This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Pepsi's TED talk: Progressive corporate transformation, or TEDwashing (like greenwashing for intellectuals)?
How do we encourage corporations to be involved in the debate, discussion, action and hopefully be a part of massively needed solutions, without creating an apologia or greenwashing for current business practices? The PepsiCo talk highlighted the good, the foundation, social interaction, and Indra is a very charismatic leader, yet the bulk of their business is peddling unsustainable relatively non-nutritive snack foods and beverages with huge amounts of waste packaging (all FritoLay, Gatorade, QuakerOats) worldwide, with huge amounts of lifestyle and neuromarketing science going into creating demand, and the science of sales optimization. On the other hand, I look at how WalMart (big TED involvement) and how their sustainability efforts have been able to move the needle in packaging, or fisheries, and am grateful for their participation. Or Shell, a prior sponsor.
Can a Pepsi reinvent at the product level?
Here is the debate:
What is the role of corporations at TED, or on the TED stage?














Debra Smith 200+
Robert Diehl 500+
Pepsi has its own version of this with its Refresh program - for instance could it possibly support a Refresh initiative in school systems that replaces its products with locally grown foods and beverages [eg- milks and juices]?
The TED solution seems to be evolving one trial Talk at a time - if its community feedback is one of its evaluation tools then we should all maintain a high level of mindful conversation in these fora. Programs funded by Refresh are wonderful - but I for one couldn't help being disturbed at Ms Nooyi's references to Pepsi products as "fun". That felt like washing to me.
The Refresh progran equates to $0.04/ $100 in sales; $0.40/ $100 in revenue. This compares with domestic carbonated beverage and snack foods generating $39/$100 in sales, $54/$100 in revenue. That's a lot of unhealthy "fun" for every penny "refresh"ing. [sources: TEDTalk, wikinvest]
Ahmet Yükseltürk 500+
James McBennett 500+
"Claiming that in order to reach transformation on a larger scale, we will need organizational forms that internally resolve the tension between impact (“selflessness”) and profit maximization (“self-interest”). That means that neither profit nor impact are stated as overarching maxim, but that they are both accounted for at the same level. The main difference to models we have today (e.g. social businesses, traditional businesses) will not necessarily be on the level of governance, but rather of institutionalized mind-sets; “joint value” will become the overarching dictum of the organization of the future.
James McBennett 500+
I think the role of TED is to introduce us to co-operations we should listen to, for example Zipcar by Robin Chase
http://www.ted.com/talks/robin_chase_on_zipcar_and_her_next_big_idea.html The company and the idea are equally impressive.
A corporate company who is doing good.
Phil Klein 500+
Mark Rakowski
I believe that we are pointed strongly in the right direction and have the possiblilty to use the technologies we invent to make a difference in the way that the world moves forward.
Also, one perosnal goal is to have a TEDxBASF in 2012.
Companies have the mass to move the homan species quickly!
Ahmet Yükseltürk 500+
Also I think every TED talk is a "promotion." In every TED talk we promote a person, a studio, a research lab etc. Why not big companies?
Chris Ke-Sihai 200+
I eat a pretty healthy diet, rarely use Pepsi's products, and their existence as a corporation doesn't bother me at all. I do very occasionally drink that black fizzy stuff, and appreciate having it available. So for me personally, Pepsi is 'a good thing'.
Even if it's seen as a bad thing overall, that doesn't mean nobody is entitled to stand up and talk about the other side of the coin. Everyone hates marketers, but Rory Sutherland and Seth Godin speak at TED. Everyone used to hate Bill Gates, but look at him now. Madeline Albright has been reviled by many, so has Al Gore, and Craig Venter has upset a lot of people. We can't just ban people from speaking because of our own points of view.
We have to listen, and look beyond what we already know about these people or their organisations. There is always more to know, just as we also have to be more critical in the way we listen to talks. I'm glad to see people questioning speaker choices and messages, it means we're paying attention to what's going on. If the speakers know that, then it forces them to get with the program. Standing on that stage may push speakers to think more deeply about how they do business.
Ahmet Yükseltürk 500+