Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol was a “Messiah” until we learned about his private jet

The announcement alone that the previous CEO of Chipotle has a brand new job drove Starbucks shares up 25 percent – ​​the most important jump in value in the corporate’s history.

Niccol, who has already troubled quite a few successful firms corresponding to Taco Bell and most recently Chipotle, is scheduled to start out at Starbucks on September 9.

So far, so good.

But in recent days, the excellent news has been overshadowed by a public backlash over perks included in his contract that allow him to work from his home in Newport Beach, California, and commute to the corporate’s headquarters in Seattle by private jet.

At Starbucks Offer letter The company told Niccol: “During your employment with the Company, you are not required to relocate to the Company’s headquarters… You agree to commute from your home to the Company’s headquarters (and to undertake other business travel) as necessary to perform your duties and responsibilities.”

The document also states that he shall be authorized to make use of the corporate’s aircraft for “business travel” and for “travel between [his] Place of residence and company headquarters”.

A Starbucks spokesperson clarified: CNBC that his latest boss will proceed to be expected to work at the very least three days every week at Starbucks’ Seattle office, in step with the corporate’s hybrid work plan Working guidelines.

But as an alternative of putting out the fireplace, the announcements have only fueled it further. On Thursday, the New York Times had its say: a sarcastic headlineThe BBC even produced a map of his path to work.

Niccol’s journey to work had developed a media lifetime of its own.

“What a bunch of performative hypocrites”

Some consumers have (incorrectly) concluded that Niccol, who relies in California and doesn’t have to relocate to Seattle, will use the corporate jet to commute to work every single day.

Although the corporate has BBC and that Niccol is anticipated to fly over 1,000 miles round trip every single day, the general public is furious, criticising his “hypocritical” commute in light of the corporate’s recent sustainability commitments, which include a ban on plastic straws. Accordingly According to a 2021 report by the European Federation for Transport and the Environment, private jets cause as much as 14 times more pollution per passenger than business aircraft and 50 times greater than trains.

“The CEO of Starbucks has decided to travel to work on a private jet instead of moving. In the meantime, we are supposed to protect the environment and drink our coffee with a paper straw that gets soggy within minutes,” said one social media user. wrote on X, the platform formerly often known as Twitter.

A user joked: “Looks like we’re going to have to use a lot more reusable cups and paper straws to offset the new Starbucks CEO’s huge carbon footprint.”

“What a bunch of performative hypocrites with their eco-friendly branding. No company that really cares about the climate would agree to that,” he interjected. one other.

“If this man regularly commutes to work on a private jet, don’t let @Starbucks convince you they are environmentally conscious,” said one other wrote“They get on our nerves as mere mortals because of our cars, but things like private jets and yachts do a lot more damage to the environment per unit.”

Starbucks declined to comment on allegations that the corporate was hypocritical for pushing customers to make use of paper straws while its CEO had access to the corporate jet.

“Niccol has proven himself to be one of the most effective leaders in our industry and has generated significant financial returns over many years,” an organization spokesman said Assets“We are confident in his experience and ability to lead our global business and brand and create long-term, lasting value for our partners, customers and shareholders.”

The public will forget Starbucks’ hypocrisy – but its employees is not going to

Ben Alalouff, chief strategy officer at marketing agency Live & Breathe, believes that while public response shall be fierce inside a number of days, Starbucks employees is not going to forget the news so quickly.

“If I were a Starbucks worker at headquarters and heard that an enormous sum of money was spent every month on this, [to fuel a private jet] as an alternative of investing within the workforce or in advantages or bonuses or whatever, I could be pretty pissed off,” he told Fortune.

In addition to the anger directed at Starbucks from environmentally conscious consumers, others on social media were quick to indicate the inconsistency of Starbucks’ decision to require office employees to return to the office at the very least three days every week.

Unlike Niccol, those that live removed from the office (and earn a fraction of their boss’s salary) must choose from moving to satisfy the corporate’s office demands or finding one other job.

It’s probably a 9-day miracle

However, Alalouff believes that the Starbucks brand will do well in the long term.

“I think it’s too big a brand and too small a problem in the multitude of things that are going wrong in the world,” says Alalouff Assets“Nobody is going to change their coffee consumption in the long term just because the CEO is on a jet three days a week.”

“That would be the interesting, ridiculous behavior of a manager this week… But I think the concern would come from within,” he adds.

“I completely understand the need to nurture and accommodate talent that will fundamentally change your company. But I think this is probably going a bit too far.”

Niccol’s arrangements are fairly common, with only 7% of CEOs returning to the office full-time (although 1 / 4 of them consider returning to the office full-time is a priority).

Not surprisingly, this double standard just isn’t lost on employees, who often reply to strict RTO requirements by resigning – or staying with the corporate but making minimal effort and finding ways to bypass the regulations.

In his view, Starbucks must spend the following six months “making the company look rosy” with a purpose to gain the approval of each its employees and its customers.

“The longer this new CEO does not have a significant impact both internally and externally, the worse this decision will look,” concludes Alalouff.