Responding to allegations of human rights violations by The Coca-Cola Company and its bottling partners in Colombia, Macalester has asked the company—whose local distributor is the school’s exclusive soft drink supplier—to cooperate with an independent investigation or lose its contract with the school.

“The request centered on all the information coming out of Colombia,” said Treasurer and Vice President for Administration David Wheaton. “And it’s hard to pin down what’s happened. Coke says one thing and the other groups say another thing. I think that what they wanted was some better, clearer information.

“We reminded [Coca-Cola] that our contract would be up in August and that [its] cooperation was going to be a big factor in renewing [the] contract,” Wheaton added.

Coca-Cola officials have not replied to the request, sent more than four months ago, and critics of the company doubt that Coca-Cola will allow such an investigation.

“We would think that if they have nothing to hide they would do this,” said Michael Eastwood ’05, a member of the Student Labor Action Coalition (SLAC). “Unfortunately, Coca-Cola has always refused such an investigation.”

Eastwood said that he expects that the college will soon look into options to replace Coke. “There’s no indication that they’re going to change, so probably by the end of the year we’re going to be looking at some alternatives,” Eastwood said.

At the Social Responsibility Committee’s (SRC) request, President Brian Rosenberg sent a letter to the Workers Rights Consortium (WRC) asking it to consider carrying out the investigation.

The WRC, which declined to conduct the investigation due to lack of resources, is an independent sweatshop watchdog group with a membership that includes 122 colleges and universities of which Macalester is one.

Also at the recommendation of the SRC, in late May Rosenberg sent a letter to Coca-Cola notifying them of Macalester’s plan to reevaluate its contract before its renewal in Sept. 2005.

The letter offered an ultimatum: allow an investigation or lose the contract. An excerpt from the SRC’s recommendation reads, “The contract will not be renewed if the company does not fully cooperate in the investigation. But we need be mindful that an investigation may not even be started by that time.”

According to Wheaton, the WRC heard concerns about The Coca-Cola Company and its Colombia bottling partners from a number of its member schools, but felt that committing to an investigation would distract from its primary focus on sweatshop labor.

“I think the WRC is sympathetic to the issue, but I don’t think they feel they have the resources to do anything right now,” Wheaton said.

In September, the WRC proposed serving as a facilitator between the schools and The Coca-Cola Company, but the soft drink company declined.

The Coca-Cola Company said in a letter to the WRC that the consortium wouldn’t be able to offer an objective assessment of the situation since several WRC employees have been involved in the campaign against their company.

Wheaton said that the head of the WRC wasn’t aware of any other independent organizations that would be able to look into labor conditions at Coca-Cola’s bottling plants in Colombia. The WRC head’s statement may force a change in Macalester’s plan, Wheaton added.

“He wasn’t very optimistic in the short-run,” Wheaton said. “He didn’t see anyone with the money or the resources. The information we have now indicates that an investigation isn’t entirely likely.”

Eastwood disagreed with Wheaton’s assessment of the situation.

“There are plenty of other international organizations out there that would jump at the chance to do this,” he said. Eastwood added that the important matter is whether Coke allows an investigation.

The request for an independent investigation is the latest development in a series of discussions and meetings on campus dating back to October 2003, when former Coke employee Luis Adolfo Cardona came to campus to speak about his experiences at a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Carepa, Colombia.

Cardona’s testimony provided a harrowing depiction of torture, murder and intimidation against union leaders. Cardona and other workers allege that Coca-Cola bottling plant managers regularly conspire with Colombian paramilitaries to suppress union activity, especially during periods of contract negotiation.

Coca-Cola has denied responsibility for any violence, arguing that political conditions are dangerous in Colombia and that the company provides sufficient security for its workers.

“The Coca-Cola Company has independently investigated all claims regarding human rights abuses in Colombia and has found no evidence to support them,” the company said in an April 20 statement that dismissed the issue as a “publicity stunt.”

In addition, students organized a boycott of Coke products, and unidentified vandals damaged several Coca-Cola vending machines on campus. The vandalism prompted a lawsuit from Coca Cola Enterprises, the bottler and distributor of Coca-Cola products in the Twin Cities.

Following Cardona’s visit, a group of concerned students from SLAC researched the issue and started a dialogue with Wheaton and Dean of Students Laurie Hamre.

Last Spring, Rosenberg called together the SRC, which he charged with determining an appropriate course of action.

The SRC is a nine-member committee made up of faculty, staff, students and trustees whose purpose is to ensure socially responsible behavior in various areas of the college.

During a month-long process last spring, the SRC heard a detailed report from a group of concerned students and met with a number of key parties, including Cardona, local and national representatives from Coca-Cola, and the lead attorney representing Colombian workers.

Instead of terminating the contract as students had requested, the SRC recommended that the college request an independent investigation by a credible international organization to assess the conflicting accounts.

“The [involved] students really wanted to break the contract with Coke, but the committee wanted a little more information, a better balance and perspective,” said Hamre, who along with Wheaton served as staff support for the SRC.

Eastwood disagreed with Hamre and Wheaton on the need for more information, but is supportive of how the administration has handled the issue.

“We think there is enough evidence at this point to end the contract, but we’re pleased with the steps they are taking,” Eastwood said. “It is clear that there are some horrendous actions. There are definitely managers who are meeting with paramilitaries on a regular basis. There’s some really terrible stuff.”

Whatever happens next will likely by decided by the SRC. According to Wheaton, the SRC will meet late this month to discuss the Coca-Cola issue, among others, but no date has been set.

“I think the next step is for us to take this information to the SRC,” Wheaton said. “I know they’ll want an update and we’ll give them one. We’ll have to determine what the next step is for us.”