Decarbonise production, water use and logistics together

Submitted through the COP31 Sustainable Transformation Awards · SKD Türkiye (WBCSD Global Network Partner)

Ülker Bisküvi Sanayi A.Ş. is a food manufacturer with more than 10,000 employees whose emissions and resource use are spread across production, logistics, sourcing and agriculture.

The programme was developed in response to rising climate risk, energy costs, water stress and supply chain fragility, which affect a food manufacturer's cost base and its raw material availability at the same time.

Work began in 2014 with a ten-year target set for environmental performance. Those targets were met in 2024, and new targets were then set with 2030 as the interim year and 2050 as the net zero year.

The current objective is to reduce carbon emissions across production, supply chain, energy and logistics while raising resource efficiency, in line with SBTi aligned 2030 targets and the 2050 net zero commitment. Rather than a collection of separate projects, the work is run as one transformation model covering energy, water, production and the value chain.

Location of the initiative: Manufacturing operations in Türkiye, with value chain activities extending to the wheat and hazelnut growing regions of Türkiye and the cocoa supply chain in Côte d'Ivoire

The programme runs six connected levers.

Energy conversion came first. Electricity for the Türkiye operations was switched entirely to renewable supply, which removes Scope 2 emissions from the inventory.

Energy efficiency projects are the second lever and are implemented every year against a decarbonisation roadmap that carries approved budgets for all planned medium and long-term projects.

Low-carbon production technology is the third, introduced through the same annual project plan.

Circular water management is the fourth. Water and wastewater recovery and water efficiency measures are combined with specific management of water in high water stress regions.

Value chain decarbonisation is the fifth. Sourcing work covers cocoa from areas free of deforestation, which protects carbon sink areas; regenerative agriculture in wheat, where reduced tillage and efficient water use lower both fertiliser and energy related emissions; and biological pest control in hazelnut, which reduces chemical use. Logistics emissions are addressed through joint planning and data sharing with logistics partners.

Internal carbon pricing is the sixth lever, and it is what directs capital towards low-carbon options rather than leaving them to compete on unadjusted cost.

Results are calculated with internationally recognised methodologies, including the GHG Protocol, WRI and SBTi methods, verified by independent audit firms and published each year through TSRS reporting, CDP disclosure and the sustainability report (1).

Figure 1: 2030 Target (Ülker Consolidated)

Figure 2: Ülker Facilities Water Stress Distribution

Figure 3: 2030 Target (Logistics Emissions)

Figure 4: Decarbonization Roadmap

Figure 5: 2025 Target (Zero Waste to Landfill)

Figure 6: Water Intensity Reduction

Sustainability impact

Climate

The programme covers Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3 and forest, land and agriculture (FLAG) emissions.

Scope 2 has been eliminated in the Türkiye operations. The switch to 100% renewable electricity zeroed Scope 2 emissions and prevented 97,193 tonnes of CO2 in 2025 alone, more than 97,000 tonnes of avoided emissions from a single lever.

Energy efficiency projects run in the same year saved 12,011 MWh and delivered a further 3,382 tonnes of carbon reduction.

Against the SBTi targets of reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 42%, Scope 3 emissions by 30% and FLAG emissions by 30.3% from a 2023 base year, the reductions achieved by 2025 were 21% for Scope 1 and 2, 6% for Scope 3 and 8% for FLAG.

Logistics-related emissions have been reduced by 20.4% compared to 2019, in line with the 30% reduction target set for 2030, and 68% progress has been achieved toward the goal of reducing emissions from logistics operations by 30%.

Emissions are calculated with the GHG Protocol, WRI and SBTi methodologies and verified externally before publication, and the 2050 net zero year and 2030 interim year were set after the original ten-year target set was met in 2024.

Nature

Water is managed as a circular system. Against a 2014 baseline the target is to recover 50,000 m3 of water and wastewater in total, of which 47,130 m3 had been achieved by 2025, and to reduce water consumption intensity per tonne of production by 45%, of which 37% had been achieved by 2025. Water management in high water stress regions is reinforced by internal pricing that gives water a cost in investment decisions.

Food loss is treated as a resource efficiency measure rather than as a waste issue. Net food losses are to fall below 0.5% by 2030 against a 2022 baseline; the figure recorded in 2025 was 0.57%.

Raw material sourcing protects natural systems upstream. In cocoa, 100% of purchases from the cooperatives the company buys from directly are verified as coming from land free of deforestation, which protects carbon sink areas. In vegetable oil, 55% of volume has traceability to the plantation together with verification that it is free of deforestation. Regenerative agriculture in wheat improves soil health, and biological pest control in hazelnut reduces chemical pressure on the surrounding ecosystem.

Social

The social dimension runs through the supply chain rather than through separate community projects. Farmer support programmes and sustainable sourcing raise producer capability, and increasing the share of raw material sourced locally keeps value in the domestic economy.

Inside the company, sustainability targets are included in senior management performance criteria and incentive mechanisms, so accountability for delivery sits with named managers rather than with a central function, and unit-level indicators are reviewed with the teams that own them.

Business impact

Benefits

Energy efficiency projects saved 12,011 MWh in 2025, which reduces both cost and exposure to energy price volatility, while renewable supply fixes the emissions profile of purchased electricity.

Water recovery of 47,130 m3 against a 50,000 m3 target lowers abstraction and treatment cost and reduces operational risk in water-stressed regions, where internal pricing makes that risk visible at the investment appraisal stage.

Logistics-related emissions have been reduced by 20.4% compared to 2019, and 68% progress has been achieved toward the target of a 30% reduction in logistics emissions by 2030. Route, load, and planning optimizations that enabled these reductions have also contributed to lower freight costs.

Holding net food losses at 0.57% preserves saleable output, so an environmental target and a margin target are served by the same measure.

Internal carbon pricing improves capital allocation by making the carbon consequence of an investment visible when it is approved rather than when it is reported.

Compliance readiness has commercial value. Alignment with the EU Green Deal, SBTi and the European Union deforestation regulation supports access to markets that now impose these requirements, and independent third-party external assurance, CDP disclosure and reporting aligned with ISSB (IFRS S1-S2) and TCFD give customers and investors verifiable data (1).

Costs

The cost base is capital investment: renewable electricity supply, energy efficiency projects, low-carbon production technology, water and wastewater recovery infrastructure, and the measurement, verification and assurance system behind the reported figures.

Budgets for all planned medium and long-term projects in the decarbonisation roadmap were fixed when senior management approved it, and projects are delivered against that plan each year, which converts the programme from an annual budget negotiation into a committed schedule.

Internal carbon pricing raises the hurdle for carbon-intensive options. It changes the investment mix rather than reducing total spend, and shifts cost from operating expense into capital expense.

Value chain work carries costs that sit outside the company's own operations: supplier and farmer capability building, traceability data and verification. The main constraints on wider adoption are the adaptation capacity of supply chain stakeholders, access to financing and regional regulatory differences.

Costs are contained by partnerships with academic institutions, NGOs and suppliers that add financial and technical capacity, and by using one data set for TSRS reporting, CDP disclosure and the sustainability report rather than maintaining separate systems.

Impact beyond sustainability and business

Co-benefits

Water efficiency and recovery in high water stress regions reduce pressure on resources shared with local communities and agriculture, not only on the company's own supply.

Lower food loss keeps edible product in the food system, which is a resource outcome as well as a commercial one.

The effect extends past the company boundary. Suppliers, logistics companies and farmers changed their own practices through participation, so cocoa sourced from land free of deforestation, regenerative wheat and biological control in hazelnut spread low-carbon production practice through the value chain.

The individual levers are designed so that small and medium-sized enterprises can adopt them, and the sourcing work is structured to train suppliers of every size rather than only the largest.

Potential side-effects

A 100% renewable electricity position depends on the supply contracts and instruments available in each market, so the same step cannot be assumed to be available everywhere the company or its suppliers operate.

The gap between the 21% achieved and the 42% Scope 1 and 2 target shows that the remaining reduction has to come from production process change rather than from procurement decisions, which is slower and more capital intensive.

Scope 3 and FLAG progress, at 6% and 8%, depends on suppliers and farmers whose adaptation capacity and access to financing the company does not control, and regional regulatory differences affect how fast requirements can be applied.

Net food losses of 0.57% against a target of below 0.5% show that the last part of a resource efficiency target is the hardest, and internal carbon pricing raises the internal cost of carbon-intensive operations before the alternatives are fully available.

Typical business profile

The model suits manufacturing companies with multi-site production, significant electrical and thermal energy demand, process water use and an outbound logistics network, particularly in food and fast-moving consumer goods where a large share of the footprint sits in purchased agricultural raw materials.

The individual levers, from renewable electricity supply and energy efficiency projects to water recovery, logistics optimisation and internal carbon pricing, are designed to be adapted by small and medium-sized enterprises as well as by large industrial operations.

Delivery engages the energy, environment, procurement, human resources, project, maintenance, occupational health and safety, logistics and supply chain functions.

Approach

1. Set a dated baseline and a target horizon: Fix the baseline year, publish a target set for a defined period, and reset the horizon when it is reached rather than rolling targets forward quietly.

2. Switch purchased electricity to renewable supply: Contract renewable electricity for the operations, which removes Scope 2 emissions from the inventory in one step and creates headroom for the harder scopes.

3. Run an annual energy efficiency project cycle: Build a decarbonisation roadmap, have senior management approve it with budgets fixed for all planned medium and long-term projects, and deliver against the plan every year.

