Director, Investor Relations
Starbucks Coffee Company
2401 Utah Ave S
Seattle, WA 98134-1436
Dear Ms. DeGrande,
As concerned citizens, consumers and investors, we value the way that companies interact with the planet, people and natural resources. In particular, we are concerned about Starbucks’ corporate environmental sustainability initiatives.
Starbucks uses over four billion cups for coffee beverages each year, and we think it is very important for your company to consider the environmental implications of beverage container waste and use of other resources. To better evaluate Starbucks' business practices in an environmentally conscious and sustainable manner, we recommend the creation of a board committee on sustainability as an initial step to focus corporate management on this issue. Such a committee would engage in an ongoing, in-depth review of corporate policies that impact our environment and natural resources, such as waste creation and disposal, limitations on natural resources, energy use and climate change. The committee would also set goals for improving the company’s practices.
We strongly urge you to consider this request and develop a board committee on sustainability. Your investors would not want to see a decline in Starbucks’ revenues and its share price as a result of the company’s failure to adopt sustainability measures that would save expenses, secure its brand position and make it a leader in the industry. As consumers, we will be watching for changes in Starbucks cafes that demonstrate a strong commitment to environmental sustainability.
We will make it a priority to patronize those establishments with a demonstrated commitment to best practices for waste management and recycling. Your shareholders have filed a 2012 resolution calling for the creation of a board-level sustainability committee, and we will encourage shareholders to support the resolution in addition to this letter from consumers and investors.
VP, Investor Relations
800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 6316
- Promote the evolution of “super-pests” and “super-weeds” that resist the herbicide used on GM plants;
- Result in increased, not decreased, use of pesticides;
- Result in smaller harvests, not larger harvests, as advertised;
- Threaten human and animal health;
- Endanger global ecosystems by introducing genetically altered, potentially toxic substances that cannot be withdrawn once released in the air, water, and soil.
- Through the use of patents that deny farmers the right to save seeds and plant them in the future, Monsanto may further impoverish small-scale farmers—particularly in developing countries—by forcing them to buy new seeds annually. This cost, on top of the added water, fertilizer, and pesticide expenses related to growing GM crops, has driven thousands of farmers into a never-ending cycle of debt. There is an epidemic of suicides by farmers in India that many be attributable to economic troubles related to failed GM crops – and for whom GM seeds are the only seeds now available.
- GM seeds born by the wind contaminate farms not using GM seeds, thereby infecting those farms and risking organic farmers’ organic certification and their loss of business. Monsanto does not appear to financially support these farmers and has sued some farmers for patent violations.
- Support universal labeling of foods containing GMOs;
- Evaluate areas for potential contamination around GM- seed producing plants;
- Prevent future contamination by GM seeds;
- Develop a compensation plan for farmers that are found to have suffered economic loss due to GMO contamination (a key concern of organic farmers and others);
- Ensure farmers have the ability to choose non-GM seeds.