Following up on the 2026 Coffee Barometer launch

On June 11, 2026, the Coffee Barometer was officially launched. Produced by VOCAL together with Conservation International, Solidaridad, and Ethos Agriculture, the latest version takes a deep dive into the root causes that have been left untouched.

 

Read the full report in English here.

 

A successful webinar brought together around 550 individuals from across the sector and the world, who contributed meaningful questions to the discussion. We asked our panelists to respond to those that could not be answered. You can reach out to them for further details by clicking on their names.

 

1. Based on the graphic in the report, the retailers are the ones benefiting the most from the value chain. Have you considered detailing the retailers’ commitment to sustainability in Coffee?

Ashlee Tuttleman:
We give credit here to Oxfam’s historic work on supermarkets (Behind the Barcodes / Supermarket Scorecards) in the past and the ongoing Oxfam-Rikolto-Solidaridad efforts around The Superlijst.

2. Do you still believe big players are going to make the difference, or should we hope/try that new players who play differently will bring the change in the coffee market?

Ric Rhinehart:
I have next to zero confidence that the largest players will significantly alter their procurement approaches unless they are forced to by some combination of market dynamics (such as continued consolidation of production), regulatory demands, and consumer pressure. A truly disruptive new business model might hasten a shift in behavior if there are other factors also pushing in that direction. It seems to me that a combination of regulatory changes and climate impact will be the most likely triggers for change, but I am hopeful that some innovative new businesses will emerge and that consumer perceptions will also shift.

3. If companies cannot solve everything alone, who’s missing from the equation to deliver change? What needs to be done differently after 20 years of working on this type of document?

Ashlee Tuttleman:
I’d like to reiterate a point made in the session – each stakeholder needs to more fully embrace their responsibility, spheres of influence, and leverage. The sector’s stakeholders continue playing ‘hot potato’ by minimizing their own role and responsibility in the system and trying to throw the responsibility to another stakeholder, as if there is a single solution from a single stakeholder that will make all the difference. EVERYONE in the system matters, and most are not acknowledging the harm they are causing, let alone taking it upon themselves to courageously change their own behavior and call in others to do the same. For the industry, this relates to their sourcing, investment, and marketing practices. For policymakers, this relates to social, economic, environmental, and business law, as well as international trade, finance, and global governance. In the session, we did not speak much of the financial sector aside from shareholders, but there are significant changes required in how, where, and to whom capital flows, and under which conditions.

As I stated in the session, it is a great idea for stakeholders – especially in industry – to change their habits of extraction and risk minimization; thus, we need firm policies that mandate responsible sourcing, public disclosures, and corporate accountability, human rights, and environmental due diligence, protection of human and environmental rights. We also need a better-regulated and designed financial system. VOCAL’s website details what ‘Unfiltered Accountability’ could look like for industry, policymakers, and the financial sector. I also co-authored a paper with Wageningen University Research and IDH in 2024 titled ‘(In)action is a Choice,” outlining a multitude of actions across all stakeholders that can contribute to closing living income gaps.

4. Many challenges in the coffee sector (both at the level of the farmer and at the level of how we can bring about change) are similar to the cocoa sector. What do you see as an enabler for the success in cocoa&sustainability that can inspire the coffee sector?

Ashlee Tuttleman:
An outspoken and aligned civil society has been instrumental in challenging the cocoa industry and relevant policymakers to act more responsibly towards producers and production areas. Consumer-driven campaigns around human rights – especially child labor – and industry benchmarking, such as with the Chocolate Scorecard, have improved consumer awareness and therefore increased reputational risk of companies to ignore salient human and environmental rights issues in their supply chains. Later this year, VOCAL Coffee Alliance Member, Coffee Watch, will publish the inaugural “Coffee Scorecard,” which will showcase comparative ratings of how coffee’s largest traders, roasters, and retailers tackle the most salient human and environmental issues in their supply chain based on each company’s answers to in-depth questions for each topic. Publication is expected on 1 October 2026.

Piet van Asten:
Cocoa and coffee have similarities but also many differences. Cocoa volume is >80% depending on smallholders. Coffee volume is having significant volumes (>60%) from farms that produce at least >5tons (… so value equivalent of say >20k USD). In coffee, highly efficient intensified systems now do the bulk of the coffee, and these farmers have made very good profits in the past 3 years and invested in production scaling. Cocoa, meanwhile, sees the smallholder base eroding with CSSV, climate events, and low uptake of intensification practices. So, very different…. The good thing in cocoa is that this sector already has a much stronger program vs project engagement from customers.

Ric Rhinehart:
I don’t disagree with this, but would note that the commercial roasting sector has done a fine job of diluting or denying messaging where customers have engaged in programs. This might also be an interesting place to point out the biggest takeaway from the value distribution study done by Basic as a joint assignment by GCP, IDH, and Solidaridad in the German market, which is referenced several times in the barometer. For the entirety of my coffee career, the archetypal German “Hausfrau” has been held up as the model of price sensitivity for coffee. At every turn, commercial actors of all stripes and policy analysts at every level have insisted that even minor increases in coffee prices on the retail shelf would turn that customer to a lower price alternative. Yet this famous German customer has been happily paying a premium equal to 25% of retail price in TAXES for three generations now. Imagine if a significant portion of that had been reinvested in (or better yet returned to) the producing countries providing the raw material!

5. Pricing structures, contract duration, and payment terms may become subject to due diligence obligations under the CSDDD, while at the same time, none of the major coffee companies assessed disclose meaningful information about these procurement practices. What would meaningful disclosure look like, and how should companies demonstrate that their purchasing practices support living income outcomes for farmers?

Ashlee Tuttleman:
There is a lot to say here about responsible procurement, purchasing practices that have a real impact on closing living income gaps, and what meaningful disclosures look like. A start would be to disclose full traceability in a supply chain so that minimal relational integrity is documented (i.e., actual partnerships and relationships and not spot-trade and transactions); alongside proof that prices paid are based on calculations that integrate living income, living wages, and costs of sustainable production – not simply C-price fluctuations.  Such disclosures should at least include sourcing regions and landscapes to showcase the portfolio-level approach to responsibly sourcing coffee across origins, so it may be verified that companies are not only competing for the least risky, most efficient, and cheapest coffee produced. For more insights on responsible procurement in coffee, see VOCAL Coffee Alliance’s series on Percolating Responsible Procurement, including results from producer consultations across 11 origins and a response to the GCP’s Responsible Procurement Principles.

Piet van Asten: 
For now, the primary task is to assess living income. For that, we (at ofi) have built (with Agri-Logic) the LIGHT tool to rapidly understand the diversity of living income gaps within smallholder populations, as well as model the key levers to close the living income gap. See here. More clarity on volumes and transaction prices would be interesting, but note that this might also bring more speculation: i.e., coffee has a strong futures market, and there is a lot of speculation (also from non-coffee actors) driving prices (beyond S&D). It would be good to understand how and what transparency is required to help close the living income gap. It might also lead to roasters moving away from origins that have a living income gap (e.g., Africa) and move to origins and single (big) farmers that achieve a living income. I think we need to distinguish between (i) paying a fair price (e.g., % of FOB) and what the coffee actors can be accountable for, and (ii) achieving a living income, which depends on many other factors well beyond the control of the coffee sector.

Ric Rhinehart:
There are lots of challenges and potential negative outcomes inherent in the adoption of a strong regulatory framework. There are similarly numerous and potentially dangerous challenges and risks inherent in doing nothing. Compliance enforcement will be the biggest issue by far, but we can see the outcomes writ large of doing nothing, and none of them are positive for coffee.