‘Using the Innocent brand as a case study, evaluate whether companies

within the health drinks industry can be truly ethical and sustainable in

contemporary, Capitalist Western cultures; and the role branding and

marketing plays upon consumer influence. ’

Within the past decade the health drinks industry has evolved from modest

beginnings to now becoming one of the most competitive and profitable markets

within the United Kingdom and Europe. In 2007, esteemed marketing research firm, -

Mintel, published an analytical report revealing that sales of fruit drinks alone had

increased by 523% in the years between 2001 and 2006 to an estimated total of 6.3

million litres (UK smoothie sales on the increase, 2007,

www.caterersearch.com/Articles/03/01/2007/310622/UK-smoothie-sales-on-the-

increase.htm).

Unsurprisingly, this industry upheaval has coincided with an array and multitude of

changes with regards to socio-economics, politics and to an extent, even

psychological and philosophical changes within both governmental and consumer

habits and, of course, is anything but coincidental. Despite the multitude of variables

and changeable factors in regards to the industry growth, the unquestionable

dominance in regards to consumer behaviours has been the global media, with

highly publicised campaigns and documentaries providing supporting evidence in the

demonstration of the decline of health and wellbeing.

A notable example of such a cause within the United Kingdom and Europe is the

NHS and governmentally supported ‘5 A Day’ campaign, in which the WHO (World

Health Organization) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) published a

report in 2003 to promote the recommended intake of a minimum of 400g of fruit and

vegetables per day for the prevention of chronic illnesses such as heart diseases,

cancers, diabetes and obesity as well as providing important nutrients and a vital

component of a balanced and healthy diet (Promoting fruit and vegetable

consumption around the world, 2012,

www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/fruit/en/index.html), whereupon the scheme was

introduced to a multitude of countries, with varying levels of success.

Along with this came the rise and infamous prominence of media coverage of health

decline in the United States of America, often credited to the all-to-easy accessibility

to high fat, high sugar, high calorie fast foods, perhaps most famously noted by

documentary film maker, Morgan Spurlock, in his 2004 debut, ‘Supersize Me’, in

which he challenged the notorious and ever-frequenting reports of lawsuits filed

against global fast food chain, McDonalds, in regards to the subject of obesity. The

film documented a one-month indulgence of (solely) the Restaurant’s food and drink

products to record and document its effects upon the body, and to give evidence

towards the suggested, and proposed hypothesis of the consequences of such an

unbalanced, yet all-to-easy diet, as aforementioned (Super Size Me- Rotten

Tomatoes, 2012, www.rottentomatoes.com/m/super_size_me).

Perhaps the most significant brand in regards to industry dominance of more recent

years is Innocent drinks. Estimated to have a market share of 77% of the £150m UK

smoothie market, selling more than 2m smoothies per week by 2010 (Innocent

smoothie maker says charity cash bottled for best interest rate, 2012,

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/26/innocent-smoothies-charity-cash).

Fundamentally, the Innocent brand was conceived as a response to an issue or

problem without immediate or apparent resolution, as are a multitude of products and

brands that which are bought to the market each year, but in the case of Innocent,

perhaps most notably, was the seizing of the consumer zeitgeist and needs of the

time. In the company’s publication ‘A Book About Innocent’ (D. Germain, 2009, p.

12), the principle conception of the brand is paraphrased:

‘At this stage we were 26 and living and working in London…it’s a great city,

and there’s always something going on. Which basically means it is bad for

your health. We were working long hours, followed by late nights, with no time

for exercise…We realised there were a lot of people in the same position as

us- who wanted to be healthy, but found that there was just something about

modern urban life that conspired against us…So that was the problem we

wanted to solve: to make it easy for people to do themselves some

good…And to make it taste nice too.’

Since the sale of the first smoothie for the drinks company in 1999, Innocent have

gone on to demonstrate longevity in a historically competitive and often unstable

market place despite economic downturn; most notably, with the collapse of the

global services firm, Lehman Brothers on 14th September 2008, upon which the

hugely influential corporation declared bankruptcy of over $600 billion, causing global

recession, which is often regarded as one of the most significant economic disasters

of recent years (Lehman folds with record $613 billion debt, 2008,

www.marketwatch.com/story/lehman-folds-with-record-613-billion-debt?siteid=rss).

However, despite the company’s undisputable resilience, it has not been without its

critics in regards to both the products and the philosophy and motivations of the

brand itself. Actively stating ‘we strive to do business in a more enlightened way’

(Innocent Juice, 2012, www.juice.innocentdrinks.co.uk), Innocent’s aspirations within

the industry and retail market, aside from being merely a profit-driven, appear to be

focused towards ethical production, responsibility and sustainable growth, though in

more recent years this proposition has been under speculation as a result of various

dubious reports, with examples such as their pledge of charitable profit-sharing, and,

their (often infamously regarded) alliance with Coca- Cola, formed in 2010, of which

will be analysed in more depth subsequently.

Despite their humble beginnings, are Innocent truly still as innocuously- behaved as

they would like the consumer to believe?

In Zygmunt Bauman’s publication ‘Globalization: The Human Consequences’,

consumer psychology and behaviours are studied in regards to the ever-increasing

demand upon both the buyer and brands to take a more ethical and considered

approach to both the purchasing and manufacturing of products. Exploring the

consumer consciousness, the sociologist states ‘It is often said that the consumer

market seduces its customers. But in order to do so it needs customers who want to

be seduced.’ (Z. Bauman, 1998, p. 83) This is particularly evident within today’s over-

saturated and extremely competitive health drinks market. Brands and their products

can no longer solely rely on quality or pricing structures, with effective and

memorable branding and marketing taking an ever-increasing, vital role in building a

consumer trust, familiarity and loyalty that businesses so depend upon.

Despite the consumer feeling dominant or the true decision-maker when it comes to

purchasing or introducing themselves to a new brand or product, the brand identity

and personality portrayed through effective branding can have a significant or even

over-powering authority through various subtly creative sociological and socio-

economic factors. Again, Bauman goes on to explore the relationship of brands and

consumers, describing the success of marketing in persuading a ‘compulsion, a

must’, and an ‘internalized pressure, that impossibility of living one’s life in any other

way,’ (Bauman, Z, 1998, p.84) although perceived to be from one’s own free will and

mind, in truth, the critical and free-minded consumer is persuaded into purchasing

from the allure or promise of a way of life, being it the belief of personal benefit to the

individual, a belief which the Innocent drinks company have captured outstandingly

well in their years of trading.

Now valued at over £85m, Innocent’s presence on the UK smoothie market has been

unquestionably significant upon the health drinks industry. Since their conception in

1999, there was little to no awareness of smoothies evidenced within the UK

consumer market, their one-time market rival, ‘PJ Smoothies’ being the most notable

competitor. Now, selling their products throughout the UK and Europe (in countries

such as France, Germany, Sweden, etc.) the awareness of Innocent has exceeded

any initial expectations of the “grass roots”, independent business to becoming a

global success, with economic growth rising from £400k in their first year (1999) to a

very respectable £115m (2007), in under ten years of trading (Simmons, J, 2011, p.

116), upon which Innocent have expressed the hope to become “the Earth’s favourite

little food company.” (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 118)

(Fig. 1. The brandgym blog (2007), Being second can be best: Innocent vs. PJ’s

smoothies, www.wheresthesausage.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/being-

second-ca.html)

Although Innocent has experienced great success within the marketplace, as

mentioned previously, Innocent drinks have not been without their competitors.

Whilst being one of the first smoothie drinks products on the market, their main

competition came in the form of Pete & Johnny’s, now more commonly known as PJ

Smoothies, launched in 1994. Despite being inspired by the branding of US Ice

Cream manufacturing industry giants, Ben & Jerry’s, the history and personality of

the brand, it’s values, and it’s owners was never considered to have real depth or

substance, unlike the Ice Cream start-up business, or, indeed, like Innocent and it’s

three, celebrated and highly-regarded owners, Richard Reed, Adam Balon and Jon

Wright, deciding to change the name to PJ’s in 2002. Despite both a re-brand in

regards to the company’s name and two branding and packaging re-designs within

the space of ten years by award-winning branding and Graphic design agency,

Landor (see Fig. 1), Innocent’s market share overtook that of PJ’s smoothies in 2004

thanks to a combination of branding, product innovation and an evident pledge of

responsibility for ingredient sourcing and a respect for the environment (The

brandgym blog: Being second can be best: Innocent vs. PJ’s smoothies, 2007,

www.wheresthesausage.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/being-second-ca.html).

Regardless of this market shift, in 2005, PJ’s were bought by drinks giant, PepsiCo,

upon which they went on to decrease the price of the smoothies by 30%, along with

reducing the product range in order to make them a more desirable purchase in

regards to cost-effectiveness and value for money for the consumer, in which the

more exotic flavours were replaced by others regarded as more traditional and

economically-sourced (Smoothies for the masses | News | Marketing Week, 2008,

www.marketingweek.co.uk/smoothies-for-the-masses/2059444.article).

Despite their efforts, PJ’s smoothie ultimately failed to capture the imagination of

health drinks consumers, leading PepsiCo to abandon the brand in 2008, just three

years after their original purchase (PepsiCo to scrap PJ Smoothies | In-Depth

Analysis | Marketing Week, 2008, www.marketingweek.co.uk/pepsico-to-scrap-pj-

smoothies/2063155.article).

However, during this time, PepsiCo were indeed securing another lucrative deal

within the health drinks industry. Regarded as one of Innocent’s most significant

contemporary competitors on the health drinks market, Naked Juices were

purchased for an estimated $450 million in 2006 from the private-equity firm, North

Castle Partners (There’s Big Business in Fresh Green Juices- Barrons.com, 2012,

www.online.barrons.com/article/SB500014240531119043465045774531063244598

398.html#articleTabs_article%3D1),now functioning as a fully owned subsidiary of

the PepsiCo company, having since gone on to experience enormous growth with

distribution in all 50 US states, Canada, and within the UK health drinks market.

Boasting over twenty various flavours of blended fruit and vegetable drinks and

smoothies within the product’s range with the promise of specific health benefits of

their drinks, such as aiding digestion and immune health with the addition of both

probiotic and prebiotic microorganism “good bacteria” (Rollout | Naked Juice

introduces 100% probiotic juice smoothies | Food Processing, 2008,

http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2008/096.html), the company have adapted

well to the ever- increasingly scrutinised health drinks market, although, like many

new brands and products, they have not been without their critics, with apparent

false claims and misleading nutritional information. Despite many health benefits, as

previously stated, both lesser and greater consumer trust and persuasion factors

have been highlighted in recent years.

(Fig 2. Coheso, Inc. (2013), Nutrition Information for Naked Juice Protein Zone

Banana Chocolate Flavor,

www.coheso.com/nutridata/Naked_Juice/Protein_Zone_Banana_Chocolate_Flavor/it

em_details.html)

Along with every day factors, such as a comparatively high price-point (a single serve

10-oz bottle suggested price at $2.99 (Rollout | Naked Juice introduces 100%

probiotic juice smoothies | Food Processing, 2008,

http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2008/096.html)), and a somewhat alarming

total of 240 calories (Fig. 2), as shown in the Naked Protein Zone Banana Chocolate

8 fl oz drink (see Fig. 2 above), with approximately 9.6% of the recommended daily

allowance of calories for adult men in just one drink (What should my daily intake of

calories be? -Health questions – NHS Choices, 2012,

www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1126.aspx?CategoryID=51&SubCategoryID-164)), serious

implications have resulted from an apparent lack of integrity from the ingredients

used within the products themselves.

In 2011, lawsuits were filed against the Naked Juice and PepsiCo brands for

misleading the public and consumers about the contents of their products, regarding

the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in their “All Natural” juice

products, which may potentially cause harmful or unexpected effects in the body,

having not been stated fully and legitimately throughout their nutritional information

through both their packaging and promotional media.

The lawsuit went on to demonstrate finite details of molecular structures between

both the natural vitamins stated to be in the products, and the actual manufactured

GMO replacements as found to appear within them; a far cry from the “All Natural”,

and “Naked” purity that the brand initially portrays to the public (Lawsuits against

Kashi and Naked Juice for falsely mislabeling “natural” products continue, 2013,

www.naturalnews.com/038621_Kashi_Naked_Juice_misleading_labeling.html).

(Fig. 3 Coca- Cola (2013), Glaceau Vitamin Water Power C – Dragonfruit,

www.coca-cola.co.uk/brands/glaceau/html)

(Fig. 4 Coca- Cola (2013), Glaceau Vitamin Water Power C – Dragonfruit,

www.coca-cola.co.uk/brands/glaceau/html)

Another infamously scrutinised competitor to Innocent within the health drinks market

is Vitamin Water. In 2007, the product sold under the brand Glaceau, bought by

drinks giant, Coca-Cola for $4.2 billion (Coca-Cola Agrees to Buy Vitaminwater- New

York Times, 2007, www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/business/26drink-web.html?_r=0.),

has come under severe criticism since it’s release onto the health drinks market in

2000 in New York. Although greeted with trans-Atlantic commercial and retail

success, in 2011, the Advertising Standards Authority watchdog upheld three

customer complaints in regards to the misleading marketing of its drinks as

“nutritious”. Despite containing 100% of the recommended daily allowance of Vitamin

C, along with other vitamins (as the brand name suggests), the marketing failed to

address the issue of the drink having an equivalent of five teaspoons of added sugar,

thus pursuing to ban the advert.

Vitamin Water went on to confirm that the drinks contained a maximum of 23g (see

Fig. 3 and Fig. 4) of sugar per 500ml, which, under EU regulations still classifies the

product within the “low calorie” category within the drinks industry (BBC News-

Advert for Coca-Cola Vitamin Water ‘misled public’, 2011, www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-

12218673).

Despite Coca-Cola now also being the majority shareholder in Innocent drinks, the

public perception of the brand is anything but parallel with Vitamin Water. In the case

of both Naked Juice and the Vitamin Water products, misleading or

misrepresentative marketing In regards to it’s nutritional information and health

benefits to the consumer have resulted in mistrust and suspicion throughout the

health drinks industry. Whilst these brands still exist, unlike in the case of the now

obsolete and abandoned PJ’s Smoothies brand, Innocent’s customer approval has

shown evidence of enormous growth, particularly through ethical attitudes and the

strength of the brand through brand identity, marketing, and advertising campaigns.

One of the key elements behind Innocent drink’s success and year-on-year growth is

it’s unique and wholly- regarded playful and wholesome tone-of-voice portrayed

through various means, within both it’s branding and communication and relationship

with clients.

