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.”