The myth of differentiation in coffee – are we all just drinking the same thing?
Sarah Charles
February 3, 2026
coffee differentiation
In a market where many roasters source from similar producers, differentiation is often made in marketing
Over 40% of coffee consumers say ethical or environmental claims influence their purchases
The same lot can be positioned differently depending on who is buying
For an industry obsessed with distinction, specialty coffee looks remarkably uniform.
Specialty coffee bags often promise radical difference – woman-owned, regenerative, youth-led, competition grade – yet the coffee beans often come from the same farms, the same harvests, sometimes even the same lots. Coffee sells itself as endlessly particular. The reality is more convergent.
The endless marketing and reinvention of coffee beans raises an uncomfortable question: is differentiation in specialty coffee real?
A single producer’s coffee can appear under multiple identities, depending on who is buying. To one roaster it can be marketed as a “young producer” lot, to another it can be framed as “woman-owned.” Elsewhere it can even become a regenerative showcase, a climate-smart pilot, or a competition microlot.
“In my experience, the same coffees have been bought by different roasters from the same producers – they then take those coffees and market them as one-of-a-kind,” says Kosta Kallivrousis, Supply Chain Adviser at Age of Coffee. “I believe it’s a movement that started with small to medium-sized roasters looking to create differentiation in the market – producers saw this market segmentation growing, and began to cater to it.”
In a market where buyers signal what they want – impact, novelty, ethics, prestige – producers respond. The focus becomes whatever the buyer’s focus is. Some see this as a positive opportunity for producers that can unlock the value and recognition they deserve.
“In my experience, if the term is genuine and flattering, producers are thrilled to be associated with it, and to be spotlighted when most of the time they’re still completely unseen,” says Phil Robertson, Co-Founder of Phil & Sebastian Coffee Roasters and Hoopla Donuts.
From a business perspective, this logic is rational. Coffee prices remain volatile and incomes in coffee-growing countries tend to be fragile. Since the breakdown of the International Coffee Agreement in 1989, coffee prices have swung between prolonged lows and brief, volatile spikes. Over the decades, producers have repeatedly had to absorb market shocks – from Brazil’s frost-induced price surge in 1994, to the roya outbreak in 2014, and, more recently, escalating climate volatility and supply-chain disruptions. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations notes a nearly 40 percent price surge in 2024 alone due to supply-side disruptions.
Differentiation is one of the few levers producers can pull to stabilise revenue.
“I think it can be smart market adaptation – these terms often reflect how a project is actually run: who’s being hired, where investment goes, what kind of change the producer is trying to make,” says Nico Herr, Chief Operations Officer at Mountain Harvest.
“But there’s also undeniably a marketing game to be had. Terminology always creates bubbles. I don’t think it’s weakening the value of ‘woman-owned’ or ‘youth-led’ yet – we’re still in a phase of figuring out what those labels really mean. The bigger issue is that while these stories spark interest, most buyers still aren’t willing to pay for the most transformative work. The price still has to make sense.”
Yet this flexibility comes at a cost: producers rarely own a single, consistent brand identity. Their coffee becomes modular, re-labelled downstream. Consumers are rarely told that the same lot may be sold simultaneously – at different prices – under different moral or aesthetic claims.
If that sounds cynical, it is also familiar. Food shelves are full of “naturally gluten-free” products that were never glutenous to begin with. Marketing does not invent the product; it reframes it.
Roasters, rivals – and the need to sound different
The pressure to differentiate is not confined to producers – roasters also face it acutely.
Despite the industry’s rhetoric about discovery, sourcing patterns are strikingly concentrated. In many producing countries, a small circle of well-known farms supply a disproportionate share of specialty volumes. Roasters frequently compete for the same names, the same auction lots, the same exporters.
“There are really two things happening,” says Nico. “One is accessibility: producers who know how to talk about themselves in a way the market understands are simply easier to buy from – and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. As relationships deepen, it’s also not a problem that multiple roasters buy similar coffees; they’re usually selling to different customers and doing something slightly different with them.”
“Where it gets more complex is the layer of ethics and storytelling on top. That positioning can be incredibly powerful when it reflects what producers actually want to say about their communities and their excellence — not just a market-friendly narrative. The buyers who really care can tell the difference between authentic impact and a superficial story. My hope is that as more of those buyers exist, labels like ‘regenerative’ or ‘women-led’ start to carry real, reclaimed meaning rather than just marketing weight.”
