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

Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of sustainability-related provisions in pouring rights contracts between universities and beverage companies and assess differences by company. Methods: We conducted this cross-sectional study from 2019 to 2020. We submitted contract requests to public universities in the United States under public records laws. We coded pouring rights contracts for 4 types of provisions: 1) payments to universities for sustainability efforts; 2) provision of recycling bins to universities; 3) provision of energy-efficient equipment to universities; and 4) other sustainability provisions. We used Fisher's exact test to assess differences in likelihood of having any sustainability-related provisions and Cochran-Armitage trend tests to assess differences in the number of sustainability-related provisions between contracts with Coca-Cola versus Pepsi. Results: We received 131 contracts from universities in 38 states. Of the 131 contracts, 81 (61.8 %) contained at least one of the 4 sustainability provisions (36 Coca-Cola; 45 Pepsi); one contract contained all 4. There were no differences in the total number of sustainability provisions by Coca-Cola versus Pepsi (p = 0.13). Pepsi contracts were more likely to require payments for general sustainability efforts (OR 4.21; CI 1.91–9.26; p < 0.001). We did not observe any differences in the provision of recycling bins (OR 0.44; CI 0.14–1.35; p = 0.18), requiring energy-efficient equipment (OR 0.82; CI 0.28–2.40; p = 0.79), or having other sustainability provisions (OR 1.15; CI 0.55–2.39; p = 0.71). Conclusions: Over one third of Coca-Cola and Pepsi university pouring rights contracts did not have any sustainability-related provisions, representing a missed opportunity to support university sustainability initiatives.