Starbucks Ethical Issues

In this case study we will examine Starbucks' business practices, some of which have been controversial. These include tax avoidance, allegations of irresponsible marketing, issues surrounding worker and human rights.

Introduction to Starbucks

The first Starbucks was opened in Seattle in 1971 . The name was inspired by a character in the American novel Moby Dick. Starbuck was the first mate on the ship Pequod.

The company was owned by three US businessmen: Gordon Bowker, Zev Siegl, and Jerry Baldwin.

Starbucks combines the excitement of a rich coffee tradition with the feeling of connection among its customers. Its goal has always been to nourish the human spirit. In many cases, Starbucks is designed to be a home from home; a place people can go to recharge and spend time with friends and colleagues.

Today Starbucks is the world's largest coffee chain with over 33,833 stores in 80 countries. In the US, Starbucks owns 15,444 stores. Due to its monopoly, Starbucks control much of the coffee market. It plans to completely dominate the industry by eliminating competition.

Below is an overview of Starbucks' code of conduct (see Figure 1 below).

Customers: Starbucks' goal is to connect with customers and lift their spirits. It's about more than just making a great coffee!

Store: a sense of belonging is what makes Starbucks cafes special. It's a place where people can come to escape and just be with their friends.

Neighbourhood: each Starbucks store is part of a community. They take their responsibility to be a good neighbour seriously. They want to be part of the community in each locations.

Shareholders: Starbucks knows that its success is due to the things that they deliver in each of these key areas.

Starbucks ethics and compliance

Starbucks' Business Ethics and Compliance programme helps promote ethical behaviour at the company. It helps preserve its reputation and culture. Starbucks takes great pride in its efforts to promote ethical behaviour. Through the programme, the company receives regular reports detailing its efforts to conduct business in a way that is ethical and sustainable.

The job of the programme is to support the company's mission and values by helping employees make ethical decisions and to ensure that all employees are following the rules and regulations.

The company's mission is to create a culture that encourages and values its employees. Starbucks is committed to ensuring that its operations comply fully with the laws, regulations, and standards in the countries where it operates. To ensure that its operations are following the law, Starbucks regularly audits and reviews its policies and procedures. The company's Audit and Compliance Committee is responsible for overseeing the financial reporting and accounting processes. The company believes that managing an ethical organisation is a vital part of its success.

• Equal employment opportunity is a top priority.

Some of the market strategies Starbucks uses to maintain its dominant position in the market have been called anti-competitive by critics.

Critics argue that this is unfair because competitors are not able to afford the higher price for prime locations.

Employee disputes

In 2005, Starbucks settled an employment lawsuit with eight workers at its Kent, Washington, roasting plant. The employees said they were retaliated against for supporting the union.

In November 2005, about 2,000 Starbucks workers in New Zealand went on strike. The group wanted the company to improve its youth rates and provide secure hours.

In 2008, a California court ordered Starbucks to pay over $100 million back in tips to baristas. The company had illegally distributed tips from the tip pool for baristas to its shift supervisors. Jou Chau, a barista, brought a lawsuit against Starbucks in 2003-2004 for this practice, saying that Starbucks should pay supervisors higher salaries rather than taking money from the tip pool. Tips should be for those who work on the minimum wage.

Fairtrade

In October 2006, the British NGO, Oxfam, accused Starbucks of harming coffee farmers in Ethiopia by not honouring its fair trade agreements. According to Oxfam, Starbucks was harming the country's coffee farmers by not allowing them to register their products with the Ethiopian government. Starbucks responded by stating that Oxfam's claims were misleading.

An analysis conducted by supply-chain risk management firm SFK Inc. revealed that:

• the demand for Starbucks' coffee exceeded supply,

• Starbucks did not purchase fair trade coffee when it was available,

• Starbucks charged higher than market value prices for Ethiopian coffee.

The firm also criticised the Fairtrade movement saying that it tends to make matters worse instead of better. SFK also suggested that the coffee farmers directly sell their products to Starbucks. The company would then establish a local subsidiary that would manage the relationship between the farmers and Starbucks.

In 2007, Starbucks and the Ethiopian government signed an agreement that recognised the importance of the country's speciality coffee types. The partnership allowed the farmers to earn more from the company's coffee brands.

Tax avoidance

One primary mechanism used by many US companies to reduce their tax burden is by housing intellectual property units in tax havens, and then charging their subsidiaries royalties for using them.

Here's an example of how Starbucks avoids UK taxes:

Firstly, the purpose of tax is to allow governments to provide services for the population. By avoiding tax, companies are depriving communities of funding. Companies adopting tax avoidance practices, albeit legally, might be seen as socially irresponsible. The practice appears to be at odds with the Starbucks' policy of being a good neighbour.

The second reason is the lack of a level playing field. Locally owned businesses cannot use the same methods, giving an unfair advantage to large international corporations.

The third factor is the lack of transparency. Starbucks rarely, if ever, declares a taxable profit to the UK tax authorities. For example, in 2012, the company reported no profit in the UK and thus paid no income tax despite making a lucrative income of £1.2 billion.

In conclusion, given the aggressive tax stance, aggressive marketing strategy, some poor working conditions, and a weak position on fair trade, many would conclude that Starbucks falls short when it comes to ethical practices.