As a loyal coca-cola fan (despite a personal no meat, wheat and dairy diet) it is difficult for me to paint the company as one of the bad guys. I can't say I think coke is really good for me but I'm hooked and that's all there is too it. As a result though, I have had mixed feelings over the campaign that has been brewing around the US to levy a soda tax that would hopefully (according to the sponsors) reduce people like me's desire to acquire the drink. In principle, I think the soda tax is probably a good idea.
Save the Children appears to have a similar conflict although perhaps not for the same reason. According to the NY Times, Save the Children has been a strong supporter of the soda tax effort helping finance campaigns in a number of states, until today. In October, Save announced it would no longer support tax-soda campaigns.
As it turns out, Save is in discussions with Coca-Cola over receiving a big grant to help with its work including efforts around childhood (and my) obesity (which soda has some impact on in case you are not seeing the connections). Save also has big support from Pepsi. Save says the two, Coke and Pepsi, grants and no longer working on a soda tax are not connected.
Hm....mission vs. donor interest. Do you think the mission and related outcomes really are better achieved by Save's giving up one focus in exchange for pursuing another competing focus? Where does compromise begin and end?
These are good end of the year moral, ethical and mission questions for all nonprofit boards to consider.