Starbucks may have chosen corporate social responsibility over financial gain

Stephanie Mahin, Ph.D.
4 min readMay 30, 2018

--

Photo by Nick Hillier on Unsplash

On Tuesday, Starbucks closed 8,000 stores for an afternoon of implicit bias training with its employees. Some reports have suggested the Starbucks Corporation may have faced a $12 million loss for closing its doors. But what did Starbucks really lose versus what it gained?

In the bigger picture, Starbucks wanted to challenge the racial biases that exists about the communities in which they serve. Communities that extend beyond two blocks north, south, east, and west of the company’s physical structure. If there was ever a time for businesses to reassess their corporate social responsibility strategy, it is now. Starbucks has faced, over the last few weeks, what a number of businesses will face in the future: a public demand for organizational transparency through action.

The public is always talking, in real time, across social media and organizations can no longer afford not to take a social stand — whatever the stand may be. Not doing so could severely threaten their finances, credibility, and/or reputation. When social issues confront corporations negatively, the public demands — deserves — a well-thought and genuine organizational response.

Year of the apology

When confronted for a misdeed or miscalculation, organizations would assemble crisis experts to help draft the appropriate response. The response may or may not demonstrate the organization has listened to the public’s concerns or met their demands. However, it was likely an attempt to meet the overarching goal of limiting damage to the organization’s reputation, to shift blame, or to avoid responsibility. Traditionally, a response that might take hours to craft was released to the media for distribution to the public. Lately, issuing an apology has become “the” go-to strategy for businesses when confronted with a mistake.

Photo by Roman Bozhko on Unsplash

If we examine the events of 2017, it could easily be labeled the “year of the apology.” It was saturated with watered-down “we missed the mark,” and “we apologize” statements issued due to repeated missteps and sharp tone deafness (i.e., Pepsi, Dove, United Airlines, Nivea, the string of apologies by Uber, and the list goes on). Undoubtedly, these missteps were not new, however, before a boardroom of public opinion, corporate mea culpas are being delivered fast and furious.

This year is already shaping up to rival 2017 with its litany of corporate apologies. Businesses have been forced to publicly respond to nationally debated issues or risk losing public support. For example, the hashtag ,#BoycottNRA trended after the deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida. Activists applied pressure on companies to cut ties with the NRA. According to the New York Times, ten days after the shooting, and consumer complaints, nearly a dozen businesses cut ties with the gun lobby. Faced with a couple of race-related controversies, Waffle House CEO Walt Ehmer apologized directly to a black man aggressively arrested outside of one of its North Carolina stores.

Today, we see companies like Wells Fargo, Facebook, and Uber stepping things up by airing apology commercials. While the ads are likely meant as a sincere effort to heal the wounds of past transgressions and win back public support, the public deserves more and better.

The public deserves better

While part of a classic crisis strategy, the corporate apology has become a tired tactic. In our current climate, the public is certain to continue its strategy of applying pressure on companies to increase their level of social responsibility.

Photo by Oladimeji Odunsi on Unsplash

When Starbucks announced the decision to close their stores to train employees about racial biases, the company seem to recognize that a public apology to the arresting of two black men in their Philadelphia store was not enough. There is no doubt the financial gurus were in the background banging on the keys of calculators to crunch the numbers of a financial loss. However, whether or not you agree with the decision to close its stores, and whether or not you agree that a half-day sensitivity session will affect change, Starbucks has demonstrated that it is no longer business as usual. They have taken the lead of corporations willing to demonstrate organizational transparency through action.

--

--

Stephanie Mahin, Ph.D.
Stephanie Mahin, Ph.D.

Written by Stephanie Mahin, Ph.D.

Stephanie Mahin, Ph.D. is a communication scholar whose research includes public relations, organizational engagement, corporate activism, and digital activism.

No responses yet