Recent ‘Black Swan’ events – notably the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian invasion of Ukraine – not only upended the global political order, but also had a significant economic impact on supply chains. The food manufacturing industry was no exception. Even so, food manufacturers had already been shifting, pre-Covid, towards digitally enhanced operations. Processes such as artificial intelligence (AI), virtual reality (VR), remote maintenance and other innovations had been adopted, which meant that any short-term damage from these disruptions was mitigated.
Take the case of VR technologies, for example. These systems allow companies to create digital ‘twins’ of their physical production lines. By simulating various setting changes on these digital replicas before implementation, manufacturers can theoretically reduce the potential for disruption on the actual production lines. Factor in augmented reality (AR) technologies, and the upshot is that food manufacturers now enjoy greater visibility into the functioning of their production lines. In essence, this enables them to service equipment remotely from virtually anywhere in the world, thereby enhancing efficiency and safeguarding operations.
“Digitalisation covers a wide range of operations, including traceability, optimisation of manufacturing (and of the supply chain), automation of hazard identification, and hazard and operability procedures, as well as quality control, smart packaging and labelling,” explains Constantinos Theodoropoulos, FRSC, professor of chemical and biochemical systems engineering at the University of Manchester. His observations underscore the growing importance of digitalisation across all aspects of the process – from manufacturing through to consumption.
“Food waste reduction is part of the overall food manufacturing operations process too, but it is also the realisation that food waste is a source rich in organics and nutrients that can be used to produce a vast range of added-value products: from additional food and nutraceuticals to pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, to energy,” he adds.
Waste not, want not
Even if some food waste can be repurposed, the fact remains that waste is a serious issue. According to the United Nations, roughly one-third of all food produced globally ultimately goes to waste. Of this, approximately 13% is lost between the harvest and retail stages alone, while an estimated 19% occurs in households and within the food service and retail sectors. Moreover, when the energy used to produce and transport food is added to the spoilage – such as food thrown out or deteriorating in home fridges – it is estimated that nearly one-half of all global food system emissions arise in this way. A study published in Nature Food in March 2023 supports these findings. A significant portion of these emissions is due to the methane generated when food rots in landfills. In the US, food waste is the single largest component of municipal solid waste (MSW) in landfills, accounting for an estimated 22%, as reported by the US Environmental Protection Agency.
In the meantime, prevailing assumptions regarding the optimum configuration for supply chains have traditionally been based on the characteristics of the system being analysed – for example, the distances travelled. It is often assumed that a low number of food miles correlates with a more sustainable process. Yet, this assumption is not always accurate; inefficient sowing practices can sometimes overshadow the environmental benefits associated with shorter transport distances. On the other hand, a highly distributed manufacturing model may be both economically and environmentally advantageous. Indeed, economies of scale have led to very large centralised production plants that concentrate resources and rely on efficient supply chain and distribution networks. “There are clearly financial incentives for such centralised production,” notes Theodoropoulos.
However, more localised production – with smaller plants situated closer to local food sources – is closer to the ideal bioeconomy model. This model can offer a distinctive product identity, boost local economies, and, provided that the infrastructure is in place, has the potential to reduce carbon footprints through shorter supply chain networks. “We have tried to quantify this debate in our recent paper, where we took tomato paste production as our working example. Nevertheless, although from my point of view, as a bioeconomy advocate, more localised biorefinery-type operations should be preferable, this is not a ‘one size fits all’ solution and a lot will depend on the particular products and the relevant infrastructure,” Theodoropoulos explains. Noteworthy is that as food producers increasingly adopt automated solutions, there is a shift in workforce dynamics. This shift enables personnel to move away from repetitive tasks and transition into roles that require higher skill levels. Automation reduces the need for manual intervention, which in turn diminishes the potential for errors and contamination – a critical consideration in food manufacturing. Furthermore, digitalisation and automation contribute to the design of more efficient control operations, providing improved quality control and product consistency by minimising variations arising from raw material differences.
