Policy paper

FDTP: towards consistent, accurate and accessible environmental impact quantification for the agri-food industry

Published 23 April 2024

Applies to England

Executive summary

The Food Data Transparency Partnership (FDTP) is a partnership between the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Food Standards Agency (FSA), industry, academia and civil society.

This paper draws together evidence, ambitions and priorities on environmental sustainability. The environmental sustainability work of the partnership has focused on the approach needed to deliver consistent, accurate and accessible environmental impact data for the agri-food system. This is to support the global demand for data and a trend towards outcome-based approaches to environmental management, where data is used to measure progress towards the outcome and more directly inform what actions to take to get there.

The agri-food system is both complex and diverse, especially when it comes to farming and fisheries. While every effort has been made to represent the collective view of the partnership, there are a wide range of views about these issues and reflection and debate is continuing as we seek to find an optimal approach for all parts of the system.

This paper sets out:

1. Key principles.

2. A common approach to communicating the environmental impacts of food and drink products and businesses, through standardisation of:

• company-level scope 3 (supply chain) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions accounting and reporting ^{[footnote 1]}
• product level environmental impact quantification
• food and drink eco-labelling

3. The Plan for Data: continuous improvement of the accuracy, consistency, and accessibility of environmental impact data available:

• improving the volume and quality of primary data, including harmonising farm level quantification of GHG emissions and other environmental impact data
• improving the volume and quality of secondary (average) data
• developing data infrastructure and governance to enable data sharing at scale

This work is long-term, but the partnership has identified key priorities for delivery in the short-medium term. These are set out in the following section.

We expect this paper to be of greatest interest to professionals involved with or interested in measuring and communicating environmental impact of organisations and products within the agri-food sector. This may include: sustainability professionals, sustainability data and advisory service providers, academic researchers, investors, sustainability NGOs, assurance schemes and guidance providers.

In response to industry feedback, throughout 2024 we will be increasing engagement with the farming sector, which has been relatively limited to date, on how the ambitions in this paper could be realised in a way that recognises, rewards and respects the efforts of the sector in productive and sustainable food production.

FDTP priorities for the next 12 months

1. Food supply chain reporting at company and product level

• 1.1 – Standardised scope 3 company level reporting
• 1.2 – Approach to company level nature reporting
• 1.3 – Recommendations for a standardised product level accounting method

2. Farm data

• 2.1 – Support for carbon tool providers to harmonise their underlying methodologies​
• 2.2 – Support for farmers to complete an audit and act on it​
• 2.3 – Repurposing existing data to complete an audit
• 2.4 – Integrating primary data from farms into secondary datasets

3. Environmental impact data for food, drink and agri products

• 3.1 – Data for key imported commodities
• 3.2 – Accessible Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data

4. Data infrastructure

• 4.1 – Data infrastructure for data sharing
• 4.2 – Data governance
• 4.3 – Data quality

5. Supporting and enabling workstreams

• 5.1 – Skills plan
• 5.2 – Joining up and horizon scanning
• 5.3 – Communications and engagement

Introduction

The rise of environmental impact reporting has been described as ‘fast and furious’.^{[footnote 2]} Data requirements are creating an ever more complex trading environment for business in our globally connected supply. This demand for environmental impact data on food products and organisations is driven both by concerns about the impact of the food system on the environment and the impact of climate change and biodiversity loss on our long-term food security. Increasing mandatory data disclosure requirements from governments, as well as businesses competing for investment on the basis of sustainability performance, have resulted in a confusing landscape of initiatives, approaches and methodologies competing for attention and a lack of coordinated work to supply the data demanded across the agri-food sector. This fragmentation is hindering the sector’s ability to demonstrate progress against climate and sustainability goals and to access the ‘green finance’ needed to catalyse change and meet those goals.

Overcoming these challenges requires different interventions, harnessing scientific and technological innovation, and putting in place long-term structures for continuous improvement. Our initial focus has been on GHG emissions where the science and the reporting requirements are most mature. Our ambition is to consider a broad range of environmental metrics beyond carbon, drawing on our experience and learning so far.

Farmers are central to delivering our targets for climate and nature, alongside their core role as food producers, through emissions reductions and sequestration, and in realising the huge co-benefits of nature-based solutions, such as improving biodiversity and water quality. Agricultural GHG emissions in the UK have reduced by 12% since 1990 (as of 2021), with many farms using more efficient agricultural practices.^{[footnote 3]} The entire agri-food system has a role to play in going further to meet our climate and nature commitments.

For the last 3 decades standards that set out ‘best practice’ methods of minimising environmental impacts associated with agriculture have dominated, with the presumption that meeting those standards will lead to the desired outcomes. More recently, outcome-based approaches, where data is used to measure progress towards the outcome, drive efficiencies within the system, and more directly inform what actions businesses can take have become more common. In order to guide the right action, data used must be consistent, accurate and accessible.

The rapid development of new technologies is helping to streamline data reporting. For example, the introduction of the new 2D barcode by 2027 will allow consumers to access more information about food products through QR codes and the Open Regulation Platform will help businesses to comply with regulations in smarter and less burdensome ways. While innovation can unlock new opportunities to make standardised data more accessible, safeguards to guarantee fairness and data security may be needed to ensure that all businesses including SMEs and farmers are able to participate in this system.

Against this context, the Food Data Transparency Partnership (FDTP) brings together government, industry, civil society, and experts to collaborate on shared solutions, supported by an ongoing process of engagement. The evidence and proposals in this paper have been developed by and with many experts who have generously contributed their time and knowledge. The FDTP groups’ terms of reference and membership can be found on the FDTP’s GOV.UK page.

The FDTP eco working group first considered the issues related to company reporting of scope 3 GHGs and recognised that much work was needed to develop the underpinning environmental impact data needed. The accurate quantification of the environmental impacts of agri-food organisations and products is made more difficult by the inherent complexity of biological systems underpinning primary production, the diversity of data methodologies and models, and the lack of supply chain transparency which hinders information and data share. Therefore, while our initial engagement has focused on understanding data needs across the whole supply chain, in 2024 we will increase engagement with the farming sector as better farm data is a key enabler across the programme.

Our ambition is to ensure a consistent and science-led approach to environmental impact measurement and communication across the agri-food sector and support green growth within UK agri-food businesses. While food policy is devolved and FDTP is a UK government led programme, Scottish Government and DAERA officials and businesses based in Scotland and Northern Ireland are participating in the work. Welsh Government officials have been kept informed of the FDTP’s work but have not formally participated in the programme. It is our aim to work towards alignment within proposed activities across the UK’s internal market.

Figure 1: Key milestones for related external initiatives

Figure 1 accessible description

Figure 1 shows some key milestones for related external initiatives. The milestones have been colour-coded to indicate whether they relate to data or communication challenges – in the below text this has been stated at the end of each bullet point. The milestones are also grouped into anticipated short, medium, and long-term.

Milestones due to be completed by mid-2024:

• Defra publishes ADAS report on divergence between farm carbon calculators (data milestone)
• Defra commissions a research project on the ‘Long-term Improvements to Environmental Impact Data for Food’ (data milestone)
• WRAP consults on updates to their scope 3 protocols (data milestone)
• BSI launches a consultation on the first version of their overarching principles standards for nature markets (data milestone)

Milestones due to be completed by spring 2025:

• GHG Protocol publishes land sector removals guidance (data milestone)
• First year reports due in line with European Union (EU) Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (communication milestone)
• BSI consults on a standard for high integrity investment in nature-based carbon capture and storage solutions (data milestone)

Milestones due to be completed by 2025 and beyond:

• EU Commission delivers EU carbon removal certification framework (communication milestone)
• BSI delivers Nature Investment Standards Programme (data milestone)
• EU member states implement the Green Claims Directive on environmental claims and sustainability labelling (communication milestone)
• Defra completes research project on improving the quality of environmental impact data for food (data milestone)

Key principles of the FDTP approach

International alignment

The UK is part of a global food supply chain with many businesses operating across international boundaries. We recognise the need to maximise international alignment of our work and to carefully consider imports, exports and trade implications.

