Introduction
Starbucks is an international coffee company with coffee shops in over 50 countries and over 15,000 coffee shops in the US alone (Starbucks, 2019). The coffeeshop industry has come under fire for regular use of single-use packaging that is often not recycled and littered in our natural environment. Therefore, the focus of this essay will be on the disposal of packaging waste and the impacts of plastic pollution in relation to paper cups and plastic straws. Starbucks address both of these issues in their environmental report yet their response is somewhat inadequate which will be explored in this essay.
Paper Cups
Arguably the most significant issue facing Starbucks and the coffee industry is the disposal of paper cups. Due to the lack of proper facilities for recycling and the inaccurate labelling of recyclability, disposable paper cups are a notable pollutant of our natural environment.
More than 3.85 billion paper cups were distributed by Starbucks alone in 2017 with the majority not being recycled and with an unnecessary proportion being littered on our streets (Weiner-Bronner, 2019). Gabbatiss (2018) corroborates this statement citing that upwards of 99% of disposable cups used are not recycled, with 500,000 being littered daily in the UK. This is a direct issue arising from Starbuck’s operations, as they distribute a significant proportion of their coffees in takeaway cups, even when people are drinking inside their coffee shops. Despite popular belief, cardboard cups are largely not recyclable as there are only two suitable recycling for them facilities in the UK due to the polyethylene lining that can’t be separated from the cardboard in standard recycling plants (Crockett, 2016). Worse still, many recyclers will not take packaging that has food/drink residue on it and given the on-the-go nature of coffee culture, consumers are unlikely to rinse their cups before disposing of them (HCEAC, 2018) . This evident neglect on behalf of coffee companies to display accurate recycling information results in unnecessary waste raising the question as to whether increased consumer awareness on recycling would result in reduced cardboard cup use.
This is an issue for society as there is a significant cost associated with improper recycling. It is estimated that taxpayers in Vancouver cover the cost of $2.5 million in order to fund the clean-up of public spaces – a cost that could be reduced should consumers have more accurate information regarding recycling (Williams, 2019). Similarly, UK taxpayers are estimated to cover 90% of packaging waste disposal costs demonstrating that society could benefit from packaging recyclability education (HCEAC, 2018). Furthermore, from a CSR perspective, Starbucks’ association with this could seriously harm their reputation and in turn, their revenue and profit due to the rise of the conscious consumer.
In response to this issue, Starbucks offers a 25p discount for drinks in a reusable cup; a complete failure as they claimed it would lead to 25% of drinks sold to be in reusable cups by 2015 when they only managed 1.6% (Clean Water Action, n.d.). This is a significant shortfall on Starbucks’ behalf necessitating a better solution to address the problem. Additionally, Starbucks charges a mere 5p for a paper cup meaning it is, therefore, no surprise that more than 8000 paper cups are still being used per minute (Williams, 2019). Their response is poor and is a far cry from adequate especially given the magnitude of resources available to the coffee giant.
The HCEAC (2018) suggests that charges are more effective in shaping behaviour than discounts as the carrier bag charge saw an 83% reduction in carrier bags in the first year. Starbucks should therefore charge 25p for cups instead as it would have a greater impact than a 25p discount alone. As the average price for a medium-sized coffee is £2.88, a 25p on top of this would make the price £3.13; this appears significantly more expensive and is the price of some of their large drinks. Further, if Starbucks also offered a 25p discount for reusable cups, customers could be facing the option of paying £2.63 or £3.13 for the same coffee. This is likely to appeal to shareholders as there is the potential for increased revenue from the increased charge as well as benefit from the reputational improvement. Given that responsible investing is on the rise, Starbucks should gain from an increased share price if they improve on their sustainability.
Alternatively, the coffee shop chain Boston Tea Party (BTP) doesn’t sell single-use disposable cups at all, forcing customers to purchase a £5 keep-cup for takeaway coffee (BBC News, 2019). This is perfectly feasible for Starbucks as they sell their own brand reusable cups for £1 and other higher-end cups also. By charging £1 they could implement this system and reduce their single-use takeaway cup distribution to 0%. However, BBC News (2019) report BTP saw a £250,000 fall in revenue after implementing this strategy and as Starbucks is a PLC striving to maximise shareholder value, it is unlikely that they would want to risk such a significant decrease in sales as it would lead to unhappy shareholders and a reduced share price. That said, given that Starbucks offers a reusable cup for £1, it would have less of an impact on sales than a £5 cup charge as it is significantly cheaper. Moreover, BTP is a small UK chain whereas Starbucks is a global giant implying that they would need more than a £1 charge to cause a plunge in their sales as they have such a wide brand reach. I believe that this is a genuinely viable option as Starbucks already sells these £1 cups and they would benefit from the increased revenue incurred from reusable cup sales. In the short term, Starbucks should continue selling the cardboard cups with the 25p charge and then within the next 5 years completely eradicate them once consumers are more accustomed to reusable cups.
Plastic Straws
The second key issue would be the volume of plastic straws distributed by Starbucks. Starbucks has plastic straws available on the counters in their stores (free for people to take) and give them out with all their iced drinks. Starbucks (2018) claim to be eliminating their plastic straws by 2020 in their Environmental Report yet this is all a little too late as their UK competitors have already eliminated plastic straws and replaced them with paper alternatives.
Defra (2018) cite that 4.7 billion plastic straws are distributed in England annually, thus demonstrating the volume that could pollute our natural environment. Plastic straws are problematic because they are made out of polypropylene which is largely not recycled as consumers tend to simply dispose of them in general waste bins. Due to their lightweight nature, the straws often blow out of landfill sites and contaminate the natural environment (Lerner, 2019). Even when disposed of correctly, there is potential for incineration (12%) which adds to CO2 pollution and consequently global warming (Kershaw, 2019).
Starbucks’ frivolous distribution of plastic straws is problematic for society as the pollution of our oceans is getting out of control with more plastic expected to be in our ocean than fish by 2050 (Clean Water Action, n.d.). This is significant as 100,000 sea mammals die due to ingestion and entrapment as a result of plastic waste, not to mention damage to their reproductive potential (Defra, 2018). While it may be argued that a whole host of plastics contribute to this, plastic straws are the 7th most collected item from beaches (TRVST, 2018).
Moreover, Royte (2018) outlines the issues to human health as microplastics (broken down forms of plastic) are ingested by fish that humans eat which is dangerous as they further breakdown into nanoplastics that have the ability to penetrate human tissues and cells. Wright and Kelly (2017) offer supporting evidence with their finding of microplastics in 15 brands of sea-salt demonstrating the capacity for microplastics to end up on our dinner plates. Thus, it is clearly in the interest of our planet and our species to limit the potential for plastic to pollute our oceans and while Starbucks cannot solve all of the above issues on their own, it is important for them to lead the way towards a society rid of single-use plastic.
Starbucks’ response is to introduce plastic lids that don’t need straws; they believe this will prevent the distribution of 1 billion plastic straws annually (Nace, 2018). However, this new lid will be made out of polypropylene and given that the paper cups are not recycled properly, what is the likelihood that the lid will be either? These lids will probably end up in general waste and eventually contribute to the issues explained above. This is evidently an inappropriate response as it is likely to worsen the issue given that the lids will have a greater proportion of polypropylene due to their size and weight. McDonalds – the global fast-food giant has managed to introduce paper straws so why is Starbucks waiting until 2020 to continue distributing harmful plastics but in a different form? Defra (2018) cite that 77% surveyed claim to be in favour of banning plastic straws demonstrating that it would be possible to implement from a consumer preference perspective. Very few places offer plastic straws now meaning it is only logical that Starbucks does the same, however implementing another form of harmful plastic is not the way forward.
The best recommendation for Starbucks would be to eliminate plastic straws and straws in general altogether but realistically, this is unlikely to be implemented as people like to sip their cold drinks through straws. That said, there are many alternatives available such as bamboo, glass, paper, stainless steel, edible straws and silicone straws (Sutcliffe, 2019). While it’s unrealistic to expect Starbucks to distribute glass or stainless-steel plastic straws due to their cost, it is possible for them to create their own brand of reusable straw that customers could purchase and bring to receive a discount. Similar to their paper cup strategy, Starbucks could use eco-branding techniques to offer discounts; perhaps 10p for the use of a reusable straw and charge an extra 10p for the use of a single-use paper straw.
Ultimately, their lid is not enough to combat the problem as it is made of the same harmful plastic and Starbucks state that they will still distribute paper straws on request. Clean Water Action (2018) highlight that paper straws are still bad for the planet as they contribute to deforestation and habitat. Thus, Starbucks should charge for the use of paper straws and launch their own eco-friendly reusable straws. This is a feasible recommendation from a business perspective as Starbucks can gain revenue from the 10p charge and also from selling Starbucks branded reusable straws. Further, they can combine the promotion of their reusable cup with the reusable straw as part of an eco-branding campaign to spread awareness of their sustainability moves. This would improve their reputation and lead to people associating Starbucks’ with being an eco-friendly brand which could attract more customers and thus, greater revenue and profit.
Conclusion
Evidently, Starbucks need to move from their ‘Beyond Compliance Leadership’ of simply being part of the UN Global Compact towards an ‘Eco-Branding’ approach in which they can mutually benefit the environment through sustainable alternative and also increase revenue through the launch of eco-friendly products as well as improve their reputation in terms of sustainability (UN Global Compact, 2017). It is a perfectly feasible solution as the recommendations largely do not require the innovation of new products, but simply to add charges on disposable cups and straws while promoting the sale of sustainable Starbucks branded alternatives that benefit the environment as well as Starbucks’ bottom line. Conscious consumers are only increasing demonstrating that Starbucks cannot afford to be lagging behind their competitors in terms of their environmental approach and need to lead the industry towards sustainability rather than invest in catching up.
2019-12-2-1575294528