For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.

case W C
March 31, 2021
Andrew Hoffman

Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address

Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice

In June 2018, Robin Clawson,i Starbucks’ director of public and government affairs, stared out her office
window at the Seattle skyline. It was a calm and warm evening, a welcome feeling after a hectic month for
Clawson and her team.

On May 14, the city government had instituted a new employee hours tax on large businesses, aimed at
supporting affordable housing and homelessness services. Starbucks was known for social concern, but had
decided to be a leader in opposing the tax. John Kelly, senior vice president, global public affairs and social
impact, had said, “There’s no reason why one of the wealthiest cities in the world should have children
sleeping in cars.” But, he said, the solution is not to funnel more money through a city council that had
thus far failed to show it could spend it effectively. Kelly added that the cost of the tax to the company was
of secondary importance.1 Seattle corporations felt they were being penalized for creating economic growth.

Seattle was known as one of the most progressive cities in the United States, with a local government
active in ensuring citizens’ rights, especially related to the homelessness crisis in the area. Clawson had not
been surprised when the Seattle City Council voted 9-0 to pass the controversial tax. It required companies
located in the city whose annual gross revenue surpassed $20 million to pay a $275 tax per employee per
year.2 Supporters of the tax argued that the city needed the funding to combat a homelessness epidemic.
Opponents called it a counterproductive tax on job growth.

The day after the council vote, Kelly issued a statement: “This city continues to spend without reforming
and failing without accountability, while ignoring the plight of hundreds of children sleeping outside. If
they cannot provide a warm meal and safe bed to a five-year-old child, no one believes they will be able
to make housing affordable or address opiate addiction. This city pays more attention to the desires of
the owners of illegally parked RVs than families seeking emergency shelter.”3 Clawson noted that Kelly’s

i
Robin Clawson is a fictional character.

Published by WDI Publishing, a division of the William Davidson Institute (WDI) at the University of Michigan.
© 2021 Matthew Boelens, Douglas Ely, and Jessica Halter. This case was written by University of Michigan graduate students Matthew Boelens,
Douglas Ely, and Jessica Halter, under the supervision of Andrew Hoffman, Holcim (US) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise, a position that
holds joint appointments at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business and School for Environment and Sustainability. The case was
prepared as the basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a situation. The case should not
be considered criticism or endorsement and should not be used as a source of primary data. While most of the data in the case is factual, the
opening situation in the case is fictional in order to provide a more robust student learning experience.

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

statements criticized the government but not the tax specifically or its goals, and positioned Starbucks as
a caring member of the community, which Clawson felt was very important.

Over the next several weeks, Starbucks, Amazon, and other large Seattle-based companies mounted a
campaign to put a tax-repeal referendum on the November ballot. The controversy grew, and less than a
month after unanimously approving the tax, the City Council voted 7-2 to repeal it.

But was that really the end of the issue? Clawson’s next task was to help Starbucks move on successfully
from the controversy and to be well prepared for the next time such an issue came up. Tomorrow morning
she was to meet with senior executives, and she had many questions on her mind. How would customers
react to Starbucks’ opposition to a measure aimed at helping homeless people, especially since the company
positioned itself as a responsible corporate citizen with a broad social mission to support human rights? Was
Starbucks correct in stating that the solution was not to funnel money through an ineffective city council?
What was Starbucks’ responsibility locally, given its mission and commitment to social good?

A Brief History of Starbucks

From the 1970s to the 2010s, coffee transformed from a commodity beverage into a foundational
aspect of American and global culture. From 2005 to 2019, annual revenue of the U.S. coffee retail industry
doubled from $23.4 billion to $46.5 billion with an annual growth rate of 4.0%. Coffee consumption per
capita increased during that period from 9.47 to 10.6 pounds per year.4 Starbucks itself was born in 1971
when its first coffee store opened in Seattle’s Pike Place Market. The company’s vision shifted after Howard
Schultz joined as director of retail operations and marketing in 1982. After a 1983 trip to Milan, Italy, where
Schultz witnessed the popularity of espresso bars, he realized the potential for a similar coffeehouse culture
in Seattle. This led Schultz to launch his own company, Il Giornale, in 1985 that brewed coffee and espresso
beverages from Starbucks coffee beans. The coffeehouses became popular and in 1987 Il Giornale acquired
Starbucks, creating Starbucks Corporation.5 Starbucks had only 17 stores in 1987, but that number grew
rapidly to 3,501 stores in 2000 and 29,000 in 2018 (see Exhibit 1).6

Starbucks had become the largest coffee retailer in both the United States and globally,7 with total
revenue of $26.5 billion for fiscal 20198 and 346,000 employees (roughly 4,000 in Seattle) as of May 2020.9
Over the years, Starbucks expanded its product offering from coffee to include handcrafted beverages
(espresso, iced coffee, Frappuccino®, Teavana teas, etc.), merchandise (brewing equipment, mugs, books,
accessories, etc.), fresh food (pastries, sandwiches, yogurt, etc.), and ready-to-drink products including
bottled coffees and teas. Starbucks also expanded its geographic reach to every continent except Antarctica
(see Exhibit 2).

