Justifying Activism -discourse

The “Justifying Activism” -discourse justifies Starbucks’ activist efforts by arguing that the current political landscape calls businesses to act. It also describes Starbucks’ values and concrete actions that enhance social justice in the U.S.

The discourse highlights the need for companies to act during times where “the rules of engagement for a public company are very, very different than they’ve ever been – –” (Starbucks 2018a). It is located in the context of globalization that significantly contributes to modern shifts in the business-society relationship – a theme discussed in a reoccurring manner in this thesis. The discourse further justifies the political and societal involvement of Starbucks and the private sector by claiming that current U.S. politics have failed. In an award ceremony, Schultz reportedly says “we must pick up the slack and, unfortunately, the lack of responsibility of the political class” (Starbucks 2018a).

Thereby, the discourse can be interpreted to include elements discussed in chapter 3: a connection is made to insufficient local institutions and political failure to enforce important regulations (see Wood

& Wright 2015, 272; Bell & Hindmoor 2009 in Scherer et al 2016).

The “Justifying Activism” -discourse situates corporate activism into a new sphere of corporate responsibility. As discussed previously, in the US, the government has traditionally had a limited role in addressing the country’s social and economic affairs, which has designated social issues and discretionary engagement as the main core of CSR practices and CSR has been mainly seen to be voluntary in nature (see Camilleri 2017, 77–78.) According to the “Justifying Activism” -discourse, corporate activism and political engagement are now something companies “must” do (see Starbucks 2018a).

Besides references to the current social context, the discourse emphasizes Starbucks’ company values as drivers for activism. For Starbucks, all decisions are not economic ones: “The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people” (Starbucks 2019c). Emphasis is placed on the process of identification and styling in which Starbucks is a corporation aspiring to do good while

41

respecting its stakeholders and their rights. The company is not aiming to profit at the expense of others.³⁴

A company that would achieve the balance between profit and conscience, a company that would demonstrate that not every decision is an economic one, a company that would demonstrate success

is best when it’s shared (Starbucks 2018a).

This justification can be interpreted to be a demonstration that Starbucks’ responsibilities go beyond profit-making. Moreover, it reflects the external expectations companies face. As mentioned previously, a study showcased 70% of Americans believe that companies should improve issues that may not be relevant to their business operations (see Cone Communications 2017).

The style of the discourse is underlined by portraying Starbucks’ activism as collective actions.

Mutuality and symmetry are highlighted:

We can choose to live by the values that reside in each of us, and honor our commitment to nurture the human spirit with love, and offer everyone in our stores and communities a place of inclusion

and optimism (Starbucks 2016).

Emphasizing values in the discourse can be understood to respond to criticism toward U.S. companies and increasing stakeholder expectations. The crumbling of the monopoly of information has brought corporate malpractices to public awareness and NGOs, citizens, and ranking bodies assert pressure on companies. Simultaneously, companies are turning into channels for expressing moral choices, both for consumers and workers (see Crane & Matten 2016, 367–368; Böhm, Skoglund & Eatherley 2018). The discourse aspires to demonstrate that Starbucks is societal actor one can trust and rely on.

Starbucks is described as a “perfect store”, and its corporate leader Schultz as a social agent who challenges those “in positions of power and influence, to take action to provide opportunities for others” (Starbucks 2019c; Starbucks 2018a).³⁵

Starbucks earns 100 out of 100 for the first time on the 2015 Corporate Equality Index (CEI), an initiative administered by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation on corporate policies and

practices as a top employer for LGBTQ workplace equality (Starbucks 2019c).

34 Styles and Identification

35 Discourses and Representation

42

Starbucks chairman and chief executive officer Howard Schultz makes a vocal statement on diversity and equality during a spontaneous exchange at the 2013 Starbucks Annual Meeting of

Shareholders (Starbucks 2019c).

A statement published in 2018 accentuates Schultz as an embodiment of Starbucks values: “in the last year, Schultz said he’s traveled across the United States and abroad to better understand the human condition” (Starbucks 2018a).

He’s [Schultz] visited the border of Mexico and Texas to better understand immigration issues.

He’s visited the battlefields at Gettysburg. And recently he visited Normandy, France, and walked among the 9,000 headstones; there, he met a Frenchman kneeling at the grave of an American

serviceman and cleaning it. (Starbucks 2018a.)

The text includes two genres: personal letters and company statements. The primary purpose of the two is to convince the reader that the company and its leadership are on a justified and good mission.

The generic structure of the texts is once again quite predictable. Letters include a greeting, the body of the letter, and the signature greeting. The company statements indicate a problem and show how Starbucks is addressing it. The social relation between the text and the reader is intended to be symmetrical, portraying solidarity.³⁶

Nevertheless, the discourse can be subjected to criticism. Firstly, the discourse’s justification for activism fails to address the problem of the lack of democratic accountability and control over companies. As described previously, if companies engage more in activities that are usually associated with that of governments and politicians, they should be subjected to a greater degree of democratic accountability by citizens (see Hussain & Moriarty 2018, 352; Crouch 2010). It seems that the discourse lacks critical self-reflection regarding the consequences of the private sector stepping into the arena of social justice. Secondly, the discourse does not address nor question the larger structural context where the company’s activist efforts are located. This is problematic because the realization of social justice is ultimately linked to institutional and ideological frameworks, culture, economic systems, and historical legacies. It cannot be examined in isolation (see Bell 2016, 4, 22.) Thirdly, the discourse appears to fundamentally advocate for a status quo where the powerful assume more power. In the U.S., corporate leaders and boardrooms are dominantly white men and the discourse does not raise concerns about who can participate in corporate governance nor discuss who are on the corporate agenda (see Newkirk 2019; Akhtar 2019b). This eventually maintains a status quo where the already powerful corporate leaders assume more societal influence, enabling

36 Genres and Actions

43

advantaged groups to set political agendas, constitute knowledge (see Gorlewski 2011, 9–10).

Inequalities and social hierarchies are likely consciously or unconsciously maintained and the discourses of disadvantaged groups silenced (see Bell 2016; Freire 2004).