Though Coca-Cola and its bottling plants have been officially
cleared of all charges in an international labor lawsuit, UCLA
officials said they still have not decided what the
university’s relationship with the soda company will be in
the future.
On Oct. 3, a Miami federal court dismissed a lawsuit accusing a
Coca-Cola bottling plant in Colombia of labor abuses, which
included conspiring with paramilitary groups to torture and kill
employees to discourage unionizing.
Coca-Cola itself was cleared of those charges in 2003, but the
allegations incited some students to form groups protesting the
sale of Coke on campus by Associated Students of UCLA, a non-profit
organization that manages on-campus restaurants.
ASUCLA will not sign a long-term contract with the company until
the results of an investigation by the International Labor
Organization on Coca-Cola’s alleged human rights violations
are released, ASUCLA Executive Director Bob Williams said.
Though Williams said he could not discuss the specific terms of
that contract, he said it includes marketing support, sponsorship
money and price impacts.
Williams does not expect to receive the results of the
investigation until later in the academic year.
“The board is still studying the issue,” Williams
said. “We want to understand the issue very well and give due
diligence to understand both sides and make an appropriate
decision.”
He said the board will consider service, product and financial
issues and will consult the other University of California
campuses.
Though ASUCLA has not yet renewed its contract with the company,
it continues to sell Coca-Cola products at campus restaurants and
stores. Williams said exact sales figures are not available at
present, but total annual sales are around $70 million.
Megan Markoff, a third-year political science student and member
of Students for a Coke-Free Campus, dismissed the neutrality of the
independent investigation.
“(Coca-Cola) will have an impact on the conclusion of the
report,” she said, asserting the company would not allow
negative information to be included.
But Williams said ASUCLA is also waiting to collect feedback
from students before it makes a decision on how to proceed. Since
last spring ASUCLA has asked students to give their opinion, either
through ASUCLA’s Web site or campus suggestion boxes, on
whether Coke should be sold on campus.
“It’s been very successful,” he said of the
feedback campaign, adding that ASUCLA has received responses from
many different people within the UCLA community.
Williams said ASUCLA’s board of directors will continue
making efforts to communicate with the campus and will notify
students before it takes any major steps.
Markoff said Coke-Free Campus continues to work on campus
education and has tentative plans to hold a debate with
representatives from Coca-Cola.
She said she believes students should boycott all Coca-Cola
products.
But other student groups, such as the Bruin Republicans,
continue to side with Coca-Cola. Jennifer Propper, a second-year
history student and marketing director for Bruin Republicans, said
Coke-Free Campus misunderstands the issues.
“Coke helps Colombians,” she said, noting that the
company offers thousands of jobs and helps the economy.
Propper said she believes many of the claims made by Coke-Free
Campus were either exaggerated or completely false.
Markoff said the UC’s recent decision to divest from Sudan
makes her optimistic about ASUCLA’s response to
Coca-Cola.
“I hope they maintain their precedence of social
responsibility,” she said. “Once the board does their
research, they should come to the same conclusion that Coke-Free
Campus has. … You can’t ignore what is happening in India
and Colombia.”