Referendum by the Students of The Ohio State University
Offered January 19, 2008
Undergraduate Student Government(USG) and University Senate will pursue a
referendum supporting a ban of Coca-Cola, all of its products, and a contract with any
part of Ohio State University with The Coca-Cola Company.
Students Against Coke
Harry Lindner, President
70 W 11th Ave
Columbus, OH 43210
lindner.27@osu.edu
513-600-5659
Background Information for Referendum
Coca-Cola has been proven to have complicity in murders of union leaders, use of child
labor, selling products with pesticides, depleting water resources, and using threats to
union members. The references can be found at killercoke.org.
Purpose of Referendum
Resolution to Against Coca-Cola At
The Ohio State University
Whereas, in 2001 and 2006, lawsuits were filed in the United States against Coca-Cola
and its bottlers in Colombia charging that the bottlers “contracted with or otherwise
directed paramilitary security forces that utilized extreme violence and murdered,
tortured, unlawfully detained or otherwise silenced trade union leaders."
Whereas, the lawsuits were filed on behalf of SINALTRAINAL – the major union
representing Coca-Cola workers in Colombia – several of its members and the survivors
of Isidro Gil and Adolfo de Jesus Munera, two of its murdered officers.
Whereas, it is well documented that human rights abuses that have festered at Coke’s
bottling plants for years in Colombia are a replay of what occurred at Coke’s facilities in
Guatemala in the ‘70s and ‘80s. A 1987 publication, Soft Drink, Hard Labour, by the
Latin America Bureau in England states: “For nine years, the 450 workers at the CocaCola bottling plant in Guatemala City fought a battle with Coca-Cola for their jobs, their
trade union and their lives…Three General Secretaries of their union were murdered and
five other workers killed. Four more were kidnapped and have disappeared. Against all
the odds they survived thanks to their own extraordinary courage…A huge international
campaign of protests and boycotts was central to their struggle. As a result, the CocaCola workers forced concessions from one of the world’s largest multinational giants and
kept the Guatemalan trade union movement alive through a dark age of government
repression.”
Whereas, a fact-finding delegation to Colombia in 2004 led by New York City Council
Member Hiram Monserrate, which included representatives of the CUNY community,
issued a report concluding that Coca-Cola is "complicit in human rights abuses in
Colombia" and that its "complicity is deepened by its repeated pattern of bringing
criminal charges against union activists who have spoken out about the company's
collusion with the paramilitaries”
Whereas, the report further concludes “that Coca-Cola bears responsibility for the
campaign of terror leveled at its workers is unavoidable. The company has pressured
workers to resign their union membership and contractual rights, and fired workers who
refused to do so...Most troubling to the delegation were the persistent allegations that
paramilitary violence against workers was done with the knowledge of and likely under
the direction of company managers..."
Whereas, PSC-CUNY, the union that represents CUNY faculty and staff has officially
called for a boycott of Coke products, as has the 585,000 member New York State
United Teachers.
Whereas, at least 46 schools including CUNY Law School, Queensborough Community
College, Oberlin College, New York University, Manhattanville College, Union
Theological Seminary and Rutgers University, have kicked Coke off their campuses.
Whereas, The Coca-Cola Company was dropped from the Broad Market Social Index
(BMSI) list of socially responsible companies prepared by KLD Research & Analytics,
Inc., an independent investment research firm that is considered a world leader in
defining corporate responsibility standards.
Whereas, it was reported in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (7/19/06) that “KLD based
its decision on a number of issues—labor and human rights in Colombia, environmental
issues in India…”
Whereas, in July 2006, the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association-College
Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF) divested 1.25 million shares of Coca-Cola Co.
stock and has banned further investments in its $9 billion CREF Social Choice Account,
the nation’s largest socially screened fund for individual investors, because The CocaCola Co. does not meet TIAA-CREF’s standards as a socially responsible company.
Whereas, Coca-Cola’s largest bottler, Coca-Cola Enterprises (CCE), which provides
Coca-Cola beverages to our university, shares directors with Coca-Cola FEMSA,
Colombia’s largest bottler and a defendant in the human rights abuse lawsuits.
Whereas, in July 2007, CCE was also dropped from the BMSI and CREF Social Choice
Account because CCE does not meet their standards as a socially responsible
company.
Whereas, the Coca-Cola Co. opposed and defeated the proxy resolution submitted by
the New York City Employees' Retirement System and the New York City Teachers'
Retirement System requesting that The Coca-Cola Co. “sponsor the sending of an
independent delegation of inquiry to Colombia to examine the charges of collusion in
anti-union violence that have been made against officials of Coca-Cola’s bottling plants
in that country and that the delegation includes representatives from U.S. and
Colombian human rights organizations.”
