Intangibles are key to

seizing new opportunities

in the coffee market

Farmers can boost

their earnings by selling
premium coffees. That means
upgrading their farms and
Coffee sales prices investing in branding.
(in USD/lb)

Roas Roas Roas

ter sa ter sa ter sa
les pr
$ 4.11 ice
$ 8.5 les pr
ice
$ 17.4 les pr
ice

0 5
Conventional coffee

Coffee shops

p dent
Independent
Independ
baristas

Export Export
price price
$ 1.45 $ 2.89 Export
price
$ 5.14

42

Source: World Intellectual Property Report 2017

Chapter 2
Coffee: how consumer choices are
reshaping the global value chain
Coffee is one of the most widely consumed beverages This chapter looks at the role of intangible assets in
in the world; nearly 35,000 cups are drunk every second the coffee global value chain. It starts by describing
on any given day.1 In the United States – the biggest how the chain has evolved over the decades, under-
market in terms of size and value – three-quarters of lining the importance of coffee consumers in driving
the population drinks coffee.2 today’s global value chain. Section 2.2 then focuses on
the role of intangible assets in the global value chain,
As a commodity, coffee is produced in the Global South paying particular attention to how the distribution of
but mainly consumed in the Global North. Around 70 value added is influenced by these assets. Section 2.3
percent of the demand for it comes from high-income takes a closer look at how intangible assets have been
countries. These countries tend to be located in the used in upgrading activities along the value chain, and
northern hemisphere and are referred to as the coffee- discusses how technology flows between different
importing countries. The coffee-producing countries, participants in the chain.
on the other hand, lie in the southern hemisphere and
fall within the low- to middle-income brackets. 2.1 – The changing nature
of the coffee value chain
Coffee is one of the most important traded agricultural
commodities, especially for producing countries. It is the 2.1.1 – From coffee cherries on
income source for nearly 26 million farmers in over 50 a tree to the coffee in a mug – an
developing economies.3 For seven countries in particular, international value chain
coffee exports account for more than 10 percent of total
export earnings over the past three decades.4 While the As for most traded commodities, the coffee supply
importance of coffee exports for countries’ incomes has chain resembles a snake. It begins with the farmer who
been decreasing over time, upgrading their participation chooses the coffee tree variety, and farms and harvests
in the global coffee value chain can contribute to their the coffee cherries. The mature coffee cherries then
economic development, especially in combating poverty. undergo different post-harvesting processes to yield
green coffee. Depending on the market structures in
The popularity of coffee is growing. More and more place in the different coffee-producing countries, post-
countries outside the traditional coffee-importing harvesting processes may take place at the farm site,
countries such as Japan and those in Europe are in a cooperative, at a wet or dry mill owned by local
increasing their coffee consumption levels. The traders, or even at a mill owned by exporters.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the
International Coffee Organization (ICO) separately The exporters or cooperatives then select the green
estimate that the growth in consumption is faster in coffees by their density, size and color, and pack them
less developed economies.5 In addition, new coffee according to specific definitions and standards set by
products and services are attracting more consumers coffee importers or industrial users such as roasters
to drink coffee by varying how, what, when and where and soluble coffee producers.
coffee products are consumed.
Green coffees arriving in bulk in coffee-importing
Studying the global value chain for coffee offers impor- countries are stored in warehouses. The importers
tant insights into how poorer economies that rely on may mix and blend different green coffees from various
agricultural commodities may upgrade their value countries in response to requests from buyers. They
chain activities to benefit from international trade. then sell these blends or the green coffee shipments
Traditionally, the coffee global value chain has been to roasters or soluble coffee manufacturers.
dominated by market/buyer-driven governance, with
most value generated by downstream participants. The roasters or soluble coffee manufacturers may
However, recent developments in a newer coffee also blend the green coffee according to their needs.
market segment offer opportunities for upstream coffee They then roast the green coffee using their own roast-
producers to enhance their value chain participation. ing recipes and protocols to obtain particular flavor
profiles adapted to the regional taste preferences of
One way for coffee participants to capture higher value their customers.
added along the coffee global value chain is investing
and owning intangible assets.

43
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT 2017

Box 2.1
Trading coffee is risky

Coffee prices are highly volatile because coffee yield is The absolute price received by the seller can be significantly
sensitive to weather conditions and outbreaks of disease.6 different from the price paid by the buyers because final future
This wide price fluctuation makes coffee transactions risky prices are usually decided at separate times.
for both buyers and sellers. In order to mitigate this risk,
the futures market is used as a reference for most green Certain key participants help to reduce the risk in coffee
coffee transactions. trading. In particular, importers and trading houses play an
important role in facilitating coffee trade by taking on some
The buyers – importers, roasters and soluble coffee produc- of the transaction risk. For example, the buyer-seller contract
ers – enter into a standard commercial contract with the will specify that acceptance of the coffee products on arrival
sellers – coffee farmers, exporters or importers – using price is “subject to approval of sample.” If the buyer rejects the
benchmarks set by the international exchange platforms in coffee shipment because the product fails to meet the quality
New York for Arabica coffee and London for Robusta coffee.7 standard or a specific technical standard, the seller will need
These prices are usually defined in the contract on a price- to take possession of the coffee at the destination.
to-be-fixed basis, with a given quality of coffee specified, to
be delivered at a specific delivery location within a specified Coffee farmers and/or exporters based in coffee-producing
time frame. An agreed differential is established and is later countries are usually unable to address or absorb this extra
combined with the price of green coffee as fixed at different cost and additional risk. Instead, intermediaries will be in a
intervals by the buyer and seller at the stipulated futures better position to find a different buyer for the shipment, while
delivery month.8 also finding an alternative solution for the original buyer who
has rejected it.

Source: ICO and World Bank (2015) and Samper et al. (2017).

Figure 2.1
How coffee flows across the global value chain
Overview of the coffee global value chain showing modifications for newer market segments
Coffee-producing countries Coffee-importing countries

Research institutions

Roaster/soluble Restaurants/
coffee manufacturer coffee shops

International
trader/broker

Grocery stores

Cooperatives
Farmer Exporter Importer
Mills

Specialty
coffee chains

Independent coffee retail

operators, “baristas”

Coffee cherries Green coffee beans Roasted coffee beans

Upstream of supply chain Downstream of supply chain

Source: WIPO based on Ponte (2002) and Samper et al. (2017).

Note: Black lines indicate traditional links between participants; blue lines indicate relatively new links
influenced by the growing importance of the second and third wave market segments.

44
 COFFEE: HOW CONSUMER CHOICES ARE RESHAPING THE GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN

Figure 2.1 shows the coffee supply chain. It is inter- The first wave – a “conventional”
national in two main respects. First, as noted above, market segment
most coffee is consumed in rich importing countries
such as the United States, Germany, Japan, France The first wave market segment accounts for the
and Italy. While coffee-producing countries have also largest share of coffee consumption in terms of
increasingly consumed coffee in recent decades, their both volume and market value. Samper et al. (2017)
levels of consumption are still significantly below those estimate that it constitutes 65 to 80 percent of total
of their richer counterparts.9 coffee consumption, and USD 90 billion or 45 percent
of the total value of the global coffee market.10
Second, the short shelf life of roasted coffee beans
necessitates that most of the roasting is done close The target consumers for this segment mainly drink
to where it is consumed. Packaging and distribution their coffee at home. Consumption is typified by
technologies were not adequate to preserve the qual- daily need-for-energy coffee drinking and reasonably
ity and taste of roasted coffee beans until recently. priced products which consumers can purchase
This slow technological development made it difficult easily at any large retail chain or small grocery store.
for roasters in coffee-producing countries to export
their roasted coffees worldwide. Therefore, coffee- The products – in the form of packaged roasted
producing countries tend to export green coffee – as coffee beans, soluble coffee and, more recently,
an intermediate good in the value chain – and blending single-serving capsules – are standardized, but there
and roasting tends to take place in importing countries. may be significant differences with regard to taste to
reflect regional preferences. The differences between
2.1.2 – Putting consumers first – how competing products can be reduced to the quality
new forms of demand are changing of the coffee blend in relation to its price.
the global value chain
Until a few decades ago, the quality of most coffee
The coffee global value chain is traditionally char- beans used in these products ranged from low to
acterized as being buyer-driven, with roasters, large mediocre, but that emphasis on lower-grade coffee
retailers and branded merchandisers capturing most beans is shifting as large roasters such as JAB and
of the value. These downstream participants are Nestlé have introduced new products to cater to more
also the ones who set the production and quality sophisticated consumers. These products include
standards for the rest of the industry. single-serving capsules from single-sourced origins
or blends of higher-grade coffee beans.
However, this market-based governance is slow-
ly changing. Two new market segments of coffee Governance of the coffee global value chain in this
consumption are shifting the perception of coffee market segment is market driven. The coffee buyers
consumption from coffee-as-a-product to a coffee- – importers, roasters and soluble coffee manufac-
plus-social-content product and service. Drinking turers – purchase their green coffee based on cost
coffee has become more social, and coffee consum- considerations. If prices of Arabica beans are higher
ers have become more discerning. than those of Robusta beans, buyers may decide to
purchase more Robusta beans and process them
These new market segments provide opportunities to attain specific standards. In addition, the origin
for different participants to upgrade their role along of the green coffee has not been a significant sell-
the chain. ing factor in this segment. Importers, roasters and
soluble coffee manufacturers will source coffee
Demand for coffee is segmented into three market beans from many different places as long as their
categories: conventional, differentiated and experi- quality standard is met.
ential. These segments are also referred to as the
first, second and third waves, respectively. They Participants in the coffee value chain take on risks
differ according to target consumers, product offer- when trading green coffee on the open market.
ings and prices. Coffee prices tend to fluctuate significantly over
time, and so contracts in the futures market are used
(see box 2.1).

45
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT 2017

The second wave – a “differentiated” The coffee products in this segment include the story
market segment behind the farming of the coffee beans as well as their
roasting recipes and beverage preparation techniques.
The second wave market segment targets consum- The emphasis is akin to the wine industry’s flavor profile,
ers who prefer to consume coffee in a social setting. which valorizes the terroir, grape variety and craftsman-
In this segment, consumers are able to appreciate ship involved in producing a wine.
a wide range of espresso-based beverages in a
comfortable and convenient location. The quality of the coffee beans tends to be superior
to the other two market segments. Producers in this
Coffee products in the second wave range from the market focus on premium-grade coffee portfolios, with
typical Italian espresso to more elaborate concoc- different blending and roasting techniques tailored to
tions of coffee plus foamed milk. These beverages the beans. Baristas have deep product knowledge of
are prepared according to specific standard tech- the coffee beans, and may even have played a role in
niques by experienced servers, or baristas. In addi- cultivating the coffee plants.
tion, importance is attached to the social element
of consuming coffee; most coffee shops in this Governance of the third wave global value chain is
market segment offer a distinct ambiance to attract known to be relational. The emphasis on direct connec-
their customers. tion to the coffee farmers has led to a shortened value
chain (compare the traditional chains in black with the
The quality of the coffee beans used tends to be newer chains in blue in figure 2.1). In this segment,
higher than those in the first wave. Over the last cooperation between farmers and baristas has often led
couple of decades, specialty coffee shops have been to product innovation, including new ways of preparing
appealing to ethically aware consumers by offering coffee beverages.
drinks made from sustainably farmed beans whose
farmers have been appropriately rewarded. In comparison to the first two waves, consumption
in this segment is still low relative to the market as a
As with the first wave, governance of the global whole, but it is growing fast.
value chain for the second wave is market-based.
However, the increased consumer interest in where 2.2 – Intangible assets
the coffee beans are sourced, how they are farmed and value added
and whether the farmers receive fair wages offers
differentiation opportunities to participants, enabling Ownership of intangible assets plays an important role
them to upgrade their activities along the value chain. in the coffee global value chain and helps explain how
Voluntary sustainability standards (VSSs) contribute income is distributed along the coffee global value chain.
to the image of specialty coffee shops, reinforcing
the impression of social responsibility and perceived Formal intangible assets such as technology, designs
value, and distinguishing coffee in the second wave and brands are important in helping participants in the
from first wave brands. chain appropriate returns to their innovation invest-
ments. These intangible assets are usually protected by
The third wave – an “experiential” formal intellectual property (IP) rights such as patents,
market segment utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, copyrights
and trade secrets.
The third wave market segment targets consumers
with discerning coffee tastes, and is priced accord- Informal intangible assets are also crucial in helping
ingly. Consumers in this market are willing to pay participants gain a higher share of income. For example,
premium prices for their coffee. In exchange, they the baristas’ craftsmanship and know-how in blending
want to know where their coffee beans are sourced, and roasting particular coffee beans account for signifi-
how they have been farmed and how best to brew cant value added in the third wave market segment.
the beans in order to fully appreciate the flavor, body,
aroma, fragrance and mouthfeel of the coffee. Moreover, access to distribution channels in coffee-
importing countries is crucial in ensuring that coffee
products are seen by potential consumers.

46
 COFFEE: HOW CONSUMER CHOICES ARE RESHAPING THE GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN

Table 2.1
The three coffee market segments
First wave – Second wave – Third wave –
conventional differentiated experiential

Socially aware coffee consumers –

Daily consumption, mostly
Wide coffee beverage selection, aficionados, who are willing to pay
Target consumers consumed at home but
usually consumed in a social setting a premium for high-quality coffees
could be elsewhere
which meet ethical standards

• Energy • Energy
• Social experience • Social experience
Consumer needs • Energy
• Ethical awareness and/ • Ethical awareness and/
or social consciousness or social consciousness

• Single-origin coffee beans

• Espresso beverages such as caffè
• Blending and roasting
latte, latte macchiato and the like
usually done in-house
• Know-how regarding different
• Extensive know-how regarding
• Packaged roasted coffee blend brewing techniques for the coffee
different brewing techniques
Products and services • Soluble (or instant) coffee beverages – usually standardized
to enhance the flavor and
• Single-serving pods • Some knowledge of the
aroma of each coffee
origin of the coffee beans as
• Deep knowledge of the origin of
well as farming methods
coffee beans and farming methods
• Ambiance of the coffee shop
• Ambiance of the coffee shop

• Different types of espresso- • Tailored coffee origin-

based coffee roast-technique service
• Relatively standardized coffee- • Baristas tend to have vast
• Standardized mass production
Production types brewing techniques and service knowledge of the coffee
• Standardized quality
• Caters to the social experience beans as well as the proper
of drinking coffee, similar technique for brewing and
to a coffee house preparing the beverage

• Grocery stores • Independent coffee

• Grocery stores
Distribution channels • Online retail operations
• Food service outlets
• Specialty coffee chains • Online

Price point Low Mid to high High to very high

Global value chain governance Mostly market-driven Mostly market-driven Mostly relational

Source: WIPO based on Humphrey (2006), García-Cardona (2016) and Samper et al. (2017).

2.2.1 – Drinking versus growing coffee: One reason for this discrepancy in trade value is
an uneven income distribution likely due to branding capabilities and access to
distribution channels.12
A significant share of the value added to coffee along
its production chain is added close to where the coffee Second, different continents and regions show distinc-
is consumed. Five factors account for this pattern. tive preferences for the types of coffee beans used –
blends of Arabica and Robusta coffee beans, or single
First, roasted coffee beans lose their flavor and aroma origin – and even the degree of coffee bean roast. For
quickly, so most beans are exported as green beans example, Northern European countries prefer their
in order to preserve their quality. coffee blends to consist of lighter roasted Arabica
beans, while their Southern counterparts prefer darker
Coffee is also exported as soluble coffee. However, roasts of coffee blends that include Robusta beans.13
soluble coffee production is capital-intensive, which Roasters and soluble coffee manufacturers located
may pose a barrier to entry in some coffee-producing close to consumers tend to be better placed than their
countries. And while these countries are increasingly competitors in coffee-producing countries to tailor the
exporting coffee in soluble form, the unit value they get blend and roast to regional preferences.
is less than that of coffee-importing countries.11

47
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT 2017

In addition to tailoring blends and roasting degrees to Soluble coffee manufacturing, which involves more
specific regional preferences, large roasters locate their processing than coffee roasting, was arguably
roasting facilities so as to benefit from economies of invented during the U.S. Civil War so that soldiers
scale. For example, a roasting facility in Germany may could easily drink caffeinated beverages.16 However,
roast and blend coffee for several European brands, Nestlé, with its patented technology for producing
reducing its costs and increasing its production levels. powdered soluble milk, was able to improve on the
taste of soluble coffee, and so dominate the soluble
Third, industrial policies implemented in coffee- coffee market.17
importing countries tend to favor the importation of
unprocessed, mainly green, coffee beans over roasted Ownership of coffee-related patented technologies
and processed (soluble) coffee. This trade restriction has been useful in helping launch new coffee prod-
in the form of tariff escalation inflates the cost of any ucts and services. The patents and industrial designs
roasted or even processed coffee exported by coffee- owned by Nespresso on its coffee machines and
producing countries. capsules helped cement Nestlé’s strong presence in
catering to coffee consumers in the first wave market
However, it is worth noting that for many coffee- segment. Most of these patents have now expired,
importing countries – particularly the more developed but both Nestlé and Nespresso continue to be strong
economies – tariffs on coffee have been steadi- brand names in the coffee market.
ly reduced through various bilateral, regional and
multilateral trade agreements. And today, while tariff And lastly, branding is an important investment to build
escalation remains an issue, tariffs on roast and consumers’ trust and gain market share in the rela-
processed coffee tend to be low in the European tively saturated coffee market. Research has shown
Union and the United States; by contrast, India and that branded products can command higher prices
Ghana have duties on soluble coffee of 35 and 20 than their generic counterparts.18 Many roasters and
percent respectively.14 soluble coffee producers and retailers invest heavily in
this intangible asset, to differentiate themselves from
Moreover, a study conducted by ICO (2011) shows that their competitors and gain goodwill. Both Nescafé and
this tariff escalation is likely to have a higher impact Starbucks are well-recognized trademarked names,
on coffee consumers residing in less developed coun- popular with coffee consumers worldwide.
tries than their developed counterparts. In particular,
consumers in developed countries will continue to Coffee-producing countries are slowly adopting IP
purchase coffee even when the price of coffee bever- protection to capitalize on their intangible assets.
age increases. This implies that coffee consumers in While many of the latest advances in coffee-related
these countries will continue to consume their favorite patentable technologies still take place in coffee-
imported coffee even if there is an increase in tariff- importing countries (see part 2.2.3 below), some
equivalent tax imposed on those imports. coffee-producing countries are also developing
their own coffee-processing capacities. Brazil, for
There are also regulatory measures affecting the example, has been producing roasted and soluble
import of roasted and processed coffee from coffee- coffee to rival roasters and soluble manufacturers in
producing countries, such as sanitary and phytosanitary more developed economies.
measures, which are not trade restrictions per se but
may entail higher compliance costs for firms in coffee- These countries are also pursuing branding more
producing countries. actively as a way to differentiate their coffees from
others. For example, a few countries have been
Fourth, most product and process innovations related to investing in protecting their coffee beans through
processing coffee were developed in coffee-importing geographical indications (GIs) and trademarks. Coffee
countries. Many apparatuses were invented and intro- beans originating from Jamaica (Blue Mountain) and
duced on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean to maximize Colombia (Milds) have fetched premium prices.19
the taste and flavor of coffee by roasting, grinding and
even percolating the coffee beans.15

