Starbucks Attempts Green Business Strategy

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

Wikipedia

Using or citing Wikipedia has become a question in controversy in academic writings. Wikipedia has become one of most popular encyclopedias on the internet since it was put into the internet (Martin, 2008). Nowadays, Wikipedia is one of biggest encyclopedias on the internet, and familiar to many internet users as a source of wisdom easy to learn. However, because of overuse of Wikipedia, some schools decided to forbid using or citing Wikipedia in academic writings. It is a controversy, because Wikipedia helps students to get correct information, and common knowledge. There are three arguments that support forbidding using or citing Wikipedia, which are abuse of it, its untrustworthiness, and its interfering with another encyclopedias.

First, Wikipedia is connected to school cheating. Some students quote these words from Wikipedia without reference. The same things happen in my university too. I used to taken an English/ French history class, and we had to hand in a paper for English/ French history of about five pages in our own words. However, three or four students copied English/ French history backgrounds from Wikipedia. We are going school for learning, not getting good scores in the exams.

Second, Wikipedia is untrustworthy as a web encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a big difference with some other encyclopedias; that is, everyone can put words into and edit it. “Wikipedia is an encyclopedia compiled by the voluntary contributions of hundreds of writers and editors. Anyone can write an article and post it to Wikipedia; anyone else come along later and edit the article. It’s a kind of open, voluntary, work in progress. As such, it’s the most up-to-date encyclopedia you’ll find” (Lengel, 2007, para. 6). Therefore, if wrong information on the website, it makes many people to misunderstands.

Last, Wikipedia is a free access encyclopedia; therefore, it interfering with other reliable cost encyclopedias. Wikipedia has become popular because it’s free; everyone can access it and get some information, but it invades other encyclopedia; even though their information is uncertain. It is the most important fact that schools want to forbid using or citing Wikipedia.

In conclusion, schools should prohibit using or citing Wikipedia in academic writings because of its abuse, untrustworthiness, and it’s obstructing another encyclopedias. Wikipedia is famous as easy to get wisdom but also famous for its role in school cheating. Also, students overuse Wikipedia without making sure the information is correct. Furthermore, Wikipedia, which is untrustworthy as a free encyclopedia, disturbs other credible cost encyclopedias on the web. Schools can’t prohibit students from looking at Wikipedia to get information, but they should ban using or citing Wikipedia in academic writing.

Lengel, J. (2007, February 2). Teaching with Technology. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://www.powertolearn.com/articles/teaching_with_technology/article.shtml?ID=12

Martin, N. (2008, January 21). Wikipedia clamps down on ‘unreliable’ editors, Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved on April 23, 2008, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/20/wiki20.xml

Argument Essay

Recently, going green has become an extremely hot topic among companies. "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. Starbucks’ 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. When they made the agreement, the pledged $150,000 was not used very effectively. Starbucks paid money to a “green” organization, but made little effort to actually make its own company green. Starbucks says they are going green, but they are not doing enough.

Starbucks made strange decisions with its profits when they jumped from 3.3 billion to 4.1 billion dollars. I’m not sure why they didn’t share profits with growers, even though their gain became double or more. Also, I don’t know why growers’ profits decreased almost half, even though their parent company was making huge profits. In my frank opinion, Starbucks kept profits all to itself. If the parent company makes big gain, they should share it with their subsidiary. In addition, they should make sure coffee suppliers follow rules about harming the environment.

Starbucks’ action is good, but they should put more money into having a fair and green business. I’m glad to hear about Starbucks trying to “Go green,” because I drink coffee almost every day from there. However, I don’t know how much money they earn a year, but they should pay more, because they charge almost five dollars per cup of coffee. It is pretty expensive, I think. Also, Starbucks is one of the most famous coffee shops in the world, so they have to lead other companies to “Go green.”

Starbucks should do something else besides paying money. I didn’t know Starbucks was going green until I read the article. Starbucks is spread all over the world, so if they try going green with each shop, it will have a huge effect. Organizations want people to become aware of global warming by spending huge amounts of money. However, they don’t need to do that if companies like Starbucks donate.

Starbucks says that it is doing enough to match its responsibility, but they are wrong. Firstly, they claim to have made a strong contribution by making their cups 10% recyclable, according to Melanie Warner (2004). Ten percent is a lower number compared to many other companies that actually are making an effort to go green. Second, Starbucks uses genetically engineered milk, and will probably do the same thing to their coffee beans pretty soon, causing horrible environmental problems (Deen, 2002, para. 8). The move to genetically engineered milk is obviously a step backward from the organic milk they once used.

In conclusion, some of Starbucks’ actions in going green are acceptable, but obviously their effort is not enough. Starbucks didn’t share the profits they make with growers, they are paying not enough money, and Starbucks itself is not green at all. Starbucks is clearly one of the companies that are greenwashing. There are many facts that they are not going green, such as they are using genetically engineered milk, and using only 10% recyclable cups. They can’t say they’re going green until that improve these problems.

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

MacDonald, C. (2007). Greenwashing. http://www.businessethics.ca/greenwashing/

Warner, M. (2004, November 17). Starbucks continues to Greenwash with Weak Environmental Policy. Retrieved April 8, 2007, from http://www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks/recycle.cfm

Starbucks Sustains

In “Starbucks commits to sustainable coffee supply”, the author says, Starbucks knows their customers want a small amount of environmental effects to happen with their coffee, so they are giving economic help to coffee growers that aren’t harming the environment. Starbucks will pay more money for good quality coffee that comes from sustainable practice. The United States returned to the International Coffee Organization, which oversees coffee production in the world, after being gone 11 years. That the United States rejoined the group makes it much easier to fix problems with poor countries and their resident coffee farmers. One hundred million families depend on producing coffee worldwide, and they are not making a fair share yet. Starbucks represents the slow movement of America to environmental responsibility.

Starbucks is going to pay more money to make sure coffee suppliers follow rules about harming the environment. I didn’t know that making coffee hurts the environment until I read this article. So, it is very considerable topic, because Starbucks is the biggest coffee company in the world. This means they hurt a huge amount of the environment if they don’t care about it. The biggest company has to lead the way to “Go green”, so this Starbucks action is acceptable, but still they have to pay more to make good on their responsibility to lead the industry.

Starbucks made strange decisions with its profits when they jumped from 30 billion to 80 billion dollars. I’m not sure why they didn’t share profits with growers, even though their gain became double or more. Also, I don’t know why growers’ profits decreased almost half, even though their parent company was making huge profits. In my frank opinion, Starbucks kept profits all to itself. If the parent company makes big gain, they have to share it with their subsidiary.

It is suspicious that the United States was not a member of the International Coffee Organization for 11 years. I think United States and Starbucks are similar, because both are large and dominating but they were not cooperative to the environment. As Phil Bloomer, head of Oxfam International’s Make Trade Fair Campaign, said, the United States should have joined the International Coffee Organization much earlier. I was really surprised at the fact that the United States had not joined the Organization, because the biggest country has to lead the way to solve global economic problems like Starbucks. I’m glad the United States has finally noticed how important “Going green” and the environment are.

In conclusion, Starbucks and America are finally realizing they too must take care of the environment. There are three ways to solve this problem, which are for Starbucks to pay more to suppliers, Starbucks to share the profits they make with growers, and the United States to rejoin the International Coffee Organization. Starbucks should stop hurting the environment, instead of avoiding it by paying more money. Also, they should try to make a more comfortable situation for growers to make coffee beans. Finally, the United States should recognize its responsibility to protect the environment.

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

Partnering to Adress Climate Change

According to the article, “Partnering to Address Climate Change,” by Ruben Aronin, Starbucks became sponsor of Global Green USA in April, 2005. Some famous actors joined this group, trying to reduce greenhouse gas. The amount Starbucks is paying will total $150,000, and will be used to educate people about climate change. Global Green USA’s agenda includes construction assistance for New Orleans and new buildings to make them not use much energy, transporting actors in hybrid vehicles, and doing research in Antarctica. Global Green USA has two other tasks besides global warming, which are eliminating nuclear weapons and protecting clean water. Starbucks and Global Green organization say “Go green,” but they are not doing enough.

Starbucks’ action is good, but they should pay more money. I’m glad to hear about Starbucks trying to “Go green,” because I drink coffee almost every day from there. However, I don’t know how much money they earn a year but they should pay more, because they charge almost five dollars per cup of coffee. It is pretty expensive, I think. Also, Starbucks is one of the most famous coffee shops in the world, so they have to lead other companies to “Go green.”

Starbucks should do something else besides paying money. I didn’t know Starbucks was going green until I read the article. Starbucks is spread all over the world, so if they try going green with each shop, it will have a huge effect. Organizations want people to become aware of global warming by spending huge amounts of money. However, they don’t need to do that if companies like Starbucks donate.

Global Green’s idea to drive celebrities to the Oscars with hybrid cars is not a solution. I was surprised at the idea of Global Green. Hybrid cars are good for the environment, but I don’t know why they’re only being used for the Oscars. It doesn’t make sense if everyone, not just celebrities, isn’t using hybrid cars. This action is good for advertisement, but not for helping ordinary people to switch to hybrid cars.

In conclusion, there are three improvements, which are that Starbucks should pay more money, Starbucks has to “go green” more actively, and Global Green should be concerned about how to spend money. Starbucks makes lots of money every day, so they can pay more to protect the environment. Starbucks has branches all over the world; they can teach about global warming to people all over the world. Finally, Global Green has to think about helping ordinary people to switch to hybrid cars; therefore, they should reconsider how to spend money.

Aronin, R. (2006). Partnering to Address Climate Change. Social Responsibility Newsletter. Retrieved March 26, 2008, from http://www.starbucks.com/csrnewsletter/winter06/csrNGO.asp

Controversial Problems in UN net summit

According to “Controversy blights UN net summit”, by Jo Twist, the World Summit tried to bring technology to poor countries, but it is not going well. They decided to hold a meeting in Tunisia at a conference they first had in Geneva two years earlier. At the end of the summit, they decided to meet again in a few years to discuss progress in bringing technology to poor countries. There is a problem with censorship and who is the controller of the net. No one has enough money to help poor countries to bring technology. United States representatives used the summit to argue for electronic freedom, as well as civil rights in Tunisia anf the rest of the world. Huang Ju, the Chinese representative, said in order to protect the government against criminal action, they need to censor the Internet. Yoshio Utsumi, international Telecommunications Union secretary, disagreed with Huang Ju. Utsumi said everyone is supposed to have freedom to use internet. He said that must be done to have an information society.

There are many controversial issues in this article, such as censorship on the internet, bringing technology to poor countries, and freedom of speech.

Censorship is good under certain conditions. If I have children, it is my responsibilities to tell them what they can or cannot see on the internet, not the governments. In addition to age of the child, the content is important for deciding on what to censor. For example, how to make a bomb should not be on the internet. Safety concerns are appropriate for the internet.

Bringing technology dose not help poor countries. Poor countries don’t need technology yet, but it depends on how poor they are. If they are starving to death, internet is not even worth discussing. If they are ready for education, developed countries should help poor countries. I don’t believe that developed countries are lacking the money to help poor countries, because I read an article about computers powered by a hand crank that were sent by someone to poor countries.

Everyone has to have freedom of speech. We have right to say anything, but some countries don’t have it. So we have to make the right for other people too. If there are bad things going on, we have to be able to change. Governments should not limit people’s freedom, because some countries’ people are free, and it is not fair that people are forced to do what they don’t want to do.

In conclusion, there are three controversial problems, which are that censorship is good in moderation, that technology should be brought only to countries that will use it to educate people, and that freedom of speech needs to be everyone’s right. Censorship keeps us safe from criminal activity, but should not limit our discovering the world. Technology is not as important as food, and developed countries need to realize that. Finally, freedom of speech is very important to make the world better.

Twist, J. (2005, November 18). “Controversy blights UN net summit.” BBC News. Retrieved March 19, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4450474.stm

Premarital Sex

1. Introduction

Premarital sex is having sex at least one time before getting married. Do you have premarital sex? Do any of your friends? Should we be allowed to have sex at any age, or free to experiment from any religion? What is your opinion? There are many risks to having premarital sex, including sexually transmitted diseases if you don’t know your partner well enough, injuries, and unwanted pregnancy. Nevertheless, huge amounts of young people are having sex at early ages, before marriage. Some governments recommend having safe sex. Some religions strictly ban premarital sex; however, a lot of people don’t follow these religions. Too much constriction on premarital sex from religion is not good because some people break the rules. Some people who are restricted from having sex by their parents or their religions use it as a reason to go ahead and give it a try. “More than nine out of ten Americans, men and women alike, have had premarital sex...” (Premarital Sex, 2006, para.1). Premarital sex is widely done, it seems, even if it is not accepted.

2. Purpose

Our group, J. Piao, J. Yoo, M. Alsharif, and I decided to find out what Americans think about premarital sex. I wanted to examine the relationship between gender and when people start having sex. Also, I wanted to know the relationship between religion and premarital sex. Moreover, I wanted to examine the relationship between gender and who influenced their opinion about premarital sex.

3. Hypothesis

I had three hypotheses about having premartial sex in America. First, I believed that females started having sex earlier than males. Next, parents gave females influence on their opinion about having sex before marriage. Third, I believed that most Americans disagree with religions that ban sex before marriage.

4. Methods and Procedures

Our group asked thirty-nine people who are different gender, age, and religion in Carbondale to get a different opinion. Our intention was to ask the same amount of men as women, but unfortunately a group member misplaced one male survey participant’s data. In addition, we were looking for both people who have had sex and have not because we wanted to know how differently they are thinking about premarital sex. We prepared a survey that has ten questions. Those questions were almost all yes or no questions, so it was easy for respondents to answer the questions.

5. Data

Here is the result of survey http://eap1.blogspot.com/2008/03/practice-survey-results.html

6. Result

Actually, women started having sex earlier than men. 2 out of 15 males (13%) and 4 out of 12 females (33%) started having sex at under 15 years old. Also, most Americans, 10 of 15 males (67%) and 9 out of 12 females (75%), started having sex before 19 years old. Only 9 out of 19 (47%) males said that they agree with religions that ban premarital sex; on the other hand, 12 out of 20 (60%) females said so. Friends have the most influence on both male’s (37%) and female’s (40%) opinion about premarital sex.

7. Conclusion and Discussion

I believed that females started having sex earlier than males, and my prediction was correct because our survey showed almost the same number as my prediction. I wasn’t surprised at that fact, because I thought girls grew up earlier than boys in both ranges, physically and psychologically. However, I was surprised at the fact that friends have the greatest influence on Americans’ opinions about premarital sex. I expected that parents had more influence than friends for females, but it was not true. Also, our survey surprised me about the relationship between religion and premarital sex, because almost half of males and over half of females agreed with religions that ban premarital sex. I thought that most Americans disagreed with religions that ban sex before marriage.

If I can do this survey another time, I would like to ask a lot of older people, because most respondents were 19 to 25-year-old people. Also, if I ask older people, I will be able to get different opinions from younger people’s opinion about premarital sex. Some of our survey’s results couldn’t be used because some respondents checked none of the alternatives and some respondents checked more than two. Therefore, next time I would like to tell them to please check on ONE choice for each question, before giving the paper to respondents.

8. Reference

Premarital Sex: Almost Everyone's Doing It. (2006, December 19). CBS NEWS. Retrieved February 29, 2008, from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/19/national/main2282940.shtml

9. Appendix
Copy of Survey at http://eap1.blogspot.com/2008/03/having-premarital-sex_03.html