The inside scoop on why Starbucks got a seat on the panel discussion at Global Green USA’s Climate Summit: Starbucks gives lotsa money to Global Green USA.
Which is a positive thing, on Starbucks’ part! Kudos to Starbucks for giving money to enviro orgs. I was just trying to figure out why the composition of the panel seemed a rather strange hodgepodge of big corps and serious enviro orgs…
Now I know. Basically, the panel was scheduled for just a few hours before Global Green USA’s annual Millenium Awards (invite, right). Obviously, Starbucks, being a sponsor, was invited to party — and panelists were sorta recruited from that guest list. And Starbucks wasn’t the only big corp — The Turner Corp. also made it on there, represented by Thomas C. Leppert, Chairman and CEO.
Left to right: Ben Packard, director of enviro affairs for Starbucks; Thomas of Turner; David Butterfield, Chairman of Loreto Bay; John Geesman, Commissioner of the Calif. Energy Commission; and Mary Nichols, Prez of the LA Department of Water and Power.
I know the pic’s kinda dark, but yes, those are indeed 4 white men and a woman. Which sorta gives you a sense of the need for greater diversity in the green movement. And in an unabashedly narcissistic tangent, I’ll segway to what Gregory Dicum said in SF Gate about the green blogosphere:
“Most of the people at the biggest green blogs are highly educated, and most are men with a tendency toward wonkiness. (One notable exception is GreenLAGirl, an informative site that not only presents the viewpoint of an environmentally engaged young woman, but is an introduction to the often-overlooked world of environmental consciousness in Los Angeles.)”
Yey me! I heart being unmale and unwonky. And also being Asian, which is especially helpful cuz I get easy-to-manage wash-n-go hair, which gives me more time for blogging… I’m in grad school, however, so technically, I guess I’d fall in the “highly educated” group –
Anyway :P The panel was supposed to focus on climate change and low-income communities — the second point didn’t make it into the discussion much, sadly.
But Ben found lots of time to discuss Starbucks’ CAFE practices, which he said came to be cuz “really there wasn’t a wholistic system.” He completely ignored the fact that fair trade is NOT just about the money farmers receive or corps pay, but also tough environmental standards (more about CAFE here and here).
But it seems pretty clear that, as much as possible, Starbucks is gonna try and market its weak CAFE practices thing as something better, more “wholistic,” than fair trade. Said Ben: “Going forward, we’ve really set some aggressive goals for increasing our CAFE practices.”
It’s up to us activists to battle Starbucks’ marketing arm and clarify what fair trade really is, and what CAFE practices is not. Not easy, cuz according to Ben, Starbucks now makes up close to 2% of the global coffee industry. Scary –
April 6th, 2006 at 2:14 am
Hello Siel,
Congrats on being framed as the modern voice of the green blogosphere;)
You mentioned that Ben said: “Going forward, we’ve really set some aggressive goals for increasing our CAFE practices.â€
Did he by chance mention what the specific goals are? Also, did he say whether Starbucks is working with a third-party organization to monitor the company’s ongoing performance in this area?
April 6th, 2006 at 3:57 am
Hahaha you calling me wonky? Only joking…
CAFE is not transparent as you got Starbucks to admit a while back…they cannot be sure what is paid for the product.
Of course Starbucks should be commended for all they do but the issue of Fairtrade and ethical consumerism is not theirs to define and I find it continually telling that they are TRYING so hard to define what ethical consumerism is. Very telling.
Scoop Siel to the rescue…way to go Siel!
Namaste
Al
April 6th, 2006 at 8:25 am
Thanks for the ‘ins’ Siel. Bravo for an educated ‘petite mais mignone’ asian green female activist then! :-) You’re the woman!
Yeah, (like Al said) it seems like Sbx is TRYING hard and could be successful (with their resources and money)in winning their way to define what ethical consumerism is and how to practice it. Look how they sponsor green event like this one and I’m sure for others to come.
Is it a red flag or what? How can they be stopped or let’s say be ‘guided’ to the right/just direction of fair trade movement? (I’m not sure if I chose the right words here but hopefully you’d understand) I’m ’scared’ to be disappointed…I’ll support you ’til the end of this :-)
Let’s stay positive and cheers…
April 6th, 2006 at 10:13 am
I think you are seeing the flexibility of any large corporation — stiff. The problems I see with expecting drastic change out of the company is their ability to get the entire crew on the “bandwagon”.
As you have seen with the Challenge, they can send memos to all regional managers but how can it really be managed?
I think if the company can micro manage each location and make sure they are at least provided their sole certified brew, it would be a step in the right direction.
I agree that if they can make the decision to buy more fairly traded coffees and teas, it will impact the coffee producing countries in great ways. 2% is quite a bit of market share for a single company and with that, they should lead the way in the Fair Trade coffee movement. (not to mention that it would look great for them to have something that says “100% Fair Trade — all 3 million of our stores”)
..be bold
April 6th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Thanks for coming and giving a report out on our event.
While we mentioned it briefly at the event, just before the symposium, we hosted a roundtable brainstorming discussion with a wide range of organizations from community, environmental, housing, public school, government agency, and corporate perspectives discussing how wee empower affordable housing groups, schools, and other low-income community constituencies to be part of solving global warming, and benefit from lower energy bills, etc. If you take a look at our website you’ll see a report we did on this topic, can can also learn more about the work we’re doing on affordable housing and schools in low-income neighborhoods.
As to the comments on why certain people were on the panel, I made it clear and was very transparent, as was were our materials, that Starbucks is a supporter of our work. Tom Leppert was an honoree at our dinner that evening, and was a sponsor as such. But both Starbucks and Turner are also leaders in the corporate world with renewabe energy, green building, and related solutions to global warming. At our dinner, we also honored Fran Pavley, and other leaders in different fields.
While your point the topic of low-income communities was not discussed enough by the panel (whether the impact upon them, which is siginficant, or the solutions) was well taken, you failed to mention Sheila Watt Cloutier’s speech. Did you miss it? She comes from a very low-income, indigenous community whose culture, way of life, and people are being devastated by climate change. I think you missed a big part of the presentation by not mentioning her speech or presence.
April 6th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
Yes! I was indeed there for Sheila’s speech. In fact, I was the one who wrote the question (for those not there: audience Qs for the panelists were written on index cards, to be read by the moderator) trying to connect the two, which went something like this (a paraphrase — I don’t have a copy of the card):
“Sheila’s speech made it clear that environmental activism goes hand in hand with the desire to preserve our individual cultures. Environmental consciousness seems intrinsically linked to cultural diversity. With that in mind, how does Starbucks and Turner respond to those who say that large companies’ expansions are leading to a “mono-culture” world?”
I was psyched when the Q was read — though less psyched when Ben tactfully ignored the Q…
Anyway — I did enjoy Sheila’s talk — and I did mention Sheila in my first post about the event. But this post is by no means a blow-by-blow summary of everything that took place in the summit. I’m writing about the panel here, and even then, I pretty much only talk about what Ben said, when obviously, the other panelists didn’t just sit there in silence.
I hope it’s clear here that I’m focusing on the parts of the summit that I said I was going to focus on. In my first post about this event, I wondered out loud (or in type, I guess) how Starbucks got on the panel. Starbucks’ sponsorship wasn’t mentioned in the email I received about the event (which also didn’t mention Turner’s presence, making Starbucks’ inclusion even more curious), nor on the website — which is why I wondered about it. At the event itself, it was indeed — as you say — clear that Starbucks had sponsored Global Green’s efforts and the Summit itself. But unless one actually attended the event, it was difficult to figure that out.
Matt — I do like, by and large, what Global Green’s doing. I mean, with the low-income communities and the environment comment, I simply said I would’ve liked to have heard more about it IN THE PANEL, because the panel was introduced as being about that topic. This is by no means an indictment of Global Green’s work as a whole! I’m sure Global Green does great things in low-income communities — I’m saying I would’ve liked to have heard more about this important issue in the panel itself.
April 7th, 2006 at 6:32 am
The whole thing stinks. Sorry if I’m not my usual self (well you all don’t really know me well, but i am, usually), i woke up at 4sm for some unknown reason.
No matter how they try to finesse it, it is greenwashing. Whatever happened to the old-fashioned idea of giving money because you believe in the cause and to do goodworks, instead of expecting good pr and seats on fancy Beverly Hills panels.
Let Starbucks make coffee and let more of the real experts, the grassroots experts doing the real work in their communities, on these panels.
And, the Green Party don’t take no stinkin corporate donations. We are corporate free, and therefore unbeholden, JOIN US!
April 7th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Well, hmm, I’m white. I’m male. I suppose “highly-educated” means “college-educated,” so, check. I definitely have a wonkish streak (I gave up long ago discussions with friends about municipal socialism). And, my career seems to be drifting me toward the position of policy analyst, the most wonkish occupation of all. Darn.
Off topic, enjoy your visit to Phoenix! I last was there seven long years ago and, from what I’ve heard, the place is unrecognizable - more sprawl, more smog. Take lots of pics!
April 15th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
This may have nothing to do with anything here, but a couple of things come to mind… first the illustration of the parody of the Starbucks logo… Didn’t the Comic Book Defense League have to bail the artist out of jail a few years ago for trademark infringement? Bottom line is Starbucks is a fad, people will sooner or later get bored of it… they have to… and then all these coffeeshops will all become independent, and play cool music, and let you hang flyers on the wall… I confess I was in love with their chocolate caramel covered brownies one year… till I was unlucky enough to be there the day they delivered the box they came in and got to read the ingredients… the worse of the worse artificial crap, a virtual chemistry set of artificial colors, preservatives, sweeteners, I never picked up another one again… haven’t really been to a Starbucks since, other than to meet someone who didn’t have the imagination to meet somewhere else. Starbucks is boring, that’s the bottom line… it’s just dull… the people who go there are dull, even the students at Yale who sit there all day because there’s a wifi connection for their laptop are dull… The fish are dying in Seattle Bay because people wiz caffeine all day. That can’t be good. Do you realize everything you see on a shelf in a pharmacy ultimately gets into the water supply, the ground water, the rivers, the sea… gets to a point where there’s no more diluting… it festers… like McDonough says, there is no away in away… I think to give companies like Starbucks who use massive mind control techniques to acquire and maintain market share, is just silly and scary… why empower these businesses… why does every City in America have to look the same… have the same stores, it’s Planet Disney… is this what God intended? Is this why they threw beer cans at Joni Mitchell at the second Woodstock… We asked God to do something about all this asphalt and parking lots, so God made people who love asphalt and parking lots? No wonder Abbie Hoffman decided to check out… The only place to see beauty anymore is in the heart of people who wish things were different… it’s all longing for a green planet… we may never have a chance to restore the mess we made of this place… but we can die trying, and that’s what I intend to do. So no matter how much schmoozing Global Green USA can do, Starbucks is Starbucks… and it s…. sorry.