Editor in Chief (studying abroad Fall 2025)- Grace LaTourelle

Since the late 80s, Coca-Cola has been a beverage partner of Gustavus. Currently, Gustavus Dining Services are in year three of a seven-year re-negotiated pouring-rights contract with the Coca-Cola company. As information about this funding is not widely available on the Gustavus website, this article provides a deeper dive into the implications of the agreement for campus, as well as encouragement for students to think critically about the implications.

Pouring-rights agreements allow a campus or university to exclusively sell the company’s beverages. Many colleges across the country have pouring-rights agreements with Coca-Cola, including Syracuse University, which announced in August their new 10-year contract. Per Gustavus’ pouring-rights agreement, the Caf only sells Coca-Cola-manufactured beverages, including Dasani, SmartWater, Dunkin’ Iced Coffee, and Gold Peak Tea.

However, Gustavus also receives funding as part of their contract with Coca-Cola. In addition to solely selling Coke products, Gustavus receives two $5,000 scholarships awarded to students through the Financial Aid office and $20,000 of yearly funding towards environmental and health initiatives and projects on campus.

The environmental and health projects funding began in 2012. According to a Gustavus News article from 2013, during the 2012-13 academic year, nine projects were funded from this grant, including new bike racks and the bike-repair station on campus. Now, most of the yearly $20,000 budget goes to the Learn to Live initiative and Big Hill Farm.

According to Associate Vice President of Auxiliary Services, Steven Kjellgren, the additional funding had never before been built into a contract in that way.

“…That was important at the time…because maybe 15 years ago… the big soda people of the world…Pepsi and Coke…were not looked at very highly because of the way they handled water conservation, third-world country people…” Kjellgren explained.

Kjellgren may have been referencing the several controversies the Coca-Cola company has faced over the years, from human rights violations to environmental travesties.

In 2001, Coca-Cola was accused of aiding paramilitaries in the murder of union workers from the bottling plant in Colombia. In 2003, the complaint was dismissed by the US District Court. It was then dismissed again in 2009 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The website and organization, killercoke.org, was founded shortly after. According to their website, killercoke.org calls for a Coca-Cola boycott and seeks justice for the “courageous workers in Colombia, Guatemala, and elsewhere.”

In 2003, Coca-Cola was accused of environmental pollution from their plant in Kerala, India. According to an article from The Guardian, the company drained local farmers’ wells and sold toxic sludge rich with lead, cadmium, and phosphorus, marketed as “fertilizer.”

As of 2025, the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, a “Palestinian-led movement for freedom, justice and equality,” continues the call to boycott Coke. Coca-Cola Israel has a regional distribution center within the Israel-occupied Atarot Settlement Industrial Zone. The Atarot Settlement is illegal under international law. BDS claimed that Coca-Cola is “implicated in Israeli war crimes” because of this.

In the initial agreement process, the Kitchen Cabinet, a faculty and staff organization, met and posed the question, “what does it mean to have a relationship with a multinational company?” Kjellgren explained that, while Gustavus might not support the actions of the Coca-Cola company, the campus could find positive, impactful uses for the funding, such as the environmental initiatives that juxtapose the degradation allegedly caused by the Coca-Cola company.

“Where we landed was: if we don’t like what they’re doing, how can we best make a difference? We could stand on a corner with a sign and say ‘Killer Coke, stop doing what you’re doing’ or we could try to work our way inside the system,” Kjellgren said.

Individuals and organizations on campus have also previously brought up concerns about the impact of plastic waste from the bottled beverages being sold. There are numerous reasons that plastic is a topic of concern, both environmentally and health-wise.

Plastic water bottles are made with Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET). Paraxylene, a chemical component of PET, comes from crude oil. The crude oil industry is an infamous environmental and health polluter. Furthermore, plastic manufacturing has been linked with increased cancer rates. Fossil fuel and petrochemical plants are disproportionately located in areas with higher percentages of Black, Latino, and poor communities, leading to increased rates of cancer among these communities.

More specifically, a study published in Science Advances in 2024 found that Coca-Cola was found responsible for 11% of the branded plastics (which made up 48% of all plastics) identified during audits across multiple countries. This was significantly greater than the next top company, Pepsi Co. with 5% of branded plastics.

Kjellgren noted that administrators argued that not having plastic bottled beverages might affect Gustavus enrollment if students were not able to purchase their favorite drinks. During the 2024-25 school year, 10-12,000 cases of bottled or canned drinks were sold in the Caf. This equates to approximately 288,000 bottles during the year.

This begs the question: what is morally correct in a consumerist and capitalist society? Boycotting has led many to question what purchases are necessary and what the impact of those purchases is. Individual action, such as the decision to use a water refill station instead of buying a plastic bottle, might not have initial, tangible, and fully realized effects; however, collective action pressures supply and demand.

The collective of a college campus complicates the question further. Administrators are faced with balancing their values with the greater good of the students. In this case, it’s a choice between 20,000 dollars for project funding, 10,000 dollars of student scholarships, and beverages bought cheaper, or upholding the Core Values of Excellence, Community, Justice, Service, and Faith by rejecting a partnership with a multinational corporation that has repeatedly violated those values. Where would these initiatives, such as Big Hill Farm and Learn to Live, that are beneficial to the campus and students, be without the yearly funding? However, is there hypocrisy in allowing a polluter to fund environmental projects?

Kjellgren encouraged students to use their voice if they have a problem with the purchasing and selling of plastic bottled beverages on campus. However, Kjellgren noted that it appears that these beverages are what students want.

“Somebody walks in: they just bombed their test, their girlfriend broke up with them, and their grandpa’s sick. All they want is a Coke,” Kjellgren illustrated.

In this way, Coke products are a thing of comfort. However, to those in Cancer Alley, Louisiana, living at the doorstep of the petrochemical industry, the plastic bottles that Coke products come in are not an item of comfort, but rather an increased risk of disease. To the farmers in India, it meant their livelihood was destroyed. To the union workers in Colombia, it was death.

What line is there between trying to maintain personal comfort and well-being within the confines of this economic system and understanding that some do not have their basic needs being met because of corporations and governmental greed?