Starbucks has had a climate-change strategy since 2004, but plans by its new CEO to commute by private jet are at odds with its well-intentioned efforts.Lindsey Wasson/The Associated Press
Rob Csernyik is a contributing columnist for The Globe and Mail and a 2022 Michener-Deacon fellow.
When I worked at Starbucks SBUX-Q, I hated wasting coffee. Whether it was cold, unsold brew swirling down a drain or whole beans spilled and tossed in the garbage, it felt equally grim. It had made the journey from a distant farm to my café at great effort, expense and no doubt carbon emissions, ultimately never to be enjoyed by a customer. It made me think about my role, as a lone barista, in the grander scheme of environmental impact. Yet no matter how many coffee beans I sacrificed during my three-year tenure, it pales to the company’s latest climate faux pas.
On Aug. 13, Starbucks Corp. announced that Brian Niccol, formerly the chief executive officer of Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., will take over the helm in September. Given Starbucks’ recently flagging fortunes, Mr. Niccol was a big get. Under his leadership, the burrito chain’s share price increased by 800 per cent, and profits increased almost sevenfold. His appointment has already boosted the waning Starbucks share price by about 25 per cent.
This track record allowed Mr. Niccol – the fourth Starbucks CEO in the last two years – to negotiate a potentially nine-figure total compensation package with an eye-popping perk. Instead of moving from Southern California to the Emerald City, the coffee chain is granting him the use of a corporate jet to commute as needed.
It boggles the mind as evidence of climate change piles up around us. In the company’s latest Global Impact Report outlining its environmental initiatives, corporate jet fuel use is listed as one of the company’s six direct greenhouse-gas emissions.
The European Federation for Transport and Environment reports that private jets pollute five to 14 times more than commercial planes on a per-passenger basis. According to T&E, one private jet can release two tonnes of carbon dioxide in an hour. Therefore, every three Orange County to Seattle flights creates about the same CO2 impact as an average Canadian does in a whole year.
But, I suppose if that seals the deal with the share price whisperer, let ‘er rip.
For a company that has publicly committed to chopping its carbon, water and waste footprints in half by 2030 – and is currently missing targets, no less – this feels wildly off-brand.
Starbucks has had a climate-change strategy since 2004. It introduced sippy lids in an effort to wean customers off plastic straw use. It was the first large chain to accept clean, reusable cups to make drinks. These are well-intentioned efforts, but at odds with the added pollution of a few years of private jet commutes along the U.S. Pacific Coast. In its wake, other Starbucks’ environmental initiatives, often burdened upon baristas and customers, take on the effect of trying to drain a lake with a teaspoon.
Lamentably, Mr. Niccol’s commute isn’t without precedent. A 2015 Fortune article discusses the super-commutes of CEOs, including one from Toronto to Vancouver and another from Connecticut to Brazil. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump flew home to New York City after far-flung campaign events instead of sleeping at hotels. The current CEOs of Bumble and Victoria’s Secret also live in different states than their company headquarters.
But as a major global juggernaut and one of the world’s most recognizable brands, businesses large and small watch Starbucks’s decisions closely and emulate them. This private jet allowance has the potential to set a new standard: that ignoring a critical part of the company ethos in a critical moment for the environment is fine if it makes money.
There’s also a gross inequity to it, given that front-line company employees are expected to reduce waste and save nickels and dimes for the company, while workers higher up the corporate ladder can make their own rules and cancel out those efforts. We see time and time again broadly how individuals are made to feel guilty about their efforts to reduce climate change being ineffective or lacking, while the worst offending corporate powers continue polluting in the background.
Now, even with negative publicity stemming from the decision, it hasn’t hit Starbucks’ share price. With the contract’s ink dry, it’s unlikely there will be a change of heart forced upon Mr. Niccol. But if he wants to be an environmental leader, maybe he can fly commercial like the rest of us. It would make the green efforts of other Starbucks employees more impactful instead of acting as carbon offsets for his commute. Besides, it would look much better in next year’s sustainability report.