Environmental Effects of Groundwater Extraction and Wastewater Production by a Coca-Cola Beverage Plant in Plachimada, India
Authors: Leonardo Bertassello, Sean O’Neill, Shambhavi Shekokar, and Jonathan Pabillore.
Unlock Insights Now: Download Your Essential PDF Guide!
Background
Plachimada is a small village situated in the Perumatty Panchayat of Palakkad district in Kerala, the southernmost part of India. The area is predominantly agricultural, almost 64% of which is cultivated (Nair, 2006) giving it the epithet of “granary of Kerala”. Most of this land is utilized for growing food crops, with paddy being the dominant crop. Cash crops grown are coconut, groundnut, cotton, sugarcane, pepper, banana and cashew nut are also sown in some places (Cockburn, 2005). The whole area requires large quantities of water for irrigation purposes and depends heavily on canal irrigation and groundwater. Unfortunately, Palakkad district is in the rain shadow area of the Western Ghats and is a drought-prone area (Koonan, 2007). Here, the amount of withdrawal is always in excess of the recharge component from the rainfall, and hence excessive groundwater pumping from a rainshadow and overexploited region is a real issue in Plachimada where, as in the rest of India, electricity used for groundwater pumping is highly subsidized (Badiani-Magnussen and Jessoe, 2018). The other main source of water for the villagers is the canal from the Malampuzha Reservoir. But water has been in short supply in these villages. The adivasis living here are mainly agricultural laborers. They had no land and struggle to survive due to a massive drop in paddy cultivation that made up the bulk of their traditional farming practices.
The Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., established a unit in 1998-99 in a 40 acre plot at Plachimada. The factory is located a few metres away from the main irrigation canal from the Moolathara barrage. It produced two hundred truck loads of beverages containing 550-600 cases every day. For this process, Coca-Cola dug six bore-wells and two open-wells in the factory compound on the land and extracted some 0.8 to 1.5 million litres of water daily (HPC, 2010). Within the first two years of industrial operations, the people around the plant began to experience a severe receding of the water table and the drastic change in the quality of water spread around 1 to 1.5 km radius of the plant.
The plant also generated a large quantity of polluted water and chemical wastes during the process of purifying the groundwater, preparing the bottled drinks, and cleaning used bottles. This wastewater was partially treated through aeration and sedimentation processes within the factory compound, which created a large quantity of semi-liquid and dry waste. The solid waste was composed partially of dried sediment slurry, which is a yellowish white granulated substance with a faint sulphuric acid smell. Local people reported that part of this material was dumped in landfill sites within the compound. Large quantities of it were trucked and disposed of in the neighboring farmlands, where the farmers were misled to believe that it was useful fertilizer.
After mounting evidence that The Coca-Cola Company was polluting the environment and harming local citizens, villagers started to protest outside the factory. The support for the movement grew quickly, and Coca-Cola eventually admitted that there was an issue with the water, unrelated to their activities, and offered to provide drinking water to the community via trucks and to start rainwater harvesting programs at the factory and in the community (Bijoy, 2006). On 3 April 2003, the license for the plant was revoked, and in 2004 the bottling plant in Plachimada, Kerala, was closed for excessive water consumption. Later Kerala passed legislation that allows Coca-Cola to be sued for as much as $47 million in damages as result of the operations. The legal battle lasted for years, and as of 2023, no compensation has been paid to the villagers (Basheer et al., 2016; Philip 2023).
Water Security Analysis
Two categories of hydro-industrial processes (CHIPs) can be identified in the region:
- Groundwater extraction: six bore-wells avnd two open-wells in the factory compound extracted some 0.8 to 1.5 million litres of water daily for the production of bottled beverages.
- Wastewater production: the effluents of the plant were characterized by a cadmium content that affects the environmental water quality of the region. The sludges and effluents are not suitable for agriculture and are toxic to humans.
One main stakeholder impacted category (SIC) can similarly be identified within the region:
- Plachimada Communities: their livelihood is strictly linked to the quantity and quality of the local water resources that are mainly used for agricultural purposes.
Groundwater Extraction
Almost 80 per cent of the Plachimada population depends upon agriculture for their livelihood. Hence, it is most likely that the location of an industrial plant, which consumes water heavily in a region that is agricultural but drought prone would result in serious adverse implications to livelihoods and the environment.
All the water requirements of the plant are met from a number of deep borewells drilled within the factory property. It is reported that more than six major borewells and two large open wells were drilled. Within two years, the communities living around the factory experienced heavy water shortages that affected agricultural activities. Water availability in the open wells and shallow bore wells over an extensive area has drastically fallen. People report that they could earlier pump water for irrigation, continuously for 24 hours. But after the Coca Cola plant has started pumping, within 4 hours of pumping their wells go dry (Bijoy, 2006). Thus, overdraft by the Coca Cola plant might have caused the community to lose access to water for drinking and agriculture (blue water insecurity). Plachimada was reported to be a thriving agricultural community until Coca-Cola set up the bottling plant in 1998, after which coconut groves and vegetable crops have had to be abandoned because of the lack of water (Cockburn, 2005). The decrease in the productivity of the fields has left local livelihoods without monetary compensation (virtual water insecurity), and eventually caused some of the farmers to lose their jobs, which in certain circumstances have been the same as their ancestors (cultural water insecurity). In this context the hopes of bringing jobs to the people of Plachimada offered by Coca-Cola did not actually realized since the plant only hired educated individuals and many of the indigenous adivasi people within the village are illiterate.
Water from most of the wells is now non potable because the salinity and hardness of the groundwater have also increased. Possibly due to excess groundwater withdrawal, minerals from the deeper soil layers could be moving to the upper layers and contaminating the water (Nair, 2006). Apart from the increase in salinity and hardness, the water from some open wells and shallow bore wells nearby was alleged to have an extremely unpleasant strong bitter taste, which is mainly due to the chemicals from the plant wastewater.
