Jakartass Home thoughts from abroad. Alien thoughts from home.

I don't like Coca Cola, nor Pepsi come to think of it. Both are too sweet and far from refreshing, but, hey, I'm not going to tell Our Kid to stop drinking it while I'm downing a bottle or two of Bintang Pilsener during our regular sessions at Ya Udah.

Several years ago, because I thought that things went better without Coke, contrary to their then advertising slogan, and having no intention of teaching the world to sing, I went on several treks hoping to actually reach a place where I couldn't actually get a Coke, even if I had wanted one. I failed; I found it in tea stalls outside monasteries in the Karakoram range of the Himalayas, on the Burmese border of the northern hills of Thailand, and at the top of Gunung Batur in Bali.

Although I personally believe that their whole marketing strategy is one of cultural imperialism, what concerns me at the moment is their sheer cynicism – hypocrisy even – when it comes to their 'corporate social responsibility'. I'll explain this in a further post. First read this email I received yesterday from my favourite trough here in Jakarta.

Is Idiot Stencilled Across Consumers' Foreheads?

For over 10 years the Ya Udah Bistro has had on its drinks list Coca Cola products, such as Cola Original, Sprite, Fanta Red and soda water as well as Diet – now Zero – Cola. With the exception of Diet Cola, which always comes in a can, all others have been offered in 295 ml glass bottles. Recently, running low on Sprite, we placed an order with the Cola Company, but did not receive any delivery as they claimed that the 295 ml bottles 'tidak ada stock, i.e. not in stock.

After repeated orders and no delivery we contacted Coca Cola Sales and we were informed that not only Sprite but all other drinks in 295 ml glass bottles have been discontinued and only the baby 200 ml size is still available in glass bottles. There are now only their so-called PET plastic bottles and cans available.

Obviously we are not happy. Firstly, serving drinks in a can or a plastic bottle does not look great in a restaurant.

But what's more, Coca Cola are using this the size reduction as a reason to jack up its prices. After all, even a blind man on a galloping horse can see that one-way cans and plastic bottles cost extra which, alas, the consumer will pay for. With no need to collect and wash the glass bottles, it makes things easier for the Coca Cola Company. They can simply dump the stuff on consumers and have no further responsibility. We wonder if we just paid and did not get supplies, would that make it even easier for them?

And take this quoted comment from the Cola company for good measure: …Our suggestion is moving to can 250 ml which is more efficient because it is a one-way-package thus you don't need a large storage for our product. Plus an added value for our cans which are made by aluminum (Al Who?) and could be re-sold per kg in the market….

We do wonder what happened to avoiding waste, saving energy and all that stuff.

What are we going to do? Well, we have no other alternative but to serve the products in the baby size 200 ml glass bottle, but we shall not, cannot, lower the price. However, dear reader, we will try and discourage the consumption of these products and suggest that you consider an iced lemon tea, a milk shake or a smoothie instead.

One thing is for sure: we shall take the promo banner for Cola Zero off our website.

The Ya Udah would very much welcome it if you would let us know your comments and views on this.

Comment
Apart from continuing to personally boycott Coca Cola, I wonder if a possible alternative for Ya 'Udah and other like-minded establishments is Coke on draft.

Views
My views follow in a separate post – Hokey Pokey Coca Cola.

If you’ve read Okey Dokey Coca Cola?, the post above, you know that I don’t think that things go better with Coke.

However, in the interest of balance, it’s only fair to find out what Coca Cola-Indonesia has to say. Although I can find nothing more recent than this page from Coca-Cola Foundation Indonesia (CCFI) and Coca Cola’s Corporate Responsibility Report 2008 (.pdf), they do say a lot.

Live Positively is our commitment to make a positive difference in the world by redesigning the way we work and live so sustainability is part of everything we do.

Really, Coca Cola? “Everything“? Really?

Why is there no mention in the letter to Ya ‘Udah of Coca Cola’s commitment to recycle the aluminum cans which “could be re-sold per kg in the market.” Are they going to collect them from Ya ‘Udah and their other outlets? And if so, what do they plan to do with them? I doubt that they’ve established a network among the omnipresent scavengers and NGOs.

If they haven’t, they could try the XS Project who inform me that they “are now working with corporations to turn their trash into treasures.”

And what of PET bottles which are being churned out in their billions, yet Ya ‘Udah et al are expected to deal with?

Polyethylene terephthalate (sometimes written polyethylene terephthalate, commonly abbreviated PET, PETE, or the obsolete PETP or PET-P), is a thermoplastic polymer resin of the polyester family and is used in synthetic fibers; beverage, food and other liquid containers; thermoforming applications; and engineering resins often in combination with glass fiber.

