Review of the IUF programme on trade union rights within the Coca Cola company

About the publication

  • Published: 2009
  • Series: --
  • Type: NGO reviews
  • Carried out by: Jens Claussen, Nora Ingdahl
  • Commissioned by: Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions
  • Country: --
  • Theme: --
  • Pages: --
  • Serial number: --
  • ISBN: --
  • ISSN: --
  • Organization: Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions
  • Local partner: The International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF
  • Project number: GLO 05/320
NB! The publication is ONLY available online and can not be ordered on paper.

Background:  
This report presents the outcome of a review of support from the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO-Norway) to the “Global Trade Union Rights Project within the Coca Cola and Nestle” implemented by The International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF). The project commenced in 2003 and the main focus of the review has been on progress and achievements during the period 2006 – 2008.

Purpose/objective:  
The objective of the review has been;
• To assess the results of the support provided to the project by LO to strengthen the trade union rights within the
Coca Cola Company.
• To assess the modality of cooperation between IUF and provide recommendations on areas for improvement,
in particular related to monitoring and reporting on performance by IUF.

Methodology:  
The findings of the review are limited to an assessment of documentation presented by IUF and LO-Norway as well
as consultations with LO-Norway and IUF in Geneva. There has been no consultations made with beneficiaries nor
any review of other project external sources of information.

Key findings:  
One of the stated results of the project is to establish a regular global forum for dialogue between IUF-affiliated
Coca-Cola and Nestlé unions and the Nestlé/Coca-Cola companies; and subsequently formal global trade union
rights agreements with them.

In the case of Coca Cola, semi-annual meetings with the Coca Cola company have been established as a regular consultative process which in turn led to the signing of a “joint statement” in 2005 recognising some basic principles by the Coca Cola company related to workers rights and recognition of trade unions. While a formal agreement has yet to be achieved, an IUF negotiation team has been established to move the process further.

This can partly be attributed to project activities by its support and facilitation of consultations at national and
regional levels for the global process. The progress at the global level has influenced the unions and their bargaining
powers at the national and union levels since they can use the global consultation process and the joint statement
as a reference.

Another major achievement which can partly be attributed to the project is the establishment of a Global Alliance of
Coca Cola Unions which was formed in 2008. This alliance is according to its statutes first and foremost established
for information exchange and coordination of efforts at different levels but also to implement solidarity work on behalf of its members.

The role of the project has in most cases been support through training, issuing of guidelines and information, and
counselling in development of organisations and in cases of conflict. Some illustrations of these results are presented
in the report, but due to weakness in project monitoring and reporting no systematic and comprehensive overview of
these results can be made. For many of the results presented in project progress reports it is not evident to what
extent they can be directly attributed to the project.

To compare tangible results with the total resource effort or unit costs of services delivered has not been possible due to lack of consolidated information that can be reconciled. On the other hand, as concerns efficiency in relation to the chosen strategy for implementation the system of deploying regional coordinators as opposed to using regional offices and/or IUF headquarters staff is most likely the best option also for the years to come.

Project activities will most likely not be sustained without continued external funding from LO-Norway or another external funding partner. Project funding and other external contributions constitutes 56 percent of the total IUF budget while the remaining is from regular operational income with “affiliation fees” (membership fees) as the main source of income. The latter is not alone sufficient to fund IUF's current operational expenditure. 

The modality of cooperation between IUF and LO-Norway is first and foremost described by IUF serving as the project executing organisation with LO-Norway serving as a financial partner, however, more recently The Norwegian Food and Allied Workers Union (NNN) became actively engaged in the “negotiation team” promoting a formal agreement with Coca Cola.

There are numerous indicators presented in the project applications but many of them do not serve as indicators of progress in outputs and outcomes that can be directly attributed to project activities. Data and information to compile these indicators are in any case not systematically collected and presented.

 
Recommendations:
IUF should appoint one project manager with the overall responsibility for planning, implementation and monitoring of
the project.
• This should be followed by a process to revise the project proposal into a consistent project document with specification of measurable and achievable targets and an implementation plan for the entire project duration to be revised annually.
• If resources could be made available, the above should be preceded by a consultative process/survey of stakeholdersto ensure that the project fully reflects the needs of the target group (unions).
• A system and procedure for project monitoring and periodic reviews should be implemented that requires all reporting tobe consistent with annual plans and report on planned targets.
• It is necessary to invest in a financial management system or preferably using the regular financial management system of IUF, to present budget and accounts both by economic categories and activity and enable consolidation of sources of funding in reporting on projects.
• As a first step to reduce transaction cost for IUF in entertaining individual demands from funding partners, the three donors to the project should consider pooling their funding for the project and allowed IUF to plan, budget and report on the project in one consolidated process.

Published 28.09.2009
Last updated 16.02.2015