GM FORECASTS RADICAL CHANGE - The Founder

10 FEATURES Monday 29 January 2007 thefounder
Always Coca Cola......?
By Holly Pulham
There was a huge campaign against
Coca Cola a couple of years ago
but what was it about and where is
it now?
Sticky, sugary, zestastic pops exploding
in your mouth from hand
pulped lemons that just ooze zingy
sweet nectar. Is this the memory of
your first fizzy drink? Highly unlikely,
unless you were fortunate to
have someone called Nigella as your
mother. Why is this? The answer
could lie in the fact that the Coca
Cola company has defined globalisation
in the last few decades. I can
even recall climbing the Himalayan
foothills at 1500 metres above sea
level and being greeted by a bottle
of Limca, produced by the Coke
manufacturers.
So what changes have manifested
themselves during the shift from a
sticky beverage being squeezed in
the kitchen to a multinational soft
drink manufacturer? Many believe
human rights breaches, corporate
killings, poisoning and various environmental
violations are symptomatic
of this growth, and that the
Coca Cola industry has exploited its
position in the developing world to
boost profits and keep down costs.
If this is the case, how should consumers
and fellow human beings
like us act in order to stop these violations
from further overstepping
that line between good business and
exploitation?
The breach of human rights by
large corporations is not exclusive
to Coca Cola, but as a recognised
brand in the West it has come to the
notice of many human rights campaigners
and other organisations as
a serious offender. The most horrific
example often quoted is that of the
eight Colombian bottle plant workers
who were allegedly picked off by
paramilitaries. All were thought to
be key members in setting up a new
workers union in the Coca Cola factory
in which they all worked.
Many other reports of union
workers being ‘re-employed’ across
the company only to find themselves
out of a job have come from places
where large amounts of money can
provide state impunity and a blind
eye. In the case of the Colombian
plant union members, a case was
brought to court on their behalf only
by a joint effort of the United Steel
Workers of America and the International
Labor Rights Fund in 2001,
possibly demonstrating the weakness
of the Colombian Workers Union,
Sinaltrainal, to bring about the
proceedings themselves. The case,
held in Miami in June 2001, resulted
in Coca Cola being sued. There was
little news coverage made of it here
in Britain.
Another major incident to plague
the reputation of Coca Cola is that
of the bottling plant in India’s Kerala
province, whereby the company
has been blamed for the draining
of groundwater supplies, the sale
of ‘toxic’ waste fertiliser to local
farmers and the contamination of
drinking water to hazardous levels.
Investigations by scientists at
the University of Exeter confirmed
that the local water supplies of the
areas around the bottling plant contained
extremely high levels of lead,
exceeding World Health Organisations
recommendations. They also
managed to conduct tests on the
waste sludge that the plant sells
cheaply to local farmers as fertiliser,
revealing that it in fact had no benefits
for agricultural endeavours and
that instead it contained dangerously
high levels of cadmium. Both
lead and cadmium are regarded as
poisons in such high quantities, affecting
the liver, kidneys and nervous
system. One of the most obvious
policies of the plant that disadvantages
the local population is the
vast drainage of water from scarce
groundwater wells. This has led to
a lack in water to irrigate land and
with over 600,000 litres of water being
drawn up per day by the plant, it
is no wonder that recent dry spells
have caused a shortage of water in
the villages in the vicinity and put
an end to the once thriving coconut
groves and vegetable crops. The plant
has even been reduced to sending
round its own water tankers to supply
the inhabitants with their minimum
water supply whilst it sucks up
the bulk of the natural source. The
full environmental impact of these
high levels of lead and cadmium in
the soil has not yet been ascertained
and with the routine dumping of
excess sludge in dry riverbeds, it is
not hard to believe that it will have a
serious knock-on effect for the local
population, let alone wildlife.
Those concerned about issues
in the Middle East might want to
check out the ‘Boycott Israel’ website,
which claims that Coca Cola
have been involved in negotiations
with Israel to build plants on captured
Palestinian territory. The Zionist
connections with Coca Cola
may be tenuous, but the creators
of this campaign seem convinced.
If that isn’t enough, the company
used the oldest scam in the book
and in 2004 tried to sell us tap water
at 95p a litre. This involved using
the process of adding bromide
to the water to taste better, but they
didn’t take into account that when
they later pumped ozone through it
this would oxidise the bromide into
a carcinogenic bromate. All bottles
were taken of the shelves in Europe
when this was exposed.
With such bad press it is difficult
to imagine that Coca Cola are
still in business, but it is still the
campaigners’ word against theirs.
Sometimes their defences sound
lame, sometimes convincing. The
Indian vice-president of the company,
Sunil Gupta, blamed the lack
of rainfall rather than the plant for
water shortages and claimed that
the company assessed the suitability
of the site before construction.
