Notiz Arbeitsrechte und Reputationsrisiko
"Aus der Perspektive von Unternehmen kann sich durch die Politik und durch NGO-Aktivitäten, die eine Verantwortungsübernahme und in manchen Fällen Regulierungen einfordern, ein dreifaches Risiko aufbauen:
Weiter unten eine Zusammenstellung aus einem umfassenden Bericht des kanadischen Polaris Institute. Sie illustriert ein erhebliches Reputationsrisiko (und wiederholtem Klagerisiko). Das globalisierungskritische Institut aus Ottawa nutzte diese Zusammenstellung auch für einen Antrag, in dem es Anfang dieses Jahres die Nominierung eines weltweit führenden Lebensmittelunternehmens für die Verleihung des "Public Eye Awards" kompakt begründete. Der Preis wird seit zwei Jahren anlässlich des World Economic Forum in Davos verliehen und geht an Konzerne, die unternehmerische Verantwortung in den Bereichen Menschenrechte, Arbeitsrechte, Umwelt oder Steuern vermissen lassen. Ausrichter ist neben der schweizerischen Umweltschutzorganisation Pronatura die entwicklungspolitische Organisation "Erklärung von Bern (EvB)" mit Sitz in der Schweiz, die auf einen 1968 von Theologen lancierten Aufruf zurückgeht. Der Antrag des Polaris Institute wurde durch einen weiteren Antrag des International Labor Rights Fund unterstützt, der einen problematischen Umgang des gleichen Unternehmens mit Gewerkschaftsvertretern in Kolumbien, Türkei (im Zusammenhang mit gefolterten Arbeitern), Taiwan und Indonesien ausführlich thematisierte. Ein dritter Antrag des India Resource Center nominierte das gleiche Unternehmen für einen weiteren Award in der Kategorie Umwelt mit der Begründung, dass das Unternehmen "für Wasserknappheit, Verschmutzung des Grundwassers und Bodens rund um seine Abfüllanlagen und den Vertrieb von giftigen Abfällen als Dünger verantwortlich sei. Ausserdem verkaufe der Konzern Softdrinks mit hohen Pestizidwerten."
Australia – In September 2001, 140 employees at a Coca-Cola Amatil bottling plant andwarehouse in Melbourne went on strike after the company moved to cancel a bargaining agreement. The Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union claimed the company was clearing the way to introduce individual contracts.239
Australia – In December 2004, Coca-Cola Amatil was ordered to pay AUS$3 million compensation for failing to protect a former contractor who was shot five times while loading a vending machine. Craig Douglas Pareezer sued the company in the New South Wales Supreme Court for negligence after he was shot in the head, chest, stomach, leg and hand. The attack occurred in 1997. After being attacked in the same area in 1995, Pareezer returned to work only after the company promised he would not have to go back to the neighbourhood. However, when another worker was injured, Pareezer reluctantly made a trip there and was attacked in a robbery attempt. The Justice in the case ruled in September 2004 that the company was liable for Pareezer’s injuries, saying that it failed to protect him when it knew drivers were a target of robberies.240
Canada – In November 2003, 50 workers at a Coke bottling plant in Cobourg, Ontario went on strike over wages, shift premiums, uniform allowance, better language for temporary workers and severance packages. After over a month on the picket lines, a deal was finalized in December 2003.241
El Salvador – A 2004 report by Human Rights Watch found that sugar used in drinks for domestic consumption in El Salvador is regularly processed from Sugar Cane harvested by child labourers. The report found that El Salvador’s largest sugar mill, which supplies Coke with one of its main ingredients, is supplied with sugar cane from at least four plantations that regularly use child labour. The report stated that: “In Coca-Cola’s case, child labor helped produce a key ingredient in its beverages bottled in El Salvador. In that sense, Coca-Cola indirectly benefits from child labor.”242
Guatemala – In 2002 PANAMCO, Coke’s biggest bottler in Latin America now owned by Coca-Cola FEMSA, used questionable tactics during a difficult collective bargaining situation with Guatemala’s food and beverage workers’ federation FESTRAS. PANAMCO’s demands would have eroded conditions protected by an existing collective agreement. In order to sway the negotiations in their favour, PANAMCO pursued legal action to dismiss eight union representatives from the plant who were taking approved leave to participate in the bargaining. They also filed a court order alleging that the workers’ vote authorizing strike action should have included confidential and management employees essentially asking the court to declare unconstitutional a section of the labour code that specifies that confidential and management employees are not included in this type of voting.243 A collective bargaining agreement was reached in December 2002 that provided for general wage increases of 3% effective 1 March 2001, 4% on 1 March 2002, 5% on 1 March 2003 and 6% on 1 March 2004. In addition the union retained full paid union leave for elected executive committee members.244
Coke has a horrible record of labour abuses in Guatemala dating back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1976, workers at a Coke bottling plant in Guatemala began a nine year struggle against their employer. During that time three general secretaries of their union were assassinated while members of their families, friends and legal advisors were threatened, arrested, kidnapped, beaten, tortured, shot or forced into exile. After a long battle combined with the support of international solidarity campaigns, STEGAC, the Coke workers union, won its fight against the
corporation.245
Russia – In August 2001, the administration of Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company Eurasia plant in Moscow fired the chairperson of the local trade union after being informed of the union’s existence. In October, the Moscow labour inspectorate declared the dismissal illegal and ordered the worker reinstated.246 It was not until August 2003 that the worker was reinstated after plant management announced it would respect the court’s decision as well has provide the worker 350,000 rubles to cover two years’ back pay. As of September 2003 the worker had only received 15,000 rubles while Coca-Cola HBC Eurasia Moscow filed an appeal for the reconsideration of the July agreement that reinstated the worker.247 Coke HBC has a history of actively fighting the unionization of its operations in Russia.
Russia – Approximately 20 Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company Eurasia employees picketed a St. Petersburg plant on May 20, 2005, demanding management index their salaries to inflation, adhere to labour laws and observe the rights of trade unions. The Chair of the plant’s trade union, Vladimir Okhrimenko, said that employees are sometimes ordered to work six or seven days a week as well as long working hours. He said salaries at the plant, which employs 300, have not been indexed to inflation for several years. Coca-Cola has 11 bottling plants in Russia.248
United States – In April 2004, 470-500 production, warehouse employees, Drivers and maintenance workers at Philadelphia’s Coca-Cola Bottling co. went on strike over pay, benefits and respect at work. Workers believed that a strike was the only way they would gain respect on the job. After a week-long strike workers won a 35-cent per hour pay raise increased pension benefits and a bonus of up to $900.249
United States – On May 23, 2005, workers at Coca-Cola bottling and distribution facilities in Hartford Connecticut and Los Angeles went on Strike. The workers are striking over the breakdown of contract negotiations and Coke’s continuing push to have workers pay more for their healthcare benefits. In Connecticut Approximately 345 production workers, drivers and merchandisers at a Coca-Cola Enterprise (CCE) bottling plant were on strike while In California close to 1,700 workers at six Southern California CCE locations.250 All of the workers were members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union. The strike ended the two-week strike on June 7 after the union approved a five-year contract giving workers improved healthcare benefits and an 85 cent-an-hour annual pay raise.251
Layoffs – In January 2000, Coke laid off 6,000 workers from its global workforce. A large scale job cut had not happened at Coke since 1988 when the company terminated 200 jobs. In 2003 Approximately 3,700 employees were laid off by Coca-Cola and its subsidiaries.
