Responsible Consumption and Production Goal
Sustainable development goals are actions called on the global arena to eliminate scarcity of consumable products, safeguard the planet and ensure an all-inclusive goodwill and prosperity to all people (Zeender, 2018). The following paper thus explores the responsible consumption and production sustainability goal concerning coffee production, brands, and consumption. The 17 Goals covers different areas such as sustainable consumption economic disparity, creativity, climate change, peace, and justices among other priorities.
Responsible and consumption production Goal aims at achieving economic growth and sustainable development through proper utilization of the production resources to sustain today and future production (Bueno et al., 2018). The natural resources do not only require protection on the production process but also require protection from the harmful disposal of wastes and pollutants, therefore, it is equal responsibility of both the business and the consumers to reduces and recycle the products and wastes. With the high rate of global population increase, it is estimated that by the time it will click about 9.6 billion, in 2030, there will be a requirement of almost three equal planets to sustain the number (Pfeiffer, Middeke & Tambour, 2017). However, with the current little and the natural resources, human life will be difficult and enjoyable, thus the call of all stakeholders to sustain the available natural resources.
The greatest challenge with the Responsible consumption and production goal is poor integration between environmental sustainability alongside economic growth and welfare. Since the goal aims at “doing more and better production with less” the net gain of some companies tends to reduce, thus make such companies find it difficult in complying with the terms and conditions of the goal (Briant, 2017). For example, it is estimated that around $1 million of food ends up in the dustbins of both the retailers and consumers. Waste affects the environment through poor food-related energy consumption and waste generation. Secondly, the overconsumption of food tends to be harmful to our health for more than 2 billion people in the world are overweight. The global coffee consumption tends to stand at around 157.38 million of 60 kg bags per year, and the user tends to increase. Over the previous years, scholars have linked coffee consumption to the significant number of benefits such as cognitive activation. However, high consumption of unfiltered coffee is associated with the elevations of cholesterol levels and heart diseases and that why in 2017 Norwegians were warned against unfiltered coffee.
Challenges of the Responsible Consumption and Production Goal
Over the past few years, there have been increasing standards related to the coffee industry to ensure ethical, social, and economic and environmentally production process. The high coffee criterion concerning health has led to the development of political prominence in the coffee industry. Thus many countries; exporters and importers, have designed different regulations that have recently affected the relationships between the countries (Elder, Lister & Dauvergne, 2014). The increasing restrictions have generally increased the demand and prices affecting the sustainability issues since various companies such as Starbucks and Tesco have embarked on fair trade to gain a socially responsible reputation and relation with the consumers and the society. Consequently, Starbucks tends to find it difficult to operate in anti-American countries due to a high level of sentiments and violence against those franchises.
Coffee production is part of agriculture and has a great impact on the livelihood of people. The coffee production impact was much stronger in the Brazilian economy since it amounted to about 63% of the Brazilian exports and 16 % of the US gross domestic product in 2015. The exportation of the coffee tends to earn producing countries substantial revenues used in impacting economic growth (Lorena et al., 2017).
Over the past few years, a large number of people have become health conscious, resulting in many young people to shy always from consuming coffee. It is estimated that global coffee consumption has dropped and allowed the rise of alternatives to hot drinks such as soy-milk and herbal teas. The global attitude change towards coffee has offered other companies such as Starbucks an opportunity to date a cheaper alternative.
Over the past years, technological advancement has impacted every aspect of human life. Currently, a large number of coffee consumers prefer buying from supermarkets that have a varied number of coffee premium such as ice blended coffee, cappuccinos among many others that are easily manufactured from the hi-tech equipment’s (Yasue et al., 2018). The development of better brewing techniques have positively impacted the global coffee production, and thus the production process is not limited to big companies alone. However, the technological advancement might negatively affect big companies such as Starbucks since many people can access homemade coffee as a result of the cheap coffee making machines. The wide variety thus tends to enhance the consumer’s knowledge about the different specialized coffee brands in the market as well as their taste.
Coffee Production and Sustainability
Environmental issues have been on the discussion over the past few years. The need to have a sustainable environment is significant even to the coffee production and processing since it is dependent on environmental factors such as rain, drought, poor harvest and earthquakes (Hughes et al., 2014). Coffee consumption is also influenced by weather change; for example, there is high consumption during cold than during hot conditions, resulting in different sales collection. Consequently, as the third global consumed the beverage, coffee production has increased over the past few years resulting into different environmental impacts such as deforestation for more land in Central America and Latin America, water pollution and contamination from the coffee industry discharge and reduction of soil quality through the sun cultivation process.
