Benjamin-Neelon Sara E, Ruffin Martha, Grossman Elyse R, Lucas Stephanie A, Marx Katherine, Neelon Brian, Greenthal Eva
Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Department of International Health, Division of Human Nutrition, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Prev Med Rep. 2025 Feb 13;51:103001. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2025.103001. eCollection 2025 Mar.
The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of sustainability-related provisions in pouring rights contracts between universities and beverage companies and assess differences by company.
We conducted this cross-sectional study from 2019 to 2020. We submitted contract requests to public universities in the United States under public records laws. We coded pouring rights contracts for 4 types of provisions: 1) payments to universities for sustainability efforts; 2) provision of recycling bins to universities; 3) provision of energy-efficient equipment to universities; and 4) other sustainability provisions. We used Fisher's exact test to assess differences in likelihood of having any sustainability-related provisions and Cochran-Armitage trend tests to assess differences in the number of sustainability-related provisions between contracts with Coca-Cola versus Pepsi.
We received 131 contracts from universities in 38 states. Of the 131 contracts, 81 (61.8 %) contained at least one of the 4 sustainability provisions (36 Coca-Cola; 45 Pepsi); one contract contained all 4. There were no differences in the total number of sustainability provisions by Coca-Cola versus Pepsi ( = 0.13). Pepsi contracts were more likely to require payments for general sustainability efforts (OR 4.21; CI 1.91-9.26; < 0.001). We did not observe any differences in the provision of recycling bins (OR 0.44; CI 0.14-1.35; = 0.18), requiring energy-efficient equipment (OR 0.82; CI 0.28-2.40; = 0.79), or having other sustainability provisions (OR 1.15; CI 0.55-2.39; = 0.71).
Over one third of Coca-Cola and Pepsi university pouring rights contracts did not have any sustainability-related provisions, representing a missed opportunity to support university sustainability initiatives.
本研究的目的是调查大学与饮料公司之间的灌瓶权合同中与可持续发展相关条款的流行情况，并评估不同公司之间的差异。
我们在2019年至2020年进行了这项横断面研究。根据公共记录法，我们向美国的公立大学提交了合同申请。我们对灌瓶权合同的4种条款进行编码：1）因可持续发展努力向大学支付的款项；2）向大学提供回收箱；3）向大学提供节能设备；4）其他可持续发展条款。我们使用Fisher精确检验来评估有任何与可持续发展相关条款的可能性差异，并使用 Cochr an-Armitage趋势检验来评估与可口可乐和百事可乐签订的合同之间与可持续发展相关条款数量的差异。
我们收到了来自38个州的大学的131份合同。在这131份合同中，81份（61.8%）包含4种可持续发展条款中的至少一种（36份与可口可乐签订；45份与百事可乐签订）；一份合同包含所有4种条款。可口可乐和百事可乐的可持续发展条款总数没有差异（P = 0.13）。百事可乐的合同更有可能要求为一般可持续发展努力支付款项（优势比4.21；可信区间1.91 - 9.26；P < 0.001）。在提供回收箱方面（优势比0.44；可信区间0.14 - 1.35；P = 0.18）、要求提供节能设备方面（优势比0.82；可信区间0.28 - 2.40；P = 0.79）或有其他可持续发展条款方面（优势比1.15；可信区间0.55 - 2.39；P = 0.71），我们未观察到任何差异。
超过三分之一的可口可乐和百事可乐与大学的灌瓶权合同没有任何与可持续发展相关的条款，这意味着错失了支持大学可持续发展倡议的机会。
