Food waste is at top of the agenda for Courtauld 3 | Analysis

PackagingNews

 

The latest phase of Wrap’s Courtauld Commitment has targeted food and drink waste. Unlike the previous two versions, CC3 has been met with more positivity although there are dissenting voices. By Liz Gyekye

Courtauld Commitment was criticised by many in the industry for focusing on packaging weight; the second received a warmer reception. But now, the third phase has received a pat on the back.

Courtauld Commitment 3 (CC3) sets its sights on reducing food and drink waste from 2013 to 2015, with targets measured against a 2012 baseline. Improvements in packaging are thought to be now so advanced that industry experts want to concentrate on packaging optimisation.

It aims to tie in greater resource efficiency with continued sales growth for its 45 signatories, and could deliver up to £1.6bn of savings. Its 45 signatories include major grocery retailers, household brands and manufacturers, such as Coca-Cola, Mars and Heinz.

Reducing food waste

Specifically, the targets aim to reduce household food and drink waste by 5%, representing a 9% reduction in real terms to counter the expected increase in food purchased. It also targets a cut in traditional grocery ingredient, product and packaging waste in the grocery supply chain by 3%. Here signatories will have to make an 8% reduction in real terms to counter the expected increase in production and sales.

The Courtauld Commitment is managed by Wrap. According to the organisation, the objective of the packaging target is to optimise material use in packaging.  The objective of the manufacturing and retail (M&R) target is to reduce overall waste of grocery products and packaging.  To effectively deliver these two objectives, there is a need to consider packaged product systems within the supply chain.

For example, under the packaging target, optimisation is sought (rather than material reduction) so there isn’t the unintended consequence of increased waste due to damage from under-packaging products.  Similarly, a proportion of primary, secondary and tertiary packaging becomes waste in manufacture and retail, and in consumers’ homes.

Where the optimised packaging becomes waste within the supply chain, it will impact upon both targets (M&R and packaging), says Wrap. This will have a beneficial impact with respect to the M&R target if there has been a weight reduction in the packaging. But this alone is insufficient to meet the M&R target – waste levels themselves have to be reduced.  The CC3 targets have been determined with the knowledge that some of the packaging impact will contribute to both targets.

Good evolution

So what does the industry think? IOPP UK managing director Kevin Vyse welcomes the focus on food waste reduction and the recognition that optimised packaging saves waste.

Vyse says: “CC3 is a good evolution from the success of the previous agreements. There is a general feeling in the industry that CC1 and CC2 have had the right effect in the packaging supply chain but that we have now reached the optimum without adding to the food waste problem.”

Environmental think tank Green Alliance also praises the agreement. Senior policy adviser Dustin Benton says that “the most powerful thing with CC3 is its process”, in relation to getting companies throughout the supply chain working with each other to deliver agreed goals.

With Wrap being a mediator, “it is a platform where those concerned can collaborate with their competitors without being worried about breaking any competition rules. It also offers companies the exciting opportunity to go further than the set targets,” he says.

The agreement has a history of achieving change. To date, 2.3m tonnes of waste has been prevented by signatories and consumers. The value of waste prevented is around £3.5bn.

Not enough

However, some groups claim the targets are not ambitious enough given the progress achieved since 2005. Waste Watch and Keep Britain Tidy found the new target disappointing as signatories on average made an 8.8% reduction in waste during CC2.

Keep Britain Tidy evidence and policy manager Tim Burns says: “We feel that a commitment to only reduce waste in the supply chain by 3% is not enough to meet the challenges facing society and the environment in the next three years. Furthermore in comparison to CC2’s provisional results this is a step back on what has been achieved by signatories.

“We do not single out packaging in our response as we follow Wrap’s guidance on considering both the product and the package and optimising the reduction of waste together.”

Stergios Bititsios of MMR Research also criticised the programme. His own view is that the retailers’ positions are “rather hypocritical when they keep maintaining other sources of waste creation”. For example, he criticises extravagant in-store promotions “that lead consumers to purchase more than they actually need”.

He adds that “although all manufacturers, retailers and suppliers should get actively involved they need to remember to keep packaging changes in line with brand equity, consumer appeal and emotional and functional benefits”.

With the debate set to continue, it will be interesting to see what shape the next phase of the Courtauld Commitment will take – assuming phase four is needed.

Claims: 
The copyrights of articles in the website belong to authors. Please inform us if there is any violation of intellectual property and we will delete the articles immediately.