Kellogg Company Case Study: Food Waste in Global Manufacturing Erin Augustine

Senior Sustainability Manager, Natural Resource Conservation, Kellogg Company

Food Loss and Waste

Tracking and Reporting November 2017

Provision Coalition

2

3

1,600 foods, produced in 21 countries,

marketed in more than 180 countries

Bringing Our Best to the World

4

People care about where their

food comes from, the people who

grow it and make it, and that

there’s enough for everyone.

We care too.

We are using our leadership to

tackle the inter-connected issues

of hunger and robust food

systems, with great tasting brands

grounded in purpose.

A Company with a Heart & Soul

4

AgWater Challenge:

Steward

Most Improved Brand

Pa

lm O

il

A - Climate, Water, Forests

Response

Influencers & Stakeholders Recognize Kellogg Leadership

Kellogg Ranked #1

US-Based Company for

Human Rights Performance

2030 Food Waste &

Loss Champion

Recognized Leadership

Robust commitments and external reporting and validation are the

foundation for communication about food credentials and social purpose

5

2020 Growth Plan

6

8

Who We Are

A Company With a Heart and Soul

Our Commitments

9

7.1M Gallons of water reduced in just one plant per

year through conservation initiatives

15,200 Smallholder farmers supported through

Kellogg programs from 2014-2016

1,000,000 pounds of packaging avoided in just one of

dozens packaging reduction initiatives in 2016

294,000 farmers supported directly and indirectly

Through programs from 2014-2017

$28M 2005-2015 in Energy and Water Cost Savings

in our manufacturing sites

$30M Potential cost savings from 15% food waste

reduction

10,000 Women farmers and workers supported

through Kellogg programs from 2014-2017

35+ 35 Kellogg’s OriginsTM Projects in 5 continents to support best practices in sustainable agriculture

10

Benefits of FLW Protocol

1. Consistent language for measurement and benchmarking

2. Increased awareness and alignment of reporting

requirements

Food Loss and Waste Inventory

Food Loss and Waste Public Reporting

Challenge: Data collection

Our first challenge was to

identify which Kellogg

facilities needed

1. New ways to record

food waste data in our

internal tracking system

2. To split apart food waste

that was previously

being reported in a

combined fashion.

Incineration

Waste - incineration

Food waste - incineration

General waste - incineration

Sludge - incineration

Sludge - incineration

New

Category

Anaerobic digestion

Sludge - recycled

Sludge – Anaerobic digestion

Sludge - Recycled

Food Waste – Anaerobic digestion

New

Category

New

Category

Before FLW Standard

Challenge: Assumptions and Calculations

Anaerobic digestion

Sludge - recycled

Sludge – Anaerobic digestion

Sludge - Recycled

Food Waste – Anaerobic digestion

Assumption

*Qualitative estimate based on a scale of 1–10,

with 10 signifying very accurate data

Challenge: Assumptions and Calculations

Incineration

Waste - incineration

Food waste - incineration

General waste - incineration

Sludge - incineration

Sludge - incineration

Assumption #2

*Qualitative estimate based on a scale of 1–10,

with 10 signifying very accurate data

Challenge: Assumptions and Calculations

*Qualitative estimate based on a scale of 1–10,

with 10 signifying very accurate data

Destination Quantification Methods Used Uncertainty*

Sewer/wastewater

treatment

Material: Food and Sludge

Quantification method:

1. Sludge records from waste management vendors, primarily derived from direct weighing at the destination

2. Assumptions from sludge waste composition analysis

3. Calculations using sample total suspended solids (TSS) concentration records and global effluent volume data

4. Calculations using sample BOD and COD concentration records, proxy BOD/COD data for carbohydrates, and global effluent volumes

Assumptions:

1. See sludge assumption above.

2. Sample concentration data (TSS, BOD, and COD) was selected to represent each type of manufacturing facility, including cereal, cookies,

crackers, frozen foods, Pop Tarts, and Pringles.

3. Kellogg facilities complete various wastewater treatment techniques before discharging to various destinations. Treatment techniques

include but are not limited to: no treatment, coarse screening, anaerobic digestion, and aerobic digestion. Included in this destination are

various discharge destinations. These include but are not limited to: municipal wastewater treatment facilities, surface water, and water reuse

for on-site irrigation. Sample effluent concentration data was selected to represent average treatment for each type of manufacturing.

4. Effluent data was not available for a small number of sites; therefore, existing effluent volume data was scaled up from facilities with similar

types of manufacturing.

5. Assumes that all TSS is food waste.

6. BOD and COD calculations assume that all BOD/COD present in the effluent are a result of dissolved carbohydrates; therefore, proxy data

for carbohydrates was used to calculate the mass of carbohydrates present in the effluent. We used the volume method, based on the raw

milk example provided in the Guidance on FLW Quantification Methods, Supplement to the Food Loss and Waste Accounting and Reporting

Standard, Version 1.0.

Uncertainty: 3

Minimal verification of

vendor data

Assumptions scaled up

from limited waste

composition analysis

Assumptions scaled up

from limited TSS, BOD,

and COD data

Questions

Erin Augustine

Senior Sustainability Manager

Kellogg Company

269-961-6368

Erin.Augustine@Kellogg.com