Promises and Poverty: Starbucks Conceals Poverty and Deterioration of the Environment

Table of Contents

Introduction
Main body
Summary
Reference

Introduction

Some companies try to show that they are more helpful and caring than others in the modern world. Although there are such brands in certain cases, there are also those that hide their businesses unpleasant but significant sides to keep successfully operating. One such example is the case of Starbucks in Ethiopia, described in an article by Tom Knudson (2007). The article talks about Starbuckss working practices that promise good coffee with a better quality of life but conceal poverty and deterioration of the environment and indigenous people.

Main body

While main consumers of a brand can enjoy offered products in the comfort of their homes, they rarely think of those involved in the production process and its consequences. Starbucks is a widely-known company that provides coffee across the globe and claims to protect the environment and enhance the lives of local people in areas where it collects its premium beans (Knudson, 2007). However, according to Knudson (2007), the farmers in Ethiopia are not able to buy the coffee that they help to produce as they make less than a dollar a day. Moreover, people who work on coffee plantations live in poverty and struggle to afford such basics as food and clothes (Knudson, 2007). As Starbucks claims to produce high-quality coffee while caring for its employees, those who collect the beans for the companys main product do not have wholesome day-to-day life.

Starbucks has tried to make some improvements in Ethiopia, where it procures beans. In the Sidamo region, the company has built a bridge so the farmers can get safely to market (Knudson, 2007). However, while Starbucks states that by drinking their coffee, people make a difference, in reality, the bridge is a simple yellow-brown concrete slab (Knudson, 2007, p. 94). Moreover, the Ethiopians say that they could have built the bridge on their own if they had higher salaries so they would not have to be beggars (Knudson, 2007, p. 94). While Starbucks is marketing itself as a well-doer, it could help more by ensuring that the workers on plantations receive decent payments for their work.

Aside from local people, the environment is also suffering because of coffee plantations. In Ethiopia, the most damage has been done to its rainforest (Knudson, 2007). According to Knudson (2007), the forest biodiversity and its livelihood are in danger, and so are rivers with increasing levels of pollution due to coffee stations. With the forest territory reduced and water in rivers contaminated, the local animals, birds, and insects are also at risk (Knudson, 2007). However, the representatives from plantations deny any involvement stating that there is no pollution from our farm (Knudson, 2007, p. 96). Coffee plantations in Ethiopia did not enhance the lives of local people but also failed to maintain the environment in the region.

Summary

To summarize, in his article, Tom Knudson explains how coffee plantations damage the local life in areas of Ethiopia, and brands such as Starbucks keep quiet about it while selling their products. I liked that the article provided thorough information on the topic sharing the perspectives of both people and the authorities from the plantations. I would not say that there was something I distinctly disliked in the execution of the article, but I would prefer if viewpoints from coffee consumers were also provided. With that being said, as the article was published in 2007, I understand that more research on the situation needs to be done these days.