Sustainability indicators Results

Transcription

1 Sustainability indicators Results

2 Preface It is important for Agrifirm to be transparent about the key effects its business has on the environment and society. This is why Agrifirm publishes an annual Corporate Sustainability Report. To accompany the Corporate Sustainability Report, we also issue this report in which we explain the trends and background to the key indicators. The charts in this report give a clear impression of the trends through the years and also show the differences between the agricultural sectors. If you would like to know the exact numbers, you can find them in the appendices at the back of this report. I would also like to you refer you to the protocol for sustainability reporting, which describes the methodology for calculating the indicators. You can also find this report on our online Sustainability Wiki. Ruud Tijssens Director of Corporate Affairs, Agrifirm Group 1

3 Developments and changes in the methodology A lot has happened in the past year within Agrifirm in terms of the development of indicators. These indicators give a good impression of how the company and the farming sector are improving sustainability. In Agrifirm worked with stakeholders in the sector to improve the quality of the indicators. When the methodological developments are considered, three initiatives in particular stand out: > In, Wageningen University and Research Centre and lonk Consultants launched FeedPrint, which had been commissioned by the Dutch Animal Feed Product oard and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. FeedPrint is a standardised tool for the calculation of greenhouse gases that enjoys broad support. Agrifirm has based its results in this report for the greenhouse emissions of the compound feed activities on this new tool. > Within FEFAC (the European Feed Manufacturers Federation), the FeedPrint methodology has been adopted as the basic instrument for the further development of a protocol for Europe. Furthermore, in connection with this an alliance has been forged with FAO (the UN s Food and Agricultural Organisation) and there is involvement in the ENVIFOOD developments through the European Food Sustainable Consumption and Production Round Table. > The background data for calculating land use, co-product use and feed miles has been updated and aligned with the background data in FeedPrint. The update involved a new dataset for the feed conversion ratio and economic allocation factors. In addition, a number of raw material names have been revised and brought in line with the names used in FeedPrint. - ecause the feed conversion ratio is such an important factor in the calculations, the changes in these figures are displayed in the table below. The feed conversion ratio for laying-hens has shown a particularly large change. The estimates of egg production up to for the Dutch and garian farms turned out to be on the low side. WEIGHTED AVERAGE FEED CONVERSION RATIO FOR AGRIFIRM GROUP AS A WHOLE FCR % difference roilers 1, , , roiler breeder 9, , , Fattening pigs 2, , , Piglets 1, , , Sows 5, , , Dairy 0, , Layers 2, , , The most significant change for the economic allocation of raw materials is in the use of residual co-products. These products have an economic allocation of less than 5%, a very low economic value compared with the total value of the 2

4 original raw material. No allocation is made to these raw products for land use or carbon footprint. The following products are in this category: > read meal and biscuits > Co-products from the cassava starch industry > Co-products from the cheese industry > Citrus pulp > Co-products from the potato industry > Co-products from fruit and vegetable waste > Co-products from ethanol production from maize, wheat and beets > Co-products from malt houses and the brewing industry > Co-products from the sugar industry 1. Environmental indicators 1.1 Carbon footprint The carbon footprint is the sum of the greenhouse gas emissions during the life cycle of animal products. The measurement unit is kg of CO2 equivalent/kg of functional unit (milk, meat or egg). Carbon footprint (Kg CO 2 eq/ton product) Feed 1000 Farm 0 LuLuc Pig (dry feed) Pig (mash feed) Chickens Milk Eggs Eggs (organic) > FeedPrint (version.21) was used as the tool for calculating the carbon footprint. Previously, lonk Consultants Agrifootprint tool was used. The methodology for calculating the footprint is based on the same Life Cycle Analysis approach (LCA). One difference in the new system is the use of dynamic models for calculating animal products from feed a static approach had been chosen in Agrifootprint. There is also a difference in the approach to emissions from the use of organic or chemical fertilisers; as a result, FeedPrint gives slightly more favourable results. > To date, FeedPrint has only been validated for production in the Netherlands. FEFAC is currently working on its validation for Europe and North America. No instrument is available at present for calculating the effects of production in Agrifirm s foreign operations. > In the above chart, the LuLuc (Land use and Land use change) is included in the calculations. That was not yet the case in. The results for 2010 and have been adjusted to include the actual LuLuc in. > Agrifootprint and FeedPrint use different methods for calculating methane emissions and rumen fermentation. As a result there are also differences in the greenhouse gas emissions for milk. 3

5 > The biggest difference in the case of pigs and broilers is due to fewer inputs ((chemical) fertilisers) in the cultivation of raw materials. The reason for this is a difference between Agrifootprint and FeedPrint in how they deal with N2O emissions from fertilisers. > It is not yet possible in this first year to perform an analysis of the actual effects of the feed composition and origin of the raw materials for compound feed on the carbon footprint; multi-year monitoring is necessary for this. Agrifirm will provide annual information on the carbon footprint for animal products via the cycle of Corporate Sustainability Reports. > The system for calculating the carbon footprint still has its limitations. When interpreting the results, it should be noted that the system is due to undergo further development. > (The size of the) LuLuc is still the subject of much discussion within the sector. The important thing for Agrifirm is that in reducing the LuLuc, the alternative leads to gains for the environment according to the consequential LCA method. 1.2 Land use Land use (ha / ton fu) Pigs (live weight) Laying-hens (eggs) roilers (live weight) Cattle (milk) > Agrifirm elgium sources its broiler feed from the Dutch factories. The volume of dairy cattle feed from the ish factories was small and was therefore excluded from the calculations. > A striking change in the laying-hen sector is the fall in land use for the Dutch and garian feed companies (-28% and -22% respectively). These decreases are largely due to the improvement in feed conversion ratios compared with previous years. > The drop in the land use for compound feed from gary (e.g. -28% for pigs) is also due to the increased usage of residual co-products. For instance, the garian business has for some time been processing considerable amounts of DDGS and corn gluten meal to produce animal feed. More information on this subject can be found in the section on co-product usage. 4

6 1.3 Feedmiles Feedmiles (km / ton fu) 12,000 10,000 8, ,000 4,000 2,000 0 Pigs (live weight) Laying-hens (eggs) roilers Cattle > The change to the allocation procedure whereby a number of co-products now have a lower allocation, or even no allocation at all, has had a clear effect on the feed miles. For example, it led to sharp drops in the feed miles for the dairy cattle sector in the Netherlands (-48%) and many (-65%). Further explanation can be found in the section on residual co-products. > This effect of residual co-products is magnified by the lower feed conversion ratios for the Dutch and garian laying-hen sector, for instance (-57% and -38% respectively). This was explained earlier in this report. > The drop for the Eastern European operations is less marked (-4% on average) as they traditionally obtain their raw materials from sources closer to the factories. The fall in the use of soy due to the higher prices in resulted in fewer feed miles. For instance, the proportion of soy meal in compound feed for pigs raised for meat fell from 17% in to 6% in. This applies to a lesser degree to the other sectors for this feed company. This result is partly thanks to collaboration with the Agrifirm Innovation Center. > In elgium too, the reduced imports of soy meal (from 12% in to 7% in, due to the price developments in ) helped lower the feed miles for pigs (-52%). The reduced usage of soy went hand in hand with an increase in the use of grains and rapeseed meal originating in Northwestern Europe. > Fewer feed miles were recorded for the Dutch operations as no maize was imported from South America. Maize now mainly comes from the region around the Danube (chiefly gary, Ukraine and Romania) and France. 5

7 1.4 USE OF CO-PRODUCTS Co-products (%) Pigs (live weight) Laying-hens (eggs) roilers Cattle Residu co-producten (%) Pigs (live weight) Laying-hens (eggs) roilers Cattle 2010 Use of co-products (% of total compound feed) Use of residual co-products (% of total compound feed) Use of soy meal (% of total compound feed) Use of palm kernel shells (% of total compound feed) > The use of co-products has remained constant over the past few years. > The figures show that residual co-products make up 14% of all raw materials in Agrifirm s compound feed. The pig and cattle farming sectors in particular use large quantities of such co-products, for which no land use, greenhouse gas emissions or feed miles are allocated. > There has been a slight increase in the use of soy as a proportion of the overall volume of compound feed. That increase is due to the increased demand for core feed in the poultry sector. The core feed concept involves local grains being supplemented with a concentrated protein-rich compound feed mix. In, Agrifirm built a new core feed factory in Losten (many) so that it would be able to roll out this product in many too. The use of soy for the international pig and cattle sectors has remained constant. > The use of palm kernel shells is growing slowly. This is partly due to the increasing proportion of cattle feed incorporating this product. 6

8 1.5 RENEWALE ENERGY 120 % 100 % 80 % 60 % 40 % 20 % 0 % Renewable energy Nuscience NV Agrifirm Deutschland Agrifirm ska Agrifirm gary Agrifirm co-products V Agrifirm Group Agrifirm Feed V Feed elgium Agrifirm Plant Abemec V V Oldambt Agrifirm Exlan V Nutricontrol V Agrifirm Winkel V 2010 > On average, the Agrifirm Group s subsidiaries use as much renewable energy as in (2.7% in (after adjustment) and 2.5% in ). > In 2013, Agrifirm will be carrying out a project to facilitate forms of renewable energy that enable more systematic use. 1.6 ENERGY EFFICIENCY INDEX > Nuscience Group s Drongen site has achieved a notable improvement in the Energy Efficiency Index (EEI). This improvement is largely thanks to increased production levels and awareness of energy-efficient production. > Every year, Oldambt has been making an effort to save as much energy as possible by drying alfalfa first in the field. This was successful in and as a result the energy efficiency index was lower (i.e. better) than in the reference year. > A reorganisation at the NutriControl laboratory in Veghel led to a new situation for the performance of various kinds of analyses. This resulted in deterioration in the energy efficiency in. Efficiency levels are expected to recover in the course of Energy efficiency index Index Grobbendonk Margonin Szamotuly Topola Neuss Kaba Gyor ocs Drongen aasrode Veghel Oldambt Opeinde Nutricontrol elgium and many gary Vitamex Oldambt 2010 (reference year) 7

9 1.7 R&D SUSTAINAILITY SCAN Number of projects AIC AIC PLANT PLANT E E People Planet Profit Contribution to improving public health among consumers 0% 2% 4% 5% Contribution to avoiding human resistance to antibiotics 13% 10% Improvement of animal health and welfare 39% 20% Contribution to the training of internal and external parties 48% 28% 100% iodiversity: improving phosphate efficiency 30% 12% 37% 28% iodiversity: improving nitrogen efficiency 35% 22% 44% 35% iodiversity: improving soil s physical properties 37% iodiversity: improving use of crop protection products 52% 51% Carbon footprint (heavy greenhouse gases) 17% 18% 22% 5% Carbon footprint (feed conversion ratio) 17% 32% Carbon footprint (energy consumption in factories and transport) 22% 10% 50% 71% Alternative sources of protein 39% 14% 4% 2% Reuse of raw materials (recycling) 30% 12% Air and water quality 44% 26% Reduction in direct costs of own operations and/or members 83% 46% 78% 72% 100% 100% Internal collaboration 83% 68% 85% 67% 100% 100% Collaboration with other parties in the supply chain 26% 34% 70% 56% > Profit is a prerequisite for being able to work on increasing sustainability. This is clear from the figures for both the Agrifirm Innovation Center (AIC) and R&D Plant. The consideration of Profit (return on investment, managing costs and internal collaboration) remains the key driver for research. It is important for this to be accompanied by increased sustainability in the People and Planet categories. > Within the AIC, there was a clear focus on a number of aspects in : - Alternative sources of protein. This is getting more and more attention within poultry and cattle research. - Energy consumption in factories. More projects were carried out on this topic, in particular in the poultry and new raw materials (NRM) sector. There is a strong focus on energy costs per ton of feed. - N and P efficiency. There is now an awareness of mineral efficiency in all sectors, as opposed to the past when that emphasis was only to be found in the pig and poultry sectors. - Animal health. The number of projects aimed at animal health in was on a level with. There were also roughly as many projects in each sector. > Within Agrifirm Plant, there was a greater focus on the following aspects in compared with : - Air and water quality. The use of crop protection products has an impact on the quality of surface water. Much research is being done on this issue. - Reuse of raw materials. Much attention is being given to the use of organic fertiliser components within R&D Plant. These are residual streams from a variety of processes, such as manure separation. - Preventing adverse effects on biodiversity. y giving priority to organic fertilisers and crop protection products, we are influencing the most important factors affecting biodiversity in the soil at the local level. - Training. This had already been an aspect that received a great deal of attention within R&D Plant, but now that item has an even more prominent place on the agenda. To give an example, much time is being invested in training field staff. A new development is the on-site training of consultants and growers for a fee. > There is increased attention within the usiness Excellence (E) projects for what is known as margin optimisation. 8

10 2. Social indicators As regards social aspects, Agrifirm focuses primarily on its own staff, specifically concentrating on safety, training and absence due to illness. The following sections give the results and further explanation. 2.1 Veiligheid Accidents (Per million working hours) Agrifirm Group Agrifirm Feed V Nuscience NV Agrifirm Deutschland Agrifirm ska Agrifirm Magyarország Agrifirm co-products V Feed elgium Agrifirm Plant Abemec V V Oldambt Agrifirm Exlan V Nutricontrol V Agrifirm Winkel V > A total of 54 incidents resulting in absence were recorded in. That was more than in. Agrifirm is currently reviewing its safety policy in the Safety First project and follow-up actions are expected in the course of > The increase in the number of accidents is probably at least in part due to improved registration. > There were no accidents resulting in absence at NutriControl in a good result! > The increase in the number of accidents at Agrifirm Co-products is due to acquisitions of new companies. > The appendix contains more safety statistics. 9

11 2.2 ASENCE DUE TO ILLNESS Absence due to illness (%) Agrifirm Feed V Nuscience NV Agrifirm Deutschland Agrifirm ska Agrifirm Magyarország Agrifirm co-products V Agrifirm Group Feed elgium Agrifirm Plant Abemec V V Oldambt Agrifirm Exlan V Nutricontrol V Agrifirm Winkel V 2010 (indicative) > Absence due to illness has fallen by almost 25% on average. This is due to the increased attention given to this issue within companies HR policy. > ig jumps in absence due to illness at individual companies (whether increases or decreases) are caused by long-term absence due to illness cases. 10

12 2.3 Training Training ( / employee) (indicative) Agrifirm Feed V Nuscience NV Agrifirm Deutschland Agrifirm ska Agrifirm Magyarország Agrifirm co-products V Agrifirm Group Feed elgium Agrifirm Plant Abemec V V Oldambt Agrifirm Exlan V Nutricontrol V Agrifirm Winkel V > An additional 130 per employee was spent on training in compared with ( 403 in and 534 in ). This result is due in part to the implementation of performance management and a focus on improving employee satisfaction. > The high score for the training of employees at Abemec is due to the creation of the Abemec Academy for engineers. The first nine engineers completed the programme in. Abemec set up this training programme in partnership with Helicon business training. 2.3 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, DIVERSITY, MOILITY, DISCRIMINATION AND CORRUPTION > No cases of discrimination or corruption were recorded in via the whistle-blower scheme. > Information on all these aspects is to be found in the tables in the appendix. 11

13 Carbon footprint of Dutch feed operations (Kg CO2 eq. / kg product) Pigs (dry feed) Pigs (mash feed) Chickens Milk Eggs Eggs (organic) Farm , , , , , ,9 Feed , , , , , LuLuc 432,6 432,6 432,6 403,9 403,9 403,9 613,7 613,7 613,7 72,5 72,5 72,5 435,9 435,9 435,9 524,7 524,7 Total 4392,6 4550,6 3740,5 3932,9 4523,9 3616,4 2637,1 3472, ,4 1801,2 2037,6 2358,9 2405,9 1801,3 2538,7 2037,6 Feed miles (km/ton fu) Pigs (live weight) Laying-hens (eggs) roilers (live weight) Cattle (milk) ,

14 Land use (ha/ton fu) Pigs (live weight) ,3661 0,3498 0,3843 0,3896 0,3697 0,4322 0,3810 0,3891 0,4056 0,3382 0,4502 0,4453 0,3487 0,4556 0,5528 0,5771 0,5498 0,5650 0,4674 0,5264 0,5475 0,3935 Laying-hens (eggs) 0,4136 0,3639 0,4704 0,5495 0,3955 0,4233 0,3612 0,3427 0,3936 0,3281 0,3652 0,3966 0,3453 0,3354 0,4413 0,4463 0,4007 0,4468 0,5270 0,4992 0,4534 0,3554 roilers (live weight) 0,3215 0,289 0,4076 0,5307 0,3961 0,3741 0,3191 0,3257 0,3748 0,3874 0,4185 0,4007 0,4468 0,3838 0,3807 0,3473 0,2857 Cattle (milk) 0,1001 0,0766 0,1032 0,1139 0,1003 0,091 0,1047 0,1158 0,1357 0,1993 0,1924 0,

15 Number of co-products (%) Pigs (live weight) residu 40,5 41,7 37,4 35,8 38,1 9,2 31,6 33,4 34,8 43,8 41,6 8,2 47,5 46,1 36,0 46,4 6,0 37,3 39,1 28,6 33,0 4,7 35,2 35,1 32,7 33,5 7,3 Laying-hens (eggs) 30,7 31,5 33,5 33,5 33,1 0,0 33,2 34,4 31,2 32,4 30,7 0,0 26,7 33,5 23,1 24,05 0,0 31,2 29,5 26,2 30,9 4,3 44,0 39,0 35,7 31,9 4,8 roilers (live weight) 34,2 35,6 49,2 49,6 46,5 0,1 31,5 37,3 31,7 39,0 34,9 31,7 31,8 31,6 0,2 43,3 34,3 34,8 34,0 2,9 Cattle (milk) 74,8 77,7 64,2 67,6 68,1 38,2 70,1 75,7 79,8 69,7 19,9 59,2 63,4 60,3 14