One problem with PET is that although these drinks bottles are recyclable, the material itself may be toxic. I also wonder if the process of manufacture along with the recycling process has a smaller carbon footprint than simply reusing glass bottles.

They say that they see packaging as a resource, not waste. We will continue to find ways to reduce the amount of
packaging we use and ensure it is recyclable. CCA has consistently improved rates of packaging waste sent to recycling in our manufacturing plants in Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.

Strangely, it seems that those companies in Indonesia which recycle PET have to also import the material in order to have a viable volume of production.

Back in February 2006 I quoted the following from a now forgotten source: Plastic water bottles can take 1,000 years to biodegrade. Nine out of 10 water bottles end up as garbage or litter, and that means 30 million per day. Only a small percentage are recycled.

Adding soft drinks bottles to that number, however biodegradable they may be, and then considering the Indonesian habit of discarding litter wherever they may be and it seems fairly obvious that Coca Cola has not considered the consequences of their discarding glass bottles, except in a small way in Bali.

As part of [the} ongoing, year-round campaign to clean up Bali’s major beaches and waterways, we installed 200 public place recycling bins on Kuta, Legian and Sanur beaches, strategically located next to vendors’ ice chests.

And in Jakarta? What is the programme which ensures that their fine words aren't hollow? What is Ya 'Udah to do with their recyclable waste? As they haven't been informed, we may presume that neither have the umpteen bars, warungs, shops and other outlets for Coca Cola products.

Ah, but Coca Cola does have a Corporate Bullshit Policy. They have philanthropic Foundations in Australia, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea [which] distribute in total more than $1.5 million dollars annually to projects which assist local communities in Indonesia [including] micro-loans for people to start their own businesses.

Is this really an appropriate project for Coca Cola? To me, it appears that for all its vast reach, Coca Cola does little for Indonesia. It may well gloat that in 2007(?) Coca-Cola Bottling Indonesia was awarded a certificate for environmentally responsible companies from Environment Minister, Rachmat Witoelar.

That may look good hanging on an office wall, but it doesn’t look good from where I’m sitting and you can be sure that Ya ‘Udah doesn’t want a copy. Why is there a Coca-Cola Indonesia Eco-bus, powered with bio-diesel, touring schools educating students about recycling, energy saving and waste processing when they don’t seem to practice what they preach?
………………………………………………
Coca-Cola Foundation Indonesia (CCFI) est. 2000.
Contact Information:
Ms. Titie Sadarini
Wisma GKBI, 8th Floor
JI. Jenderal Sudirman No. 28
Jakarta 10210
Email: ccfi@apac.ko.com

I would have been more than happy to have been caught up in the hype surrounding the Football World Cup currently underway in South Africa. This wouldn't have been because I'm a fan of the woeful England squad but more to watch those players who fairly recently played in the strip of 'my' club, Charlton Athletic.

There may well have been a few but I couldn't tell because although I've got a paid subscription to Indovision, a satellite service incorporated on August 8, 1988 and owned by PT MNC Skyvision, the World Cup is only being broadcast on terrestrial channels RCTI and Global TV, which are free to viewers prepared to put up with ads for soap continuously interrupting their soap operas..

Our expertise in television programming that brought us to be the leader in television audience share has enable us to be produce quality contents that appeal to Indonesian taste and interests. (sic)

That RCTI and Global TV are part of the package I've paid for matters not a whit. What does is that these two channels are also owned by PT Media Nusantara Citra Tbk (MNC)!

Whilst on the subject of not giving customers what they want, I noted a couple of days that ex-dictator Suharto's eldest daughter, Siti 'Tutut' Hardiyanti Rukmana, has reclaimed ownership of Televisi Pendidikan Indonesia (TPI), from MNC.

At least I've still got the annual joy of Wimbledon with another mix of 'superstars' and not so wealthy journeymen and women plying their sporting trade much like Charlton players..

Apart from hapless viewers such as myself and hopeless teams such as England and Italy, another major loser at World Cup 2010 has been the major sports attire manufacturer Nike.

Their TV advertising campaign tie-in featured the following stars: Didier Drogba (Ivory Coast) broke an elbow in a warm-up game; Fabio Cannavaro, Italy's captain and the defender responsible for at least two goals against his losing side; Wayne Rooney who, it's pretty-much universally agreed, had a nightmare tournament; Theo Walcott, also of England, did not even get picked to go to South Africa; Franck Ribéry and Patrice Evra were both haples and hopeless for France who managed just one goal and one point from their three group matches.

