SSC Coffee Web

RESEARCH STUDY REPORT
Communicating Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR)
in the Coffee Industry:
An examination of sustainability
indicators disclosed.
Oliver Bradley
Smart Sustainability Co.
January, 2017
Share this publication with your colleagues!

smsu.co/coffee
Copyright 2017 Smart Sustainability Co. All Rights Reserved.
Smart Sustainability Management Consultancy Ltd t/a Smart Sustainability Co.
(A Registered Company in England and Wales, Company Number 10527499)
Suite 133 Ron Cooke Hub,
University of York,
Heslington,
York, YO10 5GE.
Disclaimer:
The information contained within this report is provided for informational purposes only
and has not been verified for accuracy. It is provided free of charge and should be used
at your and your Companys own risk.
Communicating Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the Coffee Industry:
An examination of sustainability indicators disclosed
A Research Study by S m a r t S u s t a i n a b i l i t y C o . Responsible People, Planet and Profit for Smart Companies
Executive Summary
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to present a study that identifies the sustainability indicators
disclosed by ten British Coffee Association members (Bewleys, Cafdirect Plc, Caff Nero, Costa
Ltd, Finlay Beverages Ltd, Jacobs Douwe Egberts, Lavazza Coffee UK Ltd, Matthew Algie, Nestle
UK and Ireland and Taylors of Harrogate) in their sustainability reporting and to examine the
extent to which the indicators suit the sustainability challenges faced by the coffee industry.
Research Methodology
A review of prior research revealed sustainability challenges faced by the coffee industry. An
examination (content analysis) of the sustainability reports and webpages of the coffee
companies was conducted to identify quantitative and qualitative sustainability indicators.
Findings
A total of 94 unique sustainability indicators (44 environmental, 30 social and 20 economic) were
identified. The indicators disclosed suit the challenges identified. In several cases, indicators are
used to address specific issues rather than broad challenges. The study finds a significant number
(47) of single-use sustainability indicators, suggesting that the coffee companies studied disclose
their progress towards addressing uncommon challenges. The findings suggest some companies
account for sustainability from bean to cup, attributed to differences in organisation
characteristics. The findings highlight the discretionary nature of sustainability reporting, with
considerable variance in quantity and quality of indicators disclosed.
Originality and Value

This study provides one of the first comprehensive reviews of sustainability indicator use in an
industry that faces significant sustainability challenges. In doing so, it identifies the priorities of
coffee companies towards addressing these challenges. It offers useful industry intelligence and
a competitor benchmark that may identify sustainability reporting performance compared to their
peers.
1
Table of Contents
1. Forward ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
2. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the Coffee Industry, Sustainability Reporting and
Sustainability Indicators.......................................................................................................................................... 4
3. Background: Sustainability Challenges in the Coffee Industry ...................................................................... 6

3.1 Economic Sustainability Challenges .................................................................................................................................................. 6
3.2 Environmental Sustainability Challenges......................................................................................................................................... 6
3.3 Social Sustainability Challenges .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
4. Methodology: Identifying and Cataloguing Sustainability Indicators to Develop a Sustainability

Indicator Database ................................................................................................................................................... 8
4.1 Development of a Normative Account .............................................................................................................................................. 8
4.2 Identification of Sustainability Indicators ........................................................................................................................................ 8
4.3 Analysis of Sustainability Indicators Disclosed .............................................................................................................................. 9
5. Results: Examination of Sustainability Indicators Disclosed ....................................................................... 11

5.1 Economic Sustainability Indicators .................................................................................................................................................. 11
5.1.1 Certification, price premium, income diversification, minimum wage and transparency ...............................................................11
5.1.2 Contract default, local economy, profit share and retirement ..................................................................................................................12
5.2 Environmental Sustainability Indicators ........................................................................................................................................ 13
5.2.1 Climate change, biodiversity and sustainable agricultural practices .....................................................................................................14
5.2.2 Reusable cups, recycled uniforms, logistics and packaging innovation ................................................................................................14
5.3 Social Sustainability Indicators ......................................................................................................................................................... 15
5.3.1 Technical expertise, gender quality, healthcare, working conditions and schooling .......................................................................16
5.3.2 Intergenerational succession, peaceful dispute resolution and spill-over effects ............................................................................16
6. Competitor Benchmark of Sustainability Indicators Disclosed .................................................................... 17

6.1 General Observations ............................................................................................................................................................................ 17
6.2 Standardisation and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) ...................................................................................................... 18
7. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 20
8. Recommendations: Best Practice in Sustainability Indicator Selection ...................................................... 21
9. Appendixes ......................................................................................................................................................... 22
Appendix A. Value Chain Sustainability Indicators and their Beneficiaries .......................................................................... 22
Appendix B. Index of Sustainability Challenges Reviewed ............................................................................................................ 23
Appendix C. Index of Sustainability Indicators Disclosed............................................................................................................... 24
Appendix D. Further Reading 28
2
1. Forward
Welcome to this Smart Sustainability Co. research study report, Communicating Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) in the Coffee Industry: An examination of indicators disclosed.
This research study is published in report format to share the findings of this investigation with
the British Coffee Association, the full membership corporate community and other readers who
are interested in sustainability reporting in the coffee industry. It is hoped that this work will
spark discussion around using sustainability indicators, offer insight into how sustainability in
the British coffee industry is presently communicated and inspire action towards improving
sustainability reporting. The research is due to be published in an academic journal shortly.
As public awareness of sustainability challenges increases, scrutiny of corporate behaviour is

greater than ever. Never before has it been so important to accurately communicate the creation
of environmental and social value in addition to economic value to organisational stakeholders.
Sustainability reporting is a useful mechanism to do so. In this report, you will find considerable
variability in the quality and quantity of indicators disclosed by the British Coffee Association
corporate members. Indeed, no substantial sustainability reporting could be located for three of
the members.
For companies operating in the coffee industry, this report provides useful industry intelligence
and a competitor benchmark that assesses sustainability reporting performance compared to
peers. I invite readers to consider the practical recommendations proposed in section 8 and
welcome conversation around the findings outlined in this report.
To your sustainability reporting success,
Oliver Bradley
Sustainability Strategist (Founder), Smart Sustainability Co.
M E E T O L IV E R B R A D L E Y & S M A R T S U S T A IN A B IL IT Y C O .
Smart Sustainability Co. is a sustainability management consultancy that offers advice,
inspiration and support to leaders embracing sustainability to build smart companies. With our
suite of advisory and management services, we are a millennial team who empower our clients
to take a strategic approach to sustainability. By fusing creativity, innovation and research, we
develop strategies and solutions to improve environmental, social and business performance.
Talk to us today about how we can help.

Call: 44 7599 859 884 Email: hello@smartsustainability.co Visit: www.smartsustainability.co
3
2. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the Coffee

Industry, Sustainability Reporting and Sustainability
Indicators
Companies operating in the coffee industry are no strangers to navigating the complex waters of
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), characterised by environmental challenges, social
inequalities and ethical contentions. Managers find themselves confronted by a relatively
modern business-society paradigm: a puzzling tension arising in response to demanding
economic, legal, ethical and social responsibilities towards stakeholders1. A booming coffee
culture in the Global North has given way to a high street revolution, with coffee chains fast
becoming the new alehouse2 3 4 5. This has attracted intense scrutiny of their behaviour in
response to sustainability challenges as coffee companies enjoy commercial success.
The sustainability challenges for which coffee companies must account are plentiful. Unstable
downward price pressure encourages environmentally detrimental practices67. The social fabric
of coffee producing communities is often disrupted, whereby families are subjected to poverty
with poor health and education prospects8. To demonstrate progress towards addressing such
challenges, a coffee company may publically disclose their non-financial performance, i.e.
Corporate Social Performance (CSP)9 10. This is typically contained within an annually published
sustainability report11 and/or webpages12. Both act as a fundamental tool to provide
accountability to stakeholders critiquing the activities and behaviour of the company13.
In sustainability reports, sustainability indicators are used to communicate specific information

about a state or condition, translating sustainability challenges into measures of performance
and providing information flows necessary to address the challenges they represent1415.
Quantitative and qualitative indicators have attracted the attention of academics, policy-makers
and companies owed to their status being the predominant tool to measure sustainability since
the late 1980s16 17. Initiatives from across the institutional spectrum have supported the use of
indicators to guide sustainable development over the past few decades18 19, calling for the
systematic development of indicators that are practical and appropriate20.
Sustainability indicators arise from values

(we measure what we care about) and
create values (we care about what we measure.)21
It is crucial therefore that the indicators disclosed
by companies in their reporting accurately
suit sustainability challenges.
4
Whilst the consensus upholds the crucial role indicators play in informing social and political
decision-making, over-reliance on incorrect or misused indicators can have severe economic,
environmental and social consequences22. Ongoing initiatives such as the European Commission
Coffee Environmental Footprint (PEF) pilot advocate performance communication that is reliable
and complete, working with leading coffee companies and their stakeholders to influence
policy23. The choice of indicators used in sustainability reporting is therefore paramount.
Materiality, as in whether the inclusion, exclusion or misstatement of an indicator will influence
stakeholder decision-making must be examined when producing a sustainability report24.
Indicators should therefore reflect predominant challenges and must be accessible to every
stakeholder25.
A holistic and thorough approach to sustainability indicator development that is tailored to

reality, in addition to stakeholder perceptions, values, needs and concerns must be taken. There
is concern that top-down reductionism may occur in indicator selection that may fail to provide
suitable indicators26. This is potentially problematic as unsuitable indicators will contribute little
progress to solving sustainability challenges.
This study identifies the sustainability indicators

used in coffee company sustainability reports
and/or webpages and examines the extent to
which they suit sustainability challenges
faced by the coffee industry.
IN F O C U S : W H Y ID E N T IF Y S U S T A IN A B IL IT Y IN D IC A T O R S ?
Producing an index of sustainability indicators is useful for a number of reasons. Indicators gauge
the state of play: this research study is the first of its kind to offer an understanding of the
priorities of coffee companies in addressing sustainability challenges. Questioning indicator
adequacy signals where reporting could be improved and crucially how well aligned indicators
are with sustainability challenges. This is important given that in the context of neoliberal
globalisation, companies are increasingly expected to take greater social and environmental care
of the communities in which they operate. Underlining the sustainable business imperative,
policy-makers may embed indicators in governance that are derived from corporate sustainability
reports27. For this reason alone, it is essential that they are accurate. Furthermore, this research
study corroborates the work of separate domains (academic and practice) that frequently operate
in silos despite sharing intentions: to make sense of sustainability challenges.
5
3. Background:
Sustainability Challenges in the Coffee Industry
This section briefly highlights the triple bottom line sustainability challenges in the coffee
industry. It provides a background to the sustainability challenges that a stakeholder may expect
sustainability indicators to account for in sustainability reporting published by a coffee company.
3.1 Economic Sustainability Challenges

A coffee crisis arose following transformation in the global coffee supply chain involving
deregulation and new consumption patterns28. The market liberalisation that followed the
dissolution of the International Coffee Agreement in 1989 negatively impacted world coffee
prices following a long period of stabilisation, leading to a significant decline in the income of
many producers and export revenue of many coffee producing states29. Despite increased demand
for coffee arising from the popularity of coffee bar chains and growth in specialty fair trade and
organic coffee markets, coffee producers have been subjected to the price and income volatility
inherent to the global market30, whereby frequently the dictated price fails to internalise
environmental and social costs of production31.
Attempting to overcome this, fair trade contracts provide a safety-net for coffee producers by
enforcing a minimum price. In some parts of the world this has afforded economic stability, such
as in Mexico where it has contributed to major economic transformation32 and in Nicaragua
where it provided asset security to farmers33, although failing to alleviate the burden of debt they
carry34.
Unfortunately, market intervention is not always successful. Critics suggest that fair trade is
misunderstood among many Latin American producers35 and may even be considered an
ideological fantasy by the Vietnamese36. Furthermore, fair trade contracts may be inaccessible,
as some rural producers cannot meet the conditions required to participate37 and credit
availability proving a barrier to entry for some Latin American producers38. For many, revenue
streams are precarious. This compounds environmental and social consequences that result in
continued poverty39.
3.2 Environmental Sustainability Challenges

The economically unstable downward price pressure and lack of access to steady finance may be
one reason why coffee producers engage in environmentally detrimental practices. Despite
recognising the value of organic farming inputs, cost and availability are a barrier to producers
in some parts of the world including Mexico and Peru40. In Costa Rica, environmental challenges
including soil erosion, water pollution and biodiversity loss have arisen owed to agricultural
intensification41. Agricultural intensity has increased so dramatically that ecosystem service flows
are threatened42, demonstrating that coffee production can significantly impact ecological
processes43.
6
In Vietnam, rapid production expansion put unstable demands on surface and groundwater
resources, causing water shortage among other environmental stress, eventually leading to
disbandment of coffee production despite facing bankruptcy following significant financial
investment44 45. Similarly, land-use conversion has major impact on quality of habitat, particularly
for avian species as many Southern Guatemalan producers face no choice other than
diversification into alternative crops because of economic instability46. Protection of biodiversity
has been neglected in many cases, even among producers who are relatively economically better-
off47. More must be done to promote environmental stability, but only once socioeconomic
challenges are met48.
3.3 Social Sustainability Challenges

Financial pressures and an environmentally deteriorated landscape affect quality of life. The
social fabric of coffee producing communities is often disrupted as families are subjected to
poverty with poor health and education prospects49. Labour conditions may be lax, such as those
at cooperative sites in Mexico, despite assurance schemes50. A low level of education and lack of
commercial knowledge has been blamed for weak organisation at a fair trade cooperative in
Nicaragua51.
In places where debt-ridden farms have closed, workers have had no choice other than to rely on
food donations for survival, while producers operating alone have in some cases removed their
children from school because their parcels of land fail to provide sufficient income52. Those who
can afford access to necessities such as food and education often cannot save money, frequently
spending more than they earn which impacts upon retirement53. In some cases, the social
premium provided by fair trade contracts has little impact on household livelihood54, suggesting
more needs to be done to alleviate poverty.
In some cases, quality of life has improved owing to coffee production. Mexican producers able
to afford access to the organic market can attract higher revenue55. With this comes a host of
benefits including improved access to credit, housing, health programmes and more, therefore
living an improved quality of life. Far-reaching communal benefits sometimes spill-over from
coffee production, such as infrastructure investment in Nicaragua56. Other social sustainability
challenges include gender equality57, human rights58 and the effects of state intervention59.
S U M M A R Y : S U S T A IN A B IL IT Y C H A L L E N G E S IN T H E C O F F E E IN D U S T R Y
Coffee producers face interconnected challenges and often experience uneven outcomes. The
prior research is mixed, suggesting some certification and assurance schemes work for some
producers, but not for others. Producers affording access to niche markets such as the organic
market fair relatively well, while others who are driven down by price less so. The Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) agenda suggests that companies are held responsible for their role in
addressing sustainability challenges such as these, for which their performance in doing so is
communicated by sustainability indicators. For this reason, the selection of indicators and their
ability to effectively guide sustainable development is important.
7
4. Methodology: Identifying and Cataloguing Sustainability

Indicators to Develop a Sustainability Indicator Database
The research approach adopted for this study involved developing a normative narrative of
sustainability challenges in the coffee industry by reviewing existing literature, obtaining and
indexing sustainability indicators using content analysis60, followed by a frequency analysis to
thematically review sustainability disclosures and compare reporting by company, referencing
relevant prior research. The research methodology broadly followed that of a similar study
undertaken of sustainability indicator disclosure in the apparel industry61.
4.1 Development of a Normative Account

A thorough literature review uncovered key sustainability challenges (themes) faced by the coffee
industry. Preference was given to good quality, peer-reviewed journal articles that were sourced
using the triple bottom line as an appropriate framework to guide the search, identification and
subsequent examination of themes. A total of nineteen themes arising from a review of twenty-
one articles emerged (appendix B), which were synthesised into the narrative presented in the
previous section. This created an objective, academically-sound outline of the key sustainability
challenges faced by coffee companies for which one would expect sustainability indicators to
account for.
4.2 Identification of Sustainability Indicators

Data was obtained for the full membership members of the British Coffee Association
(companies with: a business/division substantially based on the manufacturing and/or supply of
coffee, including in and out of homes, cafs, coffee shops and all associated areas.62) The British
Coffee Association supports addressing sustainability challenges, committing to work with a
range of stakeholders to embed sustainability within the coffee community63. Furthermore,
British companies have been encouraged to produce sustainability reports for some time and are
among the companies most likely to do so64 65. Of the thirteen members, three (Fine Foods
International, Masterroast Coffee Co Ltd and R. Twining and Company Ltd) were excluded from
the research study because no substantial sustainability report or related webpages about their
coffee business could be located. A total sample size of ten companies remained: Bewleys,
Cafdirect Plc, Caff Nero, Costa Ltd, Finlay Beverages Ltd, Jacobs Douwe Egberts, Lavazza Coffee
UK Ltd, Matthew Algie, Nestle UK & Ireland and Taylors of Harrogate.
8
Sustainability Sustainability Reporting

Company
Report Webpages Standard
Bewleys66
Cafdirect Plc67
Caff Nero68
Costa Ltd69 GRI
Finlay Beverages Ltd70 GRI
Jacobs Douwe Egberts71
Lavazza Coffee UK Ltd72 GRI
Matthew Algie73
Nestle UK and Ireland74
Taylors of Harrogate75
Total 5 5 3
Table 1: British coffee association "full membership" companies
Publically accessible sustainability reports and webpages were obtained. These were typically
retrieved from about us, sustainability, or ethics pages of the company website. The most
recent reports were dated 2014, except for Nestle UK & Ireland whose report was dated 2009-
13 but published in 2014. Webpages were assumed to be the most recent information published
by the company. This yielded the data required to conduct a latitudinal (cross-sectional) content
analysis, a robust research method commonly taken to examine sustainability disclosures76. This
involved searching the published data for themes, classifying and coding emerging themes to
investigate the presence of concepts.
Indicators consistent with the adopted definition were identified and catalogued with
designations similar to the thematic analysis conducted of the literature. Indicators considered
to address the same issue, such as access to drinking water and clean water were combined.
As it became apparent early on that not every indicator disclosed related to coffee production,
the part of the value-chain in which the indicator arose was also recorded (discussed further in
appendix A). The outcome was a snapshot database of indicators disclosed by the ten
companies at the time of the study.
sustainability indicator: a thing that indicates

the state or level of something; indicate: to point
out, show, strongly suggest or mention;
within time, limit or target.77 78 79
4.3 Analysis of Sustainability Indicators Disclosed

The indicators database made frequency analysis possible, calculating basic descriptive statistics
such as the average quantities of indicators disclosed. Following this, the indicators were
9
examined per the normative account established to ascertain whether the indicators disclosed
adequately communicated the challenges identified.
S U M M A R Y : ID E N T IF Y IN G A N D C A T A L O G U IN G S U S T A IN A B IL IT Y IN D IC A T O R S T O
D E V E L O P A S U S T A IN A B IL IT Y IN D IC A T O R D A T A BA S E
Content analysis is a well-established research method that involves retrieving meaningful
information from documents80. It allows a researcher to systematically identify the properties of
significant volumes of textual information to draw inferences and make comparisons between
sets of data81. For this study, the publically accessible sustainability reports and/or webpages
were retrieved of ten full membership members of the British Coffee Association. The
sustainability indicators (a thing that indicates the state or level of something; to point out, show,
strongly suggest or mention; within time, limit or target) were identified and catalogued to
produce an indicator database. This created a snapshot of sustainability priorities in the British
coffee industry and the quantity and quality of sustainability indicators disclosed.
10
5. Results:
Examination of Sustainability Indicators Disclosed
The sustainability reports and/or webpages of the ten British Coffee Association members
studied disclosed 94 (44 environmental, 30 social and 20 economic) sustainability indicators.
5.1 Economic Sustainability Indicators

A total of twenty economic sustainability indicators were identified. This was the least frequently
reported triple bottom line dimension. The indicators address a variety of economic sustainability
challenges; twelve indicators were disclosed only once.
Indicator Number of
companies
reporting
Certification 7
Price premium 7
Transparency and traceability 7
Fundraising 5
Income diversification 4
Minimum wage 3
Yield / productivity 3
Access to finance 2
Coffee crisis support 1
Collective buying and selling 1
Commercial investment 1
Contract default 1
Fair price for milk 1
Financial security 1
Local economy 1
Microcredit 1
Profit share 1
Retirement 1
Social value 1
Working capital 1
Table 2: Economic sustainability indicators
5.1.1 Certification, price premium, income diversification, minimum wage and transparency
Perhaps unsurprisingly, seven companies used certification as an indicator, a common theme
in the industry82 83. It was considered an economic indicator as certification schemes are market-
driven, enabling price premiums and market access84. Interestingly, two cases (Caff Nero and
Finlay Beverages Ltd) used price premium as an indicator with no mention of certification,
suggesting companies may opt to pay producers a higher price regardless of association with a
certification scheme. Arrangements external to third-party schemes may deliver substantial
premiums85, suggesting the two are not always conjoined.
11
On a similar theme, income diversification and minimum wage were used as an indicator by
four and three cases respectively. In a similar vein, these indicators suggest crucial attention is
being given to reverse historic income decline, improving financial security that may stave off
poverty (a common theme in the prior research.86) Interestingly, income diversification is
discussed in the prior research, but rather in the context of detrimental environmental effects
arising from land-use conversion when producers are forced to transition into alternative
businesses87 88. This gives the impression that seemingly positive progress in one dimension may
cause a negative effect in another.
A further observation is the frequency of transparency and traceability, disclosed in seven cases.
The provision of transparency in response to stakeholder demands for accountability is a
motivation to produce a sustainability report89 90. Transparency is a stakeholder relationship
enhancing quality91 that is intrinsic to sustainable global value chains92. Most of the companies
studied strive towards this.
5.1.2 Contract default, local economy, profit share and retirement

A total of twelve indicators such as contract default, local economy, profit share, and
retirement were used in single instances. Single-use indicators are particularly noteworthy
because they suggest work towards addressing unique challenges that are of less importance or
relevance to other companies. Many of these were not strong themes that shone through in the
prior research. This suggests that companies may lend salience to uncommon challenges, from
which it could be inferred that the company is being adaptive and responsive to novel issues.
This is a promising sign.
S U M M A R Y : E C O N O M IC S U S T A IN A B IL IT Y IN D IC A T O R S
The economic indicators disclosed suit the challenges identified in the prior research, although
the detail contained within existing research93 concerning specific issues such as pre-financing,
interest rates and alternative funds suggests that some economic indicators may be overly broad.
Escaping this, the indicators primarily confront issues of financial security which is a well-
documented challenge for producers operating in the coffee industry. For example, whilst it is
concerning that coffee producers may be unable to save money94, indicators such as retirement
suggest at least in one case progress may be being made towards implementing long-term
financial support. The indicators focus on financial constraints such as access to finance and
availability of working capital, in addition to contemporary practice such as fundraising and
measuring the creation of social value that may overcome economic challenges. Whilst this could
be in response to increased stakeholder awareness surrounding the economic uncertainties
associated with coffee production, it demonstrates the ramifications economic prosperity has on
environmental and social livelihood95 96.
12
5.2 Environmental Sustainability Indicators

The environmental dimension was the most frequently reported with a total of forty-four
environmental sustainability indicators disclosed. This is unsurprising given that the environment
is historically considered the cornerstone of sustainability97 and even regarded a prerequisite of
the other dimensions98. This suggests that companies may likely be most familiar with using
environmental indicators. The indicators address a range of environmental sustainability
challenges, with seventeen single-use indicators.
Indicator Number of
companies
reporting
Climate change 7
Recycled packaging material 6
Waste to landfill 6
Equipment energy consumption 5
Biodiversity 4
Carbon reduction 4
Disease / pest resilience 4
Renewable energy 4
Sustainable agricultural practices 4
Energy use 3
Lifecycle impact assessment 3
Logistics / transportation 3
Natural resource management 3
Packaging weight 3
Recycle within supply chain 3
Soil health 3
Sustainable architecture 3
Tree regeneration / reforestation 3
Water use 3
Carbon footprint 2
Carbon neutral 2
Organic production 2
Packaging innovation 2
Rain / watershed management 2
Supplier environmental assurance 2
Wildlife protection 2
Aluminium use 1
Carbon emission 1
Carbon impact 1
Ecosystem conservation 1
Environmental accreditation 1
Firewood use 1
Greenhouse gas emission 1
In-store recycling 1
Pollutants 1
Reusable cups 1
Recycled uniform 1
Replanting (coffee plant) 1
13
Rivers 1
Smoke exhaustion 1
Soil erosion 1
Sustainable wood pulp 1
Water filtration 1
Table 3: Environmental sustainability indicators
5.2.1 Climate change, biodiversity and sustainable agricultural practices

The most frequently used indicator, climate change suggests that salience is lent to climate
change adaptation and mitigation. The prior research emphasises specific environmental
challenges such as soil erosion and water pollution99, rather than global challenges that affect
all industries such as climate change. Other environmental challenges identified by the prior
research include land-use change and biodiversity100 101 102. Biodiversity was used as an
indicator in four cases. Sustainable agricultural practices was also used as an indicator by four
cases, related to technical expertise, a social sustainability indicator. This demonstrates that
indicators may transcend multiple themes103, demonstrating how one action can impact multiple
dimensions of sustainability. Innovation in product quality is a vital extension to initiatives that
alone may achieve limited success104. Investment in practical expertise to improve product
quality is therefore promising.
5.2.2 Reusable cups, recycled uniforms, logistics and packaging innovation

In the environmental dimension, it became most apparent that many indicators do not account
for sustainability challenges related to coffee production. For example, Costa Ltd uses indicators
related to the retail of coffee, such as reusable cups and recycled uniforms. Costa Ltd, Douwe
Egberts and Nestle UK and Ireland used logistics as an indicator to communicate sustainable
supply chain innovation. At least one indicator related to packaging modernisation (recycled
material, packaging weight, and packaging innovation) was disclosed by eight companies.
None of these issues were brought to light in the prior research that was reviewed for this study,
which had only produced themes associated with coffee production, despite using general search
terms such as coffee environmental and coffee csr. This suggests that environmental
sustainability beyond that related to production is perhaps presently overlooked by the literature,
at least in the context of coffee.
Companies operating in the coffee industry must account for sustainability throughout the entire
global value chain, responding to the needs of stakeholders who demand sustainability from
bean to cup105. Indicators associated with the retail stage of the value chain relate to activities
that are closer to the public eye than others, increasing consumer awareness and perception of
corporate responsibility106. It may be drawn from this that the indicators disclosed provide a
holistic overview of the entire activities and concerns of the company, emphasising the necessary
balancing act between various stakeholders who place diverse demands on different parts of the
global value chain. Further remarks are made towards this in section 8.1 (appendix 1.)
14
S U M M A R Y : E N V IR O N M E N T A L S U S T A IN A B IL IT Y IN D IC A T O R S
The environmental indicators disclosed suit the sustainability challenges raised by the prior
research excellently. The sustainability themes identified in the prior research are accounted for
by the forty-four indicators disclosed. Disclosing a significant number of environmental
indicators compared to its competitors (20 versus an average of 10.5), Nestle UK and Ireland
exemplarily use indicators that relate to every part of its global value chain, ranging from broad
challenges such as climate change to product-specific issues such as the use of aluminium
packaging. There were many environmental indicators that address issues beyond those at source
that were unapparent in the prior research given that it gravitated towards producer
sustainability challenges, despite the researcher having not sought this literature specifically.
Undoubtedly these challenges are discussed in related fields such as sustainable supply chain
management (SSCM,) for example, in the case of logistics innovation that leads to carbon
reduction.
5.3 Social Sustainability Indicators

A total of thirty social indicators were disclosed, ranking the social triple bottom line dimension
the second most frequently reported. The indicators address a variety of social sustainability
challenges, with eighteen single-use indicators (the greatest number of single-use indicators.)
Indicator Number of
companies
reporting
Training / expertise 8
Gender equality / empowerment 6
Medical / healthcare 5
Working conditions 5
Childhood education / schooling 4
Community involvement 3
Living standard 3
Child labour 2
Clean water 2
Food security 2
Nutrition 2
Youth investment 2
Accident / injury 1
Democracy 1
Employee volunteerism 1
Fairness 1
Food safety standard 1
Home improvement support 1
Infrastructure investment 1
Intergenerational succession 1
Occupational health and safety 1
Peaceful dispute resolution 1
Poverty alleviation 1
Producer empowerment 1
Producer relationship 1
15
School refurbishment 1
Security offense 1
Sewer system 1
Spill-over effect (externality) 1
Working hours 1
Table 4: Social sustainability indicators
5.3.1 Technical expertise, gender quality, healthcare, working conditions and schooling
The most frequently disclosed indicator, technical expertise was used in eight cases. This was
followed by gender equality, healthcare, working conditions and schooling. These
challenges are discussed by the prior research107 108 109 110 111. Education emerged as a multifaceted
theme encompassing technical knowledge, training and expertise development in addition to
childhood education and youth investment. Low levels of education and a lack of commercial
knowledge has been blamed for weak organisation at a fair trade cooperative in Nicaragua112,
demonstrating the two can be closely linked. Cafdirect Plc provides living classrooms for
farmers to share innovations and train others in sound agricultural practice and low-cost methods
that improve quality, whilst the values and principles of sustainable development are a focus
of the education provided by Finlay Beverages Ltd. These examples support the observation that
performance in one area can strongly impinge on another.
The second most frequently disclosed indicator, gender equality was used in six cases. This
indicator was frequently used in the context of empowerment, particularly in leadership roles
(Cafdirect Plc and Finlay Beverages Ltd), decision-making (Jacobs Douwe Egberts and Lavazza
Coffee UK Ltd) and equality (Costa Ltd and Matthew Algie). The dilution of female participation
at higher levels of organisational hierarchy highlights barriers that may limit representation and
equality113. The prevalence of this indicator suggests attention is being given to overcome this.
5.3.2 Intergenerational succession, peaceful dispute resolution and spill-over effects

Less frequently reported indicators such as intergenerational succession (Nestle UK and
Ireland), peaceful dispute resolution (Jacobs Douwe Egberts) and spill-over effects (Costa Ltd)
were also scarcely reported in the academic literature. Succession was disclosed in the context
of ensuring that coffee production would be perceived as an attractive career for future
generations. As a core concept inherent to sustainability, intergenerational equity is important.
Restorative activities take place in communities to remedy past injustices114. Many of the social
indicators may be considered restorative activities, addressing historically-rooted social issues.
Infrequently reported indicators tended to disclose more unique challenges, with Jacobs Douwe
Egberts reporting peaceful dispute resolution in Colombia and Costa Ltd remarking that their
support is frequently extended to areas beyond the producers they work with, benefiting parties
beyond those primarily intended115. This has also happened with infrastructure investment in
Nicaragua116.
16
S U M M A R Y : S O C IA L S U S T A IN A B IL IT Y IN D IC A T O R S
The social sustainability indicators suit the challenges identified in the prior research. There was
only the theme of human rights117 that no indicator explicitly accounted for. This may be forgiven
as it is a broad theme, rather taking form as specific indicators such as democracy and child
labour. This could be positive, as measuring specific issues is more likely to produce
improvement than trying to measure broad, more abstract concepts. Unlike the environmental
indicators, most of the social indicators address challenges at source, with some related to
specific projects such as school refurbishment and home improvement (Jacobs Douwe
Egberts.) A few had direct implications for consumers, such as food safety standards (Lavazza
Coffee UK Ltd) and nutrition (Caff Nero and Costa Ltd,) further demonstrating accountability
throughout the global value chain.
6. Competitor Benchmark of Sustainability Indicators

Disclosed
The total number of sustainability indicators disclosed by each company ranged from thirty-one
to only six.
Number of Number of Number of

Economic Environmental Social
Company Indicators Indicators Indicators Total
Lavazza Coffee UK Ltd 7 15 9 31
Matthew Algie 8 12 9 29
Nestle UK and Ireland 4 20 4 28
Jacobs Douwe Egberts 5 11 11 27
Costa Ltd 2 14 8 24
Finlay Beverages Ltd 3 14 7 24
Cafdirect Plc 8 6 5 19
Bewleys 6 5 5 16
Tayors of Harrogate 5 5 3 13
Caff Nero 2 3 1 6
Grand total 20 44 30 94
Average 5 10.5 6.2 21.7
Table 5: Sustainability indicators disclosed by each company
6.1 General Observations

Companies disclosing a large quantity of indicators were most likely to address every challenge
identified by the prior research, often segmenting broad challenges using single-use indicators
that suggests progress in an activity that contributes to solving a greater challenge. For example,
Jacobs Douwe Egberts disclosed resilience as an indicator to demonstrate that in a particular
project, leaf rust disease resistant varieties of coffee were planted, contributing to improved
agricultural practice. Indicator sub-classes should be developed that extend to individual
process levels to operationalise specific information flows for greater accuracy and
accountability118. The companies disclosing the greatest quantity of indicators tended to do this,
17
perhaps reducing the danger of decoupling that may arise when indicators are applied to only
broad rather than narrow issues119.
The indicators identified highlight the importance of considering the characteristics of the
organisation when interpreting its performance based on the indicators it discloses, specifically
the extent to which it is vertically integrated (the complete incorporation of value-adding
activities up to the sale to the consumer within one organisation120.) The cases demonstrate that
the indicators go beyond sustainability challenges concerning producers to account additionally
for challenges throughout the value chain up to and including retail and consumption of the
product. The companies studied are vertically integrated to varying degrees. For example, Costa
UK Ltd owns a high-street coffee chain, whereas Cafdirect Plc does not. Some indicators
disclosed by Costa UK Ltd such as fair price for milk and reusable cup, are therefore irrelevant
to Cafdirect Plc. It would therefore be unwise to claim that Costa UK Ltd performs better than
Cafdirect Plc only on the basis that it discloses five more indicators. Overreliance on
sustainability indicators alone may be problematic121 and an appreciation of context is therefore
essential.
The subjectivity of materiality assessment in indicator selection122 must be emphasised.

Sustainability indicators may not always report an objective reality (as a research study may seek
to,) rather what a company perceives to be of salience to its stakeholders. Sustainability reporting
remains a voluntary practice123 and sustainability indicators are cherry picked, evidencing what
a company considers to be commercially important124.
A missing indicator does not necessarily mean that an activity

is not happening, rather that it is simply unreported.
In the same vein, a disclosed indicator is no
guarantee of sustainable development.
Disclosing a greater or fewer number of sustainability indicators does not necessarily equal
greater or less corporate social performance (CSP,) rather a reflection of conformity to what a
company perceives to be of strategic value125 and to accrue social legitimacy (acceptance.)126127
The sustainability report represents a tool by which stakeholder acceptance may be gained,
supporting the business case128 129 for corporate social responsibility (CSR). By extension, when
considering where in the value chain sustainability indicators arise, it could be inferred that some
stakeholders prioritise sustainability of business activities not directly associated with producer
livelihood.
6.2 Standardisation and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)

