Citing sustainability, Starbucks wants to overhaul its iconic cup. Will customers go along?

Category: Business

Listening

Unlocking Word Meanings

Read the following words/expressions found in today’s article.

  1. disposable / dɪˈspoʊ zə bəl / (adj.) – designed to be thrown away after use
    Example:

    Environmentalists are encouraging people to use cloth face masks instead of disposable masks to lessen waste.


  2. lofty / ˈlɔf ti / (adj.) – high in standard or quality
    Example:

    The five-star hotel has lofty standards for its staff.


  3. manifestation / ˌmæn ə fəˈsteɪ ʃən / (n.) – an event, action, or thing that is a sign that a particular situation is existing or happening
    Example:

    The decline in sales is a clear manifestation of a poor marketing strategy.


  4. pull (something) off / pʊl ɔf / (phrasal v.) – to achieve success in doing something difficult
    Example:

    It was a difficult project, but the team was able to pull it off.


  5. fraught / frɔt / (adj.) – filled with difficulties, challenges, problems, or anything unpleasant
    Example:

    Surfing is an exciting hobby but fraught with danger.


Article

Read the text below.

By 2030, Starbucks wants to move away from disposable cups, which represent big portions of the company’s overall waste and greenhouse gas emissions.


The stated reason is that it’s the right thing to do for the environment, and Starbucks has a history of lofty sustainability goals around various aspects of its global operations. Some have been met, such as new stores being certified for energy efficiency; others have been revised or scrapped entirely. For example, in 2008 the company said that by 2015 it wanted 100% of its cups to be recyclable or reusable. Today, that’s still a long way away.


Today’s drive to overhaul the cup comes with an obvious business imperative. Producing disposable products like cups creates greenhouse gas emissions, which warm the planet and lead to extreme weather events and other manifestations of climate change. That goes against customers’ increasing expectations for companies to be part of the solution to climate change.


Still, while customers want companies to be environmentally conscious, that doesn’t mean they’re willing to give up convenience. And there’s this: Could eliminating the millions of paper and plastic cups used each year hurt Starbucks? After all, those cups, in the hands of customers, are advertising — a market penetration that makes Starbucks feel ubiquitous.


The goal: to cut the company’s waste, water use and carbon emissions in half by 2030. Pulling that off will be tricky and fraught with risks. It provides a window into how companies go from ambitious sustainability targets to actual results.


“Our vision for the cup of the future — and our Holy Grail, if you will — is that the cup still has the iconic symbol on it,” says Michael Kobori, head of sustainability at Starbucks. “It’s just as a reusable cup.”


Starbucks sees the change as an opportunity to cast the lofty siren, and the company, in a different light. It also wants to push more suppliers in its production chain to provide recycled material and partners, such as universities and other locales that house stores, to be able to handle all that comes with reusable cups.


This article was provided by The Associated Press.


Viewpoint Discussion

Enjoy a discussion with your tutor.

Discussion A

  • Starbucks wasn’t able to achieve its goal of using recyclable or reusable cups by 2015. Do you believe that it can do so by 2030? Why or why not? Discuss.
  • Have businesses in your city/country started to make pro-environment efforts in their operations? What makes you say so? Discuss.

Discussion B

  • Do you think customers usually prioritize convenience over environmental concerns when choosing products/services? Why or why not? In which situation do you think customers would prioritize convenience over environmental concerns? Discuss.
  • Will a business’s commitment to use eco-friendly products affect your decision when making a purchase? Why or why not? Discuss.