Although Spain have reached the quarter-finals, Cesc Fábregas has only played a total of 59 minutes in their four games. This is lots more than Brazil's Ronaldinho who, for all his fancy flair, didn't get on the squad sheet, let alone flight.

Given the time difference between South Africa and Indonesia, matches are played after our bedtimes, but no matter. Even the workers being paid minimum wages (c.$126 a month) at the factories in Jakarta's satellite cities which produce Nike sportswear manage to watch the matches.

A recent article in the LA Times highlighted the campaign of Jim Keady to bring justice for the workers who produce the goods which are worn by such morally upstanding superstars as Tiger Woods.

Jim has been to Indonesia several times and spends time living with the Nike workers. Unfortunately, I was out of town on the days he was last here, but regular readers will know that I support Team Sweat.

The closing paragraph of the article perhaps best explains why.

Keady told the story of one Nike factory worker.

"He said that one day, he'd like to be able to buy a pair of Nike sneakers that he helps make," the activist recalled. "After 19 years of factory work, he wanted to be able to bring home the product so he could show his daughter what Daddy does."
………………………………………….
Postscript
Nike also can't be happy that Roger Federer got beaten today at Wimbledon.

That is the headline in today's business section of the Post:

Franciscus Wilerang, head of the Permanent Committee for Food Resilience at the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Kadin) said yesterday at a Feed The World seminar that the successful implementation of the programme could contribute $101.5 billion to the country's revenues for the 2010-2014 period.

This is all part of the government's '2009-2014 road map for food development' and at first glance may sound wonderful. However, a closer read of what what was said, demonstrates that Kadin doesn't actually have any faith that it is achievable.

There is the "could" in the quote above and then he continued by saying, "Considering Indonesia's potential to achieve food self-sufficiency, we have to see the global food crisis as an opportunity and participate in efforts to feed the world."

Ah, there's that word 'potential', one that is unfortunately over-used when talking about Indonesia.

Full marks to SBY who reminded the assembled business executives not to neglect the domestic demand for the sake of more lucrative markets overseas.

"Why feed the the world if we still have problems with food supplies and price instability at home?"

I trust he was, in part, referring to the 'potential' to rid Indonesia of the high levels of malnutrition, infant mortality, hunger and poverty as identified in the Nutrition Map of Indonesia published in 2006.

Two years ago I wrote about not knowing that Cadbury's, the world renowned confectioner founded in 1824 by a Quaker family, was no longer a family firm. At least it was still a British firm, I think, offering familiar taste treats, even if I have had to rely on oleh-oleh brought back by returning friends or visiting family.

So what am I to make of its $11.9 billion takeover by Kraft which adds another leading British confectioner to a portfolio which already includes Bournville, Bassett's Liquorice Allsorts, Terry's and Green & Black's?

On my worldly travels, I've tasted Cadbury's Dairy Milk Chocolate – a glass and a half in every bar – from Ireland and New Zealand and discovered that they seemed to taste better than the English version. Something to do with the better quality grazing, I always thought. I never really liked American chocolate, and I now learn (read the comments) that American brands have loads more sugar. So, will Kraft homogenise for global markets?

For those of us who hanker after certain favourites of former times, there is the thought that Kraft will undoubtedly 'rationalise' the product lines. "There is a very real danger that some of the brands will disappear," said Tim Richardson, author of Sweets: a History of Temptation. "Whenever there is a big takeover, a company will look to improve productivity and ­profitability. Within five years, we could be looking at a Cadbury with far fewer brands. Mars only makes big brands, and Kraft might follow that route, which is very modern. Cadbury is not sentimental and will close underperforming lines, but you can't help thinking that without the same emotional investment in say, 'Finger of Fudge', the ­conversation in the Kraft boardroom will be very different."

While the Cadbury boardroom with its legions of financial and legal advisers has done very nicely thank you out of the deal, there will be "inevitable" job losses. It must not be forgotten that the "Quaker-owned company is worth special mention for its enlightened attitude toward employees. This chocolate company was the first firm to grant its workers a 5-day work week. Also, sports facilities, medical facilities, schools, kitchens and community gardens were built for the employees."

Cadbury's shareholders have until February 4th to accept or reject the deal. As much as the workers are appealing to them to help save their jobs, and as much as Warren Buffett objects – and he controls 9.4% of Kraft's shares – the takeover is a forlorn foregone conclusion because 40% of Cadbury's shares are already held by American funds.

There's not much we can do about it now, although Bruce Wagner feels we should all boycott the company, and a host of others. I wish I could; it's a forlorn thought, but at least I can post his picture of captivating (processed) cheesecake.

……………………
Kraft wiki page – in Indonesian.