239 “Coke workers walk off job”, Herald Sun, September 5, 2001
240 “Coca-Cola ‘knew of danger at venue’ $3m compo for shot contractor”, The Mercury, December 24, 2004
241 United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Locals 175/633 Press Release, “At Last, Cobourg Coca-Cola Workers Win a Fair Settlement”, December 11, 2003
242 “Turning a Blind Eye: Hazardous child labor in El Salvador’s sugarcane cultivation”, Human Rights Watch, June 2004, http://hrw.org/reports/2004/elsalvador0604/elsalvador0604simple.pdf
243 International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (Press Release, “Trade Union Rights at Risk at Coca-Cola Guatemala, September 24, 2003, http://www.iuf.org.uk/cgibin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=487&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1
244 International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (Press Release, “Coca-Cola Bottler And IUF Affiliate STECSA Sign New Collective Agreement In Guatemala”, December 23, 2002, http://www.iuf.org/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=656&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1
245 For more information on this case please refer to, Gatehouse M., Reyes, M.A., “Soft Drink Hard Labour: Guatemalan Workers Take On Coca-Cola”, London: Latin American Bureau, 1987
246 International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) Press Release, “Coke Fights Unions in Russia”, November 26, 2001, http://www.iuf.org/cgibin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=71&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1
247 International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) Press Release, “Coca-Cola Continues to Oppose Union Organization in Russia”, September 18, 2003, http://www.iuf.org/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=1057&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1
248 “Workers picket Coca-Cola bottler in Russia over pay, labour rules”, Associated Press, May 20, 2005
249 Von Bergen, J., “Coca-Cola Bottling workers end strike”, The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 30, 2004
250 Spano, J., “Coca-Cola plant workers go on strike”, Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2005
251 White, R., “Teamsters’ Coca-Cola contract includes better pay, benefits”, Los Angeles Times, June 7, 2005
Quelle: Richard Girard: "Inside the Real Thing: A Profile of the Softdrink Giant The Coca-Cola Company"; Polaris Institute; October 2005
- Das Reputationsrisiko entsteht vor allem für Unternehmen, die nahe am Endverbraucher agieren und einen Markennamen etabliert haben. Die eigene Marke und damit der saubere Markenname spielt eine größere Rolle als bei anderen. Wer einmal an den Haken einer gut geführten und vielleicht internationalen NGO-Kampagne geraten ist, kann ein Lied über die Mühen singen, das Profil des Unternehmens wieder zu verbessern. Ist der Ruf erst einmal beim Konsumenten ruiniert, können sich die Wettbewerber freuen. (...)
- Für Unternehmen, die sich nicht vorsorglich auf mögliche Regulierungen zum Schutz öffentlicher Güter einstellen, können diese zum regulativen Risiko werden: Während die, die Reduktion von Emissionen rechtzeitig in ihr Geschäftsmodell einbauen, vom EU-Emissionshandel profitieren, sind die, deren Emissionen weiter steigen, die ökonomischen Verlierer.(...)
- Als drittes Risiko stellt sich zunehmend auch in Europa das Klagerisiko für Unternehmen dar, nachdem dies im Rahmen des angelsächsischen Rechtssystems schon eine lange Tradition hat.1 Im Extremfall geht es um große Schadensersatzsummen, wie gegen die Tabak-, Asbest- oder Fastfood-Industrie.(...)
Weiter unten eine Zusammenstellung aus einem umfassenden Bericht des kanadischen Polaris Institute. Sie illustriert ein erhebliches Reputationsrisiko (und wiederholtem Klagerisiko). Das globalisierungskritische Institut aus Ottawa nutzte diese Zusammenstellung auch für einen Antrag, in dem es Anfang dieses Jahres die Nominierung eines weltweit führenden Lebensmittelunternehmens für die Verleihung des "Public Eye Awards" kompakt begründete. Der Preis wird seit zwei Jahren anlässlich des World Economic Forum in Davos verliehen und geht an Konzerne, die unternehmerische Verantwortung in den Bereichen Menschenrechte, Arbeitsrechte, Umwelt oder Steuern vermissen lassen. Ausrichter ist neben der schweizerischen Umweltschutzorganisation Pronatura die entwicklungspolitische Organisation "Erklärung von Bern (EvB)" mit Sitz in der Schweiz, die auf einen 1968 von Theologen lancierten Aufruf zurückgeht. Der Antrag des Polaris Institute wurde durch einen weiteren Antrag des International Labor Rights Fund unterstützt, der einen problematischen Umgang des gleichen Unternehmens mit Gewerkschaftsvertretern in Kolumbien, Türkei (im Zusammenhang mit gefolterten Arbeitern), Taiwan und Indonesien ausführlich thematisierte. Ein dritter Antrag des India Resource Center nominierte das gleiche Unternehmen für einen weiteren Award in der Kategorie Umwelt mit der Begründung, dass das Unternehmen "für Wasserknappheit, Verschmutzung des Grundwassers und Bodens rund um seine Abfüllanlagen und den Vertrieb von giftigen Abfällen als Dünger verantwortlich sei. Ausserdem verkaufe der Konzern Softdrinks mit hohen Pestizidwerten."
