by Susan Bonicillo 

As the world’s most recognizable brand, Coca-Cola’s products are well known and enjoyed in the more than 200 countries in which it is sold. Some credit the popularity and ubiquity of the soft drink to the nostalgia it evokes; a certain image of Americana that can only be found in memory as a result of just good, old-fashioned marketing.  Despite its product conjuring pleasant memories, it is the company’s business practices that deviate into something far less agreeable.

Allegations from bottling plants in Colombia and India cite extreme human rights violations and severe environmental damage, respectively.

Union breaking tactics

In the case of Colombia, leaders of SINALTRAINAL (a labor union for food industry workers) have been harassed, tortured and even killed in their efforts to unionize workers at Coca-Cola bottling plants. The deaths of eight union leaders have led to protests and boycotts of Coke products in colleges in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

In 2001 the United Steel Workers Union and the International Labor Rights Fund sued Coca-Cola and its primary Latin American bottler Panamerican Beverages, Inc. for human rights violations and, more seriously, the murders of union leaders. The case was later dismissed.

Pesticide Coke ... yum

The Centre for Science and Environment (an NGO based in Delhi, India) conducted studies on Coke products produced in India and found that pesticide levels were unacceptable by EU standards to the tune of 30 times the allowable levels. In India, while it is legal to have this quantity of pesticides in drinks, there are voluntary standards that Coke products did not meet.

In response, several states throughout India have banned Coke products, though the ban is limited in scope. Its soft drinks as well as Pepsi’s cannot be sold within 100 meters of schools and hospitals.

Furthermore, a 2006 report by the India Resource Center noted that water shortages, damage to arable land and watersheds and health hazards due to industrial manufacturing waste from bottling plants are directly related to Coke’s operations.

Aah, the children

In addition to Coca-Cola’s less than stellar business record, its soft drink holds little nutritional value and, in some studies, has been shown to have detrimental effects on one’s health.

In particular, children whom the company targets heavily for sales are uniquely at risk. Though adults share in the health hazards associated with regular consumption of soft drinks, a child’s growing body and future healthy lifestyle habits are at an acute risk when highly sweetened beverages are marketed as a mealtime drink of choice rather than as an occasional treat.

In particular, many nutritionists cite the dangers of caffeinated beverages for children because of caffeine’s ability to create a chemical dependency. In addition to caffeine’s negative effects, the consumption of soft drinks has been found to block the absorption of certain minerals and vitamins such as calcium (important for bone growth) and the antioxidants vitamins A (important in fighting infection and helping vision) and C (important in bone formation and connective tissues, healing wounds and aiding in iron absorption).

In the United States, the sweetener used in the Coke concentrate mixture is high fructose corn syrup. A hotly contested issue in the medical field, high fructose corn syrup has been linked with high blood pressure, increased fat and high levels of insulin in animals. However, effects on human subjects have not been thoroughly investigated yet.

In recent years, the Coca-Cola Company has been making strides towards becoming a more ecologically friendly company.

Baby green steps

Last year, Coca-Cola signed the U.N. Global Compact. A voluntary corporate initiative, the Compact is the world’s largest effort by companies around the globe who have officially committed to maintaining ten principles including, but not limited to improved human rights, labor conditions and environmental stewardship.

In April of this year Coca-Cola pledged to make its Atlanta headquarters more energy and water efficient. Three million dollars are earmarked for this project, a venture that will include the involvement of Georgia Tech. Together, the two parties will design and implement more efficient lighting and air conditioning units. Rainwater harvesting as well as different landscaping methods will be used to reduce water consumption by 15%, according to a press release. 

Emissions reduction

Also, prompted by the wave of concern regarding global warming, the company vows to take a more active approach in combating catastrophic climate change. In addition to reducing water consumption, Coca-Cola also is working to reduce emissions in its plants. The improved energy consumption should result in the reduction of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide every year.

Their transition from using traditional refrigeration methods to HFC-free insulation of their refrigeration units reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 75%. This action resulted in a 2005 Climate Protection Award given to Coca-Cola by the EPA.

The soda maker has also pledged $20 million dollars to the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) for the purpose of aiding water conservation. Coca-Cola also promises to replace the water it uses in manufacturing and return that same amount of water to the environment. How this venture will be accomplished is not clear though the company says it hopes to improve water efficiency by 2008 and enact the water replacement policy by 2010.

Human rights redemption

In addition to their commitment to improving its environmental record, Coca-Cola is working to redeem itself after allegations of human rights violations at its various plants. This month Coca-Cola has signed onto the Business Leader Initiative on Human Rights, an international initiative that seeks to improve human rights through changes in corporate practices.

With its recent environmental measures and commitment to improving human rights, Coca-Cola is on its way to resurrecting a sullied public image. However, with a company so large, management on such a global scale requires a more centralized regulatory body. For instance, pesticide and environmental regulations within the United States and the EU are upheld. In the case of India, regulations are disregarded. If pesticides levels in the United States were at the same levels as that of India, the backlash would be extraordinary. Though standards are improving, we may never know how long Coke products were tainted with pesticides or how many persons have consumed such beverages.

As a global company, Coca-Cola has a responsibility   for maintaining high standards in all countries where it operates.  The rights and protections that Coca-Cola affords its workers and the product controls it maintains in America should be the same in countries like India and Colombia.