Another reason for me not to drink at Starbucks...

[The Large One]

I'm sure the drop in profits from fat gotee bearded hippies wont be effecting their profits too much.

I ain't no f***ing hippie, man.

Starbucks 'coffee' is, for me, fundamentally undrinkable. I mean, seriously foul-tasting muck. The fact that they are trying to screw the producers in Ethiopia in favour of home-grown coffee producers in hardly going to endear me to them.

Thankfully, I'm not the only one that thinks that way. Still, each to their own.

 

[REDLAND]

Re: Re: Another reason for me not to drink at Starbucks...

I like Starbucks, I like their mentality and I like their coffee...I shop there and will continue to do so...Until someone gives me hard evidence against I am impressed with their corporate responsibility!

love the sarcasm ..

 

[The Large One]

Re: Re: Re: Another reason for me not to drink at Starbucks...

I haven't seen it myself but from what I've heard and read, this may make you think again ...

Black Gold

Do they specfically target Starbucks, or is it the NCA as a whole?

One thing is interesting - on that website, Starbucks have had a memo leaked calling the film 'inaccurate' and 'incomplete'. One, why did they bother having a internal meeting to react to it, and two, if that is the case, why don't they help them complete it?

Edit: It's on at the Duke of Yorks in Brighton on November 21st.

 

[REDLAND]

Re: Re: Re: Another reason for me not to drink at Starbucks...

I haven't seen it myself but from what I've heard and read, this may make you think again ...

Black Gold

Is Nigel Havers in it

 

[tedebear]

Re: Re: Re: Another reason for me not to drink at Starbucks...

I haven't seen it myself but from what I've heard and read, this may make you think again ...

Black Gold

I've not seen it either but some of the press it received questioned whether it was correctly depicting the actions of the major coffee players as opposed to the actions of the Ethopians...

There are quite a lot of issues surrounding the way Ethiopian farmers are able to sell their coffee...Fairtrade or otherwise...Starbucks if I remember rightly was paying on or around the fairtrade price for coffee - so I'm not sure why they are being tarred with the same brush?

 

[tedebear]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Another reason for me not to drink at Starbucks...

Do they specfically target Starbucks, or is it the NCA as a whole?

One thing is interesting - on that website, Starbucks have had a memo leaked calling the film 'inaccurate' and 'incomplete'. One, why did they bother having a internal meeting to react to it, and two, if that is the case, why don't they help them complete it?

Edit: It's on at the Duke of Yorks in Brighton on November 21st.

The whole...

Well to be fair if I were a company and there was bad press about me, I'd be sending around an internal memo to reassure my employes?

 

[The Large One]

Extract from the directors' blog after showing the film at the Sundance Festival in February 2006...

Our hope is for our film to, in some small way, act as a catalyst to ensure these questions are asked more often. We left our premiere both relieved that the film had had its first screening and exhausted. Outside the cinema we were greeted by five executives from Starbucks. It is important to stress that ours is not a film about Starbucks, nor just about coffee. However, the company’s corporate communications executives were there to meet us and wanted to chat about what their company is doing in the coffee world. We declined. We were of the firm belief that our film was done and the opportunity to speak about the company’s policies came … and went.

Here’s why: For close to half a year while making the film, we tried relentlessly to get Starbucks to be involved in the film, but they declined to participate. However, throughout the week at Sundance, they sent people to every screening and actively courted the media. In his column in the Salt Lake Tribune, Sean P. Means wrote: “Starbucks went on a charm offensive, setting up interviews with Sandra Taylor, the company’s senior vice president for corporate social responsibility (try fitting that on a business card). The company also put out a news release that reassuringly states that ‘Starbucks believes that coffee farmers should make a living wage and be paid fair prices.’ ”

Yet at the end of yet another screening Starbucks presented us with pages of corporate spiel, which seemed to contradict that assertion. The figures showed that in 2004, the company was sourcing approximately 1.6% of its coffee under the fair trade scheme, while its website proclaimed that “Starbucks Announces Record December Revenues” up 22% during the same quarter of last year.

Starbucks, however, are only one of the players in the coffee market — the most noticeable coffee retailer. Our film has a much broader focus: it looks at how the coffee farmers are losing out in the multi-billion dollar coffee industry. It does not actively take on Starbucks like Super Size Me took on McDonalds. All the other major coffee companies — Nestle, Sara Lee and Kraft, Proctor and Gamble — declined to be interviewed for this film.

 

[tedebear]

However, the company’s corporate communications executives were there to meet us and wanted to chat about what their company is doing in the coffee world. We declined. We were of the firm belief that our film was done and the opportunity to speak about the company’s policies came … and went.

If they were seriously concerned about coffee they would have stopped and talked no matter whether the movie was finished or not. Obvioulsy they'd had their glory and couldn't be bothered any more.

I do believe that we need to be made aware of whats going on in the corporate world, but I don't like this corporate tall poppy cutting that often usually american directors/promoters like to participate in...

