FAQ

What are pouring rights?

Pouring rights are the legal right that corporations can have to a certain amount of shelf space in certain venues or institutions. UC Berkeley currently has a pouring rights contract with PepsiCo that gives them 80% of the shelf space in campus markets such as GBC, The Den, Bear Market and others. The contract gives them a monopoly on our campus and allows them to market themselves at the official beverage of UC Berkeley.

What’s wrong with PepsiCo?

For more information on PepsiCo’s public health, environmental and social justice violations, click here to visit the “Values” page.

What does UC Berkeley have to do with this?

UC Berkeley claims to have core values of health, equity, sustainability, transparency and accountability, yet continues to partner with a corporation that provides unhealthy products, engages in racially discriminatory practices, and is the #2 largest plastics polluter in the world. UC Berkeley must end the hypocrisy and do right by its students by ending this partnership.

Who has the final say on this contract?

University Partnerships & Programs (UPP) is the administrative body on campus responsible for securing business partnerships for UC Berkeley. The UPP Beverage Working Group is meant to work together to figure out how to proceed with this expiring contract. They come up with a recommendation that then goes to the UPP Advisory Committee who votes on whether or not to go through with this recommendation. Then Chancellor Christ has the final say.

What is your proposed alternative to this contract?

The Pour Out Pepsi campaign is a group of 25 undergraduate students fighting for UC Berkeley to actually stand up for campus values. We are not finance and supply chain administrators and professionals like many of the people on the UPP Beverage Working Group. This working group is meant to work collaboratively to explore all possible alternatives to this contract. Unfortunately, the Working Group members have not been collaborative, have not been communicative with us about their concerns, and have not meaningfully considered our concerns which has led them to neglect looking into alternatives to the contract. Moving forward, the Working Group must devote time to developing an alternative to this contract rather than continuing with our current unethical partnership.