I did review the sites you included in your post, and what I saw was impressive about seeking to improve the lives of farmers et al, but I don’t see that exemplified across their business practices. No one can deny Starbucks is adept at marketing and PR, and I believe that much of the impetus for creating this ‘doing good’ stance is image-based, albeit meticulously executed.

I agree it takes considerable effort and coordination to move toward total sustainability, but other large scale companies like Apple have undergone that arduous process — and expense — in their product development and manufacturing. Plus, they make those changes, along with the results, public on their website, which is updated regularly.

I still hold firm to my original point that Starbuck’s does not epitomize a socially responsible company across the board. At least, not yet. I view them more as a leader in cause marketing. Their campaigns are elegant and compelling, and most importantly, they resonate wth their audience. So, when Starbucks loyalists support those activities, it is still beneficial for the cause.

But being socially responsible extends far beyond just charitable donations, and companies who exemplify a unified CSR approach are affecting tangible change overall vs. arbitrarily attaching their marketing efforts to increase sales and spark the halo benefits of goodwill for their brand.

At the end of the day, what we can definitely agree upon is the fact that Starbucks — and others — will be forced to deepen their commitment as consumer demand for social responsibility increases and a sustainable CSR model becomes the standard way of conducting business as opposed to just a competitive differentiator.

Until then, all efforts toward change have value and are a step in the right direction.

If you answered that question the way I did, what’s that say about Starbucks?

@Daniel Oyston – yes, they did.

@Gennefer – Starbucks is in a similar position as most incumbent corporations. They have built their companies within a supply ecosystem that is shifting from pump & dump to sustainable product lines. This takes coordination from the major purchasers of these products representing multiple industries.

Based on both of your comments, I can’t tell if you’ve taken the time to visit the sites I’ve listed. Either way, I disagree that they’re just committed for publicity’s sake.

But, for discussion’s sake, let’s assume your sentiment that Starbucks is just concerned with the profit is true. If we can agree that the only way to create sustainable wealth is by improving lives, then Starbucks will be forced to deepen their commitment or face further erosion of their wealth.

I think Starbucks biggest challenge is demonstrating how deep of a commitment they truly have to the causes they promote and their sustainability & social responsibility efforts. Fortunately, we can all shine our bright lights on them and see for ourselves. And, they can, too, most effectively by letting individuals tell the stories themselves without Starbucks editorial control.

@johnhaydon You’ll be glad to see on the Shared Planet their 2015 goal of having 100% renewable, sustainable containers. And you can pledge to bring your own mug to help reduce landfill.

@DannyBrown I’ve been encouraged personally and professionally by the tone and approach Bill and Melinda Gates are taking. He’s rising to the occasion.

The minute I hear ‘overpriced’ I immediately discount everything I hear after. If people pay it, it’s not overpriced. This is such a simple concept. That YOU think it’s overpriced does not make it so. I name a hundred other things I feel are priced worse than starbucks coffee, but if people buy them, my feelings don’t matter.

Starbucks is not much different in price than a dunkin donuts or other specialty coffee shop. Pure drivel.

In it, he suggested that businesses should look at ways they can give back to the needy and still have profit. Sometimes recognition for good is profit enough.

It seems such a simple thing to do, and yet so many question the benefits. Isn’t making the world a better place for everyone benefit enough?

But the fact that Starbucks contributes to endless amounts of waste that end up in landfills, among other environmental indiscretions and unfair trade practices, proves my point that their cause-related campaigns are the product of glitzy marketing vs. a core commitment to social responsibility.

If it were the latter, it would be present throughout ALL of their business practices — internally and externally — not just in consumer-facing, sales-driving initiatives.

I do not discount that good still comes from the monetary donations they generate for their promoted charities but if they are negatively impacting the environment and local trade in other areas of their business, how can we view them as a shining example of social responsibility?

The fact is that profit is still king to them, and they are not willing to spend the extra money on greening their practices or alternative paper products for their coffee. Their cups are not recyclable, and even if they were, many Starbucks stores do not even have recycling bins.

Sustainable business is defined as people, planet and profit in equal priority, and if we are to use that as a barometer, Starbucks falls more than a ‘latte’ short.

My previous comment does not mean that people should feel good about the social cause marketing they do. Go. Buy that Latte. But recycle the cup!