Sustainable product brands refer to a product that poses an additional characteristic that is valuable in terms of social and environmental benefits to the consumers. Coffee has numerous brands such as Nescafe, Jacobs, Maccona, and Espresso among many others (Gold, S., Kunz, N., & Reiner, G. (2017).). The highly sustainable coffee brands Nescafe and Jacobs and Nescafe are one of the highly durable coffee products produced by Nestle, one of the world food and beverage company. Both brands have managed to embrace some of the guidelines placed to ensure responsible consumption and production concerning the marketing mix. Marketing mix helps in analyzing the brand marketing ability with a focus on the product, price, promotion, and place.
Nescafe brand aims at satisfying the customer’s taste buds, through the introduction of different blends such as Nescafe Original Blend and Gold Blend Decafe. Both Nescafe and Jacobs derive the coffee raw material from the organic farming that helps in securing the environment from the chemical disposal, thus supports sustainable production. The wide blend variety tends to cater to a wide range of coffee lovers. Similarly, Jacobs coffee has a wide range of taste from the blend of both the Arabic and Robusta, thus can give an instant wake-up call in the morning; therefore, it attracts different customers together (Shaaban & Mostafa, 2018). Consequently, Jacobs use high technology of freeze-drying that promotes sustainability by reducing the environmental pollution and loss of food during the processing.
The price of both the Jacobs and Nescafe brand is dependent on the quality, competitors, and demand in the market. The product is always priced relatively low due to the high quality and customer’s affordability, to target a single cup of coffee customers (Valkila, 2014). The pricing has made s sustainability champion since it sells at a relatively low price without consideration of the high-quality aspects.
Sustainable Product Brands
Over the past few years, Nescafe brand has become a household name as a result of the experiences it poses to the customers around the world. Due to the popularity, the product always has high demand, thus has proper strategies such as huge cycle distribution method and intermediaries to ensure that the brand reaches the required place in time (olynczuk & Pantti, 2017). Both brands use “clean idle trucks” in distributing their product to various destinations and also encourage recycling at different warehouses as a strategy to curb both consumption and precious resources available.
The promotion strategy of Nescafe has ensured that there is consistent communication with potential customers through various advertisement channels such as radio, television, internet, and papers. Additionally, the Nescafe brand has ensured the originality of the logo for all the period, thus imprinted itself on the customer’s mind, facilitating easy identification and remembrance for repurchase and referrals to other customers. Jacobs brand has managed to increase awareness through the creation of “family warmth and friendship.” Jacobs facilitated this through the establishment of green branding tents that were situated in various points for people to enjoy their coffee. The green branding tents were signs of ensuring responsible consumption of the product.
The most considered poorly performing coffee brands concerning the sustainability issues; Responsible consumption and production are coffee pods. The coffer brands either do not embrace the fair trade, technological production and organic production thus resulting in either environmental pollution, production of harmful products and overutilization of the natural resources. The poor sustainable coffer brands are coffee pods and eight o’clock.
Packaging is meant to protect the product and offer marketability. Coffee pods such as Keurig K-Cups mostly use plastic as the main packaging material, thus due the various recent government bans on the plastic, the coffee pods tend to lose grip on the customers since they are not in alignment with the sustainability requirement.
The coffee pods tend to reach various customers through different distribution channels that are not appealing to the environmental sustainability requirement. Most of the pods get transported in plastic packaging that at the end of the day ends up in landfills. Eight o’clock packaging is detrimental to the environment since they are non-biodegradable; thus environmental conscious customers tend to shy away from such a product.
The pricing of both the eight o’clock and coffee pods tend to be more as compared to other brands that are relatively low and offer high quality. A pound of coffee pod cost over 50 pounds, and the amount is so little as compared to the quantity. The relatively high prices are as a result of poor production techniques (Gringarten, H. (2018). For example, the eight o’clock still depend on the old systems of production that are costly and less sustainable regarding the production, the high production cost is eventually transferred to the final consumer thus does not comply with responsible consumption goal.
Poor Sustainability Record of Coffee Pods
The eight o’clock is not extensively recognized by young coffee drinkers due to the poor promotion strategies that were initially adopted. The promotion and advertising majorly focused on the old age customers who were known to be taking coffee at eight in the morning and eight in the evening. The promotional strategy adopted by coffee pod brands makes it difficult for a large number of consumers to access the products (Gringarten, 2018). The brands are always limited in supermarkets since most of the machines are not always available. Both the coffee pods and the eight o’clock have poor customer signing methods, that end failing to attract the attention of potential customers.
The place marketing mix of the coffee pods tends to be poor regarding sustainability issue. The brands rely mostly on the plastic as the packaging, thus tends to take large space in the transportation system. The large space spikes up the production cost, thus affecting the sustainability production goal.
