Before specialty coffee, most roasters had a limited amount of contact with coffee producers. But over the last two decades, a drive for traceability and transparency along the supply chain has changed this dynamic.

The benefits to roasters are clear. Origin trips can allow them to sample a wide variety of coffees, better understand how they are grown, and form a long-term buying relationship with a coffee producer. They can also provide roasters with the knowledge they need to market their coffees more effectively.

But beyond this, origin trips can also help roasters connect their consumers with the people behind the coffee, showcasing their commitment to upholding values that the specialty coffee industry prioritises.

This is all great news for roasters – but how do origin trips benefit coffee producers?

So, what are the benefits for coffee producers?

Generally speaking, origin trips provide an opportunity for roasters and producers to develop a more meaningful connection, which can serve as the basis of a future business relationship.

They offer producers the opportunity to share insights into the quality and expected flavour attributes of their coffee. At the same time, they can gain valuable information about consumer preferences at the other end of the supply chain.

“For producers, they mean an amazing opportunity to see a whole new face of the coffee industry, which normally producers are not able to see because of the lack of connection with roasters,” says Elias Bayter from Forest Coffee.

“It’s very important to connect with roasters because they are the ones facing the end consumer,” says Elias. “For us, it is very important to understand their needs and improve towards that. It gives us insight into changing trends in terms of profile preferences which, in the end, can help us plan out how we process coffees.”

For him, the greatest benefit of origin trips is that they cultivate an environment of collaboration. 

“There are many benefits, but the most important for us is the connection between both parties,” he says. “A shared culture behind the coffee, collaborating on new ideas, and most importantly, the relationships built.” 

But for all their benefits, coffee producers also need to think carefully about the investment. It often costs a lot for them to host prospective buyers, and while there is often a tacit agreement that roasters visiting a farm will eventually source from it, this might not always be the case.

Ensuring a sustainable production model

Coffee producers often go to great lengths to accommodate roasters during origin trips. To help ensure the effort is worth it, roasters should research the farm and assess the likelihood of becoming a customer before visiting.

But on the whole, origin trips can help coffee producers secure a long-term buyer while providing roasters with the opportunity to really know a farm and what it’s capable of. There are clear benefits to either side

“These types of events help producers show the work behind a cup of coffee and try to build a more conscious society that, in the end, benefits the whole supply chain,” says Elias.

Ultimately, origin trips can be beneficial for all involved. They help to add value for producers, roasters, and consumers. 

At the same time, they help to improve transparency – a central tenet of the specialty coffee industry – helping to ensure production is based on a model that empowers producers rather than takes advantage of them.

Environmental sustainability has become a critical focus for the coffee industry. Approximately 60% of wild coffee species are at risk of extinction, and the effects of climate change are predicted to reduce the amount of suitable coffee-growing area around the world by up to 50% by 2050.

As such, many coffee businesses are adopting initiatives to reduce their emissions – in many cases aiming to reach net zero. In fact, nearly half of all coffee launches in 2020 made at least one sustainability claim.

One term that has gained traction in the coffee industry is “carbon offsetting”, as an emerging solution for businesses aiming to reduce their carbon impact. This is where businesses pay to participate in schemes which reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

“It’s a way to make up for the carbon dioxide emissions that you create,” says Sara Gibson, co-founder of Sightseer Coffee. “This is done by purchasing carbon credits or ‘offsets’, often done via an online market.”

One of the most significant contributions to the coffee industry’s carbon footprint occurs towards the end of the supply chain. Roasting typically involves burning fossil fuels, leading to the emission of greenhouse gases. On average, 1kg of coffee produces 5kg of carbon dioxide.

Once roasted, coffee then needs to be packaged, shipped, ground, brewed, and disposed of. According to research, this final stage accounts for over one-third of the coffee industry’s total carbon footprint.

As such, many coffee shops and roasters are exploring ways to reduce their carbon emissions.

However, addressing these issues requires upfront investment in carbon-friendly strategies and equipment. For businesses already grappling with rising costs and high coffee prices, prioritising carbon reduction may be difficult.

“Achieving carbon neutrality is expensive and most coffee businesses aren’t at a place where it’s a viable option for them,” says Sara.

Furthermore, roasters and coffee shops have unavoidable energy inputs in their operations. No matter how many emission-reduction strategies they implement, they will never be carbon neutral through these means alone.

Carbon offsetting, therefore, offers a way to address the emissions that cannot be actively reduced.

Is carbon offsetting the best option?

Carbon offsetting is not without its challenges, however. One of the main frustrations lies in accurately measuring carbon emissions.

To get started, a business has to estimate its emissions. “This can be challenging in and of itself,” says Sara. “A lot of people cobble together a guesstimate using an online calculator.” 

The disparity between a company’s calculated carbon emissions and what it is actually accountable for can be significant, especially for businesses with complex value chains. Coffee businesses often face challenges when determining their direct and indirect emissions. A 2021 survey revealed an error rate of up to 40% in emissions calculations among sampled businesses.

Another major concern with offsetting schemes is that they can be difficult to verify. “Recent news stories have found that ‘phantom credits’ are prevalent, and many offset projects are incomplete or ineffective.”

Carbon offsetting can therefore be viewed as a distraction from the solutions needed to address climate change.

Linked to concerns about greenwashing, critics argue that carbon offsetting fails to tackle the root causes of global warming. Instead, it gives space for “virtue signalling” – allowing companies to showcase their environmental consciousness while maintaining business as usual, without making substantial changes to their emissions.

However, for businesses with inevitable carbon emissions, it is better than doing nothing.

Part of the solution

Investing in modern, energy-efficient equipment is another good way for coffee businesses to be more carbon-friendly.

Newer electric roasters with heat recirculation systems produce significantly less carbon compared to gas-burning roasters. Additionally, installing an afterburner removes emissions and other pollutants that can harm the environment.

At the coffee shop stage, equipment purchasing decisions can increasingly be guided by energy-saving features. For example, Heylo’s coffee machines use an induction heating system, rather than boiling water – significantly reducing energy consumption.

Technological advancements in areas such as power electronics, electromagnetic design, and digital control have made it possible to create induction heating systems that are more than 95% efficient. Additionally, the cost of implementing these systems has significantly decreased in just the last few years.

In spite of this, achieving carbon neutrality remains a challenging goal for most businesses. For them, investing in carbon offsetting schemes may be the only viable option.

However, there is an alternative approach that could offer a more effective way forward.

Unlike offsetting, carbon insetting focuses on reducing or removing carbon emissions directly within a company’s supply chain. Insetting activities require independent verification or certification and aim to generate positive impact for communities and the environment. This regulated approach represents a more targeted strategy to address the industry’s emissions.

“Carbon insetting certainly has the potential to be more transparent and impactful,” says Sara, who sees it as something larger coffee companies should be pioneering. “They should be setting the standards for what successful insetting looks like in our industry, and creating a viable path forward that the rest of us can walk down.”

Ultimately, businesses should strive to implement carbon reduction strategies, but these alone will not fully address the carbon-positive nature of the supply chain. While carbon offsetting schemes have their challenges, they are certainly part of the solution as we transition towards a more sustainable production model.

Rising energy costs are an ongoing challenge for businesses, and coffee roasters aren’t exempt from this.

If they weren’t already, roasters are now being forced to scrutinise their energy outputs and take proactive measures to mitigate any issues caused by an ongoing fuel crisis.

Coffee roasting is one of the most energy-intensive stages in coffee production. It contributes approximately 15% of the industry’s total carbon emissions.

This figure specifically applies to gas-burning roasters, which use a single-pass system where fresh air is heated to roast the coffee and then released as exhaust through ventilation stacks.

Despite significant advancements in roasting technology, many businesses continue to rely on gas-burning machines, contributing to the high energy output and carbon emissions of the sector.

Beyond the actual roasting process, the packaging and shipping involved with roasting coffee also incur high costs, as well as high emissions. 

“We have other things we do in the production process such as packing and sealing bags, then shipping that coffee out as well – all of these things do have emissions,” says Dan Webber, founder of Chimney Fire Coffee.

“There are two sides to it, the production process and shipping. It’s about trying to find ways to reduce our CO2 emissions in each of those stages.”

Minimising energy consumption is more important than ever

Coffee roasters are already in a precarious position. Global coffee prices have come down, but are still high compared to 2020 and early 2021. Other costs are rising, supply imbalances elsewhere continue to affect the entire industry, and the Russo-Ukrainian War continues to create logistical problems for coffee sourcing and purchasing.

Furthermore, growing consumer awareness in the industry is placing the spotlight on coffee roasters. While attention has primarily been directed towards brick and mortar coffee shops, customers are now increasingly asking questions of the industry’s roasters. In response, many businesses are taking additional steps to position themselves as environmentally-friendly brands. 

“We are based on a vineyard, so any waste goes right onto the coffee vines – it’s a nice reuse,” Dan says. “One thing we’re looking at is having an electric van for our local wholesale partners to collect the waste from them. As we deliver, we collect their coffee waste and bring it back to the vineyard. It’s a case of going full circle.”

Ultimately, there are more reasons than ever for coffee roasters to reduce their emissions. As people look more closely and financial pressures continue to mount, the impetus to minimise energy consumption has never been stronger.

While these challenges may be enough to deter some from entering the industry, Dan takes a different perspective. He suggests approaching these problems at scale presents opportunities to integrate environmentally-friendly and cost-effective solutions into their operations.

“As we’ve upscaled, grown in capacity and increased our size from 15 to a 30kg roaster, the actual tools and the way the roastery is built has improved over time,” he says. “We’ve added things like an afterburner which helps reduce emissions from the smoke and anything else that comes out of the roasting process.”

What can coffee roasters do?

To tackle the issues of rising energy costs, coffee roasters should prioritise equipment decisions based on energy efficiency.

Modern roasters are designed with a focus on maintaining high levels of efficiency. For businesses using older gas-burning machines, a switch to newer electric roasters could reduce costs and emissions in the long run.

“Manufacturers have done a lot of work to improve roasters,” says Dan. “It’s more energy efficient. We’ll heat our roaster for a bit of time before we start roasting and it really holds a lot of energy and heat.

“We have roast profiling software and we can use only 5% gas for 80% of the roast time, so we’ll roast a lot by using the airflow and heat generated within the roaster.”

Efficient heat retention and recirculation techniques are also big talking points for coffee roasters. In traditional machines, the air used for roasting coffee is expelled as waste after each cycle. However, roasters equipped with recirculation systems have the ability to reuse the hot air. In this system, waste products like exhaust gases, chaff, and smoke are removed, and the purified hot air is then reintroduced into the drum or roasting chamber for the next batch.

By implementing these systems, roasters can maximise the heat generated throughout the process, reducing the need for additional energy consumption. This not only lessens the environmental impact but also offers potential cost savings for coffee roasters.

In spite of this, rising costs and higher energy bills are inevitably a challenge coffee roasters will continue to face. In this context, many may consider passing on these costs to consumers through higher prices.

However, Dan holds a different opinion – advocating for businesses to take internal measures to address these challenges.

“You can’t pass everything onto the consumer,” he says. “You can’t expect people to cover the cost of everything. We should find other ways of mitigating those increases in costs. There are ways of doing this within the business.”

It appears roasters face a choice: address rising costs internally or pass them on to the consumer. In most cases, an approach that combines both solutions could be the best way forward. What is certain is that roasters need to start implementing energy and cost-saving measures now – and insulate themselves if this trend worsens in the future.

Coffee shops worldwide have faced a slew of financial and physical crises over the last three years, from container shortages to spiralling energy costs.

