Yesterday I met Scott Keiller of Starbucks to discuss his company’s role in the Ethiopian government’s attempts to trademark the names of several premium types of coffee. We met in a Starbucks store on Fulham Palace Road in London and chatted for 40 minutes. Scott covered off quite a few of the things Starbucks does to try to reach out to the people of the areas in which it has stores and talked about coffee production and buying, Oxfam and other organisations and Starbucks’ take on this specific case. Scott disputed the allegations made by Oxfam and said “Starbucks believes that Ethiopian farmers have a right to their regional coffee names and that [they] do not claim any ownership rights to Ethiopia’s coffee names.”

Previously

In part 1, we learned how, after I received a card from Oxfam urging me to protest Starbucks opposition to the trademarking of the names Sidamo, Harar and Yirgacheffe by the Ethiopian government on behalf of farmers in that country, I walked into Starbucks’ London head office unannounced and asked to meet their MD. As he was absent, Scott Keiller, head of CSR, stepped in and offered to meet at a later date.

Previously Oxfam and Starbucks had been friends. In 2004 they worked together on a rural development project[1]. For Starbucks’ Cathy Heseltine “the ultimate test is whether we make a difference to these coffee growing communities.”

The plan

I didn’t want to open the conversation with an accusation. Scott was always going to be better armed with facts than I, it’s his job. My plan was to learn a bit more about Scott and his role, discuss some of the good things Starbucks does and then try to learn why Oxfam, once a best friend, was now making negative statements about the company. I hoped that Scott would be frank and open.

Partners in the community

Starbucks’ employers are “partners,” they share in the company’s success through schemes including offering share options to all (“Bean Stock”). They also provide the basis for a series of community schemes of which Scott was very proud. These include looking after the environment, attempting to reduce carbon, and trying to help improve the lives of people in their communities, including encouraging literacy as directly as arranging father and son book readings in stores.

Supplier relationships

Starbucks buys coffee above the market rate, at $3.12/kg instead of $2.28/kg[2]. It has direct relationships with it’s farmers and 97% of it’s supply agreements are operated transparently, through things like contract disclosure. Conservation International has been involved in verifying a large proportion of the supply chain. Starbucks created a microfinance fund with $8.5m investment. While much of this data comes via Scott rather than through any kind of rigourous journalism, Phil Bloomer, head of Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair campaign, speaking in 2004, said Starbucks “was taking the lead in the responsible purchasing of coffee, by paying premium prices and making long-term contracts with farmers.”[3]

Trademarks

Why then is Starbucks blocking attempts by the Ethiopian government to trademark coffee names? Scott did not accept that this was the case, and I clarified, stating that their application had been made through the National Coffee Association in the US, of which Starbucks has a 20% voting block. Scott did not seem to feel as though Starbucks was placing roadblocks to the Ethiopian application as he reminded me subsequently by email: “we do not claim any ownership rights to Ethiopia’s coffee names.” And yet in 2007 Oxfam’s David Taylor reports that the USPTO stated clearly that it was the NCA’s opposition that lead to the failure of the application and the Robert Nelson, the NCA’s president, in turn pointed the finger at Starbucks[4].

In his clarification of Starbucks previous application, Scott explained that Starbucks sell a coffee named “Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo,” which they developed in partnership with the growers. They sought to trademark only the Shirkina part of the name, a word which means partnership in Ethiopian. If this is the case, it’s difficult to see how this alone could prejudice the USPTO’s judgement.

So what?

I find this situation troubling, but the clearest thing is that I lack the time and ability to bring it to a sensible conclusion. Even reporting back on a single simple interaction is fraught with questions of bias, accurate sourcing and politics.

I’d like to thank Scott for his time. He was very diligent in educating me about Starbucks caring sharing side, he even gave me a copy of their Corporate Social Responsibility Fiscal 2005 Annual Report and sheaf of clippings. But he was also a consummate politician, reminiscent of Thank You For Smoking’s Nick Naylor, carefully worded answers ready to go.

It is overlooked that charities, especially those like Oxfam with sophisticated PR and marketing operations, often push the boundaries of truth in their effort to acheive greater goals. This is unfortunate.

My personal final opinion is that, in this particular case, Starbucks still looks like a villain. The NCA comments are undeniable. While Oxfam may misrepresent organisations from time to time, I believe in and support their work (I didn’t tour 450km through Cambodia for nothing). I feel that continuing to support them as they work to change minds at Starbucks’ is the best course.