The current restructuring of the world economy under global capitalism has further integrated international trade and production (Gereffi et al 1994: 159). Globalization has broken down geographical boundaries and, thanks to advances in transport and telecommunications, it has allowed transnational corporations (TNCs) to disperse part of their activities across the world. This has led to the growing importance and complexity of global product chains, defined by Hopkins and Wallerstein as a network of work and production processes whose end result is a finished product (1986: 159). Each input is represented as a “node” (Gereffi et al. 1994: 159) and is linked together in networks, with each step adding value to the product. This essay will explore the global nature of the coffee product chain, with reference to Starbucks, to highlight the global power that TNCs exert over product chains and assess the subsequent implications on other key 'nodes'. The importance of consumption as a driver of global commodity chains will also be addressed, strengthening the interconnection between producer and consumer, which is often overlooked. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Starbucks, founded in Seattle in 1971 (Ponte 2002: 1111), has grown into the world's largest coffee chain (Coe et al 2007: 90), spanning four continents. As of August 2005, it had 2,783 operations across 34 countries, serving approximately 33 million customers each week (Coe et al 2007: 90), highlighting its extensive global performance. The company sources its coffee beans from plantations in Latin America and Africa, where they are harvested and imported to wholesalers before being transported to one of five distribution centers in the United States ( Starbucks 2017a). Starbucks is thriving on global market growth, opening its 1,000th store in China and Japan, and continues to expand with future plans to open "1,500 net new stores in each region" (Starbucks2013:2), which will strengthen its commercial success in the market. . This reinforces how food production chains have changed over the past four decades, becoming increasingly industrialized and “global” (Dicken 2015: 424) thanks to the capitalist interests of TNCs. Their ability to coordinate and control production in multiple countries, manipulating geographic differences, gives them immense control over global commodity chains (Dickens 2011: 16). One of the main advantages for Starbucks to outsource and establish operations within these export-oriented chains In developing countries like Costa Rica is cheap labor and regulations less strict which are exploited to maximize profits. The company controls several product lines that involve transforming the regular Arabic bean, grown at high altitudes, into regular coffee or for the growing “specialty blend” market (Starbucks 2017a). However, Starbucks will always seek out the cheapest locations, driven by competition. The foreign direct investment that Starbuck injects into the host country's economy is often essential to its economic development; reinforced by the fact that 20% of Starbuck producing countries belong to the low income category (Wachalec 2015). Therefore, Starbucks and many other TNCs have the power to pit regions against each other in a "race to the bottom" to find the most profitable locationeconomically and reduce production costs. on the other hand, the global dominance of TNCs may have negative effects on other “nodes” in the commodity chain, for example “production” in developing countries. Many developing countries rely on coffee for a large portion of their export earnings. Ponte (2002: 1101) argues that it is the TNCs' priority of maximizing profits that causes farmers to lose their livelihoods. TNCs influence global markets, by fluctuating the prices of products such as coffee, and invest in and improve their functional roles and technologies in ways that "local" exporters cannot compete with. As a result, many smallholders disappear or are forced to align with these international companies (Ponte 2002). However, this also raises dependency issues, as TNCs still have the ability to lock in or exclude selected suppliers from the commodity chain; compromising the economic development of the dependent developing country. This highlights the shift in power from producing countries to consuming countries, where the head offices of TNCs are located (Ponte 2002: 1107). Ponte (2002) argues that this is due to a change in the coffee production chain, which moved from a formal and relatively stable system in which producers "had a voice" (1107) to an economic chain that disadvantages producing countries. Due to production imbalances within the global coffee chain, governments of producing countries should perhaps promote “conscious consumption” (Ponte 2002: 1107), for example fair trade. This would guarantee a minimum floor price that would help local producers recover part of the total income generated in the coffee chain (Ponte 2002). In the case of Starbucks, the company recently