case study alternative equipment to reduce forces

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Police Use of Force: The Impact of Less-Lethal Weapons and Tactics

Archival Notice

This is an archive page that is no longer being updated. It may contain outdated information and links may no longer function as originally intended.

In the mid-19th century, police officers in New York and Boston relied on less-lethal weapons, mostly wooden clubs. By the late 1800s, police departments began issuing firearms to officers in response to better-armed criminals. Today, many law enforcement agencies are again stressing the use of less-lethal weapons, but they are using devices that are decidedly more high-tech than their 19th-century counterparts.

Use of force, including less-lethal weaponry, is nothing new to policing, and in any use-of-force incident, injury is a possibility. Researchers have estimated that between 15 and 20 percent of arrests involve use of force. A group of researchers led by Geoffrey P. Alpert, professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina, recently completed an NIJ-funded study of injuries to officers and civilians during use-of-force events. Injury rates to civilians ranged from 17 to 64 percent (depending on the agency reporting) in use-of-force events, while injury rates to officers ranged from 10 to 20 percent. Most injuries involved minor bruises, strains and abrasions. Major injuries included dog bites, punctures, broken bones, internal injuries and gunshot wounds.

Can New Technologies Decrease Injuries?

Advances in less-lethal technology offer the promise of more effective control over resistive suspects with fewer serious injuries. Pepper spray was among the first of these newer, less-lethal weapons to achieve widespread adoption by police forces. More recently, conducted energy devices (CEDs), such as the Taser, have become popular.

More than 11,000 American law enforcement agencies use CEDs, but their use has not been without controversy. Organizations such as Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union have questioned whether CEDs can be used safely, and whether they contribute to civilian injuries and incustody deaths. Policymakers and law enforcement officials want to know whether CEDs and other less-lethal weaponry are safe and effective, and how police should use them.

See "What Is Use of Force, and What Is a Use-of-Force Continuum?"

Analysis of Information from Specific Law Enforcement Agencies

Alpert's research on use of force and less-lethal weapons, in part, focused on data gathered from three law enforcement agencies — the Richland County (S.C.) Sheriff's Department, the Miami-Dade (Fla.) Police Department and the Seattle Police Department.

Richland County Sheriff's Department

Approximately 475 sworn officers from the Richland County Sheriff's Department (RCSD) serve the unincorporated portions of Richland County, S.C. The agency started phasing in Tasers in late 2004. During data collection, about 60 percent of deputies carried Tasers.

Researchers coded 467 use-of-force reports from January 2005 to July 2006. The most frequent force level used by deputies (59 percent of incidents) was soft empty hand control (e.g., holding a suspect to restrain him), which increased the odds of officer injury by 160 percent.

Pepper spray decreased the odds of suspect injury by almost 70 percent, and a deputy aiming a gun at a suspect reduced his or her injury odds by more than 80 percent (the act of pointing a gun alone often effectively ends a suspect's resistance). The use of a canine posed, by far, the greatest injury risk to suspects, increasing injury odds almost fortyfold. Suspects who displayed active aggression toward deputies were also more likely to suffer injuries.

In contrast to the Miami-Dade and Seattle Police Departments, Taser use by the RCSD had no effect on the likelihood of suspect injury. Also in contrast to the Miami-Dade Police Department, Taser use by the RCSD had no effect on the likelihood of officer injury; Taser use by the Seattle Police Department, however, similarly showed no effect on the likelihood of officer injury. This suggests that not every agency's experience with CEDs will be the same.

Miami-Dade Police Department

With 3,000 officers, the Miami-Dade Police Department (MDPD) is the largest law enforcement agency in the southeast.

The MDPD started using Tasers in 2003. By May 2006, about 70 percent of the officers carried Tasers. The researchers examined 762 use-of-force incidents between January 2002 and May 2006. Most injuries were minor, and officers were substantially less likely to be injured than suspects, with 17 percent of officers injured and 56 percent of suspects injured.

Use of both soft hand tactics and hard hand tactics (e.g., using kicks or punches to restrain a suspect) by officers more than doubled the odds of officer injury. Hands-on tactics also increased the odds of injury to suspects, as did the use of canines. Taser use, however, was associated with a reduction in the likelihood of both officer and suspect injury.

