The term Fair Trade refers to selling coffee at a price that generates a fair wage for the farmers who grow and harvest the crop. In most cases, these farmers grow their crop on small farms and receive very little pay for their work, whilst the mark up for coffee is so large. Coffee is one of most valuable cash crops in the world; this means that it is a crop produced for its commercial value rather than for use by the grower . In order to benefit these farmers, Fair Trade coffee is sold through cooperatives for a minimum price of $1.26 per pound.

Ethiopia depends largely upon the agricultural sector, coffee beans being the country’s largest export product.  Almost 25 per cent of Ethiopians rely in one way or another upon coffee trade, the country being amongst the top ten coffee producing countries in the world.  The majority of coffee farmers rely on traditional methods of farming, meaning labour is done by hand as machinery is extremely expensive and difficult to obtain.

In 2006, Ethiopia fought a long battle with Starbucks coffee when the Ethiopian government decided they wanted to trademark their coffee names. Starbucks claimed to agree with Ethiopia’s movement for the protection and trade marking of Ethiopian coffee beans, yet the company proceeded to attempt to manipulate the Ethiopian government into seeking alternatives to trademarks, which would have little benefit to the Ethiopian government and the coffee farmers. Claiming they wished to benefit the coffee farmers, Starbucks had ulterior motives; to keep the cost of coffee low, thus benefiting only themselves. Starbucks said they pay an average of $1.20/lb for their coffees, which "compares favourably to the Fair Trade minimum of $1.26".  Starbucks does not cater for the ethically conscious consumer as they claim to.

14% of the coffee used by Starbucks is still unethically obtained; it was not until the year 2000, 29 years after the business’ establishment, that Starbucks coffee Transfair USA formed an alliance, in which Starbucks reluctantly agreed to promote and sell fair trade coffee. However, without being targeted by the Black Bloc, a massive group of social activists who vandalised a Seattle Starbucks store during the 1999 Seattle anti-World Trade Organisation demonstrations, as well as being the subject of a year-long protest campaign organized by Global Exchange , Starbucks would not have been forced to purchase fair trade coffee, which they did simply to avoid further public scrutiny. Without these pressures placed upon the company, Starbucks would not have bothered to trade fairly. Luckily for Starbucks, this transition resulted in higher profit margins as Starbucks claims to cater for the ‘ethically conscious consumer.’ However, does Starbucks actually cater for the ethically conscious consumer? Starbucks still does not brew fair trade coffee in their stores, claiming they are yet to see a consumer demand for this. This means that the only fair trade coffee they sell is sold straight off the shelf pre-packaged in bags; the coffee they serve in-store is not fair trade. Starbucks claims that the volume of fair trade coffee needed is not available, a ridiculous claim.

Ethos water is sold in Starbucks chain stores. With a retail price of $1.80, Starbucks only donates 5c per bottle to the Ethos Water Fund. This means that in order to donate the $1.80 spent on the water, one would have to buy 36 bottles of Ethos water at a total of $64.80.  Starbucks claims the money collected is used to ‘help support water, sanitation and hygiene education programs in water-stressed countries.’ Therefore, it is unclear what exactly the money raised by Ethos water is used for. Starbucks is exploiting consumers into thinking Ethos water is a charity, when it is in fact a for-profit organisation that receives over 94% of the $1.80 as profit. This company uses the slogan ‘helping children to get better water’ to lure customers in at false pretences, leading them to believe they will be helping children by buying the more expensive water option. This effective profiteering is horribly unethical.