Belching Out the Devil (20 page)

It is a chance encounter, both of us have arrived early for a debate, decided to get a cup of tea and being the only people waiting at the till had got chatting. Her name is Clare, she is in her early thirties and I assume her question refers to past articles I have written along with a TV documentary I had presented all of which were critical of the company. Though I never imagined that investigating them might amount to ‘picking on' Coca-Cola. It is tempting to reply, ‘Why am I picking on a $67 billion transnational that sponsors the Olympic Games, the Football League and can summon US ambassadors to do its bidding? I guess I am just a bully…'

 

But actually I am slightly stunned by the question, because the words ‘picking on' imply that the company is an innocent victim, blameless in fact; and more than that, not only are my questions to the company intimidatory but I am a flawed person for even asking them.

 

This is the second occasion where a Coke employee has accused me of picking on them, the first coming in the form of an anonymous email, sent by someone who claimed to work for the company. He also accused me of being a liar and hoped the company would take me to court. So I wonder, is the company's internal response to certain critical coverage to label it as the usual suspects- ‘picking on us'? I don't know the answer and in the cafeteria my thoughts are not quite this cogent as I stammer out a response to Clare, ‘I don't think I am picking on Coca-Cola, is questioning a company picking on them?'

‘No, I mean why us?' she says with a tight face, ‘why don't you pick on Pepsi?'

 

This is indeed an entirely reasonable question to ask, especially were it to come from anyone not associated with Coca-Cola.

‘They simply do not have the same amount of human rights allegations lined up against them,' I reply.

 

Pepsi are certainly no paragon of virtue, they were criticised along with Coca-Cola in India over pesticides found in their products,
²
likewise Pepsi and Coca-Cola were fined over painting adverts on the Himalayas in a conservation area.
³
But while Pepsi may parallel Coke in some instances they come a resounding second in amassing form.

‘I suppose we are just an easy target,' she continues, managing to keep a sneer out of her voice, but only just.

‘No, you're not an easy target, you're just a big one,' I reply.

 

At this point a friend who is also attending the debate comes into the cafeteria and my chance encounter with Clare from Human Resources ends, the stairs beckon to the cavernous Great Hall of the Palace of Westminster and from there the committee rooms. It is time to go, we shake hands, smile politely and lie to each other.

‘Nice meeting you,' we both say.

The debate in House of Commons committee room is on multinationals, labour and human rights and it features one of the stars in Coca-Cola's fizzy firmament, a man called Ed Potter who is their Global Workplace Rights Director. He is a cornerstone in the company's Corporate Social Responsibility programme. Let me explain a little. Fashion and fads afflict us all, none of us are truly immune from collective stupidity and corporations are just as prone as the rest of us. Management trends might be more rarified but they are equally humiliating. There was, for example, the mimicking of Japanese company methods, where employees had to endure doing morning exercises with their boss and sing anthems to
productivity. The next boardroom fad was the New Age Executive. They never wore a tie to work, played Frisbee during brain-storming sessions and insisted everyone call them by their first name, thus ensuring everyone called them ‘tosser'. There was also the obsession with team cohesion and group motivation, this was where managers increased their output as a result of an epiphany during paintballing and accountants bonded by building rafts out of dead okapis, or some such nonsense.

 

The latest fad is Corporate Social Responsibility where companies construct a series of programmes, projects, charitable pledges, codes of conduct and impact assessments, to show the beneficence of the company. No one working for a multinational listed on the stock exchange can buy a copy of the
Big Issue
without boasting of a contribution to society. For some it is nothing but a PR tool to convince doubters that multinationals are good corporate citizens. However, there are those with a genuine belief in Corporate Social Responsibility who argue that multinationals and transnationals are hugely powerful entities that have the capacity to improve social conditions through the workplace. Globalisation and neo-liberal economics are not just a reality but the dominant consensus amongst politicians, corporations and ruling elites. Thus, supporters of CSR argue, there is a potential for consumers to pressure companies to change, as governments seem disinclined and unable to legislate against corporate excesses. For some Corporate Social Responsibility is the only game in town.

 

Regardless of your perspective most CSR programmes will invariably do two things. Firstly, it will devise a code of conduct. In turn this will underline the company's aim not to discriminate against their employees on the grounds of race,
religion or gender. Considering that it is illegal to do any of the above in the UK, these declarations essentially say, ‘It is our policy not to break the law.' And when a company feels the need to publicly promise not to engage in criminal acts, I for one do not feel reassured. Nonetheless, codes of conduct are ubiquitous features on the business landscape and everyone seems to have one. Even the trade association of the Adult Entertainment Industry in America has a draft Code of Ethics for porn makers in which they acknowledge their commitments to employees stating that ‘Adult performers are the backbone of the adult entertainment industry.'
⁴
Surely a fact beyond dispute.

 

The second item of the company CSR plan will be a pledge to ‘go green'; just about every multinational has declared their intent to join in and do their bit to save the planet. BAE Systems, the arms dealers, are seeking to reduce carbon emissions on their munitions, so as ‘to impact as little as possible on the environment.'
⁵
Hurrah! I can hardly wait for a computers-for-schools voucher with every ‘precision' weapon! Meanwhile the oil giant BP is ‘committed to the responsible treatment of the planet's resources.'
⁶
Of course they are, who would think anything less. It is now only a matter of time before Hell itself converts to solar power.

 

One of the central tenets of CSR is the workers' right to join a union and back on planet Cola allegations of union busting have been stacking up against the company. Alongside the Colombians and the Turks, trade union organisers from Pakistan and Indonesia claimed to have been sacked and mistreated for their union membership. Not to mention Russia.