Seattle Police Department

The Seattle Police Department (SPD) has about 1,200 sworn officers. The agency started using Tasers in December 2000. The SPD recorded 676 use-of-force incidents between December 2005 and October 2006. Suspects suffered injuries in 64 percent of the incidents, while officers suffered injuries in 20 percent of the incidents. Officers used hands-on tactics in 76 percent of the incidents. The next most frequent type of force officers used was the Taser (36 percent), followed by pepper spray (8 percent). [1]

Taser use was associated with a 48 percent decrease in the odds of suspect injury in a use-of-force incident (it was not associated with a significant change in the odds of officer injury). The use of physical force by officers increased the odds of officer injury 258 percent. Not surprisingly, the odds of officer injury also increased when suspects resisted by using physical force or when suspects used or threatened to use a weapon.

Combined Agency Analysis

The researchers conducted a combined analysis of use-of-force data from 12 large local law enforcement agencies (including Miami-Dade, Seattle and Richland County). [2] The large sample, representing more than 24,000 use-of-force incidents, allowed the researchers to use statistical techniques to determine which variables were likely to affect injury rates. The use of physical force (e.g., hands, fists, feet) by officers increased the odds of injury to officers and suspects alike. However, pepper spray and CED use decreased the likelihood of suspect injury by 65 and 70 percent, respectively. Officer injuries were unaffected by CED use, while the odds of officer injury increased about 21 percent with pepper spray use.

Longitudinal Analysis

To see if the introduction of CEDs was associated with changes in injury rates in individual police departments, the researchers reviewed monthly reports of use-of-force incidents and of officer and suspect injuries from police departments in Austin, Texas, and Orlando, Fla., both before and after the introduction of CEDs. [3]

See "Study Findings: Factors Affecting Injuries."

The Orlando data included 4,222 incidents from 1998 to 2006 (CED use began in February 2003). The Austin data included 6,596 incidents from 2002 to 2006 (CED use was phased in beginning in 2003 and was completed in June 2004). Use-of-force cases increased in Orlando after CEDs were deployed, but they dropped after full deployment of CEDs in Austin. A large drop in injury rates for suspects and officers alike occurred in both cities following CED introduction.

In Orlando, the suspect injury rate dropped by more than 50 percent compared to the pre-Taser injury rate. In Austin, suspect injury rates were 30 percent lower after fullscale Taser deployment.

In Orlando, the decline in officer injury rates was even greater than for suspects, with the average monthly rate dropping by 60 percent after Taser adoption. In Austin, officer injuries dropped by 25 percent.

Interviews with Officers and Suspects

Researchers also collected qualitative data through interviews with officers and suspects involved in use-of-force incidents. Researchers conducted interviews with 219 officers from the Richland County Sheriff's Department, 35 officers from the Columbia (S.C.) Police Department (CPD) and 35 suspects involved in use-of-force situations. Unlike the RCSD, the CPD does not use CEDs.

In nine incidents (out of 109), officers in the RCSD reported that a Taser did not work properly or did not have the desired effect. Researchers received reports of multiple Taser hits on a suspect (i.e., more than one officer using a Taser on a single suspect) and multiple uses of the Taser in drive stun mode (when the Taser is pressed against a suspect rather than firing darts).

Nine percent of the officers reported injuries, almost all of which were scrapes, cuts or bruises suffered while struggling with resistant suspects. Officers also reported that 26 suspects (12 percent) were injured. Most suspect injuries were cuts or abrasions, but there were also two dog bites, and one suspect was shot in the arm after firing at officers.

Suspect Perceptions

In 22 cases, researchers interviewed both the officers and the suspects involved in an incident. Suspects often told a different story than the officer who arrested them. In almost all cases, suspects said officers used excessive force and that they were not resisting. Some suspects said officers used Tasers early in the interaction, and several said the officers seemed to enjoy watching them endure the pain. Some suspects said officers kneed them in the back and kicked or punched them after they were in handcuffs. Some also said officers used Tasers on them after they were handcuffed.

