beverage company, along with rival CocaCola Co. (KO ), were allowing pesticide residue from groundwater to get into locally made soda. The charges, first leveled in 2003, emerged again two months before Nooyi took over the top job. Pepsi's soda sales, which fell by double digits in India when the scandal first broke, took another big hit last fall. She braced herself as protestors smashed bottles on the streets while several states in India banned or restricted sales of soft drinks. Nooyi, now 51, was livid. "For somebody to think that Pepsi would jeopardize its brandits global brandby doing something stupid in one country is crazy." AN ACTIVIST FAMILY But Indian politicians and consumers took the charges seriously, in part because they came from Sunita Narain. A well-known activist in New Delhi, Narain, 45, was born into a family of freedom fighters who supported Mahatma Gandhi in the push for India's independence in 1947. She idolized her late father even though he may not always have hewed to Gandhi's creed of nonviolence. "I'm told he even made bombs," she says. In high school Narain took up environmental causes, campaigning to stop developers from cutting

down New Delhi trees. Unlike Nooyi, her ambition was not to leave India but to save it from the excesses of industrialization. She skipped college, explaining that she "was very keen to do a degree in environmental issues, but nobody offered it." Instead, in 1981, she fell in with a charismatic activist named Anil Agarwal who had just started the Centre for Science & Environment (CSE). Narain became director of the fledgling advocacy group in 2002 when Agarwal died. Her tone in that role tends toward the-end-is-nigh alarmism; her savvy tactics often draw media attention and have garnered such environmental accolades as the 2005 Stockholm Water Prize. Indians, she declares, are "getting poisoned by pesticides," and CSE tests show Pepsi contributes to this toxic assault. On one level a tale of two strong-minded individuals, Pepsi's ongoing battle over water in India also illustrates an escalating global backlash against the ways multinationals consume natural resources. Foreign companies have long transformed oil, diamonds, and countless other raw materials into profits that flow from developing nations to wealthy ones. Now the playing field is leveling. Activists such as Narain have blogs, e-mail, and other cheap, powerful tools for getting their messages out. Consumers, meanwhile, are more aware of how big players do business abroad and can react by boycotting the fruits of bad behavior, from blood diamonds to sweatshop sneakers. Even as companies begin to take seriously the mantra of social responsibility, they find themselves more vulnerable to politically charged onslaughts. In recent months, Royal Dutch Shell (RDS ) has cut oil production in Nigeria amid violent attacks on its operations. Diamond giant De Beers battled allegations that it played a role in relocating bushmen in Botswana against their will, and Cargill was forced temporarily to shut down its soy processing and shipping plant in Brazil amid public outcry that it was contributing to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. The hostility toward Pepsi in India has been exacerbated by the particular meaning water holds for Indians. Bathing in it can be a sacred act. For many, death is not properly marked until the ashes are scattered in the Ganges. In a global poll last year by consumer research group Henley World, Indians listed drinking water as one of the main things they do to improve their well-being. Americans reported taking supplements; Germans cited sunbathing. Yet Indian water is some of the worst in the world, according to the U.N., because of poor sewage treatment, heavy pesticide use, and industrial pollution. Availability is hampered by overpumping and poor management. Municipalities usually receive a pittance from individual consumers that doesn't cover the cost of delivering water, while large farms and industry essentially pay nothing at all, creating little incentive to conserve. In this setting, a foreign company that diverts scarce water to manufacture a sugary, discretionary product is a ripe target for critics. Nooyi recognizes the delicacy of being so closely associated with water in her native land. But she points out that soft drinks and bottled water account for less than 0.04% of industrial water usage in India. "If we get attention, it's not because of the water we use. It's because of what we represent," she says, pouring herself a glass of PepsiCo's Aquafina water during an interview in her bright, uncluttered office at company headquarters in Purchase, N.Y. Pepsi, a $35 billion corporation, she notes, has gone to such lengths in India as digging village wells, "harvesting" rainwater, and even teaching better techniques for growing rice and tomatoes. She's intensely aware that local perceptions matter. "What we don't want is for people to think that industry is taking out of the ground God-given natural resources and depleting that community of its livelihood or requirements for existence." Pepsi's water clash in India took a dramatic turn after PepsiCo executive Abhiram Seth visited Narain in February, 2003. Seth, a chatty and wry 55-year-old who dabbles in stage acting, serves as Pepsi's chief navigator through the complex regulatory and political channels of his native country. As executive director of exports and external affairs, he also manages the eclectic agricultural projects

that may help to improve the company's image. Seth came to Narain's plant-filled New Delhi office just after CSE had tested the country's top 10 bottled-water brands for pesticides and was pressing for tighter government regulation. The issue touched a nerve as government studies had recently reported high pesticide levels in milk, rice, and other staples, raising concerns about toxins seeping into the water supply. Indians rely heavily on groundwater for drinking and agriculture, having drilled an estimated 21 million wells, most unregulated, since 1965. Seth came to Narain, he now explains, "to understand the data and see if we could work together to address the issues." Narain recalls it differently. She claims that Seth bullied her and "gave me a huge lecture about nationalism or some rubbish.... He was clearly trying to get me to back off." With Aquafina scoring near the top in bottled-water quality in the country, she wondered whether there was some broader agenda at work. Narain suspected Pepsi didn't want tougher standards for water because that might require more rigorous treatment of the water going into its sodas. Naturally suspicious of corporate behavior, she thought: "Why don't we check their soft drinks?" Over the next six months, Narain had CSE's scientists test random samples of 12 major soft-drink brands, from Diet Pepsi and Coca-Cola to local favorites like Mirinda and Thums Up. "Before we did this," she insists, "I had no idea that all of them were owned by Pepsi or Coke." Still, with an annual budget of less than $1 million at the time (it grew to $1.2 million last year), Narain knew very well the value of snagging big-name villains to promote her cause. "Looking at soda draws attention to the whole pesticide problem," she says. What CSE found were minute traces of pesticides such as lindane, DDT, malathion, and chlorpyrifos. Although much lower than those CSE had detected in milk, the residue levels exceeded stringent European Economic Commission standards for water. Pepsi was 36 times as high as the standards, in CSE tests, while Coke was 30 times as high. On Aug. 5, 2003, Narain held a press conference in New Delhi, saying that the Indian-made soft drinks were "unfit for human consumption" and could cause cancer and birth defects over the long term. As a further insult to Indian consumers, she says, samples tested from the U.S. contained no such residue, prompting Narain to accuse Pepsi and Coke of pushing products "they wouldn't dare sell" at home. 'COMPLETELY SAFE' Pepsi executives were stunned and outraged. "When you're testing in subparts per billion," Seth says, "it's like measuring one second in 320 years." Pepsi's India team immediately got on the phone with Nooyi, then president and chief financial officer, and Michael White, PepsiCo International's CEO. "We took it very seriously," says White, "but we also knew our products were completely safe." Pepsi held a rare joint press conference with Coke in New Delhi, offering data that contradicted CSE's and saying the company followed the same strict standards all around the world. Even Narain didn't quibble with the American companies' argument that the level of pesticides in soda was far lower than what Indians put up with in most other foods. But she contended that fruits, vegetables, and milk offer important nutrition, whereas carbonated sugar drinks don't. As for tap water, she said, most Indians have no choice but to drink it. Moreover, Narain adds, multinationals are "a powerful user of water.... We wanted to draw attention to their impact." She succeeded. Protesters in Mumbai and Kolkata defaced Pepsi and Coke ads and burned placards depicting soda bottles. Several states restricted or banned soda sales. Blasted with e-mail alerts from CSE, journalists and bloggers worldwide leapt on the story, raising the specter of a global consumer reaction just when soda makers were coming under harsh scrutiny for contributing to obesity. Nooyi says that Indians' sensitivity about both water quality and foreign companies made Pepsi an inviting target. But its marketing strategy had made matters worse, she admits. Rather than promote

the company's efforts to improve water and crops, Pepsi had run splashy ads bursting with Indian celebrities. It painted titanic versions of its red, white, and blue logo on ancient Himalayan rocks and buildings around the country. "Combine the public seeing the mercenary side of us, along with the fact that this was an American company," she says, and "they didn't see the other things we were doing." SPOOKED AND SKEPTICAL Nooyi also appreciates the anxiety many Indians feel over rapid change, especially when it comes in the form of a big foreign company. As she puts it: "Parents were scared that their children were consuming things they had never consumed. And now they had a reason to stop it. Pesticides in cola. Nobody stopped to say: What pesticides?' Or, incidentally, your tea and your coffee has many thousand times that.'" Linking Pepsi with pesticides was enough to scare off even sophisticated consumers like advertising executive Manish Sinha. He drank cola almost every day and had even worked on Pepsi promotions at the JWT ad agency a few years earlier. "I was quite passionate about it," says Sinha, now 36 and a vice-president at Bates David Enterprise, an advertising agency in Mumbai. And it was fairly cheap, costing 12 cents to 15 cents a bottle. But the CSE study spooked him. "At a subliminal level, I would rather be safe," says Sinha, who both filters his family's drinking water and boils it to kill pathogens. He has his own memories of past shortages, living off 25-liter containers of bottled water and watching others scrape together money to buy daily supplies from water tankers. He echoes Nooyi's claim that there's a tendency to pick on multinationals, but he thinks the soda makers aren't doing enough to alleviate India's water woes: "I no longer trust the cola companies." The drama that unfolded after Narain's first soda report card in 2003 could hardly have appeased him. The Indian government flip-flopped between dismissing CSE's findings and supporting the group's call for more stringent standards for carbonated drinks. Pepsi executives joined Narain at sometimes contentious meetings over the next two years aimed at helping the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) arrive at guidelines on pesticides, caffeine, and even PH levels in soda. Just when standards were set to be ratified at a meeting in March of last year, Narain says, a cola company executiveshe forgets which onearrived bearing a letter from the Health & Family Welfare Minister to another government official. In it, the minister said the new standards should be deferred because further research was under way. Narain was furious at what she publicly labeled a corporate power play. "It's clear the letter was written for the cola companies," she says. "They managed to get the standards killed by government." Pepsi executives dismiss the notion as ridiculous. Narain countered with her most effective ammunition: another explosive national study that was released in August, 2006. This time, Pepsi was 30 times as high as the unadopted Indian government standards; Coke was 27. The southern state of Kerala banned the manufacture and sale of all Coke and Pepsi products while other states cut softdrink sales in schools, colleges, and hospitals. "Everyone carried the story, especially on TV," Seth says with a sigh. Protests revved up again, with some demonstrators pouring cola down the throats of donkeys to show that the drink was unfit for humans. Sales dipped as Narain's campaign again played to the conflicted attitude that Indian consumers have toward powerful foreign brands especially those portrayed as profiting at their expense. Even the beneficiaries of Pepsi's generosity seem ambivalent. In the tiny Kerala village of Chullimada, Pepsi recently funded the construction of a well, pipes, and taps that bring water to about 50 homes. The dusty hamlet, many of whose residents eke out a living as day laborers, is where organizers met to plan an anti-Pepsi march targeting a company plant in nearby Palakkad last October. As a result of Pepsi's improvements, the households have ready access to water where they once had to walk three hours a day to get it.

