2008 Woodie Awards
SRC actions inappropriate and far too hasty
Social Responsibility Committee made its decision without public debate or accurate exploration of the facts in recommending Coke ban
By: Joseph Schultz
Issue date: 3/24/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
The recent Social Responsibility Committee (SRC) decision to recommend that Macalester stop selling Coke has sparked a bit of a controversy. Did the SRC act too quickly with its recommendation? Are the reasons upon which the SRC made its decision factually correct? Is there some more nefarious purpose behind the `no Coke' campaign?
The claims against Coke are substantial. The worst of these claims center on Coke's activities in Colombia. If the anti-Coke campaigners are to be believed, Coke is complicit in the murders of several union leaders with the ultimate purpose of lowering Colombian wages. More recent allegations focus on human rights violations in Indonesia and Turkey. But are these claims true? If not, then why were the claims made in the first place?
First and foremost, the SRC did act too quickly. I was unaware that a vote to ban Coke from campus was to be taken and I'm sure many students fall into this category. Given the SRC's stated intent of trying to be more open with the Macalester community, I think it's safe to say the SRC acted inappropriately.
The facts upon which the SRC is basing its decision are, in many respects, simply inaccurate. There is no substantiated evidence that pegs Coke as a human-rights violator. It simply doesn't exist. Ron Osward, General Secretary for International Union of Food Workers, writes, “We have no evidence of complicity by Coke in the killing of workers.” Coke has already been brought to trial as part of a larger case concerning human-rights violations in Federal court. Coke was dismissed from the case. Colombia's Vice President had this to say: “This is not a labor union fight [against Coke], it's a political fight. They [the anti-Coke campaigners] took a myth and built a campaign out of it. They found a model that works and they've been very successful at it.”
In truth, Coke has been a strong moral corporate leader. The company is and has always been a strong supporter of increasing the wellbeing of all stakeholders (customers, owners, employees, etc.). The company now supports the United Nations Global Compact, a document that requires supporters to exercise substantial power in the name of human rights. As part of Coke's support the company is encouraging the U.N. to go to Colombia and determine what, if any, human-rights abuses have occurred.
The claims against Coke are substantial. The worst of these claims center on Coke's activities in Colombia. If the anti-Coke campaigners are to be believed, Coke is complicit in the murders of several union leaders with the ultimate purpose of lowering Colombian wages. More recent allegations focus on human rights violations in Indonesia and Turkey. But are these claims true? If not, then why were the claims made in the first place?
First and foremost, the SRC did act too quickly. I was unaware that a vote to ban Coke from campus was to be taken and I'm sure many students fall into this category. Given the SRC's stated intent of trying to be more open with the Macalester community, I think it's safe to say the SRC acted inappropriately.
The facts upon which the SRC is basing its decision are, in many respects, simply inaccurate. There is no substantiated evidence that pegs Coke as a human-rights violator. It simply doesn't exist. Ron Osward, General Secretary for International Union of Food Workers, writes, “We have no evidence of complicity by Coke in the killing of workers.” Coke has already been brought to trial as part of a larger case concerning human-rights violations in Federal court. Coke was dismissed from the case. Colombia's Vice President had this to say: “This is not a labor union fight [against Coke], it's a political fight. They [the anti-Coke campaigners] took a myth and built a campaign out of it. They found a model that works and they've been very successful at it.”
In truth, Coke has been a strong moral corporate leader. The company is and has always been a strong supporter of increasing the wellbeing of all stakeholders (customers, owners, employees, etc.). The company now supports the United Nations Global Compact, a document that requires supporters to exercise substantial power in the name of human rights. As part of Coke's support the company is encouraging the U.N. to go to Colombia and determine what, if any, human-rights abuses have occurred.
Be the first to comment on this story