Medicine for Africa will piggyback Coca Cola crates

[Deleted]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...n-to-coca-cola


Running water, electricity, and paved roads are hard to find in the remotest parts of sub-Saharan Africa. A bottle of warm Coca-Cola, though? No sweat. This impressive reach isn’t lost on public health advocates. They are looking to Coke’s distribution network to bring cheap, life-saving medication to some of the world’s most remote places.

Since September, more than 40,000 medicine kits designed to slip between Coke bottles stacked in a case have made the journey deep into the Zambian countryside. Called Kit Yamoyo, the packets were designed by London branding agency pi global for the U.K.-based health charity called ColaLife to fight one of sub-Saharan Africa’s biggest child killers, diarrhea. The kits, priced at the equivalent of $1, carry vital antidiarrheal medicine—a blister pack of zinc pills, oral rehydration salts—in a container that doubles as a mixing vessel. (The kit also carries a thin bar of soap.)

“Instead of a mother having to travel three, sometimes four hours to a regional health center, she can now go to the community shop where they usually find Coca-Cola for sale,” says Rohit Ramchandani, public health adviser and principal investigator for ColaLife. “Our model looks specifically at how we can partner with and leverage private sector distribution channels, these companies that are able to get their product out to that last mile in the most remote parts of the world.” In the future, ColaLife plans to use the same container design to transport safe-birthing kits, mosquito nets, and nutrient supplements, Ramchandani says.

Pi global’s product design—a heat-sealed, water-resistant, tamper-proof plastic kit that looks as if it could hold a wedge-shaped vending machine sandwich—allows 10 kits to be slipped inside a single crate of Coca-Cola. In this part of the world, it also represents the first all-in-one, single-dose antidiarrheal kit.

Coke’s involvement in the project has been easier to measure in crates than in dollars. “We didn’t ask Coca-Cola and their bottler SABMiller to fund the Zambia trial directly,” says Jane Berry, ColaLife’s business development director. “We wanted it to be independent—creating evidence and learning [that] people could trust. What we wanted was ‘permission’ to piggyback on their knowledge, brand, expertise, methods, and networks, which they have very generously given.”

[Cybran]

Now I don't feel that bad for drinking a 1.25 litre bottle earlier today.

[Nathiest]

South Africa I hope. The rest of this country can **** **** ** *********** *** ***** ****. Just saying.

Infracted

[Kisho]

Interesting how capitalism has made life-saving medicine more readily available in places where charities may not be able to reach.

Good work, Coca-Cola. Of course, it doesn't seem to be costing them anything, which would be why they so readily agreed to doing this. But y'know, they're doing a good thing. Can't complain about that.

[pawsz]

Thats really cool, they are paying for the distribution anyhow, why not add doing something good at the same time.

[Tinykong]

I wonder if Coca Cola is receiving a tax break for this.

[Darsithis]

Interesting how capitalism has made life-saving medicine more readily available in places where charities may not be able to reach.

Good work, Coca-Cola. Of course, it doesn't seem to be costing them anything, which would be why they so readily agreed to doing this. But y'know, they're doing a good thing. Can't complain about that.

Exactly. Even if it's not costing them anything they have no reason to say no. It's a win-win

I wonder if Coca Cola is receiving a tax break for this.

They have to spend something to get a tax break

[This name sucks]

While its probably negligible the extra kits in the crates do add to the total weight of what needs to be shipped around the world which can consume additional fuel. So its not free for coke but its probably not worth even mentioning the extra weight.

[Gheld]

Exactly. Even if it's not costing them anything they have no reason to say no. It's a win-win



They have to spend something to get a tax break

Yeah, There's a pretty big disconnect in people's understanding in how tax breaks and charitable donations work. (Hint, you don't profit from tax breaks).

also

Sadly there are self-righteous neo-libs out there who will shit their pants about this idea, "Coke is bad, no medicine for Africa lulz" and then petition for Death Sentences... I mean reducing the amount of unhealthy beverages being shipped to Africa.

[Tinykong]

They have to spend something to get a tax break

Technically, the cartons have an increased weight, so they are spending money, even if it's only some small amount.

Would be great if they did it for free, but, I wouldn't be surprised if they did it for some sort of financial gain/compensation or tax reduction.

[Tailswipe]

South Africa I hope. The rest of this country can **** **** ** *********** *** ***** ****. Just saying.

Infracted

To be honest we're the country in sub-Saharan Africa that would need this the least. I think my province has somewhere in the region of 500 government health facilities, so pretty much every little town or poor suburb already has access to free medication. The real problem is that once these folks feel better they just stop their medication without finishing their treatment which leads to scary stuff like XDR TB and more recently our first cases of totally drug resistant TB. As for coke delivering medication to the rest of Africa, it sounds like a good idea.

[Skarssen]

I wonder how long it will take for some ultra-leftist to post some crazy idea that this is all a ploy to sterilize Africans, or for some ultra-rightist to claim that Africans don't need medicine and should rely on Jesus to fix their problems.

[Zonas]

Huh... anyone else kind of werided out that a company that sells sugary drinks can get their stuff into third-world contries easier than people trying to give them life saving medicines? I mean, good on Coca Cola and everything. Just damn, seems like it should be the other way around.

[Catta]

South Africa I hope. The rest of this country can **** **** ** *********** *** ***** ****. Just saying.

Infracted

This post makes no sense...
"The rest of this country" meaning the US?
If you talk about the rest of Africa it should be "that" and "continent"

[kivipää]

Exactly. Even if it's not costing them anything they have no reason to say no. It's a win-win



They have to spend something to get a tax break

Their packages might not have grown in volume, but they weigh more. That alone will raise transportation costs. The question is; who's paying for the increase?

[Darsithis]

Their packages might not have grown in volume, but they weigh more. That alone will raise transportation costs. The question is; who's paying for the increase?

They have to spend something that exceeds a certain dollar value AND is something that can be written off for tax purposes. The gas costs of transporting their goods is likely not one of those items. If they devoted entire shipments to a charitable organization, sure.

[Tinykong]

They have to spend something that exceeds a certain dollar value AND is something that can be written off for tax purposes. The gas costs of transporting their goods is likely not one of those items. If they devoted entire shipments to a charitable organization, sure.

I would be pretty surprised if a corporation as large as Coca-Cola didn't have an entire team of legal professionals whose sole function was to find ways to reduce the company's tax burden.

[Sam the Wiser]

Well this is good to see Coca-cola doing something nice.

[kivipää]

They have to spend something that exceeds a certain dollar value AND is something that can be written off for tax purposes. The gas costs of transporting their goods is likely not one of those items. If they devoted entire shipments to a charitable organization, sure.

Fair enough. I'm not savvy in these things, and "have to spent something" isn't functionally equal to "have to spend something in a certain way". I got to ask though, do they actually handle their deliveries themselves in those areas, or deal with actual transport company/entrepreneurs to handle that? Would it be different regards to tax deductability if they didn't spend more gas on their trucks, but had to pay contractors extra to deliver the meds? Assuming coca-cola burdens the extra costs in the firts place, and doesn't just charge them from the medical company.

[Darsithis]

I would be pretty surprised if a corporation as large as Coca-Cola didn't have an entire team of legal professionals whose sole function was to find ways to reduce the company's tax burden.

Fair enough. I'm not savvy in these things, and "have to spent something" isn't functionally equal to "have to spend something in a certain way". I got to ask though, do they actually handle their deliveries themselves in those areas, or deal with actual transport company/entrepreneurs to handle that? Would it be different regards to tax deductability if they didn't spend more gas on their trucks, but had to pay contractors extra to deliver the meds? Assuming coca-cola burdens the extra costs in the firts place, and doesn't just charge them from the medical company.

Oh, I'm sure they do, but how would they even calculate that out? If their transportation costs go up by $1000 can they actually calculate out how much of that 1k was related to gas price fluctuation, transportation increases (vendor prices) and finally the cost of the extra weight? I dunno, maybe they can.