Coffee

1
Sustainable Development in the Global Coffee Trade
Sustainable Development in the
Global Coffee Trade
Commodification and specialty coffee
Coffee is a vital resource for developing countries but is frequently sold as a low quality
commodity because of centuries of Global Northern domination of commodity chains. With
global water deficits predicted to reach 40% by 2030, global trade is in urgent need of
environmental reform. Although it is an incredibly water-intensive export-driven crop, coffee
can also be an extremely positive resource for producers. By promoting the emerging
specialty coffee industry to both producers and consumers, the global coffee trade can be
used as a means of development on both sides – bringing positive economic activity to areas
with specialty coffee shops and raising farmer’s incomes. To defetishize the commodity of
coffee, this report recommends the exposure of the coffee production process within coffee
consumption sites, to re-enforce to consumers that products have a life before consumption.
In growing for specialty markets, producers will move away from agrochemicals which cause
environmental degradation, earn higher relative incomes, and free up land for subsistence
farming, addressing the significant problem of food insecurity in the world’s coffee-growing
regions.
Abstract

2
Figure 1: Global coffee imports have been steadily rising for the past 25 years (ICO, 2014)
Rising living standards have invited significant changes to consumption patterns
towards meat-heavy diets and significant commodity consumption1
. Along with
population growth and anthropogenic climate change, these changes in consumption
patterns are creating global water deficits, projected to reach 40% by 20302
. Coffee
is one of the most valuable commodities exported by developing countries3
, but is
extremely water intensive to produce, averaging 20.95m3
/kg4
. After the end of the
International Coffee Agreement (ICA), attempts were made to add value in consuming
countries, particularly by Starbucks in the form of ‘gourmet’ coffee. As Starbucks
1
UN World Water Assessment Programme, UN World Water Development Report 2015: Water for a
Sustainable World, Paris, UNESCO, 2015.
2
2030 Water Resources Group, Charting our water future: economic frameworks to inform decision-
making, Washington, D.C., 2030 WRG, 2009.
3
Mark Pendergrast, “Coffee second only to oil? Is coffee really the second largest commodity?”, Tea
& Coffee Trade Journal, April 2009.
4
A. K. Chapagain & A. Y. Hoekstra, “The water footprint of coffee and tea consumption in the
Netherlands”, Ecological Economics, vol. 64, 2007.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
BILLIONS OF KILOS
YEAR
Global coffee imports, 1990 - 2014
European Union Japan USA Total
1 Introduction

3
became a hegemonic brandscape, it homogenised the coffee consumption
experience, leading to the rise of an anti-Starbucks culture centred around locally
relevant, ethical consumption5
. Coffee consumption is still on the rise, with an
average increase of 1.17kg/capita in the EU and 0.63kg/capita in the US over the
2000–2013 period (figure 1). As conflict surrounding water (and food) is steadily
growing, a reduction in global coffee consumption is needed. By implementing a
twofold strategy that 1) focuses on defetishizing coffee consumption by promoting
the experience as a novel and aesthetic phenomenon and 2) regulates global coffee
imports with provisions for water management and crop diversification schemes, the
global coffee trade (GCT) can become a means for genuine development globally.
2.1 The spread of coffee: from Yemen, to Europe, to the world
Cultivation of the coffee plant began in Yemen in the mid-fifteenth century (taken from
wild sources in Ethiopia), and was initially restricted to the Arab world, typically
consumed socially in coffeehouses6
. These restrictions meant that the first European
contact with coffee was through visitors to the Middle East, such as the German
physician Leonhard Rauwolf, who noted people drinking coffee ‘in the morning… in
open places… without any fear or regard’7
. Rauwolf portrayed coffee consumption
patterns in an exotic, orientalist way that have been repeatedly drawn upon
throughout the history of European coffee consumption. Initial European trade was
characterised by takeover of existing Arab trade routes through the English and Dutch
East India Companies (EIC, VOC). It was not until ‘an emerging bourgeois class of
urban professionals’8
became interested in coffeehouses as a place to gather relevant
5
Craig J. Thompson & Zeynep Arsel, “The Starbucks Brandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate)
Experiences of Glocalization”, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 31, no. 3, 2004.
6
Ralph S. Hattox, Coffee and Coffeehouses: The Origins of a Social Beverage in the Medieval Near
East, London, University of Washington Press, 2000.
7
Leonhard Rauwolf, Dr Leonhart Rauwolf’s Itinerary into the Eastern Countries in John Ray (ed), A
Collection of Curious Travels & Voyages, London, The Royal Society, 1693, p. 92.
8
Jamieson, “The Essence of Commodification”, p. 282.
2 The commodification of coffee

4
professional information9
that caffeinated drinks enjoyed a surge of popularity in
Europe. Practices capitalising on coffee’s ‘exotic’ status soon developed, imitating
Chinese tea rituals and Middle Eastern social consumption. By drinking coffee, the
emerging bourgeoisie found a way to perform their class through ‘visible reminder[s]
of the possession of the foreign’10
.
The balance of power remained oriented towards producing countries until the
early eighteenth century. Production and export of coffee was based primarily in
Yemen and Eritrea, with the EIC and VOC establishing trade in the port of Mokha,
first from secondary traders and eventually directly from farms11
. With increasing
European consumption came a desire to control more
of the supply chain, and after successful efforts to
acquire a coffee bush by the VOC in 161612
, European
coffee production began to spread. In 1712, the first
Dutch coffee bush was planted in Suriname, followed
quickly by French planting in Réunion (1715) and
British planting in Jamaica (1728). International coffee
production rose exponentially after 1750 to 90 million
kilos annually, by which point the major European
powers all had overseas colonies producing coffee13
. By the nineteenth century, large
plantations had been established across these colonies, forcing changes in land use
and relying on indentured labour and slavery to remain profitable14
. Through
plantation economics, a large amount of low quality coffee could be exported to
service a growing urban populace. As such, the history of the GCT is inextricably
linked with the rise of global capitalism, and displays the relationships of forced
9
Michael D. Smith, “The Empire Filters Back: Consumption, Production and the Politics of Starbucks
Coffee”, Urban Geography, vol. 17, no. 6, 1996.
10
Jamieson, “The Essence of Commodification”, p. 280.
11
Bruce P Lenman, "The English and Dutch East India Companies and the Birth of Consumerism in
the Augustan World," Eighteenth- Century Life, vol. 14, no. 1, 1990, pp. 56 – 7.
12
Anne E. McCants, “Poor Consumers as Global Consumers: The Diffusion of Tea and Coffee
Drinking in the Eighteenth Century”, Economic History Review, vol. 61, no. 1, 2008.
13
Jamieson, “The Essence of Commodification”.
14
Smith, “The Empire Filters Back”, p. 512.
Coffee has been a
marker of identity
and class since its
inception in the
Global North and
its spread parallels
the development
of global
capitalism

5
dependency between producing and consuming countries still common within
modern international relations.
2.2 Coffee consumption in the post-war period
Under the ICA (1962–1989), these
relationships underwent a small period
of change as producing countries
managed to regain some power within
global markets. A target price band for
coffee was set and export quotas were
allocated for each producing country;
if the price of coffee rose above the
target band, quotas were relaxed.
Although this system was
problematic, it was successful in
stabilizing coffee prices, generally
volatile due to the minimum 2 year
period before a coffee bush becomes
productive. Moreover, the ICA
allowed producing countries to be
considered ‘market units’,
autonomous actors able to set price targets through export retention and import
substitution15
. Applying a global commodity chain analysis approach to the GCT
reveals that when the ICA was not renewed in 1989 (due to neoliberal market
liberalization), the balance of power shifted back towards consuming countries. with
value added in producing countries plummeting from 47% to 22%16
. The main actors
in this system are large retailers (such as Starbucks) and brand-name merchandisers
15
Stefano Ponte, “The ‘Latte Revolution’? Regulation, Markets and Consumption in the Global
Coffee Chain”, World Development, vol. 30, no. 7, 2002.
16
Ponte, “The ‘Latte Revolution’”, p. 1106.
Figure 2: significant actors within the GCT (from
Ponte, 2002)