Recognising diversity and complexity

Our approach is rooted in systems thinking. This involves recognising the diversity of actors and processes in the system and their interactions, avoiding oversimplifying complexity. In the context of our work, the ‘system boundaries’ include the agrifood system, interconnected data systems and data users. The data system includes actors such as external providers of data services, ranging from general data management services to providers specialising in calculating environmental impact metrics for businesses.

User-centred: making things as simple and easy as possible

We are committed to minimising the burden of data collection and reporting for businesses. This means taking a user-centric approach, where every data user in the system is considered, not just the final ‘audience’ for the data. We will aim to design interventions that work for all sizes of business on a day-to-day basis, reduce costs and reduce complexity.

Building on current best practice, not replacing it

We recognise this is an area where businesses, NGOs and academia have already done an immense amount of work. We want to make use of that experience by learning from what has worked well and build on top of it in partnership with those practitioners.

Open inquiry without pre-conceived answers

As a partnership, we will work together to establish what the problem is to be solved, and only then start developing answers, guided by the needs of businesses, users and the programme. If and where centralised or single provision may be desirable, this will be determined in a fair and transparent way.

Future-proofed, scalable, and resilient

Interventions should be able to evolve over time to accommodate potential future data needs and growth. A robust infrastructure should avoid creating single points of failure or any operational reliance on a single proprietary standard or solution.

Respect commercial sensitivity and confidentiality

Where the infrastructure supports sharing of data between businesses it must respect commercial sensitivities and the value of this data to its owners. It must allow for data sharing to be done securely and give the data owner full control over who it is shared with.

1. A common approach to communication

1.1 Approach to scope 3 reporting for business

Indirect GHG emissions from business supply chains, known as ‘scope 3’, makes up the largest portion of many food and drink company footprints (for example, food retailers’ scope 3 emissions may be over 90% of their footprint).

As shareholders, investors and government provide scrutiny over the climate impact and climate risks associated with businesses there is an increasing demand internationally for information disclosure of climate and nature related data, including on scope 3 emissions. This is a challenging task for the food and drink industry due to long and complex supply chains and inconsistent quantification methods for agri-food emissions and removals.

Relevant priorities

• 1.1 – Standardised scope 3 company level reporting
• 1.2 – Approach to company level nature reporting

Reporting mechanism for scope 3 GHG emissions and other metrics

The framework for non-financial reporting in the UK is overseen by the Department for Business and Trade (DBT). DBT is currently reviewing the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Sustainability Disclosure Standards. This process is assessing and considering endorsement of the global corporate reporting baseline issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) and will consider the wider international reporting landscape, taking into account the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Continuing to ensure that corporate reporting on food and drink sustainability aligns with a sector agnostic approach will prevent fragmentation and ensure a single set of standards is applied across the UK regulatory framework. A decision on whether scope 3 reporting requirements are included within the UK endorsed standards will depend on the outcomes from the assessment mechanism for ISSB’s global sustainability and climate disclosure standards, and the call for evidence on scope 3 reporting held in autumn 2023.

The recommendations from the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosure published in September 2023 may well increase the demand for reporting on nature metrics. As per the 2023 Green Finance Strategy, the UK government committed to “explore how best the final TNFD framework should be incorporated into UK policy and legislative architecture, in line with Target 15 of the Global Biodiversity Framework”. The TNFD provides the main method of operationalising Target 15 and the UK government welcomes closer integration with the ISSB to build a global baseline on sustainability reporting. Further, the UK government, through Defra, is funding the Green Finance Institute to run sector-specific National Consultation Group workshops on TNFD capacity building, implementation and uptake. We are exploring the FDTP’s role in supporting nature-related reporting as the programme develops.

Supporting the sector with scope 3 reporting in a standardised way

Ahead of any mandatory requirements, there are benefits to the food and drink sector reporting scope 3 emissions in a way that is consistent and internationally aligned.

The GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard is the de facto accounting standard for creating Scope 3 inventories internationally. Voluntary target setting and disclosure initiatives such as Science Based Targets (SBTi) and Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), as well as the ISSB (IFRS) Climate-related Disclosure Standard 2 consistently defer to the GHG Protocol the baseline approach for company level scope 3 reporting across the sector.

The GHG Protocol scope 3 standard is, however, technical, complex and designed for all industries. This leaves some areas open to interpretation by businesses and further guidance on implementation is needed to create greater consistency across the food and drink sector.

New international guidance documents released in the last couple of years have shifted the expectations around emissions accounting. In particular, the GHG Protocol’s draft Land Sector and Removals Guidance (final publication is due in Summer 2024) sets out how companies should account for and report GHG emissions and removals from land management, land use change and related activities in GHG inventories. This guidance also underpins the Science Based Targets initiative’s Forest, Land and Agriculture (FLAG) guidance, which outlines that carbon removals may be included in FLAG science-based targets, but only on land owned or operated by a company or within a company’s supply chain.   

WRAP’s sector specific scope 3 Reporting Protocols

WRAP is an international climate action NGO working to tackle the causes of the climate crisis and give the planet a sustainable future. WRAP has worked closely with the UK food and drink industry over the past decade, through gaining voluntary support from businesses to the ‘Courtauld Commitment 2030’ – a set of targets, including to halve the GHG footprint of the UK food and drink sector by 2030 from a 2015 baseline, that are fully aligned with UK and international environmental goals.

As part of its work to support signatories in meeting the Courtauld 2030 target on GHG emissions, WRAP has developed a sector specific Protocol and a suite of supporting resources on how to measure and report scope 3 GHG emissions, building on the GHG Protocol. The WRAP Protocol does not replicate requirements or recommendations from other guidance documents, rather, it provides additional clarity by offering context and practical advice. The aim is that the WRAP Protocol should be used as the definitive source for food and drink companies to guide their measurement, reporting and action on reducing scope 3 emissions.

Version 1 of the WRAP Protocols were published in May 2022 and therefore require updating to incorporate the changes and developments in emissions accounting internationally. WRAP is now developing a version 2 of its Protocols, combining implications from recent publications and feedback from the FDTP working groups and from piloting of the Protocols. Recent publications reviewed and incorporated into the proposed changes to the WRAP Protocols include:

• GHG Protocol’s (GHGP) Draft Land Sector and Removals Guidance (LSRG)
• Science Based Target Initiative’s (SBTi) Forest, Land and Agriculture Guidance (FLAG)
• WBCSD’s Partnership for Carbon Transparency’s Pathfinder Framework (v.2.0)
• WRAP’s Emission Factor Inclusion and Adjustment Guidance
• WRAP and Defra Product vs. Company accounting findings

WRAP consulted on changes for version 2 of the Protocols in early 2024 and aim to publish the new version later in 2024.  

Within value chain mitigation of GHG emissions

The largest proportion of agri-food sector emissions are from primary production^{[footnote 4]}. For businesses that don’t own or manage land, land-based emissions fall within the scope 3 boundary and require interventions in the value chain. As a result, ‘within value chain mitigation’ to reduce or remove emissions is a key mechanism for agrifood businesses to meet their climate goals. However, when looking to account for corporate scope 3 emissions, there is still uncertainty around the treatment of carbon reductions and removals within value chains.

Carbon removals involve the removal of carbon from the atmosphere through activities such as afforestation. These activities store carbon but do not prevent it from being released in the first place. Many farmers, landowners and land managers have carbon stores on their farms – for example in their hedgerows, trees and soils.^{[footnote 5]} Defra’s Environmental Land Management Schemes pay farmers and land managers to deliver these sorts of outcomes, alongside food production. However, carbon removals can be challenging to calculate and can potentially be attributed to different supply chain actors (such as the funder and the implementer), which can lead to ‘double counting’. They are also complex in terms of physical traceability, permeance, and the boundaries of landscapes and supply chains. There is increasing interest in greenhouse gas removals using agricultural land to increase terrestrial carbon stores. More research is needed on methodologies and data requirements for accounting, monitoring and verification. It is important that farmers can demonstrate their carbon removals alongside their emissions.

Carbon reductions are activities which reduce GHG emissions to the atmosphere, for example through efficiencies and implementing techniques that reduce emissions at source. Carbon reductions are easier to calculate and account for than carbon removals. Different farming practices can result in reduced emissions at both a product or farm level. More research is needed on farm and supply chain mitigation practices, innovations and new technologies so they can be integrated and accounted for. This includes the methods, models and data quality required to quantify their impact.

At present, the draft GHG Protocol’s Land Sector and Removals guidance states that companies shall only report scope 3 land management carbon removals where they have physical traceability to the land management units (farms) where the carbon is stored. This guidance is currently being piloted, and the GHG Protocol is considering whether physical traceability to sourcing region (meaning first known collection point or processing facility) should be allowed for scope 3 land management carbon removals. The decision on the physical traceability for scope 3 land management carbon removals will significantly impact decisions on where and how businesses invest within their supply chains to remove carbon, particularly downstream businesses that may not have traceability of products back to the land management unit (farm).

Certification of carbon reductions and removals

Alongside, SBTi is conducting research into parameters needed for robust reporting of target progress, delivery and achievement of net zero targets. SBTi’s recent call for evidence aimed to gather objective evidence on the effectiveness of using environmental attribute certificates to quantify, verify and track the environmental benefits associated with different activities to tackle climate change. This evidence will inform relevant changes to SBTi guidance and standards.

Similarly, the EU is working to set up a system to improve capacity to quantify, monitor and verify carbon removals using certification. The proposed certification framework aims to boost innovative carbon removal technologies and sustainable carbon farming solutions, while fighting greenwashing.

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) has identified aligning on adoption of standards and practices for scope 3 reduction and removals as a 2024 priority for its food and agriculture business members.

FDTP will monitor the progress of such initiatives to ensure international alignment of approaches to within value chain mitigation accounting and reporting.

Developing consistent standards for voluntary carbon and nature markets

Making the changes needed to mitigate GHG emissions and support nature recovery requires a major boost in finance. Sustained public support for farmers to make the transition to low carbon, nature positive farming models is important. However, we also need the private sector to step up to mobilise the green finance that our farmers, land and coastal managers need to accelerate action on the ground.

Defra is working with the British Standards Institution (BSI) to develop a suite of nature investment standards that will support best practice standardisation of methodologies with regards to best practices for assessing the baseline, monitoring, and verifying the delivery of nature-based carbon removals. This will be critical for the purposes of supplying and selling credits into nature markets, and for quantifying within value chain mitigation of environmental impacts. These standards will build on and aim to align with the work of international integrity initiatives, including the Integrity Council for Voluntary Carbon Markets (ICVCM) and the Voluntary Carbon Markets Initiative (VCMI).

As part of this programme, BSI is developing the ‘Nature markets - Overarching principles and framework’, which will apply to nature-based environmental improvement projects and the quantification of ecosystem services. These principles will set the basis by which nature markets can be more effectively designed and governed. A first draft of the BSI Flex 701 standard was published for consultation in March 2024.

Further to this, BSI will be developing more specific thematic and market specific standards to follow over the course of 2024 to 2025, for example, for nature-based carbon and biodiversity. This will include a certification mechanism to allow methodologies which meet these standards to become certified as offering high integrity.

1.2 A standardised approach to product level impact quantification

Increasingly, businesses are seeing the benefits of communicating product level impact data to consumers and other businesses in the supply chain. Product level accounting can help improve understanding of the impacts of specific products and supply chains to inform changes at the supplier and product level to reduce impacts. Product level data can also enable more accurate reporting of company impacts from the ‘bottom-up’, by summing up the impact of all products sold by the company, in addition to any energy use or emissions on site.

Product level impact data is generated through lifecycle assessments (LCAs). Although there are many commonalities between Scope 3 and product carbon footprinting, there are a number of practical and methodological differences summarised in section 4.1 of the WRAP Protocol.

Relevant priorities

• 1.3 – A standardised product level accounting method (including multi-metric approach)

Developing a product level accounting method

A standardised product level accounting method, following an LCA approach, for the agri-food industry is required to enable comparison of product level environmental impact data. This standard will need to provide rules on system boundaries (such as cradle to grave), allocation and data quality requirements. Some of these rules may need to be set on a food category basis (product category rules) to enable differentiation and comparison of products (sub-categories) within product categories (such as grass-fed vs grain-fed beef)^{[footnote 6]}. These rules may need to be tighter for different use cases (see Figure 2 on the different use cases identified by the FDTP). We think ‘communication to consumers’ requires the most stringent rules.

Defra has commissioned new work to develop methodological recommendations for a product level accounting standard for the agri-food sector as part of the Long-term Improvements to Environmental Impact Data for Food (LED4Food) project. This project will be delivered by a consortium led by WRAP with partners including Oxford University, Rothamsted Research, WWF and SRUC over 3 years from March 2024.

This project will build on and align with existing standards, such as PAS2050 and the 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Initially, existing cross-sectoral and sector specific standards will be reviewed to understand divergence, such as:

• ISO 14067: 2018 – Carbon footprint of products
• The EU ‘Product Environmental Footprint’ (PEF)
• The Partnership for Carbon Transparency’s (PACT) ‘Pathfinder Framework’ – sets out methodological guidelines for product level emissions data accounting and exchange
• PAS 2050-2 – additional requirements for application to seafood and aquatic products
• The International Dairy Federation global Carbon Footprint standard for the dairy sector
• The Mondra Coalition agri-food LCA (product level) methodology

This review, combined with further engagement with standard users and relevant experts, will be used to determine which areas require alignment and which areas can remain flexible.

More data and empirical evidence are needed to establish standard methods for the issues such as allocation of impact, product category rules and integration of generic data. Specifically allocating emissions to livestock derived products, for example, how emissions are disaggregated between beef and milk in integrated farming systems will draw on ongoing research in this space.

The resulting standardised product level accounting method for the agri-food sector, delivered by spring 2025, and approach for multi-metric product level reporting, delivered by spring 2026, will inform our approach to food and drink eco-labelling.

Figure 2: Suggested hierarchy of data for different data use cases for environmental impact data

Figure 2 accessible description

Figure 2 shows different types of data and some of their use cases. It is structured to illustrate that rules would be more stringent for higher quality types of data.

The following list of 4 data types and their use cases are ordered from lower quality data to higher quality data. This means the types of data are also ordered from less stringent rules to more stringent rules.

1. Top-down company level (scope 3) (lower quality data and less stringent rules), data use cases:​

• identifying hotspots in operations and supply chains to determine (and scenario model) actions to maximise GHG emissions reductions​
• set SBTi targets (non-FLAG) and demonstrate year on year progress towards them and provide accountability​
• incentivise financial investment​

2. Product level based on product averages, data use case:​

• identifying hotspots in supply chains to determine (and scenario model) actions to maximise GHG emissions reductions​

3. Product level based on ingredient averages, data use case:​

• product reformulation: recipe or menu composition changes to reduce emissions​

4. Supply chain specific product level (higher quality data and more stringent rules), data use cases:

• sourcing changes: switching to suppliers with lower carbon products or production methods or adding GHG emissions conditions or KPIs into purchasing contracts​
• product labelling: consumer information enabling intra-category comparison and informed choices on lower carbon products​
• incentivise financial investment​

1.3 Communication to consumers

Developing a standardised approach to food and drink eco-labelling

Many consumers care about the environmental impacts of food, but this often does not translate into the purchase of more sustainable food (the value-action gap).^{[footnote 7]} When purchasing food, most customers prioritise price. The evidence also shows that consumers have a limited understanding of what makes a product sustainable. For example, food miles and packaging are often cited by consumers contributing to the environmental impact of food^{[footnote 8]}, but the largest source of environmental impacts, including carbon emissions, from food occurs during the production phase (on average around 70%, but rising to as high as 95% in some cases)^{[footnote 9]}.

Some businesses want to showcase the environmental credentials of their products and help customers consider environmental impact when purchasing food and drink products. This has led to the emergence of environmental impact labelling (eco-labelling). An eco-label is a symbol, logo or graphic giving an indication of a product’s environmental impact and is a type of ‘green claim’.

To date, the FDTP has focused on eco-labels that use a lifecycle assessment (LCA) approach to quantify the environmental impact throughout a product’s life cycle. LCA is the gold standard for quantifying the environmental impact of food, enabling all production stages to be assessed and detailed scores to be obtained which enable comparison both within and between product categories (see section 1.2 for more information). Other types of environmental labels use different mechanisms, for example assurance schemes tend to have a list of activities or outputs required which must be satisfied to achieve an accreditation. Our aim is not to displace these schemes, as we believe they play an important role in promoting higher standards at farm level. However, as they do not cover the entire lifecycle of a product, we can see the potential value-add LCA-based eco-labels can bring.

Kantar research identified 21 voluntary food and drink eco-labelling schemes operating in the UK in 2021, using a variety of metrics to measure environmental impact (ranging from carbon-only to varying degrees of alignment with the EU Product Environmental Footprint’s 16 metrics) This lack of consistency creates potential for false or misleading environmental claims (‘greenwashing’) and confusion. Currently, low consumer trust, understanding and engagement with eco-labels, along with business concerns about the reputational risk of being accused of ‘greenwashing’, are contributing to low levels of market penetration^{[footnote 10]}. In line with the Net Zero Strategy commitment to support individuals and businesses to make green choices, government wishes to bring about a level of standardisation to eco-labelling to remove this barrier to the use of eco-labels in the food and drink industry.

Government has no plans at present to introduce a mandatory eco-label, nor to endorse an existing or new eco-labelling scheme. Currently, there is limited evidence that eco-labelling has an impact on in-store consumer and business behaviour^{[footnote 11]}. However, where they are being used, we believe it is important that they provide a fair and accurate representation of a product’s environmental impact, so that genuinely more sustainable products can successfully differentiate themselves and consumers are not misled. For this reason, we first plan to address the quantification of environmental impacts and improving the data on which this is based.

Underpinning any attempt to communicate the environmental impacts of a food product on a label or otherwise, is the data and methodology used to quantify those impacts. As discussed in more detail in the following section ‘2. The Plan for Data’, work is needed to build the volume and quality of data to provide the granularity needed for eco-labels that can fairly differentiate both between and within product categories. We also need a consistent product level accounting standard that provides clear rules to enable comparable product footprints. As detailed in the section above, (1.2 ‘A standardised approach to product level quantification’) we will start with a standardised product level accounting method, which will likely form the basis of the approach to communicating with consumers, including eco-labelling.

A wide range of metrics quantifying product level environmental impacts are used in existing eco-labelling schemes to produce a score or rating used on an eco-label. Some schemes use solely greenhouse gas emissions (represented as carbon dioxide equivalent). Others take a multi-metric approach, including aspects such as biodiversity or land use, water pollution and water usage. The scientific community lacks consensus around which are the best metrics to measure the environmental impact of food. There are also wide variations in the extent to which accurate calculation methods and good quality data are available for each metric. In addition, there are trade-offs between metrics used in multi-metric schemes, for example a product which produces low carbon emissions, but uses a lot of water. We also acknowledge the potential for the choice of metrics to result in unintended consequences, such as perverse incentives or trade-offs with other food system issues, such as nutrition and animal welfare. The picture on metrics is complex, and the decision on which metrics to include is a challenging one. 

Once we have addressed the fundamental issues of how to quantify product level environmental impacts and ensuring sufficient data quality and availability, we will consider the need to develop the eco-labelling methodology further to cover other aspects of eco-labels, such as label design and application. In the interim, we welcome new and existing industry-led initiatives to develop the evidence base in these areas in parallel with our work on data and metrics.

2. The plan for data: Towards consistent, accurate and accessible environmental impact quantification for the agri-food system

The move towards outcome-based approaches to environmental sustainability decision making across the food system is dependent on the supply of environmental impact data. Decisions should be informed by data (evidence) that is appropriate for the purpose, in terms of accuracy and comparability.

Ideally, supply chain impacts would be tracked using reliable business-specific primary data. However, the global, complex and often opaque nature of agri-food supply chains combined with the inconsistent methods of quantification and poor data quality mean tracking and quantifying products can be very difficult and costly. In many cases, where the product is of low impact or a minor ingredient in a recipe, the cost of accurately quantifying it using primary data can outweigh the potential benefits of doing so.

Where the use of supply chain primary data is possible, we want to support and encourage this over the long-term. We also want to focus efforts on generating more primary data where greater accuracy counts the most – at farm level. Different agricultural conditions, inputs, and practices generate different environmental impacts, so accurately and consistently quantifying farm-level ‘primary impacts’ is particularly important to create trust and certainty in the data and provide the evidence to inform changes to reduce impacts.  

Whilst primary data is fundamental to accuracy, exclusive focus on primary (over secondary) data would challenge our aims for consistent and accessible data in the short term. Good quality secondary data needs to be made more accessible, so everyone in the supply chain can use it. However, guardrails need be put in place to prevent the use of poor-quality secondary data (that is, non-representative or incomplete data) in certain circumstances, such as communication to consumers. This will likely require a data scoring system and clarity on data validation, verification, and assurance.

Eventually, our ambition is that secondary (average) impact data will differentiate between similar food products that are produced in different ways, so that product level information is communicated as accurately as possible. To enable continuous improvement and build more granular secondary datasets, an increased volume and quality of primary data will need to be collected and shared across the system. Our approach to primary and secondary data is therefore interconnected and will require sustained collaboration.

Data sharing at scale is required to deliver these ambitions. Currently data sharing is done inconsistently across the system creating inefficiency and additional costs to business. Effective data infrastructure and governance that enables interoperability of data systems could reduce this burden significantly.

2.1 Approach to primary environmental impact data

Environmental impacts are generated at every step of the supply chain from agricultural inputs and farming processes through to manufacturing, retail, consumption and eventually waste management. Primary data describes these direct impacts to the environment. However, many supply chain actors struggle to quantify these and share them with other actors in the supply chain. This results in a small volume of low-quality primary data and in turn low quality secondary data. Increasing the volume and quality of primary data quantified and shared across the system would enable more accurate scope 3 inventories, product foot printing and secondary datasets.

Relevant priorities

• 2.1 – Support for carbon tool providers to harmonise their underlying methodologies​
• 2.2 – Support for farmers to complete an audit and act on it​
• 2.3 – Repurposing existing data to complete an audit

Farm level primary data

As this publication makes clear, the demand for environmental impact data is increasing. The majority of supply chain environmental impacts typically occur pre-farm gate so there is increasing interest in obtaining primary data from farm suppliers to feed into sustainability reporting and product marketing. The way the reporting burden is being passed up the supply chain has the potential to cause unfairness. While farmers can be paid for this through preferential contracts, lending rates or pricing, the terms are set by the supply chain with no guarantee at present that farmers are paid for their time and efforts in collecting the data, nor for the value that this information represents to the supply chain. Understanding and quantifying impacts at farm level can be complicated and time consuming, and a lack of standardisation means some farmers are being asked to report their data in different formats to different buyers.

This interest in environmental impact data also extends to government, with ambitious targets to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, deliver outcomes for the environment and climate, improve farm productivity and maintain domestic food production. Having a good understanding of a farm’s emissions profile (through completing a carbon audit or environmental impact assessment), is important for identifying opportunities for reducing emissions, for example, through increasing the efficiency of farm operations. Defra sees carbon audits as helpful tools that can empower farmers to make informed business decisions.

The FDTP want to make sure farmers are appropriately recognised for their efforts and the benefits of better primary data are fairly distributed across the supply chain. Many farmers have worked hard to reduce emissions already. Since 1990, UK agricultural emissions have reduced by 12%.^{[footnote 12]} We want to support farmers to build on this and ensure their efforts are reflected in the competitive value of their products. Obtaining the data is a necessary first step to enable UK producers to compete on environmental impact in the international agri-food marketplace.

There is a gap between the demand for and availability of good quality environmental impact data from farms. We have identified a number of barriers to obtaining and sharing this data.

Barriers

To obtain their emissions data, farmers must use one of a variety of calculator tools that quantify GHG emissions at farm-level. The market for these tools is diverse, with different tools serving different customer needs. To complete an audit, the user must gather records of their farm practices, from the amount and type of fertiliser or feed used, to crop yields or product weights, and input these into the calculator tool. For many farmers this is felt as a time-consuming, administrative burden. While the calculators generally ask for the same core area of data, the specific data and the format required differs among the calculators. In addition, with differences in the underlying methodologies used by the tools, there is divergence in the tool outputs. For example, a farmer could input the same data into two different calculator tools and see different results. This, combined with a lack of verification or assurance of those outputs, has driven confusion, reducing trust and confidence in the resulting figures. 

Without support to make sense of the outputs of a carbon audit, the benefits of completing one are not necessarily obvious. Environmental considerations are just one of many factors taken into account in any farm business decision-making, and navigating the variety of funding options on offer for implementing decarbonisation actions can be complicated. Farmers need to understand what’s in it for them and their business.

Finally, some farmers are hesitant to share their data without assurance of exactly what it will be used for, who will have access to it and who owns it. Farmers need to be able to trust that their data will be handled in an acceptable way.

We are currently building our understanding of these barriers through engagement with farmers and agricultural organisations and exploring options for tackling them. The FDTP want to support farmers to make the collection and sharing of data as easy and as beneficial to them as possible.

Building trust in carbon calculator tools

In 2023, Defra commissioned research to assess the causes and level of divergence between market leading carbon calculators, and how this divergence is affecting tool users, and consider recommendations for harmonisation.

The main areas of divergence identified were:

• System boundaries and inclusion: The agricultural practices and processes that are captured in the carbon assessments vary and there is limited support for users to determine what they need to include.
• Emission factors: There is no standardised data set used for emission factors (for elements such as embedded emissions from feed, fertilisers or energy) which has resulted in calculator tools using sources of variable quality.
• Calculations and assumptions: Most calculators align their methodological approach and calculation models to the IPCC guidance. However, not all calculators are aligned and there is flexibility within this approach. Notably, there are differences in how calculators account for enteric emissions, nitrous oxide emissions from fertiliser application, crop residues, and manure management.
• Land-based carbon removals and emissions: There is currently no consistent approach taken to assessing carbon removals or emissions from soils, vegetation and land use change by calculators.

The publication of this research is already driving some convergence between the tools, with most of the calculators assessed having been updated during and since data collection, including to address some of the research recommendations. Building on this research and working with existing tool providers, Defra aims to support carbon tool providers to harmonise their underlying methodologies to increase the consistency and comparability of their outputs, while maintaining their ability to serve different customer needs. This aims to increase trust in the tools and allow farmers to maintain choice over which to use.

Carbon removals will be considered as part of this work as well as emissions, in line with the FDTP’s aspiration to allow farmers to accurately demonstrate their carbon sinks as well as their sources. We will also consider alignment with international standards in this process, to avoid creating unnecessary trade obstacles.

Furthermore, Defra is working to provide greater access to the calculations and the models, developed as part of the UK’s Agricultural Inventory of Ammonia and GHG Emissions, to interested third parties to support alignment in the long term between the UK’s national GHG accounts and primary data gathered from farms.

This will also support British Standards Institution (BSI)’s development of standards for high integrity private investment in nature, including for natural carbon (as set out in section 1.1). Having a robust environmental baseline (such as a carbon footprint or assessment of habitat condition) is critical for farmers to access nature markets and other private investment because they must be able to demonstrate that carbon will be removed from the atmosphere as a direct result of an action they have taken. For buyers this is critical as they need to have confidence that they are getting what they are paying for. The harmonisation of calculator tools could therefore unlock a further incentive for farmers to complete a carbon audit through increasing confidence in the outputs and may provide a stepping stone to accessing green finance.

Supporting farmers to complete and understand their audit

Support is needed to unlock the value of a carbon audit to a farm business – in understanding how to reduce emissions and improve efficiency, and in navigating the funding options that are available for achieving these goals.

As published in the Agricultural Transition Plan update in January 2024, learning from the success of the Farming Resilience Fund, from 2024, Defra will start funding more sustainable farming advice. This will help more farmers understand what opportunities are available to them and increase adoption of tools such as for carbon audits and natural capital assessments, supported by trusted advisors. 

Alongside the work to develop a suite of standards for private investment in nature (see section 1.2), Defra has been working closely with the Green Finance Institute (GFI) to develop the Farming Toolkit for Assessing Nature Market Opportunities. This provides a framework aimed specifically at farmers for understanding nature markets, assessing whether they are the right fit for each farmer and their land, and if so, what to consider at every step of building a nature market agreement.

Data streamlining and data sharing

Large volumes of data are already collected by farms and reported to various government bodies, including the Environment Agency, Rural Payments Agency, Defra, Department of Business and Trade, Devolved Administrations, as well as assurance bodies and the wider food industry through contractual requirements. We are mapping the data already collected from farms by Defra and ALBs and exploring opportunities for re-using this data for carbon auditing. This would help alleviate the administrative burden on farmers and increase the consistency of data inputs, leading to better quality data outputs.

A similar approach has already been taken in Ireland through Bord Bia’s ‘Origin Green’ programme, where data from the Irish Cattle Breeders Federation and the Irish Animal Identification and Movement System is combined with data from on-farm assessments to create sustainability reports for farmers to inform progress.

Good data governance and interoperability are key to facilitating and reassuring trust in the process of data sharing. Section 2.3 “Data infrastructure and governance for data consistency, interoperability and effective data sharing” - sets out more detail on the FDTP’s approach to tackling these challenges.

Seafish - Seafood Carbon Emissions Profiling Tool (SCEPT)

Seafish is the public body that supports the UK’s seafood industry to thrive. Recognising an opportunity to align ahead of any divergence in approaches to calculating the GHG emissions of finished seafood products, they have recently developed a Seafood Carbon Emissions Profiling Tool (SCEPT), to support the entire sector to decarbonise in-line with the Paris Agreement. The tool can be used by businesses in the wild capture and aquaculture sectors to generate seafood product carbon footprints. These can then be benchmarked against peers. SCEPT can also be used to identify supply chain emissions hotspots.

SCEPT has been developed alongside extensive UK seafood sector engagement, to ensure it reflects industry’s needs and aspirations. This has demonstrated strong support to align behind one easy to use profiling tool which includes a transparent methodology and consistent measurement capabilities. It has also stimulated discussion and early work on collaborative initiatives, including the development of strategic decarbonisation roadmaps and potential cross-sector projects, to accelerate the decarbonisation of shared seafood supply chains.

The complete tool, including a public facing area, will be available from May 2024.

SEEBEYOND primary data sharing trial

The SEEBEYOND project, commissioned by the Environment Agency, is conducting trials for a systemic solution to increase the volume and quality of primary impact data, using data interoperability and Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies to increase the co-benefits of and reduce barriers to sharing. Focusing initially on food manufacturers the trial has:

1. Developed a systems learning framework to provide a coherent rationale.
2. Identified standardised environmental metrics that integrate with major data collection food and drink sector data requirements (such as Streamlined Energy Carbon Reporting, Packaging Waste Regulation, UK Plastic Pack, WRAP Food Waste Reporting, and Manufacturer 2030).
3. Conducted feasibility tests of the standardised environmental metrics with 42 food companies and 15 environmental auditors, NGOs (such as WWF UK), and environmental regulators.

The next steps for this trial are to develop a digital platform and data interoperability technologies to prototype the automation of data exchange between food companies and external systems. In the long-term, once the data is collected, both the systems learning framework and standardised environmental metrics can be improved by analysing the data with AI. By iterating the cycle (as shown in Figure 3), the consistency, accuracy and accessibility of the secondary environmental impact data would be improved. This systemic approach could also be further developed and applied to other parts of the supply chain, including the farming sector to facilitate environmental data transparency.

Figure 3: Summary of the SEEBEYOND trial progress to date and future work (Credits: Lili Jia)

Figure 3 accessible description

Figure 3 summarises the completed and planned work for SEEBEYOND’s Primary Data Sharing Trial.

Completed work​:

• a systems learning framework to provide a coherent rationale​
• standardised environmental metrics to harmonise various data collection requirements​
• feasibility tests of standardised environmental metrics​

Near-term work sequence​:

• first, prototype the primary data collection standardised environmental metrics on a digital platform​
• then, develop the data interoperability technologies to automate environmental data exchange between food companies and external systems​

Longer-term work​:

• automate data exchange across food supply chain​
• analyse data with AI to improve framework and standardised environmental metrics​ – once completed, this analysis will feed back into the previously created systems learning framework and standardised environmental metrics

2.2 Approach to secondary environmental impact data

Given the scale and pace of the growing demand for environmental impact data in the agri-food system, secondary data has become an increasingly important resource. However, poor quality or out-of-date secondary data can be misleading. Improving the consistency, accuracy, and accessibility of secondary data is necessary to ensure different systems, suppliers and commodities can be easily quantified and communicated. We want to ensure suppliers are incentivised to make supply chain improvements and remain competitive on environmental impact, and to make sure ‘bad’ actors cannot benefit from positively skewed averages.

Relevant priorities

• 2.4 – Integrating primary data from farms into secondary datasets
• 3.1 – Data for key imported commodities
• 3.2 – Accessible Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) data

Current measures to increase the consistency, accuracy, and accessibility of secondary environmental impact data 

Defra has commissioned research to identify, collate and quality control data sources relating to the environmental impact of food produced globally. Initially the focus is on closing the knowledge and data gaps on the top 12 high impact imported food commodities (vegetable oils, beef, cheese, wine, soya, poultry, pork and pork products, bananas, rice, frozen fish fillets, maize, and coffee) and the most consumed multi-ingredient foods.

As part of this work, publicly available national resources for understanding the environmental impacts from food systems are being improved, namely the WRAP food system GHG model, WRAP emission factor datasheet, and the HESTIA platform. This will provide high quality, comparable, and up to date data on the environmental impacts of the agri-food system. This work was completed in Spring 2024.

Following this, Defra has commissioned new work to further expand the volume, accessibility and quality of secondary environmental impact data. The Long-term improvements to Environmental impact Data for Food (LED4Food) project will involve integrating large data sets and primary data with existing secondary data, analysis of gaps in the current accessibility of secondary data, and then research to fill these gaps.

Potential future measures to increase the consistency, accuracy, and accessibility of secondary environmental impact data  

A task and finish group on ‘Data Sources’ has been established to support the FDTP in considering different approaches to improve secondary data, bringing together a group of academics and industry experts. The group narrowed down priorities in this area and are developing proposals for 3 interventions. These have been summarised below in their emerging form.

1. Integrating primary data into secondary datasets 

For secondary datasets to continually improve, new (and up to date) datapoints must be integrated on an ongoing basis. The best way to do this is through integrating more primary data to improve its accuracy and representativeness. However, this requires more primary data to be generated in the first place and for this primary data to be shared.

Consideration of how to integrate primary data into secondary datasets will closely link with the work to increase the volume and quality of primary data. This will involve further engagement with the supply chain to determine how data can be anonymized, aggregated, and shared in a way that addresses the concerns many suppliers have over the use and ownership of their data. This should enable secondary data to improve continuously, becoming more and more granular over time allowing differentiation of similar food products that have been produced in different ways – one of the key principles of eco-labelling.  

2. Data quality assessments and requirements

One way of encouraging ‘good’ (or ‘better’) data, is to create an objective framework that scores datapoints based on their quality. The GHG Protocol Scope 3 Standard uses the following data quality indicators: technological representativeness, geographical representativeness, temporal representativeness, completeness and reliability. Aligning with this, WRAP has produced a scoring framework to assess the data quality of emissions factors for scope 3 purchased goods based on technology, time, geography, completeness and reliability. Requiring the use of such a framework could incentivise improved data collection practices and help build confidence in the data communicated across the system, whether at the organisation or product level. Defra has commissioned work under the LED4Food project to deliver methodological recommendations for  product level environmental impact assessments for different data use cases by spring 2025.

3. Consolidation of secondary data into an open access database 

Food system actors need access to good quality, standardised secondary data that can be used, in the absence of primary data, as a reliable proxy for their company and product impacts. Consolidating secondary data into one open access place would improve accessibility of this reference data for all data users, including SMEs and those with limited abilities or resources to collect and use primary data. Further consideration is needed on what data should be consolidated and how this should be governed and maintained. 

This idea is similar to the open-access database called ‘AGRIBALYSE’ that has been developed by ADEME, the French agency for ecological transition. This database provides reference data on 2,500 food products consumed in France (including imported products) based on an LCA method. The data are secondary averages of products “averagely consumed in France”. It does not enable comparison between similar products produced in different ways. The main purpose of this approach is to provide the agri-food industry with the data needed to improve the environmental performance of products and recipes and to provide a starting point for consumer information on environmental impact. This is deemed most useful in the hospitality and catering environment, where consumers may compare different dishes rather than similar products produced in different ways.

Defra has identified a clear demand for a trusted independent and accessible database to provide high quality, standardised environmental impact data from a variety of sources. Therefore, Defra has commissioned work under the LED4Food project to explore and respond to the above data user needs, such as development of a web-based application, that functions as an open-source secondary emission factors database.

The application will be developed through stakeholder feedback, using existing FDTP working groups and other networks.

2.3 Data infrastructure and governance for data consistency, interoperability and effective data sharing

Relevant priorities

• 4.1 – Data infrastructure for data sharing
• 4.2 – Data governance
• 4.3 – Data quality

At present, data sharing can be inconsistent and disjointed across the food supply chain, creating inefficiencies and additional costs to business. By promoting an effective data infrastructure and governance that enables interoperability of data systems, we aim to reduce this burden significantly. Improving the consistency, accuracy and accessibility of environmental impact data (primary or secondary) will involve increased data sharing, at scale, between different actors of the food supply chain – this is not something government will achieve alone.

Figure 4 provides a high-level summary of the data flows for environmental impact data reporting we have identified. Although challenging, recent advances in digital technologies will ease the transition to a better-connected supply chain network where data and information is shared and made accessible to all.

Figure 4: Diagram of data flows for environmental reporting

Key:

1. Data flows between food and drink businesses in the supply chain, mirroring the movement of goods and services.
2. Data may also flow between businesses and third-party providers. For example, a business may use a provider of general data services to store and manage their data. Crucially, this may include providers who get supply chain data from the business’s buyers or suppliers. Businesses may also use specialised consultancy services to calculate their Scope 3 GHG emissions.
3. Those calculators in turn may generate emissions factor data themselves, or get them from another source such as HESTIA, which they then use as part of their calculations.
4. Businesses publish relevant parts of the data. For example, they could make their Scope 3 inventories public on their website as part of their annual report.
5. The final audiences, namely people involved in the business and consumers, may directly view that published data, or may receive it via intermediaries like news media, trade publications, NGOs, or third-party advisory services.

Figure 4 accessible description

Figure 4 is a flow chart, showing data flows for environmental impact data reporting in the food and drink sector. Arrows indicate the direction data flows between different supply chain actors. The above key refers to numbers within figure 4, highlighting key data touchpoints within the supply chain and some of those descriptions are duplicated below.

Firstly, data flows across food and drink businesses, mirroring the movement of goods and services. This starts with primary producers’ data flowing to processors and manufacturers. Then, data flows to retailers and out of home businesses. Finally, the data flows to consumers.

Data from food supply chain businesses also flows back and forth between data services providers and carbon calculators or consultancies. For example, a business may use a provider of general data services to store and manage their data. Crucially, this may include providers who get supply chain data from the business’s buyers or suppliers. Businesses may also use specialised consultancy services to help calculate their Scope 3 GHG emissions.

Data service providers may also generate emissions factor data themselves, or get them from another source such as HESTIA, which they then use as part of their calculations.

Food supply chain businesses publish relevant parts of the data. For example, they make their Scope 3 inventories public on their website as part of their annual report. This publicly available data may be used and shared by intermediaries, such as news media, trade publications, NGOs or third-party advisory services. This data will then flow to its final audiences, both consumers and particular audiences within businesses. Those audiences in businesses are key decision makers, top level leaders, owners, and investors.

Data governance

Data governance refers to the terms, rules and principles that establish who owns the relevant data, who can access it, what it can be used for, the conditions under which data can be shared and for what purposes. Effective governance is key to establishing the trust that food businesses will need to have in others to agree sharing that data – especially where it is commercially sensitive, or there has been an associated cost to collect it.

The main challenge for governance is finding the most effective way to authoritatively establish the following:

• Who owns the data?
• Who can access the data, and who can grant access to it?
• The conditions for what shared data can be used for, and for what purposes?
• Who bears the cost of collecting and curating it?
• Who derives commercial benefit from it?
• Who oversees data quality?
• How are errors and data quality issues addressed?

Good governance will involve finding a balance between the application of ‘blanket’ rules that apply to all on these issues and allowing for bespoke arrangements in specific cases, where greater control and flexibility is necessary.

Data infrastructure for interoperability and data sharing

Interoperability is the ability for different data systems and data to exchange information, whether that’s within a business, between different food businesses, food businesses and data service providers, or with other consumers of the data. Interoperability is key for ensuring a level playing field between data providers and preventing data users from getting ‘locked in’ to any one data service provider because they can’t easily move their data across to another service provider. Interoperability of data can also reduce the burden on business to ‘translate’ information or report similar data multiple times to different parties in different formats. The FDTP approach to interoperability will be designed according to the main data types and uses but at the minimum we envisage these 2 key areas for development:

1. A consistent data format

A consistent data format is required to consistently represent data describing farming and food chain activities and environmental impacts. It will enable seamless data exchange in supply chains, will provide farmers with control and ownership of their data instead of being owned by a ‘locked into’ a single tool, and facilitate more complete modelling (for example, the model used for quantifying GHG emissions will be a requirement for businesses wishing to report). It will also enable a distributed structure for emissions factors databases, reducing reliance on a single data provider.

Defra is commissioning work through to 2026 under the LED4Food project to trial a common, consistent format for data storage and sharing of environmental impact data for agriculture and food products.

Initially this will be used to enable interoperability of international datasets providing secondary environmental impact data. A review of existing formats will lead to a trial to test the proposed unified format with other datasets, and data users including researchers, data providers, businesses, and government organisations to ensure it meets requirements.

2. Automation

Cross-sectoral work in academia, not-for-profits and public sector is looking at automation of reporting through the use of various technologies and approaches, such as PACT and SEEBEYOND (see section 2.1.1). We are also aware of various commercial ventures in this space, with varying levels of maturity and market uptake, and different technological approaches to innovate in this space. One example is the use of AI to automate the collection and matching of primary data across various businesses in a supply chain, and thus generate supply chain specific LCAs. In line with our principles, we will consider how we can build on current best practice, guaranteeing data security, in a future facing a more collaborative manner to create the solutions needed.

Case Study: Sainsbury’s integrated beef scheme 

In 2023, Sainsbury’s launched a range of beef products that contain on-pack declarations of 25% lower CO2eq (carbon dioxide equivalent) than the UK average. The products are the result of a collaborative integrated beef supply chain programme, working with partner suppliers to optimise the efficiency of that supply chain to deliver a lower environmental impact than the UK average.  

Establishing the emissions of these products through life cycle analysis (LCA) required data capture and sharing across the scheme, from calving on dairy farms to the retail shelf. Specific primary data from farmers across the integrated system (starting on the dairy farm, through to rearers and finishers) was obtained using Scotland’s Rural College’s (SRUC) Agrecalc carbon footprint tool. Scope 1 and 2 emissions data from specific beef processing sites was provided by ABP and emissions data associated with distribution and storage was provided by Sainsbury’s. To enable a comparison with the UK average, Agrecalc’s extensive database of non-integrated farm assessments was used and UK average processor and retailer emissions were provided by AHDB (Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board). 

The Sainsbury’s integrated beef scheme demonstrates the large number of data providers involved in accurately quantifying product level scope 3 emissions and highlights the importance of increased interoperability of data in streamlining the sharing of data for all involved. 

Use case approach to designing data infrastructure and governance

The FDTP are using ‘use cases’ to examine some of the day-to-day practical issues about sharing environmental impact data across agri-food supply chains. These use cases will map the main interactions between users of the data and the underlying systems and processes used to capture, manage and report on that data, as well as identify data gaps. This will help us understand how different aspects of the food system work in practice and, in turn, signpost operational difficulties and technical challenges. It will also allow us to identify key stages in the supply chains where changes could be made to promote sustainability. 

Use cases alone can’t account for every product category or use case scenario but they allow us to begin to account for the diversity within the food sector and avoid a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Different use cases can be collated to paint a more comprehensive picture of the agri-food system in the round and will work to identify specific pain points that any proposed solutions need to address.

Four case study food supply chains have been selected for this work so far:

• fresh dairy milk
• a composite food product
• oat-based milk alternative
• beef

These food supply chains were selected as they demonstrate some of the breadth of our complex food system. Bottled milk has a relatively short supply chain and there is a majority domestic market with well-established carbon data reporting practices. By contrast, a composite food product which contains multiple ingredients from several international supply chains represents the higher end of the complexity spectrum that any recommendations on data reporting need to be suitable for.

3. Capacity building for system-wide delivery

Relevant priorities

• 5.1 – Skills plan
• 5.2 – Joining up and horizon scanning
• 5.3 – Communications and engagement

The shift towards a consistent and science-led approach to outcome-based (data-led) environmental management requires a high level of resource and capacity across the whole agri-food industry. We have heard from many businesses that their sustainability teams (if they have them) are struggling with the growing emphasis on data, leaving little time to do anything else than measure and report.

Government has identified that the UK has a ‘data skills gap’ that needs filling.^{[footnote 13]} The Climate Change Committee and Green Alliance have identified a further gap in ‘Net Zero’ and ‘green’ skills.^{[footnote 14]} Further research is required to identify specific skill gaps across the food and drink industry. In particular, consideration needs to be given to improving the carbon literacy and data literacy of the industry, understanding where gaps in support and training are and how these can be filled, and ensuring a pipeline of data-literate sustainability professionals into the future.

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) Green Jobs Delivery Group is investigating how to develop green skills in the UK economy, and will be producing a Net Zero and Nature Workforce Action Plan in 2024. DESNZ has also supported development of the UK Business Climate Hub which provides Net Zero advice and free sustainability training for businesses in the UK. The Net Zero Council is also continuing to explore how it can support SMEs, ensuring they have the insights and support needed to transition to Net Zero.

We will be engaging with industry more broadly to determine how to deliver capacity building across the industry. As part of this we will consider the guidance and support that different data users (such as investors, lenders, consumer organisations) may need to harness the value of the data for driving system-wide change and reduction of environmental impacts. A key part of this will be in the design of the system itself – the way we design it will determine what level of capability it demands from business. For example, our focus on automation is specifically to reduce the amount of manual collation and data transformation businesses would have to do in the first place.

Annex A includes some sector-specific resources to support training and development.

Conclusion

The Food Data Transparency Partnership has brought together actors from across the agri-food system with varying experiences and perspectives on the drivers and motivations for improving the transparency of environmental impact data. There is a strong shared desire to make progress at pace towards consistent, accurate and accessible environmental impact quantification and communication to enable the sector to accelerate efforts to tackle climate change and support nature recovery.

We recognise that ensuring the responsibility for the required transition of the agri-food sector is fairly shared is essential. This requires sustained collaborative effort to develop and iterate the approach. In the next phase of work, more consideration will be given to the economic impact of the transition towards data-led (outcome-based) approaches to environmental management across the sector. We also recognise that efforts to standardise our approach and improve data quality will only go so far; critical to the success of this work is ensuring its extension across the agri-food system globally and ensuring international trade obligations are taken into account. The FDTP will continue to engage with other governments and initiatives across the globe to share our insights and evidence and drive international collaboration towards global standardisation.

Definitions

Activity data

A quantitative measure of a level of activity that results in environmental impacts (for example, litres of fuel consumed, or kilograms of material purchased). Notably, unlike inventory data (defined below), activity data often does not include quantification of ‘emissions to the environment’.

Agri-food sector

All activities taking place in agriculture and fishing, food and drink manufacturing, wholesaling, retailing, and catering.

Allocation

The division of emissions and removals deriving from a common process, between the studied product and any co-products, which could be based on mass or economic value. For example, valuable co-products of lamb might include wool, leather, or milk.

Baseline

This refers to the first assessment of the environmental impacts of a company or product environmental impacts. The baseline outcomes can act as a benchmark for all future assessments.

Data sharing

The process of transferring data from one system or organisation to another, ideally in a streamlined or automated way.

Data infrastructure

This refers to various elements that enable data consumption, storage and sharing, such as the hardware, software, networking, services, and policies. 

Direct emissions

This refers to emissions produced by company-owned or controlled resources. In other words, emissions that are released as a direct result of company level activities.

Downstream

Processes that occur after those owned or controlled by the reporting company, such as during the consumption of end-of-life stage.

Emissions factors

A factor that converts ‘activity data’ into emissions data (for example kg GHG emissions emitted per litre of fuel consumed, or kg CO2 emitted per kilograms of material produced). It can also refer to other emissions to the environment such as Nitrate emissions into ground water.

Green finance

This is a method of using funding to support environmental goals and ensure a better environmental outcome, such as reducing emissions or protecting biodiversity.

Indirect emissions

This refers to emissions that have not been produced by company-owned or controlled resources, but still fall within a company’s value chain.

Interoperability

This allows various different systems to work together and achieve similar outcomes. Interoperable systems facilitate data exchange and sharing.

Inventory data

This is data specifically intended for use in the inventory analysis step of a life-cycle assessment (LCA) study. This step is quantitative data analysis of resource, energy consumption, or emissions to the environment throughout their life-cycle stage, of product, process, or activity resources. The core of inventory analysis is to establish input and output of a production system in units of expressed product features. Most environmental impact databases have defined themselves as an LCA Inventory Database, as the primary users have been researchers and LCA practitioners.

Nature market

These are markets in which nature itself (or aspects of nature) are traded, enabling private investment in nature. 

Post-farmgate

Activities taking place beyond farms, including processing, wholesaling, retailing, and catering.

Pre-farmgate

All activities taking place on-farm, including any pre-processing.

Primary data

Data that is directly measured or collected data representative of activities at a specific facility or set of facilities. (The European Commission, 2013)

Product level accounting

Measuring and reporting on the impacts from a product’s life cycle, typically from farm-to-fork (for example, performing an LCA).

Product category

A group of products that can fulfil equivalent functions.

Scope 3 emissions

These are indirect emissions, including those from purchased goods and services, business travel, employee commuting, transport, and consumption of sold goods (among other sources).

Secondary data

Data that is not directly collected, measured, or estimated, but rather sourced from a third-party life-cycle-inventory database. (The European Commission, 2013)

Upstream

Processes that occur prior to those owned or controlled by the reporting company, such as the primary production stage.

Annex A: A selection of sector-specific resources to support training and development

Agriculture

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB):

• Broad overview on Net Zero and GHG emissions - provides links to other resources
• Overview on GHG emissions in the agriculture sector
• Guidance for farmers on selecting and using a carbon calculator

Manufacturers and wholesalers

Food and Drink Federation (FDF):

• Net Zero handbook for the food and drink sector

Federation of Wholesale Distributors (FWD):

• Wholesale sector on the road to net zero - provides link to Net Zero roadmap

Retailers and Hospitality

Institute of Grocery Distribution (IGD):

• Sustainability for the food and consumer goods industry

British Retail Consortium (BRC):

• Net Zero roadmap for the retail sector

UK Hospitality:

• Sustainability for the hospitality sector
• Net Zero roadmap for the hospitality sector

British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA):

• Road to Net Zero for the brewing and pub industry  - provides links to Net Zero roadmap and latest Net Zero news

1. Key terms, acronyms and their definitions can be found in the Definitions section. ↩

2. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); Koen Deconinck, Marion Jansen, Carla Barisone, Fast and furious: the rise of environmental impact reporting in food systems, European Review of Agricultural Economics, 50(4), 2023, Pgs 1310–1337 ↩

3. DESNZ. (2023). Final UK greenhouse gas emissions national statistics: 1990 to 2021 ↩

4. Tracking UK Food System Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2022 Update. (n.d.). WRAP. Tracking UK Food System Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 2022 Update, WRAP ↩

5. Freeman, B. (2016, June 27). UK Natural Capital – Office for National Statistics. UK Natural Capital - Office for National Statistics (ons.gov.uk) ↩

6. Science search (n.d.). Identifying and analysing environmental sustainability impact data related to key imported commodities Science Search (defra.gov.uk)., WRAP. (2023, August 08). Analysis of challenges for environmental reporting at product and organisation level [PDF]. Science Search (defra.gov.uk) ↩

7. D’Aneglo, C., Gloinson, E. R., Drafper, A., & Guthrie, S. (2020, August 11). Food Consumption in the UK: Trends, attitudes and drivers. RAND. Food consumption in the UK: Trends, attitudes and drivers, RAND ↩

8. Armstrong, B. L., King, L. J., Clifford, R., Jitlal, M., Jarchlo, A. I., Mears, K., Parnell, C., & Mensah, D. (2023). Food and You: Wave 5. Food and You 2 - Wave 5, Food Standards Agency ↩

9. Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987-992. ↩

10. Science search (n.d.). Science Search (defra.gov.uk)., Kantar Public. (2021). Exploring the potential of eco-labelling for food and drink [PDF]. Science Search (defra.gov.uk). ↩

11. Meis-Harris, J., Klemm, C., Kaufman, S., Curtis, J., Borg, K., & Bragge, P. (2021). What is the role of eco-labels for a circular economy? A rapid review of the literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 306, 127134. ↩

12. Agri-climate report 2023. (2024, March 8). GOV.UK. Agri-climate report 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩

13. Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. (2021, May 18). Quantifying the UK data skills gap. GOV.UK. Quantifying the UK Data Skills Gap - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)., Quantifying the UK data skills gap - Full report. (2022, January 10). GOV.UK. Quantifying the UK Data Skills Gap - Full report - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩

14. Committee on Climate Change. (2023, May 23). Skills and Net Zero (Expert Advisory Group) – Climate Change Committee. Climate Change Committee. Skills and Net Zero (Expert Advisory Group) - Climate Change Committee (theccc.org.uk)., Alliance, G. (2022, January 18). Closing the UK’s green skills gap » Green Alliance. Closing the UK’s green skills gap » Green Alliance (green-alliance.org.uk) ↩