reached the milestone of 99% of its coffee being ethically sourced (Starbucks 2017b). The increase in fair trade within food chains is reflected in the growth of “ethical consumption”. People are increasingly aware of where their food comes from and are willing to pay more for a product to ensure local producers receive fair payment; thus supporting their livelihoods (Ponte 2002: 1116). This also highlights the growth of transparency within commodity chains, which can be seen as a positive development in revealing how the commodity has actually been configured on a global scale. Furthermore, Starbucks recognizes the importance of labor as a “factor of production” (Dicken 2015: 121) in the raw material chain and how its productivity is essential to the economic success of the company; arguably more than cheap labor. Productivity refers to the scale of production per worker for a given wage and reflects education and training as well as capital goods (Dicken 2015). For example, Starbucks has a number of farmer support centers in Costa Rica and Guatemala and launched CAFE (Coffee and Farmer Equity) practices in 2004 to ensure fair wages and safe working conditions for its workers (Wachalec 2015). This demonstrates an active interest and investment in the well-being of its workforce, with the capitalist knowing that this increases motivation and productivity in the long term, which will result in greater outputs and therefore profits. Coffee is clearly a global product but its production can also be considered a “local process” insofar as it is linked to climate, soils and often conditions.specific socio-cultural (Dicken 2015: 424). For example, four countries generate 60% of total coffee exports: Brazil, Vietnam, Colombia and Indonesia (Dicken 2015: 429), showing how the food industry is literally based on "processes". biophysics” (424) and makes it fundamentally different from the others. manufacturing industries. Despite this, Starbucks is globally strategic and only operates in affluent consumer markets where demand for coffee is high to ensure greater profits. TNCs follow capitalism in this regard. For example, Starbucks' distribution is largely concentrated in northern countries, such as the United Kingdom, where disposable incomes are high and coffee has strong cultural values. As a result, there is a growing division within the nodes of the commodity chain, with the Global South associated with production and the Global North with consumption. This is reinforced by the fact that statistically, more than 90% of coffee production takes place in developing countries (Ponte 2002: 1101). Consumption as the driving force of global commodity chains.as the driving force of global commodity chains because ultimately the processes rely on the willingness and ability of a population to purchase and consume itself produces it (Dicken 2011: 20). In recent years, consumer demands have become more complex as globalization has increased choice in the marketplace and led people to have very different “food agendas” (Dicken 2015: 431). Furthermore, this situation has been reinforced by the rise of “commodification”, in which products are induced with “symbolic qualities and culturally embedded meanings” (Dicken 2010: 20), thereby increasing the importance of consumerism. In turn, multinational corporations such as Starbucks have manipulated these changing patterns through marketing strategies and highlight a direct reflection of the producer's perceived need to meet a consumer's growing fragmented demand (Dicken 2011: 20). For example, the Starbuck company website promotes "specialty coffee" and sells thirty different types of coffee and tea, describing individual coffees as "exotic" and "earthy" (Coe et al 2007: 90), which which fuels the idea that coffee produced in a foreign country is more desirable. Ponte (2002: 1111) states that the global coffee chain has experienced a “Latte revolution”, thanks to the increase in the variety of beans, to the point that Starbucks has developed a market specializing in “lifestyle” drinks. He calls this the “Starbucks factor,” where Starbucks has become a “consumption experience” and “decommodified coffee” (1111). This capitalist technique is particularly evident in buyer-led product chains, such as coffee, (rather than producer-led), as product design, advertising and branded merchants are key players in this chain (Ponte 2002: 1100). This suggests that through this investment in advertising their brands, companies such as Starbucks have managed to maintain control of the coffee chain (Dijk et al 1998). On the other hand, the global nature of commodity chains can be obscured by capitalism. Although they are often unaware of it, British consumers, for example, are closely linked to workers working on Costa Rican coffee plantations, as they both represent “nodes” in the product journey. However, Coe et al (2007) argue that price tags and brand names reveal nothing about this production process or, for example, the working conditions of workers, and.