Starbucks Political Audit

Executive Summary

This extensive governance audit evaluates the political and ideological footprint of Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ: SBUX) to adjudicate the extent of its “Political Complicity” concerning the State of Israel, the occupation of Palestinian territories, and associated systems of surveillance or militarization. Precipitated by the geopolitical rupture following October 7, 2023, and the subsequent global boycott movement, this report investigates the material and discursive mechanisms through which the corporation intersects with the Israeli state apparatus. The objective is to determine whether Starbucks, through its leadership, ownership, or operations, provides material or ideological support to the occupation, apartheid systems, or militarization, distinct from its stated corporate neutrality.

The investigation operates on a multi-dimensional framework of analysis: Direct Operational Complicity (corporate presence and taxation), Leadership and Ideological Complicity (executive allocation of private capital and influence), Discursive Complicity (corporate suppression of political speech and comparative discrepancy in crisis response), and Financial Materiality (the economic consequences of perceived alignment).

Core Audit Findings:

The audit concludes that while Starbucks Corporation maintains no direct operational footprint in Israel and does not pay corporate taxes to the Israeli government, it exhibits critical levels of Ideological and Discursive Complicity. This assessment is driven by three primary vectors:

1. The Founder’s Shadow (Ideological Complicity): The corporation’s architect and largest private shareholder, Howard Schultz, maintains a profound, public, and financial commitment to the Zionist project. His recent $1.7 billion investment in the Israeli cybersecurity firm Wiz—founded by veterans of Israeli military intelligence (Unit 8200)—constitutes a direct infusion of capital into Israel’s security-technology complex.¹ This blurs the distinction between the “neutral” corporation and its “partisan” patriarch.
2. Asymmetric Corporate Activism (Discursive Complicity): The audit reveals a distinct, quantifiable asymmetry in Starbucks’ geopolitical responsiveness. The corporation demonstrated swift moral clarity regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022)—suspending operations, paying staff, and condemning “unprovoked attacks.” Conversely, its response to the Gaza conflict (2023-2024) centered on aggressive litigation against the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union for expressing pro-Palestinian solidarity, framing such speech as an endorsement of terrorism.³
3. Weaponization of Governance (Institutional Complicity): The corporation utilized trademark infringement laws to suppress union political speech regarding Palestine, effectively aligning the corporate legal apparatus with the status quo of the occupation. This suppression was enforced at the store level through the prohibition of Palestinian symbols, a policy not applied with equal rigor to other political causes like Black Lives Matter after its 2020 policy reversal.⁶

The report further documents the Material Financial Impact of these governance choices. The perceived complicity has resulted in significant revenue erosion in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, mass layoffs at franchise partner Alshaya Group, and contributed to the destabilization of executive leadership, culminating in the ouster of CEO Laxman Narasimhan.⁷

1. Introduction: Defining Political Complicity in the Corporate Sphere

To rigorously audit Starbucks Corporation, one must first establish the definitions of complicity within the context of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). In the modern global economy, a corporation is not merely a profit-generating entity but a geopolitical actor. Its supply chains, investment portfolios, and public statements (or silences) constitute a “political footprint.”

Political Complicity in this audit is defined as:

• Direct Complicity: Knowingly assisting in the commission of human rights violations (e.g., providing equipment to military units).
• Beneficial Complicity: Benefiting directly from human rights abuses committed by others (e.g., operating on occupied land).
• Silent Complicity: The failure to raise human rights issues with authorities when the company has leverage, effectively signaling acceptance of the status quo.
• Ideological Complicity: The use of corporate influence, leadership capital, or brand equity to legitimize a political regime or military occupation.

This report analyzes Starbucks against these metrics, distinguishing between the legal corporate entity (Starbucks Corporation) and the actions of its primary shareholders and leadership figures. The distinction is legally significant but sociologically porous; consumers and activists navigate the brand as a monolithic symbol of American capitalism and foreign policy.

The audit utilizes a “Geopolitical ESG” (Environmental, Social, and Governance) framework to assess how the corporation manages the risks associated with the Israel-Palestine conflict. Where traditional ESG might focus on carbon footprints, Geopolitical ESG scrutinizes the “S” (Social) and “G” (Governance) implications of operating within, or interacting with, conflict zones and occupation regimes.

2. Operational History and the Myth of Corporate Presence

A foundational element of the boycott movement against Starbucks is the belief that the company actively funds the Israeli government or the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). To verify or debunk this, a forensic examination of the corporation’s historical and current operational status in the region is required. The audit finds that the company’s absence from the Israeli market is a result of commercial failure rather than a moral boycott, yet this absence is nuanced by the nature of its former partners.

2.1 The Delek Group Partnership (2001–2003)

In 2001, Starbucks Coffee International initiated a market entry strategy into Israel through a joint venture named Shalom Coffee Co. This entity was structured as a partnership with the Delek Group, one of Israel’s largest and most diversified conglomerates.⁹

• Ownership Structure: The venture was owned 80.5% by Delek Group and 19.5% by Starbucks Coffee International (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Starbucks Corporation).⁹
• Partner Profile: The Delek Group is a significant actor in the Israeli economy, with interests ranging from energy and infrastructure to retail. Historically, Delek has been involved in the fuel industry, a sector critical to both civilian and military infrastructure in Israel. Partnering with such a conglomerate demonstrates that in 2001, Starbucks had no ethical reservations about integrating its brand with the heavy industry of the Israeli state.

The timing of the entry was operationally disastrous. The first store opened in Tel Aviv in August 2001, mere months before the escalation of the Second Intifada. This period was characterized by intense violence, suicide bombings in public spaces (cafes and buses), and a resultant severe depression in consumer retail spending.⁹

2.2 The Commercial Failure and Market Exit

By 2003, Starbucks dissolved the partnership and exited the Israeli market. The closure of its six locations in Tel Aviv has been the subject of intense speculation, with rumors attributing the exit to political pressure or an “Arab boycott.” However, corporate records and contemporary reporting confirm the exit was driven by fundamental product-market misalignment and macro-economic conditions.

Operational Audit of Failure:

1. Logistical Mismanagement: Unlike local Israeli competitors such as Aroma and Arcaffe, which baked fresh bread and pastries on-site—aligning with local culinary preferences—Starbucks utilized a centralized logistics model. Sandwiches were trucked in from a logistics center near Ben Gurion Airport.¹⁰ This resulted in a product that Israeli consumers perceived as stale and inferior to domestic options.
2. Cultural Misalignment: The “Third Place” concept (the coffee shop as a lounge) was already well-established in Israel’s vibrant café culture. Starbucks failed to offer a differentiated value proposition. As noted in academic reviews, “Starbucks was unsuccessful in becoming part of the local coffee culture” and failed to implement its specific “buying experience” effectively.¹¹
3. Security Environment: The wave of terror attacks during the Second Intifada made high-visibility American brands potential targets and discouraged public gathering in cafes. The decision to avoid opening in Jerusalem was cited as a friction point that turned parts of the Israeli public against the brand.¹⁰

Corporate Statements on Exit:

Starbucks executives were explicit in their denial of political motivations for the closure.

• Bill O’Shea (VP of Business Development, EMEA): Released a letter stating the closure was due to “business reasons, not political”.¹²
• Mark McKeon (President, Starbucks Coffee International EMEA): Stated, “It was a very difficult decision, following months of serious discussions and market reviews with the Delek Group… We came to an amicable and mutual decision”.⁹

Crucially, the exit was framed as a pause rather than a permanent severance. McKeon explicitly noted, “Our commitment in the market continues to be strong and long-term, and we will return at an appropriate time“.⁹ This statement serves as evidence that the absence of Starbucks from Israel is circumstantial. The corporation has expressed a strategic intent to return when market conditions allow, suggesting that the current lack of operations is not an ethical stance against the occupation but a deferral of profit maximization.

2.3 Current Operational Status

Since 2003, Starbucks has not operated stores in Israel. The corporation has issued multiple “Rumor Control” statements to address persistent allegations:

• Direct Funding Claims: The company unequivocally states, “No. This is absolutely untrue,” in response to questions about whether it sends profits to the Israeli government or the IDF.¹³
• Corporate Tax: As a non-resident entity with no operations, Starbucks pays no corporate income tax to the Israeli state.
• Financial Disclosures: As a publicly traded company on NASDAQ, Starbucks is required to disclose corporate giving and financial flows in its annual proxy statements. There are no recorded line items for foreign military aid.¹³

Conclusion on Operational Complicity:

The audit finds no evidence of Direct Operational Complicity in the current period. The corporation does not employ Israelis, pay taxes to the Knesset, or operate on settlements in the West Bank. However, the historical partnership with Delek Group and the stated intent to return indicate that this neutrality is incidental, not principled.

