Description
Under contemporary globalization, corporations have achieved a size and scope unparalleled to any other time in history. In response to growing corporate power, there have been contestations from unions, environmentalists, and anti-corporate activists stressing corporate reform. One result of social pressure has been the incorporation of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) campaigns into corporate branding strategies.
1
THE ILLUSION OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY:
COCA-COLA AND CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP
By Jackie Hayes
Under contemporary globalization, corporations have achieved a size and scope
unparalleled to any other time in history (May 24). In response to growing corporate power,
there have been contestations from unions, environmentalists, and anti-corporate activists
stressing corporate reform. One result of social pressure has been the incorporation of Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) campaigns into corporate branding strategies (May 201). On the
surface, these campaigns appear to address and integrate social concerns into regular business
practices. Yet, I argue that CSR campaigns are one component of a broader strategy to improve
the management of market crises by incorporating criticisms into corporate managed social
responsibility initiatives and can be understood using Foucault’s concept of governmentality.
Instead of addressing critiques in a substantive manner, CSR initiatives “break off the sharp
points of contention” to bolster legitimacy for free market policies (Hobsbawm).
1
To further
understand this process, I focus on the Coca-Cola Company’s CSR campaigns on two scales; the
international and the national in Chile.
The International Stage: Crisis Management and Coca-Cola’s CSR Campaigns
Since the 1990s, CSR activities have become more popular. The growing number of CSR
initiatives appears to coincide with “societal discontent with corporate behavior and with
1
Hobsbawm, in his lecture recorded in April 1987, used this phrase to discuss the Gramscian concept “passive
revolution.” He was referring to a state’s ability to weather crises and ward off social revolution through reforms
which create a “more viable base of operating.” Part of this process included defusing revolutions by incorporating
some of their demands, but with the underlying intention of disarming opposition. Although Hobsbawm and
Gramsci were referring to tactics employed by nation-states or political parties, the concept is currently useful in
understanding how corporate strategies, like CSR initiatives, work to disarm unions and grassroots organizations.
2
neoliberalism itself” (May 7; 227-228). In 2000, the United Nations launched the Global
Compact, to align the objectives of the international community with the business world and to
develop “a market economy with a human face in response to some of the problems associated
with globalisation” (United Nations; Williams 755). The compact is a voluntary association in
which corporate members, including the Coca-Cola Company, commit to ten principles. The
principles touch on human rights, labor, the environment and corruption (United Nations). The
compact stresses the importance of the private sector in managing challenges brought about by
contemporary globalization.
In one U.N. press release, Bunmi Akinremi argues that CSR initiatives are, “essential to
easing the tension between social justice and entrepreneurial drive, and failure to achieve that
balancing act could put market capitalism at risk” (United Nations 2007). Kofi Annan,
secretary-general of the U.N., argued at the Davos World Economic Forum in 1999 that “shared
values provide a stable environment for a world market that without these explicit values
business could expect backlashes from protectionism, populism, fanaticism and terrorism”
(Williams 755). Both Akinremi and Annan’s statements situate CSR campaigns within a broader
initiative to buffer some of the adverse effects of contemporary capitalism including grave
disparities in wealth, environmental devastation and unequal access to resources.
In March 2009, Chairman of the Coca-Cola Board, Neville Isdell delivered a speech
entitled “Connected Capitalism: Growing Sustainability for the 21
st
Century.” During the speech,
Isdell warned of the dangers of embracing protectionist policies during the growing global
economic crisis. Instead, he urged for the continued advancement of free market economics, but
with adjustments to how capitalism is practiced. His proposed solution was embodied in what he
termed “Connected Capitalism” which is “a new model of how businesses must engage with
3
society across four platforms – communities, institutions, social challenges and values” (Isdell
2009).
2
These connections include working with communities, civil society, and governments.
One of the means to forge such connections is through partnerships with NGOs and governments
around CSR initiatives.
“Connected Capitalism” and the partnerships created over CSR initiatives signal a shift in
the role of the private sector in social responsibility discourse and initiatives. Haufler explains
that many countries are “moving toward a more market friendly system of regulation, in which
governments often delegate numerous responsibilities to the private sector” (1). Many CSR
initiatives include projects that were previously conceptualized as public sector responsibilities.
They bring together the private sector, state institutions and NGOs in a way that is altering
society-state-market relationships and creating new areas of corporate governance. Claire Cutler
points out that “there are clear links between the CSR movement, alongside the increasing
multiplicity of sources of and mechanisms for corporate governance, and political economic
changes brought about by the neoliberal discipline of global capitalism” (May 214).
Foucault traces the development of governmentality, or the art of government, from the
16
th
to the 18
th
century noting shifts in the aim and function of state apparatuses. In the 18
th
century, he points to a number of developments which added complexity to the nature of
governing. Tagg describes this ensemble of forces as a:
constellation of institutions – including the hospital, the asylum, the school, the prison,
the police force – whose disciplinary methods and techniques of regulated examination
produced, trained and positioned a hierarchy of docile social subjects in the form required
by the capitalist division of labour. (Evans 245).
2
Neville Isdell delivered this speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Fifth Annual Corporate Conference
in New York, NY in 2009. The Council on Foreign Relations describes itself as “an independent, nonpartisan
membership organization, think tank, and publisher” <http://www.cfr.org/>. CFR has also been described as one
of the most influential think tanks in the U.S. <http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29966>.
4
CSR initiatives allow states and corporations to combine institutional resources and knowledge
to create new campaigns aimed at social control. New information technologies coupled with
relatively flexible corporate capital enables CSR campaigns to appear highly coordinated and
responsive to public impulses. These initiatives may potentially address some of the state’s
needs, but simultaneously create complex spaces of corporate governance. For example, if the
private sector takes on some of the functions previously carried out by the state, private
institutions are not held to the same standards of accountability, transparency, or monitoring as a
state institution. Thus the private sector can take on public projects, but with more freedom from
public oversight and with the added value of potentially improving reputability. These new
techniques can be understood using Foucault’s notion of governmentality, yet in the context of
contemporary capitalism, corporations can be added to the ‘constellation of institutions’ initially
conceptualized by Foucault as coordinating efforts to ensure the “orderly conduct of social and
economic life” (Evans 245). CSR initiatives are one example of new governing strategies with
distinct characteristics which raise questions about the transparency, accountability, monitoring,
and the ultimate intentions of these projects.
Coca-Cola’s CSR Campaigns in Chile: Implementing ‘Connected Capitalism’
Understanding the evolution of the term “corporate citizenship” is particularly important
when focusing on the national example of Coca-Cola’s CSR campaigns in Chile because the
term and the practice re-conceptualize the role of the corporation in relation to the state and
society. Matten et. al. argue that the state is the pivotal actor within the liberal conception of
citizenship (115). They explain “citizenship is inseparably linked to a certain (national) territory,
5
which is governed by a sovereign state as ultimate guarantor of citizenship and the rights it
embodies” (115).
Under contemporary globalization the state has retreated from many of the functions it
previously carried out, as Foster explains one trend characteristic of globalization is the
“shrinking of the welfare state” (151-152). Instead of the state being the ultimate guarantor of
citizenship rights, public-private partnerships are increasingly filling the roles formerly held by
state institutions, therefore “citizenship again means here that corporations take over those
functions which are clearly governmental functions in the framework of liberal citizenship”
(Matten 116). Corporations are thus being re-conceptualized as partial guarantors of citizenship,
taking on some of the roles and responsibilities attributed to the state. However, unlike the state,
corporations are not beholden to the same mechanisms of accountability.
Coca-Cola’s CSR initiatives in Chile have primarily centered on education. In order to
examine the relationship between CSR campaigns, corporate citizenship and access to education
in Chile, it is important to trace some major shifts in Chile’s public education system. The
Chilean government began providing free public education in the 1920s, which was expanded in
the mid-1960s with a mandate “to guarantee universal access to primary and secondary
schooling, regardless of social background” (Torche 321). Therefore, Chilean citizenship
included free access to primary and secondary schooling. By 1970, enrollment in education
reached more than 93% (Torche 321). In 1973, when Pinochet took power and implemented
sweeping neoliberal reforms, the state educational system also underwent a drastic
transformation. In 1981, as part of reforming the state educational system, a universal
educational voucher system was introduced where “a subsidy was paid to public and private
6
schools on the basis of students’ enrollment” effectively creating competition amongst schools
for student enrollment (Torche 321).
One effect of the reworking of the state education system was decreased public spending
on education which, coupled with an economic depression in the 1980s, impacted enrollment of
the poorest members of the populations, particularly in secondary education. Torche explains,
“the increasing cost of noncompulsory education for the least-advantaged families… may have
pushed children out of the educational system and into the labor market” (335). These changes in
Chile’s state education system were underwritten by a set of guiding principles that altered
citizen rights and marked an ideological shift from a state educational system based on principles
of universal access to one based on market logic. The result was a drop in enrollment for the
poorest, most vulnerable sectors of the population.
Torres and Schugurensky draw attention to the transformation of higher education in
Latin America under neoliberal policies. They point out an important shift in the ideological
foundations of the state higher education system stating, “the notion that higher education is
primarily a citizen’s right and a social investment … is being seriously challenged by a
neoliberal agenda that places extreme faith in the market” (429). The marketization of higher
education resulted in a reconstitution of citizenship rights, whereby the rules dictating access to
public education was not tied to or defined by the citizen or their rights, but tied to the logic of
the private market.
Following the Pinochet dictatorship, both President Aylwin and Lagos attempted to
address issues of education quality and access in Chile (Matear 106). Education initiatives
acknowledged a fragmentation within the system resulting in varied, unequal access to education
yet, they also tied “international economic competitiveness” to national educational goals.
7
Matear argues that this creates a tension within educational policy between ideals of equal access
and pressure from market forces. This tension is revealed “in the socioeconomic stratification of
the educational system which distributes access to quality education neither equally nor
equitably, but contingent on the purchasing power of the family” (Matear 112). In an attempt to
balance these tensions and re-articulate state-market-society relations, non-governmental and
corporate entities have been mobilized to address social projects like education.
President Aylwin and Lagos have attempted to balance the tension between the rights of
citizens and the pressures of the global market through partnerships with non-governmental
organizations. In 1992, the Coca-Cola Chile Foundation was born out of a meeting between
Weldon Johnson, President of Coca-Cola Latin America, Fernando Léniz, former Economic
Minister, and Ricardo Lagos, then Minister of Education
3
(Herrera 3). Chile had legal incentives
to promote spending on education whereby companies could deduct up to 50% of educational
donations from profits (Herrera 4). This partnership symbolized a marriage between major
economic and political actors within Chile and an alignment of business and state interests. Chile
could potentially increase access to education (albeit unevenly) and Coca-Cola was doubly
rewarded through financial incentives and the opportunity to improve its corporate image.
The Coca-Cola Chile Foundation carries out its mission through the following three
programs; Tecnología Avanzada en Educación Científica (TAVEC) labs, Coca-Cola Chile
Foundation Scholarships, and Junior Achievement Awards (Herrera 4-7). All three initiatives
focus on education and incorporate market values into the implementation of the projects.
Awarding of the Coca-Cola Chile Foundation Scholarships and TAVEC labs is based on a
competitive process in which the school or individual has to appeal to the Coca-Cola Company
3
Ricardo Lagos later served as the Chilean President from 2000-06.
8
for support. TAVEC labs comprise the largest portion of the Coca-Cola Chile Foundation’s
social responsibility initiatives.
Herrera describes the TAVEC labs as “interactive scientific laboratories for classes of
physics, chemistry and biology” (6). By 2005, fifty TAVEC labs were installed in schools in
close to 30 cities throughout Chile (Herrera 7; ORT 27). The labs are developed and set up
primarily by the non-profit Educational Corporation ORT (Herrera 6). ORT’s funding comes
from a combination of state funds, corporate contributions, private donations, and tuition and
fees collected from some educational programs (ORT 46). Although ORT carries out the
majority of the implementation, the Coca-Cola Company serves two key functions; the bottling
company identifies the cities where there is a commercial interest for establishing a lab and
makes the final selection of the award recipient (Herrera 16). In order to receive the award, the
school must identify teachers willing to volunteer three hours a week for a minimum of three
years (Herrera 16). Therefore, Coca-Cola’s donation is further strengthened by ORT’s
institutional resources (which include access to state funds) and donated hours from teachers at
the public schools receiving the labs. Coca-Cola is granted power to determine which schools
receive labs and is able to further capitalize by publicizing the contribution to the wider public
through an inauguration ceremony. The application and selection process for schools is complex
and multifaceted. Unlike the state, which might target schools for state funding based on
indicators like socioeconomic status; schools are targeted by Coca-Cola for TAVEC labs based
on commercial interest.
