Category: Retail and specialty roasters Page 1 of 5

Finding Bird-Friendly coffee – now easier

By

On December 21, 2020

In Certifications, Retail and specialty roasters, Smithsonian Bird-Friendly

We especially liked these cool cans of Bird-Friendly certified coffee from Chesapeake Bay Roasting Co. They also have t-shirts!

The Bird-Friendly website at the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center has made it easier to find local and online retailers of Bird-Friendly certified coffee.

There is an interactive map to find local roasters. I found the page for online purchases is especially nice — each coffee has a brief description and a direct link to the roaster and filters are available. At the time of this writing, there were 125 coffees to choose from.

These resources make it easier to find and try some biodiversity-preserving coffee and find roasters that have incorporated sustainability into their supply chains.

Starbucks CAFE Practices at Daily Coffee News

By

On May 18, 2015

In Starbucks

DCN-logoI have written a post at Daily Coffee News providing an overview and fresh update on the coffee sourcing standards of Starbucks, known as the CAFE Practices program. Check it out here.

Caribou Coffee sourcing update

By

On March 24, 2015

In Caribou Coffee, Retail and specialty roasters

Background
In 2013, Joh. A. Benckiser Group (JAB), a private German holding company, purchased Minnesota-based Caribou Coffee.  JAB had already acquired Peet’s Coffee & Tea, and went on to buy European coffee company D.E. Master Blenders 1753. JAB is now in the process of merging D.E Master Blenders with Kraft spinoff MondelÄ“z International, which would create the first or second largest coffee company in the world.

Just prior to being taken over by JAB, Caribou Coffee had become the first major coffee company to source 100% of its coffee from Rainforest Alliance certified farms. At the time of the changeover, I was concerned that JAB would begin sourcing less certified coffee, in part because they were closing many Caribou locations and/or converting them to Peet’s, which had little in the way of certified coffee of any type.

In 2012, Caribou had approximately 550 stores. Their website says that today they have fewer than 500 (although an exact number seems elusive). While we can go with a 9% reduction in stores, some were considered “under performing” and there’s no good way to determine if Caribou buys more or less coffee than it used to; around the time JAB acquired it, Caribou was buying over 9,000 metric tons of Rainforest Alliance certified coffee a year.

How they’re doing
I’m pleased to see that under JAB, Caribou is still publishing a “sustainability” report, which they refer to as their “Do Good” report. The report discloses that Caribou does not have a department dedicated to sustainability efforts. Instead, they rely heavily on employee volunteerism and community engagement. That seems like a lot of heavy lifting for employees. Since coffee sourcing is rolled into the Do Good strategy, one can’t help but wonder if or how sustainable coffee sourcing is baked into the company policy.

Initial sourcing goals, from their 2013 report (PDF), indicated that they wanted to source more Rainforest Alliance certified coffee from Kenya and Sumatra, and expand into East Africa and Papua New Guinea by encouraging and educating suppliers. I consider this a positive move, as East African coffees are often lacking in organic or Rainforest Alliance certifications (see my post on coffee growing in Kenya). Details in the report were scarce, but it appears they met this goal.

Their 2013 goals were more of the same — diversifying Kenyan and East African suppliers. However, the 2014 report doesn’t state any specific headway, and Caribou gave itself only 2 out of 3 “cups” (points), meaning they only met a portion of their goals.

The lack of detail is frustrating, but expected from a privately held company. Unfortunately, Caribou no longer discloses the amount of coffee they buy, but it is still all Rainforest Alliance certified. I’m glad to see that JAB hasn’t completely retreated from public disclosure and sustainability efforts. Their recycling, energy, and charitable accomplishments are very nice, but I think consumers would like to see much more specifically about their coffee.

Keurig purchasing less certified coffee

By

On March 11, 2015

In Keurig Green Mountain, Retail and specialty roasters

I have been updating the data table that explains how much eco-certified coffee the large coffee companies buy.  The latest company to get updated is Keurig Green Mountain (formerly Green Mountain Coffee Roasters) as they have recently released their 2014 sustainability report.

You can view all the data yourself in the table, but I have created a graphic that shows Keurig is purchasing less eco-certified coffee over the last few years.

KGM2014The graph shows the percentage of the different types of coffee they buy (the amount in metric tons is given at the top of each bar, and shows an increase in tonnage of over 350%). The green colors are the eco-certified purchases — Rainforest Alliance, organic, and Fair Trade that is also certified organic*. Red is Fair Trade that is not organic (and remember that Fair Trade is not an eco-certification).

Gray and black is coffee that carries no certification at all. Black is “conventionally” sourced coffee — usually coffee brought through brokers that is not traceable to specific origin. Gray is coffee that is what Keurig calls “Farm Identified,” and they are placing a lot of emphasis on it. It’s not certified, but they know where it came from. Their philosophy is “When we know who produces our coffee, we are closer to knowing how they produce it.” Of course, certified coffees are traceable, and the production methods by definition are already known. Buying less certified coffee and more “Farm Identified” coffee seems like a leap backwards in understanding how their coffee is grown.

You can see eco-certified coffee (green bars) remains steady from 2009-2011; the average amount for those three years was 22.6%. But KGMs purchases of eco-certified coffees has been steadily decreasing since 2012, from 19.1% to 17.3% and now to 12.6%. The average for the past three years is 16.2%,  a 28% decrease from 2009-2011. This decline more or less aligns with the popularity of K-Cups, which has been accelerating over this period (as seen in this depressing graph from the recent Washington Post article on America’s love of bad coffee).

The KGM sustainability report states a 2020 goal of sourcing 100% of their coffee (and other products) to their Responsible Sourcing Guidelines. These are a sort of glorified set of minimum standards that remind me a lot of the “let’s not break any laws” guidelines of 4C compliance. You can read the 12-page document yourself, but the environmental section is brief, and says that KGM “…expect[s] all suppliers to demonstrate environmental responsibility” and that they should “protect and restore biodiversity.” Further, they “encourage” their agricultural suppliers to “Protect and restore soil and water resources” and “Appropriately manage and/or eliminate their use of hazardous agrochemicals.” That’s it — no quantifiable requirements, thresholds, or metrics. As far as coffee goes, almost any third-party certification would be an improvement.

Overall, a continued disappointing trend for a company that used to be a sustainability leader.

_____
*The company stopped breaking out how much of their Fair Trade coffee was also organic in 2012. Figures after that period are calculated at 47% of their Fair Trade coffee, which is the percent Fair Trade USA provided as of 2009.

Greenwashing at Keurig Green Mountain

By

On March 24, 2014

In Keurig Green Mountain, Retail and specialty roasters

keurig-logoKeurig Green Mountain (KGM) has released its 2013 sustainability report. This is the company formerly known as Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. The CEO notes that the name change “better reflects who we are as a Company…” In other words — they are now focused on single-cup brewers and coffee. It’s hard to imagine how a company whose primary products dominate one of the most spectacularly wasteful trends in consumer products in decades can make many sustainability claims. Unfortunately, the way KGM did it, in part, was by making statements that qualify as greenwashing.

First, let’s get one fact straight: K-Cups are not recyclable. People still argue with me about this but hey, just because you throw the thing (or some of its parts) in the recycle bin, does not mean it gets recycled.

Keurig Green Mountain noted they recovered 4.7 million K-Cups in 2013…without disclosing that is only 0.05% of the total number of K-Cups that they produced that year.

KGM states that they have a target date of 2020 to make 100% of K-Cups recyclable. They have been talking about this since shortly after they took over Keurig in 2006. I asked them about it in 2007 and they replied they were working on finding renewable materials for the K-Cups.

If not recycling, then…

The report explains, “While we continue to work toward a 100% recyclable K-Cup pack, we also offer programs for responsible disposal of the K-Cup packs that are currently on the market.” KGM went on to describe their Grounds to Grow On program where workplace customers can return K-Cups for composting and energy-to-waste processing; I wrote about in detail here.

KGM goes on to tout that in 2013, the program recovered an estimated 4.7 million used K-Cup packs. That number may seem impressive, but in 2013 KGM produced 8.3 billion K-Cups.  Providing a large figure of the number of K-Cups diverted from landfills in a sustainability report without noting that it only represents 0.05% of the K-Cups produced in a year is not only misleading, but actually represents a huge failure of sustainability.

Comparing apples and oranges

The Assessing Product Impact page explained KGM’s Life Cycle Assessments on their K-Cup packs, and incorpates obfuscation as a means of greenwashing.

My emphasis added to this statement: “On average, when compared with competitive batch brewers, customers waste less brewed coffee when they use a single serve Keurig brewer than when they brew a full pot of coffee”.

  • For home use, they compared one of their at-home single serve brewers (no model specified) to a cheap ($21), 12-cup Mr. Coffee with no small-batch setting; they didn’t specify their own or the other competitor’s commercial models.
  • Obviously, it is wasteful for me to buy an extra large, 12 slice pizza if I only want a slice or two. KGM knows that waste is not an issue if a consumer simply makes one or two cups of coffee using a pour-over or other dead-easy method.  How much was wasted? They didn’t say. It is a FACT that using K-Cups is a WASTE of money. I gave an example that I would have to dump 11 gallons of coffee in a year before it became more cost effective to use K-Cups.

KGM contends the disposal of K-Cups is a small portion of the total environmental impact because “significant impacts occur in the cultivation of coffee beans, use of brewing systems, and the material used in the products’ packaging.”

  • Since the specific thing they are assessing is a brewing method and the packaging, it is misrepresentative to consider steps prior to that (cultivation, processing, transport to roasting facilities…things that are similar among most brewed coffee products) when evaluating the environmental impact of the K-Cup.
  • They listed four areas of environmental impact they did evaluate (admitting in a footnote that one is “not a true environmental impact category,” although they showed a graph for it).  None of them showed impacts of waste disposal, product-to-packaging ratio, or for that matter toxicity of their proprietary #7 plastic blend used in the K-Cups.

What about certified coffee sourcing?

The amount of Rainforest Alliance coffee purchased by KGM has been decreasing, from 9% in 2011 to 5% in 2013. In the past, KGM has indicated how much of their Fair Trade certified coffee was organic, but the last two years have been lumping it all together.  Fair Trade standards themselves have very few specific and measurable environmental criteria, and none related specifically to coffee, so knowing the amount of organic coffee purchased is important. I calculated a five-year average of 72% of the Fair Trade total, but it has ranged from 59% to 87%. I don’t see the figures presented by KGM as misleading or greenwashing, but I do wonder why they are now lumping all Fair Trade coffee and not showing how much is organic.

KGM is going the way of using their own supplier guidelines as an alternative or supplement to third-party certifications, with a goal of 100% of their primary agricultural products sourced under these guidelines by 2020. These guidelines are no substitute for strong (or even so-so) certification criteria. Their brief, generic environmental section has no specific requirements, goals, or metrics (“All suppliers should protect and restore biodiversity” and “We encourage agricultural partners to protect and restore soil and water resources”). These are weak non-standards that offer little in the way of providing a framework for clear, meaningful, measurable criteria for environmental sustainability.

Pablo Escobar Conundrum

Writing about KGM’s use of greenwashing pains me. This is a company that has a long history of supporting and promoting social and environmental justice and sustainability in so many ways. They still do amazing work in coffee communities, including access to clean water, food security for coffee farmers, and the fight against coffee leaf rust. These are powerful and important initiatives, for which KGM deserves praise. And one can certainly argue that when KGM makes a pile of money on K-Cups and single-cup brewers, they have more money to invest at origin.

Do the positive things that KGM does offset the hundreds of thousands of pounds of non-biodegradable plastic K-Cups being dumped in landfills each year? I call this the Pablo Escobar Conundrum, after the notorious drug lord who built hospitals, schools, churches, and soccer fields, and frequently contributed to charity. I’m not equating KGM with Pablo Escobar, only the dilemma of entities that do both tremendous good as well as substantial harm. We all know two wrongs don’t make a right. I don’t know how to figure out how many “rights” it takes to cancel out a “wrong.”

“B Corp” coffee companies – what and why

By

On January 28, 2014

In Retail and specialty roasters

Updates: Daily Coffee News had a good article on B Corps, with an overview and focus on the coffee industry (December 2018); Michael Sheridan at CRS Coffeelands offers his overview of B Corp certification, and an updated list of coffee companies (January 2015).

You may have seen companies promoting the fact that they are “B Corps,” including many coffee companies. What are they? Which coffee companies are B Corps? Should we care?

Benefit corporations — the legal kind

First, there are “benefit corporations” or “B corps” for short, which are legal corporate forms recognized in 20 states plus the District of Columbia as of this writing.  Benefit corporations are for-profit companies which have chosen a governance that also requires them to consider the social and environmental benefits of their corporate actions. These companies have transparency requirements including publishing a public annual report on their benefit efforts.

certified-b-corpB Corps — the certified kind

Whether a legal benefit corporation or not, a company can go through a qualification process to become a certified B Corp, verified by the non-profit B Lab. The organization certifies companies once they have met standards of social and environmental performance and have changed their bylaws to take into account the impact of their decisions on the environment, community and employees. The non-profit also supports the enactment of legal benefit corporations, and created GIIRS – Global Impact Investing Rating System — a rating and analytic tool to measure social impact of companies, much like financial metric ratings such as Morningstar.

The process involves a self-assessment by the applicant company. The assessments are developed and updated by an independent advisory council. This is followed by a phone review by B Lab staff to clarify points, and if the company scores 80 out of 200 points on the assessment, a request for documentation of key points. Companies then are required to amend their governing documents to reflect their commitment to social and environmental impacts. Finally, they sign a declaration and pay. Certification costs $500 to $25,000 a year depending on a company’s annual sales. Certification is good for two years.

How rigorous?

I’m generally uncomfortable with corporate self-assessments, although they are a starting point for a strong review. However in this case, the initial scoring review and any on-site review (only 10% of companies are chosen at random per year for the latter) are not done by an accredited third-party auditor.  I’m also a bit leery of a certification where 40% is a passing grade, but it depends on what is actually being scored.

I was most interested in the environmental assessment and scoring.  The assessment questionnaires are not posted online, as there are 40 different versions tailored to company size, sector, etc. I think this is positive, because a one-size-fits-all approach is less likely to be meaningful. The B Lab staff let me go through and review a self-assessment such as might be used by a medium-sized coffee roasting company. For the most part, the environmentally-oriented questions dealt with the physical plant and overall company operations. For instance, there were questions on:

  • LEED certification or other green building initiatives
  • Recycling at the company, as well as use of recycled and other green supplies and materials
  • Monitoring environmental impacts of company operations (water use, solid waste, greenhouse gases), and reduction of the company’s carbon footprint by commuting practices (allowing use of telecommuting, encourage carpooling, public transportation, etc.)
  • Overal energy use and conservation, including monitoring, the use of renewable energy sources, and so on.

Product-oriented questions were aimed at recycled packaging, energy use, and waste generation/reduction in production; the use of Life Cycle Assessments, and things that seemed a bit on the periphery of what we as consumers might be interested in as far as coffee as a product.

When I ponder a coffee roaster’s sustainability efforts, I admit I generally think about their sourcing and whether they purchase coffee that is sustainably grown. Of course, the company’s own efforts at being environmentally responsible are important, too, and a high score in this category gives an indication of how deep the commitment goes. Perhaps many of the questions (at least in the version I poked through) are not entirely appropriate to many small specialty coffee roasters and retailers.  The B Lab folks completely get that, and request comments on content, wording, scope, or focus through a feedback link on each question.  Thus, the assessments can continue to evolve and become more customized to different businesses.

The final positive aspect to the assessment process was that it contains benchmarking, best practices, and tools and resources to improve scores.

If a company completes an honest assessment and then provides feedback and fully utilizes the resources available through this process, I think it says something meaningful and is a worthwhile designation. I’m not totally convinced there is a way for a consumer to really evaluate a company’s efforts just by looking at their scores, and especially if they just see the B Corp badge on a website. But I like the concept, intent, and spirit of the B Corp movement. Since it is a work in progress and still evolving, I think it has some real potential to help consumers assess the companies they do business with.

There are currently nearly 900 certified B Corps. Here are the coffee roasters and importers with their overall and environmental scores.

And here is the 2013 list of the companies of all types in the top 10% for environmental impact, divided by company size.

Caribou Coffee’s new owners: killing the brand?

By

On April 10, 2013

In Rainforest Alliance, Retail and specialty roasters

This post includes important updates, flagged in the text and at the end of the post.

Caribou Coffee, which sources all its beans from Rainforest Alliance certified farms, was acquired by the Joh. A. Benckiser Group (JAB), a private German holding company, in December 2012. Earlier in 2012, JAB acquired Peet’s Coffee & Tea.

When I wrote about the acquisition earlier this year, I stated,

I can only hope that under JAB, Caribou can continue with its transparency, excellent sustainability record, and its all-Rainforest Alliance coffee sourcing.

Unfortunately, it looks like JAB  is headed toward sourcing less certified coffee by favoring the Peet’s brand over Caribou and alienating many faithful Caribou customers and employees in the process.

Caribou abruptly announced the closing or rebranding of over a quarter of its 600+ stores. Eighty will be permanently closed in less than a week, including all or most in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, Illinois, eastern Wisconsin and Washington. U.S. states where Caribou will continue to operate (for now) under its own brand will include Minnesota, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Kansas, western Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Colorado.

Another 88 stores will be converted to Peet’s Coffee & Tea stores. Peet’s is not a major purchaser of Rainforest Alliance coffee, or much of any certified coffee, for that matter. Of the 34 varieties currently listed on its website, only one is certified organic, while one is Fair Trade. Peet’s is also known for their very dark roasting (29 of the 34 are designated as “deep roasts”) and rather generically-labeled blends and “single origins.” Just what we need — more over-roasted mystery beans.

