A new report from the VOCAL Coffee Alliance argues that corporate sustainability projects have largely failed to alter the economics of the coffee trade, leaving smallholder farmers exposed despite decades of programming.
The alliance calls on roasters, retailers, and traders to embed risk-sharing and fair pricing into core purchasing contracts rather than relying on stand-alone projects.
The report, Percolating Responsible Procurement: Coffee Producer Perspectives, describes most corporate initiatives as operating in silos.
“Ironically, many if not most of these ‘sustainability’ projects remain disassociated from companies’ core procurement strategies, meaning the coffee produced from these projects is not necessarily bought by the companies involved, or only in minimal quantities,” the paper states.
It adds that prices rarely factor into project design, despite being the single variable under corporate control that directly affects farmer income:
“For the coffee that is purchased, prices do not factor into the project design, despite the fact that price is the single variable impacting farmer income that is in the direct control of companies.”
VOCAL consulted producers in eight origins — Brazil, Nicaragua, Honduras, Uganda, Indonesia, Guatemala, Mexico, and Sri Lanka — and found that smallholders, who produce roughly 80% of global coffee, continue to shoulder production risk without adequate compensation.
“Existing market-based pricing structures fail to price-in the full range of value contributions of producers and their production level risks,” the report said, noting that family labour and environmental contributions are often unaccounted for.
The paper argues that living income benchmarks, timely payments, and risk-sharing mechanisms should be part of the contracts themselves rather than add-on projects.
“To achieve scalable impact, value and risk sharing with smallholders must be embedded in companies’ procurement practices rather than locked in sustainability silos,” it concludes.
VOCAL framed the document as a “living document,” reflecting an ongoing consultation process designed to influence purchasing behaviour rather than expand project portfolios.