Christina Arena, the alleged writer of the Ideal Bite article about Starbucks that pissed me and a lot of you guys off, has been kind enough to comment back and discuss.
Apparently, Christina did some research for the article, but Ideal Bite editors picked and chose what they would include. Says Christina: “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.”
The post’s fallen off the first page, and will soon fall off the second page, but the healthy debate continues. You can see what we’ve been talking about here.
Do weigh in — preferably on this one, and not the old one, so more people will have the chance to read your thoughts :)
Update, 3/30/06: See the responses from the presidents of Ideal Bite in the comments below, along with my response. Weigh in here :)
March 21st, 2006 at 12:39 am
Hmph…went to DC last week for a conference and stopped in the Starbucks right outside the Chinatown Metro exit. Too bad when I asked for some Fair Trade Coffee, the barrista looked at me blankly. And that’s IN our nation’s capitol. sigh Too bad they failed, and right before the Environmental Film Festival that’s out there right now.
March 21st, 2006 at 7:06 am
I found what Christina said very interesting. You can’t appeal to Starbucks’ pure goodness of heart to increase the amount of fair trade they’re doing. When I was working with the NYC Audubon Society on their proposal for the conservation of NY/NJ Harbor Herons, which they wanted to get the attention of legislators on, I told them as much. You can’t tell these guys “Oh, look how cute. We must save these birds.” You have to give them numbers–how much money is eco-tourism of this region bringing in? How much in terms of birding equipment, local-business patronage is being generated by interest in these birds? Could the fact that the birds are dying be an indicator of problems with the surrounding water, in which case it would be a matter of public health concern?
When you get down to it, it’s still all about money and power.
March 21st, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Firstly, let me say that I am reasonably new to this blog, so apologies if my views on this are reiterating what has already been expressed elsewhere. I think the fact that the debate is happening to this degree is a very positive sign in itself. I agree totally with the view that companies will only change if they see some direct or indirect payback for them. This is inevitable, and actually in one way is a legal requirement - any publicly listed company has a legal duty to put the interests of the shareholders first. What really excites me about the times that we are living in now is that finally, there are enough people (I hate the word consumers) who care about the social, ethical and environmental issues surrounding the things they buy that companies have to sit up and take notice. Particularly since the people who care nowadays are not just a bunch of marginalised hippies. They are sizeable in number and include highly affluent and influential citizens as well. So, is what Starbucks is doing good enough to receive positive recognition? I think there needs to be a balance between positive and negative reinforcement. Of course, if a company does something bad, they deserve to be blasted for it, not least to show them that some people have noticed and care about what they have/haven’t done. But I also think it’s important to celebrate positive steps in the right direction. Even small steps deserve recognition, so long as they’re not just tokenistic. Some commitments to long-term changes and a framework for measuring and reporting on them would go a long way to building people’s trust as well. And, just as importantly, if momentum is to be built on these issues, and broader society engaged (and convinced to spend more money on more ethical choices) then companies need to make this stuff more interesting - not just bury it in mind-numbing detail at the back of CSR reports designed for NGO’s and investors. (By the way, that’s exactly what our consultancy in London helps clients to do, and hopefully there will be enough companies who ‘get it’ and value the potential financial and societal benefits to keep us in business!) These are changing times, and it feels like more people are choosing to be part of the solution rather than blindly be part of the problem. Let’s see what happens. Love the blog Siel, and I enjoyed getting that off my chest!
March 21st, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Although I recognize that Starbucks is definitely better than most companies, it also seems that they’re expoiting a minimal commitment to Fair Trade to protect their flank against activists, while they focus their efforts on maintaining maximum control over their supply chain.
To the extent, they’re aggressively using a “green” messaging strategy to craft an rosy image of how they purchase their coffee, while lackadaisically pushing Fair Trade, they’re greenwashing. (CAFE is warm, reassuring and manipulated to focus on ideals while avoiding transparency; whereas Fair Trade is 100% transparent and clearly addresses CAFE’s goals without granting them the wiggle room CAFE does).
I’d say that greenwashing is a good thing to the extent it gives activists a toehold to push a company to deepen its commitment — while creating an opportunity for mainstream consumers to validate the value of green issues.
The danger is when activist/enthusiast media such as Ideal Bite choose to champion a greenwasher, rather than push them toward more green and less wash.
That’s why this dialogue initiated by Siel is so important.
March 21st, 2006 at 9:40 pm
Ideal Bite has a poll on the usefulness of their tip.
March 26th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Kristy — I tagged your comment to delish — Sad about DC in general. Can we blame the challenge failure on Bush? ;)
Hey Jasmin — I see your point, but part of what bugs me about Starbucks is that it tries to market itself as a company that does the “right” thing, regardless of profits. I think if Starbucks is gonna push that image through its PR, it’s gotta live up to it.
Mike — Thanks for stopping by! Love the perfect t-shirt project :) It is a tough line, between rewarding companies for doing right and calling greenwashing when we see it.
Jerry — Thanks for the kudos (did you get my email, btw?) I agree with you here: “The danger is when activist/enthusiast media such as Ideal Bite choose to champion a greenwasher, rather than push them toward more green and less wash.” We all have different roles in terms of pushing companies forward — and in my opinion, Ideal Bite really dropped the ball on this one :)
Which is why — anon — I’m a lil wary of the “usefulness” tip thing — It only takes popular tips to the top, without really giving dissatisfaction with greenwashing tips a voice…
March 27th, 2006 at 5:28 am
Since our motto at Ideal Bite is to help people to make the small changes that add up to big results every day, and since our mission is to get people engaged with sustainability, we always love it when we prompt a good dose debate. Every day, we back our daily email tip with a corresponding blog precisely for this reason: we want to give our readers a place to weigh in, give feedback, share their own great green ideas, and challenge assumptions in a field fraught with nuance.
So all in all, we gotta admit – we have loved being “called out†by Green La Girl and our blog commentors. We love the fact that there is furor over our Starbucks Green Chip Company Showcase (we truly can’t wait until we do the McDonalds one). All this discussion about these truly important topics is exactly why we go the extra mile to host a blog… we went to create a platform for discussion.
However, because we are all pretty passionate about these topics, truth sometimes loses out in the furor. So in the spirit of continuing the discussion, we thought we’d clear up a few facts about our Starbucks tip and Ideal Bite’s attitude as a whole.
• Christine Arena is one of our expert panelists, and we never suggested that she authored our tip. As stated at the bottom of the email tip, Christine Arena reviewed it for us; and we did take her insights to heart.
• One piece of that insight was a suggestion that we mention the fair trade certification challenges – specifically as called out by Green LA Girl in your blog. Based on that feedback, we provided two different links in the space of the tip to this very blog (GreenLAGirl) and another link to the Industrial Workers of the World’s section on Starbucks’ labor union issues. Our readers do click on the links we provide in our daily tips – thus, we wanted to give them access to both the Starbucks CSR report AND to the counterpoints out there, so that they could read them and decide for themselves.
Which brings us to our final point:
We started Ideal Bite to give people a place where they could feel empowered. Where they could approach the concept of greening their lives in a positive, non-preachy way. We did it because we felt that there were already plenty of great places out there to join “watch dog†groups or get more hardcore doses of environmentalism. Thus, we started Ideal Bite to applaud the positive changes that ARE being made - by people and companies.
When we sent out the Starbucks tip, we were well aware of the can of worms we were opening. We were fine with opening it. We still are. We absolutely promise you that we are going to do Green Chip Showcases on companies that are going to piss you off (just wait).
But if those companies are doing better this year than they did last – even in the clear light that it’s not yet good enough – we stand by the tip.
-Heather Stephenson and Jennifer Boulden, Co-Founders, Ideal Bite
March 29th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Hey Heather and Jennifer! Sorry it took me this long to comment back — It’s been a lil hectic, guest blogging for Treehugger and trying to keep up with things here –
Thanks for writing, first of all :) You’re right — the tip does say it was REVIEWED by Christina — but I thought that meant that Christina studied the company, then wrote a review on it. You know, the way one watches a film and writes a review… An honest mistake on my part — but perhaps I might suggest making that language more clear for future showcases?
I did see the links and wrote about them in my first post — What I’m trying to say is that those 3 links aren’t enough to provide a fair view — especially sandwiched between a buncha points from the Starbucks press release and this laudatory closing: “Rather than skirt the issues, Starbucks has chosen to engage with stakeholders and their concerns. The company goes a step further, recognizing and disclosing its weaknesses in its 2005 CSR Report.”
I’m trying to show here that Starbucks HAS skirted the issues, and really needs to do a better job of addressing stakeholders’ concerns. Yes, it put out a 2005 CSR Report — which purports to answer concerns about fair trade but actually only gives straw person arguments without addressing the actual concerns (you can see the back and forth Christina and I have had about this in the comments on in my first post).
Which makes me wonder about the whole point behind the Green Chip Company Showcases in general. I think most of your readers — myself included — see these showcases as a congratulation of sorts — an e-ovation — for companies that’re really making changes. Meaning — In your description, you say these showcases feature companies “that are making strides to help green the world.”
Many of your readers disagreed that Starbucks was “making strides” — I, for one, feel Starbucks takes only teeny weeny steps that lets the mermaid greenwash.
Now on this post, you say it simply features companies that “are doing better this year than they did the last.” That sets the bar pretty damn low — Walmart could just add a couple solar panels, or McDonald’s a CSR blog, and be in the running for a showcase — and, in my opinion, only makes big corp’s tendency to greenwash more successful.
We get enough press releases and marketing / advertising and greenwashing from the companies themselves without Ideal Bite simply regurgitating the same info. I guess I was hoping that Ideal Bite would provide something that cut through the crap. I get the feeling, however, that that’s not your goal, at least as of now — Please prove me wrong…