Australia – In September 2001, 140 employees at a Coca-Cola Amatil bottling plant andwarehouse in Melbourne went on strike after the company moved to cancel a bargaining agreement. The Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union claimed the company was clearing the way to introduce individual contracts.239
Australia – In December 2004, Coca-Cola Amatil was ordered to pay AUS$3 million compensation for failing to protect a former contractor who was shot five times while loading a vending machine. Craig Douglas Pareezer sued the company in the New South Wales Supreme Court for negligence after he was shot in the head, chest, stomach, leg and hand. The attack occurred in 1997. After being attacked in the same area in 1995, Pareezer returned to work only after the company promised he would not have to go back to the neighbourhood. However, when another worker was injured, Pareezer reluctantly made a trip there and was attacked in a robbery attempt. The Justice in the case ruled in September 2004 that the company was liable for Pareezer’s injuries, saying that it failed to protect him when it knew drivers were a target of robberies.240
Canada – In November 2003, 50 workers at a Coke bottling plant in Cobourg, Ontario went on strike over wages, shift premiums, uniform allowance, better language for temporary workers and severance packages. After over a month on the picket lines, a deal was finalized in December 2003.241
El Salvador – A 2004 report by Human Rights Watch found that sugar used in drinks for domestic consumption in El Salvador is regularly processed from Sugar Cane harvested by child labourers. The report found that El Salvador’s largest sugar mill, which supplies Coke with one of its main ingredients, is supplied with sugar cane from at least four plantations that regularly use child labour. The report stated that: “In Coca-Cola’s case, child labor helped produce a key ingredient in its beverages bottled in El Salvador. In that sense, Coca-Cola indirectly benefits from child labor.”242
Guatemala – In 2002 PANAMCO, Coke’s biggest bottler in Latin America now owned by Coca-Cola FEMSA, used questionable tactics during a difficult collective bargaining situation with Guatemala’s food and beverage workers’ federation FESTRAS. PANAMCO’s demands would have eroded conditions protected by an existing collective agreement. In order to sway the negotiations in their favour, PANAMCO pursued legal action to dismiss eight union representatives from the plant who were taking approved leave to participate in the bargaining. They also filed a court order alleging that the workers’ vote authorizing strike action should have included confidential and management employees essentially asking the court to declare unconstitutional a section of the labour code that specifies that confidential and management employees are not included in this type of voting.243 A collective bargaining agreement was reached in December 2002 that provided for general wage increases of 3% effective 1 March 2001, 4% on 1 March 2002, 5% on 1 March 2003 and 6% on 1 March 2004. In addition the union retained full paid union leave for elected executive committee members.244
Coke has a horrible record of labour abuses in Guatemala dating back to the late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1976, workers at a Coke bottling plant in Guatemala began a nine year struggle against their employer. During that time three general secretaries of their union were assassinated while members of their families, friends and legal advisors were threatened, arrested, kidnapped, beaten, tortured, shot or forced into exile. After a long battle combined with the support of international solidarity campaigns, STEGAC, the Coke workers union, won its fight against the
corporation.245
Russia – In August 2001, the administration of Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company Eurasia plant in Moscow fired the chairperson of the local trade union after being informed of the union’s existence. In October, the Moscow labour inspectorate declared the dismissal illegal and ordered the worker reinstated.246 It was not until August 2003 that the worker was reinstated after plant management announced it would respect the court’s decision as well has provide the worker 350,000 rubles to cover two years’ back pay. As of September 2003 the worker had only received 15,000 rubles while Coca-Cola HBC Eurasia Moscow filed an appeal for the reconsideration of the July agreement that reinstated the worker.247 Coke HBC has a history of actively fighting the unionization of its operations in Russia.