Implications for Policy, Training and Future Research

CED use is widespread and often controversial. Based on their findings, the researchers involved in this study made recommendations about whether and how CEDs should fit into the range of less-lethal force alternatives available to law enforcement officers.

If injury reduction is the primary goal, however, agencies that deploy pepper spray and CEDs are clearly at an advantage. Both weapons prevent or minimize the physical struggles that are likely to injure officers and suspects alike.

The researchers compared injuries reported by the RCSD and by the CPD. Most injuries in both agencies occurred when officers and suspects struggled on the ground, but the differences between the agencies in terms of percentage of officers and suspects injured were striking. The RCSD deputies, most of whom carry Tasers, reported fewer injuries to themselves and suspects from ground fighting than did CPD officers, who do not carry CEDs (9 percent and 31 percent, respectively). Injuries to suspects caused by contact with the ground were also lower in RCSD incidents. Some of the injuries to CPD officers and suspects might have been prevented had officers used CEDs instead of hands-on tactics.

Although both pepper spray and CEDs cause pain, they reduce injuries; and, according to current medical research, death or serious harm associated with their use is rare. [4] In that sense, both are safe and similarly effective at reducing injuries. The researchers recommend that both should be allowed as possible responses to defensive or higher levels of suspect resistance. This recommendation is followed by most agencies that responded to a national survey conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum. [5]

Policy and Training Issues Related to CEDs

CEDs are rapidly overtaking other force alternatives. Although the injury findings suggest that substituting CEDs for physical control tactics may decrease the chance of injury, their ease of use and popularity among officers raise concerns about overuse.

CEDs can be used inappropriately. Law enforcement executives can manage this problem with policies, training, monitoring and accountability systems that provide clear guidance (and consequences) to officers regarding when and under what circumstances CEDs should and should not be used.

Besides setting the resistance threshold appropriately (that is, determining the level of suspect resistance at which officers should be allowed to use CEDs), good policies and training would require that officers evaluate the age, size, sex, apparent physical capabilities and health concerns of a suspect. In addition, policies and training should prohibit CED use in the presence of flammable liquids or in circumstances where falling would pose unreasonable risks to the suspect (e.g., in elevated areas, adjacent to traffic, etc.). Policies and training should address use on suspects who are controlled (e.g., handcuffed or otherwise restrained) and should either prohibit such use outright or limit it to clearly defined, aggravated circumstances.

In addition to the possibility of CEDs being used in too many cases (i.e., inappropriately in instances of low-level resistance), there are also concerns about CEDs being used too many times in a single case. Deaths associated with CED use often involve multiple CED activations (more than one CED at a time) or multiple five-second cycles from a single CED. CED policies should require officers to assess continued resistance after each standard cycle and should limit use to no more than three standard cycles. Following CED deployment, the suspect should be carefully observed for signs of distress and should be medically evaluated at the earliest opportunity.

Directions for Future Research

A critical research question is whether officers can become too reliant on CEDs. During interviews with officers and trainers, the researchers heard comments that hinted at a "lazy cop syndrome." Some officers may turn to a CED too early in an encounter and may rely on a CED rather than on their conflict resolution skills or even on hands-on applications.

Another important CED-related research project would be a study of in-custody deaths involving CED use and a matched sample of in-custody deaths when no CED use occurred. Advocacy groups argue that CEDs can cause or contribute to suspect deaths. [6] The subjects in CED experimental settings have all been healthy people in relatively good physical condition who were not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. However, not all subjects in actual cases of CED use would meet experimental requirements of good health. Law enforcement officials typically argue that most, if not all, of the citizens who died when shocked by a CED would have died if the officers had controlled and arrested them in a more traditional hands-on fashion. Research is needed to understand the differences and similarities in cases where suspects died in police custody, including deaths where a CED may or may not be involved.

The National Institute of Justice funded this study. Read the complete report (pdf, 173 pages) .

What Is Use of Force, and What Is a Use-of-Force Continuum?

"Use of force" refers to the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject." The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, and various other legal and policy controls govern how and when officers can use force. Most agencies tightly control the use of force, and supervisors or internal affairs units routinely review serious incidents.

Many law enforcement agencies instruct officers in, and have policy guides for officers regarding appropriate responses to an escalation of activities in an encounter with a civilian. "The use-of-force continuum" is a phrase to describe this kind of guide. The continuum of a particular agency may cover a full spectrum of actions from no-force, in which having officers present is enough to defuse the situation or deter crime, to lethal force, in which officers use deadly weapons. For a sample continuum, see NIJ's Use-of-Force topic page .

When any kind of physical use of force is required, there is always a chance of injury to the officer or the suspect. When police in a democracy use force and injury results, concern about police abuse arises, lawsuits often follow and the reputation of the police is threatened. Injuries also cost money in medical bills for indigent suspects, workers' compensation claims for injured officers, or damages paid out in legal settlements or judgments.

Return to text .

Sidebar: Study Findings - Factors Affecting Injuries

Physical force.

Physical force and hands-on control increased the risk of injury to officers and citizens. When controlling for the use of CEDs and pepper spray in the multiagency analysis, using force increased the odds of injury to officers by more than 300 percent, and by more than 50 percent to suspects.

Suspect Resistance

Increasing levels of suspect resistance were associated with an increased risk of injury to officers and suspects. The increased injury risk was especially acute for officers. These findings suggest that officers, rather than suspects, face the most increased injury risk when suspects resist more vigorously.

Pepper Spray

The overall analysis (of 12 agencies) showed that pepper spray use reduced the likelihood of injury to suspects. For officers, however, pepper spray use increased the likelihood of injury. This finding was unexpected, and further research may help to explain how officers choose to use pepper spray instead of CEDs.

Except for Richland County, where its effects were insignificant, CED use substantially decreased the likelihood of suspect injury. The analysis of 12 agencies and more than 24,000 use-of-force cases showed that the odds of suspect injury decreased when a CED was used. CED adoption by the Orlando and Austin police departments reduced injuries to suspects and officers over time.

Demographic Characteristics

The 12-agency analysis showed that male suspects were twice as likely to be injured as female suspects. In that analysis, the presence of a male suspect slightly increased injury risk to officers. In Seattle, female officers were more than twice as likely to be injured as male officers. In Miami-Dade and Seattle, where suspect race was available as a variable for analysis, the odds of injury for non-white suspects were lower than they were for white suspects.

For More Information

• Smith, M. R., R. J. Kaminski, G. P. Alpert, L. Fridell, J. MacDonald, and B. Kubu, A Multi-Method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes (pdf, 173 pages) , Final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, July 2010 (NCJ 231176).
• National Institute of Justice, Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption: Interim Report (pdf, 21 pages) , Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, June 2008 (NCJ 222981).

About This Article

This article appeared in NIJ Journal Issue 267 , March 2011.

[note 1] Note that more than one use-of-force tactic could be recorded for each incident.

[note 2] The other nine agencies included police and sheriff's departments in Austin, Texas; Cincinnati, Ohio; Harris County, Texas; Hillsborough County, Fla.; Los Angeles (both the city and the county); Nashville, Tenn.; Orlando, Fla.; and San Antonio, Texas.

[note 3] For a more in-depth description of the researchers' approach to their longitudinal analysis, see section 6 of the report, "A Multi-Method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes" (pdf, 173 pages) .

[note 4] National Institute of Justice, Study of Deaths Following Electro Muscular Disruption: Interim Report (pdf, 21 pages) , Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, June 2008 (NCJ 222981).

[note 5] Details about the national survey can be found in section 3 of the report.

[note 6] Amnesty International, 'Less Than Lethal'? The Use of Stun Weapons in US Law Enforcement , London, England: Amnesty International Publications. 2008.

About the author

Philip Bulman is a writer with the National Institute of Justice.

Cite this Article

Read more about:, related publications.