Whereas, the Sydney Morning Herald reported on June 6, 2007: “Employers led by
Coca-Cola executive [Ed Potter] stopped the International Labour Organization of the
United Nations examining violations of workplace rights in Colombia…” Potter appears
to be working to shield Colombia and Coca-Cola from any real scrutiny at a time when
the Colombian government and multinational corporations are getting unwanted
attention for their ties to paramilitary death squads that prey on workers and their unions.
Whereas, campaigns against Coca-Cola are growing worldwide because of labor,
human rights and/or environmental abuses in Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Ghana,
Guatemala, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines,
Russia, Turkey, the United States, Venezuela and other countries.
Whereas, it has been reported that The Coca-Cola Co. has been accused of benefiting
from prison labor in China (BBC News, 5/21/07).
Whereas, the Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola Enterprises continue to be involved
in a number of racial discrimination lawsuits and in 2000, after years of denying racial
discrimination, the Coca-Cola Company paid $192.5 million, the largest racial
discrimination settlement in U.S. history.
Whereas, Coca-Cola has been criticized for massive water exploitation and
discriminatory workplace practices in Mexico and the Chicago Tribune (10/30/06)
reported, “many U.S. corporations — including Coca-Cola…are engaging in hiring
practices that appear to violate their U.S. fair employment policies.” It noted, “Job
seekers [in Mexico] considered too old, too chunky or too dark are screened out by
companies that sometimes specify the ideal candidate’s marital status, height, weight,
tone of voice, even the part of town in which the person should reside…”
Whereas, Coca-Cola operates in the Sudan where its factory, according to The New
York Times (11/24/06), “churns out 100,000 bottles of Coke, Sprite and Fanta per hour”
and has paid fines for violating U.S. sanctions.
Whereas, Coca-Cola, with a public relations blitz, continues to try to cover up its overexploitation and pollution of scarce water resources in India and the hardship it has
inflicted on many people and communities.
Whereas, the Environmental Law Research Center in Geneva issued a report in May
2007 concluding that “the availability of good quality water for drinking purposes and
agriculture [in India] has been affected dangerously due to the activity of the Company
[The Coca-Cola Co.]. Apart from that, the Company had also polluted the agricultural
lands by depositing hazardous wastes. All these point to the gross violation of the basic
human rights, that is, the right to life, right to livelihood and the violation of the pollution
control laws.”
Whereas, one Coca-Cola plant has been shut down since 2004 due to protests and the
Atlanta-Journal Constitution (12/16/07) reported that India’s Kerala State Pollution
Control Board sent a letter to Coke’s India head office in September 2007 “accusing the
company of polluting with cadmium and asking executives why they should not face
criminal prosecution.”
Whereas, on Nov. 19, 2007, a documentary film broadcast nationally in England
highlighted Coke’s human rights and environmental abuses in Colombia and India, its
offensive history of racial discrimination, and how Coke benefits from hazardous child
labor cutting sugar cane illegally in El Salvador.
Whereas, after the decision was made to remove Coke beverages from Smith College
in May 2007, Smith President Carol Christ issued a press release stating:
“This is not a decision reached lightly. Smith’s relationship with
Coca-Cola spans some five decades…As a private college with a
public conscience, Smith College takes issues of human rights
and environmental sustainability very seriously. Social
responsibility is a core value of the college, one we aspire to
reflect in our educational mission and in our campus operations. In
severing our ties with the Coca-Cola Corporation, Smith joins
other institutions and organizations around the world in urging
Coca-Cola to take significant steps toward more responsible
business practices across all realms of its operations.”
Resolved, that ban will remain in effect until The Coca-Cola Company takes appropriate
measures to address the situation in its Colombian facilities and worldwide, including:
 Denouncing the violence that is occurring and has occurred in the name of CocaCola in Colombia
 Reinforcing Coca-Cola’s public stance against violence by directing all bottling
plants in Colombia to stop dealing with any armed groups that are participating in
violence or threats against trade unionists
 Implementing a human rights policy that applies directly to its Colombian bottlers
 Establishing a complaint and reporting process which will allow union members
to report violations occurring in Coca-Cola bottling plants to an official of the
company who will then investigate and take swift remedial action against these
violations
 Coca-Cola and its Colombian bottlers must submit to an independent
investigation by investigative bodies agreed to by SINALTRAINAL and must
remove managers linked to paramilitary groups
 Providing compensation to the known victims of violence at Coca-Cola bottling
plants.