Coffee

Barometer

2023
 Content

1. Introduction 2
2. Coffee trade 5
3. Resilient livelihoods 13
4. Coffee brew index 21
5. Towards mandatory compliance 37
6. Conclusion 45

Sources 50
Endnotes 51
List of abbreviations 52
Bibliography 53
Colophon 56
 Coffee
Barometer

2023

Sjoerd Panhuysen & Frederik de Vries

 1
2
Introduction

Ensuring long-term viability and

giving equal importance to short-
term economic gain at the farm
level are both integral to foster
sustainability in the coffee sector.
Introduction 3

The coffee sector holds an abundance of knowledge, intelligence, enthusiasm, and

economic resources to potentially tackle the most pressing issues it faces. We find
ourselves in a transitional phase where the current discourse on coffee sustainability is
addressing profound issues for the industry. Questions regarding obvious gaps to reach
living incomes, adaptation and mitigation of increasing climate change impacts, and the
expansion of consumer demand for sustainable coffee ask our attention. Yet, even when
we consider the genuine successes achieved thus far, their cumulative impact falls short
of addressing the full spectrum of challenges confronting the sector. It is evident that
sustainability cannot be regarded as an ultimate destination that will one day be achieved
in the coffee industry. Rather, the focus on sustainability should not be viewed in isolation
but as a way to uphold human rights and curtail ecological degradation, social injustice,
and economic instability.

As we look towards the future, 2030 stands as the new horizon for delivery, replacing
the previously set target of 2020, which passed without much notice. Once again, an
opportunity for the coffee sector to transform theory into action and make substantial
progress towards a sustainable and equitable future. Governments, companies, and civil
society continue to embrace initiatives geared towards “sector transformation” - curbing
tropical deforestation, respecting human rights, and mitigating the impacts of climate
change. Their commitment to collaborative efforts holds the promise of achieving tan-
gible socio-economic and environmental solutions on a significant scale.

Meanwhile, the norms governing international business practices are undergoing a

transformation. The European Union is leading a global shift with groundbreaking legis-
lation requiring due diligence on human rights and environmental impacts in commodity
supply chains, exemplified by the EU Regulation on Deforestation (EUDR). This marks a
broader trend in traditional consuming markets, as governments seek to influence the
ethical and environmental dimensions of coffee production, trade, and consumption. The
magnitude of the mandatory requirements expected in the coffee industry is significant,
and it is clear that many coffee companies are ill-equipped to handle this transformation.
Amidst the grand claims of sustainability and rosy promises of a prosperous future in
 coffee agriculture, the harsh reality faced by coffee producers is marked by price
volatility and rising production costs due to higher prices for fertilizers and labor. Coupled
with rampant inflation and the profound consequences of a rapidly changing climate in
the most vulnerable origins, the coffee sector finds itself immersed in a state of crisis.

To transition towards a more sustainable coffee sector, we must engage in substantive

activities that go beyond highlighting farm-level production practices. It is crucial to
recognize the interconnectedness between globalization of production, natural resource
depletion, and the exploitation of marginalized and impoverished communities. While
4 the sector’s total economic value has significantly increased, the benefits seem to be
disproportionately concentrated in Europe and North America. ​​This lack of economic
retention is jeopardizing the sustainability of the coffee value chain. To address this, the
debate must confront trade inequities, particularly the disconnect between market pric-
es and production costs. Businesses need to demonstrate greater willingness to com-
pensate small-scale farmers for sustainable practices by offering prices that account
for social and environmental costs and by investing in long-term trading relationships.

The 2023 edition of the Coffee Barometer aims to increase understanding of the scale,
depths and complexity of the main sustainability discussions, by weighing the evidence,
debunking rhetoric, and revealing what is going on at sector level. By doing so the report
establishes a direct connection with the evaluation of corporate sustainability strategies,
as presented in the new Coffee Brew Index on our website: www.coffeebarometer.org

This report is structured around four central challenges:

Part 1. The concentration of coffee production in a limited number of countries, coupled

with price dynamics that fail to ensure long-term stability for small-scale coffee farm-
ers, and evolving consumer expectations.

Part 2. The importance of ensuring that coffee income contributes to the well-being,
and livelihoods of millions of farmers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. To flourish, these
farmers should be able to generate a living income, making their farms economically
viable and ecologically sustainable.

Part 3. An examination of the sustainability policies and strategies in place at the top
eleven coffee roasters, along with a critical assessment of the role and contribution of
each roaster.

Part 4. Exploring the expanding scales of sustainability and mandatory frameworks,

particularly the combination of EU legislation covering deforestation-free production,
human rights due diligence, and reporting.

By connecting these issues in the conclusion, we foster a more comprehensive under-

standing of the multifaceted challenges faced by the coffee sector. Only through such
introspection and critical analysis can we pave the way for meaningful change and work
towards building a coffee industry that is truly sustainable, just, and equitable.
2
Coffee trade 5

The coffee industry’s pursuit of

affordable green coffee often
disregards vital aspects like
sustainable production and trade
practices.
 2
6
Coffee trade
Introduction
Over the past two decades, the global demand for coffee has shown an upward trajec-
tory, resulting in a consistent expansion of production and exports. According to the
International Coffee Organization (ICO, 2023b), worldwide coffee consumption sur-
passed 168.5 million bags during the 2021-2022 period. The well-established markets
of Europe, Japan, and North America accounted for more than half of this global coffee
consumption. In these markets the average per capita coffee consumption stands at
7kg, in stark contrast with the global figure of a mere 2kg. As consumer preferences
evolve, the strong demand for coffee is presenting opportunities and challenges for
producers, exporters, roasters, and retailers. Since the coffee market is quite complex
and opaque, most consumers have absolutely no idea where their coffee comes from,
who produced it, or if the producer got a fair price.

Coffee price
Starting from early 2021 and continuing through late 2022, the price of coffee wit-
nessed a steady rise, culminating in the ICO indicator C price reaching a ten-year high of
US 244 cents/lb in February 2022.1 This upward trajectory can be attributed to various
factors, including adverse weather conditions such as a sudden frost that impacted key
coffee-growing regions in Brazil in July 2021, leading to increased shipping container
costs, and the International Coffee Organization reducing the global 2020/21 cof-
fee surplus to a 22-year low in early 2022 (ICO, 2023b). However, in recent months,
the global market price of coffee has experienced a significant decline, reaching an
18-month low of US 145 cents/lb in January 2023, and now hovering around US 180
cents/lb. Meanwhile, the cost of producing coffee has been steadily increasing, primar-
ily driven by rising labor costs and the increasing prices of inputs such as fertilizers and
pesticides. In recent years, inflationary pressure and fluctuations in exchange rates are
adding to this upward trend.

The global price of coffee is determined based on the supply and demand dynamics
within the global market. Arabica coffees are primarily traded on the New York Stock
Exchange, while Robusta coffees are traded on the London Stock Exchange. These
 Figure 1. Average Arabica and Robusta price 7

Arabica
5

Robusta
2
PRICE in US$/kg

0
2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

markets operate through two main mechanisms: current or physical markets and
future contracts. The issue is that most market activity is not trading coffee that exists
today, but coffee futures. Futures contracts are essentially agreements to purchase
a set amount of coffee (37,500 pounds) at a specific price when the contract expires.
This mechanic allows end‑buyers (like large‑scale roasters) to buy future shipments of
beans when the price is low if they expect the price to rise in the future when they need
those beans. It also allows investors and speculators to buy futures low, then sell high
down the road, leading to greater liquidity in the market. This system is well-established
 and accepted around the world as a way to determine the price of coffee. Unfortunately,
producers can get ‘trapped’ by the C market price, meaning it becomes the final price
for their coffee, rather than the baseline price.

The C price discovery mechanism in the market distinguishes relatively little between
characteristics of quality and origin-specific traits. At the consumers’ end of the
spectrum, the retail price of roasted and ground coffee seems to evolve independently
from the green (unroasted) coffee C price. While retail prices tend to follow the peaks
in the C price, they do not undergo equivalent downward adjustments during periods of
8 low C prices. This asymmetric price transmission means that during troughs in the C
price, retail prices for roasted coffee remain high on supermarket shelves. Also, US retail
consumption market data confirms this: roasted coffee witnessed an average price
increase of 98% from 1982 to 2018, whereas the C price experienced a decline of 27%.
(NewForesight, 2021).

Coffee production
Despite coffee being cultivated in over 50 countries worldwide, the global market is
heavily reliant on the bulk coffee supplies from just a few countries. In 2022, Brazil
alone was responsible for a staggering 40% of the world’s coffee production, while Viet-
nam has become the uncontested second largest producer, contributing 20%. Addition-
ally, just three countries—Colombia, Indonesia, and Honduras— contribute to a quarter
of global coffee output. The export share of the other 45 countries has significantly
declined in comparison to the top 5 producers, most notably in Central America and
West and East Africa, which have become less influential in international coffee trade.
This concentration of production has been driven by the industries’ desire to leverage
economies of scale, particularly crucial in low-margin businesses where cost efficiency
is paramount.

This shift in dynamics has substantial implications. Nations with lower production
levels often depend heavily on coffee exports as a crucial economic pillar, such as GDP
growth, rural employment, tax revenue, and export earnings. A broad basis also contrib-
utes to a rich variety of flavors and qualities. Furthermore, nurturing a diverse range of
coffee origins could potentially serve as a pivotal factor in safeguarding the long-term
sustainability and resilience of the coffee supply chain, especially in light of the pro-
jected impacts of climate change and loss of biodiversity.

Coffee consumption
Europe is the largest coffee consumer market accounting for 2.54 million tons of coffee
in 2022 (EU27), equal to 24% of the total world consumption of coffee. The US is second
at 16%, an equivalent of 1.66 million tons in 2022. Brazil, known as the largest producer
and exporter of coffee, is the third largest consumer market in the world consum-
ing 1.36 million tons of coffee, or 13% of total world consumption. Notably, Europe’s
consumption levels in 2022 returned to pre-pandemic levels, matching the figures
recorded in 2018. The growth rate in Europe remained modest at just 0.1% year-on-
 Figure 2A: Global green coffee trade 2022

Africa 11 % 8% Africa
3% Central America

Central America 12 % 15 % South America

Consumption / Import
9
Production / Export 25 % Asia and Pacific
South America 48 %

18 % North America

Asia and Pacific 29 % 31 % Europe

Figure 2B: Origins of green coffee imports EU27 - 2022

7,3 % Uganda
Africa 13 %
Ethiopia, Tanzania, Kenya, Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon

Central America 5,3 % Honduras

10 %
Nicaragua, Guatemala, Mexico, Costa Rica, El Salvador

South America 44 % 35,3 % Brazil

Colombia
Peru

Asia and Pacific 33 % 22,8 % Vietnam

Indonesia, India, Papua New Guinea, China

Other countries
 year. North America showcased a similar recovery pattern to Europe, with consumption
surpassing pre-pandemic levels in 2022. The region’s consumption demonstrated a
year-on-year growth rate of 1.3% in 2022. In contrast, coffee consumption in the Asia
Pacific region experienced a year-on-year growth rate of 3.1%.

While the majority of consumers in established markets purchase their coffee from
supermarkets for home consumption, retail dynamics are rapidly changing. Consum-
ers are increasingly willing to pay a premium for convenience and unique experiences,
gravitating towards single-serve options like Nespresso capsules, Keurig K-Cup pods,
10 and ready-to-drink coffee beverages. By 2020, more than 40% of US consumers
owned a single-cup coffee brewing system. In 2022, coffee pods accounted for 16% of
the EU27 market in terms of volume, reflecting their significant presence in the coffee
industry. While other formats (like roast and ground) dominate the market, it is worth
noting that coffee pods contribute to a substantial portion of total retail sales, repre-
senting 40% in value terms within the EU27 region (ECF, 2023).

Conventional coffee accounts for 70% of world consumption leaving a large share of
world production with limited traceability and ease of substitution for roasters to other
origin countries (TFCLI, 2020). While there seems to be a growing awareness of and
concern about sustainability among consumers (Eurobarometer, 2020), the global
market share of more “sustainable options” remains limited. Among the identified bar-
riers are an information asymmetry between consumers and producers, higher prices,
the dominance of established consumption routines, information overload, and lack
of transparency and trust (Terlau and Hirsch, 2015). As a credibility attribute, sustain-
ability is not perceivable per se. Consequently, consumers have to look for cues that
indicate the sustainability performance of a product or brand.

Sustainability standards
To overcome the barriers to sustainable consumption, Voluntary Sustainability Stan-
dards (VSS) stand out as the tool to increase transparency and trust in sustainability-
related product attributes and to foster sustainable consumption behavior (Fernandes
Martins et al., 2022). Well-known examples of VSS in the coffee sector include
Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance and the Organic certification, all of which promote better
conditions in coffee production practices. They bring the function of coordinating and
regulating the sustainability characteristics of global coffee production to the fore.
Third-party auditing and, increasingly, the use of technologies, such as satellite images
and remote sensing in the deforestation space, contributes to monitoring and enforcing
compliance (Heldt and Beske Janssen, 2023). However, quantifying the effectiveness
and impact of VSS remains complex and debated (Rubio-Jovel, 2022). There are deeply
rooted structural problems that can only be solved with the involvement of all relevant
public and private actors, as well as mandatory rules.
Figure 3. Overview market share VSS 2017 / 2019 / 2021

192 560

307 770

293 923

160 370 11

252 412

257 420

230 558

394 670

438 846

365 859

590 1.084

658 1.235

536 2.365

594 1.607

732 1.623

285 400

310 450

312 460

2017 x1000MT

2019

2021

Certified/verified Total certified/ Figures are not adjusted for

actually sold part verified produced double or triple certification
 In the last decade, voluntary standards have been very successful in increasing the
volume of certified coffee at the farm level. In the 2020-22 period, approximately 55%
of global coffee production was certified, but this figure does not account for cases of
multiple verifications or certifications. Despite this impressive percentage, the direct
benefits to farmers, such as price premiums and access to new markets, are con-
strained by the industry’s ability to absorb the total volume of certified coffee. This is a
critical issue, as in 2021, less than 26% of coffee was purchased by the industry. In other
words, the other 74% of the sustainable coffee available was marketed as conventional
coffee. Consequently, certified producers, who have made upfront investments to
12 comply with standards, suffer a reduction in profitability. This situation diminishes their
financial capacity and undermines their motivation to invest in continuous improvement
practices. To overcome these challenges, comprehensive action is needed to properly
market the available volumes and ensure that certified coffee receives the recognition
and support it deserves.
3
Resilient livelihoods 13

Coffee farmers constantly analyze

their options, manage risks,
and make decisions, prioritizing
improved well-being, fostering
stability, and creating better
future prospects.
 3
14
Resilient livelihoods
Introduction
Across the world, coffee production has traditionally provided the agricultural mainstay
for millions of people living in the tropical upland areas. Coffee is cultivated on approxi-
mately 12.5 million farms worldwide, primarily managed by small-scale farmers who
work on just a few hectares of land. In fact, 95% of coffee farms are no larger than 5
hectares, with 84% spanning less than 2 hectares. Coffee producers often have limited
economic alternatives, leading many countries to heavily rely on coffee for their export
earnings. However, over the past two decades, low and volatile coffee prices have had
a devastating impact on farming communities. This context is particularly relevant to
producers who are located in countries which contribute to 15% of global volumes (see
figure 2b).

Numerous studies have shed light on their prevalent inequality within these coffee value
chains (Utrilla-Catalan et al., 2022). The specific situations in coffee-producing coun-
tries vary widely, but two common factors loom over the future of the coffee production.

Firstly, coffee farmers continue to grapple with poverty and precarious living conditions.
Secondly, there is an urgent need to adapt to shifting climate patterns, coupled with the
imperative to address the sector’s carbon emissions.

Living income
Living income is finally getting traction on the sector’s sustainability agenda. The
concept of living income has become widely recognized and influential, with many
actors in the coffee industry embracing it. A network of organizations and initiatives
has emerged, amplifying the momentum behind the pursuit of living income. Within
the coffee sector, platforms such as the Global Coffee Platform (GCP), the Sustainable
Coffee Challenge (SCC), and the Coffee Public Private Task Force (CPPTF) have placed
living income as a top priority.2 The Living Income Community of Practice frequently
highlights examples of how the coffee sector is a central subject for discussion, infor-
mation sharing, and capacity building.
 Figure 4. Country overview living income - coffee income 15

Adapted from: Cordes, K. and Sagan, M. (2021). Responsible Coffee Sourcing:

Towards a Living Incomefor Producers. p. 18. Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment

$0 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 5,000 $ 6,000 $ 7,000 $ 8,000

Brazil

Vietnam

Colombia

Indonesia

Honduras

Ethiopia

India

Peru

Uganda

Guatemala

$0 $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 5,000 $ 6,000 $ 7,000 $ 8,000

US $ per household (per year)

Estimated average coffee income Range of living income estimates

 While the coffee sector is increasingly emphasizing the importance of living income and
living wage benchmarks, a significant gap persists in terms of comprehensive data for
each coffee-producing region. Several in-depth studies are regularly conducted at the
country level, however, a comprehensive analysis encompassing all countries is notably
absent (ICO, 2021; ILO, 2020). An insightful recent analysis conducted by Columbia Uni-
versity (Kaitlin et al., 2021) addresses this gap by examining the net annual income from
coffee farming with living income benchmarks in ten countries, based on coffee prices
from the period 2018-2019. It is important to note that these comparisons in figure 4
should be seen as rough estimates of how an average producer might fare within each
16 country.3 The main findings of this comparison include:

· In 8 out of the 10 countries, the average coffee income is at or below the poverty line.
· Brazil stands out as the only country where the average producer earns a net coffee
income that surpasses certain living income estimates.
· Uganda has the largest gap to living income, with an average coffee producer earning
$88 per year from coffee, in contrast to living income reference values ranging from
over $2,000 to nearly $6,000.

Living wage
Coffee is a very labor-intensive crop, with the majority of work dedicated to hand-
harvesting; a meticulous process aimed at preserving the quality of the beans. Within
the coffee sector, there are various tasks that are gender-specific, leading to an over-
representation of women in roles such as harvesting and post-harvest processing,
including drying and hand-sorting the beans. Despite the significant number of workers
employed in the coffee industry (e.g., 2.6 million in Ethiopia, 1.5 million in Indonesia, and
1.44 million in Vietnam), the issue of providing living wages for workers remains largely
overlooked. Available research indicates that farmworkers in the coffee industry receive
wages that do not adequately meet their fundamental needs (Pindeo Caro, 2020). The
findings further reveal that these wages not only fall below the national averages, but
also fall below the average wages paid in the broader agricultural sector.

Monthly wages for coffee workers are influenced by the number of hours worked. Firstly,
many workers in the coffee industry are hired as casual labor on a daily or task basis,
which does not cover a full month of employment. Secondly, a considerable portion of
workers are engaged in harvesting, where payment is based on the quantity of coffee
harvested per day (Verité, 2022). Female workers comprise nearly half of total employ-
ment in the sector, yet they earn significantly less than their male counterparts (ILO,
2020). This disparity can be attributed, in part, to the relatively high number of women
working as unpaid family workers.

Climate change
A recent analysis conducted by the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) paints a dire
picture, revealing that climate change has the potential to slash global Arabica cof-
fee production by a staggering 45.2%, while global Robusta production could suffer a
Figure 5. Theoretical household net income for a 1 ha farm

Inspired by: Hochberg, A. and Bare, M. (2021). Strategies to enhance coffee farmers’
incomes: Rainforest Alliance experience and research. p. 7. Rainforest Alliance.

$ 4.40 $ 1,375 $ 2,750 $ 4,125 $ 5,500

$ 4.00 $ 1,250 $ 2,500 $ 3,750 $ 5,000

Price (US$/kg)

17
$ 3.20 $ 1,032 $ 2,063 $ 3,094 $ 4,125

$ 2.20 $ 688 $ 1,375 $ 2,063 $ 2,750

Yield (kg/ha)

500 1000 1500 2000

23.5% decline (Dzebo and Adams, 2022). With climate change, significant portions of
land used for coffee cultivation are anticipated to become unsuitable by 2050, particu-
larly for Arabica coffee. Efforts to ensure sustainable coffee production must consider
the preservation and conservation of forests and other ecosystems, recognizing their
ecological significance and the potential negative consequences of their conversion into
coffee plantations.

Achieving a delicate balance between meeting the global demand for coffee and preserv-
ing biodiversity while upholding and reinforcing essential ecosystem services requires
meticulous planning. This involves implementing robust conservation strategies and
promoting the sector-wide adoption of responsible land-use practices, such as regen-
erative agriculture and agroforestry. Key coffee-producing regions will likely significantly
reduce. For instance, in Brazil›s Minas Gerais and São Paulo States, regions that account
for a significant portion of the country’s coffee output, the proportion of land suitable
for coffee farming could plummet from 70-75% to a mere 20-25%. In Goiás, the viabil-
ity of coffee cultivation may cease altogether. Other renowned coffee-growing regions
will also face the imminent threat of a sharp reduction in suitable coffee-growing areas.
Warming temperatures and shifting rainfall could sharply reduce the production in Costa
Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Vietnam (Dzebo and
Adams, 2022). Although coffee production could potentially relocate to other elevations
in many countries, the expansion of coffee cultivation into previously untouched regions
poses a significant threat to vital ecosystems that store vast amounts of carbon and
biodiversity, and as such provide valuable services for local communities and humanity at
large. In numerous countries where coffee is grown, a substantial portion of the projected
suitable land for coffee production in 2050 is currently covered by forests, and unfortu-
nately, these areas often lack sufficient protection measures (CI, 2020).
 The historical expansion of coffee farms, which often replaced forests, has been a
significant driver of deforestation and environmental degradation (Branthomme et al.,
(2023). Over the past two decades, approximately 130,000 hectares of forested land
has been lost each year to coffee cultivation, resulting in an estimated annual emis-
sion of around 45 million tCO2e (Pendrill et al., 2019). The continuous global demand for
coffee further exacerbates the threat of converting forested areas into coffee planta-
tions. For example, in Indonesia’s Bukit Barisan National Park (Williams, 2021). When
forests, typically habitats for many endangered animal species, are cleared for coffee
farming, the carbon stored in trees is rapidly released as CO2. While not all coffee farms
18 are established on recently deforested land, the greenhouse gas emissions associated
with land use change (LUC) can reach up to 35kgCO2e/kg of roasted coffee, even when
distributed over several years (Vilagomez et al., 2022).4

In recent years, forest conservation has gained significant traction on the global political
agenda, resulting in a surge of collaborative initiatives involving both public and private
actors. These efforts aim to achieve the SDGs and align with the objectives of the Paris
Accord as well as the Global Biodiversity Framework, concurrently promoting carbon
neutrality and preserving forest ecosystems. Considering that coffee consumption
is projected to exceed 200 million bags, possibly by 2030 (Ralph, 2022), significant
changes in the production, trade, and consumption stages are inevitable. Sustainable
consumption and production are explicitly addressed by the UN as vital pillars in the
SDGs (UN, 2015). The recent IPCC report (IPCC, 2023) strongly emphasizes the impor-
tance of demand-side solutions to alter consumption patterns and mitigate climate
change. The EU27, the world’s largest coffee market, has explicitly included coffee
among the seven agricultural commodities covered by the EU Deforestation Regulation
(EUDR), which is set to come into effect in 2024 (see chapter 5).

Agroforestry
Nature-based solutions offer a potential pathway forward. These solutions encompass
actions and policies that leverage the resources provided by nature to protect and re-
store ecosystems, while simultaneously addressing societal challenges (Gomes, 2020).
In addition to exploring strategies like transitioning to climate-adapted coffee varieties,
farmers have the option to adjust the management practices of their coffee systems
to mitigate the impacts of climate change. The issue of fundamentally transform-
ing the entire agricultural production system continues to be a topic of discussion and
disagreement within the industry. Additionally, a key point of contention revolves around
the allocation of investment costs and who will bear the financial burden.

Climate smart, regenerative agriculture as well as agroforestry, in particular, have

emerged as a promising solution for sustaining coffee production in the face of climate
change. These approaches involve intercropping coffee plants with shade trees and
promote practices that enhance soil health. This can enhance nutrient cycling, promote
biodiversity, store carbon, and create a favorable microclimate. The presence of shade
trees in coffee agroforestry systems leads to lower average air temperatures and higher
soil moisture compared to unshaded coffee systems. While shade levels above 50%
in coffee plantations have been associated with decreased productivity, shade levels
below 50% do not seem to compromise yield (Gomes, 2020).

This shift in farming practices holds the potential to address the environmental chal-
lenges associated with coffee production and enable the cultivation of coffee in a more
sustainable and climate-resilient manner. Since coffee is a perennial crop that lasts for
20 to 30 years, it is an issue of long-term planning and investing. Clearly, agroforestry
should not be seen as a substitute for natural forests, but rather as a means to restore
degraded landscapes. Agroforestry has the potential to contribute to global restoration 19
efforts and store vast amounts of carbon, potentially amounting to millions of metric
tons.

Moreover, within the context of the coffee industry’s objectives, which have predomi-
nantly concentrated on the reduction of emissions, a new development is emerging.
Guidance emanating from the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), tailored specifi-
cally to companies with a large ecological footprint due to emissions originating from
land use, allows companies to invest in carbon removals within their supply chains. This
encourages companies to allocate resources towards the mitigation of carbon by the
uptake of carbon insetting efforts across the industry. Companies are challenged to as-
sess their broader ecological impacts, encompassing factors such as biodiversity, land
utilization, water management, and similar facets. The guidelines of formulating and
delineating objectives for addressing these multifaceted aspects are currently being

Figure 6: hectares sun vs. shade

95% 75% 61%

Brazil Vietnam Colombia

40% 20% Not Available

Indonesia Honduras Ethiopia

 formalized by the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN). Several coffee companies
-Nestlé, JDE Peet’s and Tchibo- are part of the Corporate Engagement Program of
SBTN.

Box 1 Stenophylla coffee

Research to develop new and resilient coffee varieties is ongoing (WCR 2022) and some-
times provides promising prospects. An excellent example is the rediscovery of ‘Coffea
20 stenophylla’ - a rare and threatened species from West Africa - which has the potential to
ensure the future of great-tasting coffee in the face of climate change.

While there are 124 species of coffee, we rely on just two for 99% of our coffee consump-
tion: arabica and robusta. Arabica is a cool-tropical plant with a mean annual temperature
requirement of around 19⁰C. It is vulnerable to increasing global temperatures and coffee
leaf rust, a fungal disease that has severely impacted coffee plantations in Central and South
America. Robusta grows at low elevations in wet-tropical conditions and requires an average
annual temperature of 23⁰C and is resistant to certain strains of coffee leaf rust. However,
robusta falls short in its flavor and is widely regarded as inferior to arabica, with the majority
of its production used for instant coffee. In 2021, researchers of Kew announced the discov-
ery of stenophylla coffee in Sierra Leone. It grows wild in hot-tropical areas at low eleva-
tion, only 400 m above sea level. While stenophylla grows and crops under similar climatic
conditions to robusta, it has a higher mean annual temperature requirement of 24.9⁰C, which
is 1.9⁰C higher than that of robusta, and a substantial 6.2–6.8⁰C higher than arabica. Cof-
fea stenophylla is classified on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species as ‘Vulnerable’, so
efforts are urgently required to safeguard the future of the species in the wild. Further work
is required to fully evaluate its potential as a climate resilient, high-value crop species and
breeding resource, including claims of drought tolerance and resistance to coffee leaf rust.5
4
Coffee brew index 21

Effective addressing of social and

environmental impacts requires
well-defined corporate strategies,
bringing together elements like
transparency, traceability, supplier
engagement, and procurement
practices.
 4
22
Coffee brew index
Introduction
Historically, the coffee retail market has been heavily dominated by a small number of
large roasters, primarily based in Europe and the United States. With a global reach and
a diversified range of brands, they have established a strong presence in all major coffee
markets. The consolidation of the coffee market, driven by major multinational compa-
nies, has resulted in a concentrated industry landscape (CB, 2018). In an era where su-
permarket shelves overflow with an array of brands and coffee chains dot every street
corner, the notion of real consumer choice proves to be a mere illusion. For example,
only 4 companies provide 68% of coffee in the US: J.M. Smucker, Starbucks, JDE Peet’s
and Kraft Heinz (Lakhani, 2021).

These leading companies provide a wide range of coffee products, including traditional
roast and ground coffee, single-serve options, espresso beans, and instant coffee. It is
worth noting that some of these roasters hold a higher value share compared to their
volume share, indicating their dominance in premium coffee segments such as single-
serve capsules or the out-of-home market. Conversely, roasters with a reverse share
equation typically compete in the more affordable roast and ground coffee segment
(see detailed company overviews on our website: www.coffeebarometer.org).

Some of the largest coffee roasters in the world are now positioning themselves as
sustainability leaders, making ambitious commitments and engaging in partnerships
and multi-stakeholder initiatives. These firms often narrowly interpret sustainability as
improving efficiency and competitiveness of business in a globalizing world economy of
increasing scarcity, ever-higher risks, and opaque supply chains. Challenging the effi-
ciency-focused narrative of corporate sustainability is not an easy task. The promises
and claims made by these roasters are alluring, and expectations from regulators, civil
society, consumers, and investors are rising. Stakeholders increasingly demand that
companies monitor and address human rights and environmental risks in their global
supply chains. Over the past two decades, this demand has given rise to numerous
initiatives and guidelines promoting responsible business conduct in the coffee industry.
These initiatives range from company-level commitments to voluntary sustainability
standards (VSS), multi-stakeholder programs, and due diligence guidelines developed by
international organizations, to mandatory supply chain regulations enforced by govern-
ments.

The starting point of this chapter is the realization that little detail is known about the spe-
cific sustainability strategies of the major coffee roasters. Without well-defined strategies
and reporting mechanisms that encompass crucial elements like transparency, traceabili-
ty, supplier engagement, monitoring, and sector collaboration, companies will be unable to
effectively address the social and environmental impacts within their coffee supply chains.
Keeping this in mind, we recognized the imperative to develop a novel approach for evalu- 23
ating and scoring the sustainability efforts of the main global coffee roasters and retailers.
What makes this approach innovative is that it surpasses a mere checklist of sustainability
topics being addressed. Instead, it assesses the level of maturity of these engagements
and the extent to which they are integrated into the core of the business and its decision-
making processes. In this edition of the Coffee Barometer, we introduce the Coffee Brew
Index, which focuses on these essential aspects required to achieve sustainable develop-
ment in four critical areas: Sustainability Strategy, Social Conditions & Inclusion, Environ-
ment, and Sustainable Purchasing & Economic Conditions.

Our assessment reveals that while the majority of companies have overarching strategies
and sustainability activities in place, comprehensive tangible, measurable and time-bound
goals and objectives remain limited in many cases. The maturity of individual company
coffee sustainability strategies varies, influenced by diverse factors such as company
size, available resources and financial drivers, stakeholder interests, and company culture.
Yet the progress made by leading companies using readily available tools and systems
demonstrates that the goals are attainable. Implementing sustainable business practices
in the coffee industry requires adjusting existing business practices, leveraging knowledge
and employing approaches that are already known and tested (Sellare et al., 2022).

Methodology
Documentation: To conduct the assessment, we assessed the contents of corporate
annual or sustainability reports, as well as any accompanying documents or sets of public
information directly linked to these reports. Our decision to focus on these sources aligns
with the principles outlined in the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and its associated
guidance, which emphasizes the importance of easy accessibility to relevant information.
During the review process, we observed that certain companies present their sustainabil-
ity information in well-structured annual reports, providing easily accessible data on key
material topics. However, other companies have less organized information, requiring the
compilation of fragmented reports to complete the assessment. Our evaluation highlights
the importance of transparent sustainability reporting, encompassing all aspects of
Governance, Environment, Social, and Economic (ESG) factors in a comprehensive pack-
age that is easy to understand and digestible for the general public. It is worth noting
that four - out of the eleven - companies, namely Lavazza, Melitta, Tchibo, and Massimo,
have not published sustainability reports for the year 2022 as of the date of conducting
 Figure 7. Coffee Brew Index

24

Nestlé

Lavazza

Starbucks

JDE Peet’s Tchibo

Melitta UCC

J.M. Smucker

Massimo Zanetti

Strauss KraftHeinz

leading advanced moving in development laggards

Visualization of all results: www.coffeebarometer.org

List of individual company assessments: www.coffeebarometer.org
this assessment (May 2023). While we do not factor this into the scoring for this year, it
is important to emphasize that timely reporting of sustainability data is a best practice in
sustainability reporting and strategy.

Engagement process: Following the completion of the review, we shared the individual
assessments with the respective companies and extended an invitation for them to pro-
vide feedback. Acknowledging the valuable contribution made by companies in engaging
with our assessment, we are grateful for the proactive involvement and comments pro-
vided by the majority of roasters. Regrettably, we must note that Kraft-Heinz is the only
company that did not respond to our invitations to participate in the evaluation process. 25

Assessment approach, scoring and limitations: The assessment aimed to gauge the
level of maturity of each company regarding sustainability issues within the coffee supply
chain. Companies were awarded higher scores if they demonstrated clear strategies en-
compassing various dimensions of sustainability, specific time-bound goals, investments,
and activities integrated into their supply chains, as well as continuous monitoring and
public reporting on their sustainability objectives.

In acknowledging this is our first attempt to score the performance of each company, we
recognize the following limitations in our efforts:

A current bias towards a «more is better» approach in select assessment areas. For ex-
ample, higher scores were assigned for more certified volume, increased engagement with
MSIs, and a broader range of investments in specific sustainability thematic areas. We
recognize that certifications are not always tied to better sustainability performance and
that more engagements do not necessarily speak to the quality or depth of those engage-
ments. We understand the shortcomings of this current scoring methodology and intend
to evolve over time to better evaluate the quality and depth of these engagements and
investments.

For many companies in our assessment, it was not always clear whether investments with
farmers or their corresponding communities were tied directly to the supply chain or even
origins from which the company sourced. Sometimes engagements were made in general
“coffee communities” and it was therefore difficult to assess whether sustainability en-
gagements and investments were “in the supply chain”, especially when companies made
investments through their foundations. Ideally, in a fully integrated and mature strategy,
sustainability investments and engagements would be embedded in the business and
within the supply chain. This is another shortcoming of this current assessment that we
intend to evolve over time– the fact that we were unable to tease out some of these details
regarding supply chain investments, may unintentionally distort some results.

Due to limited resources, we were unable to employ triangulation of information from

companies with local stakeholders to verify the accuracy and reliability of the reported
data.
 Figure 8a. Coffee Cup Index: Strategy

26

Nestlé

Lavazza

Starbucks

JDE Peet’s Tchibo

Melitta UCC

J.M. Smucker

Massimo Zanetti

Strauss KraftHeinz
 Strategy
27
Sustainability strategies
In this section, we look at both the overall corporate and coffee-specific sustainability
strategies. Given the prominence of all these roasters in the global coffee industry, we
would expect them to have individual coffee sustainability commitments as well as
cohesive strategies to support the sector (even if the company is active in other prod-
ucts beyond coffee), but this expectation was not always met. While companies tend to
disclose their broader strategies, specific and comprehensive background information
is not always readily available in their public sources. Corporate disclosures often lack
depth and quantified detail when it comes to strategic elements. For instance, there
seems to be a disconnect between the identification of sustainability risks and working
towards tangible results through the combination of VSSs, company codes of conduct,
and supply chain investments.

All coffee roasters rely on outsourced coffee production, often located in regions where
human rights abuses and exploitation of natural resources are potential concerns.
While most companies have overarching sustainability strategies that outline their spe-
cific thematic commitments, they often lack comprehensive, tangible, measurable, and
time-bound goals, and objectives. This pattern is a consequence of voluntary sustain-
ability regulations and reporting practices that grant companies the freedom to choose
their own sustainability strategies and disclosures. On a positive note, some companies,
such as Nestlé, JDE Peet’s and Starbucks, provide information that, while sometimes
incomplete, allows for a better understanding, setting an example that verifiable infor-
mation at the outcome level is indeed possible.

While company policies and strategies include concrete objectives, these are often
expressed in terms of implementing activities rather than setting comprehensive and
robust targets linked to broader impacts. Ideally, coffee-specific sustainability strate-
gies would involve farm-level investments and activities that are embedded into supply
chains based on identified risks and local needs. The level of public transparency plays
a critical role here in assessing these strategies, yet none of the companies provide
financial estimates of their yearly sustainability portfolio, which could provide insights
into their efforts to address sustainability risks in their coffee supply chains. This may
indicate that companies consider transparency in this aspect optional or, even worse,
that they themselves lack access to such information.
 Figure 8b. Coffee Cup Index: social

28

Nestlé

Lavazza

Starbucks

JDE Peet’s Tchibo

Melitta UCC

J.M. Smucker

Massimo Zanetti

Strauss KraftHeinz
Our first assessment results reveal that 5 out of 11 companies across social, environ-
mental, and economic pillars still rely on ad hoc and one-off projects and investments
that are not necessarily part of a larger overarching coffee sustainability strategy. These
initiatives are sometimes associated with corporate charitable efforts. As mentioned
above in the ‘Limitations’ section, it was difficult to tell in some cases whether these
projects were actually embedded in the supply chain, requiring further investigation to
determine their alignment. It remains unclear whether this lack of transparency stems
from limited knowledge of supply chain traceability or the immaturity of strategic
engagement at this stage. Comparisons with thematic results presented in subsequent
paragraphs indicate that while most companies provide some information on policies, 29
risks, activities, and goals at the farm level, they tend to remain vague on strategic
sustainability aspects, such as trading practices, fair price setting, or farmers› living
incomes.

Social

Social conditions and inclusion

To evaluate human rights-related disclosures, we identified salient human rights is-
sues faced by coffee companies (UNGP 2011) in our questionnaire. When it comes to
corporate disclosure on human rights, we often encounter narrative and case-specific
approaches. Our assessment reveals that while most companies have robust Codes
of Conduct addressing labor conditions and rights, the mechanisms to identify areas
of risk and establish preventative strategies for ensuring good labor conditions are still
limited. On the one hand, this observation indicates that labor rights are regarded as
important by many roasters. However, on the other hand, it is notable that only a small
number of companies offer pertinent and precise information regarding their specific
policy targets and methods to prevent and address risk. Regarding social inclusion at
the farm level in particular, there is a scarcity of companies setting targets aimed at
integrating gender equality and next generation into their day-to-day practices, even
though several companies have activities and investments on this topic (ICO, 2021).

Most companies do not disclose information regarding policies that tackle identified
human rights risks in their coffee supply chains, and they fail to describe changes in
the nature of human rights issues over time. It is evident that reporting can only play a
supportive role by ensuring the disclosure of meaningful information. Achieving cor-
porate accountability requires a different approach, one that specifies companies legal
responsibilities based on human rights due diligence, as outlined in chapter 5.
 Figure 8c. Coffee Cup Index: Environment

30

Nestlé

Lavazza

Starbucks

JDE Peet’s Tchibo

Melitta UCC

J.M. Smucker

Massimo Zanetti

Strauss KraftHeinz
 Environment
31

Environment and climate

While it is true that a relatively high percentage of companies provide information about
their climate change strategies, the overall assessment yields a mixed picture. It is
encouraging to note that a majority of companies have improved their climate-related
targets and reporting, likely influenced by increasing international standardization and
guidance on requirements and science-based target setting (such as CDP, SBTi, etc.).
However, the extent to which companies provide detailed information about managing
climate risks in coffee production at the field level often remains vague. Only a hand-
ful of companies -Nestlé, JDE Peet’s, Starbucks, Lavazza and Tchibo - have a set of
comprehensive policies addressing biodiversity, water, and ecosystem conservation in
their reports.

Our assessment demonstrates that Nestlé, JDE Peet’s and Starbucks are, compared
to the others, the most advanced in their inclusion of deforestation as a material risk
within their sustainability strategies. However, the overall quality and depth of de-
forestation policies and commitments varies (Wardell et al., 2021). Very few roasters
have policies that meet best-practice requirements as set out by the Accountability
Framework initiative (AFi), such as clear target and cut-off dates as well as necessary
management systems to ensure progress. Instead of assuming responsibility at the
company level, many address the issue in their Supplier Code of Conduct or sourcing
policies, placing the responsibility on suppliers to ensure deforestation-free coffee. The
level of information provided by companies about their deforestation policies seems to
correspond with the low percentage of companies referencing or not referencing their
progress in the producing countries. This poor performance explains the apprehension
among private sector actors regarding the forthcoming EU Deforestation Regulation (as
discussed in chapter 5).
 Figure 8d. Coffee Cup Index: Economic

32

Nestlé

Lavazza

Starbucks

JDE Peet’s Tchibo

Melitta UCC

J.M. Smucker

Massimo Zanetti

Strauss KraftHeinz
 Economic
33

Sustainable purchasing and economic conditions

In this section, we present the findings related to sustainable purchasing practices
and roasters’ practical efforts to enhance the economic viability of coffee farming. The
cornerstone of a coffee company’s operation lies in its purchasing practices (Molenaar
and Huetz-Adams, 2023). These crucial decisions not only determine the company’s
environmental, social, and economic impact but also hold the power to either propel a
sustainable coffee industry forward or intensify the existing challenges it faces.

Despite companies making bold claims in their public communications regarding their
commitments, this part of the assessment proved to be the most challenging for the
companies to answer, resulting in disappointingly low overall scores. As a result, it
does not come as a surprise that the disclosure of sourcing policy outcomes reflects a
general trend of companies failing to provide relevant and specific details. For example,
very few companies share up-to-date public information about their certification and
verification processes, sustainability premiums and long-term contracts, let alone their
supplier base.

We also examined whether companies offer sufficiently detailed information to com-

prehend crucial matters like the profitability of coffee farming and the struggle to attain
a living income for farmers. Regrettably, only a small number of companies provide
some specific information on their involvement, citing concrete actions and invest-
ments. Those engagements often relied on quality improvements rather than examin-
ing profitability, costs of production or living income. The majority simply rely on their
membership in MSIs as a token of their participation on this theme. Such information is
vital for engaging in meaningful discussions about the progress of individual companies
and the overall advancement of the sector.
Figure 9. Corporate members of MSIs

GCP

CPPTF

SCC
Multi-stakeholder accountability
Over the past two decades, the concept of multi-stakeholder initiatives has surged in
prominence as a governance approach. It has become the default method for address-
ing complex issues, with corporate partnerships and voluntarism taking center stage.
Notably, MSIs now play a vital role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and
implementing the Paris climate agreement. MSIs are hailed as a means to tap into the
abundant human, material, and financial resources of the private sector and other non-
state actors, mobilizing shared resources that complement public efforts (Herlin, 2021).

MSIs, such as the ICO Coffee Public Private Task Force (CPPTF) Working Group, the 35
Global Coffee Platform (GCP), and the Sustainable Coffee Challenge (SCC) bring togeth-
er governments, civil society, and private sector actors. Consequently, MSIs effectively
legitimize the role of companies as primary actors in global coffee sector governance,
enabling them to shift their public image from being contributors to the problem to
champions of the solution (Hart et al., 2021). This allows them to portray themselves
as “taking action” while conveniently sidestepping the more complex and contentious
issues. For example, in individual company strategies, the membership of a MSI is often
used as a proxy to claim engagement with thematic subjects, such as deforestation-
free supply chains or living income benchmarks. This approach becomes apparent
through the lobbying endeavors of industry associations like the European Coffee
Federation (ECF), as they engage with the EU policymakers. In their lobbying efforts,
the ECF emphasizes the activities of MSIs related to human rights and environmental
concerns, aiming to showcase the proactive involvement of the private sector (eg. ECF,
2022, 2022a, 2022b).

One might expect civil society to challenge how corporations are reshaping the sus-
tainability narrative in the different MSIs. However, as partnerships deepen and NGOs
become entangled in webs of corporate and governmental fundraising schemes, an
increasing number of NGOs seem to accept, or at least refrain from openly criticizing,
the corporate sustainability narrative (Anheier et al., 2019). For example, this is evi-
dent when evaluating the degree of NGO participation in the consortium responsible
for producing the Coffee Barometer over the past decade. The absence of inclusion
and engagement with local civil society, labor unions, and indigenous organizations
in producing countries reflects a lack of commitment to fostering robust account-
ability within these frameworks (IPES-Food, 2023). Addressing the challenges at hand
requires nimble accountability structures and metrics to assess cumulative impact; a
facet currently lacking in MSIs (Haque, 2020). For instance, establishing baselines for
sustainable business practices, such as the GCP sourcing snapshot and equivalence
mechanism, will be crucial to foster collective impact (see Box 2).
 Box 2 GCP Equivalence Mechanism
The GCP Equivalence Mechanism (GCP EM) is a framework established by the GCP to assess
the comparability of sustainability schemes to the Coffee Sustainability Reference Code
(GCP, 2022). This code acts as a basic industry standard for economic, social, and environ-
mental sustainability in global green coffee production and primary processing. Through the
Equivalence Process, GCP evaluates whether a sustainability scheme adheres to both the
36 Code and a set of operational criteria encompassing governance, standard-setting, as-
surance, data, and claims requirements. Recognized schemes are classified as either GCP
Baseline Coffee Code equivalent 2nd Party or 3rd Party assurance. Currently, a total of 19
sustainability schemes have received recognition from GCP. Among them, five schemes have
achieved equivalence with 3rd Party assurance, while 14 schemes have obtained equivalence
with 2nd Party assurance. All recognized schemes are eligible to participate in the GCP Col-
lective Reporting on Sustainable Coffee Purchases.

The rise of company sustainability verification schemes, including in-house schemes, has
primarily been propelled by the introduction of importer-country due diligence legislation.
This legislation poses a fundamental challenge to the traditional approach of coffee trad-
ing, which has historically prioritized financial and logistical considerations over factors like
origin and production methods. As a result, many companies are now investing in efforts to
improve traceability back to the farm level and evaluate the associated risks of procurement.
While it is commendable to see the GCP’s efforts to align and establish a common language
for enhancing sustainability practices, it is crucial to critically evaluate the increasing number
of sustainability schemes that have varying levels of support, market share, and account-
ability mechanisms. As it presently stands, GCP’s EM is a compilation of ostensibly “equiva-
lent” systems. It falls short in the provision of any supplementary insights pertaining to the
evaluation outcomes for each distinct scheme. The notion of even establishing a semblance
of comparability or a benchmark among the various schemes is lacking. In its current form
GCP’s EM is unable to fulfill its intended purpose of aiding stakeholders in navigating the
intricate array of diverse schemes, thus inadvertently enabling a competitive race to the
bottom. As the industry embraces diverse sustainability schemes, it becomes imperative to
assess their respective contributions and the degree to which they address critical challeng-
es such as social equity, environmental conservation, and economic viability. It is essential to
strike a balance between fostering collaboration and standardization within the coffee indus-
try while ensuring that sustainability initiatives are both meaningful and credible.
5
Towards mandatory 37

compliance

Traders, roasters, and retailers hold

the responsibility for due diligence
compliance, yet smallholders in
coffee-producing countries may
bear the costs to access the
European market.
 5
38
Towards mandatory
compliance

Introduction
In our examination of coffee roasters’ sustainability strategies and reporting, it was
striking to discover the widespread lack of transparency coupled with inadequate
disclosure (see figure 7). For instance, despite the well-established presence of volun-
tary sustainability initiatives in the coffee sector, the procurement of certified coffee
appears to stagnate (see figure 3). It has also been clear that the implementation of
VSS, in isolation, lacks the potency to foster an alternative that economically benefits
producers, upholds workers rights, and addresses climate change adaptation (Partiti,
2022).

However, questions pertaining the effectiveness and impact of voluntary approaches

are not exclusive to the coffee sector. Comparable trends are observable in sectors such
as cocoa, palm oil, and soybeans, to mention only a few. The general lack of voluntary
progress by international companies active in global agricultural value chains have
led policymakers to pivot towards the realm of mandatory legislation (Charles, 2023).
This transition is rooted in the recognition that more assertive measures are requisite
to channel the course of global agricultural practices toward enhanced sustainabil-
ity. Mandatory regulations will play a pivotal role in aligning coffee production, trade,
and consumption with environmental protection and ethical considerations (Clifford
Chance, 2022).

Regulations, if well-designed, have the potential to catalyze a shift in the coffee sec-
tor, reshaping the very nature of the current business models. Compliance with these
regulations often requires thorough monitoring of coffee supply chains and the ability
to demonstrate the effective implementation of due diligence measures (Wuttke et al.,
2022). In contrast to voluntary guidelines and frameworks, these laws provide compre-
hensive accountability and enforcement mechanisms that include penalties, remedies
for rights violations, the potential exclusion from public tenders and, in some cases,
 even civil liability. It is crucial to emphasize the risk linked to these legislations, wherein
industry players might transfer compliance costs, ultimately burdening coffee farmers.
In order to prevent such a scenario, the industry should take a proactive stance in their
support to small-scale producers to avoid further marginalization.

In the period from 2015 to 2022, an array of consuming nations spanning North
America, Oceania, and Europe have set forth enacted legislative measures intended
to enhance the environmental and social sustainability of businesses operating within
(agricultural) supply chains.6 Specifically within the European Union, the largest global
coffee importer, the sector’s business model stands to be directly influenced by the 39
regulatory transformations largely stemming from the EU’s Green Deal (Rudloff, 2022).
The most notable legislations to call out are the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR),
Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), the Forced Labor Regulation and
the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD).

Deforestation regulation
Undoubtedly, the legislative measure exerting the most influence on the European
coffee industry is the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which became effective in
June 2023. Roasters and traders have been given a timeframe of 18 months to imple-
ment the new rules (31 December 2024), with micro and small enterprises granted an
additional six months. The EUDR aims to address the issue of deforestation and forest
degradation, associated with products traded in the EU market. The EUDR requires
companies to ensure that the products they place on the EU market, or export from it,
are not associated with deforestation.7 This new regulation introduces mandatory due
diligence rules for operators and traders involved in the production and trade of various
commodities, including coffee, cocoa, rubber, palm oil, cattle, wood, and soy (see figure
10), (Treanor Basik and Saunders, 2021). To do so, companies will be required to provide
a due diligence statement, outlining the product;

A is produced in a deforestation-free manner, meaning the land used for production has
not undergone deforestation or forest degradation after the specified cut-off date of
December 31, 2020 and;
B complies with all relevant applicable laws, including those related to human rights and
the rights of indigenous peoples in the country of production.

To enable EU Member State authorities to verify compliance with the deforestation-free

requirement, companies need to be able to provide in their due diligence statements
geolocation points of the plots of land where the products come from, and polygons
are mandatory for plots larger than 4 ha. Moreover, a factor with significant potential
influence is the requirement for complete traceability of all products back to the plot.
The regulation establishes a benchmarking system to assess the risk of deforestation
and forest degradation in different countries or regions within a country. This system
will categorize countries into three baskets based on the level of deforestation risk: low,
standard, and high.
 It is essential to underscore that these obligations extend beyond importers (referred to
as “operators” in the EUDR), and that companies further down the supply chain, includ-
ing big retailers (termed “traders” under the EUDR), may have the same obligations
and legal responsibility if they introduce or market products covered by the regulation
on the EU market. Likewise, companies engaged in exporting products governed by the
EUDR from the EU market are bound by identical obligations. Although lacking legal
enforceability, the enactment of the EUDR underscores the expectations for compa-
nies to make an effort “...to ensure that a fair price is paid to producers, in particular
smallholders, so as to enable a living income and effectively address poverty as a root
40 cause of deforestation”.

Figure 10. EUDR’s Due Diligence requirements

Information
collection

Assess risk

Negligible risk Risk of deforestation

The risk is The risk cannot

✓ mitigated to a
be mitigated
Submission negligible level
of
due diligence
statement
Products can be placed Non-compliant products
cannot be placed on the
on the EU market
EU market
Sustainability Reporting (CSRD)
On January 5, 2023, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) entered
into force in the EU. The CSRD requires all large companies and all listed companies
(except listed micro-enterprises) to disclose information on what they see as the risks
and opportunities arising from social and environmental issues, and on the impact of
their activities on people and the environment. This helps investors, CSOs, consum-
ers and other stakeholders to evaluate the sustainability performance of companies.
The first companies will have to start reporting under ESRS (European Sustainability
Reporting Standards) for the financial year 2024, with the first sustainability statement
published in 2025. 41

These standards are designed to enhance transparency and accountability by stan-

dardizing the way companies communicate their ESG performance. Over time, the
ESRS disclosure requirements aim to bring sustainability reporting on par with financial
reporting. To achieve this, the CSRD mandates that the sustainability statement, pre-
pared in accordance with the ESRS, be included in a dedicated section of the manage-
ment report, based on a double materiality assessment. This signifies an important step
towards strengthening sustainability reporting and aligning it with established financial
reporting practices.8

EU legislation pipeline
While the EUDR and CSRD have already been enacted this year, the coffee industry is
anticipating the ongoing development of various other EU legislations that will soon be-
come applicable to its operations. For instance, in June 2023, the European Parliament
adopted its position on the Corporate Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), a proposed
directive that will enforce mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence re-
quirements on companies. The aim of the CSDDD is to provide legal clarity and prevent
fragmentation by establishing rules on corporate due diligence obligations, directors›
duties, and civil liability.

