The article, titled “Promises and poverty,” reveals the truth behind Starbucks, the biggest coffee corporation in the world, and its operational process in Ethiopia. The author of the article, Tom Knudson, is an American journalist who has won Pulitzer Prize two times for National Reporting and Public Service. The report highlights the inconsistency between the company’s claims to be environmentally friendly and the actual situation that takes place on East African coffee plantations.
The main problems that the author points out are the forced industrialization, dubious marketing tactics, low wages, and deforestation. The article does not entirely demonize Starbucks; Knudson lists several accomplishments the company has made to improve the life quality of Ethiopians, such as providing schools, clinics, and other projects. However, these efforts are not enough to relieve the hardships of poverty – the coffee farmers barely make any money from their work.
At the same time, the company proudly talks about how it helps the growing Ethiopian economy. They do so by printing confidence-boosting messages for their customers on the bags, thereby including a customer in the process of making Ethiopia better. The author notes that this comfortable social justice, packaged in a single cup, does not reflect the actual story.
The article talks about the conflict between the company and the local tribes after Starbucks purchased the land for plantation at the Ethiopia Gemardo Estate. Despite providing new access to the clean water, housing, and healthcare, the company put the Sheka Forest, located in the Gemardo area, at massive risk of deforestation. In addition, the heavy usage of plantations polluted the nearby rivers, making the life of the local tribe Shabuyye difficult. Yatola, the member of the tribe, reports that the number of fish in the river has significantly decreased. He describes that the river “becomes black, almost like oil” (Knudson, 2007, p. 96) and has a terrible stench.
Although Starbucks offers a higher than average wage to their Gemardo workers (around 77 cents up to $1.10 a day), the U.S. State Department reports that it is still not enough to make a living. Moreover, most of the money that comes from a customer does not end up in farmers’ pockets. Instead, it is redistributed to the wages of the buyers, processors, and other intermediaries. The author notes that Starbucks is working on this issue, quoting the words of Dub Hay – the company’s global purchasing executive.
To support their eco-friendly image, Starbucks conducted a set of ethical sourcing standards called Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices, which ensures the provision of ethically collected coffee. However, Knudson reports that an African company inspector was fired during the inspection of the plantation. Despite that Starbucks did not reveal the details of the examination, the company still received C.A.F.E. certification. The article raises a question regarding Starbucks’ transparency with its customers because the mystery behind the case remained unsolved.
Knudson’s article does a great job at providing the whole picture to the story by interviewing different parties involved in the Starbucks-Ethiopia conflict, including the members of the tribes, the workers, the coffee industry leaders, and the farmers. He does not reject that Starbucks somewhat improved the lives of people in Ethiopia, but he still presents the facts that question the company’s operational processes. The corporation advertises itself as a highly ethical and climate-friendly business that tries to achieve societal and ecological goals for Ethiopia; however, the reality does not reflect these claims.
Reference
Knudson, T. (2007). Promises and poverty. The Sacramento Bee, 93-98.