Disingenuous and patronizing

Starbucks Day of Action
Special Edition

Oxford professor, Douglas Holt blasts Starbucks’ argument as disingenuous and patronizing in this commentary on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the main daily newspaper in Seattle.

"Perceptions that Starbucks works hard to benefit its poor coffee farmers have become a valuable part of the Starbucks brand for the company's customers. But when it comes to making the tough decisions, between caring and profit, does Starbucks really care?

Starbucks claims that awarding trademarks would violate the economic interests of Ethiopian coffee growers. That is a disingenuous and patronizing argument. Starbucks opposes Ethiopia's efforts in order to shore up its market power, not out of paternal concern for Africans. It's not for Starbucks to deny Ethiopians the right to participate in the marketplace with the same legal rights that have allowed Starbucks to prosper. Trademarks would allow Sidamo, Harar, and Yirgacheffe to be managed by their rightful owners. Ethiopian coffee producers cannot work to increase the commodity price received by the country's farmers unless they control the trademarks."

The marketing professor at the Said Business School also has an advice for Starbucks:

"It's ironic that Starbucks' anti-development stance likely will lead to a greater impact on profits than any increase in commodity prices the company might encounter was it to support Ethiopia."

Starbucks is using up the last chances that could have significant impact either way. As Mr. Holt noted, "Political elites and celebrities have been stumping to improve African trade, and the rhetoric is having an impact.”

The only smart move left for Starbucks is to join these forces of development by partnering with coffee growers.

Read the commentary here.

To read Douglas B. Holt's previous analysis of the trademark dispute click here.