Russia – Approximately 20 Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Company Eurasia employees picketed a St. Petersburg plant on May 20, 2005, demanding management index their salaries to inflation, adhere to labour laws and observe the rights of trade unions. The Chair of the plant’s trade union, Vladimir Okhrimenko, said that employees are sometimes ordered to work six or seven days a week as well as long working hours. He said salaries at the plant, which employs 300, have not been indexed to inflation for several years. Coca-Cola has 11 bottling plants in Russia.248
United States – In April 2004, 470-500 production, warehouse employees, Drivers and maintenance workers at Philadelphia’s Coca-Cola Bottling co. went on strike over pay, benefits and respect at work. Workers believed that a strike was the only way they would gain respect on the job. After a week-long strike workers won a 35-cent per hour pay raise increased pension benefits and a bonus of up to $900.249
United States – On May 23, 2005, workers at Coca-Cola bottling and distribution facilities in Hartford Connecticut and Los Angeles went on Strike. The workers are striking over the breakdown of contract negotiations and Coke’s continuing push to have workers pay more for their healthcare benefits. In Connecticut Approximately 345 production workers, drivers and merchandisers at a Coca-Cola Enterprise (CCE) bottling plant were on strike while In California close to 1,700 workers at six Southern California CCE locations.250 All of the workers were members of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union. The strike ended the two-week strike on June 7 after the union approved a five-year contract giving workers improved healthcare benefits and an 85 cent-an-hour annual pay raise.251
Layoffs – In January 2000, Coke laid off 6,000 workers from its global workforce. A large scale job cut had not happened at Coke since 1988 when the company terminated 200 jobs. In 2003 Approximately 3,700 employees were laid off by Coca-Cola and its subsidiaries.
239 “Coke workers walk off job”, Herald Sun, September 5, 2001
240 “Coca-Cola ‘knew of danger at venue’ $3m compo for shot contractor”, The Mercury, December 24, 2004
241 United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Locals 175/633 Press Release, “At Last, Cobourg Coca-Cola Workers Win a Fair Settlement”, December 11, 2003
242 “Turning a Blind Eye: Hazardous child labor in El Salvador’s sugarcane cultivation”, Human Rights Watch, June 2004, http://hrw.org/reports/2004/elsalvador0604/elsalvador0604simple.pdf
243 International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (Press Release, “Trade Union Rights at Risk at Coca-Cola Guatemala, September 24, 2003, http://www.iuf.org.uk/cgibin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=487&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1
244 International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (Press Release, “Coca-Cola Bottler And IUF Affiliate STECSA Sign New Collective Agreement In Guatemala”, December 23, 2002, http://www.iuf.org/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=656&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1
245 For more information on this case please refer to, Gatehouse M., Reyes, M.A., “Soft Drink Hard Labour: Guatemalan Workers Take On Coca-Cola”, London: Latin American Bureau, 1987
246 International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) Press Release, “Coke Fights Unions in Russia”, November 26, 2001, http://www.iuf.org/cgibin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=71&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1
247 International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers’ Associations (IUF) Press Release, “Coca-Cola Continues to Oppose Union Organization in Russia”, September 18, 2003, http://www.iuf.org/cgi-bin/dbman/db.cgi?db=default&uid=default&ID=1057&view_records=1&ww=1&en=1
248 “Workers picket Coca-Cola bottler in Russia over pay, labour rules”, Associated Press, May 20, 2005
249 Von Bergen, J., “Coca-Cola Bottling workers end strike”, The Philadelphia Inquirer, April 30, 2004
250 Spano, J., “Coca-Cola plant workers go on strike”, Los Angeles Times, May 23, 2005
251 White, R., “Teamsters’ Coca-Cola contract includes better pay, benefits”, Los Angeles Times, June 7, 2005
Quelle: Richard Girard: "Inside the Real Thing: A Profile of the Softdrink Giant The Coca-Cola Company"; Polaris Institute; October 2005
Julio Lambing - Fr, Jul 21, 2006 - Zettelkasten: Wirtschaft
Trackback URL:
http://axonas.twoday.net/stories/2401532/modTrackback
Preisvergabe