Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi-Cola and the Soft Drink Industry

Michael E. Porter

Case | HBS Case Collection | March 1991 (Revised October 1994)

Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi-Cola and the Soft Drink Industry

Abstract

Describes the competition between Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola. Provides a summary of the history of the soft drink industry prior to World War II, and over the period 1950-1990 in greater detail. Major strategic competitive moves and countermoves are described. Also profiles industry developments, including the Pepsi Challenge, the reformulation of Coca-Cola, and the consolidation of the bottler network. Provides a teaching vehicle for analysis of competitors and strategic rivalry. An updated and revised version of an earlier case.

Keywords: Competition; Industry Growth; Business Strategy; Food and Beverage Industry;

Language: English

Format: Print

26 pages

Educators Purchase

Citation:

Porter, Michael E. "Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi-Cola and the Soft Drink Industry." Harvard Business School Case 391-179, March 1991. (Revised October 1994.)

Since its establishment in 2005, Hamburg’s Martini Klinik had single mindedly focused on prostate cancer care with a commitment to measure long-term health outcomes for every patient. A wholly owned subsidiary of the University Hospital Hamburg, Martini Klinik was a “hospital in a hospital” in close proximity to other medical departments and services. By 2019, Martini Klinik had become the largest prostate cancer treatment program in the world with 8,000 outpatient cases and more than 2,500 surgical cases annually. Patients came from all over Germany and from around the world. A new and expanded facility was under construction to have the capacity to manage more patients with prostate cancer.

Currently, few health care providers measure and report their patient outcomes, which leads to several problems. Attempts to introduce price transparency without outcomes transparency could trigger a “race to the bottom.” Should Medicare coverage be expanded to non-elderly populations, its much lower reimbursements will create pressure on providers to lower their spending in ways that produce even worse outcomes. Even without Medicare expansion, the lack of systematic outcomes measurement has made the migration from fee-for-service to value-based reimbursements, especially bundled payments, less effective and more difficult to implement. Hidden variation in outcomes prevents providers from learning from others how to produce better outcomes for their patients. We propose that the Congress elected in November 2020 mandate the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to begin requiring outcomes measurement by all providers reimbursed under government Medicare and Medicaid programs.

We are entering a new stage of understanding of the linkage between investment performance and social impact. Previous approaches, such as socially responsible investing and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) screening, have obscured the opportunities for higher growth, profitability, and competitive advantage that come from creating shared value: addressing social and environmental issues as integral to a company’s core strategic positioning. A shared value approach to investing can deliver superior shareholder returns, but capturing that value will require very different practices on the part of both corporate leaders and investors.

Faculty & Research

Coca-Cola vs. Pepsi-Cola and the Soft Drink Industry

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author