“Also, if used properly, better control technologies can lead to more efficient use of resources, hence better overall sustainability and lower manufacturing costs. In principle, this lowering of costs should be passed down to customers, although this is not always the case,” adds Theodoropoulos.
One significant consequence of increased automation in the food production industry has been the heightened demand for workers with specialised skills capable of operating and maintaining advanced machinery. There remains, however, a notable shortage of such skilled workers, further compounded by demographic changes that have already made recruitment challenging. Accelerating technological change is creating a ‘burning need’ for talent to keep pace with new developments. According to an EY report titled ‘How adaptive skills can play a pivotal role in building the manufacturing sector of the future’, as manufacturing continues to evolve, so too must the skill set of its workforce. Projections by the National Association of Manufacturers suggest that by 2030, an estimated 2.1 million US manufacturing jobs could remain unfilled if the skills gap is not adequately addressed.
2.1 million
The number of US manufacturing jobs that could remain unfilled if the skills gap is not adequately addressed by 2030.
National Association of Manufacturers
CPGs, OEMs and ROI
In the production space, consumer packaged goods (CPGs) are increasingly looking to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to develop machines capable of performing more complex operations without becoming harder to operate or maintain. Meanwhile, the growing deployment of 3D printers for producing spare parts for existing automated equipment is likely to positively impact corporate return on investment (ROI), as parts can be manufactured more cost-effectively. This approach also helps to circumvent supply chain disruptions and reduce lead times. Similarly, predictive maintenance is becoming more common on production lines. By capturing and analysing equipment data in real time, manufacturers can predict potential issues before they escalate into costly breakdowns.
Having a state-of-the-art production line promising future efficiencies is one thing; taking account of the basics, such as lean manufacturing, is quite another. Lean manufacturing is defined as maximising productivity while simultaneously minimising waste within a manufacturing operation. This concept promises lowhanging fruit in terms of more efficient workflows, better resource allocation, and improved storage practices, regardless of the company’s size or output.
Lean manufacturing traces its origins back to the system employed by the Japanese OEM Toyota during the 1950s and 1960s. The foundational principles of this system were just-in-time inventory management and automated quality control. However, what truly set lean manufacturing apart was its systematic identification of the so-called seven wasteful processes. These include: the waste of superfluous inventory (both raw materials and finished goods), overproduction (producing more than is immediately needed), over-processing (exceeding customer expectations unnecessarily), unnecessary transportation (excessive movement of people and goods), excess motion (failing to improve processes before mechanising or automating), waiting (periods of inactivity due to job queues), and the production of defective products (necessitating rework to fix avoidable defects).
Assuming that lean manufacturing can reduce waste in time and resources by eliminating unnecessary processes, it logically follows that energy and fuel costs can also be reduced, thereby delivering an obvious environmental benefit. The adoption of more energyefficient equipment further enhances this benefit. However, an overly zealous focus on reducing waste may inadvertently lead to management mistakes. For instance, cutting costs in areas not deemed strategically relevant in the short term might create issues that only become apparent later. Thus, an overemphasis on immediate cost savings may inadvertently build up problems for the future.
Furthermore, it is important to question whether scaling up production is always compatible with sustainability. The stark truth is that global manufacturing systems are, in most instances, dominated by major players irrespective of the sector. In short, the big get bigger, and the small are eventually absorbed. Another depressing reality is that economies of scale do not always result in lower prices for the consumer, as dominant firms can exploit their positions through monopolistic or oligopolistic practices to enforce higher prices. In some cases, so-called ‘diseconomies of scale’ arise, where an increase in perunit production costs accompanies the growth of a firm. Given that scaling up is influenced by decisions, policies and interests throughout the food system, there are numerous opportunities for things to go awry along the supply chain when these interests are not aligned.
There are opportunities for things to go wrong when it comes to scaling production lines. The challenge becomes finding the right solution among the many available – one that not only makes the process less painful but also future-proofs operations against potential problems. Achieving this balance is seen as being more than halfway to realising the full potential of technological and operational advancements.
