Our performance

2008 data

These charts show the eco-efficiency performance of our manufacturing sites over the past 14 years and provide a detailed commentary for each indicator to explain our progress in 2008. In 2008 we improved our eco-efficiency performance and met our milestones for 2008 in all areas apart from COD and waste. We are also on track to meet our target for our CO2 from energy in our manufacturing operations by 25% by 2012 (measured per tonne of production against a 2004 baseline).

Scope of data

In 2008, 276 manufacturing sites in 69 countries reported environmental performance data. We also collect data on environmental prosecutions and resulting fines, including from our corporate head offices and major research laboratories, which together represent an additional eight sites. We do not collect data from third-party companies that manufacture or pack our products (these account for approximately 15% of production).

Quality of data

We have continued to improve our global system for the management and reporting of environmental performance data through the development and global roll-out of a web-based system. This has helped improve the management and validation of site-level data and allowed us to collate worldwide data faster and more transparently.

For 2008, 100% of sites reported environmental data, with 99.6% of sites reporting on all key environmental parameters.

The definitions and basis of reporting of the indicators shown on these pages are described in our Basis of Reporting document.

In 2008 while our overall COD load decreased by 0.9%, the COD load per tonne of production increased by 3.7% and we did not meet our 2008 milestone of a 4.2% reduction. This was primarily due to effluent treatment plant (ETP) overload at some sites (Russia, Spain, Brazil, Israel, Indonesia) and higher COD loads due to increased production variants and associated changeovers (Netherlands Germany, US). However, some improvements were achieved through loss reduction programmes at sites in the US, Mexico and Côte D'Ivoire and through improved effluent treatment plant performance in the UK, South Africa and the US.

Almost all (97%) of the total COD leaving our sites is subsequently treated in municipal works. We estimate that 88.5% of this COD is removed, so the COD reaching the aqueous environment is significantly less than the total COD leaving our sites. Due to the overall increase in COD load per tonne of production, however, the amount of COD sent to the aqueous environment also increased slightly.

In 2008, we achieved a 7.1% reduction in total water use and a reduction per tonne of production of 2.7%, meeting our 2008 milestone of a 1.8% reduction. The main reasons for this decrease in water use were improved temperature control for cooling water in the US and the Netherlands and increased water recirculation and reuse in the US, India and Côte d'Ivoire. There is also a general trend towards more concentrated liquid products globally, resulting in less water consumption. Nine of our sites reduced their water consumption by more than 100 000m³ and a further eleven sites by 50 000m³.

It should be noted that over half the water used by our factories was not of drinking quality.

Overall there was a 1.8% reduction in unit energy load (6.3% in absolute load) and we achieved our 2008 milestone for energy reduction. The reductions in energy use were achieved primarily through increased energy efficiency on some large sites, eg in India, Brazil and the Netherlands, the use of better-quality fuel by our Tanzanian factories and the provision of steam and electricity by combined heat and power (CHP) plants for sites in Germany and Italy. Due to problems with electricity supply from the grid in Pakistan, Nepal and India, energy consumption for some sites increased due to the increased operation of diesel generators on-site. Ten sites reduced their energy use by more than 50 000GJ, and a further 55 sites reduced theirs by more than 10 000GJ.

In 2008 we reduced our CO2 from energy load by 6.6% and our load per tonne of production by 2.2%, meeting our 2008 milestone of a 2% reduction per tonne of production. We are also on track to achieve our 2012 target set by the Unilever Executive (UEx). This was primarily due to:

• the use of third-party CHP plants for providing steam and electricity in Italy and Turkey

• increased use of biomass (eg bagasse and waste briquettes) as boiler fuel globally

• purchase of certified renewable energy (the Netherlands)

• energy reduction measures, eg a new gas-fired boiler in South Africa and other energy efficiency projects in Brazil and the Netherlands.

Energy sources account for approximately 95% of our greenhouse gas emissions from our manufacturing sites. Of the total energy used by our sites, 15.8% comes from renewable sources, of which 9.1% comes from our own site initiatives and the remaining 6.7% is from national electricity grids. The majority of our site initiatives are in developing and emerging countries and include the burning of waste materials and fuel crops in our boilers.

In 2008, there was an overall 22.1% increase in the disposal of hazardous waste measured as load per tonne, and a 16.7% increase in absolute load. We had anticipated an increase in 2008 because new safe disposal routes have become available. Primarily as a result of the disposal of accumulated waste that occurred (some 2 023 tonnes), we just exceeded our 2008 milestone for an increase of 20.4% per tonne of production. Apart from the disposal of accumulated waste (mainly in India and Colombia), additional reasons for this were increased site complexity (eg in South Africa and Indonesia) that reduced the recycling of non soapy detergent powders and liquid effluents, and reclassification of effluent treatment plant (ETP) sludge which is now disposed of as hazardous waste, eg in India.

In contrast, there has also been a marked reduction in hazardous waste at some sites due to reduced product waste (UK and South Africa), improved waste segregation (Argentina, Indonesia and South Africa) and identification of new recycling routes, eg in Canada and the UK. Eight sites managed to reduce their hazardous waste by more than 100 tonnes. Only 6.1% of our total disposed waste (hazardous and non-hazardous) was hazardous in 2008.

While there was a decrease in absolute load of 1.1%, there was an overall increase in non-hazardous waste of 3.7% on a load per tonne basis, meaning we did not achieve our 2008 milestone reduction of 6.7% per tonne of production. One reason for missing this target was that certain recycling routes for waste were no longer available in 2008. These included the composting route for liquid waste disposal in Argentina, previous use of waste in cement manufacturing in Indonesia, and the fact that effluent treatment plant (ETP) sludge could no longer be used for road building in Italy. Also, offsite recycling capacity was limited for waste from some of our sites in Turkey and South Africa. Additional waste was also generated as a result of effluent treatment plant overload (Argentina and the US) and increased sludge production (China and Ecuador). Some sites, eg in Thailand and South Africa, also experienced greater complexity which led to increased changeovers, washdowns and restricted on-site rework of waste.

Nevertheless, there were some examples of new recycling routes being employed by sites, including composting (Czech & Slovak Federal Republic, Brazil, Russia and Italy), anaerobic digestion of sludge (Czech & Slovak Federal Republic and Italy), together with strong waste reduction programmes implemented by sites, eg in Canada, Australia and the US. In 2008, 83.8% of our total waste (hazardous, non-hazardous and recycled waste) was sent for recycling. Six sites reduced their non-hazardous waste by more than 1 000 tonnes, and a further five sites by more than 500 tonnes.

In 2008, we reduced the SOx emissions from our boiler and utility operations by 5.6%, expressed as load per tonne of production, and met our 2008 milestone of a 1.7% reduction. During 2008 a 9.8% reduction was also achieved in the absolute load for boiler/utilities SOx. The main reasons for the decrease in SOx emissions were the increased use of low sulphur content biomass (eg bagasse and wood) as an alternative fuel, particularly in Brazil and India, improved fuel quality, eg in Malawi and Tanzania, and energy efficiency improvements at some sites, eg in Kenya, Honduras and Ecuador. Also more accurate data was provided for the fuel sulphur content by a number of sites, eg through closer contact with suppliers.

However SOx emissions were higher in Pakistan, Nepal, Nigeria and some parts of India due to problems with the stability of grid electricity supply, leading to increased consumption of higher sulphur content fuel in on-site diesel generators.

We measure the amount of ozone-depleting gases (CFCs, HCFCs and mixtures) in refrigeration, air conditioning and other applications at our sites, and assess the losses each year. The emissions are expressed as kg CFCR-11 equivalent. In 2008, while overall emissions dropped slightly, the amount of ozone-depleting potential expressed per tonne of production was the same as in 2007 with 75 sites reducing their ozone-depleting potential by more than 50%.