redblueamerica.com

Today I attended this event on Coca-Cola entitled Oxtoby v. Pomona Round 1. (Curiously, Pomona College 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" oversight commission. The issue has salience because Pomona College is a large shareholder in Coca-Cola.

The Coalition made this recommendation based upon its perhaps not-so-well-informed understanding of several allegations against Coca-Cola. 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, Steve Erickson, called me a "corporate shill for Coca-Cola" and toward 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 U.S. boycotted the 1980 Olympics, one of Coke’s employees, by the name of Paul Austin, negotiated exclusive rights sell soft drinks behind the Iron curtain, giving many their first taste of American life. That very year Austin, in talks with the Chinese Communist party, had Coke become the first American consumer product sold in China, scoring a victory for human choice and liberty. That demonstrators at Tiananmen Square protested over and celebrated the American way of life by building art projects honoring the American brands Coca-Cola and McDonald’s should give us pause if we are considering eliminating or working against the very symbols that many hold dear.

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 Shanghai and is the direct joint-venture partner in a similar facility in Tianjin. Coca-Cola has invested more than 1.1 billion dollars in China and employs directly 14,000 and indirectly 400,000 employees.

As for the criticism on the U.S. of slave labor in China, even though Coca-Cola has found “no evidence” to support a claim made by UK businessman who alleged he was part of a prison labor team, we must take these complaints seriously, but not too seriously.

Given that Coca-Cola is one of the official sponsors of the Chinese Olympics and given that counterfeit merchandise is rather common in China, it might just as well be true that counterfeiters are trying to reap some of the revenue Coke is expected to take 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.

Let's turn now to India. Most of my history for this section is based upon the book, Secret Formula: How Brilliant Marketing and Relentless Salesmanship Made Coca-Cola The Best-Known Product in the World by CNN commentator Frederick L. Allen. In 1977, Prime Minister 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 India in late 1993, forming a strategic alliance with Parle Exports, the nation’s largest soft drink company, and moving quickly to upgrade existing plants…. As in China, the Company paid new entrepreneurs to wheel tricycle Coke carts down alleyways to bring the bubbly drink to new customers. “I used to drink Coke 20 years ago,” one 50-year-old Indian spectator called as he hugged a Coke official during the opening ceremonies for the first Coke bottling plant in India. “I will drink it again.”

Since its return to India, Coca-Cola has become one of the fastest growing foreign companies in India and has invested more than $1 Billion. The company owns 24 bottling operations and another 25 franchise-owned bottling operations directly employing 6,000 local people and creating employment, indirectly, for more than 150,000 people. Those people simply wouldn’t have jobs if people boycotted Coca-Cola.

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 Hyderabad, India studied The Coca-Cola Company’s bottling plant in Kerala and concluded: “There is no field evidence of overexploitation of the groundwater reserves in the plant area.” He added that any aquifer depletion cannot be attributed to the water extraction in the plant area.
• 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.

Coca-Cola has installed more than 300 rainwater harvesting structures across 17 states, including locations at schools and farms. As in most developing countries, most water is owned by the state. In India, this process has led to corruption as middle class and upper class bureaucrats have no incentive to bring water mains out to the poorer areas. Often, this shortage produces a black market in which city officials truck in water in jugs which they sell to the poor at exorbitant prices. The poor sometimes pay more than 17 times what that water is actually worth.

As is typically the case when the state owns water, there are shortages. Even though the beverage industry in India is responsible for less than one-half of one percent of total water usage in India – which makes it one of the most efficient water users in the country – they’ve been attacked by their political opponents. In many cases, this is simply the former Communist government’s anger transposed a generation after Coca-Cola refused to share its secret formula. 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.)

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.