Global economic forces, including pressure from transnational capital played a role in the
privatization and dismantling of state welfare programs, like public access to quality education.
In the wake of growing social inequities, the Chilean government attempted to address disparities
9
by teaming up with private and non-governmental actors, like the Coca-Cola Company.
Although Coca-Cola was able to provide some economic and managerial support to Chile’s state
education system, it also has a hand in defining citizenship. Instead of education being
considered a right guaranteed by citizenship, citizens have to access their rights through
intermediaries like Coca-Cola and in turn, have to appeal to market forces. Furthermore,
disparities cannot be adequately addressed because corporate donations are generally carried out
unevenly, with limited or no transparency. When corporations step in to fill the position of the
state, the rights “guaranteed” by citizenship are not based on ideals of entitled citizenship rights.
Instead, the governing logic is profitability, which casts citizens in the role of either being a
facilitator or an impediment to increasing profits. Consequently, the corporation can exploit its
new position by selectively doling out citizenship rights where it is seen to be most profitable.
The way Coca-Cola carries out its CSR initiatives further highlights the need for accountability
and a clear understanding of the power relations at play, especially when corporations, like Coca-
Cola are increasingly invited to fill roles previously held by state institutions.
WORK CITED
The Coca-Cola Company. June 2010. <http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com>
Coca-Cola de Chile. August 2010. <http://www.coca-cola.com/template1-
/index.jsp?locale=es_CL >
Evans, Jessica and Stuart Hall. Visual Culture: The Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications Inc., 2005.
Foster, Robert. Coca-Globalization: Following Soft Drinks from New York to New
Guinea. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd., 2008.
Haufler, Virginia. A Public Role for the Private Sector: Industry Self-Regulation in a
Global Economy. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2001.
10
Herrera, Jorge. “Coca-Cola Chile Foundation.” Harvard Business Publishing, Social
Enterprise Knowledge Network (December 2005): 1-18.
Hobsbawm, Eric. Lecture on “Gramsci and Marxism.” Marxism Today, April 1987.
Isdell, Neville. “Connected Capitalism: Growing Sustainability for the 21
st
Century.” 6
March 2009. <http://www.thecoca-
colacompany.com/presscenter/viewpoints_isdell_connected_capitalism.html>
Isdell, Neville. “Corporate Citizenship Award Presentation.” 23 May 2006.
<http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/presscenter/viewpoints_isdell_CED.html>
Matear, Ann. “Equity in Education in Chile: The Tensions Between Policy and Practice.”
International Journal of Educational Development, 27.1 (Jan. 2007): 101-113.
Matten, Dirk, Andrew Crane and Wendy Chapple. “Behind the Mask: Revealing the True
Face of Corporate Citizenship.” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 45 No. 1-2 (June 2003):
109-120.
May, Christopher. Global Corporate Power. Boulder, CO: Lynne Riener Publishers,
2006.
ORT. “World ORT Report 2006.”
<http://www.ort.org/ort/woreport/report2006/report2006web.pdf>
Torche, Florencia. “Privitization Reform and Inequality of Educational Opportunity: The
Case of Chile.” Sociology of Education, 78.4 (Oct. 2005): 316-343.
Torres, Carlos A. and Daniel Schugurensky. “The Political Economy of Higher
Education in the Era of Neoliberal Globalization: Latin America in Comparative
Perspective.” Higher Education, 43.4 (June 2002): 429-455.
United Nations. “Bank Chief Underscores Importance of Corporate Social Responsibility
During Second Committee Panel Discussion on Global Compact’s Progress.” 2007.
<http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gaef3193.doc.htm>
United Nations. “United Nations Global Compact.” 2009.
<http://www.unglobalcompact.org/>
Williams, Oliver F. “The UN Global Compact: The Challenge and the Promise.”
Business Ethics Quarterly, 14.4 (2004): 755-774).
doc_713208732.pdf
Under contemporary globalization, corporations have achieved a size and scope unparalleled to any other time in history. In response to growing corporate power, there have been contestations from unions, environmentalists, and anti-corporate activists stressing corporate reform. One result of social pressure has been the incorporation of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) campaigns into corporate branding strategies.
1
THE ILLUSION OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY:
COCA-COLA AND CORPORATE CITIZENSHIP
By Jackie Hayes
Under contemporary globalization, corporations have achieved a size and scope
unparalleled to any other time in history (May 24). In response to growing corporate power,
there have been contestations from unions, environmentalists, and anti-corporate activists
stressing corporate reform. One result of social pressure has been the incorporation of Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) campaigns into corporate branding strategies (May 201). On the
surface, these campaigns appear to address and integrate social concerns into regular business
practices. Yet, I argue that CSR campaigns are one component of a broader strategy to improve
the management of market crises by incorporating criticisms into corporate managed social
responsibility initiatives and can be understood using Foucault’s concept of governmentality.
Instead of addressing critiques in a substantive manner, CSR initiatives “break off the sharp
points of contention” to bolster legitimacy for free market policies (Hobsbawm).
1
To further
understand this process, I focus on the Coca-Cola Company’s CSR campaigns on two scales; the
international and the national in Chile.
The International Stage: Crisis Management and Coca-Cola’s CSR Campaigns
Since the 1990s, CSR activities have become more popular. The growing number of CSR
initiatives appears to coincide with “societal discontent with corporate behavior and with
1
Hobsbawm, in his lecture recorded in April 1987, used this phrase to discuss the Gramscian concept “passive
revolution.” He was referring to a state’s ability to weather crises and ward off social revolution through reforms
which create a “more viable base of operating.” Part of this process included defusing revolutions by incorporating
some of their demands, but with the underlying intention of disarming opposition. Although Hobsbawm and
Gramsci were referring to tactics employed by nation-states or political parties, the concept is currently useful in
understanding how corporate strategies, like CSR initiatives, work to disarm unions and grassroots organizations.
2
neoliberalism itself” (May 7; 227-228). In 2000, the United Nations launched the Global
Compact, to align the objectives of the international community with the business world and to
develop “a market economy with a human face in response to some of the problems associated
with globalisation” (United Nations; Williams 755). The compact is a voluntary association in
which corporate members, including the Coca-Cola Company, commit to ten principles. The
principles touch on human rights, labor, the environment and corruption (United Nations). The
compact stresses the importance of the private sector in managing challenges brought about by
contemporary globalization.
In one U.N. press release, Bunmi Akinremi argues that CSR initiatives are, “essential to
easing the tension between social justice and entrepreneurial drive, and failure to achieve that
balancing act could put market capitalism at risk” (United Nations 2007). Kofi Annan,
secretary-general of the U.N., argued at the Davos World Economic Forum in 1999 that “shared
values provide a stable environment for a world market that without these explicit values
business could expect backlashes from protectionism, populism, fanaticism and terrorism”
(Williams 755). Both Akinremi and Annan’s statements situate CSR campaigns within a broader
initiative to buffer some of the adverse effects of contemporary capitalism including grave
disparities in wealth, environmental devastation and unequal access to resources.
In March 2009, Chairman of the Coca-Cola Board, Neville Isdell delivered a speech
entitled “Connected Capitalism: Growing Sustainability for the 21
st
Century.” During the speech,
Isdell warned of the dangers of embracing protectionist policies during the growing global
economic crisis. Instead, he urged for the continued advancement of free market economics, but
with adjustments to how capitalism is practiced. His proposed solution was embodied in what he
termed “Connected Capitalism” which is “a new model of how businesses must engage with
3
society across four platforms – communities, institutions, social challenges and values” (Isdell
2009).
2
These connections include working with communities, civil society, and governments.
One of the means to forge such connections is through partnerships with NGOs and governments
around CSR initiatives.
“Connected Capitalism” and the partnerships created over CSR initiatives signal a shift in
the role of the private sector in social responsibility discourse and initiatives. Haufler explains
that many countries are “moving toward a more market friendly system of regulation, in which
governments often delegate numerous responsibilities to the private sector” (1). Many CSR
initiatives include projects that were previously conceptualized as public sector responsibilities.
They bring together the private sector, state institutions and NGOs in a way that is altering
society-state-market relationships and creating new areas of corporate governance. Claire Cutler
points out that “there are clear links between the CSR movement, alongside the increasing
multiplicity of sources of and mechanisms for corporate governance, and political economic
changes brought about by the neoliberal discipline of global capitalism” (May 214).
Foucault traces the development of governmentality, or the art of government, from the
16
th
to the 18
th
century noting shifts in the aim and function of state apparatuses. In the 18
th
century, he points to a number of developments which added complexity to the nature of
governing. Tagg describes this ensemble of forces as a:
constellation of institutions – including the hospital, the asylum, the school, the prison,
the police force – whose disciplinary methods and techniques of regulated examination
produced, trained and positioned a hierarchy of docile social subjects in the form required
by the capitalist division of labour. (Evans 245).
2
Neville Isdell delivered this speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Fifth Annual Corporate Conference
in New York, NY in 2009. The Council on Foreign Relations describes itself as “an independent, nonpartisan
membership organization, think tank, and publisher” <http://www.cfr.org/>. CFR has also been described as one
of the most influential think tanks in the U.S. <http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29966>.
4
CSR initiatives allow states and corporations to combine institutional resources and knowledge
to create new campaigns aimed at social control. New information technologies coupled with
relatively flexible corporate capital enables CSR campaigns to appear highly coordinated and
responsive to public impulses. These initiatives may potentially address some of the state’s
needs, but simultaneously create complex spaces of corporate governance. For example, if the
private sector takes on some of the functions previously carried out by the state, private
institutions are not held to the same standards of accountability, transparency, or monitoring as a
state institution. Thus the private sector can take on public projects, but with more freedom from
public oversight and with the added value of potentially improving reputability. These new
techniques can be understood using Foucault’s notion of governmentality, yet in the context of
contemporary capitalism, corporations can be added to the ‘constellation of institutions’ initially
conceptualized by Foucault as coordinating efforts to ensure the “orderly conduct of social and
economic life” (Evans 245). CSR initiatives are one example of new governing strategies with
distinct characteristics which raise questions about the transparency, accountability, monitoring,
and the ultimate intentions of these projects.
Coca-Cola’s CSR Campaigns in Chile: Implementing ‘Connected Capitalism’
Understanding the evolution of the term “corporate citizenship” is particularly important
when focusing on the national example of Coca-Cola’s CSR campaigns in Chile because the
term and the practice re-conceptualize the role of the corporation in relation to the state and
society. Matten et. al. argue that the state is the pivotal actor within the liberal conception of
citizenship (115). They explain “citizenship is inseparably linked to a certain (national) territory,
5
which is governed by a sovereign state as ultimate guarantor of citizenship and the rights it
embodies” (115).
Under contemporary globalization the state has retreated from many of the functions it
previously carried out, as Foster explains one trend characteristic of globalization is the
“shrinking of the welfare state” (151-152). Instead of the state being the ultimate guarantor of
citizenship rights, public-private partnerships are increasingly filling the roles formerly held by
state institutions, therefore “citizenship again means here that corporations take over those
functions which are clearly governmental functions in the framework of liberal citizenship”
(Matten 116). Corporations are thus being re-conceptualized as partial guarantors of citizenship,
taking on some of the roles and responsibilities attributed to the state. However, unlike the state,
corporations are not beholden to the same mechanisms of accountability.
Coca-Cola’s CSR initiatives in Chile have primarily centered on education. In order to
examine the relationship between CSR campaigns, corporate citizenship and access to education
in Chile, it is important to trace some major shifts in Chile’s public education system. The
Chilean government began providing free public education in the 1920s, which was expanded in
the mid-1960s with a mandate “to guarantee universal access to primary and secondary
schooling, regardless of social background” (Torche 321). Therefore, Chilean citizenship
included free access to primary and secondary schooling. By 1970, enrollment in education
reached more than 93% (Torche 321). In 1973, when Pinochet took power and implemented
sweeping neoliberal reforms, the state educational system also underwent a drastic
transformation. In 1981, as part of reforming the state educational system, a universal
educational voucher system was introduced where “a subsidy was paid to public and private
6
schools on the basis of students’ enrollment” effectively creating competition amongst schools
for student enrollment (Torche 321).
