Do US-based university pouring rights contracts with beverage companies include provisions that promote environmental sustainability?

Sara E Benjamin-Neelon; Martha Ruffin; Elyse R Grossman; Stephanie A Lucas; Katherine Marx; Brian Neelon; Eva Greenthal

doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2025.103001

Do US-based university pouring rights contracts with beverage companies include provisions that promote environmental sustainability?

Prev Med Rep. 2025 Feb 13:51:103001. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2025.103001. eCollection 2025 Mar.

Authors

Sara E Benjamin-Neelon^{1

2}, Martha Ruffin³, Elyse R Grossman⁴, Stephanie A Lucas⁵, Katherine Marx⁶, Brian Neelon⁷, Eva Greenthal⁶

Affiliations

¹ Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
² Department of International Health, Division of Human Nutrition, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
³ Lerner Center for Public Health Advocacy, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.
⁴ National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, North Bethesda, MD 20852, USA.
⁵ Lucas Consulting, Mount Pleasant, SC 29464, USA.
⁶ Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC 20005, USA.
⁷ Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29452, USA.

Abstract

Objectives: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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 (p = 0.13). Pepsi contracts were more likely to require payments for general sustainability efforts (OR 4.21; CI 1.91-9.26; p < 0.001). We did not observe any differences in the provision of recycling bins (OR 0.44; CI 0.14-1.35; p = 0.18), requiring energy-efficient equipment (OR 0.82; CI 0.28-2.40; p = 0.79), or having other sustainability provisions (OR 1.15; CI 0.55-2.39; p = 0.71).

Conclusions: 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.

Keywords: Corporate sustainability; Plastic; Recycling; Soft drinks; Sugar-sweetened beverages.