Social Impact Initiatives

Starbucks introduced a new corporate purpose statement in 2008 “to inspire and nurture the human
spirit—one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time.”10 As of 2018 Starbucks had positioned
itself as an advocate for pay equity, achieving race and gender parity,11 and racial equity, shutting stores
and corporate offices in May 2018 for racial-bias education.12 The majority of Starbucks’ social impact
initiatives were run through the Starbucks Foundation, which was founded in 1997 with the purpose of
strengthening humanity by transforming lives around the world. In 2018, the foundation made $1.3 million
in “Opportunity for All” grants to 47 U.S. programs and organizations ranging from $5,000 to $60,000.13
The foundation focused on enabling community resiliency and prosperity, and uplifting those affected by
disaster.14 Starbucks’ stated its five pillars of social impact efforts were:

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

1. Ethical Sourcing: Starbucks was committed to purchasing ethically sourced and responsibly
sourced sustainable coffee, tea, cocoa, and manufactured goods.15
2. Leading in Sustainability: Starbucks aimed to lead in creating sustainable agricultural products
and reducing the environmental impact of its stores.
3. Strengthening Communities: Creating opportunities for neighborhoods where stores were located
and where coffee was grown. This included diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, supporting
veterans, and supporting “thriving neighborhoods, community service, local arts, environmental
stewardship to the place we call home. We love Seattle.”16
4. Creating Opportunities: Starbucks was committed to creating opportunities for youth around the
world including training them on skills to succeed in a changing global economy. By 2020, it
planned to hire 100,000 “Opportunity Youth”—people 16-24 years old who were not working or
in school—and to create opportunities for them to grow into leaders.17
5. Global Social Impact Report: Starbucks published the reports to show how the company
was “leading in sustainability, creating meaningful opportunities, and strengthening our
communities.”18

Howard Schultz: Activist CEO

Howard D. Schultz, the CEO of Starbucks from 2008 to 2018, was credited with turning around the
company. He intervened in 2008 to save the company by stepping up as the chief executive after its stock
lost half of its value in a single year during a recession. During this rough patch, McDonald’s and Dunkin’
Donuts took some of Starbucks’ customer base, and some customers loyal to the brand thought the chain
was becoming too cookie-cutter. Schultz closed underperforming stores, trained employees on how to
provide friendly customer service, and required stores to start grinding coffee in-house again to create the
high-end ambiance that the aroma of coffee beans fostered.19 He also infused activism in his leadership.
In 2013, after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, Schultz wrote an
impassioned public letter asking customers to refrain from bringing firearms into the stores.20 He went on to
applaud the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in favor of gay marriage and designed companywide, anti-biased
trainings after two black men were arrested while sitting in a store in Philadelphia in 2018.

Not all the social initiatives he led were successful. In 2015, employees were instructed to write “Race
Together” on cups in an attempt to start conversations around the topic of race. There was backlash because
it was seen as tone-deaf and a case of the company overstepping its boundaries by using a national crisis
around race relations to promote its brand. It was also seen as insensitive to ask employees to engage with
customers on a delicate subject that many did not feel sufficiently equipped to handle during the brief
interaction of a store transaction.21 Nevertheless, Schultz actively sought ways to support social justice and
do good in the communities.22

John Kelly: Social Impact and Public Affairs

As the executive vice president of public affairs and social impact at Starbucks, John Kelly’s
responsibilities included “social impact marketing and stakeholder outreach, corporate and consumer
brand communications, media relations, executive thought leadership, partner communications, social
impact initiatives, and government affairs.”23 Kelly led three major initiatives during his time at Starbucks:
supporting baristas as they did volunteer service in their communities, achieving 100% pay equity across
race and gender in the United States, and making progress toward eliminating plastic straws worldwide.
He said that in order for companies to leave a mark on the world, “creating a positive social impact comes

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

down to being authentic, relevant and tangible.”24 Kelly was responsible for major strategic social and
environmental initiatives for the company.

Financial Overview
Starbucks had a strong financial performance in 2018, restructuring and streamlining global operations
“to focus on accelerating growth in high-returning businesses and removing non-core, slow growth
activities.” These goals were set in response to a $100 million decrease in operating profit in 2017 despite
a revenue increase of $1.1 billion.25 Throughout the year, Starbucks converted operations in Singapore,
Brazil, and Taiwan to licensed models, closed Teavana stores, sold the Tazo brand, and licensed its consumer
packaged goods and foodservice businesses to Nestlé. The company also added 895 stores in the Americas,
1,090 stores internationally (mostly in China and elsewhere near and in Asia), and acquired an East China
joint venture. These actions resulted in a 10% jump in net revenue to $24.7 billion, a 5% decrease in
consolidated operating income to $3.9 billion, and a drop of 280 basis points in operating margin, from
18.5% in 2017 to 15.7% in 2018. Starbucks generated $17.4 billion in revenue from sales in the United
States (see Exhibit 3).