The CSDDD underscores the need for tangible measures in the day-to-day business
operations to address sustainability issues. In order to fulfill their due diligence obliga-
tions, companies will need comprehensive and relevant data concerning their supply
chains. The scope of human rights and environmental impacts within the CSDDD is
quite broad. It encompasses, notably, the right to a living wage. Several NGOs, com-
panies and governments have advocated for the inclusion of living income as well,
to ensure smallholders and self-employed workers are fully protected by the CSDDD
provisions. Likewise, several stakeholders have called for an obligation that compels
companies to review their procurement practices as an integral component of the
due diligence mandate in the CSDDD. It could introduce specific elements that enable
rights-holders to seek remedy and enforce their rights: the possibility to submit well-
founded concerns to regulatory authorities, to activate the complaints mechanisms
that companies are required to establish in adherence to the directive, and to file civil
complaints. If properly implemented, these represent major steps towards empowering
 upstream stakeholders in agricultural supply chains. Consequently, the CSDDD has the
potential to actualize the coffee sector’s commitments aimed at enhancing the liveli-
hoods of coffee producers.

The legislative progress of the CSDDD is currently under development. Although the
formal approval of the directive might take place in early 2024, taking into account the
transposition timelines, coffee companies operating within the EU will likely be obli-
gated to adhere to the requirements beginning in 2026.

42 Furthermore, on September 14, 2022, the EU Commission unveiled its proposal for
a Regulation that introduces a ban on the introduction and distribution of products
manufactured through forced labor within the EU market, as well as their export from
the EU market (EC, 2022) This proposal is currently undergoing evaluation by both the
European Council and Parliament and will require joint endorsement. Under this regula-
tion, companies (regardless of their jurisdiction) are prohibited from introducing prod-
ucts produced under forced labor conditions into the EU market or exporting them from
the EU. To accomplish this, competent authorities of the Member States are mandated
to evaluate the likelihood of forced labor infractions based on available data and, when
deemed necessary, to initiate investigations into the relevant products and compa-
nies. In the event that a product is determined to be manufactured using forced labor,
national authorities are mandated to dispose of it, unless companies can substantiate
the eradication of forced labor from their supply chains. Considering the multitude of
allegations surrounding forced labor incidents in various countries within the coffee
supply chain, this regulation holds significant pertinence for the coffee sector.

A new reality
While legislation possesses the capability to establish equitable conditions and stimu-
late innovation, the ongoing legislative advancements within the EU, particularly ex-
emplified by the EUDR, have encountered significant opposition or hesitancy within the
coffee industry ICO, 2023c). The coffee sector has consistently opposed the incorpora-
tion of coffee within the EUDR framework, contesting the stipulated 7% deforestation
attribution to coffee within the EU regulation (Naranjo, 2023).9

Similar to the majority of EU legislations, the formulation and acceptance of the EUDR
is the result of a decade-spanning policy dialogue and advocacy undertakings involving
EU institutions, civil society, and industry representatives. This endeavor encompassed
an array of impact studies, public consultations, formulation of stances, and public
events. Within this context, the European coffee industry, represented by the European
Coffee Federation (ECF), remained largely absent from the policy dialogue. In contrast,
companies within the cocoa sector exhibited significantly higher levels of involvement,
articulation, and proactive participation throughout the entire legislative development
trajectory, even preceding the crystallization of a concrete proposal (Voice Network,
2019). Only as the legislative process advanced into its latter stages did the coffee
industry advocacy movement begin to engage in a more dynamic manner.
As the EUDR becomes a fixed reality, the industry must promptly acknowledge the
novel circumstances that demand adaptation for effective operation within the Euro-
pean market. Swift preparation is imperative to meet impending deadlines, requiring
the implementation of rigorous measures across their business operations and supply
chains across all sourcing points. It is evident that numerous companies encounter
substantial shortfalls in terms of EUDR readiness. Essential traceability data remains
elusive or inaccessible, and a multitude of stakeholders lack resilient management
systems to systematically evaluate and alleviate deforestation hazards present within
their supply chains.
43
Mitigating adverse effects
While compliance with the EUDR will undeniably impose a burden on companies, it is
crucial to acknowledge the uncertainties it creates for the governments of produc-
ing countries and, most significantly, for the millions of small-scale coffee farmers. A
distinct risk linked to the EUDR, highlighted by both industry and civil society, lies in the
absence of a thorough evaluation of its implications on smallholder producers prior to
its enforcement. At the same time, as flagged by Ivorian cocoa smallholders and CSOs,
the increased traceability, requested by the EU as part of the EUDR, is needed to tackle
the complexity of supply chains, which oftentimes is detrimental for smallholders (On-
gidef, 2022).

Despite the clear legal responsibility for compliance falling on traders, roasters, and
retailers within the EU, there is a significant risk that industry actors shift costs, obli-
gations, and administrative burdens onto small-scale farmers in order to access the
European coffee market. However, globally there is little experience on how to balance
these heightened mandatory due diligence measures with the inclusion of smallholders
or cooperatives into export supply chains. In view of the impending EUDR requirements,
the coffee industry has to exhibit unwavering and proactive engagement to alleviate the
concerns of small-scale coffee farmers and leave no space for ambiguity. In its January
2022 ‘reactive statement’ the ECF reiterated: “The ECF and its members are commit-
ted to increasing transparency and traceability along the coffee supply chain” and
that the role and wellbeing of smallholder farmers the coffee supply chain “is a para-
mount concern to the coffee sector as a whole and should remain a priority in the new
Regulation’s implementation” (ECF, 2022a). Now that the regulation is in effect, it is
up to the coffee sector to uphold this commitment. It is essential to underscore that the
financial burden and obligations inherent to the implementation of the legislation will
not be shifted onto their shoulders. A possible way to do so is through pre-competitive
collaboration on data norms and interoperability of data management and traceability
systems, which can maximize efficiency and avoid duplication of work and costs for
suppliers (Quynh Chi and Meulensteen, 2023).

The challenge to comply is likely to be less complicated in countries with a well-de-

veloped infrastructure and strong institutional frameworks. For instance, Brazil has
relatively good land title data, polygon data and forest monitoring data, with much of
 it already digitized (Quynh Chi and Meulensteen, 2023). To a certain extent this is also
true for Vietnam, that just published a national plan on EUDR, developed with private
sector involvement (Oger, 2023). However, in countries characterized by inadequate
infrastructure, low levels of traceability and a significant presence of smallholders, the
industry is likely to encounter difficulties in meeting the EUDR requirements. Notable
among these countries are Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Peru, Colombia, and
some Central American countries. Collectively, these countries are accounting for two-
thirds of the global population of coffee smallholders (CB, 2020).

44 Moreover, potential disengagement from high-risk suppliers poses a substantial chal-

lenge in the coffee sector, due to the diverse origin regions. Without proactive support
from buyers, smallholders lacking organization and resources to provide the requisite
data for EUDR compliance will bear the initial impact. While the European Commission
committed to develop support programs, the industry also needs to play a leading role.
The coffee industry has the capacity and responsibility to proactively forge partnerships
to provide financial investments and support on the ground. Some coffee companies
have recently hinted at the possibility of EUDR prompting shifts in coffee sourcing. If the
coffee sector genuinely prioritizes its sustainability agenda and underscores the impor-
tance of smallholder inclusion, it must strive to avoid abrupt disengagement. Produc-
ers, especially smallholders, should receive timely information, guidelines, and adequate
capacity-building regarding the regulations (Naranjo et al., 2023). If the wellbeing
of smallholders is really “a paramount concern to the coffee sector as a whole”, the
industry has an important role to play here. The results of risk assessments conducted
by companies should serve - even for high-risk supply chains - as a foundational basis
to support farmers on the ground. These assessments should establish the bedrock
for constructing resilient support frameworks aimed at bolstering sustainable coffee
farming as well as holistically addressing root causes of deforestation. And rather than
doing this in isolation, the industry should leverage the multitude of MSIs in the sector to
effectively achieve impact.
6
Conclusion 45

The era of cheap coffee

has come to an end!
 6
46
Conclusion
Coffee, a beverage consumed throughout the world, has achieved remarkable success
in terms of consumption. However, beneath this success lies an extractive model of
production that centers around the trade of commoditized coffee at affordable prices.
Due to its nature as a bulk commodity, coffee is characterized by its interchange-
able quality, which fuels a constant drive to acquire it at the lowest possible cost. This
approach to production poses a substantial challenge when it comes to achieving
comprehensive sustainability within the coffee sector. The focus on cost reduction and
profit maximization stands in contrast to the sustainability commitments made by
individual companies and the broader global agendas regarding climate action and the
attainment of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The concept of a sustainable
coffee sector appears to be nothing more than an illusion when we consider the mul-
tifaceted challenges faced in coffee producing countries. Small-scale coffee produc-
ers, though not a homogeneous group, often find themselves with limited economic
alternatives and endure hardships, arduous working conditions, and depleted lands.
These circumstances pose two overarching threats to the future of coffee production
worldwide. Firstly, a considerable proportion of coffee farming families cultivating cof-
fee within countries with less competitive production standings grapple with persistent
poverty and precarious living conditions. Secondly, urgent action is required to address
the challenges posed by shifting climate patterns while simultaneously mitigating the
sector’s environmental impact.

In theory, coffee production holds the promise of providing millions of small-scale

farmers with an enviable prospect: a stable income and livelihood options. In reality, the
situation is far more complex, evident through the prevalent living income gaps found
in most coffee-producing countries, excluding Brazil. A common approach in the sector
is to focus on increasing yield per hectare and enhancing coffee quality as a means to
bridge the living income gap. While this may lead to higher incomes, it also amplifies the
need for more labor, a persistent concern for small-scale coffee farmers worldwide. The
inability to attain a living income raises doubts about the feasibility of making substan-
tial progress towards accomplishing other sustainability objectives. While research in
various areas, including living income and living wage benchmarks, is essential,
immediate action is imperative to improve the lives of coffee farmers and farm work-
ers, not in some distant future, but in the present moment. The industry can promptly
improve its trading practices and procurement policies (e.g., terms of payment and
pricing) directed towards coffee farmers. Such improvements would have an immediate
effect on their income and the security of their livelihoods. It is also the most effective
way to empower farmers to reinvest in their own businesses, upholding crucial ecosys-
tem services, and the adoption of responsible land-use practices like agroforestry.

At present, the world’s largest coffee roasters are positioning themselves as leaders
in sustainability, making ambitious commitments and participating in multiple MSIs. 47
Their sustainability goals encompass 100% sustainable sourcing, 100% deforestation
free, 100% carbon neutrality, and 100% recycling. The promises and claims made by
these roasters are alluring, and expectations from regulators, civil society, consumers,
and investors are rising. While some individual companies may be performing better
than others, our Coffee Brew Index reveals that most companies are not yet taking the
actions necessary to fulfill the existing sector commitments in addressing social and
environmental risks. It is important to recognize that for these companies, their actual
sustainability strategy is narrowly focused on improving efficiency and competitiveness
within a globalized economy characterized by scarcity, increasing risks, and opaque
supply chains.

Without a clear strategy and robust reporting mechanisms in place to address the main
challenges in the coffee sector –including elements like transparency, traceability, sup-
plier engagement, monitoring, and sector collaboration – companies will be unable to
effectively address social and environmental impacts in their coffee supply chains. For
example, very few companies share up-to-date public information about their certifi-
cation and verification processes, sustainability premiums and long-term contracts, let
alone their supplier base. Such information is vital for engaging in meaningful discus-
sions about the progress of individual companies and the overall advancement of the
sector.

On paper, the sustainability promises of most roasters remain disconnected, lim-

ited to token charity or CSR initiatives that only superficially address their social and
environmental impacts. Implementing sustainable business practices in the coffee
industry requires adjusting existing business practices, leveraging proven knowledge
and approaches. However, it is important to recognize that making this work in practice
will also necessitate substantial investments. The lack of any transparency regarding
procurement practices or funding raises concerns that none of the roasters are demon-
strating a willingness to compensate small-scale coffee farmers for operating sustain-
ably, such as by paying a price that reflects the social and environmental costs involved.

The concept of multi-stakeholder governance, which provides a semblance of legiti-

macy and some level of accountability, has proven advantageous for corporations. The
Global Coffee Platform (GCP), the Sustainable Coffee Challenge (SCC), and the ICO
 Coffee Public Private Task Force (CPPTF) bring together governments, civil society,
and the private sector. Through their active participation and financial support of these
initiatives, companies frequently exert influence over the discourse, ensuring it aligns
with their own interests and avoiding topics that might jeopardize their market share
and profitability. With limited accountability systems in place, involvement in these
MSIs enables companies to portray themselves as proactive without engaging with the
complex and contentious issues at hand.

This strategic behavior is evident in industry lobbying efforts and corporate strategies,
48 often citing MSI membership as evidence of engagement in specific areas such as zero-
deforestation or ensuring a living income for producers. Furthermore, there has been a
noticeable shift in the discourse surrounding sustainability within the coffee industry.
It has become increasingly intertwined with quality management and risk mitigation
within the coffee supply chain. This situation becomes apparent through the inclusion of
many different sustainability guidelines and internally managed verification and trace-
ability systems within the GCP 2.0 equivalence mechanism. Rather than raising the bar
and encompassing a comprehensive strategic approach at sector level, this mechanism
concentrates on farm-level sustainability, thereby narrowing the definition of sustain-
able coffee production. Consequently, the focus shifts away from systemic issues such
as the uneven allocation of risk and reward. This contributes to a growing imbalance in
the bargaining power dynamics between coffee buyers and coffee producers and mis-
directs attention towards factors like price, farm profitability, pricing, and the necessary
transformative changes required to trading practices beyond the farm level.

Simultaneously, in the realm of international business practices, a momentous change

is occurring. This entails a shift away from relying solely on voluntary sustainability
initiatives towards a more stringent regulatory framework centered around mandatory
due diligence requirements. Taking a leading role in recent years, the EU has proposed
and adopted international laws focused on environmental, social and governance (ESG)
factors that reinforce each other. These laws compel companies operating in industries
like the coffee sector to prioritize the protection of human rights and prevent environ-
mental degradation. Compliance with these regulations will require thorough monitor-
ing of coffee supply chains and the ability to demonstrate the effective implementation
of due diligence measures. In contrast to voluntary initiatives, these laws provide a
comprehensive accountability framework that includes penalties, remedies for rights
violations, and the potential for exclusion from public tenders. However, our index
reveals a concerning reality: on paper, the majority of coffee roasters are ill-prepared
for the upcoming legal requirements, highlighting the urgent need for a more pro-active
approach from all those involved.

While the various EU due diligence regulations present an opportunity to advance sus-
tainability in the coffee sector, caution must be exercised to avoid unintentionally ex-
acerbating the existing vulnerabilities faced by small-scale coffee farmers. Unrealistic
expectations of substantial progress within the coffee sector neglect the fact that most
producers are struggling to meet their basic needs. Unfortunately, our experience with
VSS shows that roasters often shift the burden of responsibility and costs of imple-
mentation onto farmers and producing countries. Acknowledging and addressing these
fundamental issues is critical for achieving meaningful progress. While mandatory due
diligence with robust enforcement mechanisms is probably key to progress, it should
also foster collaboration between producers and importers, providing small-scale
farmers with the necessary support and resources to meet the required standards.
An integrated approach, supported by substantial financial assistance from the coffee
industry, and the enforcement of local regulations, is essential for effective implemen-
tation. The goal is to find a “smart mix” of voluntary and mandatory instruments that 49
promote development and ensure the well-being of coffee producers and their commu-
nities (Schleifer and Fransen, 2022).
 Sources

Figure 1. Average Arabica and Robusta price

World Bank Commodity price data 2023 (database, updated on June 2, 2023). Source

Figure 2a. ICO (2023b). Coffee report and outlook. Source

Figure 2b. ECF (2023). European coffee report 2022/23. Source

Figure 3. Overview market share 2017/2019/2021

We appreciate the data contributions from 4C CAS, Fairtrade International, Fair Trade USA, Rainforest
50 Alliance, Organic, and Starbucks. However, as Nestlé has not provided and update, we have omitted the
AAA overview.

Figure 4. Country overview living income – coffee income

Kaitlin Y. Cordes and Sagan, M. (2021). Responsible Coffee Sourcing: Towards a Living Income for Pro-
ducers. Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment. Source

Figure 5. Theoretical household net income for a 1ha farm

Our figure represents a reevaluation of the calculation of a theoretical household’s net income based on
potential yield and price scenarios for a 2 hectare farm, as outlined in:
Hochberg, A. and Bare, M. (2021). Strategies to enhance coffee farmers’ incomes: Rainforest Alliance
experience and research. Source

Figure 6. Hectares sun versus shade grown coffee

See for more information the data pertaining to 17 countries, as outlined in: Somarriba, E. and
Lopez-Sampson A. (2018). Coffee and cocoa agroforestry systems: Pathways to deforestation, re-
forestation, and tree cover change. PROFOR. Source

Figure 7. Coffee Brew Index

Additional details regarding the index and company sustainability strategy assessment, including the
scoring and methodology, can be accessed on our website: www.coffeebarometer.org

Figure 8a. Coffee Cup Index: Strategy

Figure 8b. Coffee Cup Index: Social
Figure 8c. Coffee Cup Index: Environment
Figure 8d. Coffee Cup Index: Economic

For further insights into the thematic sustainability strategy assessment, including comprehensive
information on the scoring and methodology, please visit our website: www.coffeebarometer.org

Figure 9. Corporate members of MSIs

We reached out to each company to ascertain their involvement in one or more MSIs.

Figure 10. EUDR: Due Diligence requirements

The figure represents the authors’ interpretation, designed to visually depict the EUDR due diligence
requirements.
Endnotes

1 ICO indicator C price: For research purposes and to get a better overview of the worldwide price
development for coffee, the ICO indicator prices represent and track prices of four main types of
coffee qualities: 1. Colombian and mild Arabicas, 2. other mild Arabicas, 3. Brazilian and other natural
Arabicas, 4. Robustas.

2 Examples of recent and fortcoming studies:

ICO’s CPPTF launches series of living income benchmark studies (2023, February): Source
Fairtrade International (2023). Living income reference prices. Source GCP (2023): First findings of
the study on coffee growers’ income in Minas Gerais and Espîrito Santo. Source Verité (2023): Publi-
cation of living income and living wage study for the Colombian coffee sector. Source 51

3 These country averages do not consider household income derived from sources other than coffee.
Within each country, there are producers who perform significantly better or worse than the average
figures suggest. Like many small-scale farmers, coffee producers have multiple income streams.
Even when coffee constitutes the primary source of household income, other sources and livelihood
strategies, such as food produced on the farm, can contribute significantly. This can result in a total
household income that is 10-40% higher than the income from coffee alone).

4 Estimates of GHG emissions from coffee range from about 3 to more than 40 kgCO2e/kg roast
coffee. Average emissions are likely about 20 kgCO2e/ kg RC, driven largely by significant land-use
change, fertilizer use, and wet-processing effluent, which are each potentially large GHG contributors.

5 For more information see Kew: Source

6 Examples include, the UK’s Modern Slavery Act of 2015, France’s Duty of Vigilance Law of 2017, the
Netherlands’ Child Labour Due Diligence Act of 2019, and Germany’s Act on Corporate Due Diligence
in Global Supply Chains of 2021.

7 For more information see the FAQ of the EU Deforestation Regulation: Source

8 The new rules will apply to EU-based companies across all sectors, including financial services, with
over 250 employees and a worldwide turnover exceeding 40 million euros. Parent companies with
more than 500 employees and a global turnover of over 150 million euros will also be subject to the
directive. Non-EU companies generating at least 40 million euros in the EU, with a total turnover
surpassing 150 million euros, will be included as well.

9 Additionally, Naranjo et al. (2023) assert that both the evident connection between deforestation in
coffee-producing nations and the substantial proportion of coffee imported into the EU underscore
the necessity of encompassing coffee within the regulatory framework.

