Wal-Mart and Starbucks aren’t rivals, and they have shared some management talent. Current Starbucks CEO Jim Donald spent five years running Wal-Mart’s food operations. But when it comes to corporate reputations, the two are opposites, the Cain and Abel of this business generation.
Why the disparity between Wal-Mart and Starbucks? The reasons illuminate the importance of managing one’s corporate reputation — and the increasing difficulty of doing that as a company expands.
Size is certainly one reason Wal-Mart has faced so much criticism. “When Wal-Mart became the biggest company, it also became a symbol of corporate evil,” says Charles Fombrun, the director of the Reputation Institute in New York. The big footprint the retailer stamps on communities where it operates and the power it wields with suppliers have kept it under fire. And rather than take on the critics, Wal-Mart, until recently at least, dismissed them as propagandists or opportunists and figured its business success would speak for itself.
Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz took a far different approach as he transformed a coffee-bean company into one of the world’s most popular brands.
To Mr. Schultz, corporate reputation is a means to success, not a byproduct of it. Starbucks’ “guiding principles,” such as “providing a great work environment” and “contributing positively to our communities,” are the best advertising, Mr. Schultz believes. Called “partners” at Starbucks, employees are eligible for stock options and health benefits if they work at least 20 hours a week.
“Mr. Schultz recognized ahead of most executives that customers today vote with their dollars and will spend more money at companies with values they admire,” says Nancy Koehn, a business historian at Harvard Business School.
But as Starbucks keeps growing — it is opening five stores a day this year — it’s being targeted, too. Last month the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint alleging that Starbucks tried to block workers in three New York City stores from participating in union activities and fired one who “supported and assisted” a union. Union organizers for the International Workers of the World claim many Starbucks employees don’t work enough hours to qualify for health benefits.
Starbucks, through a spokeswoman, responds that “we do not take action or retaliate against partners who might be interested in union activities.”
Starbucks adds that there has been little union activity at Starbucks’ U.S. stores, though some employees have organized in Canada and New Zealand. And it thinks it has a good defense against critics: sticking to its principles. It aims, it says, to “stay small while growing big.”
For Jim Alling, president of Starbucks U.S., this means giving store managers and employees enough autonomy to keep them motivated — and serving customers.
“We’re not beating people over the head with a checklist of policies to follow,” he says.
He tells managers to listen to employee concerns, elicit their suggestions and mentor them so they can advance. “If we try to control everything from (headquarters) and don’t trust the judgment of our front-line people, we’ll lose our connection with customers and be too big,” he says.
CAROL HYMOWITZ
Wall Street Journal