Belching Out the Devil

by Mark Thomas

  The Coca-Cola Company, in conjunction with setting-up the Colombia Foundation, itself specifically advertised its support for union rights an opposition to violence.

  2) Has The Coca-Cola Company’s bottlers in Colombia ever issued any public statements or taken out any advertising defending the right to unionizse and/or to denounce the violence directed against SINALTRAINAL? If so, may we see a copy of these statements?

  Throughout the years the independent bottlers of Coca-Cola ® brand products in Colombia have frequently and publicly denounced violence against union members in Colombia. See attached advertisement for example.

  The largest of such bottling enterprises, Coca-Cola FEMSA,also has informed us that it is their practice immediately to notify the appropriate authorities as soon as management is made aware of threats against union members. Coca-Cola FEMSA supplies notification and information to, among others, the Minister of Social Protection (Labor) and the Defensor del Pueblo (Ombudsman), as well as the Minister of the Interior, who manages the government’s protection program for union leaders.

  3) Has The Coca-Cola Company *itself * ever investigated or engaged an independent third party to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the allegations of ties between bottler management and paramilitaries? And if so, what were the conclusions?

  In the spring of 2005, The Company commissioned an independent assessment of bottling plants in Colombia by the internationally respected and certified social compliance auditor Cal Safety Compliance Corporation to look into current workplace rights practices of the bottlers in Colombia. The assessment, which included interviews of hundreds of employees throughout Colombia, confirmed that workers insuch plants enjoy freedom of association, collective bargaining rights, and a work atmosphere free of anti-union intimidation.

  Assessments by other unions in Colombia and elsewhere have likewise found no evidence of wrongdoing by the Company or its independent bottlers. In an open letter to the National Union of Students, the UK trade unions explained the Company’s lack culpability as follows: Since the first call to boycott Coca-Cola over Colombia was issued in 2003, the UK trade union movement has investigated and monitored the situation closely. We have sent delegations to Colombia to speak to workers’ representatives there. We have kept in close contact with trade unions in Colombia and have continued to raise issues of importance to them by taking up their cause with workers, politicians and the media here in the UK. We have taken the lead from the CUT [Colombia’s United Workers Confederation] . . . the democratic umbrella organization for Colombian trade unions, as well as from the IUF (the International Union of Foodworkers), the relevant global union federation.

  (March 21, 2006 joint letter to the National Union of Students from three UK trade unions, Amicus, T & G and GMB).

  In addition, the Company and its independent bottlers welcome efforts by other international organizations, including the International Labor Organization, to verify the Company’s internal assessments.

  4) When did The Coca-Cola Company become aware of the murder of Isidero Gil in the Carepa plant? And what was the Company’s immediate response?

  W ithin days of the murder, the Company was alerted to the situation and gave its full support to all staff and employees of the Carepa facility, the vast majority of whom (employees and managers alike) were forced to relocate from the territory.⁆

  5) What is the current status of the promised ILO investigation and evaluation of Coca-Cola bottling operations in Colombia and what is the new timetable?

  The political situation in Colombia has become more complicated since the assessment requests were made to the ILO. In particular, the ILO has placed a priority on addressing the issue of impunity, resolving the inconsistencies between the ILO standards that the Colombian Government has ratified and existing labor and employment law, and assuring that the historic tripartite agreement reached in June 2006 under the auspices of the ILO is fully implemented. To address these political complexities, in particular to be certain that there is overall government, business and union support for the procedures and methods of the ILO assessment, the Director General of the ILO, has required that each of these constituencies sign off of the assessment protocol before it begins.

  For its part, The Coca-Cola Company fully supports the ILO initiative and investigation and remains willing and ready to cooperate in whatever reasonable form the ILO requests.

  6) What is the scope of the promised ILO investigation?

  This is an independent investigation that will be conducted by the ILO, therefore we do not know the fullscope and process of the assessment.The ILO has informedthe Company that the assessment will include a review of current workers’ rightsin the workplace,conditions of work, health and safety, labor relations and social security.

  7) Can The Coca-Cola Company confirm its claims that if the ILO investigation does get underway, it will investigate both past and present labour rights abuses in the Coke bottling plants in Colombia?

  By mandate, the ILO assessment team is concerned with ensuring the implementation and maintenance of progressive labor practices in member countries. Accordingly, the assessment function traditionally does not investigate specific allegations of past labor abuse, which is a task performed by a separate arm of the ILO charged with evaluating formal complaints made by union members. In fact, SINALTRAINAL recently has filed complaints with the ILO, who is considering the charges and whether to conduct a further inquiry into the allegations.”

  8) If that is the case, can The Coca-Cola Company explain how the ILO can investigate past labour rights abuses within a company (in this case The Coca-Cola Company bottlers - Panamco and Bebidas y Alimentos) when the ILO has a remit to investigate only on a countrywide rather than company specific basis and can only investigate current labour rights abuse?