Wastewater Production
The Central Pollution Control Board of India found in 2003 that sludge from Coca-Cola’s Uttar Pradesh factory was contaminated with high levels of cadmium, lead, and chromium. To make matters worse, Coca-Cola was offloading cadmium-laden waste sludge as “free fertilizer” to tribal farmers who live near the plant. The partially processed wastewater from the plant is continually sprayed on the lawn and garden within the factory compound, some of it eventually running off into the irrigation canal. In the irrigated coconut groves, the pollutants get dispersed through the irrigation canals over a large area, seep into the soil and contaminate groundwater. Farm labourers have reported rashes and skin disorders particularly around the ankles after being in contact with the contaminated soil and water. Repeated applications of sludge can also cause the heavy metals to build-up in the soil, from where cadmium could be transferred to plants and the human food supply chain. Therefore, in the long run the agricultural production is expected to be negatively affected by the amount of chemical in the “free fertilizer” used by the farmers (increase in virtual water insecurity). In addition, the increased blue water insecurity of the region is also caused by the decrease in an appropriate quality of water for local communities. The high level of chemical in this effluent is clearly affecting the livelihood of the communities since the people who used this brackish, bitter water complained of a variety of illnesses such as a burning sensation in the skin of the face; greasy, sticky hair; stomach disorders and skin deformities. Therefore, the reduction in quality of water has also negatively affected the social aspect of Plamachida communities (cultural water insecurity). For example, women were soon forced to walk 3 km each way to fetch and haul potable water that would not harm themselves and their families (Rader 2007). In addition to shouldering extremely intensive farm-work, most women in Plachimada take on significant amounts of household work such as cooking, washing clothes and dishes, household cleanup and bathing the cattle. Thus, water insecurity in the region meant double the hardship for women (Tukdeo 2006).
Table 1. Summary of CHIPs vs SICs for Water Security for the Plachimada Communities
| Plachimada Communities | |
| Initial Conditions | G- |
| Groundwater extraction | B- V- C- |
| Wastewater production | B- V- C- |
Table 1: G, B, E, V, and C stand for green, blue, economic, virtual, and cultural water security, respectively; a minus and a plus sign respectively indicate a decrease (increase) in water security. Note that a decrease in water security can alternatively be associated with water scarcity (drought) or excess (flood).
Water Governance Analysis
The Plachimada struggle against Coca-Cola is a good example of how underneath the legal terrain of water use always lie complex dynamics of governance and politics. At this moment, the dispute over the Plachimada Coca-Cola plant has taken on an explicitly legal dynamic, having been twice adjudicated by the Kerala High Court (once by a single judge and on appeal by two judges), and pending in front of the India Supreme Court. The legal case hinges on two key fundamental questions of governance, namely the relationship between the state and the private sector and at which level of the state apparatus decision-making authority is vested.
Also of interest to the overall question of water governance in this case, it was agitation by civil society actors on the fringes of the political sphere that spurred local government actors to take the dispute seriously. It was the the legal dispute that followed that spurred the main governance bodies with authority over the environment and the regulation of groundwater, namely the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), the Kerala Pollution Control Board (KPCB), and the Kerala Ground Water Department (KGWD), as well as the Supreme Court Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes (SCMC), to begin carrying out their responsibilities. Finally, while this chain of events has not yet led to a definitive resolution to the case, it does seem to indicate a more constructive level of political responsiveness to local civil society action.
Absolute Private Property vs. Public Trust Doctrine
Three key governance questions arise in the Plachimada legal dispute: how are the property rights of the Coca-Cola company conceived, to what extent do their private property rights extend over the groundwater under the land leased to them, and what is the role of the state in regulating the private use of natural resources. The case in court originates from the refusal by the village council, the Perumatty Panchayat, to renew Coca-Cola’s license to operate a plant in the village due to over-extraction of ground water by Coca-Cola which had led to increased water scarcity in the neighboring communities and pollution caused by improper disposal of the toxic sludge byproduct of cola production. The initial ruling by the single bench of the Kerala High Court validated the Panchayat’s authority to monitor and regulate groundwater extraction by Coca-Cola, employing a public trust doctrine paradigm, however on appeal the division bench of the Kerala High Court found in favor of Coca-Cola, utilizing a common law interpretation of groundwater as private property that the state had no authority to restrict the use of by a private owner. Strikingly, the court did not consider whether extraction of the groundwater was done in a way that caused harm to water access or water potability for neighbors, rather it considered this point irrelevant (Koonan, 2007). Notably, the division bench’s interpretation of the issue was out of step with both evolving interpretation of groundwater as having a non-static quality and being rightly governed by riparian law rather viewed as static private property, as well as precedent set previously by the India Supreme Court confirming an interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution that empowers the state to regulate groundwater use to protect and right to life and livelihoods (Goshray, 2006).Decentralization
A second and related crucial governance question at play in the legal decisions thus far has to do with where in the various levels of the state the authority to make decisions regarding precious natural resources like groundwater lies. The Perumatty Panchayat was utilizing its powers according to the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act of 1994 which devolves power to manage water and protect the right of people to clean water to the Panchayat village council level. This act itself stems from the 73th and 74th amendments to the Indian constitution which seek to devolve power where appropriate down to the local government level. (Koonan, 2007) However, the decision on appeal by the division bench to reject the Panchayat’s authority to revoke Coca-Cola’s license, in favor of protecting the company’s authority as a private landowner to extract groundwater from its parcel of land, is in direct contradiction with this principle of decentralization. As such, the legal decision now pending appeal at the Supreme Court level touches on a fundamental question of governance in the Indian state, more so than the question of what is or is not an appropriate use of water by the soda company. (Koonan 2007, Ghoshray 2006).Local Resistance and Activism Among the Landless
Thus far we have a case of a local government authority exercising its devolved powers to regulate use of water in its area clashing with a large private multinational company in the courts, with various interpretations of the issues at play leading to what for the moment appears to be a legal stalemate. However, preceding the decision by the local Panchayat to pit itself against Coca-Cola is a step of crucial importance to a broad understanding of governance in this context, the role of local civil society in opposition to the soda plant. After all, the local government was initially in favor of the plant and the bodies empowered by the Indian state to monitor pollution and water usage seem to have been initially dormant (Koonan 2007). In April of 2002, roughly two years after the plant went into operation and a year and a half after local villagers began to suffer from increased water scarcity and depleted water quality, locals began picketing the plant, calling for its closure. They ranged in numbers from fifty to several thousand, depending on the day, largely led by women from the adivsasi community, largely landless indigineous people depending on daily agricultural labor for survival (Nair 2006). Initially, the local government and political parties opposed this agitation and police arrested and jailed some of the protesters. However the protesters established the Plachimada Solidarity Committee including dozens