What is behind the Green Mermaid? – PLSC 359: Global Governance

Last year I had the SSIR: Eating Locally, Thinking Globally. As a result, I became increasingly interested in global food markets on social and environmental levels. When given the opportunity to research a global issue for a class abroad, I found myself drawn to understanding more about industrial agriculture and how it affects the environment and the local farmers. Many international organizations regulate multinational corporations, but to what extent? To begin to understand all these aspects, I found an example in Starbucks. It is a global company which in the past forty years has expanded rapidly to nearly all continents. It is a true product of modern globalization and I wanted to begin to understand why, how, and its overall global impacts.

I wanted to start by understanding if Starbucks stood behind their claims of fair trade coffee and environmentally conscious practices. I found it hard to believe that a company, in which the majority of the customers use disposable cups, can truly be making a positive difference environmentally. More so, there was the question of the workers on the ground in predominately central and south American countries, are they provided with fair wages or is it “modern day slavery” as many would call working conditions for many workers in underdeveloped countries.

starbucks fair trade photo
To my great surprise, Starbucks is one of the most environmentally conscious
and forward thinking companies I found through my research on differing or competing chains. To be honest, I was hoping that I could do an expose on their practices, but in reality found mostly all positive reports. As a company, their employees in stores have benefits and higher wages, despite being what a food chain is in essence. In addition, they maintain their fair trade promise where their coffee beans are being produced. Their use of paper and plastics cups is staggering; however, they spearhead numerous environmentally sound campaigns and act on them. Despite all the positives, there is a question of the middle man.

In many of these global companies who have either farmers or factory workers in other countries, the company may pay a fair wage; however, by the time it trickles down to the workers on the ground they are not paid a living wage. They maintain their public image and can prove their actions such as paying a fair wage, but often leave out the ending of the story. There is a definite lack in global regulation of multinational corporations. It is important to watch the rhetoric and ensure that what large and multinational corporations are saying, and what they doing, is one in the same.

Aileen Echelberger says:

January 26, 2016 at 3:39 pm

Local vs. Global
Reading Julia’s post, “What is behind the Green Mermaid?” I was intrigued by the question of how international corporations play into global relations and into the everyday lives of workers, middlemen and consumers. Despite their contribution to waste through the mass disposal of paper and plastic cups, Starbucks’ support of environmental initiatives around the world hopefully allows the company to pitch in with the effort to protect the global environment. Whether or not their efforts bring about positive change, it is interesting that a multinational corporation has become one of the big actors sharing responsibility for environmental protection. This also made me wonder about the role of local food providers, and how/if they fit into the world of ensuring environmentally protection.
The idea of “eating local” is coming back into vogue. Globalization has exponentially increased the amount of food and other goods that nations import, but more people are trying to revert back to locally sourced means of nourishment. I am still a little unclear on exactly what “eating local” is, and what this means in the way of environmental impact. I’m not completely satisfied with the information I found on the WorldWatch Institute’s website (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6064) because the topic is huge and multifaceted, but the site is an interesting entry-point. For instance, they work to complicate the way we think about the trade-offs of greenhouse emissions in the transportation and production processes. The following excerpt offer statistics and reflection on how these issues factor into thoughts on environmentalism:
“In a paper published last year [2012], Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews, of Carnegie Mellon University, wove together data from a variety of U.S. government sources into a comprehensive life-cycle analysis of the average American diet. According to their calculations, final delivery from producer or processor to the point of retail sale accounts for only 4 percent of the U.S. food system’s greenhouse gas emissions. Final delivery accounts for only about a quarter of the total miles, and 40 percent of the transport-related emissions, in the food supply chain as a whole. That’s because there are also “upstream” miles and emissions associated with things like transport of fertilizer, pesticides, and animal feed. Overall, transport accounts for about 11 percent of the food system’s emissions.
By contrast, Weber and Matthews found, agricultural production accounts for the bulk of the food system’s greenhouse gas emissions: 83 percent of emissions occur before food even leaves the farm gate. A recent life-cycle analysis of the U.K. food system, by Tara Garnett, yielded similar results. In her study, transport accounted for about a tenth of the food system’s greenhouse gas emissions, and agricultural production accounted for half. Garnett says the same general patterns likely also hold for Europe as a whole.”

It seems that one must not only take into account how far the food has travelled, but with which processes it was produced. Perhaps if certain products are more efficiently grown in certain regions, these benefits could outweigh the emissions from transportation. For staple items that don’t grow in all regions like wheat, this could be something to take into account. Learning more about the intricacies of production for foods we consume could help us fashion an intelligent and cooperative worldwide food network to minimize greenhouse emissions.

I still think that eating locally should be a target for much of the food we consume. Forging a relationship with producers to ensure norms of ethical environmental practice are upheld is a part of the suggestion WorldWatch makes.