The Difference Between Localism and Nativism: Starbucks Update

A week ago or so I wrote about Starbucks new "local" franchises that had the Starbucks branding stripped from them but were still owned by the company. The question was whether people would find the practice deceptive, thus undermining any positive gain for Starbucks?

While the jury remains out, Social Earth writer Tristan Pollock pointed out a list by Grist of companies (featuring the new Starbucks local iteration 15th Ave Coffee and Tea) who are attempting to use the language of local to sell more of their products or services, which are sometimes decidedly un-local.

Beyond Starbucks, the Grist piece calls out Hellman's mayo, which apparently launched an anti-Canada campaign (yet still sources highly processed foods from around the US), Whole Foods, which had local signs pointing to coffee brands, confusing in that no coffee beans are grown in the New York State area, and Walmart's "local" banners, which make it seem like far more of the products underneath are sourced from local economies rather than from far away. Perhaps the most worrisome in my book is a website campaign to help people find "local" options that brings up big box chains.

All of these examples of "localwashing" bring up an important question. It's clear that companies are recognizing the value of the "local" brand. But why do *we* think local means better? Is it an environmental argument; the smaller distance items we consume have to travel to us, the lower their carbon footprint? That's reasonable. Is it because local, when it comes to food, conveys a sense of less processing, more organic ingredients? Maybe that's reasonable as well.

But is it an economic argument for the benefit of one over the other? If that's the case, is there an inherent us. vs. them. That us. v. them is usually presented as the little guy vs. the big guy. I think we all understand that, and there is something extremely appealing about the idea of the freedom and authenticity of an economic fabric of small business owners.

At the same time, the economies of scale that big companies experience can allow them to do things that some smaller companies have a hard time affording. Starbucks is one of the only jobs of it's type to offer part-time employees benefits. Walmart and Walgreens are independently creating alternative approaches to healthcare that make basic service financially accessible to everyone. While I think it's immensely reasonable to ask why our system is structured so that these basic things are out of reach for small business owners, it should still complicate our desire to demonize large companies in general.

I think a perhaps even more dangerous and less discussed aspect of this conversation is the potential for nativism. When we get into the game of defining "local" as supreme, we inherently create a physical out there that is less valuable or less important than those of some predetermined proximity to us. Who is that other? Is local just the county? The state? The country? If buying foodstuffs from ethically sourced companies in other countries creates a great general social benefit than buying from local, should we do that instead?

I worry that the value of the local brand occasionally becomes less about it's very important constituent parts - support for smallholder farms, a healthier life, less consumption, less detrimental environmental impact, the development of a more sustainable economic framework and an affirmation of the social impact of business - and instead becomes about blindly adhearing to geographic proximity as the primary determinant of brand allegiance.

At the end of the day, it's only this watered-down, over-simplified and at the end of the day unhelpful version of local that the big box brands can grab on to. By focusing not just on "local" but what about local matters, we can make sure that localwashing doesn't become the new greenwashing.

(Photo: via Jeff Trexler. "Literary Digest, 7/15/19, reprinted from the Chicago Tribune. Similar cartoons from the period can be found in the invaluable Red Scare (1918-21) image database.")