Each one in turn has chipped away at profit margins, making it increasingly difficult for coffee shop owners to operate effectively.

According to Michał Sowiński, the co-founder of MAMAM Coffee in Poland, specialty coffee shops in particular have struggled as their costs of production are already high, yet prices have been more or less static.

“High-quality wine costs more and fine dining restaurants are more expensive – but with coffee the price difference between a specialty coffee shop and a mediocre coffee shop is marginal,” he says. “I am looking forward to a day where there will be a difference and people will be willing to pay more for a high-quality product, like it happens in some other industries.”

However, while it is true that some specialty coffee shops have struggled to stay afloat, the sector has also repeatedly shown its resilience and ability to find solutions in the face of adversity.

One of the latest is the introduction of arabica-robusta blends that have helped keep down costs and meet consumer preferences for high-quality coffee.

The benefits of arabica-robusta blends

Increasing the price per cup may seem like the most obvious way for coffee shops to tackle rising costs. Yet in such a fiercely competitive market, most are reluctant to do so, at least enough that profit margins stay the same.

Therefore, although many maintain that coffee prices must rise for the industry to survive, Michał explains that some coffee businesses are now hoping that steady or more competitive pricing will result in a consistent cash flow and higher volume sales.

“Some roasteries are raising prices to keep the same profit margins,” he says, “while others have decided to keep approximately the same price range, hoping that having a lower margin will result in bigger quantities being sold.”

Another solution is to cut costs, such as by adopting modern technology and automation that improves workflow and reduces the need for expensive labour. However, with roasted coffee being one of the largest expenses for coffee shops, some of the most significant savings may come from using a wider variety of coffee species in blends – namely, robusta.

Arabica-robusta blends have gained in popularity with coffee roasters and coffee shops, offering a product that is attractive to customers whilst being a cost-effective alternative to pure arabica blends.

When paired with their more delicate and sweet arabica counterparts, the more intense and higher-bodied robusta coffees provide a cheaper blend component that may attract a wider variety of customers with varying preferences.

Although many coffee businesses have already begun using arabica-robusta blends to manage costs, Michał believes that stigmas surrounding robusta coffees will be hard to shake. “I think that the specialty coffee industry is still a bit scared of robusta, as the quality of most of the available on the market products are far away from what they are used to with arabica,” he says.

The development of higher-quality, “fine” robustas is improving the standard of robusta coffees across the board. But it is also closing the price gap between robusta and arabica, with the average market price of robusta coffees currently more than 50% higher than it was at the same point three years ago.

Michał explains that while this might not result in significantly cheaper green coffee, roasters and coffee shops may be able to make savings elsewhere, particularly in the volume of coffee used in beverage preparation.

“Although there is a small market of fine robustas that showcases that species in a very nice way, fine robusta is not really much cheaper than arabica,” he says. “It could result in using less coffee in the cafe, as you can easily pull lower dosed shots that are going to be more present in flavour in the beverages with lower doses of coffee.”

Will customers accept the shift?

Arabica-robusta blends certainly offer a way forward for coffee businesses looking to circumvent rising costs. Whether the businesses themselves can convince consumers to accept them in place of their favourite arabicas is another question.

Specifically, if coffee shops start incorporating more robusta coffees into their blends, it’s perfectly reasonable to expect some to object to paying the same price they did for 100% arabica blends just a few months ago.

“For the last couple of years we have been pushing in our customers’ heads that 100% arabica is better than a blend with robusta – and it’s going to be hard to change again,” Michał says.

The decision, as he explains, is how these businesses choose to price and market these blends to their customer base, highlighting a more diverse range of flavours and textures that can be experienced with a multi-species blend, motivating customers to come back and try more.

“I’d say the main positives are that the flavour range of a blend can be much wider than using just arabica,” he says. “There are some flavours in robusta (also positive flavours) that you can’t find in arabica, and sometimes it can also have a positive impact on the texture of espresso.”

It may not only be coffee shops that may be able to take advantage of arabica-robusta blends. The increasing use of superautomatic machines in the Horeca market and in coffee shops may provide an avenue for arabica-robusta blends to gain in popularity, allowing them to become more accepted across the wider industry.

“Obviously approaching hotels would be hard with blends made with fine robustas that are not much cheaper than arabicas, but cafés are becoming more and more open to that option,” Michał adds.

“Hotels are usually highly oriented on the lowest possible price for consumable quality so here we would need to go with blends based on lower quality products, or robusta coffees not graded as fine robusta.”

Whatever businesses do, it is paramount that they believe in it themselves. Otherwise, they can’t reasonably expect their customers to embrace the change, too.

During my eight years working in coffee, sustainability has always been a part of the conversation.

But while our industry has flirted with ethical and sustainable business practices for some time, there are incoming rules and regulations that companies are going to have to take much more seriously.

As is well known by now, coffee production is one of the most environmentally and socially exploitative agricultural value chains, with massive monocrop production diminishing biodiversity and depleting soil nutrients, leading to the clearing of our forests as producers search for fresh soil. Processing methods, such as wet-milling, exhaust precious water resources, and volatile market prices leave producers in uncertainty, often being paid under $3 a day.

All the while, global consumption continues to rise. The International Coffee Organisation estimates that growing demand for coffee has led to a 60% increase in production over the last thirty years – a growing strain on our planet and its resources with each year that passes.

During the same period, some 420 million hectares of forest – an area larger than the EU – were lost to deforestation between 1990 and 2020, predominantly in coffee-growing regions.

Of course, coffee is not the sole contributor to the loss of our forests, but it is certainly part of a depletive agricultural network. As consumption continues to rise, a sustainable solution must emerge.

It is about time, then, that mandatory rules are introduced that hold businesses to account; pushing sustainability standards beyond the voluntary and often evaded rules that have allowed companies to stamp “fair trade” on their packaging.

The role of regulations

First, some EU regulations that are in-bound will affect our industry. And then I will discuss how that looks from where I come from, which is working in coffee shops.

The European Green Deal lays out three core targets: to have zero net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050; to decouple economic growth from resource use; and to have no person or place left behind.

Within this, there are certain goals related to agriculture which aim for a more sustainable and resilient food system in the face of climate change and biodiversity loss. An example of this in practice is an initiative that will provide EU citizens with a guarantee that the products they consume on the EU market do not contribute to global deforestation.

The regulation presides over a number of commodities, with coffee named specifically. Mandatory due diligence rules will be imposed on any of the commodities outlined, ensuring only those products deemed deforestation-free are allowed on the EU market.

As a part of this, coffee companies must collect the geolocation coordinates of the coffee-producing farm to ensure that coffee has not been sourced from deforested or degraded land.

Companies must log the number of producers working on each lot, the quantity and quality of the coffee beans, yield projections, and each time the beans change owner along the supply chain, gathering solid indicators and data at each step.

No small task, as a typical coffee supply chain includes at least 11 actors, from farms, co-ops, and importers to exporters, roasters, distributors, and coffee shops.

Logging this data will require financial investment and possible restructuring or capacity building – for example, as digital geotagging is incorporated into processes.

Our producers are faced with higher operational costs, more paperwork, national auditing structures that may not yet be established, and fierce competition from larger, more organised producers who have better compliance capacity.

The concern is for those without the resources to adhere to a mandatory reporting framework, who could be excluded from the EU market.

Shifting consumer behaviour

Meanwhile, consumer behaviour has started to shift. The Open Public Consultation for the Regulation for deforestation-free products gathered more than 1.2 million responses, the second most popular in EU history. EU citizens clearly support action that tackles deforestation and forest degradation.

This mindset is certainly something I have noticed while serving coffee. Customers are more inquisitive, and many value traceability. Forty-three percent of all coffee consumers state that they are influenced by “ethical, environmentally friendly, or socially responsible coffee options”.

But is 43% that much when the climate crisis is our single biggest existential threat right now, and coffee continues to be one of the most socially exploitative commodities?

It is fulfilling to have a conversation with a customer that understands the value of the cup I have handed to them, but it doesn’t ease the fact that the UK’s most popular coffee company also ranked lowest in Ethical Consumer’s survey of coffee companies.

What’s more, when reviewing some of my favourite coffee spots on Heylo’s Coffee’s Less Guilty Map, it is clear that customers – even those who are visiting shops with sustainability at the forefront of their business –  are struggling to accept the higher prices that come with a more ethical cup of coffee.

The mandatory changes that are coming have associated costs which must be paid for, and paid for from somewhere that isn’t the producer end.

There is a disconnect between the coffee we drink and the process it took for us to drink it. Retailers need to normalise charging more for a cup or bag of coffee by connecting consumers with the provenance of their purchase.

For those that perceive coffee as a necessary part of their day, it may be a shock that prices are going up. Large coffee companies have been able to trade in commodity coffee and offer a price which consumers can swallow down without complaint. But that system is based on an environmentally and socially extractive value chain.

If companies are putting in money and work to abide by reporting frameworks and other sustainability regulations at the producer end, actors at the retailer end must work to shift that perception, connect consumers to the true value of their drink, and charge more for their coffee to pay their suppliers and producers a fair price.

Price increases must be managed with careful communications, but the message does need to get out: Those that farm the land to produce your coffee, and the land that they farm, are no longer able to take the hit. More goes into a cup of coffee than the two minutes that customers see. Cherish that coffee, savour it as a luxury, and feel thankful for the many hands that it has had to pass through in order for you to be taking that delicious sip.

One of my favourite coffee events was led by the roasters we worked with (Cuppers Choice). My old shop had opened back up after Covid with an all-Rwandan line-up. For the event, we cupped a bunch of coffees and then video-called one of the producers in Rwanda. It brought the supply chain to life, and you could see that resonating with everyone there.

It was a hugely gratifying event, bringing a greater understanding of the whole value chain to those who before had only considered the end product. But we did also sell a lot of coffee that day. The point being that the two can work in tandem – it just helps for there to be clarity about where the customers’ money is going.

It seems to have been a long time coming, with words like “exploitation” and “sustainability” knocking around the industry since I entered it. For all actors along the coffee supply chain, now is the time to take note of the imminent, mandatory changes; and to begin adapting and developing appropriate strategies that achieve financial and sustainability success.

Despite women accounting for around 70% of the global coffee workforce, historically, leadership and decision-making in the industry have been dominated by men.

A new book by US-based Colombian photographer Lucia Bawot aims to challenge this disparity. We Belong: An Anthology of Colombian Women Coffee Farmers shines a light on the lives and roles of women in the sector that have gone largely unnoticed on the international stage.

According to Lucia, although there are 162,000 women working in Colombia’s coffee industry, their work often goes unrecognised – and, in some cases, is not even paid. “Colombian coffee is promoted as being produced by families or by men,” she says.

The inspiration for the book came when she realised her portfolio contained very few images of women. She spent 18 months visiting Colombia’s coffee-producing regions on foot and by motorbike, where she spoke with more than 60 female coffee farmers between the ages of 20 and 100. Many of their stories struck a chord, reminding her in particular of her grandmother, who was also a coffee farmer.

“I realised that all the stories my grandmother had been telling me since I was little were so similar to a lot of the stories of the women I visited,” she says. “They were close to my heart. So I wanted to honour her and I wanted to honour these women.”

Gender disparity in the coffee sector is not unique to Colombia. Women in other Latin American countries, and indeed across the world, are similarly under-represented in  decision-making roles. They are less likely to be farm or land owners, and often don’t have the same access to training and career development opportunities as men.

Lucia believes the coffee sector should do more to address this. “There is a lot of potential for women to grow into leadership roles,” she explains, “and this would help the industry to grow.”

