The main issues associated with implementing C.A.F.E (Coffee and Farmer Equity Practice) are the lack of economic transparency due to poor information systems, difficulty in communicating revised requirements and practices to farmers, suppliers and other members and finally, the slow, labour-intensive farmer evaluation process. There are ways to overcome these issues but they require Starbucks to invest a lot of resources in order to get any significant benefit. In terms of the lack of information systems, Starbucks has no other choice than to invest in obtaining a new system because if their current system is not substantial enough, there is no other option than going for a new system. While the monetary investment itself most likely will be substantial, I do not believe it would be very difficult to find the right system as there are so many available now. Systems such as SAP, Oracle, Microsoft Dynamics etc are readily available and relatively easy to switch operations to. Since CAFE requires communication with farmers who are in remote places, it would be difficult to give new information or requirements to them. One way to make this communication between parties simpler is for Starbucks to invest in technology for their suppliers. With better technology, communication between the parties would be easier because there would not be as big a gap in capabilities as there are now. If Starbucks invested in putting up a cell tower in supplier farms, for example, internet connection would be stronger in remote places which would allow for better communication as reception would be better. Finally, in order to solve the issue of the slow, labour-intensive evaluation, Starbucks can use a third-party-based approach (similar to a third-party sustainability assessment) to outsource their evaluation process to people closer to the farms rather than sending someone from Starbucks itself to go and evaluate the farms. Once the third party sends information back to Starbucks saying whether the farm in question is up to standard or not, Starbucks can then send someone as a "final check" to make sure the farm is up to requirements. By using a third party first and then going as a final check, Starbucks can save time as they won't be doing the initial check to see whether or not the farm is up to par, someone closer would be doing that. Once the initial check is done, Starbucks can go to the farm as a final check to make sure the third party's assessment is good or not. Once Starbucks has used a third party enough times and is consistently happy with their evaluations, Starbucks can take themselves out of the "final checks" and leave the decision completely to the third party to save even more time.

Do you agree with this paragraph? If yes, then explain