Why do so many people in this world feel the need to bitch, moan, and kneecap corporations under the assumption that everything they do is disastrous, vile and against the will of the people. We have corporate monstrosities in this world, they exist, now deal with it! If it wasn't for these corporates most of the food we eat, clothes we wear - would be triple the cost...

You can't have everything!!

 

[Richard Whiteley]

And are coffee drinkers aware that it makes their breath smell positively foul? Moreso if they also smoke.

Each coffee should be served with a strong mint product to help those who have to deal with coffee drinkers.

Abso-bloody-exactly!

 

[The Large One]

If they were seriously concerned about coffee they would have stopped and talked no matter whether the movie was finished or not. Obvioulsy they'd had their glory and couldn't be bothered any more.

Why should they dignify Starbucks' appearance with a discussion? Starbucks weren't interested in a discussion, there were on a 'charm offensive' - something they could have done much more effectively if they had taken part in the film. These lads didn't make the film for their own sense of glory (although they may well end up with some as a matter of course), they did it because they felt the need to highlight an imbalance in the world trade of coffee.

Starbucks' behaviour this week does appear to be in keeping with what the film makers are accusing the large coffee retailers of acting like.

Why do so many people in this world feel the need to bitch, moan, and kneecap corporations under the assumption that everything they do is disastrous, vile and against the will of the people. We have corporate monstrosities in this world, they exist, now deal with it! If it wasn't for these corporates most of the food we eat, clothes we wear - would be triple the cost...

You can't have everything!!

I'm disappointed at your reaction to this, tedebear, really I am. Although I have not met you, this post appears to be out of character with your posts on other social subjects.

This point can't be made plain enouigh - it's the corporate giants who are keeping people in poverty - so how can you justify it with a 'they exist - deal with it' shrug of the shoulders? They are there to make obscene amounts money on the back of impoverished farmers. So what if good, decent food (rather than the processed packaged muck we poison our kids with) is a bit more expensive? If it means keeping people who are constantly up against it alive with a sense of dignity, hope and ultimately prosperity, then brilliant.

I, for one, would not bury my head in the sand about this. To do so is to condone their behaviour - and I just cannot do that. I really can't.

 

[3gulls]

...not that I needed another one in the first place, you understand.



Starbucks in Ethiopia coffee row

US coffee chain Starbucks is denying Ethiopia earnings of £47m ($88m) a year, according to Oxfam. The charity says Starbucks asked the National Coffee Association (NCA) to block the country's bid to trademark three types of coffee bean in the US. Oxfam says poor farmers would have benefited from the move but the NCA says there is no economic case to support the charity's claims. Starbucks denies initiating opposition to the trademark application.

The Ethiopian government filed its applications to trademark the its most famous coffee bean names - Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe - in US courts last year. Oxfam claims that Starbucks flagged up the application to the NCA - of which the firm is a leading member. The NCA then filed its opposition at the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Oxfam's Phil Bloomer said the charity had worked with Starbucks in the past and appealed to the firm to "act responsibly". Their behaviour on this occasion is a huge backwards step and raises serious questions about the depth of their commitment to the welfare of their suppliers," he said.

Berhanu Kebede, Ethiopia's ambassador to the UK, said in a statement that the international community should support the country's efforts to ensure farmers got a fair reward for their hard work. "This campaign has a pivotal role in redressing the unfairness of the international trading system," he said.

Starbucks' senior vice-president of coffee procurement, Dub Hay, denied approaching the NCA to oppose the Ethiopian move. "We did not get the NCA involved - in fact it was the other way around, they contacted us." Robert Nelson, head of the NCA, backed Mr Hay's claim, adding that his organisation opposed the Ethiopian move for economic reasons. For the US industry to exist, we must have an economically stable coffee industry in the producing world," he said. "This particular scheme is going to hurt the Ethiopian coffee farmers economically."

He claimed that the Ethiopian government was being badly advised, and the move would price them out of the market. The trademark move would also reduce demand for the country's coffee, he said. Oxfam said the NCA and Starbucks should not dictate to Ethiopia how best to sell its products.

Who cares?

And there was me thinking it ws because the portions were too small!

 

[The Large One]

Re: Re: Another reason for me not to drink at Starbucks...

Who cares?

I wouldn't have expected any other reaction than that from you.

 

[nail-Z]

And are coffee drinkers aware that it makes their breath smell positively foul? Moreso if they also smoke.

Each coffee should be served with a strong mint product to help those who have to deal with coffee drinkers.

Should I be offended by that?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Still make good Frappachino's though.

How much profit does Oxfam make a year that goes to its directors?

From the Oxfam Annual Report for 2004/05

The directors of Oxfam GB are the Trustees, collectively
known as Oxfam’s Council. This Council, by which Oxfam is
governed, comprises a minimum of ten and a maximum of
twelve trustees.

Members of Oxfam’s Council of Trustees receive no remuneration for their services.

