December 1995
On October 20, Starbucks Coffee Company released a "Framework for a Code of Conduct" outlining minimum standards for working conditions for overseas producers from whom they buy. Starbucks had first announced their commitment to adopt such a code in February, 1995 after being targeted by a North America-wide U.S./GLEP grassroots campaign. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, David Olsen, Starbucks vice president for coffee, credited activists for having "prodded" the company into developing its code.
Between February and October, Starbucks educated themselves about existing codes in other sectors and consulted with a wide spectrum of people with experience in codes from both industry and consumer groups, including the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras, the International Labor Rights Fund, the International Union of Foodworkers, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility and U.S./GLEP.
The result of this research and development process is a document that represents the first time that a U.S. commercial coffee company has set criteria for coffee selection that go beyond quality and price to include the working conditions under which coffee is produced. As such, it establishes the critical principle that U.S. coffee companies can and should take responsibility for working and environmental conditions under which coffee is grown. In venturing into this uncharted territory, Starbucks is doing something few major companies would be willing to risk.
The code lays out Starbucks' values in a Statement of Beliefs and states that Starbucks' goal is to "do business with those who share [our] values and abide by international standards for the treatment of others." According to the code, those values include workers' right to freedom of association, the right to a wage that addresses basic needs of workers and their families, and access to safe housing, clean water, and health facilities and services.
There are, however, shortcomings to Starbucks' current code. Perhaps most seriously, it lacks any reference to possible enforcement mechanisms such as discontinuing purchases from non-compliant suppliers. There is also no explicit support for the right to collective bargaining nor explicit opposition to discrimination, and there is no reference to working with workers' organizations, whose own detailed proposal for a model code of conduct seems to have been largely ignored.
Despite these limitations, Starbucks' code is a statement that the company considers itself publicly accountable for abuses and worker rights violations on plantations from which it buys. The media coverage of Starbucks' agreement to adopt a code of conduct and the language of the code itself mean that there is significant leverage to press for implementation and enforcement of the code if the company were to fail to follow-through.
The Starbucks campaign has already contributed to an acknowledgement by ANACAFE, the Guatemalan coffee producers association, of a need to improve working conditions and pay of coffee workers, although Guatemalan workers' organizations say that ANACAFE's steps to date are more heavily weighted towards public relations efforts than actual improvement in conditions. Some steps have been concrete, however, including the November, 1995 settlement of a long-standing dispute at the Bolivia plantation where management agreed to reinstate over 100 workers illegally fired in April 1994 after attempting to form a union.
Starbucks has said that the code is to apply to their purchases worldwide, but that Guatemala will be the initial pilot country for implementation. Starbucks also says that in 1996 they will develop a strategic plan for implementation of their coffee mission for at least Indonesia, Ethiopia, and Kenya, and possibly other countries as well.
The Starbucks code now needs to be translated into concrete improvements for Guatemalan coffee workers. Enforcing the code will be a complex task given the difficulty in tracing the precise origins of most coffee beans, although there are at least some specific plantations from which Starbucks knows some of its beans come. U.S./GLEP has therefore initiated discussions with Starbucks to identify ways in which the company can work to obtain concrete improvements on at least some plantations over the next six to nine months as Starbucks begins the much lengthier process of working with the Guatemalan coffee producer association to implement its code nationwide.
Other "next steps" for U.S./GLEP are to: