A week ago, Starbucks (SBUX)’s new CEO, Brian Niccol, was described as the “messiah” the struggling coffee giant had been looking for.
The announcement alone that the former CEO of Chipotle has a new job caused Starbucks shares to rise by 25 percent – the biggest jump in value in the company’s history.
Niccol, who has successfully turned around troubled companies such as Taco Bell and most recently Chipotle, is scheduled to start at Starbucks on September 9.
So far, so good.
But in recent days, the good news has been overshadowed by a public backlash over perks included in his contract that allow him to work from his home in Newport Beach, California, and commute to the company’s headquarters in Seattle by private jet.
Starbucks’ offer letter to Niccol stated: “During your employment with the Company, you will not be required to relocate to the Company’s headquarters… You agree to commute from your home to the Company’s headquarters (and make other business trips) as necessary to perform your duties and responsibilities.”
The document also states that he is authorized to use the company’s aircraft for “business trips” and for “travel between (his) place of residence and the company headquarters.”
A Starbucks spokesperson clarified to CNBC that the new boss would still be expected to work at the Starbucks office in Seattle at least three days a week, in accordance with the company’s hybrid work policies.
But instead of putting out the fire, the announcements only fuelled it further. On Thursday New York Times chimed in with a sarcastic headline. The BBC even published a map of his route to work.
Niccol’s journey to work had developed a media life of its own.
“What a bunch of performative hypocrites”
Some consumers have (incorrectly) concluded that since Niccol does not have to move to Seattle, he will use the company jet to commute to work every day.
Although the company denied to the BBC that Niccol was expected to fly over 1,000 miles round trip every day, the public has gone into overdrive, slamming his “hypocritical” commute in light of the company’s recent sustainability commitments. According to a 2021 report by the European Federation for Transport and the Environment, private jets produce up to 14 times more pollution per passenger than commercial aircraft and 50 times more pollution than trains.
“The CEO of Starbucks decided to travel to work on a private jet instead of relocating. In the meantime, we are supposed to save the environment and drink our coffee with a paper straw that gets soggy within minutes,” wrote one social media user on X.
Another user joked: “Looks like we’re going to have to use a lot more reusable cups and paper straws to offset the new Starbucks CEO’s huge carbon footprint.”
“What a bunch of performative hypocrites with their eco-friendly branding. No company that truly cares about the climate would agree to this,” a third chimed in.
“If this man regularly commutes to work on a private jet, don’t let @Starbucks tell you they’re environmentally conscious,” wrote another. “They get on us mere mortals’ nerves about our cars, but things like private jets and yachts cause far more environmental damage per unit.”
Starbucks declined to comment on allegations that the company was hypocritical for pushing customers to use paper straws while its CEO had access to the company jet.
“Niccol has proven himself to be one of the most effective leaders in our industry and has generated significant financial returns over many years,” a company spokesman said Assets. “We are confident in his experience and ability to lead our global business and brand and create long-term, lasting value for our partners, customers and shareholders.”
The public will forget Starbucks’ hypocrisy – but its employees will not
Ben Alalouff, chief strategy officer at marketing agency Live & Breathe, believes that while the public backlash will hit within days, Starbucks employees will not forget the news so quickly.
“If I were a Starbucks employee at headquarters and heard that a huge amount of money was being spent every month (on private jet fuel) instead of investing in the workforce or in benefits or bonuses or whatever, I would be pretty pissed,” he told Fortune.
In addition to the anger directed at Starbucks from environmentally conscious consumers, others on social media were quick to point out the inconsistency of Starbucks’ decision to require office workers to return to the office at least three days a week.
Unlike Niccol, those who live far from the office (and earn a fraction of their boss’s salary) must choose between moving to meet the company’s office demands or finding another job.
It’s probably a nine-day miracle
However, Alalouff believes that the Starbucks brand will do well in the long run.
“I think it’s too big a brand and too small a problem in the multitude of things that are going wrong in the world,” says Alalouff Assets“Nobody is going to change their coffee consumption in the long term just because the CEO is on a jet three days a week.”
“That would be the interesting, ridiculous behavior of a manager this week… But I think the concern would come from within,” he adds.
“I completely understand the need to nurture and accommodate talent that will fundamentally change your company. But I think this is probably going a bit too far.”
Niccol’s arrangements are fairly common, with only 7% of CEOs returning to the office full-time (although a quarter of them believe returning to the office full-time is a priority).
Not surprisingly, this double standard is not lost on employees, who often respond to strict RTO requirements by resigning – or staying with the company but making minimal effort and finding ways to circumvent the regulations.
In Alalouff’s view, Starbucks must spend the next six months painting a “rosy picture of the company” to win the approval of both its employees and its customers.
“The longer this new CEO does not have a significant impact both internally and externally, the worse this decision will look,” he concludes.
This story originally appeared on Fortune.com
