Coca-Cola vs PepsiCo: Who Scores Higher on Ethics?
Every conscious investor holding consumer staples faces this question eventually. Coca-Cola or PepsiCo -- which one carries less ethical risk?
Their sustainability reports will not answer it. Both companies publish glossy PDFs filled with pledges and targets. Mashinii scores companies differently: using court filings, regulatory penalties, investigative journalism, and NGO reports. No self-assessments. No questionnaires.
We scored both companies across 11 independent ethical dimensions. Here is what the cited evidence shows.
The Full Scorecard
| Dimension | Coca-Cola (KO) | PepsiCo (PEP) | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Better Health for All | -30 | -30 | Tied |
| Fair Money & Economic Opportunity | 0 | 0 | Tied |
| Fair Pay & Worker Respect | -40 | -20 | PepsiCo |
| Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing | -20 | +10 | PepsiCo |
| Honest & Fair Business | -20 | -20 | Tied |
| Kind to Animals | -20 | +10 | PepsiCo |
| No War, No Weapons | 0 | -10 | Coca-Cola |
| Planet-Friendly Business | -30 | -30 | Tied |
| Respect for Cultures & Communities | -10 | -25 | Coca-Cola |
| Safe & Smart Tech | 0 | -30 | Coca-Cola |
| Zero Waste & Sustainable Products | -30 | -20 | PepsiCo |
| Average Score | -18.2 | -15.0 | PepsiCo |
PepsiCo leads in 4 dimensions. Coca-Cola leads in 3. They tie on 4. Neither company reaches ethical neutrality -- both sit firmly in negative territory.
PepsiCo's average is 3.2 points higher. But the dimension-level data tells a more useful story than the averages.
The Largest Gaps
Fair Pay & Worker Respect: KO -40 vs PEP -20
This is where Coca-Cola scored worst across all 11 dimensions.
Coca-Cola scored -40 on Fair Pay & Worker Respect in our methodology. According to public records, the Coca-Cola bottling franchise system has been associated with labour disputes across multiple countries. Trade unions and labour rights organisations have documented concerns about anti-union activity, workplace safety, and working conditions at bottling operations in several markets.
PepsiCo scored -20 on the same dimension. According to public reporting, concerns about working conditions at Frito-Lay manufacturing facilities have been documented, including excessive overtime and worker fatigue. A 2021 strike at PepsiCo's Topeka, Kansas plant drew national attention to claims of forced overtime.
A 20-point gap between direct competitors, measured with the same methodology, is a material distinction for any investor weighing labour risk.
Safe & Smart Tech: KO 0 vs PEP -30
The widest single gap -- a 30-point spread.
Coca-Cola scored 0 on Safe & Smart Tech. As a beverage manufacturer and distributor, independently verifiable technology risks are limited. A score of 0 means no clear signal in either direction -- not a clean bill of health.
PepsiCo scored -30. According to our analysis, PepsiCo has faced scrutiny over data handling practices and technology governance as it has expanded direct-to-consumer platforms and data-driven marketing. Consumer data privacy and algorithmic transparency concerns have been raised in public reporting.
For a sector not typically flagged for technology risk, PepsiCo's -30 suggests that investors may be underestimating emerging digital risks in consumer staples.
Kind to Animals: KO -20 vs PEP +10
One of the few dimensions where either company scored positively.
Coca-Cola scored -20 on Kind to Animals. According to our data, concerns have been raised about animal testing practices associated with ingredients in Coca-Cola's portfolio, as well as the environmental impact of agricultural supply chains on wildlife habitats. The company has made commitments to reduce animal testing, but according to independent evidence, implementation has been uneven.
PepsiCo scored +10. According to our analysis, PepsiCo has made independently verifiable progress on animal welfare -- including cage-free egg sourcing targets and partnerships with animal welfare organisations. PepsiCo's Frito-Lay division has adopted supply chain animal welfare standards that have received recognition from independent monitors.
A 30-point gap on animal welfare between companies in the same sector reflects measurably different approaches to supply chain management.
Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing: KO -20 vs PEP +10
The second dimension where PepsiCo enters positive territory while Coca-Cola remains negative.
Coca-Cola scored -20 on Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing. According to public reports, sugar suppliers in Coca-Cola's supply chain have been linked to land rights disputes and labour concerns in countries including Brazil, Guatemala, and Thailand. The company has expanded sustainable sourcing programmes, but independent audits have identified persistent gaps.
