5) How can Pepsi and Coke confront the issues of water use in the manufacture of their products? How can they defuse further boycotts or demonstrations against their products? How effective are activist groups like the one that launched the campaign in California? Should Coke address the group directly or just let the furor subside?

Pepsi and Coke should have responded faster to the concerns of the general public. The companies formed committees within India and the United States to work on legal and public relations issues. They commissioned their own laboratories to conduct tests and waited until the results came through before commenting in detail. Their approaches backfired. Their reluctance to give details fanned consumer suspicion. If the companies acted faster to the situation when it first came to light, the could have spared a lot of grief. Pepsi and Coke can defuse further boycotts by speaking directly to the cause of the boycott/demonstration or by allowing demonstrators to investigate their product themselves. The activists groups have proven to be very effective in their efforts. Fear campaigns (like the ones assembled in California) can do a great deal of damage to the brand. They are even more effective when the people targeted are not in the country being referred to as in this case (America/India). They are unable to use their own judgement to dismiss the campaign. Moreover, Coke should address the group directly in order to sort out any misunderstandings as well as addressing the general public about the