Starbucks and Human Rights Violations - Essay Example

?Starbucks and Human Rights Violations Starbucks is considered as one of the most recognizable brands in the world. Trailblazing in the coffeehouse business, the company has been able to establish its foothold on a field of business where it virtually has no opposition. There are some coffeehouse chains that have tried to present themselves as worthy competitors. However, when compared to what Starbucks has currently achieved, these are still way behind in terms of capital and profits. With its main headquarters in Seattle, Washington, the company has already expanded its operation in nearly all the continents in the globe. Its drip brewed coffee, its hot and cold drinks, its complementing sandwiches and pastries, as well as souvenir items have caught the fancy of many coffee-drinkers worldwide despite the cultural differences. Currently, Starbucks is said to have more than 17,000 shops in 50 countries. About 12,000 of these shops are in North American alone, particularly Canada and the United States. More than 7000, on the other hand, are operating in the United Kingdom. The very first Starbucks coffee shop was opened on March 30, 1971 by Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegl, and Gordon Bowker. With the entry of Howard Schultz, however, the business began to grow at such rapid pace, establishing branches and introducing new product lines that soon became known as staples in the giant coffee shop chain. Behind all these great stories of resounding successes, however, are also allegations about Starbucks gross negligence in seeing to it that the human rights of those involved in its operations are respected. In recent years, the violation of human rights supposedly committed by it has been hounding the company, prompting to become one of the prime examples of how globalization and transnational companies can bring about disadvantages to its local employees as well as to the livelihoods of peoples based in developing countries who supply it with raw materials. There are basically three aspects where Starbucks have committed infractions on the basic principles of human rights. In the aspect of labor, the company has often been accused of being very arbitrary in the termination of employees’ jobs. This can be attributed to the many cases filed against the company by its very own disgruntled employees. The company has also been known for taking proactive steps in preventing its employees from joining unions. Aside from such allegations of unfair labor practices, Starbucks has also encountered serious problems with its acquisition of raw materials, particularly coffee beans, from economically backward countries such as Ethiopia. This refers to the case when the company attempted to acquire the trademark of indigenous varieties of coffee beans in the said country. Starbucks is not just a business; it has also become a cultural icon. Its presence in other countries may have advantages but it can also be an affront to the cultures of others. This is what happened when a branch was established in China’s Forbidden City. After the protests and criticisms, however, the company decided to close the said branch. Starbucks’ success as a business establishment certainly makes it one of the global companies that are worth emulating by others. However, a glance at its record of human and cultural rights infractions also give the impression that such success is achieved at the expense of others’ welfare and benefits. A deeper discussion on the actual cases of human rights violations committed by this company would clarify further whether Starbucks should be considered as an epitome of unbridled capitalism as the critics of globalization would portray. A conclusion regarding the guilt of the company should be helpful in making the peoples of the world develop the appropriate attitude towards its brand and products. The intention, therefore, in reaching an objective analysis on the alleged human rights violation committed by Starbucks would be to provide people with a true picture. This would be beneficial for those communities that are adversely affected by business practices that violate human rights, whether these are committed by Starbucks or not. Prominent Human Rights Violations Issues Joseph Michelli’s book with the title The Starbucks Experience: 5 Principles for Turning Ordinary into Extraordinary outlines the basic tenets that have made the company into what it currently is. Since the book is virtually a rosy narrative of how the company treats its customers and employees, it naturally does not dare to highlight any case that shows any tinge of human rights violation. One employee who won a lottery even went to the point of sharing the prize with coworkers in the branch, saying that “we here at Starbucks work as a team, and we support one another. And if I would have taken all the money, then I wouldn't have been part of the team, and everything that I've been working for would be nothing.” (Michelli 33) If taken as the truth without considering other issues that have given negative publicity to Starbucks, such statement would certainly make one believe that the company is truly composed of very satisfied employees. This is not really the case. Regardless of whether the company is paying the right wages or not, it is supposed respect the employees’ right to organize or to be affiliated to a union of their choice. In democratic countries, joining unions and participating in its legal activities are rights that employers must respect. Examples of these are the prominent cases in California, Massachusetts, and Minnesota in which supervisors and managers took cuts from the tips earned by the baristas. Membership in unions already makes an employee a target for discriminatory practices by the management. This is especially true if the union happens to be as militant as the International Workers of the World. (Allison) Not