In 2018, Starbucks viewed its primary competitors as specialty coffee shops offering premium and
artisanal products and experiences. Target customers chose among specialty coffee retailers primarily based
on product quality, service, and convenience, as well as price.26 Starbucks’ primary coffee shop competitors
included Dunkin’ Donuts and McDonald’s, while the primary competitors in the coffee bean market were
Maxwell House (owned by Kraft) and Folgers.27

Taxes

Prior to the passing of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in 2017, the U.S. corporate income tax rate
was 35%, one of the highest in the world. However, companies were able to deduct depreciation expenses,
pay employees with stock options, claim deductions for non-profitable periods, and, in some cases, receive
tax credits in return for the construction of a new headquarters office.28

The TCJA, which also lowered individual tax rates, reduced corporate rates and made a plethora of
changes in how company assets were classified and taxed, while preserving many of the previous laws’
preferential treatment. The result was a significant decrease in the tax burden on businesses.29 For example,
60 companies—including Starbucks—were able to legally pay no federal income taxes in 2018, and
instead received tax rebates from the U.S. government. Not all companies kept the additional money. When
Patagonia, the outdoor clothing company, saved millions as a result of the TCJA, the company donated the
savings to nonprofits that were working to solve climate and conservation issues.

The State of Washington, Starbucks’ home, did not have a personal or corporate income tax. Instead,
businesses were taxed based on their gross receipts.30

Inequality in United States

In 2018, economic inequality was higher in the United States than in virtually all other advanced countries.
Real wages for service jobs had stagnated since the 1970s while wages for executives rose significantly.
Americans’ average hourly wage had about the same purchasing power it did in the 1970s.31 From 1980 to
2018, the income share of the top 0.1 percent more than quadrupled and the top 1 percent almost doubled
while that of the bottom 90 percent declined. Three individual Americans had as much wealth as the bottom
50 percent of the country, and two of them resided near Seattle; Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates.32
4

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

The trend accelerated after the 2008 financial crisis, with the top 1% of earners capturing 85% of the
economic growth that occurred.33 A former chair of the U.S Council of Economic Advisers, Joseph Stiglitz,
said that those most responsible for the 2008 crisis walked away with millions of dollars in bonuses as
millions of Americans lost their jobs and homes. According to Nobel laureate Stiglitz, “a vicious spiral has
formed: economic inequality translates into political inequality, which leads to rules that favor the wealthy,
which in turn reinforces economic inequality.”34

Background on Homelessness

Homelessness is a tricky issue to solve because the causes are rooted in many interconnected systemic
inequalities. According to the magazine Human Rights Careers, the 10 root causes of homelessness are:
stagnant wages, unemployment, lack of affordable housing, lack of affordable healthcare, poverty, lack
of mental health and addiction treatment services, racial inequality, domestic violence, family conflict,
and systemic failures.35 An unplanned event such as a health issue can trigger homelessness.36 The Hoover
Institution did an in-depth analysis of the response to a continuing homelessness crisis in California and
found that many governments had increased their spending on addressing the crisis but that there had been
little improvement. The institution wrote, “Politicians should not be shocked by the rise in homelessness,
because state and local government policies do not address the obvious supply-and-demand factors that are
creating such large numbers of homeless people.”37

Roots of the Homelessness Crisis in the Puget Sound Region

On a single winter night in Seattle in 2017, volunteers counted 11,643 homeless people and noted
an annual average increase of 9.2% since 2014.38 A McKinsey & Co. report stated that “in King County,
homelessness has risen in line with the fair-market rent (FMR), which has in turn increased in line with the
county’s strong economic growth.”39 During the 2010s, Seattle’s population grew but affordable housing did
not keep pace. From 2009 to 2017, average rent in Seattle increased by 57%, about six times faster than
the national average, according to Zillow,40 and Seattle residents spent more than 30% of their monthly
income on rent.41 This was significantly higher than the historic norm in Seattle of 24%, and above the
national average of 28%.

In 2017, the Seattle Housing Authority opened its housing lottery and more than 21,500 applications
were received for 3,500 places on the list to receive rent subsidies.42 In addition to the outright shortage
of affordable housing, the criminal justice system, a decentralized response to a regional crisis in Seattle
and King County, and a lack of wrap-around services for youth within and exiting the foster care system
exacerbated the homelessness crisis. Seattle’s City Hall laid out the issue stating “The response to
homelessness [was] divided among many agencies and government structures, with none having authority
to establish clear priorities, reduce duplicative efforts, and align reporting measures across the board.”43

Seattle Government’s Homelessness Crisis Response

Seattle took two approaches to the crisis: prevention and emergency response. In April 2018, Seattle
began serving about 1,000 households with rental assistance and utility discounts for up to one year.
The city also increased bridge housing, a short-term option while permanent housing was being arranged,
by 25% to total 500 safe spaces (spaces that offer respite from inclement weather, social stigma, and
victimization, and space to access essential services and resources)44 and opened a new shelter serving
100 people. The city also worked to remove trash and syringes from unmanaged encampments, ran day and
hygiene centers to provide a place to rest during the day, permitted villages of tiny houses with bathrooms

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

and kitchens.45 In 2018, Seattle’s budget for homelessness prevention and response was $78 million (see
Exhibit 4).

