Fun fact: Coca-Cola used to taste a whole lot better and be more addictive.Today I attended this event on Coca-Cola entitled Oxtoby v. Pomona Round 1. (Curiously President David Oxtoby could not make it, but the members of Pomona's Responsible Coalition Endowment have informed me that they shall be giving a recorded discussion.)
Pomona's unelected and unrepresentative Responsible Endowment Coalition argued in favor of President Oxtoby writing letter to Coca-Cola encouraging it to create a "human rights" over cite commission. The issue has salience because Pomona is a large shareholder in Coca-Cola.
They made this recommendation based upon their perhaps not-so-well-informed understanding of several allegations pending against the Coca-Cola Company. I shall be addressing their arguments in the manner in which they presented them, but first allow me to make a few general observations. My sources for the arguments I made are presented below.
Professor and supposed moderator, Professor Steve Erickson called me a "corporate shill for Coca-Cola" and towards the beginning of the presentation gave a short rundown for why the Responsible Endowment Coalition formed. (You figure out why a philosophy professor is moderating a discussion about the school's endowment.)
He said that it formed to oppose the College's investment in apartheid South Africa. The connection became apparent. Coca-Cola's human rights record was at least comparable to apartheid South Africa. Somehow I don't find the conduct of a company that employees hundreds of thousands of people directly and indirectly exactly comparable with the conduct of an officially racist government, but I guess I'm old fashioned. (By the way, divestment didn't destroy apartheid, according to former member of the opposition, Tony Leon. You can watch his arguments here, about halfway through.)
He then suggested that it might be desirable to boycott China, but given the everyday world in which we live, it might be problematic given that so many of our products come from China.
Professor Erickson probably sensing that I knew more about soft drinks than he or any of the other members present --it happens to be a weird hobby of mine-- decided that I should not be permitted to address actual points made against the evidence I presented. He insisted that everyone get a chance to speak first, even though I was only one present arguing that the human rights record of Coca-Cola is actually quite good. Even when members made direct questions to the points I had previously raised, he wouldn't let me respond.
When one girl said something about how the judge that dismissed the charges against Coca-Cola was corrupt and I wanted to respond, but he wouldn't let me, saying something about how everyone has a right to an opinion. Fair enough, but not everyone is entitled to their own set of facts. As Coca-Cola has been dismissed from the lawsuit by Judge Jose Martinez given that it cannot set labor standards in the independently-owned bottling companies with which Coke does business, I think it's fair to take Coca-Cola off the hook. In America, at least, we stop prosecuting someone after the judge has dismissed the charges.
In Colombia, they do that too. Two different judicial inquiries in Colombia -- one in a Colombian Court and one by the Colombian Attorney General -- have found no evidence to support the allegations that the bottler management conspired to intimidate trade unionists. Moreover, even the union, SINALTRAINBEC, a Colombian union representing bottler employees often against the interests of Coca-Cola management has conceded that it has "not a single indication" that Coca-Cola or its affiliates conspired with anti-trade unionist activities. (One student disputed that Uribe's government is democratically elected. He is wrong.)
I think it's fair to say that given that two countries judicial systems have exonerated Coca-Cola and its bottling companies of any wrongdoing, we might want to let bygones be bygones and find the actual killers of some of the trade unionists. One of the girls said that Coca-Cola has allowed people to come in and kill people under its watch. She criticized its security situation and its treatment of its workers, even though an independent assessment has put the lie to her statement.
Her first accusation is unfounded. Coca-Cola's other independently owned bottling companies allowed that action and it wasn't so much as allow as not pay for the security. People just walked in and killed people. Now that we know that Coca-Cola has become a target, Coca-Cola has paid for rather substantial security measures for its own workers.
Somehow the activists want Coca-Cola to have more power over its independent bottling companies and yet paradoxically they believe that Coca-Cola should have less say over its own internal policies. Which is it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Responsible Endowment Coalition presented a report from a non-biased source which they link up on their Facebook group. The report cites an instance of prison labor involving one individual, but they way in which it was presented during the meeting would make you think it was systematic. (I, of course, spoke out and explained his situation, which you can read here.)
