Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#41

Post by jessriedel »

ohyes wrote: post #28
jessriedel wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise useful materials, in a landfill. If I'm putting paper in a big pile of paper, and not using it for anything, I'm wasting resources, I could use that big pile of paper for something else. I believe this thinking is very flawed if it's used to justify extra-market laws or consumer boycotts. (If it's not being so used, then you're basically just saying "In accordance w…

You know, waste, the common definition: I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware. I wasted food. (There are starving people in x country) I malloc a gigabyte of memory and don't do anything with it. I wasted memory. (but you should see what a memory hog Photoshop is, it hardly matters). I cut down a bunch of trees, and turn them into paper. I then put the paper in a big pile and d…

> I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware.

>How does economic cost-benefit analysis...even factor into this?

Suppose we lived in a universe where tupper-ware containers cost $X and there was no cheaper substitute.

If $X = $1 million, you would just throw the left-overs away. If $X = $0, you would save them. How would you decide if it's morally necessary to use tuppaware for arbitrary X without a cost-benefit analysis?

(The answer probably depends on factors other than just the cost X. For the sake of moral clarity, suppose that the cost was derived purely from paying people to build the tupperware. The people who are building them consume resources like all people do, but the actual construction of the tupperware requires no inputs other than labor.)

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#42

Post by acgourley »

ugh wrote: post #31
danteembermage wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if health liability doesn't drive this, at least partially. Also, do Starbucks have dish washing facilities currently? That adds a lot of space to the footprint of their small stores (It looks to me as though Starbucks can currently just about be run out of a hallway). I'm not trying to be critical of the approach, I think it's great, it just seems like there might be some nontrivial costs to implementing it…

You can get your coffee in a ceramic mug (I have only ever been in European Starbucks but it would seem weird if that’s not a worldwide thing.) so they must have some sort of dish washing capability.

Not in the US

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#43

Post by wildmXranat »

robryan wrote: post #9
ohyes wrote: post #7

I wonder why they don't come up with a cheap, washable cup that the customers 'borrow' for the duration of drinking coffee. You buy a coffee for 3 bucks, you get the cup for a dollar, and you get a dollar back when you return the cup. They wash the cup and use it again. It would be like getting it 'for here', but you give some collateral against the price of the cup, and can leave. There are enough Starbucks within t…

Or make it compulsory to bring your own cup, which they also sell in store if you don't yet have a suitable one. This would be great but given the competitive nature of the industry would only work in certain locations where people are more environmentally conscious.

To go even further, this should be a mandated policy city by city. And it should be a blanket policy that applies to any hot beverage being sold. Just like a shopping bag.

1. All shops serving hot beverages require a mug. The mug may be purchased at any shop covered by the policy, or otherwise bring your own. Warning about 'Caution, Hot Beverage inside!' become moot. Your cup , your problem.

2. Purchased mug is sold at small profit and first fill-up is free or whatever incentive to purchase the liquid additionally with the mug.

3. Purchases that use a refillable mug, get a 5% discount during phase-in.

4. Shops do not offer to charge extra for the disposable cups. If available, this lazy option would give a choice that leaves them justified in being lazy, and creates a sort of contract that they still contribute to the greater good.

5. Add a creative incentive that allows purchasers to add value to this activity. Marketers can add to this.

6. Make all these mugs as easy to wash and as durable as possible. Non-toxic, non-breakable, easy to wash. No problem.

7. People love to drink coffee/tea in their cars. There's an another possible angle to create a cross-incentive

Well there's a few things I thought about.

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#44

Post by oiuytgfrtgyhuji »

maukdaddy wrote: post #29
ars wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paper uses more resources to recycle (especially water) than it uses to make it fresh. It's a feel good thing that does more harm than good. Putting paper in the ground is excellent from a CO2 sequestering point of view as well.

Awww don't disappoint me like that Ars. Paper in the ground is the opporite of CO2 sequestering because you had to cut down a TREE to make that paper. A living tree is, by definition, a CO2 sequestering machine. Also, throwing paper and organic matter into modern landfills, which promote anaerobic breakdown, produces methane. As you know, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

Only young growing trees absorb much CO2, paper cups are made from farmed plantations of young fast growing trees. The best thing (from a CO2 point of view) would be to cut down old growth hardwood rain-forest and plant pine saplings which you then cut down and make into cups which you bury!

ps Actually about 75% of CO2 is absorbed by algea, it's the oceans that make oxygen not rainforests

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#45

Post by oiuytgfrtgyhuji »

city41 wrote: post #23
ohyes wrote: post #7

I wonder why they don't come up with a cheap, washable cup that the customers 'borrow' for the duration of drinking coffee. You buy a coffee for 3 bucks, you get the cup for a dollar, and you get a dollar back when you return the cup. They wash the cup and use it again. It would be like getting it 'for here', but you give some collateral against the price of the cup, and can leave. There are enough Starbucks within t…

About a year or so ago, Microsoft's campuses made a huge switch from all plastic cups/silverware to compostable materials. Silverware/cups literally made out of corn and potatoes and such. A common question was "why doesn't MS just give each employee a ceramic mug?" The response was that MS found it's actually more environmentally damaging to wash them than it is to compost a crap load of cups. I found that response…

That's true for hand washed mugs. Running your coffee cup under the hot tap in the kitchen uses vastly more energy than making a paper one or cleaning batches of cups in an industrial dishwasher.

Best alternative is my coffee cup that I have black coffee (no milk or sugar) and I refill but never wash. Gradually the layer of coffee tar on the inside exchanges with the fresh coffee.