Starbucks’ Homelessness Crisis Response

Since 2014 Starbucks had supported the Mary’s Place organization’s “No Child Sleeps Outside” campaign,
aimed at ending family homelessness; funded a Seattle Times’ “Project Homeless” reporting initiative; and
supported other charitable endeavors focused on responding to the issue. Starbucks, with cafes throughout
the city and headquarters in the Sodo neighborhood of Seattle, was acutely aware of the crisis and even
some of the company’s employees experienced homelessness.46 Starbucks called for the city to reform its
homelessness programs and show results before it raised taxes.47

A 2018 McKinsey & Company report concluded that squeezing efficiencies out of the current system
would not solve the King County homelessness crisis and that at least 14,000 units of affordable housing
were needed. According to the report, annual spending—public, private, or both—needed to double to
$410 million if the problem were to be solved. “This [was] a supply-side issue,” said Dilip Wagle, a McKinsey
senior partner based in Seattle. “We [were] just running out of affordable housing units” (see Exhibit 5).48

Seattle’s Employee Hours Tax

In November of 2017, the city created a task force to look for “progressive sources of revenue” to assist
people at severe risk of becoming homeless. Several businesses were invited to participate but ultimately
all declined and were not represented on the task force. The chair of the Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of
Commerce said businesses declined because they were tired of being blamed for Seattle’s housing crisis
and did not want to be yelled at.49 Following the McKinsey study, in May of 2018 the City Council proposed
levying a $500 per employee tax on Seattle businesses making more than $20 million annually, with the
aim of raising $75 million to combat homelessness. After major companies signaled they would reduce their
investments in the area, the council reduced its final proposal to $275 per employee per year.50

Starbucks was one of an estimated 585 Seattle-based employers that would be affected by the new tax.
Those companies represented about 3% of all Seattle businesses, according to council estimates.51 With
approximately 4,000 employees in its corporate headquarters,52 plus 130 stores within the city limits53 with
10 employees working at each store,54 it was estimated that Starbucks would have to pay approximately
$1.5 million a year.

The council went ahead and passed the tax unanimously on May 14. The employee hours tax, also
known as the head tax, worked out to be 14 cents per hour per employee. Articles in Fortune stated that
due to the new tax expenses “it may not be long until these tech companies pack their bags and move
south.”55 The Seattle Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce created a website that ran editorials against the
tax. Displays on social media showed photos of council member Mike O’Brien, who originally proposed the
tax, with the headline “Councilmember O’Brien admits that the City Council has no plan”. However, it was
later clarified that the full quote referenced the “city’s lack of a comprehensive plan for one facet of the
homelessness crisis: people living in vehicles.” 56 However, not all Seattle companies opposed the tax. Dan
Price, the CEO of Gravity Payments, who had raised the minimum salary for his 120 employees to $70,000
in 2015, wrote “the long-term benefits of supporting such a bill far outweigh any costs...the economy as a
whole will benefit ... and will make the city more prosperous for both its businesses and citizens.”57

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

Opposition Mobilizes
In response to the tax, Starbucks, Amazon, Kroger, Albertson’s and Vulcan founded No Tax On Jobs, a
committee created to add a referendum on the November ballot to repeal the tax. Each company contributed
$25,000. No Tax On Jobs raised nearly $400,000 (Bring Seattle Home, the pro-tax group, raised only
$30,000) and initially used volunteers to gain signatories but eventually paid canvassers per signature,
which led to some violent clashes where paid signature gatherers attacked volunteers to keep turf. Other
Seattle-based companies opposing the tax included Zillow, Alaska Airlines, Expedia, PayScale, Whitepages,
and Coinstar.

As corporations like Starbucks have embraced corporate social responsibility and activism, they are
receiving more blame for society’s failures because citizens see them as increasing housing unaffordability.58
Critics said that Starbucks and the measure’s other opponents must now own the homelessness problem.
“The loudest voices against the tax have to come up with a solution,” said Joe Mizrahi, political director at
supermarket-workers union UFCW Local 21.59 SEIU 775 President David Rolf said that companies channeled
public anxiety about homelessness into anger at the City Council. “This wasn’t about a tax, at the end of
the day. This was about power,” he said.60

Corporate leaders in Seattle stated that they did not believe the government was capable of handling
critical issues in the area. According to Amazon Vice President Drew Herdener, “The city does not have a
revenue problem—it has a spending efficiency problem. We are highly uncertain whether the City Council’s
anti-business positions or its spending inefficiency will change for the better.”61 Despite the McKinsey report
citing underspending as a primary cause of homelessness in the region, Starbucks’ John Kelly stated “this
city continues to spend without reforming and fail without accountability.”62 The mayor of Seattle agreed
that the government could not act alone and was interested in increased accountability and transparency
regarding taxpayer dollars.63

Politicians Weigh Options

The No Tax On Jobs petition to add a referendum on the November ballot easily achieved the required
number of signatures. Bring Seattle Home, the pro-tax group, strategized over how to proceed and
determined that without spending a few million dollars, progressives could not win the referendum. Voters
approached council members to share that though they wanted the city to come up with new resources to
fight homelessness, they didn’t think the head tax was the right way to go, Councilmember O’Brien said.64

Several council members who voted in favor of the tax decided there were other campaigns worth
spending money on. Finally, on June 12, 2018, less than one month after passing the employee hours tax,
the City Council voted 7-2 to repeal it.65 Council members also began to worry that they would be voted
out of office. Some also worried that the tax drama would hurt Democrats running for state office, and
some feared it would jeopardize a city education levy on the November ballot.66 Leaked minutes from the
Downtown Seattle Association, a group of Seattle businesses, showed the group hoped the referendum would
not just be on the tax, but also on “the City Council and how they have been stewards of tax dollars.”67

Planning for the Future

Clawson was somewhat conflicted regarding what was happening in a city she loved and lived in. She
recognized the political and emotional aspects of both sides of the debate. Starbucks’ response and how it
portrayed any upcoming efforts to revive the tax needed to be handled diplomatically and with grace and
compassion. The issue was complicated. On the one hand Starbucks wanted to support local initiatives to
help people living in the city it called home. But, on the other hand, Starbucks was a business looking to
7

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

minimize its tax burden while maximizing profits and it wanted proof that city government could effectively
address the situation before supporting it financially.

