The current restructuring of the world-economy under global capitalism has further integrated international trade and production (Gereffi et el 1994:159). Globalization has broken down geographic boundaries and, as transportation and telecommunications have improved, has allowed multinational corporations (TNCs) to disperse parts of their operations around the world. This has led to the growing importance and complexity of global commodity chains, which have been defined by Hopkins and Wallerstein as a network of labor and production processes whose end result is a finished good (1986: 159). Each input is represented as a "node" (Gereffi et al1994:159) and is linked together in networks, with each stage adding value to the commodity. This essay will explore the global nature of the coffee commodity chain, with reference to Starbucks, to highlight the global power that multinationals exert over commodity chains and evaluate the resulting implications on other key “nodes”. We will also discuss the importance of consumption as a driving force behind global commodity chains, strengthening the interconnection between producer and consumer that is often overlooked. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayStarbucks, founded in Seattle in 1971 (Ponte 2002:1111), has become the largest coffee shop chain in the world (Coe et al 2007:90 ), spanning four continents. As of August 2005 it had 2,783 operations spread across 34 countries, serving around 33 million customers every week (Coe et al 2007:90), which highlights its vast global performance. The company sources its coffee beans from plantations in Latin America and Africa where they are harvested and brought to wholesalers before being transported to one of five distribution centers in the United States (Starbucks 2017a). Starbucks is thriving in the growing global market, opening its 1,000th store in both China and Japan, and continues to expand with future plans to open “1,500 net new stores in each region” (Starbucks2013:2) adding to its success sales in the market. This reinforces how food production chains have changed over the past four decades, becoming increasingly industrialized and “global” (Dicken 2015:424) through the capitalist interests of multinational corporations. Their ability to coordinate and control production in more than one country, by manipulating geographic differences, gives them immense control over global commodity chains (Dickens 2011:16). One of the major advantages for Starbucks is to outsource and establish operations within these export-oriented countries. In developing countries like Costa Rica, cheap labor and relaxed regulations are exploited to maximize profits. The company controls several product chains that involve transforming ordinary arabica beans, grown at high altitudes, into regular coffee or for the growing “specialty blends” market (Starbucks 2017a). However, Starbucks will always look for the cheapest locations, spurred by competition. The foreign direct investments that Starbuck injects into the host country's economy are often critical to its economic development; reinforced by the fact that 20% of Starbuck producing countries fall into the low-income category (Wachalec 2015). Therefore, Starbucks and many other multinationals have the power to pit regions against each other in a "race to the bottom" to find the most economically profitable location and reduce production costs. The impacts have on different global nodes of the commodity chain On the other hand, the global domainof multinationals can cause negative effects on other "nodes" of the commodity chain, for example "production" in developing countries. Many developing countries rely on coffee for a high percentage of their export earnings. Ponte (2002:1101) argues that the priority of multinationals is to maximize profits and this is causing farmers to lose their source of livelihood. TNCs influence global markets, fluctuating the prices of commodities like coffee, and invest in and improve their functional roles and technologies in a way that “local” exporters cannot compete with. As a result, many small landowners are disappearing or are forced to align with such international corporations (Ponte 2002). However, this also raises dependency issues, as multinationals still have the ability to block or exclude selected suppliers from the raw material chain; jeopardize the economic development of the dependent developing country. This highlights the shift of power from producing countries to consuming countries, where the headquarters of multinationals are located (Ponte 2002:1107). Ponte (2002) argues that this is due to a change in the coffee supply chain, which has moved from a formal and relatively stable system in which producers “had a voice” (1107) to an economic chain that disadvantages producing countries. To solve these problems of production imbalances within the global coffee chain, perhaps the governments of producing countries should promote “conscious consumption”, (Ponte 2002:1107), for example fair trade. This would guarantee a minimum price that would help local producers recover part of the total income generated in the coffee chain (Ponte 2002). In the case of Starbucks, it recently reached the milestone of 99% of its coffee being ethically sourced (Starbucks 2017b). The increase in fair trade within the supply chains of food raw materials is reflected in the growth of ethical consumption. People are becoming more aware of where their food comes from and are willing to pay more for a product to ensure that local producers receive fair payment; thus supporting their livelihood (Ponte 2002:1116). It also highlights the growth of transparency within commodity chains which can be seen as a positive move in revealing how the commodity has actually been configured globally. Furthermore, Starbucks recognizes the importance of labor as a “factor of production” (Dicken 2015:121) within the raw materials chain and how its productivity is essential for the economic success of the company; probably more than cheap labor. Productivity refers to the scale of production per worker for a given wage and is a reflection of education and training, as well as capital goods (Dicken 2015). For example, Starbucks has a number of farmer support centers in Costa Rica and Guatemala and launched Coffee and Farmer Equity (CAFE) practices in 2004 to ensure fair wages and safe working conditions for its workers (Wachalec 2015). This demonstrates an active interest and investment in the well-being of their workforce, as the capitalist knows that this increases long-term motivation and productivity, which will result in greater production and therefore profits. Coffee is clearly a global good, but its production can also be seen as a “local process” as it is linked to specific climates, soils and often socio-cultural conditions (Dicken 2015:424). For example, four countries generate 60% of total coffee exports: Brazil, Vietnam, Colombia and Indonesia (Dicken 2015:429), demonstrating how the food industry is literally foundedon “biophysical processes” (424) and making it fundamentally different from other countries. manufacturing industries. Despite this, Starbucks is globally strategic and only operates within affluent consumer markets where demand for coffee is high to ensure higher profits. Multinationals follow capitalism in this sense. For example, Starbucks distribution is largely concentrated in Global North countries such as the United Kingdom, where disposable incomes are high and coffee has strong cultural values. As a result, there is a growing gap within the nodes of the commodity chain, the Global South being associated with production and the Global North with consumption. This is reinforced by the fact that, statistically, over 90% of coffee production takes place in developing countries (Ponte 2002:1101). Consumption as a driving force of global commodity chains Consumption can be seen as a driving force of global commodity chains because, ultimately, processes rely on the willingness and ability of a population to purchase and consume the product itself (Dicken 2011:20). In recent years, consumer demands have become more complex as globalization has increased choice in the marketplace and led to people having very different “food agendas” (Dicken 2015:431). Furthermore, this has been reinforced by the increase in “commodification”, where products are induced with “symbolic qualities and culturally embedded meanings”, (Dicken 2010:20), increasing the importance of consumerism. In turn, multinational companies such as Starbucks have manipulated these patterns of change through marketing strategies and highlight a direct reflection of the producer's perceived need to satisfy a consumer's growing fragmented demand (Dicken 2011:20). For example, Starbuck's corporate website promotes 'specialty coffee' and sells thirty different types of coffee and tea, describing individual coffees as 'exotic' and 'earthy' (Coe et al 2007:90), which fuels the idea that coffee produced in a foreign land is more desirable. Ponte (2002:1111) argues that the global coffee chain has undergone a “milk revolution”, through the increase in variety of beans, to the point that Starbucks has developed a market specializing in “lifestyle” drinks. He refers to this as the “Starbucks factor” in which Starbucks has become a “consumption experience” and “de-commodified coffee” (1111). This capitalist technique is particularly evident in buyer-driven commodity chains such as coffee (rather than producer-driven), as product design, advertising, and branded merchandisers are key players in this chain (Ponte 2002:1100). This suggests that through this investment in advertising their brands, companies such as Starbucks have managed to maintain control of the coffee chain (Dijk et al 1998). On the other hand, the global nature of commodity chains can be hidden through capitalism. Although often unaware of this fact, UK consumers, for example, are closely linked to workers working on coffee plantations in Costa Rica as both represent “nodes” in the journey of the goods. However, Coe et al (2007) argue that price tags and brand names reveal nothing about this production process or, for example, the working conditions of workers and therefore disconnect consumer and producer. Consequently, "even a person who drinks coffee at Starbuck makes the customer complicit" (Coe et al 2007:90). It is therefore important to recognize the entire circuit of production, distribution and consumption as a "bundle of social relations" (Watts 1999:307) to highlight the importance of interactions between people, despite being geographically distant. the chain.