Morality is really important. It's so important that humans have spent an enormous amount of time for thousands of years trying to figure out what it is to live a moral life. I mention this because I think it's important to remember that the question "is it good?" is enormous and not nearly as easy to answer as it seems.
Like you, I'm fascinated with the concept of moral entrepreneurs. These aren't necessarily entrepreneurs in the business sense, but are those who promote a moral ideology for any reason. One thing moral entrepreneurs often do is to make moral choices seem obvious or simple, when in fact they usually are not.
Coffee, like all industries, includes millions of actors who are all making decisions, and each of these decisions has an effect. And each of these effects could be positive, negative, or both. How can we possibly make a judgement about coffee's morality, or a coffee company's morality, or even a coffee person's morality when the question is so complex?
I don't think it's entirely impossible. I do think it's possible to answer questions about the effects of coffee programs, approaches or business models, so long as the questions are asked clearly and tested empirically. For this reason, the organization I lead supported an effort to review studies answering the question "what coffee interventions are effective in helping farmers improve their livelihoods?" Surprisingly, there is not nearly enough research adressing this question. And this is a weakness you address- we often don't ask those who endeavor to "do good" in coffee to empirically demonstrate their effectiveness. Like you, I think we should expect more evidence from those who tell us they are "doing good" or "doing right by the farmers".
But at the same time, I think we need to balance that demand for proof with a big dose of humility. The truth is, it is very very difficult to know whether coffee is "doing good" in any holistic sense. The study I mentioned above looks at only one variable- farmer productivity. There are a million other variables- quality of life, carbon impact, gender equity, deforestation, per capita income, lifespan, environmental diversity, deforestation, etc etc. All of these have a moral dimension, and many are at odds with one another. We should not assume that we can easily judge what is "good" and "bad" in coffee. Though the difference between moral and immoral coffee may seem obvious- and many people will tell you it is obvious- it is not. I agree that we should doubt anyone's blanket approach to "what is better", but we should also be exceedingly humble in our own judgements of companies' or individuals' actions.
At the same time- there is so much to discuss and so much to ask! Thanks for writing a thoughtful and inquisitive article.
Loved this! The company I work for was recently granted B Corp status and going through that process was really interesting. There are so many different ways to define "good" and even for a B Corp certification, you might score really highly in one area and lower in another, but you're still recognized as getting that passing grade. I don't think any one company (or person or product for that matter) can be wholly good. To me, as long as I see that a company is trying, they've committed to learning (but actually committed to learning, not just said they did lol), and they've taken baby steps in a direction that I agree with, that's good enough for me!
Hey! Don't throw the baby out with the brew water! There are many companies (almost exclusively small) who are serious about "sustainability" and farmer welfare. I have been calling out phony claims from coffee and other companies for thirty years. They just don't stop coming. But the few companies that do the work deserve credit and even respect. I won't name them because I am not trying to promote any particular company (I retired last July and turned Dean's Beans Organic Coffee into a worker-owned cooperative). But I would love to see an article here that focuses on the "good coffee" companies, not the poseurs.
Morality is really important. It's so important that humans have spent an enormous amount of time for thousands of years trying to figure out what it is to live a moral life. I mention this because I think it's important to remember that the question "is it good?" is enormous and not nearly as easy to answer as it seems.
Like you, I'm fascinated with the concept of moral entrepreneurs. These aren't necessarily entrepreneurs in the business sense, but are those who promote a moral ideology for any reason. One thing moral entrepreneurs often do is to make moral choices seem obvious or simple, when in fact they usually are not.
Coffee, like all industries, includes millions of actors who are all making decisions, and each of these decisions has an effect. And each of these effects could be positive, negative, or both. How can we possibly make a judgement about coffee's morality, or a coffee company's morality, or even a coffee person's morality when the question is so complex?
I don't think it's entirely impossible. I do think it's possible to answer questions about the effects of coffee programs, approaches or business models, so long as the questions are asked clearly and tested empirically. For this reason, the organization I lead supported an effort to review studies answering the question "what coffee interventions are effective in helping farmers improve their livelihoods?" Surprisingly, there is not nearly enough research adressing this question. And this is a weakness you address- we often don't ask those who endeavor to "do good" in coffee to empirically demonstrate their effectiveness. Like you, I think we should expect more evidence from those who tell us they are "doing good" or "doing right by the farmers".
But at the same time, I think we need to balance that demand for proof with a big dose of humility. The truth is, it is very very difficult to know whether coffee is "doing good" in any holistic sense. The study I mentioned above looks at only one variable- farmer productivity. There are a million other variables- quality of life, carbon impact, gender equity, deforestation, per capita income, lifespan, environmental diversity, deforestation, etc etc. All of these have a moral dimension, and many are at odds with one another. We should not assume that we can easily judge what is "good" and "bad" in coffee. Though the difference between moral and immoral coffee may seem obvious- and many people will tell you it is obvious- it is not. I agree that we should doubt anyone's blanket approach to "what is better", but we should also be exceedingly humble in our own judgements of companies' or individuals' actions.
At the same time- there is so much to discuss and so much to ask! Thanks for writing a thoughtful and inquisitive article.
Loved this! The company I work for was recently granted B Corp status and going through that process was really interesting. There are so many different ways to define "good" and even for a B Corp certification, you might score really highly in one area and lower in another, but you're still recognized as getting that passing grade. I don't think any one company (or person or product for that matter) can be wholly good. To me, as long as I see that a company is trying, they've committed to learning (but actually committed to learning, not just said they did lol), and they've taken baby steps in a direction that I agree with, that's good enough for me!
Hey! Don't throw the baby out with the brew water! There are many companies (almost exclusively small) who are serious about "sustainability" and farmer welfare. I have been calling out phony claims from coffee and other companies for thirty years. They just don't stop coming. But the few companies that do the work deserve credit and even respect. I won't name them because I am not trying to promote any particular company (I retired last July and turned Dean's Beans Organic Coffee into a worker-owned cooperative). But I would love to see an article here that focuses on the "good coffee" companies, not the poseurs.