A lil something from the archives — It’s clear that the struggle — on the part of activists — to make Starbucks live up to its greenwashing is hardly a new one.
Almost a decade ago, back in 1997, at least one shareholder spoke out about his frustrations with the mermaid.
The shareholder: Bruce Herbert, Director of the Northwest Coalition for Responsible Investment and prez of Thomson Herbert Company. Bruce reported that, in 1995, Starbucks said it “adopted a Code of Conduct in a move to hold coffee growers accountable for acceptable working conditions, wages and basic rights forworkers.”
Bruce wrote: “The company’s goal was to purchase coffee from people who share a commitment for treating employees “with respect and dignity.” Starbucks would address wage and benefit levels, safety and health conditions, child labor, and the right of free association, all factors addressed within its code.”
This goal was met with “wide-spread acclaim and recognition,” including a mention on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.
But what actually happened after the announcement? Writes Bruce: “we have been kept largely in the dark. We are often told that the situation is very complex, and that the company is moving ahead as best it can. Unfortunately, particulars are rarely forthcoming.”
What Starbucks clearly did: “the company made two sizable contributions to one charity (CARE), and announced a $75,000 initiative (0.2 percent of 1996 profits) for 1997 to fund a program to help small coffee growers (not workers) produce gourmet quality beans.”
Ok — but what’re the effects of these contributions, for real? “as Margaret Swedish of the Religious Task Force on Central America & Mexico has noted, ‘it is another example of a company that claims to pay back in charity what it does not give in justice.’”
Bruce says his further comments were then silenced by Howard Schultz of Starbucks, a contention that Starbucks contests to some degree. At the time, Starbucks also said that monitoring the living and working conditions of Guatemalan farmworkers was “presently beyond our capabilities.”
Well. I think most would say now that, if anyone can monitor the working conditions of coffee farmers, it’s the rich behemoth called Starbucks — especially since fair trade certification allows Starbucks to get a 3rd party like TransFair USAto certify these conditions for it.
But Starbucks is still at just 3.7% fair trade certified coffee –
I know I end up defending Starbucks a lot, but it just so happens I have been doing a lot (and I mean A LOT) of research on this company’s supply chain practices this summer. Anyways, when they said in 1997 that checking up on the working conditions of their suppliers in Guatemala was “beyond their capabilities”, I actually believe them.
Because of the opaqueness of the coffee supply chain (you know, the fact that the intermediaries don’t tell their buyers where exactly they get their coffee from), Starbucks probably could not even identifiy the small farms that their coffee came from, let alone take measures to fix the deep-seated economic problems of the region. Large plantations that sold directly to Starbucks could more easily be identified and possibly even ‘controlled’ (i.e. ‘encouraged’ to change their environmental and social practices). But with the total blockage of the intermediaries (be they processors, exporters or importers), there was probably little or NO connection between Starbucks and the small-scale, exploited farmers whose coffee ended up in Starbucks stores. It may not have been a matter of WANTING to help or being able to AFFORD to help, it was just a logistical impossibility at the time.
This is less so the case now, in 2006… why? Because since 1997, Starbucks has taken measures to increase transparency in the supply chain and to deal more directly with farmers.
I have a totally unrelated question (or challenge): why is it that nobody on this site mentions that Starbucks also purchases certified Organic coffee as well as several kinds of shade-grown coffee (Conservation Coffee, Rainforest Alliance certified, etc)? Is that as worthless to FT advocates as the C.A.F.E. program? Is 3.7% the only number that matters, or is it the improvement farmer livelihoods, or environmental conservation, (through Fair Trade means or through other equally innovative means) that matters?
Comment by Liz — July 19, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
I hear ya about the opaqueness of the coffee chain — but the thing is, that opaqueness could only be made more transparent through the work of people IN the coffee sector. Meaning that — even back in 1997, Starbucks’ coulda said — “Due to the current opacity of the coffee chain, we will not be able to solve this issue overnight. These are the current problems [long outline]. However, we will begin to make a concerted effort towards making the coffee chain more transparent.” Starbucks did not do this.
My point in this post is that Starbucks — despite its resources (which I know are much bigger now, but was already quite significant back then) chose not to do anything until much smaller companies (yes, the 100%, mission-driven fair trade companies) proved that it should — and more importantly for Starbucks, could — be done, as long as it was made a priority.
And I think most would agree that — if yer gonna make an announcement proclaiming that yer gonna “address wage and benefit levels, safety and health conditions, child labor, and the right of free association, all factors addressed within its code” — you should do that (as in making sure you CAN do that before the announcement, then following thru with the promise)…
Comment by Siel — July 24, 2006 @ 9:07 pm