Name: Ilagan, Jensen Carlo, B.

Section:CPET-3102

Professional Ethics (PM 106)

Activity #2

MEET ME AT STARBUCKS

On April 12, 2018, at a Starbucks location in Philadelphia, two black men, Rashon
Nelson and Donte Robinson, were waiting for a friend, Andrew Yaffe. Nelson and Robinson
were entrepreneurs and were going to discuss business investment opportunities with Yaffe, a
white real estate developer. As they waited, an employee asked if she could help them. They said
“no,” that they were just waiting for a business meeting. Then a manager told Nelson that he
couldn’t use the restroom because he was not a paying customer.

Because the two men had not purchased anything yet, a store manager called police, even
though Robinson had been a customer at the store for almost a decade and both men had used the
store location for business meetings before. At least six Philadelphia Police Department officers
arrived. The police officers did not ask the men any questions; they just demanded that they
leave immediately. They declined. The police officers then proceeded to arrest the men for
trespassing. As the arrest occurred, Mr. Yaffe arrived. He said: “Why would they be asked to
leave? Does anyone else think this is ridiculous? It’s absolute discrimination.” The two men were
taken out in handcuffs. They were taken to the police station, photographed, and fingerprinted.
They were held for almost nine hours before being released from custody. Prosecutors decided
that there was insufficient evidence to charge the men with a crime.
 After a video of the arrest went viral, Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson released a
statement: “We apologize to the two individuals and our customers and are disappointed this led
to an arrest. We take these matters seriously and clearly have more work to do when it comes to
how we handle incidents in our stores. We are reviewing our policies and will continue to engage
with the community and the police department to try to ensure these types of situations never
happen in any of our stores.”

Johnson then announced that every company-owned Starbucks location in the nation
would close on May 29, 2018, for “racial-bias education.” When one customer complained on
Facebook that closing the stores because of just one incident seemed overkill, Starbucks
responded: “There are countless examples of implicit bias resulting in discrimination against
people of color, both in and outside our stores. Addressing bias is crucial in ensuring that all our
customers feel safe and welcome in our stores.” A similar complaint about closing thousands of
stores because of the actions of a handful of employees prompted this response from Starbucks:
“Our goal is to make our stores a safe and welcoming place for everyone, and we have failed.
This training is crucial in making sure we meet our goal.”

Guide Questions #1
Direction(s): Answer the following questions accordingly. Put your answers on the space
provided. It will be graded based on accuracy (2 pts.), justification (2 pts.), and concept (2 pts.)
for each question.

1. Do you think the manager of the Starbucks in Philadelphia thought of herself as racist?

- Yes, the manager of Starbucks feels racist. They called the cops to arrest Nelson and
Robinson without knowing anything. In reality, they actually did nothing. According to
the management, our objective is to make our stores a safe and welcoming environment
for everyone, and we have failed.

2. Do you think that what happened to Nelson and Robinson would have happened if they
had been white?

- It would not have happened to Nelson and Robinson if they were white. In this century,
racism is common. Almost everyone favors white folks. If Nelson and Robinson were
white, the scenario would be different; there would be no fuss to begin with. They will be
given special attention or just allowed to sit without ordering anything until Mr. Yaffe
arrives.
3. What stereotypes were invoked in this case and by whom?

- The stereotyping in this situation is that Nelson and Robinson, both black guys, would
steal anything from the Starbucks or initiate an undesirable crime by the manager of the
Starbucks. Second, the policemen stereotyped the two individuals to the point that they
detained Nelson and Robinson without conducting any investigation and simply
presuming that these two black males were making disturbance.

4. How did stereotyping influence and/or frame the situation for the manager? For the
police? For bystanders?

- Stereotyping created misunderstanding and resulted in an uncontrolled conflict between

the two guys and the management. In the case of the police, stereotyping prompted them
to be biased and unreasonable, resulting in an arrest without further investigation.
Bystanders did nothing to defend the two, and no one took the initiative to put out the fire
between the black men and the manager; this just demonstrates that they, too, stereotyped
Robinson and Nelson, and that they chose to keep silent because they feel these two will
cause problems.

5. What is your opinion about Starbucks’ response to the arrest of Nelson and Robinson?

-Starbucks has issues in teaching their staff on how to speak with and/or approach their
customers with respect and compassion regardless of their race, color, or other preferences.
Second, Starbucks is racially biased, lack of understanding and compassion for people.
6. Will Starbucks’ training session on implicit bias have a beneficial impact?

