Coca-Cola reported strong profits, while PepsiCo faced higher costs and slower growth. But beyond earnings, their updates on carbon emissions, water use, and plastic waste show how both companies are trying to balance business goals with environmental action.
Let’s study and find out which beverage giant is making faster progress on revenue and, more importantly, sustainability.
Coca-Cola Q1 2025: Strong Profits, Even as Sales Dip
Coca-Cola sold 2% more drinks in the first quarter of 2025, thanks to strong demand in India, China, and Brazil. While overall revenue dropped 2% to $11.1 billion, mainly due to currency changes and the shifting of some bottling operations.
Coke’s core business stayed strong. Organic revenue (which removes the impact of currency changes and one-time events) grew 6%, helped by higher prices and a small rise in concentrate sales.
Big Jump in Profit and Margins
Profit rose 71% this quarter, thanks to solid sales, better cost control, and smart timing on marketing. Coca-Cola’s profit margin jumped to 32.9%, up from 18.9% last year. Adjusted margins (non-GAAP) were even better at 33.8%. Earnings per share rose 5% to $0.77, even after being hit by currency losses. Adjusted earnings came in at $0.73, up 1%.
Coke Zero and Sparkling Drinks Lead the Way
Coke Zero Sugar saw big success, with a 14% jump in sales. Sparkling drinks like Coca-Cola and Fanta grew by 2%. Water, tea, and juice drinks also saw slight increases. Overall, Coca-Cola gained more market share in ready-to-drink beverages around the world.
Mixed Results Across Regions
- Europe, Middle East & Africa: Sales rose 3%, and profits held strong despite currency pressure.
- Latin America: Sales were flat, but smart pricing helped boost profits.
- North America: Sales dropped 3%, but profits grew thanks to higher prices.
- Asia Pacific: Sales rose 6%, with strong growth across all drink types.
- Bottling Operations: Volume fell 17% as Coca-Cola shifted bottling to partners. This lowered profits.
However, Coca-Cola’s free cash flow was down $5.5 billion. But this was mostly due to a large $6.1 billion payment related to its Fairlife deal. Without that, cash flow was still positive at $558 million.
Coca-Cola’s GHG Emissions in 2023: A Quick Look
- In 2023, Coca-Cola’s total manufacturing emissions were 5.62 million metric tons using the location-based method and 4.95 million metric tons using the market-based method.
Emissions directly from factories stayed the same at 1.61 million metric tons. Indirect emissions from electricity use increased slightly to 4.01 million metric tons (location-based) and 3.34 million metric tons (market-based).
However, carbon emissions per liter of product rose to 28.31 grams. Under CDP reporting, total emissions reached 5.62 million metric tons, with most coming from franchise operations.

Improved Water Efficiency
Water management is a key part of Coca-Cola’s sustainability efforts. Since 2015, the company has consistently replaced more water than it uses in its drinks. In 2023, it stayed committed to this goal by aiming to replenish over 100% of the water used in its finished products globally.
- Compared to 2022, Coca-Cola improved its water use efficiency in 2023. It used 1.78 liters of water per liter of product, slightly better than the 1.79 liters used the year before.
Meanwhile, total water withdrawal went up a bit, reaching 311,998 megaliters. Water consumption also increased to 194,853 megaliters.
Focus on Water-Stress Regions
Importantly, 28% of the water was used in high water-stress areas signifies the need for efficient water management. On the positive side, wastewater discharge dropped to 117,124 megaliters, showing better control and treatment of wastewater.
Additionally, Coca-Cola expanded its focus on water in high-risk locations. Previously, the goal was to replenish 100% of the water used in 175 high-risk sites by 2030.
Now, the target encompasses all high-risk locations, i.e., more than 200 sites by 2035. This broader commitment reflects the company’s growing emphasis on supporting local ecosystems and communities where water resources are under stress.
PepsiCo Q1 2025: Mixed Performance in a Tough Market
PepsiCo released its Q1 2025 results on April 24, showing mixed performance due to slow demand and higher global costs. Still, international sales provided a boost.
Net revenue fell by 1.8% to $17.92 billion, but still came in above analyst estimates. Organic revenue grew by 1.2%, with strong international performance helping balance weaker North American sales.

