10 comments for Bite me not

1. I think you should keep the ad…one slip does not a failed website make…engage with them and see how they respond…stay positive ;)

   Namaste

   Al

   Comment by cityhippy — March 10, 2006 @ 6:22 pm

2. I saw that this morning and thought you might have something to say about it…though it’s obviously skewed, they did at least offer opposing views, albeit briefly. Hopefully readers are savvy enough to make up their own minds after delving into some of those links.

   Comment by Jasmin — March 10, 2006 @ 7:59 pm

3. I agree with cityhippy. Instead of reacting, engage them in a dialogue and see what happens.

   I have been wanting to support your fair-trade efforts, but it is so ingrained in me to not even go into Starbuck’s for coffee I haven’t had the chance.

   Then I received a $75 Starbuck’s gift card for making a big deposit into my checking account. I thought great now I have an incentive, “free free trade coffee”, but even with a Starbucks on every other corner here in NYC I still find myself at the local cafes. I’ll get there one day, write a post about it and let you know what happens.

   Good luck biting the apple.

   Comment by jdanyelle — March 10, 2006 @ 9:17 pm

4. They’re good folks at IdealBite… I agree with CH’s approach.

   Comment by Jeff at sustainablog — March 11, 2006 @ 12:03 pm

5. I agree with most everyone else, Idealbite is usually good people. They might have slipped, it happens.

   Comment by Dale Hanks — March 11, 2006 @ 2:25 pm

6. I guess what really bugs me is the laziness of many journalists, esp. those in the MSM. The thing is, when mags like Fortune do a roundup of responsible companies, they come up with the list not by scouring the biz world to find out what companies are really up to, but by culling press releases.

   Now I think Starbucks is well within its right to highlight the good stuff they’re doing as a company — It’s not that I’m against Starbucks sending out press releases. Hey, if you’ve got good news, share it!

   But it really, really bugs me that journalists don’t look beyond those press releases. I think Ideal Bite did that writeup on Starbucks because Starbucks has a great PR/marketing arm and so IB had a buncha nice press releases lying around, not because Starbucks is really one of the greenest companies out there.

   Not only does this do a disservice to the readers, but it also does Starbucks a disservice, in a way — cuz readers become aware that they’re not getting the full story, and thus start distrusting what the journalists/”experts” write.

   A more balanced writeup from Ideal Bite would’ve gotten a “well, maybe they’re slowly moving in the right direction — good job!” from the optimists and perhaps a grudging nod of approval from the pessimists.

   Instead, due to a totally one-sided article, Starbucks gets a lotta crap about greenwashing from said readers, and thus loses some of the impetus to keep moving towards being a responsible company.

   Comment by Siel — March 13, 2006 @ 6:40 pm

7. Hello everyone. I am the woman that Siel sarcastically called a “self-described” expert. (Although, if it means anything, I don’t see myself as an expert on this topic. I see myself as a student. I study the way corporate responsibility works in companies. Starbucks is just one company that I have observed. Green Mountain Coffee is another.)

   This message should not reflect negatively on the good people at Ideal Bite, as I do not speak for Ideal Bite. I speak for myself.

   The points that all of you all bring up are relevant. Starbucks is NOT a perfect company. And Starbucks admits that it is not a perfect company.

   Siel, in your blog response, you mention: “are we so desperate for green companies that Starbucks’ bare-nod to fair trade merits what amounts to an e-standing ovation?”

   I think what Ideal Bite was trying to do with Starbucks, and what the Greenchip company showcase attempts to do, is not give standing e-ovations to imperfect companies or put them on some bogus pedestal. Rather, the point is to draw people’s attention to the progress that certain companies are making in order to (a) excite conscientious consumers about the change that is happening in the corporate world and (b) encourage them to encourage companies to keep changing.

