The food industry is being poorly represented when it comes to sustainability, so maybe it’s time for a change. By David Burrows.
The British Retail Consortium (BRC) and Food and Drink Federation (FDF) are lobbying for EPR (extended producer responsibility) on packaging to be ripped up and for the UK government to start again. Hang on. Last year FDF said the proposals were “a constructive and pragmatic approach” but now they’re “muddled” and “confused”. Aren’t we all.
There is little detail behind industry complaints, just throwaway quotes and scare-mongering (which is increasingly the norm). Consider this from the BRC: “Retailers are committed to reducing waste and packaging and want reforms that truly deliver on these aims, but are deeply concerned that the reform to the packaging EPR scheme, which is due to come into force in April next year, is fundamentally flawed.” Householders could be “footing the bill” it warned “without any meaningful improvements to UK recycling rates” which are “abysmal”.
It must be relatively easy to work in the policy teams for food industry groups these days as you can simply regurgitate the same old excuses for any environmental or social policies. Whether it is EPR, DRS (deposit return schemes), a plastics tax, food waste or emissions/net-zero reporting or junk food bans, the message – often ramped up at the 11th hour – is: “We love the idea but what the government has proposed is way too costly and difficult and might mean we (our members) actually have to change our unsustainable business models. So perhaps we should start over.”
Money bags
The ‘cost to consumers’ card is being played time and again. But on packaging for example what many ignore is that these are ‘producer pays’ approaches – so if businesses were cock-a-hoop with these policies they wouldn’t be worth the paper they’re written on. EPR for example should move the dial from producers of packaging paying 10% of the clear up and recycling costs to 100%. Pricing in environmental externalities is going to seem ‘inflationary’ and there is plenty to price in, noted one consultant I spoke to. “But the sooner we get on with it, the lower the bill will end up being.”
Indeed, if the original timelines had been hit this would have all been in motion before inflation became an issue (though it’s worth noting how this, the third wave of inflationary forces following an overdose of demand and then lack of supply, is according to some reports down to greed, with prices kept high to boost profits further, affecting the least affluent demographics and the people these food industry groups say they are trying to ‘protect’ by pushing back on green policies).
Covid was a curve ball but EPR and DRS should have both been rolled out this year in England, according to the government’s 2018 resources and waste strategy. DRS for England is now planned for late 2025, though this is “a stretching target date”, according to the UK government.
Scotland has now set a similar trajectory with a third delay to the scheme announced last week. Holyrood blames Westminster and Westminster blames Holyrood (it’s the circular economy, stupid!). The whole thing has been politicised but the influence of industry in derailing this was considerable. “[This] is a victory for those in industry who have never wanted to pick up the costs of their irresponsible business model,” said Kat Jones, director of Action to Protect Rural Scotland.
The likes of FDF, BRC and UKHospitality (UKH) are representing the same businesses who claim how seriously they are taking packaging, climate, nature and all the other sustainability crises – and the need for speedy solutions. But there is a lack of urgency when it comes to the crunch.
Many green policies are already very late too. Again industry groups talk of “rushed” regulation but Defra ministers are past masters in the art of dithering. Their preferred route is to leave it all up to industry but there are few examples of success in that space.
The BRC wants EPR to be “industry-led”. Part of this is ensuring packaging is recycled in closed loops – which makes sense – but let’s not kid ourselves that we can trust industry with this. Indeed, an aspect often missing from media narratives around Scotland’s DRS is the fact that it’s an industry-led scheme through the administrator Circularity Scotland. So when groups criticise it they are in fact criticising themselves.
Sweat and tears
Business groups like UKH have lobbied hard to derail the scheme. They have some well-founded concernsthat could have been ironed out but to describe another two-year delay as a “relief” beggar’s belief. They should also be careful what they wish for. With policies like DRS and EPR having been so long in the making there is a feeling that the world – and the ambition around the climate and nature crises – has moved on since 2018. BRC said EPR proposals “lack ambition” – a claim that NGOs should have pinned to future policy briefings should industry get its way (Defra is “holding firm” I am told).
“Our businesses are working to stretching sustainability targets and take their responsibility to our natural environment very seriously, which is why we want to see a circular economy established rapidly, designed with industry and consumers at [its] heart,” said FDF this week.
I just don’t believe it. If members are ‘serious’ why didn’t they push FDF harder to have schemes in place within the timeframes? Or are the likes of BRC, UKH, FDF (and others) failing to represent the interests of their members?
Footprint was set up to push the sustainability agenda. We are hard but fair. Ambitious in terms of what can achieved but realistic of the challenges businesses face. The people I speak to at large food companies say they have a passion to deliver change; regulations like EPR and DRS (as well as proposed food waste and climate reporting rules) level the playing field. I believe most of them. But if I were one of the BRC’s, UKH’s or FDF’s more progressive members I’d be fuming about recent lobbying. We’ve waited since 2018 for these policies and there has been plenty of time for industry to consult and prepare for the discomfort.
So perhaps it is time for them to reconsider their membership with these organisations or forever be entrapped with the laggards? Or do we need a new group that represents forward-thinking businesses in the food sector?