These changes have brought the ire of customers, many of whom are taking to social and other online media with responses ranging from dismay to vowing to never set foot in Peet’s to setting up Facebook pages denouncing the abrupt termination of employees. On the company’s own Facebook page, fans are expressing their dislike of the situation, complaining that the company is removing posts and comments, all while corporate Caribou has remained mum on the topic. This ham-handedness demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to Caribou customers, if nothing else. (Update: Forbes published an excellent piece on how poorly the company handled the public in the media, especially Facebook.)

JAB also owns 15% of D.E. [Douwe Egberts] Master Blenders 1753. Douwe Egberts is the Dutch company created when Sara Lee spun off all of its coffee and tea business.  As of April 12, 2013, Douwe Egberts has agreed to be acquired by JAB.  Allow me to be pessimistic and theorize that if this acquisition goes through, coffee sourcing will be streamlined via the supply chain of Douwe Egberts, one of the largest coffee buyers in the world.

The Douwe Egberts certifier of choice is UTZ Certified, not a bad certification, but very lean on environmental criteria and thus one which I do not consider an eco-certification. In 2012, Douwe Egberts sourced 65,000 tons of UTZ Certified coffee. Their goal is to have 25% of their coffee purchases “certified as sustainable” by 2015. Douwe Egberts gets a “D” grade on sustainability from RankABrand.

Regardless of what happens on the Douwe Egberts front, the recent actions by JAB seem to indicate a move towards away from sustainably-sourced and 100%-certified coffees…just what I was afraid of.

More updates: The Forbes piece mentioned above also talks about further potential changes, indicating what’s happened so far “doesn’t bode well for Caribou’s future.”

We also spoke confidentially to an employee of a local store slated to be converted to a Peet’s. He told us that in a team meeting when staff members brought up questions regarding differences in sustainable sourcing and certifications between Peet’s and Caribou, the management declined to discuss the topic.

Caribou Coffee purchased by private German holding company

By

On January 13, 2013

In Caribou Coffee, Retail and specialty roasters

caribou-logoIn mid-December 2012, Caribou Coffee Co., the first U.S. major coffee company to source all its beans from Rainforest Alliance certified farms, was acquired by the Joh. A. Benckiser Group (JAB), a private German holding company.

Currently, the plan is for Caribou to continue to be headquartered in Minneapolis, with its own management team.

Joh. A. Benckiser Group is controlled by the Reimann family, the fourth-wealthiest in Germany. Other brands under their umbrella include cosmetics giant Coty and high-end shoe company Jimmy Choo. This is not JAB’s first foray into coffee, though. In summer 2012, JAB acquired Peet’s Coffee & Tea, one of the oldest family-owned coffee companies in the U.S. and a precursor to Starbucks. In October 2012, they increased their stake in D.E. [Douwe Egberts] Master Blenders 1753 to around 15%. Douwe Egberts is the Dutch company created when Sara Lee spun off all of its coffee and tea business.

The deal is not generally viewed as a fix-it-up-and-sell it, American-style private equity grab. There is a possibility that there will somehow be a merger of mostly West Coast Peet’s and mostly Midwest Caribou, or at least some sharing of buying or processing. I really hope that Caribou will retain its independence. When Caribou was public, they provided plenty of information on their overall corporate responsibility and coffee sourcing. Private companies, especially coffee companies, rarely do. I can only hope that under JAB, Caribou can continue with its transparency, excellent sustainability record, and its all-Rainforest Alliance coffee sourcing.

Update: In April 2013, JAB purchased D.E. Master Blenders.

Footnote: In poking around for background on this piece, I once again came across blog and social media comments from dopes that have persisted in calling for a boycott on Caribou because it was Muslim-owned and followed Shari’ah law. For a number of years, Bahranian-based Arcapita Bank was Caribou’s major shareholder. While you couldn’t get a ham sandwich at Caribou at the time, there was little reason for the Islamaphobia that followed. At any rate, the haters haven’t kept up with the times, as Arcapita divested itself of the last of its shares in Caribou in 2011.

Popular coffee brands: a compilation

By

On January 10, 2013

In Corporate coffee, Retail and specialty roasters

[Note – this is a rapidly-changing topic; this post is here for primarily historical interest.]

Over the years, I have examined the sustainability (eco-certifications, sourcing transparency, corporate social responsibility efforts, etc.) of many popular coffee brands. Here is a compilation of those posts.

First, who owns what brands?

Many coffee brands are owned by just a few large multinational companies. These companies buy most of the world’s coffee as a commodity, and strive for profit over sustainability. These companies have been the drivers of low coffee prices at the expense of habitat, biodiversity, and farmers. While there are some certified choices among these brands, they make up just a tiny fraction of the coffee purchased by these companies, and the companies themselves often have dismal overall corporate responsibility records. Here are the companies and brands that are best avoided (links are to related posts):

  • Nestlé (and here) — Nescafé, Nespresso, Taster’s Choice, Clasico.
  • Smuckers — Folgers, Millstone, Dunkin Donuts bagged coffee, Cafe Pilon, Cafe Bustelo, Java Coast.
  • Kraft Foods — Yuban, Maxwell House, General Foods International Coffee, Gevalia, Kenco, Maxim, Tassimo, Nabob, Sanka.
  • Massimo Zanetti — Chock Full o’Nuts, Chase and Sanborn, Hills Bros., MJB. A huge privately owned company which sources a lot of its coffee from it’s own massive full sun plantation in Brazil, said to be the largest in the world.

I regularly update a table on how much certified coffee is purchased by the large coffee companies; it includes other popular large buyers such as Starbucks and Green Mountain Coffee Roasters. If you’d like to know under what “standards” most commodity coffee is produced, see this post on the big industry code of conduct — it’s a real eye-opener.

Popular coffee brands, retailers, and fast food coffee

Conservation/partnership coffees

  • Songbird Coffee, partnership coffee with American Birding Association and Wild Birds Unlimited (Thanksgiving Coffee Company). A number of organic selections, all labelled as “shade grown” but none certified as Rainforest Alliance or Smithsonian Bird-Friendly (although they do sometimes buy from at least one Bird-Friendly certified producer, they do not use the Bird-Friendly seal). [Update: Songbird Coffee is now a partnership with the American Birding Association, and is Bird-Friendly certified]
  • Audubon Shade Grown Coffee (Rogers Family). Now all certified organic and Rainforest Alliance. Note that they are marketed as “certified shade grown,” even though RA certification does not guarantee the coffee was grown under shade. [Update: Audubon coffee is now roasted by Birds & Beans Canada, and is Bird-Friendly certified]
  • Birds and Beans (US). Exclusively Smithsonian Bird-Friendly (and hence, organic) certified coffees. Supports bird conservation organizations.

Two other conservation coffees we reviewed, National Geographic’s Terra Firma, and National Wildlife Federation Blend (Green Mountain Coffee Roasters) have apparently been discontinued since the reviews.

Researching these takes quite a bit of time, especially if the brand is owned by a large corporation (they tend to be secretive) or is privately-held (no annual reports or legal disclosures to dig through). But make your suggestions for future posts in the comments…maybe I’ll do a poll if there is enough interest. Just make sure your candidate has a broad geographic distribution.

Nicaragua El Jaguar: Allegro’s Special Reserve

By

On July 17, 2012

In Retail and specialty roasters

I’m so pleased and excited that Allegro Coffee’s latest Special Reserve selection is Nicaragua El Jaguar. This coffee is from the Jinotega farm of my friends Georges, Lili, and Jean-Yves Duriaux. This farm preserves a beautiful high-elevation cloud forest, grows coffee in over a dozen plots interspersed with managed forest, and is Rainforest Alliance certified. El Jaguar is has been designated as an Important Bird Area by BirdLife International, and Georges and Lili conduct active bird research on the property.

My husband and I visited Finca El Jaguar last year, and wrote about the farm, coffee, and conservation efforts here at Coffee & Conservation. I also wrote about our visit, focusing more on the birds and habitat, at my other site Net Results, and about a dragonfly survey we did there on Urban Dragon Hunters. Since we visited, the bird list has grown to 291 species, including many North American breeding migrants.

Each quarter, Allegro Coffee (the wholly-owned coffee subsidiary of Whole Foods Markets) highlights an exceptional, limited-release coffee through their Special Reserve Program, and awards the producer $10,000. Nobody could be more deserving than Georges, Lili, and Jean-Yves. They will use their award to help purchase a new wet mill which will process coffee much more efficiently — a current day’s production in two hours — using less water.  This faster processing also improves coffee quality.

Allegro Coffee is the exclusive buyer of El Jaguar coffee. It’s available at your local Whole Foods Market. Please try this Nicaragua El Jaguar Special Reserve. You’ll be supporting coffee producers who are genuine bird conservationists that truly care about growing coffee in harmony with birds and wildlife, as well a roaster who also strives for sustainability and responsibility in their supply chain and business model.

Target’s Archer Farms coffee

By

On July 11, 2012

In Retail and specialty roasters

Archer Farms brand coffee by Coffee Bean International, available at Target

One question that people frequently ask me, once they learn about the importance of sustainable coffee, is where to buy it. For many people, convenience is a major factor.  It’s hard for me to imagine anything more convenient than having freshly-roasted coffee delivered to my door. Although we’ve established that ordering coffee online is  extremely affordable, some people can’t get past the psychological barrier of paying shipping costs.

In order to help consumers choose coffees from brick-and-mortar outlets, we will be rolling out more reviews of widely available retail coffee, with a focus on sourcing and sustainability of an overall line of coffees, versus individual origins or farms. Previous reviews along this line (aside from many posts on Starbucks and Caribou) are Einstein’s and Noah’s coffee, Panera Bread, Trader Joe’s, and McDonalds.

Here, we’ll tackle Target’s house brand of coffee from Archer Farms. Target is a large U.S.-based retailer with nearly 1,700 discount department stores nationwide. Archer Farms is Target’s exclusive premium food private brand.

Archer Farms coffee is sourced and roasted by Coffee Bean International (CBI), based in Oregon.

About CBI

Founded in Eugene, OR in 1972, CBI has gone through several acquisitions and is now owned by Farmer Bros. Company, a large wholesaler and distributor of coffee and related products. Throughout CBIs history, the company has been a part of a number of important  initiatives that have helped support coffee communities and/or sustainability, including a 20+ year sponsorship of Coffee Kids and being one of the founding members of the Northwest Shade Coffee Campaign with the Seattle Audubon Society. CBIs commitment to sustainability for both their business operations and in the supply chain are well-explained on their web site and in their sustainability report.

CBI roasts 10 million pounds of coffee annually for restaurants, coffeehouses, and retail outlets via brands such as Panache, Public Domain, and Café Tierra as well as private labels.

Archer Farms coffees

Archer Farms is Target’s premium house brand. The coffee line is fairly extensive, and includes ground and whole bean, flavored coffees, Fair Trade and organic certified options, blends and single origins, and some even higher-end Direct Trade and Cup of Excellence (CoE) choices (the latter being part of this line since 2006).

Standard coffees are sold in twelve-ounce bags for around $7 a bag (pricing depends on store and sale pricing, which seems pretty frequent). Direct Trade, Limited Roast, and CoE coffees are sold in ten-ounce portions, with typical pricing between $7.29 and $14.99. The CoE and Limited Roast coffees are sold in nice, reusable tins.

In 2009 and 2010, we tried a couple of the Archer Farms coffees. One was their Fair Trade Organic Tierra del Sol from Chiapas, Mexico. The other was a CoE coffee, Bolivian Carrasco La Reserva. Both were listed as “mild” roasts at the time, yet both were what I consider medium-dark (indeed, the former is now listed as a medium-dark roast), with beans that were covered in oil. Unfortunately, the roast was the dominant flavor, and neither coffee had the mellow, sweet, chocolate tones typical to these origins.

