Data informs targets for reducing emissions
2022; Wiley; Volume: 36; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1002/fsat.3601_6.x
ISSN2689-1816
Tópico(s)Food Waste Reduction and Sustainability
ResumoFood Science and TechnologyVolume 36, Issue 1 p. 20-23 FeaturesFree Access Data informs targets for reducing emissions First published: 13 March 2022 https://doi.org/10.1002/fsat.3601_6.xAboutSectionsPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Jamie Oliver of Carbon Intelligence explains why high quality data is essential to enable the food industry to achieve its emission reduction targets on the journey to Net Zero. Every year Larry Fink, Chairman of BlackRock – the world's largest asset manager – writes a letter to the CEOs of the companies that make up BlackRock's $10tn USD investment portfolio. This year Fink posed a question in his letter1: ‘Every company and every industry will be transformed by the transition to a Net Zero world. The question is, will you lead, or will you be led?’ Fink's question reflects a tipping point in corporate ambition to slash greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in line with climate science. Most FTSE 100 members have now joined the UN Race to Zero campaign, with the total number of these commitments doubling in 2021 alone[2, 3]. But in order to match this ambition with a credible strategy, companies must start with a solid foundation of data to inform clear insight and decisive action. This is especially true for the food industry, which is responsible for over one-third of global GHG emissions4. These emissions are spread across enormously complex global supply chains (Figure 1), with many organisations sourcing from thousands of suppliers. Without high quality, comprehensive data to support GHG footprinting and reduction plans, a corporate Net Zero target is at risk of being too expensive, too ambitious (or not ambitious enough!) and delivered too late. Data must be accessible, credible and insightful for the food industry to have a fighting chance of achieving its emission reduction targets. Figure 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint GHG emissions occur all through the food supply chain To understand its emission footprint, a food company must look closely at both the Scope 1 and 2 emissions from its operations, as well as Scope 3 emissions from its supply chain. Scope 1 and 2 emissions Scope 1 represents direct emissions from owned or controlled sources, such as gas heating, vehicle fuels and refrigerant leakage. Scope 2 includes indirect emissions from electricity purchased from the power grid5. These two categories of emissions tend to be smaller than Scope 3 for food processors, distributors and retailers but they are under a food company's direct influence, so to demonstrate credibility and ambition they cannot be ignored. They can also vary widely by process and product, which is why data is so important to understand the footprint, identify hotpots and blind spots, and develop an informed approach for GHG reduction. A good starting point is to benchmark performance across different assets to get strategic insight on volumes, locations and timings. For example, a small brewery will likely emit more GHG emissions for every hectolitre of beer it produces than a large brewery, due to economies of scale. A cold storage distribution centre located in the UK has a much larger GHG footprint than a similar distribution centre in France or Scandinavia, due to the carbon intensity of the local power grids (carbon intensity is the amount of emissions for every unit of electricity consumed and can vary by country depending on the type of power plants used). Adding a night shift to your operations can reduce GHG intensity due to higher utilisation and also because electricity used in off-peak hours tends to be less carbon intensive (and cheaper!). Benchmarking can be a good way to engage with site staff to drive change. Sam McCarthy, Head of Sustainability for Nando's restaurants, explains how his team uses energy data to quickly identify and correct sources of energy waste: ‘We use smart meter data from each restaurant location to drive an energy alert service. Every Monday we look at the top 10 restaurants using more energy than expected and call them to understand why. It could be a mechanical fault or even just staff turning grills on too early in the morning. The data gives us visibility over our energy performance that we would simply not otherwise have.’ These trends can be useful for informing your corporate GHG strategy but do not always take them at face value; sometimes the data ‘just looks wrong’. Trust your gut instinct – errors and omissions can be common. Perhaps there was an oversight in manual data entry, or a measurement is being recorded in the wrong units. Try comparing year-on-year variance as a sense check and be prepared to go back to the source for verification. Once you have a sense of your Scope 1 and 2 emission performance it is time to think about shrinking those emissions. The priority for reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions is firstly to reduce energy demand through efficiency and conservation, followed by switching to renewable energy sources and lastly to use certified high-quality offsets only where absolutely necessary in order to reach Net Zero emissions. The UK Food and Drink Federation notes in its Net Zero Handbook that this approach can also include decarbonising heat sources and switching to sustainable refrigerants with a low global warming potential6. So how much offsetting is permitted within a Net Zero strategy? As a general rule the food industry should look to offset no more than 10% of its Scope 1 and 2 footprint, with the rest of its Net Zero target achieved through efficiency and renewable energy (Figure 2). Bear in mind that even with efficiency gains, your electricity usage may actually increase if you electrify gas heating equipment, such as steam boilers and ovens, so a credible source of renewable electricity