Stories of empowerment

While travelling around Colombia’s coffee-growing regions, Lucia was continually struck by the inspiring stories of the women she met.

Although many reflected the gender disparity and male dominance that she knew existed, there were also many that highlighted the incredible determination and strength of those against whom the odds were stacked.

One of them was Romelia Barbosa, a smallholder coffee farm owner from Sierra Nevada on Colombia’s Caribbean coast. She had suffered years of working almost without rest or pay, helping on the farm, cooking for the workers, raising a family, and doing odds and ends for her neighbours.

When her husband left the farm due to the civil war that was taking place in Colombia at the time, she took over and, today, she has full control and runs the farm successfully.

“Even though she was sad, it was also her freedom,” Lucia explains. “She was able to manage the farm in her own way. Now she is the leader, she is the boss. And she recognised that she deserved better.”

Gilma Cupaque from Tolima is another whose story stands out. Living in a remote indigenous community, she is determined to learn English so that she can directly foster relationships with potential buyers from afar.

When Lucia visited her, she found Gilma’s home covered with English words on post-it notes taken from online classes. “In Colombia, many people dream of learning English but not everybody can afford it or access the classes from the more remote areas of the country,” Lucia explains.

“Learning a language opens doors – it creates opportunities. Gilma showed me that if you want to do something, you can do it. She taught me that the sky’s the limit.”

The long road ahead

We Belong contains a wealth of stories just like Romelia and Gilma’s. There is Edith Enciso who won Colombia’s Cup of Excellence after banking her family’s future on coffee during armed conflict; Sara Goméz who took on the full responsibility of the farm aged just 14 after he father died; and many others who have found hope and success through adversity.

It is a fascinating collection that puts female coffee farmers at the centre of the conversation and lets their stories control the narrative. Its power stems from its authenticity: this isn’t a roaster or café using farmers to market their coffee, but rather a platform in and of itself to reflect a side of the coffee industry that is phenomenally important yet continually unrepresented.

Lucia says she truly believes in the value of art in creating human connection and bringing genuine stories to life. “It is vital if we are to articulate just how diverse this group of invisible producers is and make coffee more inclusive,” she says. “Art can capture stories, build bridges, and make us recognise our shared experience as humans.”

Although We Belong was around four years in the making, Lucia doesn’t feel her work is complete. The collection goes a long way to putting female coffee farmers on the map, but there is still a lot to be done before the industry can claim gender equality.

According to the International Coffee Organization, significant differences exist between men and women in their level of empowerment and their capacity to exercise agency. Until the gender gap is closed and women not only have the same opportunities as men but feel the same sense of belonging, then there is work to do.

“When we talk about diversity we talk about having a seat at the table, when we talk about inclusion, we talk about having a voice,” Lucia says. “But I think belonging is when you feel that that voice is being heard.”

In the context of coffee, “wave” is a somewhat elusive term. Typically used to distinguish between specific eras, each “wave” can be defined by key features, priorities, and market trends that characterised the coffee industry at that time.

Most agree that we are currently experiencing a third wave, which is generally regarded as the period from the late 1980s to the present day. Within this wave, there has been an increased focus on several factors, including:

• Direct trade, traceability, and sustainability
• Innovative brewing methods
• Technological advancement
• A wider understanding of regional determiners of coffee quality like origin and terroir

The third wave has also facilitated the emergence of specialised coffee competitions, boutique and independent coffee roasters, and scores of coffee shops offering premium products. As Maxwell Colonna-Dashwood describes in The Coffee Dictionary, it’s a time of “higher culinary appreciation of coffee and all that it entails; a focus on subtleties of flavour, provenance, and process.”

However, the third wave has not been all about the coffee: in the fourth edition of its Coffee Guide report, the International Trade Center defined the third wave as “experience”. Essentially, specialty coffee is a product served within that experience.

Now that the third wave is well and truly established – and has arguably entered the mainstream – the focus is on the next era of coffee and what it will involve.

Early signs of the fourth wave of coffee

Debate about what a fourth wave of coffee will look like has raged for years – and some believe it has already arrived.

Vladyslav Demonenko is head roaster of Fjord Coffee Roasters in Berlin and came second at the 2022 World Coffee in Good Spirits Championship. He believes that the fourth wave of coffee will see the focus shift away from highly specialised products and services in venues, and more towards their availability in easier-to-drink formats – a transition that is already underway for many third-wave pioneers, such as Blue Bottle Coffee.

“I think that it will be more focused on the availability of high-quality products, such as coffee beans, cold brew, instant coffee, and capsules,” Vladyslav says. “It will be more about high standards, the industrialisation of coffee and professional factories, and less about craft and ‘hand-made’ coffee.”

While the third wave is often described as both a reaction to bad coffee and a push for craftsmanship, the high specialisation and specificity of this wave have caused problems for both businesses and consumers.

For example, businesses now face challenges with scalability, while some consumers may be intimidated by the continuous sophistication of a consumable product. The fourth wave of coffee, Vladyslav says, will see many businesses rise to meet these challenges.

“For me, the fourth wave is more about the market of coffee,” he explains. “Some of the big commercial companies understand that the specialty coffee market is growing fast and they are trying to adapt their products.”

Specifically, they will strive to create more specialty products that are easier to produce and scale, while also simplifying the preparation and consumption of coffee for the consumer.

“Roasters and coffee shops have started production of high-quality ready-to-drink (RTD) products such as coffee in cans, as well as products like instant coffee, drip bags, and more for the mass market,” he adds.

For others, this shift in product development is only one feature of the fourth wave of coffee. Some maintain that the hallmark of coffee’s next wave will be determined both by where consumers drink coffee and how they relate to different brands.

The second and third waves of coffee were largely centred on the out-of-home experience of specialised coffee products, predominately in coffee shops. As the next wave of coffee emerges, many believe that we will see not only a simplification of specialty coffee products, but its penetration into the home.

