Q1. What lessons could be learned from the Chiapas project?

The major lesson that can be learned from the Chiapas project is that it is
possible for corporations and NGOs to find common interest where it is
actually mutually advantageous to work together. A corporation can
successfully align its self-interest to social responsibility as a way to sustain
its success and grow in previously unattainable ways. Both sides must be
looking to cooperate, or both sides will have to compromise part of their
goal.
Q3. What should the ongoing strategy be for Mexican shade-grown
coffee?
The ongoing strategy for Mexican shade-grown coffee should be similar. By
spreading word throughout the region and educating small farmers,
hopefully more will be willing to cooperate and produce high quality shadegrown coffee as a way to receive a premium for their beans. With more
roasters purchasing from these farmers, they will keep gravitating toward
shade-grown coffee
Q4. How might CI and Starbucks replicate the success of Mexican
shade-grown coffee in other biodiversity hot spots with less
commitment of their own staff time?
CI and Starbucks could replicate the success of Mexican shade-grown coffee
in other biodiversity hot spots with less commitment of their own staff time
in a variety of ways. CI and Starbucks could consider teaming up with other
NGOs in those regions with the same interests and goals. They could also
have native representatives from each region, or pay one of the model
farmers in the region an extra premium to serve as an educator and help
the rest out.
Q5. How should the new coffee-purchasing guidelines be
implemented?
The new coffee-purchasing guidelines should be implemented by finding a
way to convince buyers and suppliers to follow them strictly. Starbucks
should publish its outstanding financial and social results with the
sustainable coffee sources to other buyers so that they will be incentivized
financially to follow the guidelines. They could also educate suppliers on their
potential long-term financial gains if they were to be a prioritized supplier
someday.
Q6. How should Starbucks and CI approach other roasters to adopt
the sourcing guidelines?
Starbucks and CI should convince other roasters to adopt the sourcing
guidelines slowly getting more and more to jump on the bandwagon.
Starbucks could reveal financial results to other roasters. The partners could

also explain how the sourcing guidelines can be used as a marketing tool (for
example, with Fair Trade Roast of the Day). Additionally, roasters might want
to adopt the guidelines and pick up the highest quality preferred suppliers
before other roasters catch on and do the same thing.
Q7. How might the Fair Trade coffee operation be related to the
shade-grown conservation coffee operation?
In both cases, Starbucks wasnt the one to initiate. They felt pressure from
consumers and NGOs to adjust their actions to support socially responsibly
even more than they already have. Starbucks had a deep passion for CSR,
but they thought that their own way of doing it was good enough. However,
the public did not think so and ultimately gave them no choice but to agree
and act. The Fair Trade coffee operation can be related to shade-grown
conservation coffee operation because both are attempting to improve the
world without putting their own financial gains first. Both operations are
using roasters to pay small farmers more to achieve their ultimate goals.
However, their end goals and methods are significantly different. The Fair
Trade coffee operation is using roasters to help out small farmers and
ultimately increase their salaries. The shade-grown conservation coffee
operation is using roasters to pay small farmers a premium if they cooperate
with preserving the environment. One purpose is social, the other is
environmental. The Fair Trade coffee operation has generally been forceful
and uncooperative, while the shade-grown conservation coffee operation is
finding ways to collaborate and find mutually advantageous initiatives
Q8. How valuable had the Starbucks-CI alliance been to both, and
what should its future be?
The Starbucks-CI alliance had been valuable to both parties. Starbucks had a
passion for quality grown coffee and also had a very deep passion for the
WAY it did so. This is why Starbucks originally had their Corporate Social
Responsibility department that only grew a budget allocation as they grew.CI
gave Starbucks a means to do this. The Starbucks-CI alliance had been
significantly valuable to both sides. CIs goal was the shade-grown coffee
initiative and environmental protection. The land incorporated in the
program had increased 220% since 1998. Shade grown coffee increased to
1.5 million pounds in 2002 from 76,000 pounds in the first year of
collaboration. An outside consultant doing an independent review concluded
farmers environmental awareness and knowledge had increased
significantly, as had conservation and organic farming practices. Even some
of the largest plantations (which used agrochemicals) cut back or stopped
harvesting since 1999 because of such low world prices. Starbucks goal was
to ultimately increase profits, as a corporation. The introduction of shadegrown coffee got enormous press coverage (45M news impressions) and
positive publicity. Starbucks had access to high-quality coffee tailored to its
liking along with this positive publicity. In the future, the alliance should not

sacrifice quality for the sake of buying more quantity from the small farmers
in Chiapas. If possible without hurting quality, they should expand to other
biodiversity hot spots to possibly get all supply this way. They should focus
on finding a way to get other roasters on board that will also benefit
Starbucks.
Q9. What were the benefits/risks for a corporation that portrays
itself as socially responsible?
A corporation that portrays itself as socially responsible can receive positive
publicity which will draw in socially conscious/considerate consumers. Many
consumers are willing to pay a premium to get behind something and stand
for something that promotes social responsibility, so the corporation can
even potentially raise prices as a result. This is a way to avoid lawsuits, as
well. However, when portraying itself as socially responsible, a corporation
might be seen as not acting in the best interest of its shareholders. For
example, shareholders might think profits are unnecessarily going to other
uses instead of their dividends (or new projects). There is also more
opportunity for critics to say that the company is not doing enough.