Of course the notion that Coca-Cola or its bottlers are encouraging slave labor is groundless.
When the
Today, Coca-Cola has an ownership stake in 24 bottling joint-ventures--in most cases indirectly through two Hong Kong-based companies that it partly owns: Swire Beverages and Kerry Group. Coca-Cola also operates a wholly foreign-owned enterprise that produces beverage concentrate in
As for the criticism on the
Given that Coca-Cola is one of the official sponsors of the Chinese Olympics and given that counterfeit merchandise is rather common in
Still, let’s assume that Mr. Jon Simms was actually working for one of Coke’s suppliers. Given that some of those bottled suppliers tend to be state-run and allow Coca-Cola to operate only with state given labor, it would not seem odd that Coke would have some dealings with the vast Chinese state.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1977 PM Indira Gandhi lost power and the new Indian government moved to appropriate the profits from Coca-Cola’s syrup factory and twenty-two bottling plants. They ordered the company to cede majority ownership to local shareholders, a step that jeopardized the secrecy of its formula. Rather than take the risk, the company spent $2 million grinding up its bottles and pulled out of a market with sales of 900 million drinks a year.
After Coca-Cola Company’s withdrawal, a state-owned enterprise began selling an ersatz cola called ‘77’ in honor of the year of political change. Its poor flavor and lack of popularity led a cartoonist for an Indian newspaper to depict a tube of “78 Toothpaste” under a sarcastic announcement, “Great Things to Come,” Limited supplies of smuggled Coke began selling for 35 cents a bottle, triple the previous price. (Allen, 370)
Coca-Cola was very much hated by the Indian Communist party for refusing to give up its secrets. To be fair, the Communists had a reason to hate Coca-Cola and its wealth. One of Coca-Cola’s initial stockholders was none other than the Maharajah of Patiala, who oversaw his holdings from his ornate palaces.
Nevertheless, Coca-Cola returned to
Since its return to
----------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the students have cited the water misuses by Coca-Cola in India. These accusations are false as numerous government and scientific reports have made clear.- · October 2002, Dr. R.N. Athvale, Emertius scientist at the National Geophysical Research Institute in
- · In Kerala, where groundwater levels have decreased, the rainfall has been well below average for several years. The Kerala State Groundwater Department has said that any depletion in groundwater was due to poor rainfall and not the planet.
- · The Kerala State Pollution Control Board, which conducted a detailed study, inspecting samples of sludge, well water, treated water and soil, concluded that the concentration of cadmium and other heavy metals in the bio-solids are below prescribed limits, and therefore, are not considered hazardous.
As is typically the case when the state owns water, there are shortages. Even though the beverage industry in
In Kerala, they’ve politicized Coca-Cola, going so far as to ban its sale! (The State Supreme Court of Kerala eventually overturned the ban and said that it was permissible for the plant in Kerala to reopen.)
In light of my debunking of the supposed human rights violations of Coca-Cola, Pomona's Responsible Endowment Coalition voted in favor of creating a special human rights commission and decided to encourage President Oxtoby to write a letter to Coca-Cola telling them to shape up their human rights act.
The more moderate members of the group argued that the creation of another overseeing committee couldn't hurt and that it might even improve the image of Coca-Cola abroad. Though I very much suspect it was unbeknownst to them at the time, they made the corporate P.R. argument.
Other argued that the cost of this program is negligible. The real question is negligible for whom?
When you impose a regulation, that money would pay for it has to come from somewhere. Often that money comes from improving conditions for workers.
Coca-Cola’s field man in Colombia, for instance, put $28 on his expense account after he had to buy sneakers for his barefoot sales force! (Allen, 12)Had that 28 bucks gone to making sure those people weren't exploited, they might not have had shoes.