Caleb Bryant, Mintel’s associate director of food & drink, writes that changes in consumer behaviour in recent years are the largest indicators of this paradigm shift, as many consumers upgraded their home coffee setups during the pandemic. He also notes that the fourth wave may represent a backlash to the “overly craft (borderline pretentious) nature” of the third wave.

“Quality will certainly remain important to consumers, and coffee enthusiasts will still treat themselves to pour-over coffee,” he says in an article for Mintel. “However, expect to see more brands take a less serious approach to coffee.”

What should be the fourth wave’s priorities?

Broadly speaking, the first, second, and third waves of coffee were responses to accessibility and consumer demand. It would, therefore, seem safe to assume that the fourth wave will follow a similar path.

However, this time, many coffee industry leaders are calling for the next wave to prioritise being purposeful and radical, rather than reactionary. One of the leading arguments is for the coffee sector to redefine sustainability, with a renewed focus on financial sustainability in coffee-producing countries.

In a presentation at the Re:co Symposium 2022, Catalina Eikenberg of Neumann Kaffee Gruppe suggested that sustainability be reconsidered to incorporate the concept of a living income. She cited research indicating that 44% of the world’s coffee farmers do not make a living income at all.

Others are calling for the future of coffee to end poverty fetishisation. They argue that the third wave of coffee perpetuates this by using depictions of impoverished coffee-producing communities as a marketing tool or narrative for their products.

Without acknowledging and actively trying to halt poverty fetishisation and inequitable practices in the coffee industry, many believe that the fourth wave may simply exacerbate such problems.

Other movements for the fourth wave seek to empower underrepresented groups within the coffee sector. These include minority ethnic groups, women, and those displaced or affected by climate change.

Some professionals may simply aspire toward a renewed connection with the consumer – one that isn’t forgotten and left behind in a rapidly growing and changing industry.

“In my opinion, the focus should not only be on innovation, but on quality and connection with human beings,” Vladyslav says. “I’m scared that this connection that we have between people in cafés can be lost during the growing market. So, as an industry, we should be more focused on sharing our experience and knowledge – not only our products.”

Ever since the first coffee capsules were launched in 1986, they have had a curious ability to divide opinion.

While some swear by their quality and consistency, others won’t go within a metre of them, claiming the coffee is stale long before it arrives at the customer.

Their environmental impact is also a source of contention. Many have raised concerns about the logic of using pods that will likely end up in landfill sites or the ocean after just one use; smaller doses, flash heating, and recycling schemes are often put forward by the other side to suggest why we need to stop being so quick to judge.

Whichever side of the fence you sit, what’s undeniable is the popularity of pods. The global coffee pod market has experienced enormous growth in recent years, expanding at an annual rate of 24.2% from $9.9 billion in 2021 to $12.3 billion in 2022.

The reasons for this explosive growth run in parallel to an industry-wide trend that prioritises convenience. For many consumers, convenience is king – even more so since the pandemic – and there’s considerable value in products that are affordable, multifunctional, and easy to use.

Using coffee capsules eschews the need for equipment like scales, grinders, and filter papers, and makes an everyday process much quicker. Perhaps that’s why, even with soaring inflation, the coffee capsule market is expected to reach a market value of $16.7 billion within the next three years.

But as more and more companies, especially in the specialty coffee sector, enter the segment, those of either side of the fence have become increasingly vocal. And, now more than ever, many are asking whether the market is choosing convenience at the planet’s expense.

The environmental impact of coffee capsules

Earlier this year, the University of Quebec published a study that drew widespread attention. It claimed that brewing coffee with a capsule could cut down carbon emissions compared to other methods.

Their analysis considered the entire process, from production to the amount of waste that ends up in a landfill after the cup is finished. It found that, compared to a French press, the amount of coffee inside each capsule is controlled, which saves around 11-13g of coffee.

However, many have contested this. One study suggests that coffee pods account for more emissions than other brewing methods. Another goes beyond coffee, calling capsules among the worst forms of human waste for the environment when it comes to long-term damage.

Piotr Barczak is the circular economy program manager at the ACEN Foundation, an organisation dedicated to driving sustainability in Africa. He refers to coffee pods as an example of how our consumption isn’t aligned with the principles of resource and energy efficiency – and offers a counterargument to the University of Quebec’s findings.

“Just for our misconception of comfort, we are misusing resources,” Piotr says. “On average, one capsule is 9g: 6g are coffee grounds and 3g packaging. Already, this shows us that the product is overpackaged. I don’t know any other examples of such inefficiency, where more than 30% of a product is its packaging.

“We, as consumers want a tasty coffee, not packaging, right? But we pay a lot for it.”

He also dismisses the idea put forward by the University of Quebec study that people are consistently over-using the amount of water and coffee they use when they brew coffee: “Each consumer is aware of waste and energy usage, and counts how much water they need to make for a specific number of people.”

Apart from the materials used to make coffee pods – for example, Keurig uses plastic derived from fossil fuels, and Nespresso uses aluminium (which needs a lot of energy to produce) – recycling them is the biggest climate issue.

Speaking to NPR, Nespresso USA’s sustainability head, Anna Marcina, revealed the company spends more than $35 million annually on a coffee capsule recycling system – but only 36-37% actually gets recycled in the US.

While compostable pods are cropping up on the market, Piotr says it’s very difficult to recycle traditional single-serve coffee capsules, since there are usually three materials – plastic, aluminium and biomass (the spent grounds) – bundled together, and hard to separate.

“When encapsulated in a capsule, these go to landfill or incineration, generating only more emissions.”

He adds that many manufacturers aren’t covered enough (or at all) by extended producer responsibility, so there isn’t adequate financial incentive to collect and process these materials separately. “As a result, they end up in a residual stream, which is the most expensive to cover. And therefore, the costs for waste management increase.”

