3 ms·
> However it tries to paint a comparison to Starbuck’s environmental initiative that speaks to giving back more than it takes in terms of agriculture. This seem
by hiatus 2y ago
> However it tries to paint a comparison to Starbuck’s environmental initiative that speaks to giving back more than it takes in terms of agriculture. This seems like a false comparison. Two have nothing to do with each other.
Of course they are related. How can a company say with a straight face on the one hand that they are committed to environmental initiatives while on the other hand their CEO uses one of the most environmentally harmful forms of travel for a regular commute?
- firesteelrain 2y agoI took it as the environmental initiatives were more agricultural related and not related to forcing the CEOs to use all forms of environmentally friendly forms of everything to operate. It’s not feasible to be good at environmental everything