• NIJ Journal Issue No. 267 NIJ Journal,
• Multi-Method Evaluation of Police Use of Force Outcomes: Final Report to the National Institute of Justice

• About The Journalist’s Resource
• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

U.S. Department of Justice: Police use of force, Tasers and other weapons

2011 report by the National Institute of Justice on the effectiveness and safety of Tasers and other conducted energy devices.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by John Wihbey, The Journalist's Resource April 7, 2015

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/criminal-justice/u-s-department-of-justice-police-use-of-force-tasers-and-other-less-lethal-weapons/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

Police forces across the United States use a variety of techniques to deal with situations that may involve violence. Though the wooden baton was once the only less-lethal weapon available, more advanced technologies such as Taser devices are now employed.

Use of any technique comes with attendant risks, both for the public and for officers, and Tasers remain the subject of significant controversy. On April 4, 2015, Walter L. Scott was shot by a police officer after a routine traffic stop in North Charleston, S.C. The officer, Michael T. Slager, initially attempted to use a Taser, and when the device either failed or was improperly used, the officer fired eight shots from his pistol, killing Scott. Slager claimed that Scott had attempted to take his Taser, but this was not supported by a video of the incident. And two days earlier in Tulsa, Okla., Eric C. Harris was shot by a 73-year-old volunteer with the sheriff’s department; the volunteer, Robert C. Bates, said he wanted to use his Taser to subdue Harris during an arrest but accidentally pulled out his pistol. Harris died, and Bates was charged with homicide .

A 2011 study by the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, “Police Use of Force, Tasers and Other Less-Lethal Weapons,” examines the effectiveness and health outcomes of incidents involving CEDs (conducted energy devices), the most common of which is the Taser. The study looked at a range of police departments and specific incidents, and examined national survey data. The Taser, which is now used by some 15,000 law enforcement and military agencies across the United States, produces 50,000 volts of electricity and temporarily stuns and disables its target. But the electricity produced has also been associated with injury and even death.

The report’s findings include:

• Injury rates vary widely when officers use force in general, ranging from 17% to 64% for citizens and 10% to 20% for officers.
• Use of Tasers and other CEDs can reduce the statistical rate of injury to suspects and officers who might otherwise be involved in more direct, physical conflict. An analysis of 12 agencies and more than 24,000 use-of-force cases “showed the odds of suspect injury decreased by almost 60% when a CED was used.” This finding is not uniform across all agencies, however, and comes with a number of caveats.
• A review of fatal Taser incidents found that many involved multiple uses of the device against the suspect in question. Therefore, “caution is urged in using multiple applications.” Because of increased vulnerability, caution should be exercised in using Tasers against “small children, those with diseased hearts, the elderly, those who are pregnant and other at-risk people.”
• According to surveys of police departments, rules regarding Taser use vary widely. Six of every ten departments allow “for CED use against a subject who tenses and pulls when the officer tries to handcuff him or her.” In addition, only 31% ban CED use against clearly pregnant women, 25.9% against drivers of moving vehicles, 23.3% against handcuffed suspects, 23.2% against people in elevated areas and 10% against the elderly.
• CEDs are “rapidly overtaking other force alternatives” among police departments and in some cases are being used at a rate that exceeds that of officers using “soft empty hand tactics,” or simple pushing or grappling with resistant suspects.
• Overall, the growing use of CEDs is cause for concern: “Although the injury findings suggest that substituting CEDs for physical control tactics may be useful, their ease of use and popularity among officers raise the specter of overuse.”

The authors conclude that the findings suggest ” the need to look beyond situational risks and the factors that are most likely to explain both the appropriate use of Tasers and the more general exercise of coercive force by police.”

Related research: A 2012 study in Police Science and Management , “Police Crime and Less-Than-Lethal Coercive Force: A Description of the Criminal Misuse of Tasers,” used content analysis of newspaper articles on 24 police officers arrested for crimes involving inappropriate use of Tasers from January 2005 to May 2010. “The findings indicate that the cases examined did not involve much, if any, situational risk to the officer. The criminal misuse of Tasers seems more likely to involve suspects who are already handcuffed, or even citizens who are clearly not criminals at all.”

Keywords: crime, guns, safety, technology, Tasers, less-than-lethal force , policing

About The Author

John Wihbey

• Strategy Explained
• Business Strategy
• Creating a Successful Strategy
• Corporate Strategy
• The Role of Leaders
• Related Topics

The Five Forces

• Strategic Positioning
• The Value Chain
• Operational Effectiveness vs. Strategy

Threat of New Entrants

Bargaining power of suppliers, bargaining power of buyers, threat of substitute products or services, rivalry among existing competitors.

• Competitors are numerous or are roughly equal in size and market position
• Industry growth is slow
• There are high fixed costs, which create incentives for price cutting
• Exit barriers are high
• Rivals are highly committed to the business
• Firms have differing goals, diverse approaches to competing, or lack familiarity with one another

Key Industry Structure Concepts

Every industry is different, but the underlying drivers of profitably are the same in every industry.

The Five Forces determine the competitive structure of an industry, and its profitability. Industry structure, together with a company's relative position within the industry, are the two basic drivers of company profitability. 

Analyzing the Five Forces can help companies anticipate shifts in competition, shape how industry structure evolves, and find better strategic positions within the industry. 

How the Five Forces Work

Industry Structure is Dynamic

Industry structure changes over time, and is not static. Over time, buyers or suppliers can become more or less powerful. Technological or managerial innovations can make new entry or substitution more or less likely. Changes in regulation can change the intensity of rivalry, or affect barriers to entry. Choices by competition, such as new pricing or distribution approaches, can also affect the path of industry competition.  

Five Forces analysis is essential to anticipate and exploit industry structural change.

Related Resources

• 01 Jan 2008
• Harvard Business Review

The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy

• 16 Dec 2012
• Harvard Business School Publishing

Understanding Michael Porter: The Essential Guide to Competition and Strategy

• 09 Sep 2008

On Competition, Updated and Expanded Edition

View All Related Resources

Snapsolve any problem by taking a picture. Try it in the Numerade app?

• About / Contact
• Privacy Policy
• Alphabetical List of Companies
• Business Analysis Topics

Starbucks Five Forces Analysis & Recommendations (Porter’s Model)

This Five Forces analysis of Starbucks Corporation, using Porter’s model, illustrates business effectiveness in strategically managing the impacts of the five forces in the global coffeehouse industry environment. Through Michael E. Porter’s Five Forces analysis model, Starbucks’ industry environment is evaluated based on external factors that define the competitive landscape. This external analysis model provides information for the coffee company’s strategic management to address the five forces, namely, competitive rivalry, the bargaining power of customers or buyers, the bargaining power of suppliers, the threat of substitution, and the threat of new entrants. Starbucks operates in a business environment that involves strong competition. The SWOT analysis of Starbucks shows strengths for countering the competitive forces described in this Five Forces analysis. However, the company needs continuous improvement to maintain its competencies and its industry and market position despite the negative effects of competitive dynamics.

This Five Forces analysis of the coffeehouse chain highlights some of the most notable external factors that the company’s strategies must consider. These strategies focus on competitive advantage while fulfilling Starbucks’ mission and vision .

Summary: Porter’s Five Forces Analysis of Starbucks

The strong force of competition is the combined effect of the external factors identified in this Five Forces analysis of the coffeehouse industry environment. The most significant forces for Starbucks’ strategic consideration are competitive rivalry, the bargaining power of customers, and the threat of substitutes. The other forces also influence the coffee company’s business performance, but to a lesser degree. The following are the intensities of the Five Forces impacting Starbucks Coffee Company:

• Competitive rivalry or competition – Strong Force
• Bargaining power of buyers or customers – Strong Force
• Bargaining power of suppliers – Moderate Force
• Threat of substitutes or substitution – Strong Force
• Threat of new entrants or new entry – Moderate Force

Recommendations. Addressing the external business environment described in this Five Forces analysis, Starbucks’ strategic goal focuses on maximizing its strengths and competencies. For example, the coffeehouse business can implement strategies to make its brand even stronger. This recommendation addresses the strong forces of competitive rivalry, buyer power, and substitution threat against Starbucks. Specific to the force of competition depicted in this Five Forces analysis, a recommendation is to boost the coffeehouse chain’s competitive advantages, such as by improving the diversity of its supply chain to enhance access to resources and the stability of coffee processing and production. Changes in the supplier network may require related changes in Starbucks’ operations management strategies . Another recommendation based on this Five Forces analysis is to increase the coffee company’s marketing aggressiveness to attract and retain more customers despite the force of substitution, competition, and new entry.

Competition or Competitive Rivalry (Strong Force)

Starbucks Coffee Company faces the strong force of competitive rivalry. In the Five Forces analysis model, this force pertains to the influence of competitors on each other and the coffeehouse industry environment. In this case, the following external factors contribute to the strong force of competition against Starbucks:

• Large number of coffeehouses and food-service firms (strong force)
• Moderate variety of businesses (moderate force)
• Low switching costs between coffeehouses (strong force)

The large number of coffeehouses and food-service firms is an external factor that intensifies competitive rivalry in the context of this Five Forces analysis. Starbucks has many competitors of different sizes, including multinational businesses and small local cafés. The company’s main competitors include coffeehouses, like Tim Hortons, and food-service businesses, like Dunkin’, McDonald’s , Wendy’s , Burger King , and Subway . Also, competitors are moderately varied in terms of specialty and strategy. For example, some coffeehouses focus on local coffee varieties only. In this Five Forces analysis of Starbucks, moderate variety strengthens competition by dividing the market into segments based on business specialty or strategy. Moreover, competition is strengthened because of the low switching costs between coffeehouses. In the Five Forces analysis model, low switching costs reduce barriers when customers switch from Starbucks to competitors. Based on this component of the Five Forces analysis, competition is among the coffee company’s top-priority challenges. Starbucks’ generic competitive strategy and intensive growth strategies reflect strategic responses to such competitive challenges.

Bargaining Power of Customers or Buyers (Strong Force)

Starbucks experiences the strong force or bargaining power of buyers or customers. In Porter’s Five Forces analysis model, this power is based on the influence of individual customers and their groups on the coffeehouse business environment. The following external factors contribute to the strong bargaining power of customers relative to Starbucks:

• Low switching costs between coffee shops (strong force)
• High availability of substitute foods and beverages (strong force)
• Small size of individual buyers (weak force)

The bargaining power of consumers or buyers is among the most significant forces affecting the coffeehouse industry determined in this Five Forces analysis. With low switching costs, customers can easily transfer from Starbucks to other brands. In addition, the high availability of substitutes means that customers can easily stay away from the company’s products and opt for substitutes, like instant beverages from vending machines and home-brewed coffee from local roasteries. These strong external factors overshadow the fact that individual purchases are small compared to Starbucks’ total revenues. In the Five Forces analysis context, small individual purchases mean that individual consumers have weak or insignificant influence on the business. However, low switching costs and high substitute availability lead to the overall strong force of the bargaining power of customers against Starbucks. Such a strong force in this component of the Five Forces analysis shows that the bargaining power of customers is a top-priority strategic issue. Starbucks’ marketing mix or 4P can support brand strengthening to partially address the bargaining power of consumers.

Bargaining Power of Starbucks’ Suppliers (Moderate Force)

Starbucks Coffee Company faces the moderate force or bargaining power of suppliers. Porter’s Five Forces analysis model considers this power as the influence that suppliers have on the coffeehouse chain business and its industry environment. The following external factors contribute to suppliers’ moderate bargaining power over Starbucks Corporation:

• Moderate size of individual suppliers (moderate force)
• Limited variety of suppliers (moderate force)
• Supply shortages (strong force)

The moderate size of individual suppliers is an external factor that imposes a moderate force on Starbucks. In the Five Forces analysis framework, larger suppliers have stronger bargaining power over the coffee business. On the other hand, the limited variety of suppliers provides them with only moderate bargaining power relative to Starbucks. For example, different suppliers may have similar supplies if they source their coffee beans from the same region or country. In the Five Forces analysis model, this condition enables Starbucks to shift from one supplier to another with moderate ease because of these suppliers’ similarities.

The bargaining power of coffee suppliers is partially strengthened because of supply shortages. Such shortages are linked to droughts that damage crops, among the other ecological concerns presented in the PESTLE/PESTEL analysis of Starbucks . Shortages enable suppliers to impose their demands, such as by increasing the prices of coffee beans, thereby strengthening their bargaining power in the context of the Five Forces analysis. Overall, the external factors enumerated in this section create the moderate force of suppliers in the coffeehouse chain’s business environment.

Threat of Substitutes or Substitution (Strong Force)

The strong force or threat of substitution affects Starbucks Corporation. In the Five Forces analysis model, this threat pertains to the impact of substitute goods or services on the coffee business and its external environment. The following external factors contribute to the strong threat of substitution against Starbucks:

• Low switching costs between coffeehouses and substitutes (strong force)
• High affordability of substitute products (strong force)

This component of the Five Forces analysis indicates that substitutes have strong potential to negatively impact the coffeehouse chain business. The high availability of substitutes makes it easy for consumers to buy these substitutes instead of Starbucks’ products. There are many substitutes, such as ready-to-drink beverages, instant beverage powders and purees, and foods available from various outlets. These outlets include fine-dining restaurants, vending machines, supermarkets and grocery stores, and small convenience stores. The Five Forces analysis framework considers this high availability as an external factor that strengthens substitutes against Starbucks’ products. In addition, the low switching costs further strengthen the threat of substitutes to coffeehouse products. This external factor is viewed in the Five Forces analysis as an enabler of consumers in switching from Starbucks to substitutes. Moreover, many of these substitutes are more affordable than the company’s foods and beverages, thereby strengthening the threat of substitution. Starbucks’ organizational culture (business culture) can help address the threat of substitutes by providing warm and high-quality service that reinforces customer loyalty. Also, Starbucks’ CSR, ESG, and stakeholder management initiatives can help retain customers based on emphasis on sustainable business practices.

Threat of New Entry/New Entrants against Starbucks (Moderate Force)

The moderate force or threat of new entry imposes challenges to Starbucks Corporation. In Porter’s Five Forces analysis model, this threat refers to the effect of new players or new entrants in the coffeehouse industry. In this business case, the following external factors contribute to new entrants’ moderate threat to Starbucks:

• Moderate cost of doing business (moderate force)
• Moderate supply chain costs (moderate force)
• High cost of brand development (weak force)

The moderate cost of doing business refers to the cost of establishing and maintaining operations in the coffeehouse industry. For example, the cost of operating a small coffeehouse is lower compared to that of a coffeehouse chain. Also, smaller cafés have lower supply needs and corresponding supply chain costs. Despite their relatively small sizes, many new entrants can reduce Starbucks’ market share and revenues. Thus, in this Five Forces analysis, this external factor leads to the moderate threat of new entrants in the coffeehouse industry.

The high cost of brand development is viewed in the Five Forces analysis framework as an external factor that reduces the threat of substitution against Starbucks Corporation. Small local coffeehouses typically do not have the resources to develop their brands to directly compete with the Starbucks brand. Also, brand development takes years to reach the level and strength of the Starbucks brand. The external factors enumerated in this part of the Five Forces analysis establish the threat of substitutes as a moderate force and, thus, a significant but limited issue in the multinational coffeehouse chain’s strategic management decisions.

• About Starbucks Coffee Company .
• Gois, T. C., Thomé, K. M., & Balogh, J. M. (2023). Behind a cup of coffee: International market structure and competitiveness. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 33 (5), 993-1009.
• Martinez-Contreras, R. M., Hernandez-Mora, N. C., Vargas-Leguizamon, Y. R., & Borja-Barrera, S. M. (2022). Pestel Analysis and the Porter’s Five Forces: An Integrated Model of Strategic Sectors. In Handbook of Research on Organizational Sustainability in Turbulent Economies (pp. 292-314). IGI Global.
• Starbucks China Coffee Innovation Park: Now Roasting .
• Starbucks Corporation – Form 10-K .
• Starbucks Corporation – Supplier Diversity Program .
• U.S. Department of Agriculture – Economic Research Service – Food Service Industry Market Segments .
• Copyright by Panmore Institute - All rights reserved.
• This article may not be reproduced, distributed, or mirrored without written permission from Panmore Institute and its author/s.
• Educators, Researchers, and Students: You are permitted to quote or paraphrase parts of this article (not the entire article) for educational or research purposes, as long as the article is properly cited and referenced together with its URL/link.