6
(such as Philip Morris and Nestlé, who in 1998 had a combined market share of
49%17
; figure 2).
As Starbucks’ influence within the retail coffee
business is disproportionately large, experiences of
coffee consumption have become oriented around it18
.
Starbucks revitalised the retail coffee business by
capitalising on a growing demand for gourmet coffee, in
line with a general surge towards consumption practices
focused on distinction (in the Bourdieusian sense, an
imagined elevation that reproduces social class19
).
Consumption of a gourmet commodity acts as a marker
of identity and class, and initially, Starbucks elevated the
experience of coffee consumption with a ‘theatrical’ atmosphere20
and Italianized
coffee, with the designation of ‘barista’ for servers, and the preparation of beverages
such as lattes, espressos and cappuccinos. The Starbucks aesthetic was
consciously constructed to evoke the ‘historical and cultural associations of the
coffee bar’21
, a place of meeting for the emerging bourgeoisie, reflected even in
deliberately exotic descriptions of coffees as ‘seductive’ and ‘wild and racy’22
. Yet
due to its aggressive expansion, the Starbucks aesthetic became a hegemonic
brandscape, a ‘cultural model that consumers act, think and feel through’, shaping
all consumption experiences23
. As a result of this, Starbucks became seen as
propagating ‘a soul-numbing aesthetic homogeneity’24
. An anti-Starbucks culture
subsequently emerged, focused on escaping this homogeneity with locally relevant
17
Ponte, “The ‘Latte Revolution’”.
18
Thompson & Arsel, “The Starbucks Brandscape”.
19
Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: a social critique of the judgment of taste, Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press, 1984.
20
S. Zukin et al., “The bubbling cauldron: Global and local interactions in New York City restaurants”
in Michael P. Smith (ed.), After Modernism: Global Restructuring and the Changing Boundaries of
City Life, New Brunswick, Transaction, 1992, p. 108.
21
22
23
Thompson & Arsel, “The Starbucks Brandscape”, p. 632.
24
Ibid., pp. 634 – 636.
The ICA shifted
the balance of
power towards
producing
countries,
allowing them to
negotiate their
own position
within the GCT

7
coffee consumption experiences. The emerging ‘fourth wave’ of coffee consumption
builds on these ideas, extolling the virtue and craft of specialty coffee and the entire
process of coffee production, from bush to cup25
. As artisanal specialty coffee
develops, there is an increasing opportunity to avoid the orientalism and commodity
fetishism that has plagued coffee throughout its history, and promote the relationship
between producers – who, despite the labour-intensive production process, are
alienated from the products of their labour26
(and often have not tasted a cup of coffee
they have grown27
) – and coffee shops as third places which are accessible, socially
level, and emphasise local community28
.
3.1 The production and treatment process
Attempts to defetishize coffee consumption requires an understanding of the
challenges facing coffee producers. There are two main types of coffee, arabica
(grown predominantly in Latin America, at high altitudes) and robusta (grown
predominantly in Africa at lower altitudes)29
. After harvesting, the coffee cherry can
be processed with a ‘dry’ or a ‘wet’ method. In the dry method, the cherry is dried on
parchment paper and hulled, and in the wet method, the cherry is pulped, soaked
and washed before being dried and hulled30
. The processed green coffee can then
be exported to roasters in consuming countries.
25
The Future of Coffee: Specialty Coffee in the UK, London, Allegra World Coffee Portal, 2015.
26
Karl Marx, Karl Marx: selected writings, 2nd
edn., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2000, p. 86.
27
A Film about Coffee, dir. Brandon Loper, USA, Avocados & Coconuts, 2014.
28
Scott Wright, “From “Third Place” to “Third Space”: Everyday Political Talk in Non-Political Online
Spaces”, Javnost: The Public, vol. 19, no. 3, 2012.
29
J. N. Wintgens, Coffee: Growing, Processing, Sustainable Production, 2nd
edn., Berlin, Wiley-VCH,
2012.
30
Chapagain & Hoekstra, “The water footprint of coffee and tea”.
3 The dynamics of coffee production

8
3.2 Socio-environmental impacts of coffee production
3.2.1 Water use
The impact of human consumption of the global water
commons can be mapped with Hoekstra and Hung’s
concept of the ‘water footprint’31
, the total volume of
freshwater used to produce the goods and services
consumed by a region32
. This is a much more accurate
measure than looking merely at a nation’s direct water
consumption, as it takes into account a nation’s
commodity consumption. Integral to the calculation of the water footprint is virtual
water content (VWC), the total volume of water used to produce an item33
. There is
little difference in the VWC of coffee produced using the dry and the wet processing
methods, as only 0.34% of the water involved in the wet method is actually used
during processing. Between the two methods, this leaves coffee with an average ‘in-
cup’ VWC of 20.95m3
/kg34
.
To place this figure in context, it is worth analysing the VWC of other items.
Cereals, such as maize and wheat, can have a VWC as low as 0.36m3
/kg and as high
as 1.82m3
/kg, whilst beef meat tends to have a VWC closer to 13m3
/kg35
. In light of
this, coffee’s 20.95m3
/kg seems ludicrously high and would mean that the annual
water footprint for coffee for the EU would be 185m3
/capita - roughly equivalent to
six milk tank trucks (figure 3). Green water used for coffee production may often have
31
A. Y. Hoekstra & P. Q. Hung, “Virtual water trade: a quantification of virtual water flows between
nations in relation to international crop trade”, Value of Water Research Report Series, vol. 11, Delft,
UNESCO-IHE, 2002.
32
Chapagain & Hoekstra, “The water footprint of coffee and tea”, p. 110.
33
34
35
David Renault, “Value of Virtual Water in Food: Principles and Virtues”, Delft, UNESCO-IHE, 2002.
The virtual water
content of coffee
is higher than
that of any meat

9
no alternative purpose36
,
and its high VWC could
thus be considered
largely inconsequential,
but the recent conversion
of some former coffee
farms in El Salvador to
food production suggest
this assumes too much.
The soil quality in many
coffee farming areas is poor due to long-term use of
agrochemicals (as fertilisers and pesticides), often a
requirement for credit to be given by local banks. As the GCT
begins to pay preferably for organic, shade-grown specialty
coffee, levels of environmental degradation are likely to
decrease37
, meaning that water used in the coffee production
process may have emergent alternative uses. Moreover, this
ignores the substantial amount of coffees produced using
irrigation water, which is typically highly contested and may
be used by a variety of farms with different growing needs38
.
It is therefore necessary to reduce global coffee consumption
to free up water resources for alternative uses.
36
37
Katlyn S. Morris et al., “Conventional Food Plot Management in an Organic Coffee Cooperative:
Explaining the Paradox”, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, vol. 37, 2013.
38
Figure 3: six milk tank trucks per capita per year would be
required to fit the virtual water content of EU coffee
consumption (Chengli, 2016)
With the right
environmental
management
schemes, land
used to grow
commodity
coffee can be
used for
subsistence
farming

10
3.2.2 Food insecurity
63% of coffee-growing households in Mexico, Nicaragua,
El Salvador and Guatemala experience food insecurity for
periods during the year39
and the promotion of export-
driven neomercantilist economics in Latin America has
led to the abandonment of traditional methods of
subsistence farming. This shift – encouraged by
development agencies such as USAID – has led to a decrease in small-scale farming,
and in places where small-scale farming continues, forced livelihood diversification.
Despite government-supported diversification initiatives, however, many coffee-
growing regions still suffer a lack of waged work40
.
Environmental conditions and existing management schemes must be
considered in order to establish whether coffee growing is a profitable phenomenon.
It may be more worthwhile growing crops with nutritional productivity, such as maize
(3856kcal/m3
) or wheat (2279kcal/m3
) so that year-round food security is possible.
Even rearing cattle, an extremely water and resource intensive process, could be
more appropriate than coffee farming41
. As farms convert to specialty coffee
production, land is likely to be made available to grow subsistence crops, or if the
soil quality is poor due to years of agrochemical use, graze livestock. The
aforementioned El Salvadorian communities have recently switched to a hybrid mix
of collectively owned specialty coffee farms and individually owned subsistence
farms with some success. Although there are ongoing problems of agrochemical use
on the subsistence farms out of fear that lower yields would emerge otherwise, they
represent a step in the right direction42
.
39
V. E. Méndez et al., “Effects of Fair Trade and organic certifications on small-scale coffee farmer
households in Central America and Mexico”, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 25, no.
3, 2010.
40
Morris, “Conventional Food Plot Management”
41
Daniel Renault, “Nutritional water productivity and diets”, Agricultural Water Management, vol. 45,
2000.
42
Morris, “Conventional Food Plot Management”.
63% of coffee-
growing
households
experience food
insecurity

11
3.3 Climate change
As climatic instruments become more sensitive and
climate models more refined, the impacts of
anthropogenic climate change become better
understood. There is a growing confidence in an average
atmospheric temperature rise of 0.85°C from 1880-
2012, warming of 0.11°C in the upper sea layer from
1971-2010 and an increase in the number of warm days and nights since 1950.
Perhaps most important to the agricultural sector, though, is the significant increase
in extreme weather events since 195043
. Through years of work on the same plot of
land, farmers develop management schemes for local weather patterns, but an
increase in extreme weather events and changes in precipitation renders this
increasingly volatile44
. Previously established management schemes will begin to fail
and changes in the types, quantity, and distribution of vegetation will be necessary45
.
As the GCT is already volatile, it is likely to be hit hard by climate change. Any
recommendations affecting the coffee production must take into account the
uncertainty of future farming methods. Although more efficient irrigation would limit
some of the impacts of climate change, instability is especially likely to increase in
areas using irrigation, as irrigated fieldcrop acreage is projected to drastically
decrease by 2080 due to surface-water shortages and declining profitability46
.
43
IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Working Group 1 contribution to the 5th
Assessment Report, IPCC, Geneva, 2014.
44
Elizabeth Marshall & Marcel Aillery, “Climate Change, Water Scarcity, and Adaptation”,
Washington, D.C., USDA Economic Research Service, 2015.
45
“Technology for integrated basin-wide water budget analysis and water resources planning”,
Ministry of Science and Technology, Korea, 2006.
46
Marshall & Aillery, “Climate Change and Adaptation”
Climate change
will make the
GCT increasingly
volatile

12
4.1 Reforming coffee consumption
The commodification of coffee has rendered it commonplace and replicable. In order
to reduce global coffee consumption, the experience of consuming coffee needs to
be considered novel. A small exploratory study was conducted to identify the prime
factors motivating visits to coffee shops (figure 4). The most common reason cited
for visiting coffee shops was the variety of beverages offered (31%). After this, the
social experience of coffee consumption was cited (25%), followed by the relaxing
nature of going to a coffee shop (18%). The coffee consumption experience is defined
by its designation as something Other – a time to relax, or meet friends, or consume
one of a variety of specialty beverages.
4 Synthesis
Figure 4: the most common reasons for visiting coffee shops are
for the variety of drinks, the social aspect, and relaxation

13
When consumers visit coffee shops, those who consume higher amounts of
coffee (habitual drinkers) tend to consume coffee-based beverages, such as
espressos, americanos and filter coffees, as opposed to those who consume coffee
less frequently (occasional drinkers), who tend to consume milk-based beverages,
such as lattes and cappuccinos (figure 5). As the flavour profile of a coffee is more
pronounced when consumed with less milk, it can tentatively be suggested that
habitual drinkers are more likely to show an interest in specialty or organic coffee, as
these coffees tend to exhibit stronger flavours than mass-produced coffees. When
presented with information on growing water scarcity and the VWC of a cup of coffee,
respondents were asked whether it changed their attitudes towards coffee
consumption: habitual drinkers overwhelmingly responded that it did not (52%),
whilst occasional drinkers responded that it would (60%). As habitual drinkers make
the biggest impact to the GCT, reforming coffee consumption patterns requires
finding a way to make habitual drinkers engage with the problems of coffee
production.
By exposing coffee production in sites of coffee consumption, consumers are
forced to face the individuality of a non-replicable product. This has been
implemented successfully in Kaffitár, a specialty coffee shop in Reykjavik. By placing
pictures of the coffee production process across their shop (figure 6), they force
Figure 5: respondents who consume higher amounts of coffee tend to consume
coffee-based drinks, respondents who consume lower amounts of coffee tend to
consume milk-based drinks

14
consumers to confront the process of commodity production. Similar exposures of
production exist throughout coffee culture in Iceland, as its industry is relatively
confined to Reykjavik and the South, and profit margins are not high enough to
warrant globalized retailers such as Starbucks47
. Nordic countries generally have the
highest rates of coffee consumption (Sweden consumed 10.6kg/capita and the
Netherlands 14.8kg/capita in 201348
), yet also have greater awareness of the novelty
and aesthetic qualities of coffee consumption. In Sweden, there is a cultural concept
47
Melanie Franz, “Exploring Icelandic Coffee Culture”, The Reykjavik Grapevine, [website], May 2012,
http://grapevine.is/culture/food/2012/05/09/exploring-icelandic-coffee-culture/
48
“Import Statistics”, International Coffee Organization, 2014.
Figure 6: respondents who consume higher amounts of coffee would not change
their coffee consumption behaviours in light of information about growing water
scarcity; respondents who consume lower amounts of coffee would
Figure 7: Kaffitár coffee shop in Reykjavik, Iceland place pictures of the coffee production
process across their shops (translation: ‘From farm to cup’)

15
of fika, a ‘coffee break’ for which time must be specifically allocated49
. If coffee
consumption can be encouraged towards the Nordic model, where high value is given
to the production of coffee, specialty coffee encouraged and time allocated
specifically for drinking coffee (rather than it being commonplace), it could encourage
a more ethical, sustainable coffee production process and stimulate positive high
street economic activity50
.
4.2 Reforming coffee production
Coffee production, too, should be directed towards specialty coffee, as it is more
sustainable and commands a higher price. The tendency to plant smaller amounts of
specialty coffee means that land will be freed up for alternative uses, which, as in El
Salvador, can be used for subsistence farming. There are still significant problems
with this approach. Certification can be difficult for farms to gain, and there is never
a guarantee of selling coffee at certified prices51
. Furthermore, specialty coffee
discourages livelihood diversification as it can be more time-intensive, meaning that
net income is no higher than before, there is just a higher proportion made up by
coffee farming52
.
In order to compensate for this, the price of coffee must be raised. The high
VWC of coffee can be offset with an increase of only 14p/kg of roasted coffee53
, a
barely noticeable increase to the consumer of
!
!"
th
p/cup. Alongside this, an ICA-style
regulatory scheme can be established that diverts some money from the sale of
specialty coffee to crop and livelihood diversification initiatives, such as those
supported by the SCAA, aiding coffee farmers year-round through training in
beekeeping and enabling community gardening54
. In turn, information about retailer
support for these initiatives can be displayed in coffee shops, further defetishizing
coffee and allowing coffee consumers to feel as if they are actively helping the
49
Brian W. Jones, “For the love of fika”, Nordic Coffee Culture, [website], 2012,
http://nordiccoffeeculture.com/for-the-love-of-fika/
50
High Street Economy, London, Allegra World Coffee Portal, 2010, p. 43.
51
W. Vellema et al., “The effect of specialty coffee certification on household livelihood strategies
and specialisation”, Food Policy, vol. 57, 2015, p. 14.
52
Ibid., p. 22.
53
54
SCAA White Paper: A Blueprint to End Hunger in the Coffeelands, SCAA, 2013.

16
production community, and subsequently encourage them to spend more money on
specialty coffee.
Some of these initiatives are easier and less costly to implement than others,
but even partial implementation of the recommendations given here could encourage
the use of the GCT as a genuine source of development.
Consumption
1. Promote coffee consumption as a novel experience through:
a. Use of higher quality specialty coffee (medium cost,
high return)
b. Exposure of the coffee production process in sites
of consumption (low cost, medium return)
Production
1. Enable specialty coffee consumption through:
a. The planting of organic, shade-grown coffee (high
cost, medium return)
2. Implement a regulatory system that diverts money from
coffee imports:
a. To aid efficient water use (low cost, medium return)
b. To encourage crop diversification (medium cost, high
return)
c. To encourage livelihood diversification (medium cost,
medium return)
Recommendations at a glance

17
Bibliography
2030 Water Resources Group, Charting our water future: economic frameworks to
inform decision-making, Washington, D.C., 2030 WRG, 2009.
A Film about Coffee, dir. Brandon Loper, USA, Avocados & Coconuts, 2014.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: a social critique of the judgment of taste, Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press, 1984.
Chengli Truck, “Fresh 30m3
Milk Tank Truck”, [website], 2016,
http://chenglitruck.en.made-in-china.com/productimage/nBNxWubjLKhq-
2f1j00fyPtvkWFEDqj/China-30m3-Fresh-Milk-Tank-Truck-8X4-Milk-Tanker-
Truck-for-Sale.html
Chapagain, A. K. & Hoekstra, A. Y. “The water footprint of coffee and tea
consumption in the Netherlands”, Ecological Economics, vol. 64, 2007, pp.
109 – 118.
Franz, Melanie. “Exploring Icelandic Coffee Culture”, The Reykjavik Grapevine,
[website], May 2012, http://grapevine.is/culture/food/2012/05/09/exploring-
icelandic-coffee-culture/
The Future of Coffee: Specialty Coffee in the UK, London, Allegra World Coffee
Portal, 2015.
Hattox, Ralph S. Coffee and Coffeehouses: The Origins of a Social Beverage in the
Medieval Near East, London, University of Washington Press, 2000.
High Street Economy, London, Allegra World Coffee Portal, 2010, p. 43.
Hoekstra, A. Y. & Hung, P. Q. “Virtual water trade: a quantification of virtual water
flows between nations in relation to international crop trade”, Value of Water
Research Report Series, vol. 11, Delft, UNESCO-IHE, 2002.
“Import Statistics”, International Coffee Organization, 2014.
IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Working Group 1
contribution to the 5th Assessment Report, IPCC, Geneva, 2014.

18
Jamieson, Ross. “The Essence of Commodification: Caffeine Dependencies in the
Early Modern World”, Journal of Social History, vol. 35, no. 2, 2001, pp. 269 –
294.
Jones, Brian W. “For the love of fika”, Nordic Coffee Culture, [website], 2012,
http://nordiccoffeeculture.com/for-the-love-of-fika/
Lenman, Bruce P. "The English and Dutch East India Companies and the Birth of
Consumerism in the Augustan World," Eighteenth- Century Life, vol. 14, no.
1, 1990, pp. 49 – 61.
Marshall, Elizabeth & Aillery, Marcel. “Climate Change, Water Scarcity, and
Adaptation”, Washington, D.C., USDA Economic Research Service, 2015.
Karl Marx, Karl Marx: selected writings, 2nd edn., Oxford, Oxford University Press,
2000.
McCants, Anne E. “Poor Consumers as Global Consumers: The Diffusion of Tea
and Coffee Drinking in the Eighteenth Century”, Economic History Review,
vol. 61, no. 1, 2008, pp. 172 – 200.
Méndez, V. E. et al. “Effects of Fair Trade and organic certifications on small-scale
coffee farmer households in Central America and Mexico”, Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 25, no. 3, 2010, pp. 236 - 251.
Morris, Katlyn S. et al. “Conventional Food Plot Management in an Organic Coffee
Cooperative: Explaining the Paradox”, Agroecology and Sustainable Food
Systems, vol. 37, 2013, pp. 762 – 787.
Ponte, Stefano. “The ‘Latte Revolution’? Regulation, Markets and Consumption in
the Global Coffee Chain”, World Development, vol. 30, no. 7, 2002, pp. 1099-
1122.
Pendergrast, Mark. “Coffee second only to oil? Is coffee really the second largest
commodity?”, Tea & Coffee Trade Journal, April 2009.
Rauwolf, Leonhard. Dr Leonhart Rauwolf’s Itinerary into the Eastern Countries in
John Ray (ed), A Collection of Curious Travels & Voyages, London, The Royal
Society, 1693.

19
Renault, Daniel. “Nutritional water productivity and diets”, Agricultural Water
Management, vol. 45, 2000, pp. 275 – 296.
—— “Value of Virtual Water in Food: Principles and Virtues”, Delft, UNESCO-IHE,
2002.
SCAA White Paper: A Blueprint to End Hunger in the Coffeelands, SCAA, 2013.
Smith, Michael D. “The Empire Filters Back: Consumption, Production and the
Politics of Starbucks Coffee”, Urban Geography, vol. 17, no. 6, 1996, pp. 502
– 525.
“Technology for integrated basin-wide water budget analysis and water resources
planning”, Ministry of Science and Technology, Korea, 2006.
Thompson, Craig J. & Arsel, Zeynep. “The Starbucks Brandscape and Consumers’
(Anticorporate) Experiences of Glocalization”, Journal of Consumer Research,
vol. 31, no. 3, 2004, pp. 631 – 642.
Wintgens, J. N. Coffee: Growing, Processing, Sustainable Production, 2nd edn.,
Berlin, Wiley-VCH, 2012.
Wright, Scott. “From “Third Place” to “Third Space”: Everyday Political Talk in Non-
Political Online Spaces”, Javnost: The Public, vol. 19, no. 3, 2012, pp. 5 – 20.
UN World Water Assessment Programme. UN World Water Development Report
2015: Water for a Sustainable World, Paris, UNESCO, 2015.
Vellema, W. et al. “The effect of specialty coffee certification on household
livelihood strategies and specialisation”, Food Policy, vol. 57, 2015, pp. 13 –
25.
Zukin, S. et al.,“The bubbling cauldron: Global and local interactions in New York
City restaurants” in Michael P. Smith (ed.), After Modernism: Global
Restructuring and the Changing Boundaries of City Life, New Brunswick,
Transaction, 1992.

20
Appendix: Survey questions (55 respondents, self-selected)
Frequency
How often do you drink coffee?
More than 1 cup/day / 1 cup/day / More than 1 cup/week / 1 cup/week / More than 1
cup/month / 1 cup/month / Infrequently / Never
How often do you drink tea?
More than 1 cup/day / 1 cup/day / More than 1 cup/week / 1 cup/week / More than 1
cup/month / 1 cup/month / Infrequently / Never
If you consume another hot drink, please detail what and how often.
Consumption
How regularly do you purchase hot drinks from: Costa Coffee / Café Nero / Starbucks / Pret
a Manger / McDonald’s / Independents / Other
More than once a week / Once a week / More than once a month / Once a month /
Infrequently/never
What do you tend to order at your most frequently visited location?
Why do you order this?
Why do you visit coffee shops and cafés? Do you drink coffee at home?
Change
1. The average cup of coffee takes 140 litres of water to produce... due to the water
needed to grow coffee plants and process and extract beans from cherries
(Chapagain and Hoekstra, 2007).
By 2030, only 60% of the water needed to support the global population will be
available... primarily due to groundwater extraction, inefficient farming and climate
change related issues (UN World Water Development Report, 2015).
Does this change how you think about consuming hot drinks? How?
2. Recent research has shown that flavoured specialty coffee can contain anywhere
from 14 - 99g of sugar per serving (Action on Sugar, 2016).
Specialty coffee includes any kind of coffee that is non-standard - such as those with
customisable grinds, roasts and flavours, typically through syrups (Ponte, 2002).
Does this change how you think about consuming hot drinks? How?
Please add any relevant comments below.

Coffee

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Coffee

Similar to Coffee (20)

Coffee