[Take action] Tell Starbucks to be fair
-
http://act.oxfamamerica.org/campaign/starbucks_mtf
Tell Starbucks to Give Ethiopian Farmers Their Fair Share
Each year, coffee companies make billions of dollars. Starbucks alone earned almost $5.8 billion in net revenues during the first three quarters of 2006.
With as many as 15 million Ethiopians dependent on coffee, Ethiopia has decided to get its farmers more of what they deserve. The country's government has asked Starbucks to sign a licensing agreement that will allow Ethiopia to control the names of its coffees. That way, Ethiopia can help determine an export price that makes sure farmers see a larger share of the profits enabling them to feed their children, send them to school and get them better healthcare.
Oxfam and a coalition of allies are asking Starbucks to sign this agreement. According to one coalition member, control of the name brands could increase Ethiopia's coffee export income by more than 25 percent - or $88 million annually. This money could go a long way to help lift millions of Ethiopians out of poverty.
So please, help us convince Starbucks to sign this agreement with Ethiopia. Poor farmers deserve a fair share of the profits. -
i only read the last paragraph. that actually summarize the whole thing. FUCK THOSE CB PPL!
-
Signed. We should all do our part to help poverty.
Not buying Starbucks until something is done. -
The money will sure go to the farmers or the Ethiopian elite personal coffers?
-
whats the meaning of owning the name??
whats the impact and consequences?
and lastly, i jsut hate it when people use the $1 a day argument without qualifying it. if you can buy everything or most things that you need for 1 cent in your country, then $1 a day is actually a lot correct? -
Starbucks=stupid
-
This is the letter that will be sent:Originally posted by hisoka:whats the meaning of owning the name??
whats the impact and consequences?
and lastly, i jsut hate it when people use the $1 a day argument without qualifying it. if you can buy everything or most things that you need for 1 cent in your country, then $1 a day is actually a lot correct?
As a Starbucks customer, I'm concerned about your opposition to Ethiopia's right to own its coffee names. I am asking Starbucks to honor its commitment to farmers by signing an agreement with Ethiopia that recognizes the country's rights to the names of its coffees. If Starbucks and other companies sign such agreements, estimates suggest that Ethiopians could see up to $88 million of extra income a year.
Ethiopia ranks among the poorest countries in the world; more than 75 percent of its population lives on less than $1 per day. About 15 million people in Ethiopia depend on coffee to make a living, the majority of them growing their crop on small plots of about two and a half acres.
Meanwhile, coffee lovers pay up to $26 per pound for fine Ethiopian coffees because they're willing to pay for high quality and great taste. Ethiopian farmers, however, often earn just 5-10 percent of the retail value.
With this disparity in mind, the Ethiopian government launched a project to get legal ownership of its fine coffee names - Sidamo, Yirgacheffe, and Harar. By owning the names, Ethiopia will be able to occupy a stronger negotiating position with foreign buyers, capture a larger share of the market value associated with those names, and protect the reputations of its brand names. In a country with a per capita income of around $100 per year, that amount of money could have a profound impact on the lives of millions of Ethiopians.
As you know, Ethiopia approached Starbucks more than a year ago asking the company to lead by example and to discuss an agreement that would acknowledge Ethiopia's ownership of these names. So far, Starbucks has refused to sign the agreement, or even talk seriously about it with the Ethiopian government.
I want to see Starbucks do the right thing by the poor farmers who grow its coffee. I urge you to sign the licensing agreement and recognize Ethiopia's rightful ownership of its coffee names. -
Originally posted by ^spidee^:
unfortunately it doesn't really explain much. why will the negotiation stand be ctronger just because they own the names? they're buying the coffee not the name.
This is the letter that will be sent:
As a Starbucks customer, I'm concerned about your opposition to Ethiopia's right to own its coffee names. I am asking Starbucks to honor its commitment to farmers by signing an agreement with Ethiopia that recognizes the country's rights to the names of its coffees. If Starbucks and other companies sign such agreements, estimates suggest that Ethiopians could see up to $88 million of extra income a year.
Ethiopia ranks among the poorest countries in the world; [b]more than 75 percent of its population lives on less than $1 per day. About 15 million people in Ethiopia depend on coffee to make a living, the majority of them growing their crop on small plots of about two and a half acres.
Meanwhile, coffee lovers pay up to $26 per pound for fine Ethiopian coffees because they're willing to pay for high quality and great taste. Ethiopian farmers, however, often earn just 5-10 percent of the retail value.
With this disparity in mind, the Ethiopian government launched a project to get legal ownership of its fine coffee names - Sidamo, Yirgacheffe, and Harar. By owning the names, Ethiopia will be able to occupy a stronger negotiating position with foreign buyers, capture a larger share of the market value associated with those names, and protect the reputations of its brand names. In a country with a per capita income of around $100 per year, that amount of money could have a profound impact on the lives of millions of Ethiopians.
As you know, Ethiopia approached Starbucks more than a year ago asking the company to lead by example and to discuss an agreement that would acknowledge Ethiopia's ownership of these names. So far, Starbucks has refused to sign the agreement, or even talk seriously about it with the Ethiopian government.
I want to see Starbucks do the right thing by the poor farmers who grow its coffee. I urge you to sign the licensing agreement and recognize Ethiopia's rightful ownership of its coffee names.
[/b]
the government luanched the move but then is it really entitled to that ownership? what else can be done with the ownership( if its really useful)? will it really benefit the coffee growers and not the government coffers or the rich pple?
alot of questions unanswered and unexplained.......
i'm for helping the poor but not on such vague terms -
lol, i work at starbucks.
-
I passed the mail to a few people yesterday when I received it.
-
Originally posted by Rejected:lol, i work at starbucks.
so what type of coffee are those anyway? -
*raise hands, very curious
don't know the background to this, just wondering, why sell to starbuck if the price they offered is so low, why not sell to another buyer that can offer a higher price?
also, how much is starbuck paying for other cost, like import/export tax, shipping cost, processing cost ...etc?
-
even if we don't buy, the elites will still buy, the elites will still study in starhub. you think elites will buy from kopitiam?Originally posted by kaister:Signed. We should all do our part to help poverty.
Not buying Starbucks until something is done. -
why spend so much on a cup of coffee when you can get one at 70 cents each?
-
You go up to the guy over at the counter and while you pay for your coffee, you tell him "I want you to give all of this $5.25 to the farmers in Ethopia!!!"
The counter guy will go "Huh? Cannot lah... I'm suppose to put all cash into the cash register... sorry" -
woah. thats screwed up. How can Starbucks do that.. no wonder their name is being make fun in 'StarFucks'
-
how come no one target coffee bean, gloria jeans, san francisco coffee etc
-
Kopitiams sell similar coffee to Starbucks for much, much lower margin. I drink at kopitiams. If the Ethiopia farmers have their way, my kopitiam coffee will also cost more.
-
Coffee debate: Oxfam v Starbucks
Oct 28 2006
After criticism of Starbucks' business policies earlier this week, Oxfam and the coffee chain put their cases
Western Mail
Together we can make Starbucks wake up and smell the coffee
THERE'S a story behind every cup of coffee you drink, and it's often one that would leave a bitter taste in your mouth if you knew about it. A case in point is the story that appeared this week revealing that Starbucks is opposing Ethiopian plans to trademark its most famous coffee names.
There's a real opportunity here for Ethiopia to capitalise - quite rightly - on the consistently high quality of its coffees by being able to trademark their coffee names and control how those names are used by others. If Starbucks can vigorously protect and make best use of its own globally recognised brand name, while at the same time making a big noise about selling the finest Ethiopian coffees, isn't there a whiff of hypocrisy in the air?
