This post, from the "Ethical Consumption" area of Just Means, addresses a very specific issue that I always grapple with: Starbucks vs. local coffee shops.
It's common knowledge that Starbucks is a mega-corporate international company. People think that Starbucks killed mom and pop businesses. Starbucks has bought out and absorbed smaller businesses. In short, Starbucks is evil. In Portland, a world of Stumptown coffee snobs and award winning baristas, admitting that you patronize Starbucks is tantamount to blasphemy.
As someone who prefers tea, I find little on the menu at coffee shops that entice me. However, I adore Tazo Tea Chai. It's sweet, not spicy, and is one of my favorite drinks. I used to work just blocks from the Tazo Tea factory, and could smell the chai brewing when I rode my bike past. But once Starbucks bought Tazo Tea, I could only get my chai at Starbucks. Local coffee and tea shops could only sell Dragonfly Chai, or Oregon Chai, neither of which do much for my taste buds.
The Tazo Tea factory is still there. I know people who work there. So although Starbucks is now a big corporation, they still have a local presence, at least in my life. And as Ruchira Shah points out: "Starbucks was once a small coffee shop itself."
While I do believe in supporting local businesses, I can't ignore the impact that larger businesses (evil corporations) can have. Starbucks is making efforts at sustainability, and with their network of suppliers and retailers, they have the opportunity to really make a difference. And they're trying: they were the very first company to get approval from the FDA to use recycled content food containers. They have a line of fair trade products. Leftover coffee grounds are available for composting upon request. And there are dozens of other examples of how Starbucks is using their power for good.
So, is patronizing Starbucks ethically responsible? Is it a moral vote with your dollars? What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That is a great question.
ReplyDeleteI recently posted on my blog talking about Fiji water and the impacts the company had to the country of Fiji. It was noted that they are supporting a junta regime in Fiji alongside maintaining a tax-free haven within the country.
When I acknowledge these facts, does my purchase of Fiji water signify that I am comfortable with what they're doing? Especially if I am conscious of their effects.
So if I'm conscious of impact, then would it be ethically responsible for me to drink their water? My answer is No. It is not ethically responsible.
In history we have had benign dictators but the tendancy for dictators is to be ruthless, non cooperative, and a real pain for the people. I think the same about these very large corporations. They are designed to only benefit the shareholders and these days the CEO's. They will do anything for profit. Companies like Stonyfield Farms, Ben and Jerry's Starbucks are the exception not the rule. The solution? BGI is working on it.
ReplyDeleteI am a little mixed on this one, I do not journey to Starbucks, but I also do not go to Stumptown (unless it is for their free tasting). They have both gotten large and lost some of the personal feel that I enjoy when spending my hard earned dollars. I buy my coffee from Spella.
ReplyDeleteAs for ethics and morality, are you telling them why you are or are not spending your money there? If you are not telling them, who will they know and without that information how can they change?
I told Nike last week that I was once again willing to buy their products after they took a big stance and leadership position by pulling out of the board on the Chamber of Commerce. I posted on a sidewiki to Hyatt that I would not again stay at their hotels (even the one I had such great service at during the beginning of the summer) because of their treatment of maids on the East Coast several weeks ago. I think that just silently speaking with your dollar is not enough, put some voice behind it.