In 2000 we began the development of our “Ecological Footprint.” The environmental inputs to making our products included energy, water and incoming ingredient packaging. The outputs included wastewater, air emissions and solid waste. The footprint reported data gathered from our plants in each area and expressed it as a mass flow, with the exception of incoming ingredient packaging. These inputs and outputs were quantified and normalized to a pallet of product. (A pallet contains 2032 pints of product and weighs one ton or 2000 lbs.) The company brought in over one million pieces of incoming ingredient packaging. Quantifying each piece was not practical at this time thus we do not have a measure for this input. The anticipated use of the footprint includes a method to identify opportunities for environmental gains when making business decisions such as when purchasing equipment, an educational tool to understand our environmental impacts and a benchmark to guide in the creation of environmental goals and in the tracking of results.

In 2000 we began the development of our ” Ecological Footprint.” The environmental inputs to making our products included energy, water and incoming ingredient packaging. The outputs included wastewater, air emissions and solid waste. The footprint reported data gathered from our plants in each area and expressed it as a mass flow (with the exception of incoming ingredient packaging). These inputs and outputs were quantified and normalized to a pallet of product. (A pallet contains 2032 pints of product and weighs one ton or 2000 lbs.) The company brought in over one million pieces of incoming ingredient packaging. Quantifying each piece was not practical at this time, thus we do not have a measure for this input. The anticipated use of the footprint includes identifying opportunities for environmental gains when making business decisions (such as when purchasing equipment), creating an educational tool to understand our environmental impacts and creating a benchmark to guide us in the creation of environmental goals and in tracking results.

In 2000 overall production was up three percent compared to the prior year. Waterbury’s production was up by 3%; St. Albans was up by 7% and Springfield was down by 3%. The overall number of pallets shipped from the DC was down 1% from the prior year.

Company-wide solid waste was down by 8% per gallon. On a gross basis solid waste was also down by 5%. At the plant level Waterbury solid waste was down by 9%; St. Albans was down by 8% and Springfield was up by 4%. The reductions were achieved even with a 3% increase in production.

Recycling was down by 10% per gallon of product produced and down by 7% on a gross basis. The declines in solid waste and recycling volumes reflected source reduction within the wastestream. On the plant level Waterbury was down by 9%, St. Albans was down by 24% and Springfield was up by 14%.

The amount of HSDW dairy waste generated was flat compared to the prior year on a per gallon basis. On a gross basis, the increase was 3%, the same as the increase in production. Waterbury dairy waste was up 4%; St. Albans was down 8% and Springfield was up by 4%. The changes in dairy waste were the result of the types of products we ran. For example, the more complicated the flavor, the more equipment used and the more subsequent washouts required. Also increased washes associated with allergen control generated more wastewater.

Water use was down on a per gallon basis by 6%. On a company-wide basis, the volume of water used was also down by 3%. Waterbury reduced their water use by 10%, St. Albans was down by 11% and Springfield was up by 11%. In 2000 we put more focus on water reduction, with the plants initiating task forces to identify opportunities to reduce water consumption.

Making super premium ice cream that does not contain a lot of air consumed large amounts of energy. In addition to a large amount of electricity, each plant used different fuels, oil, natural gas or propane. Each form of energy had different units of measure, therefore each were converted to British Thermal Units (BTUs) for comparison. There was an overall reduction in energy by 2%. Waterbury reduced their energy use by 3%; St. Albans was also down 3% and Springfield was up by 2%.

In 2000 we began to measure emissions associated with ice cream production. Green House Gases were a serious environmental concern, especially Carbon Dioxide (CO2). While the other gases, nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide, are critical pollutants, CO2 emissions were the most prevalent. On a company-wide basis, the manufacturing plants and the Distribution Center generated 4,800 tons of CO2. This number does not reflect emissions associated with transportation of product between the plants or with local and national distribution. We used data provided by the Environmental Protection Agency to determine CO2 emissions from the various energy sources we used.

Ben & Jerry’s is a dairy-based business. The most significant potential adverse impact of dairy farming is on the water supply. Many of our supplier farms were located in the vicinity of Lake Champlain which has experienced stress from phosphorous run-off from agricultural, industrial and municipal sources. Nitrogen was also a potential concern for groundwater quality.

With this in mind, in 1999 the company launched the Vermont Dairy Farm Sustainability Project. The goal of this project was to develop practical methods that could be used on typical dairy operations in Vermont and in the northeast to reduce the potential for phosphoruos run-off and nitrogen leaching, while maintaining the economic viability of the farm. These methods will be documented from work done on cooperating dairy farms and shared with the region’s dairy industry as a whole. We were persuaded to undertake this project by work done by Professor Dan Fox at Cornell University. Professor Fox’s research indicated that over the course of a year, two-thirds to three-quarters of the phosphorus and nitrogen imported onto a dairy farm, mainly through feed and fertilizer purchases, remain on the farm. This can lead to a build up of nitrogen and phosphorous in the soil. The potential then exists for loss of nitrogen and phosphorous into ground and surface waters.

The project is a unique collaboration among Ben & Jerry’s, the St. Alban’s Cooperative Creamery, Poulin Grain, Inc., Bourdeau Brothers of Middlebury and the University of Vermont. One of the key premises of the project was that various shareholders must work in concert to bring about significant gains in sustainability

Ben & Jerry’s provides the salary of the project director through 2001 and also provides office space. The project is expected to take four years, completing its work in 2003. In early 2001, the Ben & Jerry’s Corporate Giving Program made a $10,000 grant to the project.

In 2000 an application for nonprofit status was filed with the Internal Revenue Service and a grant proposal was submitted to the Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. The Vermont Dairy Farm Sustainability Project was one of 14 Research & Education proposals funded with a two-year grant of $96,800.

In 2000 there was one farm participating in the pilot phase and seven additional farms were enrolled for the demonstration phase. There were very preliminary but very encouraging results. Work on the pilot farm identified areas of opportunity for the reduction of nitrogen and phosphoruos imports through increased precision in the farm’s feed and crop programs. Specific recommendations for improved precision showed a significant potential savings in input costs to the farm. The impact of recommendations and implementations for improved nutrient balance will be monitored in 2001 to assess final impact.