We Rebranded. Our Bags Had to Change Too.

Can a Coffee Company Really Call Itself Sustainable?

What changing our packaging taught us about better choices, green claims, and the uncomfortable complexity of sustainability.

When we rebranded Coffee Flock®, we spent a great deal of time thinking about what the new identity should look like. Colors changed. Packaging changed. The way we presented our coffees changed. But somewhere in that process, the conversation became larger than design.

If we were going to reconsider the package, then we also had to reconsider what the package was made of.

That sounds simple until you start looking carefully at the word sustainable.

Sustainability is everywhere in coffee today. We talk about sustainable farms, sustainable sourcing, sustainable packaging, sustainable roasting, sustainable supply chains and sustainable businesses. The word has become so familiar that it is easy to accept it without asking the most basic question: what exactly does sustainable mean in this particular claim, and what evidence supports it?

That question became important to us during the rebrand because we wanted to make better packaging choices, but we did not want those choices to become an excuse to present Coffee Flock® as something we are not.

Coffee Flock® is not carbon neutral. We are not a zero-emissions company. We roast coffee using energy. Coffee has already traveled significant distances before it reaches our roastery, and after we roast it, some of it travels again to reach our customers. We receive materials, use equipment, generate waste, package coffee and operate within a global agricultural supply chain with environmental consequences at almost every stage.

Changing a coffee bag does not erase any of that.

But recognizing that we are not sustainable in some absolute sense does not mean doing nothing. It means being more precise about what we are doing, why we are doing it, what improvement it creates and where the limitations remain.

That distinction has become increasingly important because sustainability is no longer only an environmental objective. It is also a marketing language.

When sustainability becomes part of the package

According to Mintel's Global New Products Database, 48% of new coffee products launched globally in 2020 carried an ethical or environmental claim, compared with 25% in 2012. In less than a decade, those claims went from appearing on roughly one in four new coffee launches to almost one in two. [1]

That statistic does not tell us that 48% of coffee companies were greenwashing. I can't say that. An environmental claim may be specific, legitimate and supported by substantial work.

What the number does tell us is that environmental and ethical language has become deeply integrated into the way coffee is marketed.

Once that happens, terminology matters enormously.

A company can say that a package is recyclable. It can say that a coffee was responsibly sourced. It can use words such as natural, ethical, regenerative, responsible, climate friendly, green or sustainable. Each expression creates an impression in the consumer's mind, and sometimes that impression can become considerably broader than the fact that originally supported it.

That is where the risk of greenwashing begins.

Greenwashing is defined by the European Commission as the practice of making unclear or not well-substantiated green claims.

The scale of the problem is documented:
• The EU Commission assessment of 150 environmental claims found that 53.3% of environmental claims provide vague, misleading or unfounded information about the product's environmental characteristics. [2]
• The same 2020 inventory found that 40% of claims were unsubstantiated.
• The Commission summary states: 53% of green claims give vague, misleading or unfounded information, 40% have no supporting evidence, half of all green labels offer weak or non-existent verification, and there are 230 sustainability labels with vastly different transparency levels.
• Outside the EU, a recent report found that 60 per cent of sustainability claims by European fashion giants are "unsubstantiated" and "misleading".
• A global survey of 1,491 executives found that 68% of U.S. execs admit their companies are guilty of greenwashing.
• In the US, the Federal Trade Commission -FTC- had to update its Green Guides and crack down on misleading and unsubstantiated environmental marketing claims, specifically barring unsubstantiated claims that a product is biodegradable, compostable, recyclable or offers an environmental benefit.

These percentages are not coffee-specific, and we should not pretend that they are. But they demonstrate the broader problem environmental marketing now faces: claims have multiplied faster than consumers' ability to verify what those claims actually mean. 

But coffee, however, is certainly not exempt.

