Leading on Litter Food Industry Research on Litter and Littering

8/3/2019 Leading on Litter Food Industry Research on Litter and Littering

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/leading-on-litter-food-industry-research-on-litter-and-littering 1/23

Understanding FMCG Litter

Understanding Fast Moving

Consumer Goods (FMCG) Litter

Dr Brett Carroll, Environment Manager, NestlePeter Shmigel, Director, Nolan-ITU

Leading on Litter Conference

May 2004

Melbourne, Victoria




Today‟s Presentation

• Explain Nestle‟s reasons for involvement in

littering issue

• Outline path that Nestle is following

• Overview research outcomes by Nolan-ITUfor Nestle

• Introduce a model for prioritisation of FMCG

litter• Comments on improving littering

management




Nestlé - Background

• Founded in 1866 in Switzerland - largest Foodand Beverage company in the world

• Factories or operations in almost every countryon earth

• Set up business in Australia in 1908 and now2nd or 3rd largest F&B company in Australia

• DID YOU KNOW? - MILO was a uniquelyAustralian invention in 1934, now sold in over30 countries worldwide




Nestlé in Australia




Market Background

• Fast moving consumer goods (FMCG):– purchased from retail for immediate consumption

– consumer: low cost, low commitment, frequentpurchases

– industry: high volume, low margin• Nestle FMCGs: confectionery, yoghurt,

ice cream, and beverages

• Changing demographics– smaller households

– more „away-from-home‟ consumption

– smaller, convenience oriented packs




Nestle Reasons for Involvement

• Social / market factors leading to higherprobability of littering of FMCGs

• Corporate citizenship and environmental

management goals• National Packaging Covenant participation

• Broadening of Nestle‟s environmental

management program from internal

operations focus to product life cycle

• Risk management: public policy, reputation,brand




Nestle Pathway

1. Better understanding of scope and nature oflittering of FMCGs– What‟s the size and scale of the problem?

– What currently works in managing it?

2. Open dialogue and co-operation– Australian Food & Grocery Council Enviro Committee

– anti-littering stakeholders, including VLAA

3. Implementation actions- some still being identified

- Eco-Design Guidelines (in Covenant Action Plan)




Scoping the Problem

• Nestle engaged Nolan-ITU: conduct desktop review of existing litter data

generate preliminary estimate of Nestlé

products in litter stream

examine quality of existing litter data on foodand grocery products

prioritise litter items outline current anti-littering initiatives






Process

• Determine value of FMCGs (industry data)• Determine value of consumed away-from-home

(AFGC estimate)

• Assign $2 per item (Nolan-ITU assumption)• Determine potential litter items (CCC/BIEC data)

• Estimate # of FMCG litter items (KABC data)

• Estimate % of Nestle litter items (industry data)

• Prioritise Nestle litter items by significance(Nolan-ITU methodology)



Packaged food and

grocery productssold in the away

from home sector

$6.5 billion perannum

Consumed

outdoors

$3.25 billion p.a

(50% of total)

Consumed in a

commercial

setting

$3.25 billion p.a

(50% of total)

Binned products

$2.16 billion +

$3.25 billion

Littered products

$1.083 billion p.a

= 541 million units

(30% littered)

PRODUCTION CONSUMPTIONDESTINATION

Plastics (82.8%)= 448 million units

= 41.5 million units

LPB (6.5%)

= 35 million units

Metals (5%)

= 27 million units

Wood (5.5%)

= 30 million units

= 8 million units

Glass (0.2%)

= 1.5 million units

Landfill



6%

7%

2%

12%

0%2%

1%

2%

0%

2%

2%

0%

64%

straws

Bottle/can tops

ice cream wrappers

confectionery wrappers

plastic containers (assumed yoghurtcontainers)

PET bottles

other beverage bottles

cartons (milk, fruit and milk flavoured)

Soft/juice - steel

Soft drink - aluminium

Ice cream sticks

soft drink - Glass

REMAINING LITTER STREAM

FMCG in Australian litter stream



REMAINING 64% 963 million littered

units

FMCG

33%

496 million littered

units

NESTLE

3%

50 million littered units

Nestle products as proportion / # in litter stream




Data Characteristics

• No “national” count since 1996• Previous to today, no public estimate of total

size of litter stream or actual % of FMCGs inlitter stream

• Brand names generally unrecorded

• Inconsistent recording of packaging types

• Geographical dispersion not well established




Process - another way of thinking

• Determine potential litter items (2003 KESAB)– Extrapolate number of equivalent litter collection sites

across Australia

– Multiply by average number of items collected per site

– Multiply from a quarterly to a yearly equivalent

• Est. size of total litter stream = 622 m. items

• Apply estimated 23% of FMCG litter items (2003

KESAB)– account for differences in beverages due to CDL

• Est. size of FMCG litter stream = 141 m. items




FMCG Litter: How Significant?

• Major advances in understandingfactors that contribute to littering

• Less understanding of actual impact oflitter (with exception of some work ondirect financial cost of management)

• Critical to estimate impacts in order toguide program priorities




Direct Litter Indicator (DLI)

• Indicates the immediate, objective andquantifiable aspects associated with litterfrom a packaging type– Area (m2) – Maximum area of ground covered by

FMCGs littered items

– Persistence (years) – Estimated amount of timelitter remains in the environment

NUMBER OFLITTERED ITEMS

X AREA X

PERSISTENCE

= DIRECT

LITTER

INDICATOR




Direct Litter Indicator (DLI)

• Results for key Nestle items:– Confectionery wrappers = 7.86

– Ice cream wrappers = 2.89

– Yogurt containers = 0.17– “Other” beverage bottles = 0.06

– Ice cream sticks = 0.02

– Bottle tops = 0.0036




Cumulative Litter Indicator (CLI)

• Adds the dimensions of:– Environmental impact - in terms of ecosystem

impact (primarily impacts on wildlife) and humantoxicology (through emissions to water, air and soil);

– Risk Level – in terms of the likelihood and severity ofregulatory intervention and brand reputation

damage.

DIRECT LITTER

INDICATOR X

ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT X RISK

LEVEL

= CUMULATIVELITTER

INDICATOR




CLI Example -Confectionery Wrapper

• DLI = 7.86 • Environmental impact = 2

• ecosystem impact = 1 and human toxicity = 1

• Risk level = 2 • Regulation = 1 and reputation = 1

• CLI = 7.86 x 2 x 2

• CLI = 31.44




Cumulative Litter Indicator (CLI)(cont)

• Results for key Nestle items:– Confectionery wrappers = 31.44

– Ice cream wrappers = 8.67

– Yogurt containers = 0.17– “Other” beverage bottles = 0.18

– Ice cream sticks = 0.02

– Bottle tops = 0.01




Comparative example• Beverage containers

– Amount = 28 million

– Area = 0.13m

– Persistence = 5y

• DLI = 17.90 – Enviro impact = 2

• Ecosystem impact=1

• Human impact = 1

– Risk impact = 3• Regulation = 1.5

• Reputation = 1.5

• CLI = 107.4

• Confectionery wrappers– Amount = 28 million

– Area = 0.23m

– Persistence = 1y

• DLI = 6.44 – Enviro impact = 2

• Ecosystem impact =1

• Human impact = 1

– Risk impact = 2• Regulation = 1

• Reputation = 1

• CLI = 25.76




Insights

• Attempting to quantify problem creates

impetus for action by company, industry &stakeholders

• Prioritisation of items enables better

targeting of efforts• Strong need for broadly accepted,

consistent and “official” litter

measurement methodologies• Collaborative approaches - on VLAA model

- necessary

Documents

Leading on Litter Food Industry Research on Litter and Littering