Is there a better alternative?

Since the 1980s, manufacturers have undoubtedly made progress in reducing the environmental impact of coffee capsules.

Growing pressure from consumers has seen concerted efforts to swap plastic for compostable materials and improve the lifespan of the machines themselves. PodBack, a dedicated coffee capsule recycling scheme, has also helped reduced waste in a number of cities. In one UK city, over 200,000 coffee pods were collected in just six months.

However, as Piotr points out, problems persist with the format. What’s more, each serving is considerably more expensive than a whole bean bag of coffee, yet the higher prices are because of the packaging rather than because the farmers are being paid more.

According to the Speciality Coffee Retail Price Index, 1lb of coffee is priced between $18.28 and $38.99 by most US specialty roasters. In comparison, the cheapest Nespresso pods in the US cost 80 cents each. Given that standard Nespresso capsules contains around 5g of coffee each, that equates to about $70 for each pound of coffee – way higher than the coffee you’d buy for traditional machines.

So this all leads to the question: is there a better alternative? For businesses that typically use capsule machines, such as hotels and coworking spaces, a better option is superautomatic coffee machines.

Like capsules, they provide convenience and consistent cups of coffee by controlling parameters such as water temperature and grind size. However, rather than relying on wasteful, single-serve pods, they freshly grind the coffee from whole bean.

Superautomatic coffee machines can also produce a wide range of milk drinks, including flat whites, macchiatos, and cappuccinos. This is without the need for a separate milk steamer, keeping the grinding, steaming, and extraction all in one place.

Coffee capsules continue to be wildly popular with convenience a clear driving force in the sector. But let’s not allow ourselves to lose sight of what’s most important. After all, if climate change continues on its course, there won’t be any coffee to serve whichever brewing method we prefer.

If you travelled on London transport during 2021, chances are you would have seen the billboards. Or, if not, you may well have been listening to the radio and heard the ad: “Coffee break?,” asked the voiceover. “Coffee is broken. There are too many under-paid farmers and over-roasted beans. It’s time to make a better coffee for the farmer and for you.”

UK specialty roaster Pact Coffee was launched in 2012. From the outset, it has done things differently to most other coffee brands at the time. It speaks candidly about supply chain transparency, espouses the benefits of direct trade, and encourages an ethical approach to choosing coffee.

Its pioneering roast-to-order model, rolled out long before Covid-19 put the spotlight on at-home consumption, ensures that customers receive coffee just a day or two after roasting. And it puts the uncomfortable yet crucial topic of low farmer wages at the centre of its messaging.

According to Pact’s communications and content lead, Will Sowerby, this is what formed the basis of its “Coffee Is Broken” marketing campaign.

“From the beginning, our mission has been to improve the lives of farmers in an industry which often treats them unfairly,” he says. “The sad truth is, with the traditional supply chain, you’re much more likely to make a fortune on the commodity coffee market than on the coffee farm, and many farmers lose money at the end of a harvest.

“I can’t take the credit for these ads – they were done by a very talented brand team working at Pact before I joined the company. But the top-line ethos certainly hasn’t changed.”

Pact Coffee: Breaking with convention

Organisations such as Fairtrade have been putting out a similar message for decades. They state that leaving farmers open to the volatility of the commodity market – known in the coffee sector as the C market – puts their livelihoods at risk, particularly when prices fall.

With fewer intermediaries, direct trade, on the other hand, ensures farmers are paid a more sustainable living wage. And in the specialty market, where roasters typically pay a premium above the Fairtrade rate, this can push the price per pound to more than double the C market’s.

“Because we buy our coffee directly from the farmers, it means we can pay them a price they can actually live on,” Will says. “Last year, it was, on average, 60% above the Fairtrade base price.”

For many consumers, being told the coffee they have been consuming for years is “unethical” can be a hard pill to swallow. This is only compounded by the fact that discussion about farmer incomes or even a mention of where the coffee has come are conspicuously absent from lots of coffee company branding, even today. Instead, they focus on aspects such as flavour notes and customer convenience.

Pact’s ad campaign did the opposite, laying bare all that they believed was wrong with the status quo. In addition to the “Coffee Is Broken” posters, they also featured ones stating, “Pick coffee that treats farmers fairly” and “Get your coffee fixed”.

But were the Pact Coffee team nervous about breaking from the industry’s conventional approach?

“It was certainly a direct message,” Will says. “But, ultimately, we believe that the traditional supply chain is unfit for purpose and want to change it for good. So the intention was to educate UK coffee drinkers – not flatter those that make vast sums with what we see as an unjust system. We wanted to catch the attention of as many people as possible.”

Lessons for coffee businesses

Will admits that, like all out-of-home advertising campaigns, it is difficult to put a precise number on the impact of the “Coffee Is Broken” marketing campaign.

However, in spite of its frank messaging, the billboards and radio ads seemed to resonate more than they scared people. And the figures suggest it encouraged higher consumption of specialty coffee.

In 2021, Pact sold 438,582kg of roasted coffee – the equivalent of some 21 million cups – and continued to grow despite the ongoing challenges of nationwide lockdowns.

“It’s a tough one to gauge,” Will says. “It’s impossible to measure how many people have glanced at the ad on a rushed commute to work and decided to change their coffee-drinking habits in ten months’ time. But we did see from sample surveys that awareness of Pact Coffee went up over the following months.”

For other coffee businesses, there are some important takeaways from Pact’s campaign. One of the overriding lessons is to be confident about breaking with convention. This isn’t to say brands should be controversial for the sake of it. Putting farmers at the forefront of marketing efforts can quickly become distasteful if it is not done with the best of intentions.

However, simply falling in line with traditional messaging, particularly if it ignores some of the most important people in the supply chain, doesn’t serve anyone. If coffee businesses really want to make a difference while converting customers into loyal supporters of their mission, then being brave enough to plaster those values on billboards and on the radio can have lasting benefits.

