The environmental footprint of coffee starts long before the capsule
Packaging catches the eye. For the footprint of a cup, however, cultivation, dosing and brewing can be more decisive.
After Sunday coffee, something visible is left behind: a capsule, a filter or coffee grounds. A judgement about the whole drink forms quickly from that. A lot of waste seems to mean a poor environmental footprint, little packaging a good one. Yet much of the burden arose long before water runs through the coffee powder.
The question of the better cup therefore leads back to cultivation – and on to a less spectacular variable: how much coffee is actually used. Anyone who compares only the waste on the kitchen counter sees just one slice of the life cycle.
A Swiss study with a lasting question
Empa published a simplified life cycle assessment of various coffee systems in 2011. The researcher Roland Hischier considered not only packaging but also the coffee and its preparation. The study showed how strongly the result can depend on assumptions about cultivation. A ranking based on packaging material alone was therefore not tenable.
The age of the Empa study matters: it is not a product test of today's machines and not a current ranking of all capsules. Technology, electricity supply and specific products can change. Its methodological point, however, remains relevant: a life cycle assessment has to include the coffee, not merely the vessel it is sold in.
That also explains why statements that sound precise but say nothing about dosing help little. Two systems may have been compared for drinks of different size or strength. Part of the supposed difference between systems then comes from the portion chosen.
The more recent research offers no simple ranking
A systematic review from 2024 by Cécile Chéron-Bessou and other researchers examined 34 studies covering a total of 234 coffee systems. It found a wide spread of results and differences in methods, data bases and the life cycle stages considered.
Across the studies examined, the production of the beans as well as preparation and cleaning were important influencing factors. Which phase dominates depends on the specific system and the assumptions. Land use change, fertilisation and processing can shift the cultivation side; in brewing, energy demand plays a role among other things.
The review therefore argues for more comparable approaches. It does not deliver a universal winner for every Swiss kitchen. A figure from one study cannot be placed next to a figure from a differently structured study without checking. Even the reference unit has to be right: is it about coffee as a raw material or about a ready-prepared drink?
What a fair comparison should disclose
For readers, this yields concrete questions to check. Is the same beverage quantity being compared? How many grams of coffee are used? Are the manufacture and use of the machine included? How are cleaning, electricity and packaging disposal taken into account? And does what is known about bean cultivation come from specific supply chains or from averages?
Such questions do not make a comparison needlessly complicated. They prevent a single favourable detail from standing in for the whole product. Packaging that is recycled well can be an advantage; it still does not say how the coffee was grown. Conversely, a large cultivation share does not make packaging meaningless.
Climate footprint and overall environmental impact are not identical either. Anyone reading results on greenhouse gases should not silently treat them as a verdict on all environmental aspects. A serious presentation names which impact is examined and which remains outside the comparison.
The inconspicuous decisions at the breakfast table
For one's own household, the conclusion is modest at first: the quantity used and the portion actually drunk deserve as much attention as the system. A large pot from which some coffee is left over serves a different purpose than a suitably measured portion. Without a concrete calculation this yields no ranking yet, but it does yield a more sensible comparison question.
A new machine cannot automatically be derived from these studies either. That would also require taking its manufacture into account. Anyone who already owns a working device does not get a traceable environmental calculation from a blanket recommendation to buy.
Sunday coffee therefore does not have to become a calculation project. But the debate gains when it looks beyond the bin. The small capsule is visible. The path of the bean often remains the bigger story for the footprint.