We recently tried their “Direct Trade” (termed by them “Project Direct”) coffee from El Salvador, Buena Vista, labeled as a light roast. This was, in fact, lighter than the previous two we’d tried, but some beans still had oil. We preferred this coffee much more than the earlier choices, although we found it a little disappointing for a 100% bourbon varietal selection. Two common traits were noted by tasters: an ashy flavor, and a long, not completely pleasant finish that was described by one as “abrasive.”  The “best by” date on this coffee is 20 Feb 2013, and it’s my understanding these dates are one year from roasting.  Although the roast was a little darker than I’d prefer with such a bean, the muted flavors did suggest that the coffee was a little tired after five months in a foil bag.

Controversy and parting thoughts

This brings us to the next point. Making CoE coffees available to consumers who have never even considered the fact that coffee competitions and awards exist is not without its detractors. Some contend that it’s a sin to sell such high quality coffee to consumers who are not likely to prepare it with the care it deserves.

CBI’s response is that great coffees are more forgiving to marginal brew methods than commodity coffees, and even if people only get 75% of the “value” out of it, they are well ahead of sub-standard grocery store fare.

Another issue is summarized by a blogger at ROASTe, who is particularly critical of a company such as CBI outbidding small roasters for top CoE lots, only to have these great coffees languish and stale on Target shelves. I’ll leave aside the fact that it’s silly to believe that only customers of small boutique roasters should be able to enjoy CoE coffees. I agree that the greatness of CoE coffees are often lost on the average American consumer. But for those folks who are bit beyond Folgers and ready to make the next step, they have the potential to spawn eureka moments, even if sort of stale.

I believe this is Target’s goal with offering limited reserve and CoE coffees. At $14.99, Target sells CoE coffees at a loss. As a large department store retailer, they are not looking to serve either committed specialty coffee drinkers, or even commodity coffee drinkers with these offerings. They are likely hoping to snag consumers in-between. They want their more sophisticated customers to trade-up to high grade coffees. It seems to me that the roast levels, flavor profiles, and price points of the Archer Farms coffees are spot-on for this purpose, given the tastes and habits of these consumers.

I’m generally in favor of coffee lines that help consumers step up to higher quality, regardless of whether I like them or not. A great example is Starbucks; I dislike most of their coffee, but they have done more than nearly any other retailer to introduce the public to specialty coffee. And, they have a strong record and commitment to sustainability in their supply chain.

Higher quality coffees are inevitably more sustainable than commodity coffees. Further, as CBI’s Paul Thornton pointed out in a letter to the editor in Fresh Cup magazine, Target has paid some very high prices for CoE coffees through CBI, benefiting farmers. Target has created a market for coffees from producers that did not make it into the final CoE rounds, supported charities such as Coffee Kids and Save the Children, as well as other initiatives.

Archer Farms coffees are certainly a step in the right direction. While not all eco-certified, there are a bunch of organic selections, and they are much more carefully sourced than the majority of coffees than line big-box store shelves.  For the right consumer, they are absolutely worth a try.

Sips: Starbucks news

By

On June 26, 2012

In Coffee news and miscellany, Starbucks

It’s no wonder why news about Starbucks prompts such strong reactions in people. Some weeks there will be an announcement about a really worthwhile initiative, and only a little while later, something sort of repulsive.

  • Awesome: Starbucks will be the first private investor, committing $1.3 million, to the Fairtrade Access Fund. The Fund will provide farmers’ cooperatives with several types of long-term loans needed to renew their farms, adopt new technologies, or purchase equipment, as well as a facility that will allow farmers to get timely information on Fairtrade certification practices, crop management, and localized market information via their mobile phones. The Fund is being established by Incofin Investment Management, Fairtrade International, and the Grameen Foundation.
  • Also pretty cool: In mid-June, Starbucks launched the Indivisible collection, which includes Indivisible Blend Coffee and products such as coffee mugs to support Create Jobs for USA. With every purchase from the Indivisible collection, Starbucks will make a donation to Opportunity Finance Network for the Create Jobs for USA Fund to help create and retain jobs across the country.
  • Modest overall impact, but nice symbolism: a struggling Ohio company was chosen to produce the Indivisible mugs rather than outsourcing to another country.
  • And…just yuck: Starbucks’ Seattle’s Best Coffee division to sell coffee in thousands of Coinstar-owned kiosks in the U.S.

Final word on eco-purchases by big buyers

By

On February 14, 2012

In Corporate coffee, Starbucks

The final publication by the recently disbanded Tropical Commodity Coalition was the Coffee Barometer 2012. I have used TCC data to put together summaries (most recent here, just updated with the receipt of the latest report) on how much eco-certified or verified coffee is purchased by the world’s major coffee buyers.  While my summary table focuses on buyers of particular importance to U.S. markets, the Coffee Barometer includes all top ten buyers.

Here is what TCC had to say about them. You can refer to my post for information on NestlÁ©, Kraft, Sara Lee, Smucker, Starbucks, Green Mountain, and Caribou (the last two are U.S. companies I chose to include that are not in the TCC report).

  • Strauss — Strauss Coffee is part of the Israeli food company Strauss Group; its primary markets are in Eastern Europe, Israel, and Brazil. According to TCC, the coffee company has no clear commitments, no public sharing of figures or sustainability strategy, not known to invest significant resources to sustainability in their coffee business. 5th largest buyer, purchased 215,000 metric tons in 2010.
  • Tchibo — Germany company owned by a the wealthy Herz family. Working toward 100% of coffee being traceable to the farm level, may use various certifications or verifications, including those with weak or marginal eco-standards.  In 2010, five percent of their purchases were eco-certified (out of 173,000 metric tons, 6th largest buyer).
  • Lavazza — Based in Italy. No clear clear sustainability strategy or public figures available. 7th largest buyer, purchased 140,000 metric tons in 2010.
  • Aldi — Famously secretive German company operating discount grocery chains in many countries including the U.S. No clear commitments, no public sharing of figures or sustainability strategy, not known to invest significant resources to sustainability in their coffee business. Further: “Aldi, a reputed laggard, disinclined to share any information regarding its coffee business.”  9th largest buyer, purchased 120,000 metric tons in 2010.
  • Segafredo — a brand of the Massimo Zanetti Beverage Group. The company grows, roasts, and distributes its own coffee, and owns the largest coffee plantation in the world, located in Brazil (I assume it is the vast sun monoculture featured on this page of its web site). No clear clear sustainability strategy or public figures available. 10th largest buyer, purchased 70,000 metric tons in 2010.