- Yes, this training would teach them how to be more approachable and nice with their
consumers no matter who or what they are. It would also inspire them to deliver an
excellent service in addition to their high-quality products, and they would learn how to
create a safe environment for everyone.
 APPLE SUPPLIERS AND LABOR PRACTICES

With its highly coveted line of consumer electronics, Apple has a cult following among
loyal consumers. During the 2014 holiday season, 74.5 million iPhones were sold. Demand like
this meant that Apple was in line to make over $52 billion in profits in 2015, the largest annual
profit ever generated from a company’s operations. Despite its consistent financial performance
year over year, Apple’s robust profit margin hides a more complicated set of business ethics.
Similar to many products sold in the U.S. Apple does not manufacture most of its goods
domestically. Most of the component sourcing and factory production is done overseas in
conditions that critics have argued are dangerous to workers and harmful to the environment.

For example, tin is a major component in Apple’s products and much of it is sourced in
Indonesia. Although there are mines that source tin ethically, there are also many that do not.
One study found workers—many of them children—working in unsafe conditions, digging tin
out by hand in mines prone to landslides that could bury workers alive. About 70% of the tin
used in electronic devices such as smartphones and tablets comes from these more dangerous,
small-scale mines. An investigation by the BBC revealed how perilous these working conditions
can be. In interviews with miners, a 12-year-old working at the bottom of a 70-foot cliff of sand
said: “I worry about landslides. The earth slipped from up there to the bottom. It could happen.”

Apple defends its practices by saying it only has so much control over monitoring and
regulating its component sources. The company justifies its sourcing practices by saying that it is
a complex process, with tens of thousands of miners selling tin, many of them through
middle-men. In a statement to the BBC, Apple said “the simplest course of action would be for
Apple to unilaterally refuse any tin from Indonesian mines. That would be easy for us to do and
would certainly shield us from criticism. But that would also be the lazy and cowardly path,
since it would do nothing to improve the situation. We have chosen to stay engaged and attempt
to drive changes on the ground.”

In an effort for greater transparency, Apple has released annual reports detailing their
work with suppliers and labor practices. While more recent investigations have shown some
improvements to suppliers’ working conditions, Apple continues to face criticism as consumer
demand for iPhones and other products continues to grow.

Guide Questions #2
Direction(s): Answer the following questions accordingly. Put your answers on the space
provided. It will be graded based on accuracy (2 pts.), justification (2 pts.), and concept (2 pts.)
for each question.

1. Do you think Apple should be responsible for ethical lapses made by individuals further
down its supply chain? Why or why not?

- Yes, Apple should be held accountable for ethical failings since they have the ability to
perform background checks on everybody with whom they do business. Especially when
it might jeopardize their ethics and influence how consumers see them.

2. Should Apple continue to work with the suppliers in an effort to change practices, or
should they stop working with every supplier, even the conscientious ones, to make sure
no “bad apples” are getting through? Explain your reasoning.

- By providing the suppliers a specific time or date to change if they are unethical. If they
did not reach the deadline or refused to modify the way they conduct their business, it is
preferable to cut and stop doing business with them since they need to ensure the safety of
their employees and everyone.
3. Do you think consumers should be expected to take into account the ethical track record
of companies when making purchases? Why or why not?

- As a customer, I do not feel it is the customer's responsibility to know or even consider

the ethical track record of an item purchased. Typically, international corporations such as
Apple have created a brand for themselves, and as a result of their advertising on high
standards, people have placed their faith in them. Customers have an expectation that the
firm they are purchasing from has gotten this far due to strong ethics and quality.

4. Can you think of other products or brands that rely on ethically questionable business
practices? Do you think consumers are turned off by their track record or are they largely
indifferent to it? Explain.

- Yes, especially if they are fully aware that the Apple products they are now using are
built and tested in a harmful manner. They will be turned off if they are aware that some
people's lives have been lost in order to manufacture that thing.

5. Would knowing that a product was produced under ethically questionable conditions
affect your decision to purchase it? Explain with examples.

- It wouldn't affect my decision. I mention this because, sadly, many large firms produce
in other countries. Many have ethically dubious situations in this scenario, and regulations
vary over the world. Although it may be immoral in this nation, it may not be in the place
where the company is performed. Child labor, for example, is not tolerated in the United
States, but it is legal or required in many other nations.
 6. If you were part of a third-party regulating body, how would you deal with ethically
questionable business practices of multinational corporations like Apple? Would you feel
obligated to do something, or do you think the solution rests with the companies
themselves? Explain your reasoning.

- Allow customers to know where it originated from, how it was created, who their
suppliers were, how the materials were made and where the resources came from, and
who was behind that product so that consumers are aware of what they were purchasing.

Prepared by:

Mr. JOEY C. LANDICHO

Course Instructor
joey.landicho@g.batstate-u.edu.ph