   Siel, by encouraging people to go to Starbucks stores, harass uneducated Baristas and demand Fair Trade coffee, you might consider yourself to be Starbucks’ biggest pain in the ass. In reality though, you’re a huge asset to the company and to the movement because you are helping to move things in the right direction. You just have a different manner and approach than Ideal Bite or in this particular case, me. Don’t be skeptical just because people go about things in a different way. Same goals. Different mode.

   As for me, as will be evident in my next book, I don’t shy away from calling B.S. on companies that don’t walk their talk. I hate when companies tell people one thing and then do something else. The research that I did on Starbucks was not limited to reading the press releases spun out of the corporate office. I talked to people at The Organic Consumers Association and other groups who wholeheartedly agreed with your point of view. I talked to Baristas myself and took your “Starbucks Challenge.” Additionally, I interviewed people at TransFair, in addition to journalists and other stakeholders who had covered or investigated Starbucks’ responsible sourcing program in the past. And finally, I looked into the nature of how the company had really structured its whole responsible coffee purchasing program – taking into account both its C.A.F.E. supply chain standards and Fair Trade lines.

   I worked with a team of 10 MBA students from McGill University’s Graduate School of Management to mull over all of the data we collected on Starbucks. We had some intense debates about where the money really goes. All of us voted on where we thought Starbucks was on a rating scale of corporate accountability and responsibility. Some of the students disagreed with each other. The votes were not unanimous.

   Here is my “Starbucks Challenge” to you and your users: If you are really serious about debating where this company is with respect to true corporate responsibility and process change – and to keeping an open mind – then I am willing to share parts of my research with you and to help you get parts of your research done. You mentioned on your blog several times that Starbucks still hasn’t answered your questions. What specific questions do you want answered? Give me three questions and I will see what I can do about getting Starbucks management to answer them.

   Again, I am a student of corporate responsibility. The reason I consider myself a student is because issues like these are never clear-cut. They are never black and white. We can NOT assume that what a corporation says is necessarily true or false just because the corporation said so. Deeper digging is always required.

   However, I personally believe that what Starbucks is investing in amounts to legitimate, albeit gradual, process change. But I challenge you to prove me wrong.

   I look further to our potential, continued conversation.

   Best wishes,

   Christine Arena

   Comment by Christine Arena — March 17, 2006 @ 7:45 am

8. Hey Christine — To be clear, the whole “expert” thing was a reference to your title — “Ideal Bite Expert Panelist” — at Ideal Bite. If you don’t see yourself as an expert, you might want to ask Ideal Bite to change your title, maybe to Ideal Bite research panelist, or some such thing…

   Anyway — Thank you for writing a detailed comment here! I really appreciate this dialogue.

   I’m glad to hear that you did more research on Starbucks than was evident in your write-up. My question is — Why not let more of your research come through?

   I’m guessing both of us are aware that everything between “Personally Speaking” and “Wanna Try?” on your write-up can be found on Starbucks’ press releases — which almost makes it seem like Ideal Bite is shilling for Starbucks.

   What I’m wondering is, wouldn’t it have been more informative to include the more balanced info about Starbucks you found through your research in your article?

   I get that Ideal bite is a bite, not a whole meal ;) You’re working with space constraints. But it’s very odd to me that you didn’t point out that only 3.7 percent of Starbucks’ coffee is Fair Trade certified. This, despite the fact that TFUSA recommends that companies get up to 5% within 2 years of entering the FT market. Starbucks entered SIX years ago.

   In addition, while Starbucks may be paying pretty good prices to middlemen, a lot of that money never makes its way back to the farmer or farm worker. CAFE practices has inadequate financial guidelines, making it difficult to ensure that coffee farmers are getting a fair financial deal.

   Furthermore, Starbucks often plays up its CAFE practices guidelines — company-specific, internally developed guidelines — to excuse itself for failing to make a bigger commitment to fair trade.

   Yes, I’m really serious about debating where Starbucks is with respect to true corporate responsibility. To answer your question, my top 3 questions to Starbucks are:

   1. Starbucks continuously says that it has similar goals as the fair trade movement. But if so, why hasn’t Starbucks met even the MINIMUM commitment to fair trade certified coffee (5% in 2 years) set out by TFUSA? Are there any plans to walk the talk — i.e. get above 5% to REALLY become a leader in the fair trade movement — in the near future?