So, of the top ten buyers, seven (NestlÁ©, Smucker, Sara Lee, Strauss, Lavazza, Aldi, and Segafredo) are essentially ignoring environmental sustainability in their coffee supply chains and buying little, if any, coffee that is produced under meaningful environmental standards. This represents over 1.9 million tons (24% of world production).

Two (Kraft and Tchibo) are making nominal efforts, with 7% and 5% of their coffee supply, respectively, being eco-certified. Their certified purchases combined are less than 60,000 tons (or less than 1% of world production).

Only one of the top 10 buyers, Starbucks, is sourcing a large portion of its coffee under worthwhile eco-standards. In 2010, this was 84% of the 122,000 tons it purchased, with a goal of 100% in the near future. Kudos to the Mermaid.

Assessments of Starbucks CAFE Practices

By

On February 3, 2012

In Certifications, Starbucks

Starbucks, through its partner Conservation International, has been assessing the impacts of its CAFE Practices coffee sourcing program. This has included a close look at participating farms and their compliance with the CAFE Practices criteria and their impacts on coffee-growing best practices. The publicly available reports provide an unusually-transparent opportunity to understand a major coffee company’s efforts in ethically and environmentally responsible coffee sourcing.

Recap: What is CAFE Practices?

Starbucks CAFE (Coffee and Farm Equity) Practices is the company’s green coffee sourcing program, started in 2004. The standards were were developed in partnership with Conservation International and an independent third-party company, SCS Global Services (SCS). Points are awarded in four categories — product quality, economic accountability, social responsibility and environmental leadership — to producers that supply Starbucks coffee.  Certain criteria are mandatory for all suppliers. Reaching a certain point level confers preferred supplier status, a higher level is awarded strategic supplier status. These suppliers get enhanced pricing and contract terms.

Although CAFE Practices is a proprietary set of sourcing guidelines and not a certification per se, their criteria are available to the public, much like those of various coffee certifications.

Not only do the environmental criteria stack up favorably to some other actual coffee certifications, but Starbucks is on track to source all of its coffee under CAFE Practices by 2015; the 2010 amount was 84% of its coffee, or 103,000 tons.

Criteria met, now what?

Once certification/verification is awarded to a producer under any program, the data available to the public about the scheme is often along the lines of how many farms/hectares are certified, how much certified coffee is sold, and other general information. More in-depth results — most often on the economic benefits to farmers and communities — are typically restricted to academic studies that are often behind pay-walls and thus not readily available to the public.  We rarely have an idea of which particular criteria are being met by all/most/some farms, or if the certification is changing the way producers grow coffee.  No doubt this is largely due to the sheer logistics of making this information available. Tens of thousands of farms are inspected and evaluated throughout the year by dozens of approved contractors. Analyzing the audit reports, comparing them from year to year, making sense of the results…this task would be monumental and probably require a team of specialists, perhaps adding to the cost of certification. Starbucks is attempting to gather this material, and has been publishing reports on the results.

CAFE Practices assessment reports

Starbucks and Conservation International (CI) have been releasing reports assessing the CAFE Practices program to see how it is impacting best-practices at the producer level and how the program could be improved. The first report, “Assessment of the Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices Program for FY08 is 143 pages and was released in March 2011. It covered 2008, the first year farm-level data could be sufficiently collected and analyzed. Two 30+ page reports focused on producers in Guatemala and Colombia.

Research, analysis, and reporting were performed by CI and, in the case of the regional reports, local partners. The reports follow a format similar to what is found in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Methods included analyzing farm verification reports submitted by approved third-party auditors (the “scorecards”), and (for the latter two reports) surveying both participating and non-participating farmers. The reports summarized information on participating farms, how farms (and mills) complied with various key social and environmental criteria, and made recommendations on how CAFE Practices might be improved. Results were broken down in various ways, including farm size and geographic area.

I saw a clear progression in the refinement of methodology and results reporting as these reports were produced. I was very impressed with the level of detail and consideration that went into developing the methods. The introductory material, and identification and description of local Important Bird Areas and priority flora and fauna in the two regional reports was accurate and demonstrated a level of understanding of biodiversity beyond the general concepts often bandied about by certification schemes. The quality of the most recent (Colombia) report was better than a lot of consulting, academic, and scientific reports I’ve read over the years.

What has Starbucks accomplished through CAFE Practices?

The sheer volume and detail of data in these reports is too much to go into here. Each report handled analysis a little differently, so it is hard to make general statements on many of the results. Here, I’d like to pull out some noteworthy facts, with an emphasis on environmental data. Overall data is for FY 2008 (the subject of the first report). Survey data from Guatemala is from 2009, Colombia from 2011. Note that CAFE Practices has slightly different criteria for small (<12 ha) farms than for medium (12-49 ha) and large (>50 ha) farms.