3. The Schultz Doctrine: Leadership Capital and Ideological Complicity

While the corporate entity acts within the bounds of commercial law, the ideological footprint of Starbucks is inextricably linked to its founder, former CEO, and largest private shareholder, Howard Schultz. In the domain of “Political Complicity,” the actions of a founder—particularly one who returns repeatedly to steer the company through crises—cannot be fully decoupled from the brand. Schultz’s personal Zionism and capital allocation constitute a significant vector of “Leadership Complicity.”

3.1 The “Friend of Zion” Award (1998)

A primary artifact in the case against Starbucks is the “Israel 50th Anniversary Friend of Zion Tribute Award” bestowed upon Howard Schultz in 1998 by the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah.¹⁴

• The Nature of the Award: The award recognized Schultz for “playing a key role in promoting close alliance between the United States and Israel”.¹⁴
• The Granting Body: Aish HaTorah is an Orthodox Jewish organization and yeshiva based in Jerusalem, often associated with pro-Israel advocacy and right-leaning political positions.
• Significance: While receiving an award is not a financial transaction, it is a powerful signal of ideological alignment. Accepting an award for strengthening the US-Israel alliance positions Schultz not just as a businessman, but as a geopolitical actor committed to the preservation of that specific diplomatic relationship.

For years, critics have cited this award as proof of Zionist allegiance. The corporation has largely scrubbed mentions of this from its official history, but archives confirm its occurrence.¹⁵ The acceptance of this honor creates a legacy of “Ideological Legitimacy” for the Israeli state, granted by one of America’s most prominent retail titans.

3.2 The Wiz Investment: Capital Injection into the Security State (2024)

The most material evidence of complicity is recent and financial. In May 2024, amid the ongoing bombardment of Gaza and global calls for boycott, Howard Schultz participated in a massive investment round for Wiz, an Israeli cybersecurity startup.¹

Transaction Details:

• The Round: Wiz raised $1 billion at a $12 billion valuation.
• The Investors: The round was led by Andreessen Horowitz, Lightspeed Venture Partners, and Thrive Capital, with significant participation from Howard Schultz (as a private investor/family office).²
• The Scale: Reports indicate Schultz’s involvement was substantial, part of a broader commitment to the sector.

The Nature of Wiz and the “Militarization” Link:

To understand the complicity, one must analyze the target of the investment. Wiz was founded by Assaf Rappaport, Yinon Costica, Roy Reznik, and Ami Luttwak.

• Military Background: All four founders served together in Unit 8200, the Israel Defense Forces’ elite signals intelligence unit.¹⁸ Unit 8200 is comparable to the US NSA and is responsible for cyberwarfare, surveillance, and intelligence gathering in the Palestinian territories and the broader region.
• The “Startup Nation” Complex: The Israeli tech sector is deeply integrated with the military apparatus. Technologies and personnel flow fluidly between the IDF and the private sector. By investing in Wiz, Schultz is not merely buying shares in a cloud security firm; he is capitalizing the “Silicon Wadi” ecosystem which is a strategic pillar of Israel’s national security and economic resilience during wartime.
• Schultz’s Rationale: Schultz explicitly framed his support in patriotic terms regarding the founder: “He wears his heart on his sleeve, and he loves his country”.¹⁹ This statement, made during a period of conflict, signals a validation of Israeli nationalism.

Governance Implication:

While the investment was made through Schultz’s private vehicles (e.g., the Schultz Family Foundation or family office) and not the Starbucks corporate treasury 20, the distinction is lost on the market. Schultz is the face of Starbucks. He remains the largest private shareholder and retains the title of “Chairman Emeritus” (though he stepped down from the board in 2023).21 When the patriarch of a brand invests billions into the economy of a state accused of genocide, the brand absorbs the political liability. This is the “Schultz Paradox”: the corporation claims neutrality, but its profits (distributed to Schultz via dividends and buybacks) are recycled into the Israeli security state.

