A. Corporate Responsibility
Starbucks corporate responsibility statement addresses global issues such as free trade, recycling, and youth organizations. Starbucks 2013 report, Global Responsibility Report Goals & Progress is extensive. The company is committed to ethically connecting to farmers and contractors who process Starbucks products (Starbucks Corporation, 2014). The farmers that are specifically addressed in the report are in Guatemala, China, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Colombia (Starbucks Corporation, 2014). Another venture in philanthropy for Starbucks is its pledge to support a youth alliance. The Starbucks Youth Leadership program’s goal is job creation for disenfranchised young people (Starbucks Corporation, 2014). Shell Oil offers several reports that address their corporate responsibility and organizational structure. The Shell Sustainability Report 2013, understandably focuses on environmental issues as well as safety and community involvement. Safety is a commitment Shell has concerning its facilities. Their goal is to avoid oil spills and leakages that harm the environment as well as Shell contractors and Shell employees (Shell Global, 2014). Shell’s philanthropy funding support encourages third world countries to develop roads, infrastructures, and energy sources. In 2013, Shell invested $159 million in civic projects in many countries (Shell Global, 2014). In these communities, Shell has put into place safeguards for the environment. Nike’s code of ethics is titled Inside the Lines and applies to all employees. Nike attempts to enforce the code, which deals with ethical action, conduct, safety, and resource deployment (Nike, Inc., 2014). This Code of Conduct applies to all of the out-sourcing agents and contractors that Nike uses around the globe. In this way, Nike hopes to provide an ethical framework for employers and employees involved in their supply chain. Safety and a healthy, hazard-free working environment are top Nike priorities. Nike supports youth sports. Their goal is to help youths develop collaboration, willpower, poise, imagination, health, and spirit. By playing sports, Nike feels that young people will be better prepared to become productive members of society (Nike, Inc., 2014). B. Organizational Structures
The corporate structure of Starbucks now includes consultants from green building design firms who are contacted for all remodeling efforts and new buildings (Starbucks Corporation, 2014). At Starbucks, executives are located in Seattle Washington. The district managers report to the executives at their headquarters there. The district managers in turn administer operations in different regions. Store managers report to the district managers. The store managers oversee shift supervisors and others at store locations. All of the employees who work under the supervision of the store managers and shift supervisors are called baristas (Starbucks Corporation, 2014). Because Shell Oil is a massive corporation, their organizational structure is complex. Shell calls its business in North American Upstream Americas and much of the business is handled via partnerships with national companies. Shell’s Our Downstream operations include business done in other areas (Shell Global, 2014). Nike uses a standard Matrix Organizational Structure whereby people work in teams and have multiple managers. Various team members report to their team mangers and department managers. Team mangers address issues in production and department managers handle policy-related issues (Nike, Inc., 2014). C. Social Responsibility Commentary
Besides the Youth Leadership program, Starbucks sponsors programs that support educational opportunities for youths. On the environmental front, Starbucks claims that it has reduced its water usage by 21% since 2011. They admit that they are not up to speed on recycling, however. With less than 70% of the locations offering recycling options, which is low given the amount of plastic and other recycling materials used by Starbucks. Kim Fellner researched Starbucks and found that the company that markets itself as liberal and progressive. While Starbucks touts its pro-worker work environment and is regarded as cosmopolitan (Fellner, 2008). As far as Shell Oil goes there are many publications citing Shell’s many violations of the environment and of human rights. A book published by the Sierra Club offers an elaborate, complex, and unfaltering picture of Shell in Africa. In Where vultures feast: Shell, human rights, and oil in the Niger Delta, the authors charge that Shell is arm in arm with the oppressive Nigerian government in the devastation of the culture and the farmland (2001, p 1). In Daniel Litvin’s book, Empires of profit: Commerce, conquest and corporate responsibility, the author devotes an entire chapter to Nike. He calls Nike’s assertions “contortions of corporate responsibility” and asserts that abuse by Nike is wide spread in its third world factories (2003, p 227). Litvin presents Nike the transgressor, a company that exploits impoverished countries and is at odds with its indigent labor forces. The actions of multi-national corporations are under scrutiny today by their patrons and shareholders. Therefore, corporate social performance is the subject of many philanthropy campaigns (Moir, 2009). As this report has shown, all of the corporations under discussion advertise their good deeds and responsible actions, but all fall far short of being perfect. Shell Oil and Nike, when compared to Starbucks, appear to be more destructive. However, the toll of non-shade grown coffee cannot be underestimated. Starbucks, Shell Oil, and Nike all have multi-million dollar campaigns to make themselves seem environmental and less culturally oppressive in the third world countries where much of their supply chains lead.
References
Cooke, J. A. (January 01, 2010). From bean to cup: How Starbucks transformed its supply chain. Cscmp's Supply Chain Quarterly, 4, 4.)Garriga, E., & Melé, D. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility Theories: Mapping the Territory. Corporate Social Responsibility : Readings and Cases in a Global Context. 76-106.Epstein, M. J., Rejc, B. A., & Yuthas, K. (January 01, 2010). Why Nike kicks butt in sustainability. Organizational Dynamics, 39, 353-356.Fellner, K. (2008). Wrestling with Starbucks: Conscience, capital, cappuccino. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Litvin, D. (2003). Empires of profit: Commerce, conquest and corporate responsibility. New York: Texere.Moir, L. (2009). What do we mean by corporate social responsibility? MCB UP Ltd (Emerald). Nike, Inc. (2014). Corporate Responsibility Report. nikebiz.com.Okonta, I., & Douglas, O. (2001). Where vultures feast: Shell, human rights, and oil in the Niger Delta. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.Shell Global. (2014). Shell Sustainability Report 2013. shell.com.Starbucks Corporation. (2014). Global Responsibility Report Goals & Progress 2013. starbucks.comVeron, H. G. (January 01, 1983). Singapore: Growing role of oil trading. Petroleum Economist, 50, 4, 133-135.
