Starbuckswashing

According to the Starbucks, they are a ”transnational coffee and coffeehouse chain company based in the United States and the largest coffeehouse company in the world” (Starbucks English website, n.d.). They serve drip-brewed coffee, hot and espresso based drinks, cold drinks and some chocolate favored sweets. By the way, Starbucks is a leader in the green-tag movement. The green-tag movement is an activity aimed at reducing CO2, cutting down the effect of global warming and building wind power plants (Green, 2006). They have taken actions for the environment. However, some controversies about their green activities have come out. They state that their cups are ecological, but their cups are hard to recycle (Conrad, 2007). Then, their partners, who are the coffee bean farmers, complain that Starbucks has never paid enough money to them (Deen, 2002). Moreover, they have deceived the consumers. In fact, do they take advantage of recyclable cups? As you can see, they do not. Many coffee bean farmers complain to them; why? This is because they do not get enough wages to live. They have to be honest; they disguise what they should announce. Therefore, Starbucks should focus on the environmental problems, their partners and consumers.

“Starbucks the coffee chain was born in liberal Seattle in 1971. It has mushroomed to operate 8,000 shops in 34 countries, each week serving 28 million customers” (Organic Consumers association, 2005, para.3). Then, they stated they take the “Green” action for the environment. For example, they announced that they use the cups made of 10% recycled materials (Conrad, 2007), and they also commented that they take advantage of the clean energy plant to supply 20% of their electric power (Green, 2006). In 1989, a man entered the Starbucks and took a brochure. He was the member of NGO and noticed that Starbucks’ bean farms are the same places as the places he supported and he asked Starbucks’ CEO to support poor countries. This was the first step to involving them into Green activity (Starbucks, 2008). Ever since, they have devoted themselves to environmental and social activities. However, their some efforts have not worked. Therefore, controversies about them occurred. Some environmentalists consider that their activities are “Greenwashing” because they do not seem to be “friendly” for the environments or to people. Conrad points to the Starbucks’ cups (2007), and Green claims the pledge (2006). Besides, coffee makers get only 40 cents per pound of coffee and Starbucks’ products contain genetically modified ingredients (Deen, 2002). For those reasons, many environmentalists and consumer organization regard Starbucks as a “Greenwashing” company.

First of all, their activities for the environment are not activities that really help the environment, because they waste resources and make their campaigns too complicated. For example, Conrad claims, in his article, that their cups are hard to reuse with other paper products (2007). They offer a discount if the customer bring his or her cups or tumblers. It seems to be eco-friendly; however, 2.3 billion cups they produced are served annually and emphasized including 10% renewable paper (Conrad, 2007). They say cups are recyclable, but their cups are difficult to reuse because of their coating. Thus, they make the cups too complicated. Further, their pledge that they plan to buy their electricity from renewable sources was announced, but they cannot supply their electric need with a single wind farm (Green, 2006). Actually, wind energy plants are environmentally friendly. Everybody thinks that it works well for the environment. However, they have accomplished their promise. This is because they could not find a wind plant which would cover the amount of electricity they announced (Green, 2006). We usually believe what authorities say; yet we do not think that the authorities mislead us. We are worried about the environment on the Earth and want to manage this terrible situation; however, their campaigns are not “Green” activities more any; our efforts also will become “Greenwashing”. Therefore, they should think of the environment and make their products, not drinks, eco-friendly.

Second, coffee bean makers, Starbucks’ essential partners, complain to Starbucks because Starbucks does not make enough money for their partners. Starbucks’ beans are from Latin America, Africa and Pacific and most of them are small farms. Starbucks states they support their small coffee makers such as high purchase rates toward coffee beans and social supports for the coffee bean makers (Starbucks Japanese website, n.d.). However, according to Deen, “although in 1995 Starbucks promised to pay a living wage to the workers who produce the coffee it sells, the company has done little or nothing to live up to this pledge, OCA charges. Right now, though Starbucks claims to pay 1.25 dollar per pound of coffee, most of that goes to middlemen. Coffee growers are making less than 40 cents per pound of coffee, about one-fourth what they earned five years ago” (2002, para.14). As we can know, it is hard that Starbucks treats the coffee makers fairly. If Starbucks continue their business style for the farmers, their beans will grow well? Consequently, Starbucks should treat their essential coffee bean partners well.
Finally, Starbucks attracts us who are concerned with the eco-activity and health-conscious, but they deceived those who try to act against the global warming. For example, Johnson claims about some companies in his article, ”Though concerned marketing and public relation campaigns, these ’greenwashers’ attract eco-conscious consumers and push the notion that they don’t need environmental regulations because they are already environmentally responsible. Greenwashing appears in misleading product labels ‘all natural’ and ‘eco-friendly’; in television commercials showing S.U.V.’s rolling peacefully through the wilderness; and in the eco-opting of environmental buzzwords like ‘sound silence’ and ‘sustainability’ -- which corporate executives render meaningless though relentless reputation” (2004, para.6). Starbucks also does like that. They say that they are going to get their energy from the wind energy plant, but they cannot do it. Therefore, they still receive their power from nonrenewable plant (Green, 2006). Moreover, although they promote their products as “origins”, they use genetically modified integredients and they neither label nor remove genetically modified materials (Johnson, 2004). Most of us do not know those facts and some customers might believe those. This is because they state that they support the activity to be green. Why do they deceive us? The answer is that they know they can earn money with this activity. However, if their lies emerge, we will not stop to buy their products. So, they should stop lying to us before losing their customers.

However, should we admire their campaigns for the environment? Even if they fail or do not do that. Actually Starbucks is one of the companies participating in the green-tag movement (Green, 2006). Then they have taken many actions for the environment and communities. For example, as you know, they tried to get their electricity from the wind power plant, although they failed. Thanks to those activities, Starbucks are referred as an “eco-friendly” company. Moreover, they build school, a medical support facility and the support center for the coffee makers (Starbucks, 2008). Although this is not their business, they have improved their partners’ environment. Those activities are all for the customers; they try to serve top quality coffee and products. If they do not care about the environment and their coffee bean partners, they would never act on the green activity and support their coffee partners. Further, for us, the customers, to supply the consumers the best quality products, they investigate their new products and improve their items. They may have confidence that they have the power to move people and they respect themselves as the world’s leading company. Therefore, they try to do something good for the environment and announce what they are going to do or should do. We should think of their efforts for the environment, their beans providers and us and respect their patience even if they do not work well.

Do you think that they do something good for the environment? Many are going to say “No”. However, nobody knows whether you are right or not. This is because Starbucks says they support the environment with their products such as their cups, paper napkin and recycle of wasted coffee beans, and they encourage their partners to make better coffee beans, and they provide us with high quality products. This is the “Greenwashing”. We tend to believe what the authorities announce. Actually, we need to work on the green movement because it is the essential task we have to protect the Earth. However, Starbucks, and of course any other company, should take actions for the environment, beans farmers and their guests without their profit. If they focus on the profits too much, they will lose the respectful views of the others. Those are the reasons; their campaigns are so complex, they are not making enough money for their coffee beans makers and they have never announced what they should say. Accordingly, they should focus on their activity whether it works well for the environment, their important partners and the consumers, and focus on the business with the respect as the world’s leading company.


References

Conrad, D. (2007, September 17). More Corporate Greenwashing: Organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7176.cfm> Starbucks’
Cups, Eco-Friend or Eco-Foe?. Organic Consumers
Association. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://www.
Organicconsumers.org/articles/article_7176.cfm


Deen, S. (2002, March 25).USA: Starbucks Bean Not So Green. Corp Watch.
Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://www.corpwach.org/
article.php?id=2170.

Dunleavey, P. M. (2007, May 5). Being green doesn't mean spending more. The
New York Times. Retrieved March 31, 2008, from Lexis Nexis
database.

Green, H. (2006, April 10). It's Little Easier Being Green; Consumers and
companies are giving alternative energy a boost with “green
tags”. Business Week. 3978, 80. Retrieved March 24, 2008,
from Lexis Nexis database.

Johnson, G. (2004, April 22). gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE3D7163Af931A15757C0A9629C8B63&scp=1&sp=marketing+earth+day&st=nyt.>Marketing Earth Day Inc.. The New York Times.
Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://query..nytimes.com/
gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE3D7163Af931A15757C0A9629
C8B63&scp=1&sp=marketing+earth+day&st=nyt.

Organic Consumers Association. (2005, January 21). cfm.>Starbucks Under Fire
in Europe for Greenwashing. Retrieved April 22, 2008, from
http://www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks//underfire012605.
cfm.

Starbucks Japanese website. (n. d.). Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://www.starbucks.co.jp

Starbucks English website. (n. d.). Retrieved April 22, 2008, from http://www.starbucks.com.