It's a pity, too, as Starbucks not only prides itself on its "mutually beneficial relationships with coffee farmers" but also has a history of doing more than most of its contemporaries to pay fairer prices to producers for their coffees. Indeed, Oxfam has worked with Starbucks as recently as two years ago on a project to benefit a coffee-growing community in Ethiopia.
The real shame, then, is that when it comes to promoting truly sustainable ways for poor farmers to work themselves out of poverty, Starbucks appears to be drawing the line at some very public gifts to projects in developing countries and a limited commitment to Fairtrade.
In the meantime, we have strong evidence it is working behind the scenes, using its power and influence to oppose this initiative so it can continue to charge up to £14 per pound for speciality Ethiopian coffees, while the farmers who supply that coffee earn between 30p and 59p for their crop. That is barely enough to cover production, let alone a single cup of Starbucks' "Black Apron Exclusive" luxury Ethiopian coffee.
There's a parallel here with another coffee giant, Nestlé , who attempted to force a compensation payment of about $6m out of the Ethiopian government four years ago. The justification for diverting money from the Ethiopian government to line the pockets of the world's biggest food company was slim at best. Back then, outrage was so great that the combined efforts of tens of thousands of ordinary people worldwide, with Oxfam, forced Nestl to back down.
The same can happen this time around. Starbucks can still make amends by signing a voluntary licensing agreement tabled by Ethiopia, which would recognise Ethiopia's ownership of its coffee names. It has to date failed to respond to this proposal, and coffee drinkers around the world - whether Starbucks customers or not - can help convince them to do this by taking action at www.maketradefair.com/starbucks right now. Together we can force them to wake up and smell the coffee.
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/features/tm_headline=coffee-debate--oxfam-v-starbucks&method=full&objectid=18006877&siteid=50082-name_page.html -
Oxfam Responds to National Coffee Association and Starbucks
In response to OxfamÂ’s announcement that global coffee giant Starbucks has opposed a plan by Ethiopia to gain more control over its coffee trade, Starbucks claimed that it has never filed an opposition to the Ethiopian government's trademark applications, nor claimed ownership to any names used to describe the origin of its coffees.
Oxfam responded by saying that Starbucks did prompt the National Coffee Association (NCA), of which it is a leading member, to file an opposition to the applications, which is the reason the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) gave for rejecting them. At a meeting held this past July at the Ethiopian Embassy, Embassy staff and advisers met with the NCA president to discuss a letter of protest filed against EthiopiaÂ’s trademark applications. Ethiopian Embassy staff asked the NCA President what had prompted the NCA to file the opposition after more than year of silence on the issue. The NCA President responded that Starbucks had just brought it to the NCA's attention.
It is therefore disingenuous for Starbucks to claim they were not responsible for the application being blocked. Ethiopian Embassy staff and Ron Layton of Light Years IP, a Washington DC-based intellectual property rights organization that is helping to advise the Ethiopian government, have gone on record with this.
Starbucks has also claimed that its investment in social development projects and micro-finance initiatives in coffee growing regions has been recognized for its leadership within the industry.
While Starbucks has taken some positive initial strides in this area, Oxfam thinks the company can do better. As a company that prides itself in such efforts, it is unclear why Starbucks would oppose EthiopiaÂ’s efforts to help its farmers realize a greater portion of the value their coffee commands on the international market
Intellectual property ownership makes up a huge proportion of the total value of world trade but rich countries and businesses capture most of this. Ethiopia, the birthplace of coffee, and one of the poorest countries in the world, is trying to assert its rights and capture more value from its product. It should be helped, not hindered.
Oxfam continues to call on Starbucks to show leadership for other coffee companies by immediately recognizing Ethiopia's rights in this case and signing the licensing agreement that Ethiopia presented to the company in September, recognizing the countryÂ’s rightful ownership of its coffee names.
http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.php?file=starbucks_10272006.htm