Profit Drops Amid Cost Pressures
Core earnings per share (EPS) dropped to $1.48, slightly below forecasts. Net income was $1.83 billion, down from $2.05 billion in Q1 2024. Rising supply chain costs and new tariffs impacted profitability.
North America Slows, International Gains
Pepsi Zero Sugar and Gatorade helped beverage sales in North America grow by 1%. However, food sales dropped, especially in Frito-Lay. International business saw strong demand in countries like India, Brazil, and Egypt.
PepsiCo now expects flat earnings growth for the rest of 2025 due to inflation and global uncertainty. Earlier, it had forecasted mid-single-digit growth.
This year, the company plans to focus on affordable products, expand globally, invest in new snacks and drinks, and cut costs to manage inflation.
PepsiCo’s 2023 ESG Progress: Big Wins in Farming, Emissions, Water, and Packaging
In 2023, PepsiCo made strong progress on its environmental goals. The company focused on farming, clean energy, water savings, and cutting plastic waste. While it faced some challenges, it stayed on track toward its long-term targets.
Boosting Regenerative Farming
PepsiCo doubled its regenerative farming land. It grew from 900,000 acres in 2022 to 1.8 million acres in 2023. The company also beat its water-use goal. It improved water efficiency by 22% — far above its 15% target.
In 2023, 58% of key ingredients came from sustainable sources. Since 2021, PepsiCo has supported over 57,000 farmers and workers. It offered training and programs to help women and build local economies.
PepsiCo also met its water protection goals in high-risk areas two years early. Now, it will focus on broader water efforts instead of tracking this specific goal.
Cutting Emissions and Using Clean Energy
PepsiCo plans to hit net-zero emissions by 2040. It also aims to cut Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 75% and Scope 3 emissions by 40% by 2030 (from 2015 levels).
- In 2023, total GHG emissions (Scopes 1, 2, and 3) were ~58 million metric tons. It dropped 4% from 2015 and 5% from 2022.
Direct emissions (from PepsiCo’s operations) fell by 33%. Scope 3 emissions (from suppliers and others) dropped only 1%.
To help lower emissions, PepsiCo added more electric vehicles. These EVs covered over 3 million zero-emission miles in 2023. The company also used more renewable biogas from food waste, like potato peels.

Saving and Replenishing Water
Water remains a top focus for PepsiCo. In 2023, it improved water-use efficiency by 25% at high-risk sites. This means it achieved its target 2 years early.
The company gave back about 69% of the water it used in water-stressed areas. This added up to over 12 billion liters. Also, the number of PepsiCo plants meeting top water standards rose from 8 to 27 in just one year.
- In Spain, PepsiCo restored 70 million liters of water near its Alvalle plant by replacing invasive plants with native trees.
Reducing Plastic and Promoting Reuse
PepsiCo continued to cut plastic waste. In 2023, 10% of its drinks were sold in reusable packages. It also became the first brand in North America to replace plastic rings on multipacks with paper-based ones.
The company used 10% recycled plastic in its packaging. Its 2030 goal is 50%. Over 30 countries now sell PepsiCo drinks in 100% recycled PET bottles (except caps and labels).
PepsiCo cut virgin plastic use per serving by 1% in 2020. Overall, virgin plastic use was 6% higher than in 2020 — a smaller increase than the 11% in 2022.
- By the end of 2023, 89% of PepsiCo’s packaging was designed to be recyclable, compostable, biodegradable, or reusable (RCBR).
- It now expects 98% to be RCBR by 2025, and 92% of it will likely be recycled in real life.
That falls short of the 100% goal, but the company is pushing forward with new ideas and partnerships.
Coca-Cola Vs PepsiCo: Who’s Winning The Sustainability Game?

In summary, PepsiCo’s reported emissions are much higher than Coca-Cola’s manufacturing-only figures due to broader reporting boundaries. Both companies have made progress versus their 2015 baselines, but PepsiCo achieved a year-over-year reduction in 2023, while Coca-Cola’s manufacturing emissions rose slightly.
- FURTHER READING: Starbucks Rakes in $1.9B International Revenue Amid Sales Dip: But how is its Sustainability Brewing Up?
The post Coca-Cola vs PepsiCo 2025: Who’s Leading on Profits—and Planet Goals? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