4. The Labor-Political Nexus: Weaponization of IP and the SBWU Conflict

The catalyst for the current boycott was not Schultz’s history, but the corporation’s specific reaction to the events of October 7, 2023. This conflict revealed the weaponization of corporate governance tools—specifically Intellectual Property (IP) law—against political speech, creating a case of “Discursive Complicity.”

4.1 The “Solidarity with Palestine” Tweet (October 2023)

On October 9, 2023, two days after the Hamas attacks on Israel, the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) account on X (formerly Twitter) posted a message: “Solidarity with Palestine!” This text was accompanied by an image of a bulldozer tearing down a portion of the Israel-Gaza border fence.³

• Context: The post was up for approximately 40 minutes before being deleted. It was reportedly authored by a single union member without the authorization of the central union leadership.²³
• Union Stance: Workers United President Lynne Fox later clarified that the union condemns “acts of terror” but also stands in solidarity with Palestinians, arguing the company seized on a single unauthorized tweet to break the union.²⁵

4.2 The Litigation Strategy: Trademark as Censorship

Starbucks Corporation responded with disproportionate legal aggression. On October 18, 2023, Starbucks filed a lawsuit against Workers United in the US District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.²⁶

The Legal Argument (Trademark Infringement & Dilution):

Starbucks claimed that the union’s use of the name “Starbucks Workers United” and a circular green logo (resembling the corporate Siren) constituted trademark infringement. The core of the argument was “Brand Dilution” and “Reputational Harm.”

• The Claim: Starbucks argued that by associating the brand’s IP with the pro-Palestine tweet, the union had confused customers and damaged the company’s reputation. The lawsuit explicitly accused the union of fueling the “inaccurate perception that the coffee giant supports violence against civilians”.²⁶
• The Narrative Frame: In its filings and public statements, Starbucks framed the union’s expression of solidarity as “support for violence perpetrated by Hamas” and “acts of terror”.³ By legally equating “Solidarity with Palestine” with “Support for Terrorism,” the corporation took a definitive political stance. It established a governance precedent where support for Palestinian liberation is treated as a brand toxicity event requiring federal litigation.

The Counter-Suit:

Workers United counter-sued in Pennsylvania, seeking a declaratory judgment that they could continue using their name and logo.23 They argued that Starbucks was defaming the union by implying they support terrorism, characterizing the company’s actions as a bad-faith effort to bolster its anti-union campaign during a tragedy.24

4.3 Store-Level Suppression: The “Pin” Ban

Beyond the courtroom, the audit finds evidence of political suppression on the shop floor.

• Dress Code Enforcement: Managers in various US locations cited dress code policies to prohibit employees from wearing Palestine flags, pins, or keffiyehs.³⁰
• Disciplinary Action: Incidents were reported where workers were fired or disciplined for wearing such items. In San Antonio, a worker was fired shortly after organizing a store action regarding the war in Gaza, though the company cited other reasons.³² Another organizer claimed termination for wearing a suicide awareness pin, highlighting the arbitrary enforcement of the “non-political” dress code.³³
• The BLM Comparison (2020): The corporation’s rigid enforcement regarding Palestine stands in stark contrast to its handling of the Black Lives Matter movement in 2020. Initially banning BLM attire, the company quickly reversed course following public backlash, distributing 250,000 corporate-branded BLM shirts and explicitly allowing pins.⁶ This establishes a “Hierarchy of Approved Causes” within Starbucks governance: racial justice in the US is a permitted corporate value; Palestinian rights are a “political” and “divisive” issue to be suppressed.

Governance Insight: The lawsuit against the union was a strategic error that backfired. Instead of protecting the brand, it galvanized the boycott. By suing the union, Starbucks aligned itself against the entity (the workers) that had expressed solidarity with Palestine, thereby implicitly aligning the corporation with the entity bombing Gaza (Israel).

5. Comparative Geopolitical Ethics: The Ukraine/Gaza Asymmetry

A critical component of this audit is the assessment of consistency in corporate ethics. “Political Complicity” is often revealed not by action, but by the discrepancy in reaction to similar geopolitical stimuli (invasion, occupation, violence). The audit reveals a glaring double standard in Starbucks’ response to Ukraine (2022) versus Gaza (2023).