  As noted immediately above, t he ILO assessmentconcerns current workplacepractices at the independentbottling facilities in Colombia. The ILO has relevant experience monitoring labor practices in the garment industry which we believe will be helpful in this investigation. And as set forth above, the ILO has a separate arm to investigate complaints by union members.

  9) Will The Coca-Cola Company publish or show the contents of the letter/agreement Neville Isdell claims the company has from the ILO stating the organization will investigate past and present labour rights abuses in the Coke bottling plants in Colombia?

  The ILO assessment is of current workplace rights at independentbottling facilities in Colombia. As set forth above, the ILO has a well-established procedure for investigating formal complaints by union members.

  10) Has The Coca-Cola Company taken any action against its bottler for the false allegation made by a bottler security manager in Bucaramanga that lead to the wrongful imprisonment of Luis Eduardo García and Domingo Flores amongst others?

  The Coca-Cola Company does not own or have the right to unilaterally punish or sanction the employees of the independent bottlers within its system. The Company does, however, seek to promote progressive labor rights within its bottling system and supply chain, and has established an office within the Company headed by Ed Potter that is charged with liaising with local bottlers to resolve any issue that may arise.

  In the case of Messrs. Garcia and Flores, TCCC has discussed the matter with the bottler and understands that the bottler employees gave truthful statements to the Colombian government investigators. This was the extent of the involvement of the bottler involvement in the case. The Company understands that following the Government’s investigation, Messrs. Garcia and Flores were compensated for their time away from work, provided additional security and protection and have remained employed by the bottler.

  11) Does The Coca-Cola Company share the view of its bottlers that in bringing legal action against the Company, SINALTRAINAL had libelled and defamed the company? And did the Company agree with the defamation suit brought against SINALTRAINAL?

  The Company has not filed any officia
l action against SINALTRAINAL in the case.Local bottlers in Colombia have denounced thecertain actions - including incidents such as the painting of graffiti on bottling plant walls and barricading of plant entrances - to authorities based onreasonable concerns for the safety of the Company and its ability to continue operations. In particular, the union’s careless accusations that the bottlers somehow conspire with or support paramlitaries endangers the lives of the bottlers’ management and personnel, who themselves are targets for violence, including at the direction Colombia’s notorious guerilla insurgency. T our knowledge, the bottlers have notfiled any separate official action against SINALTRAINAL or its leaders.;

  12) Did any Coca-Cola FEMSA bottling plants pay money for SINALTRAINAL members to give up their trade-union membership? If so how any many trade union members did the Coca-Cola FEMSA bottling plants pay to the trade-union members? How many trade-union members were given money to give up their membership? Over what period of time did this occur?

  We have no information to indicate that Coca-Cola FEMSA has ever paid money for SINALTRAINAL members to give up their trade union membership. The independent bottler guarantees the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining and has multiple agreements with multiple unions- and in a country where 4 percent of workers from unionizing, 31 percent of Coca-Cola bottler employees belong to unions.

  13) Why did negotiations between The Coca-Cola Company and the plaintiffs in the ATCA suit break down earlier this year? What conditions did The Coca-Company put on any settlement?

  In 2001, SINALTRAINAL, with the assistance of U.S. labor interests, filed AlienTorts Statute lawsuitsagainst The Coca-Cola Company andseveral entities affiliated with independent bottlers of Coca-Cola ® brand products in Colombia. The Coca-Cola Company was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida from the case in 2003, which held that the Company possessed no control over or liability for the alleged conduct of third parties in rural Colombia. In October 2006,the remaining defendants also were dismissed from the case.

  Despite having secured its dismissal from the lawsuits, the Company sought - as it has throughout this dispute - to engagedinconstructive dialogue with the plaintiffs —both to better understand their concerns and also to assess whether a mediated resolution of the parties’ differences could be achieved. The parties’ talks were fruitful and informative, although no final resolution was possible. An impasse was reached and no further discussions are anticipated at this time.

  The Coca-Cola Company wishes to underscore that it is innocent of the charges brought by the plaintiffs in the dismissed litigation. However,the Company is sympathetic to the underlying concerns about violence against any member of Colombian society, including union members - which is one of the reasons why the Company helped fund and sponsor the Colombia Foundation, whose work continues to remediate the effects of violence in the country.

  El Salvador

  14. Is it still the case that Central Izalco is the sole supplier for Coke bottlers in El Salvador? If not, who are the other suppliers?

  El Salvador is a controlled market and as such we buy from a marketing agency, who in turn assigns the volume to a qualified source. Central Izalco and El Angel are the two mills (out of 8) that meet our quality requirements and have been approved for use by our system in that country.

  15. Your website states, ‘We only buy from sugar mills that adhere to our standards and we constantly monitor for compliance. If we find a supplier is not meeting our standards, we take immediate action. We care about the plight of these children and are serious about helping them’ - could you explain how often and what form the constant monitoring takes place for Central Izalco and/or any other suppliers?

  Our Company TCCC routinely utilizes independent third-parties to assess suppliers’ compliance with our Company’s Supplier Guiding Principles (SGP). The SGP are a vital pillar of TCCC’s workplace accountability programs. They contain requirements that our direct suppliers must comply with regarding freedom of association and collective bargaining; prohibition of child labor; prohibition of forced labor and abuse of labor; elimination of discrimination; work hours and wages; provision of a safe and healthy workplace; and protection of the environment. If a supplier fails to uphold any aspect of the SGP requirements, the supplier is expected to implement corrective actions. The Company reserves the right to terminate an agreement with any supplier that cannot demonstrate that they are upholding the SGP requirements and has done so.

  16. Your website states that you are ‘working towards hiring a monitoring system for plantations’ - has the multi-stakeholder initiative yet hired a monitoring system? And if so, what is its remit, how often does it report, how is it funded and what results have been found so far?

  The multi-stakeholder initiative, led by the Ministry of Labor and the El Salvadoran Sugar Association, has put into place several social monitoring systems for the plantations.

  Ministry of Labor Work:• During the harvest the Ministry of Labor has labor inspectors whose only task is to detect child labor.

  • Those cooperatives found to have child labor are subject to economic sanctions.

  El Salvadoran Sugar Association Work:• The Sugar Association employs 10 social workers who implement the industry’s social responsibility programs.

  • Every morning during the harvest those 10 social workers visit the cane farms looking for evidence of child labor.

  • If a child is found cutting cane he or she is immediately removed.

  In addition, every engineer from the sugar mills who works at the sugar cane farms has the obligation to report child labor. Failure to report child labor, would result in the termination of the engineer’s contract.

  17. Your website refers to ‘Nine thousand children have been removed from the sugarcane fields in El Salvador over the last three years through our efforts with the UN and the Sugar Association.’

  a) Can you explain how the figure of 9,000 was calculated and by whom? How many of those 9,000 were removed from plantations that provide cane for Central Izalco?

  All figures quoted have been determined by the International Labour Organizations’ International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labor. More information about IPEC can be found at: http://www.ilo.org/ipec

  b) What is the nature of the work that The Coca-Cola Company has undertaken through the UN that has led to this? Has the company sponsored or paid for practical programmes or are you referring to company support / lobbying for the establishment of UN norms and standards?

  Our Company has publicly supported a proposal, authored by the World Bank and Business for Social Responsibility, to help position El Salvador as a responsible-sourcing country in conjunction with UN norms and standards. And we have funded the multi-stakeholder initiative working towards hiring social monitors to work with the co-ops to monitor and address child labor, led by the Ministry of Labor and the El Salvadoran Sugar Association.

  We have also participated in multi-stakeholder dialogues that have included the International Labor Organization of the UN to understand and address the root causes of this serious issue in El Salvador.

  18. Your website states, ‘On Coca-Cola’s recommendation, Fundazucar (the Salvadoran Sugar Association) engaged a social compliance auditing firm that helped the Association determine how to detect and control child labour and associated issues.’ What is the name of the social auditing firm? How often have they reported and what were their recommendations?

  The social auditing firm is the internationally respected and certified social compliance auditor, Cal Safety Compliance Corporation. The audits have taken place during the 2004-2007 harvests.

  19. Your website states, ‘Coca-Cola has partnered with TechnoServe, a local NGO working with targeted co-ops to find alternative sources of income for youth 14-18 years of age’. What is the nature of the partnering of TechnoServe? Was there any financial assistance involved? Have there been any assessments ma
de of the results of the partnering and if so, by whom?

  Techno Serve is an NGO dedicated to the development of businesses who work in the agricultural field. We partnered with Techo Serve to financially support the programs that aid children through educational opportunities in El Salvador.

  20. The Human Rights Watch report, Turning a Blind Eye, recommends, ‘In particular, it [Coca-Cola] should incorporate the UN Norms in its contractual arrangements with suppliers and should require its suppliers to do the same throughout their supply chains’.

  Are there any plans to do this and if so, what is your timetable? Our Company’s Supplier Guiding Principles (SGP) communicate to direct suppliers our values and expectations and emphasize the importance of responsible environmental and workplace policies and practices that comply, at a minimum, with applicable local laws and regulations. Our SGP is consistent with the key elements of the International Labor Organization of the UN’s core labor standards (freedom of association and collective bargaining, forced or compulsory labor, child labor and discrimination).