In the 2011 publication, ‘Innocent’ (Simmons, J (2011), ‘Innocent’, London, Marshall

Cavendish Business) the author discloses the opinions of Will Awdry, the Creative

Partner and Acting Manager Director at international advertising agency, Ogilvy, in

regards to the brand identity and personality of the Innocent brand…

‘Innocent was born eloquent. It is a brand that –genuinely- talks with its

customers not to, or at them. This is a reflection of the mastery of great

writing. Like those nurses who talk to mute patients and yet who keep it

conversational, Innocent’s approach to customers has a two-way element. It

balances transmit and receive (both tonally and in reality). The conversation

is funny, engaging, entertaining without being clever.’ (Simmons, J. 2011,

p.113)

Simmons goes on to evaluate Innocent’s “gift to a cynical world” (Simmons, J, 2011,

p. 169) through bucking the trend of business ruthlessness and proving the

overwhelmingly positive effects of it’s vocalised optimism and unashamed upbeat

personality, evidencing the growth of substantial consumer trust and loyalty, purely

through the consideration of it’s audience and the responsibilities they have not only

as a manufacturer, but also as an influential brand within the marketplace.

Likewise, in ‘How they Started: How 30 Good Ideas Became Great Businesses’,

author David Lester praises Innocent’s personal approach…

‘The company’s offices are among the most friendly and relaxed in the world

and its staff are extremely well treated, with perks ranging from free

snowboarding trips to bonuses for having children.’ (Lester, D. 2007, p. 22)

(Fig. 5 Innocent Drinks (2013), dude_twitter.jpg, https://twimg0-

a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/1913189640/dude_twitter.jpg)

From a branding design perspective, Innocent’s own logo, represents it’s playfulness

by visually communicating the brand name, through the character known as ‘The

Dude’ (Fig. 5, which has since been incorporated through the packaging design for

the “smoothies for kids” range, along with other Dude-inspired characters such as

‘Nature Girl’ and ‘Explorer Dude’ (Marketing smoothies: Milking it for all it’s worth -

Media – News – The Independent, 2006,

www.independent.co.uk/news/media/marketing-smoothies-milking-it-for-all-its-worth-

410828.html. [Accessed 14 January 2013])). Initially designed from a sketch

produced by start up design agency during a business meeting, ‘Deepend’, the

founders of Innocent offered a return stake in the business for the return of logo.

Despite agreeing upon these terms, the design company went out of business before

Innocent had committed to production and before fully entering the retail market, and,

as a result, never had to sacrifice any of the previously agreed shares with the

design team (Lester, D, 2007, p.24)

Innocent’s branding and creatively positive and upbeat writing and communication

style is translated through both their print and web-based design and packaging

collateral throughout their range of products. One of the most successfully utilised

means of communication that Innocent has formed between its company and the

consumer is through the use of social media. The publication, ‘The Ethical

Consumer’ (Harrison, Newholm & Shaw, 2005, p.202) analyses information about

the communication channels of companies through more traditional means of contact

(as opposed to more lavish marketing and advertising strategies), describing ‘this

awareness is most commonly attributed to informal communication channels… word

of mouth (18 per cent)…working for the company (17 per cent)…’ going on to

observe the importance of the communication of ethical issues and the influence of

day-to-day, informal contact, of which

‘… The public does not always recall sources of information accurately…

There is a propensity for customers, employees and other stakeholders to act

as advocates for those companies they perceive as ethical, and conversely to

act as saboteurs of those companies they perceive as unethical.’

Whether this social media and online contact be directly from Innocent themselves,

or from the recommendations and praises of other consumers, this virtual platform

has not only increased the exposure of Innocent drinks as a business, but have also

enabled a more informal and humanistic presence within the industry, which may

have previously been regarded as “unprofessional” or somewhat amateurish, but in

fact emphasises the brand’s friendly and warm personality and core philosophy in

remaining faithful to the wants and needs of the consumer, in which Innocent

describe as

“Harnessing the power of digital media is a brilliant way to establish a brand…

Nowadays we also have a blog, films on YouTube, plenty of Flickr groups,

Facebook fans, Twitter feeds and whatever else we can have a go at…

Basically, if there’s a new way in which our drinkers want to communicate

with us, then we’ll get involved” (Germain, D. 2009, p.129).

Along with it’s fun and entertaining personality conveyed to its consumers, Innocent

and often applauded and admired for their conviction, integrity and honesty. As with

many brands and products analysed throughout the text, and with the nature of

business, perceived mishaps and errors of judgement will occur within business

decisions, marketing strategies, etc. However, what makes Innocent unique is their

ability to address their problems, not only by taking direction action, but publically

acknowledging errors with the aim, once more, to prioritise the consumer necessities,

whether it be ethical, economical, environmental, and so on.

(Fig. 6 Sophie Wilson (2013), Innocent Drinks: A brand and consumer analysis,

www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses/aspx?sm=0U%2blhaxmwtrZbWhifH

ODCwvbmBfB%2fZ5RxAa8j9p6oS0%3d)

(Fig. 7 Sophie Wilson (2013), Innocent Drinks: A brand and consumer analysis,

www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses/aspx?sm=0U%2blhaxmwtrZbWhifH

ODCwvbmBfB%2fZ5RxAa8j9p6oS0%3d)

In a recent primary-research survey (see Fig. 6) carried out on a selection of regular

purchasers of Innocent drinks, anonymous consumers were asked ‘Are there any

factors specific to the Innocent brand that particularly appeal to you, or have

persuaded you to make a purchase?’ both the brand personality and clarity of

information in regards to their ingredients and processing was particularly

referenced, and when later asked ‘What changes would you like to see the Innocent

company make in regards to their brand personality and ethics?’ the response for

little or no changes wanted, or felt needed to be made was overwhelmingly positive

with at a total of over 65% (31/47 consumers).

Furthermore, the research from the consumer survey is supported by way of an

interview with Graphic Designer, Joe Gilmore, a freelance designer with over a

decade of experience within the industry, operating under the design studio

pseudonym of ‘Qubik’ from his West-Yorkshire based studio. As both a working

professional and homemaker with a young family, Joe represents Innocent’s primary

target consumer audience, regularly purchasing products from the Innocent range

both for himself and from the ‘Innocent Kid’s’ product line. Throughout a series of

selected questions, Joe shares his views upon the Innocent brand and it’s products

from the perspective of both a retail consumer, and as a designer.

(Fig. 8 Gilmore, J, 2013, Interview with Sophie Wilson, 14th January 2013, Online

Interview)

(Fig. 9 Gilmore, J, 2013, Interview with Sophie Wilson, 14th January 2013, Online

Interview)

(Fig. 10 Gilmore, J, 2013, Interview with Sophie Wilson, 14th January 2013, Online

Interview)

As a regular daily consumer of Innocent products, the drinks and smoothies in

particular (as evidenced in the feedback and response shared in Fig. 8 to the

question ‘How often do you drink and consume Innocent drinks products?’), a loyalty

and familiarity with the brand has been reinforced and instated within the household,

to the extent of which the product is now purchased on a day-to-day basis.

Throughout the interview Joe discloses his personal views and interests and the

impact of the company, stating “I am drawn to their whole ethos which comes across

in their tone of voice” (See Fig. 9, above), citing influence from the brand values, as

previously mentioned, portrayed to the customer instantaneously by print-based

media through their product packaging…

“The design influenced me a lot I think. It’s very clever, oozing simplicity and

honesty in a playful way. It’s way more sophisticated than all of the other juice

packaging branding you see in the supermarket. It also feels quite

independent and personal. The logo is clever and the choice of fonts is very

good. It’s also nice that the colour ways they use reflect the juice colours and

they feel confident enough to pretty much go with a single colour design.”

This level of analysis and recognition for brand and graphic/packaging design, of

course, wouldn’t necessarily be acknowledged or analytically considered by a vast

percentage of the consumer market for Innocent’s products. However, from the

perspective of a member of the Graphic Design and brand design industry, it

demonstrates the suggested attention-to-detail, precision and passion that Innocent

themselves have in all aspects of their business. This attention-to-detail reflects their

drive and ambition to not only maintain the majority market share of the health drinks

industry, but, perhaps most importantly, to maintain the values and integrity of

“innocence”.

Conclusively, as evidenced, Innocent’s distinctive playful and uplifting attitude and

approach to branding and marketing in the operating of their business has insured

that the company have become widely recognised as somewhat revolutionary within

the health drinks industry. Innocent’s market methodologies, developed from their

primary brand philosophies (later evaluated through their aforementioned five-point

plan), in which they aspire to “leave behind a legacy we can be proud of” (Germain,

D. 2009, p.166), the company actively engage with the consumer in a positive and

optimistic way, without an overly excessive or “preaching” campaign for the demands

of a healthy lifestyle, or the importance of a balanced diet, instead, using witty,

humorous and friendly marketing strategies which actively creates a feeling of

approachability, familiarity, and a truly positive brand association for the consumer.

Unlike many typical business strategies, creating a brand “promise”, or a series of

brand values, Innocent’s brand philosophies are demonstrated though their ‘Rule of

Five’, in which they express their ambition and aim to always remain natural,

entrepreneurial, commercial, generous and responsible (Germain, D. 2009, p.78),

the latter of which, to modern consumers, is perhaps considered the most respected

within retail businesses. Particularly emphasised within a highly-competitive industry,

and through an acutely evident economic downturn within the both the national and

global economy, issues of sustainable and ethical production are more recognised

and publicised in both print and web-based media; and, as a result, readily

scrutinised within the retail market.

Despite this heightened awareness, 53% of the British Public stated that they are

‘sympathetic to social and environmental issues, but not active’ (Harrison, R. 2005,

p.197), therefore, the pressure to fulfil these wants and needs of the public and retail

consumer are increased, with a higher responsibility being designated on to the

brands and companies within the industry.

The Innocent Drinks company is eminent within the industry for their ambition to

create an ethical company in all aspects of the business, whether it be through

responsibly sourcing products from producers and farmers, to the financial donations

to charitable causes through the Innocent Foundation (established as a registered

charity in 2004 in the aid of the support of non-governmental organizations around

the world), and donating 10% of their annual profits to charities each year to offer

relief to the rural development of sites of global fruit production and sourcing

(Germain, D. 2009, p.169), whilst the 90%, although seemingly vastly proportionate,

returns to the business in support of development of products, opportunities and

overall growth, as demonstrated within many capitalist businesses.

Since July 2004, Innocent have annually pledged profits to the companies own

established charity, the Innocent Foundation. Ever-faithful to ensuring that the brand

is kept as personal and maintaining It’s independent business roots and mentality, In

author John Simmon’s publication, ‘Innocent’, it notes…’The foundation is run by

Linda, who brings a career-long experience of working with Oxfam and NGOs’. The

10% of profits donated to the charity support a combination of causes, largely to aid

the maintenance of the livelihood of producers and farmers in countries of which the

Innocent drinks company build a series of contacts and networks with, largely

through fruit and product sourcing, and which are believed to have the greatest

financial/economic hardship and needs, as specified through the UK Development

Need Index. Countries currently within the portfolio of the Innocent Foundation’s

profit-sharing schemes include Colombia, India, Ecuador and Costa Rica (as of

2006), from which many of the tropical fruits and ingredients are sourced for

development and production within the UK retail market.

This active profit- sharing and distribution of wealth distinguishes Innocent from many

of its contemporaries on the retail market. Infamously documented throughout a

variety of industries and companies established within Western Capitalist countries,

many lesser economically developed countries (commonly referred to as LEDC’s)

face prospects of exploitation in regards to both produce and land, along with the

human attributes in the concerns of labour of the farmers themselves. This circulation

of wealth ensures not only will the famers, producers, and labours benefit

economically, but will also develop working relationships with Innocent built upon

mutual respect, trust and integrity with transfers through to the care and nourishment

of the land and products grown and sourced in a mutually successful, and ultimately

creating a beneficially profitable, balanced relationship. A notable case within

Innocent’s pledge for sustainable and ethical sourcing evidenced in the forging of

their relationship with the Rainforest Alliance, a non-governmental organization

(NGO), which aims to promote the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainability

of livelihoods of farmers and producers through land-use, business and consumer

behaviour. In 2005, upon fruit-sourcing visits to Costa Rican plantations, Innocent

pledged to only buy bananas from Rainforest Alliance certified banana plantations,

providing peace of mind not only from a business perspective, for the welfare

employment of land-owners and farmers, but, perhaps most importantly from the

company’s perspective, providing peace of mind for the retail consumer (Innocent-

100% pure fruit smoothies, orange juice, kids smoothies and tasty veg pots, 2013,

www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/us/being-sustainable).

Along with developing working relationships and the support for producers, the

Innocent Foundation also notably funds other charities developing and aiding

sanitation, health care, and so on (Innocent smoothie marker says charity cash

bottled for best interest rate | Society | The Guardian, 2011,

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/26/innocent-smoothies-charity-cash).

In spite of Innocent’s extensive publicising of it’s profit sharing through the Innocent

Foundation, it was recently bought into questioning since reports released

information that the company had withheld the £520,000 pledge (10% of it’s annual

profits) in 2007, along with no evidence of profit-sharing between 2008 and 2010 with

the company’s expansion throughout Europe, as verified in documents sourced and

analysed through the United Kingdom Registrar of Companies, Companies House

(of which all companies permitted by the United Kingdom Companies Act are

registered).

Since this time, Innocent has stated that the withheld money, primarily owned by the

foundation was kept by the company in order to reap even great financial profit

through the interest rates offered through commercial banking. Despite a continued

commitment to profit sharing throughout the Innocent Foundation, and other notable

charities alike, the Foundation itself has seen a substantial decline in spending since

this time. In 2008 the charity pledged to spend £274,000 in the funding and

development of various projects, with this expenditure decreasing to under half of

this proposed total (Innocent smoothie marker says charity cash bottled for best

interest rate | Society | The Guardian, 2011,

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/26/innocent-smoothies-charity-cash).

This wariness of wealth distribution can be largely accredited to the aforementioned

economic downturn in 2008, which affected the industry and marketplace explicitly,

to be analysed in further depth within later chapters.

Despite initial concerns by both the media, charities and Companies House,

Innocent’s plan for profit- sharing remained strategic, with the optimism to provide the

most effective solution and security for the brand in difficult financial times.

In response to this, Innocent announced voluntary contributions to both the

foundation and to Age UK (of which they have a long-standing profit-sharing

relationship with through the acclaimed ‘Big Knit’ fund-raising campaign) of £250,000

and £473,000 respectively through direct payments, with an additional £520,000 to

be paid to the foundation over a period of three years from 2011 to ensure that both

the charity and the Innocent brand could maintain an optimal standard of work and

commitment to both charitable causes and as a retail business.

(Fig. 11 Age UK (2013) Innocent, www.ageuk.org/get-involved/corporate-

partners/cause-related-marketing/innocent/).

As alluded to previously, Innocent’s stance on charitable giving and support is

evident throughout their day-to-day business, often through creative and highly

playful campaigns that, once more, demonstrate the company’s brand values, ethos,

and, above all, a sense of humour and fun. Perhaps the most notable of these

campaigns in recent years is ‘The Big Knit’. Established in 2004, Innocent introduced

the notion of accessorised products and packaging through the addition of woolly

hats (see Fig. 11 above) to the bottled smoothies to raise money for Age UK/Age

Concern (since the campaigns launch, Age Concern and Help the Aged have formed

an allegiance to become the Age UK charity), which supports winter initiatives for the

elderly such as home visits, lunch clubs and skills/workshop experiences to help the

aged in a difficult time of the year both financially, and from a health perspective.

In the first year of the viral campaign, £10,000 was raised for the Age Concern

charity through the purchasing of 20,000 Big Knit bottles sold, and, with steady

progression and campaign awareness that captures the imagination of the UK public,

went on raise over £1 million with thanks to a vast multitude of knitted hat donations,

of which the Sainsbury’s supermarkets actively promote and campaign for in the

build up to the retail release of the fund-raising, limited-edition products. Available to

purchase from Sainsbury’s stores throughout the three weeks from 21st November (in

2012), every Big Knit bottle sold donates 25p to the Age UK charity, which helps to

support the elderly and infirm throughout the United Kingdom (The Big Knit- Making

Winter warmer for older people, 2013, www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/bigknit).

Consequently, through effective means of promotion through advertising and

marketing awareness, the project went on to win the Business in the Community

National Example of Excellence for Cause- Related Marketing at the 2007 BitC

Awards for Excellence (Innocent, 2013, www.ageuk.org.uk/get-involved/corporate-

partners/cause-related-marketing/innocent/).

Alongside Innocent’s commitment to ethical and sustainable product and ingredient

sourcing, along with their support of charitable giving and profit-sharing, an

assurance of sustainability and the ethical monitoring of the production of packaging

materials is evidenced through their published, and downloadable, sustainability

report.

(Fig. 12 Innocent drinks (2009) Cap-ital stuff,

http://innocentdrinks.typepad.com/innocent_drinks/2009/04/capital-stuff-.html).

Throughout the company’s history, they have developed new and innovative ways to

remain faithful to this pledge, whether it be through the progression of the

development of carbon neutral offices, or being the first smoothie company to use

biodegradable polylactic acid bottles. Made from corn starch, the bottles can be

readily recycled to the extent of which they can be composted from home (Hill, L,

2006, p.95), along with the progression of the use of sustainable materials with the

development of using 100% Forest Stewardship Council certified materials in the

Innocent Kid’s 750ml drinks cartons, an international not for-profit organisation which

helps to promote the responsible management and use of environmental forestry, a

scheme and application of which is currently being developed through all the carton-

based packaging materials within the Innocent drinks product range.

Other notable achievements in Innocent’s developing technologies and support of

the use of recyclable materials include the 15% reduction of packaging materials in

the Innocent Kid’s range, which saw a total weight reduction of 75 tonnes of card

used each year, and, consequently the reduction of 185 tonnes of carbon emissions.

Likewise, 20 tonnes of plastic has annually been saved due to the evolution of the

caps on the larger Innocent smoothie cartons (see Fig. 12 above), in which the

plastic seal around the caps was removed, and the existing cap reinforced and

secured, therefore without the necessity of the seal in a simple yet incredibly

effective solution from both an environmental and economic perspective (Innocent-

100% pure fruit smoothies, orange juice, kids smoothies and tasty veg pots, 2013,

www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/us/being-sustainable).

Despite these advancements and the research into the development of new

technologies, Innocent have once again come under scrutiny from their claims of

sustainable and ethical production, when, in 2009, reports were published that

questioned the integrity and efforts of Innocent’s pledge for sustainability when it was

found in environmental reports that the carbon footprint of a variety of Innocent’

products were substantially higher than that of industry giant Coca-Cola, a product

and brand synonymous with Capitalism and often associated with poor diet and even

so far as to believed to have a nutritional correlation with the rise of morbid obesity.

When Coca-Cola published it’s report on the production of greenhouse gases (which

take manufacturing, packaging, transportation, refrigeration and disposal into

consideration), the study, as supported by Carbon Trust, the governmental not-for-

profit organisation which supports the reduction of carbon emissions and the

increase of resource efficiency with businesses, it was found that a 330ml can of

regular Coke produces an equivalent of 170g CO2e (carbon dioxide), whereas

Innocent’s 250ml bottle of mango and passion fruit smoothie revealed to have a

carbon footprint of 209g.

But with two such diverse ingredients within each of the products, Coca-Cola largely

produced from carbonated water and a high fructose corn syrup, as opposed to

Innocent’s (frequently) tropically-sourced crushed, fresh fruit, can they truly, and

fairly, be compared in such a way?

Sustainability and environmental responsibility, although achievable, can often be

highly complex with a multitude of factors and variables to be considered and

resolved, as shown in this particular circumstance, various elements of production

are considered. By way of resolution of these issues, as documented in The

Guardian’s 2009 report, Innocent proposed then notion of “carbon calories” in which

a calculation for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions was carried out, in which

the total number of emissions was “distributed”, meaning that an average person

could responsibly eat and drink 2,900g of CO2e on a daily basis, of which one of

their smoothie products would equate to 1% (Questions over ratings as Coke

publishes carbon footprint | Environment | The Guardian, 2009,

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/09/coke-carbon-footprint-innocent-

smoothie).

However, as aforementioned, consumers, although somewhat passionate about the

plight of environmental issues and responsibility, many are passive to active change.

Therefore, once more, it becomes accountable for brands and companies to ensure

their products are contributing to this social change. In the 2009 publication, ‘The

Value of Nothing’, author Raj Patel discusses topics of social justice and ethical

consumerism in regards to the responsibility of brands to adapt to the ever-evolving

industry and marketplace, summarising the importance of brands and companies to

adhere to the increasing expectations of consumers:

‘… If some goods produce positive social and environmental benefits… and if

that’s reflected in their prices, the market can successfully use prices to

allocate resources to their most efficient use. This shouldn’t be an optional

“ethical consumer” choice for those who choose to buy products that don’t

pollute the planet. If products do generate costs and benefits, then those

need to be reflected in the price in order for the economic logic of markets to

work properly.’ (Patel, R, 2009, p.49)

With influential and aspirational brands, such as Innocent drinks, taking a stand to

promote environmental, sustainable and ethical production, other companies and

product ranges will undoubtedly follow the industry zeitgeist and, potentially, make a

real change to consumer purchasing and the mind set of ethical retail responsibility.

Though undoubtedly a rising star of the health drinks industry, Innocent have not

been without their hardships and difficulties, some of which alluded before, in less

serious or severe circumstances, and some of which have put the brand and

perception of the brand from the public and consumers, in real jeopardy. With

economic growth and public awareness within businesses comes a much more

magnified public scrutiny of decisions made within the company. Innocent first

experienced this when taking the, what is now regarded as bold decision to

collaborate with global fast-food chain, McDonalds, with the addition of the Innocent

drinks as an option within the ‘Happy Meal’ range through selected restaurants in the

North East of England in 2007. As previously mentioned, despite actions to

greenwash the brand with both a re-evaluation of their menus, with the addition of

salads and healthier options, particularly for children, along with the 2009 rebranding,

spending $1 billion across the 14,000 worldwide restaurants, simply by changing the

existing red and yellow colour scheme to yellow and green, for which a McDonald’s

spokesman explained was in order to “clarify [their] responsibility for the preservation

of natural resources” (McDonald’s revamps stores to look more upscale-

USATODAY.com, 2011,

www.usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-05-06-mcdonalods-

revamp_n.htm), and, consequently, giving the aesthetic and visual representation

through colour association of somewhere far healthier and nutritious than perhaps

historically perceived.

The fallout from this partnership was professed as somewhat catastrophic by a large

majority of vocal Innocent drinks consumers, with the perception that the

independent brand was entering a Faustian pact, with bloggers commenting “It’s all

about money and you won’t be getting any more of mine” (Simmons, J, 2011, p.135-

136) with the assumption that Innocent was “selling out” to the infamously Capitalist

chain with only the foresight for sales volumes, and a lack of disregard for the

consumer, with the proposed notion of loosing sight of their values and ethos to

always remain an ethical and sustainable brand to improve the lives of it’s

consumers.

In an interview with co- founder of Innocent drinks, Richard Reed, he states:

“Obviously, we expected to get a kicking from some of our drinkers for

going into McDonald’s but when a company slated for selling unhealthy food

asks to start selling healthy food, it felt more irresponsible to say no than yes.

And our strategy has always been to do what we think is right now what we

think sounds right. And we weren’t going to change from that philosophy now,

even though we knew we would get some flak.” (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 136)

Despite earning back the trust of consumers, sadly, Innocent had to face yet more

difficulties in the following year. 2008 witnessed the Lehman Brothers (Lehman

Brothers Holding Inc.) financial crisis, whereupon the global financial firm filed for

Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection through both a dramatic loss in stock and a vastly

substantial departure of the company’s clients. Filing for bankruptcy at a total of $613

billion in total debts against $639 billion in assets, it has become the largest

bankruptcy claim in U.S. history (Lehman folds with record $613 billion debt-

MarketWatch, 2008, www.marketwatch.com/story/lehman-folds-with-record-613-

billion-debt?siteid=rss). This financial meltdown had proceeded to have an enormous

global effect on financial markets, retail industry and to companies throughout the

world, with independent businesses being significantly affected as a result.

Coincidentally, during this time, Innocent were facing their own difficulties with the

competitive nature of the health drinks industry and marketplace:

“Up till Spring 2008 everything had been going our way. Then we hit a perfect

storm. Tropicana (owned by Pepsi) launched aggressively against us. They

used the same distribution channels as us- but they did that overnight

whereas it had taken eight years’ slog for us to build those channels. They

reduced over revenue by a third, our market share by a third- and the total

market shrank at the same time. Fruit was at its highest price ever with

countries like China and India importing fruit for their own consumers. The

exchange rate collapsed. We lost more money in one year than we had made

previously.” (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 177)

For Innocent to survive in the marketplace, seeking outside investment to financially

support the company was an absolutely necessity. On the very day that Innocent

drinks went to market to seek investment funds, 14th September 2008, Lehman

Brothers collapsed, consequently causing the crash of financial institutions the world-

over, whereupon investors became far more cautious with their money and how it

would be spent. In John Simmon’s publication, ‘Innocent’, co-founder Reed reflects

retrospectively, “Serious contingency plans were drawn up that would have involved

the closure of Innocent’s international businesses (in Europe) and the shedding of

half the staff” (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 177-178).

Miraculously, Innocent found investment from somewhere they least expected, with

the possibility that the Capitalist heavy- weight U.S company, Coca-Cola would be

interested in a substantial financial investment in the company, stating their interest

and admiration in the brand with a respect for it’s ethos, philosophy, and values.

Perhaps even more surprisingly was Coca- Cola’s opinion that the co-founders and

workers at Innocent were the most suitable and responsible when it came to

operating the brand and product developments on a day-to-day basis.

Despite initially committing to buy 18% shares in the company, Coca-Cola ultimately

became the majority shareholders with a purchase of 58% (Simmons, J, 2011, p.

180). Despite the co-founders no longer lawfully owning the company, this business

transaction has lead to being able to pay off the company’s initial investor, the

revered “Mr Pinto”, along with a new level of distribution and communication

channels through the investment, as well as the unsuspected promise from the

investor to support Innocent wholly, evidencing this through the agreement that they

would not launch any other juice products within Europe (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 179).

Alongside this, Innocent secured the rights to a quarterly Investor Board meeting to

decide upon the direction of the business. With four members, one, James Quincey,

a representative with whom they negotiated with from Coca- Cola, alongside the

three Innocent co-founders, Richard Reed (chairman), Adam Balon, and Jon Wright,

as long as the members and representatives of Innocent are in agreements over

decision-making, the majority ruling is outnumbered one-to-three, consequently, a

firm management of the company and products is held by the Innocent drinks

founders (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 178 - 179).

Despite maintain operational control over the company, Coca-Cola still upholds the

aforementioned majority stake, and with an estimated growth of the company by 25%

in 2012 alone (Innocent bids to regain ‘entrepreneurial’ spirit of ’99, 2012,

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/innocent-bids-to-regain-entrepreneurial-

spirit/4003590.article), views upon the Capitalist influence and growth upon the once

independent “grass roots” company, still sees opinion divided by consumers, with a

total of approximately 300 customer complaints (Germain, D, 2009, p. 67) despite

Richard Reed agreeing that ‘the uproar over McDonald’s was ten times worse than

anything Innocent had to suffer over the Coke deal’ (Simmons, J, 2011, p. 180 -

181).

(Fig 13. Innocent drinks, (2012) An Olympic makeover,

www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/blog/2012/may/an-olympic-makeover)

However, the partnership and investment made by Coca-Cola for the Innocent brand,

from a commercial stance has been astronomically successful. Since it’s marketing

prime within the 1980’s, whereupon it began to be a viable substitute for public

funding, sponsorship has played a great part in brand marketing, with a focus upon

brand association and promotion. At this time, the dynamic of sponsors and the

sponsored turned, whereupon ‘many corporations becoming more ambitious in their

demands for grander acknowledgements and control’ (Klein, N, 2001, p.34)

Since selling it’s majority shares (58%, with an estimated financial transaction of £75

million) to Coca-Cola in 2010, the profile of the Innocent Drinks company has raised

dramatically (Innocent smoothie denies sell-out after Coca-Cola gets majority stake,

2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/09/coca-cola-innocent-smoothie-

stake), perhaps most notably with it’s 2012 sponsorship of the official London

Olympic Games, of which Innocent, naturally, was incredibly proud, to the extent of

which they erected an enormously-scaled banned on the side of their London offices,

loving nicknamed ‘Fruit Towers’ (see Fig 13, above) . Despite a natural synergy with

the health drinks company, the majority shareholders Capitalist and questionably

ethical company history lead many to question the company, sparking a backlash

that the brand had ‘sold-out’ and was beginning to loose it’s famous charm,

independence and values as an ethical, sustainable, and natural company which put

the consumer above all else (Innocent joins Coke as Olympic sponsor, 2011,

http://marketingweek.co.uk/innocent-joins-coke-as-olympoc-

sponsor/3032450.article).

Perhaps coincidentally, in more recent months since the conclusion of the Olympic

Games, Innocent have announced that they want to return to their fundamental

principles, Douglas Lamont, Innocent’s marketing director noting,

“I want people to think about Innocent in the same way consumers did when

they discovered us in 1999. Our challenge as we become more of a

mainstream, household brand is how we continue to be unique and engage

more people in conversation with us… we’re in a strong place, but as we gain

size and gain people we need to think of new ways to engage them.”

(Innocent bids to regain ‘entrepreneurial’ spirit of ’99, 2012,

http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/innocent-bids-to-regain-entrepreneurial-

spirit/4003590.article).

Alongside this marketing approach, the broadcast of the BBC3 reality series ‘Be Your

Own Boss’, featuring Innocent co-founder, Richard Reed, as he sought to invest £1m

in start up companies, aspired to present the image of the company as more “real”

and human, respecting and reflecting the values upon which it was founded.

With the rise of economic and retail success comes the question of the influence of

Capitalism. Independent businesses will constantly be under attack, resulting in a

flux of ethics in regards to their ethos and valuing the product and the consumer

above profitability. Despite the fact that Western Capitalist businesses, inevitably

depend upon the reliability of promotion, advertising and the retail market to survive

financially, the economic crisis of 2008 gave evidence to the dangers that this

dependency can result in.

Whilst Capitalism can lead to greed financially within businesses, as well as greed of

consumption or materialism within the consumers themselves, the businesses with

greatest power, the bourgeoisie of companies within the retail market also have the

greatest influence, as supported by theorists and philosophers Karl Marx and

Frederick Engels in ‘Manifesto of the Communist Party’, in which they discuss the

notion of the power structure and influence of the bourgeois Capitalist industries and

methods of production upon lower-class and proletarian civilizations with the

aspiration to “create a world after it’s own image… on pain of extinction” (McNally, D,

.Marx, K. & Engels , F. 1973, p.68, 71).

By this, the theory of market and industry authority is asserted and analysed in

relation to class and power structure, with the dominant industries having

“ownership” of independent companies, or, indeed, nations; often ones of which are

less economically or politically developed as, for example, countries within the United

States and Europe, often regarded as the financial and influential “powerhouses” of

the World. This economic dominance and assumed greed by wealthy and influential

companies, can lead to the exploitation of workers, the unfair pay of exported goods,

and generally exerting intimidation upon countries to achieve maximum profitability

within Western industries and privatized companies for personal gain. Yet, despite

this overwhelming influence of brands upon the consumer, and companies in relation

to one another within the marketplace, such as the buying of the Innocent drinks

company by Capitalists, Coca-Cola, without business the progression of businesses,

society and nations simply could not, and would not be economically subsidized.

In the new age and “ownership” of Innocent through the majority shareholders, Coca-

Cola, the trust and brand loyalty of consumers remains in question, and, potentially,

even in jeopardy. As evidenced, in a few short years, Coca-Cola’s influence and

direction for the brand has evolved and progressed enormously, along with corporate

collaborations and partnerships, such as the trial period with fast-food chain,

McDonalds resulting in consumers questioning with the brand’s ethics and ethos truly

lies. It remains to be seen just how much more will the brand evolve, and whether or

not it will truly be for the greater good or the consumer, or, fundamentally, to support

the economic growth of the company in it’s profitability. However, Innocent’s

dedication and commitment to its key values prove difficult to question.

In an interview for the company’s own publication ‘A Book About Innocent: Our Story

and Some Things We’ve Learned’, it states, ‘We now judge decisions, ideas, and our

choice of words against whether they feel ‘Innocent’ or not. It has become an

adjective to describe whether something adds to, or subtracts from, the brand’

(Germain, D, 2009, p. 129), which is a moral and a principle they have demonstrated

through integrity, honesty, and above all, through building a trust with the consumer.

Despite set- backs, drawbacks, and struggles that the company has endured, both

financially and through public perception, what really demonstrates the well-

intentions of the brand is the lack of denial, and the ability to admit, and to apologise,

if necessary, for it’s mistakes, something which is incredibly rare within the practice

of businesses.

In regards to Innocent’s sustainably and ethical sourced ingredients and

development of product packaging, innovation is vital. Since the company’s

conception in 1999, the brand and product range has constantly evolved to meet

ever-increasing standards of social expectation and responsibility from famers,

producers, designers, environmentalist and environmental charities and, most

profoundly, from the consumers. With the research of new technologies, the

development of more sustainably-sourced and refined packaging for products,

effectively reducing carbon emissions, and, alongside this, regularly reducing

production and manufacturing costs, promoting and implementing a sustainable

approach has proven to be a win-win situation for the company, which is then

translated to the product’s consumers.

In spite of past controversies and public disapproval over various business decisions

made, Innocent has always maintained their values, beliefs, and aspirations for the

brand with honour and respect for its customers.

Whilst new technologies to help develop and support the need for sustainable

sourcing, production, and manufacturing will constantly be in development,

evidencing a consistent, proactive motivation to adhere to social change within the

marketplace is not only admirable, but an increasingly considered expectation.

Although Innocent, as a business, simply, and fundamentally, requires profit in order

to develop and grow, with this profit- sharing, donation and support for charities will

also increase.

Despite this somewhat ethical compromise, Innocent has demonstrated a new form

of business, which holds its values and respect for the consumer above all else.

Where market leaders, such as Innocent within the health drinks industry go, other

companies will follow. Through the increase of public awareness of Innocent drinks’

support of environmental, charitable, and ethical causes, more businesses will

contribute to the promotion of the values of sustainability and consumer care, which,

evidently, may provide the balance and agreeable compromise between capitalist

industry and the promotion of ethics and sustainable practice within them.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

IMAGE SOURCES

- (Fig. 1) The brandgym blog (2007), Being second can be best: Innocent vs.

PJ’s smoothies (ONLINE) Available at:

www.wheresthesausage.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/being-second-

ca.html [Accessed 14 January]

- (Fig. 2) Coheso, Inc. (2013), Nutrition Information for Naked Juice Protein

Zone Banana Chocolate Flavor (ONLINE) Available at:

www.coheso.com/nutridata/Naked_Juice/Protein_Zone_Banana_Chocolate_

Flavor/item_details.html [Accessed 13 January 13].

- (Fig. 3 & 4) Coca-Cola (2013), Glaceau Vitamin Water Power C – Dragonfruit

(ONLINE) Available at: www.coca-cola.co.uk/brands/glaceau.html [Accessed

13 January 13].

- (Fig. 5) Innocent Drinks (2013), dude_twitter.jpg (ONLINE) Available at:

https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net/profile_images/1913189640/dude_twitter.jpg

[Accessed 14 January 13].

- (Fig. 6 & 7) Sophie Wilson (2013), Innocent Drinks: A brand and consumer

analysis (ONLINE) Available at:

www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=0U%2blhaxmwtrZ

bWhifODCwvbmBfB%2fZ5RxAa8j9p6oS0%3d [Accessed 14 January 13].

- (Fig. 8, 9 & 10) Gilmore, J, 2013, Interview with Sophie Wilson, 14th January

2013, Online Interview

- (Fig. 11) Age UK (2013), Innocent (ONLINE) Available at:

www.ageuk.org.uk/get-involved/corporate-partners/cause-related-

marketing/innocent/ [Accessed 15 January 13].

- (Fig. 12) Innocent drinks (2009), Cap-ital stuff (ONLINE) Available at:

http://innocentdrinks.typepad.com/innocent_drinks/2009/04/capital-stuff-.html

[Accessed 15 January 13].

- (Fig. 13) Innocent drinks (2012), An Olympic makeover (ONLINE) Available

at: www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/blog/2012/may/an-olympic-makeover

[Accessed 15 January 13].

PRINTED PUBLICATIONS

- Germain, D (2009), ‘A Book About Innocent: Our Story and Some Things

We’ve Learned’, London, Penguin Group

- Bauman, Z (1998), ‘Globalization: The Human Consequences’, Cambridge,

Polity Press

- Simmons, J (2011), ‘Innocent’, London, Marshall Cavendish Business

- Lester, D (2007), ‘How They Started: How 30 Good Ideas Became Great

Businesses’, Great Britain, Crimson Publishing

- Harrison, Newholm & Shaw (2005), ‘The Ethical Consumer’, London, SAGE

Publications Ltd

- Hill, L (2006), ‘Cool Brands: An Insight Into Some of Britain’s Coolest Brands’,

Rev Ed Edition, Superbrands Ltd.

- Patel, R (2009), ‘The Value of Nothing’, London, Portobello Books Ltd

- Klein, N (2005), ‘No Logo’, London, Harper Perennial

- McNally, D (2006), ‘Another World is Possible: Globalization & Anti-

Capitalism’, Canada, Arbeiter Ring Publishing

ONLINE RESOURCES

- UK smoothie sales on the increase, 2012 (ONLINE) Available at:

www.caterersearch.com/Articles/03/01/2007/310622/UK-smoothie-sales-on-

the-increase.htm. [Accessed 19 November 2012].

- Innocent smoothie maker says charity cash bottled for best interest rate, 2012

(ONLINE) Available at: www.guardian.co.uk/2011/may/26/innocent-

smoothies-charity-cash [Accessed 19 November 2012].

- Promoting fruit and vegetable consumption around the world, 2012 (ONLINE)

Available at: www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/fruit/en/index.html [Accessed 20

November 2012].

- Super Size Me- Rotten Tomatoes, 2012 (ONLINE) Available at:

www.rottentomatoes.com/m/super_size_me [Accessed 20 November 2012].

- Lehman folds with record $613 billion debt, 2008 (ONLINE) Available at:

www.marketwatch.com/story/lehman-folds-with-record-613-billion-

debt?siteid=rss [Accessed 20 November 2012].

- Innocent Juice, 2012 (ONLINE) Available at: www.juce.innocentdrinks.co.uk

[Accessed 20 November 2012].

- The brandgym blog: Being second can be best: Innocent vs. PJ’s smoothies,

2013 (ONLINE) Available at:

www.wheresthesausage.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/being-second-

ca.html [Accessed 12 January 2013].

- Smoothies for the masses | News | Marketing Week, 2008, (ONLINE)

Available at: www.marketingweek.co.uk/smoothies-for-the-

masses/2059444.article [Accesssed 12 January 2013].

- PepsiCo to scrap PJ Smoothies | In- Depth Analysis | Marketing Week, 2008

(ONLINE) Available at: http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/pepsico-to-scrap-pj-

smoothies/2063155.article [Accessed 13 January 2013].

- There’s Big Business in Fresh Green Juices- Barrons.com, 2012 (ONLINE)

Available at:

www.online.barrons.com/article/SB5000142405311190434650457753106324

4598398.html#articleTabs_article%3DI [Accessed 13 January 2013].

- Rollout | Naked Juice introduces 100% probiotic juice smoothie | Food

Processing, 2008 (ONLINE) Available at:

www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2008/096.html [Accessed 13 January

2013].

- What should my daily intake of calories be? –Health questions- NHS Choices,

2012 (ONLINE) Available at:

www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1126.aspx?CategoryID=51&SubCategoryID=164

[Accessed 13 January 2013].

- Lawsuits against Kashi and Naked Juice for falsely mislabeling “natural”

products continue, 2013 (ONLINE) Available at:

www.naturalnews.com/038621_Kashi_Naked_Juice_misleading_labeling.htm

l [Accessed 13 January 2013].

- Coca-Cola Agrees to Buy Vitaminwater- New York Times, 2007 (ONLINE)

Available at: www.nytimes.com/2007/05/26/business/26drink-web.html?_r=0.

[Accessed 13 January 2013].

- BBC News- Advert for Coca-Cola Vitamin Water ‘misled public’, 2011

(ONLINE) Available at: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12218673 [Accessed 13

January 2013].

- Marketing smoothies: Milking it for all it’s worth – Media – News – The

Independent, 2006 (ONLINE) Available at:

www.independent.co.uk/news/media/marketing-smoothies-milking-it-for-all-

its-worth-410828.html. [Accessed 14 January 2013].

- Innocent smoothie maker says charity cash bottled for best interest rate |

Society | The Guardian, 2011 (ONLINE) Available at:

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/26/innocent-smoothies-charity-cash

[Accessed 15 January 2013].

- Innocent- 100% pure fruit smoothies, orange juice, kids smoothies and tasty

veg pots, 2013 (ONLINE) Available at: www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/us/being-

sustainable [Accessed 15 January 2013].

- The Big Knit- Making Winter warmer for older people, 2013 (ONLINE)

Available at: www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/bigknit [Accessed 15 January 2013].

- Innocent, 2013 (ONLINE) Available at: www.ageuk.org.uk/get-

involved/corporate-partners/cause-related-marketing/innocent/ [Accessed 15

January 2013].

- Questions over ratings as Coke publishes caron footprint | Environment | The

Guardian, 2009 (ONLINE) Available at:

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/09/coke-carbon-footprint-

innocent-smoothie [Accessed 15 January 2013].

- McDonald’s revamps stores to look more upscale- USATODAY.com, 2011

(ONLINE) Available at:

www.usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-05-06-

mcdonalds-revamp_n.htm [Accessed 15 January 2013].

- Lehman folds with record $613 billion debt- MarketWatch, 2013 (ONLINE)

Available at: www.marketwatch.com/story/lehman-folds-with-record-613-

billion-debt?siteid=rss [Accessed 15 January 2013].

- Innocent bids to regain ‘entrepreneurial’ spirit of ’99 | News | Marketing Week,

2012 (ONLINE) Available at: www.marketingweek.co.uk/innocent-bids-to-

regain-entrepreneurial-spirit/4003590.article [Accessed 15 January 2013].

- Innocent smoothie denies sell-out after Coca-Cola gets majority stake |

Business | guardian.co.uk, 2010 (ONLINE) Available at:

www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/09/coca-cola-innocent-smoothie-

stake [Accessed 15 January 2013].

- Innocent joins Coke as Olympic sponsor | News | Marketing Week, 2011

(ONLINE) Available at: www.marketingweek.co.uk/innocent-joins-coke-as-

olympoc-sponsor/3032450.article [Accessed 15 January 2013].

APPENDICES

- McDonald’s a ‘poor fit’ for Olympics, claims survey, 2012 (ONLINE) Available

at: www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/news/1139195/McDonalds-poor-fit-

Olympics-claims-survey/ [Accessed 15 January 2013].

- The new age of Innocent, 2011 (ONLINE) Available at:

www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2011/11_December/innocent_65_04.html

[Accessed 15 January 2013].

- Smoothie operators Innocent tread familiar path to lucrative deal | Business |

The Guardian, 2009 (ONLINE) Available at:

www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/07/innocent-smoothies-coca-cola

[Accessed 15 January 2013].

CONSENT TO THE USE OF DATA*

I understand that Sophie Wilson (name of researcher) is collecting data in

the form of interview (type of data, e.g. taped interviews, completed

questionnaires) for use in an academic research project at Leeds College

of Art.

I give my consent to the use of data for this purpose on the

understanding that:

The material will be retained in secure storage for use in future academic

research and that the material may be used in future publications, both print

and online.

Signed by the contributor:

Date: 15 - 01 -13

*Drafted with reference to the procedures of the University of Glasgow

Attached document/information with further information for participants

explaining the aims, scope and method of the research