Why Starbucks' "Gold Standard" Lost to "Unspoken Rules"

Chen Guangjiang

Recently, an undercover investigation by a media reporter found that two Starbucks stores in Wuxi, Jiangsu Province, frequently touched the red line of food safety. On December 13, Starbucks China's official Weibo posted a response saying, "We are deeply shocked by the food safety issues involved in the report", closed the two stores at the first time, and immediately launched an in-depth investigation. At present, the market supervision department has gone to the scene to investigate.

It has been rumored that "more than 90% of restaurants cannot afford to go undercover." Today, Starbucks has become a negative model: ingredients continue to be used after expiration, and are sold as a variety of best-selling drinks; supervisors and clerks "teach by example" to tamper with shelf life, and some ingredients are "extended" for a week; pastries that promise to "not stay overnight after opening" are secretly on the shelves the next day... The chaos in the back kitchen of the two Starbucks stores involved is shocking.

In such a violation of the bottom line of food safety, what is the difference between Starbucks and the "three noes" small workshop? The reporter's investigation also shows that the above chaos is not accidental, driven by interests and regulatory oversight, some stores pursue the "unspoken rules" of food safety. Ironically, after the chaos was exposed, the relevant staff of the store involved also insisted that "there is definitely no situation in the store where expired ingredients continue to be sold." ”

While similar scandals are common, it's surprising that they happened to Starbucks. On the one hand, as a world-renowned coffee brand, Starbucks solemnly promises on its official website: "Based on the highest standards in the industry, we will formulate and strictly implement Starbucks gold food safety standards." "On the other hand, Starbucks' more than 5,100 stores in China are directly operated by the company and are not open to the public to join." The gold standard "+ "direct operation", but in the bottom line of the problem of "planting", really should not be. Is Starbucks also engaged in "double standards"?

In fact, it's not surprising that Starbucks "rolled over." This is not the first time Starbucks has been exposed to food safety problems. Tianyan's investigation showed that some Starbucks stores had been punished for food problems. On the Internet complaint platform, many consumers have also complained that eating Starbucks products has symptoms of discomfort. Problems have long appeared, alarm bells have been ringing frequently, but Starbucks has not attracted attention, or has paid attention to but is unable to solve.

Why did Starbucks' "gold standard" lose to "unspoken rules"? Ultimately, it's profit-driven. Ingredients continue to be used when they expire, scrapped pastries are put on the shelves, shelf life labels are tampered with at will... All kinds of behaviors that touch the bottom line of the stores involved are all aimed at reducing costs and improving profits. Because Starbucks wants to assess the turnover and profit margin of the store, the store is deliberately beautifying the data, and it will not hesitate to trample on the promise.

Driven by interests, the omission of supervision is a high probability event, and the original strict management system may also be overridden. For example, under the "tacit cooperation" of store supervisors and store staff, Starbucks's relevant systems and standards are useless, and superior inspectors cannot find practical problems at all. If the "gold standard" is not implemented, the "unspoken rules" will become blatant.

As the saying goes, "The higher you stand, the more painful your fall is." It can take years to build a brand, it is much easier to destroy a brand, and one such scandal is enough. While flaunting their own "gold standard" and direct operation model, while frequently trampling on the bottom line of food safety, this is tantamount to smashing the signboard. The public has reason to suspect that similar chaos is not unique to individual stores.

How to truly implement the system and standards is a common issue faced by well-known catering brands such as Starbucks. In recent years, there have been numerous cases of well-known catering brands "flipping over" due to bottom-line problems. In addition to business self-discipline, other laws are also indispensable, and regulators should innovate regulatory models, such as improving the food safety blacklist system, so that those who trample on the bottom line pay a greater price.

In the long run, big data empowering food safety management is the trend of the times. Whether it is catering enterprises or regulatory authorities, they should make full use of big data technology, such as the implementation of the "Internet + bright kitchen and bright stove" project, the promotion of the "central kitchen + N" model, etc., to plug those artificial loopholes.

Comics/Chen Bin