Final Report

Food Connection Programme –

Final Report

Report on the potential for the redistribution of surplus food from grocery retailer stores to charities

Project code: ISBN: Research date: July 2012 to October 2013 Date: 18/03/14

2

WRAP’s vision is a world without waste, where resources are used sustainably. We work with businesses, individuals and communities to help them reap the benefits of reducing waste, developing sustainable products and using resources in an efficient way. Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk Document reference: [e.g. WRAP, 2006, Report Name (WRAP Project TYR009-19. Report prepared by…..Banbury, WRAP]

Written by: Carrie Lorton, Jackie Fitzgerald, Adrian Cole, Mary McGrath, Mark Varney, Rebecca Sarll, Kelvin Cheung, Vikki Scott

Front cover photography: Photographs include a variety of images from validation and trial projects.

While we have tried to make sure this report is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in

connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is

accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or

suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk

Executive summary

Context In July 2012, Defra convened retailers for a Ministerial Roundtable on the charitable redistribution of surplus food. As a result of the discussions, WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) was tasked with gaining a better understanding of the role redistribution of surplus food could play in food waste prevention from supermarkets at store level. WRAP therefore commissioned two projects, working with retailers, FoodCycle, FareShare and Ricardo-AEA, to: 1. understand the true impact of current food redistribution activities from retail back of

store through a validation exercise; and 2. trial a process to optimise surplus food redistribution through the establishment of new

retailer/charity partnerships. This would build on good practice identified during the validation and the experience and knowledge of FareShare and FoodCycle – the Food Connection programme.

At the same time, WRAP established a Food Redistribution Industry Working Group, with representation from retailers, manufacturers, trade associations, redistribution organisations, logistics and industry bodies, to further discuss the barriers to surplus food redistribution across the supply chain and develop possible solutions to enable action. Guiding principles and case studies created by the Industry Working Group will be made available on the WRAP website. Project Aim The aims of the validation and trial were to assess:

the level and type of surplus food arising at back of store;

its suitability for redistribution to charity; and

processes through which surplus food could be redistributed quickly and efficiently to charities using existing third party redistribution organisations.

The project was not intended to create a statistically robust data set, or to develop cost benefit assessments of different redistribution models. Instead it was a project to trial local store to independent charity redistribution building on current practices in order to identify opportunities and help inform industry the extent to which there could be a case for action, given the limited quantity of retail food waste arising compared to that which occurs earlier in the supply chain. Project Scope The scope of the work covered redistribution of food surpluses from retail back of store to charity and did not address the wider redistribution of surplus foods from across the supply chain. Although the data captured during this project carries a number of caveats, which are defined throughout, this is the first piece of research into store level surplus food redistribution which draws on the experiences and expertise of both the voluntary and retail sectors. As such, it provides a basis for future discussions and can help develop future redistribution activities.

4

Key Findings

There appear to be viable volumes of surplus food that arise at back of store which could be redistributed direct to charity and provide social benefit. However, tonnages are modest in relation to surpluses arising further upstream.

The trial identified a number of barriers that have the potential to hinder redistribution. The principal barriers were:

o Balancing the needs of the charity and the needs of the business in terms of agreeing collection timings which would optimise redistribution.

o Resources required from charities to commit to regularly visit stores to collect food when volume and variety can fluctuate considerably and possible mismatches between what a store has available and what a charity needs or can realistically make use of.

o Processes in-store that limit the range of food categories available for collection due to food safety concerns.

o Capacity in the third sector to provide a scalable solution for all participating stores across a retailer’s estate.

o Providing the resource required to facilitate the retailer/charity interface, verify charities will manage the food safely and appropriately, broker relationships and oversee the process. To roll this out regionally at the level of support provided in the trial, would require several staff to co-ordinate relationships in each region, as well as additional support and services, including IT and remote relationship management tools.

The process trialled, using third party facilitation, did not fully address all of the barriers to back of store redistribution due, in part, to the limited resource available to facilitate and manage relationships. Further collaboration is therefore underway to investigate alternative processes through which surpluses could be quickly and cost effectively redistributed to local charities, for example replicating activity in France by collecting food and delivering to a redistribution charity for onward redistribution or scaling up FoodCycle’s model of collecting food and cooking locally.

By validating existing projects and using the good practice identified to trial a new process for surplus food redistribution, the average collection was boosted by 40%. This illustrates that local arrangements can work if the retail sector and charities work together to overcome these barriers.

There were limitations around the variety and breadth of food types available. It is unlikely that surpluses from back of store would fulfil all of a charity’s food needs. It is also unlikely that one charity will be able to appropriately use the volume of some surplus foods that occasionally occur from each store.

The trial helped raise the visibility of food surpluses at back of store and, on occasion, enabled the store to identify waste prevention opportunities.

Trial outcomes and extrapolation

The six trial projects diverted 5.5 tonnes of food surpluses to human consumption rather than entering the waste stream during the trial period.

On average, around 25kg of surplus food was collected on each store visit during the validation exercise. This average increased to around 35kg per collection during the trial and represents a 40% uplift, illustrating that the third party support provided through the trial could increase the amount of surpluses redistributed.

Figures indicate1 that this could create approximately 83 meals per each 35kg collection.

When extrapolated out, a once a week 35kg collection from one store could provide 1,820kg surplus food per year. Across the 4,379 comparable stores in the UK, the

1 FareShare analysis of British Nutrition Foundation and Food Standards Agency data indicates 1 meal = 420g. Food Standards Agency (1994) ‘Food portion sizes’, ISBN 9780112429616.

5

annual tonnage available could be in the order of 8,000 tonnes per year. It should be noted that this figure is an average taken from a limited dataset and over a limited period and does not take into account seasonal fluctuations or geographical differences. It is also recognised that back of store processes are more resource intensive per tonne than upstream arrangements. However, as a crude extrapolation, it does highlight the opportunity and potential for food redistribution from back of store. As a comparison, in 2011, around 16,000 tonnes of food were redistributed for human consumption from across the food supply chain, using both charitable and commercial routes. Of this, around 6,000 tonnes were redistributed to charities2.

Whilst retailers are reducing the volume of food waste they must manage, any associated cost savings will generally be offset by requirements for internal process reviews and changes, staff training and logistical considerations. Cost savings to retailers have therefore not been analysed as part of this work.

Taking action on food surpluses now Based upon the experiences of the validation and trial work undertaken, a number of quick wins that could help retailers take action have been identified. These are:

Undertake a waste audit to understand what surpluses are regularly occurring and why.

Understand your organisation’s policies around surplus food redistribution and/or use the Guiding Principles to Food Redistribution to help develop a policy.

Read case studies of how industry has overcome the barriers to redistribution and identify where you might be able to change business practices in order to take action at www.wrap.org.uk/content/foodredistribution

Encourage your organisation to adopt the Guiding Principles to Food Redistribution in order to prioritise the food waste hierarchy and communicate your approach to surplus food redistribution both internally and externally.

If your organisation’s policy allows, identify local charities or hubs that could take your surpluses.

Work with the charity to develop a Service Level Agreement and use the tools and resources in this report to develop agreements, collection notes and delivery notes so that you can track and trace food redistribution.

Communicate and celebrate success of redistribution work and the positive impact this has in local communities.

Conclusions

Structured arrangements, for example standard days and processes agreed through a Service Level Agreement, are often more effective than ad-hoc, store level initiatives because they provide greater assurance on food safety and brand integrity and enable processes to be rolled out across a retailer’s estate.

The majority of the trial partnerships have demonstrated that third party support can be of considerable value to retailers and charities. For retailers, third party support provided confidence in food safety and brand integrity. For charities, third party involvement broke down the barriers and helped open the door to retailers. The result was that, on average, more food was made available for collection through third party support.

Retailers are keen to redistribute surpluses for human consumption but internal processes can constrain what can be redistributed and when it can be made available for collection.

2 As referenced in WRAP’s ‘Estimates of Waste in the Food and Drink Supply Chain’ report: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Estimates%20of%20waste%20in%20the%20food%20and%20drink%20supply%20chain_0.pdf

6

Charities can benefit from social value and are keen to work with retailers but currently lack the capacity to provide a scalable solution.

Although the third party model used in the trial proved effective in brokering and managing new relationships, it required significant resource from the third sector that could make it unsustainable on a larger scale and over a longer time and when compared with the resource required to secure surplus food from further back in the supply chain.

The trial findings provide the basis of criteria that can be used to help select optimal retailer and charity partnerships to avoid mismatches between practices that can impact upon the amounts of surplus food that can be utilised.

Recommendations This work has led to a number of recommendations for developing and disseminating good practice and guidance for surplus food redistribution from retail back of store:

Retailers and charities have agreed that further collaboration is required to investigate alternative processes through which food surpluses can be cost effectively and quickly redistributed to local charities.

In developing a new process, cross sector guidance would be welcomed in order to ensure there is transparency, consistency and control across a retailer’s estate and a standard approach to redistribution adopted between retailers, for each geography and store format as appropriate. This would enable consistency in communication and make the process easier for all parties and could be developed through continued collaboration between Industry Working Group members.

There already exist many examples of ad-hoc, store level initiatives across the country and with grocery retailers outside of those involved in the trial. This practice should be shared, through case studies and continued collaboration, across the sector.

7

Contents

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Robustness of data .................................................................................... 2

2.0 Validation exercise ....................................................................................... 2 2.1 Validation exercise objectives ...................................................................... 2 2.2 Headline findings from the validation exercise .............................................. 3

3.0 Trial summary ............................................................................................... 3 3.1 Trial scope ................................................................................................. 3 3.2 Choice and approach of retailers and charities involved ................................. 5 3.3 Trial data capture ....................................................................................... 6 3.4 FareShare & FoodCycle involvement as third party redistribution organisations 7 3.5 Use of Public Relations in this trial ............................................................... 8

4.0 Trial – Key data analysis ............................................................................... 8 4.1 Principal findings and data caveats .............................................................. 8 4.2 Total weight of food collected ..................................................................... 8 4.3 Average food weights ................................................................................. 9 4.4 Charity and retailer differences .................................................................. 10 4.5 Comparison to data captured during the validation exercise ......................... 11 4.6 Timing of food collections ......................................................................... 12 4.7 Food provision limitations ......................................................................... 12 4.8 Food spend ............................................................................................. 12

4.8.1 Value of donated food .................................................................... 12 4.8.2 Impact on food spend .................................................................... 13

5.0 Trial – Key findings ..................................................................................... 13 5.1 Challenges and barriers ............................................................................ 13 5.2 Opportunities and solutions ....................................................................... 15 5.3 Third party support impacts and resources ................................................. 16 5.4 Employee and social impacts ..................................................................... 17 5.5 Extrapolation of the UK opportunity ........................................................... 17

6.0 Overall recommendations ........................................................................... 18 Appendix A Tools/Documents .............................................................................. 20

Acknowledgements WRAP would like to thank the retailers and charity partners involved in the validation exercise and the South West trial. All have given considerable amounts of valuable time to participate, set up collections, capture and provide data and to co-ordinate with FareShare and Ricardo-AEA to gather feedback on the process and concept as a whole. WRAP would also like to thank the involvement of all those bodies included in the Food Redistribution Industry Working Group who provided valuable comment on the Food Connection Programme.

Food Connection Programme – Final Report 1

1.0 Introduction In July 2012, Government convened retailers for a Ministerial Roundtable (‘the Roundtable’) to discuss how more surplus food and drink arising in the grocery retail sector could be diverted from the waste stream and redistributed to charities. The Roundtable brought together leading representatives from grocery retail, the charity sector and Government to explore opportunities for greater co-ordination between retailers and the third sector. The third sector was represented by food redistribution and food waste charities, FareShare3 and FoodCycle4 respectively. Both organisations are registered charities that work with retailers, manufacturers, charities and others to identify and rescue food surpluses before they go to waste, diverting them to charities or using them to cook and serve to vulnerable people. A ‘Think Piece’ paper on surplus food from back of store was developed for WRAP by Ricardo-AEA in order to inform the Roundtable. This discussed the concept of surplus food provision from the back of retail stores - as opposed to the more established bulk redistribution from manufacturing sites and distribution centres - undertaken by charities such as FareShare. In contrast, FoodCycle has been collecting back-of-store surplus food for the past 5 years and prepares meals for those in need. The paper described how these practices are currently undertaken both in the USA, where this is a more developed convention, and the UK. It highlighted those involved with food redistribution in the UK and made observations on the opportunities and challenges of previous initiatives. The paper found that there was very little knowledge or publically available data on current or potential food surpluses redistributed from back of store or, indeed, the supply chain. Surplus food can be described as food which is fit for human consumption, but has marginal or no commercial value or the sale of which is restricted by its date label. This food, which may ultimately go to waste, is generated within the grocery retail supply chain for a number of reasons, including: mislabelling; product or packaging damage; incorrect packaging; shelf life date expiration and over-ordering or over supply. WRAP was tasked with taking forward three strands of work in collaboration with industry:

