My topic is Starbucks and the Environment so I began by searching those key words to see what the world wide web would bring me. The first relevant news article I found was titled, Corporate Social Responsibility: How Starbucks is making an impact by Kate Vandeveld. When first reading the article, I thought immediately that it was an opinion-based article rather than factual news. With phrases like “as long as they make customers feel good, they’re a big asset to the company” when referencing to non-reusable paper cups. They also said, “it’s made sweeping commitments, and walked them back, and reset them”. It’s clear that the writer has some personal views on Starbucks’s non-environmentally friendly cup topic.
I find this unfortunate considering the rest of the article was very fact-based. For instance, there was some unbiased facts like “Since 2006, its paper cups have included 10% recycled material” and “Starbucks had even held three Cup Summits between 2009 and 2011, tapping experts from MIT and elsewhere to help them design a fully recyclable cup”. Had there been more of these factual points rather than comments insinuating their stance, I would not have tuned out so quickly.
I think it’s justified to play the middleman and stick to just facts for both sides of the concern at hand when discussing such issues.
My next find was another news article from USA Today titled “Starbucks brews a greener plan for 10,000 environmentally friendly stores”. I truly appreciated this piece by Mike Snider considering it was completely unbiased and very professional. There were absolutely no hints at Mike’s opinion on the matter at hand, making it to be what I consider a news piece.
I appreciated that the author remained neutral of all the information while providing facts from both sides of whether or not Starbucks is considering the environment in their decisions. For example, when he wrote, “Starbucks expects to save $50 million in utility costs over the next 10 years as the plan evolves”. Another example would be when he wrote, “An accredited auditing program will be developed so that all 15,000 company-owned stores in the U.S. and Canada can be audited”.
I trusted this article much more since it contained only black and white facts from all angles rather than facts with insinuations attached.
I decided then to find some analysis or opinion pieces on Starbucks pertaining to the Environment. I came across an article from the Sierra Club Magazine titled “Starbucks Falls Short on Environmental Commitments” by Davis Harper. As I read, I could hear the frustration in the authors words. It was a combination of news and opinion which I favored the most of all the pieces I read. It was apparent that the author cares about the environment so strongly and although Starbucks contributes strongly to much of the pollution, they are trying to reconcile some of their previous decisions.
Davis Harper used facts like, “Starbucks recently promised to double its current usage of reusable cups by 2022, which requires but a jump from 1.4 to 2.8 percent of all its cups”. Harper also included, “As a company with the influence and reach to effect real progress through its environmental commitments, Starbucks arguably has a responsibility to develop and maintain the most sustainable practices it can afford”. Then as well he countered that point with a different perspective, “Still, at least part of the burden falls on consumers to keep the corporation honest”.
I felt this article had everything I was looking for when seeking a reliable source of information on my topic.
The last opinion or analysis piece I found and read was on Elite Daily by Lizzy Rosenberg titled “What Is The “Starbucks Greener Stores” Framework? It Is Very Eco-Friendly”. To be completely honest this was the dullest article I read. I mean it was practically written by a spokesperson for Starbucks. The entire piece discussed exactly what is written in Starbuck’s environmental reports on their website with no strong added voice in the writing at all.
I believe this was an opinion piece with sentences like, “I don’t know about you, but I am totally looking forward to ordering a PSL in one of Starbucks’s Greener Stores in the future” and most of the article consisted of goals. For example, “To help achieve this end of conserving energy, the Greener Stores will operate on solar and wind power.” It seemed like Elite Daily was tipped off just a bit since they only favored Starbucks’s side on being environmentally friendly, with no contrary facts to balance out the article.
Needless to say, I won’t be returning to any pieces written by Lizzy Rosenberg for advice.
