Utilitarianism, Deontology and Virtue Ethics: Case Study: Starbucks
Starbucks as a corporation has secured its position in the marketplace as a viable entity in
the coffee and coffee shop industry. As such, it has assumed responsibilities not only to its
employees and customers, but to those who farm the coffee beans in faraway places (Starbucks
Social Responsibility Video, n.d.). In contrast, Friedman (1970) discusses the responsibility of
business in the social sense to increase profit.
To discuss two areas of utilitarianism I choose consequences of happiness and
unhappiness and beneficial consequences. The consequences of happiness as it relates to
Starbucks is the selfish pleasure of its customer base enjoying coffee from coffee beans grown
and harvested by people whose hardwork and economic conditions do not mactch ("Starbucks
Selling Non-Colombian Coffee in Bogota Riles Farmers - Bloomberg," n.d.).
Considering virtue ethics, Starbucks has made good decision by having a representative
locally present and assigned to assist farmers in their daily operations. This allows Starbucks to
be involved from beginning to end of the coffee bean procurement process which also can be
viewed as being over indulgent. By having a company representative on site with the farmer it
gives the appearance of mistrust and that Starbucks is watching over the shoulder of the farmer
regardless to whether or not the intention is to be a support mechanism as stated in the video. At
the other extreme, having a representative on site could be viewed as being overbearing and in
the way of the farmer by being overzealous. Concerning deontology, the moral right looking at
Starbucks is that they as a corporation invests in the social elements of the society in the location
where they are partnered with the farmers. Good faith in providing fundamental resources such
as health care is important and builds relationships. In turn the farmers and their families are
given the distinct certainty that Starbucks has their best intention at hand. Also, working within
the local laws of the host country reinforces the willingness of Starbucks to be in accordance
with those things that protect the environment ((Fieser, 2015).
Starbucks utilitarian position looked at carefully throughout the video is represented by a
direct approach to be as profitable as possible in their virtuous strategy to enhance the
capabilities of the farmers. From providing ergonomists to supporting the local socio economics
of the locations that grow the coffee beans used in their products. Ergonomists as defined by the
National Career Service help to make sure that equipment and machinery are designed to be
safer and easier to be used ("Ergonomist Job Information | National Careers Service," n.d.). The
bottom line to it all, do everything possible to maximize profit. Is this wrong? Not as it applies to
Friedman’s view of “the responsibility of business in the social sense to increase profit”.
Starbucks as a corporation has secured its position in the marketplace as a viable entity in
the coffee and coffee shop industry. As such, it has assumed responsibilities not only to its
employees and customers, but to those who farm the coffee beans in faraway places (Starbucks
Social Responsibility Video, n.d.). In contrast, Friedman (1970) discusses the responsibility of
business in the social sense to increase profit.
To discuss two areas of utilitarianism I choose consequences of happiness and
unhappiness and beneficial consequences. The consequences of happiness as it relates to
Starbucks is the selfish pleasure of its customer base enjoying coffee from coffee beans grown
and harvested by people whose hardwork and economic conditions do not mactch ("Starbucks
Selling Non-Colombian Coffee in Bogota Riles Farmers - Bloomberg," n.d.).
Considering virtue ethics, Starbucks has made good decision by having a representative
locally present and assigned to assist farmers in their daily operations. This allows Starbucks to
be involved from beginning to end of the coffee bean procurement process which also can be
viewed as being over indulgent. By having a company representative on site with the farmer it
gives the appearance of mistrust and that Starbucks is watching over the shoulder of the farmer
regardless to whether or not the intention is to be a support mechanism as stated in the video. At
the other extreme, having a representative on site could be viewed as being overbearing and in
the way of the farmer by being overzealous. Concerning deontology, the moral right looking at
Starbucks is that they as a corporation invests in the social elements of the society in the location
where they are partnered with the farmers. Good faith in providing fundamental resources such
as health care is important and builds relationships. In turn the farmers and their families are
given the distinct certainty that Starbucks has their best intention at hand. Also, working within
the local laws of the host country reinforces the willingness of Starbucks to be in accordance
with those things that protect the environment ((Fieser, 2015).
Starbucks utilitarian position looked at carefully throughout the video is represented by a
direct approach to be as profitable as possible in their virtuous strategy to enhance the
capabilities of the farmers. From providing ergonomists to supporting the local socio economics
of the locations that grow the coffee beans used in their products. Ergonomists as defined by the
National Career Service help to make sure that equipment and machinery are designed to be
safer and easier to be used ("Ergonomist Job Information | National Careers Service," n.d.). The
bottom line to it all, do everything possible to maximize profit. Is this wrong? Not as it applies to
Friedman’s view of “the responsibility of business in the social sense to increase profit”.
