starbucks英文案例分析

1. What do you think of Starbucks’ collaboration with Conservation International in Chiapas?

As it said, “Starbucks is not strictly a coffee company; It is more an entertainment company that happens to sell coffee.”

In contemporary society, the sale-driven business pattern was not fit for the society any more; even the customer-driven business pattern started to become progressively useless. Increasing number of companies realized that they should create the opportunity to grab consumers’ attention. The prod uct and price are no longer the primary factors that impacted the company. Social reaction and social respect are the front ranks that influencing in the long-term strategy, though profit is always their final target.

The Chiapas project founded in 1996, created a partnership with Starbucks in 1997. It was the CI who holds the initiative to contact with Starbucks. Starbucks also mentioned that “You’ve got to put yourself in our shoes.” Means Starbucks would always consider their sales quality on the top. I think Starbucks knows that collaborate with conservation international would bring them a lot merits. Otherwise they may not pay much attention to it. The merits include more social approval or more praise which is most needed in market-driven marketing. Also, there’s less risks with CI compared with other project. So generally speaking Starbucks made a wisely determine on cooperate with CI. It is a win-win relationship.

Does it make any sense for Starbucks to pursue their environmental objectives with CI, dealing with small famers in a remote spot like south Mexico? Why is it valuable to the company?

“We know our long-term success is linked to the success of the thousands of farmers who grow our coffee. That’s why we work on-the-ground with farmers to help improve coffee quality and invest in loan programs for coffee-growing communities. It's not just the right thing to do, it’s the right thing to do for our business. By helping to sustain coffee farmers and strengthen their communities, we ensure a healthy supply of high-quality coffee for the future.”

The paragraph above is excerpted from Starbucks’ website. They claimed that their purpose is to promote a higher quality of coffee beans from farmers. Of course the objective was not just about helping the farmers. The action that purchasing from small famers aimed at keeps balance in supply market. Starbucks buys coffee from small farmers in 29 different countries. In order to be deemed Fairtrade, the farmers have to fulfill criteria set down by the Fairtrade Foundation and Starbucks Cafe practices. Once they have achieved these multiple qualifications, Starbucks buys their coffee at a higher than market price and guarantees future purchases. This gives the farmers more stability and security; knowing that their crops will be sold.

I think dealing with small famers in a remote spot helped them with their International Expansion plan, by doing this Starbucks could have better control on global market, not just about helping but also about controlling.

2 If y ou were an executive at Starbucks wouldn’t simply contributing money be simpler and more rational?

Simply contribution does sound much easier, but simple contributing couldn’t undertake enough social responsibility as Starbucks should take. When the company is in the leading position of market, every move is watched. Sometimes throw the money to some organizations is far from enough. At least they should show their sincerity about the desire to support the society. Starbucks addressed this problem in a very appropriate way. Four key elements of extended partnership played an important role in helping farmers. The output might the same with simply donate to the organization but the effects are much more conducive.

Sometimes, more society activities would bring more controversy. But it also could be regarded as a good opportunity to develop a better public image. As long as their crisis management could handle it well. They can turn the negative event around and make it into a positive situation.

3 Do you think Starbucks is being foolish to drive price s up in a buyers’ market for coffee beans?

For the standpoint of the company, as the cost gone up, they do need to make adjustments the prices to support the business. I believed that every would put their profit maximum as their primary goal, so does Starbucks, but raising price always hard to accepted by costumers. This time Starbucks didn’t do well on the price raising. And it brought some critical view. Here is one of the comments about it.

“Howard Schultz is trying not to raise prices as his coffee bean costs go up. Starbucks uses the rising cost of beans as a justification of price increases yet when the price of those beans goes down the price of Starbucks coffee does not. Howard, you can fool some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time!!!”

Also the stock price of Starbucks was fallen since Nov.15, the day they raised price (chart 1). I wouldn’t say this is foolish to drive prices up, they just haven’t done enough work before the raising.

Chart 1

4 Why would coffee farmers agree to change their farming practices to be more environmentally friendly? What role does Starbucks play in this?

There was a concern that farmers who living in the pleasant, normal day wouldn’t like to try a new way except they are offered clear benefits to accelerate adoption of conservation practices. CI have made such promise, they would offer technical assistance that would improve growing techniques and coffee quality for farmers. And CI also helped farmers to market their coffee more

effectively and efficiently by providing a organization assistance.

Starbucks is one of the partner with CI who agreed to go out to Chiapas and communicate to farmers what they should do to promote their coffee quality up to the standers, but Starbucks didn’t make the commitment to buy, they did commit to contribute $150,000 over three years.

5. Did /does the alliance between Starbucks and CI work? Why or why not?

For one side, yes, it did works. The goals of the alliance include increasing the number of coffee producers participating in the Conservation Coffee program, expanding the area of coffee fields that are being farmed using best practices, and making more high quality sustainable green coffee available to roasters. The Alliance will also engage with interested stakeholders that share its goals. The long-term objective is to broaden the resource base available to support small-scale coffee farmers and biodiversity conservation and enhance the ability to drive meaningful and measurable changes within the coffee industry.

On the other hand, it made impairment of benefit of some big and medium-size coffee grower. Because they are not part of the CI program, many of then had to stop or cut back harvest for the low world price.

6

What would you recommend to Starbucks regarding the future relationship with CI? What might you change?

Whether one likes or dislikes Starbucks or its philanthropy, the Starbucks CSR model looks like a recipe that many corporations recognize as a solid formula for social responsibility—a mix of environmental sensitivity, global development, disaster relief, employee community service, and small grants through retail outlets. Is there a hidden downside to the Starbucks CSR model that isn’t immediately evident from its CSR report?—Rick Cohen

Starbucks should keep the relationship with CI, because they already fulfilled so many achievements they really should keep going. But they also should keep eye on the big and medium-size coffee growers. It caused great numbers of argument for the over low price that make those big and medium-size coffee growers hard to keep their balance between cost and income. They may set up another program that helps the big and medium-size coffee growers go through this kind of situation.