GM FORECASTS RADICAL CHANGE - The Founder

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
thefounder Monday 29 January 2007 FEATURES 11 What the SU bar manager thinks about becoming Coca Cola free John Allan, pointed out that he would in fact be ‘happy to stop selling bottles and cans of Coca Cola in the Union’, however this would not include Coke, Lemonade and Tonic Water poured on tap (made by Coca Cola Schweppes). He argues that this form of Coca Cola is supplied to the Union in syrup form and is mixed with water when poured, which means it has not been through the bottling process. This is extremely vital in regard to the allegations against Coca Cola, as they all involve the administration of bottling plants and their use of water. Thus, there would be no ethical argument against supplying, buying and promoting this kind of Coke consumption. There are also no other brands of Coke available through the NUSSL, from who the SU order the majority of their products. By opting for a different supplier the SU would then lose out on the discount NUSSL provides and would lead to a subsequent mark up of 50p on all drinks with fizz in them. Every time someone asked for a ‘JD and Coke’ at the bar, staff would have to inform them that they do not supply it and tell them the alternate brand in accordance with consumer laws. If this was the case then service at the bar would just become even more lengthy and confused. Global Workforce In their 2005 review Coca Cola stated the following figures: - East and South Asia, Pacific Rim- 6,900 - Latin America- 7,100 - North Asia, Eurasia and - Middle East- 7,100 - Africa- 8,800 - North America- 12,500 - European Union- 12,600 However, this may not include those that work for affiliated firms and sub contractors, which could possibly double these figures. Conclusion: It seems vital here to first of all understand the nature of the allegations made towards Coca Cola. Regarding the Colombian plant workers we have to consider the nature of the country they were in, somewhere where political instability and violence is rife. Also the criticisms in regard to India and water usage relate to bottled and canned products not to those on draught, which is the kind of soft drink consumption we should be promoting, not least in regards to excess packaging. Also, one has to consider that a couple million pounds loss to a company like Coca Cola would not pressurise it to the point where it changed its production methods. This is one of the main reasons for the NUS’s method of conference campaigning rather than boycotting. Most importantly however, there doesn’t appear to be a soft drinks supplier that can ensure a completely ethical code of practice on the market, so unless we stop drinking it completely, we are just shifting our support onto other abusers. In my opinion there shouldn’t be a ban but increased awareness and lobbying, not just regarding individuals but organisations that are experts in realistic campaigning.
Page 1 and 2: Inside: An interview with Giles Fod
Page 3 and 4: thefounder Monday 29 January 2007 N
Page 5 and 6: thefounder Monday 29 January 2007 N
Page 7 and 8: thefounder Monday 29 January 2007 M
Page 9: thefounder Monday 29 January 2007 E
Page 13 and 14: thefounder Monday 29 January 2007 F
Page 15 and 16: thefounder Monday 29 January 2007 I
Page 17 and 18: thefounder Monday 29 January 2007 F
Page 19 and 20: thefounder Monday 29 January 2007 M
Page 21 and 22: thefounder Monday 29 January 2007 L
Page 23 and 24: thefounder Monday 29 January 2007 S

GM FORECASTS RADICAL CHANGE - The Founder

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?