Costa Ltd, Finlay Beverages Ltd and Lavazza Coffee UK Ltd refer to the Global Reporting Initiative
(GRI) in their sustainability reporting. The GRI promotes standardisation to increase the
legitimacy of sustainability reporting130 131, with a view towards improving the quality of
disclosures in terms of auditability, comparability and rigour, similar to financial accounting132.
18
Although desirable, critics have raised concern that top-down reductionism may be encouraged
by standardisation, whereby standardised indicators may fail to provide data tailored to territorial
realities133 134.
The companies following GRI guidelines used some of the greatest quantities of sustainability
indicators, particularly in the environmental and social dimensions. They tended not to disclose
as many economic indicators as their peers. Although this was the least reported dimension by
all the companies, this follows the GRI guidelines. A total of 46 aspects are proposed by the GRI
(4 economic, 12 environmental and 30 social) for companies operating in the food processing
sector.135 This suggests that perhaps the GRI neglects the economic dimension and encourages
companies following their guideline to do the same. Although the GRI identifies 46 aspects, 94
(44 environmental, 30 social and 20 economic) sustainability indicators were identified by the
present study, suggesting that companies do not have difficulty identifying indicators, despite
the majority not following a prescribed guideline.
Standardised sustainability indicators cannot adapt to unique

circumstances, so they may have less utility than is purported.
The danger is that superficial surface structures emerge that
are decoupled from actual activity136. In this respect, it is
positive that most of the companies studied are not prescribed
sets of indicators, rather they select their own.
A total of 47 single-use indicators suggest that unique sustainability indicators are used to
communicate uncommon challenges. Although this limits comparability, perhaps sustainability
between companies should not be easily compared. The prior research demonstrates very mixed
outcomes for coffee producers. Sustainability to a coffee producer operating in one region may
not mean the same to another137.
19
7. Conclusion
This research study identified the sustainability indicators disclosed by ten British Coffee
Association full membership members and examined the extent to which the indicators are
suitable for communicating the sustainability challenges identified by prior research. An
examination of sustainability reports and/or webpages resulted in the identification of 94 (44
environmental, 30 social and 20 economic) sustainability indicators. The indicators were found
to suit the challenges identified by the prior research. Environmental sustainability indicators
were particularly abundant.
The background to sustainability challenges in the coffee industry brought challenges associated
with the livelihood of coffee producers to the fore. A major oversight of the prior research was
the local impact of climate change, which was an indicator frequently disclosed, in addition to
the sustainability challenges associated with the transportation, retail and consumption of
coffee. Undoubtedly sustainability challenges related to logistics, packaging and consumer
nutrition are discussed in other domains and contexts. There was evidence of companies using
indicators to disclose performance related to narrow topics, suggesting that indicators may be
tailored to territorial realities.
There are obvious drawbacks to the way this study was conducted which should be considered
when interpreting the results. As a study conducted by a single researcher, a high degree of
subjectivity is inherent. The reliability of a study of this kind could be improved with multiple
researchers performing content analysis. A degree of interpretation was necessary, particularly
with what constituted a sustainability indicator, although the researcher attempted to remain
objective and transparent throughout. The prior research studied was longitudinal, but the data
collected was latitudinal. Some of the prior research was a little dated. It is possible that an issue
discussed ten years ago is now irrelevant. There is a question of the extent to which this study
holds external validity. Sustainability reporting practice differs greatly across markets138. This
must be borne in mind when drawing inferences from this research that may not be applicable
to other contexts.
The value of this research is that (to the knowledge of the researcher) it provides the first
systematic outline of sustainability indicators disclosed by British Coffee Association full
membership companies. It identifies the challenges that are perceived as salient and therefore
highlights sustainability priorities in the British coffee industry. By discussing the indicators in
the context of prior research, this study demonstrates that academia and practice are for the most
part well-aligned. Furthermore, it references further knowledge that addresses specific
challenges, providing greater interpretation that may shed light on sustainability issues. A range
of sustainability indicators are disclosed as these coffee companies communicate their
sustainability progress to their stakeholders. Attention should be given to ensure that a wealth
in quality and quantity of sustainability indicators is disclosed to demonstrate progress towards
addressing the plethora of sustainability challenges in the coffee industry.
20
8. Recommendations:
Best Practice in Sustainability Indicator Selection
Following the identification and subsequent analysis of 94 sustainability indicators used in the
coffee industry, several recommendations for best practice in indicator selection are proposed:
Disclose a mixture of quantitative and qualitative indicators. For richness in detail

and depth, a variety of quantitative and qualitative indicators should be used. A
sustainability report that discloses sustainability indicators abundant in quality and
quantity will paint the picture with greatest accuracy;
Develop indicator sub-classes to communicate detailed progress towards addressing

specific challenges. Indicator sub-classes that address narrow, specific problems
should be developed to operationalise sustainability by focussing on clearly defined
key performance items;
Think value-chain indicators, not only supply-chain indicators. The most

comprehensive sets of indicators measure sustainability throughout the entire
product life-cycle, not only at any given stage. For example, beyond supplier
sustainability challenges there may be significant sustainability implications
associated with the retail, consumption and disposal of your product;
Revisit materiality and stakeholder assessments regularly to ensure indicator

adequacy. Static indicators struggle in a fast-paced world. Participatory systems
should be established to engage stakeholder input to decide what data is
communicated using indicators and subsequently disclosed in sustainability
reporting;
Use competitor bench-marking to identify what sustainability indicators are

disclosed by your peers, and investigate their relevance in your company.
Pay attention to the sustainability indicators disclosed by your peers. Some
indicators may be irrelevant now but relevant tomorrow, or highlight issues currently
unaccounted for. Keep this tool in your sustainability risk management toolbox.
S M A R T S U S T A IN A B IL IT Y C O . C A N H E L P
Do you need to establish systems to collect smarter data about
economic, environmental and social sustainability impacts?
Do you need assistance in identifying what matters, and
what doesnt? Do you know to whom you are responsible,
and how you can bring everyone together?
Would you like to produce a smarter sustainability report?
Get in touch today.
21
9. Appendixes
Appendix A. Value Chain Sustainability Indicators and their Beneficiaries

Indicators are used to communicate sustainability challenges throughout the entire global value
chain: the entire set of activities that create the finished product from producer to consumer139.
It became apparent early in the collection of data that not every indicator related to the
sustainability challenges associated with coffee production. For example, Costa Ltd uses
sustainable architecture as an indicator (sixteen of their coffee shops are BREEAM certified).
Although this evidences sustainability, it has negligible direct impact on the sustainability
challenges associated with producer livelihood that arose in the prior research. No challenges
associated with the supply chain or point of sale arose in the literature review despite searching
for broad terms such as coffee CSR which one may expect to encompass the entire value chain.
It could be argued that the beneficiary of sustainability in areas such as these is somebody else.
Only Taylors of Harrogate disclosed indicators that were entirely related to producer
sustainability. Indicators related to climate change such as carbon impact were considered to
carry impact throughout the value chain, affecting every stakeholder.
TAYLORS OF HARROGATE 100

MATTHEW ALGIE 88 6 6
CAFDIRECT 80 20
JACOBS DOUWE EGBERTS 65 15 21
FINLAY BEVERAGES LTD 58 42
LAVAZZA 57 17 26
NESTLE UK AND IRELAND 56 22 22
BEWLEY'S 50 28 22
CAFF NERO 29 71
COSTA 27 14 59
At source (Producer) % Within supply chain % Point of sale (Consumer) %
Figure 1: Value chain sustainability indicators
22
Appendix B. Index of Sustainability Challenges Reviewed

Economic Sustainability Challenges
Availability of credit: Farnworth and Goodman (2008);
Ability to save money: Jaffee (2014);
Burden of debt: Wilson (2010);
Downward price pressure: Ponte (2004); Giovaniucci and Koekoek (2003);
Fair trade contracts: Le Mare (2008); Nelson and Pound (2009);
Poverty: Imhoff and Lee (2007);
Price volatility: Ponte (2002).
Environmental Sustainability Challenges

Agricultural intensification: Courville (2003);
Biodiversity: Courville (2003); Philpott et al. (2007);
Ecological impact: Goodall et al. (2015);
Ecosystem services: Jha et al. (2014);
Land-use conversion: Haggar et al. (2013);
Organic inputs: Barham and Weber (2012);
Water shortage: Dhaeze et al. (2005).
Social Sustainability Challenges

Childhood education: Bacon (2005);
Gender equality: Lyon et al. (2010);
Household livelihood: Mndez et al. (2010);
Human capital: Poncelet (2005);
Human rights: Lyon (2007);
Labour conditions: Renard (2010);
Social fabric: Linton (2005);
Technical knowledge: Utting (2009).
23
Appendix C. Index of Sustainability Indicators Disclosed
Lavazza Coffee UK Ltd

Jacobs Douwe Egberts
Nestle UK and Ireland

Finlay Beverages Ltd
Taylors of Harrogate
Matthew Algie
Cafdirect Plc
Caff Nero
Costa Ltd
Bewley's
Total
Economic indicators
Certification 7
Price premium 7
Transparency and traceability 7
Fundraising 5
Income diversification 4
Minimum wage 3
Yield / productivity 3
Access to finance 2
Coffee crisis support 1
Collective buying and selling 1
Commercial investment 1
Contract default 1
Fair price for milk 1
Financial security 1
Local economy 1
Microcredit 1
Profit share 1
Retirement 1
Social value 1
Working capital 1
Total economic indicators 6 8 2 2 3 5 7 8 4 5 20
Environmental indicators
Climate change 7
Recycled material for packaging 6
24


Matthew Algie
Cafdirect Plc
Caff Nero
Costa Ltd
Bewley's
Total
Waste to landfill 6
Equipment energy consumption 5
Biodiversity 4
Carbon reduction 4
Disease / pest resilience 4
Renewable energy 4
Sustainable agricultural practice 4
Energy use 3
Lifecycle impact assessment 3
Logistics / transportation 3
Natural resource management 3
Packaging weight 3
Recycle within supply chain 3
Soil health 3
Sustainable architecture 3
Tree regeneration / reforestation 3
Water use 3
Carbon footprint 2
Carbon neutral 2
Organic production 2
Packaging innovation 2
Rain / watershed management 2
Supplier environmental
2
assurance
Wildlife protection 2
Aluminium use 1
25


Matthew Algie
Cafdirect Plc
Caff Nero
Costa Ltd
Bewley's
Total
Carbon emission 1
Carbon impact 1
Ecosystem conservation 1
Environmental accreditation 1
Firewood use 1
Greenhouse gas emission 1
In-store recycling 1
Pollutants 1
Reusable cups 1
Recycled uniform 1
Replanting (coffee plant) 1
Rivers 1
Smoke exhaustion 1
Soil erosion 1
Sustainable wood pulp 1
Water filtration 1
Total environmental indicators 5 6 3 14 14 11 15 12 20 5 44
Social indicators
Technical training / expertise 8
Gender equality / empowerment 6
Medical / healthcare 5
Working conditions 5
Childhood education / schooling 4
Community involvement 3
Living standard 3
Child labour 2
26


Matthew Algie
Cafdirect Plc
Caff Nero
Costa Ltd
Bewley's
Total
Clean water 2
Food security 2
Nutrition 2
Youth investment 2
Accident / injury 1
Democracy 1
Employee volunteerism 1
Fairness 1
Food safety standard 1
Home improvement support 1
Infrastructure investment 1
Intergenerational succession 1
Occupational health and safety 1
Peaceful dispute resolution 1
Poverty alleviation 1
Producer empowerment 1
Producer relationship 1
School refurbishment 1
Security offence 1
Sewer system 1
Spillover effect (externality) 1
Working hours 1
Total social indicators 5 5 1 8 7 11 9 9 4 3 30
Grand total indicators disclosed 16 19 6 24 24 27 31 29 28 13 94
27
Appendix D. Further Reading

1
Moon, J. (2007) The Contribution of Corporate Social Responsibility to Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development, 15(5),
296-306.
2
Rashid, S. and Ghose, K. (2012) Organisational culture and the creation of brand identity: retail food branding in new markets.
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 33(1), 2-19.
3
Rayner, J. (2014) Hot shot: the story behind the great global coffee revolution. [Online] The Guardian. Last updated: 08/06/2014.
Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jun/08/the-coffee-revolution-jay-rayner [Accessed 10/06/2016].
4
Shubber, K. (2015) Everyone wants a taste of booming UK coffee market. [Online] The Financial Times. Last updated: 25/03/2015.
Available at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/860d06cc-d13c-11e4-98a4-00144feab7de.html [Accessed 10/06/2016].
5
Spinks, R. (2016) The caffeine curse: why coffee shops have always signalled urban change. [Online] The Guardian. Last updated:
08/04/2016. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/apr/08/coffee-shops-gentrification-urban-change [Accessed
10/06/2016].
6
Courville, S. (2003) Use of Indicators to Compare Supply Chains in the Coffee Industry. Greener Management International, 43(1),
93-105.
7
Ponte, S. (2004) Standards and Sustainability in the Coffee Sector. International Institute for Sustainable Development. Available at:
http://www.iisd.org.
8
Linton, A. (2005) Partnering for Sustainability: Business-NGO alliances in the coffee industry. Development in Practice, 15(3-4), 600-
614.
9
Wood, D. J. (1991) Corporate Social Performance Revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691-718.
10
Wood, D. J. (2010) Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50-84.
11
Guthrie, J. and Abeysekera, I. (2006) Content Analysis of Social, Environmental Reporting: What is new? Journal of Human Resource
Costing & Accounting, 10(2), 114-126.
12
Adams, C. A. and Frost, G. R. (2006) Accessibility and Functionality of the Corporate Web Site: Implications for Sustainability
Reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(4), 275-287.
13
Junior, R. M., Best, P. J. and Cotter, J. (2014) Sustainability Reporting and Assurance: A historical analysis on a world-wide
phenomenon. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), 1-11.
14
Azapagic, A. (2004) Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 12(6), 639-662.
15
McGlade, J. (2007) Forward: Finding the Right Indicators for Policymaking. In: T. Hk, B. Moldan and A. L. Dahl, (Eds). Sustainability
Indicators: A scientific assessment. Washington: Scope 67, xvii-xxi.
16
Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., Mabee, W. E., Reed, M. and McAlpine, P. (2006) Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory
processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental
management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(2), 114-127.
17
Turcu, C. (2013) Re-thinking Sustainability Indicators: Local perspectives of urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management, 56(5), 695-719.
18
Dahl, A. L. (2012) Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecological Indicators, 17, 14-19.
19
Moldan, B., Janouskova, S. and Hk, T. (2012) How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and
targets. Ecological Indicators, 17(2012), 4-13.
20
Valentin, A. and Spangenberg, J. H. (2000) A guide to community sustainability indicators. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 20(3), 381-392.
21
Meadows, D. (1998) Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development. Hartland, Four Corners: The Sustainability
Institute.
22
Hk, T., Moldan, B. and Dahl, A. L. (2007) Sustainability Indicators: A scientific assessment. Washington: Scope 67.
23
European Coffee Federation (2016) Coffee Sustainability. [Online] European Coffee Federation. Available at: http://www.ecf-
coffee.org/about-coffee/coffee-sustainability/ [Accessed 21 February 2016].
24
Eccles, R. G., Krzus, M. P., Rogers, J. and Serafeim, G. (2012) The Need for Sector-Specific Materiality and Sustainability Reporting
Standards. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 24(2), 65-71.
25
Etzion, D. and Ferraro, F. (2010) The Role of Analogy in the Institutionalisation of Sustainability Reporting. Organisation Science,
21(5), 1092-1107.
26
Magee, L., Scerri, A., James, P., Thom, J. A., Padgham, L., Hickmott, S., Deng, H. and Cahill, F. (2013) Reframing Social Sustainability
Reporting: Towards an engaged approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 15(1), 225-243.
27
Herzi, A. A. and Dovers, S. R. (2006) Sustainability indicators, policy and governance: Issues for ecological economics. Ecological
Economics, 60(1), 86-99.
28
29
Akiyama, T. and Varangis, P. N. (1990) The Impact of the International Coffee Agreement on Producing Countries. The World Bank
Economic Review, 4(2), 157-173.
30
Ponte, S. (2002) The Latte Revolution? Regulation, markets and consumption in the global coffee chain. World Development,
30(7), 1099-1122.
31
Giovannucci, D. and Koekoek, F. (2003) The State of Sustainable Coffee: A study of twelve major markets. IISD, UNCTAD, ICO.
32
Barham, B. L., Callenes, M., Gitter, S., Lewis, J. and Weber, J. (2011) Fair Trade/Organic Coffee, Rural Livelihoods, and the Agrarian
Question: Southern Mexican coffee families in transition. World Development, 39(1), 134-145.
28
33
Utting-Chamorro, K. (2005) Does Fair-trade Make a Difference? The case of small coffee producers in Nicaragua. Development in
Practice, 15(3-4), 584-599.
34
Wilson, B. R. (2010) Indebted to Fair Trade? Coffee and crisis in Nicaragua. Geoforum, 41(1), 84-92.
35
Murray, D. L., Raynolds, L. T. and Taylor, P. L. (2006) The Future of Fair Trade Coffee: Dilemmas facing Latin Americas small-scale
producers. Development in Practice, 16(2), 179-192.
36
Fridell, G. (2014) Fair Trade Slippages and Vietnam Gaps: The ideological fantasies of fair trade coffee. Third World Quarterly,
35(7), 1179-1194.
37
Nelson, V. and Pound, B. (2009) The last ten years: A comprehensive review of the literature on the impact of Fairtrade. Natural
Resources Institute, 1-48.
38
Farnworth, C. and Goodman, M. (2008) Growing Ethical Networks: The fair trade market for raw and processed agricultural products.
World Bank.
39
Imhoff, S. and Lee, A. (2007) Assessing the Potential of Fair Trade for Poverty Reduction and Conflict Prevention: A case study of
Bolivian coffee producers. University of Basel Working Paper. Basel: Swiss Peace / Europainstitut.
40
Barham, B. L. and Weber, J. G. (2012) The Economic Sustainability of Certified Coffee: Recent evidence from Mexico and Peru.
World Development, 40(6), 1269-1279.
41
93-105.
42
Jha, S., Bacon, C. M., Philpott, S. M., Mndez, E., Lderach, P. and Rice, R. A. (2014) Shade Coffee: Update on a disappearing refuge
for biodiversity. BioScience, 64(5), 416-428.
43
Goodall, K. E., Bacon, C. M. and Mendez, V. E. (2015) Shade tree diversity, carbon sequestration, and epiphyte presence in coffee
agroecosystems: A decade of smallholder management in San Ramn, Nicaragua. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,
199(2015), 200-206.
44
Dhaeze, D., Raes, D., Deckers, J., Pong, T. A. and Loi, H. V. (2005) Groundwater Extraction for Irrigation of Coffea Canephora in Ea
Tul Watershed, Vietnam: A risk evaluation. Agricultural Water Management, 73(1), 1-19.
45
Eakin, H., Winkels, A. and Sendzimir, J. (2009) Nested Vulnerability: Exploring cross-scale linkages and vulnerability
teleconnections in Mexican and Vietnamese coffee systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(4), 398-412.
46
Haggar, J., Medina, B., Aguilar, R. M. and Munoz, C. (2013) Land Use Change on Coffee Farms in Southern Guatemala and its
Environmental Consequences. Environmental Management, 51(4), 811-823.
47
Philpott, S. M., Bichier, P., Rice, R. and Greenberg, R. (2007) Field-Testing Ecological and Economic Benefits of Coffee Certification
Programmes. Conservation Biology, 21(4), 975- 985.
48
Le Mare, A. (2008) The Impact of Fair Trade on Social and Economic Development: A review of the literature. Geography Compass,
2(6), 1922-1942.
49
Linton, A. (2005) Partnering for Sustainability: Business-NGO alliances in the coffee industry. Development in Practice, 15(3-4),
600-614.
50
Renard, M. (2010) In the Name of Conservation: CAFE practices and fair trade in Mexico. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(2), 287-299.
51
Utting, K. (2009) Assessing the Impact of Fair Trade Coffee: Towards an integrative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(1),
127-149.
52
Bacon, C. (2005) Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can fair trade, organic and specialty coffees reduce small-scale farmer
vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua? World Development, 33(3), 497-511.
53
Jaffee, D. (2014) Brewing Justice: Fair trade coffee, sustainability and survival. California: University of California Press.
54
Mndez, V. E., Bacon, C. M., Olson, M., Petchers, S., Herrador, D., Carranza, C., Trujillo, L., Guadarrama-Zugasti, C., Cordn, A. and
Mendoza, A. (2010) Effects of Fair Trade and Organic Certifications on Small-Scale Coffee Farmer Households in Central America
and Mexico. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 25(3), 236-251.
55
Bray, D. B., Snchez, J. L. P. and Murphy, E. C. (2011) Social Dimensions of Organic Coffee Production in Mexico: Lessons for eco-
labelling initiatives. Society and Natural Resources, 15(5), 429-446.
56
Bacon, C. M., Mndez, V. E., Gmez, M. E., Stuart, D. and Flores, S. R. D. (2008) Are Sustainable Coffee Certifications Enough to
Secure Farmer Livelihoods? The Millennium Development Goals and Nicaraguas fair trade cooperatives. Globalisations, 5(2), 259-
274.
57
Lyon, S., Bezaury, J. A. and Mutersbaugh, T. (2010) Gender Equity in Fairtrade - Organic Coffee Producer Organisations: Cases from
Mesoamerica. Geoforum, 41(1), 93-103.
58
Lyon, S. (2007) Fair Trade Coffee and Human Rights in Guatemala. Journal of Consumer Policy, 30(3), 241-261.
59
Pirotte, G., Pleyers, G. and Poncelet, M. (2006) Fair trade Coffee in Nicaragua and Tanzania: A comparison. Development in Practice,
16(5), 441-451.
60
Krippendorff, K. (2013) Content Analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
61
Kozlowski, A., Searcy, C. and Bardecki, M. (2015) Corporate Sustainability Reporting in the Apparel Industry: An analysis of
indicators disclosed. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(3), 377-397.
62
British Coffee Association (2016a) British Coffee Association Full Membership Industry. [Online] British Coffee Association.
Available at: http://www.britishcoffeeassociation.org/the_bca/member_companies/full_membership_industry/ [Accessed 09 July
2016].
63
British Coffee Association (2016b) British Coffee Association - Sustainable Coffee Cultivation. [Online] British Coffee Association.
Available at: http://www.britishcoffeeassociation.org/about_coffee/from_bean_to_cup/sustainable_coffee_cultivation/ [Accessed
09 July 2016].
64
Kolk (2003) Trends in Sustainability Reporting by the Fortune Global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(5), 279-291.
29
65
Chapple, W. and Moon, J. (2005) Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Asia: A seven-country study of CSR website reporting.
Business and Society, 44(4), 415-441.
66
Data collected for Bewleys: http://www.bewleys.com/ie/sustainability/environment/ (webpages)
67
Data collected for Cafdirect Plc: http://www.cafedirect.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2015/05/FINAL-Annual-Review-
2015.pdf (sustainability report)
68
Data collected for Caff Nero: http://www.caffenero.co.uk/story/ethics.aspx (webpages)
69
Data collected for Costa Ltd: https://www.whitbread.co.uk/content/dam/whitbread/pdfs/corporate-responsibility/reports-
presentations/CSR_2014_15_v7.pdf (sustainability report)
70
Data collected for Finlay Beverages Ltd: http://www.finlays.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Sustainability_Report_2014.pdf
(sustainability report)
71
Data collected for Jacobs Douwe Egberts: https://www.jacobsdouweegberts.com/CR/ (webpages)
72
Data collected for Lavazza Coffee UK Ltd: http://www.lavazza.co.uk/uk/sustainability/values/sustainability-report/
(sustainability report)
73
Data collected for Matthew Algie: http://www.matthewalgie.com/about-us/ (webpages)
74
Data collected for Nestle UK and Ireland: https://www.nestle-nespresso.com/asset-
library/documents/nespresso_sustainability_ecolaboration_fullterm_report_2014.pdf (sustainability report)
75
Data collected for Taylors of Harrogate: https://www.taylorscoffee.co.uk/ethics/ (webpages)
76
Milne, M. J. and Adler, R.W. (1999) Exploring the Reliability of Social and Environmental Disclosures Content Analysis. Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, 12(2), 237-256.
77
Oxford English Dictionary (2016) indicator definition of indicator in English from the Oxford dictionary. [Internet] Available at:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/indicator [Accessed 21 February 2016].
78
Meadows, D. (1998) Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development. Hartland, Four Corners: The Sustainability
Institute.
79
80
Krippendorff, K. (2013) Content Analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
81
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2015) Business Research Methods, 4ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
82
Le Mare, A. (2008) The Impact of Fair Trade on Social and Economic Development: A review of the literature. Geography Compass,
2(6), 1922-1942.
83
84
Blackman, A. and Naranjo, M. A. (2012) Does eco-certification have environmental benefits? Organic coffee in Costa Rica.
Ecological Economics, 83, 58-66.
85
Barham, B. L. and Weber, J. G. (2012) The Economic Sustainability of Certified Coffee: Recent evidence from Mexico and Peru.
World Development, 40(6), 1269-1279.
86
87
Eakin, H., Winkels, A. and Sendzimir, J. (2009) Nested Vulnerability: Exploring cross-scale linkages and vulnerability
teleconnections in Mexican and Vietnamese coffee systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 12(4), 398-412.
88
Haagar, J., Medina, B., Aguilar, R. M. and Munoz, C. (2013) Land Use Change on Coffee Farms in Southern Guatemala and its
89
Gray, R. (2002) The Social Accounting Project and Accounting, Organisations and Society: Privileging engagement, imaginings,
new accountings and pragmatism over critique? Accounting, Organisations and Society, 27(7), 687-708.
90
Brown, J. and Fraser, M. (2006) Approaches and Perspectives in Social and Environmental Accounting: An overview of the
conceptual landscape. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(2), 103-117.
91
Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S. and Ruiz, S. (2014) Effect of Stakeholders Pressure on Transparency of Sustainability Reports
within the GRI Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 53-63.
92
Mol, A. (2015) Transparency and value chain sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 154-161.
93
94
Jaffee, D. (2014) Brewing Justice: Fair trade coffee, sustainability and survival. California: University of California Press.
95
Imhoff, S. and Lee, A. (2007) Assessing the Potential of Fair Trade for Poverty Reduction and Conflict Prevention: A case study of
Bolivian coffee producers. University of Basel Working Paper. Basel: Swiss Peace / Europainstitut.
96
Raynolds, L. T., Murray, D. and Heller, A. (2007) Regulating sustainability in the coffee sector: A comparative analysis of third-
party environmental and social certification initiatives. Agriculture and Human Values, 24(2), 147-163.
97
Moldan, B., Janouskova, S. and Hk, T. (2012) How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and
targets. Ecological Indicators, 17(2012), 4-13.
98
Morelli. J. (2013) Environmental Sustainability: A definition for environmental professionals. Journal of Environmental
Sustainability, 1(1), 1-9.
99
93-105.
100
93-105.
30
101
Philpott, S. M., Bichier, P., Rice, R. and Greenberg, R. (2007) Field-Testing Ecological and Economic Benefits of Coffee
Certification Programmes. Conservation Biology, 21(4), 975-985.
102
Haagar, J., Medina, B., Aguilar, R. M. and Munoz, C. (2013) Land Use Change on Coffee Farms in Southern Guatemala and its
103
Kozlowski, A., Searcy, C. and Bardecki, M. (2015) Corporate Sustainability Reporting in the Apparel Industry: An analysis of
indicators disclosed. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(3), 377-397.
104
Kilian, B., Jones, C., Pratt, L. and Villalobos, A. (2006) Is sustainable agriculture a viable strategy to improve farm income in
Central America? A case study on coffee. Journal of Business Research, 59(3), 322-330.
105
Russo, A. and Perrini, F. (2010) Investigating Stakeholder Theory and Social Capital: CSR in Large Firms and SMEs. Journal of
Business Ethics, 91(2), 207-221.
106
Bhattacharya, C. B. and Sankar, S. (2004) Doing Better at Doing Good: When, why and how consumers respond to corporate social
initiatives. California Management Review, 47(1), 9-24.
107
Linton, A. (2005) Partnering for Sustainability: Business-NGO alliances in the coffee industry. Development in Practice, 15(3-4),
600-614.
108
Poncelet, M. (2005) A fair and sustainable trade, between market and solidarity: diagnosis and prospects. Liege, Belgium: University
of Liege.
109
127-149.
110
Lyon, S., Bezaury, J. A. and Mutersbaugh, T. (2010) Gender Equity in Fairtrade - Organic Coffee Producer Organisations: Cases
from Mesoamerica. Geoforum, 41(1), 93-103.
111
Renard, M. (2010) In the Name of Conservation: CAFE practices and fair trade in Mexico. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(2), 287-299.
112
127-149.
113
Lyon, S., Bezaury, J. A. and Mutersbaugh, T. (2010) Gender Equity in Fairtrade - Organic Coffee Producer Organisations: Cases
from Mesoamerica. Geoforum, 41(1), 93-103.
114
Golub, A., Mahoney, M. and Harlow, J. (2013) Sustainability and intergenerational equity: do past injustices matter? Sustainability
Science, 8(2), 269-277.
115
Liu, J., Mooney, H., Hull, V., Davis, S. J., Gaskell, J., Hertel. T., Lubchenco, J., Seto, K. C., Gleick. P. and Kremen, C. et al. (2015)
Systems integration for global sustainability. Science, 347(6225), 1258832.
116
Bacon, C. M., Mndez, V. E., Gmez, M. E., Stuart, D. and Flores, S. R. D. (2008) Are Sustainable Coffee Certifications Enough to
Secure Farmer Livelihoods? The Millennium Development Goals and Nicaraguas fair trade cooperatives. Globalisations, 5(2), 259-
274.
117
Lyon, S. (2007) Fair Trade Coffee and Human Rights in Guatemala. Journal of Consumer Policy, 30(3), 241-261.
118
Plzl, H., Prokofieva, I., Berg, S., Rametsteiner, E., Aggestam, F. and Wolfslehner, B. (2012) Indicator development in sustainability
impact assessment: balancing theory and practice. European Journal of Forest Research, 131(1), 35-46.
119
Haack, P., Schoeneborn, D. and Wickert, C. (2012) Talking the Talk, Moral Entrapment, Creeping Commitment? Exploring
narrative dynamics in corporate responsibility standardisation. Organisation Studies, 33(5-6), 815-845.
120
Guan, W. and Rehme, J. (2012) Vertical integration in supply chains: driving forces and consequences for a manufacturers
downstream integration. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 17(2), 187-201.
121
Hk, T., Moldan, B. and Dahl, A. L. (2007) Sustainability Indicators: A scientific assessment. Washington: Scope 67.
122
Eccles, R. G., Krzus, M. P., Rogers, J. and Serafeim, G. (2012) The Need for Sector-Specific Materiality and Sustainability Reporting
Standards. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 24(2), 65-71.
123
Junior, R. M., Best, P. J. and Cotter, J. (2014) Sustainability Reporting and Assurance: A historical analysis on a world-wide
phenomenon. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), 1-11.
124
Milne, M. J. and Gray, R. (2013) W(h)ither Ecology? The Triple Bottom Line, the Global Reporting Initiative and Corporate
Sustainability Reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1), 13-29.
125
Mason, C. and Simmons, J. (2014) Embedding Corporate Social Responsibility in Corporate Governance: A stakeholder systems
approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 77-86.
126
Dowling, J. and Pfeffer, J. (1975) Organisational Legitimacy: Social Values and Organisational Behaviour. The Pacific Sociological
Review, 18(1), 122-136.
127
Suchman, M. C. (1995) Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-
610.
128
Brown, J. and Fraser, M. (2006) Approaches and Perspectives in Social and Environmental Accounting: An overview of the
conceptual landscape. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(2), 103-117.
129
Bondy, K., Moon, J. and Matten, D. (2012) An Institution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Multi-National Corporations
(MNCs): Form and implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 281-299.
130
Dias-Sarainha, I. and Reijnders, L. (2001) Environmental Performance Evaluation and Sustainability Performance Evaluation of
Organisations: An evolutionary framework. Eco-Management and Auditing, 8(2), 71-79.
131
Brown, H. S., de Jong, M. and Levy, D. L. (2009) Building Institutions Based on Information Disclosure: Lessons from GRIs
sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), 571-580.
132
Willis, A. (2003) The Role of the Global Reporting Initiatives Sustainability Reporting Guidelines in the Social Screening of
Investments. Journal of Business Ethics, 43(3), 233-237.
31
133
134
Mascarenhas, A., Nunes, L. M. and Ramos, T. B. (2015) Selection of sustainability indicators for planning: combining stakeholders
participation and data reduction techniques. Journal of Cleaner Production, 92, 295-307.
135
GRI (2016) G4 Sector Disclosures: Food Processing. [Online] Global Reporting Initiative. Available at:
https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-G4-Food-Processing-Sector-Disclosures.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2016].
136
Haack, P., Schoeneborn, D. and Wickert, C. (2012) Talking the Talk, Moral Entrapment, Creeping Commitment? Exploring
narrative dynamics in corporate responsibility standardisation. Organisation Studies, 33(5-6), 815-845.
137
93-105.
138
Chen, S. and Bouvain, P. (2009) Is Corporate Responsibility Converging? A comparison of corporate responsibility reporting in the
USA, UK, Australia and Germany? Journal of Business Ethics, 87(1), 299-317.
139
Kaplinsky, R. (2000) Globalisation and Unequalisation: What can be learned from value chain analysis? The Journal of
Development Studies, 37(2), 117-146.
32
WWW.SMARTSUSTAINABILITY.CO

SSC Coffee Web

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SSC Coffee Web

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

RESEARCH STUDY REPORT

Share this publication with your colleagues!

Originality and Value

3. Background: Sustainability Challenges in the Coffee Industry ...................................................................... 6

4. Methodology: Identifying and Cataloguing Sustainability Indicators to Develop a Sustainability

5. Results: Examination of Sustainability Indicators Disclosed ....................................................................... 11

6. Competitor Benchmark of Sustainability Indicators Disclosed .................................................................... 17

8. Recommendations: Best Practice in Sustainability Indicator Selection ...................................................... 21

As public awareness of sustainability challenges increases, scrutiny of corporate behaviour is

To your sustainability reporting success,

Talk to us today about how we can help.

2. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the Coffee

In sustainability reports, sustainability indicators are used to communicate specific information

Sustainability indicators arise from values

A holistic and thorough approach to sustainability indicator development that is tailored to

This study identifies the sustainability indicators

3.1 Economic Sustainability Challenges

3.2 Environmental Sustainability Challenges

3.3 Social Sustainability Challenges

4. Methodology: Identifying and Cataloguing Sustainability

4.1 Development of a Normative Account

4.2 Identification of Sustainability Indicators

Sustainability Sustainability Reporting

sustainability indicator: a thing that indicates

4.3 Analysis of Sustainability Indicators Disclosed

5.1 Economic Sustainability Indicators

5.1.2 Contract default, local economy, profit share and retirement

5.2 Environmental Sustainability Indicators

5.2.1 Climate change, biodiversity and sustainable agricultural practices

5.2.2 Reusable cups, recycled uniforms, logistics and packaging innovation

5.3 Social Sustainability Indicators

5.3.2 Intergenerational succession, peaceful dispute resolution and spill-over effects

6. Competitor Benchmark of Sustainability Indicators

Number of Number of Number of

6.1 General Observations

The subjectivity of materiality assessment in indicator selection122 must be emphasised.

A missing indicator does not necessarily mean that an activity

6.2 Standardisation and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)

Standardised sustainability indicators cannot adapt to unique

Disclose a mixture of quantitative and qualitative indicators. For richness in detail

Develop indicator sub-classes to communicate detailed progress towards addressing

Think value-chain indicators, not only supply-chain indicators. The most

Revisit materiality and stakeholder assessments regularly to ensure indicator

Use competitor bench-marking to identify what sustainability indicators are

Appendix A. Value Chain Sustainability Indicators and their Beneficiaries

TAYLORS OF HARROGATE 100

At source (Producer) % Within supply chain % Point of sale (Consumer) %

Figure 1: Value chain sustainability indicators

Appendix B. Index of Sustainability Challenges Reviewed

Environmental Sustainability Challenges

Social Sustainability Challenges

Appendix C. Index of Sustainability Indicators Disclosed

Lavazza Coffee UK Ltd

Nestle UK and Ireland

Transparency and traceability 7

Coffee crisis support 1

Collective buying and selling 1

Fair price for milk 1

Total economic indicators 6 8 2 2 3 5 7 8 4 5 20

Recycled material for packaging 6

Lavazza Coffee UK Ltd

Nestle UK and Ireland

Equipment energy consumption 5

Disease / pest resilience 4