Starbucks had a strong social mission “to inspire and nurture the human spirit” and donated thousands
to nonprofits combating homelessness. However, the company was not convinced that paying more taxes
would actually help the homeless in Seattle. What was the role of private companies to support social issues
through their own foundations versus supporting them through corporate taxes? Should Starbucks managers
step in where they perceived the government had failed to address these issues? If companies don’t feel
governmental programs are effective in solving homelessness and other societal issues, what solutions
should they recommend? What other municipality tax structures could be better suited to fix homelessness?
Should corporations be trying to influence governmental policy and priorities? Did Starbucks’ opposition to
the head tax call into question the depth of its commitment to social justice?

Clawson jotted down some final notes and prepared to contribute her thoughts in the morning meeting.

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

Exhibits

Exhibit 1
Number of Starbucks Stores Globally from 1992-2018

Source: Knoema, 25 June 2020. https://knoema.com/infographics/kchdsge/number-of-starbucks-stores-globally-1992-2020.

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

Exhibits (cont.)

Exhibit 2
Licensed Starbucks Stores by Country in 2020

Source: Knoema, 25 June 2020. https://knoema.com/infographics/kchdsge/number-of-starbucks-stores-globally-1992-2020.

10

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

Exhibits (cont.)

Exhibit 3
Starbucks’ Financials, 2014-2018

Source: Starbucks. Fiscal 2018 Annual Report.

11

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

Exhibits (cont.)

Exhibit 4
Seattle’s Budget for Homelessness Response, 2018

Source: Davila, Vianna. “King County needs to spend $400 million a year to solve homeless crisis, new report says.” Seattle Times, 11 May 2018. https://www.seattletimes.com/
seattle-news/homeless/more-affordable-housing-only-way-to-solve-seattles-homeless-crisis-new-report-says/.

12

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

Exhibits (cont.)

Exhibit 5
Seattle’s Affordable Housing Shortage by McKinsey & Company

Source: Davila, Vianna. “King County needs to spend $400 million a year to solve homeless crisis, new report says.” Seattle Times, 11 May 2018. https://www.seattletimes.com/
seattle-news/homeless/more-affordable-housing-only-way-to-solve-seattles-homeless-crisis-new-report-says/.