of Kerala-based organizations and gradually gained support from a variety of sources (Bijoy 2006). At the World Social Forum held in Mumbai in 2004, an international coalition of trade unionists, leftists, environmentalists, and social activists expressed their support (Nair 2006). As support for the protest movement grew, local government and local political parties of varying stripes, including Kerala’s historically powerful Communist parties, who had initially been supportive of the plant, began to support the protesters, eventually leading to the local Panchayat refusing to renew the plant’s license and launching the legal struggle (Bijoy 2006). This was not the first time in Kerala that local agitation had prevented or reversed a water-intensive industrial project. A factory polluting the Chaliyar river basin and a paper mill on the Kallada river had closed down after popular discontent, and in 1978 a hydroelectric project in Kerala’s Silent Valley had been stopped by agitation led by the Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad NGO (Nair 2006). Notably, among early supporters of the protesters was a group called Ayyan Kalipada, supporters of the Naxalite movement. The Naxalites are Maoist groups who splintered from more mainstream Communist parties in the early 1970s and are behind a long running armed insurgency in central India with a history of advocacy for land rights for adivasi communities. Their potential involvement in the adivasi struggle in Kerala was used by Coca-Cola to try to reinforce government support for its cause but may as well have helped to persuade local Communist parties to get behind the protests rather than cede ground to rivals (Bijoy 2006).The Adivasi Struggle
Of crucial importance in understanding the context around the popular struggle in Plachimada is the broader adivasi land struggle in Kerala, which had come to a head in 2001, just prior to the adivasi-led Plachimada protests. (Bijoy 2006). The adivasis are historically marginalized tribal groups throughout India who, along with scheduled castes, or dalits, make up over 20% of the population of the Permutatty Panchayat, and in the 7 villages most affected by the plant, the adivasis alone make up between 30 to 40 % of the population (Nair 2006, Bijoy 2006). In 1975, the Kerala Assembly passed legislation, the Kerala Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Bill, that promised to restore all the land stolen from adivasi communities since 1960 and given to non-adivasi settlers, amounting to tens of thousands of acres. This bill was never implemented however, and later amendments in 1996 and 1999 watered it down significantly (Prabhakaran 2003). Following the 1996 and 1999 amendments there was significant political agitation from adivasi community activists and their supporters, including a district counselor being taken hostage in the Palakkad district, the same district where the Coca Cola plant would come to be located, by sympathetic Maoists (Raman 2002). In the wake of the starvation in 2001 of 32 landless adivasis, the protests movement grew in scale demanding both the implementation of the 1975 law to restored alienated land in addition to 5 acres of land for each landless adivasi family (some 45,000 total in Kerala) and for the inclusion of adivasi land in Kerala in Schedule V of the Indian ion which would give further protection form future alienation. To that end, adivasi activists led by CK Janu and her Adivasi Dalit Samara Samithi group set up a tent protest camp opposite government facilities in the state capital. After unsuccessful negotiations the movement made plans to expand their camps to other parts of Kerala and hold a march around the state. CK Janu herself announced her intention to begin a fast until death. At this point the government agreed to most of the ADSS demands, including between 1 and 5 acres per family and including adivasi under Schedule V protections (Raman 2002). Seen in this light, the Plachimada anti-Coca Cola protests that pushed the local Panchayat into opposing the plant were the latest tip of the spear so to speak of a widespread grassroots political movement that had seen recent success across the state.Legal Matrix and Narrative
The following legal analysis proposes questions that Coca-Cola should ask regarding the human right to water if they were to re-open the plant in the same location or an alternative location in India. It accounts for the fact that the plant has already been closed down as a result of popoular protests and backlash against the plant’s operations. This case study will highlight the impacts of groundwater extraction and wastewater production on the individual elements of the right to water and against India’s cross-cutting obligations.
The hope of this case study is to provide Coca-Cola a good reference point in order to assist it in future endeavors or projects or if it decides to reopen the plant in Plachimada. If it were to establish future identical plants, perhaps this experience and this framework will be able to help the company steer through the various human rights concerns that may arise. In this way, Coca-Cola can proactively pick a location that will not bring about the same concerns that arose in Plachimada—that is, it can be more mindful of existing water levels, the regenerative capacity of water sources, what rights of affected communities it may run up against, and what duties it must accomplish.
Thus, the primary actor through which this framework will be viewed will be that of Coca-Cola’s. Any comments or observations about national or local laws and regulations are incidental to the immediate concerns of the company, in relation to the right to water. Therefore, the questions in the framework will pertain or point to what Coca-Cola, in its capacity as a business, can and should do to be a conscientious and human-rights-observant stakeholder.
We must emphasize, however, that this framework neither assigns responsibility nor liability from a legal perspective. Rather, the goal is simply to flag human-rights issues in order to better inform the company, in this case Coca-Cola, in its business decisions. As such, this Framework shall not be extending legal advice on possible legal excuses or defenses to any potential human rights issue.
WATER INADEQUACY ANALYTICAL AND LEGAL MATRIX:
Coca-Cola Plant’s Groundwater Extraction
| Two-tiered TEST | ADEQUACY | MULTIDIMENSIONALITY | SUSTAINABILITY |
| A. Are the Coca Cola plant’s effects on groundwater extraction consistent with the Republic of India’s cross-cutting human rights obligations? | Availability of water: Clear challenges to affected communities in Plachimada as a result of water extraction for Coca-Cola processing plant. Water Quality: Evidence exists that Coca-Cola’s operations have reduced water quality in the locality. Accessibility of water: The residents of Plachimada primarily rely on groundwater and the Malampuzha Reservoir canal. The huge drop in water levels has severely limited community access to these local sources of water for livelihood and sustenance. | Water as a Social Good: not clear from the described measure if the measure considers the nature of water as a social good. Water as a Cultural Good: There is some evidence that the communities in Plachimada, particularly the Avidasis, regard the water with cultural significance, in that they are an agricultural community and have been so for decades, if not longer. Without adequate water, their entire way of life, and culture, may become endangered. | Protection and Preservation of Intergenerational Rights and Interests: The particular geographic configuration of Plachimada clearly demonstrates the unsustainability of groundwater extraction in the long term. Non-Retrogression Obligation: The cumulative effects of reduced access to water may have cascading effects on other obligations of the State towards Plachimada communities—right to a healthy environment, healthcare, livelihood, and other such basic rights. |
| 1. Right tA. Are the Coca Cola plant’s effects on groundwater extraction consistent with the Republic of India’s cross-cutting human rights obligations?o self-determination | Groundwater extraction by Coca-Cola appears to have displaced many essential activities within the locality, most of all, agriculture. This will hamper the communities’ respective right to self-determination, with particular regard to indigenous peoples like the Avidasis. There also does not appear to be parallel efforts, especially from the government, to compensate for the disparity in the adequacy of water between Coca-Cola and the affected communities. What measures can Coca-Cola do to, first, address lost opportunities as a result of its operations; and, what can it do going forward, in response to popular protests that has led to the plant’s closure in Plachimada? | Water underpins much of the way of life in Plachimada’s various local communities and the evidence shows that groundwater extraction for Coca-Cola plant processes far exceeds the natural regenerative capacity of the same water sources relied upon by the community, which has resulted in several issues like reduced water for agriculture, increased salinity and, therefore, potability of the water, and diminished capacity for other possible uses of the water for the local communities’ cultural and social needs. What remedial efforts can Coca-Cola to account for and correct this discrepancy? The plant operations (or similar future projects, since the plant operations have already been closed down) disproportionately affects the multi-faceted nature of water for Plachimada communities. While plant operations have benefits to the local and national economy, restoring balance is essential if Coca-Cola were to respect their right to self-determination, while providing economic opportunities for those who need it. | Clearly, if there had been initial projections about the environmental impact and cost of groundwater extraction, these were inaccurate and off, which begs the question whether a good-faith effort can be made to correct for these calculations in order to arrive at a more sustainable arrangement, so that, perhaps, the plant can resume operations, while leaving enough water for the communities to pursue self-determination, for themselves and the future generation? If no projections had initially been drawn up, where is the weak link? How can such future incidents be prevented? Does Coca-Cola have adequate resources to pro-actively fund longevity studies for such types of operations, without need of government compulsion, to assess whether groundwater extraction does not deplete water resources and, as a consequence, diminish a community’s right to self-determination? |
| 2. Non-discrimination | The groundwater extraction has clearly diminished capacity to tap into adequate supply of water. The operation has not only limited accessibility and availability, but has also affected the quality of the water within Plachimada. This means that the communities living in these parts do not have the same basic necessities as other developed or less water-starved regions of India. What can be done to mitigate disparate access to water, which would likely violate non-discrimination, for Plachimada communities, particularly the indigenous peoples? | When water is treated only as a commodity or economic resource, the whole groundwater extraction process overlooks the nature of water as a social good and cultural good (such as no groundwater availability for indigenous people to sustain their traditional livelihoods), is there differential treatment, based on a prohibited ground (e.g. ethnicity or culture), with the intent to discriminate, that impedes the enjoyment of the right to water in its dimensions as social and cultural goods? | As with the previous section, projection or other sustainability studies should account for the particular history, culture, and societal configuration of Plachimada communities. Can groundwater extraction in Plachimada be operated in a sustainable manner that also respects the identity of the communities that it affects, particularly those who live traditional lifestyles? Or does it only value people who have the necessary educational level to be employed by the plant (the records indicate that most of the plant’s employees were not from the locality, and this could be a source of discrimination)? These are not necessarily mutually exclusive goals. There may or may not be a balance to be struck in Plachimada. |
| 3. Free disposition of natural resources | Indigenous peoples have the right to freely dispose of their natural resources under the principle of mutual benefit and international law. The groundwater extraction for the plant, however, does not seem to properly balance this right with Coca-Cola’s business goals. Can there be equilibrium between the plant’s (or future planned ones) water requirements and those of nearby communities, or would a careful study have preempted Plachimada as the optimal location for the plant, if the needs of the communities and the right to freely dispose of their natural resources were accounted for? Requires further investigation if the domestic law provides a compensation and consultation mechanism to negotiate with indigenous peoples consistent with the right to free disposition. | Did the Indian government have mechanisms and structures in place to compel Coca-Cola to obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous Plachimada communities prior to using the groundwater? Even if there were enough water for survival, the right to free disposition of natural resources should be broad enough to accommodate other uses of water as a natural resource. | The free disposition of natural resources belongs not just to the present generation of Plachimada residents, but also to future ones. Sustainability policies for groundwater extraction should account for the right to free disposition of natural resources, as well. This may help in corporate and governmental decision-making as to which areas can sustain such operations and, at the same time, respect a people’s use of the same water source for various purposes. Investigate how such sustainability policies can be incorporated into Coca-Cola’s operations, particularly those involving the use of groundwater. |
| 4. Non-deprivation of subsistence means | Investigate whether Coca Cola’s groundwater extraction operations, specifically, or groundwater extraction for such plants, in general, are consistent with indigenous peoples’ means of subsistence in Plachimada, considering that people there primarily rely on agriculture for food. | At the base level, groundwater extraction must ensure that enough water is left for Plachimada communities’ subsistence, which in this particular instance, came close to violating this right, if the permit for the plant had not been revoked. Nevertheless, as mentioned previously, subsistence is the bare minimum, groundwater extraction must leave space for other uses of the water. This should be accounted for in future studies or business decisions for similar operations. | Same as the previous cells, in the future, the sustainability studies must determine the impact of groundwater extraction vis-à-vis the natural regenerative capacity of the water source, to ensure that future communities can survive, if not thrive, with the plant or similar businesses. |
| 5. Right to equal enjoyment of human rights | Assess whether Plachimada communities are particularly vulnerable given their unique geographic configuration and what steps can be taken by Coca-Cola to ensure that they enjoy the same level of human rights as the rest of the population who do not face the same water challenges. | When water use, allocation, and distribution are regarded exclusively as a matter of managing economic resources, while at the same time excluding the multiple dimensions of water as social and cultural goods, there is NO equal enjoyment of all human rights by the indigenous peoples, and other affected communities. Investigate whether Coca-Cola adopts an expanded view of the right to water such that Plachimada communities can equally enjoy the same entitlements as the rest of the population. | A sustainability policy should try to ensure that even future generations can enjoy the same equality of rights as present generations. Their opportunity to achieve greater enjoyment should also not be foreclosed to them by depleting an important water source for the communities. As with previous comments on sustainability policies, investigate whether Coca-Cola can incorporate this across all their business activities, especially ones involving the right to water. |