As Will explains, “We believe that by introducing more UK coffee drinkers to specialty coffee, we can change the industry for the better. And the more coffee we sell, the more farms we can support.

“Last year, it was 100. This year, we hope to bring this number to 200. It’s not charity, though, because we strongly believe that this coffee is some of the very best you can find – it’s a positive for the farmer, a positive for the consumer, and a positive for Pact Coffee.”

The rise of specialty coffee has gone hand-in-hand with the glamourisation of the word “arabica”.

Around the turn of the century, packaging proudly displaying “100% arabica” became shorthand for “high-quality coffee”, while suggesting that anything else was inferior. Unsurprisingly, this obsession with arabica as a species soon left others at the wayside, not least robusta.

This wasn’t completely without merit. Historically, most of the robusta coffee found on the market has been harsh, bitter, and rubbery compared to the smoother, sweeter characteristics of arabica beans. Robusta beans also tend to have higher caffeine content, creating the impression that it is the “stronger” coffee, too.

However, robusta continues to make up more than 40% of global coffee production. It is widely used in everything from instant to specialty coffee blends, and it offers a number of characteristics that many prefer, particularly when used to make espresso.

As such, some have begun to question whether comparisons between the species is justified or even relevant. And, in particular, whether thinking of arabica while drinking robusta coffee – and viceversa – could warp perceptions.

Two species, two markets

Gio Hidalgo is the founder of Latitud 0° Green Coffee in Ecuador and co-founder of Giovanna Kaffee Roastery in Cologne, Germany. Her roastery and coffee shop specialise in the use of Coffea canephora, of which robusta is the most widely cultivated subspecies.

Despite having received overwhelmingly positive feedback for her company’s canephora coffees, Gio maintains that the main perpetrators behind negative perceptions of robusta coffees are quality and price.

“The coffee industry wanted tonnes of cheap canephora for their brands, and if you pay almost nothing for a product, you get bad quality,” she says. “As a consequence, canephora was automatically perceived as inferior in taste and quality.”

To this day, much of the world’s robusta is used in soluble coffee products, as a “filler” for coffee blends, and in commodity-grade coffee products. As a result, many believe that there may not be room – or demand – for its use in the specialty coffee sector.

With vastly different characteristics and regulations, as well as strong opinions and biases in the coffee sector regarding quality, it seems misguided to hold arabica and robusta to the same standards – or to view them as the same product at all.

Will Frith is the founder and product director of Building Coffee roastery and Bel café in Vietnam. In his opinion, the specialty coffee sector needs to acknowledge the differences between arabica and robusta and treat them as separate products.

Not only will this allow the coffee industry to realise each species’ value in various markets, he says, but it will satisfy consumer demand, too. He recently commented that because they serve different markets, we shouldn’t worry about them competing with each other.

“The gas station coffee crowd isn’t into a fruity and floral, delicate, tea-like body,” he explained. “They want a ‘kick’ – a ‘strong coffee’ that gets them and keeps them moving, or as they’d put it: ‘coffee that tastes like coffee’.”

Despite robusta coffee having lost much of its market share over the last few decades, experts like Will assert that there is potential for growth in robusta consumption in certain markets – provided that both the quality of coffee production and industry prejudices improve. 

In fact, many of these prejudices stem from the lower quality control standards applied to robusta production and processing.

“Export regulations allow twice the amount of defects and foreign matter in robusta compared to arabica,” he tells me. “We’re only just beginning to understand the potential, as some have shifted to quality.”

“I think the traditional view on robusta was fair, but things are changing now, so it’s time to let go of those outdated paradigms,” he adds.

In specialty coffee circles, this potential Will refers to has been given a name: fine robusta. 

Supporters argue that improvements in robusta coffee production and export regulations may lead to positive outcomes, including higher earnings for coffee farmers and a higher quality product for existing consumers. However, some maintain that this may have little effect on the negative perceptions around it.

“Consumption in the West is quite healthy and well-entrenched, so introducing robusta to that market would not have much of an effect on per capita use,” Will says. “It would likely grow the market a bit, as consumers who like their coffee stronger, with milk, or less fruity and acidic will gladly accept robusta.”

What does the future of fine robusta coffee look like?

Gio agrees that robusta has the potential to introduce a wider audience to specialty coffee.

“Our aim is to introduce people to drinking specialty coffee, and we’ve found that canephora can be a great door opener to get people interested in buying socially and environmentally sustainable coffee,” she explains.

However, despite its positive reception with some consumers, robusta has a long way to go until it finds favour with many of the world’s specialty coffee roasters. With existing biases influencing the opinions of buyers, roasters, and consumers, is there a way to bridge the perceived gap, or is it indeed a false dichotomy?

Many believe that with challenges to the growth, production, and consumption of arabica coffees in recent years such as disease, climate change and market fluctuations, the coffee industry may soon cease to have a choice.

Multiple studies indicate that within the coming decades, shifts in climate could cause specialty coffee to become exceedingly expensive, pricing many coffee drinkers out of arabica and toward robusta.

“As a consequence of climate change worldwide, we are going to produce and drink more robusta, as it is naturally more resistant to the struggles arabica is facing,” Gio explains.

Will, for one, is optimistic that this will present more diverse choices for consumers.

“Coffee consumption has a complicated future,” he says. “I think demand for all types of coffee will increase, but production realities will drive prices up for some, especially specialty arabica, forcing consumers to choose based on their budget.”

By having more options – in terms of taste and price – coffee drinkers will have an exciting opportunity to change their coffee preferences.

“A potential scenario is that fine robusta will become ‘regular coffee’ and specialty coffee will be reserved for weekends or special occasions,” Will concludes. “I think that for a lot of curious coffee drinkers, having different things to try is exciting.’’

Photo credits: Gio & Anna