When everyone buys from the same places, storytelling does the work that sourcing once did.
“I see many specialty coffee brands say that they’re different from each other but then use similar roast profiles, flavour profiles, brew recipes, and whitewash minimalist aesthetics – all while claiming uniqueness and authenticity,” says Kosta.
This explains the inflation of descriptors. One roaster emphasises gender equity; another foregrounds carbon metrics; a third leans into flavour innovation or fermentation technique. The coffee becomes differentiated by angle rather than agronomy.
Some roasters may bristle at this, accusing producers – or competitors – of “ripping off the consumer” by repackaging the same coffee for multiple buyers. Others maintain that most specialty coffee roasters have their heart in the right place, with genuinely good intentions – especially compared to most other industries – and real opportunities to differentiate.
“A single producer can and will produce a wide range of qualities, especially sophisticated ones,” says Phil. “Even coops in Kenya produce a number of different qualities depending on the outturn point of the harvest and the coffee grade.”
“And then there are many variables affecting the identical lot: how quickly it was transported out of the country, how it was stored in the roasting country, all before we even talk about roast profiles, etc. After all of these variables, the same lot can taste drastically different, and this is before marketing is layered on top.”
The economics also push both sides toward the same behaviour. Specialty coffee remains a crowded, low-margin business. According to data from Vestbee, food and beverage companies spend just 0.4% of revenue on R&D, relying instead on branding and acquisitions to create distinction. Coffee is no exception.
The result is what might be called moral segmentation. Ethics become attributes, not absolutes. A coffee can be many things at once – regenerative, woman-associated, youth-driven – depending on which label unlocks value. This does not necessarily make the claims false, but it does make them partial.
Is this a betrayal of authenticity, or simply how markets work – or both?
Luxury sectors offer a clue. Fine wine routinely sells the same vineyard through multiple négociants at different price points. Fashion houses release near-identical products framed by season, collaboration or scarcity. Specialty coffee, in this sense, is catching up – learning to behave like a mature consumer industry rather than a moral exception.
Smoke and mirrors – or business as usual?
The discomfort arises because specialty coffee has long claimed higher ground. It asks consumers not just to enjoy, but to care.
A study from the International Institute for Sustainable Development suggests that over 40% of coffee buyers say ethical or environmental factors influence their choices.
Yet total transparency may be an illusion. Few consumers demand to know whether their oat milk is also served elsewhere under a different name. Coffee has made itself unusually legible – and thus unusually vulnerable to scrutiny.
“I always come back to the question of how we’re actually defining transparency,” says Nico. “There are people who do incredible work with record-keeping, long-term relationships and data that genuinely reflects what’s happening on the ground. But the reality is that most transparency tools weren’t built by – or for – farmers, and they often don’t serve the way producers actually run their businesses.”
“It’s very easy to look ‘transparent’ by sharing a PDF, a farmer count and a short story, because that’s what the market can digest. True transparency, to me, is relational: being honest about challenges on both sides, growing companies together and understanding who this coffee is actually good for. When it comes to ethics, the real question isn’t whether claims exist, but who defines them – and who is willing to pay for them.”
A farm can genuinely be family-run, regenerative and youth-transitioning at once. The problem is not multiplicity, but expectation: buyers want singular narratives in a plural reality.
“I don’t think this needs to be a binary,” says Phil. “Even if full transparency is somewhat unrealistic, even partial transparency is a step in the right direction. We shouldn’t let ‘perfect’ get in the way of ‘better’ on this.”
There is also a power asymmetry. Producers adapt because they must. Roasters and retailers control access to consumers, with marketing language flowing downhill. If a buyer wants a “woman-owned” story, the producer supplies it – or risks losing the sale. In that sense, differentiation is less a deception than a negotiation.
The deeper myth, perhaps, is that coffee was ever purely differentiated by substance. Even at the height of the third wave, flavour distinctions were legible mainly to professionals. For most drinkers, difference has always been mediated by branding, price and context. Average consumers were never all tasting radically different things; they were being told they were.
None of this means differentiation is meaningless. Coffee is differentiated the way identities are: situationally, strategically, and sometimes opportunistically.
The risk is not that everyone is drinking the same coffee. It is that the industry pretends otherwise while insisting on moral superiority. A more honest posture would acknowledge that specialty coffee operates like any other premium market – part craft, part commerce, part theatre.
Coffee Intelligence