| B. Are the Coca Cola plant’s effects on groundwater extraction consistent with the Republic of India’s specifically interrelated human rights? | 1. Rights to highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The evidence shows that groundwater extraction has altered the quality of the water used by Plachimada communities for consumption. Were there efforts to supplement this as the problem became apparent, or did the plant have a roadmap for such types of eventuality? Has the quality of the water been restored after the plant shutdown? 2. Specific human rights protections for vulnerable groups (women, children, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities). There needs to be further investigation about the culture and history of the Avidasis, particularly within Plachimada, to assess how the restricted access to water affects their identity and how it could possibly render them more vulnerable as a minority and an indigenous people. 3. Baseline civil and political freedoms. Without adequate water, baseline civil and political rights risk becoming diminished and inoperable within Plachimada. Water is essential for survival and without it, these communities will be unable to exercise fundamental civil and political rights, foremost of which is the right to life. Other rights, like free speech, freedom of religion, political participation, among others, are some of the most essential rights belonging to these communities and any reincarnation or redeployment of the same plant operations must respect and provide enough water for the community to realize these baseline rights. The modes of accessibility will also impact these related rights in various ways, as discussed below: 1. Physical accessibility: does groundwater extraction process generate impacts on civil and political rights to freedom of movement and choice of residence, privacy, security, as well as rights to just and favorable conditions of work, education, cultural participation, and gender equality. 2. Economic accessibility: does the groundwater extraction process (or any reliance on privatized markets for water) result in less affordability of water for indigenous peoples and all other affected communities? How do groundwater extraction operations affect India’s obligation under ICESCR Article 2(1) to take steps for the progressive realization of Covenant rights such as social security, social insurance, social protection measures. 3. Informational accessibility: do affected Plachimada indigenous communities have rights to information, public participation, transparency with respect to these groundwater extraction operations? | Specific human rights (treaty-based and custom-based) to preservation and protection of social and cultural goods, including environmental preservation of natural resources and public commons, indigenous peoples’ rights to cultural integrity, identity, and human dignity. Do the scientific and technical standards on water quality also consider its multidimensional uses/nature as a social good and cultural good? Does the accessibility of water factor in the need for accessibility based on water as a social good and cultural good to affected Plachimada indigenous peoples? 2. Rights to work and just and favorable conditions of work. Those working for the plant can also claim this right and so further investigation is required to determine whether some balancing is needed between the social and cultural uses and economic utility of water, especially for Plachimada communities. Even within Plachimada communities, water may be an economic resource only, still their chosen vocations or line of work may have been hampered by the excessive extraction of groundwater for other uses. Many of these communities may have chosen or may choose to be farmers, or some other profession for which water is a vital resource, and this choice comes under their respective right to work. More investigation is required to assess the degree of freedom of choice for these communities for the multiple possible uses of water. The right to water also intersects and relates with the right to an adequate standard of living. Further investigation must explore whether groundwater extraction impedes the right of Plachimada communities to carve out their own means and mode of earning a living, whether that be through pursuing industrial work, advanced professions and degrees, or sticking to a traditional lifestyle. Right to benefits of scientific progress and applications. This right may be important and may provide the communities with ground or reason to assert that advances in technology render the rate of groundwater extraction for Coca-Cola’s operations inefficient or outdated. If so, it questions the choice for such location (which is now moot because of the plant’s closure), or at the very least, it can be used as an argument to say that scientific advancement should be adopted by companies to expand the use of Plachimada’s water source for other uses apart from being an economic resource, by streamlining the operations to use less water. This needs to be further investigated, especially into specific Indian laws and regulations. | Human right to a healthy environment and State duties to prohibit causing transboundary harm -investigate whether this is an issue, in that, do the effects of groundwater extraction extend to neighboring cities or may have the potential to do so if plant operations had not been halted?Human rights-related legal principles on accountable governance, transparency in governmental decision-making, community participation in public affairs.Investigate whether there are transparency mechanisms, especially in regard to the permits to operate given to companies who resort to groundwater extraction.ICESCR Article 2 progressive realization and non-retrogression obligations -Investigate what the possible legal consequences are of Coca-Cola being allowed to operate with an official permit, with the later finding that groundwater extraction was excessive in relation to the aquifer’s regenerative capacity, in the context of Article 2’s principles of progressive realization and non-retrogression. Investigate, as well, what the consequence is after Coca-Cola ceased operations. Are SDG 6 targets adversely affected by the groundwater extraction processes? Do the scientific and technical standards on water quality contain any considerations for long-term sustainability of water quality for future generations, and the non-retrogression of these water quality standards as applied to all indigenous communities? Right to healthy environment -As a region prone to bouts of drought, the groundwater extraction may exacerbate conditions, especially in light of climate change. If the plant operations had not ceased or if sustainability policies or studies do not properly take this into account, Plachimada could run the risk of becoming inhospitable for living conditions. Further investigation is needed, exploring how this can be mitigated or addressed in the future. Right to Work and Adequate Standard of Living -Groundwater extraction, like in this case, should be sustainable not just for present communities, but also for future generations. They must be give a genuine choice and opportunity to pursue happiness through work, traditional and modern. Investigate how this can be reconciled with groundwater extraction for beverage production. |
WATER INADEQUACY ANALYTICAL AND LEGAL MATRIX:
Coca Cola plant’s Wastewater Production| Two-tiered TEST | ADEQUACY | MULTIDIMENSIONALITY | SUSTAINABILITY |
| A. Is Coca-Cola’s wastewater production consistent with the Republic of India’s cross-cutting human rights law obligations? | Availability of water: challenges to availability for all demographics affected. Water Quality: reduction in water quality. Accessibility of water: challenges for all communities to access water. | Water as a Social Good: the described measure completely overlooks the nature of water as a social good for Plachimada indigenous communities. Water as a Cultural Good: the described measure completely overlooks the nature of water as a cultural good for Plachimada indigenous peoples | Protection and Preservation of Intergenerational Rights and Interests: not described in the case study. Non-Retrogression Obligation: not described in the case study if the Republic of India and the other state/non-state actors are taking steps to avoid a lower quality of human rights protection. |
| 1. Right to self-determination | Same concerns as with the water extraction. In addition, perhaps further studies or investigation should be conducted about the long-term effects of wastewater production on the water source and the environment. This may have unforeseen effects also on the right to self-determination that are not apparent now. | Does wastewater production have any implications towards how the community or indigenous people value or see the water? Does it have symbolic, spiritual, or religious value, the same way that the Ganges River, for instance, is sacred to many Indians? If so, is wastewater production seen as sacrilege in that the water used for the plant’s operations no longer feed back into the water source or that the water produces unwanted and hazardous material? | Requires further investigation if Coca Cola’s wastewater production processes contain any counterpart policy for sustainability and non-retrogression (not lowering the human rights protections of Plachimada indigenous communities). If there is such a sustainability policy written into Coca Cola’s operations, is it consistent with their right to self-determination? Should there have been more comprehensive studies, along with any sustainability policy, about the long-term effects or toxicity levels of wastewater production? Would this have mitigated the later findings that the by-product from the plant contained hazardous material and seeped into irrigation canals and could have long-term effects on the soil, plants, animals, and water source? |
| 2. Non-discrimination | Are the lack of prior studies on wastewater production and its effects on the environment indicative of any prejudicial intent or motive, that is, can it lead to an inference that the plant was set up in Plachimada and the hazardous by-product doled out as “fertilizer” on the assumption that the community members would not have the knowledge, educational attainment, or technical expertise to assess the safety of waste-water production and its consequences to adequate water? | As with the previous cell above, does wastewater production ignore the multiple uses or regard for the water in Plachimada and would this indicate any discriminatory intent towards the unique way of life of Plachimada communities, particularly indigenous people? | When plant operations have chemical by-products that have unknown consequences to the environment (or even known harmful effects), did the government, national and local, have sustainability or precautionary regulations or laws that impose stringent guidelines for the disposal of such by-products and were they equally enforced in Plachimada as with other similar situations or was the company, in this instance and in this particular area, not required to account for this? |
| 3. Free disposition of natural resources | Were Coca Cola’s wastewater production through its operations that cause reduction in water quality done without any appropriate consultation and consent of Plachimada indigenous peoples on which they are dependent for their food and livelihoods? Requires further investigation if the compensation and consultation mechanism to negotiate with indigenous peoples under domestic law is consistent with the right to free disposition. How will the chemicals from the wastewater production that have seeped into canals, water sources, and the soil affect the water source for Plachimada communities and what are its consequences for the free disposition of their resources? Will the contaminated water become too toxic for agriculture? Will the toxicity levels in the soil of any effects on the crops, on which the communities rely for their livelihood and survival? | To what extent does the toxicity of wastewater production affects its other uses by Plachimada communities? | Are there studies or findings about the life of these toxins or hazardous chemicals from wastewater production? Will they stay in the soil, in the water, indefinitely? Will the communities be forced to stop agricultural production for a considerable period? Are there dangerous about these chemicals, long-term, for the community? How will this affect their right to the free disposition of a shared natural resource? |
| 4. Non-deprivation of subsistence means | Does wastewater production make subsistence acutely more difficult given its harmful effects on the environment, particularly irrigation canals? | Investigate if the long-term implementation of Coca Cola’s wastewater production through its operations that cause reduction in water quality, result in deprivation of water as a social good and cultural good, in a manner that erodes the indigenous communities’ means of subsistence and, thus, leave out other uses for the water. | Investigate if the formulation and implementation of a sustainability policy could help avoid triggering any deprivation of water as a means of subsistence, especially for indigenous peoples and the most vulnerable groups, such as avoiding such scenarios as advertising hazardous waste as viable fertilizer. |
| 5. Right to equal enjoyment of human rights | Investigate if all water users (especially vulnerable groups such as women, children, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples) are equally enjoying all human rights in the context of the ongoing Coca Cola’s wastewater production, given the morphological and ecological impacts. | Wastewater production that pollutes the surrounding environment and possibly induces lasting harmful effects that can cascade to other aspects of life may prove a detriment to the equal enjoyment by Plachimada residents of other human rights they are entitled to. Investigate further how these effects affect their equal enjoyment of human rights in contrast to the rest of the population. | Will the long-term, possibly harmful, effects of wastewater production affect or deny future generations of their equal enjoyment to other human rights (e.g. right to health, a healthy environment, livelihood, etc.)? |
| B. Are Coca Cola plant’s operations that cause reduction in water quality, consistent with the Republic of India’s specifically interrelated human rights? | 1. Rights to highest attainable standard of physical and mental health -This is the right most poignantly affected by wastewater production, given how the contamination or hazardous material spreads through almost every aspect of life within Plachimada, from drinking water, agriculture, etc. Investigate whether programs and policies that tackle the inadequate access to water and the resulting harms from wastewater production, which also ultimately affect access and availability of water, can be an effective response. 2. Rights to work and just and favorable conditions of work -Wastewater production may result in certain jobs, particularly agriculture, becoming untenable, because of the deteriorating quality of the soil and irrigation water (if that has been the effect of the chemicals) or the virtual scarcity of water. Even after the plant has shut down, have there been findings or studies about the viability of agriculture and other means of livelihood in Plachimada? And even when the plant was in operation, were there ready alternatives to traditional livelihoods which Plachimada communities could find acceptable in the context of their community history and culture? 3. Specific human rights protections for vulnerable groups (women, children, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities) -The Avidasis deserve special consideration. What is their relationship with the land in Plachimada, the history of their occupation, their use of water? As an indigenous people, they are particularly vulnerable to the scarcity of adequate water supply resulting from the plant operations. For those who had been affected, possibly displaced when the plant was in full swing, how have they managed to cope; have those who have been displaced returned to their original residence; are they now able to restore their traditional way of life? 4. Right to an adequate standard of living. -As noted earlier, plant operations employ people who are educated, which leaves out many Plachimada residents in whatever job generation benefits the plant brings. On the other hand, wastewater production has adversely affected other means of eking out a living, particularly through agriculture, how can this right be balanced or protected in such scenarios? 5. Baseline civil and political freedoms. -Wastewater production may have an indirect effect, or even direct effect, on the adequacy of the right to water within the affected community, investigate how this affects baseline civil and political rights like the right to life, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. 6. Right to healthy environment -The effects of wastewater production on the adequacy of safe, potable, and useable water may also contain tremendous effects on the environment. Investigate further the life cycle of these chemicals, their possible effects on the soil, water, human body, food production, etc. 7. Right to benefits of scientific progress and applications -This may implicate industry standards relied upon by Coca-Cola for wastewater production. Were there or have there been technological developments that make the by-products safer or less hazardous? Are there new processes that can safely capture the by-product to prevent them seeping into irrigation canals? On accessibility, specifically, the following issues are important to consider: 1. Physical accessibility: Does Coca Cola’s wastewater production through its operations generate impacts on civil and political rights to freedom of movement and choice of residence, privacy, security, as well as rights to just and favorable conditions of work, education, cultural participation, and gender equality? 2. Economic accessibility: Does Coca Cola’s wastewater production through its operations result in less affordability of water for indigenous peoples and all other local communities? How does Coca Cola’s wastewater production through its operations affect India’s obligation under ICESCR Article 2(1) to take obligation under ICESCR Article 2(1) to take steps for the progressive realization of Covenant rights such as social security, social insurance, social protection measures? 3. Informational accessibility: do indigenous peoples and local communities have rights to information, public participation, transparency with respect to these operations? | Specific human rights (treaty-based and custom-based) to preservation and protection of social and cultural goods, including environmental preservation of natural resources and public commons, indigenous peoples’ rights to cultural integrity, identity, and human dignity. Investigated how wastewater production touches upon aspects of these treaty-based and custom-based human rights. Do the scientific and technical standards on water quality also consider its multidimensional uses/nature as social goods and cultural goods? Rights to work and just and favorable conditions of work. -Does the environmental effect of wastewater production affect the use of water for other types of work and favorable conditions of work? Right to benefits of scientific progress and applications -Same concern raised in the Adequacy, are there technological innovations that call into question the method chosen by the plant for disposing of the plant’s by-product? | Apart from the same usual concerns about transboundary harm; ICESCR principles on non-retrogression, transparency and accountability, and SDG targets, the most immediate impact on sustainability for the plant’s operations would be its long-term effects on the environment. Investigate the impact of these chemicals on the environment. Right to healthy environment -Are there health risks down the road that could potentially be linked to wastewater production that the company must be prepared for? Right to Work and Adequate Standard of Living -Investigate the environmental effects of wastewater production and how this may affect the right to work and adequate standard of living down the road. |
TABLE 2. ANALYTICAL AND LEGAL MATRIX FOR IDENTIFYING AND MAPPING WATER GOVERNANCE FAILURES
| Indicator 1: Influential Actors in Water Governance | Indicator 2: Evidence of Participatory, Inclusive, or Decentralized Water Management | Indicator 3: Transparency and accountability arrangements and enforcement | Indicator 4: Threats to Hydro social (Livelihood, Cultural, Religious) Relations | |
| Element 1 of the Human Right to Water: ADEQUACY Availability of water Water Quality Accessibility of Water a. Cross-Cutting obligations b. Interrelated Specific Human Rights Obligations | Are there existing standards about site location, in relation to licenses or permits to operate, and why was Coca-Cola, in the first place, allowed to operate out of Plachimada, which has hampered the adequacy of water for the surrounding communities? Have there been efforts to contest the appellate ruling upholding Coca-Cola’s property rights over groundwater extraction, which came at the expense of adequate water supply for the community? What are its implications for companies in India, more broadly, especially as regards water rights and water-intensive industries like Coca-Cola? | Did Coca-Cola initiate efforts to engage with local indigenous communities and vulnerable populations before using local ground water sources for plant operations? If the communities are engaged, especially as regards the consequences to their water supply, is there a way to bridge the knowledge gap between technical know-how and the intricacies of such industrial operations and the communities’ ability to provide meaningful input? It is important that they fully understand the consequences of such operations even if the details of which remain fuzzy to them (for instance, the rate of groundwater extraction vis-à-vis natural replenishment or regeneration, how the water is processed, treated, and its waste by-products disposed of, environment impacts of these processes, etc.). | In relation to the 2nd indicator, were the affected communities kept abreast of the plant’s operations on their water source, or were they simply left to connect the dots when running water suddenly became scarce once the plant began operations? It was easy enough in this situation to draw the connection, but it may not be so easy in other contexts, which highlights the need for transparency for free and informed participate that is meaningful and interactive. | When it became clear that the plant’s operations were threatening the water supply, were there efforts to account for hydro-social relations and the multiple uses of water, instead of just focusing on water shortage and subsistence? What does India law say about liability or attribution for violation of the right to water? What are the remedies, particularly for periods in which adequacy was clearly hampered by the plant’s operations, thus affecting hydrosocial relations and would attribution extend to Coca-Cola? |
| Element 2 of the Human Right to Water: MULTIDIMENSIONALITY Water as a Social Good Water as a Cultural Good a. Cross-Cutting Obligations b. Interrelated Specific Human Rights Obligations | Governance, at the national and local level, should account for the multidimensionality of water, which means in cases like this one, risk assessments or projections for water usage should account for the other uses of water other than strictly as an economic resource. Investigate how these assessments can be incorporated or, if they already are, be improved, in Coca-Cola’s site selection process. The Indian judiciary also seems to play an important role in substantiating the right to water and to bring awareness to its multidimensionality. How must stakeholders approach the adverse ruling by the Kerala High Court regarding Coca-Cola’s rights? Will Coca-Cola now have a right to claim a right to apply for a permit to operate within Plachimada again and resume operations? | Does the Indian government mandate Coca-Cola to give space for indigenous communities to participate in decision making processes, or decentralized water management especially when water is treated as also a social and cultural good? Do all affected parties meaningful, comprehensive, and equally-resourced participation in the dispute resolution process? | Concerned parties and stakeholders must be transparent about their perspectives around the use of water, whether they treat it simply as an economic resource or more than that. Investigate how Indian federal law and local law accounts for the multidimensionality of water and how that affects Coca-Cola. | The Kerala High Court ruling threatens to undermine the multifaceted aspect of hydro-social relations, when Coca-Cola appears to be able to claim an exclusive right to exploit underground water that affects the broader community negatively. What can be done to mitigate this or how should Coca-Cola approach this after it was forced to close down the plant? |
| Element 3 of the Human Right to Water: SUSTAINABILITY Protection and preservation of intergenerational rights and interests Non-retrogression obligation a. Cross-Cutting Obligations b. Interrelated Specific Human Rights Obligations | Are the sustainability policies (if any) of the influential actors in water governance sufficiently consistent with the Republic of India’s related human rights obligations? Does the Indian Government have any role in prescribing sustainability standards to these influential actors? Does the Kerala High Court ruling represent a violation of India’s non-retrogression obligation, especially in light of an Indian Supreme Court ruling regarding the power of government to regulate the use of water and what does that entail for Coca-Cola? | Do indigenous peoples and specifically vulnerable affected communities have any co-authorship over sustainability policies crafted by the influential State and non-State (corporate) actors in water governance? Is there an environment that engages multiple approaches to sustainability? | Does the Indian water policy and institutional environment make it easier to monitor and extend sustainability oversight? Is there transparency, a defined fair accountability mechanism, and strong enforcement of sustainability guarantees? What standards were in place for wastewater production and did that account for the specific by-products spewed out by the plant after processing water? Are there local or national bodies tasked with monitoring activities like wastewater production? What power did they have to regulate wastewater production? If they had powers, which they failed to exercise, what are the implications for the affected communities and for Coca-Cola? | Do threats to hydro social relations implicate the long-term ability of the Republic of India to safeguard and ensure sustainability and what are the possible effects of that to Coca-Cola? To what extent can the private sector have a role in supporting and respecting sustainability in the face of threats to hydro social relations? |
Discussions and Conclusions
The legal assessment highlights which elements of the right to water are most heavily impacted by each industrial process. This does not mean that all the other elements are satisfied or do not risk being violated. Rather, the legal assessment draws attention to the element which needs urgent attention, as addressing one element, just as it has harmful spillover effects to the other elements, may wholistically address the right to water.