a validation exercise to assess the level and type of surplus food currently collected from back of retail store by charities, how it is collected and what social value it provides;

a trial to test ways to increase the amount of surplus food redistributed from back of store to charity using existing third party redistribution organisations, and inform recommendations as to how collections could be scaled up and rolled out (the Food Connection Programme); and

the establishment of an Industry Working Group (IWG), to provide a forum to discuss the barriers which prevent or hinder surplus food redistribution from across the sector and identify possible solutions for action.

The validation exercise followed seven existing projects and captured hard data and soft feedback on experiences of food surplus collection. The trial was then undertaken in the South West region, using tools developed by FareShare in conjunction with FoodCycle. The two organisations worked closely to develop a set of

3 FareShare: www.fareshare.org.uk

4 FoodCycle: www.foodcycle.org.uk

2

tools, templates and agreements for both the retailers and their charity partners with the aim of overcoming barriers and increasing the amount of food collected. FareShare acted as third party facilitators in the trial. This report includes a summary of the validation exercise, detailed findings from the trial, identifies gaps in knowledge, presents data and makes recommendations for future activity. 1.1 Robustness of data Data from the trial has been captured from six charity retailer partnerships, all based in well-populated towns and cities in the South West. For this reason it should be noted that extrapolation of the findings to different demographics – for example, rural areas – may not be robust. In addition, the extent and breakdown of data provided by charities varied considerably and assumptions have therefore been made in the analysis. Where applicable, detail around the assumptions made can be found in the text or footnotes. Surplus food collected from all but one of the retailers during the validation exercise and the trial was fully defined as surplus food. In the one exception, due to the store profile and visitor footfall, surplus food was made available to the charity for collection before the store closed and therefore could have potentially still been sold. No data was available to ascertain how much of the food collected in this instance was strictly ‘surplus’. As much of the food could have become surplus after collection, it has all been included in the data analysis. For these reasons, this report does not represent a statistically robust data set, but should be taken as useful indicative data, providing the industry and charities with better information to support future discussions and roll out of surplus food redistribution from retail stores. 2.0 Validation exercise Research was undertaken in late 2012 and early 2013 on seven projects where charities were already collecting surplus food from retailers. The majority of these charities were FoodCycle Community Hubs working with Sainsbury’s and Waitrose; whilst two charities were FareShare Community Members who were collecting from Sainsbury’s and one other retailer based on relationships they had independently established with the stores. 2.1 Validation exercise objectives To build an understanding of existing back of store charitable redistribution practices by using existing FareShare and FoodCycle partnerships to collate data from selected charities, document processes to better understand what ‘good practice’ looks like and develop baseline information as to the type, weight and social value of surplus food redistributed from back of store.

To provide evidence of the benefits of food redistribution practices, including the environmental (waste savings) and social benefits and demonstrate how the retail sector could increase the proportion of surplus food redistributed to charity by overcoming some of the barriers identified. The methodology for the validation exercise and trial was charity led and focussed on addressing barriers at back of store. The charities and retailers involved in the validation exercise were visited by Ricardo-AEA to gain an understanding of how their collections were originally set up and how they operate. Charities were asked to provide the following data over a 72 week period:

type of food collected;

weight of food collected (kg) 5;

5 All weights recorded in this report are gross weights including packaging and peeling and no allowance has been made for any wastage at charity facilities.

3

what the food was used for e.g. meal preparation, café items, cookery or food parcels;

additional food that had to be purchased in order to provide the service;

financial donations the charity received from recipients; and

how much waste was generated (kg). Most of the charities also collected surplus food from neighbouring smaller or independent retailers or local markets. Data from these sources was collected but excluded from the analysis below. 2.2 Headline findings from the validation exercise Section 4.5 compares the findings of the validation exercise with those of the trial. The overall headline findings of the validation exercise are detailed below:

Over the period, five of these charities6, serving 3-course meals, collected 1,995kg of

surplus food (from the major retailers only) and with the addition of other surplus foods7

and purchased items, provided a total of 8,400 courses (or 2,800 3-course meals). On

average, 25kg of surplus food was redistributed, per retailer, per collection (excluding

other sources). Most collections operated on a weekly basis.

In general, bakery, fresh vegetables and fresh fruit were the most common food types

redistributed.

Retailers stated that their original concerns when setting up new charity relationships

were food safety and the belief that the surplus food would be too little or too variable

for charities to utilise, or that branded products would end up on the ‘black market’.

Management by FoodCycle and FareShare in the validation projects meant that the

charities had to demonstrate their food safety and handling procedures. This ensured

that all staff involved in the handling, preparation or cooking of food have, as a

minimum, completed a course in Level 2 Food Safety.

For some charities, the variability of surplus food (in terms of the type of food that may

be available from week to week) was an initial concern. However, the majority of

charities that serve the food have the flexibility to adapt meal plans and make effective

use of what they collect.

Volumes of surplus food that arise at back of retail store can certainly be of social and economic value to charities. The success of any redistribution partnership depends upon retailers and charities working together to build a solid foundation for their relationships, based on sharing of information; an understanding of pressures and priorities; demonstration of competence; development of mutually acceptable agreements and communication of the benefit of surplus food provision to staff and volunteers. Partnership working was a key factor for success. 3.0 Trial summary 3.1 Trial scope Phase 2 of the project involved working with FareShare and FoodCycle to run a trial in the South West to build data and test processes that could lead to more surplus food being

6 Data for summary purposes was taken from five out of the seven partnerships because one only utilised the food for food parcels and provided no data on these activities, and the other was a café which has a very different business model, surplus food requirements and multiple surplus food sources and so is not truly representative of the average surplus food collection project.

