Spinning the Web

So news broke in the national press this morning of Innocent Drinks selling a £30m stake in its ethical smoothie business – a category it has pioneered in the UK – to global giant Coca-Cola. The criticism of the decision has been pretty widespread and generally focuses on how this is a brand that has trumpeted its green and ethical credentials selling out to the evil Goliath.

“Surely this is the end of feeling good about Innocent Drinks?” I hear you cry. Well, not quite. As with all things linked to ethics and sustainability, the ‘old school’ green agenda often shrouds positive news (not to mention factual accuracy) in an air of disdain. As we know, for many old school greenies, Coca-Cola represents everything that is wrong with the soft-drinks industry… Sugar! Packaging! Adverts aimed at Kids! Chemicals! Big brand bully! But that’s not really the whole picture.

Now, that criticism of Coca-Cola is all well and good – but in reality it is far from the be-all and end-all of the debate about purchasing a stake in Innocent drinks. It’s about time people learned that the big businesses are not going to go away. In general, they make money (enough to pay £30m stakes in smaller businesses, even) and in general, they have made mistakes in the past – but if they’re not going to disappear just because we don’t like them, then the next best thing we can hope for is that they at least do things better.

Unless Coca-Cola is completely stupid, it is not investing in Innocent Drinks in order to undermine what this very successful business has achieved by pouring sugar into its drinks and making them use non-recyclable plastics in their packaging. Looking at criticisms faced by Coca-Cola in recent years, the reality is likely to be much the opposite. Is it impossible to0 believe they are buying Innocent Drinks to learn from them? To invest in the development of a category that is clearly beneficial to our health and a way of working that is beneficial to our environment? I mean, as Innocent themselves have explained on their website, £30m gives Coca-Cola a minority share in the business. Influence, yes. Control? No.

Similar criticisms were levelled at Innocent when they agreed to trial their drinks in McDonalds outlets. ‘Sell out’ cried the greenies in their hemp pyjamas. ‘Thank God,’ cried the thousands of real mothers who need to succumb to their children’s cries for a McDonalds on fretful shopping trips just to keep their own sanity. ‘At least now I can give them something that’s good for them,’ you could hear them sigh.

Giving Innocent the McDonald’s factor for kids was only ever going to help improve their diets. It wasn’t going to change what went into Innocent Drinks, or how they run their business.

Let’s not forget that Innocent is a business, too. Its primary goal is to make money – even if its business strategy is shaped through ethical and sustainable philosophy of its founders. It will make money from the Coca-Cola deal and benefit from the scope and scale the organisation can bring them. More children will be exposed to an Innocent smoothie sat next to the bottles of Cardiac-arrestade in their local shop. Coca-Cola might even learn to improve it’s energy efficiency and reduce its packaging waste.

Coca-Cola may not have such an ethical history, but buying into Innocent won’t necessarily bring both brands down to the lowest common denominator. Those who really care for the environment judge environmental performance by effect, not by ego, and the impact of this business deal on both brands’ products will highlight whether it has been a good decision or not, both ethically and commercially. So get over it people – let’s just hope Coca-Cola uses this opportunity to improve and Innocent gets to work on improving things from the inside. I might be a blind optimist, but that’s got to be better than a blind egotist, hasn’t it?