For decades now, the Specialty Coffee Association’s 100-point scoring system has been the most commonly used method to evaluate cup profile and overall coffee quality. The SCA’s protocol serves an important purpose, creating a universal methodology and shared language for coffee professionals all over the world to use.
In early 2023, the SCA updated its assessment criteria to incorporate the new Coffee Value Assessment, which the association said was developed to reduce the intersubjectivity of cupping.
Reactions to the CVA have been seemingly mixed, which reverts us back to the ongoing conversation about how we can establish new ways to assess coffee quality, and whether we need to in the first place.
Tony Dreyfuss, co-founder and co-president of Metropolis Coffee Company, and Nicole Battefeld-Montgomery, coffee expert at nunc and German Barista, Brewers Cup, and Coffee in Good Spirits Champion, provide their insight on this topic.
You may also like our article on how changing how we assess coffee quality can help producers & roasters.
How coffee quality assessment has changed in recent years
Assessing coffee quality is an essential step in the supply chain. Without standardised measures of grading and scoring coffee, industry professionals would struggle to communicate key information.
In a 2015 Tea & Coffee Trade article, Vice President of Coffee Enterprises Spencer Turer wrote:
“Before specialty coffee trade associations became global, coffee was traded based on separate quality designations by each individual producing country. It was the buyer’s responsibility to learn the specific terminology and grade standards used by each origin country… The latest generation of coffee professionals has quickly adopted the terminology used by the Coffee Quality Institute, defining Q-grade coffee using… the SCA definition for specialty grade.”
Since 1999, the SCA’s cupping and grading protocols have been widely adopted by Q graders and other industry professionals to not only distinguish between specialty and commodity-grade coffee, but to establish a standardised system that can theoretically analyse quality as objectively as possible.
Challenges with current systems
Despite its widespread use, however, these cupping protocols have faced some criticism in recent years. There has been ongoing debate about whether reducing coffee quality to a single score is relevant and fair, while some argue that “intersubjectivity” (i.e. the cupper’s personal opinion) can still skew scores in either direction. This variability can result in inequitable compensation for producers.
Tony Dreyfuss is a co-founder and co-president of Chicago roaster Metropolis Coffee Company, which was established in 2003. He believes that quality extends beyond cup score alone.
“We don’t need to redefine specialty coffee so long as we agree that it scores at least 80 points and is virtually defect-free,” he tells me. “However, I don’t believe that cup score is particularly useful when determining quality beyond a very simple definition.
“It’s also dangerous when we let one group define quality because that definition will determine price, which will always favour those with more market access,” he adds.
Recent updates to cupping and grading protocol
To address criticism, the SCA launched its new Coffee Value Assessment in April 2023. The association said its updated cupping guidelines and protocol will allow coffee professionals to collect more information about a specific coffee, and thereby evaluate quality more comprehensively and fairly.
The new protocol and guidelines are split into four assessment stages, which can be used separately or collectively:
- Physical – an evaluation of green coffee which assesses moisture content, physical appearance, and any visual damage to the beans. The results can be applied to a number of grading systems
- Extrinsic – an evaluation of factors such as “identity”, certification, and origin
- Affective – an evaluation of the cupper’s personal opinion on coffee quality based on the 100-point scale
- Descriptive – an evaluation of a coffee’s flavour and aroma attributes, with no positive or negative implications
Across the industry, reactions to the new cupping protocols have been somewhat mixed, with many acknowledging that the new guidelines are a double-edged sword. Regarding extrinsic factors specifically, certain producing countries – or even regions within them – could emerge as more “boutique” origins with higher scores. But in turn, this could put other producer countries at a disadvantage.
Likewise, coffees with a number of certifications – including organic, carbon neutral, or regenerative – could also receive higher overall scores, and further shape our perception of coffee quality. But with certifications becoming increasingly inaccessible to many producers (especially smallholders), this could only widen the wealth gap in coffee production.
Conversely, the CVA gives Q graders the option to choose which categories to score coffee against – and some may decide to stick to existing standards for the sake of convenience.
Is there a need to redefine coffee quality?
Coffee quality will always be subjective. Every person will inherently have an individual bias towards their preferred acidity, sweetness, balance, body, and flavour profile, even when using standardised protocols. Resultantly, there is always scope to explore other alternatives – especially ones which can add more value to the supply chain.
