Well-informed consumers no longer scan grocery products solely for their fat and salt content. What is equally important is whether the product they are eating has been flown halfway around the world or delivered from a farm down the road.
There are many misconceptions about measuring carbon footprint – the farther a product has travelled to the store does not guarantee a higher footprint, for instance. But what is certain is that corporate efforts to combat climate change are now linked directly to a brand’s reputation. It is unsurprising, then, that retailers will be looking for ways to not only reduce their effect on the environment, but also communicate those efforts to customers. To help achieve this, the retail industry is moving towards a universal carbon reduction labelling system, underpinned by a standard carbon footprint measure.
Boots sustainable development manager for products Andrew Jenkins says all retailers and brand owners recognise that a standard is needed. “Otherwise, it’s going to be totally confusing to customers,” he says.
The Carbon Trust began testing its carbon reduction labels with Boots, Walkers and Innocent at the beginning of this year. In September, the Co-operative Group came on board and on October 11 – in the biggest test of the standard yet – Tesco and the Carbon Trust announced that they would be mapping the carbon footprint of 30 Tesco own-label products.
Carbon Trust carbon footprint general manager Euan Murray says: “There has been an exciting level of engagement from all big retailers. The British Retail Consortium, Food and Drink Federation and the IGD have all come together to say they want a standard.”
In October, the Carbon Trust, in partnership with BSI British Standards and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), published a draft standard for measuring the carbon footprint of individual products and is working with retailers to test the model. The document, called the Publicly Available Specification (PAS), is the first rung on the ladder to producing a fully fledged British standard and is due to be published next summer.
The Carbon Trust says that in addition to providing Tesco with useful information on how it can drive carbon emissions out of its supply chain, the results of the trial will be crucial in testing the applicability of the draft standard. Therefore, the results will help develop a single common standard that can be used across product categories and sectors.
Speaking at the launch of the retailer’s trial, Tesco chief executive Sir Terry Leahy said: “While there’s still a long way to go, mapping these products will yield invaluable data that will benefit all those retailers and producers that are working towards combating climate change.”
Working together
Back in January, Tesco pledged – without giving a deadline – its commitment to labelling every product it sells with a carbon footprint measurement. The UK’s largest retailer initially declared it would be working alone, developing its own label with the help of a group of Oxford University scientists. It has since changed its mind, instead committing to work with the Carbon Trust on an industry-wide standard.
Obtaining an accurate measure of a carbon footprint is undoubtedly a complex, time-consuming process. Even with farmed fresh produce, you have to look at the cultivation stage and go right back to the fertilisers and pesticides used. Consequently, few could deny that it is essential that the industry works together to tackle this in a cost-effective way.
The Co-operative Group is working to test the carbon footprint of the strawberries in its Truly Irresistible range, grown on a farm in Scotland. It is comparing them with strawberries grown in Spain. The Co-operative Group environment adviser Kirstie Hawkins says: “It’s to look at the whole idea [of carbon labelling]. There is a very controlled supply chain with the Truly Irresistible strawberries – we own the supply chain – and we are comparing that with Spain, where we import through an agent. You get complexity if numerous different farmers are supplying fresh produce. One individual farmer could make a substantial difference – just one different fertiliser could have an impact.”
However, the more the industry works together to collate data and produce reliable averages, the easier, cheaper and quicker it will be to calculate carbon footprints. Hawkins says: “There will be a critical mass behind that – the more you do, the easier and cheaper it will be, but getting there will take time and a lot of money.”
Jenkins explains: “Costs and time are considerable for the very first time. You have to invent ways of doing measurements, but once you have, it becomes easier. Some of the procedures will be common across lots of products. Once you have a library of those building blocks, it will be a lot easier and cheaper to do.”
With clear support from the Government and many retailers eagerly committing time, resources and money to the project, can those concerned foresee a time when a carbon label will be compulsory on all products? Murray says: “My gut reaction is probably not. We’ve seen huge numbers of companies get excited and want to be a part of it and voluntary action is more powerful than mandatory measures. Since the draft, we’ve had 150 companies approach us to work with them.”
Hawkins believes universal product labelling, whether voluntary or not, is a long way off – “largely because of the amount of work that needs to be put into each analysis”.
