Since 2000, Coca-Cola has held a monopoly on the provision of cold beverages on the Queen’s campus. This arrangement deprives students of choice and it ties the name of our university to a company with a record tarnished by charges of human rights abuses. But the exclusive beverage contract comes to an end on Aug. 31, 2010. Now is the ideal time for students and administrators to work together to come up with alternatives to Coca-Cola that will allow Queen’s to move forward in a positive direction.
Although Coke’s red and white logo may be the best-known brand label in the world, in some places it has become infamous. In Colombia, Coca-Cola has been accused of hiring paramilitary forces to threaten, torture and kill members of the SINALTRAINAL trade union, workers employed in Coke bottling plants. To date, eight of the union’s leaders have been assassinated. Demands for an apology and for safe, just and fair working conditions have not been met.
Furthermore, Coke has been accused of polluting groundwater in India, and of using child labour in El Salvador. We also cannot not ignore the fact that Coca-Cola promotes the sale of bottled water at the expense of public services and the environment.
Undoubtedly, there are many members of the Queen’s community who feel a positive association with the company. Coca-Cola has been a source of funding for the Queen’s Library, as well as numerous student groups. Coke’s financial commitment to Queen’s will total $5.8 million by the end of the 10-year contract, which works out to approximately 0.09 per cent of the school’s revenue. This is not an insignificant contribution to the Queen’s community; however, its value should not be overstated. The prominence of the $100,000 in grants from the Cold Beverage Exclusivity Fund obscures the fact that there are many other sources of funding available to students, including, for instance, AMS Board of Directors Grants, AMS Special Projects Grants, AMS Clubs Grants, the Student Affairs Student Initiative Fund and the Alumni Association Grants.
In periods of economic uncertainty, giving up any guaranteed source of funding is a risky step to take, but what are we left with if we abandon our principles at the first sign of trouble? Human rights are just that, rights, not luxuries to be enjoyed when times are good. While a continuing relationship with Coca-Cola may provide cash in the short run, in the long-term it has the potential to damage the University’s image in the eyes of alumni and other donors. Two years ago, Queen’s chose to end its relationships with companies working in Darfur. I believe this is the time to take a stand once again, the time to be creative and to look for partnerships that will stand the test of time.
Universities around the globe have been standing up for human rights by taking action against Coca-Cola and by making alternative choices. Some schools, such as Brock University, have opted to sign with Pepsi. Cott and Cadbury Schweppes are also fairly large players. Certain institutions have recently chosen to go with smaller companies who are more responsive to public opinion, though not as cash-rich. Some of these companies provide fair trade and organic options; some are locally-based businesses. Queen’s is aiming to become more sustainable. Working with companies that are socially and environmentally conscious is a logical step.
Furthermore, by avoiding exclusive contracts altogether, like the current deal with Coca-Cola, Queen’s would be able to retain more power in its relations with beverage suppliers. The school would have more control in terms of product choice and in terms of the way campus spaces are used. No solution is perfect, and any decision should be made with caution. However, it is hard to argue that Coca-Cola is a wise choice for an institution that aims to “engage the world.” There are many companies that better represent our ideals. Before the next contract is signed, we need to ask ourselves some serious questions. Are the financial perks of an exclusivity contract worth the loss of freedom and diversity? At what point do financial contributions become more important than human rights? Can we ignore the stain on Coke’s human rights record in Colombia?
In my mind, the choice is clear. If Queen’s wishes to move forward as a globally recognized and respected institution, a continuing relationship with Coca-Cola is unacceptable.
When Queen’s signs a new contract, it will not just be a question of what students like to drink and where the University gets its funding. The contract will have social, environmental and political impacts. We, as members of the Queen’s community, should be engaged in determining what direction the school will take. We should make sure that our voices are heard, and that the new contract represents the student body.
A motion to oppose a new exclusivity agreement with Coca-Cola will be presented at the AMS Annual General Meeting this Monday.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.