7 Other sources include independent grocers, sandwich and coffee shops and markets.

4

successfully redistributed direct to charity from retail back of store. The process and methodology was driven by the redistribution organisations. The purpose of the trial was to assess:

the level and type of surplus food arising from back of store;

its suitability for redistribution to charity; and

the processes through which surplus food could be redistributed quickly and efficiently to

charities using existing third party redistribution organisations to maximise quantities.

Prior to this trial, the collection of surplus food from back of store was not within FareShare’s remit, which primarily is to redistribute bulk surpluses from production and distribution sites to an extensive network of charities through their network of depots. Food is then redistributed to around 1,000 member charities. FoodCycle’s model is to collect from back of store (plus markets and independent shops and cafés) and use in their café and 16 hubs. FareShare and FoodCycle both had existing agreements that they hold with retailers and with their member charities. These existing agreements were used in the facilitation of the trial partnerships with all retailers and charities signing FareShare’s existing agreements. Retailer agreements state that food redistributed will be managed in accordance with food safety legislation, cooked for the purpose of providing a meal to vulnerable people and not sold on. Charity agreements state that charities must be set up appropriately with clearly-defined service user needs, that surplus food would be used safely and effectively, and that no on-selling or other misuse of products would occur. A new agreement template tool was then developed (see Appendix A), by FareShare and FoodCycle for direct use between the retailers and charities. This third agreement helped to develop systems to manage the establishment of the retailer charity partnerships. These agreements included confirmation that the surplus food would be used safely and appropriately for provision to those in need, agreed general food types that the retailer would expect to provide, collection days, timing of collections, and set out how the food would be collected. Retail and charity partners were identified, approached and confirmed by means of the following actions:

Holding initial meetings with retailer Head Office colleagues to address retailers’

questions and identify points of concern surrounding logistics or food handling. The

extent of the discussions and requirement for changes to existing policies and procedures

varied for each retailer. From this, retailers were recruited to take part in the trial.

Holding meetings with each of the new charities not already FareShare Community

Members to provide a kitchen food and hygiene safety audit and ensure compliance with

FareShare’s established standards. This was also an opportunity for the charity to

confirm the types of provision they give to their service users, the times of day the

charity could collect, the use of staff and volunteers, training requirements and the types

of food that would fit in with their existing provisions. From this, matches were made

between charities and stores.

Coordinating joint meetings with the charity, retail contact and Ricardo-AEA to discuss

the details of the collection logistics for that specific partnership, including:

face to face introductions for all those involved;

the timings of collections;

5

the food types expected;

their agreement to provide data for this trial;

any health and safety issues that the charity must adhere to when collecting;

the logistical arrangements for store storage areas; and

food provision procedures.

For these meetings, the new support materials specifically created for the Food Connection Programme (including a generic suite of PowerPoint presentations - explaining the programme, the process, requirements of all parties and the templates and support available - charity information sheets and storage cage labels) were discussed and adjusted if necessary for each partnership. Examples of these documents can be found in Appendix A. FoodCycle provided templates for the documents stating who the charity partners were and the store signage at pick-up. These documents only varied to reflect different retailers branding and signage policies. The food provision procedures incorporated the compliance standards that FareShare operates for all food passed through its network. This included the need for traceability of products through product identification and signatures from both the retailer and the volunteer collecting using Delivery and Collection notes (an example is included in Appendix A). 3.2 Choice and approach of retailers and charities involved The trial was undertaken in the South West region due to FareShare’s existing network and established charity contacts. The following retailers were approached through their Corporate Social Responsibility managers or equivalent: Aldi; Asda; The Co-operative; Tesco; Waitrose; Morrisons; Sainsbury’s; and Marks & Spencer. Retail staff involvement came from all levels: Heads of Corporate Social Responsibility; Corporate Responsibility Managers; Legal departments; Regional Operations managers, Store managers; Store directors and Community champions. A number of charities were identified and contacted by FareShare in the first instance. Others were brought to FareShare’s attention by the retail stores involved. Charity staff involvement included: project managers; charity managers; community leaders and volunteers. Charities and stores were then matched by FareShare based on:

stores that do not already donate surplus food;

existing relationships that stores have with charities;

charities with sufficient staff/volunteers available at times that tied in with agreed collection times, some of which were out of hours;

local geographies; and

existing FareShare/FoodCycle relationships.

Some of the charities approached declined to take part for a variety of reasons including:

an inability to commit to 7 day/week collections (a requirement of some of the retailers);

a lack of vehicles to use to collect the food;

a lack of volunteers available/suitable to collect the food (some had to pull out of the trial

despite keen interest due to funding cuts);

difficulties in the ‘out of hours’ nature of some of the retailers’ chosen collection times;

limited types of food could be served;

a lack of storage space; and

negative experience with past collections involving unsuitable food, long waits to collect, no food available to collect or a general dwindling of supply.

6

In total, six retailer/charity partnerships were developed with Morrisons, Asda, Tesco, Waitrose and one other. Summaries of each are given in Table 1 (all partnerships' data presented in the following sections has been anonymised).

Table 1 Summary of trial participants

Charity Cheltenham

Open Door

Morning Star Refresh Hartcliffe Health

and Environment

Action Group

(HHEAG)

Emmaus Bristol Sheltered

Accommodation

& Support Ltd

(Wick House)

Location Cheltenham Salisbury Bristol Bristol Bristol Bristol

Key

stakeholders

Local vulnerable

community

Local

vulnerable

community

Local

vulnerable

community

Local vulnerable

community

Community

partners

Local vulnerable

community

Retailer link up

(all were large

stores)

Retailer A Retailer B Morrisons Asda Tesco Asda

Time to set up 2 weeks 3 weeks 4 months 2 weeks 3.5 months 4 weeks

Collection days 1 day/week 1 day/week

Fri

1 day/week 3 days/week 7 days/week 2-4 days/week

Main food

types

Café: Panini,

bread, cakes

and fruit

Fruit, meat,

bakery, dairy

Anything they

can

Fruit, veg,

bread, ‘grocery’

(healthy focus)

Anything

they can

Variety

(including tins)

Food uses Main meal,

Tues/Wed/Thu

limited food

parcels where

appropriate

Meal provision

three times

per week

Café and food

bank

Kitchen cookery

lessons, food

parcels, café

Community

home for 23

partners, 3

meals a day,

every day

3 meals a day,

every day,

around 70

people

At the outset, some details of collections could not be confirmed (such as time of collection, expected food types and volumes) until all parties had met. In some of the projects this led to a significant delay between the initial meetings and the start of provision/collection. 3.3 Trial data capture Each retailer was asked to provide a list of the surplus food they provided on every occasion. Some provided this as a separate picking list created as staff scanned each item into the designated bags/trolley. Some completed FareShare’s Collection notes, detailing food types and numbers of trays. When the charities arrived to collect the food, they checked the food was the same as the retailer’s list and both parties signed the picking list or note to confirm what was donated and to pass the responsibility for that food onto the charity. The specific food categories requested were: ‘Animal’; ‘Non-animal’; Grocery; Rice/pasta/pulses/cereal; fresh fruit; fresh vegetables; Confectionary/snacks; drinks/beverages; Meat/fish; Bakery/cakes/sandwiches; Deli/ready meals; Milk/eggs/cheese; Frozen meat; Frozen fruit/vegetables; Tins (vegetables/fruit/pulses; and Tins (animal). Some retailers had concerns around data provision for the trial in terms of weight data (kg) associated with both the store in question on the day of collection and of the actual food provided. Not all retailers were able to easily extract the data from their till and back of store scanning systems. Charities provided the following data:

collection details (day and time);

food types as per specific categories:

food weights;

7

staff/volunteer hours collecting the food and numbers where applicable;

number of meals provided (where applicable);

waste weights (kg) (associated with the whole day’s activity rather than just the surplus

food wasted, if applicable) as black bag, peelings, plate scrapings and recyclables; and

general feedback on that week’s collection, food volumes and charity updates.

Charities also provided a figure for their monthly spend on food for the three months before they started collecting surplus food and for every month during the trial. The main concern facing the charities was the time taken to weigh the food by food types, when most were already working out of hours or relying on volunteers and time was very tight. In some instances, charities were not able to provide a breakdown of the food types or weights due to their limited time and/or volunteer’s availability. Some also did not provide meal details as they do not provide dedicated meals but food goes towards a café, food parcels, or is stored for future use. 3.4 FareShare and FoodCycle involvement as third party redistribution organisations Some of the key barriers to surplus food redistribution identified at the Roundtable meeting and subsequent Industry Working Group meetings were:

food handling and safety concerns;

brand integrity;

availability of food at certain times of the day only; and

responsibility for the decision making process.

The involvement of FareShare and FoodCycle, as third party organisations, meant these barriers could be overcome through a selection of food hygiene checks on the charities, signed agreements by both parties (see Section 3.1 for further details), availability of tools and resources and through relationship brokering between retailers and charities. This support gave the retailers confidence to embrace the concept and often helped reduce the set up time required between initiation and first collections. The FareShare/FoodCycle Food Connection Programme tools offered to all retailers and charities are provided in Appendix A and included the following:

full PowerPoint presentation describing the trial process;

roll cage labels (adapted for retailer with logos) to facilitate collections;

charity collection note (to be completed and signed when food is collected) detailing

what was provided;

description of the charity (with key information and contact details) to facilitate the

resolution of any queries;

waste cage/trolley labels to ensure products are kept separate from wastes and to inform

staff;

dedicated roll cage wrap consistent with standard internal processes; and

a charity poster to help retail staff understand what the charity does and how the food

would be used.

Collection time conflicts were a key barrier that FareShare could not always resolve. For example, one retailer was unable to retain food overnight due to requirements of the European Food Safety Inspection Service which go beyond the requirements for compliance in the UK. As the charity was unable to collect after 9pm when the store closed, they could only collect surpluses arising from the in store café earlier in the day. This reduced the quantities that could be collected.

8

By comparison, another retailer already stored their food waste in a cage trolley in a chiller. As a result, only minor changes to their existing processes were required in order to include a separate ‘charity’ cage for food surpluses. The cage was labelled with the food categories the charity could and could not take and could be stored overnight for collection the next day at a more appropriate time for the charity. 3.5 Use of Public Relations in this trial Retailers and charities were asked to restrict any Public Relations (PR) activities until the trial was complete. This would enable all retailers to establish their collections prior to any PR outputs from other retailers or the project team. 4.0 Trial – Key data analysis 4.1 Principal findings and data caveats The main findings are:

fruit and vegetables were the biggest food types collected (by total weight across all trial

projects);

bakery products were the second biggest food type collected;

in total, 5.5 tonnes of food surpluses were diverted to human consumption rather than

entering the waste stream;

the average weight of food collected per project per collection was around 35kg, which

was a 40% uplift on the validation findings;

monthly variations were observed for all collections; and

the following factors caused variability of the surpluses available for collection:

o the type of food the charity could accept;

o the time of day the charity could collect;

o the time of day the retailer could make food available;

o the fluctuating nature of surpluses available for collection;

o retailer requirements for every day collections to enable consistency and

continuity;

o the extent of the charity’s storage facilities; and

o the type of need the charity has (food parcels, 3 course meal provision, hostel

‘extras’, cooking education).

Where data has not been provided with a full breakdown of food types, categories have been assigned in accordance with the average percentage allocation from the validation project8. 4.2 Total weight of food collected Across all of the six projects, 152 collections were undertaken collecting 5,525kg of surplus food. This is an average of 35kg per collection. Data comparison is difficult given that not all of the charities were able to fully categorise the data. The category split provided by charities is illustrated in Figure 1.

8 For example, where fruit and veg have been recorded as one, this has been split so the data reads 50% ‘fruit’ and 50% ‘vegetables’ for the purposes of comparison. This split is broadly in line with the percentages identified during the validation exercise. Similarly, where ‘tins’ have been identified, the figures for animal matter or non-animal (vegetables, fruit & pulses) have assumed a 50%:50 % split.

9

Figure 1 Total weight of food collected (kg)

As one charity was only able to provide an animal/non animal split for all food collected, Figure 2 shows a more detailed and consistent break down of food collected from the remaining 5 charities: Figure 2 Total food weight over five of the projects, across consistent food types (kg)

4.3 Average food weights The average weight of each food type collected, taken from the five projects is shown in Figure 3.

10

Figure 3 Average weight per pick up (kg) from five projects

The average weights per pick-up from the sixth project were 14kg Animal and 33kg Non-animal. 4.4 Charity and retailer differences The difference between the overall weight of food collected across each of the six different retailer:charity projects per month is shown in Figure 4. Each different partnership project is shown as a different colour. Figure 4 Total monthly food weight collected across the six projects

Figure 4 shows the total food weight figures collected for every charity on a monthly basis. This does not take into account the number of collections each charity made, therefore the average weight of food collected per pick-up, per project, per month is shown in Figure 5. The starting date for collections varied for each charity, due to the time taken to establish

11

each new relationship. Similarly, the trial ran until the end of September, however one charity also submitted data for October which has been included in the analysis. The sporadic nature of the weight of surplus food collected is clearly demonstrated in Figure 5. The one large average collection in October was due to a particularly large collection of fresh fruit. The reduction in food from one of the charities in September was due to a closure of this particular venue for renovation for a few weeks, when no meals were provided, so no food was collected. Figure 5 Average monthly food weight collected (per pick up) across the six projects

4.5 Comparison to data captured during the validation exercise The average surplus food weight collected from the validation exercise was 25kg per collection. Figure 6 indicates the average food weights collected in the trial compared to the validation average: Figure 6 Food weight average in trial vs. average validation exercise collection

12

Data indicates that the majority of projects in the trial collected, on average, more than the validation projects. Factors that affect what a charity collects include: sufficient fridge and freezer storage space, flexibility in food usage and ability to collect more frequently and out of hours. A number of the charities taking part in the trial had specific criteria for food collections which limited the surplus food they could collect. These criteria included:

a focus on healthy food, limiting the amount of processed foods collected;

limited kitchen facilities which meant that accepting ready meals was not suitable; and

vegetarian only service provision. 4.6 Timing of food collections With a limited dataset, it was difficult to draw conclusions from the time of collection and amount of food made available. The timing of collections was entirely dependent on an individual store’s processes and flexibility. However, in instances where stores required collection to take place after final mark down, for example after 9pm, charities often found it difficult to collect and make use of the surpluses. A number of charities turned down the opportunity to be included in the trial when collections would need to take place late at night. When collection could take place earlier, or surpluses stored safely until the next day for collection, charities found it easier to allocate resources, collect and utilise surpluses. 4.7 Food provision limitations There are a number of products that charities require but which are not usually provided as surplus food. These include: coffee and tea, sugar, milk, pasta, rice, flour and custard powder. These product types are generally not provided due to the fact that they do not often arise as surpluses, or, if they do, packaging has become damaged and they cannot be redistributed due to food safety concerns and risk of contamination. Similarly, different stores have different policies that can limit availability of surpluses, for example:

Eggs - if a box contains a broken egg, some stores will move the remaining eggs to a

new box. Other stores will not make un-broken eggs available if they have been

touching the broken egg and are ‘wet’ due to risk of contamination.

Single items from bulk bags – if a bag of produce, for example, has split, some stores

will not sell the remaining produce as loose, but will consider to be waste. Other

stores will remove the undamaged items and place them with the single products in-

store.

These differences in store policy highlight how the amount and type of surplus food available can be impacted. 4.8 Food spend 4.8.1 Value of donated food WRAP estimates the average value of a tonne of food waste arising at store to be in the region of £1,200/tonne. The total value of food surplus diverted to charities rather than entering the waste stream during the trial was therefore around £6,630. Extrapolations on a wider scale have been considered in Section 5.5. One of the retailers participating in the trial provided a retail value of £208,355 for the food surpluses or food waste arising during the 6 month trial period (May- September 2013). Not all surpluses were diverted to charity due to limitations on when and what the charity could

13

“The food doesn't necessarily save us money as we have menu plans but it's a great extra. If we have too much fruit we can share it with the nursery…Some of the people we work with are really struggling. Often women come to the group and they've skipped a meal because they can't afford to feed both themselves and their children…One time we had loads of spinach. It started a spinach revolution! Many people in the group had never cooked or eaten spinach. One woman had a son with anaemia and he really loved the spinach she cooked and kept asking for more. Loads of people got into spinach from that one batch.”

collect, damage and shelf life expiration. This confirms that back of store diversion to charities has the potential to capture valuable resources from the waste stream. 4.8.2 Impact on food spend Charities provided their monthly food spend for three months prior to the trial and during the trial so that any reduction in spend could be captured. Figure 7 Food spend before and during the trial across four projects

Error! Reference source not found. hows the impact the collection of donated food has had on charities’ food spend during the trial for four projects9.

Note: Each coloured line represents a different charity and the red squares indicate when each charity started to collect surplus food collections. It is difficult to draw conclusions from the data provided. Not all charities reported a significant cost saving as they used the food collected as a top up or additional offering to existing set menus. However, the additional food collected during the trial has provided charities with the opportunity to vary their offering, provide more food parcels and introduce service users to ‘unfamiliar’ foods. Charities that collect surplus food from a store will also often buy other ‘top up’ items whilst there.

5.0 Trial – Key findings 5.1 Challenges and barriers Whilst the validation exercise and the trial data indicate that the redistribution of surplus food can be a viable activity a number of challenges and barriers still exist:

9 One of the charities is not able to provide the spend data and another confirmed that no savings were made and so have not provided their food spend figures.

14

“The good thing about supporting HHEAG is they teach healthy eating so supporting them is like investing in the future. They have been in and done healthy cooking demonstrations in our staff canteen. It's win-win because they are getting extra food, they're advertising their service, the staff are learning about their service and feel happier in their job because they're helping a local charity”.

Whilst retailers are keen to offer surpluses for collection, some charities may be unable

to collect for a number of reasons, namely:

o they lack volunteers;

o they lack transport;

o they cannot dedicate the time to collect;

o they are unable to collect out of hours; and

o they are not aware of what they can collect and feasibly use.

One of the biggest differences between retailers’ policies is the time of day that each can

enable collections. Some policies state that no foods, once removed from the shelves,

can stay on the premises overnight. This limits when a charity can collect and may often

mean a charity is unable to make use of the surpluses. Where retailers are able to store

foods in chillers overnight, with no impact to food safety, surpluses can be more fully

utilised. However, changing policies is not always possible.

Volunteers are not always aware of what they can and cannot collect, and feasibly use in

time.

Charities have limited resources in terms of time, vehicles and personnel. Many charity

staff and volunteers are fully deployed with charity activities and time taken to collect

surplus food is often found outside of their contractual or agreed hours.

In general, retailers would prefer a 7 day collection model. They undertake considerable

training and policy and process amendments to set up collections and it is more likely

that staff establish effective, new procedures if they are undertake them every day. 7

day collections may therefore only be feasible for charities with sufficient resources to

collect.

The trial required considerable resources from FareShare and FoodCycle in identifying

retailers and charities who were willing and able to be a part in this trial, verifying that

they could handle food safely and appropriately, brokering and managing relationships To

roll this out regionally at the level of support provided in the trial, would require several staff

to co-ordinate relationships in each region, as well as additional support and services,

including IT and remote relationship management tools.

The funding of surplus food redistribution organisations is based upon charitable

donations. Many charities that have a need for surplus food do not have the funds to join

memberships or make donations. The future roll out of extensive national networks of

surplus food collection from back of store using third party support will require further,

sustainable, funding to be viable for the long term.

The period of the trial (May to early

October 2013) has not covered key

seasonal times (such as Christmas

and Easter). The impacts of seasonal

effects have not been assessed

during this trial.

The voluntary sector is made up of

many, often unique organisations.

This can make it challenging to find

similar charities that could benefit

from a particular retailer’s approach

to surplus food collections.

15

“It's actually helped us reduce our waste. When you see the same good food going out you start to question it. I couldn't understand why there were so many single bananas left. People don't want a big bunch, so we worked out if we split the banana bunches people didn't break off as many single ones. People don't want to buy single bananas for some reason. Now we don't waste as many bananas”.

“The Panini’s go well with a soup made from any vegetables we get. We offer scones in the morning instead of just toast. Sometimes the cakes we get are enough for a pudding for everyone or we chop up fruit for a fruit salad. Nothing gets wasted. For a lot of people this is the only food they'll have that day so it's good to be able to offer more”.

This trial has shown that it is not easy to ascertain the financial savings that charities make by collecting surplus food for the following reasons:

staff and volunteers have limited time to undertake detailed comparisons of the costs;

some noted that their costs vary greatly from month to month;

a lot of the food is an ‘extra’ or is of a better quality than they would previously have

bought; and

some of the food is frozen and used at a later date.

However, the majority of food collected was used and therefore provided benefit to the charities involved, even though it has been difficult to ascertain the financial saving. The trial has therefore demonstrated that a number of barriers exist to surplus food redistribution and a ‘one size fits all’ approach is not necessarily the solution. 5.2 Opportunities and solutions The trial has also demonstrated that charities and retailers can work together to find solutions to a number of the barriers detailed above:

The trial has demonstrated that the

best way to overcome many of the

barriers to redistribution is to

convene a retailer/charity meeting in

order to discuss alternative

approaches or agree processes

which would benefit both parties.

Developing a Service Level

Agreement can further cement roles,

responsibilities and expectations of each partner.

Developing a ‘shopping list’ for volunteers can help mitigate against volunteers taking

more surpluses than a charity can use.

Changes in store policies, for

example storing food in a chiller

overnight for collection the

following morning, can provide

a solution for charities that are

unable to collect at night.

In order to make full use of

surpluses available from a large

store, two charities were

matched to one retailer to

ensure daily collection requirements could be met. Charities alternated collections

demonstrating how surpluses can successfully be shared and more fully utilised.

By segregating, food surpluses were made more visible to store staff and increased

awareness of the amount of food surpluses, and potentially waste, being produced.

Feedback noted that, in most cases, staff were made more aware and therefore did more

to reduce overall wastage.

16

“The food we were giving the residents before was much more basic. This allows us to give them a more complete meal. They're eating more fruit and veg as well…The lives of our residents aren't always that healthy what with drink and drugs. They wouldn't necessarily choose to eat fruit but when you put it in front of them they tend to eat it. They're eating much healthier now.”

“FareShare’s involvement has been invaluable. Their knowledge of the processes used by big supermarkets and of other food collection initiatives meant communication between ourselves and the retailer was hassle free. It suggested how we might run the scheme and anticipated problem areas. We look forward to developing our relationship with the store in the future.’”

In some cases, additional support was

provided by stores. For example, when a

considerable number of Panini’s were

being provided to a charity partner which

had no facilities to heat them, the store

manager donated a grill so that they

could be utilised.

Due to the short shelf life of fruits and

vegetables, and their versatility, the

redistribution of surpluses helps charities

to provide healthier and more varied diets for vulnerable people within communities.

The trial confirmed the validation findings that the biggest factor contributing to the success of the projects undertaken was the relationship between retail staff, charity staff and volunteers, based on understanding, demonstration of competence, good and timely communications and demonstration of the benefits of charitable redistribution. These relationships can be facilitated by in-store surplus food champions. 5.3 Third party support impacts and resources The involvement of FareShare and FoodCycle in the trial and validation projects has been fundamental to the success of the project. They provided a link between the retail and charity sectors, brought an understanding of what both parties expected and helped each to establish their positions and address key questions or concerns. They also visited and undertook food safety and quality assurance of each charity. This gave retailers the confidence that the surpluses being collected would be handled safely. The majority of relationships are ongoing, having been built on strong foundations through the trial. In working together to create support materials, FareShare and FoodCycle have demonstrated that the voluntary sector is willing and able to work in collaboration, bringing shared experiences and learnings to benefit a wider group of stakeholders. However, the trial involved considerable resources in the form of a part time FareShare manager in Bristol (three days a week service over six months) in addition to considerable management capacity from FareShare’s head office staff (one day a week). To roll the trial out would therefore need considerable managerial resources to liaise between retailers, stores and charities and help overcome any issues. Charities have fed back that, in some cases, they would not have had the confidence to approach retailers to start undertaking collections. The third party input, by experts who understand the challenges faced by both retailers and charities, has given charities both the knowledge that retailers can do this and do want to do this, practical support and the provision of appropriate agreements and paperwork to ensure that food safety and appropriate use is paramount. They have acted as a key point of contact for both the retailer and the charity on each project. Store managers appointing in store community champions for surplus food redistribution, where relevant, allows the responsibility of surplus food to be delegated. The inclusion of

17

“I hate throwing this stuff away. I understand it has to be fresh each day for our customers but it's still good food. When we started the cafe here sometimes we had two bin bags of food per day.”

All the staff at Wick House have found the food connection program a very interesting and worthwhile project…We were very grateful to be included in this trial and appreciate FareShare who got us involved with our local retailer by arranging the meetings and paperwork. We have built up a good relationship with the retailer and cannot thank their staff enough for the splendid work they are doing and have helped us provide food for homeless and vulnerable people from all over Bristol.”

third party support adds another layer of responsibility and control for store managers. This has been found to be relevant both in establishing new relationships and projects and in progressing and sustaining them over time. One of the charities involved fed back that they would never have approached a retailer for this purpose because they feared setting up the relationship would be too onerous and time consuming. They have been pleasantly surprised that the process had been so quick, although they noted that a considerable amount of work was put in by the third party in developing draft agreements, tools and presentations, as well as building contacts and relationships with retail staff, especially at a more senior level. Third party involvement is not necessarily found in all existing surplus food collection activities in England. One of the charities within the validation exercise had noted that it would not be in a position to pay for third party support, despite appreciating the added value. In addition, one of the retailers already undertakes surplus food provision from its stores both directly with charities and with other food redistribution groups such as the Oxford Food Bank10. They note that the role of smaller retail stores and independent grocery stores needs to be recognised and surplus food redistribution should be encouraged, alongside UK-wide approaches with the major UK retailers. 5.4 Employee and social impacts In most cases, the feedback from both retail and charity staff and volunteers has been that food waste is one of the biggest issues that they face on a daily basis and they are pleased and willing to be able to do something about it. As part of the trial, and some of the validation exercise partnerships, retail staff also visited charity premises. Seeing first-hand how charities use surplus food and meeting some of the shelter communities and vulnerable people who benefit from their support reinforced the social message of surplus food redistribution and the benefits it can bring. 5.5 Extrapolation of the UK opportunity There is potential for back of store surplus food redistribution to become widespread throughout the UK. Based on the average surplus food weight per collection from one large store to one charity (35kg) reported in this trial and assuming this could be carried out on a weekly basis, this suggests that, in principle, the total annual weight of collected surplus food from one store could be 1,820kg. Whilst the average number of collections undertaken during the trial by all of the charities as a whole was 2.29 collections per week, the following extrapolation is based on one collection per week.

10 The Oxford Food Bank www.oxfordfoodbank.co.uk

18

As of September 2013, there were a total of 4,379 of comparable stores across the nine major grocery retailers (Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, Waitrose, Marks & Spencer, Aldi, Lidl, Asda and one other)11. If the single store potential is scaled up across all 4,379 stores, the potential surplus food collection weight could be of the order of 8,000 tonnes per year12. These figures do not take into account the further 2,898 smaller retailer stores or independent grocery outlets, which could also donate surplus food. They also do not take into account geographical differences and seasonal variations. 6.0 Overall recommendations This work has led to a number of recommendations for developing and disseminating good practice and guidance for surplus food redistribution from retail back of store, and continued collaboration between retailers and redistribution organisations. These projects were not set up to determine the specifics of the industry’s next steps but the findings of this report should allow the industry to begin developing future strategies. The relationships established and further developed during the trial, between FareShare, FoodCycle and retailers, should be encouraged and built upon going forward. The opportunity for further relationships to come out of the Food Redistribution Industry Working Group with wider organisations, such as the British Retail Consortium, should also be fostered.

Retailers are keen to make surplus food at a store level available for charitable

redistribution but are currently restricted from doing so due to the limitations of capacity

and capability within the third sector. Further collaboration is therefore required between

retailers and the third sector to better understand how capacity can be built and food

surpluses cost effectively and quickly redistributed to local charities.

Standard guidance could be useful in helping retailers ensure consistency and control

across their estate and the sector, and to enable a consistent approach among retailers.

This should also consider the ways in which retailers capture what has been collected by

charities so that they can then report figures when communicating for PR and CSR

purposes (an example metric being kg/year of surplus food provided).

There already exist many examples of ad-hoc, store level initiatives across the country

and with grocery retailers. Good practice should be shared through case studies and on-

going dialogue along with a cognisance of other similar food redistribution organisations

and initiatives, both at home and overseas.

The trial findings provide the basis of criteria that can be used to help develop and

maintain retailer and charity partnerships to avoid mismatches between practices that

can impact upon the amounts of surplus food that can be utilised.

The validation and trial have both identified the benefit of the local partnerships.

Establishing effective and sustainable food redistribution arrangements has been shown

to be possible but the number of factors affecting success means that in many cases it is

not straightforward. Retailers will continue to develop links with the charity sector to

11 These are taken from retailer’s websites and phone calls to retailers head offices to ask for confirmations as of the time of the call.

12 These extrapolations are based on a limited data set collected over a short period of time across six projects. They also assume that every store would have a collection by one charity (with sufficient resources) once a week, therefore they may be considered optimistic.

19

build on the trials as well as other established redistribution operations, so that scale up

of store to charity initiatives can be achieved.

It should be noted that back of store surplus food redistribution is only one way that retailers

can and are meeting the needs of low income groups. Reduce to clear can also play an

important role and the aim of this project was not to impact on the availability of reduce to

clear for those that depend on it.

Whilst the trial has demonstrated the key factors that enable effective redistribution of

surplus food with third party facilitation, it has not been determined how this approach can

be scaled up and sustainable on a larger scale without financial support. Alternative options

are therefore being jointly discussed by the charity sector, retailers and redistribution

organisations.

20

Appendix A Tools/Documents

- Example Collection Note

- Example Store Templates

- Partnership set-up PowerPoint presentations – Charity

- Partnership set-up PowerPoint presentations – Store

21

Appendix : Example collection note

22

Appendix : Retailer template documents

23

Appendix : Charity Presentation Pack

24

25

Appendix : Store Presentation Pack

26

Printed on xx% recycled

content paper

www.wrap.org.uk/content/foodredistribution