13

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

Endnotes
1 Romano, Benjamin. “Starbucks Adds Voice to Head-Tax Criticism.” Seattle Times, 10 May 2018. www.seattletimes.com/business/
starbucks-adds-voice-to-head-tax-criticism/. Accessed 19 Feb. 2021.
2 Grothaus, Michael. “Amazon makes vague threat after Seattle passes new ‘head tax.’ Fast Company, 15 May 2018. https://www.
fastcompany.com/40572524/amazon-make-vague-threat-after-seattle-passes-new-head-tax. Accessed 14 Nov. 2020.
3 Sahadi, Jeanne. “Starbucks Slams Seattle’s New Big Business Tax.” CNN Money, 15 May 2018. money.cnn.com/2018/05/15/news/
companies/starbucks-seattle-head-tax/index.html. Accessed 19 Feb. 2021.
4 Lifschutz, Marisa. “The Retail Market for Coffee.” IBIS World, Dec. 2019. my-ibisworld-com.libproxy.bus.umich.edu/us/en/
industry-specialized/od6098/key-statistics.
5 “Starbucks Company Timeline.”Starbucks. www.starbucks.com/about-us/company-information/starbucks-company-timeline.
Accessed 19 Feb. 2021.
6 “Number of International vs. U.S.-Based Starbucks Stores from 2005 to 2019.” Statista, 15 Sept. 2020. www.statista.com/
statistics/218366/number-of-international-and-us-starbucks-stores. Accessed 24 Feb. 2021.
7 “Number of Starbucks Stores Globally, 1992-2020.” Knoema, 25 June 2020. knoema.com/infographics/kchdsge/number-of-
starbucks-stores-globally-1992-2020#:~:text=(3%20February%202020)%20Today%20Starbucks,Coffee%20with%20nearly%20
1%2C700%20stores. Accessed 21 Feb. 2021.
8 “Starbucks Reports Q4 and Full Year Fiscal 2019 Results.” Starbucks, 30 Oct. 2019. investor.starbucks.com/press-releases/
financial-releases/press-release-details/2019/Starbucks-Reports-Q4-and-Full-Year-Fiscal-2019-Results/default.aspx. Accessed 19
Feb. 2021.
9 “Starbucks (SBUX).”Forbes, www.forbes.com/companies/starbucks/. Accessed 19 Feb. 2021.
10 “Starbucks Company Timeline.” Starbucks. https://www.starbucks.com/about-us/company-information/starbucks-company-
timeline. Accessed 24 Feb. 2021.
11 Tarr, Tanya. “How Starbucks Achieved 100% Equal Pay in the United States.” Forbes, 31 Mar. 2018. www.forbes.com/sites/
tanyatarr/2018/03/22/how-starbucks-achieved-100-equal-pay-in-the-united-states/?sh=507532e3144e. Accessed 24 Feb. 2021.
12 “Starbucks to Shut 8,000 U.S. Outlets for Bias Training after Protests.” CBC Radio Canada, 17 Apr. 2018. www.cbc.ca/news/
business/starbucks-store-closures-racial-bias-training-1.4623436. Accessed 24 Feb. 2021.
13 “The Starbucks Foundation’s 2018 ‘Opportunity for All’ Grants.” Starbucks Stories & News, 23 Aug. 2018. https://stories.starbucks.
com/press/2018/the-starbucks-foundations-2018-opportunity-for-all-partnerships/#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20the%20
foundation%20made,ranging%20from%20%245%2C000%20to%20%2460%2C000. Accessed 19 Feb. 2021.
14 “The Starbucks Foundation.” Starbucks Stories & News. stories.starbucks.com/stories/the-starbucks-foundation. Accessed 21 Feb.
2021.
15 “Starbucks Ethical Sourcing of Sustainable Products.” Starbucks. https://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/sourcing. Accessed 17
Nov. 2020.
16 Fleishman, Glenn. “How Amazon’s Nonstop Growth Is Creating a Brand-New Seattle.” Fast Company, 28 Aug. 2017. https://www.
fastcompany.com/40451502/how-amazons-nonstop-growth-is-creating-a-brand-new-seattle. Accessed 14 Nov. 2020.
17 “Youth Leadership.” Starbucks. https://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/community/opportunity-youth. Accessed 17 Nov. 2020.
18 “Global Social Impact Report Goals & Progress.” Starbucks. https://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/global-report. Accessed 17
Nov. 2020.
19 Meyersohn, Nathaniel. “3 Times Howard Schultz Saved Starbucks.” CNNMoney, 5 June 2018. money.cnn.com/2018/06/05/news/
companies/starbucks-howard-schultz-coffee/index.html.
20 Weisenthal, Joe. “Read the Full Letter from the CEO of Starbucks Asking Customers to Stop Bringing Guns into Stores.” Business
Insider, 18 Sept. 2013. www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-ceo-howard-schultz-writes-letter-asking-customers-to-no-longer-
bring-firearms-into-the-stores-2013-9?international=true&r=US&IR=T. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
21 Taylor, Kate. “Howard Schultz Reveals How He Decided to Launch Starbucks’ ‘Embarrassing’ and ‘Tone-Deaf’ ‘Race Together’
Campaign Despite Internal Concerns.” Business Insider, 29 Jan. 2019. www.businessinsider.com/howard-schultz-failed-race-
together-campaign-2019-1. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
22 Hsu, Tiffany. “Howard Schultz at Starbucks: Coffee, Activism and Controversy.” New York Times, 4 June 2018. https://www.
nytimes.com/2018/06/04/business/howard-schultz-at-starbucks.html. Accessed 17 Nov. 2020.
23 “Starbucks Stories & News — Executive Team.” Starbucks. https://stories.starbucks.com/leadership/john-kelly/. Accessed 14 Nov.
2020.
24 Abo, Jessica. “This Starbucks Executive Shares How Your Company Can Make a Positive Social Impact.” Entrepreneur, 2 Aug. 2019.
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/337490. Accessed 17 Nov. 2020.

14

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

Endnotes (cont.)
25 Starbucks. Fiscal 2017 Annual Report. 1 Oct. 2017. s22.q4cdn.com/869488222/files/doc_financials/annual/2017/01/FY17-
Starbucks-Form-10-K.pdf.
26 Starbucks. Fiscal 2018 Annual Report. https://investor.starbucks.com/financial-data/annual-reports/default.aspx.
27 Hawley, Julia. “Who Are Starbucks’ Main Competitors?” Investopedia, 3 Apr. 2019. www.investopedia.com/articles/
markets/101315/who-are-starbucks-main-competitors.asp#:%7E:text=Starbucks%20has%20been%20fighting%20its,coffee%20
king%20for%20several%20years. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
28 Sherman, Erik. “With Two New Headquarters, Will Amazon Get to Double Dip on Tax Breaks?” NBC News, 13 Nov. 2018. www.
nbcnews.com/business/business-news/two-new-headquarters-will-amazon-get-double-dip-tax-breaks-n935896. Accessed 25 Feb.
2021.
29 Floyd, David. “Explaining the Trump Tax Reform Plan.” Investopedia, 30 Sept. 2020. www.investopedia.com/taxes/trumps-tax-
reform-plan-explained/. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
30 Department of Revenue, Washington State. “Income Tax.” dor.wa.gov/taxes-rates/income-tax. Accessed 21 Feb. 2021.
31 DeSilver, Drew. “For most Americans, real wages have barely budged for decades.” Pew Research, 30 May 2020. https://www.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/. Accessed 25 Feb.
2021.
32 Stiglitz, Joseph E. “The American Economy Is Rigged, and What We Can Do About It.” Scientific American, 1 Nov. 2018. https://
www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-american-economy-is-rigged/. Accessed 24 Feb. 2021.
33 Anzilotti, Eillie. “For Young People, Socialism Is Now More Popular than Capitalism.” Fast Company, 14 Aug. 2018. www.
fastcompany.com/90218064/for-young-people-socialism-is-now-more-popular-than-capitalism. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
34 Stiglitz, Joseph E. “The American Economy Is Rigged, and What We Can Do About It.” Scientific American, 1 Nov. 2018. https://
www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-american-economy-is-rigged/. Accessed 24 Feb. 2021..
35 “10 Root Causes of Homelessness.” Human Rights Careers. www.humanrightscareers.com/issues/root-causes-of-homelessness/.
Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
36 “What Are the Most Common Reasons for Homelessness?” Lifebridge, 22 Oct. 2019. lifebridgenorthshore.org/what-are-the-most-
common-reasons-for-homelessness/. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
37 Ohanian, Lee. “The Economics of Why Homelessness Worsens as Governments Spend Even More on the Problem.” Hoover
Institution, 18 June 2019. www.hoover.org/research/economics-why-homelessness-worsens-governments-spend-even-more-
problem. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
38 Stringfellow, Maggie, Dilip Wagle, and Chris Wearn. “Booming cities, unintended consequences.” McKinsey Quarterly, 10 May
2018. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-cities/booming-cities-unintended-consequences. Accessed 20 Feb.
2021.
39 Stringfellow, Maggie, Dilip Wagle, and Chris Wearn. “Booming cities, unintended consequences.” McKinsey Quarterly, 10 May
2018. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-cities/booming-cities-unintended-consequences. Accessed 20 Feb.
2021.
40 Rosenberg, M. “After brief slowdown, Seattle-area rents surge back up again; when will it end?” Seattle Times, 28 Mar. 2017.
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/after-brief-slowdown-seattle-area-rents-surge-back-up-again-when-will-it-
end/. Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.
41 Oyedele, Akin. “The 16 cities where Americans struggle the most to pay rent.” Business Insider, 8 Sept. 2018. https://www.
businessinsider.com/rent-prices-as-share-of-income-us-2018-9#:~:text=AccordingtoZillow%2C%20the%20median,worst%20
for%20low%2Dincome%20renters. Accessed 11 Jan. 2021.
42 “The Roots of the Crisis.” Seattle.gov. www.seattle.gov/homelessness/the-roots-of-the-crisis. Accessed 20 Feb. 2021.
43 “The Roots of the Crisis.” Seattle.gov. www.seattle.gov/homelessness/the-roots-of-the-crisis. Accessed 20 Feb. 2021.
44 Petrovich, James. C., et al. “Creating safe spaces: Designing day shelters for people experiencing homelessness.” Journal of Social
Distress and the Homeless, vol. 26, no. 1, 2017, pp. 65-72. doi: 10.1080/10530789.2016.1260879.
45 “The Roots of the Crisis.” Seattle.gov. www.seattle.gov/homelessness/the-roots-of-the-crisis. Accessed 20 Feb. 2021.
46 Romano, Benjamin. “Starbucks Adds Voice to Head-Tax Criticism.” Seattle Times, 10 May 2018. www.seattletimes.com/business/
starbucks-adds-voice-to-head-tax-criticism/. Accessed 19 Feb. 2021.
47 Beekman, Daniel. “With Seattle’s Head Tax Dead, Business Lobbyists Set Sights on City Council Elections.” Seattle Times, 1 Aug.
2018. www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattles-head-tax-is-dead-but-political-debate-may-reverberate/. Accessed 25
Feb. 2021.
48 Davila, Vianna. “King County Needs to Spend $400 Million a Year to Solve Homeless Crisis, New Report Says.” Seattle Times, 11
May 2018. www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/more-affordable-housing-only-way-to-solve-seattles-homeless-crisis-
new-report-says/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2021.
15

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

Endnotes (cont.)
49 Semuels, Alana. “How Amazon Helped Kill a Seattle Tax on Business.” The Atlantic, 13 June 2018. www.theatlantic.com/
technology/archive/2018/06/how-amazon-helped-kill-a-seattle-tax-on-business/562736/. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
50 Semuels, Alana. “How Amazon Helped Kill a Seattle Tax on Business.” The Atlantic, 13 June 2018. www.theatlantic.com/
technology/archive/2018/06/how-amazon-helped-kill-a-seattle-tax-on-business/562736/. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
51 Sahadi, Jeanne. “Starbucks Slams Seattle’s New Big Business Tax.” CNN Money, 15 May 2018. money.cnn.com/2018/05/15/news/
companies/starbucks-seattle-head-tax/index.html. Accessed 19 Feb. 2021.
52 Guarente, Gabe. “Starbucks Extends Seattle HQ’s Work-from-Home Policy Until Next Fall.” Eater Seattle, 2 Oct. 2020. seattle.eater.
com/2020/10/2/21498838/starbucks-extends-seattle-corporate-work-from-home-policy-october-2021. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
53 “Number of Employees per Coffee and Snack Shop in the U.S. 2016.” Statista, 1 Feb. 2011, www.statista.com/statistics/196698/
employees-per-establishment-in-us-coffee-and-snack-shops-since-2002/. Accessed 21 Feb. 2021.
54 Lock, S. “Starbucks: U.S. Cities with the Most Locations 2019.” Statista, 30 July 2019. www.statista.com/statistics/306896/
cities-with-the-largest-number-of-starbucks-stores-us/. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
55 Brown, Travis H. “Commentary: How Seattle’s New Tax to Fight Homelessness Could Ruin Its Economy.” Fortune, 18 May 2018.
fortune.com/2018/05/17/head-tax-in-seattle-amazon-starbucks/. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
56 Sanders, Eli. “Mystery Solved! Here’s Who’s Behind the Anonymous ‘City Council: Make It Better’ Ad Campaign.” The Stranger, 18
May 2018. https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2018/05/18/26241533/mystery-solved-heres-whos-behind-the-anonymous-city-
council-make-it-better-ad-campaign. Accessed 11 Mar. 2021.
57 Price, Dan. “Guest Editorial: An Employee Hours Tax Would Be Good for Business.” The Stranger, 5 Apr. 2018. https://www.
thestranger.com/slog/2018/04/05/26005235/guest-editorial-an-employee-hours-tax-would-be-good-for-business. Accessed 26
Feb. 2021.
58 Porter, Michael E., and Mark R. Kramer. “The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value. How to reinvent capitalism—and unleash a wave of
innovation and growth.” Harvard Business Review, vol. 89, no.1-2, 2010, pp. 62-77.
59 Beekman, Daniel. “With Seattle’s Head Tax Dead, Business Lobbyists Set Sights on City Council Elections.” Seattle Times, 1 Aug.
2018. www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattles-head-tax-is-dead-but-political-debate-may-reverberate/. Accessed 25
Feb. 2021.
60 Beekman, Daniel. “With Seattle’s Head Tax Dead, Business Lobbyists Set Sights on City Council Elections.” Seattle Times, 1 Aug.
2018. www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattles-head-tax-is-dead-but-political-debate-may-reverberate/. Accessed 25
Feb. 2021.
61 Sahadi, Jeanne. “Starbucks Slams Seattle’s New Big Business Tax.” CNN Money, 15 May 2018. money.cnn.com/2018/05/15/news/
companies/starbucks-seattle-head-tax/index.html. Accessed 19 Feb. 2021.
62 Romano, Benjamin. “Starbucks Adds Voice to Head-Tax Criticism.” Seattle Times, 10 May 2018. www.seattletimes.com/business/
starbucks-adds-voice-to-head-tax-criticism/. Accessed 19 Feb. 2021.
63 Sahadi, Jeanne. “Starbucks Slams Seattle’s New Big Business Tax.” CNN Money, 15 May 2018. money.cnn.com/2018/05/15/news/
companies/starbucks-seattle-head-tax/index.html. Accessed 19 Feb. 2021.
64 Semuels, Alana. “How Amazon Helped Kill a Seattle Tax on Business.” The Atlantic, 13 June 2018. www.theatlantic.com/
technology/archive/2018/06/how-amazon-helped-kill-a-seattle-tax-on-business/562736/. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
65 Semuels, Alana. “How Amazon Helped Kill a Seattle Tax on Business.” The Atlantic, 13 June 2018. www.theatlantic.com/
technology/archive/2018/06/how-amazon-helped-kill-a-seattle-tax-on-business/562736/. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.
66 Beekman, Daniel. “With Seattle’s Head Tax Dead, Business Lobbyists Set Sights on City Council Elections.” Seattle Times, 1 Aug.
2018. www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/seattles-head-tax-is-dead-but-political-debate-may-reverberate/. Accessed 25
Feb. 2021.
67 Semuels, Alana. “How Amazon Helped Kill a Seattle Tax on Business.” The Atlantic, 13 June 2018. www.theatlantic.com/
technology/archive/2018/06/how-amazon-helped-kill-a-seattle-tax-on-business/562736/. Accessed 25 Feb. 2021.

16

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.
Starbucks: Opposing a Local Tax to Address Homelessness while Promoting Social Justice W04C94

Notes

17

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.

 For the exclusive use of A. Serpa, 2022.

This case is part of the Erb Collection of sustainability cases at WDI

Publishing. The Erb Institute is a partnership between the Ross School
of Business and the School for Environment and Sustainability at the
University of Michigan. The institute’s mission is to create a socially and
environmentally sustainable world through the power of business. We do
that through research, teaching, and business engagement—all focused on
preparing and supporting bold business leaders who can adeptly transform
companies, industries, and entire economies for systemic sustainability.
erb.umich.edu

Established at the University of Michigan in 1992, the William Davidson Institute

(WDI) is an independent, non-profit research and educational organization focused on
providing private-sector solutions in emerging markets. Through a unique structure
that integrates research, field-based collaborations, education/training, publishing,
and University of Michigan student opportunities, WDI creates long-term value for
academic institutions, partner organizations, and donor agencies active in emerging
markets. WDI also provides a forum for academics, policy makers, business leaders, and
development experts to enhance their understanding of these economies. WDI is one
of the few institutions of higher learning in the United States that is fully dedicated to
understanding, testing, and implementing actionable, private-sector business models
addressing the challenges and opportunities in emerging markets.

This document is authorized for use only by Amanda Serpa in 2022.