Smart school of fish expose stupidity of a popular myth
Scientists have discovered fish are actually adept learners, with distinct personalities that change as they pick up information about the world
魚兒有個性 為吃怕醜變大膽
11.24.2006
11.20.2006
Oxfam versus Starbucks
- AN ARTICLE FOR YOU, FROM ECONOMIST.COM -
COFFEE
Nov 7th 2006
And, this time, Oxfam may be in the wrong
A GROWING number of coffee drinkers seem to prefer their morning grande
skinny latte without a foul-tasting double-shot of social injustice.
Coffee has become a big testing ground for what it means to be an
ethical consumer. The hugely successful Fair Trade brand allows many
coffee addicts to get their fix with a clearer conscience, safe in the
belief that no farmers have been exploited in the growing of it.
So no wonder that Starbucks, an up-market global coffee chain, has
reacted like a scalded barista to criticism from Oxfam, a development
charity. Oxfam says that Starbucks is depriving farmers in Ethiopia of
$88m a year, by opposing the Ethiopian government's efforts to
trademark three popular varieties of local coffee bean. At least 60,000
customers worldwide have contacted Starbucks with expressions of
concern, prompting the company to post leaflets in its stores defending
its behaviour. It accuses Oxfam of "misleading the public", and insists
that the "campaign needs to stop".
This is not the first time that Starbucks has tangled with ethical
consumption advocates. It sells plenty of Fair Trade branded coffee:
indeed, it claims to be North America's biggest purchaser of Fair Trade
beans. But it also buys other beans, without a stamp of approval from
these arbiters of fairness--not least because there are too few Fair
Trade beans to meet its customers' demands.
Starbucks also has questions about the different standards of fairness
applied by the Fair Trade brand custodians in different parts of the
world. It doubts even that the strategy of the Fair Trade movement, to
secure farmers a premium over the market price for their beans, is the
best basic approach. Starbucks prefers a code known as the CAFE
practices (Coffee and Farmer Equity), which aims to help coffee farmers
develop sustainable businesses through a mixture of technical support,
microfinance loans, and investment in infrastructure and community
development where the farmers live.
So far from being a bloodthirsty exploiter happy to keep farmers in
poverty, Starbucks emerges as a responsible firm approaching difficult
questions in a thoughtful way. It wants to help its suppliers improve
their lot. It is certainly no cheapskate. Starbucks says that last year
it paid an average price of $1.28 per pound, 23% above the New York
Board of Trade's benchmark "C" price, for all its coffees.
Starbucks's enlightened behaviour makes good business sense. The firm
has positioned itself at the quality end of the market, where
ethically-minded consumers are concentrated. It has absolutely no
incentive to behave badly. Strikingly, another quality coffee producer,
Illy Cafe, has similar issues with the Fair Trade movement, and also
prefers to build sustainable coffee farming rather than indulge in
simplistic Fair Trade posturing.
So what of the Ethiopian trademarking question? Starbucks argues that
trademarking coffee beans contradicts standard approaches to
intellectual property, and may introduce legal complexities that deter
firms from buying the trademarked beans, thereby hurting farmers
instead of helping them. Starbucks favours a system of regional
certification, much like the APPELLATION CONTRoLeE system in French
wine, which would allow beans to be branded consistently without
creating legal problems. This, too, seems plausible and sensible: the
Ethiopian government, one of the most economically illiterate in the
modern world, would do well to take Starbucks's advice.
As for Oxfam's involvement, it will be interesting to see how this
battle of global brand versus global NGO develops. Starbucks has loyal
customers who may well be prepared to hear out the firm's side of it
and judge the case on its merits. Given the weakness of Oxfam's
arguments, Starbucks may yet emerge with its reputation enhanced, and
Oxfam with its credibility damaged. Is it too much to hope that this
battle may be a turning point in the war over corporate ethics, and
that it will cease to be enough merely for an NGO to throw mud at a
company, to have that mud stick? THE ECONOMIST will drink a grande
extra wet triple-latte to that.
See this article with graphics and related items at http://www.economist.com/daily/columns/businessview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8129387
11.02.2006
penguin book design
 | |
| |
| Penguin by Design | |
| |
Underneath the covers
Germano Facetti revolutionised British book design with his Penguin jackets in the 1960s. The secret, says Rick Poynor, lay in what went on behind the cover images
Browse a gallery of Facetti's iconic covers
登録:
投稿 (Atom)
