A systematic review of life cycle assessment and environmental footprint for the global coffee value chain
Letícia Sarmento dos Muchangos, Cristian Mejía, Ranjit Gupta, Shuan SadreGhazi, Yuya Kajikawa
Abstract
The rapidly growing global demand for coffee has fueled proportionate production. However, a comprehensive and consistent understanding of the associated environmental assessment (EIA) across the production-to-consumption value chain is lacking. Despite using EIA tools like life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmental footprint (EF), achieving a unified understanding of coffee's environmental impact throughout this chain remains challenging. We aimed to survey the literature on coffee LCA at length and EF briefly to map coverage areas and analyze thematic trends. We analyzed thematic trends in coffee LCA research. Moreover, we identified five critical groups listed in order of significance: by-products, LCA and broad coffee sustainability matters, coffee and its environmental impacts, waste management, and biochar. Our analysis revealed a shift from traditional environmental assessment of cultivation processes and waste management toward using coffee by-products in refinery research, developing new materials, and biomedical and pharmaceutical functions. We also found that the extant literature has not converged on a standard in both method and scope, resulting in inconsistencies in reporting coffee LCA application settings. The review results contribute by describing and organizing the LCA research status, identifying literature gaps, and guiding progress toward transparent modeling at a global level. This study highlights the need for standardized methodologies and reporting practices in coffee LCA research to improve consistency and comparability. • Mainstream life cycle assessments for coffee started in the early 2000s. • Focus evolved from biochar production and application to by-products' valorization. • Water footprints are chiefly on water, including ‘external water footprints’ consideration. • Life cycle assessment research scope and reporting styles are not unified.