   2. Despite its alleged commitment to fair trade, Starbucks offers only ONE certified fair trade blend in stores. When will Starbucks start offering its customers some real choices — light & dark roasts, espresso roast, and decaf?

   3. When will the issues brought up by the Starbucks Challenge be resolved? Fair trade advocates are really getting tired of hearing one excuse after another. Starbucks says it’s unable to live up to its own promises anytime soon — which, in itself, is a lil difficult to believe, considering the resources at Starbucks’ disposal. It’s very easy for Starbucks to open multiple stores in a single day — why not move a little of that energy into meeting its fair trade promises? If Starbucks wanted, it could simply put up a sticker on each counter that says, “Want fair trade? Just ask!” or something to that effect, and solve its “break down in customer service more or less immediately. When will Starbucks put the necessary resources and efforts into meeting the Challenge?

   Any assistance in getting these questions answered would be appreciated.

   Comment by Siel — March 17, 2006 @ 6:55 pm

9. Hi Siel, This is fun.

   The chief reason that more of my research did not come through in the Bite is that I did not write the Bite. Ideal Bite’s editors did. I gave recommendations, some were used and others weren’t. I think Ideal Bite wanted to emphasize the positive to get people excited about the concept that a big multinational is trying to change its ways. In this case, the Starbucks Bite created mixed reactions. It infuriated a lot of Biters and also caused others to admire the notion that progress is occurring in one of the world’s largest coffee companies, however gradually.

   Going forward, a constructive way to present “fringe” companies might be to present point - counter points. Then, send Biters to secondary online sources where they can get more info if they want and then vote on what they think.

   In any case, I promised that if you engaged that I would give you a glimpse into my research, so here goes: In the study I did, the students and I evaluated 75 companies that pitched themselves as “good” corporate citizens. So, they spent millions of dollars each year on CSR. Therefore, Starbucks was one of many companies we looked into and at the end of the year (the study was conducted over the course of two semesters) the student ranked each company on a scale. In our study, Starbucks’ average score was a 3.22 on a scale of 1 to 5. This was a qualitative study, not a quantitative study, but students put Starbucks’ level of CR development and progress in the mid-range, meaning that the company was making substantive progress compared to others in its category (the scores were relative), but that there was room for improvement. One student gave Starbucks a score of “1″ while another gave it a “2.” After hearing firsthand from experts from the OCA and OXFAM, conducting secondary research and looking into company’s C.A.F.E. practices etc., they, like you, did not think that the money was being channeled back to farmers as it should be. Furthermore, they deemed the company’s CR approach more reactive than proactive.

   Others, however, noticed the fact that TransFair does not currently certify coffee farmers that are not small-scale, family-owned cooperatives. As they were MBA students with a business mindset, the group considered the fact that Starbucks has had relationships with medium and large-scale farms and plantations since the company was founded. Should Starbucks dump those relationships in favor of working with smaller farmers just to comply with TransFair’s existing guidelines? Also, are the company’s relationships with medium to large-scale farms and plantations necessarily unfair in nature? That lead us to ask more questions: Is there a difference between that which is technically labeled Fair Trade and that which is fairly traded? Also, who gets to decide? Furthermore, what about the fact that many of Starbuck’s current coffee blends contain Fair Trade coffee beans in them, but because they do not contain 100% Fair Trade coffee beans, these coffees don’t get to bear the Fair Trade label? In drinking these blends, are people drinking irresponsible coffee?

   You might see the issue as black and white: Starbucks should sell at least 5% Fair Trade certified coffee. But in our evaluation, we looked at the equation from both sides and wondered whether the fair trade issue exists beyond the Fair Trade label. We asked: What is the nature of the Fair Trade certification process? Does the nature of that process impede the company’s ability to comply? And is C.A.F.E. a legitimate means of enabling Starbucks to behave more responsibly, more efficiently and quickly; or merely a convenient loophole? As you put it, “an excuse for failing to make a commitment to fair trade?”