In the case of the Colombian workers
the International Confederation
of Free Trade Union’s statistics that
show that 184 out of the 213 killings
of union members in the world have
been in Colombia. So Coca Cola’s
claims that the killings are part of
the country’s political climate may
have some force.
Even when there is indisputable
evidence that bottling plants are
polluting villages and causing unemployment
in agriculture, Coca
Cola have claimed to be pushing
forward positive initiatives. In their
response to the NUS conference on
the allegations made towards Coca
Cola’s ethics, they highlighted the
education projects they have set up
on South America for children of
their employees who can’t make it
to faraway schools, and the voluminous
donations of school equipment
they have made.
If you choose to side with the reporters
and campaigners, there is
then the difficult question of how to
impact this massive multinational
manufacturer in such a way that it
reviews and changes its policies.
First of all there is the infamous
‘boycott’, something that has served
everyone from the local shopper
to the most powerful nations in a
world, where politics and economics
are finely intertwined. Many
organisations advocate the boycotting
of Coca Cola products and the
Killer Coke campaign is by far the
most venomous, with some very
imaginative posters. But even if individuals
- or our university - manages
to boycott all 400 and more of
the Coca Cola products available
on the market, that will just reduce
consumer choice and raise prices.
If we do buy different brands, then
how can we guarantee they do not
also have blood on their hands? For
instance, there have been enquiries
into PepsiCo over their treatment
of employees and we can nearly
all recount the furore around Nestle
and their powdered breast milk
programme in Africa. There is no
point in boycotting certain brands if
it is only to further another corrupt
cause.
NUSSL is a consortium supplying
products to Student Union bars and
clubs across the UK at discounted
prices, and has become involved in
the issue. In order for each university
that is a part of this consortium
to become ‘Coke Free’, they first of
all need to get 800 unions or more
to ask NUSSL to break their huge
deal with Coca Cola. But NUSSL
claim that boycotting is not the answer
and instead there should be a
review of policy.
The NUS have instead embarked
on a constructive route of action
that tries to avoid the problems of
boycotting. They have held a series
of meetings with Coca Cola representatives
and used their weight as
the voice of a considerable number
of student consumers, to request
changes in policy. Their policy recommendations
and pressure have
been recognised directly by Coca
Cola’s Corporate Review of 2006,
whereby they claim that they have
created policies and standards in
consultation with student bodies
along with other organisations.
As a direct result of organisational
pressure, in their 2005 Citizenship
Review Coca Cola claim to be dealing
with a list of recommendations
regarding policies towards worker’s
rights and environmental issues.
They launched their Workplace
Rights Policy in 2006 in order to
ensure better working conditions,
and agree to meet twice a year with
IUF, the largest Coca Cola workers
union. Even on their official website
they have included a whole section
to Social Responsibility in which
they draw attention to their efforts
at recycling PET bottles, promoting
sports for young people, and other
such issues that relate to a developed
country and our health obsessed
concerns.
Whether the shiny pamphlet
produced by Coca Cola extolling
its ‘commitment’ to better environmental
management and worker’s
rights can persuade us that change is
actually happening is open to doubt.
It is early days and at this stage we
can only hope that encouragement
of policy change through meetings
and constructive pressure has actually
worked and - for the sake of all
those Coca Cola addicts out there –
that we won’t be pushed to the point
of a boycott.
Those who have
implemented the ban
The sceptics of bilateral talks
with Coca Cola have instead
embarked on their own boycotts,
independent of NUS. The
University of Sussex managed
to ban the sale of Coca Cola
in its bars, shops and vending
machines on campus. The
alternative that they use is Virgin
Cola and there doesn’t seem to
be any bad press floating around
in relation to their work ethics.
However, there is the small
problem of product range, as
Virgin Drinks only supply Coke,
Orange juice and Wine in the UK.
Coca Cola on our Campus
Students at RHUL can purchase
Coca Cola products in the form of
bottles, cans and on tap from all
over campus. All college dining
halls have it on tap as well as
bottled from fridges. The SU has
three vending machines in the
building alone and use it on tap
in both bars, as does Crosslands.
The College shop sell a variety
of bottled and canned products
plus a vending machine outside.
Even the health conscious Sports
hall boasts a vending machine in
the reception.
What Students think
about a possible ban
When asked if it would make
much difference to them, there
came a varied response. On the
whole many students replied
that they wouldn’t mind but only
if there was a similar product
available. Ciara Constanti, a
second year history student said
‘If I couldn’t purchase it here on
campus then I would be willing
to venture off campus to buy it’.
A few expressed that they did
not drink fizzy drinks in cans and
bottles but that it would only
effect them when they drank at
the union.
Coca Cola own:
- Coke
- Fanta
- Fruitopia
- Oasis
- Bacardi Mixers
- Aquarious
- Malvern
- Minute Maid Juices
- Nescafé
= Power Ade
- Schweppes