Once an enterprise grows beyond a certain size, the phrase "socially responsible business" is probably an oxymoron. But people keep trying, because global capitalism is what we have, and a number of corporations in the last few years have learned the market value of maintaining at least the appearance (if not the reality) of doing the right thing. Some of these PR efforts are transparently ludicrous: McDonalds' nutritional value, or oil companies that sponsor Earth Day(tm). But sometimes there's hope that the corporation in question is genuine, and that its actions really can change the way we do business and improve lives. Like Seattle-based Starbucks.

Two years ago, Starbucks Coffee Company agreed to adopt a path-breaking code of conduct intended to better conditions for plantation coffee workers who produce for the fast-growing yuppie bean franchise. It was seen as a breakthrough for Latin American human rights activists and for the workers themselves, who frequently work in abyssmal conditions for miserable pay. The code set a goal of buying coffee from growers who "share Starbucks' values," including the right of coffee workers to a living wage, to decent housing, and acceptable health and safety standards.

The idea was that Starbucks, through the pressure it exerts by the sheer volume of coffee it buys wholesale, would set a standard the rest of the coffee industry would emulate. By adopting the code, Starbucks reaped an enormous amount of favorable publicity for its social conscience, including a 1996 Corporate Conscience Award for International Human Rights from the Council on Economic Priorities and favorable mentions by the likes of Bill Clinton and the Wall Street Journal.

There's only one problem. Starbucks has ignored the agreement.

The 1995 code of conduct was to be implemented first as a pilot project in Guatemala. A number of groups, including the U.S./Guatemala Labor Education Project and the Washington Association of Churches, now charge that Starbucks is refusing to even identify who its Guatemalan growers are--let alone monitoring conditions or enforcing code of conduct standards. At a Starbucks shareholder meeting in Kent last month, Starbucks stonewalled the issue and then disconnected the microphone when a question on the issue was asked from the floor. So much for corporate accountability.

There are a lot of reasons to dislike Starbucks, including their concerted efforts to run independent espresso stands out of business, their relentless drive to gentrify urban neighborhoods around the globe, and, of course, the burger-flipping nature of their own work force. Nonetheless, it should at least be possible to pressure them into honoring commitments that they've already publicly made and reaped reward for. Give it a try; call Starbucks President Howard Schultz at (206) 447-1575 and demand he keep his promises. Or write Starbucks at Box 34067, Seattle WA 98124; or redecorate your local neighborhood franchise with appropriate messages of solidarity (in English or Spanish). And to get involved in the organizing campaign to pressure these cynical bean-counters, call Roberta Ray at (206) 527-6625.