For the past 10 years, the Coca-Cola Company has held a contract with Loyola to provide campus vending machine drinks. The renewal of the contract, which expires on July 31, 2008, is under heated debate. Loyola Students Against Sweatshops, Loyola Anti-War Network and students around the country propose to boycott Coca-Cola products on their campuses, accusing the company of atrocities at various bottling plants around the globe. Coca-Cola, meanwhile continues to win countless awards for workplace and environmental excellence.
"I think that the Coke issue is one that can perhaps be the beginning toward associating everyday actions and values, such as consumer power and responsibility that we as a Loyola community can begin to acknowledge and uphold," graduate student Erin Cox said.
Established in 1886 and regarded highly as a symbol of American enterprise throughout the world, Coca-Cola owns hundreds of brand names including Sprite, Dasani, Powerade, Minute Maid and titles to Nestèa and Bacardi Mixers.
The company's Web site argues for Coca-Cola's support of water conservation, recycling, human rights in the workforce and a "longstanding tradition of supporting schools" and encouraging "healthy active lifestyles."
The company was granted the honorary title of Leader in Corporate Social Responsibility in 2006 by Gerente, a publication based in Venezuela, and is praised with various awards for its citizenship efforts and economic development. Among other awards received in 2006 are that of International Leadership by the Anti-Defamation League, International Supplier of the Year by Wal-Mart, the Bhagidari Award for Indian Water Conservation and Environmental Management by the Indian government and the Top Charity Award for Multinational Companies by the China Philanthropy Times.
Coca-Cola's professed mission is to "refresh the world in body, mind and spirit ... to inspire movement of optimism, create value and make a difference." The company's vision includes "maximizing return to shareowners while being mindful of overall responsibilities and being a great place to work where people are inspired to be the best they can be." Coca-Cola also claims to be passionately "committed in heart and mind."
Some union organizers and human rights activists disagree with the validity of Coca-Cola's claims, accusing the company of violent actions against people and the environment.
"You can say that about any company in corporate America," said graduate student George Pontikis of unions' claims against Coca-Cola.
A lawsuit filed in Miami in July of 2003 on the behalf of the National Union of Food Industry Workers accused Coca-Cola of detention, intimidation, kidnapping and even murder of civilians participating in union activities. Despite these allegations, Coca-Cola denied responsibility for violent occurrences, pointing out the company's policy supporting human rights and environmental action.
"Murder ... It's the real thing. Seeking your help to stop a gruesome cycle of murder, kidnapping and torture of union leaders and organizers involved in the daily life-and-death struggles against Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia, South America," states the human rights group Sinaltrainal (the National Union of Food and Industry Workers), which maintains killercoke.org. The Web site features stories of Coca-Cola employees describing threats, abductions and assassinations they claim implicates Coca-Cola.
"A fact-finding delegation of labor, educator and student representatives led by New York City Council member Hiram Monserrate concluded, based on a 10-day trip to Colombia, that 'there have been a total of 179 major human rights violations of Coca-Cola's workers, including nine murders,'" states a resolution regarding Michigan State University's contract with the Coca-Cola Company. "More troubling were the 'persistent allegations that paramilitary violence against workers was done with the knowledge and likely under the direction of company managers,' and that Coca-Cola Company's 'inaction and its ongoing refusal to take any responsibility for the human rights crisis faced by its workforce in Colombia demonstrates, at best, disregard for the lives of its workers.'"
A similar resolution regarding the exclusive contract between the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Coca-Cola accuses the company of allowing children in El Salvador to work under hazardous conditions in sugar cane fields, mentioning that "other colleges and universities in the U.S. and U.K. have taken action to remove Coca-Cola products from their campuses as a result of egregious record."
The resolution further states "... various courts, government agencies and independent studies have confirmed community concerns in India that Coca-Cola is responsible for polluting the groundwater and soil, distributing toxic waste as fertilizer, causing severe water shortages and selling drinks with high levels of pesticides in India.
Loyola's Unified Student Government Association recently passed its own resolution, saying, "We ... also hear and convey the student call to not renew the beverage contract with Coca-Cola, based on the documented human rights violations at their bottling plants and their failure to comply with requests for independent investigations." It continued, "We believe that ... we have an imperative as a center of higher learning to not support businesses ... with documented human rights violations."
The Coca-Cola controversy is stirring up a storm at Loyola as some students urge the committee to consider avoiding further contracts with Coca-Cola Company while others believe the whole issue is being blown out of proportion.
LSAS member Carolyn Paul voiced her opinion about this new movement on campus, saying, "LSAS feels as though there shouldn't be a battle for teh administration to adopt just decisions. It is disappointing that we have to have this battle."
USGA Vice President of JUSTICE, Paul Nappier, has played a prominent role in the campaign against Coke's presence at Loyola, but is concerned that not enough student input is currently involved in the administration's decision regarding the Coca-Cola contract.
"Because no students were allowed in the committee [that will decide Coca-Cola's future at Loyola], the committee has no way to judge student interest," Nappier said. "Students should email committee members about their continual involvement in the decision process."
Associate Vice President of business services Tim McGuriman responded to Nappier's comments, saying that students were allowed to address the committe during meetings, and that the majority of students remain uninformed about the charges against Coca-Cola.
"We are well into the review process and to make everything public would comprise the process," McGuriman also said. "We cannot make our discussions publicly known so that one company finds out what the other company has proposed and uses that to gain a competitive advantage."
Meanwhile, human rights groups around the world continue to campaign against what they refer to as "Killer Coke."
"I can understand the boycott and give them praise," said sophomore Brooke Stacey about human rights activists, "but Coke is distributed in so many places that I think if one university stops drinking it there will not be that great of an impact."
Loyola is not alone in its exclusive vending beverage deal with Coca-Cola; most colleges and universities hold contracts with their beverage supplier.
"A contract provides a commitment to a supplier that you will use their product and services over a specific time frame," said Sam Perry, purchasing manager at Loyola. "This commitment provides the university with new equipment ... a preventative maintenance program, repair and/or replacement of equipment and a favorable financial agreement for the university."
A Request for Proposal was sent to various beverage suppliers in June. Requested of each supplier are product variety, consumer preference recommendations and proper equipment. More specifically, the vendor is asked to supply a diverse selection of products including - but not limited to - isotonic and carbonated beverages, fruit juices, bottled water and iced tea. Information regarding product and flavor preference is to be made available to Loyola. The supplier is also asked to provide all vending equipment, which is required to have ID card readers installed and should be aesthetically pleasing as determined by Loyola.
A committee met earlier this month to discuss a possible future contract with alternate big suppliers PepsiCo and Cadbury Schweppes, both of which responded to the RFP. A switch to PepsiCo would replace Coca-Cola products with equivalent beverages including Tropicana fruit juice, Gatorade energy drink, Aquafina bottled water, Mountain Dew and of course Pepsi Cola. Cadbury Schweppes offers brand names including Snapple, Canada Dry, Welch's, Sunkist juices, Dr. Pepper and 7-UP.
The target date to make a recommendation to Loyola's upper management relative to a particular beverage supplier is Oct. 29. A significant number of students have expressed their disappointment for Coca-Cola Company's actions. A large number of students still believe in the freedom of beverage choice.
"The strict basis of choice [of beverage supplier] should be a poll of which beverage students prefer," Pontikis said.
"Our committee welcomes feedback from students and will take that information into account when we evaluate the various beverage suppliers," said Perry.
Be the first to comment on this article!