University of Michigan Retracts Coke Ban

Only three and a half months after suspending its business relations with the Coca-Cola Company over allegations of human rights abuses, the University of Michigan did an about-face yesterday, announcing that it will reinstate Coke products across its campus effective immediately.

In a letter written to Donald R. Knauss, president of Coca-Cola North America, the university’s Executive Vice President and CFO Timothy P. Slottow cited Coke’s cooperation with independent investigations by the United Nations’ International Labor Organization (ILO) as vital to Michigan’s decision.

Following a vocal student campaign against Coke’s labor practices in Colombia and India, Michigan’s Dispute Review Board (DRB) suspended the use of Coke products on Dec. 29, writing that it would not extend any expired contracts. However, the DRB letter said Michigan would resume business with Coke if the company sufficiently met the university’s demands for an independent, third-party investigation into the allegations.

“We never seek to end a business relationship if we can move it forward in a positive fashion,” said Michigan spokeswoman Julie A. Peterson. “We want to move the investigation forward rather than simply cut [Coke] off.”

Michigan’s decision came after continued conversation between the university and the soft-drink giant.

“The University is satisfied that the independent review processes you have outlined meet our prerequisite to resume purchasing Coca-Cola products,” Slottow wrote to Knauss, referring to the ILO investigation.

Ray F. Rogers, director of the Campaign to Stop Killer Coke, remains optimistic about the campaign to remove Coke from Michigan’s campus. Rogers said that the campaign will need to continue pressuring Michigan administrators and “point out that there’s either a great deal of ignorance there, or [Michigan administrators are] in bed with the Coca-Cola Company.”

Rogers added that the ILO investigation cannot be considered independent, since Coke’s director of global labor relations and workplace accountability, Edward E. Potter, sits on the ILO.

Peterson, the university’s spokeswoman, denounced this claim.

“We don’t believe the ILO would compromise its credibility by doing anything less than a thorough, comprehensive review and in this, I know that we and the activists disagree,” she said.

Neither the ILO nor other investigations mentioned in Slattow’s letter have been completed yet.

Michigan, which does not have an exclusive contract with Coke, will restock its vending machines within a few days and its campus restaurants within a few weeks, according to Peterson.

CONTINUED ACTION

Rogers also added that Michigan is just one of numerous national and international campaigns against Coke. He said that the organization is making substantial strides to remove Coke from the City University of New York’s 20 campuses.

Jamila R. Martin ’07—a leader of Harvard’s Student Labor Action Movement (SLAM), which is currently waging its own campaign against Coke—said Michigan’s decision “teaches us a lesson.”

“It’s very easy to have these half-victories...where you get stuck into getting half of what you want,” she said.

Martin also added that SLAM will look with interest at the ILO findings, noting that subtleties in language can mask entirely different conclusions.

“If the ILO say [human rights abuse] isn’t happening, that’s very different than the ILO saying that Coke isn’t responsible,” Martin said.

—Staff writer Benjamin L. Weintraub can be reached at bweintr@fas.harvard.edu.