For instance, groundwater extraction creates the most strain on the element of adequacy for the right to water. It is clear that Coca-Cola’s operations rapidly diminished the supply of water available to the community. It had quantitative and qualitative harms to the supply of water: less water for subsistence, for agriculture, and left little to none for other uses, and also decreased the water’s quality by increasing its salinity. Its effects, of course, also affect the elements of multi-dimensionality and sustainability, but adequacy is clearly the root of the problem. The legal assessment also shows that adequacy has the most profound impact on India’s five cross-cutting obligations. Thus, in similar contexts or situations, impact assessment studies or projections should investigate the rate of water usage for an industrial process and how that may affect the use of the same water by surrounding communities.
The element of adequacy, however, must be tied back to governance issues within India, particularly around the concept of land ownership and its corollary rights. The Kerala High Court’s ruling that Coca-Cola essentially has dominion over subterranean resources, like water, is troublesome because it creates a dangerous dichotomy between everyone’s right to water and private interests in land. Water is a shared resource, irrespective of where it runs or is found. Even if landowners can claim ownership or possessory rights over water on their land, there should be limitations when it is clear that one person’s use of it creates harm for others. In Plachimada’s particular case, the plant was siphoning water from a source that stretched across many landowners, depriving them of that same resource. And when a legal system deputizes or places its imprimatur on such excesses, then it is something that needs to be changed to align with an internationally recognized framework over the right to water, one that is a human-rights based approach to sharing such a resource.
Wastewater production, on the other hand, is an industrial process that mostly impacts the sustainability element of the right to water, because this process involves lingering chemical by-products that are known, or not, to have harmful effects on health and the environment. This process brings up the question of where and how these chemicals should be disposed of. While the process affects the element of adequacy, especially when these chemicals flow into streams or seep underground, questions about the known, and unknown, long-term effects of these waste products present the most urgent issues that need to be addressed. More so in this case where Coca-Cola marketed the waste products as fertilizer, which means these chemicals may have already found their way into the food supply, which augur latent diseases or illnesses, or otherwise rendered fertile land barren. Therefore, sustainability in the handling and processing of such by-products should remain the top priority for such industrial processes.
The particular situation of Plachimada, where the by-products were used as fertilizer, puts particular emphasis on remedial, as opposed to preventive or preemptive, measures. This is not to say that discussions on remedies are irrelevant for groundwater extraction. Reparations are still possible for the damages caused during the period of acute water shortage for the surrounding communities—lost profits, damaged crops, unemployment, and displacement, among other things. By and large, these are quantifiable in monetary terms, whereas wastewater production introduces a host of other future problems, especially concerning pollution and long-term effects on the health of affected individuals. These issues are less susceptible to monetary reparations until and unless the full scope of the problem is properly studied, such as whether the hazardous chemicals can be extracted from the ground in a safe and efficient manner; whether the land risks becoming barren because of the chemicals and how long such unproductivity could last; and, most importantly, who bears the costs of these remedial measures, especially in light of the Kerala High Court’s ruling.
Sustainability also presents interesting questions for governance because it will require government authorities, both national and local, as well as multinational companies, to re-examine existing policies surrounding similar contexts, such as new or revised permit requirements and factors that play into a business decision regarding a site location for a plant like the one in Plachimada. In the grand scheme of things, it does look like the Coca-Cola plant, notwithstanding the Kerala High Court ruling, proved to be a net negative for both concerned authorities—who faced and had to confront multiple protests on the issue—and the operating company, which was forced to close down the plant which, in all probability, cost millions to build and operate. These losses could further be aggravated if cases for reparations were to be filed and liability attributed to either stakeholder.
In conclusion, even with the plant ceasing operations, this case study still provides valuable insights on how companies should approach such contexts and industrial processes and offers ways on how to explore remedies after the fact.
Authors: Leonardo Bertassello, Sean O’Neill, Shambhavi Shekokar, and Jonathan Pabillore.
References
Nair, D. V. (2006). Whose Water? A Study of the Struggle for Water at Plachimada, Kerala.
Koonan, S. (2007). Legal implications of Plachimada.
- Basheer, K.P.M. (7 February 2016). "A lost battle: Plachimada victims may never get Coke's compensation". The Hindu. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/a-lost-battle-plachimadas-victims-may-never-get-cokes-compensation/article8206306.ece
Badiani-Magnusson, Reena, and Katrina Jessoe. "Electricity prices, groundwater, and agriculture: the environmental and agricultural impacts of electricity subsidies in India." agricultural productivity and producer behavior. University of Chicago Press, 2018. 157-183.
Bijoy, C. R. (2006). Kerala's Plachimada struggle: a narrative on water and governance rights. Economic and Political Weekly, 4332-4339.
RADER, G. (2007). The People of Plachimada vs. Coca-Cola and the Fight For Water Democracies in India. HUMAN RIGHTS in GLOBAL LIGHT, 148.
Tukdeo, S. (2006). Mapping Resistance: Coca-Cola and the Struggle in Plachimada, India. In Alternative Globalizations: Conference Documents, Selected Papers Delivered at the 5th Annual Conference of the Global Studies Association-North America, De Paul University, May 12-14, 2006 (p. 248).
Cockburn, Alexander. 2005. Message in a Bottle. Nation 280, no. 17: 7-7
HPC, 2010. Report And Recommendations Of The High Power Committee On The Extent Of Damages Caused By The Coca Cola Plant At Plachimada, Palakkad District.
K Ravi Raman, 2002. Breaking New Ground: Avidasi Land Struggle in Kerala. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37 No. 10, March 9-15 2002.
G Prabhakaran, 2003: Throwing Light on Tribal Land Alienation. The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/throwing-light-on-tribal-land-alienation/article4670628.ece
- Philip, S. (23 April 2023). Compensation long off Left agenda, now Coca-Cola to hand back Plachimada land to Kerala govt. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/compensation- long-off-left-agenda-now-coca-cola-to-hand-back-plachimada-land-to-kerala-govt-8569483/
Environmental Effects of Groundwater Extraction and Wastewater Production by a Coca-Cola Beverage Plant in Plachimada, India
Authors: Leonardo Bertassello, Sean O’Neill, Shambhavi Shekokar, and Jonathan Pabillore.