PepsiCo scored +10. According to our data, PepsiCo's Sustainable Farming Programme covers a significant portion of its direct agricultural supply chain, and sourcing practices for key commodities have received favourable assessments from independent certifiers.
For investors focused on ethical sourcing, the direction matters as much as the magnitude. One company is above zero; the other is not.
Respect for Cultures & Communities: KO -10 vs PEP -25
Here the advantage reverses. Coca-Cola scored -10 on Respect for Cultures & Communities -- 15 points higher than PepsiCo's -25.
Coca-Cola has a long record of community investment and local economic development. However, concerns about water usage and its impact on communities in water-stressed regions have been documented in public reporting.
PepsiCo's -25 reflects more significant findings. According to our analysis, the company has faced scrutiny over the impact of agricultural supply chains on indigenous communities, concerns about cultural sensitivity in certain marketing campaigns, and water usage at manufacturing facilities in water-scarce regions.
This is the one dimension where Coca-Cola holds a clear advantage.
Where They Score the Same
Shared scores are as revealing as the gaps. They point to structural risks embedded in the industry itself.
Better Health for All: Both -30
Both scored -30 on Better Health for All. Both derive the majority of their revenue from products whose core ingredients -- sugar, artificial sweeteners, sodium, processed foods -- are directly linked to obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.
Both have introduced healthier product lines. Both have made commitments to responsible marketing. But the independent evidence indicates that the core business model of both companies remains in tension with public health outcomes. This is a sector-level risk, not a company-specific one.
Planet-Friendly Business: Both -30
Both scored -30 on Planet-Friendly Business. The reasons differ but the outcome is the same.
According to multiple Break Free From Plastic annual audits, Coca-Cola has been named the world's top plastic polluter. PepsiCo faces scrutiny over deforestation concerns related to palm oil sourcing and the carbon and water footprint of its agricultural supply chain spanning millions of acres.
Both companies have set net-zero targets. In our scoring, what counts is the independently verifiable record, not the pledge.
Honest & Fair Business: Both -20
Both scored -20 on Honest & Fair Business. Both have faced regulatory proceedings, antitrust scrutiny, and governance criticism related to lobbying operations. The risks are comparable between the two, based on the evidence available.
Fair Money & Economic Opportunity: Both 0
Neither company had sufficient independently verifiable evidence to score on Fair Money & Economic Opportunity. As beverage and food companies rather than financial services firms, most indicators in this dimension do not directly apply.
Summary: What the Data Says
Coca-Cola's weakest scores: Fair Pay & Worker Respect (-40), Planet-Friendly Business (-30), Better Health for All (-30), Zero Waste & Sustainable Products (-30). Coca-Cola does not score above zero on any dimension.
PepsiCo's weakest scores: Planet-Friendly Business (-30), Better Health for All (-30), Safe & Smart Tech (-30), Respect for Cultures & Communities (-25).
PepsiCo's distinction: It is the only one of the two companies that scored positively on any dimension -- Kind to Animals (+10) and Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing (+10).
This does not make PepsiCo an ethical company. At -15.0, it remains in negative territory. But for investors comparing the two on ethical grounds, the data provides measurable separation.
The Beverage Industry Problem
Both companies score -30 on health and -30 on the environment. These are not coincidences -- they are structural features of manufacturing and distributing sugary beverages and processed snacks at global scale.
An investor looking for an ethically clean beverage stock will not find one here. The question is not which company is ethical. It is whether the differences between them align with the specific values you care about.
If labour rights are your priority, PepsiCo's -20 is materially better than Coca-Cola's -40. If animal welfare matters, PepsiCo's +10 versus Coca-Cola's -20 is a clear gap. If data privacy concerns outweigh other factors, Coca-Cola's 0 versus PepsiCo's -30 is a trade-off worth weighing.
The scores are here. The priorities are yours.
How We Score
Mashinii scores companies across 11 ethical dimensions using independently sourced, cited evidence -- not corporate self-reporting. Scores range from -100 to +100. Every negative claim is backed by a public source.
Learn more about our methodology ->
What Should You Do?
Check your own holdings. If you own consumer staples, index funds, or any equities, you can see how every company in your portfolio scores.
Look up any company. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, or any of the 5,000+ companies in our database.
See the full breakdowns: