Ephrem Davis
Prof. Buckley
MAR 100
3 November 2023
Starbucks has been a huge name for coffee, and a chain that the average college student turns their head to first, for barista jobs–or for a pre lecture latte. Though it’s common knowledge that it is a powerhouse, and household name for coffee, upon visiting their website you are immediately met with their value proposition: “Committed to Transparency, People, Planet, and Coffee.” Following this is a long list of credentials illustrating an endless number of ways the company has engaged with activism, and highlighting their humanitarian efforts. The franchise boasts their all-around participation in modern movements, fighting child labor, combating hunger, and even their very own “Starbucks Foundation” that partakes in extensive community outreach across disaster-stricken communities. With all this in mind: it is undeniable that they value their corporate social responsibility. With stores across the globe and endless resources, I would expect nothing else from the world’s leading brand in coffee-yet in recent news we have seen conflicting morals between the company and its consumers led by upset members of “Starbucks Workers United” following political remarks from the union–and a court case from the big franchise.
Within the past few weeks, a dizzying array of media has emerged following the devastating recent war in the Middle East, and it seems this conflict has already reached our local business-scape with consumers leaving no rock unturned in the debate of big company ethics and political commentary regarding current events. Just the other day, I saw a post on instagram spreading news that many union workers and consumers were boycotting companies like McDonalds, CocaCola, Pepsi, and Starbucks. Each of these companies had been involved in the commentary, making remarks on their standing in the conflict, and revealing moral principles that did not align with their employees and a large number of their consumers. After gaining this newfound insight, I was surprised that a company so closely aligned with activism and peace would involve themselves in such a controversial discussion. A feeling I’m sure most fellow consumers felt when multiple law-suits came to light, following a tweet made by the SWU that stated “Free Palestine” and the company’s reaction: detesting remarks that were made by the union due to the use of the “Starbucks” brand in the discussion, stating they don’t align with terrorists. Due to our current social climate, it’s obvious this statement would ruffle feathers and overall: their brand image has taken hits from both sides, evident in the company’s abrupt decision to take this to court.
As a long time consumer and frequent customer at Starbucks, I would recommend the company shifts its focus on how they maneuver during these sensitive times, as well as tend to their relationship with its worker union. Though it’s fair and legal for the company to reveal its political standing regarding the war, It is apparent that this conflict in ethics clashes with both sides of the controversy, and the best thing to do would be to remove themselves in a quiet fashion going forward, avoiding these sensitive topics. When your company holds such a strong, engaged, and public ethical presence: it is worth the time and attention required to keep out controversial, and political topics like war. When the conflict subsides, the company may want to focus on their promotional aspects, repairing these lost consumer relationships, though in the end: It remains and will most likely continue to be a leading brand due to its convenience and air-tight already standing promotional strategies.
Glossary
Starbucks.com
https://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/reporting-hub/
