Chris Elliott, writing for New Food magazine two years ago, questioned whether the coffee industry was doing enough to address its environmental impact. Today, he raises a different concern: in pushing for sustainability, is the industry inadvertently making coffee farming economically unsustainable for the 25 million farmers who depend on it?
A Shift in How Coffee Is Purchased
In late September, four major organizations—the Global Coffee Platform, GIZ, IDH, and Solidaridad—announced a joint effort to create shared guidelines for responsible coffee procurement. Supported by 18 leading companies, the initiative aims to reshape purchasing practices across the industry by promoting longer-term contracts, fairer cost-sharing, and better risk distribution between buyers and producers.
For decades, sustainability discussions have largely focused on what farmers must do differently, reducing pesticide use, protecting biodiversity, preventing deforestation, and meeting various certification standards. But as Elliott points out, these expectations often come without adequate compensation. According to the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), coffee produced under voluntary sustainability standards made up 24–42 percent of global output in 2023. Yet just over half of that certified coffee was actually sold as such, leaving farmers unpaid for their efforts.
Related Post: Spicy Sweet and Sour Shrimp Recipe, Various Flavors Once Sruput
The new procurement initiative acknowledges that sustainability cannot be enforced solely through buyer demands. It recognizes that current purchasing models harm farmer livelihoods, limit investment capacity, and reduce long-term resilience. While the guidance is still being developed, its potential impact lies in whether it leads to fairer prices and more equitable contracts for farmers.
EU Environmental Rules Raise New Concerns
Meanwhile, a coalition including Fairtrade International, Oxfam, Rainforest Alliance, and Solidaridad has warned that the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) could deepen existing inequities.
For large buyers sourcing from thousands of smallholder farmers, meeting these requirements can be costly and logistically challenging. Some companies may opt to work with bigger, better-resourced producers instead, effectively excluding smaller farmers who haven’t contributed to deforestation but lack the means to comply. A case in point comes from Peru, where coffee and cocoa cooperatives have absorbed significant compliance costs, diverting resources from productivity improvements and livelihood gains.
Elliott argues that both the procurement initiative and the EUDR briefing reflect the same underlying challenge: balancing environmental goals with economic fairness. Without addressing the financial burden on farmers, even well-intentioned policies may worsen inequality in the sector.
Read Also: Whey permeate helps women maintain bone density
He calls for a broader redefinition of sustainability, one that includes economic viability, shared compliance costs, practical traceability systems, and measurable outcomes. The International Coffee Organization’s work on living incomes, he says, offers a starting point for tracking real progress.
Who Bears the Cost of Sustainability
The IISD report emphasizes that voluntary standards alone cannot close the income gap. Even when certified coffee commands higher prices, intermediaries often capture most of the premium. Smallholders frequently receive only a fraction of what consumers pay for labeled products. Without structural changes to how value is distributed, environmental gains risk undermining the very communities they aim to support.
Rethinking Responsibility Along the Chain
Elliott concludes that the industry must rethink how sustainability costs are shared across the supply chain. The success of both the procurement initiative and regulatory efforts like the EUDR will depend on ensuring that farmers are not left to bear the burden alone.