Recently, going green has become an extremely hot topic among companies. Greenwashing is one way companies attempt to go green. "Greenwashing, a pejorative term derived from the term ‘whitewashing,’ was coined by environmental activists to describe efforts by corporations to portray themselves as environmentally responsible in order to mask environmental wrongdoings” (MacDonald, 2007, para. 2). It is every company’s responsibility to keep the environment clean, because the government doesn’t make a sufficient effort to encourage them. Starbucks is one of the companies that are greenwashing. Their profits rose incredibly from 2002 to 2003, but they didn’t spend any substantial money on green initiatives until 2006, when partnering with Global Green USA. Starbucks paid money to a “green” organization, but made little effort to actually make its own company green. They should put more money into making themselves green. A step in the right direction that they have already made is a new program that filters their profits down to the coffee bean growers who use environmentally friendly methods of growing. The motive behind this action is suspicious, however, because it didn’t occur until the United States renewed its membership to the International Coffee Organization after eleven years of not participating. Starbucks says they are going green, but they should be doing more if they want to deliver on the promise.
Firstly, the greenwashing methods of Starbucks are obvious. Starbucks claims to have made a strong contribution by making their cups ten percent recyclable, according to Melanie Warner (2004). While this is a significant impact, due to the one and a half billion cups Starbucks uses annually, ten percent is a very low number and hardly a sacrifice when compared to what should be done. They are using only ten percent recycled material because the recycled material costs more. The process of turning trash into usable paper products is more expensive than using virgin tree fiber. When the price is almost five dollars for a cup of coffee, however, a twenty-cent investment in making the cup 100% recyclable is not so much to ask. It isn’t as if other companies haven’t had to make sacrifices for the environment. For example, McDonald’s uses recycled material in every part of its packaging and still manages to charge a reasonable price for its products (Warner, 2004). “Starbucks in recent years has become a target of a variety of advocacy groups who accuse the company of failing to live up to its self-professed goals of social responsibility” (Warner, 2004, para. 12). One way Starbucks is failing is by loading its stores with Fair Trade coffee signs across the world, and yet barely serving it at all. Fair Trade coffee is coffee that has been established as sustainable and fair to the farmers growing the coffee beans. The advertisements are showing the company as a strong supporter of the sustainable coffee, but in reality, it only makes up 0.4% of the global market (Starbucks commits to sustainable coffee supply, 2004). Something new that Starbucks is trying is an energy monitor on its equipment at select stores to discover how much energy they are using annually. This doesn’t mean the machines will be any greener, but they will have the potential of showing how much energy is being used, and therefore what contribution they are making to the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Narang, 2007).
Secondly, Starbucks made strange decisions with its profits when they jumped from 3.3 billion to 4.1 billion dollars in annual revenue. “More than 100 families are estimated to depend on coffee, and since prices began falling precipitously in 1998, the earnings of the 50-plus producer countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have halved from $10 billion a year to $5.5 billion” (Starbucks commits to sustainable coffee supply, 2004, para. 14). The evidence points to Starbucks having kept the profits to itself. If the parent company makes big gains, they should share it with their subsidiary. In addition, they should make sure coffee suppliers follow rules about harming the environment. Recently, “Starbucks has formed a partnership with a US development agency and environmental conservationists to help ensure a sustainable supply of high quality coffee from Latin America” (Starbucks commits to sustainable coffee supply, 2004, para. 1). They are doing this by promising higher prices to their suppliers if the suppliers can show that a fair amount of money is getting to the farmers, environmental rules are being followed, and human rights are being respected. It is good that they have made the agreement, but the reasons are a little suspicious. Until the United States rejoined the International Coffee Organization in 2004, Starbucks didn’t pay any money for environmental sustainability. Basically, they conveniently avoided paying any money until they were forced to by international standards set by the International Coffee Organization. According to the article, “Partnering to Address Climate Change,” by Ruben Aronin, Starbucks became a sponsor of Global Green USA in April, 2005, by donating a total of $150,000 over the course of two years. Global Green is an environmental non-for profit organization whose goals are to eliminate nuclear weapons, fight global warming, and protect clean water. Unfortunately, Global Green’s ideas for how to spend the money were to drive celebrities to the Oscars in hybrid vehicles, conduct redundant research in Antarctica, and assist in the reconstruction of New Orleans, none of which are exciting ways to sustain the environment.
Finally, Starbucks’ actions are good, but they should put more money into having a fair and green business of their own. One of the most upsetting actions in recent history is the change Starbucks has made from organic milk to genetically engineered milk. Organic or soy milk is still available upon request but it is discouraged to the extent of an additional 40 cents per order. The cows are injected with a growth hormone that unnaturally forces them to produce more milk. The downside is the engineered milk contains bacteria, antibiotics, and pus. Starbucks is likely to use genetically engineered coffee beans soon as well. “The reason coffee is genetically engineered is so the coffee fruits will all ripen at the same time. Right now they ripen at different times, so it has to be hand-picked. But if they’re sprayed with ethylene, they will all ripen at once” (Deen, 2002, para.12). Ways to save money are always of interest to Starbucks, despite the expensive prices charged to their customers. Starbucks is the largest coffee company in the world, and it should therefore lead the way for other companies to get themselves greener, if not for setting an example, then for the sake of morality. A reason Starbucks can be interested in battling global warming with going green is that temperature and rainfall determine how much coffee will be produced in a given area. Climate change could dramatically affect farmers’ ability to grow coffee beans, and without the beans, Starbucks wouldn’t exist. Fewer coffee beans means higher prices on coffee, and therefore less demand for their product.
Starbucks itself argues that partnering with Global Green USA shows its commitment to environmental sustainability. Starbucks also claims that it will identify opportunities to engage partners, customers, and the general public on Global Green’s messages to take action on climate change. If they can spend money getting Global Green to do their work for them, why not spend money on their own company to ensure that their products are environmentally sustainable, from the packaging to the coffee itself. Starbucks’ executives say that they are looking for ways to minimize their carbon emissions and environmental impacts (Narang, 2007). They measured their footprint only once, in 2003, but have opened twice as many stores since then, up to 6,281 in North America alone as of August, 2007. They decided to leave out a heavy 81,000 tons of carbon dioxide being produced by transporting coffee materials. Starbucks’ Environmental Affairs Manager says the company cannot take that kind of thing into account. They claim that more than 80% of their greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity usage, and 18% comes from roasting coffee before transporting it to stores, and the natural gas used in stores. In 2003, when the study was conducted, Starbucks was responsible for 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide every year. This is actually reasonably low compared to other businesses around the world, but doesn’t excuse the responsibility to bring emissions down further more. Starbucks responded in 2006 by increasing its use of wind power to 20% of the total energy use in North American stores, which saved the production of 62,000 tons of carbon dioxide.
In conclusion, some of Starbucks’ actions in going green are acceptable, but obviously their effort is not enough. Starbucks has attempted a greenwashing strategy by making cups ten percent recyclable but they really should go the extra mile and make them 100% recyclable. Fair Trade Coffee is good, but Starbucks should commit to it, instead of favoring the “unfair” brands. Power monitors on the coffee brewing equipment is a good way to measure energy consumption and should be expanded on. Starbucks didn’t share the profits they were making with coffee bean growers until the United States joined the International Coffee Organization, and they are making an effort with Fair Trade Coffee, but they should continue in the right direction, and promote Fair Trade Coffee better. The partnership Starbucks formed with Global Green isn’t enough, because it is essentially paying another company to work on environmental issues, and not making any effort for itself. The change to engineered milk is a step in the wrong direction, and so is charging extra money for organic milk. Stopping global warming should be on Starbucks’ agenda, because it directly interferes with their ability to grow the product necessary for them to run their business. The effort from Starbucks is getting better, but there are still problems to work through for a socially and environmentally sustainable business.
References
Aronin, R. (2006). Partnering to Address Climate Change. Social Responsibility Newsletter. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.starbucks.com/csrnewsletter/winter06/csrNGO.asp
Deen, S. (2002, March 25). USA: Starbucks Beans Not So Green. Retrieved March 21, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2170&printsafe=1
Goldin, D. (2006, November 14). The Worm in the Coffee Bean: Starbucks’ Union-busting Greenwashing Tactics and the Corporate Social Responsibility Movement. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-goldin/the-worm-in-the-coffee-be_b_34097.html
MacDonald, C. (2007). Greenwashing. http://www.businessethics.ca/greenwashing/
Narang, S. (2007, July 3). Carbon With That Latte? http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/07/02/starbucks-emissions-environment-biz-cz_sn_0703green_carbon.html
Starbucks commits to sustainable coffee supply. (2004, September 29). Food USA. Retrieved March 30, 2008, from http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/printNewsBis.asp?id=55013
Warner, M. (2004, November 17). Starbucks continues to Greenwash with Weak Environmental Policy. Organic Consumers Association. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from http://www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks/recycle.cfm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment