Final Report Waste Prevention in the Supply Chain of Packed … Prevention in the Supply C… ·...

Final Report

Waste Prevention in the Supply Chain of Packed Products

Grocery and hospitality supply chains delivering measurable packaging / supply chain waste reductions by June 2013

Project code: RPO038

Research date: January 2011 – February 2012 Date: December 2013

WRAP’s vision is a world 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: WRAP, 2013, Banbury, Waste Prevention in the Supply Chain of Packed Products, Prepared

by IGD

Document reference: WRAP, 2012, Optimising Case Quantity to the Supply Chain (WRAP Project RPO038.

Report prepared by James Tupper, ECR Learning & Change Manager, and

Peter Whitehead, Agribusiness Project Leader, IGD)

Written by: Peter Whitehead, Agribusiness James Tupper, ECR (Efficient Consumer Response)

Programme Leader (IGD) Learning & Change Manager (IGD)

Front cover photography: A template used by teams to focus the scope of their activities during key phases of the programme

WRAP and IGD believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory

requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using

any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim

to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP

cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or

misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will

satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee

the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not

used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used

to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk

http://www.wrap.org.uk/

Waste Prevention in the Supply Chain of Packed Products 1

Executive summary

The supply of food and drink to UK households relies upon the care taken by growers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers to transform produce into the food we eat. Each participant in the chain invests time, effort and money to ensure that the food and drink reaches the consumer in the best condition possible. This report provides an update on research in the segment of the supply chain in which food and drink is distributed from manufacturers to retail stores. The participant retailers identified candidate products which they considered as presenting high levels of supply chain waste. By taking a collaborative approach involving manufacturers and retailers with the support of the IGD contractors, the retailers sought to systematically identify the root causes of the supply chain waste and to trial potential solutions to the causes. Regular meetings of the whole group of companies were convened in order to share findings from the studies. The expectation is that lessons learned from the programme will enable opportunities to be identified for other products, locations and supply chain systems and that solutions (or similar solutions) identified in the programme may be transferrable. It is also expected that the collaborative programme will stimulate and facilitate reductions in supply chain waste through small steps across a large number of products. WRAP designed the programme to support the delivery of the targets outlined in the second phase of the Courtauld Commitment. In addition, WRAP was seeking to engage the hospitality sector with a view to reducing its supply chain waste. A sector wide agreement (the Hospitality and Food Service Agreement HAFSA) similar to the Courtauld Commitment was launched in June 2012. As a result this programme included hospitality chains as well as those drawn from the grocery sector. The programme structure is shown in the chart below. Recruitment of supply chain partners and their cross-functional teams took place during the set-up period.

Figure A. IGD Performance Improvement Programme structure of three phases.

© IGD 2012

As a result of the programme there were 6 grocery retail supply chain teams and 3 hospitality chain teams engaged in case studies to identify waste savings through changed packaging and handling practices. It is often the versatility of packaging which results in it being seen as the solution to supply chain product waste problems, where the application of a small amount of packaging with a relatively low environmental impact can prevent a larger product loss with an even greater environmental impact. Current estimates of the waste (product and packaging) saved as part of the programme, totalling 665 tonnes, are summarised in the table below.


Table A. Final estimates of the waste saved as part of the programme

Team Waste Saved in 2011 (tonnes)

Further Savings in 2012 (Tonnes)

Further Savings to

2013 (Tonnes)

Morrisons Unilever Pot Noodle

0.5 4 5

Asda Silver Spoon Sugar 75 0 0

Tesco Silver Spoon Sugar 115 0 0

Tesco Heinz Cans 295 0 0

Tesco Princes Cans 0 8 0

Tesco Britvic Cans 0 28 0

Brakes RHM Flour 10 22 22

Brakes Silver Spoon Sugar

0 10 22

Booker Tulip Cooked Meat

0 46 0

Case studies of the work of the nine teams are compiled in an Appendix to this report. Each case study addresses: What was the issue/ What initiated the project/ What we did/ Other alternative solutions considered/ Obstacles to overcome/ What we achieved/ When was this achieved / How long did it take to implement/ Other benefits/ Issues identified post implementation/ and Further Information. At the end of the programme participants identified other “hot spot” locations, product types and groups, type of packaging, forms of waste (e.g. damages, expiries and obsoletes), and cross-cutting issues. Interaction between the participants of this programme and ECR UK Product and Packaging workgroup members helped with the development of the Collaborative Waste Prevention Toolkit and ECR UK Supply Chain Waste Prevention Guide 2012. The programme has emphasised the value of collaborative working between trading partners through an externally-facilitated performance improvement programme.

http://www.igd.com/download.asp?id=3&dtid=2&did=2125

http://www.igd.com/download.asp?id=3&dtid=2&did=2125

http://www.igd.com/supplychainwaste


Contents

1.0 Background .................................................................................................. 4 2.0 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 5 3.0 Method ......................................................................................................... 5 4.0 Participation ................................................................................................. 7 5.0 Results .......................................................................................................... 8

5.1 Tonnes saved ............................................................................................ 9 5.2 Other “hot spots” identified ....................................................................... 10

5.2.1 Locations, products and packaging .................................................. 10 5.2.2 Forms of waste .............................................................................. 11 5.2.3 Cross-cutting issues ....................................................................... 11

6.0 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................ 12 Appendix 1 Case Studies ...................................................................................... 13 7.0 Case Studies ............................................................................................... 13

7.1 Morrisons Unilever Pot Noodle Case Study .................................................. 14 7.2 Asda Silver Spoon Sugar Case Study .......................................................... 17 7.3 Tesco Silver Spoon Sugar Case Study ........................................................ 20 7.4 Tesco Heinz Cans Case Study .................................................................... 22 7.5 Tesco Princes Cans Case Study ................................................................. 25 7.6 Tesco Britvic Cans Case Study ................................................................... 27 7.7 Brakes RHM Flour Case Study ................................................................... 28 7.8 Brakes Silver Spoon Sugar Case Study ....................................................... 29 7.9 Booker Tulip Cooked Meat Case Study ....................................................... 30

Appendix Two People ........................................................................................... 34

Abbreviations

MOQ Minimum Order Quantity

NPD New Product Development

SKU Stock Keeping Unit

WRAP Waste & Resources Action Programme

Acknowledgements

IGD and WRAP would also like to thank the companies participating in this programme.

• Asda • Silver Spoon

• Morrisons • Unilever

• Tesco Stores Ltd • HJ Heinz

• Booker • Tulip

• Brakes • Britvic

Particular thanks go to their cross-functional trading-partner team members who did the work, identified the opportunities, designed and tested solutions, embedded new working methods and prevented hundreds of tonnes of grocery and hospitality supply packaging / supply chain waste in a commercially sustainable way. Special thanks go to Heinz, Unilever, Booker and Tesco for hosting key meetings during the programme.


1.0 Background Resource efficiency has risen up the business and political agendas in recent years and WRAP continues to play a significant role in helping the grocery sector to shape its actions to reduce the environmental impacts of their products, packaging and food waste. Since its inception in 2005 a voluntary approach known as the Courtauld Commitment has encouraged signatories to work closely with WRAP to prevent food and packaging waste. During phase 1 from 2005 to 2009, 670,000 tonnes of food waste and 520,000 tonnes of packaging waste were avoided across the UK, totalling nearly 1.2 million tonnes of waste prevented, with an approximate value of £1.8 billion. In 2010, the Courtauld Commitment was extended to 2012 in a second phase and broadened the scope to explicitly target the reduction of food and packaging waste arising in the grocery supply chain by 5%. Through measures such as reducing the weight, increasing recycling rates and increasing recycled content of grocery packaging a target to reduce the carbon impact of grocery packaging by 10% was also set. Finally a target for the reduction of UK household food waste was set at 4%, by 2012 against a 2009 baseline WRAP recognised that the above approach applied to the grocery sector had common advantages for the hospitality and food service sectors and at the time of the active phases of this programme was seeking to establish a sector wide agreement similar to the Courtauld Commitment. The Hospitality and Food Service Sector Agreement was subsequently launched in June 2012. The packaging waste arising in the distribution and retail stages of the supply chain has typically been discarded after successfully protecting food and drink to the point of sale. The purpose of the packaging is to ease the flow of food and drink through the supply chain with the minimum damage at least cost and is not intended to reach the household. Known as secondary packaging it carries a cost of acquisition and of disposal, so manufacturers and retailers have an incentive to minimise its use, and to that end its use is regularly reviewed. Some of the channel choices that optimum packaging depend upon are shown in Figure 1. This programme encourages the regular review of packaged products through a collaborative approach involving manufacturers and retailers.

Figure 1. Some of the channel choices that optimum packaging depend upon.

© IGD 2012

Packaging is essential for protecting the product, increasing shelf life and conveying supply chain and consumer information. Avoiding product and packaging waste will lead to reduced costs and better resource efficiency in preparation for a carbon-constrained future. The increasing market share of retail convenience will also drive changes in packaging requirements. Packaging optimisation involves more than just light-weighting, designing for recyclability or increasing the recycled content. Optimisation also straddles both the packaging and supply chain targets in phase two of the Courtauld Commitment such that an increase in packaging at one stage of the supply chain could reduce overall levels of product


and packaging waste in the supply chain as a whole. So, for example, re-designing how product is handled in distribution may significantly reduce retail and household waste. This programme therefore involved examining particular products working directly with supply chain partners to understand current practices and optimising these across the supply chain whilst still meeting commercial objectives. WRAP supports signatories to the Courtauld Commitment and food businesses more widely in various ways:

Undertaking research on attitudes to packaging and on packaging design, of Easter eggs for example.

Forming a working group with the Food and Drink Federation in 2010 to focus on optimising manufacturing site goods-in packaging;

Through Waste Prevention Reviews (WPRs) for food and drink manufacturers which have shown that the requirement to pack products in a variety of different configurations can have adverse impacts on supply chain costs and that, by further investigation of specific instances of high levels of supply chain waste, change to the packaging will save waste arising in the supply chain.

2.0 Purpose The purpose of this programme was to explore opportunities to reduce product and packaging waste that arises in the supply chain and deliver measurable packaging / supply chain waste reductions. WRAP commissioned the programme to support the delivery of the targets outlined in the second phase of the Courtauld Commitment and also to support its engagement with the hospitality sector through the Hospitality and Food Services Agreement (launched in 2012). Both WRAP and IGD recognised that if waste prevention was to be sustainable and the new ways of working embedded across the supply chain, the programme needed to be shown to be of commercial benefit to participating companies and so this was critical to both the design and execution of projects. Generally businesses at any one point in time will be running a mix of short term and longer term projects, the latter more strategic in nature. A short term project of this type would normally be expected to deliver immediate gains while in effect it is preparing companies for the longer term strategic goal of reducing waste sent to landfill and, more importantly, reducing/ eliminating waste in the first place. This programme was designed to help companies challenge existing approaches while recognising that if companies are going to take forward change they will only do so if those changes help achieve performance goals in a cost-effective manner. It was also a key objective of the programme that changes made as a result should not shift waste around in the supply chain, for example, by increasing household waste. 3.0 Method The programme was designed to encourage supply chain partners and different job functions to work together for a common purpose, build their understanding, challenge the status quo and change their working methods. The programme enabled companies to identify, implement and sustain step-changes in performance levels along the supply chain


that would have been difficult or impossible to undertake in isolation. In doing so, it also encouraged companies to embed the process changes within their businesses and supply chains. Recruitment of supply chain partners and their cross-functional teams took place during the set-up period. The programme structure is shown in the chart below.

Figure 2. IGD Performance Improvement Programme structure of three phases.

© IGD 2012

The simple structure of IGD Performance Improvement Programmes increases the chances that essential phases of activity are not skipped because of time pressure or forgotten because, for example, they have been obscured by unnecessary complexity. The name, purpose and team activity of each phase are outlined below.

Table 1. The purpose and activities of each of the three phases of the programme.

Phase Purpose of Phase Team Activity During Phase

1 Measure & Understand

To ensure actions are based on evidence; not myth and legend or gut-feel alone

Performance is measured, root causes of variance analysed and alternate solutions are identified

2 Redesign & Pilot

To win short-term gains and to motivate others to join the change process

Chosen solutions are developed and tested locally to contain risk. Peer scrutiny drives valid trials

3 Roll-out & Sustain

To ensure results are delivered and learnings applied; rather than sidelined by new initiatives

Solutions are applied consistently, improved further, and applied in other areas

© IGD 2012

Within the above structure supply chain teams have considerable freedom to employ methods that may be already available to them from within one or other of the partner companies or made available to them by IGD at one of the meetings or via the reference material provided. The Performance Improvement Programme required each participating company to join with a supply chain partner and assign staff to a joint team. Supply chain teams learn-by-doing and through sharing best practice between teams at progress meetings supported by IGD’s facilitation and expertise.


The chart below shows how an early start was achieved through two stages of funding and two waves of recruitment. During stage two, best practice was shared between supply chain teams at joint progress meetings.

Figure 3. Two stages of funding and two waves of recruitment to achieve an early start

Time line

WAVE 1

Recruitment

On Boarding Meeeting

Measure & Understand

Progress Meeting

Redesign & Pilot

Progress Meeting

Rollout & Sustain

Evaluation Meeting

Spread & Embed

Addditional Meeting

WAVE 2

Recruitment

On Boarding Meeting

Measure & Understand

Progress Meeting

Redesign & Pilot

Progress Meeting

Rollout & Sustain

Evaluation Meeting

JOINT

Joint Review Meeting

2012

Aug Sep 2012

STAGE 1 STAGE 2

Mar Apr May Jun Aug SepJul

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul

Jan Feb

Supply chain teams recruited in stage one were able to drive ahead and not wait for the stage two chains to catch up. The stage two recruited chains benefited throughout their programme from the earlier findings of stage one chains. Once recruited a critical part of the initial work of supply chain teams is to bring together evidence of how much waste is actually arising for the identified products and what are the root causes of this waste. These results then provide the platform on which improvements can be made during subsequent phases. While each supply chain has discretion to measure waste using a variety of methods, IGD encouraged the use of systematic techniques like value stream mapping, in which companies follow products through the supply chain in order to ensure an in-depth approach is undertaken to identify opportunities for waste reduction. 4.0 Participation The figure below shows which companies came together to form supply chain teams for wave one and wave two as well as the subsequent partnerships arising from activity during the programme. Also shown are the product or packaging types that were the focus of each supply chain team’s work. Nine successful case studies are reported here.


Figure 4. Two waves of recruitment and subsequent engagement achieving nine case studies

© IGD 2012

The red, amber and green blocks indicate work status at the time of each progress meeting. The red blocks indicate that two teams had difficulty early in the programme. During the Measure & Understand Phase, the Sainsbury’s – Unilever – Smurfit Kappa team conducted a survey over three days observing operations and collating detailed logs of packs processed through the crate filling channel in Sainsbury’s Rye Park Distribution Centre. The results showed that 28% of all packs surveyed involved break packs slow to unpack, difficult to flatten and creating most of the waste.

Figure 5. Examples of break packs slow to unpack, difficult to flatten and creating most of the waste

However, these were mainly pharmaceutical and confectionary products. Appendix One contains the case studies describing the nine successful pieces of work. Appendix Two lists the members of the supply chain teams and their participation in each of the programme meetings shown above. 5.0 Results Set out below are the results of the programme against the key objectives of delivering measurable reductions in packaging / supply chain waste. The corresponding changes in


working practices are identified in case studies detailed in Appendix One. Other “hot spots” are identified. The initial results of the three teams continuing to stage two are summarised in the table below. These show an estimated 792 tonnes of waste arising thereby giving confidence that a significant reduction of waste could be obtained as the programme ran its course.

Table 2. Initial results of the three teams in stage one and continuing to stage two

Team Estimated Waste (Tonnes/Annum)

Estimated potential reduction in waste (Tonnes/Annum)

Supplier – Retailer 2011

Suppliers in category and top four retailers

2012

Heinz – Tesco Cans

250 10 100

Unilever – Morrisons Pot Noodle

42 0.8 6

Silver Spoon – ASDA Sugar

500 50 200

Across both stages there are nine teams with waste savings, changed practices and case studies: 1 Morrisons Unilever Pot

Noodle 2 Asda Silver Spoon Sugar 3 Tesco Silver Spoon Sugar

4 Tesco Heinz Cans 5 Tesco Princes Cans 6 Tesco Britvic Cans 7 Brakes RHM Flour

8 Brakes Silver Spoon Sugar 9 Booker Tulip Cooked Meat

5.1 Tonnes saved At the time of writing, the latest estimates of the waste saved as part of the programme, totalling 665 tonnes, are summarised in the table below distinguishing between periods when savings were achieved or are expected. It should be noted that these are different to the initial estimates (as shown in Table 2) and reflect the fact that identification of sources of savings be challenging and not necessarily as straightforward as initially thought.


Table 3. Final estimates of the waste saved as part of the programme

Team Waste Saved in 2011 (tonnes)

Further Savings in 2012 (Tonnes)

Further Savings to

2013 (Tonnes)

Morrisons Unilever Pot Noodle

0.5 4 5

Asda Silver Spoon Sugar 75 0 0

Tesco Silver Spoon Sugar 115 0 0

Tesco Heinz Cans 295 0 0

Tesco Princes Cans 0 11.44 0

Tesco Britvic Cans 0 28 0

Brakes RHM Flour 10 22 22

Brakes Silver Spoon Sugar

0 10 22

Booker Tulip Cooked Meat

0 46 0

The results highlight some simple lessons. Opportunity for significant tonnage reduction of waste may be available when there is:

a high volume product with a high waste % rate, or a high volume product with a low waste % rate or a low volume product with a high

waste % rate

Significant tonnages in waste reduction are rarely achieved with a low volume product with a low waste % rate.

The accuracy of supply chain waste figures, both in terms of tonnages and location of arisings, is vital to identify opportunities for improvement and for measurement of that improvement.

5.2 Other “hot spots” identified At the end of the programme participants were asked to identify other “hot spots”: likely future opportunities for improvement. The responses revealed hot spots outlined in the following sections related to particular:

locations

product types and groups;

type of packaging;

forms of waste – damages, expiries and obsoletes; and,

cross-cutting issues.

Participants were asked for their “analysis of supply chain waste hot spots; between factory in-gate and till”. Naturally the types of other “hot spots” identified by retailer, wholesaler and supplier personnel reflected the individual’s experience along the supply chain and of particular categories. 5.2.1 Locations, products and packaging Whether retailer, wholesaler or supplier personnel, participants identified mainly downstream “hot spot” locations: from distribution centre, through back of store and the shop floor. During the programme investigations had taken place from factory in-gate to till but upstream challenges and opportunities were not highlighted.


Retailer and supplier personnel highlighted fresh products, dry ice-cream cones, brandy snap baskets, yoghurts, eggs, cat litter, flour, frozen vegetables, frozen chips, crisps and snacks, custard and jelly. It was predominantly retailer personnel who identified the following packaging types as hot spots:

bags (of, for example, flour, frozen chips, frozen vegetables, cat litter, and crisps / snacks)

foil lidded pots (of, for example, cream rice, custard and jelly). 5.2.2 Forms of waste Regarding damages, manufacturer and retailer personnel identified the following areas on which to focus:

Protect delicate products stacked in roll cages with all sorts of other products

Pick and handle products in depot and back of store

Protect bags and fragile / vulnerable products Retailer and wholesaler personnel identified the following areas in which to better flow and rotate short-life product and so reduce expiries. For chilled and counter products to flow – and not get held up en route – they need to be:

In packs that are quick and easy to identify by eye and of a size that matches the product’s rate of sale from the outlet, the frequency of replenishment and the shelf-life of the product;

Cross docked through stockless distribution centres which pick-to-zero and deliver just in time; and

Ordered on the basis of the most up-to-date demand, weather and other information and forecasts.

For waste of short-life products to be reduced their rotation in-store according to date codes needs to be improved by optimising the visibility and positioning of fewer, more unified types of date code. Retailer and wholesaler personnel identified the following as particularly prone to becoming obsolete and being wasted: bespoke lines – customer nominated and off list; very slow moving lines; and one-off special packs. 5.2.3 Cross-cutting issues Retailer, wholesaler and supplier personnel identified the following areas which may provide opportunities for improvement:

Cut insignificant communications and so reduce noise and distraction from key performance messages such as how to pick and load products without them having to be written off

Step change entrenched behaviours, such as buying without using performance specifications, which stop the diffusion of good waste elimination practice

Reduce proliferation and rationalise the number of different stock keeping units and variation across retailers of, for example, merchandising units

Engage staff in preventing waste in the first place rather than managing it

Ensure fit for purpose food isn’t thrown away to diversion or landfill and is instead redistributed via alternative markets

Drive and disseminate packaging innovations

Encourage and enable communication and knowledge sharing between trading partners


Manage customers leaving frozen products out of the refrigerators on ambient shelving having changed their minds about a purchase

Manage rejection / refusal of product upon delivery at wholesale or retail depot 6.0 Conclusions and recommendations Measurable reductions in packaging / supply chain waste have been delivered as well as good practice case studies which shed light on details of how the savings have been achieved by the trading partner teams. Overall the programme will have led to a reduction in waste amounting to around 650 tonnes. Further impact can be expected given the pilot nature of some of the changes and the small number of products that were involved. All the changes made by the participants and the new ways of working have broad applicability and are potentially scalable. The good practices described in the case studies are tried and tested and the detail in the case studies brings strong believability to drive the curiosity of others in the industry who read them. A number of other “Hot Spots” have been identified that could help to inform the focus of future projects. There is a great deal of work being undertaken by WRAP under Courtauld Commitment Phase 2 (now extended into Phase 3) and by IGD as part of the ECR UK to deliver adoption by other companies wishing to emulate the collaborative waste prevention achieved by companies during this programme. This programme and report has emphasised the value of collaborative working between trading partners through an externally facilitated performance improvement programme as an effective vehicle for waste prevention.


Appendix 1 Case Studies

7.0 Case Studies The following nine case studies appear in this Appendix:

1 Morrisons Unilever Pot Noodle 2 Asda Silver Spoon Sugar 3 Tesco Silver Spoon Sugar 4 Tesco Heinz Cans 5 Tesco Princes Cans 6 Tesco Britvic Cans 7 Brakes RHM Flour 8 Brakes Silver Spoon Sugar 9 Booker Tulip Cooked Meat

Each case study is structured around the following headings:

1 What was the issue / what initiated the project 2 What we did 3 Other alternative solutions considered 4 Obstacles to overcome 5 What we achieved 6 When was this achieved / how long did it take to implement? 7 Other benefits/ Issues identified post implementation 8 Further Information


7.1 Morrisons Unilever Pot Noodle Case Study

Optimum waste reduction solutions for Pot Noodles involved better handling instructions at product

pick points and at depots as well as changes to shrink-wrap to deliver a 10% waste reduction.

What was the issue / what initiated the project

High wastage rates in the Pot Noodle category were

being experienced by major supermarket chains. Pot

Noodle wastage in retail was running at about 0.7%.

What we did

Working with Morrisons, Unilever applied an approach

adapted from Total Product and Maintenance (TPM).

They analysed system data, undertook a supply chain

walk through and identified 96 tonnes per annum of

waste across supply chain. The team developed the

top-level process map shown on the right.

The team noted that:

the rate of sale and speed of movement

varied considerably across the range;

the category is low in value and the

packaging light-weight; and,

in Morrisons, Pot Noodles were transported

to store on pallets and not in cages.

The team developed the schematic

and loss tree shown below.

The team decided to examine the impacts of different retailers’ supply chain processes and the impact these have

on waste levels for slow and fast moving lines.

SC PotNoodle process mapPackage material

arrives at factoryVisual quality

check

Factory

Acc

epta

ble

qual

ity

Yes

Disregard/ return

No

Put on

production line

Pots are filled/ lid

is sealed

Pick & place

places Pots in trayConveyor belt to

auto-paletiser Auto palletised

Transport

and UL

Storage

Seal strength is

checked by

tapping pots

Intac

t

seal?

Yes

Recycled

No

Plts double

stackedLoaded on truck

Transported to UL

DC

Transported to UL

DC

Damage

free?

(25% plt

view)

Dimensio

n plt not

ok? (auto

scan)

No

Conveyor belt

transport to high

bay & stored

Damaged cases

removed & put

separate location

Yes

Picked by crane

& conveyor belt

transport to

despatch/ case

pick area

Loaded on truckDespatched to

retailer

No

Yes

Restacked/ re-

shrink-wrapped

Individual cases

picked and put on

pick plt

Part recycled, part

wasted/ pig food

SC PotNoodle process map

Goods deliveredPut in “checking”

lane

Morrisons

DC

Acc

epta

ble

qual

ity

Yes

Disregard/ return

to supplier

No

Put in bulk

location in DC

Plt moved from

bulk to pick

location

Picked and put on

mixed store plt

Moved to

despatch

marshalling lane

Loaded on truck

Store

Disregard/ recycle

at DC

Visual

quality

check

case

ok?

Yes

No

Off loaded at

store

Quality

ok?

Room on

store

shelf?

No

Stored on plt/ shelf

back of house

Complaint to

warehouse/

wasted/ recycled

Yes

Picked from

shelf/ plt

If slow moving

removed & put

back on at “strip &

clean”

Stacked on shelf

No

Yes

Tray shrink wrap

removed (if shrink

wrap is still intact)

Moved to aisle

Plt shrink wrap

partially removed

Off shelf

feature?

Yes

No

Consumer puts

in trolley/ basket

Pay and check

out

Over-

stocke

d at

promo

end?Yes


The pictures show examples of damage.

The team identified the most common cause of

waste and where in the supply chain product was

being damaged.

The charts below show that the most common type

of damage is to the lid of the product and that the

majority of damage is incurred during transit from

the retailer’s depot to store.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Lid Damag e

Crush Damag e

Date Cod e

Br oken M ultipack

0 5 10 15 20

Depo t

Transi t

Cag es

Backup

Replen

Shel f

Cu sto mer

The team then surveyed 20 Tesco stores on reasons, root causes and possible solutions. The team then

brainstormed and reviewed feasibility of each idea.

Product Packaging Solutions Non Packaging Solutions

Three changes were then implemented or piloted:

Thicker shrink-wrap around the case

Change Unilever’s picking procedure – more care taken when individual cases are picked

Invert Pot Noodle cases so that the lids do not face up but the tray carton does

Other alternative solutions considered

Eleven other solutions were validated as unviable:

Change of lid technology (plastic)

Stronger Pot

Sleeve around the Pot (as GTI Pot Noodle)

Cardboard Tray on top of Case

Cardboard sheet between pallets during

distribution

Reduce the case size to increase store sell

through

Reduce the number of slow moving sku’s in

range to increase ROS on remaining sku’s

Reduce shelf fill across range to reduce store

stock holding

Change retailers depot picking procedure – more

care taken when picking Pot Noodles

Change store replenishment procedures – more

care taken when handling Pot Noodles


Obstacles to overcome

To be sustainable the solution had to be commercially

viable and changed packaging had to remain fit-for-

purpose throughout the supply chain.

What we achieved

The Unilever distribution centre project to reduce

returns / refusals involved a “One Point Lesson” (shown

on the right) at product pick locations and awareness

sessions for product handlers. This resulted in a 8.5%

reduction in returns and refusals. There were also

benefits at Morrisons (but not statistically verified).

A trial was conducted of inverted cases to see if having

the pots upside down would better protect the lids. The

trial comprised sending nine pallets of Beef & Tomato

(450 cases) to one depot for a period of six weeks. The

picture below shows the new packaging configuration.

As a result the waste index increased by 80% on trial

sku.

Trials were undertaken of thicker shrink-wrap around the case to better

protect the lids. The shrink-wrap was 25 micron. Four reels of thicker

shrink-wrap were received from the supplier. The first of two trials had both

the top and bottom reels removed to thicker wrap, the second with just the

top reel having thicker wrap. A trial batch of 6180 cases was produced in

early August. The trial proved successful with no issues for the heat

machine or palletisers. This ten weeks worth of stock with thicker shrink-

wrap was then delivered into two of Morrisons regional distribution centres.

Results indicate a positive outcome, but are not conclusive. A further trial is required with a greater scope – 1

flavour to be supplied to all customers. The expected benefit of this roll-out could be a 10% waste reduction:

8,900Kgs of a retail value of £60,000. The cost of the thicker shrink-wrap is £100,000.

The total waste reduction in 2012 is projected to be 500kg from the Unilever distribution centre project to reduce

returns / refusals and 8,900kg from the roll out of thicker shrink-wrap. These total 9,400kg; a 10% reduction.

When was this achieved / how long did it take to implement?

The above work was carried out over a twelve month period from February 2011 through to January 2012.

Other benefits/ Issues identified post implementation

Other benefits relate to further improved collaborative working between Unilever and Morrisons.

Further Information

Results in 2012 and 2013 will be measured and reported.


7.2 Asda Silver Spoon Sugar Case Study

Asda and Silver Spoon undertook an end to end review to ascertain where

and when sugar damage occurs. As a result of this analysis changes to

packaging design were made and as a result the like-for-like waste saving

was 75 tonnes.

What was the issue / What initiated the project

The main impetus for this project was the cost of sugar wastage to ASDA; very high

ambient food wastage / cost in each of the last three years.

What we did

The Asda – Silver Spoon team agreed to review waste

performance data. Silver Spoon also made a comparison with

other retailers’ waste performance data. Damages as a proportion

of sales at Asda was estimated to be 1.42% (higher than other

retailers) and granulated sugar accounted for 72% of sugar

wastage.

The team followed product from the factory gate to shelf and

reviewed all touch points through supply chain to identify where

damage was occurring. The results indicated that the biggest

area for damages was from back of store to shop floor.

To understand this more fully the team designed a short survey

for completion by Asda store managers (see extract on right).

A comparison with other retailers’ practices revealed that others deliver sugar to some large stores by keeping

merchandising units in the pairs that Silver Spoon build and shrink-wrap them in. Separating the merchandising

units reduces stability and protection and increases levels of damage.


Solutions were identified in handling procedures and in the redesign of primary and tertiary packaging.

Hot Melt Glue Pack Seal

Paper bags have high levels of wastage and are prone to seal failures because of damage. A quicker drying hot

melt rather than PVA glue resulted in a superior seal. A major investment was made to introduce the new system

and the change has now been completed across all 2kg, 1kg, & 500g paper bagged granulated products.

Keeping Merchandising Units Wrapped in Pairs

Silver Spoon build and shrink-wrap Granulated merchandising units in pairs. When these are separated in the

retailer’s distribution centre it reduces stability and protection and increases levels of damage.

It was not possible to change to deliver merchandising units in the pairs to larger Asda and Tesco stores because

of operational issues and order and delivery profiles. Morrisons deliver to stores in this way.

Half Spoon Trays

A tray on a pallet was trialled for all retailers to address the problem of damage that

results because packs overhang at pallet edges. The trial was conducted on ‘Half Spoon’

Granulated sugar because it was being hand stacked on pallets.

There was no evidence of improvement. The tray causes more movement. Hand stacked

merchandising units are less stable. It became clear that sugar merchandising units must

be automated whenever possible. In July 2012 Silver Spoon plan the stacking of Half

Spoon merchandising units will be automated as for Granulated sugar.

5kg Pack Material

5kg Packs had high wastage at around 9% of sales. A trial was undertaken to test different

plastic packaging formats for 5kg bags supplied to retail customers and for larger bags

supplied to foodservice. A new plastic format was in-store from February 2012. The impact

on waste levels is yet to be determined.

Pallet Wrap Options

The potential for completely wrapping the merchandising units was identified. However, it

was recognised that a major plant capital expenditure would be required if this was to

proceed. Material use and costs of Pallet Skirts and Transit Outers were found to be

prohibitive. Trial Pallet wraps are to be sent directly to Asda, Tesco and Sainsbury stores in

May / June 2012. Outcome will be monitored.



One key challenge has been to find solutions that work commercially and don’t increase the amount of packaging

materials that need to be recycled.

What we achieved

Waste of sugar as a percentage of sales has moved from 1.42% down to 1.27%. This is attributable to the the

above changes made. The like-for-like waste percentage was minus 0.15% and the like-for-like waste saving

was 75 tonnes.


Planning took place between February and September 2011, trials between September 2011 and February 2012,

and roll out was on-going from February 2012.

Other benefits / issues identified post implementation

The collaborative working between Asda and Silver Spoon has driven improved cross-functional working within

Silver Spoon and within Asda. Other retail customer accounts of Silver Spoon are taking the learnings and

adapting the best practice. Positive knock on effects are occurring in other category areas within Asda.

Further information



7.3 Tesco Silver Spoon Sugar Case Study

Tesco and Silver Spoon undertook an end to end review to ascertain where and when sugar damage

occurs. As a result of this analysis a store Education Programme and as a result the like-for-like

waste saving was 115 tonnes. This is now to be rolled into Sainsbury’s.


Tesco and Silver Spoon embarked on this project because of the generally high cost of sugar wastage across

retail customer accounts and key Silver Spoon lines and because sugar was suffering high damages and levels of

mess in Tesco stores.

What we did

The team carried out an end to end review to ascertain where and when sugar damage occurs, in the context of

all categories. They established that most damage occurs between back of store and fixture. As a result of this

analysis a store waste reduction communication programme was implemented. Performance data was reviewed

after implementation.


Also considered were pallet protection trays and shrouds and redesigned packaging and sealing of bags. Trials

were undertaken to assess the use of trays on Merchandising Units / dollies and of the effect of hand versus

automated stacking of bags on platforms.



The obstacles encountered were machinery cost, packaging increases and how best to re-educate and change

behaviours in store.

What we achieved

Waste of sugar as a percentage of sales has moved from 0.91% down to 0.68%. This is attributable to the

education programme. The like-for-like waste percentage was minus 0.23% and the like-for-like waste saving

was 115 tonnes.

Silver Spoon would like this to be rolled into Sainsbury’s and Asda. The need for sugar to be seen as a higher

damage area is being challenging by this education programme.


Planning took place between February and September 2011, trials between September 2011 and February 2012,

and roll out was on-going from February 2012.


The collaborative working between Tesco and Silver Spoon has driven improved cross-functional working within

both companies. Other retail customer accounts of Silver Spoon are taking the learnings and adapting the best

practice. Positive knock on effects are occurring in other category areas within Tesco.

Further information



7.4 Tesco Heinz Cans Case Study

Through improvements in store and depot handling Tesco and Heinz reduced canned grocery waste by 295

tonnes.


A Tesco and Heinz team compared relevant categories and found

high levels of un-saleable cans on shelf and residual stock having to

be reduced to clear. Because of this they decided to focus on can

damage in all sizes and pack formats within grocery and pet-foods.

What we did

The team from Tesco and Heinz measured waste in three ways:

Through depot and store replenishment visits

By searching the Tesco waste data system

By sending a questionnaire to 841 Tesco store grocery managers The end to end process check revealed useful insight into the cause of can waste.

The questionnaire was completed by 780 stores using Tesco’s ‘Workplan’ tool. The results showed:

68% have high waste levels on canned goods

92% of recorded waste is coded to ‘damaged’

86% said most waste was tomato products

76% related waste to poor packaging 587 stores gave comments including:

‘No cardboard packaging for multipacks, the Heinz shink wrap method works much better’ ‘Tins are often dented due to poor handling, when loaded onto cages. We regularly get canned drinks reduction whereby there will be a punctured can in the pack so it has to be reduced. There needs to be an improved way of loading canned pops as often they stick out on cages so when loaded/unloaded onto the wagons they get caught and the can punctures’ ‘Some form of protective cover around MU's for canned tomatoes / beans, a lot of these are damaged in transit as there is no protection around the outer edges of the dollies’

For the next stage of the project the team aimed at halving the waste totals by:

Awareness raising initiatives in depots and stores

Waste reduction/recoup project currently on trial

Introduction of wrap outer on all multipack lines


Depot Focus

The team:

attended a depot managers’ team meeting

worked with Tesco Depots to understand causes of damages

examined fragility settings, pick routines and handling procedures

built ‘canned goods’ briefing pack for in-depot awareness week Building awareness in our depots to prevent damages:

The team continues to work with depots and depot managers to highlight and raise awareness of damages created in depots. Work has also been started on damages waste in Tesco fresh food depots.

Store Focus

Tesco Hatfield store was the focus of a waste reduction / recoup pilot. The pilot examined damages that were under the stores control (thereby excluding damages due to depot picking routines). Stores were focused on reducing overall damage spend – including issuing stores with a What Good Looks Like for Reducing Damages. This included examples of how canned damages are caused and hints and tips.

The focus of the pilot was on salvage and reduction of dented cans at the shelf. The aim was to enable cans to be sold at either full price or at a mark down price. As part of a Tesco Waste Reduction Plan, stores were also provided with reporting requirements to support a reduction in damaged waste.


Other areas being addressed elsewhere include adjusting packaging formats and depot to store delivery.


The obstacles overcome have been data availability and openness between trading partners.


What we achieved

Tesco Waste Reduction Plan has achieved the following results.

Area As Was 2010 Predicted 2011 Actual 2011

Total Canned Grocery Waste (1020 lines) 1211 tonnes 600 tonnes 620 tonnes

Tesco estimates that the work with Heinz has been responsible for 50% of the drop in Total Canned Grocery

Waste (1020 lines) from 1211 tonnes in 2010 to 620 tonnes in 2011. In other words, 295 tonnes of canned

grocery waste reduction is attributable to the work lead by Heinz and Tesco.

Further information



7.5 Tesco Princes Cans Case Study

Princes Napolina

Heinz and Tesco identified a waste “hotspot” and engaged with Princes. Princes introduced

sacrificial nicks into the design of its multipack tomato can carton wrap and as a result are

preventing 8 tonnes of waste per year.


Multipack canned tomatoes were identified as a high waste “hotspot” during investigations undertaken by Heinz

and Tesco. Canned tomatoes (29 lines) accounted for 25% of waste (1,211 tonnes per year) across canned

grocery (1020 lines). Just eight lines of multi-pack tomatoes accounted for 46% of total canned tomato waste. A

supplier of two of these lines, Princes were contacted to investigate further

with Tesco.

What we did Investigations revealed the possibility for multipack wrap to tear when subjected t additional handling / stresses such as with the merchandisable unit (MU) format. This allowed the cans to separate and because individual cans were not bar-coded they could not be re-sold.

Princes changed the packaging; adding into the design sacrificial nicks which help disperse the forces which result

in board tear, the reason for the packaging failure.

The new packaging shown on the right hit shops in November 2011. As also shown in the picture, Tesco have

currently moved from MU’s to conventional shelf placement.


The depot to store delivery chain was explored to understand the supply chain stresses and requirements. Using

cellophane as an alternative to recyclable board for the multipack wrap was evaluated but was considered to be a

less environmentally robust solution. A thicker board grade of carton multipack wrap was also evaluated but it

was decided to fully evaluate the sacrificial nicks before taking the retrograde step of increasing packaging

weight.


The main obstacle to overcome was the desire to find a solution which did not have a

negative environmental and cost impact.


What we achieved

From March to November 2011, four-pack damage waste was running at 0.35%, 0.48 tonnes a week. Following

the introduction of the new packaging, from November 2011 to February 2012 damaged waste ran at 0.23%,

0.25 tonnes a week.

In 2012/3 it is predicted that the change will continue to reduce multi-pack tomato waste by 0.22 tonnes a week,

saving 11.44 tonnes (two lines) over the year. Some of this benefit may be attributable to a reduction in use of

the MU format.


The change in packaging was introduced during July and following existing stock depletion was in store from

November 2011.


Tesco and Princes now have a waste reduction plan in place for this packaging format.

Further comments



7.6 Tesco Britvic Cans Case Study

Britvic and Tesco came together to focus on canned drinks waste and “improve the life of a can”.

The prevention of damaged waste predicted for 2012/3 is 28 tonnes.


Canned drinks waste was a hot spot for Tesco. Britvic were receiving consumer complaints about can damages.

They came together recognising the opportunity to reduce damages in canned goods.

What we did Following an initial meeting, Tesco and Britvic undertook a site visit to a Britvic factory and a Tesco store visit and then engaged with the can manufacturer. They then trialled new merchandising solutions and measured results of merchandising units over cases. A road show has been designed to take grocery depots through to “improve the life of a can”. The team is preparing a summer awareness pack that concentrates on improving handling of beverage canned goods in depot.


Alternative packaging and case sizes were also considered.


Once the mutual interests of the companies

were highlighted there were no constraints.

What we have achieved

The merchandising solution pictured above was trialled. Waste decreased 0.03% during the trial while control

stores remained the same. The damaged waste of products was reviewed for lines stocked on Merchandising

Unit and those stocked as case lines. The cans were normally delivered on cages and then filled directly on the

shelf. The aim was to see if sales and productivity could be increased and waste reduced.

0.27% damaged waste of products 0.16% damaged waste of products

It is too early to assess the grocery depots road shows to “improve the life of a can”. The savings prediction for

2012/3 is a 0.06% reduction in damaged waste; preventing a further 28 tonnes of waste.

Further information



7.7 Brakes RHM Flour Case Study

Brakes and RHM have reviewed damages of bulk flour through the supply chain, put changes in

place and are confident they will bring damages down from 26 tonnes to 6.5 tonnes per annum.


High wastage of bulk flour was being experienced in store and when

picked. 1040 bags per annum or 26 tonnes were being wasted.

What we did

An end to end supply chain review included an inspection of stock and

physical activity in store to assess reasons for high damage levels.

Damage to 25kg bags was found during loading on and off consolidated loads and during picking due to them

overhanging the edges of the pallet and damage at the corners. By changing from five per layer to four per layer

and increasing pallet height, pallet overhang was reduced on three sides. The risks on three sides and two

corners have been reduced.


Bag redesign was considered but ruled out due to the required machine changes and capital investment.


Concern about whether the product would cost more and business scepticism about the cost: benefits were the

main barriers that were overcome.

What we achieved

The pallet stack re-design reduced 2011 levels of waste by 10 tonnes. Implementation throughout 2012 will yield

an annual waste reduction of 22.25 tonnes. Waste performance is currently tracking just over the projected 260

bags or 6.5 tonnes per annum due to old pallet configuration still working through the system.


This work was initiated in August 2011. The change took 20 days to implement and a month to cycle most stock

to new pallet stack configuration.


This project created a detailed reporting feedback process on damages that has since been introduced across the

Brakes UK business.

The work has lead to a working partnership between RHM and Brakes. They continue to look at opportunities to

reduce waste, put in place best practices and share them with trading partners; other customers and suppliers.

On-going initiatives include pallet handling training cards for Brakes supplied by RHM, product protection on fork

lift trucks, trial of re-useable pallet collars, and trying out different levels of pallet compression depending on flour

mix.

Further information



7.8 Brakes Silver Spoon Sugar Case Study

Brakes and Silver Spoon have reviewed damages on bulk sugar, put packaging changes in place and

are confident they will reduce supply chain wastage by 10 tonnes in 2012 and 22.5 tonnes in 2013.


High wastage was being experienced on all bulk (25kg, 10kg, 5kg and 3kg packs) sugar products.

What we did

An end to end supply chain review included an inspection of stock and physical activity in store to assess reasons

for high damage levels. Damage to 25kg bags was found to be due to them overhanging the edges of the pallet.

When lifted, 10kg bags broke because of brittle failure of the packaging material. The brittleness was found to

have been induced by low temperatures. The 3kg bags were breaking due to seal failure.

Options are still to be explored to reconfigure machine stacking of 25kg bags to reduce their footprint on the

pallet. The potential for using a collar around 25kg bag pallets was reviewed. Changes introduced in 2011

included adjustment to the 25kg bag width by adjusting seam width, and increasing the grade of recyclable base

sheet from 80g to 150g.

A new improved 3kg bag seal machine and process were introduced in January 2012. The 5kg and 10kg bag

packaging was changed to a nylon film in February 2012.


The pallet collars proved to increase cost and waste so were not used.


The commercial fear of increased costs was the main barrier that was overcome. The work has opened up a

different level of commercial relationship and has made both parties accountable for reducing damages.

What we achieved

A 10 tonne reduction in waste is fully expected in 2012 and 22.5 tonnes in 2013.


The field work started in September 2011 and initial delivery was phased between December 2011 and February

2012. Subsequent delivery will be ongoing in 2012.

Other benefits/ Issues identified post implementation

Attention will now also be on other key risk products such as bulk rice.

Further Information



7.9 Booker Tulip Cooked Meat Case Study

By collaborating more closely Tulip and Booker reduced product wastage as a proportion of sales

from 7.89% to 6% and increased availability from 90.25% to 99.6%. Out of code product is down

from 3 tonnes to zero and cardboard packaging in the supply chain has been cut by 28 tonnes.


Booker and Tulip focused on the supply of cooked meats for catering purposes because of high wastage on

certain lines, and out of code life stock going to disposal needed to be brought down, while the availability of

product needed to be increased. Measurement of situation at the start showed the following results:

Product wastage as a % of sales equal to 7.89%

90.25% forecast accuracy (one site)

110.8 tonnes per annum total wastage

7 tonnes per annum out of code

Catering pack cooked meat wastage (tonnes)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

201101 201102 201103 201104 201105 201106 201107 201108 201109 201110 201111 201112 201113

What we did

The team mapped waste along the supply chain focusing their efforts on understanding waste arising at Branch

and reviewing order patterns. Total wastage identified was in excess of 110 tonnes per annum (excluding waste

arising in catering outlets because it was not measured).

The chart shows wastage at Branch for six products.

The results showed that:

Four out of the top six lines consistently had higher wastage before promotion. This arose when the

promotion price hit branches because the standard price was being pushed to the back and ending up in the

bin.

Beef products wastage has been driven by inconsistent demand leading to availability and shelf life issues.

The team believed the demand shifts have been driven by rising prices throughout the market.

High wastage % to sales on products which are a by-product of another causing limited availability and poor

shelf life when delivered.


The team examined a comprehensive range of options to prevent waste. For example shelf life destruction tests

were undertaken but shelf life could not be extended on any products. It was noted that vacuum packs were

now being introduced by some retailers but that there were consumer acceptance issues because the packs

change the colour of the meat.

The team instead focussed on the following two areas:

Review Lead Times against Production Schedules The chart below shows that orders and sales are not aligned: an example of the ‘bullwhip effect’ also known as

demand amplification.

Beef Sliced

020406080

100120140160

02

/01

/20

11

09

/01

/20

11

16

/01

/20

11

23

/01

/20

11

30

/01

/20

11

06

/02

/20

11

13

/02

/20

11

20

/02

/20

11

27

/02

/20

11

06

/03

/20

11

13

/03

/20

11

20

/03

/20

11

Ordered

Sold

Further analysis shows that:

Sales throughout the year are fairly steady each week unless on promotion or hot weather, while ordering can

be erratic across the week

Backhaul collecting in the afternoon so stock not reaching branches until the next day and losing life

Ordering day 1 for day 4 but production scheduling done 15 days in advance

Poor communication prior to promotions leading to misunderstanding of demand requirements each week

The team agreed to work jointly on improving communications and developing better forecasts.

Two products were also trialled using fixed order quantities on manual spreadsheet ordering to even out weekly

sales (as the current system was not flexible enough to accommodate this trial). The impacts on wastage and

availability was measured to assess the impact of the trial.

Range Review on High Wastage Products

The team reported initial progress namely:

Joints coming in with huge variance in size from 2.5kg to 5kg, QA to monitor and work with Tulip on a

tolerance to provide consistency.

Change of specification on sliced beef to use whole of the product, QA & Buying to agree new spec with Tulip.

If above can be changed delist of Wafer Thin Beef (this is a by-product of sliced).

However, they noted that a great deal more field work was required before any decisions could be made on de-

listing products. In order to fully assess the market and understand their needs, final catering customers would

be consulted and the scope would have to include case sizes.

A later full range review resulted in delisting some products, listing others and some case size changes.


Here is a summary of changes made and benefits achieved.

Past Present Benefits

Booker collecting product from

factories

Tulip now delivering direct to RDC 1 day extra shelf life in business

centres

Order lead times day 1 for 3 Day 1 for 4 Improved availability

Poor promotional communication Daily communication with Tulip

planning and Booker supply chain

Improved accuracy

Poor communication of regular

requirements

Daily communication to react to

weather trends

Improved availability

High wastage SKU’s/bi-products Delisting of SKU’s Reduction of wastage %

Challenge of what we sell to be

correct range

Full range review/In progress Increase sales/reduction in %

wastage

Retail from 21 to 7 SKU’s

Catering from 23 to 20 SKU’s

(faster selling varieties introduced)

Branch wastage

Pre promotional wastage

Reduction of business centre stock

this communicated to Tulip

factory’s

Availability retained/ wastage

reduced

In store wastage for OOC Shelf life destruction tests

completed

No benefits as food safety issues

would have been raised

Review of supply chain packaging

needs

Packaging formats for all retail

SKU’s/tray & Flow wraps

Reduction in packaging in supply

chain


The shelf life destruction tests and a number of different packaging formats were considered.


The main barrier overcome was them and us; now it is “Just us” and open communications are enabling trading

partners to work truly together. They now challenge each other on everything; why they do what they do and

how.

What we achieved

Product waste is down from 7.89% to 6%. Availability is up from 90.25% to 99.6%. Out of code product is

down from 3 tonnes to zero kilograms. Cardboard packaging in the supply chain has been cut by 28 tonnes.

Past results Current results Target

7.89% product wastage 6.00% 4.00%

90.25% availability 99.6 % 100%

3,000 kg per annum Out of code Nil Nil

4% catering Joints 2.5% Nil

High wastage SKU’s 0% (delisted) 0%

Acceptance of general cooked

meats packaging formats

Reduction of packaging in supply

chain of 28 tonnes

0% wastage



The product Out-of-code and other waste reduction and the availability increase took between 6 and 9 months.

The packaging change is on-going and will have taken over twelve months to implement.

Other benefits / Issues identified post implementation

Benefits were achieved for both parties. It is imperative to ensure that changes made are viable for all parties.

Further Information



Appendix Two People

Te

am

Role in Prog-ramme

Company Individual Job

25

Jan

15

Ma

r

12

Ap

ril

7 J

un

e

26

Ju

ly

13

Se

pt

29

Fe

b

Pot

Noodle

Sponsor

Morrisons

Paul Sorrell Ambient Supply Chain Controller

Participants

Robert Bee Team Leader Grocer

Paul Buxton Senior Team Leader Ambient

Unilever

Enrico Sidoli Quality Manager, Crumlin

André Capello Customer Service Manager

Mark Vandeloenhorst Customer Service Manager

Sponsor Simon Bailey Customer Service Director

Sugar

Sponsor

Asda

Gavin Chappell Supply Director

Participants

Asid Rafiq Senior Operations Manager

Ken Slater Senior Project Manager

The Silver Spoon Co

Andrew Wright Head of Logistics

Ashley Haywood Manufacturing Standards Manager

Mike Penman Customer Director

Sponsor Pete Trundley Supply Director

Sugar

Participants Silver Spoon

Lucy Chapman Senior Customer Manager

Jo Wirkowska Customer Director

Tesco Nick Jelly Programme Manager – Store Ordering

Cans

Sponsor

Tesco Stores Ltd

Liz Hulbert Head of Replenishment Solutions

Participants

Deborah Meller Project Manager - Replenishment Solutions

Christina Oman Project Manager - Replenishment Solutions

Donna Buckle Project Manager - Replenishment Solutions

H J Heinz Co Ltd

Gordon MacMillan Packaging Development Technologist

Chris Drury Procurement Integration Manager

Mike Thomas Customer Logistics Manager

Sponsor Paul Andrews Head of Customer Logistics UK&I

Cans

Participants

Princes Terry Brown Group Packaging Manager

Tesco Donna Buckle Project Manager - Replenishment Solutions

Britvic Victoria Collett Regional QHSE&T Manager

Bags

Participants

RHM

Brakes Peter Mileham Supply Chain Project Manager

Silver Spoon

Meat Sponsor

Booker Dominic Morrey Director of Trading Fresh Pro

Participants Rebecca Roberts Category Manager

Tulip Ltd David Osborn Commercial Manager

Sponsor Compass

Sachin Sharma Head of CRE

Participants Yvonne Smith Supply Manager

H&

B B

reak P

ack

Sponsor

Sainsbury's

Stuart Lendrum Print & Packaging Manager

Participants

Andrew Parkin Packaging Technologist

Roger Wright Packaging Technical Manager – GM

Paula Chin Programme Manager, Own Brand

Smurfit Kap Adam Clark Retail Project Coordinator

Unilever Tracy Hemery Customer Service Manager

Sponsor Simon Bailey Customer Service Director

Oth

er

Commission and funding

WRAP

Graham Sutherland Packaging Advisor

Brendan Hunter KAM - Hospitality Sector

Michael Gell Prog Manager – Product and Packaging Design

Facilitator

IGD

James Tupper ECR Learning & Change Manager

Expert Peter Whitehead Agri-business Programme Leader

Karen Chalmers Senior Supply Chain Analyst

Filming Krishan Rama Senior Communications Officer

www.wrap.org.uk/waste-prevention

Final Report Waste Prevention in the Supply Chain of Packed … Prevention in the Supply C… ·...

Documents

Transcript of Final Report Waste Prevention in the Supply Chain of Packed … Prevention in the Supply C… ·...