A week ago, Starbucks (SBUX)’s new CEO, Brian Niccol, was being described as the “savior” the struggling coffee giant had been looking for.
The announcement that Chipotle’s former CEO had taken on a new role alone sent Starbucks shares soaring 25%, the biggest gain in the company’s history.
Nicol, who has a track record of successfully turning around struggling companies such as Taco Bell and more recently Chipotle, will start at Starbucks on September 9th.
So far, so good.
But in recent days, that good news has been overshadowed by public backlash over a contractual perk that allows him to work remotely from his home in Newport Beach, California, and commute to the company’s headquarters in Seattle by private jet.
In his offer letter to Nicole, Starbucks said: “You will not be required to relocate to our headquarters during your employment with the company. You agree to commute from your home office (and other travel) as necessary to perform your duties and responsibilities.”
The document also states that he will be able to use the company’s aircraft for “business-related travel” and “travel between his city of residence and the company’s headquarters.”
A Starbucks spokesperson told CNBC that the new chief executive is expected to continue working from Starbucks’ Seattle office at least three days a week, in accordance with the company’s hybrid work policy.
But rather than put out the fire, the announcement added fuel to it: On Thursday, The New York Times ran a sarcastic headline about it, and the BBC even published a map of his commute.
Nicole’s commute has become a media phenomenon in itself.
“What performative hypocrites.”
Some consumers have concluded (incorrectly) that because Nicole doesn’t need to relocate to Seattle, she will likely use the corporate jet to commute to work every day.
While the company denied to the BBC that Nicol was expected to fly more than 1,000 miles round trip every day, the public has slammed his “hypocritical” commute given the company’s recent sustainability commitments. A 2021 report by the European Transport and Environment Federation found that private jets produce up to 14 times more pollution per passenger than commercial aircraft and 50 times more than trains.
“The CEO of Starbucks has decided to travel on a private jet instead of relocating to work, while we should save the environment and drink our coffee with paper straws that go soggy within minutes,” one social media user wrote to X.
The story continues
Another user joked: “Looks like we’re going to have to use more reusable cups and paper straws to ‘offset’ Starbucks’ new CEO’s massive carbon footprint.”
“What a performative hypocrite claiming to be an eco-friendly brand – any company that truly cares about the climate wouldn’t agree to something like this,” a third agreed.
“If this guy commutes to work on a private jet regularly, don’t believe @Starbucks when they say they care about the environment,” another wrote. “They complain about us regular people’s cars, but things like private jets and yachts do way more environmental damage per unit.”
Starbucks declined to comment on accusations that it was hypocritical to force customers to use paper straws when its CEO has access to a corporate jet.
“Over the years, Nicol has delivered significant financial returns and proven himself to be one of the most effective leaders in the industry,” a company spokesperson told Fortune. “We are confident that his experience and capabilities will serve as the leader of our global business and brands, delivering long-term, enduring value to our partners, customers and shareholders.”
The public may forget Starbucks’ hypocrisy, but its employees won’t.
Ben Araloff, chief strategy officer at marketing firm Live & Breathe, said he expects public backlash to unfold in the coming days, but that Starbucks employees won’t forget the news anytime soon.
“If I was a Starbucks employee at their headquarters and I heard that a huge amount of money was being spent every month on[private jet fuel]rather than being invested in the workforce, benefits and bonuses, I would be pretty pissed,” he told Fortune.
While environmentally conscious consumers directed their anger at Starbucks, others on social media were quick to point out the inconsistency with Starbucks’ decision to require office workers to return to the office at least three days a week.
Those who, unlike Nicol, live far from the office (for a fraction of their boss’s salary) will likely be forced to choose between relocating to meet their company’s in-office requirements or finding another job.
That’s probably a nine-day wonder.
But in the long term, Allerloof believes the Starbucks brand will be fine.
“The brand is too big, and I think this is too small a problem among so many other problems out there,” Allalouf told Fortune. “Nobody is going to change their coffee-drinking habits long-term just because the CEO is on a jet three days a week.”
“It’s going to be an interesting and ridiculous move by executives this week… but it’s going to be internally that’s the worry,” he added.
“I completely understand nurturing and embracing the kind of talent that can bring change to your business, but I think this is going a bit too far.”
Nicol’s approach is fairly common: Only 7% of CEOs are back in the office full-time (even though a quarter of CEOs consider a full-time return to the office a priority).
Naturally, this double standard does not go unnoticed by employees who respond to strict RTO orders with resignation, or those who remain with the company but put in minimal effort and find ways to circumvent the rules.
In Araf’s eyes, Starbucks needs to spend the next six months putting the company on a “positive footing” to gain buy-in from both employees and customers.
“The longer the new CEO goes without having a significant, visible impact both inside and outside the company, the worse this decision will be felt,” he concludes.
This story originally appeared on Fortune.com.
