{"id":2421401,"date":"2025-05-16T02:20:00","date_gmt":"2025-05-16T06:20:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/?p=2421401"},"modified":"2025-05-16T06:58:27","modified_gmt":"2025-05-16T10:58:27","slug":"starbucks-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-the-financial-impact-of-plastic-straws-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/2025\/05\/16\/starbucks-doesnt-want-to-talk-about-the-financial-impact-of-plastic-straws-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"Starbucks Doesn\u2019t Want to Talk about the Financial Impact of Plastic Straws Policy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Several weeks ago we asked Starbucks, at its annual meeting, about whether this shift away from straws actually created value for shareholders. Their response<\/a>? \u201cWe have not disclosed the financial impact of strawless lids.\u201d<\/p>\n

The fundamental question we were asking was about the sustainability assumption: that you can go green and make green at the same time. That you can save the planet by recycling more, while not affecting your shareholder return. And now, one of the biggest brands in the world is making it clear: we won\u2019t even tell our own shareholders whether the sustainability assumption is true. Go away.<\/em><\/p>\n

Several years ago, the coffee giant made a bid to phase out their routine usage of plastic straws in favor of strawless lids. The rationale<\/a>? As per Starbucks, \u201csustainability.\u201d And yet the result, at least immediately, was anything but. Analysis from Reason Magazine\u2019s Christian Britschgi revealed that the \u2018strawless\u2019 replacement actually used more <\/em>plastic than the straw\/lid combo, and Starbucks only fixed the problem years later \u2014 already evidence in favor of its sustainability strategy being more vibes than sound business analysis.<\/p>\n

As it happens, that\u2019s an industry-wide problem.<\/p>\n

The narrative on plastic use is ingrained deep within the corporate psyche. 72% of the top 300 companies in the world have made commitments<\/a> to reduce plastic use, with many setting specific targets for reducing plastic waste in their production chains. From tech giants like Google to food producers like Mars Inc, recyclable\/reusable plastic is an issue that the world\u2019s largest companies are hell-bent on opining on and making commitments to \u201cfix.\u201d But are their solutions working \u2014 even by their own standards?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Half-Truth of Biodegradable Plastics<\/h2>\n

Let\u2019s take biodegradable plastic \u2014 plastic that presumably breaks down to its base components more quickly than traditional plastic options. Major brands have tested the concept, including producers like McDonald\u2019s and PepsiCo. And yet, what\u2019s the basic assumption behind biodegradable plastic? That the material will actually degrade faster in the environment<\/em>. As per one analysis<\/a>, \u201cBiodegradable plastics decompose in environments such as soil or water, or in compost. In other words, creating an environment conducive to microbial activity is crucial for plastics to decompose effectively.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yep. We knew that. And yet, here\u2019s a 2015 report<\/a> from the United Nations Environment Programme: \u201csome plastics labelled as \u2018biodegradable\u2019 require the conditions that typically occur in industrial compositing units, with prolonged temperatures of above 50\u00b0C, to be completely broken down. Such conditions are rarely if ever met in the marine environment<\/em>.\u201d So\u2026 the key assumption behind biodegradable plastics (aka their biodegradability) is precisely the assumption that has yet to be proven.<\/p>\n

131st Time\u2019s the Charm for Reusable Shopping Bags<\/h2>\n

Let\u2019s take another example: reusable shopping bags. <\/p>\n

Retailers like IKEA, Whole Foods, and Patagonia have either outright banned plastic bags or taken significant steps to encourage customers towards using reusable bags made out of materials like cotton. The assumption here: the reusable bag has less of an environmental footprint than the plastic bag<\/em>. And yet the reusable bag strategy is fraught with problems. For one, many of the alternatives are made out of biodegradable materials (see above discussion about some of them only degrade if consistently kept above 120 degrees Fahrenheit <\/em>which, surprise surprise, doesn\u2019t consistently happen in nature). For another, the amount of times you have to reuse a bag to offset the environmental impact is astronomical \u2014 one UK analysis<\/a> from the Environment Agency found that \u201ccotton bags should be reused at least\u2026 131 times respectively to ensure that they have lower global warming potential than conventional carrier bags that are not reused.\u201d One hundred and thirty-one times just to break even<\/em>.<\/p>\n

This is the Moment to Question \u2018Sustainability\u2019<\/h2>\n

What\u2019s the next move? As ESG, DEI, and the corporate activist agendas that accompany them fall out of favor, true believers in sustainability could bother to make a serious business case for why actually reducing plastic (and not just saying<\/em> you\u2019re doing it) creates brand value for its owners, the shareholders. Or (and this is more likely) they\u2019ll make the moral argument: that the ineffective policies and questionable-at-best impacts of the corporate sustainability obsession were justified because\u2026 wait for it\u2026 they were trying to do the right thing.<\/p>\n

Do DEI programs actually help \u2014 or are they often designed<\/a> to make consultants money as opposed to fix prejudice? Does ExxonMobil really need to do less business in oil and gas \u2014 or did a bunch of activists just make that up<\/a>? Many of the questions that ESG and DEI-aligned activists consider asked and answered are, in fact, just loudly stated claims that almost no one has the guts to seriously challenge \u2014 claims that corporate engagement firms like us, as advocates of markets and fiduciary duty, have a responsibility to be questioning. And maybe the biggest claim that deserves questioning is this one: are corporate \u2018sustainability\u2019 practices actually\u2026. Sustainable?<\/p>\n

Life is full of moments in life where we realize: I\u2019ve always assumed that was true \u2014 but is it?\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Asking a simple question about the structure of a business can be the difference between investing in a successful start-up and sinking thousands into a scam. Asking a simple question about the details of a story you\u2019ve been told can reveal a web of dishonesty. It\u2019s an unfortunate reality that many dysfunctional systems, from the scam to the cult to Ponzi scheme, operate on premises that were never true, but that people just assumed<\/em> to be so.<\/p>\n

All things come with tradeoffs, a simple reality that sustainability experts understand<\/a>. You can ban plastic straws, but paper ones come with their own cost, including environmental ones.\u00a0<\/p>\n

University of Michigan researchers recently examined the trend<\/a> of sustainability-minded consumers from single-use plastics to reusable products, such as bamboo drinking straws. Remember the assumption: that sustainable products, with enough use, have less environmental impact than disposable ones. The UM researchers, however, found that some products, like beeswax wrap (an alternative to plastic wrap), silicone bags, and bamboo drinking straws never end up being better <\/em>on environmental impacts like energy usage and water consumption. UM environmental engineer Shelie Miller summed up<\/a> the study\u2019s findings: \u201cDon\u2019t always assume that reusable is the best option,\u201d Miller said. \u201cSome reusable alternatives never break even because it takes more energy, and generates more greenhouse gas emissions, to wash them than it takes to make the single-use plastic item.\u201d It\u2019s the assumption game \u2014 and far too many corporations banked on that assumption because a loud cadre of activists told them they shouldn\u2019t question it.<\/p>\n

The best time to question the fundamental assumptions of the sustainability narrative was years ago, before corporate policies started being made in its image. The second-best time is now. And when the only answer we consistently get to these questions is diversion and secrecy\u2026maybe the scrutiny\u2019s overdue.<\/p>\n

The post Starbucks Doesn\u2019t Want to Talk about the Financial Impact of Plastic Straws Policy<\/a> was first published by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)<\/a>, and is republished here with permission. Please support their efforts.<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Several weeks ago we asked Starbucks, at its annual meeting, about whether this shift away from straws actually created value for shareholders. Their response? \u201cWe have not disclosed the financial impact of strawless lids.\u201d The fundamental question we were asking was about the sustainability assumption: that you can go green and make green at the …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":437,"featured_media":2324418,"comment_status":"close","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[59],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2421401","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-economics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2421401","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/437"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2421401"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2421401\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2421402,"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2421401\/revisions\/2421402"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2324418"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2421401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2421401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monetizemail.com\/magatoon\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2421401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}