Coke contract a grey area

Image supplied by: Illustration by Emily Sicilia

Queen’s exclusivity agreement with Coca-Cola ends next August, when the University can either re-sign with Coke or seek a new contract with another cold beverage company.

In exchange for its $5.8 million contribution to the University, the 10-year agreement has given Coke a monopoly on the provision of cold beverages on campus.

The Cold Beverage Exclusivity Fund has largely been used to fund the library system, athletics programs and provide grants for student groups.

In recent years, Coca-Cola has been accused of human rights abuses in its overseas plants. Although the company has yet to be convicted in these cases, there are allegations Coca-Cola hired paramilitary forces to threaten and kill union leaders working in its bottling plants in Colombia.

On Monday, at the AMS Annual General Meeting, students voted to oppose renewing the University’s exclusivity agreement with Coca-Cola next year.

But before hastily writing the company off, the University needs to properly investigate the allegations against Coke and the potential impact of losing an exclusivity contract.

Many student groups would suffer from the loss of the $100,000 in grants the Cold Beverage Exclusivity Fund provides each year. The other grants available to student groups fall far short of the amount the Coca-Cola contract provides.

A lot of the money has gone to student clubs advocating for social justice.

Although the benefits Coke’s money provides on campus doesn’t excuse its human rights abuses elsewhere, students advocating for Coca-Cola’s removal need to present viable alternatives for clubs, library and athletics funding.

If the University opts for another cold beverage company, it’s likely it will sign with another well-branded company.

Other large beverage companies, such as Pepsi, may also have spotty human rights records. Queen’s should use its bargaining position to demand more transparency in Coke’s operations. But this type of pressure is more effective if the University remains with the company than if it calls for reform from the outside.

No matter which company Queen’s signs with, the University should consider its overall impact on campus; cold beverage bottles, for example, produce a lot of waste. The University must strike a balance between upholding its ethics and maintaining student resources funding. Otherwise, we’ll be standing on a soapbox with empty pockets.

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content