 

Not surprisingly The Coca-Cola Company embraced the world of Corporate Social Responsibility with vigour and vim: pledges were made, policies and guidelines written, reports
commissioned, websites were set up and a new position was created within the company: Global Workplace Rights Director. The chap who got the job was Ed Potter - the man speaking in the debate today. American Ed Potter is an ex-lawyer with a background in international labour and employer issues. He reports directly to The Coca-Cola Company board on ‘workplace rights' and oversees the company programme. It is Ed Potter who is responsible for Coke's 2005 pledge to respect trade unions' rights. So he's the man to answer the questions on Coca-Cola and trade unions. Stuck away in Atlanta and with a heavy travel schedule it could prove difficult to engineer a meeting with him. So it is fortuitous that Ed Potter is here in London to address these issues.

 

The term progressive is a relative term, when governments claim to be progressive they mean out of touch, when musicians claim to be progressive it means they are so skilled and clever that no one actually likes them, and when think tanks claim to be progressive it means they will take funding from anyone. The debate in the House of Commons was hosted by the Foreign Policy Centre, a progressive think tank. Their slogan is ‘Progressive thinking for a global age.' They have Tony Blair as a patron and have accepted ‘generous support' from British Nuclear Fuels plc, BP, GKN, Nestlé and British American Tobacco. Today's debate is sponsored by The Coca-Cola Company, who join the illustrious names listed above.

 

The committee room is typical of the House of Commons, but for the fact that it is packed with people. The windows are leaded glass, the wallpaper decorated with heraldic lilies and roses, the ceiling is carved wood and the seats have the portcullis embossed in gold, but all of this merely serves to emphasise the fact that no one does grandeur quite so dully as the British. Somewhere a clock ticks loudly in agreement.

The place continues to fill up with a disparate mix of folk. Students and journalists rub shoulders with company executives, policy wonks and MPs' researchers, who in turn sit alongside non-government organisations and trade unionists, not to mention the smattering of over-qualified graduates hoping for a job. Most of the people from the rarified world of CSR are here, from the great and the good to the average and poor, there are no curious bystanders in this room. Everyone has a view and if you listen carefully, above the clock and the low hubbub you can distinctly hear the sound of axes grinding.

 

Arriving to the near-capacity crowd someone hands me a programme and I am gently propelled by a series of polite interns towards one of the few remaining seats, which is right in the front row, directly opposite Ed Potter who is sitting at the speakers' table with a little name card in front of him.

 

The woman chairperson sits in the middle of the four male speakers. At one end of the table is Peter Frankental from Amnesty International sporting a smart jacket and tie and looking like an RE teacher. Next to him is Michael Blowfield who is a real teacher at the London Business School and is a senior associate with the University of Cambridge Programme for Industry. His grey suit is either just from or just going to Oxfam: you don't need a good suit if you're really clever. On the other side of the chairperson is Brendan Barber, who like all previous TUC leaders, manages to wear a good suit badly. Next to him is Ed Potter in a tailored black suit with white pinstripes, a light grey shirt, a darker grey tie and black leather shoes. He has the best suit in the room, anything less would be unacceptable. If you represent the most powerful brand on earth you are not going to show up in tweed and leather elbow patches. It is just not done; it would be like the Pope getting a cock-ring.

The chair, one of the think tank, welcomes us to ‘a series on Corporate Social Responsibility in emerging markets, in association with Coca-Cola Great Britain. This programme seeks to explore the issue of Corporate Social Responsibility in developing markets focusing on multinational corporations.

It will examine the impact of multinational businesses on the workplace, marketplace and the environment as well as explore how well-designed CSR practices can contribute to economic social and environmental progress in newly industrial countries…' Somewhere a Business Studies student accidentally snaps the lead point of their pencil on their notepad in tense anticipation. The rest of us settle into our seats.

 

Ed Potter is trim, with thinning grey hair cut close to his scalp, thin-rimmed glasses and a few liver spots on the back of his hands. He must be in his late fifties or early sixties but I couldn't guess exactly. He is pleasant, polite and not prone to over excitement. He is careful and low key as he stands at the podium and outlines what needs to be done to improve ‘global workplace rights'. Not long ago talk of workers rights would be wreathed in the oratory of struggle and sacrifice, today Ed Potter tells us they rely on ‘a commitment to global and local stakeholder engagement.' In the word of Corporate Social Responsibility the real battle against worker exploitation needs a ‘focus on aligned common business approach' and a ‘commitment to get out in front of issues that are systemic in nature.' In the hushed tones of the room I'm sure I hear another pencil lead go…But it might have been the sound of a neck cricking as a slumped head jerks itself into the upright position.

 

Soft-spoken and mannered Ed Potter might be, but you don't get to be a lawyer in international law and employment for twenty-three years without having a hard streak somewhere.
So when Brendan Barber of the TUC mentions that there are ‘unresolved issues in Colombia' Ed Potter doesn't flinch. When Peter Frankental from Amnesty International says ‘Coca-Cola has been tainted by association of human rights abuses in Colombia,' Ed Potter seemingly registers nothing. Frankental continues, ‘Coca-Cola were exonerated by the district judge in Miami in 2003 on the grounds that its bottling agreement with Panamerican Beverages and Bebidas Y Aliementos did not give the company explicit control over labour issues in Colombia. However, the fact that a company is exonerated by the courts does not mean that it has no moral responsibility.' Surely this is a gauntlet of sorts, thrown at Coke's feet for Ed Potter to pick up. He has to comment on this, doesn't he?