Starbucks vs Costa vs Pret: Which Coffee Chain Is Most Ethical?

In 2024, Starbucks' CEO compensation reached 6,666 times the median employee pay, according to regulatory filings. In the same year, an NLRB judge cited "egregious and widespread misconduct" in the company's dealings with unionising employees. Meanwhile, Starbucks' Dairy Standard mandates at least 120 days of pasture grazing per year for its suppliers' cows and bans routine antibiotics.

One company. Two very different stories, depending on which dimension you measure.

If you buy a coffee on the way to work, you are probably buying from one of these three. The three largest coffee chains in the UK -- Starbucks, Costa Coffee, and Pret A Manger -- all publish sustainability pledges. All claim to source responsibly. All say they treat workers fairly.

Mashinii scores companies using independently sourced evidence -- regulatory records, labour rulings, and investigative reports. No self-assessments. No corporate sustainability PDFs. Just publicly verifiable data processed through our scoring methodology. For a broader look at how familiar consumer brands perform, see our ethical breakdown of everyday companies.

Here is what we found -- and what we could not find.

---

The Data Availability Problem

Before presenting scores, an honest disclosure about coverage.

Starbucks (SBUX.US) is a publicly traded company with extensive regulatory filings, court records, and media scrutiny. Our database covers it comprehensively across all 11 ethical dimensions.

Costa Coffee was acquired by The Coca-Cola Company (KO.US) in 2019 for $4.9 billion. It is no longer a standalone entity. We can score Coca-Cola as the parent company, but those scores reflect the entire Coca-Cola operation -- not just the Costa Coffee division. This is important context.

Pret A Manger is privately held by JAB Holding Company, a Luxembourg-based investment group. Private companies face less regulatory disclosure and generate fewer court filings. Pret is not in our database. We cannot score what we cannot verify.

This is not a limitation we hide from. It is the reality of integrity data: private companies operate with less scrutiny, and that opacity itself is worth noting.

---

Starbucks: The Full Scorecard

With comprehensive public data available, Starbucks is where we can go deepest.

Starbucks averages -9.1 across all 11 dimensions. Not catastrophic, but far from clean. Labour practices, sourcing, and data privacy pull the score down. Animal welfare pulls it up.

---

Where Starbucks Scores Well

Kind to Animals: +60

This is Starbucks' strongest dimension -- and one of the stronger animal welfare scores in our database for any food service company.

The evidence base includes specific, verifiable commitments. Starbucks sources 100% cage-free eggs in North America and 99.9% in EMEA as of April 2023. Its Sustainable Dairy Program is expanding to cover 100% of the U.S. dairy supply chain, with a zero-tolerance policy for animal abuse.

The Starbucks Dairy Standard, published in September 2024, contains unusually detailed mandates for the industry: at least 120 days of pasture grazing per year with year-round outdoor access, enrichment for at least one age class, socialisation for calves by 3 weeks of age, daily health monitoring, pain mitigation for all painful physical alterations, a ban on routine antibiotics and rBST, and specific animal-based welfare outcome measurements.

The company eliminated routine use of medically important antibiotics in poultry in its U.S. company-operated stores in 2018. It adopted Global Animal Partnership standards for chicken and is phasing out gestation stalls for sows by 2030.

For investors screening on animal welfare, these commitments are specific, measurable, and backed by third-party verification.

Explore what Kind to Animals measures ->

---

Starbucks CEO Pay: 6,666 Times the Median Worker

Fair Pay & Worker Respect: -40

The gap between Starbucks' brand image and its labour record is the widest single finding for this company.

In 2024, Starbucks' CEO compensation reached 6,666 times the median employee pay, according to regulatory filings. To put that in perspective: the median Starbucks worker would need to work for over 6,600 years to earn what the CEO makes in one. Only 3.6% of U.S. store partners were represented by unions as of October 2023. The company does maintain 100% pay equity in the U.S. for gender and race among partners performing similar work.

The National Labor Relations Board has issued multiple rulings finding that Starbucks violated federal labour law in its response to unionisation efforts. In 2025, the NLRB ruled that Starbucks unlawfully fired four employees for union activity. Separately, an NLRB judge found a pattern of misconduct in the company's dealings with organising workers. Violation Tracker records show multiple wage and hour, labour relations, and safety-related violations with associated penalties between 2023 and 2025.

These are adjudicated findings from federal agencies, not allegations.

Coffee Supply Chains: Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing (-30)

Approximately 30% of Starbucks' coffee is Fairtrade certified as of 2023. That leaves the other 70%.

According to investigative reports, 17 workers were rescued from poor conditions on a Brazilian coffee farm supplying Starbucks in 2022. A 2023 investigation uncovered slave and child labour on certified farms in Minas Gerais within its supply chain. A 2025 lawsuit alleges coffee was sourced from a cooperative linked to forced labour.

Starbucks uses its C.A.F.E. Practices programme, established in 2004, which includes third-party audits. The company also has a responsible cocoa sourcing approach, purchasing Rainforest Alliance certified cocoa with the stated aim of eliminating child labour and deforestation.

But multiple lawsuits filed in 2024 and 2025 allege deceptive ethical sourcing claims, asserting the company purchased coffee from farms implicated in forced labour, human rights abuses, child labour, and trafficking.

Safe & Smart Tech: -40

Starbucks faced legal action in 2024 under New York City's Biometric Identifier Information Law, with claims that the company failed to provide proper notice regarding the collection of biometric data. While most claims were dismissed, a claim of unjust enrichment was allowed to proceed.

Honest & Fair Business: 0

Multiple lawsuits filed in 2024 and 2025 allege deceptive ethical sourcing claims. Starbucks denies these allegations, citing its C.A.F.E. Practices programme and third-party verification. In 2023, campaigners urged Starbucks to disclose cocoa sources due to concerns over transparency regarding deforestation and child labour risks. Shareholders rejected a proposal in March 2024 to disclose human rights policies concerning the company's growth plans in China.

View Starbucks' full score breakdown ->

---

Costa Coffee: Scoring the Parent

Since Costa operates under Coca-Cola, here is how the parent company scores across the same dimensions.

Starbucks leads in 5 dimensions. Coca-Cola leads in 5. They tie on 1. But the magnitude matters: Coca-Cola's -70 on health and -50 on climate pull its average down to -18.2, nearly double the negative intensity of Starbucks' -9.1.

Why Coca-Cola's Scores Matter for Costa

Coca-Cola's -70 on Better Health for All is the lowest health score for any company in this analysis. Its core product line is linked to rising rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease globally. The WHO classified aspartame, used in its low-calorie alternatives, as "possibly carcinogenic." According to regulatory filings, non-sugar sweeteners have been linked to increased risks of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. The company funded public health conferences and organisations without full disclosure, and a WHO panel evaluating aspartame safety was linked to a Coca-Cola-funded group. That score does not directly reflect Costa's coffee operations -- but it reflects the parent company's overall posture on health.

Coca-Cola's -50 on Planet-Friendly Business is more directly relevant. The company was named the top plastic polluter for six consecutive years through 2023, according to independent audits. In December 2024, Coca-Cola revised down its environmental goals. Los Angeles County filed suit in November 2024 alleging deceptive recyclability claims. In 2024, only 28% of Coca-Cola system electricity came from renewables. Costa operates within this corporate infrastructure and supply chain.

Coca-Cola's -20 on Honest & Fair Business includes a U.S. Tax Court decision agreeing to a $9 billion transfer pricing adjustment and $2.7 billion in additional tax, which the company appealed in October 2024. Los Angeles County is also suing over misleading recyclability claims.

Coca-Cola's labour score of -20 includes a Hawaii court ordering reinstatement of an unlawfully discriminated employee with over $318,000 in lost wages, a British Columbia ruling on using non-unionised workers during strikes, and a $3.05 million settlement for underpaying employees.