16 Share of renewable energy (%) Pigs (live weight) Laying-hens (eggs) roilers (live weight) Cattle (milk)

17 HR indicators (1) LTA frequency LTA percentage (% LTA duration (incidents/ absence due to illness Number of incidents (days/incident) 100 employees) / due to accidents) Agrifirm Group ,0 0 0,0 0,0 Agrifirm Feed ,3 1,5 0,3 0,8 Nuscience Group ,5 1,8 1,2 0,7 Agrifirm Deutschland ,0 2,4 0,0 0,0 Agrifirm ska ,2 3,8 3,8 1,8 Agrifirm Magyarország ,6 0,7 2,8 4,3 Agrifirm co-products ,9 0,0 0,7 Agrifirm elgium ,4 2,6 0,3 0,8 Agrifirm Plant ,3 0,4 0,3 1,1 Abemec ,6 2,2 0,8 0,2 Oldambt ,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Agrifirm Exlan ,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 NutriControl ,4 0,0 1,2 0,0 Agrifirm Winkel ,5 0,8 0,1 0,0 Total ,1 1,5 0,7 0,7 HR indicators (2) LTA frequency index Performance (number of accidents per Absence due management million working hours) to illness (%) Training ( /employee) (% employees) Agrifirm Group 0,0 0,0 1,0 1, Agrifirm Feed 7,2 8,7 5,4 4, Nuscience Group 8,8 10,4 4,3 1, Agrifirm Deutschland 0,0 12,6 4,4 4, Agrifirm ska 12,3 21,7 3,2 3, Agrifirm Magyarország 3,3 3,9 3,3 3, Agrifirm co-products 0,0 23,5 3,2 3, Agrifirm elgium 14,2 15,0 0,7 2, Agrifirm Plant 2,0 2,1 3,0 2, Abemec 8,5 13,5 2,9 2, Oldambt 0,0 0,0 4,6 5, Agrifirm Exlan 0,0 0,0 3,2 5, NutriControl 43,3 0,0 5,0 4, Agrifirm Winkel 4,1 6,9 3,9 2, Total 6,8 8,6 4,1 3,

18 HR indicators (3) Mobility Number of Number of (% MT from Agrifirm) employees (#) employees (FTEs) Male (%) Agrifirm Group Agrifirm Feed Nuscience Group Agrifirm Deutschland Agrifirm ska Agrifirm Magyarország Agrifirm co-products Agrifirm elgium Agrifirm Plant Abemec Oldambt Agrifirm Exlan NutriControl Agrifirm Winkel Total 65,1 66, HR indicators (4) Female (%) Permanent contract (%) Temporary contract (%) Agrifirm Group Agrifirm Feed Nuscience Group Agrifirm Deutschland Agrifirm ska Agrifirm Magyarország Agrifirm co-products Agrifirm elgium Agrifirm Plant Abemec Oldambt Agrifirm Exlan NutriControl Agrifirm Winkel Total

19 HR indicators (5) Age < 29 (%) Age (%) Age > 50 (%) Agrifirm Group Agrifirm Feed Nuscience Group Agrifirm Deutschland Agrifirm ska Agrifirm Magyarország Agrifirm co-products Agrifirm elgium Agrifirm Plant Abemec Oldambt Agrifirm Exlan NutriControl Agrifirm Winkel Total HR indicators (6) Management (%) Marketing and sales (%) Support staff (%) Agrifirm Group Agrifirm Feed Nuscience Group Agrifirm Deutschland Agrifirm ska Agrifirm Magyarország Agrifirm co-products Agrifirm elgium Agrifirm Plant Abemec Oldambt Agrifirm Exlan NutriControl Agrifirm Winkel Total

20 HR indicators (7) Nutrition and innovation (%) Operations (%) Other (%) Agrifirm Group Agrifirm Feed Nuscience Group Agrifirm Deutschland Agrifirm ska Agrifirm Magyarország Agrifirm co-products Agrifirm elgium Agrifirm Plant Abemec Oldambt Agrifirm Exlan NutriControl Agrifirm Winkel Total RA