But good deeds can stimulate new demands. When Pepsi managers visited recently, about a dozen women presented the customary flowers of greeting and then got down to business. The local governing council won't pay for the added electricity to pump water, one woman complained. As a result, the pumps run only once a day, forcing residents to hoard. It would help, she suggested, if Pepsi covered the extra costs. Annie Kishen, PepsiCo's director of corporate communications for India and a native of Kerala, smiled and offered sympathetic words. After leaving, she confided that the company isn't eager to pick up villagers' utility bills. In the neighboring palm-fringed village of Ganeshpuram, where Pepsi also installed a well late last year, different complaints surfaced. About a third of the 125 families don't have taps near their homes, an older villager said as Kishen leaned forward with a furrowed brow. All the women used to spend about two hours a day getting water. Now, there are haves and have-nots. What Pepsi needs to do, the local woman insisted, is bring water to every home in the village. Looking a touch embarrassed, Kishen explained later that in Kerala "the people always speak their minds." After Narain's fresh burst of pesticide allegations in August, Pepsi chose to ignore her and go straight to the Indian media. The company met with editorial boards, presented its own data in press conferences, and ran TV commercials featuring its then-president in India, Rajeev Bakshi, walking through a gleaming laboratory. CARTOONS AND STICK FIGURES The company also stepped up efforts to reduce water usage in its plants, a cause that factory manager Ashwini Singla has embraced with almost religious zeal. His bottling facility, in the city of Panipat, near New Delhi, has reduced water usage to 8.6 liters for every case of two dozen 8-oz. bottles, down from 35 liters at the start of 2005. Workers have organized themselves into teams with names like Golden Lion and Ambition. They post Japanese-inspired kaizens, or suggested improvements, to reduce waste, illustrating the ideas with cartoons and stick figures for added clarity. "We had 1,200kaizens last year," Singla boasts. Amid all the well-digging, kaizen-posting, and local government lobbying, Nooyi ascended to the Pepsi CEO job last October. One of her first priorities: a trip to India in December, where she spoke widely of Pepsi's initiatives to improve water and the environment, as well as her own fond memories of growing up in the country. One of her main themes: "This is a company with a soul." Indian newspapers and television covered her tour lavishly and with praise. Soda sales improved, although they ended 2006 flat compared with rapid double-digit growth in China. While the worst of the pesticide scandal seems to be behind Pepsi, a cloud remains, as the government still hasn't set contaminant standards. Narain, meanwhile, has noticeably toned down her rhetoric, even though the contents of a bottle of Indian Pepsi remain the same. Some of her softening may relate to a grudging pride over Nooyi's ascension. "I think it's great to have an Indian woman in such a high-profile position," Narain says. Pepsi officials "seem to be doing something serious about water now." But she has turned down an invitation to meet Nooyi and emphasizes that any shift at Pepsi reflects less a change of heart than persistent outside pressure. "American multinationals have forgotten what it's like to be in a democracy," she chides. Looking back, Nooyi turns some of the blame on herself for letting things get out of hand. "One thing I should have done was appear in India three years ago and say: Cut it out. These products are the safest in the world, bar none. And your tests are wrong.'" Still, she realizes that PepsiCo will have to continue to do more than simply be stingy with its own water use. "We have to invest, too, in educating communities in how to farm better, collect water, and then work with industry to retrofit

plants and recycle." As long as PepsiCo is in the beverage business in places like India, it will remind potential customers of a resource that's increasingly in short supply