6 ms·

The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

34 points by davidchua 16y ago

jonhohle 16y ago
If you dont like the idea of tossing your cup, and you're staying at the store to finish your drink, you can ask for it in a ceramic mug ("to stay", or "for here") instead of a disposable cup.
- cryptoz 16y ago
  Definitely. You can often get a discount this way too, since they treat it as a "personal mug" which gets you 10% off (in Quebec, at least).
jdp23 16y ago
Excellent article, touching on all the things Starbucks is doing, the complexities at the system level, and the fuzziness of their goals (for example no numerical targets). For me this was the top-level takeaway: "The complexity dissipates, apparently, when you have the law on your side. Only 5% of Starbucks stores currently recycle cups, and that's mainly in places like Seattle, San Francisco, and Ontario, where it's required by law."
jessriedel 16y ago
I don't want to start an environmental flame war, but... Isn't the disposal of inert materials in landfills one of the lease important environmental problems? Yes, if you're cutting down rain forests to make your cups, infusing them with CFCs, or using terrawatts of fossil-fuel-based power, then there are issues to discuss. But if you're just putting paper in a big pile somewhere, there's basically no issue. For all intents and purposes, our space for landfills is unlimited. Could someone fill me in on any aspect of this I'm not considering?
- robryan 16y ago
  Well, if we were recycling all our current paper based waste then less rain forests would have to be cut down to keep up with demand. Have been thinking about advertising catalogues you get in the mail and phone books as well today, both products that use a lot of paper for marginal benefit these days.
  - ars 16y ago
    Not a single sheet of paper is made from rain forest trees. In fact almost nothing is made from rain forest trees. They are usually cut down to use the land, not for the trees.
  - jessriedel 16y ago
    > Well, if we were recycling all our current paper based waste then less rain forests would have to be cut down to keep up with demand. Rain forests are cut down to clear land for farming in developing countries, not for wood.
- kia 16y ago
  Landfill space is not unlimited. I understand that you are talking about US, but some countries (Japan) have huge problems with space. The less you have the more you should think about doing things right.
- ohyes 16y ago
  You are coming at it from the wrong angle. The disposal of inert materials in a landfill is trivial. The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise useful materials, in a landfill. If I'm putting paper in a big pile of paper, and not using it for anything, I'm wasting resources, I could use that big pile of paper for something else. Landfills can also be a problem, as they can have negative effects on things like local water quality. If we are using landfill space when we don't need to use it (things that are inert and recyclable), it is a waste of landfill space, which we should try to minimize and use for things that actually need to be disposed of safely.
  - ars 16y ago
    Paper uses more resources to recycle (especially water) than it uses to make it fresh. It's a feel good thing that does more harm than good. Putting paper in the ground is excellent from a CO2 sequestering point of view as well.
    - ohyes 16y ago
      A quick Google search makes me think your first point is not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycled_paper#Rationale_for_recycling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycled_paper#Rationale_for_re... Granted, it is Wikipedia, and I'd welcome data to back up your point, but other sources seem to say similar things. Barring a great internet hippie recycling conspiracy, I'd say you are wrong. The article seems to be focused on the idea of composting the cups anyway.
    - maukdaddy 16y ago
      Awww don't disappoint me like that Ars. Paper in the ground is the opporite of CO2 sequestering because you had to cut down a TREE to make that paper. A living tree is, by definition, a CO2 sequestering machine. Also, throwing paper and organic matter into modern landfills, which promote anaerobic breakdown, produces methane. As you know, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
      - ars 16y ago
- ars 16y ago
  You are completely correct. The only aspect you are not considering is the "feel good" greenwashing. There are far far far more important goals than recycling or composting paper.
  - TorKlingberg 16y ago
    Source please.
- maukdaddy 16y ago
  According to the WWF (http://www.worldwildlife.org/sites/TED/change.html http://www.worldwildlife.org/sites/TED/change.html) it takes 53 gallons of water to make 1 latte. A great deal of this water is used in making the cup. So why use all that water for a product that gets trashed?
  - ars 16y ago
    We use water for lots of things. Why are we focusing on the cup? There are much better places to conserve water. Crop irrigation, and getting rid of septic systems would be where I would start. Don't grow crops in places where you need to irrigate (or at least reduce it), and septic systems waste water, instead of recycling it like a sewer does.
    - robryan 16y ago
      I think that for a company that is supplying billions of cups a year that end up in landfill focusing on the cup should be a priority.
      - Retric 16y ago
        The cost of 1 gallon of water is something like 1/100th of a cent in most areas. If you want people to conserve water increase its cost, anything else and it will just be "wasted" somewhere else. http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2007/04/semiconductors.html http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2007/04/semiconductors.htm... Note: $27 per acre-foot = 0.008 cents per gallon.
- stellar678 16y ago
  If you design systems to have a one-way flow of materials, they are inherently unsustainable. At some point, you'll run out of source materials and/or space to put waste.
dmm 16y ago
Polystyrene foam (styrofoam) is an extremely recyclable material. I don't think many people have access to recycling facilities though. Interesting problem! EDIT: Another thought: aluminum. It's expensive and highly recyclable. Another benefit is that you have a small army of homeless picking the streets clean of the valuable metal. Can't find a recycling bin? Just toss it in the gutter! It'll find it's way.
- maukdaddy 16y ago
  Aluminum would be a terrible material for a container that holds liquids at temperatures of 150+ (65C+)
  - dmm 16y ago
    How come? Thermal conductivity? Perhaps it could be covered in cardboard. What about glass?
ohyes 16y ago
I wonder why they don't come up with a cheap, washable cup that the customers 'borrow' for the duration of drinking coffee. You buy a coffee for 3 bucks, you get the cup for a dollar, and you get a dollar back when you return the cup. They wash the cup and use it again. It would be like getting it 'for here', but you give some collateral against the price of the cup, and can leave. There are enough Starbucks within the US that returning the cup wouldn't be much of a hassle (might even be good for repeat business).
- robryan 16y ago
  Or make it compulsory to bring your own cup, which they also sell in store if you don't yet have a suitable one. This would be great but given the competitive nature of the industry would only work in certain locations where people are more environmentally conscious.
  - jasonkester 16y ago
    Ever been to a grocery store that forced you to buy bags to take your stuff home? More specifically, ever been back to that store? It just doesn't work (for us Americans at least).
    - tbrownaw 16y ago
      Yes. They also had the carts locked up so you needed to deposit a quarter (which you got back by locking your cart up again), didn't take credit cards (only debit/cash), and didn't have name-brand anything. It worked fine, except that their bread would often start to grow mold by the time we were maybe two-thirds through a loaf (which doesn't seem to happen with bread from other stores). We'd probably still go there for other things, except that we always need bread and going to two separate stores is annoying.
    - robryan 16y ago
      In general, I don't think it would work in many places in Australia either. People have grown to comfortable with consuming and are unable to see real consequences on any time frame that matters to them. The market will eventually sort this out, but not before it is far to later. Recently I have encouraged to know that many people pay the green electricity surcharge, which means you are subsidizing more green sources of power being integrated into the grid, I'd assumed that they would have a really low uptake on that kind of thing.
chaosmachine 16y ago
Bridgehead, a local coffee shop here in Ottawa, claims their cups are 100% compostable. Assuming that's true, why doesn't Starbucks just switch to these cups? I didn't notice any different in quality.
giardini 16y ago
tl;dr Could some unfortunate soul who had the misfortune of reading this entire article please summarize it in 3, possibly 4 sentences for us of a weaker constitution?

34 points by davidchua 16y ago

If you dont like the idea of tossing your cup, and you're staying at the store to finish your drink, you can ask for it in a ceramic mug ("to stay", or "for here") instead of a disposable cup.

cryptoz 16y ago
Definitely. You can often get a discount this way too, since they treat it as a "personal mug" which gets you 10% off (in Quebec, at least).

jdp23 16y ago

Excellent article, touching on all the things Starbucks is doing, the complexities at the system level, and the fuzziness of their goals (for example no numerical targets). For me this was the top-level takeaway: "The complexity dissipates, apparently, when you have the law on your side. Only 5% of Starbucks stores currently recycle cups, and that's mainly in places like Seattle, San Francisco, and Ontario, where it's required by law."

jessriedel 16y ago

I don't want to start an environmental flame war, but... Isn't the disposal of inert materials in landfills one of the lease important environmental problems? Yes, if you're cutting down rain forests to make your cups, infusing them with CFCs, or using terrawatts of fossil-fuel-based power, then there are issues to discuss. But if you're just putting paper in a big pile somewhere, there's basically no issue. For all intents and purposes, our space for landfills is unlimited. Could someone fill me in on any aspect of this I'm not considering?

robryan 16y ago
Well, if we were recycling all our current paper based waste then less rain forests would have to be cut down to keep up with demand. Have been thinking about advertising catalogues you get in the mail and phone books as well today, both products that use a lot of paper for marginal benefit these days.
- ars 16y ago
  Not a single sheet of paper is made from rain forest trees. In fact almost nothing is made from rain forest trees. They are usually cut down to use the land, not for the trees.
- jessriedel 16y ago
  > Well, if we were recycling all our current paper based waste then less rain forests would have to be cut down to keep up with demand. Rain forests are cut down to clear land for farming in developing countries, not for wood.
kia 16y ago
Landfill space is not unlimited. I understand that you are talking about US, but some countries (Japan) have huge problems with space. The less you have the more you should think about doing things right.
ohyes 16y ago
You are coming at it from the wrong angle. The disposal of inert materials in a landfill is trivial. The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise useful materials, in a landfill. If I'm putting paper in a big pile of paper, and not using it for anything, I'm wasting resources, I could use that big pile of paper for something else. Landfills can also be a problem, as they can have negative effects on things like local water quality. If we are using landfill space when we don't need to use it (things that are inert and recyclable), it is a waste of landfill space, which we should try to minimize and use for things that actually need to be disposed of safely.
- ars 16y ago
  Paper uses more resources to recycle (especially water) than it uses to make it fresh. It's a feel good thing that does more harm than good. Putting paper in the ground is excellent from a CO2 sequestering point of view as well.
  - ohyes 16y ago
    A quick Google search makes me think your first point is not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycled_paper#Rationale_for_recycling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recycled_paper#Rationale_for_re... Granted, it is Wikipedia, and I'd welcome data to back up your point, but other sources seem to say similar things. Barring a great internet hippie recycling conspiracy, I'd say you are wrong. The article seems to be focused on the idea of composting the cups anyway.
  - maukdaddy 16y ago
    Awww don't disappoint me like that Ars. Paper in the ground is the opporite of CO2 sequestering because you had to cut down a TREE to make that paper. A living tree is, by definition, a CO2 sequestering machine. Also, throwing paper and organic matter into modern landfills, which promote anaerobic breakdown, produces methane. As you know, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
    - ars 16y ago
ars 16y ago
You are completely correct. The only aspect you are not considering is the "feel good" greenwashing. There are far far far more important goals than recycling or composting paper.
- TorKlingberg 16y ago
  Source please.
maukdaddy 16y ago
According to the WWF (http://www.worldwildlife.org/sites/TED/change.html http://www.worldwildlife.org/sites/TED/change.html) it takes 53 gallons of water to make 1 latte. A great deal of this water is used in making the cup. So why use all that water for a product that gets trashed?
- ars 16y ago
  We use water for lots of things. Why are we focusing on the cup? There are much better places to conserve water. Crop irrigation, and getting rid of septic systems would be where I would start. Don't grow crops in places where you need to irrigate (or at least reduce it), and septic systems waste water, instead of recycling it like a sewer does.
  - robryan 16y ago
    I think that for a company that is supplying billions of cups a year that end up in landfill focusing on the cup should be a priority.
    - Retric 16y ago
      The cost of 1 gallon of water is something like 1/100th of a cent in most areas. If you want people to conserve water increase its cost, anything else and it will just be "wasted" somewhere else. http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2007/04/semiconductors.html http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2007/04/semiconductors.htm... Note: $27 per acre-foot = 0.008 cents per gallon.
stellar678 16y ago
If you design systems to have a one-way flow of materials, they are inherently unsustainable. At some point, you'll run out of source materials and/or space to put waste.

dmm 16y ago

Polystyrene foam (styrofoam) is an extremely recyclable material. I don't think many people have access to recycling facilities though. Interesting problem! EDIT: Another thought: aluminum. It's expensive and highly recyclable. Another benefit is that you have a small army of homeless picking the streets clean of the valuable metal. Can't find a recycling bin? Just toss it in the gutter! It'll find it's way.

maukdaddy 16y ago
Aluminum would be a terrible material for a container that holds liquids at temperatures of 150+ (65C+)
- dmm 16y ago
  How come? Thermal conductivity? Perhaps it could be covered in cardboard. What about glass?

ohyes 16y ago

I wonder why they don't come up with a cheap, washable cup that the customers 'borrow' for the duration of drinking coffee. You buy a coffee for 3 bucks, you get the cup for a dollar, and you get a dollar back when you return the cup. They wash the cup and use it again. It would be like getting it 'for here', but you give some collateral against the price of the cup, and can leave. There are enough Starbucks within the US that returning the cup wouldn't be much of a hassle (might even be good for repeat business).

robryan 16y ago
Or make it compulsory to bring your own cup, which they also sell in store if you don't yet have a suitable one. This would be great but given the competitive nature of the industry would only work in certain locations where people are more environmentally conscious.
- jasonkester 16y ago
  Ever been to a grocery store that forced you to buy bags to take your stuff home? More specifically, ever been back to that store? It just doesn't work (for us Americans at least).
  - tbrownaw 16y ago
    Yes. They also had the carts locked up so you needed to deposit a quarter (which you got back by locking your cart up again), didn't take credit cards (only debit/cash), and didn't have name-brand anything. It worked fine, except that their bread would often start to grow mold by the time we were maybe two-thirds through a loaf (which doesn't seem to happen with bread from other stores). We'd probably still go there for other things, except that we always need bread and going to two separate stores is annoying.
  - robryan 16y ago
    In general, I don't think it would work in many places in Australia either. People have grown to comfortable with consuming and are unable to see real consequences on any time frame that matters to them. The market will eventually sort this out, but not before it is far to later. Recently I have encouraged to know that many people pay the green electricity surcharge, which means you are subsidizing more green sources of power being integrated into the grid, I'd assumed that they would have a really low uptake on that kind of thing.

chaosmachine 16y ago

Bridgehead, a local coffee shop here in Ottawa, claims their cups are 100% compostable. Assuming that's true, why doesn't Starbucks just switch to these cups? I didn't notice any different in quality.

giardini 16y ago

tl;dr Could some unfortunate soul who had the misfortune of reading this entire article please summarize it in 3, possibly 4 sentences for us of a weaker constitution?