Starbucks's CSR campaign asks “Are you in?”

Sadly, more and more of its employees are out these days because of job cuts. And, clearly the last few years haven’t been kind to this global, retail coffee king. The company lost its mojo by expanding much too quickly into neighborhoods, towns and specific spots that didn’t fit its customer base. On top of that, Starbucks greatly diluted its brand by lessening coffee brewing standards (that had made it the champion in the first place) and by offering so many other foods (like sausage breakfast sandwiches) which greatly changed the atmosphere and experience at the actual store.

All of this negative commotion has seemingly taken away some credit that the company deserves for continually leading the way in giving back to communities and the world. And, that’s too bad. Since the beginning, Starbucks has been a leader in making sure that its products (coffee beans) are grown, harvested, transported, etc., in the most environmentally friendly way. The company also pays strict attention to taking care of the local resources and indigenous people where its coffee originates from. And, if you go to Starbucks’ web site, one can find countless programs that the company offers to promote giving back to worthwhile causes.

A few weeks ago, Starbucks launched another very smart and caring program called “Are you in?”  Based on President Obama’s mandate to be more civic minded and conduct community service, Starbucks is asking consumers to pledge just five hours of service within his/her community and it will do its part by handing out a large, free cup of hot coffee. There’s a special pledge page on the company’s web site to get started.

Starbucks received some nice publicity when this program came out (I remember seeing it on one of the national morning shows.) I would imagine that the company is pleased with that because every organization wants to be recognized for these cause programs. But for Starbucks, this is really just a drop in the bucket. Giving back and standing tall around causes that matter are part of this company’s DNA. Some would say its Starbuck’s signature on the society we live in.

Lots of companies start, stop and start again various programs to help causes. Many do it because they really care (but are torn between what issues to stand behind.) Others simply want the exposure and good will that often comes with it but don’t care enough to make any one program sustainable. I submit that it doesn’t really matter what cause or issue your company puts its resources behind. Like Starbucks, it needs to take on a higher meaning and should become a signature-like program that is tied to your business.

Only in this way, can companies always see just how strategic those causes are to make the organization a deeper, more caring part of that community or constituent base, and to realize that it actually is helping to grow business as well. One would hope that this type of signature program would become a part of the company’s fabric, which would end the all too frequent starts and stops that take place because of bad economic conditions, new leadership or any other reason.

Comments

[Matt]

Our own Milos Sugovic blogged about the structure of Starbucks'CSR programs recently--and how they have not only helped communities, but also improved Starbucks' own business processes and bottom line.
http://peppercomblog.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/01/csr-does-s-stand-for-strategic.html#more

[Steve]

At the risk of taking an unpopular position, let me ask: is it responsible to engage in corporate good works while laying off one's own staff?

Now, I do not know the economics of Starbuck's programs, so I'm not necessarily commenting on them specifically, and will bow gracefully to superior knowledge on the subject. That said:

Generally speaking, using "organic" products, ensuring eco-friendly production and transportion processes, etc. cost more than more traditional supply chain management that looks solely to finding the right quality at the lowest price. Similarly, direct corporate giving--charity, of any kind--clearly has a bottom line cost.

Assuming therefore that corporate good works cost money, is it moral to engage in those practices while laying off people who depend on a job for their, and their families', livelihood?

It's not an easy question, with no simple answer. A lot depends on the precise intersection of cost and benefit, as well as on how much marketing benefit (and therefore increased sales) a company derives from the program.

I will say, though, that for me personally, I find that I am turned off by companies trumpeting their green or charitable projects, or their sponsorship of otherwise worthy goals, while cutting staff. I've had to lay people off myself in the past, and having seen firsthand the effect on them, well, I'd cut almost anything else before cutting staff. So for me, Starbucks makes itself less attractive by taking what it thinks of as corporately responsible actions while conducting large layoffs.

[ed]

Steve,

Your point is well taken.

However, I think Starbucks is different because saving the environment has been a critical part of the company's DNA since it opened its first store. Some would say that Starbucks has always had two intertwining missions (making money and making the world better in this way).

If you look at many of these programs, the company isn't donating tons of money. Instead, it's doing a small part and hoping that so many others in the community will do the same (just look at the recent campaign I just wrote about).

I also think that while companies can and should tone down how much they give during hard times, they should never stop what they care about (or what the brand stands for). That is a sure fire way to kill a brand.