Comments Clara has made

Lies

Andy's story is not entirely true.  First, as a member of the student Coalition to Cut Contracts with Coca-Cola, I'd like to explain how the UM campaign began.  Second, Coca-Cola has NOT changed in any place it does business badly, besides trying a lot harder with more money to pull public relations acts on consumers.

Andy writes, "Amit Srivastava and his India Resource Center have mobilized students on the Ann Arbor campus".  The students at UM began the campaign not because of Amit, but because of issues of environmental concern, human rights abuses and unethical business practices that we learned were happening in India and Colombia (and later Turkey, Indonesia and Guatemala).  We learned of these issue through two main organizations: India Resource Center and United Students Against Sweatshops.  However, these two organizations are directly communicating with communities in India and Colombia and delivering the message to students.  It was NOT Amit Srivastava who mobilized the students, it was the people effected by Coca-Cola's crimes who asked students world-wide to mobilize.  This is why over 75 schools have already cut contracts with Coca-Cola.

Second, Andy writes, "While the contract has been temporarily reinstated, the future of Coke's relationship with the university rests on the results of those audits."
The "audits" Andy speaks of are both shams.  First, the organization Coca-Cola says is auditing them in India has already deemed them a wonderful corporation--it doesn't have a great reputation in India either.  Furthermore, many states in India have already banned Coke, what clearer message does UM need?
The "audit" regarding Colombian labor practices is supposedly going to be overseen by a UN body called the International Labor Organization.  They have yet to release a methodology but we already know that any interviews with workers will be done on-site--an ILO rep named Sally Paxton said so on a conference call with many university administrators, including Dan Sharphorn from U of M.  Conducting interviews within the bottling factories puts workers in danger of paramilitary killings at serious risk--the plant managers were accused of having paramilitary kill union leaders.  Also, the assessment of Colombian bottling factories by CAL Safety was unacceptable to UM; one of the specific reasons was because the interviews were done onsite.

Lastly, it is a moot point to say that the future of UM's contract with Coke rests on the results of this audit because these audits will never be done--or else they will be done unfairly and not independent of Coca-Cola's control.  Why? Because Coke has no reason to change--they have the contract now, if they didn't have it, they would be doing what they could to get it back.

I could write a book filled with the other reasons Coca-Cola should not be trusted.  The University of Michigan and Andy need to quit letting one of the largest multinational corporations walk all over them and give them the boot until they have had an independent investigation done, it proves them innocent and/or until they have met the demands of the communities to whom they have caused infinite pain.On Coca-Cola learns a tough lesson about corporate sustainability posted 3 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses