Carlsberg reports drop in Coca-Cola sales in Denmark amid U.S. boycott
"Our Coca-Cola volumes are slightly down in Denmark," Carlsberg CEO Jacob Aarup-Andersen said during an earnings call following the company's first-quarter results. "There is a level of consumer boycott around the U.S. brands, and it's the only market where we see that to a large extent."
The boycott stems from growing discontent over U.S. President Donald Trump's threats to acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Since taking office earlier this year, Trump has repeatedly expressed a desire to seize control of Greenland. In March, he told Congress that America is "going to get it one way or the other," sparking widespread outrage in Denmark.
Membership in the Danish-language Facebook group "Boykot varer fra USA (Boycott goods from U.S.)" surged to 95,000 following Trump's remarks.
At the same time, sales of local brand Jolly Cola have soared, as Danish consumers increasingly opt for homegrown alternatives. Supermarket chain Rema 1000 reported that sales of Jolly Cola in March rose 13-fold compared with the same period last year, according to Danish broadcaster DR.
Despite the decline in Coca-Cola sales, Aarup-Andersen said the overall impact on Carlsberg's performance was not significant.
Carlsberg holds the license to bottle and sell Coca-Cola products in Denmark, including Fanta, Sprite, and Schweppes. The company also distributes Pepsi products in several other European countries, where no similar boycott has been observed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
Brexit's parallels with Trump tariffs tell a tale
In figuring out why the United States tariff shock hasn't sent the economy or financial world into a tailspin, Britain's exit from the European Union trade bloc provides something of a playbook — and without a particularly happy ending. Aside from vast differences in economic scale and global reach, the two episodes bear some comparison in how they upended years of deeply integrated free trade and possibly in how business, the economy at large and financial markets reacted. The 2016 Brexit referendum and Trump's tariffs this year were each widely billed as economic shocks that would send the financial world into paroxysms. They didn't, at least not at the outset. To be sure, both were followed by dramatic downward lurches in the two countries' currencies. But, to some extent, the steep drop in sterling after the referendum vote and the dollar's plunge on President Donald Trump's tariff plan this year helped offset some of the wider impact, at least on stock markets that are loaded with global firms with outsized foreign revenue. More broadly, however, the difficulty in isolating their immediate net impact means no "big bang" economic crisis unfolds to prove critics right, even if their enduring legacy turns out to be a slow burn of economic potential and lost output, often obscured by multiple other crosswinds. In Britain's case, the seismic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic distorted any attempt to easily assess Brexit when it actually happened. Tortuous negotiations with the EU meant the UK's departure eventually occurred on the eve of the health crisis in 2020 and the new trade rules did not come into force until a year later. But in the four years between the referendum surprise and the pandemic, the UK economy never entered a recession nor recorded a negative quarterly GDP print — confounding pro-EU supporters at the time and bolstering the Brexit lobby. Emerging from the twin hits, however, the economy has almost flatlined since. What's more, it's taken more than eight years for the pound's effective exchange rate to recover its pre-referendum levels. Few mainstream economists now doubt that Brexit has taken a serious toll on the UK economy. One academic study by a number of Bank of England economists earlier this year concluded that uncertainty following the referendum resulted in little change in goods exports and imports before the exit was finalised. But after the new rules hit, UK imports fell three per cent and overall exports fell 6.4 per cent, largely because of the 13 per cent hit in exports to the EU. While this slump seems relatively modest compared with the official forecasts of the longer-term hit, the pain has been borne disproportionately by small businesses. And the cumulative damage to London and the service sector over the next 10 years continues to worry the City. The US tariff story is of a completely different order, of course, as it will reverberate across the world economy. But there are some parallels, not least in certain aspects of the market reactions and the initial resilience. Economists estimate that the tariffs could lop anywhere from 0.5 per cent to one per cent off US gross domestic product over time. That's a US$150 billion to US$300 billion hit, which, though painful, would not be an instant crisis for an economy that's growing at a roughly two per cent annualised rate, where imported goods represent just 11 per cent of GDP and where tech and AI trends are generating considerable tailwinds. But as former White House economic adviser Jason Furman said in a New York Times essay last week, the tariff damage is likely not a one-off hit. The loss of 0.5 per cent of GDP, he argued, is "the equivalent of every household in America taking around US$1,000 and lighting it on fire, then doing it again every year. Forever." In the end, the main point of the British comparison is to show how extreme partisan arguments on the pros or cons of such giant economic policy changes don't necessarily get resolved cleanly in adaptive, hardy and hyper-complex economies. The latest YouGov opinion poll shows 56 per cent of Britons now think it was wrong to leave the EU, some nine years after their narrow vote to leave. The jury on Trump's tariffs is still out.
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Russia hints at deploying mid-range missiles after ending INF moratorium
MOSCOW: Russia on Tuesday suggested it could deploy intermediate-range missiles after ending a self-imposed moratorium on producing or deploying the weapons, which were banned for decades under a Cold War treaty with the United States. Washington and Moscow had prohibited missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometres (300-3,400 miles) under the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. But US President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal during his first term in 2019, accusing Russia of failing to comply. The Kremlin said at the time it would continue to abide by a moratorium if the United States did not deploy missiles within striking distance of Russia. Russia's foreign ministry said Monday it was ending the self-imposed restrictions, with the Kremlin hinting on Tuesday that Moscow could soon deploy the previously-banned missiles. 'There are no longer any restrictions in Russia in this regard. Russia no longer considers itself limited in any way,' President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters. Moscow was 'entitled, if necessary, to take appropriate measures' on the deployment of the missiles, he said, adding that there would be no public announcement if Russia decided to station the missiles. Putin said last year Russia should start producing mid-range missiles -- capable of carrying nuclear warheads -- after the United States sent some launch systems to Denmark for training exercises. Russia has also accused the United States of sending the systems to the Philippines and Australia for drills. 'The United States and its allies have not only openly outlined plans to deploy American land-based INF missiles in various regions, but have also already made significant progress in the practical implementation of their intentions,' Russia's foreign ministry said in a statement. The move comes after Trump announced the deployment of two nuclear submarines 'in the region' amid an online row with Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's former president. Medvedev on Monday said Russia's foes should be on standby. 'This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps,' he said in his first social media post since the row with Trump erupted. - AFP
The Sun
2 hours ago
- The Sun
Trump proposes 250% tariff on imported pharmaceuticals
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump revealed plans to impose tariffs on imported pharmaceuticals that could escalate to 250%, alongside new duties on foreign semiconductors. The move aims to push for domestic manufacturing of critical goods. 'We'll be putting (an) initially small tariff on pharmaceuticals, but in one year, one-and-a-half years, maximum, it's going to go to 150 percent,' Trump said in an interview on CNBC. 'And then it's going to go to 250 percent because we want pharmaceuticals made in our country.' The announcement follows earlier tariffs on steel, aluminum, and auto parts, part of Trump's broader trade strategy targeting imports deemed a national security concern. The administration has conducted investigations into pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, signaling upcoming policy shifts. Trump also indicated an imminent increase in tariffs on Indian imports, citing the country's purchases of Russian oil. 'I expect to raise the US tariff on Indian imports very substantially over the next 24 hours,' he said. The proposed pharmaceutical tariffs mark a significant escalation in trade measures, potentially disrupting global supply chains. Industry analysts warn of higher drug prices, while supporters argue it will strengthen US self-sufficiency. - AFPpix