   This sounds like a terrible thing to say, I realize, but in order to behave responsibly, multinationals need to develop mechanisms through which their responsible endeavors enable them to perform better. They need to build incentive systems. That is why the “CSR” community is furiously trying to prove the “business case” for corporate responsibility. Senior executives will not invest in CSR unless they believe it is worth their while. Also, they want the sense that there is the consumer demand for it. Statements like these likely irritate you and your fellow bloggers, as they do me. You do not know how many boardrooms I have been in feeling like I am standing on some soap box talking to executives about why they should give a hoot about the environment, their suppliers, their employees, their wider community - and received blank stares and a “thanks, we’ll get back to you,” in response.

   Back to C.A.F.E., my hypothesis is that this is designed as a mechanism to enable the company to adapt to changing market conditions as quickly and efficiently as possible - not as a means of faking people out. But let’s try and follow the money trail.

   I will start by getting your three questions to Starbucks management and get back to you with a response.

   Comment by Christine Arena — March 18, 2006 @ 10:06 am

10. Damn girl — You should totally have your own blog! Love this outpouring of writing :)

    I hear ya about the fact that Starbucks buys its coffee from farms that are not co-ops. But few are suggesting that Starbucks dump all its current relationships to only buy from the farms that currently meet fair trade certification criteria. Meaning — I for one am asking, as you know, why Starbucks isn’t even at 5% yet, after 6 years. I’m NOT asking Starbucks for anything even close to a 100% switch. That’s a pipe dream, especially considering the fact that Starbucks is only at 3.7%. To argue that Starbucks doesn’t need to make a larger commitment to fair trade because it can’t immediately go 100% fair trade is only a straw person argument.

    So — I’m all for Starbucks moving towards treating all people in the coffee chain better, whether they’re in co-ops, indiv. farms, or plantations. And to that end, perhaps CAFE can help (though I’ve written about some of that program’s shortcomings, here and here).

    That said, you raise an important question — Who gets to decide what’s fair? I think that question can only be answered by continued and critical dialogue — one that’s encouraged by the fair trade movement. CAFE standards, in contrast, is an internally developed set of criteria that was made by and for Starbucks. I really don’t think Starbucks should get to decide what’s fair.

    What’s Starbucks doing, exactly? If you ask the CSR people, they’ll say that CAFE and fair trade are not opposed to each other — that they’re different components of a bigger goal. But while Starbucks has put in a lot of effort to push CAFE, both internally and externally through marketing and such, the mermaid’s done little to step up its fair trade commitments.

    As you know, CAFE standards are less stringent than the fair trade standards. And it’s cheaper for Starbucks to source from big plantations than to really work with small producers who are organized, or working into organizing, into co-ops. There’s a big financial incentive, on Starbucks’ part, to decry the current limitations of fair trade in an attempt to push CAFE as the better method.

    I’d be much more apt to welcome CAFE as a step in the right direction if it didn’t seem so much an effort to bypass the stricter guidelines of fair trade. If, while encouraging CAFE practices, Starbucks made a similar commitment to fair trade, it would be a different story. But that’s not the story that’s unfolding right now.

    I’d be curious to hear what Starbucks says in response to the questions — I hope you have better luck getting some straight answers than I did ;)

    A lil unrelatedly — I still think the whole thing with Ideal Bite’s weird, because it seems like IB cherry picked the portions of your research that best suited their interests, which was a much less nuanced and balanced viewpoint than the one you’re presenting here. I s’pose they’re within their editorial right to emphasize what they want — but then they attached your name to it, calling you the “expert” behind the post. So then you got pissed-off bloggers calling you out on the article itself — which you apparantly didn’t write. If it had been me, I’d've been pissed…

    Comment by Siel — March 20, 2006 @ 2:23 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.