- “Farmwashing” exposes supermarkets’ false claims of farm-fresh or farmer-supportive products
- In specialty coffee, some also profit from farmer stories while underpaying producers
- Young consumers aren’t impressed – 80% of them rethink purchases after negative social media buzz
Supermarkets worldwide are leveraging the powerful imagery and narratives of small farmers to tap into consumers’ increasing appetite for local and small-scale produce.
But this type of marketing can often be misleading.
The term “farmwashing” has emerged to challenge these practices, calling out marketing strategies that falsely present products as farm-fresh or supportive of small-scale farmers. As this issue gains traction, farmers are raising their voices, demanding greater transparency and accountability from the “Big 6” supermarkets.
“The popularity of farmers’ markets, farm-to-table restaurants, and direct trade offerings shows that consumers value knowing where their food comes from and who grew it,” explains Dr. Janina Grabs, Assistant Professor of Business and Society.
Celebrity chefs like Gordon Ramsay have spent years championing local restaurants and emphasising the value of quality, locally sourced produce – a movement that benefits producers, restaurants, and consumers alike. However, not everyone follows this ethos, as supermarkets have been accused of exploiting farmers’ narratives to mislead consumers.
UK-based organic farm Riverford has taken a stand against this practice, accusing major retailers of employing deceptive tactics such as fake farm branding, vague welfare labels, and strategic use of Union Jacks to disguise imported goods as local.
These tactics, often referred to as “farmwashing,” erode trust not just in supermarkets but across the broader food system.
Through their public campaign, S.T.O.P. Farmwashing, Riverford highlights the widespread consequences: disconnected consumers, depressed prices for local English producers, and opaque supply chains prone to fraud and environmental damage.
Their survey reflects growing consumer frustration, with 74% of shoppers demanding greater transparency about food origins and 67% expressing distrust upon discovering misleading marketing.
Meanwhile, a bold letter penned by farmers to UK supermarkets included a heartfelt “plea for integrity,” noting that 67% of farmers fear being delisted if they speak out against unfair supermarket practices.
The impact of farmwashing extends beyond mere consumer deception; it undermines the integrity of entire value chains, creating an environment of suspicion that damages trust among all industry stakeholders.
It also further marginalises small, family-run farms, reducing their ability to compete.
This issue isn’t limited to supermarkets. The coffee industry faces similar challenges, where valuable farm imagery and narratives are used to promote coffee brands, often without fair compensation or acknowledgment for the farmers behind the stories.
Farmwashing, in all its forms, cheapens the authenticity of these industries, making transparency and accountability crucial to rebuilding consumer trust and protecting producers.
Specialty coffee, microlots, and the rise of “farm stories”
In specialty coffee, the rise of microlots and farm name narratives has transformed the coffee industry, setting it apart from mass-market commodity coffee.
“Third wave” pioneers like Intelligentsia, Counter Culture, and Stumptown redefined the coffee industry by prioritising direct relationships with coffee growers, emphasising sustainable sourcing, and ensuring traceable quality. This marked a significant shift away from reliance on traditional green coffee intermediaries.
As small to medium-sized roasters sought unique, high-quality coffees, a parallel movement emerged among coffee farmers. Producers began offering distinct micro-lots tailored to meet the growing consumer demand for ethically sourced and relationally driven coffee.
This synergy between roasters and farmers not only elevated the coffee experience but also fostered a deeper connection between origin and cup.
“Companies involved in direct and relationship trade in coffee often use storytelling very adeptly to introduce consumers to the farmers they work with,” says Janina.
Stories and photos possess a unique ability to connect consumers with producers, forging a bond that is both emotional and strategic. In specialty coffee, storytelling is a powerful asset that not only drives higher premiums for single-origin coffees compared to blends but also fosters brand loyalty.
“Storytelling helps farmers build their own brand identity, differentiating their products in a competitive market and ensuring they can command fair prices,” says Paulo Vischi, Founder and Head of Strategy at Be Consulting.
However, as Riverford’s S.T.O.P. Farmwashing campaign highlights, the same power that makes storytelling valuable also makes it vulnerable to exploitation.
Despite the specialty coffee sector’s ethical image, farmwashing tactics persist. Misusing farmers’ photos, misrepresenting sourcing practices, and over-romanticizing relationships with growers are frequent criticisms from both industry insiders and consumers who are increasingly demanding transparency and accountability.
In an environment where ethical claims are key to building trust, brands must ensure their stories are authentic – not just to uphold their credibility, but also to truly support the farmers whose narratives they use to connect with consumers.
“We can also find many examples of coffee companies where stories of select farmers are used to portray a sustainable image, while the vast majority of coffee they use is purchased on mainstream markets without any direct knowledge of or links to farmers,” says Janina.
“Such storytelling may thus both misuse the story of individual farmers – if they are not being compensated for their use – and give consumers a false image of the overall coffee they buy.”
Economist Stefano Ponte, in his study of the South African wine sector, underscores how brands exploit the imagery and symbolism of coffee-producing regions.
“A coffee sold under the brand ‘Kilimanjaro’ in Japan capitalises on the symbolic value of the East African mountain and its easily recognisable shape,” the study reads. “While the owner of the brand captures such symbolic value, coffee producers do not necessarily do so, unless a system of protection of the geographic indication ‘Kilimanjaro’ is put into place.”
This issue is exacerbated by the absence of global standards for handling farmers’ intellectual property and identities, leaving producers vulnerable to exploitation.
This “coffee paradox” sees producers primarily valued for supplying raw materials, while companies craft narratives around their coffee to enhance its value. This dynamic poses a significant challenge for farmers: finding ways to create and control the storytelling around their coffee.
Companies that fail to collaborate with coffee producers still profit by cultivating brand loyalty through the use of farmers’ stories, often positioning themselves as champions of authenticity while reaping the financial rewards. This mirrors the plight of U.K. farmers in the farmwashing debate, where producers are hesitant to speak out against deceptive practices for fear of being delisted by buyers.
Transparency and the future of ethical marketing
With growing pressure from government regulations and heightened consumer awareness, the coffee industry is beginning to feel the push toward greater accountability.
Regulatory initiatives such as the European Union’s Supply Chain Due Diligence Law and the Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) are set to enforce stricter traceability requirements across supply chains, signalling a shift towards more transparent and responsible practices.
“Some say that the need for geo-referencing introduced by the EUDR might strengthen farmers’ ability to also trace where their coffee goes and leverage this transparency for their own purposes, including their brand ownership,” says Janina.
“A first step, albeit on the regional level, are Geographical Indications (GIs) where producers can protect the image connected to particular product origins.”
Programmes like Brazil’s Geographical Indications, for example, can help protect and promote coffee producers.
“GIs help ensure that only coffee – or any agricultural product – grown in a certain region can be marketed with that region’s name,” says Paulo. “Cerrado Mineiro coffee is protected as a GI Designation of Origin, meaning it can only be labelled as such if it is truly grown in Cerrado Mineiro Region, Brazil.”
The programme from Cerrado has the option of a retail sticker with a QR code, which consumers can scan to see details on where the coffee is from.
New market based solutions are emerging as coffee companies and farmers come together, such as Emory University’s storytelling project where coffee farmers retain ownership over their narratives.
Beyond these efforts, industry-wide ethical standards for storytelling could address the intellectual property of farmers, ensuring that their stories are used with consent and compensation.
“However, in my view, traceability and transparency are a necessary, but not sufficient condition for such change to happen,” says Janina.
To protect themselves against farmwashing, it can be beneficial for farmers to organise into cooperatives or collectives to leverage strength and negotiation.
“Farmers can protect their stories by forming strong alliances with companies that respect their origins and using digital tools like blockchain for traceability,” says Paulo.
“Additionally, farmer cooperatives can help amplify their collective story and ensure that the profits from the story are shared fairly.”
For brands, transparent relationships with producers aren’t just ethical, they are also strategic. Globally, citizens worldwide have the strongest trust in society when government and business work together to solve complex problems.
Today’s consumers, especially Gen Z, demand authenticity and accountability. According to an Ogilvy Report, 40% of Gen Z are willing to boycott a brand, compared to only 16% of millennials. Additionally, 80% of young people have admitted to reconsidering a purchase after encountering negative news on social media.
They are more likely than any other demographic to abandon brands that make false claims, wielding their purchasing power as a tool for reform.
What “Farms against Farmwashing” reveals to the specialty coffee industry is that consumers expect brands to uphold their promises and to avoid empty slogans. It also underscores that when farmers and consumers unite, they can hold powerful brands accountable – whether by asserting their rights or by voting with their money.
The future brand loyalty will depend on the willingness of brands to embrace a collaborative effort in transparency and authenticity, especially in the stories they tell.
Coffee Intelligence
Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter here.