The responsible consumption and production sustainability goal concerning coffee has been in the debates over the past years, the companies have taken tremendous steps in embracing the sustainability practices, however, their need more responsibilities to be done. The sustainability responsibilities are:
The first sustainability responsibility for most of the coffee companies needs to identify systematic tools that will help in balancing both social and environmental sustainability alongside economic sustainability (Slade & Carter, 2017). The trading practices should be a platform that provided both farmers with a gateway to the international supply chain as well as the opportunity to play major roles in influencing the terms of the facing trade procedures. Systematic interventions such as improving the coffee producer information on the markets and cost through proper dissemination tools work as an effective tool in eliminating sustainability issues and promoting long-term production.
The second strategic sustainability responsibility is providing contractual training to the coffee producer. A proper understanding of both the rights and obligations among the coffee producer’s is significant in eliminating unnecessary defaults in the processing system, that either hike up the pricing or results in harmful products(Celia, Avila & Barcelos, 2018). The coffee producer with string contracting capacity can participate in the contract formation actively thus facilitates transparency, clarity, and predictability in sustainable trading relationships.
References
Briant, C. J. (2017). Unheard voices: a critical discourse analysis of the Millennium Development Goals’ evolution into the Sustainable Development Goals. Third World Quarterly, 38(1), 16–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1166944
Conclusion
Bueno, J., Thomas, R., Gauter, C., Havkwist, A., Hoddy, R., Larasati, A., Smith, R. A. (2018). Monitoring the sustainable development goals through human rights accountability reviews. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 96(9), 627–633. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.204412
Celia, P. L., Avila P. E., & Barcelos A. N. (2018). Sustainability, Organizations and Training of Managers: An Exploratory Research on Business Administration Courses in Rio Grande Do Sul. Brazilian Journal of Management / Revista de Administração Da UFSM, 11, 1324–1343. https://doi.org/10.5902/1983465916473
Cucurachi, S., & Suh, S. (2017). Cause-effect analysis for sustainable development policy. Environmental Reviews, 25(3), 358–379. https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2016-0109
Elder, S. D., Lister, J., & Dauvergne, P. (2014). Big retail and sustainable coffee: A new development studies research agenda. Progress in Development Studies, 14(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464993413504354
Gold, S., Kunz, N., & Reiner, G. (2017). Sustainable Global Agrifood Supply Chains: Exploring the Barriers. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(2), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12440
Gringarten, H. (2018). Price and Store Image as Mitigating Factors in the Perception and Evaluation of Retailers’ Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (1947-2900), 10(1/2), 51–84. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=130633634&site=ehost-live
Hughes, S., López, J., Jones, M., Moser, B., Cox, E., Lindquist, M., Brunner, L. (2014). Sustainable conversion of coffee and other crop wastes to biofuels and bioproducts using coupled biochemical and thermochemical processes in a multi-stage biorefinery concept. Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology, 98(20), 8413–8431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-5991-1
Lorena , J., Eduardo, J., Rodrígue, J., & Prías, O. (2017). Indicators of energetic performance: A path to sustainability. “A case study of a high-roasting industry of coffee.” Dyna, 84(203), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.15446/dyna.v84n203.65336
Olynczuk, K., & Pantti, M. (2017). Branded Solidarity in Fair Trade Communication on Facebook. Globalizations, 14(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2016.1175099
Pfeiffer, A., Middeke, F., & Tambour, M. (2017). 2030 agenda for sustainable development: Implications for official statistics. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 33(4), 911–918. https://doi.org/10.3233/SJI-170360
Shaaban, H., & Mostafa, A. (2018). Sustainable Eco-Friendly Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatographic Method for Simultaneous Determination of Caffeine and Theobromine in Commercial Teas: Evaluation of Greenness Profile Using NEMI and Eco-Scale Assessment Tools. Journal of AOAC International, 101(6), 1781–1787. https://doi.org/10.5740/jaoacint.18-0084
Slade, C., & Carter, J. (2017). Local Governance for Social Sustainability: equity as a strategic response to neoliberal constraints in food security initiatives. Australian Geographer, 48(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2016.1265882
Valkila, J. (2014). Do Fair Trade Pricing Policies Reduce Inequalities in Coffee Production and Trade? Development Policy Review, 32(4), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.12064
Yasue, N. R., Silva R. M., Terezinha K. C., & Drebes P. C. (2018). Towards sustainability through incremental innovation of a low cost product: the Nespresso case. GeSec: Revista de Gestao e Secretariado, 9(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.7769/gesec.v9i2.789
Zeender, G. (2018). The Sustainable Development Goals and IDPs. Forced Migration Review, (59), 24–26. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=132579793&site=ehost-live
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
