Coca-Cola case analysis
In the decade since the Coca-Cola case was written, the following environmental factors have changed. The market for carbonated drinks has slightly decreased and non-carbonated drinks such as teas, energy drinks, and flavored water have increased in popularity and consumption. There has been a tremendous increase in the use of technology for sales and marketing, internal systems management, product dispensing, etc. The global recession and continuing volatility in the stock market have affected revenues of beverage makers.
Coke’s response to the increasing demand for non-carbonated drinks has been to introduce zero or low calorie drinks. One of its stated goals is to innovate with natural sweeteners, which has the potential to lower calories per serving. This is a departure from its past where the company thought that it could dictate public taste, not the other way around (Freedman and Butterfield). Additionally, to address the growing concern over the obesity rate in the US, Coke has decided not to directly market their beverages to children younger than the age of 12. (Coca-Cola).
As per the balanced scorecard approach to effectiveness (Daft), in recent years Coca-Cola has been focusing not only on the Financial and Internal Business Process components, but also on the Learning and Growth and Customer components. Since 2001 Coca-Cola has started reporting on its corporate responsibility strategies and programs. The company will publish its first GRI (Global Reporting Initiative) G3 Report later in 2011.
The various setbacks Coca-Cola faced in Europe in the mid 1990s tarnished the Coke brand name and played a key role in forcing the CEO to decentralize the marketing and operational functions. The customer component of the balanced scorecard was given a top priority. The structural changes (such as moving Regional Managers from