4. Price carbon internally: Apply an internal carbon price so that low-carbon investments compete on adjusted cost at the approval stage, which is what moves capital rather than intention.

5. Close the water loop: Recover water and wastewater against an absolute target, reduce consumption intensity per tonne of production, and treat water in high water stress regions as a separately managed risk.

6. Extend the target into the raw material base: Verify deforestation-free sourcing in the highest-risk commodity, apply regenerative agriculture in field crops and biological pest control in tree crops, and build the capability of the suppliers who have to deliver it.

7. Optimise logistics with the partners, not for them: Run route, load and planning improvements through joint planning and data sharing with logistics companies, and measure the reduction against a dated baseline.

8. Calculate, verify and disclose: Use the GHG Protocol, WRI and SBTi methodologies, obtain independent third-party external assurance, and publish through TSRS reporting, CDP disclosure and the annual sustainability report.

9. Tie delivery to management performance: Put sustainability targets into senior management performance criteria and incentive mechanisms, review unit-level indicators quarterly and report climate risks and opportunities to the Board.

Stakeholders involved

• Project leads: The Board of Directors and senior management own the programme directly, and sustainability, risk management and performance targets are integrated into strategic decision-making. Sustainability targets are included in senior management performance criteria and incentive mechanisms, which strengthens corporate accountability. Operationally the work is coordinated by a Sustainability Committee on which the Board sits and which operates at chief executive level. The decarbonisation roadmap produced beneath it has been approved by senior management with budgets fixed for all planned medium and long-term projects.

• Company functions: A Sustainability Platform at manager and director level brings together the energy, environment, procurement, human resources, project, maintenance, occupational health and safety, logistics and supply chain teams. It meets once every three months, four times a year, to review the indicator results set for each unit and submits them to the Sustainability Committee. Enterprise risk management integration means climate-related risks and opportunities are monitored regularly and reported to the Board, so the programme is run end to end across the company and its value chain rather than by a single department.

• Main providers: Logistics partners plan jointly and share data on the freight optimisation projects rather than receiving targets, which is how the logistics reduction was delivered. Suppliers, including farmers, take part in project design as well as implementation: sustainable agriculture practices are developed with producers in the field rather than specified centrally. Independent audit firms verify the calculated results before they are published.

• Other: Academic institutions and NGOs, including the Earthworm Foundation, contribute to methodology development, impact measurement and verification, and sector platforms support wider adoption. Public institutions and local administrations take part as stakeholders, and employees are engaged through the unit-level indicators. Feedback runs through stakeholder surveys, field application reports, supplier evaluation systems and international reporting platforms such as CDP, and is used for continuous improvement.

Key parameters to consider

The programme works to several baselines: 2014 for water and for the original ten-year target set, 2019 for logistics emissions, 2022 for food loss and 2023 for the SBTi targets. Impact data cover the 2014 to 2025 period.

Five targets carry the roadmap: SBTi aligned reductions of 42% in Scope 1 and 2, 30% in Scope 3 and 30.3% in FLAG emissions from the 2023 base year; total recovery of 50,000 m3 of water and wastewater and a 45% cut in water consumption intensity against 2014; a 30% cut in logistics carbon emissions against 2019; net food losses below 0.5% by 2030 against 2022; and 100% of the main raw materials sourced sustainably.

Results are calculated with the GHG Protocol, WRI and SBTi methodologies, verified by independent audit firms and published annually through TSRS reporting, CDP disclosure and the sustainability report.

Governance runs on a quarterly cycle, with unit-level indicator results reviewed by the Sustainability Platform and submitted to the Sustainability Committee.

Alignment with the EU Green Deal, SBTi and the European Union deforestation regulation is treated as a condition of applicability in different markets. The principal risks to wider adoption are the adaptation capacity of supply chain stakeholders, access to financing and regional regulatory differences.

Implementation and operations tips

Take the largest single step first. Switching electricity supply to renewable sources zeroed Scope 2 in one move and prevented 97,193 tonnes of CO2 in 2025, which builds the credibility needed for the slower work in Scope 1 and Scope 3.

Price carbon internally if low-carbon investments have to compete with conventional ones. Without an internal price, projects with a longer payback lose the capital allocation argument.

Set targets against dated baselines and publish the gap. Reporting 21% against a 42% Scope 1 and 2 target, and 0.57% against a 0.5% food loss target, keeps the roadmap honest and shows where the remaining work sits.

Move partners, not only plants. The logistics reduction came from joint planning and data sharing with logistics companies, and the agricultural reductions came from work done with farmers in the field.

Put the indicator review on a fixed quarterly cycle with unit-level ownership and a route to a chief executive level committee. That is what keeps annual project delivery aligned with the roadmap once the early wins are taken.

External links

• CDP disclosure

• ISSB (IFRS S1-S2) and TCFD aligned reporting

Source list

(1) Sustainability Report 2024