Reimagining Food Supply Chains as Value Chains for a Sustainable Future
By Ruchika Mehrotra
The global food system, which is not just limited to production, but also post farm practices that enables the food to reach us in, and, now before time, contributes to a fairly large share of emissions. Currently, food is credited to be giving out 26% global GHG emissions. Further splitting it down, out of this 26% of emissions, 18% is accounted for by the supply chain. A quick glance over the issue of supply chain sustainability might make one believe that it is all about emissions during transportation.
Upon asking 23 Public Policy students on their views on food sustainability, approximately 25% of them were not sure if food causes environmental damage. Those who agreed to food causing environmental damage, another question related to the most environmentally damaging part of the supply chain was asked. Their response reiterated the unawareness of the elements of damaging supply chain elements.
The above graph tells us that transportation is considered to be causing the maximum environmental damage in the food supply chain. Transportation’s significant role in increasing emissions cannot be dismissed, but the contest that is being presented here is that the emissions are instrumentally fragmented across multiple steps of the supply chain, which often goes overlooked. To put things into context, what the global data says about transportation emission is that it makes up only 6% of the global emissions. Thus, we need to understand what other factors contribute to the supply chain emissions to not only formulate better food policies, but also to build the right narrative among the consumers. Having a clear understanding of the elements of the food supply chain that causes environmental degradation is all the more necessary for India, and other developing nations. Conversations around food sustainability are relatively novel and in its inception stage to materialize as a concept, hence now is the right time to define the entry points for robust food policies.
The discussion will conclude with an explanation of Compass Group’s (British multinational contract foodservice company) model of achieving food sustainability.
Causes of environmental concerns in Food Supply Chains
Quite literally, food miles refers to the distance that the food travels from the farm to your fork. It is argued that food that has traveled fewer miles is better for the environment, owing to its low carbon emission. However, does it necessarily mean that it is the best way to reduce the carbon footprint of the food in its supply chain?
Retailers, wholesalers, distributors, different merchants, processors, marketers/storage, farmers or farm suppliers are just a few examples of the many varied supply chain partners that often make up today’s worldwide FSCs, which adds complexity and reduces transparency (Roth et al, 2008). Food processing, packaging, retail, commercial food services, home preparation and food waste disposal and storage play key roles in food supply emissions along with transportation. Briefly, the following food supply chain processes leave carbon emissions:
- Processing
- Transport
- Retail
- Packaging
When electricity inputs, the installation of cooling equipment, and GHG emissions from lost refrigerants are factored into the equation, refrigeration can have a considerable impact on GHG emissions. For some products, the overall carbon footprint of the food supply can be up to 10% when refrigerated storage, including during transportation, is taken into consideration. (Cleoland, 2010). Between 50 and 100 MJ are thought to be required for processing and packing each kg of retail food product (Smil, 2008). Energy is needed in the food processing sector for electricity, heating, and cooling. About three times as much direct energy is needed for food processing as is used at the farm gate (White, 2007). For example, when processing fish, the direct energy need for making ice, canning, freezing, drying or curing, and producing by-products like fish meal and fish oil is roughly 0.5 PJ per year (Muir, 2010).Food waste is relatively lower in low-GDP countries, but significant food losses occur early in the supply chain as a result of poor harvesting practises, insufficient storage facilities, restricted transit infrastructure, and inefficient market and packaging systems.Around 38 percent of the total final energy consumed by the entire food chain is estimated to be contained in global yearly food losses. Food waste also occurs due to cheap and unsustainable packaging methods. Food retailing waste caused by massive display and large scale sourcing also leads to food waste. Further, depending on the methods and tools employed in retail outlets for food storage, preparation, preservation, and display, energy consumption related to the sale of food contributes significantly to GHG emissions.
Compass Group’s approach for achieving food sustainability
Compass Group follows a three pronged sustainability strategy which is directed by ‘Health and Wellbeing’, ‘Environmental Game Changers’ (reducing food waste and increasing plant based options in menu, and reducing single use plastics) and ‘Better for the world’ (resilient supply chain, responsible and sustainable sourcing, and local community engagement). Internally, they have social employment policies and targets in place across gender and ethnic minorities.
To identify potential environmental, social, and governance issues that potentially have an impact on their business or our stakeholders and to rank each issue’s relative relevance, they carry out thorough materiality assessments. The materiality assessment’s conclusion is displayed as a matrix. It comprises the topics they determined to be the most crucial to themselves and their stakeholders. It helped to create their sustainability strategy, which in turn influenced how they approached reporting.
By planning healthy menus with required calories, keeping in mind the salt, sugar and other ingredient composition, they ensure the well being of their consumers. They follow rigorous “nudging” efforts for pushing people to eat healthy. Through a food waste tracking and management app, they have saved 2,9000 tonnes of carbon emissions. SEED (Skills, Enrichment, Evolution and Development), a multi-tiered training programme to advance the teams’ plant-forward culinary skills and raise knowledge of the effects of plant-forward eating on the health of both the world and people, was developed with Google’s backing. Chefs have adopted a “flip/blend/ swap approach. These experts ‘flip the traditional portions of meat and vegetables, giving meat a smaller role on the plate; ‘blend’ meat with vegetables for items like burgers, meatballs and meatloaf; and ‘swap’ traditional meat items for plant based alternatives.”
Their approach and direction seems to be a client and consumer behaviour centric model, which gathers appreciation. However, their supply chain resilience techniques are also limited to sourcing locally. Total carbon emissions rely not only on how far a product was transported but also on how it was transported. For instance, railroads might move the package more sustainably than trucks. Additionally, a number of variables, such as the fuel type, affects it. Unlike a common assumption, purchasing food locally may not significantly reduce GHG emissions, especially when it comes to items with high carbon footprints. For instance, a study conducted showed that buying Spanish tomatoes rather than locally grown Swedish tomatoes is preferable from a greenhouse gas standpoint for Sweden because the latter were grown in greenhouses fueled by fossil fuels while the former were cultivated in open fields.
Finding a Comprehensive Way Out
A study by A.K Vashisht estimates that the economic losses due to land degradation “varied between 10 to 27 per cent of the value of agricultural output due to nature and severity of degradation of land and the cropping pattern across the states.” Current trends indicate that GHG emissions from the food and land use sectors will rise by 28% from 2030 to 2050. However, if sustainable diets are anticipated, GHG emissions from the food and land use sector might decrease by 51% in the year 2050 as opposed to where we are headed presently. Clearly, the problem lies with the food production side as well as supply chain side.
To conclude, there is a pressing need for making food production more sustainable, food supplies more resilient and food consumption more conscious in order to achieve comprehensive and secure food sustainability.
