ArticlePreventive medicine reports2025
Do US-based university pouring rights contracts with beverage companies include provisions that promote environmental sustainability?
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of sustainability-related provisions in pouring rights contracts between universities and beverage companies and assess differences by company. Methods: We conducted this cross-sectional study from 2019 to 2020. We submitted contract requests to public universities in the United States under public records laws. We coded pouring rights contracts for 4 types of provisions: 1) payments to universities for sustainability efforts; 2) provision of recycling bins to universities; 3) provision of energy-efficient equipment to universities; and 4) other sustainability provisions. We used Fisher's exact test to assess differences in likelihood of having any sustainability-related provisions and Cochran-Armitage trend tests to assess differences in the number of sustainability-related provisions between contracts with Coca-Cola versus Pepsi. Results: We received 131 contracts from universities in 38 states. Of the 131 contracts, 81 (61.8 %) contained at least one of the 4 sustainability provisions (36 Coca-Cola; 45 Pepsi); one contract contained all 4. There were no differences in the total number of sustainability provisions by Coca-Cola versus Pepsi ( 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.