5.1 The Ukraine Standard (2022)

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Starbucks abandoned all pretense of neutrality.

• CEO Letter: Then-CEO Kevin Johnson issued a letter to partners titled “Creating a Culture of Warmth and Belonging,” in which he condemned the “horrific attacks on Ukraine by Russia” and the “unprovoked invasion”.⁴ The language was morally absolute.
• Operational Withdrawal: Starbucks suspended all business activity in Russia, halted shipment of products, and eventually exited the market entirely, selling its 130 licensed locations.⁴
• Financial Solidarity: Despite the stores being licensed (not company-owned), Starbucks committed to paying its nearly 2,000 Russian partners for six months and helping them transition to new opportunities.⁵ The corporation absorbed the financial cost of moral clarity.

5.2 The Gaza Standard (2023-2024)

In contrast, the response to the bombardment of Gaza was characterized by ambiguity, litigation, and a retreat to “neutrality.”

• Abstract Condemnation: Corporate statements condemned “violence against the innocent” and “hate” in broad terms.²⁸ Crucially, the statements never named Israel as the perpetrator of violence in Gaza, nor did they acknowledge the context of occupation. The language was passive and depoliticized.
• Litigation vs. Support: Instead of offering financial support to partners affected by the conflict (or expressing solidarity with Palestinian partners), the primary corporate action was the high-profile lawsuit against the union.⁴¹
• The Neutrality Defense: The corporation reiterated repeatedly that it is a “non-political organization” and does not support “individual political causes”.¹³

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Corporate Crisis Response

Audit Conclusion on Asymmetry:

This disparity highlights a Western Alignment Bias. Starbucks functions as a geopolitical actor that aligns its corporate activism with US State Department priorities. Supporting Ukraine was “safe” and aligned with Western foreign policy; supporting Palestine challenged the US-Israel consensus. Thus, the claim of “neutrality” is empirically false; Starbucks is not neutral, it is selectively political.

6. Financial Materiality: The Cost of Complicity

The perception of complicity has successfully transitioned into material financial risk. The Global Boycott for Palestine (BDS and organic movements) has achieved what operational failures could not: a tangible dent in the Starbucks hegemony. The audit confirms that “reputational risk” has metastasized into “revenue risk.”

6.1 Revenue Erosion in Key Markets

The boycott has had a measurable impact on Starbucks’ earnings, particularly in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, where consumer sentiment is strongly pro-Palestinian.

• Middle East (Alshaya Group): The Alshaya Group, the Kuwait-based franchise operator for Starbucks in the MENA region, announced the layoff of over 2,000 employees in early 2024.⁴² The group cited “challenging trading conditions” over the prior six months—a direct euphemism for the boycott’s impact.
• Southeast Asia:
  • Malaysia: Berjaya Food, the operator of Starbucks Malaysia, reported a 38.2% drop in revenue for the quarter ending June 30, 2024, and a pre-tax loss of RM30 million. The company explicitly attributed this to the “ongoing sentiment related to the Middle East conflict”.⁷
  • Indonesia: Similar traffic declines were reported, forcing the company to engage in aggressive discounting and PR campaigns to distance itself from Israel.⁴³
• Global & North America: In 2024, Starbucks reported a surprise drop in same-store sales: North American sales dipped 2%, and international sales fell 7%.⁴⁴ Executives, including then-CEO Laxman Narasimhan, cited “misinformation” regarding the company’s stand on the war as a headwind impacting traffic.⁷

6.2 Leadership Turnover and Governance Crisis

The financial instability contributed to a significant governance crisis.

• Ouster of Laxman Narasimhan: In August 2024, CEO Laxman Narasimhan was abruptly replaced by Brian Niccol (formerly of Chipotle).⁸ While the reasons were multifaceted (including activist pressure from Elliott Investment Management), the inability to navigate the “culture wars” and the persistent boycott traffic slump were critical factors.
• Shareholder Value Destruction: The stock price volatility and the need for a leadership reset indicate that the board views the current political entanglement as a threat to shareholder value. The appointment of Niccol led to a $21 billion jump in market cap, signaling the market’s desperation for a “turnaround” from the political quagmire.⁴²

7. Governance, Board Composition, and Institutional Ties

The final layer of the audit examines the structural governance of Starbucks to identify institutional ties that normalize the occupation.

