Whenever a restaurant or retail chain comes out with a policy (often misguided) that we in agriculture or the meat industry disagree with, our knee-jerk reaction is often to declare that we will never frequent that establishment again. While our monthly fast-food purchases are probably a drop in the bucket, it feels good to think we’re voting with our wallets and avoiding giving our money to brands we disagree with. But is that really the answer?

We can look to the dairy industry for the latest example. Starbucks released sustainability goals for the next decade last week, committing to cutting its greenhouse gas emissions and waste sent to landfills in half. In an open letter, the CEO outlined five environmental strategies that will move the company toward a “resource-positive” future. Number one? “We will expand plant-based options, migrating toward a more environmentally friendly menu.”

Dairy farmers are understandingly upset by the idea of Starbucks switching its default milk option away from 2 percent to something that is not even milk at all. Starbucks uses only 0.3 percent of U.S. milk production, but as we all well know one such policy announcement frequently inspires a chorus of “us too” from competitors who don’t want to be seen as lagging.

Many dairy enthusiasts are declaring that they are “done with Starbucks” and will never purchase coffee there again. I understand the sentiment, but I have to wonder two things: Is the reaction overblown, and is having fewer people ordering beverages with real milk actually counterintuitive? First, note the wording of the letter — “expand plant-based options.” Starbucks has had soy “milk” available since 2004, and has added coconut and almond over the years. So, it sounds like they’ve been “expanding plant-based options” for the past 15 years. Adding more options to the menu, even if their rationale for doing so is not accurate, does not mean they are taking away the real dairy, eggs and meat they offer or shaming customers for ordering them.

Second, having fewer people ordering drinks with real milk seems like it would indicate to the company that their policy is in alignment with what their consumers value, and may push them in the direction of limiting those offerings. Take Burger King, for example: I recently read that the largest Burger King franchisee in the U.S. is currently selling 28 Impossible Whoppers daily per store, compared to 234 beef Whoppers. Those numbers speak for themselves, but what if a considerable number of people angry with Burger King for offering the Impossible Whopper had stopped going and weren’t ordering beef Whoppers?

It might be a better strategy to first make sure we are listening carefully to what announcements are actually saying and make sure we react accordingly. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be frustrated, but let’s channel that frustration into communicating more about our sustainability journey (where we are and more importantly, where we’re going) and showing how we can help brands meet their goals, rather than removing ourselves from the conversation with a boycott.

Are boycotts the answer?

Join for free* to continue reading.