Subscribe in a reader
14 comments:
You seem to make a big deal out of the potential for boycotting Coca-Cola, or removing our investment from them, but that wasn't what the meeting was about. The idea was to use our investment (and our voting power in the company) as a means of creating a board to review Coke's human rights record. There was no discussion of boycotting the company, or running the corporation into the ground.
As for the potential costs that this could incur, Coca-Cola pays it's board members $175,000 per year. Assuming that the human rights board would be 15 members (an out of the blue guess that by most standards is generous) that would mean that there would be an additional cost of 2.6 million dollars per year, and then add in an additional million for operating costs and other expenditures, and you're at 3.6 million a year for the board. Split amongst the 90,500 employees that Coke actually employs, that means that each employee loses about 40 dollars a year.
That is, of course, assuming that the rational thing to do after setting up a human rights board would be to take the costs out of the payment of the employees who are the most impoverished. Given that the company makes over $29 billion in revenues, $3.6 million is a mere 0.01% of the companies profits. To suggest that this will have an significant economic effect on the workers somewhat of a stretch.
None of this takes into account, however, the potential economic benefit of establishing this board. Improving Coke's image both domestically and around the world makes buyers more likely to consumer their products. Particularly as buyers become more and more conscious of the social impact of their buying choices, they will gravitate towards making purchases of products from companies with good social and environmental records.
And I'd also like to point out the astounding number of ad hominem attacks you make in your post against Pomona, the Responsible Endowment Coalition, and Professor Steve Erickson. Such attacks have absolutely no place in public discourse, and only serve to turn people away from your viewpoints. It sheds a negative light on you as a person and your arguments when you resort to such baseless tactics, and turns people who would otherwise respect your viewpoint away.
I made that clear in the post, but thank you for reiterating.
I also address your cost argument later when I talk about how little
You may well be right that Coca-Cola might not invest that money into their workers, but it does affect their costs. To say otherwise is just wrong.
I'd love to see any evidence that a human rights board would have any impact on Coca-Cola's image. I cannot find any evidence that it would hurt their bottom line not to do this. After all, their fastest growing markets are outside of the U.S. and they probably haven't heard of such wishy washy concepts as social entrepreneurship.
Professor Erickson was the one who called me a "corporate shill." I'm pretty sure that came first and I don't think I make any ad hominem attacks. I simply lay out the evidence that Pomona's Responsible Endowment Coalition didn't see fit to provide.
Moreover, that unelected body had only 25 members voting on the issue. Given that most of them hadn't ever read the documents before they entered the room and that the meeting took place at a time when many have lunch, and that Oxtoby himself couldn't make it, I think it's a tad bit silly to call it anything approaching a consensus.
I never suggested that creating the board would not affect Coca-Cola's costs, merely that the (rather generous) estimate I gave of the cost of the board would have reduced the companies profits by a mere 0.01%, a nearly negligible amount for a company that makes $29 billion in revenue.
As for the benefits of having a socially responsible corporation, TIAA-CREF has already divested in Coke due to the questions that arose concerning its human rights record, and they also banned any further investment in Coke. That alone clearly shows the negative affects of having a questionable human rights record. The clear solution would be to create a body within the corporation to oversee the human rights issues that come up.
As for the ad hominem attacks:
"Curiously President David Oxtoby could not make it..."
"You figure out why a philosophy professor is moderating a discussion about the school's endowment."
"Profesor Erickson probably sensing that I knew more about soft drinks than he or any of the other members present..."
"Though I very much suspect it was unbeknownst to them at the time, they made the corporate P.R. argument."
just to name a few.
And given that the only student who in any way dissented with the motion goes to a school that isn't Pomona I think it would be difficult to suggest that there isn't a general consensus on Pomona's campus in support of this action. If there were Pomona students who were actually opposed to this action, chances are they would have showed up at the meeting.
Or...a fellow Pomona student like me who is just too damn lazy or apathetic to care about this? As long as I can drink my soda, I'm fine, but that is not the point. I could not care less about this but the fact that a CMC student is more well read on this subject is just pathetic. I would expect a Responsible Endowment Coalition to be responsible enough to do some more research than just try to immediately enact changes when they heard about human rights issues. Oh, pardon me for my terrible writing, I am trying quite hard to improve.
It appears that someone with my name has used it in defense of needless corporate bureaucracy. I especially liked the part where the corporate PR argument was made again. Why don't we just have Coca Cola take out ads declaring its commitment to fair treatment of workers? We could air it during NBC's next Green Week!
As an aside, Charles, I am awake and typing this only because a drunken mob has been "singing" at the apartment across from mine for the better part of a half hour. Perhaps we should raise student fees again to create a militant arm of ASCMC. At least then I wouldn't have to listen to an atonal rendition of "Hey Jude."
Patrick,
Again, negligible for whom? Read the full post.
A big reason TIAA-CREF did it was through pressure from the many leftist faculty members who protested even when the evidence was contrary to what they actually argued. Sound familiar?
If you think what I wrote are ad hominem attacks, you've been at Pomona far too long, friend. You seem to be silent on the more ridiculous bit about how a professor -- a moderator no less -- called me a corporate shill.
If you're trying to argue that because I'm a C.M.C. student, I'm not somehow entitled to an opinion when I've actually done research and read a few dozen books on the history of the company, then you have bigger problems than the typical Pomona elitism and anti-business attitude that so characterizes the conversation that occurred yesterday. I've notice that you haven't addressed a single one of my arguments, but of course, that happened yesterday too.
In normal schools, we don't believe that just because the school owns stock in a particular company that somehow gives us "ownership." As for making it democratic, at least Pomona would have a semblance of a debate rather than the sham of 25 people who have never done any research on the matter voting on what should be Pomona's policy vis a vis the Coca-Cola company.
Oh how I adore you Charles. You need to get more hits so that people will know you are putting us Pomona kids in our place.
I don't really care that much about this issue (actually, I don't care at all), but I would just like to point out that your comment, "we don't believe that just because the school owns stock in a particular company that somehow gives us 'ownership,'" may be the oddest statement I've ever heard about owning stock. The entire point of buying stock is that you're buying a share of ownership of the company. So regardless of what people at "normal schools" think, that is indeed the definition of owning stock in a company. Whether you agree with Coca-Cola or not, the fact is that it is well within Pomona's rights as a major shareholder to call for action by the company. Also, the group of students does not claim to be democratically elected, and are perfectly within their rights to pressure President Oxtoby, with or without any sophisticated level of knowledge. I hope they learn more and can win debates with you, but please don't misrepresent them even if they did attack you in unfair and biased ways during the event.
Let's ask the kids at Emory University how evil Coca-Cola is. If there's a movement to give back their $4 billion endowment, I haven't heard of it yet.
1. Judge Martinez is clearly biased in favor of Coca-Cola,
http://www.killercoke.org/critalkpts.htm#item3
but, if you would like to go on believing that the US Justice System is perfect be my guest.
2. As far as the Rulings against Coca Cola are concerned in Columbia
"U.S. State Department human rights reports point out that only a handful of the thousands of murders of Colombian trade unionists in recent years have ever resulted in successful prosecutions. 'Cases where the instigators and perpetrators of the murders of trade union leaders are identified are practically nonexistent, as is the handing down of guilty verdicts,' said the State Department."
3. As far as investigations into intimidation:
"Coke states: "...(A) respected, independent third party found no instances of anti-union violence or intimidation at bottling plants." This refers to a bogus report issued in 2005 by Cal Safety Compliance Corporation, a Los Angeles-based company whose work was commissioned and paid for by The Coca-Cola Company. Cal Safety's monitoring record has been discredited in publications like the Los Angeles Times and Business Week. It is "not regarded as a credible monitoring organization within the mainstream worker rights advocate community as a result of its track record of missing egregious violations in high-profile cases and its flawed monitoring methodology," according to United Students Against Sweatshops, an international student movement fighting for sweatshop-free labor conditions and workers' rights.