One effect of the reworking of the state education system was decreased public spending
on education which, coupled with an economic depression in the 1980s, impacted enrollment of
the poorest members of the populations, particularly in secondary education. Torche explains,
“the increasing cost of noncompulsory education for the least-advantaged families… may have
pushed children out of the educational system and into the labor market” (335). These changes in
Chile’s state education system were underwritten by a set of guiding principles that altered
citizen rights and marked an ideological shift from a state educational system based on principles
of universal access to one based on market logic. The result was a drop in enrollment for the
poorest, most vulnerable sectors of the population.
Torres and Schugurensky draw attention to the transformation of higher education in
Latin America under neoliberal policies. They point out an important shift in the ideological
foundations of the state higher education system stating, “the notion that higher education is
primarily a citizen’s right and a social investment … is being seriously challenged by a
neoliberal agenda that places extreme faith in the market” (429). The marketization of higher
education resulted in a reconstitution of citizenship rights, whereby the rules dictating access to
public education was not tied to or defined by the citizen or their rights, but tied to the logic of
the private market.
Following the Pinochet dictatorship, both President Aylwin and Lagos attempted to
address issues of education quality and access in Chile (Matear 106). Education initiatives
acknowledged a fragmentation within the system resulting in varied, unequal access to education
yet, they also tied “international economic competitiveness” to national educational goals.
7
Matear argues that this creates a tension within educational policy between ideals of equal access
and pressure from market forces. This tension is revealed “in the socioeconomic stratification of
the educational system which distributes access to quality education neither equally nor
equitably, but contingent on the purchasing power of the family” (Matear 112). In an attempt to
balance these tensions and re-articulate state-market-society relations, non-governmental and
corporate entities have been mobilized to address social projects like education.
President Aylwin and Lagos have attempted to balance the tension between the rights of
citizens and the pressures of the global market through partnerships with non-governmental
organizations. In 1992, the Coca-Cola Chile Foundation was born out of a meeting between
Weldon Johnson, President of Coca-Cola Latin America, Fernando Léniz, former Economic
Minister, and Ricardo Lagos, then Minister of Education
3
(Herrera 3). Chile had legal incentives
to promote spending on education whereby companies could deduct up to 50% of educational
donations from profits (Herrera 4). This partnership symbolized a marriage between major
economic and political actors within Chile and an alignment of business and state interests. Chile
could potentially increase access to education (albeit unevenly) and Coca-Cola was doubly
rewarded through financial incentives and the opportunity to improve its corporate image.
The Coca-Cola Chile Foundation carries out its mission through the following three
programs; Tecnología Avanzada en Educación Científica (TAVEC) labs, Coca-Cola Chile
Foundation Scholarships, and Junior Achievement Awards (Herrera 4-7). All three initiatives
focus on education and incorporate market values into the implementation of the projects.
Awarding of the Coca-Cola Chile Foundation Scholarships and TAVEC labs is based on a
competitive process in which the school or individual has to appeal to the Coca-Cola Company
3
Ricardo Lagos later served as the Chilean President from 2000-06.
8
for support. TAVEC labs comprise the largest portion of the Coca-Cola Chile Foundation’s
social responsibility initiatives.
Herrera describes the TAVEC labs as “interactive scientific laboratories for classes of
physics, chemistry and biology” (6). By 2005, fifty TAVEC labs were installed in schools in
close to 30 cities throughout Chile (Herrera 7; ORT 27). The labs are developed and set up
primarily by the non-profit Educational Corporation ORT (Herrera 6). ORT’s funding comes
from a combination of state funds, corporate contributions, private donations, and tuition and
fees collected from some educational programs (ORT 46). Although ORT carries out the
majority of the implementation, the Coca-Cola Company serves two key functions; the bottling
company identifies the cities where there is a commercial interest for establishing a lab and
makes the final selection of the award recipient (Herrera 16). In order to receive the award, the
school must identify teachers willing to volunteer three hours a week for a minimum of three
years (Herrera 16). Therefore, Coca-Cola’s donation is further strengthened by ORT’s
institutional resources (which include access to state funds) and donated hours from teachers at
the public schools receiving the labs. Coca-Cola is granted power to determine which schools
receive labs and is able to further capitalize by publicizing the contribution to the wider public
through an inauguration ceremony. The application and selection process for schools is complex
and multifaceted. Unlike the state, which might target schools for state funding based on
indicators like socioeconomic status; schools are targeted by Coca-Cola for TAVEC labs based
on commercial interest.
