Starbucks Not a Fair Company

By Paul Smith
OGB Online
March 29, 2007

Coffee. It brings many thoughts to people’s minds: caffeine fix, daily ritual, yuck, jittery, Starbucks. I hope there’s another thought that comes to mind: structural injustice. Increasingly, the coffee trade demands us to look at the plight of many coffee growers and their continual, cyclical bondage of poverty in the current market system. My concern arises from what I have learned from the coffee industry and my experiences studying abroad in Ethiopia, the “birthplace of coffee.”

The disparity between the price of coffee that goes to the producer (3-5 cents per cup or an average of $1 per pound) and the price we pay for a cup of coffee ($1-5) is undeniably large. Coffee prices paid to producers were at a 30-year low a couple years back.

Currently, coffee is the second most traded commodity in the world, next to oil. And 25 million people are directly involved in coffee production. The repercussions of our actions in regards to coffee-buying are huge and touch every corner of the globe: Africa, Asia, Central and South America and Indonesia.

A trade relationship needs to emerge that addresses the needs of the people in these coffee-growing regions. And fair and sustainable compensation needs to be given to the producers for the laborious activities of growing and processing coffee which we consume.

I hope, as a campus, a discussion can emerge that addresses how fairly traded coffee can be brought to campus via ARAMARK. There is a rumor that Starbucks is in discussion with ARAMARK for franchising out the space in Shorty’s.

Not only would this drastically harm the student-run coffeehouse, but it would bring a company to campus that recently tried to prevent the trademarking of the names of certain coffee-growing regions within Ethiopia (as reported by OXFAM), which would bring Ethiopia up to $90 million in increased revenue.

This undermining and manipulation of the trading process by Starbucks, so they can purchase coffee at a slightly lower cost, is utterly insufficient and should make us reassess how we, and in turn, how the campus purchases coffee.

What is frustrating for me in looking at this issue is that change is so easy. There are numerous alternative coffee buyers which are actively involved in coffee growing regions providing community development programs and offering a fair price for the coffee bought. The difference is deciding to pay mere pennies more for coffee that will make a world of difference for the producers. The issue is about changing how we think about trade and, by doing so, this hopefully moves us to informed action.

Can we envision a symmetrical, interactive and just model of trade? Are we willing to reassess how we consume, evaluating the repercussions of our consumerism?
This is merely an invitation to look for better ways of living as a global, sustainable community. Isn’t that what pro humanitate is about?
-------------
Paul Smith is a junior religion major from San Antonio, Texas.