Royal Coffee says ‘direct trade’ is unregulated

Coffee sourcing is what this story is really about — not branding, not cafe copy, but who actually buys beans, who gets paid, and who carries the risk. Royal Coffee’s new piece lands on a term that has floated through specialty coffee for years with a kind of moral glow around it: “direct trade.” The problem is simple. The phrase sounds precise, but it mostly isn’t. Royal’s point is that the label has no shared rulebook, so buyers and drinkers can read a lot into it that may not be true. (royalcoffee.com) ### What does “direct trade” sound like? It sounds like a roaster calling a farmer, agreeing on a price, and skipping the middlemen. That image is powerful because it suggests cleaner incentives — more transparency, better pay, and a closer relationship between producer and buyer. Royal says that is the promise people hear when they see the phrase, and it helps explain why the term became so sticky in specialty coffee in the first place. (royalcoffee.com) ### So what’s the catch? The catch is that coffee still has to move through the real world. Beans need financing, contracts, milling, export paperwork, shipping, warehousing, and quality control. Royal’s argument is that importers and exporters usually still do a lot of that work, even when a roaster has a genuine relationship with a producer. So “direct” often means direct communication or negotiated pricing, not a supply chain with nobody in the middle. (royalcoffee.com) ### Why is the term so slippery? Because nobody governs it. “Direct trade” is not like Fairtrade or Organic, where at least there is a certifier, a standard, and some outside enforcement. In practice, each roaster can define the term for itself. One company may use it for long-term farm partnerships and published prices. Another may use it for a single origin trip and a handshake relationship that still runs through several intermediaries. Both can say “direct trade.” (royalcoffee.com) ### Where did this idea come from? Royal traces it back to the late 1990s, when specialty roasters like Counter Culture, Intelligentsia, and Stumptown wanted more distinctive coffees and more visibility into where they came from. At the time, that was a real break from a murkier market where sourcing information often stayed with traders. “Direct trade” became a way to signal traceability and quality — and, bluntly, to market coffee as more ethical and more intentional. (royalcoffee.com) ### Does that mean direct relationships are fake? No — and that’s an important distinction. Royal is not saying farm relationships do not matter. It is saying the benefits depend on the actual deal. A serious relationship can mean clearer communication, better feedback on quality, more stable pricing, and trust built over years. But those outcomes come from the structure of the relationship, not from the phrase on the bag. Basically, the label is cheap; the practice is hard. (royalcoffee.com) ### Why can’t every roaster do this well? Volume is a big reason. Royal notes that many small specialty roasters simply do not buy enough coffee to materially support a producer’s business compared with larger importer contracts. That does not make the relationship meaningless. But it does mean the romance of “we buy direct” can overstate how much economic stability a small account really provides at origin. (royalcoffee.com) ### What should buyers look for instead? Specifics. Price paid. Contract terms. Whether the relationship is recurring. Whether the producer is named. Whether payment timing is clear. Whether the roaster explains who handled export and import. Those details tell you far more than the slogan does. (royalcoffee.com)mistaking vocabulary for accountability. “Direct trade” can describe something meaningful. But without standards, it can also just be a nice story wrapped around a very ordinary coffee transaction. (royalcoffee.com)