It's also pretty hygienic, nobody else ever borrows my mug, and nothing can live on the layer of caffeine sludge.

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#46

Post by ohyes »

jessriedel wrote: post #41
ohyes wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, waste, the common definition: I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware. I wasted food. (There are starving people in x country) I malloc a gigabyte of memory and don't do anything with it. I wasted memory. (but you should see what a memory hog Photoshop is, it hardly matters). I cut down a bunch of trees, and turn them into paper. I then put the paper in a big pile and d…

> I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware. >How does economic cost-benefit analysis...even factor into this? Suppose we lived in a universe where tupper-ware containers cost $X and there was no cheaper substitute. If $X = $1 million, you would just throw the left-overs away. If $X = $0, you would save them. How would you decide if it's morally necessary to use tuppaware for arbit…

Suppose we lived in a universe with a limited amount of food.

Every time you make food, there is slightly less food available in the future.

(It is kind of a function where some of it gets replaced, but not all of it, so as you proceed, the function approaches an infinitesimal number).

At what point on that timeline does the finiteness of the food outweigh the cost of a tupper-ware?

It seems that the answer would be right at the beginning, because the sooner we start conserving the food, the longer we would be able to sustain our supply.

If I had $1 million for the tupperware, I would pay it, because it is a matter of longterm survival vs. money.

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#47

Post by Retric »

robryan wrote: post #36
ars wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We use water for lots of things. Why are we focusing on the cup? There are much better places to conserve water. Crop irrigation, and getting rid of septic systems would be where I would start. Don't grow crops in places where you need to irrigate (or at least reduce it), and septic systems waste water, instead of recycling it like a sewer does.

I think that for a company that is supplying billions of cups a year that end up in landfill focusing on the cup should be a priority.

The cost of 1 gallon of water is something like 1/100th of a cent in most areas. If you want people to conserve water increase its cost, anything else and it will just be "wasted" somewhere else.

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2007/04/semiconductors.htm... Note: $27 per acre-foot = 0.008 cents per gallon.

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#48

Post by jessriedel »

ohyes wrote: post #46
jessriedel wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware. >How does economic cost-benefit analysis...even factor into this? Suppose we lived in a universe where tupper-ware containers cost $X and there was no cheaper substitute. If $X = $1 million, you would just throw the left-overs away. If $X = $0, you would save them. How would you decide if it's morally necessary to use tuppaware for arbit…

Suppose we lived in a universe with a limited amount of food. Every time you make food, there is slightly less food available in the future. (It is kind of a function where some of it gets replaced, but not all of it, so as you proceed, the function approaches an infinitesimal number). At what point on that timeline does the finiteness of the food outweigh the cost of a tupper-ware? It seems that the answer would be…

> If I had $1 million for the tupperware, I would pay it, because it is a matter of longterm survival vs. money.

No you wouldn't. You could have eaten gruel today for breakfast, but you didn't.

Unless you're really going to bite that bullet (that survival is the only morally valuable thing, so no one is allowed any non-survival-promoting fun) then you need to allow that other things, like happiness, are important. In particular, you need to allow for people to sacrifice some future survival (i.e. waste) for some happiness in some cases.

How would you determine when this is OK? A cost-benefit analysis...

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#49

Post by fr0sty »

jasonkester wrote: post #22
robryan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or make it compulsory to bring your own cup, which they also sell in store if you don't yet have a suitable one. This would be great but given the competitive nature of the industry would only work in certain locations where people are more environmentally conscious.

Ever been to a grocery store that forced you to buy bags to take your stuff home? More specifically, ever been back to that store? It just doesn't work (for us Americans at least).

It's called Aldi and they have over 1,000 stores in the US.

They have build a half cozen in my area in the past few years so I figure they cannot be doing that poorly...

As someone else mentioned: They also make you pay a $.25 deposit to use a shopping cart, don't take credit cards, and don't offer name-brand anything.

Re: The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility

#50

Post by ohyes »

jessriedel wrote: post #48
ohyes wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose we lived in a universe with a limited amount of food. Every time you make food, there is slightly less food available in the future. (It is kind of a function where some of it gets replaced, but not all of it, so as you proceed, the function approaches an infinitesimal number). At what point on that timeline does the finiteness of the food outweigh the cost of a tupper-ware? It seems that the answer would be…

> If I had $1 million for the tupperware, I would pay it, because it is a matter of longterm survival vs. money. No you wouldn't. You could have eaten gruel today for breakfast, but you didn't. Unless you're really going to bite that bullet (that survival is the only morally valuable thing, so no one is allowed any non-survival-promoting fun) then you need to allow that other things, like happiness, are important. In…

If I had data that told me we were running out of food, come hell or high water, I'd find some way to conserve it.

I had strawberry yogurt for breakfast. I had it because it tastes good, and is relatively good for me. I could have gone with the cheap plain yogurt, but instead I had the slightly tastier more expensive stuff, on the chance that it is actually healthier and tastier.

But the morality of my breakfast isn't at question here. (I could be totally amoral and still make a good argument for what should be done).

I never said there wasn't an element of cost-benefit analysis, I said that it (waste specifically) wasn't a purely economic cost-benefit analysis (which is what was argued initially). It seems that you are agreeing with me, as you have 'allowed' for other things like 'happiness'. (Which would be an emotional cost-benefit analysis).

It makes me happy to think that future generations will be able to enjoy the things that I enjoy currently.

Glad to have changed your mind.

Please Recycle.

Post reply on HN