Starbucks Not-For-Profit Analysis

Analysis of Ethics and Values

Susan G. Komen, Not-for-Profit
According to Merriam-Webster.com, Not-for-Profit, also known as nonprofit is defined as, “not existing or done for the purpose of making a profit.” Whereas For-Profit is the opposite and is defined as “existing or done for the purpose of making a profit.” I am an ethnographic researcher for a popular organizational behavior research journal. In this article, we will be looking at 2 popular and major organizations, where one is Not-for-Profit and the other is For-Profit and identifying a key problem related to business ethics. According to Komen.org, “Breast cancer will strike more than 1.3 million women annually over the next 20 years, killing 11 million of them, with most
With that being said, even though they are ranked 94th some of the 149,000 employees may view otherwise. A problem Starbucks has had to face is in regards to the Starbucks Workers Union. Starbucks likes to portray themselves as a “socially responsible corporation”, but Starbucks workers state they face “unpredictable hours, inaccessible health care, low wages and lack of job security.” Employee Erik Forman says, "The core of the problem boils down to this: Starbucks orders 'labor ' the same way it orders coffee beans or paper cups”. If a barista at Starbucks want to be a “full time” employee, they need to expect to be available up to 70 hours a week. Forman also added, "Starbucks uses something known as 'automated labor scheduling ' software to determine how workers will be scheduled… If the system projects a slight downturn in business on a particular day or week, baristas lose work hours." Raises at Starbucks are known to “lag” behind the cost of living and the company also spends less energy on making sure their employees are covered when it comes to health insurance. Statistics show that 42% of Starbucks employees are on the company’s health care plan which is lower in comparison to a company like Wal-Mart. Based on the discontent of Starbucks employees, in May 2004, workers from midtown Manhattan launched the Starbucks
Starbucks is essentially responsible for this particular problem. If they only took the time to “take care” of their employees, none of these problems would occur and it seems as if Starbucks lacks appreciation of their staff. I believe Starbucks went along the lines of the theory egoism, where egoism is defined by our text as “…human conduct is selfishly motivated and we cannot perform actions from any other motive.” Starbucks chose profits over the expenses of providing and helping their employees. The theories Starbucks should of followed in order to avoid such problems to their business is utilitarianism and virtue ethics. Utilitarianism is defined by our text as “the theory that an action is morally right is the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone,” and virtue ethics is “the view that morality is grounded in the virtuous character traits that people acquire.” If Starbucks used these two theories, they would not be stuck in the predicament where SWU was even