NUI Maynooth ... An ethical campus?

by Geneva Spur

“What we eat and drink can have the same influence as what we think and say.

That’s why we’ve opted for fair trade products on our campus.”



As the commercialisation (and ultimate privatisation) of the education system soldiers on, one can not but notice the banner ads on NUIM’s website and in the particular the hypocrisy of the banner which suggests … to paraphrase: ‘we care…we’re an ethically sound SU’. I have a few issues with this half-truth which imbues superficiality, not to mention smugness inherent in the great ‘green wash’ which now prevails in many quarters.


But firstly, for the record, I do believe that, in the main, buying Fair Trade products makes a huge positive difference, which empowers (both ourselves and) others… (BUT Nestlé’s ‘Growers Blend’, Tesco’s et al ‘fair trade’ products are not as ‘fair’ as they make themselves out to be. They are basically jumping on the ethical bandwagon in a shallow attempt to maintain their market share and credibility, (i.e. the ‘green wash’)…whilst giving growers a significantly reduced price for their crops relative to the prices offered by other Fair Trade companies). But yes, it is good that the Juice Luicy sells Robert Roberts Fair Trade coffee. It is great we have a Fair Trade vending machine in the Arts block… but why does the SU shop have a Nestle coffee machine and why is there no Fair Trade marque coffee in the canteen or in the Spar… or more vending machines around the campus? (The library would be an obvious location as we wait for the arrival of the new dining area on the ground floor at the moment. We could make room for this [the Fair Trade vending machine] by discarding the Deep Riverrock vending machine… more about this brand anon).


My point is, we [GA members and others] worked hard to get the minimum requirements in order to achieve fair trade status, (which was hard won, given the time involved, general apathy from some quarters and the already agreed catering contracts we encountered), but there’s a lot, lot more that could be done. NUIM is slightly audacious to market itself as the caring/ ethical university considering the limited access students actually have to Fair Trade produce on campus. Now that our Fair Trade status has become one of the university’s ‘unique selling propositions’, surely we need more than the minimum standards for Fair Trade status, (which may not even still be in place), for the advertising campaign to be truly honest? All coffee and tea on campus could be Fair Trade. Both shops on campus could have Fair Trade bananas, wine, biscuits, chocolate, preserves, juices etc and the food served in the canteen could be Fair Trade where possible… quite easily, if the will was there/ we lobbied and demanded it/ the university procurement officer and the SU stipulated it when signing off on shop leases, vending machine contracts and catering contracts.


Ultimately, the greatest hypocrisy [of the banner ad on the home page] is that whilst our SU president concedes that ‘what we eat and drink can influence…’… the other [neo-liberal] hand of the SU has consistently and resolutely opposed the boycott of Coca Cola products on campus and hence affected others in a very real and tangible way…. More lining the pockets of the mega rich whilst they exploit, intimidate, torture their workers within an inch of their lives ...and beyond… rather than building communities and sustainable development as per the Fair Trade model.


Coca Cola is one of the most ruthless, inhumane, exploitative, unethical companies of our time. Repeatedly, Coca Cola has been complicate in the abuse of human rights and pollution of the environment (to the detriment of local farming communities) surrounding their plants around the world. The murder of eight trade union leaders in Colombia is the most notorious example of their crimes, but their underhandedness is widespread (India, Pakistan, etc) and prolific.


Hence many universities in Ireland (UCD, TCD, and NCAD) and abroad have banned Coca Cola products (Deep River Rock, Oasis, Sprite, BPM etc) from their campuses. Recently TCD voted for the third time on this motion and once again the students declared that this relatively small but hugely significant act of solidarity far out weighted any supposed benefits of selling Coca Cola products on campus.

Last year when I broached the subject of a referendum regarding the boycott with the previous SU president [Paul Mullally], the response I got was along the lines of: “I just want to hand back the SU financial accounts in good health, at the end of the year”. This short term perspective, (which is more about this individual’s CV than anything else), is unfounded, unethical and reeks of a horrible, sickening irony.



The repercussions…. Death squads, torture etc

Every time one chooses to support/ buy Coca Cola [or refuse to support the boycott], one contributes, fosters, enhances a chain of events which unfold around the world. When we purchase Coca Cola products we directly contribute to their market share and in turn, their profits. This in turn affects their annual year-end financial accounts which directly relates to their share price on the stock exchange.


Fund managers/ investment bankers gamble/ invest (our taxes, pensions and the savings of private individuals) and often hedge their bets on consistent and increasingly profitable companies (such as Coca Cola), which will afford a ‘healthy’ return on the original investment. Consistent results increases demand for shares, which in turn drives up the share price, which invariably lines the pockets of top executives [of the listed companies], as they have substantial share options/ a stake in the company or a performance related annual bonuses which are often running to the hundreds of millions of dollars and beyond.



This need to increase profits, year on year, leaves listed companies under increased pressure to return large dividend cheques [to its shareholders], so ‘cost saving’ measures are introduced. The result, (which is directly motivated by the personal greed of a few top directors), will often see suppliers of raw materials (often in less developed countries), being squeezed to ever greater extremes and the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources which manifests itself in even greater hardship for employees and farmers dependent on theses same natural resources such as water. (This is where the need Fair Trade stems from… fair prices for the crops are pre-agreed, which allows communities to pursue sustainable development without the worry of falling prices in a buyers market - where there are enormous pressures exerted by huge agri-business companies given the ‘economies of scale’ and the disparity between buyer and seller).


In the last decade or so, ‘cost savings’ undertaken by Coca Cola have taken an unprecedented insidious turn and the impact has been felt by its workers in a very real, direct and sometimes lasting (i.e. fatal) way. These ‘savings’ are especially affecting those workers in less developed countries, where most of the population is already struggling given IMF and WB economic ‘restructuring’ – i.e. no safety net exists as government spending on health, education and other social services is slashed in order to repay debts.


Coca Cola in Colombia

In Colombia, trade unionists are the target of brutal repression. Since the mid-eighties, 3,000 trade union members have been murdered, most by extreme right paramilitaries. In the early nineties, Coca Cola’s Colombian subsidiaries decided to cut their labour costs by hiring temporary workers in place of full-time staff who earned three times as much. The biggest obstacle in the way of this plan was SINALTRAINAL, the main union that represented workers in their plants. Management began working with right-wing paramilitaries in order to destroy the union.


Three workers at the Carepa plant were murdered between 1994 and 1996. The plant manager declared publicly that he had given an order to the paramilitaries to wipe out Sinaltrainal. In December 1996, union leader Isidro Segundo Gil was murdered by paramilitaries inside the Carepa plant. The next day, paramilitaries returned to the plant and ordered the workers to leave the union or meet the same fate. The plant manager handed out resignation forms that he had prepared in advance.


Most union members quit their jobs after this incident. 36 Sinaltrainal members were forced to leave the area by threats. Isidro Segundo Gil’s wife was later murdered by the paramilitaries when she participated in a lawsuit against Coca Cola in the US courts.


In Burcaramanga, two leading members of Sinaltrainal were accused of planting a bomb in the factory by Coca Cola management. They were imprisoned for six months and tortured. Their families received threats from paramilitaries. Having examined the evidence, the state prosecutor found that the claims were totally false – there had never been any bomb at the plant. But by then, most union members on full-time contracts had quit their jobs in fear.


At the Coca Cola plant in Barrancabermeja, managers were regularly seen fraternizing with Saul Rincon, a notorious paramilitary leader. He visited the plant regularly, and was given free Coca Cola products by the management. Rincon is now awaiting trial for murder.


And the circle is completed

Coca Cola’s collaboration with the paramilitaries has paid off. 95% of their workforce are now on temporary contracts and can be fired at any time if they challenge their miserable working conditions.



The insatiable desire for profit has yielded human rights abuses and exploitation, whilst on the other hand; it has made a hand full of top executives multi-million, if not billionaires. I contrast the objectives of Coca Cola [profit at whatever cost] with our SU President’s response (of 2004) to my queries… the necessity for ‘healthy financial accounts’ that appealed directly to the pursuit of profit above all social or moral responsibility, echoed of and supported right-wing, neo-liberal company directors who make decisions which profit them greatly, whilst simultaneously making the lives of thousands a misery. It really doesn’t have to be this way.


The boycott Coca Cola campaign was launched in July 2003. It is supported by the CUT (Colombia’s equivalent of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions). Since then, it has been endorsed by many trade unions around the world including the Teachers’ Union of Ireland and Unison, the biggest union in the UK. It has (as mentioned above) also been supported by many Irish colleges. This example has been followed by students from New York to India to Rome.



Leaving the abhorrent human rights issues to one side for a moment, (which is obviously sufficient grounds for the boycott in itself), let us address the objection which concerned the SU most….if a boycott was introduced it would be ‘detrimental’ to SU’s financial well-being. But why haven’t the SU’s in the many universities where the boycott is supported, not gone to the wall? This rational is unfounded but more importantly, let us not forget, as the university edges towards privatisation (and the re-introduction of fees)…. The SU is a organisation, not a limited company. Its primary goal is not to turn a profit. It is a social organisation and is not answerable to ‘shareholders’/ stakeholders.


By not supporting the boycott of Coca Cola products, one perpetuates the oppression experienced by Colombian, Pakistani, etc….. workers and Indian farmers. ‘The system’ may appear omnipotent and omniscient but it’s still well within our means to take a hold and cut off the circulation of unethical companies. These companies, paradoxically, are nothing without us …and the couple of quid we give them each week/ month.


Already, hundreds/ thousands of articles documenting Coca Cola’s offences, circle the globe everyday… (see links below). If the share price slips further (as a result of a drop in sales/ the boycott/ bad publicity), investors will get spooked and suddenly, the share price could tumble. Coca Cola could see a substantial drop in their share price when investors realise that it’s not a such a safe bet and some will be under pressure from private individuals to divest as they do not want to be sullied by implication - the spectre of death squads, torture and ‘the disappeared’ is far reaching in our globalised world where technology aids the rapid dissemination of information.


When the share price falls, a handful of very powerful people will miss out on very, very large bonuses and it is only then, things change for the thousands of workers ‘on the ground’. It all comes down to ‘the bottom line’ and the personal wealth of the few – the few who sanction [and could prevent] the exploitation of workers and the environment. As soon as Coca Cola recognise the unions, give workers a living wage, restore job security and respect the environment in which they operate, the boycott could be called off.


We hold the power to turn the tide ….. and we ultimately turn the screws. Only a boycott will unleash the chain of events which will allow people to earn a living with dignity and without the fear of death. Given the potential this boycott has of affecting change; and of shaping and making another world possible… it’s contemptible to see NUI Maynooth choosing to promote itself as an ‘ethical campus’ whilst at the same time/ to date, it does not or has not endorsed the boycott and has actively been resolutely against it in the past.


Join the boycott by refusing to drink Coca Cola products (including Sprite, Fruice, Deep Riverrock, BPM, Oasis).

Get involved in the campaign: Colombia@lasc.ie

Send emails of protest to the SU, Campbell’s catering (who have the contract for the canteen) and Spar shop manager/ headquarters.

Send emails of protest to Coca Cola (see www.killercoke.org) or ring them at 01 6694201.



Web Resources and other articles documenting Coca Cola’s crimes:


Thousands of articles documenting coke’s crimes: http://www.killercoke.org/news.htm




Guardian Unlimited (UK), "Coke 'drinks India dry': Critics claim beverage giant's bottling plants are interfering with irrigation in drought-ridden regions," By Mick Mathiason, March 19, 2006

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,1734036,00.html

New Statesman, "Mark Thomas - won't give the world a Coke," By Mark Thomas, March 9, 2006 http://www.killercoke.org/newstate060309.htm


The Times of India, "It's often Coke with bad elements," Dinesh Narayanan, May 2, 2006

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1511756.cms



The Nation, "The Case Against Coke," Michael Blanding, May 1, 2006 Issue

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060501/blanding


ZNet, "Coca-Cola: Sucking Communities Dry," By Joe Zacune, April 3, 2006

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10037


The Observer, "Soft drink hard sell," By Phil Hogan, July 9, 2006

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,1813839,00.html