Comments on: Starbucks’ PR party

By: Siel

Siel — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 00:45:35 +0000

Bretty -- The Starbucks Challenge FAQ will answer to a lot of the issues you brought up. For one, to say that Starbucks pays higher than fair trade prices is totally incorrect. As I covered in the FAQ: The $1.26 fair trade certified price means that the coffee farmer co-op receives $1.26 per lb. The $1.42 Starbucks claim means that — um — someone receives $1.42. This could be anyone from the importer that Starbucks pays so as not to have to hear about the conditions of the actual farmers producing the coffee, to the “coyotes,” middlemen who’re known for gouging farmers with no means to get their coffee to the market — in order to fatten their own bottom lines. The fact that Starbucks twists the numbers this way has been noted even by the New York Times, as I covered here. Yes, only farmer co-ops can get fair trade certified. However, if you look at the above NYT article I mentioned, you'll see that even at those farms, Starbucks is paying the co-op less than the minimum fair trade price. Sure, it's in Starbucks' interest to get high quality coffee, just as it's in the interest of corporations that use sweatshops to manufacture high quality products. But the fact that companies demand and expect high quality products is not a guarantee that the people making those products are going to be treated fairly. I'd also like to point out that activists are asking Starbucks to make a strong commitment and to continuously INCREASE the amount of fair trade, to hopefully reach 100% in some years, NOT demanding an overnight switch to 100% fair trade. We all know that an overnight 100% switch to fair trade coffee for a company Starbucks' size is impossible; for Starbucks to say it won't make further commitments toward significantly moving up its % because it can't immediately go 100%'s just skirting the real issue.

By: Bretty Day

Bretty Day — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:38:49 +0000

Hello,
I get extremly annoyed when people attack Starbucks. Unfortunately, I do not have the exact figures to back this up, but I know they are in the CSR report at Starbucks.com. Firstly, Starbucks is now the largest purchaser of Fairtrade in the world! That is quite remarkable. Okay this makes up a small percentage of their overall coffee purchases. However, we need to ask ourselves the question why would Starbucks not want to buy Fairtrade 100%? It is all too easy to think it is because they are greedy and trying to make more money. I think even a large corporate American company places more value in its customers ability to be intelligent enough to see through that. Starbucks on average, pays more than the minimum Fairtrade price, and has always paid well over the market price since it began in 1971. It is not a incentive, or special purchase, it is there way of doing business. The reason why Starbucks does not buy more Fairtrade is because there is not enough high quality coffee available. Secondly, Fairtrade only tends to certifiy small farms, and Starbucks because of its volumes purchases from lots of small farms and large farms as well. So for instance, a bag of Kenya coffee comes from 70 different farms in order to produce the right flavour profile and high quality beans. Fairtrade need to make buying there coffee more attractive. If the coffee is of a high quality, then companies will buy it at a higher price. If it is a lower quality there is no incentive for them, unless there is consumer pressure and awareness. The Fairtrade organisation need to add about quality and environmental impact on to there objectives, not just price. At least Starbucks does invest and donate money outside of the coffee farm. We are not putting enough pressure on Fairtrade to do better! Because they can. The industry is in such a state that farmers are now saying, you know what it is better that we grow vegetables to feed our family than it is grow coffee. Furthermore, Starbucks has invested huge amounts of money in improving the coffee production process. They have just announced a second Farmer Support Centre in Ethiopia. It is in Starbucks best interest to educate farmers to produce high quality coffee, and lots of it if they intend to continue their expansion plans. People often criticise the company for their aggressive expansion, but the power of Starbucks to change the coffee industry is massive. Don’t forget that in 2004 Oxfam claimed Starbucks was the leader in the coffee industry, and that other companies should look to them as a good way of doing business for the coffee industry. We should be working with Starbucks to improve their practices, and to influence the rest of the industry to follow the Starbucks practices and even better them at it. The power of consumerism is massive.

By: Siel

Siel — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 05:33:00 +0000

james — I think the issue is that, with corporate and international trade laws the way they are now, Starbucks is legally not held responsible for the habitat destruction its business practices causes.

According to Kendall of Spin and Stir, who watched Black Gold, the film apparantly “looks at the poverty and exploitation of the workers and farmers who harvest and process the beans in Ethiopia used by Starbucks.”

This exploitation is leading to dire poverty and habitat destruction — but in the eye the law, Starbucks isn’t held responsible for preventing or — in your word — rectifying — the situation.

What I think Anon was trying to point out was that corporations can cause huge amounts of socio-environmental damage, then get praised for donating a bit to efforts that try to clean up that damage — damage corps created in the first place. In very few places do we get to read about the irony of this situation.

BTW — I believe Starbucks said that they didn’t buy more coffee from Africa cuz — basically — Africa’s far, esp. compared to, say, Mexico. Quality wasn’t the issue. There’s no dearth of yummy coffee coming out of Africa — Ethiopean coffee’s especially popular and well-loved.

By: james

james — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 04:29:24 +0000

what did you find insightful about the park comment? Is sbux really responsible for rectifying the natural habitat destruction in africa? Just another example; sbux gives around $1mm to seattle parks and gets criticized for it.

Are they to be criticized for their partnership with African Wildlife foundation too? Below copied from sbux press release, “Starbucks Updated Guests on the â€œAfrican Heartlands Coffee Projectâ€

Starbucks proudly announced that the â€œAfrican Heartlands Coffee Project,â€ which launched in June 2005, is now rolling out the first initial stages of Starbucks C.A.F.E. Practices in Kenya. C.A.F.E. (Coffee and Farmer Equity) Practices are Starbucks coffee buying guidelines designed to encourage coffee farmers to grow high-quality coffee and to promote equitable relationships with farmers, workers, and communities, as well as protect the environment. The three-year venture and $600,000 commitment launched in collaboration with the African Wildlife Foundation â€“ a leading conservation organization with nearly 45 years of successful expertise working in Africa”

I’m just a bit confused…if sbux only buys 5% of their coffee from africa, due to its poor quality, but is actively working with african coffee farmers to improve their quality, how is this movie a slam on sbux when sbux doesn’t buy coffee in these auctions or of off the ‘c’ mkt and pays premium prices for their beans…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 03:19:23 +0000

Awsome! I read the article and especially like his weight on “…Starbucks’ before-tax contribution to Seattle’s parks does not make up a bit of the natural habitat distruction in Africa.”

Ms. Starbucks, wake up to your senses; what’s up with you?