Thank-you
Tanya

G

M & S > • We have reduced our packaging in our food business by an average of 12 per cent and 15 per cent in general merchandise (compared to 2006/7 levels);

GEJ > An average suggests there are other numbers at play here. Are you calculating the average based on annual totals? Is is ‘food business’ and ‘general merchandise’ broken down into other categories? Has the number of units in these categories increased or decreased overtime. How have you come to these percentages. I appreciate your efforts, but I’d like a little more transparency.

M & S > The figures were produced under the scrutiny of our external assurance providers Ernst & Young . They are the total amount of packaging we use divided by the number of products we sell. In 2006/07 that was 25g per item of food and in 2008/09 22 g per item.

GEJ > What were the figures for the packaging. I understand the derivation of this percentage but is it related to a genuine drop in the amount of packaging used or an increase in the number of products? Is the packaging categorised? My thoughts here are that some pieces of packaging are more carbon neutral than others. This is again a measure of weight. I would prioritise reduction in environmental harm (which arguably may be correlated with packaging weight). An example of this maybe paper bags. I company could claim a reduction in weight by moving to plastic carrier bags, yet a heavier alternative of recycled paper bags may be better.

———————-
M & S > • Last year we ran 355 packaging recycling projects, including a redesign of our pizza packaging that resulted in an average weight reduction of 62 per cent;

GEJ > Weight reductions can be misleading. Example : A move from recycled paper to polysterene (ultimately a product of oil) would most likely result in weight reduction. Is it better for the environment though? Was the sole purpose of the 355 scheme to reduce weight? Which no doubt reduces transport costs (less petrol), but do the project results really make the least impact on the environment?

M & S > Completely agree weight isn’t a perfect measure of environmental impact and for that reason we also set targets on recyclability and use of recycled materials as well. We’re leading the debate with WRAP (Waste Resources Action Programme) to develop a way of measuring packaging in carbon so that all these other factors can be considered together on a like-for-like basis.

GEJ > Alongside measuring in carbon are you also considering other harmful environmental pollutants?

———————-

M & S > • We saved a further 50 tonnes of packaging this year by extending the use of the new ‘skin pack’ meat packaging;

GEJ > Congratulations, this is good news. However I have to wonder whenever I see packaged meat why the aisles can’t be replaced my butcher counters.

M & S > The skin pack has been such a success for our business because, not only does it save packaging, it improves the keeping life and quality of the meat.

GEJ > I imagine it retains the quality of the meat for longer as opposed to improving it. Surely the quality of the meat is associated with the life of the animal it came from? What is the ‘skin pack’ material made from?
———————-

M & S > • We reduced our 2009 Easter Egg packaging by an average of 30 per cent (compared to 2008).

GEJ > It always amazes me how mauch packaging surrounds these items, so I welcome this move. Again this is an average, so I would be interested in hearing more.

M & S >The 30% reduction is a calculation (like total packaging) of the amount of packaging divided by number of products sold.

GEJ > I come back to my earlier point. What are the total packaging figures. An audit company can provide assurance that the calculations are performed correctly however, this doesn’t mean to say that the calculations are not misleading.

Regards

Gareth

I’m interested in hearing a little more about the statistics you have produced here.

> • We have reduced our packaging in our food business by an average of 12 per cent and 15 per cent in general merchandise (compared to 2006/7 levels);

An average suggests there are other numbers at play here. Are you calculating the average based on annual totals? Is is ‘food business’ and ‘general merchandise’ broken down into other categories? Has the number of units in these categories increased or decreased overtime. How have you come to these percentages. I appreciate your efforts, but I’d like a little more transparency.

> • Last year we ran 355 packaging recycling projects, including a redesign of our pizza packaging that resulted in an average weight reduction of 62 per cent;

Weight reductions can be misleading. Example : A move from recycled paper to polysterene (ultimately a product of oil) would most likely result in weight reduction. Is it better for the environment though? Was the sole purpose of the 355 scheme to reduce weight? Which no doubt reduces transport costs (less petrol), but do the project results really make the least impact on the environment?

> • We saved a further 50 tonnes of packaging this year by extending the use of the new ‘skin pack’ meat packaging;

Congratulations, this is good news. However I have to wonder whenever I see packaged meat why the aisles can’t be replaced my butcher counters.

> • We reduced our 2009 Easter Egg packaging by an average of 30 per cent (compared to 2008).

It always amazes me how mauch packaging surrounds these items, so I welcome this move. Again this is an average, so I would be interested in hearing more.

Best wishes

Gareth

We are happy to talk about packaging.

You are right to highlight packaging as a challenge for us and, I can assure you, it is something we are working extremely hard on.

We have made good progress …

• We have reduced our packaging in our food business by an average of 12 per cent and 15 per cent in general merchandise (compared to 2006/7 levels);
• Last year we ran 355 packaging recycling projects, including a redesign of our pizza packaging that resulted in an average weight reduction of 62 per cent;
• We saved a further 50 tonnes of packaging this year by extending the use of the new ‘skin pack’ meat packaging;
• We reduced our 2009 Easter Egg packaging by an average of 30 per cent (compared to 2008).

But we know that there’s much more to do.

Our target, which we are currently on course to meet, is to hit 25 per cent packaging reduction by 2012 (compared to 2006/7 levels) and we are already researching how much further we can go and what the future holds for packaging at M&S.

Packaging, which accounts for about five per cent of our carbon footprint, will never completely disappear as we need to protect and preserve our products which make up a far higher percentage of our embedded carbon emissions. If we fail here then the waste will increase. But we fully accept that current levels can be reduced and are working hard to do this.

Kind regards,

The Plan A team
Marks and Spencer