Tony points out that SCA cupping guidelines largely rely on lighter roast profiles with more complex sensory profiles, which can alienate more “traditional” consumers and industry professionals.
“People may feel that they are ‘wrong’ to enjoy lower-acidity coffees with more simple and straightforward tasting notes,” he suggests.
Moreover, he emphasises that many consumers may not be familiar with formal cupping and grading protocols in the first place.
“Some consumers only care about cup score when it’s printed on packaging, but most aren’t even aware that coffee is scored,” Tony says.
Nicole Battefeld-Montgomery is a seasoned competitor and coffee expert at nunc – an AI-driven home coffee espresso machine and grinder manufacturer. She says that as a coffee trainer and educator, she is often confronted with addressing taste subjectivity, as well as how describing flavour and quality can be made more relevant to a wider audience that doesn’t exclusively drink specialty coffee.
“What the industry likes to define as a clean and balanced acidic cup (among other attributes), doesn’t always translate well to the end consumer,” she explains. “Communication is key. If we can reach more people then qualified professionals can explain what the points system actually means.”
A better understanding of quality between origin & consumption
Perhaps more important than educating consumers about objective coffee quality is aligning buyers’ and producers’ standards. Roasters and traders are often in control of scoring systems, and therefore have more influence over prices paid – which doesn’t always work in farmers’ favour.
What’s more, at a PRF El Salvador panel in April 2023, speaker Jorge Raúl Rivera of Finca Santa Rosa highlighted that many of his industry peers at origin weren’t familiar with formalised quality assessment, and that cup score sheets can be “overwhelming” to understand.
This creates a whole new set of issues, and only serves to widen the gap between what producers and buyers recognise as high-quality coffee.
Standardised protocols can also fail to acknowledge cultural factors that influence different taste preferences – preventing the industry from rewarding flavour diversity more widely. These issues are largely linked to the Coffee Taster’s Flavor Wheel, which is a useful resource for many, but exclusively includes flavours more commonly found in North American and Western European cuisines.
Understandably, this inclusivity can make it challenging for coffee professionals outside of these regions to identify and relate with the flavours they taste – and potentially restricts quality assessment.
Is a more holistic approach the solution?
Opinion will remain divided about the “best” way to assess coffee quality, but there are two main approaches the industry could take. The first is a more holistic route.
The fourth edition of the International Trade Centre’s Coffee Guide states:
“Quality in coffee is an evolving concept, and definitions have varied over the years. Coffee traders used to look at quality from the perspective of what was, at a minimum, acceptable for their market…Today, definitions of quality are more precise and are also interlinked with concepts of sustainability.”
With this in mind, broadening our definition of quality to include environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics could create a more equitable value chain. In theory, producers could be better compensated if they are able to invest back into their farms and communities, including improving soil health and reducing their use of artificial fertilisers.
“Having information about a coffee’s carbon footprint and social impact influences price, and it could also impact how we assess quality,” Nicole explains.
On the other hand, as mentioned with the CVA’s extrinsic category, a focus on ESG could quickly become exclusionary. Many smallholders lack access to data collection and verification technology, not to mention the high costs of achieving and renewing certifications.
How AI could provide clarity on coffee quality
AI (or artificial intelligence) is slowly becoming part and parcel of the coffee industry. While this technology may not necessarily be able to redefine coffee quality, it could be used to provide a clearer and more objective understanding of it.
Producers who have struggled to assess the quality of their coffees in ways that meet market demand could leverage AI to develop a clearer idea of how to improve farming practices and increase cup scores. From there, buyers and sellers should theoretically be more aligned with their quality standards, and therefore prices.
But, of course, farmers need access to this technology in the first place, and that is often easier said than done.
The conversation about how to objectively define coffee quality continues. And as pricing mechanisms rely on quantifiable measurements, it becomes increasingly challenging to provide solutions.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to assessing quality, but it’s useful for coffee professionals to have a range of options. But at the same time, if we want these protocols to add value to the industry, they need to be universally accepted and understood.
Enjoyed this? Then read our article on what cupping can tell producers about their coffee.
Perfect Daily Grind
Want to read more articles like this? Sign up for our newsletter!