Poor Farmer

Gemeda Humnasa of American Chronicle warns that Starbucks’ refusal to accept Ethiopia’s ownership of its own coffee names will have consequences. “There are many factors contributing to Ethiopia’s inability to remove poverty including costly wars, dry weather, unfair international trade barriers and subsidized corresponding sectors in other well-off nations” Gemeda said. I add absence of democracy and human rights abuses to the list. Gemeda continues, “But Starbucks’ refusal to allow Ethiopia to control the three names of its coffees might end up hurting the reputation of the company as well as spark activists against globalization & “Trade Injustice” around the world. This current case might add new recruits to their cause, which is a new development that can escalate quickly and become a concern for many other international corporations. “Trade Injustice” is one of the various issues organizations like CORPWATCH monitor in order to help poor nations stand up against unfair inter...

Human rights groups are the latest voices accusing Starbucks of its indecency and for abusing its market power, a style widely seen as dictating a remotely controlled colonial market system. Despite consumers' repeated calls for Starbucks to honor its promises to coffee growers, the company refused to budge from its position of blocking Ethiopia’s plan to trademark its gourmet coffees in the US markets. The dispute over Ethiopia’s coffee names unmasked the disingenuous business ethics deeply rooted in the corporate world. Starbucks prides itself as a leader of “Corporate Social Responsibility” in the industry. After CEO Jim Donald’s visit to Ethiopia, the company said that it "is committed to working with the Ethiopian government to find a solution that supports the Ethiopian coffee farmer." In reality, this commitment is translated into the company’s denying of poor coffee farmers’ of a rare opportunity that could change their lives. Ethiopia, paradoxically stereo-typed ...

What are the economic reasons why Starbucks is unyielding to Ethiopia's rights to the names Sidamo and Harar? Do companies, such as Starbucks have rights to deny farmers of their cultural heritages? Analysis coming up soon. Related: To read Starbucks' responses, click here . For Oxfam's recent call to Starbucks, please read this . For an independent analysis on the dispute, please click here .

Nyeri Coffee Farmers Rage at Starbucks Officials Starbucks officials made a stop over in Kenya last week to visit the progress of the Kenya Heartland Coffee project, which is aimed at helping Kenyan farmers to improve their coffees’ quality and production. Jim Donald, CEO and other senior Starbucks officers’ visit to Kenya followed the failed talks with the government in Ethiopia regarding the coffee trademark dispute. The report by Moses Njagih and agencies said that "angry farmers from a coffee factory in Nyeri District have blasted officials of the Starbucks Coffee Company for refusing to respond to their questions on a project the multinational is undertaking in the area.” The Standard quoted Mr John Kabira, a farmer as saying, "Starbucks interests are only in making profits from our coffee, and yet they are not even mindful about our welfare." Read the news here .

Throughout this public dispute over Ethiopia’s move to trademark the country’s best coffee names, Starbucks’ position has been to refrain from discussing the issue publicly. As a result, those who have attempted to listen to Starbucks’ points of views are puzzled because the only information available to the public is through the press releases where Starbucks insists its hands are not behind the blocking of Ethiopia’s application. The company does not even talk about what it knows as an influential member of the Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA). The following statement issued on August 08, 2006 by the SCAA and which should be familiar to Starbucks explains why Ethiopia’s first application to register the name “Yirgacheffe” was accepted in the US while the applications for “Harar” and “Sidamo” have been blocked: ” Apparently, the Yirgacheffe examining attorney had not concluded the word “Yirgacheffe” was generic and merely descriptive, which had been the case with the “H...

Aaron Glantz of OneWorld US , a non profit global network for information on international issues, exemplified the dispute over Ethiopia’s application to trademark its best-known coffees as being over the disparity between an average income per day in Ethiopia and the cost of a Latte in the rest of the world. “Human rights groups accuse Starbucks of trying to stop Ethiopia from trademarking its best-known coffee beans Sidamo and Harar, thereby denying farmers potential income of more than $90 million a year,” said One World US whereas “Fair trade advocates look at the dispute as a clash between David and Goliath. In Starbucks, they see a $6.4 billion giant with more than 10,000 stores in 37 countries; in Ethiopia, they see the impoverished, hillside farmers of Ethiopia's premium coffee-growing regions.” According to the online network, Starbucks refused to be interviewed for the story. The company preferred to issue an electronic statement. The documentary movie, Black Gold also ...

By anonymous contributor I have recently been following the news on the coffee branding war between the Ethiopian government and the US coffee giant Starbucks Corporation, which was fueled by the involvement of other third party blowers like Oxfam and may be the World bank, if not in an official capacity It is a paradox for me to see the Ethiopian government pursuing this law suit while it self is the one who systematically exploits the poor. The poverty stricken poor coffee farmers whom Oxfam claims to be their friend, pay taxes to sustain the life of this government, whereas others freely enjoy the cream of their labor, and still not enough, those gluttons are looking for every venue deem to generate more to fill their deep barrel. Very unfortunate! As many studies indicate the Ethiopian coffee farmer gets 6-10% of the retail price of his/her product. Is this the fair share? Is this just? Absolutely not! Hence, any attempt to the solution of this problem would have been more benevole...