Global economic forces, including pressure from transnational capital played a role in the
privatization and dismantling of state welfare programs, like public access to quality education.
In the wake of growing social inequities, the Chilean government attempted to address disparities
9
by teaming up with private and non-governmental actors, like the Coca-Cola Company.
Although Coca-Cola was able to provide some economic and managerial support to Chile’s state
education system, it also has a hand in defining citizenship. Instead of education being
considered a right guaranteed by citizenship, citizens have to access their rights through
intermediaries like Coca-Cola and in turn, have to appeal to market forces. Furthermore,
disparities cannot be adequately addressed because corporate donations are generally carried out
unevenly, with limited or no transparency. When corporations step in to fill the position of the
state, the rights “guaranteed” by citizenship are not based on ideals of entitled citizenship rights.
Instead, the governing logic is profitability, which casts citizens in the role of either being a
facilitator or an impediment to increasing profits. Consequently, the corporation can exploit its
new position by selectively doling out citizenship rights where it is seen to be most profitable.
The way Coca-Cola carries out its CSR initiatives further highlights the need for accountability
and a clear understanding of the power relations at play, especially when corporations, like Coca-
Cola are increasingly invited to fill roles previously held by state institutions.
WORK CITED
The Coca-Cola Company. June 2010. <http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com>
Coca-Cola de Chile. August 2010. <http://www.coca-cola.com/template1-
/index.jsp?locale=es_CL >
Evans, Jessica and Stuart Hall. Visual Culture: The Reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications Inc., 2005.
Foster, Robert. Coca-Globalization: Following Soft Drinks from New York to New
Guinea. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd., 2008.
Haufler, Virginia. A Public Role for the Private Sector: Industry Self-Regulation in a
Global Economy. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2001.
10
Herrera, Jorge. “Coca-Cola Chile Foundation.” Harvard Business Publishing, Social
Enterprise Knowledge Network (December 2005): 1-18.
Hobsbawm, Eric. Lecture on “Gramsci and Marxism.” Marxism Today, April 1987.
Isdell, Neville. “Connected Capitalism: Growing Sustainability for the 21
st
Century.” 6
March 2009. <http://www.thecoca-
colacompany.com/presscenter/viewpoints_isdell_connected_capitalism.html>
Isdell, Neville. “Corporate Citizenship Award Presentation.” 23 May 2006.
<http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/presscenter/viewpoints_isdell_CED.html>
Matear, Ann. “Equity in Education in Chile: The Tensions Between Policy and Practice.”
International Journal of Educational Development, 27.1 (Jan. 2007): 101-113.
Matten, Dirk, Andrew Crane and Wendy Chapple. “Behind the Mask: Revealing the True
Face of Corporate Citizenship.” Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 45 No. 1-2 (June 2003):
109-120.
May, Christopher. Global Corporate Power. Boulder, CO: Lynne Riener Publishers,
2006.
ORT. “World ORT Report 2006.”
<http://www.ort.org/ort/woreport/report2006/report2006web.pdf>
Torche, Florencia. “Privitization Reform and Inequality of Educational Opportunity: The
Case of Chile.” Sociology of Education, 78.4 (Oct. 2005): 316-343.
Torres, Carlos A. and Daniel Schugurensky. “The Political Economy of Higher
Education in the Era of Neoliberal Globalization: Latin America in Comparative
Perspective.” Higher Education, 43.4 (June 2002): 429-455.
United Nations. “Bank Chief Underscores Importance of Corporate Social Responsibility
During Second Committee Panel Discussion on Global Compact’s Progress.” 2007.
<http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gaef3193.doc.htm>
United Nations. “United Nations Global Compact.” 2009.
<http://www.unglobalcompact.org/>
Williams, Oliver F. “The UN Global Compact: The Challenge and the Promise.”
Business Ethics Quarterly, 14.4 (2004): 755-774).
doc_713208732.pdf