Jenkins says it could be five years before the labelling appears on a significant number of products. “What’s happening now is a pause for reflection. When they publish the standard next year, more companies will take it on board,” he says.
However, not everyone is convinced that blindly pursuing an industry standard is necessarily the right way to go. It may fit nicely with the transparent, ethical brand image that retailers covet today, but questions may have to be asked first.
There is a public debate between the Carbon Trust and other organisations about whether carbon labelling is the best way forward. Some are of the opinion that measuring each product’s carbon footprint from start to finish goes into too much detail. The industry has an accurate picture of where the hotspots are. Delving deeper can confuse the issue and cause unnecessary expense. Hawkins says: “It’s about trying to find a balance between something that is accurate and something that is realistic in terms of the cash you have to put into it.”
Furthermore, do consumers want this level of information? Reportedly, symbols introduced by Tesco and Marks & Spencer that denote air-freighted goods have had no impact on sales. Given this, is it likely that carbon labels will go unacknowledged by consumers? Jenkins says: “The jury is out on whether consumers will look at product and change their habits – are they really going to stop washing their hair, but eat more crisps?”
However, Jenkins strongly believes it is the retailer’s responsibility to provide customers with detailed information about the complete environmental impact of products. “We are putting the product on the market and should be giving advice on how best to use it,” he says.
What’s the core issue?
Equally, bombarding the customer with information can lead to confusion. Food miles and, in particular, air freight often capture the imaginations of consumers. But many believe that this disguises the real issue. A well-cited example that exposes the air freight myth is that of the St Valentine’s Day roses from Kenya. The African roses have a carbon footprint one fifth of the size of their counterparts grown in hot houses in the Netherlands.
Murray says: “Food has captured the imagination because of the idea of food miles and so has reducing packaging, but climate change impact occurs right across the supply chain. For example, with crisps food miles account for less than 10 per cent [of the carbon emissions], whereas fertiliser production accounts for more than 15 per cent. It’s important we don’t get hung up on food miles and important that we look right across the supply chain.”
Of course, it can be said that carbon footprint is just one part of a much bigger picture. It only looks at one part of sustainability – climate change. There is also the ethical side. Hawkins says: “I’d stress that, for the Co-op, it’s not carbon at all costs – we’re very interested in socially responsible delivery. In our food business, we would never not have anything brought in by air. To take away [from developing countries] when we created the market is hugely irresponsible.”
Boots is doing internal research, as well as measuring the sustainability of products as a whole, that deals with issues such as fair trade, biodiversity and the use of recycled materials and palm oil. It could be that the future lies not in carbon labelling, but in a scheme that takes into account a whole spectrum of issues. Perhaps there is a need for a traffic light system of sustainability, similar to that you get for nutritional information in some supermarkets.
The green agenda has given retailers a lot of food for thought in recent years. Retailers’ commitment to carbon labelling is admirable, but this complex area is proving to be a bigger challenge than most. What’s more, the search for a solution has barely begun.
Boots Botanics: cutting carbon
Boots began looking at the sustainability of its Botanics products more than a year ago, right from creation to manufacturing and then customer use to disposal. It has also been working with the Carbon Trust on energy-saving methods for its stores for some time and, when the Carbon Trust announced in January that it was working on a carbon label standard, Boots was asked to be one of the first test cases. The company chose to test its Botanics shampoo range.
The carbon footprint of the product was measured and reduced by 20 per cent by changing the packaging from virgin plastic to part-recycled. Boots also looked at transport and internal warehousing.
However, most surprisingly, it was discovered that by far the largest percentage of carbon was produced by the customer when they used the product – as much as 93 per cent. Over the summer, Boots rolled out point-of-sale material that advised customers to reduce their carbon footprint by turning down their thermostat, which would also reduce energy bills.
Boots pointed out that its hair scientists advised it is better for your hair if you wash it in cooler water. In September, the retailer carried out research with Advantage Card holders and received positive feedback. Boots sustainable development manager for products Andrew Jenkins says: “Consumers really want practical tips. They just want simple advice on what they can do to make a difference; it seemed to hit home.”
He adds: “We were a bit concerned that people would think: ‘Why is Boots measuring something as mundane as shampoo?’ But consumers can grasp the concept quite easily – small changes can become quite powerful.”
No comments yet