First, "generic corporate employees" seems like a pretty disrespectful way to describe the Coca-Cola employees classified as "professionals".
Second, it's not like non-FAANG tech companies, despite lower standards for engineering positions, have higher numbers in the Black, Hispanic, or female demographics.
Third, if you look at the data for Coca Cola's "Exec/Sr Officials & Managers" where the "standards" without question are comparable to those at tech companies, the percentages aren't as high but they're still way better than you see in tech leadership:
This is an interesting way to contrast Coca-Cola with FAANG, of which the majority are routinely under antitrust scrutiny. Put another way: does Coca-Cola (market share: 43%) sell itself any more than Google (market share: 92%)?
You were implying that Coca-Cola sells itself and therefore doesn't require singularly talented employees. It's a reasonable question to ask why a monopoly needs to hire unicorns to keep its business functioning.
(Aside from which: most tech companies are probably on the order of 60% non-engineers. The "engineer" part is a common bit of misdirection to elide the presence of the majority of FAANG employees, who are not engineers. People who can successfully sell plain water can probably sell other things too.)
I suspect one thing they did was avoid making the assumption that hiring candidates from marginalized communities compromises quality.