Comments on: A near-decade long struggle re: Starbucks http://greenlagirl.com/a-near-decade-long-struggle-re-starbucks/ Urban environmental lifestyle blog in Los Angeles Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:08:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Siel http://greenlagirl.com/a-near-decade-long-struggle-re-starbucks/comment-page-1/#comment-9254 Siel Tue, 25 Jul 2006 04:07:16 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2006/07/06/a-near-decade-long-struggle-re-starbucks/#comment-9254 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)... 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)…

]]> By: Liz http://greenlagirl.com/a-near-decade-long-struggle-re-starbucks/comment-page-1/#comment-8891 Liz Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:31:23 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2006/07/06/a-near-decade-long-struggle-re-starbucks/#comment-8891 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? 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?

]]>