Environmental impact of evolving coffee technologies

  • Andrea L. HicksEmail author
  • Heather Halvorsen



Coffee is a ubiquitous beverage in the USA today, accounting for 19% of the world’s coffee consumption. Although coffee consumption in itself is not new, the technology for brewing coffee and its corresponding environmental impact has been evolving rapidly in recent years, particularly with the widespread adoption of the single-serve coffee pod. This work utilizes a midpoint life cycle assessment with multiple environmental impact categories, to assess the environmental impact of a conventional (drip filter) brewing system, compared to a novel (single-serve coffee pod) brewing system, from cradle to grave.


This work analyzes the impact of consumer habits (such as leaving the novel system in standby mode) and phantom electricity consumption on the environmental impact of the system, in addition to the brewing systems themselves. The TRACI (Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts) suite is utilized to define the impact categories for the analysis, providing a holistic view. The SimaPro software tool is utilized along with multiple databases to enable the analysis.

Results and discussion

The question as to which coffee brewing system has the lowest environmental impact is a function of the phase, boundaries, and impact categories considered. The conventional brewing system has a lower environmental impact, with respect to raw materials and manufacturing. However, when only brewing is considered, the novel system has a lower environmental impact, suggesting that tradeoffs may occur. When the overall brewing system is considered throughout its lifetime, the system with the greatest environmental impact is not only a function of the technology, but also human behavior. The conventional system has a greater environmental impact than the novel system across some of the impact categories when phantom electricity usage is considered. However, when standby electricity consumption is considered, the novel system has the greater environmental impact due to the increased electricity consumption. Meaning that it is not only the technological aspects of the system that influence its environmental impact, but also how the technology is used.


A major conclusion of this work is that although the technology utilized to brew the coffee is relevant to the environmental impact, the human usage of the technology is also equally relevant, although it is not often the focus of literature in this area. In order to truly understand and quantify the environmental impact of brewing coffee across multiple technologies, more information about coffee consumption habits is needed.


Coffee Environmental impact Human use Life cycle assessment New technology 


Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding information

The study was funded by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Supplementary material

11367_2018_1575_MOESM1_ESM.docx (768 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 767 kb)


  1. Ashby MF (2009) Materials and the Environment: Eco-Informed Material Choice. Oxford: Elsevier Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  2. Bare J (2011) TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environemental impacts 2.0. Clean Techn Environ Policy 13(5):687–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown N (2016) NCA'’s 2016 National Coffee Drinking Trends Report is Big on the '‘M'’ Word. Retrieved July 28, 2017, from Coffee Daily News: Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  4. Busser S, Jungbluth N (2009) The role of felxible packaging in the life cycle of coffee and butter. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:S80–S91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carman T (2017) How much better can coffee from a Keurig pod machine get? Retrieved from The Washington Post: Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  6. Ciceri ND, Gutowski T, Garetti M (2016) A tool to estimate materials and manufacturing energy for a product. Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  7. Cloutier L (2014) Work exchange brings new meaning to '‘Made in China'’. Retrieved July 31, 2017, from Triple Pundit, people, planet, profit: Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  8. Coltrao L, Mourad AL, Oliveira PA, Baddini JP, Kletecke RM (2006) Environmental profile of Brazilian green coffee. Int J Life Cycle Assess 11(1):16–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cook'’s Illustrated (2016) Types of coffee makers. Cook’s Illustrated. Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  10. ecoinvent (2007) ecoinvent version 2.0. Retrieved December 3, 2018, from Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  11. Energy Star (2011) Energy star market & industry scoping report— - coffee makers. . Retrieved February 15, 2017, from Energy Star: Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  12. European Commission Joint Research Center (2015) ELCD. Retrieved December 3, 2018, from Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  13. Ferdman RA (2015) It'’s true: Americans like to drink bad coffee. The Washington Post, pp. Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  14. Gelles D (2016) Keurig'’s new K-Cup coffee is recyclable, but hardly green. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from New York Times: Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  15. Hamblin J (2015) A brewing problem. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from The Atlantic: Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  16. Hamilton Beach (2017) Recycling Policy. Retrieved July 31, 2017, from Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  17. Heath T (2016) Look how much coffee millennials are drinking. The Washington Post, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Hicks A (2018) Environmental implications of consumer convenience— - coffee as a case study. J Ind Ecol.
  19. Humbert S, Loerincik Y, Rossi V, Margni M, Jolliet O (2009) Life cycle assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alternatives (drip filter and capsule espresso). J Clean Prod 17:1351–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. International Coffee Organization (2016) World coffee consumption. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  21. International Standards Organization (2006) Environmental management— - Life life cycle assessment— - Principle principle and framework. ISO, Geneva 1401Google Scholar
  22. Lee S, Lye S, Khoo M (2011) A mulit-objective methodology for evaluating product end-of-life options and disassembly. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 18:148–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loftfield E, Freedman ND, Dood KW, Vogtmann E, Xiao Q, Sinha R, Grabard BI (2016) Coffee drinking is widespread in the United Staetes, but usual intake varies by key demographic and lifesytle factors. J Nutr 146(9):1762–1768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Millington A (2018) The 9 mistrakes people make when buying, ordering, and drinking coffee— - and what to do instead. Business Insider, pp. Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  25. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2012) U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database. Retrieved December 3, 2018, from Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  26. Richeson D (2005) The center for the United States and other applications of calculus to geography. Coll Math J 36(5):366–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ryen EG, Babbitt C, Williams E (2015) Consumption-weighted life cycle assessment of a consumer electronic product community. Environ Sci Technol 49(4):2549–2559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Salinas B (2008) Life cycle assessment of coffee production. . Retrieved 2017, from
  29. Salomone R (2003) Life cycle assessment applied to coffee production: investigating environmental impacts to aid decison making for improvements at company level. Food Agric Environ 1(2):295–300Google Scholar
  30. Statista (2016) Typical lifetime of coffee machines in the United States, by product type (in years). Retrieved July 8, 2016, from Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  31. Stokel-Walker C (2016) Is there a serious problem with coffee capsules? Retrieved February 15, 2017, from BBC: Accessed 1 Feb 2018
  32. Toppa S (2015) Global coffee consumption projected to soar over next five yearas. Time MagazineGoogle Scholar
  33. Wallace G (2015) Inventor of the K-cup regrets the idea. . Retrieved February 15, 2017, from CNN Money: : Accessed 1 Feb 2018

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations