Unlocking Value in Waste: Early Insights from the Foundation FSSC Global Survey

Recently, Kelly Mulholland from Foundation FSSC joined Leanne Singleton from FoodSure for a focused discussion organized by Senara Learning Ltd. The session explored how manufacturers can cut waste and boost efficiency, with Kelly sharing exclusive early insights from Foundation FSSC’s global Food Loss and Waste (FLW) survey.

Foundation FSSC recently surveyed over 600 Certified Organizations to gain a better understanding of the status of their food loss and waste journeys. While the data is still being fully analyzed, the preliminary results offer a fascinating snapshot of the methodologies used, as well as the real-world benefits and challenges organizations face today.

The Current State of Measurement: Weight & Spreadsheets

To manage waste effectively, you must first accurately measure it. The survey results revealed that the most common unit of measure is weight (by kilograms or tonnes), followed by percentage, volume (liters), and economic value. Many organizations noted that they use a combination of these metrics, such as weight mixed with piece counts.

Regarding the tools used for quantification, the feedback was revealing. Despite the availability of advanced, specialized technologies, the majority of organizations are still utilizing traditional methods like Excel spreadsheets.

Analysis showed that these are often used in conjunction with existing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, such as SAP, to manage their waste data.

The Impact of the “Manual Bottleneck”

This reliance on manual or traditional tools is a “mixed bag” for the industry. On the positive side, utilizing ERP systems shows that some organizations are successfully integrating waste data into their core business management rather than treating it as an isolated issue.

However, the downside is that tracking loss across multiple stages manually is incredibly resource-intensive. Relying on spreadsheets increases the risk of human error, which can undermine the baseline data needed to track year-on-year reductions.

Organizations stuck in this “manual bottleneck” may find that the labor cost of tracking waste eventually eats into the savings they gain from reducing it.

Verifying the Data

Because of these complexities, organizations reported using a variety of intensive verification methods to ensure their data remains accurate:

• Calibration: Using calibrated weighing scales and flow meters.

• Reconciliation: Conducting mass balance exercises (input vs. output) and comparing production records with raw material usage.

• Cross-Departmental Reviews: Internal audits involving Production, QA, and Finance to ensure data consistency and alignment.

• Physical Checks: Visual inspections of disposal processes and on-site verification of waste removal at the time of disposal.

The Challenges: Why Reduction is Hard

While the intent to reduce waste is strong, the survey highlighted significant hurdles. A major challenge reported was the complexity of data collection. Tracking losses across multiple stages is resource-intensive, and many organizations struggle with the lack of a standardized measurement tool.

This makes it difficult to establish accurate baseline data, which is essential for comparing year-on-year reductions.

Beyond the data, the “human factor” is a critical obstacle. Behavioral and cultural resistance were cited as a key challenge, as changing long-standing habits and attitudes among staff can be difficult without proper awareness and training.

Furthermore, organizations face technological and infrastructure limitations. Common issues included the need for investment in monitoring systems and a limited capacity for physical waste segregation on-site.

The Benefits: Why it’s Worth the Effort

Despite the challenges, the survey confirmed that the return on investment for FLW strategies is significant. Here are a few reasons why:

1. Cost Savings: This was the most frequently mentioned benefit. Organizations reported financial gains through reduced waste disposal fees, savings on energy and water consumption, and lower raw material costs. By minimizing production losses, companies purchase more effectively, directly improving profitability.
2. Process Improvement: Reducing waste is synonymous with increasing efficiency. Respondents noted benefits such as yield optimization, reduced rework, fewer non-conforming products, and improved equipment utilization (less downtime).
3. Compliance and Reputation: Beyond the factory floor, reduction efforts led to a lower carbon footprint and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. This strengthens an organization’s sustainability credentials, positively impacting brand image, and increasing stakeholder trust.

Conclusion & Next Steps

These early insights demonstrate that while accurate data collection and cultural change remain hurdles, the operational and financial rewards of reducing food loss and waste are undeniable.

Foundation FSSC looks forward to further analyzing this data to identify key learnings that can continue to support certified organizations on their food loss and waste journey. Stay tuned for further insights as we complete our analysis.