USAS cites Cal Safety's poor monitoring track record as measured by Dr. Jill Esbenshade in her book, "Monitoring Sweatshops." Esbenshade conducted extensive interviews with Cal Safety auditors and directly observed the company's labor auditing in practice. She didn't find Cal Safety's poor track record surprising because she said they failed to adhere to minimum accepted standards for competent factory investigations.
Prior to the Cal Safety report, Coca-Cola repeatedly claimed that another group had investigated allegations of human rights abuses by Coke's bottlers in Colombia and exonerated both Coca-Cola and its bottlers. When students at Carleton College in Minnesota asked for a copy, they were told by a Coca-Cola representative that the report was done by White & Case, but was unavailable to the public. It so happens that White & Case is a large international corporate law firm that has represented Coca-Cola in lawsuits dealing with human rights abuses at its Colombian bottling plants. Alexis Rovzar, an executive partner at White & Case, serves as a director of Coca-Cola FEMSA, Colombia's largest Coca-Cola bottler and a defendant in the lawsuits."
Greg,
When you belong to an institution that owns stock (be it a pension or what have you), you are expecting a rate of return. Pomona College gets that rate of return which it puts into its endowment.
The Board of Trustees get to make the decision on what to invest in. The notion that college students who aren't well versed in these matters own their endowment is silly at best. They don't get a direct vote in much the same way shareholders do. After all, Pomona isn't a company. It's a college that doesn't have to pay taxes. (If you want to meet me and talk about this more fully, you can Facebook me.)
Liz,
You must be joking. Somehow because Judge Martinez is a sports announcer at a college that has received corporate sponsorship from Coca-Cola he must somehow recuse himself. That's ludicrous and without precedent.
You clearly haven't read Martinez's opinion because it relies on age old principle: economic freedom and several precedents in law.
Next you'll be saying that because he drinks Coca-Cola that somehow he's part of the whole shebang. Next time try to bring something credible to the table instead of that Killer Coke propaganda.
2. You cite the State Department's own report about trade unionists and Colombia. My response is that just because so few of the criminals have been brought to justice does not make Coca-Cola complicit in their deaths. Nice try but all reasonable judicial systems have presumption of innocence.
Had you read the blog post, you would have realized that the source I cite is the union itself which says that there is no indication that Coca-Cola or the bottlers were involved in the murder of the unions.
As for citing that sweatshop propaganda, don't you think a group that wants to impose costly labor restrictions on the rest of us would have an added incentive to lie about labor conditions in order to get money?
Even if all that you write about Coca-Cola and the law firm is accurate, (It could just as well be true that it isn't given that they might want to not compromise the report's findings) that doesn't make any of the other statements I've made not true. You haven't addressed the substance of the post and have worked in this very conspiratorial manner from propaganda groups that have as much, if not more of a financial incentive to distort. Nice try.
As an exit question, don't you think a group that calls itself Killer Coke might have an incentive in suggesting that Coca-Cola is worse than it is so that it can get money and attention from gullible (and probably well-meaning) people like yourself?
You try to argue that the American judicial system is corrupt, that the Colombia executive and judicial system is corrupt, and that Coca-Cola and its bottlers are corrupt, but you never seem to examine whether or not the groups you like might have an incentive to distort the truth.
I love how you suggest that Killer Coke and United Students Against Sweatshops are unreliable sources because they are out to make money when both organizations are non-profit and the later has three fulltime paid leadership positions that change every two years. Especially in light of the majority of your blog siting fact after fact coming from cokefacts.com Coca Cola's run and owned website.
Liz,
Nonprofits can have no financial motives, like soliciting donations. Imagine what would happen tomorrow if Coca-Cola became the Earthy crunchy company so many want. Killer Coke would be ought of business.
I've confirmed everything that is said on CokeFacts.org and agree with what I've cited.
because CokeFacts simply links up to the actual verdicts and governmental studies while KillerCoke argues that every study and court is corrupt. Its like making an argument vs. saying everyone's evil and cannot be trusted.
Post a Comment