In February 2026, the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets, ACM, announced that Nestlé, Mondelez and JDE Peet's had agreed to change unclear sustainability claims on coffee and cacao packaging. Among the expressions the authority identified were broad terms such as “sustainable” and “responsible.” The companies also agreed to review their proprietary sustainability logos. [3]

Perhaps even more significant for the coffee industry, ACM explained why it had investigated this sector in the first place: when the regulator began its sector study, coffee and cacao were the area in which it had found the most unclear sustainability claims. [3]

That should make our industry think.

It does not mean that all sustainability work performed by coffee companies is false. It does not mean that these companies have done nothing meaningful environmentally or socially. It tells us something more specific and, perhaps, more important for this discussion: a broad sustainability claim can communicate much more than the underlying evidence proves.

And perhaps no word in this conversation is broader than sustainable.

Sustainable according to whom?

The 2026 Coffee Barometer gives us a particularly interesting example of this problem.

The report assessed 15 major coffee roasters and green-coffee traders. As part of that assessment, the researchers asked the companies how much of their coffee was “sustainably produced.” The answers ranged from 9% to 99%, but those percentages were measured against a wide variety of company-owned and external standards, representing different definitions of what “sustainable” actually meant. [4] 

The Coffee Barometer also describes an industry in which proprietary sustainability programs are increasingly significant. In its analysis of schemes recognized through the Global Coffee Platform's Equivalence Mechanism, it reported that only four of 33 schemes offered third-party assurance, while the remaining 29 were proprietary-managed programs with different scopes, auditing systems, indicators and levels of public access. [4] The Barometer does not argue that every proprietary system is illegitimate, but it raises an important transparency problem: the more sustainability is defined and verified internally, the more difficult external comparison becomes. 

If companies are using different definitions of sustainable, different verification systems and different methodologies, perhaps asking “Is this company sustainable?” is not even the most useful question.

Perhaps we need to ask:

Sustainable in what way? According to which criteria? Compared with what? And verified by whom?

Sustainability is not one thing

One of the fundamental problems with calling an entire coffee company sustainable is that the statement collapses an enormous number of environmental, social and economic questions into a single adjective.

Are we talking about greenhouse-gas emissions and climate change? Are we measuring deforestation and biodiversity? Are we discussing water use, soil health and agricultural inputs? Are we considering the livelihoods of producers and agricultural workers? Are we measuring the energy used in roasting, the distance coffee travels, packaging materials, waste generation, recycling, composting or all of these at once?

A company can perform well in one area and poorly in another.

A coffee might come from a farm with extraordinary biodiversity and still travel thousands of miles before reaching the consumer. A roastery might reduce energy consumption while continuing to use packaging with no practical recovery pathway. A company may operate an extensive sustainability program at origin while disclosing little about the commercial terms under which it purchases coffee.

The 2026 Coffee Barometer brings that last issue into particularly sharp focus. It found that none of the 15 companies assessed publicly disclosed aggregated information about pricing structures, contract durations, risk-sharing arrangements or premiums above the commodity price. The authors argue that without that information it becomes extremely difficult to evaluate whether sustainability programs are delivering meaningful economic benefits to farmers. [4]

This matters because sustainability in coffee cannot reasonably refer only to carbon, trees or packaging. A coffee system that protects forests but cannot provide economically viable conditions for the people producing coffee has a sustainability problem of another kind.

The environmental, social and economic dimensions are connected.

That complexity is precisely why sustainability cannot responsibly be treated as a simple yes-or-no condition.

And it is why we have become uncomfortable with the sentence:

“We are a sustainable coffee company.”

It sounds like a conclusion when what we actually have is a long list of questions.

We would rather describe what we changed.

Packaging forced us to confront that difference

Coffee packaging creates a particularly interesting sustainability problem because the package has an environmental cost, but it also performs an essential function.

Roasted coffee is vulnerable to oxygen, moisture and environmental exposure. Packaging must therefore create an effective barrier if it is going to preserve the product inside. MTPak, for example, identifies barrier performance as one of the important characteristics of the LDPE material it uses for recyclable coffee packaging. [5]

This creates a tradeoff that is sometimes missing from discussions about packaging.

A package that sounds environmentally impressive but does not adequately protect the coffee is not automatically the more responsible option. If inadequate packaging contributes to premature deterioration of the product, the resources already invested in growing, processing, transporting and roasting that coffee have also been wasted.

So when we reconsidered our packaging during the Coffee Flock® rebrand, our objective was not simply to find a bag that could be marketed as environmentally friendly.

We needed packaging that could still do its first job properly, protect the coffee, while allowing us to improve certain characteristics of the materials we were purchasing.

For our principal packaging sizes, we ended up choosing two different approaches.

Neither is perfect.

And that is precisely what makes them useful examples of what sustainability looks like when we stop treating it as a marketing word and start examining the actual materials.

What "Sustainable Packaging" Really Means

True sustainable packaging must consider its entire life, not just one buzzword. It is not just "recyclable" or "biodegradable". It requires four questions:
a) Source - Renewable vs Fossil: Is it from plant-based renewable resources such as wood pulp and sugar cane or from finite fossil fuels?
b) Material Use - Less is More: Our previous bags used 3-4 layers. Our new MTPak bags use just two layers, compared to the three or four in many coffee bags. This means we use less energy when manufacturing it and it's also much easier to dispose of sustainably.
c) End of Life - What Happens After?
• Recyclable: Must be capable of being used again. MTPak offers 100% recyclable LDPE packaging made from low-density polyethylene (LDPE) #4 that can be reused and recycled. In the US, FTC requires 60% community access to qualify for an unqualified recyclable claim.
• Compostable: For a compostable claim, FTC says it should break down in approximately the same time as the materials with which it is composted. Biotrē 1.0 bags are 60% compostable.
• Biodegradable: Without a timeframe, meaningless. Can be 5 years or 1000+ years.
d) Real Behavior: A package is only sustainable if the consumer can and will dispose of it correctly in their area.

Our Two Real Steps

Our 5 lb bags: recyclable does not mean recycled

For our 5 lb format, we chose MTPak side-gusset coffee bags using its recyclable LDPE structure.

MTPak describes this packaging as made from low-density polyethylene, LDPE, resin code #4. The company markets the structure as 100% recyclable and offers LDPE in side-gusset formats as well as other coffee-bag configurations. [5]

This is one of the material choices we changed.

But here again, a single environmental word can create an impression larger than reality.

Recyclable does not mean recycled.

Recyclability describes a characteristic or potential pathway for the material. It does not tell us whether a particular bag will actually be collected, sorted and transformed into another product.

That depends upon something much larger than the bag itself.

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency says that plastic bags, wraps and films may be recyclable but should not be placed in the normal household recycling bin. They generally require separate collection through participating retail or other film-recycling programs, and consumers need to check what is accepted locally. [6]

There is a technical reason for this distinction. Flexible film behaves differently inside conventional material-recovery facilities and can interfere with sorting equipment. EPA materials examining the U.S. recycling system note that #4 flexible materials can be problematic contaminants in standard municipal recycling streams. [7]

So when we say our 5 lb bag is recyclable, we should also acknowledge the rest of the sentence:

It is designed around a recyclable LDPE #4 structure, but its actual end of life depends on whether an appropriate collection and recycling pathway is available and used.

That is a less spectacular statement than simply saying 100% recyclable.

It is also more useful.

A recycling symbol describes material potential. A functioning recycling system determines what actually happens to it.

Our 340 g bags: the Biotrē 1.0 story is more complicated

For our 340 g bags, we chose Biotrē 1.0, manufactured by TricorBraun Flex.

This material is particularly interesting because it illustrates exactly why environmental terminology deserves scrutiny.

TricorBraun describes Biotrē 1.0 as 60% plant-based and renewable by weight. The outer structure consists of natural kraft paper and cellulose derived from wood pulp, and those materials account for approximately 60% of the package structure by weight, excluding the degassing valve and zipper. [8]

According to the manufacturer, that 60% portion has demonstrated disintegration under ASTM D6868 test conditions. [8] But the remaining 40% is an interior polyethylene layer containing an additive designed to promote oxo-degradation. TricorBraun states that this layer can break into microscopic pieces under certain conditions and advises that any PE layer remaining in compost be removed and disposed of in regular trash. Its technical documentation also specifically raises the need to prevent microplastic material from leaching into groundwater. [8]

This distinction changes how the package should be described.

Calling Biotrē 1.0 simply “a compostable coffee bag” would imply something the complete structure has not demonstrated.

We can accurately say that our 340 g bag uses a structure in which 60% of the material by weight is plant-based and renewable.

We can say that approximately 60% of the structure has demonstrated conversion or disintegration under ASTM D6868 test conditions.

We should also tell you that the remaining 40% is polyethylene and is not compostable in the same sense.

That description is more complicated than writing “compostable bag” on a website.

But the complexity is the truth.

And if this entire article is asking for more precision from companies when they talk about sustainability, we have to apply the same standard to ourselves.

What impact have we actually created?

We also need to be careful with another favorite sustainability word: impact.

It would be easy to convert this packaging change into an impressive-looking environmental number. We could attempt to tell you how many pounds of conventional plastic we have eliminated, how many kilograms of CO₂ we have avoided or how much smaller our environmental footprint has become.

We are not going to do that without the data necessary to support it.

A responsible comparison would require much more than knowing that one package contains 60% plant-based material and another is recyclable. We would need accurate information about the previous materials, package weights, manufacturing processes, printing, transportation, quantities purchased, actual recovery rates, disposal patterns and other life-cycle variables.

We have not completed a full life-cycle assessment of Coffee Flock®'s packaging.

Therefore, we cannot responsibly tell you that these new bags have reduced our carbon emissions by a particular percentage.

And we think admitting what we cannot measure is just as important as communicating what we can.

At this stage, what we can demonstrate is narrower: we changed the material specifications of the packaging we purchase.

For our 5 lb coffee, we use an LDPE #4 packaging structure that its manufacturer designs and markets for recycling. [5]

For our 340 g coffee, we use Biotrē 1.0, whose manufacturer documents a structure that is 60% plant-based and renewable by weight, while clearly identifying the remaining 40% PE component and the limitations of its compostability. [8]

Those are verifiable characteristics.

Everything beyond them should be measured before it becomes a claim.

The consumer cannot solve a packaging system alone

There is another issue that sustainability marketing sometimes avoids: environmental responsibility is frequently pushed toward the person standing at the trash can.

Recycle this. Compost that. Dispose responsibly.

But consumers can only participate in the systems available to them.

This is why packaging sustainability cannot be reduced to the material alone.

Material design matters. Collection matters. Waste infrastructure matters. Education matters. Consumer participation matters. And communication matters.

As a company, one of our responsibilities is therefore not simply to choose a different package. It is to explain what that package actually is and help our customers understand what can realistically happen to it after the coffee is gone.

Perhaps the problem is not sustainability. Perhaps it is the claim.

We do not think coffee companies should stop talking about sustainability. Quite the opposite.

Coffee faces enormous environmental, social and economic challenges, and sustainability needs to be discussed seriously throughout the industry.

The problem begins when sustainable becomes the conclusion instead of the subject of investigation.

The environmental marketplace already contains enough vague claims that the European Commission found more than half of the claims it examined to be vague, misleading or unfounded. [2] The coffee category has drawn enough concern that a European consumer regulator specifically intervened over unclear sustainability language used on coffee and cacao products. [3] And the industry's own Coffee Barometer demonstrates how dramatically corporate definitions and reporting practices can differ even when companies are apparently measuring the same concept. [4] 

Perhaps the next stage of sustainability communication requires fewer adjectives and more nouns, numbers, materials, standards, methodologies and limitations.

Less “we are sustainable.”

More “this is what we changed, this is how we measured it, and this is what still needs work.”

So, is Coffee Flock® sustainable?

We do not think we can responsibly answer that question with a simple yes.

And perhaps that is the most important conclusion we reached while working on something as ordinary as a coffee bag.

We are not carbon neutral.

We still create emissions.

We still create waste.

We still use plastic.

We roast an agricultural product grown far away from our roastery and transported through an international supply chain.

There are environmental impacts in our business that changing our packaging does not touch at all.

But none of those realities gives us permission to ignore the decisions we can change.

When we rebranded Coffee Flock®, packaging became one of those decisions.

Neither decision makes Coffee Flock® a sustainable company. Both represent steps.

And perhaps sustainability should be understood less as an identity that a company awards itself and more as a continuous discipline: identifying impact, making a change where possible, measuring what that change actually accomplishes, communicating it without exaggeration, and then looking for the next thing that can be improved.

For us, that feels more useful than putting a green leaf on the package.

We would rather tell you what the bag contains.

We would rather tell you what it can do.

We would rather tell you what it cannot do.

And when we do not yet know the answer, we would rather say that too.

Because ultimately, the question may not be whether Coffee Flock® can call itself sustainable.

A much more demanding question is:

What are we doing today that is better than what we were doing yesterday, can we prove it, and what are we willing to change next?

For now, that is the standard we would rather hold ourselves to.

Thank you for reading me and please always remember....

"Because behind each cup of coffee there is much more than roasted beans."

Written by María Esther Thome-López

SCA Sustainable Coffee Diploma Recipient

SCA Coffee Sustainability Program Trainer

References

[1] Mintel. Coffee conscience: Half of all global coffee launches are sustainable. July 23, 2021. Data from the Mintel Global New Products Database reporting that 48% of global new coffee product launches in 2020 carried an ethical or environmental claim, compared with 25% in 2012.

[2] European Commission, Directorate-General for Environment. Green Claims. European Commission findings report that 53% of environmental claims examined provided vague, misleading or unfounded information and 40% lacked supporting evidence.

[3] Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets, ACM. ACM: Major coffee and cacao companies to adjust their sustainability claims and logos. February 12, 2026. The authority reported agreements with Nestlé, Mondelez and JDE Peet's to change unclear sustainability claims and stated that coffee and cacao had been the sector in which it found the most unclear sustainability claims when it began the study.

[4] Coffee Barometer. Coffee Barometer 2026. Published June 2026. The report assesses 15 major coffee roasters and traders and examines transparency, procurement practices, environmental performance, sustainability standards and corporate reporting. It records company claims ranging from 9% to 99% “sustainably produced” coffee under differing definitions and identifies significant limitations in public disclosure of commercial terms.

[5] MTPak Coffee. Technical and product information on recyclable coffee packaging made from low-density polyethylene, LDPE #4, including side-gusset formats and barrier characteristics for roasted coffee. MTPak describes these structures as fully or 100% recyclable.

[6] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. How Do I Recycle Common Recyclables? EPA guidance states that plastic bags, wraps and films may be recyclable but should not be placed in household recycling bins and generally require appropriate retail or other separate collection programs.

[7] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Assessment of the U.S. Recycling System. EPA material discussing challenges associated with #4 flexible plastic packaging in conventional material-recovery facilities, including interference with sorting equipment.

[8] TricorBraun Flex. Everything You Need to Know About Biotrē™. Technical documentation for Biotrē 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. The manufacturer describes Biotrē 1.0 as 60% plant-based and renewable by weight; documents the remaining 40% oxo-degradable PE layer; and states that Biotrē 1.0 demonstrates approximately 60% disintegration under ASTM D6868 test conditions but does not meet the requirements to be described as industrially compostable.