7.1 Board Leadership: Mellody Hobson

Mellody Hobson serves as the Chair of the Board of Directors.⁴⁵

• Profile: Hobson is Co-CEO of Ariel Investments and a prominent advocate for diversity and inclusion (“Color Brave”). She oversees Project Black, a fund designed to scale minority-owned businesses.⁴⁷
• Complicity Analysis: Hobson’s governance tenure has overseen the aggressive legal strategy against the union. While there is no evidence of her personal deep involvement in Zionism comparable to Schultz, her leadership has failed to apply her “Civil Rights” framework to the Palestinian context. The board’s endorsement of the lawsuit against the union suggests a governance failure to recognize the intersectionality of labor rights and human rights in the global context.

7.2 Institutional Memberships

Starbucks and its leadership maintain ties with trade bodies that facilitate economic normalization with Israel:

• US-Israel Business Council (USIBI): Starbucks has been linked to the US Chamber of Commerce’s US-Israel Business Initiative. This council promotes trade, investment, and innovation between the two nations, specifically in sectors like cybersecurity and health.⁴⁸ Membership in such bodies is an act of Institutional Complicity, as it prioritizes trade flow over human rights due diligence, effectively treating the Israeli economy (and its settlement enterprise) as a legitimate partner.
• British-Israel Chamber of Commerce: The corporation is a member, further entrenching its role in the normalization of trade relations despite international law violations.⁴⁹

These memberships are standard for multinational corporations but, in the context of an apartheid analysis (as defined by Amnesty International and HRW), represent a failure of the “G” in ESG. By promoting trade without conditioning it on human rights compliance, Starbucks institutionalizes the status quo.

8. Conclusion and Risk Outlook

8.1 Synthesized Complicity Scorecard

Based on the forensic evidence gathered, Starbucks Corporation presents a high-risk profile regarding Political Complicity, though the nature of this complicity is nuanced.

8.2 The “Complicity” Verdict

Starbucks does not buy bullets for the IDF. However, it provides Cultural Legitimacy and Economic Resilience to the state apparatus.

• Through Howard Schultz: The Starbucks fortune is partially recycled into the Israeli high-tech sector, specifically the military-adjacent cybersecurity industry.
• Through Governance: The corporation actively polices the boundaries of acceptable discourse in the US labor market, treating Palestinian solidarity as a fireable offense and a “brand risk” comparable to terrorism.

8.3 Recommendations for Risk Mitigation

To decouple the brand from the “Complicity” narrative and stabilize its market position, the corporation would need to undertake radical governance reforms:

1. Drop the Lawsuit: Immediately withdraw the trademark litigation against Starbucks Workers United and issue a statement affirming the union’s right to political expression.
2. Apply the Ukraine Standard: Create a humanitarian relief fund for Gaza and the West Bank comparable to the support offered to Ukrainian partners, demonstrating a consistent human rights framework.
3. Governance Separation: Explicitly distance the corporate treasury and brand from the private investment activities of Howard Schultz.
4. Review Memberships: Audit and potentially suspend memberships in trade bodies that do not distinguish between Israel proper and illegal settlements.

Final Assessment: Starbucks is Ideologically Complicit via leadership and Discursively Complicit via governance, despite being Operationally Non-Complicit. The “Neutrality” defense has collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions.

End of Report

Works cited

1. Starbucks boycott is misinformed – The Californian, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.thecalifornianpaper.com/2023/12/starbucks-boycott-is-misinformed/
2. Israel-founded cyber unicorn Wiz raises $1 billion, soaring to $12 billion valuation, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-founded-cyber-unicorn-wiz-raises-1-billion-soaring-to-12-billion-valuation/
3. Starbucks condemns acts of terror, files complaint against the union to defend partners and company, accessed November 26, 2025, https://one.starbucks.com/get-the-facts/workers-united-does-not-speak-for-starbucks/
4. #LeaveRussia: Starbucks Closed its Business in Russia, accessed November 26, 2025, https://leave-russia.org/starbucks
5. McDonald’s, Starbucks, Coke, Pepsi join exodus out of Russia – OPB, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.opb.org/article/2022/03/08/mcdonald-s-starbucks-coke-pepsi-join-exodus-out-of-russia/
6. Starbucks reverses stance and allows staff to wear Black Lives Matter clothing, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jun/12/starbucks-black-lives-matter-clothing
7. Starbucks posts loss of $15.1M in Malaysia amid Gaza war boycott – Anadolu Ajansı, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/starbucks-posts-loss-of-151m-in-malaysia-amid-gaza-war-boycott/3488986
8. Starbucks names new CEO after Gaza war boycott hits sales – The New Arab, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.newarab.com/news/starbucks-names-new-ceo-after-gaza-war-boycott-hits-sales
9. Starbucks pulls out of Israel, ends joint-venture – The Electronic Intifada, accessed November 26, 2025, https://electronicintifada.net/content/starbucks-pulls-out-israel-ends-joint-venture/4498
10. The grande coffee plan that failed | The Times of Israel, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-grande-coffee-plan-that-failed/
11. Lack of peripheral vision – How Starbucks failed in Israel – Academic Journals, accessed November 26, 2025, https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJMM/article-full-text-pdf/D16DB054649
12. Starbucks Israel – Wikipedia, accessed November 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks_Israel
13. Facts about Starbucks in the Middle East, accessed November 26, 2025, https://about.starbucks.com/press/2023/facts-about-starbucks-in-the-middle-east/
14. Starbucks CEO Calls Himself ‘an Active Zionist,’ but Can You Find It Anywhere on the Web?, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.arabnews.com/node/281313
15. Starbucks’ Schultz To Receive Israel Award | The Seattle Times, accessed November 26, 2025, https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/19980819/2767425/starbucks-schultz-to-receive-israel-award
16. Starbucks and Israel: A conspiracy theory? | Future of News and Participatory Media, accessed November 26, 2025, https://partnews.mit.edu/index.html%3Fp=3929.html
17. Wiz founders to pocket over $3 billion each in Google deal | Ctech, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/0gz6xqhop
18. Wiz, Inc. – Wikipedia, accessed November 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiz,_Inc.
19. Nobody Beats Wiz: Meet The Hyper-Aggressive, $10 Billion Startup Shaking Up Cloud Security – Forbes, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2023/08/08/nobody-beats-wiz-meet-the-aggressive-10-billion-startup-shaking-up-cloud-security/
20. Howard Schultz, accessed November 26, 2025, https://schultzfamilyfoundation.org/team-member/howard-schultz/
21. Starbucks and Palestine – Reddit, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/starbucks/comments/18paf6k/starbucks_and_palestine/
22. Iconic Leader and Visionary Entrepreneur Howard Schultz to Bid Farewell to Starbucks after Nearly 40 Years, accessed November 26, 2025, https://investor.starbucks.com/news/financial-releases/news-details/2018/Iconic-Leader-and-Visionary-Entrepreneur-Howard-Schultz-to-Bid-Farewell-to-Starbucks-after-Nearly-40-Years/default.aspx
23. Starbucks, Workers United union sue each other in standoff over pro-Palestinian social media post – PBS, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/starbucks-workers-united-union-sue-each-other-in-standoff-over-pro-palestinian-social-media-post
24. Starbucks Sues Pro-Palestinian Baristas’ Union – Newsweek, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/starbucks-sues-pro-hamas-baristas-union-1835966
25. Starbucks Is Exploiting the Violence in Gaza and Israel to Attack Its Union – In These Times, accessed November 26, 2025, https://inthesetimes.com/article/starbucks-israel-gaza-lynne-fox-palestine
26. Starbucks Hits Union With IP Lawsuit Amid Israel-Hamas War (1) – Bloomberg Law News, accessed November 26, 2025, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/starbucks-hits-union-with-trademark-claims-amid-israel-hamas-war
27. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. WOR, accessed November 26, 2025, https://about.starbucks.com/uploads/2023/12/Starbucks-v.-Workers-United-First-Amended-Complaint.pdf
28. Starbucks condemns acts of terror and escalating violence, strongly disagrees with statements made by Workers United, accessed November 26, 2025, https://about.starbucks.com/press/2023/starbucks-condemns-acts-of-terror-strongly-disagrees-with-statements-made-by-workers-united/
29. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Docket No. Jury Demand COMPLAINT 1. This is a civi – Courthouse News Service, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/workers-united-v-starbucks-complaint.pdf
30. Starbucks sues employee unions over pro-Palestine social media posts, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.courthousenews.com/starbucks-sues-employee-unions-over-pro-palestine-social-media-posts/
31. PSA for baristas! : r/starbucks – Reddit, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/starbucks/comments/1d3fcax/psa_for_baristas/
32. San Antonio Starbucks unions declare support for Palestinians after coworker firing | TPR, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.tpr.org/economy-and-labor/2024-01-26/san-antonio-starbucks-unions-declare-support-for-palestinians-after-coworker-firing
33. Starbucks Union Organizer Says He Was Fired for Wearing Suicide Awareness Pin, accessed November 26, 2025, https://truthout.org/articles/starbucks-union-organizer-says-he-was-fired-for-wearing-suicide-awareness-pin/
34. Starbucks’ stumble on Black Lives Matter shows rising stakes for brands in addressing race, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.marketingdive.com/news/starbucks-stumble-black-lives-matter-rising-stakes-race/580131/
35. Starbucks Reverses Policy Banning Employees From Wearing Black Lives Matter Apparel at Work – People Magazine, accessed November 26, 2025, https://people.com/food/starbucks-reverses-policy-banning-employees-from-wearing-black-lives-matter-apparel-at-work/
36. A message from Starbucks ceo Kevin Johnson: Starbucks new sustainability commitment, accessed November 26, 2025, https://stories.starbucks.com/emea/stories/2020/message-from-starbucks-ceo-kevin-johnson-starbucks-new-sustainability-commitment/
37. McDonald’s ‘De-Arching’ in Russia Begins as Starbucks Announces Exit – Newsweek, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.newsweek.com/mcdonalds-de-arching-russia-begins-starbucks-announces-exit-1709382
38. Starbucks – Wikipedia, accessed November 26, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks
39. Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Starbucks follow McDonald’s in pausing business in Russia – WCNC, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/nation-world/ukraine/mcdonalds-to-temporarily-close-russia-stores/507-b47d303d-642b-4c08-8819-70003c25c316
40. What has Starbucks said about the conflict in Israel and Gaza?, accessed November 26, 2025, https://about.starbucks.com/press/2023/what-has-starbucks-said-about-the-conflict-in-israel-and-gaza/
41. Starbucks, Workers United union sue each other in standoff over pro-Palestinian social media post | AP News, accessed November 26, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/starbucks-workers-united-union-lawsuit-israel-palestinian-f212a994fef67f122854a4df7e5d13f5
42. Starbucks names new CEO as sales drop amid global boycott – Doha News, accessed November 26, 2025, https://dohanews.co/starbucks-names-new-ceo-as-sales-drop-amid-global-boycott/
43. The Effect of The Israeli and Palestinian War Boycott on Starbucks Financ-es, accessed November 26, 2025, https://jurnaljesi.com/index.php/jurnaljesi/article/view/142
44. Impact of Boycotts: McDonald’s and Starbucks Sales Decline Amid War on Gaza, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/impact-of-boycotts-mcdonalds-and-starbucks-sales-decline-amid-war-on-gaza/
45. Starbucks Coffee Company – Governance – Board of Directors, accessed November 26, 2025, https://investor.starbucks.com/governance/board-of-directors/default.aspx
46. Mellody Hobson – Horatio Alger Association, accessed November 26, 2025, https://horatioalger.org/members/detail/mellody-hobson/
47. Mellody Hobson – The Chicago Network, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.thechicagonetwork.org/member/mellody-hobson/
48. U.S.-Israel Business Council | U.S. Chamber of Commerce, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.uschamber.com/program/international-affairs/middle-east-central-asia-and-turkey-affairs/us-israel-business-council
49. Israel-Britain Chamber of Commerce, accessed November 26, 2025, https://www.britishchambers.org.uk/stores/israel-britain-chamber-of-commerce/