For a broader look at how major consumer brands perform, see our consumer brand ethics scores.

View Coca-Cola's full score breakdown ->

---

Pret A Manger: The Data Gap

Pret is owned by JAB Holding Company, a private Luxembourg-based conglomerate that also controls Panera Bread, Krispy Kreme, and Keurig Dr Pepper. JAB is not publicly traded. Pret itself is not publicly traded.

What we know from public reporting, but cannot independently score:

• Pret has faced scrutiny over allergen labelling following customer deaths linked to undisclosed ingredients, leading to regulatory reform in the UK (Natasha's Law, 2021).
• The company has been criticised for its subscription model's environmental impact, with some analysts arguing that unlimited coffee encourages overconsumption and single-use cup waste.
• Pret's workforce model relies heavily on migrant labour, which has drawn both praise for inclusivity and criticism regarding vulnerability to exploitation.

Without the density of court filings, regulatory records, and third-party investigations that public companies generate, we cannot assign integrity scores. This is not a verdict of innocence. It is an acknowledgement that private ownership reduces the public record available for independent verification.

For investors, this data gap is itself a signal. When a company cannot be independently scored, the risk is not zero -- it is unknown.

---

The Starbucks Paradox: +60 on Animals, -40 on Workers

The same company scores +60 on Kind to Animals and -40 on Fair Pay & Worker Respect. This is the starkest internal contradiction in the entire comparison.

Starbucks invested in detailed, third-party-verifiable animal welfare standards with specific mandates -- 120 days of pasture grazing, socialisation timelines, bans on specific substances. On labour, federal agencies found repeated violations of law. CEO compensation reached 6,666 times the median worker.

Investors who screen on animal welfare alone would view Starbucks favourably. Investors who screen on worker rights would not. The same company, different conclusions depending on what you measure.

Per-Cup Perspective

What does all of this mean for the person who just wants a coffee?

If you buy from Starbucks: You are buying from a company with the most transparent record of the three -- both its strengths and failures are documented. Its dairy standards are among the most detailed in the industry. Its labour record is one of the most scrutinised. If you care about what you are funding, more information exists here than for either competitor.

If you buy from Costa: You are indirectly supporting Coca-Cola, whose -70 health score and position as the world's top plastic polluter for six consecutive years travel with every Costa transaction. Costa's coffee operations may be distinct, but the parent company's environmental and health record is not.

If you buy from Pret: You are buying from a company that cannot be independently scored. That is not evidence of wrongdoing. But the allergen deaths that led to Natasha's Law are a reminder that opacity does not mean safety.

---

Three-Way Verdict Table

Pret A Manger cannot be included. No scores exist for a privately held company without sufficient public disclosure.

---

What This Means for Your Portfolio

If you hold Starbucks stock, its -9.1 average places it in the bottom half of companies we score, but it is not among the worst performers. Its animal welfare commitments are genuine and verifiable. Its labour record is a documented liability.

If you hold Coca-Cola (and therefore have indirect exposure to Costa), the -18.2 average reflects broader corporate conduct issues -- particularly in health, climate, and transparency -- that extend well beyond coffee.

Financial advisors can use Mashinii's integrity data to support suitability conversations under the FCA's Consumer Duty and Anti-Greenwashing Rule. See how Mashinii supports advisors.

---

How We Score

Mashinii scores companies across 11 ethical dimensions using publicly verifiable evidence -- regulatory records, court filings, and investigative reports. Every score is cited at the source. No self-assessments. Learn more about our methodology.

---

The Bottom Line

No major coffee chain scores cleanly across all ethical dimensions. Starbucks has the most transparent record -- for better and worse. Costa's ethics cannot be separated from Coca-Cola's. Pret's private ownership means the data is not there.

If you are screening for integrity, start with the companies that can actually be verified.

Audit My Portfolio | Search Any Company | View Rankings

---

Mashinii provides integrity data for informational purposes. This is not financial advice.