The University’s Dispute Review Board – created last year to hear complaints against University vendors and suppliers – held a public hearing last week on the Coca-Cola Company’s allegedly unethical labor and environmental practices in Colombia and India.

Representatives from the Coke Coalitionand Coca-Cola addressed the DRB and an audience of students mostly sympathetic to the coalition in the Anderson Room of the Michigan Union Monday afternoon.

If the board is convinced that Coca-Cola is in violation of the Code of Conduct for University Vendors, it could recommend that the University terminate its 12 contracts with Coca-Cola – which cost the University $1.3 million in fiscal year 2004, according to University spokeswoman Julie Peterson.

The DRB is investigating the company in response to a recommendation from University Purchasing Services calling for a formal review of Coca-Cola’s practices. Purchasing began its informal investigation after student groups voiced concerns and the Michigan Student Assembly passed a resolution calling for an inquiry about the allegations. The Coke Coalition – an umbrella group that includes Students Organizing for Labor and Economic Equality and the University chapter of Amnesty International – has pressured the University to sever its ties with Coca-Cola. The coalition was joined recently by the United Asian American Organizations – which is comprised of more than 30 Asian Pacific American campus groups – and the Graduate Employees’ Organization.

“We are primarily concerned with the human rights violations and the environmental violations Coke is perpetrating throughout the world,” said LSA sophomore Lindsey Rogers, a member of Amnesty.

Rogers said Coca-Cola’s actions in Colombia are in violation of two standards in the code of conduct – which require vendors to allow their workers freedom of association and collective bargaining and prohibit harassment and abuse of workers.

Rogers presented the most serious charge to the DRB – that management at Coca-Cola bottling plants in Colombia had collaborated with rightist paramilitaries to intimidate union members and their families with murder, kidnappings, torture and false charges.

Left-wing paramilitary groups, most notably FARC – the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – are engaged in an armed struggle against the Colombian army and right-wing irregulars. Both sides have committed atrocities against civilians, though the largely drug-financed right-wing groups – chiefly AUC, or United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia – are responsible for the worst abuses, according to BBC News, which reports that more than 35,000 Colombians have died as a result of the civil strife over the past decade. Union members, who are seen as sympathetic to the insurgency, are popular targets of rightist paramilitaries.

Pablo Largacha, corporate affairs manager for Coca-Cola Colombia, did not dispute that incidents took place in Coca-Cola facilities but said there was no evidence that factory management conspired with paramilitaries.

Coca-Cola representatives cited an assessment by the Cal Safety Compliance Corporation – a corporate responsibility consultant – that exonerated Coca-Cola of any responsibility in the intimidation tactics.

But members of the Coke Coalition were quick to question the reliability of Cal Safety’s report – which was based on 150 employee interviews conducted within the factories.

“Cal Safety has a history of not being a responsible independent investigator,” said RC junior and SOLE member Jory Hearst.

Representatives of the Coke Coalition accused Cal Safety of gross oversight in failing to discover severe labor rights abuses that were taking place in a factory in El Monte, California, one of the most infamous cases of sweatshop labor in recent history.

RC senior and SOLE member Ryan Bates was skeptical of Cal Safety’s independence from the companies it audits.

“Cal Safety is funded by corporations,” he said. “It has a vested interest in maintaining that business relationship.”

Bates also challenged Cal Safety’s methods. He said that interviews conducted in the factories are not valid because they allowed management to know who complained.

“Managers were aware of the individuals that were selected,” said Russ Childrey, vice president and director of marketing for Cal Safety, adding that they were not informed of the workers’ specific complaints.

Childrey said conducting interviews outside the facilities was impractical, citing safety concerns and saying it would have been disruptive to business to remove employees from the workplace.