only is this a clear case of a human rights violation but is also illegal. Fellner may not be very critical about Starbucks practices outside of the U.S. when compared to the critics of globalization but he could avoid not mentioning his disgust for company’s “immoral behavior” when he writes that “unlike many, (it) refrained from lobbying on labor issues and eschewed membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; but it aggressively, and sometimes illegally, tried to keep its workers from supporting unions.” (232) While Fellner may be correct in saying that Starbucks gravely errs when it comes to the handling of the rights of its employees to organize, he also commits a major mistake in ignoring the fact that the company commits worse violations of human rights abroad. Aside from the fact that the U.S. is not traditionally a coffee-growing country, the best kinds of coffee are also not found here. There may be some states that do have coffee plantations but the variety and quality of their products are not really the best. Starbucks, being a renowned coffee shop chain could not just settle for less than the best-tasting coffee made from the most exotic beans and blends. Riding on the wave of globalization, the company not only established branches elsewhere in the world, it also widened its raw material base in order to access the coffee varieties that are not available in the U.S. and in its usual sources in Latin America. In doing so, it managed to reach into the Ethiopian coffee-growing sector. Ethiopia is one of the foremost coffee-growing countries in the world. What makes it different from Starbucks’ traditional sources though is that its farmers have been growing the best varieties there are. Knowing that they have an edge over other coffee producers with their varieties, Ethiopia petitioned to own the trademark. Canada and the European Union did not waste time in recognizing the petition. In the U.S., it also managed to trademark Yirgacheffe. (Faris) However, Starbucks is said to have an active role in denying the petition for two other names. It is reported that the National Coffee Association of the U.S.A or NCA took steps to deny Ethiopia’s attempt to trademark Harrar and Sidamo. It is said that “Starbucks belonged to the trade association and marketed coffees using these two same names.” (Simon 233) The logic for NCA’s and apparently, Starbucks’ move is that once Ethiopia owns the trademark for the two names, the price of the said coffee would increase greatly. It may seem that the NCA and Starbucks are more concerned with the effect of the trademark ownership on the prices of coffee. However, they also fail to realize that trademark ownership by non-Ethiopians has an adverse effect on Ethiopia itself, especially the coffee producers. Once the trademark is owned by Starbucks or any member of the NCA, Ethiopian growers would no longer be able to claim ownership over a variety that they themselves have developed. Therefore, they would no longer have the right to sell these to others, limiting their market options only to that of a few buyers. A monopoly over a raw material base is essentially dangerous on the side of the growers. Once Starbucks, for example, decides to buy from somewhere else, the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Ethiopian coffee-growers would be threatened. Consequently, the same number of families would run the risk of being deprived of their only source of income. Whole communities in the country’s coffee-growing region would go hungry and face the danger of famine. Ethiopia’s shaky economy itself, which has largely depended on the exports of its few agricultural products, would experience a serious crisis. Apparently, what may be an issue of trademark only is actually an issue of human rights too. It is impossible that Starbucks and the rest of the NCA fail to see this angle. It is very likely though that they decided to deal with the issue from the perspectives of capitalists, ignoring instead the aspect of human rights. For fear of tarnishing its own image, Starbucks ultimately succumbed to Ethiopia and its farmers. It is clear that a multi-million business fighting out against poor coffee farmers over trademark does not speak well of the former. Starbucks’ practices that violate the human rights of its employees and other communities, as shown in the Ethiopian coffee-growers’ case, makes it not much different from other multinational and transnational corporations that have aggressively undergone expansion of the markets and raw material bases. Calvano points out that conflicts arising between such large business entities and the communities only emphasize the need for business executives to take concrete actions that would show corporate responsibility towards people who could be affected by their policies. She raises the idea that “managers must first understand the causes of conflict with local communities, and communities must understand what courses of action are available to challenge activities they deem harmful to their interests.” (Calvano 793) It is natural for communities to feel threatened every time a capitalist giant such as Starbucks would insist ownership and control over resources that they are indigenous to their environment or that they themselves grow, such as what happened to the Ethiopian farmers. If Starbucks executives only took a more objective view of the issue, they would have understood the immediately the implications of their decision on the communities. Analysis of the Starbucks’ Failure to Respect Human Rights For businesses with the scope and size similar to that of Starbucks, the tendency to commit human rights violations is far stronger than to respect it. The size of the company alone prompts the top management to implement measures that its employees constantly toe the line set by it. The bigger the organization, the more necessary it becomes for it to ensure that threats to continuous operations and ultimately to its profits are checked or eliminated. In the case of Starbucks, unions are considered as threats. A unionized working force means contending always with the possibility of wage increase demands, resistance to retrenchments and labor flexibility schemes, and, as a consequence of both, strikes. Because of this, it becomes characteristic of a Starbucks management to take steps in cleansing its ranks of members of militant unions. It is apparent that this constitutes violation of human rights. In the case of Ethiopia, Starbucks’ attempt to own the trademark of indigenous coffee blends and varieties has the hallmarks of a multinational company that aims to control communities and resources for its own benefit. This should not be the case since the relationship of economic development and the human rights would have rendered a multinational company to consider the best for the community. However, it is clear that such line of reasoning negates the very existence of uneven development, considering that “MNC's operations usually accentuate existing inequalities, both in terms of income and wealth, by simultaneously creating pockets of poverty and wealth, development as well as underdevelopment.” (Monshipouri et al) Had Starbucks succeeded in obtaining the ownership of Ethiopia’s coffee blends and varieties, the poverty situation in Ethiopian coffee-growing communities would have gone worse while new jobs would be created in the U.S. due to new productive activities. This is an obvious example of how one giant company can actually bring down an entire poor country while bolstering further the strength of an already powerful economy. Some sectors, however, still believe that companies, state actors and non-government organizations can work together to ensure that business and the communities would still be able to cooperate for their mutual benefits. Jerbi cites the report of Special UN Representative John Ruggie which says that “states, companies, the institutions supporting investments, and those designing arbitration procedures should work towards developing better means to balance investor interests and the needs of host States to discharge their human rights obligations.” (310) However, despite this premise, it must be pointed out that the interest of the communities that are directly affected by the actions of corporate entities should be the primary concern. It is not that of the national government of the country involved nor is it that of a company that is like Starbucks. Ultimately, it is all stakeholders that would reap the benefits as explained by Getachew Mengistie of the Ethiopian Intellectual Property of office when referring to the stand of his government regarding attempts of Starbucks to gain control of the country’s coffee trademarks. He said that “when farmers can grow and prosper by not only improving the production and quality but also by building up the value of their intellectual property portfolios, then everybody in the coffee industry - including partners in retail and distribution as well as consumers - reap benefits.” (Lee & Lee 153) If realized, the empowered coffee-growers would have the capability to produce better yield and varieties. Starbucks is definitely not the only major American corporation that has gained the reputation of not being very keen in respecting human rights once it compromises certain business practices which it believes has it lucrative. However, it is a classic case which only justifies further the argument that it is not in the nature of corporations to see to it that they follow obligations in accordance to human rights law. (Cernic 34) Instead, they have to be reminded about these obligations by both the government and the communities. Pressure may have to be applied as in the case of Starbucks but all these should compel big business to compromise its stand in favor of the public. Arkani and Theobald pointed out that there may be an “absence of a clear link between involvement in support of human and specific organizational gains” from the perspective of business. (203) However, for as long as business prove to the public that it respects human rights and that it is willing to compromise certain policies in favor of the community’s welfare, it will improve acceptability and gather actual support. A business company that experiences these will naturally prosper and the economy in which it is a part of will also advance. Works Cited Allison, Melissa. “Union struggles to reach, recruit Starbucks Workers.” The Seattle Times, 4 January 2007. . Arkani, Sep and Robin Theobald. “Corporate Involvement in Human Rights: Is It Any of Their Business?” Business Ethics: A European Review 14.3 (2005): 190-205. Calvano, Lisa. “Multinational Corporations and Local Communities: A Critical Analysis of Conflict.” Journal of Business Ethics 82.4 (2008):793-805. Cernic, Jernej Letnar. Human Rights Law and Business: Corporate Responsibility for Fundamental Human Rights. Groningen,Netherlands: Europa Law Pub., 2010. Faris, Stephan. “Starbucks vs. Ethiopia.” Fortune, 26 February 2007. . Fellner, Kim. Wrestling w ith Starbucks: Conscience, Capital, Cappuccino. New Brunsw ick, NJ: Rutgers UP, 2008. Jerbi, Scott. “Business and Human Rights at the UN: What Might Happen Next?” Human Rights Quarterly 31.2 (2009): 299-320. Michelli, Joseph A. The Starbucks Experience: 5 Principles for Turning Ordinary into Extraordinary. New York: McGraw -Hill, 2007. Monshipouri, Mahmood, Claude Emerson Welch, and Evan T. Kennedy. “Multinational Corporations and the Ethics of Global Responsibility: Problems and Possibilities.” Human Rights Quarterly 25.4 (2003): 965-89. Lee, Daniel E., and Elizabeth J. Lee. Human Rights and the Ethics of Globalization. New York: Cambridge UP, 2010. Simon, Bryant. Everything but the Coffee Learning about America from Starbucks. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 2009. Read More