Now we have Heather Stephenson and Jennifer Boulden, Co-Founders of Ideal Bite, weighing in on the Starbucks’ Green Chip Company Showcase that I wrote about here and here.
For those new to the discussion — Ideal Bite lauded Starbucks as a “Green Chip Company” making great strides for, among other things, fair trade coffee. That pissed me and many other Ideal Bite readers off….
Heather and Jennifer’s comment’s here; my response is right behind it. Please weigh in on this post, as that post is about to fall off the 2nd page –
Update, 5/17/06: Has Ideal Bite gotten more ideal? An update here.
Wow..ok, it doesn’t seem like Ideal Bite is that ideal then…too bad.
Comment by Maya — March 30, 2006 @ 1:39 am
I find their replies irritating and superficial, to be honest. A lot of marketing fluff with no apparent desire to offer honest answers on anything but the most superficial issues.
They actually sounded like politicians to me – like the kind of response that I get from a legislator when I send him/her a letter with a position they don’t agree with. No real response to various valid points I may bring up, just a canned response.
In this example: I personally don’t give two shits whether Christine is an “expert”, a “reviewer” or the queen of green. We get it. She didn’t write it – Ideal Bite did – move on to some important points, J&H.
Like the one about them including – way down at the bottom of the Starbucks “showcase” – issues that have been raised about Starbuck’s commitment to fair trade. Except that it’s followed by a big *BUT*, about how wonderfully transparent Starbucks supposedly is, partly negating the problems previously alluded to. Siel, you point this out again to them – it’s not enough to say – “oh and a few people don’t like that they do this, BUT, they say they’re working on it.” The wording of it actually spun it in a positive way – with the implication that the point was not the particular problems themselves, but the noble way in which Starbucks deals with them.
And then their “final point” – could it be something about greenwashing, the criteria for choosing a “green chip” biz, the process they used to choose Starbucks, the complicated issues of supporting mega-corporations in their underwhelming efforts to be green rather than highlighting businesses of green origin…?
No. It’s – we don’t “preach”, we’re not “watchdogs”… and from their own site, we’re “light green”. (They never actually define the shades of green, but apparently if you didn’t agree with their inclusion of Starbucks in the showcase, then you’re “dark green”.)
I’m a subscriber to their service, and to almost a dozen other environmental/green tip newsletters. They’re all pretty much the same: Problem. Facts. Solutions. Encouragement. Some tips are easier or more practical, some I’m more interested in than others.
So it’s hard for me to understand the way Ideal Bite tries to distinguish itself. If they hadn’t included Starbucks as a showcased biz, they would have been too scary-hippie-preachy to their thousands of delicate, light-green-toned subscribers? If they focus instead on supporting up-and-coming green businesses who haven’t yet achieved mega-corp status (and who do actually have a quantifiable commitment to green values), they’ll freak people out?
It seems silly. And it reminds me of the politician comparison again. Pander to the lowest common denominator – vote based on the polls – do what is politically expedient, not necessarily what you believe to be true or right. God forbid you lead people, enlighten them, elevate them, challenge them…(And I do believe that these things can be done without being self-righteous and preachy – apparently Ideal Bite does not.)
But the comparison to politicos falls short, b/c most shrewd ones know what Ideal Bite fails to get: Solidify your base and they will be loyal, inspired leaders. Alienate your base, and you’re left pandering to flitty “undecideds”.
I know this is a long comment – but I just find them soooo irritating!! *OOOh.. we just loooove debate and we can’t wait to talk about McDonald’s to piss people off and this is what we’re all about….(gag).
They want to look at environmentalism like it’s this fun habit you can acquire, like shopping at a flea market. And easy tips are great – they have a role. But they have a role within much larger systemic change. B/c I can try to follow every one of their cute, trendy tips – but that’s not enough if the system hasn’t been revolutionized. And I don’t think we can simultaneously deconstruct a system of greed, materialism, social injustice and environmental degradation by propping up the very corporations who are part and parcel to it.
(Oh lord. Thanks for letting me rant.)
Comment by M — March 30, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
I too am rather astonished about how absolutely thrilled Jen and Heather are that so many people disagree with them. Over at The Lazy Environmentalist we throw darts at people’s heads even when they agree with us.
I came across this debate and find it fascinating. It would seem to me the sensible thing to do is to applaud and acknowledge the steps companies take toward sustainability while still holding them accountable for actions that remain rather mindless. The issue is hardly black and white. Sometimes “bad†companies do good things and vice versa.
If Starbucks sources some Fair Trade coffee that’s a good thing. If they receive good press for it and suddenly Fair Trade Coffee is available at Target (it is) that’s a good thing too. I have no proof that there is any kind of correlation. Whenever I lunch with the CEO of Target we don’t get around to talking about it much because he’s too busy asking me why so many ethical and enlightened shoppers can’t seem to help their addiction to all of his products that are Made in China.
Perhaps Jen and Heather don’t really see their role as preaching to the converted to “solidify†their base. Perhaps they are trying to reach the hundreds of millions of Americans who have no environmental consciousness whatsoever. Perhaps they realize that talk of revolution is best left to dead Russian authors. Perhaps they choose to embrace reality and recognize that greed isn’t going away anytime soon, that materialism is more American than apple pie and that Starbucks alone could do more to stamp out social justice than the rest of the fair trade coffee movement combined. Perhaps they are trying to do just what they say they are trying to do – encourage small steps that can add up to a big difference. Perhaps they truly are thrilled that so many people are pissed off about their showcase choice and are spending a lot of time thinking about it and writing about them. Now that I think about it, I’d be thrilled too.
Comment by Josh Dorfman, The Lazy Environmentalist — March 31, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
(In response to Siel’s March 20th post)
Hello Siel,
I’m terribly sorry that this took so long! As promised, I am posting Starbucks management’s responses to your three questions about the company’s progress with respect to Fair Trade.
(I thought your sticker idea was a good one.) Anyway, I have my own thoughts on the subject and will post them soon.
Starbucks Q & A:
SIEL: 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?
STARBUCKS: Starbucks is a leader in this area. Starbucks purchased 11.5 million pounds (4.5 million kg.) of Fair Trade Certifiedâ„¢ coffee in FY 2005. This is approximately 10% of global imports and 21% of all Fair Trade Certifiedâ„¢ coffee imported into the U.S. Beyond the significant volume of Fair Trade Certifiedâ„¢ coffee that Starbucks purchases, Starbucks further supports our common goals with the Fair Trade movement by paying premium prices for coffee purchases and through programs that provide access to affordable credit, purchase directly from farmers, invest in social projects in coffee communities, purchases of conservation (shade grown) coffees and encourage participation in C.A.F.E. Practices (Coffee and Farmer Equity Practices) — a set of responsible coffee buying guidelines that offers preferential buying status for participants that score the highest in social and environmental criteria on verified reports. In FY 2005 Starbucks purchased 76.8 million pounds of coffee from C.A.F.E. Practices approved suppliers representing 24.6% of Starbucks total coffee purchases. Starbucks goal in 2007 is to purchase 225 million pounds of C.A.F.E. Practices verified coffees, which will represent the majority of all coffee that we purchase. Starbucks is committed to purchasing coffee in a socially responsible manner. Our numbers (and percentages) demonstrate this.
SIEL: 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?
STARBUCKS: As noted above, our commitment to purchasing coffee in a socially responsible way goes beyond our purchasing and marketing of Fair Trade Certifiedâ„¢ coffees and is not limited by labels and certifications. We offer our customers a number of choices to demonstrate their commitment to sustainable coffee production including Fair Trade Certifiedâ„¢ coffees, shade grown coffees and certified organic coffees. In addition, just like this year, we will sell more coffee with the FT logo next year than any other company in North America.
SIEL: 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?
STARBUCKS: The Challenge is not a Starbucks program. That said, Starbucks constantly looks for ways to exceed our customers’ expectations. In the spirit of Starbucks Legendary Service, we strive to give customers the option of enjoying a cup of any of our available coffees in our stores, including a cup of Café Estima (Fair Trade Certifiedâ„¢) coffee. There may be times when our store partners are unable to accommodate a specific customer’s request for a particular coffee because of, for example, the crush of business and the realities of our fast-paced retail environment, but that does not mean we are not committed to purchasing sustainable coffee in socially responsible ways. In that regard, our numbers above speak for themselves.
Comment by christine — April 2, 2006 @ 4:34 pm
Hello Josh Dorfman. Welcome to the debate. You rightly say: “The issue is hardly black and white. Sometimes “bad†companies do good things and vice versa. If Starbucks sources some Fair Trade coffee that’s a good thing.â€
The thing is, Starbucks doesn’t source SOME Fair Trade coffee. Starbucks sources 11.5 million pounds of Fair Trade coffee, more than any other retailer in the United States. According to the q&a I just posted (see above) Starbucks buys 21% of all US Fair Trade coffee imports and 10% of global imports. When you look at it that way, that’s rather huge, isn’t it?
Many bloggers insist that Starbucks is greenwashing. Lots of Fair Trade advocates are up in arms about the fact that Starbucks is only at 3.7% total Fair Trade volume, whereas they should be at 5% by now. So, advocate’s chief argument is for faster growth in volume. But what about the issue of growth versus demand? Also, whose fault is it that current customer demand for Fair Trade coffee in America and around the world isn’t higher?
When you look at where the company is now with respect to Fair Trade, there is an interesting correlation, which is: low customer demand vs. high relative current volume. What does that suggest? If Starbucks were “greenwashing,†then why would Fair Trade volume exceed customer demand? Why would they be the Nation’s largest purchaser?
Bloggers – I am not suggesting that Starbucks is perfect. But put things into perspective. The people who really, truly, passionately care about the Fair Trade cause do not buy their coffee from Starbucks. The average Starbucks customer does not go to Starbucks for Fair Trade. Perhaps they could, and hopefully they will in the future, but at present this is not the case. Still, the company buys more of the coffee than any other company?
The reality is that the Fair Trade issue is not the bigger one as Starbucks will NEVER import the majority of its coffee through the Fair Trade system. The company’s infrastructure, business model, strategy, relationships, etc. do not allow for this. That’s my take, at least. The company developed C.A.F.E. as the preferable alternative and will eventually migrate its entire supply chain over to this system. So, perhaps what everyone – including critics and advocates of Starbucks responsible sourcing initiatives – should really be focused on is the nature of that particular program and how it is actually working.
Comment by Christine Arena — April 2, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
Christine makes some good points here. I’ve partaken in this Starbucks Challenge, but I don’t go to Starbucks for my Fair Trade coffee. I get way more satisfaction from supporting the smaller, indy companies like Dean’s Beans and Equal Exchange. What she is also saying that Starbucks buys more Fair Trade coffee than all of these smaller companies combined, which is really hard for me to believe.
Comment by Leila — April 3, 2006 @ 8:39 am
Wow, Siel, Starbucks managed to NOT answer all of your questions in a very long-winded way.
Comment by Jasmin — April 3, 2006 @ 9:40 am
Hey Christine — Thanks for the detailed response! I wrote about the responses you got from Starbucks (here, here and here)– Thanks so much for making that happen, even if I didn’t feel they adequately answered my questions, that’s no fault of your own.
And thanks everyone for weighing in. M — I too was esp. unhappy with the way Ideal Bite seemed to absolve Starbucks of all fault — I agree with your opinion that IB implied that “the point was not the particular problems themselves, but the noble way in which Starbucks deals with them.”
Josh — I’m all for interesting and thought-provoking debate. My question is — how effectively is IB doing this? I mean, in the blogosphere, nasty, stupid troll comments also tend to get a lot of “discussion” going in response. I’m not saying that IB’s a troll — I’m simply saying that a more thoughtful, balanced coverage of Starbucks’ policies would’ve yielded a more thoughtful and balanced discussion. Just the fact that IB chose to wrote about Starbucks on its own doesn’t exactly mean IB’s courageously taking on the “tough” issues and provoking intelligent debate — especially when the coverage is one-sided and limited.