Directly incurred expenses of the trustees borne by the charity in 2004/05, paid to thirteen (2003/04: nine), were:

Total Trustees’ expenses
2005 £21000; 2004 £ 21000

The most significant element of trustees’ expenses are costs of visits to overseas programmes.

Trustee indemnity insurance was purchased at a cost of £3,654 (2003/04: £3,491).

 

[Bozza]

Should I be offended by that?

No, no you shouldn't. I've never noticed it from you.

Just don't DARE to wear flip-flops.

 

[tedebear]

Why should they dignify Starbucks' appearance with a discussion? Starbucks weren't interested in a discussion, there were on a 'charm offensive' - something they could have done much more effectively if they had taken part in the film. These lads didn't make the film for their own sense of glory (although they may well end up with some as a matter of course), they did it because they felt the need to highlight an imbalance in the world trade of coffee.

Starbucks' behaviour this week does appear to be in keeping with what the film makers are accusing the large coffee retailers of acting like.


I'm disappointed at your reaction to this, tedebear, really I am. Although I have not met you, this post appears to be out of character with your posts on other social subjects.

This point can't be made plain enouigh - it's the corporate giants who are keeping people in poverty - so how can you justify it with a 'they exist - deal with it' shrug of the shoulders? They are there to make obscene amounts money on the back of impoverished farmers. So what if good, decent food (rather than the processed packaged muck we poison our kids with) is a bit more expensive? If it means keeping people who are constantly up against it alive with a sense of dignity, hope and ultimately prosperity, then brilliant.

I, for one, would not bury my head in the sand about this. To do so is to condone their behaviour - and I just cannot do that. I really can't.

I don't think we really know the extent of the actions of Starbucks to correctly accuse them of causing poverty, when the actions of various governments eg Ethopia should be examined in conjunction.

I do a lot of homework and chose very carefully where I shop these days, admittedly I didn't when I was younger, but I do now. I am very tired of being told I'm causing poverty by my choices in where I shop. I chose Starbucks when I'm out and about as I believe they are paying the correct price for their coffee....There is a question over how the Ethiopian government decides who should be able to sell coffee and through which mechanism (ie FairTrade), but until thats decided, I will take Starbucks at their word.

I do buy good decent food, mostly from the farmers Market here, otherwise from the farm on Coombes Rd (eggs and bacon), or rarely but deliciously Middle Farm. I also buy some food from a corporate called Waitrose, they put alot of money back into English farming, which I believe is important.

I don't believe corporate killing is the way to end poverty. I stand by my comments before and I'm sorry if they dissapoint you but corporations acting responsibly have alot to offer this world. Where I chose to shop is educated and meaningful, I have recently chosen to stop shopping at Tesco, and this decision will cost me more each month, but I believe its the right decision. I hope my one small less shopping trolley will make some sort of impact...

I hope you understand now?

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

The company also put out a news release that reassuringly states that ‘Starbucks believes that coffee farmers should make a living wage and be paid fair prices.?E?E

My computer is configured to read kanji(japanese writing). Unfortunately this means that sometimes random kanji appears in the place of a letter when I'm reading something written in the roman alphabet. In the above sentence the 'S' from 'Starbucks' has been replaced by the kanji for 'money'. I thought that was worth sharing.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I do buy good decent food, mostly from the farmers Market here, otherwise from the farm on Coombes Rd (eggs and bacon), or rarely but deliciously Middle Farm. I also buy some food from a corporate called Waitrose, they put alot of money back into English farming, which I believe is important.

Excellent!

But, as a neighbour of Middle Farm, can I point out that practically nothing of what they sell to the public is actually produced on the farm (unless you are buying lots of barley)?

It's a sad state of affairs that even home grown farm produce now has to be filtered through a sophisticated marketing system - of which both Middle Farm and Waitrose are examples - because the only standards that consumers (even "ethical" consumers) are prepared to accept are those that follow a Big Business model.

 

[Bozza]

Excellent!

But, as a neighbour of Middle Farm, can I point out that practically nothing of what they sell to the public is actually produced on the farm (unless you are buying lots of barley)?

I've noticed how, over the past 4 or 5 years, nearly all farm shops now sell almost the exact same stuff - preserves and chutneys etc that come packaged in a 'home made' style but quite clearly are not. The same goes for various biscuit and cake type products.

And, more and more, farm shops are seemingly being dominated by such products at the expense of the fresh farm grown produce, home made breads etc.

 

[tedebear]

Excellent!

But, as a neighbour of Middle Farm, can I point out that practically nothing of what they sell to the public is actually produced on the farm (unless you are buying lots of barley)?

It's a sad state of affairs that even home produced farm produce now has to be filtered through a sophisticated marketing system - of which both Middle Farm and Waitrose are examples - because the only standards that consumers (even "ethical" consumers) are prepared to accept are those that follow a Big Business model.

My delicious comment from Middle Farm refers to their cider! Isn't that locally produced? I thought it was but I may stand corrected! and, I agree with your comment that its a sad state of affairs re the standards imposed on home farmed produce - I'm guessing here but given time, and the more people that chose to shop that way will change this?