Green coffee conversion

1 bag = 60 kilogram
1 MT = 1,000 kilogram = 16,67 bags
 List of abbreviations

BHHRC Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

CB Coffee Barometer
CDP Carbon Disclosure Project
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CPPTF Coffee Public Private Task Force
CSDDD/CS3D Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive
CSRD Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive
CPPTF Coffee Public Private Task Force
52 CSO Civil Society Organization
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
DD Due Diligence
EC European Commission
ECF European Coffee Federation
ESG Environmental Social Governance
ESRS European Sustainability Reporting Standards
EU European Union
EUDR European Union Deforestation Regulation
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
GCP Global Coffee Platform
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GRI Global Reporting Initiative
HRDD Human Rights Due Diligence
ICO International Coffee Organisation
IDH Sustainable Trade Inititive
IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IPES International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
LUC Land use change
MSI Multi-stakeholder Initiative
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
SBTi Science Based Targets initiative
SBTN Science Based Targets Network
SCA Specialty Coffee Association
SCC Sustainable Coffee Challenge
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SEI Stockholm Environment Institute
TFCLI Task Force Coffee Living Income
UN United Nations
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VSS Voluntary Sustainability Standards
WCPF World Coffee Producer Forum
WCR World Coffee Research
WRI World Resources Institute
WWF World Wildlife Fund
ZDCs Zero-Deforestation Commitments
Bibliography

Anheier, H., Lang, M., and Toepler, S. (2019). Civil ECF (2022b). Joint Statement of Cross-commodity
society in times of change: shrinking, chang- Sector Organisations to EU Council Presidency
ing and expanding spaces and the need for new on the Proposal for a Regulation on Deforesta-
regulatory approaches. Economics, 13(1). Source tion-free Products. Source

Branthomme, A., et al. (2023). How much do ECF (2022c). An alternative approach to ensure
large-scale and small-scale farming contribute forest protection. Source
to global deforestation? Results from a remote
sensing pilot approach. FAO. Source ECF (2023). European coffee report 2022/23.
Source 53
CDP (2022). From commitments to action at scale
critical steps to achieve deforestation free supply Eurobarometer (2020, March 3). New Eurobarom-
chains. CDP. Source eter survey: Protecting the environment and
climate is important for over 90% of European
CDP (2023). Policy Explainer on the EU Deforesta- citizens. Source
tion Regulation (EUDR). CDP. Source
Fairtrade International. (2023). Living income
Charles, S. (2023, January 4). ESG is happen- reference prices. Source
ing – it’s high time the coffee industry took note.
Coffee Intelligence. Source Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, Solidaridad (2023).
European Parliament vote on the CSDDD: Sig-
Chi, T. and Meulensteen, T. (2023, July 26). Eight nificant improvements for the rights of small-
ways the EUDR is likely to affect coffee supply holder farmers. Source
markets. Daily Coffee News. Source
Fernandes Martins, K., Teixeira, D., and de Oliveira
Clifford Chance (2022). European Commission Corrêa, R. (2022). Gains in sustainability using
proposes mandatory human rights and environ- Voluntary Sustainability Standards: A systematic
mental due diligence. Source review. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain, 5,
100084. Source
Davis, M. (2021). The global challenge of adapting
coffee to a changing climate. Source GCP (2022). Ensuring schemes meet the Coffee
Sustainability Reference Code. GCP. Source
Dzebo, A. and Adams, K. (2022). The coffee supply
chain illustrates transboundary climate risks: Gomes, L. et al. (2020). Agroforestry systems can
Insights on governance pathways. SEI. Source mitigate the impacts of climate change on coffee
production: A spatially explicit assessment in
EC (2022, September 14). Regulation of the EP and Brazil. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment,
of the Council on prohibiting products made with 294, 106858. Source
forced labour on the Union market. Source
Haque, M. (2020). A critique of the role of NGOs as
EC, ICO and ITC. (2020). Practical lessons and partners in governance. Asia Pacific Journal of
partnership models from pilots on accompanying Public Administration, 42(1), 17–32. Source
measures to the EU CS3D. Source
Hart, J., Russon, J., and Sklair, J. (2021). The private
ECF (2020). European Coffee Federation position sector in the development landscape: partner-
paper on due diligence. ECF. Source ships, power, and questionable possibilities. De-
velopment in Practice, 31(7), 857–871. Source
ECF (2022a). ECF Reactive Statement on the
European Commission Proposal for a Regulation Heldt, L., and Beske-Janssen, P. (2023). Solutions
to Minimise the Risk of Deforestation and Forest from space? A dynamic capabilities perspec-
Degradation Associated with Products Placed on tive on the growing use of satellite technology
the EU Market. Source for managing sustainability in multi-tier supply
chains. International Journal of Production Eco-
nomics, 260, 108864. Source
 Herlin, H. (2021). Cross-sector partnerships Partiti, E. (2022). The place of voluntary standards
between companies and not-for-profit orga- in managing social and environmental risks in
nizations within corporate social responsibil- global value chains. European Journal of Risk
ity: Aspects of legitimacy. Hanken School of Regulation, 13(1), 114-137, TILEC Discussion
Economics. Source Paper DP 2021-010. Source

ICO (2021). The future of coffee: Investing in youth Pendrill, F., et al. (2019). Agricultural and forestry
for a resilient and sustainable coffee sector. Cof- trade drives large share of tropical deforestation
fee Development Report 2021. ICO. Source ICO emissions. Global Environmental Change: Human
(2023a). 60 years of ICO development projects and Policy Dimensions, 56, 1–10. Source
to build a sustainable coffee industry.
Ralph, H. (2022, April 6). The ICO on sourcing diver-
ICO (2023b). Coffee report and outlook. ICO. sification. Global Coffee Report. Source
54
Source
Rubio-Jovel, K. (2022). The voluntary sustainability
ICO (2023c). EU action against deforestation and standards and their contribution towards the
forest degradation. Source achievement of the Sustainable Development
Goals: A systematic review on the coffee sector.
IPES-Food (2023). Who’s Tipping the Scales? Journal of International Development. Source
The growing influence of corporations on the
governance of food systems, and how to counter Rudloff, B. (2022). Sustainable international value
it. IPES. Source chains: The EU’s new due diligence approach as
part of a policy mix. Source
Cordes, K. and Sagan, M. (2021). Responsible
Coffee Sourcing: Towards a Living Income for Schleifer, P. and Fransen, L. (2022). Towards a
Producers. Columbia Center on Sustainable Smart Mix 2.0 Harnessing Regulatory Heteroge-
Investment. Source neity for Sustainable Global Supply Chains. SWP.
Source
Lakhani, N., Uteuova, A., and Chang, A. (2021, July
14). Revealed: the true extent of America’s food Sellare, J., et al. (2022). Six research priorities to
monopolies, and who pays the price. The Guard- support corporate due-diligence policies. Nature,
ian. Source 606(7916), 861–863. Source

Molenaar, JW. and Huetz-Adams, F. (2023). Price Terlau, W., and Hirsch, D. (2015). Sustainable con-
in global value chains: Key to achieving living sumption and the attitude-behaviour-gap phe-
income and living wage. Solidaridad. Source nomenon - Causes and measurements towards
a sustainable development. Source
Naranjo, M. et al. (2022). Deforestation and forest
degradation in coffee supply chains: Wageningen TFCLI (2020). Strategy handbook, a fact-based
Economic Research policy brief. WUR. Source exploration of the Living Income Gap to develop
effective sourcing and pricing strategies that
NewForesight (2021): Driving improvements in close the gap. Source
wages and working conditions in the coffee sec-
tor. Source Treanor Basik, N. and Saunders, J. (2021). Tackling
(illegal) deforestation in coffee supply chains:
Oger, A. (2023). Environmental and social impacts What impact can demand-side regulations
embedded in EU trade policies. The case of EU have? Forest Trends. Source
trade-related autonomous measures in Vietnam.
Source Tridawati, A., et al. (2020). Mapping the Distribu-
tion of Coffee Plantations from Multi-Resolution,
Ongidef (2022, February 28). Support for the geo- Multi-Temporal, and Multi-Sensor Data Using
location requirement in the draft EU regulation a Random Forest Algorithm. Remote Sensing,
on deforestation free supply chains. Source 12(23), 3933. Source
Panhuysen, S. and Pierrot, J. (2020). Coffee Ba- UNHR (2011). Guiding Principles on Business and
rometer 2020. Source Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations
“Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework. UN.
Source
USDA (2022). Coffee: World Markets and Trade.
Source

Utrilla-Catalan, R., et al. (2022). Growing Inequal-

ity in the Coffee Global Value Chain: A Complex
Network Assessment. Sustainability: Science
Practice and Policy, 14(2), 672. Source

Vilagomez, A. et al. (2022). Measuring and Mitigat-

ing GHGs: Coffee. WWF. Source VOICE Network
(2019, December 2). Joint position paper on the
EU’s policy and regulatory approach to cocoa.
Source
55
Wardell DA, et al. (2021). Reviewing initiatives to
promote sustainable supply chains: The case
of forest-risk commodities. Working Paper 8.
CGIAR. Source

Williams, W. (2021, August 11, updated 2023, June

15). How your cup of coffee is clearing the jungle.
Source

Wuttke, T. et al. (2022). Human Rights and Envi-

ronmental Due Diligence in Global Value Chains:
Perspectives from the Global South. Source
 Colophon

56 Citation: Panhuysen, S. and De Vries, F. (2023): Coffee Barometer 2023.

Text: Sjoerd Panhuysen and Frederik de Vries - Ethos Agriculture

Additional contributors: Bart Van Besien - Oxfam België/Belgique,

Gert van der Bijl - Solidaridad, Fanny Gautier - Rainforest Alliance,
Niels Haak - Conservation International, Etelle Higonnet - consultancy,
Jessica Mullan – consultancy, Andrea Olivar - Solidaridad.

Editing: Bregtje Noordhoek and Tijmen de Vries – Schuttelaar&Partners

Design: Roelant Meijer – Tegenwind

Website Design: Karin Eken - Nieuw-Eken

Hubert Peri, José Ramon Ruiz Torres - the FarmerBox

Contact: [email protected]

Website: www.coffeebarometer.org

Copyright: The Coffee Barometer 2023 report and website are initiated
by Conservation International and Solidaridad, produced by Ethos
Agriculture. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International
(CC BY-NC-SA) 4.0

Expression of the authors: We appreciate the effort of companies and

standards bodies in answering our questionnaire. The report combines
data and analyses produced by farmer organisations, companies,
governments, international organisations, civil society organisations and
research centers. We thank all for their contributions and collaboration
in producing the report. Additional background information and an
overview of contributing organisations can be found on the Coffee
Barometer website. The final responsibility for the content and the views
expressed in this publication lies solely with the authors. The authors
welcome any corrections to the data provided and challenge all actors of
the coffee sector to be much more forthcoming with public data on the
challenges the sector faces.

This publication was made possible thanks to the financial support

from the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and
Development (BMZ). All views expressed in the study are the sole
responsibility of the authors and should not be attributed to any other
person or institution.
www.coffeebarometer.org