Christine — As I mentioned in my posts about Starbucks, Starbucks does clearly buy a lot of fair trade coffee — when measured in tons — cuz it’s a fucking huge company. Of course it buys more of it than any other company — There are more Starbucks coffee shops than any other coffee shop — A LOT more.
But the fact remains that fair trade coffee makes up only 3.7% of Starbucks’ total purchases. Consumer demand for fair trade coffee — and here I mean consumers OF Starbucks’ coffee — is already outpacing Starbucks’ fair trade offerings. Even on that supply-demand criteria alone, doesn’t it make sense for Starbucks to sell more fair trade coffee?
And I’m really unclear as to why you feel activists should adopt Starbucks’ watered-down criteria, CAFE practices, in lieu of fair trade coffee, just because CAFE is more convenient for Starbucks. By that logic, we should tailor what we consider “ethical” or “environmentally-friendly” to best suit big corps’ interests. C’mon now.
Comment by Siel — April 5, 2006 @ 11:00 am
Hello Siel,
To your question: “Doesn’t it make sense for Starbucks to sell more Fair Trade coffee?” I am investigating the answer to this. Seriously. I am trying to determine which system is more valuable for Starbucks stakeholders longer term.
The answer isn’t black or white. Nor is it purely ethical or business-driven. For sure, it is complex. From a moral perspective, who is to say what is more important: the human rights of the farmers working in the fields of large and medium-sized plantations, or the human rights of the farmers working in small, family-owned farms? Also, which ecosystems are more precious and worth protecting? (I assume that many people would say that size doesn’t matter and that every system is equally worth protecting.)
Yet, under the current Fair Trade Certification system, the living things on the smaller farms are prioritized. Why is that? I don’t understand this. I have asked people from inside the labeling organizations this question, and you could say that their answers were less than satisfying. Perhaps you can explain it to me, an admitted novice on the subject. Why are the needs of the larger group ignored? To me, this does not seem rational. Frankly, it really pisses me off.
Now to CAFE. CAFE targets the larger group and clearly is the preferable route forward for the company. However, your interpretation of my view on CAFE is inaccurate. I am soooo not saying that: “activists should adopt Starbucks’ watered-down criteria in lieu of fair trade coffee, just because CAFE is more convenient for Starbucks.†What I AM saying is that activists should demand details, increased transparency, goals, metrics and total and complete accountability from Starbucks with respect to CAFE. Activists should encourage Starbucks to improve the CAFE system and source more coffee though it – as well as, little by little, buy more Fair Trade coffee, too.
Ultimately, if CAFE worked as well as or better than Fair Trade, but targeted the needs of larger farms AND met the company’s goals, then we would have a truly sustainable solution. For this particular company, I mean.
Comment by Christine Arena — April 7, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
Oh, and by the way, just to be totally clear: I am absolutely not against Fair Trade. I am FOR FAIR TRADE. I am just wondering if increased activism around Starbucks’ CAFE standards wouldn’t result in better social and environmental results, faster. That is the key issue;)
Comment by Christine Arena — April 7, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
Christine — As we both know, this is not an either or issue (fair trade or CAFE) for Starbucks, since — considering Starbucks’ size — not all of the coffee it buys is going to be fair trade anytime soon. I wouldn’t be so critical about CAFE if Starbucks made a serious commitment to fair trade, and then did CAFE practices for coffee that doesn’t fit into that category. Instead, Starbucks is trying to make people think that CAFE is “better” than fair trade, in an effort to push their own, less rigorous standards instead of fair trade.
I’m not sure why you feel that the “larger group” is being ignored. 70% of the world’s coffee is grown on farms of less than 25 acres, and of this, the vast majority’s grown on family plots of 2.5-12.5 acres (see Oxfam’s report for more details). Perhaps the labelling orgs you spoke with thought you already knew this, and weren’t sure what you were asking exactly?
While I personally hope that in the future, fair trade can be expanded to other types of farms, the “larger group” of coffee farmers right now is clearly the family-owned farms — many of which would benefit from organizing into a co-op if they haven’t done so already — NOT the big plantations. FLO and TFUSA and others in the FT movement try to put its work towards those projects that’ll have the biggest impact on most farmers — Thus, the focus on small farms at the moment.
And I do feel your idea that activists will be able to get Starbucks to improve the CAFE system is overly optimistic at best. Starbucks has already rejected recommendations from stakeholders that, if taken, would’ve made CAFE practices more serious. (I wrote about it here, and linked you to it several times, I think. Obviously, you’re not obligated to read it, but dude, if you’re gonna champion CAFE, it may help to know the critiques…) Instead, Starbucks just put its marketing force behind clouding what exactly CAFE is. CAFE’s v. difficult to decipher for the average person who doesn’t spend their free time writing a blog about fair trade coffee. Starbucks, it seems, is betting that people will buy the mermaid’s own greenwashing definition of CAFE instead.
Comment by Siel — April 8, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
Siel,
I haven’t logged on in a while – just read your response. My idea for activism around CAFE is really about encouraging the company to move to third-party criteria, such as SAI International’s SA 8000 certification system. I feel this is the best way to ensure that the company can both grow sustainably and meet growing environmental and social demands. Transparency is key, and not entirely possible within the current structure.
The 70% statistic from OXFAM, which cites that most coffee is grown on farms of less than 25 acres, is accurate. Excellent point. It is also accurate, as you know, that tea companies like Lipton (Unilever) and coffee companies like Starbucks source the vast majority of their products from the larger scale plantations and are not inclined to shift to small-scale farms. They therefore find the Fair Trade system to be difficult to comply with. So, what to do?
How about encouraging a third alternative, which is a market-based solution that enables Starbucks to “walk the talk” credibly (via auditing from a third-party) and offer humane working conditions to the farmers in the larger plantations whose needs equally deserved to be met?
I suppose I really didn’t make that point clear enough in my earlier post. Also, as you say, it’s not an ‘either or issue.’
Happy Earth Day.
Best wishes,
Christine
Comment by Christine Arena — April 21, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
…By the way, I did read your comments about CAFE. Also, dude, I’m not “championing” CAFE. I don’t work with Starbucks or advise them. I’m not their PR gal.
I’m just saying that multinationals are looking for market-based solutions that help them evolve sustainably, profitably. That’s what they demand and what they will do – like it or not.
However, as you have said and as has been proven in multiple industries from oil to retail, when companies set their own “evolution” standards without third-party intervention or criteria, it’s often a recipe for PR disaster – let alone a slower or even inept way of solving the social and environmental problems that most need solving.
I suppose, if I were to take an official position in this “debate,” I would be pro authentic, multinational process change.
That may sound like a lot of gobboldy-gook (spelling?) to you. But from where I’m standing, researching how this kind of change is happening in all kinds of companies in different industries, it occurs to me how critical this is and how such change plays into the worst problems the world faces today – from global warming to poverty.
Anyway, thanks for providing this forum and allowing me to rant.
C
Comment by Christine Arena — April 23, 2006 @ 7:53 am
Hey Christine — I totally agree that third-party criteria would be much, MUCH more beneficial, both to Starbucks’ CSR message and to customers. While Starbucks currently has SCS audit CAFE practices, since CAFE’s created by and for Starbucks, it’s really difficult (and rightly so) for the customer to trust that the program’s actually beneficial to the coffee producers.
But our mutual support for such a solution does not at all suggest that Starbucks shouldn’t also up its commitment to fair trade certified coffee. I mean, we both agree that it’s not an either-or situation. I hope that Starbucks works to make further strides in fair trade certified coffee, without trying to pit its own CAFE practices against fair trade certification.
Comment by Siel — May 17, 2006 @ 5:53 pm