Retail and specialty roasters

Keurig Green Mountain / Retail and specialty roasters

Greenwashing at Keurig Green Mountain

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.”

Retail and specialty roasters

“B Corp” coffee companies – what and why

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

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.

Rainforest Alliance / Retail and specialty roasters

Caribou Coffee’s new owners: killing the brand?

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 / Retail and specialty roasters

Caribou Coffee purchased by private German holding company

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.