Q: Is India going to develop like the rest of the markets, carbonated soft drinks first or do you see a shift happening faster to non-carbonated?

A: I think it is both together. The growth comes together. I think we have to do both. This is not a question of choices between one and the other. We do not have the choice. The markets are both developing. We therefore have to be able to develop them at the same rate, and that is what you see us doing.

Q: There is a campaign now against bottled water in some cities of the US because some would say that bottled water is not the most environmentally efficient way of delivering drinking water. Do you see this campaign gathering momentum as in the case of junk foods or snack foods, trans-fats?

A: I am on camera; so I may be proven very wrong, but my personal view is that this is not going to be a major campaign. Why? First of all, tap water has always existed and does exist. Some people migrate back to tap water. It is again back to consumer choice. But the bottles are all about portability and it is very difficult to carry an open cup of water around from place to place.

Now there are two elements to it. One is water and water usage, and frankly that is a very minimal area of water usage. The other then is the containers. We have actually declared we are going to go for 100% recyclability of our plastic bottles in the US. That is our goal. On top of that, we actually have technology that we have developed, we have announced a very major USD 60 million investment in South Carolina for unique technology where we are able to take old bottles and actually convert that resin back into new bottles and that is very difficult because this is food contact material, we get FDA approval at a 50% level.

So, you have almost got this virtual closed loop. As these technological solutions come along, we can manage a major part of the criticism.

Q: So, you are big on sustainability, zero water balance?

A: Yes.

Q: Are you going the same way in plastics as well?

A: Absolutely. I think that we have to look after our planet. There is absolutely no question about it. There are still some people who say, global warming is not real. I have to think it is. That really doesn’t matter. We need to look after our planet. Therefore the degree to which we can minimise the use of resources and then reuse the resources is beneficial to us and the society.

I think that is all part of the responsibility of a 21^st century company. The reputation side is very important. Therefore unless you are seeing bio-consumers as being a responsible member of society, both in perception and reality, I think you will not flourish in the 21^st century.

Q: So, corporate social responsibility is not just plain PR?

A: No.

Q: Is it very integral to your brand?

A: Yes absolutely, and particularly for us. If you think of it, the name on the bottle is the name on the building. So, for us the linkage is very strong. There are other manufacturers and another broader name that cover all their brands. But for us it is absolutely integral. It is very important to today’s consumers. It is very important to our own employees. We know that from our own research. Our morale scores have gone up as a result of that. They are prouder to be working for the company. We also know from research that we are able to attract people into our business who would not have considered joining us before, because we are seeing now as being a responsible employer.

Q: Coming back to your innings at Coca-Cola, you were brought back in 2004 and at that time the company was in a decline. You had reportedly said at that time that the company had lost belief in its ability to win. Is it time to declare victory?

A: You never declare victory, because the moment you declare victory you have sown the first seeds of your impending defeat. Victory is something that is always out there because you have got to strive to be better and better.

However, I will say that when it comes to winning, the winning culture is back at The Coca-Cola Company. But the one thing that we don’t want to reoccur is a sense of complacency and even a level of arrogance. That is what we don’t want. So, we are challenging ourselves all the time.

Q: The Company’s stock is not at the USD 88 level. It has travelled from USD 39 to USD 59, but it is not at the USD 88 levels?

A: Well the USD 88 number was a P/E of 54 on a huge business. That was part of the bubble of 1998. I don’t believe that 54 P/E is really sustainable for a company of the size of The Coca-Cola Company and I think what you have got to do is normalise that. Whatever number you want to take is fine. But we have had very good growth in the last couple of years, total return to shareholders last year of 30%. So, we are ahead of the right direction again.

Q: Talking about earnings, I know that Coca-Cola as a company is immune to recession. But when costs are rising, commodity prices, sugar prices and aluminium price rise, is there going to be cost pressure? What I understand is that a company like Coca-Cola cannot raise its prices like the way other companies do because Coca-Cola has become almost generic?

A: We are still able to increase our prices. But the cost pressures are not as great as you would imagine. Sugar is one that has started moving again in the last couple of weeks. But it was flat through most of last year. But if you take aluminium has flattened to a degree and also in the US where we have high fructose corn syrup those prices have flattened.

So, unless something major starts happening in the tailend of this year, we don’t see the cost pressures being as bad as they were last year and we have been able to work our way through that very successfully. So, it is something we believe we can manage. We are able to take price increases. Now we are affordable in luxury but we are careful to the degree to which we do that.

But we can move our price as well because again it is relative. If other commodities are increasing at a faster rate, in terms of the trade-off we are better positioned.

Q: When you were recalled in 2004 you were not the first choice, as in the Board had the former boss of Gillette in mind, the former boss of Kellogg’s in mind as well. You had passed over, which is why you took early retirement. Are you now having the last laugh?

A: I am going to disagree with some of your facts. First of all, I don’t know what went on in the Boardroom. But certainly when I had retired the first time I had said, I am retiring. As to who the other choices were, the decision was made when they got around the table. That is the one that counts.

I wouldn’t say last laugh. I have been given a wonderful opportunity to head the company that I love very dearly; it has been my life - 42 years in the business. I have that in my hands to remould it, and to put it partly on the way to becoming great again, because we are not there yet. But with my successor in place, that can happen. He puts it beautifully. The car is back on the road, now we have to make it go faster. As I hand the keys of the car over to him, I am confident he can make it go faster. So, yes I get satisfaction out of that. But the satisfaction I really need is the spirit of the people.

Q: That is because you did not indulge in slash and burn?

A: Well I don’t believe you can save your way to prosperity. You have got to grow the topline. It’s a people business. You have got to motivate your people. People have to feel good by coming to work everyday, to feel good about what they represent. You mentioned corporate social responsibility, we in a way had a disconnect between what people do in their outside lives. But they are all involved in community activities and where the company was. So, if you connect those, you give more meaning to people’s lives. They are happier coming in the door. I am originally a social worker. So, to me, it is that human dimension, which gives me the most pleasure.

Q: Reviving loss-making companies and reviving a company like Coca-Cola, with an iconic brand must be pretty tough job, because you don’t have that much room for maneuverability, and not much flexibility, isn’t it?

A: You could argue that side of an equation, which is somewhat true. However, when you have the world’s greatest brands in your hands, even though not in the best of shape; but still the world’s greatest brand and you have a company that has free cash flow of USD 5.5 billion – it’s now about USD 2 billion more than that; then you have all that you need, to be able to move it forward again. I wouldn’t say it’s easy, but it’s been far.

Q: But those who say that you are not been quick with acquisitions and even job cuts?

A: We made some bolt on acquisitions. But frankly, the industry that we are in, fast moving consumer goods, is the fastest growing, ready to drink. It is actually the fastest growing FMCG product, the company that it groups. So why would you focus on your own industry and I believe in focus. You need to know and understand the business you are in and you see so many companies that diversify they stumble, there is something about the DNA of the company, that we need to understand, and people don’t always look at that, as they negotiate a price, about how are they going to understand the company. So if you focus at the company then you need competences, which is more people in our company had. I think, that’s the best way to spend your share holder’s money.

Q: Is that the reason why it didn’t diversify, into snack foods as another line of hedge?

A: Yes absolutely, I did with some people that advocated. We had a part of a program. All the employees were put together to tell us what was wrong because the employees understand better than me than anyone else or any consultants. When they told us what was wrong, some of the prescriptions were not doing very well with our own business, we need to go and acquire another business, and yes one of the suggestion was snack-food business, and I said, help me understand this - we are running our own business badly; now we need to go and buy another business that we don’t understand; are we going to run it better than people are there, unless we need the management from other company to run offices better. So that was the end of the debate.