48
 COFFEE: HOW CONSUMER CHOICES ARE RESHAPING THE GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN

However, ownership of these formal intangible assets Intense competition in the first wave
is not enough to achieve the same level of access
to consumers in more developed economies. The As noted above, the first wave market segment
buyer-driven nature of the value chain, in addition accounts for the largest share of the world’s coffee
to the difficulty of accessing distribution channels consumption in terms of both volume and value.
in the importing countries, makes it challenging The sheer volume of coffee products sold in this
for upstream coffee producers to compete in the market segment gives the downstream value chain
downstream coffee market. But this rigid governance participants – roasters, soluble coffee producers and
structure is slowly changing with the rise of the third retailers – significant power over the other partici-
wave market segment. pants in the supply chain. Cost-saving measures
obtained along the chain are usually absorbed by
2.2.2 – How coffee participants’ these producers.
income varies according to
the activity performed This market segment is a prime example of a buyer-
driven global value chain.
Participants’ income is distributed according to the
activity they perform in the coffee value chain. As However, competition between coffee producers in
mentioned in chapter 1, this value added by differ- this market segment is high. This has led to signifi-
ent activities is a function of the capital and labor cant consolidation of brands in the last few decades.
costs at the different steps of the chain. In particular, Seven companies account for nearly 40 percent of
intangible capital plays a crucial role in explaining the coffee sold by retail grocers. They include interna-
value added along the chain. tional brands such as Jacobs Kronung (Germany),
Maxwell House (United States), and Nescafé
The consumption traits characterized by the three (Switzerland). These brands compete side-by-side
coffee market segments affect the contribution of with grocery store private brands for market share.
each participant. In some cases, the emphasis of
the market segment creates new opportunities for Due to the intense competition, the main consider-
participants, giving them a way to increase the value ation for downstream participants is to keep costs
added of their activity. For example, their role as inter- low while maintaining standards that consumers
mediaries between coffee farmers and buyers means have come to know. Any slight change in price may
importers and exporters can play an additional role induce consumers to switch to a different brand.
as agents promoting the supply and certification of
VSS coffees in the second wave. Figure 2.2 illustrates the distribution of income
between coffee-importing and coffee-exporting
In the third wave, by contrast, the direct link between countries in the grocery retail market for the period
farmers and independent coffee retailers eliminates the 1965-2013.20 Since 1986, roasters and soluble coffee
need for intermediaries and shortens the supply chain. manufacturers in coffee-importing countries (in light
blue in the figure) have gained a higher share of
Participation in the different market segments also the total income in the market than participants in
affects participants’ ability to upgrade their activities coffee-producing countries (in dark blue). In addition,
and gain higher remuneration, especially those in the the figure shows how coffee-producing countries’
second and third waves. Table 2.2 provides a simpli- income moves in tandem with global coffee prices,
fied overview of participants’ roles and the related as captured by the ICO composite price index. There
intangible assets. It relates back to figure 2.1 in show- has been a particularly close link between the two
ing how roles and links between participants have since 1989, when the International Coffee Agreement
changed in the newer market segments. For example, (ICA) quota restriction was abandoned (see box 2.2).
direct trade between the farmers and independent
retailers (in blue in figure 2.1), emphasizes the new
intangible assets that farmers are now able to use to
their advantage (marked with an asterisk in table 2.2).

49
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT 2017

Table 2.2
Coffee participants, their value added activities and their intangible assets
Geographical
Participant Main value added activities Main actors Risks Intangible assets
location

Farmers • Grow and harvest coffee crops. • Farmers and/or coffee • Crops and harvest • Farming methods • In over 50 less
growers; most of the are affected by (whether developed
• Many are connected to farmers grow their coffee changes in climate. traditional countries.
cooperatives or farmers crop on less than five or not).*
associations. Coffee cherries hectares of land. • The high volatility of
are processed (in wet or dry coffee prices and • Trademarks and/
processes) at the farm or by the domestic exchange or geographical
next participant in the chain. rates are a threat to indications.*
farmers’ incomes.

Cooperatives, • Cooperatives build on • Cooperatives are usually • Price volatility, • Some • In coffee-
Mills economies of scale to reduce located in other regions credit risks and cooperatives producing
the cost of cleaning, sorting and do not directly inability to control are owned or countries.
and/or grading green coffee. compete with one another. hulling or dry- supported by
milling operations. the state.
• May sometimes export or
roast the coffee. Most sell • The link between
to exporters according cooperatives and
to exporters’ needs. farmers helps in
disseminating
• Mills treat cherries and /or new farming
perform hulling (removing methods or
remaining fruit from even new coffee
beans). They operate like varieties to plant.*
cooperatives in some areas.

Coffee • Coffee beans from farmers, • Many coffee exporters • Highly leveraged • Trade secrets. • Exporters have
exporters cooperatives, etc. are are connected to business with procurement
and importers purchased and prepared international importers exposure to price • Strong network/ agencies
for exportation. or trading houses. and exchange link to both located close
rate fluctuations. upstream and to the farms in
• Some coffee exporters also • Three firms arguably downstream coffee-producing
perform post-harvesting control 50 percent coffee supply countries.
processes such as cleaning. of the world’s coffee chain providers.
imports: Volcafe and • Importers tend
• Coffee beans are mechanically ECOM of Switzerland, • Know-how to be located in
grouped by their density, and Neumann Coffee regarding coffee-consuming
size and color to comply with Gruppe of Germany. blending, grading countries.
definitions and standards and some
set by clients. Milling • Large coffee farmers and processing.
may be outsourced. cooperatives may also
be coffee exporters. • Patents.
• Importers store the green
coffee and may blend it. • Can attest to
farming methods
• Provide logistical and support
arrangements to handle large eco-labelling or
inventories and deliver product any other types
to roasters in timely manner. of certifications
as demanded by
• As of more recently, they their clients.*
also perform traceability
and certification services
due to their connection
to both upstream and
downstream coffee actors.

Roasters • Process green coffee beans • Nestlé, JAB-Jacobs • Requires significant • Patents. • Usually located
and soluble based on regional preferences Douwe Egberts, Strauss, capital investment in proximity to
manufacturers as well as to standard J.M. Smucker Co. Folgers and reliance on • Trademarks. the consuming
specifications using both Coffee, Luigi Lavazza SpA, economies of scale market.
proprietary technologies and Tchibo GmbH and Kraft for soluble coffee • Industrial
firm-specific know-how. Heinz Co. represent nearly manufacturers. designs. • Soluble
40 percent of the major manufacturers
• Distribute roasted and soluble roasting companies in the • Trade secrets. may be located
coffee to various coffee retail grocery market. elsewhere than
retail outlets, depending on • Know-how the consuming
the standard specification • Nescafe (owned by in blending market, thanks to
of that market segment. Nestlé of Switzerland) and roasting the longer shelf
and DEK and Dr. Otto for market life of soluble
• Invest in packaging and Suwelak of Germany preferences. coffee products.
branding to differentiate are the top soluble
products from those coffee manufacturers.
of competitors.

Source: WIPO based on Samper et al. (2017).

Note: *denotes new intangible assets due to opportunities in the newer market segments.

50
 COFFEE: HOW CONSUMER CHOICES ARE RESHAPING THE GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN

Figure 2.2
Coffee-importing countries take most of the income from retail sales
Share of total income from grocery retail coffee going to exporting countries, importers and
importing countries, 1965-2013

Income and value distribution of coffee sales (USD/lb)

5 Post-ICA regime

0
'65 '67 '69 '71 '73 '75 '77 '79 '81 '83 '85 '87 '89 '91 '93 '95 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07 '09 '11 '13

VALUE ADDED AT IMPORTING COUNTRIES INCOME AT PRODUCING COUNTRIES

IMPORTER INCOME AND WEIGHT LOSS ICO INDICATOR PRICE

Source: Samper et al. (2017) based on data collected from the FAO and ICO.

Note: Retail prices of grocery sales attributed to coffee-importing countries are based on USD per pound of roasted coffee, while incomes in
coffee-producing countries and import prices are USD per pound of green coffee free-on-board (FOB). The weight loss refers to the hulling, drying,
export preparation and roasting of green coffee. The ICO indicator price is a benchmark price for green coffee of all major origins and types. The ICA
quota regime was generally in force from 1962 to 1989, but was temporarily abandoned because of high coffee prices during the period 1975-1977.

The high degree of competition in the first wave market Daviron and Ponte (2005) argue that the roasting, blend-
segment implies that the profit margin upstream – from ing, grinding and vacuum packaging processes along
farmers to exporters in coffee-producing countries, the coffee value chain are relatively low-tech and make
and in certain cases to importers in coffee-importing up a small share of downstream participants’ margins.
countries – will tend to be small.21 Rather, it is the investments they make to differentiate
their coffee products, particularly through branding,
that generate a significant share of the high value added
in coffee-importing countries.22

51
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT 2017

Box 2.2
The ICA quota restriction and its impact on income distribution

The global coffee trade was heavily regulated by an A rise in international coffee prices would shift a greater
International Coffee Agreement (ICA) between 1962 and 1989, share of income to coffee-producing countries, while a fall
albeit not consistently.23 would raise the share going to importing countries.

The aim of the agreement was to reduce coffee price More recent estimates of the income distribution generally
fluctuations and stabilize prices, especially when coffee concur with the assessment that coffee-importing countries
prices were low. Parties to the agreement, comprising account for a higher share of the income from coffee than
both coffee-producing and coffee-consuming countries, before. 25 Two factors explain the lower share of income ac-
agreed to a target band price for coffee and limited exports cruing to coffee-producing countries – a real-terms decline
of coffee by assigning export quotas to different producing in international coffee prices and an increase in non-coffee
countries. Quotas were relaxed when coffee prices rose related costs in the coffee industry.
above the target band, and tightened when they fell below it.
They were abandoned completely when coffee prices rose There were many problems in maintaining production re-
well above the band, as was the case from 1975 to 1977. strictions under the quota regime. First, coffee-importing
countries had to agree to higher prices than they would have
Coffee prices were relatively high between 1963 and September received without the regime. Second, efficient producers
1972, October 1980 and February 1986, and November 1987 in coffee-producing countries had to restrict their sales
and July 1989, because of quota restrictions. During 1973 of coffee beans even when prices were high, and so lose
and 1980 there was no agreement between the parties to the potential revenue, in order to comply with the regulation.
agreement and so the quota restriction was suspended, and Some countries destroyed coffee beans in high-yield years.26
after 1989 the agreement was abandoned.
And third, the quota restriction gave incorrect signals to
According to an estimate of income distribution under the ICA farmers with regard to their yield and planting decisions.
quota regime by Talbot (1997), approximately 20 percent of Since the price they received was disconnected from real
coffee income was retained in the coffee-producing countries, green coffee consumption needs, they were encouraged
while coffee-importing countries accounted for 55 percent of to produce more than real market demand, causing further
income.24 In contrast, when the ICA regime was abandoned, downward pressure on international coffee prices. A more
the share of total income attributable to coffee-producing recent study on the effects of the ICA quota restriction on
countries dropped to 13 percent and coffee-importing coffee yield argues that coffee harvests are lower today in
countries saw their share surge to 78 percent. part because of the lower coffee price in place after the
agreement was dissolved. 27
Talbot cautions that while the ICA quota restriction regime
may have been responsible for the higher share of income Despite these problems, the restriction generally met its
accruing to the coffee-producing countries, price fluctuations objective of stabilizing prices for coffee producers when
due to changes in global coffee production yields may have it was in force.
had an effect on the income split between producing and
importing countries.

The importance of certification Most specialty shops do not have direct access to
in the second wave coffee farmers and so have to rely on intermediaries
to ensure that the coffee beans they purchase meet
The second wave market segment began in the 1990s their chosen criteria. Exporters in coffee-producing
when the price of coffee fell sharply after the end countries, with relationships with both coffee farm-
of the ICA quota restriction. 28 Soon thereafter, non- ers on the one hand and the importers or roasters
governmental organizations (NGOs) started highlighting in coffee-importing countries on the other, are well
the impact of the low coffee prices on farmers, calling placed to arrange for the supply of certified beans
for action to help alleviate this problem. In response, that comply with given farming methods and other
coffee specialty shops such as Starbucks started sustainability criteria. Some NGOs also help provide
offering coffees that met the expectations of their more certifications such as Fair Trade or Rainforest Alliance
socially conscious consumers. Sustainably farmed, certifications. 29
organic coffees and products that promised higher
prices for farmers started appearing in these shops
along with their traditional outlets in health-food stores.

52
 COFFEE: HOW CONSUMER CHOICES ARE RESHAPING THE GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN

The higher prices for these certified or labelled coffee The skeptics argue that the cost of implementing a
products – with their emphasis on more value flow- VSS and complying with certification standards may
ing to participants upstream in the value chain – are offset the higher gross income received, or that price
reflected in a different income level for farmers than in premiums are declining.32
the first wave (see table 2.3). A host of other benefits
clearly associated with VSSs have also been observed, Knowing the origin of your third wave coffee
ranging from improved resource and environmental
conservation to better labor practices.30 The third wave market segment places high
importance on appreciating the coffee beverage.
However, researchers differ on whether farmers Information about upstream activities – such as the
receive significantly higher incomes. Some argue that origin of the coffee beans, how they were farmed
farmers participating in this market segment receive and the climate conditions – is seen as almost as
higher prices than those in the first wave; others are important as the downstream coffee activities of
less convinced.31 roasting, blending and brewing.

Table 2.3
Coffee farmers receive higher incomes in the newer market segments
First wave Second wave Third wave

USD/lb (453g) Index USD/lb (453g) Index USD/lb (453g) Index

Producer/farm gate 1.25 (a) 86 na 4.11 80

Exporter na na 0.45 (d)

Coffee farmer
Dry milling na na 0.4
to exporter

Packaging na na 0.11

Cooperative services na na 0.07

Green FOB 1.45 (b) 100 2.89 100 5.14 100

Importer Logistic costs and importer margin 0.24

Green coffee at warehouse na 3.13 108.3 6.58 128

Weight loss and delivery to roaster na 3.91 na

Packaging and direct labor na 0.84 na

Other wages na 1.00 na

Roaster Other fixed costs na 2.00 na

Fair Trade USA fee for maintaining certification na 0.04 na

Traveling to origin na 0.35

Gross margin na 0.71 na

Total roaster sale price 4.11 (c) 283 8.50 294 17.45 340

Source: ICO (2014), SCAA (2014) and Wendelboe (2015).

Notes: (a) Simple average from all ICO countries that submitted data; (b) average exdock indicator minus 10 cents for ex-dock FOB
conversion; (c) simple average from all ICO countries that submitted data on retail prices minus 30 percent to cover channel markup,
(d) producer–exporter breakdown based on 2012 figures. Index FOB = 100. Data for the market segments are based on 2014 prices.

53
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT 2017

This market segment arguably has the highest poten- Figure 2.3
tial to increase participants’ income along the global
value chain. First, there is direct trade between coffee Coffee farmers gain better
farmers and independent retailers. This vertical inte- remuneration from third-wave
gration shortens the supply chain and ensures that
farmers earn higher wages for their green coffee. The
coffee
average price differential between coffees that identify Share of total income from coffee going to
the grower and those that do not can reach USD 8 per participants in producing and importing
pound.33 Moreover, one study focusing on the U.S. countries by market segment, 2014
market estimates that single-origin coffee protected Distribution of income by market segments (USD/lb)
using IP instruments fetches at least three times the 17.45
average U.S. retail price for roasted coffee.34 18

Table 2.3 illustrates the different incomes that coffee 15

farmers receive in the different market segments. The

12
farm-gate price per pound of coffee that a farmer
8.50
supplying the second or third wave market segments 9 Roaster
receives is higher than in the first wave. In particular, sales price:
the average third wave farmer’s income per pound is 6 4.11
triple that in the first wave. While this jump in income
3 5.14
is impressive, it reflects the differentiation strate-
2.89
gies employed upstream in the supply chain. In the 0
1.45
second wave, differentiation is achieved through First wave Second wave Third wave
participation in a VSS, while third wave farmers look
INCOME IN COFFEE-IMPORTING COUNTRY
to differentiate both by emphasizing the quality of
INCOME IN COFFEE-PRODUCING COUNTRY
coffee bean and through direct trade with roasters in
coffee-importing countries. Source: ICO (2014), SCAA (2014) and Wendelboe (2015).

Note: See notes on table 2.3.

The closer relationship between upstream and down-
stream supply chain participants means there is more 2.2.3 – Ownership of intangible assets
interaction between them. Roasters are able to learn can help participants capture value
more about how coffee is farmed and may help farmers
improve their farming methods as well as their market- The distribution of income along the coffee value chain
ing, while the farmers are able to supply the high-quality can in part be explained by the ownership of intangible
coffee that roasters need. assets. As seen in the previous subsection, investments
in innovation and branding are likely factors in explaining
In this context, both upstream and downstream the high value added toward the tail end of the chain.
coffee participants increase the value they derive
from their activities – the coffee farmers by upgrading One way to measure innovative activities is examining
their farming in line with roasters’ needs, the roasters the ownership of patents, utility models and industrial
by using the enhanced knowledge they gain about designs for coffee-related inventions, while branding
the farmed coffee to help them produce very high- activities can be measured through registered and
quality beverages. unregistered trademarks and GIs, where applicable.35

Figure 2.3 presents the income distribution in the Most coffee-related IP is owned by
market segments in a more graphic way. Whereas participants in coffee-importing countries
figure 2.2 above showed the historical trend of income
distribution for the first wave market segment, figure As mentioned in part 2.2.1, coffee-importing coun-
2.3 is a snapshot of the three different waves based tries tend to own most of the related formal intangible
on prices in 2014. assets. Figure 2.4 compares the use of IP by the top
five producing countries, on the one hand, and the
top five importing countries plus China on the other.36

54
 COFFEE: HOW CONSUMER CHOICES ARE RESHAPING THE GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN

Not surprisingly, the figures show that participants in China, however, is a stark exception to the general
importing countries account for large numbers of the picture in figure 2.4. IP filings related to coffee from
IP rights related to coffee. China-based applicants rival those from the top five
coffee-importing countries. Prior to 1995, the number of
The United States, Switzerland and Italy are the coffee-related patents from applicants in China was in
top three countries of origin of participants filing for the same low range as those for many coffee-producing
patents related to coffee. For trademarks filed at the countries such as Brazil, Colombia and Mexico. But since
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), 1995, China has ranked among the important markets
European countries – specifically, Italy, Germany and where patent protection is sought, along with traditional
the United Kingdom – are the top three filers, other coffee-importing countries such as the United States
than U.S. nationals.37 and several European countries (see box 2.3).

Figure 2.4
Participants in importing countries own most of the IP related to coffee
Totals of different IP rights owned by participants based in the top coffee-importing countries
versus equivalent rights owned in coffee-importing countries and China, 1995-2015

Coffee-importing countries Coffee-producing countries

Patents Patents
United States Brazil
Switzerland
Colombia
Germany
Italy Indonesia
France Vietnam
China Ethiopia
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Utility models Utility models
China Brazil
Italy Colombia
Germany
Vietnam
United States
Switzerland Indonesia
France Ethiopia
0 500 1000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 0 20 40 60 80 100
Industrial designs Industrial designs
United States Brazil
Switzerland Colombia
Italy
Vietnam
Germany
France Indonesia
China Ethiopia
0 100 200 300 400 500
U.S. trademarks U.S. trademarks
Italy Colombia
China Brazil
Germany Vietnam
France Indonesia
Switzerland Ethiopia
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
U.S. collective trademarks U.S. collective trademarks
Italy Brazil
Germany Colombia
China Indonesia
Switzerland Ethiopia
France Vietnam
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2
Source: WIPO based on PATSTAT and USPTO; see technical notes.

Note: Data on patents, industrial designs and utility models come from the PATSTAT database,
while data on trademarks come from the USPTO (see note 36).

55
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT 2017

Box 2.3
China – huge growth potential both in production and as a market

China is one of the newer coffee-producing countries, pro- Since 1995, applicants in China have filed nearly the same
ducing Mild Arabica coffee in the Yunnan province.38 China’s number of coffee-related patents as those in France, and
production of coffee has doubled every five years over the more than those in the United Kingdom.40 In addition, nearly
past two decades. It is a market with high growth potential 3,300 coffee-related technologies are protected through utility
for coffee consumption; its consumption pattern is similar to models.41 However, most Chinese patent filings are made in
the evolution of demand for coffee in Japan 50 years ago.39 China only and do not have a foreign orientation is in contrast
to those from France, Italy and the United Kingdom.
China’s IP activities seem to coincide with its increase in coffee
production. It has seen a leap in both patent and trademark But China filed nearly 2,400 trademarks at the USPTO in relation
filing activities over the past decade, rivalling the higher-income to coffee-related goods and services, ahead of Germany’s filing
coffee-importing countries. of approximately 2,200. This suggests that Chinese companies
have a significant presence in the U.S. coffee market.

IP ownership mirrors the distribution While trademark filings relating to coffee-related

of income along the value chain goods and services have generally been on the
rise since 1980, the number of applications filed by
Figure 2.5 compares the distribution of patenting second and third wave participants nearly tripled
activities and firms across the different segments of between 2000 and 2016. Filings from independent
the coffee value chain.42 It shows the proportion of retail operators in the third wave account for a signifi-
participants at each stage of the chain (in light blue) cant share of this growth.
and their share of total coffee-related patent filings
(in dark blue). This increasing reliance on trademark filings reflects the
importance placed on branding activities for the coffee
Over 90 percent of all coffee-related patenting activi- industry in general, but particularly for the second and
ties are concentrated in the bean processing and third waves. These market segments started gaining
final distribution segments.43 These two segments traction from 2000 and 2010, respectively.
account for nearly two-thirds of the total number
of firms in the coffee industry worldwide. These Branding activities are increasing,
participants typically include roasters, soluble coffee unlike patenting
manufacturers and retailers that also do their own
roasting such as specialty coffee shops and inde- Trademark filings in relation to coffee-related goods
pendent coffee retailers. and services have risen over the years. Figure 2.7
shows that the ratio of coffee trademark filings to all
In contrast, the activities that usually take place in other trademark categories has increased in recent
coffee-producing countries such as coffee farm- decades. Notable jumps in coffee-related trademark
ing, harvesting and post-harvesting do not see filings occurred in 1991, 2000 and 2010, coinciding with
much patenting. The farming and harvesting/post- the birth and uptake of the second and third waves.44
harvesting segments together account for less than
2 percent of overall coffee-related patent filings. In contrast, growth in patenting of coffee-related
technologies during this period has been uneven.
Branding activity is growing among participants at While the number of coffee-related patents has
the final distribution stage of the chain. Figure 2.6 increased, they have declined as a proportion of all
plots the number of trademark filings at the USPTO patents since 2005. Annual filing of coffee-related
by U.S. coffee retail brands in the first, second and patents peaked that same year, with more than 1,500
third waves. applications filed worldwide.

56
 COFFEE: HOW CONSUMER CHOICES ARE RESHAPING THE GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN

Figure 2.5
More than half of all coffee-related patents relate to final distribution
Percentage share of firms in the coffee industry and share of coffee-related patent applications
by value chain segment

Coffee farming

Harvesting
and post-harvesting

Raw material storage

and transportation

Bean processing

Final distribution

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

FIRMS PATENTS

Source: WIPO based on PATSTAT and Ukers (2017); see technical notes. The classification of value chain segments is based on Samper et al. (2017).

Note: The bars in light blue represent the share of all firms in the coffee industry operating in each particular segment of the value chain.
The dark blue bars indicate the share of coffee-related patents attributable to each chain segment. The share of coffee participants for the
coffee-farming segment is likely an underestimate as the list of coffee participants retrieved from the Ukers directory only includes registered firms.

Figure 2.6
Trademark filings are rising, particularly for the second and third waves
Total coffee-related trademark filings at the USPTO by market segment, 1980-2016
150

100

50

0
'80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16

FIRST WAVE SECOND WAVE THIRD WAVE

Source: WIPO based on the USPTO and PQC; see technical notes.

Notes: U.S. coffee brands have been classified by Premium Quality Consulting (PQC) according to the three different coffee
market segments. PQC’s list was used to identify trademark filings at the USPTO for each market segment or wave.

57
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT 2017

Figure 2.7
Coffee participants are increasingly using
branding as a means of differentiation
Annual coffee-related patent and trademark filings (left axis) and percentage share of coffee patents
and trademarks in total patent and trademark filings (right axis)
Total number of coffee-related patent filings Share of coffee patents (%)
1,800 0.16

1,600
0.14

1,400
0.12

1,200
0.10
1,000
0.08
800

0.06
600

0.04
400

200 0.02

0 0.00
'65 '67 '69 '71 '73 '75 '77 '79 '81 '83 '85 '87 '89 '91 '93 '95 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07 '09 '11 '13 '15

COFFEE-RELATED PATENTS RATIO OF COFFEE-RELATED PATENTS TO ALL TECHNOLOGIES

Total number of coffee-related trademark filings at USPTO Share of coffee trademarks (%)
7,000 1.8

1.6
6,000

1.4

5,000
1.2

4,000 1.0

0.8
3,000

0.6
2,000
0.4

1,000
0.2

0 0.0
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '95 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15

COFFEE-RELATED FILINGS RATIO OF COFFEE-RELATED TRADEMARKS TO ALL TRADEMARK FILINGS

Source: WIPO based on PATSTAT and the USPTO; see technical notes.

58
 COFFEE: HOW CONSUMER CHOICES ARE RESHAPING THE GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN

2.3 – Managing intangible assets 2.3.1 – Protecting coffee in

in the coffee value chain important markets

Participants in the global value chain for coffee protect As noted above, most of the formal intangible assets in
and manage their intangible assets in four main ways: the coffee global value chain are owned by participants
(i) protecting their patentable technologies where in the more developed, coffee-importing economies.
competitors are located, (ii) using differentiation strate- These participants protect their intangible capital in
gies and especially branding to separate themselves countries where they face competitors, usually other
from their rivals, (iii) building more direct connections more developed coffee-importing economies.
to coffee farmers, and (iv) securing coffee yield by
addressing climate change and coffee disease issues. Figure 2.8 shows where patented technologies were
protected worldwide in the periods 1976-1995 (top) and
1996-2015 (bottom).

Figure 2.8
The important markets for coffee-related patents
Percentage share of total worldwide coffee-related patent families for which applicants sought
protection in a given country in 1976-1995 (top) and 1996-2015 (bottom)

1976-1995

0-1%
1-5%
5-10%
10-25%
25-40%
40-60%
COFFEE-PRODUCING COUNTRY

1996-2015

0-1%
1-5%
5-10%
10-25%
25-40%
40-60%
COFFEE-PRODUCING COUNTRY

Source: WIPO based on PATSTAT; see technical notes.

Notes: Patent families included in the figure have at least one patent document granted by an IP office.
The countries outlined in red are ICO member countries identified as coffee-producing countries plus China.

59
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT 2017

Two points stand out. First, coffee-related tech- The second wave’s emphasis on certification and label-
nologies are protected mainly in more developed ling is being adopted by first wave roasters and soluble
economies; that was true in 1995 and remains true coffee manufacturers. More and more coffee packaging
today. Brazil, China and Mexico are the only coffee- now includes third-party certification labels to indicate
producing countries where patent protection is how the beans were farmed and reassure consumers
being sought for coffee-related inventions. Second, that the farmers were adequately remunerated.
however, IP offices in sizable markets like China and
Russia now receive a higher share of coffee-related Figure 2.9 plots the number of trademarks filed in the
patent filings than they did in the period before 1996, U.S. by retail coffee brands in the first, second and
likely reflecting the growth of coffee consumption in third waves. Almost all of the retail coffee brands in
those countries. the first wave have a trademark filed. While the second
and third waves have more filings than the first wave in
But the rise in patenting activity in China is unique. total, there is less likelihood that a brand in these two
Most filings at the State Intellectual Property Office market segments will have trademark protection than a
of the People’s Republic of China (SIPO) are filed first wave brand. Only 12 percent of brands in the first
only in China and nowhere else, while patents filed wave have no trademark, while nearly 30 percent and 45
in other countries tend to be protected in more than percent respectively of second and third wave brands
one jurisdiction. are not protected through trademark registration.

2.3.2 – Using branding as a In other words, participants in the first wave are more
differentiation strategy likely to use trademarks than those in the newer market
segments, highlighting the value of the underlying brands.
Branding strategies differ across
the three market segments Moreover, the types of trademark application vary
according to the target consumers in the three market
In the first wave, market-led governance implies that segments. Retail brands in the first wave tend to file
most intangible assets are controlled by the buyers, that for more goods-related trademarks than those in the
is, coffee roasters and soluble coffee manufacturers. second and third waves, reflecting the former's focus
Here, long-term relationships with distributors, invest- on at-home consumption. The two newer markets
ments in introducing newer technologies and branding have a higher share of applications for services-related
activities continue to ensure buyers’ market share in trademarks, reflecting their focus on in-person services.
a competitive marketplace. A prime example of the
importance of branding is Nestlé and its introduction What might explain the relatively low use of trademark
of at-home, single-portion espresso coffee machines protection in the third wave? The defining traits of this
and capsules through Nespresso and the Nescafé market segment – close connections between specialist
Dolce Gusto brands. These machines introduced the retailers and coffee farmers, greater emphasis on trans-
novelty of consuming single-portion quality espresso parency and knowledge than in the older segments –
beverages at home. suggest that branding is crucial intangible capital that
should be protected. However, the data on trademark
The second wave market segment also has a market- filing show that barely half of third wave retailers have
based governance structure. Participants invest applied for a trademark. The share of third wave retail
heavily in branding to differentiate themselves from brands with no trademark is 45 percent in comparison
their competitors. Starbucks, for example, is one to nearly 30 percent in the second wave and just 12
of the biggest coffee brands in the world.45 But the percent in the first wave.
specialty coffee shops in the second wave have a
different business model from the first wave which One possible explanation for this apparent anomaly
connects them directly to their consumers. These is that most third wave retail brands tend to be small
coffee shops pay close attention to consumption niche brands that may not need to rely on trademark
trends and often position themselves to cater to protection for brand recognition. By contrast, first and
specific lifestyle images. second wave brands are more likely to be bigger and
target the global coffee market, so may need to rely on
more formal IP protection.

60
 COFFEE: HOW CONSUMER CHOICES ARE RESHAPING THE GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN

Figure 2.9
Newer market segments file for more trademarks in the United States
Count of retail coffee brands and their related trademark filings by coffee market segment (left);
distribution of different trademark filing types by coffee market segment (right)

600 100
15.5
27.2 28.5
500
80

400 9.9 36.6

60 22.1

300

40
200 63
49.5 47.9
20
100

0 0
First wave Second wave Third wave First wave Second wave Third wave

PRODUCTS ONLY SERVICES ONLY PRODUCTS & SERVICES NO TRADEMARKS

Source: WIPO based on PATSTAT and PQC; see technical notes.

While the third wave remains small in terms of traded In addition, buyers learn more about the coffee and
volume, it has already had an impact on how business may then be able to communicate its history to their
is being conducted in the other two market segments. customers. For coffee farmers, direct communica-
tion with buyers can sometimes lead to sharing of
2.3.3 – The third wave gives coffee growers technology and know-how, helping to upgrade farms
opportunities to upgrade and processing.

The third wave, with its relational governance, has A case in point is the Italian roaster Illycafé and its
influenced how intangible assets are managed in relationship with Brazilian coffee farmers since the
the coffee industry. Its shortened value chain, which late 1980s. For Illycafé, partnering directly with coffee
allows for direct trade with farmers, has opened up new growers ensured that it had a relatively stable supply of
opportunities for participants to upgrade, particularly Brazilian coffee beans that met its high-quality specifi-
farmers and buyers in the form of independent coffee cation. For the farmers, the partnership helped them to
shop retailers. upgrade their coffee-growing and post-harvest meth-
ods and processing facilities, and included substantial
First, information on the origin and variety of coffee formal training systems.
beans, how they were farmed and processed, and if
the farmers are adequately compensated has become Third, the origin of the coffee bean has become
an integral part of selling coffee. This information and an important aspect of coffee, and features on the
knowledge translates into higher prices for coffee, packaging of coffee products. Single-sourced beans
which can be reinvested to upgrade coffee farms. are now being offered by roasters, soluble coffee
manufacturers and specialty coffee shops in both the
Second, sourcing high-quality coffee beans is first and second wave market segments. This emphasis
increasingly important for many buyers. Direct trade on the origin of the coffee provides an opportunity
is one way buyers can ensure they are purchasing for coffee farmers to differentiate themselves from
high-quality coffee. suppliers in other coffee-producing countries.

61
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT 2017

More coffee-producing countries are Box 2.4

adopting differentiation strategies
How the Ethiopian trademark
The second and third wave market segments show filing challenge at the USPTO
that participants in coffee-producing countries may
be able to obtain a higher income from the value
raised its coffees’ popularity
chain by differentiating their products. Now, more
and more coffee-producing countries are investing In 2005 the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO), on
behalf of the Ethiopian Coffee Trademarking and Licensing
in efforts to distinguish their production from generic Initiative, applied for trademark protection at the USPTO
or commoditized coffee. for the brands Yirgacheffe, Sidamo and Harrar. However, it
faced a challenge regarding the names Sidamo and Harrar.

First, some coffee farmers and/or associations are The media reported that Starbucks was one of the driving
actively protecting the branding of coffees originat- forces behind that challenge. A year later, the Ethiopian
ing from their countries in overseas markets. In the Government and Starbucks came to a mutually benefi-
cial agreement. Starbucks signed a voluntary trademark
United States, participants file trademarks to protect licensing agreement to acknowledge Ethiopia’s ownership
their coffee products. Brazil, Jamaica and Mexico of the Yirgacheffe, Sidamo and Harrar names, whether
have all used collective and certification marks there.46 trademarked or not. In return, the EIPO licensed the use
of those names to Starbucks under a royalty-free licens-
Colombia, Ethiopia, Jamaica and Kenya also use trade- ing scheme.
marks to protect the origin of their coffee products.
In the European Union, there are two GIs on coffee The media coverage of Ethiopia’s trademark challenge
at the USPTO and Starbucks’ role may have helped to
originating from Thailand, and one each for Colombia, increase the popularity of Ethiopian-sourced coffee. The
the Dominican Republic and Indonesia, four EU trade- former director general of the EIPO commented that the
marks related to the word “coffee” for Jamaica and price of Yirgacheffe coffee increased by USD 60 cents per
pound after the media coverage.
Ethiopia, and five trademarks on logos for coffee from
Colombia and Jamaica.
Source: WIPO, “Ethiopia and the Starbucks Story”, IP
Advantage: www.wipo.int/ipadvantage/en/details.jsp?id=2621.
Governments such as those of Colombia and Ethiopia
have supported initiatives to secure IP rights like GIs Second, countries like Colombia and Brazil have
and trademarks to ensure that their countries’ prod- entered the downstream coffee supply chain by roast-
ucts stand out. In Colombia, the Colombian Coffee ing and selling products to markets overseas. Colombia
Growers Federation (FNC) implemented a differentia- has also entered the coffee retail business by opening
tion strategy that involved actively protecting coffees specialty shops akin to Starbucks in different parts of
originating from its regions, compliance with certain the world. These shops carry the Juan Valdez brand
VSSs and demonstrating that its coffee beans were and only serve Colombian coffee. By 2016, there were
suitable for espresso-based beverages. The FNC’s 371 Juan Valdez coffee shops in operation, 120 of them
efforts include supporting the 100% Colombian Coffee located outside the country. The Juan Valdez brand
Program, which allows certain coffee blends in the first had accumulated USD 37 million in royalties for the
wave as well as other market segments to be labelled Colombian coffee association by the end of that year.
with the 100% Colombian logo.47
Third, more and more coffee farmers are liaising
In Ethiopia, the Ethiopian Coffee Trademarking and directly with coffee buyers by participating in coffee
Licensing Initiative, a public-private partnership community networks.
consortium, has been actively branding coffees
originating from its regions in an effort to promote Building reputation by mobilizing
them.48 It has applied for trademark rights in Australia, the coffee community
Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, South
Africa and the United States, to name a few. The The coffee community includes a network of baristas
consortium has also hired a U.K.-based company and roasters organized into guilds and associations.
to help market its coffees worldwide. Its initiatives These guilds and associations hold contests and
have helped to increase the popularity of Ethiopian meetings whereby participants learn from one another
coffee (see box 2.4). and showcase their craftsmanship to gain recognition
for their work.

62
 COFFEE: HOW CONSUMER CHOICES ARE RESHAPING THE GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN

One contest that benefits coffee farmers and buyers More resilient coffee plant varieties are needed to
is the Cup of Excellence (COE). The COE recognizes ensure the supply of coffee worldwide. Research
coffee farmers for their investments in producing high- institutions in certain African coffee-producing coun-
quality coffee. It provides an opportunity for the farmers tries such as Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Kenya, the United
to promote their coffees in an international setting. Republic of Tanzania and Uganda and Latin American
Coffees that rank among the top 10 of the COE are countries such as Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica and
auctioned off and often receive premium prices. Their Honduras have been able to develop new coffee variet-
farmers and farms gain recognition and usually enter ies for their regions.53 There are also efforts by NGOs
into long-term relationships with coffee buyers.49 This to help develop stronger coffee varieties. One notable
form of branding confers substantial value on success- example is World Coffee Research, which has been
ful competitors. working closely with coffee-producing countries to
share coffee varieties worldwide in an effort to develop
An independent assessment of the COE programs hardier varieties. More recently, private coffee value
in Brazil and Honduras put the value generated for chain participants such as Starbucks, Nestlé and Ecom
these countries at USD 137 million and USD 25 million, Agroindustrial Corporation have been engaging with
respectively. These gains in value were estimated to local research institutes too.
come from direct auction sales, an upsurge in direct
trade and increased access to specialty coffee markets. Most of the research outputs in this area are publicly
Successful COE participants saw their profit margins available. Two reasons may explain why. First, research
increase by two to nine times those of their conven- institutions and governments may request that work
tional counterparts.50 remain public. Second, plant varieties are specific to
a region and its climate, so a coffee variety that has
The coffee community adheres to standards to simplify proven successful in one area may not easily be trans-
the trade between buyers and farmers. Codified quality ferred to and used in a different region. In many cases,
concepts and measurements such as the cupping and research institutions in different coffee-producing coun-
grading standards of the Specialty Coffee Association tries have to develop varieties specific to their environ-
(SCA) facilitate this trade. These standards motivate ments, multiplying the effort and investment needed.
coffee farmers to produce higher-quality coffee while
also assuring baristas and roasters of the quality of the An initiative by World Coffee Research attempts
coffee they purchase. The more coffee participants that to save effort and investment in identifying strong
recognize a standard, the easier it becomes for transac- coffee plant varieties by sharing these varieties across
tions to take place directly between coffee suppliers countries within particular world regions. By closely
and buyers in the global marketplace. collaborating with governments and coffee grow-
ers, this NGO is helping transfer technology from its
However, climate change issues and cof fee research group to farmers.
diseases are threatening the production of coffee
beans worldwide. Another possible way to facilitate this technology trans-
fer is through relying on plant breeders’ rights (PBRs).
2.3.4 – Creating new coffee varieties A few countries have relied on the system under the
through public-private partnerships International Union for the Protection of New Varieties
of Plants (UPOV) to protect the coffee plant varieties
Coffee production faces several challenges, includ- developed. The UPOV system aims to provide incen-
ing climate change, coffee diseases and pests, labor tives to plant breeders to develop new plant varieties
shortages and land pressures. and encourage their dissemination.54

These challenges are particularly acute for the produc- The first application for PBRs under the UPOV system
tion of high-quality Arabica coffee. First, there is little was in Brazil in 2004.55 Currently, there are 46 PBRs filed
diversity in the Arabica coffee plant species, making on the coffee plant varieties of Arabica and Canephora,
it highly susceptible to diseases and climate change.51 as disclosed to UPOV.56 These 46 PBRs originated from
Second, rising temperatures due to climate change are Brazil (19), Colombia (19), Costa Rica (1) and Kenya (7)
likely to reduce suitable coffee-farming areas.52 and most of them are filed by public research organiza-
tions and coffee associations.

63
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT 2017

2.4 – Conclusion The third wave market segment has added another
layer in terms of quality and knowledge. As well as
As with many commodities produced in the Global seeking to address social and ethical concerns about
South and consumed in the Global North, the distri- how farmers are paid and the sustainability of coffee
bution of income along the coffee value chain is farming, this market segment emphasizes direct links
uneven. Roasters, brand holders and retailers down- between specialist retailers and coffee farmers, and
stream in the coffee-importing countries capture the retailers’ and consumers’ in-depth knowledge of how
lion’s share of the total value of the market. best to brew beans in order to fully appreciate their
flavor, body, aroma, fragrance and mouthfeel.
Intangible assets play an important role in the coffee
global value chain. As seen in chapter 1, intangible The newer coffee consumption trends of the second
capital accounts for 31 percent of total income in the and third waves are changing the coffee industry
food, beverages and tobacco product group. This landscape. First, ways to address social and ethi-
chapter has shown how the income from coffee is cal concerns pioneered by second wave roasters
currently distributed along the chain, and how owner- and retailers through various certification and VSS
ship of intangible assets helps explain this allocation. schemes have become a big differentiating point for
selling coffee. The price differential between coffees
The first wave market segment dominates due to its that identify the grower and those that do not can
consumption volume and market value. Competition reach up to USD 8 per pound.57
in this market is intense and, more importantly,
based on keeping the production cost low. Decisions Second, direct links between retailers and farmers
regarding the origin of the coffee and whether Arabica provide upgrading opportunities for both upstream
or Robusta beans are used to cater to this market and downstream coffee participants. This new way of
segment are based on price. Until recently, the doing business in the coffee industry facilitates learn-
origin of the coffee has been of minor importance; ing and technology transfer between participants. It
rather, downstream coffee participants – large also helps coffee farmers to create awareness of their
roasters, soluble coffee manufacturers and large coffees through branding efforts which may include
coffee retailers – rely on branding to differentiate marketing and/or filing for formal IP protection of
themselves from their rivals. These participants trademarks and GIs.The farm-gate prices that coffee
capture a significant share of the total market income, farmers receive by supplying to the second or third
reflecting the economic importance of these activities wave market segments are higher than those in the
in the global value chain. first wave; farmers’ income in the third wave is triple
that of first wave farmers.
The beginning of the second wave market segment
in the mid-1990s revived coffee-drinking culture and Third, focusing on activities upstream in the coffee
reintroduced the social aspect of coffee consump- value chain helps to increase the income of both
tion. This market segment emphasizes higher-quality upstream and downstream participants.
coffee and personal service and highlights the impor-
tance of where and how coffee has been sourced. The new way of doing business pioneered in the third
The rise of this segment coincided with increasing wave is being assimilated by the first and second
social and ethical awareness among consumers; waves due to its fast growth and potential to expand
demands for fair remuneration of coffee farmers coffee consumption. Indications include the recent
and environmental sustainability of coffee farming acquisition by Nestlé – a large first wave roaster – of a
became relevant as selling points. In responding to notable third wave firm, Blue Bottle, signaling its entry
these demands, downstream coffee participants into the third wave. And it is not the only one. Its close
in this segment began to focus on issues of trans- competitor, JAB, has purchased brand names Peet’s
parency, such as providing more information and and Stumptown to ride the third wave. Starbucks,
knowledge about upstream coffee-related activities from the second wave, recently tested the waters by
through certification and VSS compliance. introducing its Reserve brand.58

64
 COFFEE: HOW CONSUMER CHOICES ARE RESHAPING THE GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN

The adoption of the third wave business strategy in

other market segments creates further opportunities for
upstream coffee participants to increase their income,
particularly by leveraging their brands. The extent to
which these participants are able to do so will depend
on consumers’ recognition and awareness of these
brands. This will require more investment to raise
awareness among both consumers and large retailers
in coffee-importing countries.

The growth potential of the Third Wave is increasingly

attractive to traditional roasters and soluble coffee
manufacturers, even if it represents a small share of
the coffee industry. So far, this business model seems
to be highly profitable for every member of the coffee
global value chain. If coffee growers are to benefit more
from this attention, they must not only focus more on
the array of differentiation opportunities, but may also
need to consider using IP instruments to retain the
value they create.

65
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT 2017

Notes
1. This chapter draws on Samper 11. ICO (2013) calculates that soluble 23. ICO (2014).
et al. (2017). coffee exports by coffee-producing
countries were worth 26 percent 24. Talbot (1997b) was the first to
2. According to a project carried less on average than soluble coffee calculate the share of total income
out by Technomic (2015) based re-exports by coffee-importing distribution in the coffee global
on a study commissioned by countries in the period 2000-2011. value chain. His analysis covered
NCAUSA (2015). In terms of GDP the years from 1971 to 1995.
per capita, the United States is 12. Samper et al. (2017).
the 26th-largest coffee-drinking 25. See Fitter and Kaplinsky (2001),
country. The country with the 13. Ponte (2002), Pendergrast (2010), Ponte (2002), Lewin et al. (2004)
highest yearly coffee consumption Morris (2013), Elavarasan et al. (2016). and Daviron and Ponte (2005).
per capita is Finland, followed by These four estimates use different
Norway, Iceland, Denmark and the 14. ITC (2012). methods of calculating the
Netherlands (Smith 2017). distribution of income between
15. Ukers (1922). coffee-producing and coffee-
3. ICO (2015a). importing countries. However,
16. Talbot (1997a) writes that soluble all four show similar results:
4. The seven countries include (instant) coffee was invented during a declining share of income
Burundi, Ethiopia, Guatemala, the American Civil War. However, accruing to coffee-producing
Honduras, Nicaragua, Rwanda and the first patent granted on soluble countries.
Uganda (ITC 2012; ICO 2015c). coffee was in 1771 in Great Britain
on a “coffee compound.” The first 26. See Long (2017).
5. ICO (2014). soluble coffee sold commercially is
credited to a New Zealander, David 27. Mehta and Chavas (2008) captured
6. The volatility of coffee prices is also Strang, who was granted a patent the evolution of coffee prices at the
influenced by investors’ behavior in on the “Dry Hot-Air” process of farm, wholesale and retail levels
the commodity markets. making coffee in 1890. during and after the ICA regime in
the case of Brazil.
7. Most coffee beans consumed in 17. The engineer was Max Rudolph
the world come from the Arabica Morgenthaler, and the patent 28. The low price of coffee was a
and Canephora species; the was filed in Switzerland in 1937 reflection of the high coffee stock
latter is commonly referred to as for a “Process of preserving the that was dumped on the market,
Robusta coffee. Arabica coffees aromatic substances of a dry causing an oversupply of green
are considered higher quality and soluble coffee extract.” coffee (ICO 2014).
fetch higher prices than
Robusta coffees. 18. See chapter 3 of WIPO (2013). 29. See ITC (2011) for the different
certification labels and their
8. This differential is a band that 19. Giovannucci et al. (2009). impact on the coffee trade.
stipulates by how much the price
may vary, for example from the 20. The methodology for this estimate 30. COSA (2013) documents the
price of green coffee. of coffee income distribution is observed benefits associated
based on prior work by Talbot with VSSs.
9. Brazil is an exception to this rule. (1997b), and updated by Fitter and
According to the ICO (2014), Brazil Kaplinsky (2001) and Ponte (2002). 31. Wollni and Zeller (2007). Daviron
increased its coffee consumption Lewin et al. (2004), and Daviron and and Ponte (2005) find that farmers
by nearly 65 percent, from 26.4 Ponte (2005) have reviewed this under the Fair Trade scheme
million bags in 2000 to 43.5 million methodology. receive an income similar to those
bags in 2012. during the ICA quota restriction
21. Daviron and Ponte (2005) show this regime, approximately 20 cents
10. Samper et al. (2017) value the point well in their breakdown of the to the dollar, but they caution that
global coffee industry at between coffee costs in the Uganda-Italy when their study was conducted,
USD 194 billion and USD 202 billion value chain for Robusta coffee. the Fair Trade scheme covered
in 2016. less than 1 percent of the coffee
22. Daviron and Ponte (2005) refer to market. Dragusanu et al. (2014)
these differentiation strategies updated the data and reviewed
as investments in “symbolic global evidence to find general
production.” Lewin et al. (2004), but not universal benefits.
call them “non-coffee costs.”

66
 COFFEE: HOW CONSUMER CHOICES ARE RESHAPING THE GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN

32. A recent analysis by García- 41. Refers to the total number of utility 50. ACE and Technoserve (2015).
Cardona (2016) argues that coffee models filed by Chinese inventors
producers that participate in these since 1995. 51. World Coffee Research found that
certification standards do not Arabica coffee had only 1.2 percent
necessarily receive a higher price 42. The Ukers (2017) directory has pairwise genetic diversity. Robusta
for their certified coffee. The cost a large database of firms in the beans, however, are stronger and
to farmers of complying with and coffee industry, from farmers more diverse.
maintaining the various certification associations to roasters and
standards is often high. See suppliers of coffee machines 52. The model by Moat et al. (2017)
also IISD (2014) and Samper and as well as other coffee-related predicts that there will be a 40 to
Quiñonez-Ruiz (2017). services such as coffee-specific 60 percent decrease in suitable
packaging companies. Firms farming areas in Ethiopia due to
33. Transparent Trade Coffee (2017). are classified according to their climate change, assuming no
respective value chain segment. significant intervention or other
34. Teuber (2010). However, the list of firms does not major influencing factors. See also
include individual coffee farmers Stylianou (2017).
35. A GI is different from a in different parts of the world, and
trademark in that it relates thus underestimates the size of 53. See ICO (2015c) for the African
to the specific geographical coffee participants in this particular examples and Samper et al. (2017)
origin of the product, and that segment. for the Latin American examples.
product possesses qualities or a
reputation associated with that 43. Participants in these two segments 54. See Jördens (2009).
origin, the terroir. See box 2.2 in tend to overlap. Most coffee
WIPO (2013) for a more detailed roasters also perform their own 55. The registry maintained by UPOV
explanation. bean processing activities. is based on voluntary reporting
by national authorities. It is very
36. U.S. trademark filings at the 44. The second wave market segment likely that the list of registrations
USPTO have been excluded from was introduced in the 1990s but under the UPOV system is larger
this analysis. did not take off until the year at the national offices than those
2000, while the third wave market disclosed here.
37. The USPTO’s trademark data was segment took off in 2010 after
chosen for two reasons. First, the beginning around the year 2000. 56. See Chen et al. (2017).
U.S. market is a big and important
market for coffee consumption. 45. In 2012, Starbucks was in the 57. Transparent Trade Coffee (2017).
Second, the USPTO has a use news for its transfer pricing
requirement, which paints a and tax activities in the United 58. See de la Merced and Strand
more accurate picture of actual Kingdom. The company had used (2017).
coffee-related product and service international accounting rules to
competition (see chapter 2 of WIPO price its intangible capital in such a
(2013) on intention to use versus manner that it had avoided paying
actual use of trademarks). U.K. taxes (Bergin 2012). See
chapter 1 on transfer pricing.
38. The Chinese Government revived
the coffee production industry in 46. Jamaica and Mexico do not appear
1988. China also produces some in figure 2.4 because they are not
Robusta coffee on Hainan island. among the world’s top five coffee
producers.
39. ICO (2015b).
47. See Reina et al. (2008).
40. China has filed approximately
1,500 patents on coffee-related 48. The consortium included Ethiopian
technologies since 1995. Patents cooperatives, private exporters and
filed from France and the United the EIPO among other government
Kingdom in the same period total bodies.
1,763 and 1,225, respectively.
49. See www.
allianceforcoffeeexcellence.org/en/
cup-of-excellence/winning-farms
for more information.

67
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT 2017

References
ACE and Technoserve (2015). Cup of Giovannucci, D., T.E. Josling, W. Kerr, IISD (2014). The State of Sustainability
Excellence in Brazil and Honduras: B. O'Connor and M.T. Yeung (2009). Initiatives (SSI) Review 2014: Standards
An Impact Assessment. Alliance for Guide to Geographical Indications: and The Green Economy. Geneva:
Coffee Excellence. Linking Products and Their Origins. International Institute for Sustainable
Geneva: International Trade Centre. Development.
Bergin, T. (2012). Special report: how
Starbucks avoids UK taxes. Reuters. Humphrey, J. (2006). Global Value ITC (2011). Trends in the Trade of
London: Reuters. Chains in the Agrifood Sector. UNIDO Certified Coffees. Sustainability Market
Working Research Papers. Vienna: Assessments Doc. No. MAR-11-197.E.
Chen, W., R. Gouma, B. Los and M. United Nations Industrial Development Geneva: International Trade Centre.
Timmer (2017). Measuring the Income Organization.
to Intangibles in Goods Production: A ITC (2012). The Coffee Exporter's Guide –
Global Value Chain Approach. WIPO ICO (2011). “The effects of tariffs on Third Edition. Geneva: International
Economic Research Working Paper No. the coffee trade,” International Coffee Trade Centre.
36. Geneva: WIPO. Organization 107th Session Document
No. ICC 107-7. London: International Jördens, R. (2009). Benefits of plant
COSA (2013). The COSA Measuring Coffee Organization. variety protection. In Responding to
Sustainability Report: Cocoa and the Challenges in a Changing World:
Coffee in 12 Countries. Philadephia, ICO (2013). “World trade of soluble The Role of New Plant Varieties and
The Committee on Sustainability coffee,” International Coffee Council High Quality Seed in Agriculture –
Assessment. 110th Session Document No. ICC Proceedings of the Second World
110-5. London: International Coffee Seed Conference. Rome: Food and
Daviron, B. and S. Ponte (2005). Organization. Agriculture Organisation.
The Coffee Paradox: Global Markets,
Commodity Trade and the Elusive ICO (2014). “World coffee trade Lewin, B., D. Giovannucci and
Promise of Development. London and (1963-2013): a review of the markets, P. Varangis (2004). Coffee Markets:
New York: Zed Books. challenges and opportunities facing the New Paradigms in Global Supply and
sector,” International Coffee Council Demand. World Bank Agriculture and
de la Merced, M.J. and O. Strand (2017). 112th Session Document No. ICC 111-5 Rural Development Discussion Paper 3.
Nestlé targets high-end coffee by taking Rev.1. London: International Coffee Washington, DC: World Bank.
majority stake in Blue Bottle. New York Organization.
Times (NYT), September 14, 2017. Long, G. (2017). Coffee sustainability: the
ICO (2015a). “Employment generated by journey from bean to barista laid bare.
Dragusanu, R., D. Giovannucci and the coffee sector,” International Coffee Financial Times, September 24, 2017.
N. Nunn (2014). The economics of Council 105th Session Document No.
Fair Trade. Journal of Economics ICC 105-5. London: International Coffee Mehta, A. and J.-P. Chavas (2008).
Perspectives 28(3), 217-236. Organization. Responding to the coffee crisis: what
can we learn from price dynamics?
Elavarasan, K., A. Kumar, et al. (2016). ICO (2015b). “Coffee in China,” Journal of Development Economics
The basics of coffee cupping. Tea & International Coffee Council 115th 85(1), 282-311.
Coffee Trade Journal, January, 30-33. Session Document No. ICC 115-
7. Milan: International Coffee Moat, J., J. Williams, S. Baena,
Fitter, R. and R. Kaplinksy (2001). Who Organization. T. Wilkinson, T.W. Gole, Z.K. Challa,
gains from product rents as the coffee S. Demissew and A.P. Davis (2017).
market becomes more differentiated? ICO (2015c). “Sustainability of the Resilience potential of the Ethiopian
A value-chain analysis. IDS Bulletin coffee sector in Africa,” International coffee sector under climate change.
32(3), 69-82. Coffee Council 114th Session Document Nature Plants, 3(17081).
No. ICC 114-5. London: International
García-Cardona, J. (2016). Value- Coffee Organization. Morris, J. (2013). Why espresso?
Added Initiatives: Distributional Explaining changes in European coffee
Impacts on the Global Value Chain for ICO and World Bank (2015). Risk preferences from a production of culture
Colombia's Coffee. Doctoral thesis and Finance in the Coffee Sector: A perspective. European Review of
(PhD), University of Sussex. Brighton: Compendium of Case Studies Related History: Revue européenne d'histoire,
Institute of Development Studies, to Improving Risk Management and 20(5), 881-901.
University of Sussex. Access to Finance in the Coffee Sector.
World Bank Group Report Number NCAUSA (2015). NCA National Coffee
93923-GLB. Washington, DC: World Drinking Trends. New York: National
Bank Group. Coffee Association USA.

68
 COFFEE: HOW CONSUMER CHOICES ARE RESHAPING THE GLOBAL VALUE CHAIN

Pendergrast, M. (2010). Uncommon Transparent Trade Coffee (2017).

Grounds: The History of Coffee and Specialty Coffee Retail Price Index –
How it Transformed Our World. 2016, Q4: www.transparenttradecoffee.
New York: Basic Books. org/scrpi.

Ponte, S. (2002). The “Latte Revolution”? Ukers (2017). UKERS Tea & Coffee
Regulation, markets and consumption Global Directory & Buyer's Guide.
in the global coffee chain. World 64th Edition. Bell Publishing Ltd.
Development, 30(7), 1099-1122.
Ukers, W.H. (ed.) (1922). All About
Reina, M., G. Silva and L. Samper (2008). Coffee. New York: The Tea and Coffee
Juan Valdez: The Strategy Behind the Trade Journal Company.
Brand. Bogotá: Ediciones B.
Wendelboe, T. (2015). 2014 Transparency
Samper, L. and X. Quiñones-Ruiz (2017). Report.
Towards a balanced sustainability
vision for the coffee industry. WIPO The Coffee War: Ethiopia and
Resources, 6(2), 17. the Starbucks Story. IP Advantage:
www.wipo.int/ipadvantage/en/details.
Samper, L., D. Giovannucci and jsp?id=2621.
L. Marques-Vieira (2017). The Powerful
Role of Intangibles in the Coffee Value WIPO (2013). World Intellectual Property
Chain. WIPO Economic Research Report 2013: Brands – Reputation
Working Paper No. 39. Geneva: WIPO. and Image in the Global Marketplace.
Geneva: World Intellectual Property
SCAA (2014). Economics of the Coffee Organization.
Supply Chain: An Illustrative Outlook.
Santa Ana, CA: The Specialty Coffee Wollni, M. and M. Zeller (2007).
Association of America. Do farmers benefit from participating
in specialty markets and cooperatives?
Smith, O. (2017). Mapped: the countries The case of coffee marketing in Costa
that drink the most coffee. Rica. Agricultural Economics, 37(2-3),
The Telegraph, October 1, 2017. 243-248.

Stylianou, N. (2017). Coffee under threat:

will it taste worse as the planet warms?
BBC News. London: BBC.

Talbot, J.M. (1997a). The struggle for

control of a commodity chain: instant
coffee from Latin America. Latin
American Research Review, 32(2),
117-135.

Talbot, J.M. (1997b). Where does your

coffee dollar go? The division of income
and surplus along the coffee commodity
chain. Studies in Comparative
International Development, 32(1), 56-91.

Technomic (2015). The Economic Impact

of the Coffee Industry. NCA Market
Research Series. New York: National
Coffee Association USA.

Teuber, R. (2010). Geographical

indications of origin as a tool of
product differentiation: the case of
coffee. Journal of International Food &
Agribusiness Marketing, 22(3-4),
277-298.

69