will be vital for achieving your target. Figure 2Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Energy efficiency and renewable sources should be prioritised over offsetting Ironically, many companies take the opposite approach by first buying offsets and renewable energy certificates to claim carbon neutrality. Whilst this is certainly a step in the right direction, a better long-term strategy is to invest that capital in energy efficiency to immediately realise several benefits, such as lower energy bills, less risk exposure to energy price hikes, less offsetting cost to reach carbon neutrality/Net Zero and meeting customer demands. As more food companies set ambitious GHG reduction targets that include supply chain GHG reductions, they will be putting increasing pressure on their suppliers to take action. Lower energy bills are a big driver at the moment: in 2021 food companies saw huge increases in the cost of their energy, which underscores the importance of energy efficiency. Updated energy cost forecasting data from your procurement department will be useful to help you build this business case for further investment going forward. As you look to invest in technology and automation to save energy, do not overlook the role that your staff will play in achieving these savings. ‘You could have the best technology in place but unless you teach people how to use it properly, you might not see an improvement’ says McCarthy. He explains that Nando's restaurants have efficient variable airflow cooking extract systems, but this technology does not save energy if staff override it or forget to switch off the fans at night. ‘You can't manage what you don't measure. Be prepared to track your interventions and take action if performance is not as expected.’ Scope 3 emissions Scope 3 includes all the emissions within your company's value chain. The biggest Scope 3 hotspot for the food industry tends to be purchased goods and services, where ingredients have high emissions from their land use and farming impacts. Emissions from transport and distribution, and from the use of sold products can also be significant for certain types of food company. These Scope 3 emissions can easily comprise over 90% of a food company's total GHG footprint, yet they are the least well understood (Figure 3). As a starting point, companies should aim to get a grasp of their Scope 3 footprint using high-quality data to understand which activities and suppliers are the most significant, in order to prioritise efforts. An example of high-quality Scope 3 data would be a product lifecycle analysis of GHG impacts for a specific region or supplier, rather than an estimation based on industry averages or on your level of spend by category (Figure 4). Figure 3Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Scope 1 and 2 emissions are just the tip of the iceberg – the rest (Scope 3) is much bigger, and can be challenging to fully visualize Figure 4Open in figure viewerPowerPoint The journey to understanding your supply chain data Food products often have very high ‘embedded’ GHGs due to land use and farming impacts, meat and dairy in particular. This level of detail can quickly become overwhelming so do not worry about capturing everything all at once; start by focusing on the most material categories for your operations (such as animal products, or imported ingredients that may be associated with deforestation) and look to increase the breadth and accuracy over time as your data programme matures. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol7 has an excellent reference guide to help with this and if food waste is a concern for your business then the Waste and Resources Action Programme8 (WRAP) has several useful tools. This approach is also important for setting a reduction target: for nearly all food companies the Science-Based Targets Initiative requires that a long-term Scope 3 target must cover at least 90% of your company's total Scope 3 emissions. Food products often have very high ‘embedded’ GHGs due to land use and farming impacts, meat and dairy in particular (Figure 5). The National Farmers’ Union of England and Wales has committed to Net Zero by 2040, however it has made it clear that this commitment is a national aspiration and that not every farm can realistically achieve this target. Therefore, food companies must be prepared to engage with their supply chain on GHG data transparency to make informed choices about which suppliers to support. Figure 5Open in figure viewerPowerPoint Certain food products have large GHG footprints due to land use and farming impacts9 This is exactly the approach being taken by Europe's largest frozen food company, Nomad Foods. Annelie Selander, Sustainability Director for Nomad Foods, says that ‘getting a firm understanding of our Scope 3 emissions has helped us prioritise the suppliers to engage and collaborate with for GHG reduction. Nomad Foods has over 1,000 suppliers of raw materials and packaging, and we now know that 75% of emissions come from just 5% of these suppliers, so this clear view of Scope 3 data is critical for effective engagement.’ Planning and target setting Understanding the full extent of your GHG footprint can be challenging but it will give your board the confidence it needs to take big steps forward, such as publicly committing to a Science-Based Target, the best practice for corporate climate ambition. It will also give your operations team visibility of where savings can actually be made. In addition, it will enable your procurement team to take informed action through supplier engagement, for example by setting procurement requirements and working with suppliers to encourage better farming practices. Selander points out that ‘developing a GHG baseline has helped Nomad Foods understand where to focus our efforts on carbon and waste reduction – we've now identified that a 25% absolute reduction is achievable by 2025, even when factoring in business growth. This is equivalent to a 45% intensity reduction in GHG emissions per ton of production.’ These positive steps have not only led to significant savings being achieved, but have also helped her organisation make an ambitious public commitment to sustainability: ‘having this visibility of GHG savings potential has enabled Nomad Foods to set a Science-Based Target with confidence’, says Selander. Bidfood and Nando's have also committed to Science-Based Targets for GHG reduction, and all three organisations have used their grasp of data to set ambitious food waste reduction targets as well. With targets firmly in place, it is worth considering the use of a dedicated software tool to manage all of your GHG data and to track progress by department and region. Instead of relying on spreadsheets saved on someone's laptop, a purpose-built platform will avoid data handling errors, improve data visualisation and enable access across your organisation for informed decision-making at group level and for continuous engagement across all of your physical locations. Your organisation will also now be able to consider disclosing information about the carbon footprint of its products to consumers. This could offer a competitive advantage: a study by PwC10 showed that when UK consumers were asked ‘Who do you trust to tell you the truth about the environmental impact of a product?’ they mainly chose NGOs (51%), followed by the Government (20%) and the media (20%) above producers (16%) and retailers (9%). So clearly there is an opportunity for food companies to build more trust with consumers and take an industry-leading position. But in order to avoid claims of greenwashing, data quality and quantity is a major hurdle to overcome first. Julie Owst, Head of Sustainability and Change for Bidfood, one of the UK's largest food wholesalers, believes that ‘this is a huge growth area. In a world where companies are quick to claim their green credentials, data authenticity and trust is really key’. Owst believes that more collaboration is needed within the industry to standardise product data reporting and make this available to consumers. At the moment, GHG labels are not widespread and it would be beneficial to see wider adoption, as recent research has shown that consumers are encouragingly responsive when given information on climate impacts of dining choices11. Owst encourages consumers to ask more questions about where their food comes from and to vote with their wallets. ‘Consumer demand for carbon information is far outpacing the food industry's ability to provide it, and this is now starting to drive progress. Ultimately it is you, the consumer, who has the power to create change.’ Conclusions Bidfood's call to action echoes the informed, data-driven approach of Nando's and Nomad Foods. These food companies have very different operations, but they each understand that their Net Zero journey must be supported by a solid foundation of data to enable sustainability leadership. As the world rapidly transitions to Net Zero and your organisation considers its own sustainability ambitions, consider the question from Larry Fink: will you lead, or will you be led? Carbon Intelligence is a sustainability data and consulting firm that works with global corporates and investors to set and achieve credible, ambitious Net Zero goals and decarbonise their operations and supply chains. Bringing together strategists, technologists, data scientists and engineers, Carbon Intelligence delivers evidence-based programmes that connect sustainability with business value. A specialist in GHG accounting, it is a consultancy for science-based targets in the UK, having supported 1-in-6 targets aligned to 1.5°C. Jamie Oliver, Associate Director, Carbon Intelligence Jamie helps food companies develop credible targets and strategies to achieve Net Zero. He has a process engineering background and has been supporting food companies with energy and carbon reduction for 12 years. email james.oliver@carbon.ci web carbon.ci REFERENCES 1Larry Fink. 2022. Letter to CEOs: the power of capitalism. Available from: https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/larry-fink-ceo-letterGoogle Scholar 2 UK Government. 2021. Press release: third of UK's biggest companies commit to net zero. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/third-of-uks-biggest-companies-commit-to-net-zeroGoogle Scholar 3 UK Government. 2021. Press release: COP26 sees UK businesses lead the world in climate change commitments. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cop26-sees-uk-businesses-lead-the-world-in-climate-change-commitmentsGoogle Scholar 4Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food systems account for more than one third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Available from: https://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1379373/Google Scholar 5Greenhouse Gas Protocol. FAQ. Available from: https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards_supporting/FAQ.pdfGoogle Scholar 6FDF. Achieving net zero: a handbook for the food and drink sector. Available from: https://www.fdf.org.uk/globalassets/resources/publications/guidance/compressed_fdf-net-zero-handbook-final-111021.pdfGoogle Scholar 7Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Available from: https://ghgprotocol.org/Google Scholar 8Wrap. Available from: https://wrap.org.uk/Google Scholar 9Poore, J., Nemecek, T. 2018. Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360: 987- 992CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 10PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2008. Sustainability: are consumers buying it? Available from: https://pwc.blogs.com/files/pwc-sustainability-pamphlet13_06_08.pdfGoogle Scholar 11Milman, O. 2021. Bean burrito or beef burrito? Restaurants try messages on menus to help diners order less meat. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/26/plant-based-food-restaurants-climate-menu-messagesGoogle Scholar Volume36, Issue1March 2022Pages 20-23 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)