528
submitted 10 months ago by patomaloqueiro@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] xantoxis@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

This is just apologia for Starbucks' core capitalist nature.

At some point your supply chain transparency breaks down, how ever many steps of outsourcing deep that might be.

No? If you restricted your purchasing to people growing coffee in specific areas with a high degree of oversight and frequent audits, this wouldn't happen. The coffee would cost (them) a lot more, of course, but it's certainly possible to do this.

The point is an oligarchy could incentivize high worker wages and ethical business practices through lots of mechanisms, the primary one being "pay more money for your supplies." They don't. We should be burying all these companies in the grave.

[-] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yeah, no it isn't. If anything it's an indictment of that nature. However it is a mechanistic explanation of how these conditions emerge in supposedly legitimate supply chains. It's very common, unfortunately.

You're correct that the largest purchasers of certain high-value crops can use their stranglehold to improve conditions; a lot of them claim to do so and use this in their own media campaigns. That's why this is such a fuck-up for a company like Starbucks versus, say, a small Scottish berry farm.

this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
528 points (99.4% liked)

World News

32075 readers
986 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS