csr case study starbucks

MBA Knowledge Base

Business • Management • Technology

Home » Management Case Studies » Case Study: Corporate Social Responsibility of Starbucks

Case Study: Corporate Social Responsibility of Starbucks

Starbucks is the world’s largest and most popular coffee company. Since the beginning, this premier cafe aimed to deliver the world’s finest fresh-roasted coffee. Today the company dominates the industry and has created a brand that is tantamount with loyalty, integrity and proven longevity. Starbucks is not just a name, but a culture .

It is obvious that Starbucks and their CEO Howard Shultz are aware of the importance of corporate social responsibility . Every company has problems they can work on and improve in and so does Starbucks. As of recent, Starbucks has done a great job showing their employees how important they are to the company. Along with committing to every employee, they have gone to great lengths to improve the environment for everyone. Ethical and unethical behavior is always a hot topic for the media, and Starbucks has to be careful with the decisions they make and how they affect their public persona.

The corporate social responsibility of the Starbucks Corporation address the following issues: Starbucks commitment to the environment, Starbucks commitment to the employees, Starbucks commitment to consumers, discussions of ethical and unethical business behavior, and Starbucks commitment and response to shareholders.

Commitment to the Environment

The first way Starbucks has shown corporate social responsibility is through their commitment to the environment. In order to improve the environment, with a little push from the NGO, Starbucks first main goal was to provide more Fair Trade Coffee. What this means is that Starbucks will aim to only buy 100 percent responsibly grown and traded coffee. Not only does responsibly grown coffee help the environment, it benefits the farmers as well. Responsibly grown coffee means preserving energy and water at the farms. In turn, this costs more for the company overall, but the environmental improvements are worth it. Starbucks and the environment benefits from this decision because it helps continue to portray a clean image.

Another way to improve the environment directly through their stores is by “going green”. Their first attempt to produce a green store was in Manhattan. Starbucks made that decision to renovate a 15 year old store. This renovation included replacing old equipment with more energy efficient ones. To educate the community, they placed plaques throughout the store explaining their new green elements and how they work. This new Manhattan store now conserves energy, water, materials, and uses recycled/recyclable products. Twelve stores total plan to be renovated and Starbucks has promised to make each new store LEED, meaning a Leader in Energy and Environmental Design. LEED improves performance regarding energy savings, water efficiency, and emission reduction. Many people don’t look into environmentally friendly appliances because the upfront cost is always more. According to Starbucks, going green over time outweighs the upfront cost by a long shot. Hopefully, these new design elements will help the environment and get Starbucks ahead of their market.

Commitment to Consumers

The second way Starbucks has shown corporate social responsibility is through their commitment to consumers. The best way to get the customers what they want is to understand their demographic groups. By doing research on Starbucks consumer demographics, they realized that people with disabilities are very important. The company is trying to turn stores into a more adequate environment for customers with disabilities. A few changes include: lowering counter height to improve easy of ordering for people in wheelchairs, adding at least one handicap accessible entrance, adding disability etiquette to employee handbooks, training employees to educate them on disabilities, and by joining the National Business Disability Council. By joining the National Business Disability Council, Starbucks gains access to resumes of people with disabilities.

Another way Starbucks has shown commitment to the consumers is by cutting costs and retaining loyal customers. For frequent, loyal customers, Starbucks decided to provide a loyalty card. Once a customer has obtained this card, they are given incentives and promotions for continuing to frequent their stores. Promotions include discounted drinks and free flavor shots to repeat visitors. Also, with the economy being at an all time low, Starbucks realized that cheaper prices were a necessity. By simplifying their business practices, they were able to provide lower prices for their customers. For example, they use only one recipe for banana bread, rather than eleven!

It doesn’t end there either! Starbucks recognized that health is part of social responsibility. To promote healthier living, they introduced “skinny” versions of most drinks, while keeping the delicious flavor. For example, the skinny vanilla latte has 90 calories compared to the original with 190 calories. Since Starbucks doesn’t just sell beverages now, they introduced low calorie snacks. Along with the snacks and beverages, nutrition facts were available for each item.

Also one big way to cut costs was outsourcing payroll and Human Resources administration . By creating a global platform for their administration system, Starbucks is able to provide more employees with benefits. Plus, they are able to spend more money on pleasing customers, rather than on a benefits system.

Commitment and Response to Shareholders

One way Starbucks has demonstrated their commitment and response to shareholder needs is by giving them large portions. By large portions, Starbucks is implying that they plan pay dividends equal to 35% or higher of net income to. For the shareholders, paying high dividends means certainty about the company’s financial well-being. Along with that, they plan to purchase 15 million more shares of stock, and hopefully this will attract investors who focus on stocks with good results.

Starbucks made their commitment to shareholders obvious by speaking directly to the media about it. In 2004, Starbucks won a great tax break, but unfortunately the media saw them as “money grubbing”. Their CEO, Howard Shultz, made the decision to get into politics and speak to Washington about expanding health care and the importance of this to the company. Not only does he want his shareholders to see his commitment, but he wants all of America to be able to reap this benefits.

In order to compete with McDonalds and keeping payout to their shareholders high, Starbucks needed a serious turnaround . They did decide to halt growth in North America but not in Japan. Shultz found that drinking coffee is becoming extremely popular for the Japanese. To show shareholders there is a silver lining, he announced they plan to open “thousands of stores” in Japan and Vietnamese markets.

Commitment to Employees

The first and biggest way Starbucks shows their commitment to employees is by just taking care of their workers. For example, they know how important health care, stock options, and compensation are to people in this economy. The Starbucks policy states that as long as you work 20 hours a week you get benefits and stock options. These benefits include health insurance and contributions to employee’s 401k plan. Starbucks doesn’t exclude part time workers, because they feel they are just as valuable as full time workers. Since Starbucks doesn’t have typical business hours like an office job, the part time workers help working the odd shifts.

Another way Starbucks shows their commitment to employees is by treating them like individuals, not just number 500 out of 26,000 employees. Howard Shultz, CEO, always tries to keep humanity and compassion in mind. When he first started at Starbucks, he remembered how much he liked it that people cared about him, so he decided to continue this consideration for employees. Shultz feels that a first impression is very important. On an employee’s first day, he lets each new employee know how happy he is to have them as part of their business, whether it is in person or through a video. His theory is that making a good first impression on a new hire is similar to teaching a child good values. Through their growth, he feels each employee will keep in mind that the company does care about them. Shultz wants people to know what he and the company stand for, and what they are trying to accomplish.

Ethical/Unethical Business Behavior

The last way Starbucks demonstrates corporate social responsibility is through ethical behavior and the occasional unethical behavior. The first ethically positive thing Starbucks involves them self in is the NGO and Fair Trade coffee. Even though purchasing mostly Fair Trade coffee seriously affected their profits, Starbucks knew it was the right thing to do. They also knew that if they did it the right way, everyone would benefit, from farmers, to the environment, to their public image.

In the fall of 2010, Starbucks chose to team up with Jumpstart, a program that gives children a head start on their education. By donating to literacy organizations and volunteering with Jumpstart, Starbucks has made an impact on the children in America, in a very positive way.

Of course there are negatives that come along with the positives. Starbucks isn’t the “perfect” company like it may seem. In 2008, Starbucks made the decision to close 616 stores because they were not performing very well. In order for Starbucks to close this many stores in one year, they had to battle many landlords due to the chain breaking lease agreements. Starbucks tried pushing for rent cuts but some stores did have to break their agreements. On top of breaching lease agreements, Starbucks was not able to grow as much as planned, resulting their future landlords were hurting as well. To fix these problems, tenants typically will offer a buyout or find a replacement tenant, but landlords are in no way forced to go with any of these options. These efforts became extremely time consuming and costly, causing Starbucks to give up on many lease agreements.

As for Starbucks ethical behavior is a different story when forced into the media light. In 2008, a big media uproar arose due to them wanting to re-release their old logo for their 35th anniversary. The old coffee cup logo was basically a topless mermaid, which in Starbucks’ opinion is just a mythological creature, not a sex symbol. Media critics fought that someone needed to protect the creature’s modesty. Starbucks found this outrageous. In order to end the drama and please the critics, they chose to make the image more modest by lengthening her hair to cover her body and soften her facial expression. Rather than ignoring the media concerns, Starbucks met in the middle to celebrate their 35th anniversary.

Related posts:

• Case Study: Corporate Social Responsibility at The Body Shop
• Case Study: British Petroleum and Corporate Social Responsibility
• Case Study: Starbucks Social Media Marketing Strategy
• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) – Definition, Perspectives and Approaches
• The Importance of Corporate Social Responsibility in Business
• Carroll’s Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility
• Corporate Social Responsibility as a Source of Competitive Advantage
• Stakeholders Perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
• Stakeholder Expectations and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
• Aligning Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility

One thought on “ Case Study: Corporate Social Responsibility of Starbucks ”

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

• About / Contact
• Privacy Policy
• Alphabetical List of Companies
• Business Analysis Topics

Starbucks Stakeholders, CSR & ESG

Starbucks Corporation manages stakeholder interests through programs for corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) goals that match issues relevant to the foodservice industry. These issues, such as the ecological and social trends shown in the PESTLE/PESTEL analysis of Starbucks , encourage businesses to integrate corporate citizenship, sustainability, and green business practices into their strategies. In this case, the coffeehouse company advocates CSR-focused social movements, especially those pertaining to sustainability. Based on Archie B. Carroll’s description of corporate social responsibility, Starbucks accounts for the interests of stakeholders, because the company is viewed as a citizen of society. The coffee business has a corporate citizenship approach that addresses multiple stakeholder groups, such as employees and farmers.

The effectiveness of social responsibility strategies influences long-term success and the satisfaction of business goals and objectives based on Starbucks’ mission statement and vision statement . The company’s CSR, ESG, and stakeholder management programs support strategies for leadership in the coffeehouse industry.

Starbucks’ Stakeholders & CSR/ESG Initiatives

Starbucks’ corporate social responsibility practices address the concerns of different stakeholder groups. These CSR and ESG practices are similar to those of other large multinational companies in food service and other industries. Starbucks’ corporate citizenship approach deals with the concerns of its stakeholders, as follows:

• Employees (baristas, partners) – highest priority
• Suppliers (supply firms, coffee farmers, and others)
• Environment and communities
• Governments

Employees . Starbucks prioritizes employees in its corporate social responsibility efforts. As stakeholders, employees are interested in better working conditions, job security, and higher wages. This prioritization agrees with Starbucks’ organizational culture (company culture) and its emphasis on the employees-first attitude. The company sets its employees’ wages above the legally mandated minimum wage. Also, Starbucks boosts its corporate citizenship performance for this stakeholder group by giving scholarships to employees, in partnership with Arizona State University.

Customers . Starbucks considers customers among its top stakeholders. The interests of this stakeholder group are high-quality service and products, such as coffee and other beverages. As the world’s most popular coffeehouse chain, Starbucks effectively addresses these interests through its corporate social responsibility efforts. The company extends its corporate culture to customers at its cafés. For example, warm and friendly relations are emphasized in the company and in how baristas interact with customers. This approach enhances Starbucks’ service quality and customer experience. Also, the company has stringent standards and requirements for its supply of raw materials, like coffee beans. These quality standards contribute to the business strengths shown in the SWOT analysis of Starbucks . Thus, the coffee company’s corporate social responsibility strategy accounts for the interests of this stakeholder group of customers.

Suppliers . Starbucks suppliers include wholesale supply firms, coffee farmers, and other vendors or producers. The main CSR/ESG interest of this stakeholder group is the profitability of business relations with the coffeehouse chain. For example, coffee farmers aim to increase their yield to generate more revenues while supplying Starbucks. The company’s corporate citizenship approach addresses coffee farmers and related stakeholders through a supplier diversity program that aims to include more suppliers from around the world, while stabilizing the supply chain. Moreover, the company’s Coffee and Farmer Equity (CAFE) program requires transparency among wholesale suppliers to ensure that coffee farmers are properly paid. Starbucks’ operations management , particularly supply chain management, supports these multi-pronged corporate social responsibility efforts for the interests of this stakeholder group of suppliers.

Environment and Communities . Starbucks has corporate social responsibility programs for ecologically sound, sustainable, and green business operations. The company’s CAFE program leads to higher biodiversity and shade quality in certified coffee farms. Currently, most of the company’s supply comes from CAFE-certified farms. This situation reflects sustainability goals as the business improves its coffeehouse chain operations. Other corporate social responsibility efforts include support programs for communities, such as through the Starbucks Foundation. These multiple programs and initiatives enable the coffee company to improve its corporate citizenship status while benefiting the stakeholder group of communities and the environment.

Investors . As a business, Starbucks Corporation must address investors as stakeholders. In the corporate social responsibility context, investors are interested in the economic benefits of the coffeehouse chain, particularly in terms of dividends and share price. As a responsible business, the firm maintains dominant and profitable global operations in the coffeehouse industry, thus satisfying investors’ need for profitability and business growth. Also, to address this corporate social responsibility, Starbucks keeps improving its competencies to protect the business against competitors, including coffeehouse firms, like Tim Hortons and Costa Coffee, as well as foodservice businesses, such as Dunkin’, McDonald’s McCafé , Wendy’s , Burger King , and Subway . These competitors offer food, coffee, and other drinks that affect Starbucks’ strategies for sustainability and corporate citizenship.

Governments . Starbucks’ social responsibility efforts address the interests of the stakeholder group of numerous governments, considering the company’s global presence. The coffee business complies with rules and regulations but has been criticized for its tax practices in Europe. Starbucks uses a network of locations in different European countries to exploit tax advantages. Thus, the company’s corporate social responsibility efforts can be improved to better address this stakeholder group.

Starbucks’ Corporate Citizenship: CSR & ESG Performance, Actions

Starbucks has satisfactory corporate social responsibility performance in addressing the interests of most of its stakeholders. The foodservice company satisfies most of the concerns of its stakeholder groups, like customers, employees, suppliers, the environment and communities, and investors. However, the corporation can improve its CSR and ESG performance by reaching a 100% CAFE-certified ethical supply chain to maximize the benefits for communities and the environment. Starbucks can also improve its corporate citizenship performance in addressing governments by improving its tax practices, compliance, and related governance areas. These are areas where the coffeehouse chain can implement changes to boost its corporate social responsibility performance to satisfy its stakeholders.

• Fatima, T., & Elbanna, S. (2023). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) implementation: A review and a research agenda towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 183 (1), 105-121.
• Park, J. G., Park, K., Noh, H., & Kim, Y. G. (2023). Characterization of CSR, ESG, and corporate citizenship through a text mining-based review of literature. Sustainability, 15 (5), 3892.
• Siyahhan, B. (2023). Stakeholders and corporate social responsibility: What makes firms tip over to CSR investments? Managerial and Decision Economics, 44 (3), 1436-1453.
• Starbucks Coffee Company – Building Supportive & Sustainable Communities .
• Starbucks Coffee Company – Education .
• Starbucks Corporation – Form 10-K .
• Starbucks Corporation – Our long-standing efforts to put our partners first .
• Starbucks Ethical Sourcing – Coffee .
• The Starbucks Foundation .
• Copyright by Panmore Institute - All rights reserved.
• This article may not be reproduced, distributed, or mirrored without written permission from Panmore Institute and its author/s.
• Educators, Researchers, and Students: You are permitted to quote or paraphrase parts of this article (not the entire article) for educational or research purposes, as long as the article is properly cited and referenced together with its URL/link.

• Show simple item record
• Show full item record
• Export item record

Files in This Item:

Page view(s) 1

Download(s) 50.

Google Scholar TM

Items in DR-NTU are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

In 2001, Earthwatch and Starbucks formed what would become an 11-year partnership to promote sustainable farming practices in one of the world’s premier coffee-growing regions. In collaboration with a cooperative of 2,500 farmers in the Los Santos region of Costa Rica, Earthwatch researchers and Starbucks employees worked with farmers to increase the use of tools and agriculture practices that benefited both the farmers and the natural environment.

The Problem

Costa Rica is one of the world’s largest producers of coffee, and Costa Rican coffee beans are considered among the best in the world. While coffee farming can be a major source of revenue for farmers, the intensive farming practices commonly used also have major impacts on the country's biodiversity-rich rainforests. These management practices reduce biodiversity and degrade the soil, and the fertilizer and pesticides used leeches into the surrounding environment, polluting soil and water. Careful monitoring helps improve the efficiency of farming practices, but in many cases, farmers don’t have the resources to document these problems or to explore alternative and sustainable farming methods.

As a major buyer of Costa Rican coffee with a strong ethic in promoting sustainable farming practices, the Starbucks Coffee Company wanted to identify scientifically proven ways to make coffee farming more sustainable while building strong relationships with local farmers and engaging their employees and customers in their sustainability mission.

The Solution

Over the course of the 11-year partnership, more than 400 people, including Starbucks employees, Starbucks customers, and Earthwatch volunteers, traveled to Cope Tarrazu, a cooperative of 2,500 farmers nestled high in the mountains in one of the world’s premier coffee-growing regions. The teams worked side-by-side with farmers to help researchers collect data on soil acidity, plant productivity, the use of agricultural inputs, and biodiversity indicators. At the same time, they learned about key relationships between sustainable practices and coffee quality. The input of the farmers was vital to the success of this program, as they gave insights into the problems farmers face and were able to evaluate which solutions would work for farmers. Additionally, the farmers were able to learn surveying and data collection practices and how to interpret that data.

Our work with Earthwatch is an important extension of Starbucks’ commitment to sustainability. By helping farmers improve their practices, we help create a reliable source of high-quality coffee and better environmental outcomes.

— Colleen Chapman, Director of Corporate Responsibility at Starbucks.  

This partnership significantly reduced pollution and the cost of production while empowering farmers to make management decisions that enhanced biodiversity and sustainability outcomes. 

More than 200 farmers were trained in sustainable coffee farming methods, which reached four communities. By the end of the program, 85 percent of farmers were using more sustainable practices.

Farmers were able to understand their soil composition and condition, allowing them to selectively apply fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides as well as plant beneficial shade trees and ground cover vegetation. As a result, farmers were able to spend less money on pesticides while reducing pollution, conserving soil quality, and protecting biodiversity.

The program not only created higher coffee yields and associated financial benefits to local farmers, but it also provided an excellent platform for Starbucks to communicate some of its core environmental values to its customers and employees.

This partnership allowed Starbucks to increase the sustainability of its business practices, engage their employees, and contribute to meaningful environmental science.

I am so happy to work for a company that actively searches for ways to make a difference, and help people become empowered with the knowledge and experiences to share with others.

— A 2011 program participant

About Earthwatch

Earthwatch is an international nonprofit organization that connects people with scientists worldwide to conduct environmental research and empowers them with the knowledge they need to conserve the planet. Since its founding in 1971, Earthwatch has been taking action to address global change through a time-tested model of citizen science and community engagement. By pairing citizen science volunteers from all sectors of society with researchers around the world, Earthwatch teams have helped to safeguard critical habitats, conserve biodiversity, and promote the sustainable use of natural resources. For more information, visit Earthwatch.org .

Get in Touch

To discuss corporate partnership opportunities, email Kelly A. Doyle, Director of Strategic Partnerships , at  [email protected] .

To stay up to date with our latest partnership work, sign up for the  In Partnership  newsletter.

Starbucks CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility

Starbucks CSR programs and initiatives are led by Michael Kobori, chief sustainability officer for the world’s largest coffeehouse chain. CSR initiatives for Starbucks cover wide range of business aspects and employee relationships such as supporting local communities, educating and empowering workers, gender equality and minorities, energy and water consumption, waste reduction etc.

CSR Programs and Initiatives

Starbucks Supporting Local Communities

• Starbucks Community Store program aims to assist local non-profit organizations in their efforts to provide education and training to achieve poverty eradication for the young segment of population. The company plans to open 100 Community Stores by the end of 2025.
• Starbucks has cooperated with non-profit organizations, community leaders and organizational stakeholders to provide more than 520,000 hours of volunteering service around the globe. [1]
• The global coffeehouse chain runs FoodShare food donation program in all company operated stores in US and Canada. 10.4 million and 1.2 million meals were donated in US and Canada respectively in FY21.

Starbucks Educating and Empowering Workers

• Starbucks College Achievement Plan is an education program that allows employees to obtain online degrees from Arizona State University. Approximately 2500 employees earned their degrees via this program in FY21 alone
• It has been noted that “at the height of the global financial crisis, when other companies were cutting HR costs wherever they could, Starbucks invested in staff training, including coffee tastings and courses that ultimately qualified for credit at higher education institutions” [2]
• In FY21 the company oversaw more than 136000 course enrolments in Starbucks Coffee Academy and more than 55,000 course completions since launch.

Starbucks and Gender Equality and Minorities

• At present about 40% of Starbucks US employees are minorities and 65% are women.
• Among vice presidents, 48% are women and 15% are minorities.
• The global coffeehouse chain aims to achieve at least 30% BIPOC representation and 50% representation of women for all enterprise roles by 2025.

Diversity in Starbucks Corporate Roles [3]

• Starbucks previously achieved and currently maintains 100 percent pay equity in the U.S. for women and men and people of all races for partners performing similar work
• There are 12 partner networks within the company such as Armed Forces Network, Black Partner Network, Disability Advocacy Network and others
• The global coffeehouse chain has achieved and maintained 100% pay equity for women and men and people of all races performing similar work in the U.S. and achieved and maintained gender equity in pay in global company operated markets Canada and Great Britain.
• The multinational chain of coffeehouses received 100% score on the Disability Equality Index.

Energy Consumption by Starbucks

• Greener Store format in North America consumes 30% less energy compared to traditional stores
• 66% of company-operated stores are powered using renewable energy
• The world’s largest coffeehouse chain is committed to reach to 100% renewable energy in its global operations

Water Consumption by Starbucks

• The company plans to ensure that 50% of water it uses is conserved or replenished by 2030
• In FY21 water withdrawals in operations reduced by 11% compared to the base year of FY19
• Greener Store format in North America use 30% less water compared to traditional store formats

Waste Reduction and Recycling by Starbucks

• During the past five years Starbucks Japan has turned tons of spent coffee grounds into compost and feed for cows
• The global coffeehouse chain aims to reduce the waste it sends to landfill by 50% by 2030.

Carbon Emissions by Starbucks

• The world’s largest coffeehouse chain aims to achieve 50% absolute carbon reduction in scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse (GHG) emissions in all direct operations and value chain by 2030
• The company plans to become carbon positive i.e. store more carbon than it emits by year of 2030.

Starbucks and Sustainable Sourcing 

• The company has 10 Farmer Support Centres in Latin America, Asia and Africa
• Starbucks purchase of coffee from the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo helped more than 4,500 small-holder farmers to more than triple their incomes.
• In FY21 99.9% of tea sourced by Global Coffee, Tea & Cocoa, the company’s global coffee sourcing team, verified as responsibly sourced
• Starbucks doubled the Global Farmer Fund to USD 100 million. Since FY18, USD 54.8 million in loans has been deployed.

Starbucks Corporation Report contains a full analysis of Starbucks corporate social responsibility including Starbucks CSR issues. The report illustrates the application of the major analytical strategic frameworks in business studies such as SWOT, PESTEL, Porter’s Five Forces, Value Chain analysis, Ansoff Matrix and McKinsey 7S Model on Starbucks . Moreover, the report contains analyses of Starbucks leadership, business strategy, organizational structure and organizational culture. The report also comprises discussions of Starbucks marketing strategy and its ecosystem.

[1] Starbucks Global Responsibility Report (2014)

[2] Leinward P. & Davidson, V. (2016) “How Starbucks’s Culture Brings Its Strategy to Life” Harvard Business Review, Available at: https://hbr.org/2016/12/how-starbuckss-culture-brings-its-strategy-to-life

[3] Global Environmental & Social Impact Report 2021 , Starbucks Corporation

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Exploring Company’s Activities in the Field of CSR: The Case of Starbucks

Journal of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership

Related Papers

Huong Nguyen

Journal ijmr.net.in(UGC Approved)

Corporate Social Responsibility refers to ensuring the success of the business by inclusion of social and environmental considerations into a company’s operations. It means satisfying your shareholders’ and customers’ demands while also managing the expectation of other stakeholders such as employeessuppliers and the community at large. It also means contributing positively to society and managing your organization’s environmental impact. Hence, CSR is a contribution to sustainable development, implying the way a company balances its economic, environmental and social objectives while addressing stakeholder expectations and enhancing shareholder value. The CSR concept -was initially used by national companies more as a marketing and media coverage instrument, rather than for its ethical values. As time went by, it became clear that-the business environment is a key element in finding solutions to community issues. This research paper-aims at analyzing the importance of

Gaurav Ashwath

The aim of this paper is presentation of the activities of food service companies in the area of social responsibility. In today's business world, there are many strategies being used to run business. Interest of the topic of corporate social responsibility has growing rapidly. Many companies have started to engage in CSR as strategy in order to gain benefits that can give them an added advantage over their competitors. The corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the company's strategy, based on the assumption that business is responsible for the society within which it operates. There have been increasing numbers of companies engaged in CSR. CSR is becoming an important issue in the food service business. Nowadays CSR can drive companies to succeed in business by increasing sales volume and brand awareness and also added advantage over their competitors. For this thesis was decided to choose McDonald's corporation as a case study. This is one of the famous restaurants all over the world. McDonald's has a good reputation in terms of social responsibility. Hence, the significance of this paper is not only to increase related stakeholders' understanding of CSR, resulting in the achievement of long term sustainability, but also fill in the academic gap of CSR, especially for catering business in Poland. The main objective of the article will be to find out, how McDonald's implements CSR towards employees, customers, supply partners and the community. Purpose: The aim of this paper is presentation of the activities of food service companies in the area of social responsibility on example of international fast food chain-McDonald's. Methodology: For this thesis was decided to choose McDonald's corporation as a case study, empirical, qualitative research method. Findings: Since last year's McDonald's has been seen to adopt a more proactive strategy on CSR. McDonald's has set good examples of social responsibility. Corporate social responsibility McDonald's takes part in: animal welfare, corporate giving/Ronald McDonald House Charities, education scholarships, employment practices for, environmental practices, work with Corporate Social Responsibility Suppliers, Corporate Responsibility McDonald's Reports. The evidence presents a case that the corporation is implementing CSR policies as a means to greater profitability. It is promoting itself as a notable corporate citizen and has turned CSR around from a cost of doing business into a profitable enterprise and been commended for it. But, McDon-alds CSR strategies mostly lay in the overlapping ethics/law area. 65 Originality/value: Hence, the significance of this paper is not only to increase related stakeholders' understanding of CSR, resulting in the achievement of long term sustainability, but also fill in the academic gap of CSR, especially for catering business in Poland. The demand for results is related to a poor adoption of CSR in small companies, especially in the gastronomy business. There is a possibility to improve performance with the example of McDonald's as the role model.

Badingatus Solikhah

The industrial revolution that occurred in the 18th century led to a paradigm shift in society, from agriculture to industrial development. The development of this industry is able to improve the economic and social welfare. Unfortunately, companies just focused on their aims to gain profit (profit-oriented). Company became unaware of environmental issues and community. This is the background of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). CSR is a program as the company's contribution to the environment and community development. The main purpose of this paper is to look at the importance of CSR and the reality happened in Indonesia. This paper also discusses how CSR should be conducted in an ethical manner. In the end, this paper concludes that CSR is important to create the company's business going-concern. In addition, government regulations must be enforced to ensure that all companies implement CSR.

Interal Res journa Managt Sci Tech

California Management Review

bunga noor hidayah

RELIGACIÓN. REVISTA DE CIENCIAS SOCIALES Y HUMANIDADES

Mohammad Amiri

from the last many years, Indian business organizations are implementing various corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities for the well-being of society. Nowadays, in the business sector, the concept of corporate social responsibility has achieved prominence from all avenues. Several Indian organizations are realized the importance of CSR activities with a view to promoting their brands. This study aims at to understand the perceptions of officials regarding CSR concept, the measure failed where they have initiated their CSR practices, their CSR approaches and major challenges faced by organizations in the implementation of CSR activities. Through the study, it is found that officials have different perceptions about CSR concept and adopted different approaches of CSR there are several challenges facing by the organizations in India. The study also focused on the advantages of CSR and the major aim of the organization for implementing CSR activities.

IBMRD's Journal of Management & Research

Ana Enrique Jiménez

Introduction: We are living a moment of change in business context, which directly affects organizations’ behaviour with society, through which a proper management of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) satisfies its stakeholders' interests. Methodology: The aim of this research is to analyse, focused on the Unilever Spain case study, how the different phases of the CSR management process are articulated. Results and conclusions: The results show that the development of the different phases has consequences in the own nature of the CSR management, being the main ones: transversality, transparency and dynamism. This research also provides an interesting contribution to the management of consumer values (linked to a product brand) and its relation to the company's intangibles.

Global Journal of Business, Economics and Management: Current Issues

Mariya Georgieva

In the 21st century, business and society demonstrate a stronger strive for achieving a stable balance between social, economic and ecological goals, which is the basis of the concept for sustainable development. In the context of “Europe 2020,” the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) affirms its role as one of the most effective strategies for achieving this kind of development. The aim of this article therefore , is to clarify the conceptual nature of CSR by putting an emphasis on the Carroll’s pyramid, and its importance to the corporate social initiatives as an expression of company’s commitment to CSR. This article is a qualitative article that gives an exposition on the implementation of CSR and its communication effect. This exposition proves that CSR offers many other positive effects for the companies apart from the strong communication effect to their current and prospective clients. By examining the six types of corporate social initiatives and their m...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Mohamad Bacho

Lyceum of the Philippines University Batangas

Marketing responsable

PATRICE BALLESTER

Management & Marketing

Cătălina Radu

El Profesional de la información

Adam Lindgreen

Seçil Deren van het Hof

International Journal of Latest Engineering and Management Research

mohamed zaheer

Wahana: Jurnal Ekonomi, Manajemen dan Akuntansi

Sigit Pramono

https://doi.org/10.18844/gjbem.v10i3.4690

International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and Development

Aarti Chopra

International Journal of Innovation Review

International Res Jour Managt Socio Human

Mohammad Gias Uddin ACA (Rudon)

Sheikh Ahmad

Journal of Southeast Asian Research

Fanny Martdianty

Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences

Kuldeep Singh

Edit Lukacs

Moira K Clark

South Asian Journal of Social Studies and Economics

Rajni Saluja

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT

Manisha Choudhary

İletişim: Araştırmaları Dergisi

melike melike

Mukesh Kumar Singh

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Español (España)
• Français (Canada)
• Język Polski

Journal of Corporate Responsibility and Leadership

Exploring company’s activities in the field of csr: the case of starbucks.

• Edyta Gozdan Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun
• Agata Sudolska Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun

Abstract: Recently CSR has gained companies’ attention due to its strategic importance. In the contemporary economy, the enterprises, especially those that are global corporations, are highly involved in several activities focused on meeting both societal and environmental needs. As caring about the better future for next generations, the companies implementing CSR aim at compensating the side effects related their operations. On the other hand, they aim at building their brands perceived as supporting local communities and engaging in particular environmental projects. One of such global corporations highly involved in CSR field is Starbucks. The aim of the study is to is to explore Starbucks’ activities in the field of CSR. The research process is driven by the three following research questions: (1) What are the main areas of Starbucks’ involvement in CSR activities? (2) What are the main Starbucks’ company objectives in the field of CSR? (3) How does Starbucks implement CSR activities following TBL concept? The exploratory single case study analysis of Starbucks company is applied to answer research questions and achieve the aim of the study. The research results presented in the paper indicate that Starbucks carries out several activities focused on supporting different communities as well as prove that the company is engaged in various projects dedicated to environment protection and climate change resistance. 

Ashrafi, M., Adams, M., Walker, T. R., & Magnan, G. (2018). How corporate social responsibility can be integrated into corporate sustainability: A theoretical review of their relationships. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 25(8), 671-681.

Benn, S., & Bolton, D. (2011). Key Concepts in Corporate Social Responsibility. London: Sage Publications.

Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility:

Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), 268–295.

Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management,

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of Sustainable Development. Oxford: Chapstone Publishing.

European Commission (2011). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions: A Renewed EU Strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0681&from=EN

Hahn, T., Pinkse, J., Preuss, L., & Figge, F. (2015). Tensions in corporate sustainability: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(2), 297–316.

International Standard ISO 26000 (2010). Guidance on Social Responsibility. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.

Liczmańska-Kopcewicz, K., Mizera, K., & Pypłacz, P. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and sustainable development for creating value for FMCG sector enterprises. Sustainability, 11(20), art. 5808.

Lis, A., Sudolska, A., & Tomanek, M. (2020). Mapping research on sustainable supplychain management. Sustainability, 12(10), art. 3987.

Matten, D, & Moon, J. (2008). ‘Implicit’ and ‘explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404–424.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2000). Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance: Correlation or misspecification?. Strategic Management Journal, 21,603–609.

McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., & Wright, P. M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: strategic implications. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 1-18.

Myers, M. D. (2010). Case study research. In M. Frenz, K. Nielsen, & G. Walters (Eds.) Research Methods in Management (pp. 227–248). London: SAGE.

Nasrullah, N.M., & Rahim, M.M. (2014). CSR in Private Enterprises in Developing Countries: Evidences from the Ready-made Garments Industry in Bangladesh.

Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Parrish, B. D. (2007). Designing the sustainable enterprises. Futures, 39(7), 846–860.

Petrović-Randelović, M., Stevanović, T., & Ivanović-Dukić, M. (2015). Impact of corporate social responsibility on the competitiveness of multinational corporations.

Procedia Economics and Finance, 19, 332-341.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business

Review, 84(12), 78-92.

Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 369–384.

Rok, B. (2013). Podstawy odpowiedzialności społecznej w zarządzaniu. Warszawa Wydawnictwo Poltext.

Sarkar. S, & Searcy. C. (2016). Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 1423– 1435.

Schultz, H., & Gordon, J. (2012). Starbucks: Sztuka wyciągania wniosków z porażek, czyli rewolucyjny przepis Schultza na wielki sukces. Kraków Znak.

Singh, A., Kar, S., & Pamucar, D. (2019). Stakeholder role for developing a conceptual framing of sustainability in organization. Sustainability, 11(1), art. 208.

Strumińska-Kutra, M., & Koładkiewicz, I. (2012). Studium przypadku. In: D. Jemielniak (Ed.), Badania jakościowe: Metody i narzędzia (pp. 1-40). Warszawa: PWN.

Sudolska, A., & Łapińska, J. (2020). Implementation of the CSR concept through sport sponsorship: The case of the Polish Chemical Capital Group. Journal of Physical

Education and Sport, 20(2), 1100-1105.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (1999). Corporate Social Responsibility: Meeting Changing Expectations. New York: World Business

Council for Sustainable Development.

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Number of views and downloads: 3537 Number of citations: 0

• Browse Author Index
• Issue archive

Current Issue

Information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Search using one of provided tags:

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Creating Brand Value
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

6 Examples of Corporate Social Responsibility That Were Successful

• 06 Jun 2019

Business is about more than just making a profit. Climate change, economic inequality, and other global challenges that impact communities worldwide have compelled companies to be purpose-driven and contribute to the greater good .

In a recent study by Deloitte , 93 percent of business leaders said they believe companies aren't just employers, but stewards of society. In addition, 95 percent reported they plan to take a stronger stance on large-scale issues in the coming years and devote significant resources to socially responsible initiatives. With more CEOs turning their focus to the long term, it’s important to consider what you can do in your career to make an impact .

Access your free e-book today.

What Is Corporate Social Responsibility?

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a business model in which for-profit companies seek ways to create social and environmental benefits while pursuing organizational goals, such as revenue growth and maximizing shareholder value.

Today’s organizations are implementing extensive corporate social responsibility programs, with many companies dedicating C-level executive roles and entire departments to social and environmental initiatives. These executives are commonly referred to as chief officers of corporate social responsibility or chief sustainability officers (CSO).

There are many types of corporate social responsibility , and CSR might look different for each organization, but the end goal is always the same: Do well by doing good . Companies that embrace corporate social responsibility aim to maintain profitability while supporting a larger purpose.

Rather than simply focusing on generating profit, or the bottom line, socially responsible companies are concerned with the triple bottom line , which considers the impact that business decisions have on profit, people, and the planet.

It’s no coincidence that some of today’s most profitable organizations are also socially responsible. Here are six successful examples of corporate social responsibility you can use to drive social change at your organization.

Check out our video on corporate social responsibility below, and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more explainer content!

6 Corporate Social Responsibility Examples

1. lego’s commitment to sustainability.

As one of the most reputable companies in the world, Lego aims to not only help children develop through creative play but also foster a healthy planet.

Lego is the first, and only, toy company to be named a World Wildlife Fund Climate Savers Partner , marking its pledge to reduce its carbon impact. And its commitment to sustainability extends beyond its partnerships.

By 2030, the toymaker plans to use environmentally friendly materials to produce all of its core products and packaging—and it’s already taken key steps to achieve that goal.

Over 2013 and 2014, Lego shrunk its box sizes by 14 percent , saving approximately 7,000 tons of cardboard. Then, in 2018, the company introduced 150 botanical pieces made from sustainably sourced sugarcane —a break from the petroleum-based plastic typically used to produce the company’s signature building blocks. The company has also recently committed to removing all single-use plastic packaging from its materials by 2025, among other initiatives .

Along with these changes, the toymaker has committed to investing $164 million into its Sustainable Materials Center , where researchers are experimenting with bio-based materials that can be implemented into the production process.

Through these initiatives, Lego is well on its way to tackling pressing environmental challenges and furthering its mission to help build a more sustainable future.

Related : What Does "Sustainability" Mean in Business?

2. Salesforce’s 1-1-1 Philanthropic Model

Beyond being a leader in the technology space, cloud-based software giant Salesforce is a trailblazer in corporate philanthropy.

Since its outset, the company has championed its 1-1-1 philanthropic model , which involves giving one percent of product, one percent of equity, and one percent of employees’ time to communities and the nonprofit sector.

To date, Salesforce employees have logged more than 5 million volunteer hours . Not only that, the company has awarded upwards of $406 million in grants and donated to more than 40,000 nonprofit organizations and educational institutions.

In addition, through its work with San Francisco Unified and Oakland Unified School Districts, Salesforce has helped reduce algebra repeat rates and contributed to a high percentage of students receiving A’s or B’s in computer science classes.

As the company’s revenue grows, Salesforce stands as a prime example of the idea that profit-making and social impact initiatives don’t have to be at odds with one another.

3. Ben & Jerry’s Social Mission

At Ben & Jerry’s, positively impacting society is just as important as producing premium ice cream.

In 2012, the company became a certified B Corporation —a business that balances purpose and profit by meeting the highest standards of social and environmental performance, public transparency, and legal accountability.

As part of its overarching commitment to leading with progressive values, the ice cream maker established the Ben & Jerry’s Foundation in 1985, an organization dedicated to supporting grassroots movements that drive social change.

Each year, the foundation awards approximately $2.5 million in grants to organizations in Vermont and across the United States. Grant recipients have included the United Workers Association, a human rights group striving to end poverty, and the Clean Air Coalition, an environmental health and justice organization based in New York.

The foundation’s work earned it a National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy Award in 2014, and it continues to sponsor efforts to find solutions to systemic problems at both local and national levels.

Related : How to Create Social Change: 4 Business Strategies

4. Levi Strauss’s Social Impact

In addition to being one of the most successful fashion brands in history, Levi’s is also one of the first to push for a more ethical and sustainable supply chain.

In 1991, the brand created its Terms of Engagement , which established its global code of conduct regarding its supply chain and set standards for workers’ rights, a safe work environment, and an environmentally friendly production process.

To maintain its commitment in a changing world, Levi’s regularly updates its Terms of Engagement. In 2011, on the 20th anniversary of its code of conduct, Levi’s announced its Worker Well-being initiative to implement further programs focused on the health and well-being of supply chain workers.

Since 2011, the Worker Well-being initiative has been expanded to 12 countries, benefitting more than 100,000 workers. In 2016, the brand scaled up the initiative, vowing to expand the program to more than 300,000 workers and produce more than 80 percent of its product in Worker Well-being factories by 2025.

For its continued efforts to maintain the well-being of its people and the environment, Levi’s was named one of Engage for Good’s 2020 Golden Halo Award winners , the highest honor reserved for socially responsible companies.

5. Starbucks’s Commitment to Ethical Sourcing

Starbucks launched its first corporate social responsibility report in 2002 with the goal of becoming as well-known for its CSR initiatives as for its products. One of the ways the brand has fulfilled this goal is through ethical sourcing.

In 2015, Starbucks verified that 99 percent of its coffee supply chain is ethically sourced , and it seeks to boost that figure to 100 percent through continued efforts and partnerships with local coffee farmers and organizations.

The brand bases its approach on Coffee and Farmer Equity (CAFE) Practices , one of the coffee industry’s first set of ethical sourcing standards created in collaboration with Conservation International . CAFE assesses coffee farms against specific economic, social, and environmental standards, ensuring Starbucks can source its product while maintaining a positive social impact.

For its work, Starbucks was named one of the world’s most ethical companies in 2021 by Ethisphere.

6. New Belgium Brewing’s Sustainable Practices

New Belgium Brewing has always been a proponent of green initiatives . As early as 1999, it was one of the first breweries to use wind power to source 100 percent of its electricity, significantly reducing its operational carbon footprint.

In Harvard Business School Online’s Business and Climate Change course, Katie Wallace, New Belgium Brewing's chief environmental, social, and governance (ESG) officer, elaborates on the company’s sustainable practices.

"We have biogas here that we capture from our process water treatment plant," Wallace says in the course. "We make electricity with it. When we installed our solar panels on the Colorado packaging hall, it was the largest privately owned solar array at that time in Colorado. And today, we have many other sources of renewable electricity and have invested quite a bit in efficiencies."

New Belgium Brewing also turns outward in its sustainability practices by actively engaging with suppliers, customers, and competitors to promote broader environmental change. These efforts range from encouraging the use of renewable resources in supply chains to participating in policy-making discussions that foster industry-wide sustainability. For example, it co-founded the Glass Recycling Coalition to improve recycling nationwide after recognizing sustainability concerns in the bottling industry.

New Belgium's commitment to corporate social responsibility is an ongoing process, though. The brewery continues to set ambitious targets for reducing waste, conserving water, and supporting renewable energy projects to build a more sustainable future.

The Value of Being Socially Responsible

As these firms demonstrate , a deep and abiding commitment to corporate social responsibility can pay dividends. By learning from these initiatives and taking a values-driven approach to business, you can help your organization thrive and grow, even as it confronts global challenges.

Corporate social responsibility is critical for businesses today. It enables organizations to contribute to society while also achieving operational goals. By prioritizing social responsibility, you can build trust with your stakeholders and leave a positive impact.

Do you want to understand how to combine purpose and profit and more effectively tackle global challenges? Explore our online business in society courses , including Sustainable Business Strategy and Business and Climate Change , to learn more about how business can be a catalyst for system-level change.

This post was updated on May 30, 2024. It was originally published on June 6, 2019.

About the Author

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The discursive construction of corporate identity in the corporate social responsibility reports: a case study of starbucks.

• School of English for International Business, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

Both corporate identity and corporate social responsibilities are of strategic importance to companies’ reputation and competitiveness. From a social constructivist view, identity is constructed in discourse. Therefore, this study sets out to investigate how corporate identity is discursively constructed in corporate CSR communication. Taking Starbucks as an example, this corpus-assisted study explores how Starbucks deploys nomination, predication, and intensification strategies and the corresponding linguistic resources to discursively construct itself and its main stakeholder groups in the CSR reports from the perspective of Discourse-Historical Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis. Also, how Starbucks addresses or presents issues in which scandals or problems reside is investigated. The findings show that Starbucks explicitly constructs itself as the supportive care-taker of the partners, faithful deliverer of good customer experience, powerful helper of poor farmers, and CSR-conscious selector of suppliers, who takes a strongly committed and proactive CSR stance through the discourse. However, behind such discursive construction are the hidden ideologies and corporate agenda of a capitalistic nature, with Starbucks veiling the power dominance and unequal power relations. This study not only contributes to the understanding of the discursive construction of corporate identity, but also helps raise peoples’ awareness of the power game at play behind the corporate discourse.

Introduction

The word identity is rooted in the Latin attribute idem, which means ‘the same,’ and later nominalized as identitas, meaning sameness. It is used to designate the particular characteristics by which a person or an entity becomes recognizable ( Bamberg and Dege, 2021 ). Once a huge philosophical problem explored passionately by philosophers, the concept of identity has grown to be extensively investigated in various academic disciplines like sociology, psychology, and anthropology. Then, with the emergence and proliferation of companies, the concept of identity has also been applied to companies/organizations by scholars and practitioners in the business and management fields, where companies are metaphorically deemed as actors who think, reason and behave, capable of conceiving of themselves and others as having identities ( Brunsson, 1989 ; Sevón, 1996 ). By nature, corporate identity answers the questions ‘who we are as a company,’ ‘what we stand for,’ ‘what we do,’ ‘how we do it,’ and ‘where it is going’ ( Bernstein, 1984 ; Albert and Whetten, 1985 ; Melewar and Jenkins, 2002 ), which can serve to differentiate one company from the others. Research (as cited in Simões et al., 2005 ) has proved the existence of positive correlations between a positive corporate identity of a company to superior performance. Therefore, companies are motivated to construct an identity favorable to the stakeholders (e.g., customers and investors), so as to attract and maintain them in the hope of securing and improving their financial performance.

To construct a favorable corporate identity, companies have begun to devote themselves to an ever-growing trend in the business practices, that is, corporate social responsibility (hereafter CSR). Stimulated by the deterioration of the environment and the proliferation of social problems, peoples’ environmental and social consciousness has become all-time awakened. Therefore, more than ever before, companies are under enormous pressure and scrutiny from various stakeholder groups, including but not limited to governments, NGOs, interest groups (e.g., environmentalists), investors, and consumers. Companies are deemed as corporate citizens responsible for the sustainability of not only the economy, but also the society and the planet earth. Indeed, research has found that consumers attach great importance to a company’s CSR practices (e.g., Vătămănescu et al., 2021 ), providing further incentives for companies to pursue CSR and construct a favorable identity in this regard. In such contexts, a good corporate identity necessarily involves the active fulfillment of CSR and the proactive communication of CSR efforts in an effective way to the stakeholders ( Kotler, 2011 ; Tata and Prasad, 2015 ; Liu and Komal, 2022 ).

In terms of the construction of identity, research in various fields like anthropology, linguistics, sociology, history, and psychology, to name a few, has firmly established and acknowledged the essential role of linguistic strategies and discourse processes in the construction and negotiation of identities ( De Fina et al., 2006 ). In this light, identity is viewed from the social constructionist perspective (see, e.g., Berger and Luckmann, 1966 ) and discourse perspective (see, e.g., Fairclough, 1989 ). That is, identity is not something static and fixed, but constantly being socially constructed, maintained, and negotiated, through discourse and communication (e.g., Benwell and Stokoe, 2006 ; De Fina, 2010 ). As such, corporate identity can be construed as a process, something companies ‘do’ or ‘perform,’ rather than a static attribute that they ‘possess’ ( Bucholtz and Hall, 2005 ; Bamberg et al., 2011 ). In this sense, companies construct their identities in their communication to the stakeholders, and this is achieved by the use of discourse. Following the social constructionism and discourse perspectives, discourse is both socially constituted and constitutive, which is a social practice that is both socially conditioned and consequential ( Fairclough, 1989 ). Besides, discourse can construct and maintain or challenge general worldviews, or rather, ideologies, as “ideologies may be enacted in ways of interaction (and therefore in genres) and inculcated in ways of being identities ( Fairclough, 2003 , p: 218).” Therefore, the discursive construction of corporate identity does not merely construct certain identities, but also constructs and convey certain worldviews or ideologies. If unaware of such hidden ideologies, people may take these worldviews for granted and buy into them without questioning whether other alternatives exist.

In this study, corporate identity is considered to be discursively constructed in the corporate communication with hidden ideologies at play. In particular, the corporate identity in the CSR dimension is discursively constructed in the company’s annual CSR reports, whose aim in disclosing the company’s CSR information is to construct a positive identity, manage the corporate image and engage in dialogs with the stakeholders ( Perrini, 2005 ).

Therefore, it is this study’s objective to investigate how a company use discourse strategies and linguistic resources to construct its identity in the CSR reports and to reveal the hidden corporate agenda behind.

The case of Starbucks

This study intends to conduct and present a case study of Starbucks. The reasons are manifold. First, seen in the restaurant industry or coffeehouse industry, or as a combination of both, Starbucks comparatively stands out and is unquestionably world-renowned. Second, it has enjoyed a high CSR profile in its own industry and has appeared on many CSR-related ranking lists, which can more or less affirm its CSR achievements. Third, it is one of the pioneers in publishing annual CSR reports, starting as early as 2001, which guarantees a relatively sizable corpus for analysis.

Starbucks’ CSR reputation and stance

As a global coffee and food retailer, Starbucks has established stores in more than 80 countries and regions. In terms of CSR reputation, it has ranked eighth in Fortune’s ranking of the Most Admired Companies 2022, and has remained one of the top 10 in this ranking for many years. One of the attributes of reputation this ranking evaluates is social responsibility to the community and the environment. In addition to this, Starbucks is on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and included in many other Environment, Society, and Governance-related lists, such as Barron’s 100 Most Sustainable US Companies, Forbes’ America’s Best Large Employers, and Sustainalytics’ Global Sustainability Index. Moreover, it is ranked on Ethisphere’s World’s Most Ethical Companies list for 12 years in a row. All these official rankings demonstrate that Starbucks’ CSR efforts are world-widely acknowledged, rendering a relatively positive corporate identity in terms of CSR.

In its own industry, it is also perceived to be taking the lead in CSR. According to Restaurant Business magazine ( Brooks, 2009 ), consumers identity Starbucks as one of the few green and socially responsible companies among all restaurant chains.

However, despite the high ranking in terms of CSR and the consumers’ impression of its greenness, Starbucks also has been criticized for some of its CSR practices. In particular, its tax avoidance in the United Kingdom ( Campbell and Helleloid, 2016 ), the alleged racial bias of its staff ( Karlsen and Scott, 2019 ), and its attitudes toward unionization ( Morrow, 2022 ) have attracted strong criticism, leading to varying degrees of identity crises and damage to its brand image. Since CSR reports are important venues for the company’s communication to the external audience on the CSR issues, it would be expected that Starbucks made some responses to the criticisms it received in its CSR reports. Whether or not these responses are present, and how are they made will be revealing of Starbucks’ deliberate attempts of identity construction.

Starbucks’ CSR reporting

The most important vehicle for corporate communication on its CSR performance and plans is the annual CSR report. In terms of corporate reporting on CSR, Starbucks issued its first official CSR report as early as in 2001, making it one of the pioneers who provided a stand-alone annual corporate report specifically focused on CSR. Moreover, along with each report, there is also an independent assurance report from Moss Adams, serving as an endorsement and external audit on Starbucks’ CSR disclosure in the report.

CSR in the coffee industry and restaurant industry

To examine Starbucks’ discursive construction of its corporate identity in the CSR dimension, it would not be as informative to disregard the industry context. With regards to Starbucks’ products and services, it can be identified as belonging to the coffee industry as well as the restaurant industry. A briefing on the CSR concerns of these two industries would be insightful for the analysis of Starbucks’ identity construction in its CSR reports.

Nowadays, the coffee chain is buyer-driven, as international traders, retailers and major coffee roasters become powerful actors in the coffee chain ( Bitzer et al., 2008 ). As a consequence, many coffee producers have been pushed down below the poverty line, sometimes even to starvation ( Muradian and Pelupessy, 2005 ). The constant pressure of unstable income and the lack of regulation and enforcement mechanisms for the provision of public goods result in sustainability challenges at the production level, e.g., poor working condition, biodiversity decline and environmental degradation ( Bitzer et al., 2008 ). Furthermore, as farmers are not well-instructed to grow coffee beans in an efficient manner, or informed about marketing advantages and the quality demand on the international market ( Bitzer et al., 2008 ), they are further disadvantaged.

Besides the challenges placed on the farmers, the coffee industry also faces sustainability challenges regarding the environment, e.g., the harmful production practices and the ‘technification’ of coffee cultivation which has a negative effect on the local fauna ( Rice, 2003 ). The coffee industry is, by nature, unsustainable, as coffee farming leads to vulnerability to tropical soil erosion and leaves substantial water footprint. Since the 1990s, the coffee industry has embraced new consumption patterns which showed a growing interest in specialty, fair-traded, and organic coffees ( Ponte, 2002 ).

Within the restaurant industry, environmental issues and green awareness have attracted growing interest, with more and more consumers becoming environmentally concerned and ecologically conscious about their choices ( Hu et al., 2010 ). Following the sustainability trend, companies in the restaurant industry have embraced green practices of developing products and services respectful to the environment, energy conservation, water efficiency, recycling and so on ( Tan and Yeap, 2012 ; Jang et al., 2015 ).

From what has been provided, the most important stakeholder groups that are affected by the production of coffee are the environment and the farmers, and the consumer trend for coffee industry as well as restaurant industry is ethical consumption and green practices. Responding to these growing trends, Starbucks has been working closely with coffee farmers and promoting sustainability through reusable cups, recycles, LEED-certified building and other environmentally friendly practices ( Ruzich, 2008 ). Despite these efforts, some CSR practices of Starbucks have been found to be not as environmentally responsible as Starbucks claimed to be. For instance, although fair trade coffee is offered as an option, it is brewed in Starbucks stores only once a month ( Ruzich, 2008 ).

In this light, some green practices of companies have been doubted and have been regarded as a kind of green marketing (see as cited in Tsai et al., 2020 ). Therefore, the discursive construction of corporate identity in the CSR reports warrants a critical perspective. As critical discourse studies (hereafter, CDS) do not stop at the investigation of linguistic resources and discursive strategies for constructing corporate identity, but it also attempts to uncover the hidden values and ideologies behind the use of discourse.

As such, it would be insightful to investigate how Starbucks, as a coffee giant, addresses these stakeholder concerns in its discursive construction of the corporate identity in CSR reports from a CDS perspective.

Critical discourse studies on corporate identity construction

Among the existing literature, studies taking a CDS perspective, or a linguistic approach on corporate identity are still rather limited in number. Nevertheless, such studies shed light on what a CDS perspective can reveal in the discursive construction of the corporate identity in companies’ CSR communication.

For instance, Shinkle and Spencer (2012) conduct a critical discourse analysis on the CSR reports of multinational automotive companies and show how the companies deploy rhetorical resources to strategically position themselves in the global marketplace as global corporate citizens. They discover that “value talk” pervades these CSR reports, serving as a rhetorical resource for constructing an identity of legitimacy.

Another informing study is conducted by Livesey (2001) , who critically analyzes the eco-discourse produced by Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and finds that green rhetoric is used for sensemaking. She concludes that the construction of green identity reflects the importance of green ideologies for companies’ competitive survival, and contends that the analysis of the corporate eco-discourse can help reveal how people’s perception of the CSR are shaped. While this study has a solid theoretical framework and takes a critical perspective, it focuses specifically on the discourse level, treating discourse as the unit for analysis and does not include the investigation of linguistic resources and discursive strategies.

Similarly, Chen and Eriksson (2019) examine 22 corporate stories of healthy snack companies on their corporate websites, and find that companies use moral discourse of healthy eating to represent themselves as producers of healthy food through communication strategies used to persuade consumption. To be more specific, they report that these companies use othering discourse to distinguish themselves from the big corporate world, presenting themselves on the good side as humble, ordinary, struggling companies while placing the profit-driven mega food companies on the other side as villains. In this sense, they argue that the construction of a conscious, eco, green, and sustainable corporate identity serves a profit-driving capitalistic end.

To conclude, studies taking a CDS perspective to analyze the discursive construction of the corporate identity in CSR communication confirm the importance of the critical perspective and discourse analysis on identity construction. However, they mainly rely on the close-reading of texts, which may lack the quantitative insights on the use of linguistic resources for different discursive strategies.

Theoretical foundation

Linking social constructionism and corporate identity.

The notion of social constructionism is popularized by Berger and Luckmann (1967) , who observed that all knowledge is derived from and maintained by social interactions, on the basic of which reality is socially constructed. In other words, social reality can be seen as being constructed through a system of socio-cultural and interpersonal interactions in people’s everyday life. According to them, the construction of reality happens through three levels of processes: externalization, objectivation, and internalization ( Berger and Luckmann, 1966 ). People use discourse to describe and interpret reality, which in turn becomes artifacts or practices. Then, these discourses enter into the social world, being exchanged, and reproduced by other people, which then become an object of consciousness for people and turn into a kind of factual existence of truth. Finally, people internalize the constructed truth or make it part of the everyday practices, which then maintains the constructed reality ( Burr, 1995 ). In this sense, reality is both subjectively and objectively constructed ( Segre, 2016 ). And important for the construction is communication, argued by Berger and Luckmann (1967) , who contend that ongoing communication of stable or changed actions produces reality.

Since the 1980s, the concept of corporate identity has gained pivotal position in the realm of organizational studies. Since the publication of Albert and Whetten (1985) seminal text, interest in organizational/corporate identity has thrived, giving birth to a plethora of studies on corporate identity from management and communication perspective. While the importance of this concept is widely recognized, there has been a lack of consensus on its definitions ( Balmer, 1995 ). According to Balmer (1995) , the existing approaches to conceptualizing corporate identity can be identified as constituting sever distinct schools of thought, e.g., the total corporate communication and visual communication school, etc. With the diverse perspectives and the corresponding diverse definitions on this concept, it can be said that the concept of corporate identity is “suffering an identity crisis” ( Whetten, 2006 , p: 220).

In this study, a social constructionist perspective on corporate identity is adopted, which views corporate identity as the socially constructed products of relationships between the company and its stakeholders regarding “who the company is” ( Corley et al., 2006 ), deriving from a complex of interactions by different actors from different professional groups and hierarchical levels ( Harrison, 2000 ). To be more specific, companies pursue various corporate activities aimed at constructing its identity ongoingly, the repetition of which generates meaning over time. And companies have the sovereignty to take control of these activities to spell out what they stand for and where they are heading. Then, companies communicate to the internal and external stakeholders through discourse about their corporate activities and values that define who they are ( Otubanjo et al., 2008 ). Here, an emphasis is put on the company’s ongoing communication to the stakeholders in terms of identity construction.

Critical discourse studies and its discourse-historical approach

Following the social constructionist perspective on corporate identity, this study adopts CDS as the research paradigm for investigating the discursive construction of corporate identity in Starbucks’ CSR reports.

In this study, the term CDS is used in place of CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis) following the recommendation in the edited book of Wodak and Meyer (2016) . In this book, it is contended that CDA is not a method of doing critical discourse analysis, as there is not ‘a’ method of CDA, but many, depending on the analyst’s aims, expertise, time, critical goals, and the research project. And the heterogeneity of methodological and theoretical approaches shows that CDS ‘are at most a shared perspective on doing linguistic, semiotic or discourse analysis’ ( van Dijk, 1993 , p: 131). Therefore, he recommends to use Critical Discourse Studies for the theories, methods, analyses, and other practices in conducting a critical study on discourse. This proposal is taken seriously by other influential scholars in the CDS domain ( Wodak and Meyer, 2016 ).

CDS views the use of language as a ‘social practice’ that is both determined by social structure and, at the same time, contributes to stabilizing and changing that structure ( Fairclough and Wodak, 1997 ). Therefore, it aims to shed light on how discourse functions in constituting and disseminating knowledge, and in organizing social institutions and exercising power, so as to enable human ‘enlightenment and emancipation’ ( Wodak and Meyer, 2016 ). Concepts central for CDS are ideology, power, and discourse.

Two key concepts are integral to CDS, namely, ideology and power. To begin with, ideologies in CDS are the ‘worldviews’ which constitute ‘social cognition’ ( van Dijk, 1993 , p: 258), the ‘representations of aspects of the world which contribute to establishing and maintaining relations of power, domination and exploitation ( Fairclough, 2003 , p: 218). And the concept of power in CDS is viewed in the Foucauldian sense, who contends that power and domination are embedded and enacted by discourse ( Foucault, 1975 ).

Within CDS, there are different approaches, and five major approaches are identified ( Wodak and Meyer, 2016 ). Based on their linguistic involvement, they can be classified as focusing on only few linguistic devices (e.g., Social Actors Approach) or integrating a broad range of macro-and micro-linguistic, pragmatic and argumentative features (e.g., Discourse-Historical Approach). In this study, Discourse-Historical Approach (hereafter, DHA) is adopted, as the research interest in on the broad range of linguistic devices and strategies for the discursive construction of corporate identity. Among the major approaches, DHA is arguably the most linguistically oriented one ( Reisigl and Wodak, 2016 ), whose proposed analytic framework and tools fit the research goal of this study.

According to Reisigl and Wodak (2016 , p: 52), there are three dimensions that DHA focuses on: (1) the specific content or topic(s) of a specific discourse, (2) discursive strategies, and (3) linguistic resources. And they propose five types of discursive strategies, namely, nomination, predication, argumentation, perspectivization, and intensification/mitigation, with each being linguistically realized through a range of linguistic devices.

A note should be made that “strategy” means a more or less intentional plan of (discursive) practices adopted with the aim to achieve a particular linguistic, social, political, or psychology goal. And they are located at different levels of linguistic organization and of different complexity ( Wodak, 2015 ). Also, the categories of discursive strategies and linguistic devices are by no means fixed, but can be adapted to the specific research depending on the data, the research aims, the context, and so on ( Reisigl and Wodak, 2016 ).

Therefore, this study mainly explores three discursive strategies in detail, that is, nomination, predication, and intensification/mitigation strategy. The reason is that this study interests itself more in the most frequent linguistic devices used for Starbucks’ identity construction in its CSR reports, rather than the argumentation schemas (i.e., the topoi via which conclusions can be made) and the perspectivization (i.e., whose voices and standpoints are presented). While nomination, predication, and intensification/mitigation strategies can be explored in a quantitative way by using corpus tools to generate results based on the frequency of linguistic devices, argumentation and perspectivization can hardly be explored in the same way.

Since this study focuses on the discursive construction of corporate identity, it takes in the stakeholder theory in the organizational studies and views corporate identity as premised on the relationships the company discursively constructs between itself and its various stakeholders. Therefore, it takes the nomination strategies to examine how the company nominates itself and what stakeholder groups are nominated in the CSR reports, while the predication strategies shed light on what kinds of action define and construct the relationship between the company and its various stakeholders. Intensification/mitigation strategies are explored in combination of nomination and predication to see the degree of certainty, i.e., how strong the company’ voice is, in making the statements of its relationship with the stakeholders.

In addition to the three discursive strategies mentioned above, in this study, another discursive strategy will be included, that is, erasure. It is defined as a form of exclusion or marginalization, particularly in relation to identity categories,’ ( Baker and Ellece, 2011 ). It forms an implicit appraisal pattern, by not mentioning X or using linguistic means to push X into the background. In the daily operations and the interaction with various stakeholders, hardly can any company be exempt from making mistakes and facing challenges, especially for large multinational companies. Therefore, whether companies address the doubts and accusations they harbor and how they respond to their corporate scandals in the CSR reports also constitute their strategies in identity construction and reveals their hidden values and ideologies. Therefore, in this study, with regards to Starbucks’ corporate scandals, investigation will be made on whether or not, and how are they presented in the CSR reports.

Data and methods

Corpus of starbucks’ csr reports.

The corpus under investigation consists of all Starbucks’ CSR reports ever released from the year 2001 to 2020. These reports were downloaded in the pdf form from Starbucks’ official websites, and then converted to plain text (txt.) form. Then, a manual cleaning of the texts was conducted to exclude the following elements in the corpus: 1. captions for any illustrations or photos; 2. tables, diagrams, and figures; 3. the independent report (in the form of a letter) produced by a third party; 4. the section “About the report”; 5. the Mission Statement and Guiding Principles that occur in almost all the reports; and 6. hyperlinks. The total word count of the corpus is 208,444, and the word count for each year’s report is shown in Table 1 . The reference corpus in this study is AmE06 Corpus, which is a one-million-word corpus of published general written American English taken from 15 genres of writing.

Table 1 . Word count for each year’s CSR report.

Corpus-assisted discourse analysis

This study combines quantitative and qualitative methods for the advantages of such an approach (see, e.g., Baker et al., 2008 ). A quantitative analysis provides a ‘bird’s eye view of the presence of identity ( Van de Mieroop, 2007 , p: 1122), providing initial insights into the data for further scrutiny, while a qualitative analysis offers more detailed insights into the how identities are constructed in a specific way in the context.

To be more specific, this study is corpus-assisted, using corpus tool WordSmith 5 to process the corpus to generate the quantitative results, based on which a qualitative analysis is made. To be specific, the keyword list is generated, from which significant keywords are manually selected and classified. Next, concordance analysis on the selected keywords is conducted, yielding necessary contextual information about the keywords. In addition, collocation analysis is conducted on the high-frequency keywords, so as to uncover existing patterns of use and reveal what identities are constructed. Moreover, additional steps may follow after the above procedures to shed further light on the discursive strategies and patterns of linguistic resources for identity construction.

The discursive construction of Starbucks

Nomination and predication of starbucks.

Starbucks, the company name, serves as the nomination of the company itself in the CSR reports, which appear 2,866 times in total. Collocates that are to the right of the node word ‘Starbucks’ are searched for, and the verbs and nouns are manually coded among the top 30 collocates. The results are shown in Table 2 .

Table 2 . Most frequent verb and noun collocates of ‘Starbucks’.

First, we will examine the collocate ‘is,’ as its concordances comprise Starbucks’ most explicit identity statements. By a manual examination of all the 179 occurrences, concordances in which ‘Starbucks is’ is followed by nouns are taken out. The linguistic examples can be grouped under the following explicit statements of Starbucks’ corporate identity:

Starbucks as a member of CSR-related organizations

1. Starbucks is also a member of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Green Power Partnership. (2006)

2. That’s why Starbucks is one of the founding members of the Sustainable Coffee Challenge… (2017)

Starbucks as the largest buyer of CSR-related resource

3. Starbucks is the largest buyer of East Timor’s highest-quality Coffee. (2004)

4. Starbucks is the number one purchaser of renewable electricity in its sector on the EPA’s Green Power Partnership National Top 100 list. (2006)

Starbucks as a gathering place and as a good employer

5. Starbucks is a gathering place , a place to connect, a barista offering a cup of coffee with an outstretched hand. (2012)

6. Starbucks is a best place to work . (2013)

We now turn to the other frequent verb collocates of Starbucks, which can give us a clue as to what actions are ascribed to Starbucks as an agent. Based on the actions, we can assign a role to Starbucks. A manual examination of all the concordances of the verb collocates are done, generating the following summary of identity:

Starbucks as an environmental-conscious purchaser:

7. Starbucks purchased considerably more certified organic coffee in fiscal 2005 than in the previous year. (2005)

Starbucks as a CSR projects/initiatives launcher:

8. In fiscal 2002, Starbucks launched two initiatives to improve our recycling rates. (2002)

Starbucks as a provider of funds for CSR causes:

9. Starbucks provided financial support to 42 environmental organizations across North America. (2012)

Starbucks as a supporter of CSR causes/community:

10. As a company, Starbucks supports nonprofit organizations in our communities with cash contributions and product donations. (2004)

After the verb collocates are examined, we now turn to the most frequent noun collocates for Starbucks as pre-nominal modifiers, which can show us what Starbucks is associated with in the CSR reports. Listed below are the identity statements that can be summarized from the noun collocates. Due to limit of space, not all collocates will be illustrated with an example.

Starbucks is about the stores.

Starbucks is about coffee.

Starbucks is about business.

Starbucks is about growth.

Starbucks is about making CSR commitment:

Starbucks is about experience

11. It’s the coffeehouse experience – a third place between work and home – that connects customers to coffee in an inviting, enriching environment that is comfortable and accessible. We call it the Starbucks Experience . (2003)

What is worthy of note is that in (11), a unique term is coined---the Starbucks Experience. This is arguably the most auspicious way for identity construction through nomination. The Starbucks Experience can be understood as a metaphor: Starbucks is a third place for connecting people. A third place is a term frequently mentioned on Starbucks’ website and incorporated in Starbucks’ mission statement and vision. Indeed, this is the identity that Starbucks constructs to set itself apart from the rivals. It has made ongoing and various attempts to brand Starbucks coffeehouses as a “third place” by encouraging patrons to engage in diverse social networks ( Rosenbaum et al., 2007 ). And in the CSR reports, efforts are made to reinforce this identity.

Semantic prosody of Starbucks

As the semantic prosody often reveals whether a word is associated with positive or negative evaluations, it is of interest to look into the semantic prosody of ‘Starbucks’ so as to shed some light on its identity construction. A collocate list for ‘Starbucks’ is generated, which results in a total of 994 collocates appearing no less than five times within five slots before and after the node word. Then, a manual examination of all the collocates is conducted, leading to the identification of the adjectives, adverbs, and nouns with evaluative meaning. Among all the collocates, only 48 are identified as having explicit evaluative meanings, among which 33 are associated with positive connotations and 5 with negative connotations, as is shown in Table 3 .

Table 3 . Collocates of ‘Starbucks’ with explicit evaluative meanings.

From the table, we can see that the semantic prosody of ‘Starbucks’ is overwhelmingly positive, which is in congruence with the Pollyanna Effects found in corporate communication ( Hildebrandt and Snyder, 1981 ). That is, companies tend to put themselves in a positive light while avoiding negative association.

To be noted, the coding of the positive/negative association is dependent on the context in which the collocates appear, instead of merely by the dictionary sense of the word itself. For example, the adjective ‘aggressive’ is often associated with a negative connotation. However, from its specific use in the context, it is decided that this collocate contributes to the positive prosody. As is shown in (12), positive evaluation is assigned to the use of ‘aggressive’ because in the context, it is employed to show Starbucks’ highly ambitious goal, which constructs an identity that is bold, audacious, and forceful in pursuing CSR.

12. Starbucks has set aggressive goals for C.A.F.E. Practices, reflected in the amount of coffee we plan to purchase from participating suppliers. (2005)

In the same manner, the noun collocates which are neutral in themselves (i.e., ‘impact’ and ‘change’) are classified as having positive connotations based on their use in the context. For instance, in (13), ‘impact’ is used in juxtaposition with ‘benefit’ in parallel grammatical structure, so the latter is intended to be interpreted in the same light with the latter. In this way, through deliberate wording, ‘impact’ is invested with positive connotations, which is conducive to the construction of a positive identity for Starbucks. And in (14), ‘change’ is used to testify Starbucks’ constant commitment to CSR in the sense of adopting strong corporate governance practices, which, again, contributes to the construction of a positive corporate identity.

13. Starbucks contributions will have greater impact and provide more benefit to communities around the world. (2006)

14. This change demonstrates Starbucks ongoing commitment to strong corporate governance practices. (2007)

Also worth mentioning is that, there are only five collocates with negative prosody among all the collocates for ‘Starbucks,’ and no adjective or adverb collocates showing negative connotations are identified. Among the noun collocates associated with negative connotations, three detonate external factors beyond the manageability and influence of the company (i.e., ‘hurricane,’ ‘disaster,’ and ‘earthquake’). And the rest detonate things within Starbucks’ control (i.e., ‘challenges’ and ‘injury’), for which proactive efforts are promised.

Also, concordances for ‘challenges’ are manually examined to determine the source of the challenges presented in the CSR reports. And the results indicate that they are presented as being posed or brought about by factors external to the company, with ‘Starbucks’ being constructed as the innocent victim who actively tries its best to cope with these challenges, (see 15) and (16). In these cases, an identity of a courageous company who is subject to the challenging external world but takes an active role in living up to the challenges are discursively constructed.

15. The difficult business climate in fiscal 2008 and beyond has brought challenges to Starbucks and the communities we serve. (2008)

16. Through our efforts, we hope to alleviate healthcare challenges for Starbucks and our partners, and all other US companies and employees whose healthcare benefits are threatened. (2007)

With regards to the collocate ‘injury,’ although the negative-meaning-loaded word is used, its mentioning in the sentence is to address stakeholders’ relevant concern explicitly and to showcase Starbucks’ attitude and commitment toward mitigating risks of injury. In this way, Starbucks discursively constructs an identity of a responsible and conscientious company who goes all out to ensure the safety of its stakeholders, as is in (17). And in terms of collocates detonating natural disasters, such as in (18), Starbucks discursively constructs an identity that actively shoulders the responsibility of a global citizen who compassionately provides aides to people in need.

17. We consider partner and customer safety first and foremost as we develop and select Starbucks products and equipment – and strive to “engineer out” as many causes of injury as possible. (2006)

18. In response to the 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the Starbucks Foundation and Starbucks Coffee Japan gave $1.2 million to the Red Cross for relief and recovery efforts and established a Caring Unites Partners (CUP) fund to help eligible impacted partners in Japan. (2011)

To conclude, the semantic prosody of ‘Starbucks’ is overwhelmingly positive. In the cases of collocates with negative connotations, they are used to construct Starbucks as a responsible, proactive, caring, and conscientious global citizen. And this finding is in congruence with the findings of Fuoli (2018) , who found that in the CSR reports, companies use stance markers to construct themselves as committed, honest, and caring corporate citizens.

Intensification/mitigation of the voice of Starbucks

Another linguistic resource for nominating Starbucks are the first-person pronouns. As companies are inanimate, it can only speak through its representatives in a collective voice. Therefore, only the plural forms of first-person pronouns (i.e., ‘we,’ ‘us’ and ‘our’) are used as self-referring linguistic devices for the construction of corporate identity. A search of the three devices in Starbucks’ CSR reports shows that there are 3,630 occurrences of ‘we,’ 2,810 of ‘us,’ and 4,908 of ‘our.’

For identity construction, the use of the subject form of first-person plural pronoun ‘we’ is considered to be of primary importance, as it helps construct the company as an active agent in the social world. Moreover, the intensification/mitigation discursive strategy can contribute to the construction of identity by reinforcing or weakening the degree of certainty invested in the statements being made. Therefore, by investigating the collocates of ‘we,’ we can gain some insights on how this discursive strategy is utilized in Starbucks’ CSR reports for identity construction. Among all the resulting collocates, those which serve to intensify or mitigate the voice are identified, with the top six collocates presented in Table 4 .

Table 4 . Top six voice-intensifying/mitigating collocates of ‘we’.

On the whole, it is quite revealing that all of the top six collocates serve to intensify rather than mitigate the voice. In order to better understand how are these voice-intensifying devices used in Starbucks’ CSR reports for identity construction, and more importantly, what actions are being intensified, we will explore the collocates for these devices further.

To begin with, verb collocates of ‘will’ are identified. By a careful reading of all concordance lines, it is found that this voice-intensifying device is mainly used to reassure the audience of Starbuck’s strong volition and firm determination to fulfill its CSR agenda. Here, we come across an interesting finding: the most frequent verb following ‘we will’ is ‘continue,’ appearing 40 times in the corpus. The strong commitment made to continuing what Starbucks has been doing is, by itself, an acknowledgment and reinforcement of the righteousness and achievement of Starbucks’ CSR activities, (see 19).

19. We will continue to work cooperatively with organizations throughout the world to identify, test and implement the most effective and sustainable energy efficiency initiatives. (2011)

The manual examination of its use in context reveals that the second most frequent collocate ‘can’ also serve to intensify the voice of the self, expressing a relatively strong degree of certainty and emphasizing Starbucks’ capability of helping, improving, and making impacts on the environment and the stakeholders, as in (20). Another prominent voice intensifier on the list is ‘must,’ whose use in Starbucks’ reports is accentuating the strong obligation perceived by Starbucks to take certain actions to fulfill its CSR, (see 21).

20. We can use our scale for good, and catalyze change across entire industries so that Starbucks and everyone we touch can endure and thrive. (2012)

21. As we grow, we must focus on engaging with local groups, listening to our neighbors about what’s important to them and determining how Starbucks can best contribute to their neighborhoods. (2004)

Among the top eight collocates, there are three cognitive verbs (i.e., ‘believe,’ ‘know,’ and ‘recognize’), all of which carry a relatively strong degree of certainty. As such, they intensify the corporate voice and construct an identity that is assertive and confident. All of their concordance lines are carefully examined to identify to what end they are used in Starbucks’ CSR reports.

To begin with, of the 110 occurrences of ‘believe,’ three topics are identified. That is, in Starbucks’ CSR reports, ‘believe’ is mainly used to: justify an action (22), emphasize positive impacts (23), and acknowledge the importance of CSR (24). From the examples, we can see that Starbucks uses this voice-intensifying device to constructs an identity that is highly committed and confident in the positive impacts its CSR activities can bring to the stakeholders.

22. We believe the process leads to better results. (2005)

23. We believe the growth of Starbucks has created employment and business opportunities within the specialty coffee industry. (2001)

24. We believe it’s our environmental responsibility to find ways to reduce these emissions. (2004)

The other two voice-intensifying verbs are ‘recognize’ and ‘know,’ whose concordance lines are examined, resulting in the following findings about their usages in Starbucks’ CSR reports. To begin with, over half of the occurrences of ‘know’ convey Starbucks’ explicit acknowledgment of existing challenges and room for improvement, as in (25). Its other usages involve the recognition of the importance of customers’ trust (26) and of farmers’ contribution (27). The use of another voice intensifier ‘recognize’ shows similar patterns, with Starbucks emphasizing its acknowledgment of the imperfections and the need for continuous CSR efforts.

25. Although we are proud of how far we have come since our first report, we know there is still a long way to go. (2010)

26. We know that our customers’ loyalty and trust must be earned. (2007)

27. We know our success as a company is linked to the success of the thousands of farmers who grow our coffee. (2013)

In general, the six most frequent voice adjusting collocates of ‘we’ all serve to intensify instead of mitigate the voice. In other words, they are conducive to the construction of a strongly assertive, confident, and committed corporate identity.

The discursive construction of stakeholders in the CSR reports

Main stakeholders are identified in the wordlist of the corpus. Altogether, four groups of stakeholders are identified, whose frequencies are presented in Table 5 .

Table 5 . Frequency of the nomination of each stakeholder group.

From the frequency of total occurrences, we can infer the relative weight each stakeholder group bears on Starbucks’ CSR performance. Clearly, the most frequently nominated and thus the most heavily weighted are partners, followed by farmers and customers, and suppliers are least nominated.

The discursive construction of partners

According to the frequency of the nomination of partner(s), this stakeholder group is of utmost salience in Starbucks’ CSR reports. Indeed, the fact that Starbucks refers to its employees as partners is a proof that Starbucks recognizes the importance and value of its employees. A collocation analysis is conducted to find out how ‘partner(s)’ is predicated in Starbucks’ CSR reports, with the top six most frequent collocates being presented in Table 6 .

Table 6 . Top six most frequent collocates of ‘partners’.

As is shown in the table, the most frequent collocate is ‘program,’ and the examination of the concordance lines shows that in Starbucks’ CSR reports, frequent mention is made about the various programs it carries out for partners. The next frequent collocate is ‘store,’ and the examination of its concordance lines show that ‘store partners’ are frequently nominated in Starbucks’ CSR reports. In most of the occurrences, Starbucks explicitly conveys its recognition of the contribution of store partners (28), and acknowledges their significance to Starbucks (29).

28. Our store partners are very innovative when it comes to reducing waste. (2004)

29. Our baristas and their fellow store partners are the face of Starbucks, engaging with our valued customers every day. (2003)

There other three collocates are ‘support,’ ‘benefits,’ and ‘help.’ A close examination of their concordance lines shows that in most cases, partners are the receivers of the support, benefits, and help from Starbucks, as is shown in (30–32). And through voicing the partners in this way, Starbucks constructs for itself an identity of a supportive, helpful, and caring employer.

30. The Thrive Wellness Initiative combines education, communication and participation to help our partners live healthy lives. (2015)

31. We have many programs that encourage and support partners to make a difference in their communities. (2007)

32. Recently, we extended COVID-19 benefits for U.S. par tners , including paid time off to get vaccinated… (2020)

The discursive construction of farmers

Due to the specific industry to which Starbucks belongs, farmers who grow coffee beans are arguably the most important stakeholder group in its value chain. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that farmers are frequently voiced in Starbucks CSR reports. The examination of the collocates of ‘farmer(s)’ results in collocates that are identified as serving the predication strategy for the discursive construction of identity, with the top four presented in Table 7 .

Table 7 . Top four frequent collocates that predicate farmers.

An examination of the concordance lines shows that these four collocates are all linked together in voicing and evaluating the farmers. To start with, ‘support’ and ‘help’ both position farmers as the recipients. That is, the farmers are constructed as beneficiaries who receive support and help from Starbucks, as is shown in (33). The help given to the farmers who grow coffee beans for Starbucks is meant both for increasing the coffee bean quality (which is to the advantage of Starbucks) and for providing economic returns for the farmers, as is in (34). By such positioning, the farmers are discursively constructed as relying on Starbucks for their livelihoods.

33. In 2010 alone this support helped nearly 56,000 farmers who grow our coffee in ten countries. (2010)

34. Ultimately, we hope to help farmers increase both coffee quality and yields to help them become more economically stable and more resilient, long-term producers supporting the specialty coffee market. (2013)

The collocate ‘small’ specifically nominates farmers who work on a small coffee farm as important stakeholders for Starbucks. In the CSR reports, these farmers are constructed as being vulnerable and disadvantaged, to whom Starbucks shows much care. By discursively constructing the problems faced by these farmers, Starbucks expresses its steadfast commitment and determination to help solve these problems, as in (35). By voicing the farmers in this way, Starbucks discursively constructs an identity that is the provider of financial help and support for small-scale farmers.

35. We’re steadfastly committed to helping small-scale farmers thrive now and in the future. (2009)

The discursive construction of customers

Customers constitutes the third most frequently nominated stakeholder group in Starbucks’ CSR reports. However, a close examination only results in the identification of two collocates that reveal how customers are voiced in the reports, as are shown in Table 8 .

Table 8 . Most Frequent collocates that predicate the customers.

As is shown in the table, the most frequent collocate is ‘partners,’ which means that the nomination of customers often goes in tandem with the nomination of partners. As such, customers are discursively constructed as sharing common ground and having a close relationship with partners. An investigation of the concordance lines of their co-occurrences shows that they are recognized by Starbucks as a means for the CSR end. To be more specific, Starbucks views customers and partners as the subjects toward whom it has the responsibility to raise their environmental awareness as part of its own CSR calling, as is exemplified in (36).

Why are customers voiced as sharing the same ground as partners in Starbucks’ CSR reports? The answer may be found in (37). That is, in the CSR reports, partners and customers are constructed as constituting the communities that Starbucks serves. In other words, partners are the interface and medium through which Starbucks interacts and builds relationships with the customers.

36. But it also serves as a platform for building awareness among our partners and customers about the responsibility we all share for the environment. (2004)

37. When the holiday season arrives, it heightens the community spirit in our partners and customers. (2007)

38. Earning and maintaining the trust and respect of our more than 145,000 employees – whom we call partners – means improving our customers’ experience and our success as well. (2006)

The collocate ‘experience’ also helps constructs the relationship between customers and partners. In (38), Starbucks equates earning the trust and respect of its partners with improving customers’ experience. In this way, customers are voiced as the service/products receiver of Starbucks, while Starbucks is constructed as a reliable provider of good customer experience.

The discursive construction of suppliers

The last stakeholder group voiced in Starbucks’ CSR reports consists of the suppliers. In fact, the total frequency of the nomination of suppliers is significantly lower than that of the other four stakeholder groups, indicating the relatively low importance attached to them. The most frequent collocates predicating the suppliers are presented in Table 9 .

Table 9 . The most frequent collocates predicating the suppliers.

As is shown in the table, ‘diversity’ and its adjective form ‘diverse’ are the top two most frequent collocates that predicate the suppliers. A close examination of their concordance lines shows that in the CSR reports, Starbucks accentuates its commitment to supplier diversity frequently. For instance, in (39), Starbucks discursively constructs its responsibility toward the suppliers as ensuring their diversity, and frames supplier diversity as creating business opportunities and economic impacts.

Another collocate of ‘suppliers’ is ‘preferred.’ In (40) and (41), it is shown that Starbucks evaluates suppliers as being preferable or not based on whether they share Starbucks’ values and meet its requirements, and that the favored ones can receive better contract terms from Starbucks. In this way, Starbucks constructs suppliers as candidates vying for its preferences, and itself as a strict evaluator and selector of the suppliers in its efforts to ensure the coffee beans conform to the CSR values.

39. The commitment we have made to supplier diversity is intended to provide not only opportunities for diverse businesses, but also to create a positive and sustained economic impact on the local communities where these businesses are based. (2006)

40. When doing business with suppliers in the U.S., Starbucks has made a strong commitment to diversity. We select companies that share our core values and meet our key requirements of quality, service, value, stability and sound business practices. (2004)

41. We buy from our preferred suppliers first, paying them higher prices and offering better contract terms. (2003)

Erasure in Starbucks’ CSR reports

Up to Starbucks’ latest CSR report (of the year 2020), the biggest scandals or problems it has faced include its tax avoidance in United Kingdom reported in 2012, the arrest of two African black men in its store in Philadelphia in 2018, and the ongoing problems of employee unionization throughout the years.

To begin with, Reuters published a report entitled “Special Report: How Starbucks avoids UK taxes” on October 15, 2012, explaining how Starbucks’ UK stores legally reported no taxable income while generating profits in the United Kingdom since it started operations there. This story has received wide media attention, and Starbucks’ attempts to address the criticism only fuel the criticism from the media, its customers, politicians, and UK tax-paying businesses ( Campbell and Helleloid, 2016 ). A search of the word ‘tax’ in the corpus yields quite revealing results. There are only 20 occurrences of this word in total, and they all come from reports between 2004 and 2008. Figure 1 shows the resulting concordance lines of ‘tax’ in Starbucks’ corpus.

Figure 1 . Concordance lines of ‘tax’ in Starbucks’ CSR reports. Reproduced from Antconc ( Anthony, 2022 ).

Among the 20 lines, there are several repetitions of the same wording, revealing very formulaic corporate expressions around the topic of tax. A close-reading of the concordance lines show that 12 occurrences come from the same paragraph in the reports of 2005–2007, as is in (42). In its tax policy, transparency and responsibility is not mentioned. Instead, tax policy is only viewed from the light of providing ‘competitiveness’ and ‘incentives for increased productivity.’ Clearly, here tax is not regarded as part of the company’s social and legal responsibility, but serves the profit-seeking end. In this sense, Starbucks’ tax avoidance in UK seems not so much a surprise.

42. Tax Policy – Sound tax policy will continue to play a key role in the competitiveness of U.S.-based companies. Starbucks closely monitors tax policy developments and has advocated for a tax structure that maintains incentives for increased productivity. (2005, 2006, 2007)

Another scandal of Starbucks involves the arrest of two African black men in its Philadelphian store on April 12, 2018. An employee called the police after the two black men declined to either leave or place an order before the arrival of the colleague they were waiting for. In the wake of the public outrage on this incident, Starbucks responded by calling the arrests “reprehensible” and starting to implement racial bias training for its employees ( Karlsen and Scott, 2019 ). A search of the word ‘race’ in the corpus generates 18 occurrences lines in total, as is shown in Figure 2 . However, there is only one occurrence related to the employees’ racial bias against customers, which, understandably, falls in the 2018 report. A close-reading shows that it is mentioned as part of Starbucks’ efforts to implement racial bias training on employee. Other than this single occurrence, all the other occurrences of ‘race’ point to Starbucks’ inclusion of race, gender, age, and so on regarding its partners (employees) as in (43), which constructs an identity of a non-discriminating employer.

43. We are an equal opportunity employer. In addition, we consider all qualified applicants for employment without regard to the federally protected categories of race, national origin, age, sex, religion and disability. (2017)

Figure 2 . Concordance lines of ‘race’ in Starbucks’ CSR reports. Reproduced from Antconc ( Anthony, 2022 ).

It is interesting that Starbucks makes no mention about its non-discriminating policy regarding the race of customers in the CSR reports, although it frequently emphasizes its commitment to creating a Third Place for people in its communication to the public. Whether this lack of specific mentioning in the CSR reports can be said to reveal something about the implicit corporate culture is a question open for interpretation.

Another problem related to the stakeholder group of employees is unionization. It is an ongoing problem of Starbucks. Howard Schultz, who founded Starbucks and took the role of CEO several times, have fought against unionization all the along ( Durbin, 2022 ). A search of the word ‘union’ results in 25 concordance lines in total, whose screenshot will not be provided due to the space limit. Among the 25 occurrences, 19 occurrences directly relate to the employee union. In the 2004 report alone, there are 9 occurrences, all referring to the issue of employee union. A close-reading of all occurrences in its co-text provides mush insight on the attitude of Starbucks toward unionization. For instance, in response to the public concern over Starbucks’ conflicts with the partners who wanted to be represented by a union, Starbucks explains that it is the employees’ volition to not unionize, (see 44). And in all its CSR reports, Starbucks makes explicit mention of its recognition of employees’ right to unionize 5 times only, in the year between 2003 and 2007, as in (45).

44. The election was to take place, the union voluntarily withdrew its petition, and the election did not take place. We believe that the union realized that the majority of partners who were eligible to vote were not in support of union representation. In addition, the 13 partners in one of our U.S. roasting plants who are currently represented by a union have indicated to that union, and to us, that they no longer want to be represented by the union. (2004)

45. We recognize our partners’ right to organize, and do not take action or retaliate against partners who express their views about unions or who take part in union activity. (2007)

The fact that statements like (45) only appear in the reports between 2003 and 2007 is, in itself, quite revealing about Starbucks’ stance toward employee unionization. Regarding the latest development of this issue, with Starbucks being reported to fire employees who have been involved in unionization efforts, the few mentioning of its acknowledgment of employee unions seems like a glimpse into its long-held attitude.

Following a CDS perspective, this study does not content itself with the analysis of discursive and linguistic elements only. Since discursive practices may have important ideological effects, producing and reproducing unequal power relations between the majority and minority groups through how they use language to represent the world and position people ( Fairclough and Wodak, 1997 , p: 258). Without awareness of the hidden ideologies behind the discourse, people may buy into the constructed reality unconsciously. Therefore, to reveal the latent ideologies in the discursive construction of corporate identity can help raise peoples’ awareness of the corporate agenda behind, making it possible to call for better CSR undertakings.

Starbucks’ values and ideologies toward partners

Based on how partners are voiced in Starbucks’ CSR reports, we can see that a two-fold relationship is constructed between Starbucks and its partners. On the one hand, Starbucks relies on its partners’ work, talents, and contributions. On the other hand, as part of its CSR calling, Starbucks has the responsibility to care for both their safety and their wellbeing, providing programs and benefits to support them. Indeed, in such discursive construction, Starbucks constructs an identity that is caring and supportive to the partners, which makes a responsible and reliable employer. The fact that Starbucks calls its employees by the term ‘partners’ is a deliberate effort in constructing a positive corporate identity that hides the power relation inherent in corporate capitalism.

In such discursive construction, Starbucks skillfully obscures the capitalistic ideology that employees’ value as labor force is to be maximumly exploited. And the responsibility to the employees, for instance, providing safe work environment and healthcare, is premised on employees’ value creation for Starbucks. Besides, as have been shown, in the CSR reports, Starbucks makes little recognition of the partners’ right to unionize. This somehow goes against an identity of employer who respect the rights of the employees. And the power relation between them is anything but equal, with Starbucks dominating the employees.

Starbucks’ values and ideologies toward farmers

In Starbucks’ CSR reports, farmers are voiced and evaluated as being vulnerable and thus highly dependent on Starbucks for their livelihoods. The ideologies behind such discursive construction are also capitalistic in nature, as farmers are positioned as being inferior and thus having little power. Starbucks discursively constructs the problem faced by the farmers as something beyond their own means. In this way, it constructs itself as the solution to the problem. In essence, this is an unequal relationship, with Starbucks having power dominance over the farmers. And to mask such unequal power relations, Starbucks discursively and rhetorically constructs a mutually dependent relationship between the farmers and the company.

On the other hand, in the discursive construction of its identity as the provider of help to farmers, Starbucks obscures the fact that such help also benefits itself. In this sense, Starbucks positions itself in a somewhat altruistic way. That is, it is helping the poor and vulnerable farmers because it is a responsible citizen who cares for the farmers in need.

However, the goal of Starbucks’ transaction with the farmers is to get the coffee beans to make its products so as to earn profits. And in fact, Starbucks cannot survive without buying the beans from the farmers. It just happens that the coffee bean farmers are in the under-developed areas suffering from poverty, so Starbucks can constructs its action of buying from them as heling them, shielding the fact that this transaction serves its own profit-making end.

Starbucks’ values and ideologies toward customers

In the context of the business world, customers can be said to be one of the most important stakeholder groups (the other being investors) for any company. And the relationship between a company and its customers is based on exchange, i.e., providing goods/services in exchange for profits. However, in Starbucks’ CSR reports, customers are not voiced as the provider of economic returns for Starbucks, but as the stakeholder group to which it has the responsibility to serve by providing consistent and satisfactory customer experience. As such, Starbucks obscures the exchanging nature of its relationship with the customers. In this sense, customers are positioned as the taker while Starbucks is positioned as the giver, constituting a corporate identity that is responsible and sensitive to customers’ needs.

However, Starbucks’ erasure of the issues of employees’ racial bias toward the customers may cast some doubt on its commitments to create a third place that is inviting.

Starbucks’ values and ideologies toward suppliers

Suppliers are an important link in the value chain for a company. However, the demand for suppliers is relatively stable and fixed, whereas the supply of suppliers obviously exceeds the demand. As such, the nature of the relationship between Starbucks and the suppliers is also unequal, with Starbucks the selector and evaluator having power dominance over the suppliers who are being evaluated without much agency.

On the other hand, the discursive construction of a corporate identity that is strongly committed to supplier diversity, to some extent, masks the fact that in essence, Starbucks will only choose and include diverse suppliers to its own advantage. Besides, Starbucks does not mention in the CSR reports that the diversity of suppliers actually contributes to the diversity of Starbucks’ products (e.g., coffee beans from different farms in different regions, as well as tea and cocoa bean), adding to its strengths and competitiveness.

This study conducts a corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis on Starbucks’ CSR reports to shed light on how Starbucks utilizes the discursive strategies and linguistic resources to construct its corporate identity in the CSR dimension. Through its positioning of the various stakeholders, Starbucks constructs itself as a supportive care-taker of the partners, committed provider of good customer experience, powerful helper of the poor farmers, and CSR-conscious selector of suppliers. Moreover, these identities are further reinforced by Starbucks’ use of intensification strategy to emphasize its CSR commitments, contributing to a proactive CSR stance.

However, viewing Starbucks’ identity construction from a critical perspective, we can be aware of the hidden corporate capitalism behind its discourse. Starbucks’ relationships with the main stakeholder groups are all based on its corporate capitalistic nature, serving the profit-seeking end. In other words, its very own survival relies on the transactions with these stakeholder groups. Despite its discursive efforts to construct a positive identity, this study finds that it ‘erased’ the corporate scandals or problems about tax avoidance, employees’ racial bias, and its own attitude toward unionizations. Besides, on a more general level, corporate capitalism entails the maximization of business growth and economic development, which necessarily creates the tension between companies and the environment as well as society at large ( Kazmi et al., 2016 ).

Therefore, we need to take a more neutral and objective stance toward companies’ discursive construction of a socially responsible identity. If the whole society can be more aware of the companies’ roles and stances in CSR, as well as the hidden values behind in the CSR communication, companies may be prompted and pressured to take CSR more seriously and engage in more CSR activities that will truly benefit the environment and the society.

The limitations of this study lie in the relatively small size of corpus and the lack of a diachronic perspective on the features of identity construction in different time periods. Also, due to the space limit, the discussion of the hidden values behind the discourse unfortunately may not go as deep as would be expected from a critical perspective. Future studies may consider investigating other corporate discourse (e.g., corporate annual reports, press releases, corporate websites, social network accounts). Second, comparative studies can be conducted to see whether there are industry-specific and/or country-specific features in companies’ discursive construction of the corporate identity. Also, studies can take a diachronic view to find out to what degree does companies’ identity construction vary in different time periods.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Author contributions

XL contributed to the conception and design of the study, the collection and preparation of the corpus data, the analysis of the data, and the writing of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Albert, S., and Whetten, D. A. (1985). Organizational identity. Res. Organ. Behav. 7, 263–295.

Google Scholar

Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc (Version 4.1.1) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available at: https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software

Baker, P., Costas, G., Majid, K., Michał, K., Tony, M., and Ruth, W. (2008). A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and Corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse Soc. 19, 273–306. doi: 10.1177/0957926508088962

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Baker, P., and Ellece, S. (2011). Key Terms in Discourse Analysis . New York: Continuum.

Balmer, J. M. T. (1995). Corporate branding and connoisseurship. J. Gen. Manag. 21, 24–46. doi: 10.1177/030630709502100102

Bamberg, M., De Fina, A., and Schiffrin, D. (2011). “Discourse and identity construction,” in Handbook of Identity Theory and Research . eds. S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, and V. L. Vignoles (Berlin: Springer), 177–199.

Bamberg, M., and Dege, M. (2021). “Decentering histories of identity,” in The Cambridge handbook of identity, Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology . eds. M. Bamberg, C. Demuth, and M. Watzlawik (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 25–56.

Benwell, B., and Stokoe, E. (2006). Discourse and Identity . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Berger, P., and Luckmann, T. (1966). The social Construction of Reality: a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge . London: Penguin Press.

Berger, P., and Luckmann, T. (1967). The social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge . Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Bernstein, D. (1984). Company Image and Reality . London: Cassel Educational.

Bitzer, V., Francken, M., and Glasbergen, P. (2008). Intersectoral partnerships for a sustainable coffee chain: really addressing sustainability or just picking (coffee) cherries? Glob. Environ. Chang. 18, 271–284. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.01.002

Brooks, S. (2009). Sustainability: what’s green mean? Restaur. Bus. 108:16.

Brunsson, N. (1989). The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organizations . Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Bucholtz, M., and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Stud. 7, 585–614. doi: 10.1177/1461445605054407

Burr, V. (1995). An Introduction to social Constructionism . Oxfordshire: Routledge.

Campbell, K., and Helleloid, D. (2016). Starbucks: social responsibility and tax avoidance. J. Account. Educ. 37, 38–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccedu.2016.09.001

Chen, A., and Eriksson, G. (2019). The making of healthy and moral snacks: A multimodal critical discourse analysis of corporate storytelling. Discourse, Context and Media 32, 100347–100310. doi: 10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100347

Corley, K. G., Harquail, C. V., Pratt, M. G., Glynn, M. A., Fiol, M., and Hatch, M. J. (2006). Guiding organizational identity through aged adolescence. J. Manag. Inq. 15, 85–99. doi: 10.1177/1056492605285930

De Fina, A. (2010). “Discourse and identity” in Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction . ed. T. A. Van Dijk (London: SAGE), 263–282.

De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D., and Bamberg, M. (Eds.) (2006). Discourse and Identity (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics) . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Durbin, D. (2022). Labor foe Schultz returns as Starbucks union effort grows. Abc NEWS. Available at: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/labor-foe-schultz-returns-starbucks-union-effort-grows-83562757 (Accessed on June 16th, 2022).

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power . London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for social Research . London: Routledge.

Fairclough, N., and Wodak, R. (1997). “Critical discourse analysis,” in Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction . ed. T. A. Van Dijk (London: SAGE), 357–378.

Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish-the Birth of the Prison . New York: Vintage Books.

Fuoli, M. (2018). Building a trustworthy corporate identity: A Corpus-based analysis of stance in annual and corporate social responsibility reports. Appl. Linguis. 39, 846–885. doi: 10.1093/applin/amw058

Harrison, J. D. (2000). Multiple imaginings of institutional identity. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 36, 425–455. doi: 10.1177/0021886300364003

Hildebrandt, H. W., and Snyder, R. D. (1981). The Pollyanna hypothesis in business writing: initial results, suggestions for research. J. Bus. Commun. 18, 5–15. doi: 10.1177/002194368101800102

Hu, H. H., Parsa, H. G., and Self, J. (2010). The dynamics of green restaurant patronage. Cornell Hosp. Q. 51, 344–362. doi: 10.1177/1938965510370564

Jang, Y. J., Kim, W. G., and Lee, H. Y. (2015). Coffee shop consumers’ emotional attachment and loyalty to green stores: The moderating role of green consciousness. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 44, 146–156. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.10.001

Karlsen, A. S., and Scott, K. D. (2019). Making sense of Starbucks’ anti-bias training and the arrests of two African American men: A thematic analysis of whites’ Facebook and twitter comments. Discourse, Context Media 32:100332. doi: 10.1016/j.dcm.2019.100332

Kazmi, B. A., Leca, B., and Naccache, P. (2016). Is corporate social responsibility a new spirit of capitalism? Organization 23, 742–762. doi: 10.1177/1350508415619239

Kotler, P. (2011). Philip Kotler’s contributions to marketing theory and practice. Rev. Mark. Res. 8, 87–120. doi: 10.1108/S1548-6435(2011)0000008007

Liu, Q., and Komal, B. (2022). A Corpus-based comparison of the chief executive officer statements in annual reports and corporate social responsibility reports. Front. Psychol. 13:851405. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.851405

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Livesey, S. M. (2001). Eco-identity as discursive struggle: Royal Dutch/Shell, Brent spar, and Nigeria. J. Bus. Commun. 38, 58–91. doi: 10.1177/002194360103800105

Melewar, T. C., and Jenkins, E. (2002). Defining the corporate construct. Corp. Reput. Rev. 5, 76–90. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540166

Morrow, A. (2022). Starbucks fires 7 Employees Involved in Memphis union Effort. CNN Business. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/08/economy/starbucks-fires-workers-memphis-union/index.html (Accessed on July 6th, 2022).

Muradian, R., and Pelupessy, W. (2005). Governing the coffee chain: The role of voluntary regulatory systems. World Dev. 33, 2029–2044. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.06.007

Otubanjo, O., Melewar, T. C., Cornelius, N., and Hackley, C. (2008). Social constructionism and the justifications for investigating the meaning of corporate identity through this lens. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1299658

Perrini, F. (2005). Building a European portrait of corporate social responsibility reporting. Eur. Manag. J. 23, 611–627. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2005.10.008

Ponte, S. (2002). The ‘latte revolution’? Regulation, markets and consumption in the global coffee chain. World Dev. 30, 1099–1122. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00032-3

Reisigl, M., and Wodak, R. (2016). “The discourse-historical approach (DHA),” in Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. 3rd Edn. R. Wodak and M. Meyer (London: Sage), 42–90.

Rice, R. (2003). Coffee production in a time of crisis: social and environmental connections: SAIS review. J. Int. Aff. 23, 221–245. doi: 10.1353/sais.2003.0028

Rosenbaum, M. S., Ward, J., Walker, B. A., and Ostrom, A. L. (2007). A cup of coffee with a dash of love: an investigation of commercial social support and third-place attachment. J. Serv. Res. 10, 43–59. doi: 10.1177/1094670507303011

Ruzich, C. M. (2008). For the love of joe: The language of Starbucks. J. Pop. Cult. 41, 428–442. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5931.2008.00529.x

Segre, S. (2016). Social constructionism as a sociological approach. Hum. Stud. 39, 93–99. doi: 10.1007/s10746-016-9393-5

Sevón, G. (1996). “Organizational imitation in identity transformation,” in Translating Organizational Change . eds. B. Czarniawska and G. Sevón (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter), 49–67.

Shinkle, G. A., and Spencer, J. W. (2012). The social construction of global corporate citizenship: sustainability reports of automotive corporations. J. World Bus. 47, 123–133. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2011.02.003

Simões, C., Dibb, S., and Fisk, R. P. (2005). Managing corporate identity: An internal perspective. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 33, 153–168. doi: 10.1177/0092070304268920

Tan, B. C., and Yeap, P. F. (2012). What drives green restaurant patronage intention? Intern. J. Business. Manage. 7, 215–223. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v7n2p215

Tata, J., and Prasad, S. (2015). CSR communication: An impression management perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 132, 765–778. doi: 10.1007/s10551-014-2328-z

Tsai, P., Lin, G., Zheng, Y., Chen, Y., Chen, P., and Su, Z. (2020). Exploring the effect of Starbucks' green marketing on consumers' purchase decisions from consumers’ perspective. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 56:102162. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102162

Van de Mieroop, D. (2007). The complementarity of two identities and two approaches: quantitative and qualitative analysis of institutional and professional identity. J. Pragmat. 39, 1120–1142. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.01.009

van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse Soc. 4, 249–283. doi: 10.1177/0957926593004002006

Vătămănescu, E. M., Dabija, D. C., Gazzola, P., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., and Buzzi, T. (2021). Before and after the outbreak of COVID-19: linking fashion companies’ corporate social responsibility approach to consumers’ demand for sustainable products. J. Clean. Prod. 321:128945. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128945

Whetten, D. A. (2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: strengthening the concept of organizational identity. J. Manag. Inqu. 15, 219–234. doi: 10.1177/1056492606291200

Wodak, R. (2015). “Critical discourse analysis, discourse-historical approach,” in The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction . eds. K. Tracy, C. Ilie, and T. Sandel (John Wiley & Sons), 42–90.

Wodak, R., and Meyer, M. (2016). Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. 3rd Edn. London: Sage.

Keywords: CSR reports, corporate identity, discursive construction, discourse-historical approach, critical discourse studies, corporate discourse, CSR communication

Citation: Li X (2022) The discursive construction of corporate identity in the corporate social responsibility reports: A case study of Starbucks. Front. Psychol . 13:940541. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.940541

Received: 10 May 2022; Accepted: 19 July 2022; Published: 24 August 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Li. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Xuyan Li, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Harvard Business School →
• Faculty & Research →
• HBS Case Collection

Starbucks Coffee Company: Transformation and Renewal

• Format: Print
• | Language: English
• | Pages: 71

Starbucks Coffee Company: Transformation and Renewal analyzes the turnaround and reconstruction of Starbucks Coffee Company from 2008 to 2014 as led by CEO and co-founder Howard Schultz. The case offers executives and students an opportunity to examine in depth how Schultz and his team saved Starbucks from near-collapse, by both executing a deep, comprehensive return to its core values and, at the same time, investing in a range of new products, customer experiences and organizational capabilities designed to make the company fit for enduring success in a turbulent global economy. Set against the backdrop of the Great Recession, the case also considers the impact of unprecedented important shifts in consumer spending and confidence as well as new competitive forces on Starbucks' transformation. The case concludes by examining Schultz's own leadership journey, the lessons he learned personally during Starbucks transformation, and how he is using these lessons—within Starbucks and on the national stage—to redefine the roles and responsibilities of a public corporation in the 21st century.

Based on extensive interviews conducted with Schultz and other Starbucks executives from 2011 to 2014, the case offers a range of vital lessons on leadership, organizational transformation, restructuring, strategy, innovation, entrepreneurial vision, and customer service.

About The Author

Nancy F. Koehn

Related work.

• June 2014 (Revised March 2016)
• Faculty Research
• Starbucks Coffee Company: Transformation and Renewal  By: Nancy F. Koehn