  • There were 140,973 participating farms, of which 99% were under 12 ha in size. Half of all the coffee Starbucks purchased was from small farms.
  • Participating farms had 102,281 ha designated as conservation areas; 99% of farms had not cleared any forest areas for coffee production in the previous three years.
  • 57% of farms reported using pesticides only as a last resort. Countries with low compliance were Burundi, Panama, and Nicaragua. Countries with high compliance rates included Ethiopia and Peru.
  • 51% of farms did not use synthetic fertilizers; most were small farms — only 8% of large farms did not use synthetic fertilizers. Only 128 medium and large farms were certified organic (it was unclear if this data is collected for small farms).
  • 36% of farms used some shade throughout the production area, 56% used it on at least half.
  • 78% of medium and large farms used shade at 40% or greater canopy cover (this is a level of shade that gives good canopy cover for birds without impacting yield too much). Countries with high levels of compliance here included Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. This criteria was not used to assess small farms.
  • 63% of farms used native species for at least three-quarters of their shade cover.
  • In Colombia and Guatemala, more farmers in the CAFE Practices program participated in other certifications compared to farmers not participating.
  • In Colombia, more participants had natural habitat on their farms than non-participants. Size of natural areas was similar between groups.
  • In Colombia, use of agrochemicals was common and similar between participants and non-participants; only 53% used protective gear for application (similar between the two groups).
  • In Guatemala, participants were reducing their use of agrochemicals at higher rates than non-participants.

The assessment concluded that lower compliance in some areas meant that some criteria were not well understood, that farmers did not have the resources to improve their methods, and/or that the CAFE Practices criteria were insufficient to encourage or even evaluate some practices. Some recommendations included:

  • Additional technical assistance to help farmers understand and implement chemical and disease control, and wildlife management. In particular, areas that required high levels of specialized expertise (for instance, in identifying species living on the farm and developing management plans for them) needed support.
  • Additional indicators to assess the level of shade canopy cover on farms.
  • Making forest clearing and highest-toxicity chemical use zero tolerance criteria.
  • Improving the handling of agrochemicals in Colombia through training or changes in criteria.
  • Addressing water quality issues in Guatemala and Colombia, since many participants who reporting having problems were not taking steps to remedy them.

It was also determined that certain questions needed to be added or clarified when surveying farmers to better assess particular conditions and resources. Based on the evolution of the reports, I expect those in the future will be more standardized and clearer, and I hope there will be some sort of easily digestible summary one day.

Conclusions

The compliance numbers for most eco-criteria seemed fairly strong to me, especially given the very high numbers and variety of participating farms. In general, most Starbucks suppliers seem to grow coffee in a fairly responsible manner compared to nearby non-participants in the sampled countries. The reports indicate a trend toward improved farm management among participants, in part because of their participation.

Most coffee certification criteria don’t span quite the diversity or record the level of data that are covered in CAFE Practices, nor have I seen similar analyses performed for other sets of standards. Thus, we don’t have anything to compare to these results.  The fact that CI, a partner in development of the criteria, identified weaknesses and areas that needed improvement struck me as very positive. While this component obviously should be included in this kind of assessment, it’s not something the public sees very often. Of course, it’s an invitation to for us to see how Starbucks acts on the recommendations, and I know I will be keeping my eyes open.

Starbucks’ goal with CAFE Practices is to drive long-term sustainability of their coffee supply through improvements in environmental conditions and socio-economic status of producers. This is a business decision on the part of Starbucks. While good stewardship of the earth may be part of it, the company doesn’t pretend it launched this initiative out of altruism. While other big coffee companies trumpet their empty sustainability claims, Starbucks releases these reports with a minimum of flag-waving and, from what I’ve seen, no attempt at greenwashing.

I think what Starbucks is doing with CAFE Practices is enormously important. They’ve shown that sustainability can be a good business decision and that ethical sourcing need not be achieved at the expense of profits. Rather than taking what may have been an easy road of obtaining coffee certified under less stringent conditions, they have made a serious effort to develop measurable standards to meet their needs, and committed to sourcing all their coffee under these guidelines.  They implemented tools to examine their effectiveness and impact, and have been surprisingly transparent in presenting the results to the public. Whether you like their coffee or not, Starbucks deserves a great deal of credit for their approach to coffee sourcing.

Starbucks cups courtesy of Starbucks Coffee; coffee cherry photo by Neil Palmer/CIAT under a Creative Commons license.

Caribou Coffee: 100% Rainforest Alliance

By

On January 7, 2012

In Caribou Coffee, Rainforest Alliance, Retail and specialty roasters

Caribou Coffee has achieved its goal of becoming the first major coffee company in the U.S. to source 100% of its coffee from Rainforest Alliance-certified farms. As I verified in 2010, this means every variety of coffee at Caribou consists of 100% RA-certified beans. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the coffee is organic or shade-grown, but Rainforest Alliance farms do comply with a variety of environmental, social, and  sustainability standards.

Based on 2010 green coffee purchases, this represents about 9100 metric tons. While this amount of coffee doesn’t even put Caribou in the top ten green coffee buyers in the world, it does mean they purchase more genuinely eco-certified coffee than at least five of the seven biggest buyers that disclose this data. They’ve accomplished this without compromising quality:  The average score for the ten varieties reviewed by Coffee Review in the past two years is 90, and in 2008 Caribou’s Ethiopia Yirgacheffe Roastmaster’s Reserve won the Roaster’s Choice award at the annual SCAA event. I think two of their coffees are especially good. A favorite at our workplace is the Guatemala El Paraiso (92 at Coffee Review). One of my favorite coffees of the past year was their Kenya Karibu (93 on Coffee Review), unfortunately now sold out.  This coffee is especially noteworthy since eco-certified coffees from Kenya are few and far between.

Caribou Coffee is the second largest coffee shop company, behind Starbucks, with over 550 stores in 20 states as well as some international markets, most in the Middle East*.  Caribou plans on adding another 20 to 25 stores in 2012. If you don’t live in a state with a Caribou store, you can shop online. This is a company worth patronizing for their sustainability achievements and great coffee.

You can read other posts I’ve written about Caribou, including reviews, here.

*The Middle Eastern presence was no doubt influenced by the fact that for many years, Bahranian-based Arcapita Bank was Caribou’s major shareholder. This meant that Caribou was a Shari’ah-compliant company which, along with a general paranoia about Muslim ownership, resulted in Islamophobic boycotts of Caribou.  As someone who is completely secular but living in the most Muslim city in the U.S., I can tell you that stance is totally asinine. But the hand-wringers can get caffeinated again. As of last summer, Aracapita sold off its remaining stake in Caribou.

Page 1 of 5

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén