top of page
01-2.jpg

Blog

INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

White Rivers, Red Ledgers: The ESG Crisis of UK Dairy’s Milk Dumping

Janet Ng, U.K. ESG Advocate


In early 2026, Freshways, a major UK dairy processor, reported it was forced to dump surplus milk during the Christmas period (Figure 1) due to a severe supply-demand disconnect and processing capacities being overwhelmed (The DairyNews, 2026). While industry logic often cites “softening wholesale prices” and "diminishing returns" as the catalyst for such waste, let’s view this through an ESG critical lens.



Environmental Dimension: Milk as an Ecological Pollutant

To the casual observer, pouring milk into water might seem harmless. However, untreated milk entering a riverine system is ecologically devastating. Milk is an organic substance with an incredibly high Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) (Goddard, 2022). When raw milk enters a river, it triggers eutrophication — a process where excess nutrients lead to oxygen depletion, effectively suffocating aquatic life. Academic research has shown that even treated dairy wastewater contains elevated levels of potassium, sodium, and chloride, which can significantly reduce the counts of sensitive invertebrates like Gammarus (Goddard, 2022). Raw, untreated milk is many magnitudes more concentrated and lethal to headwater catchments.


Furthermore, the UK dairy industry is a leading cause of agricultural pollution, accounting for over 75% of all serious agricultural pollution incidents recorded in 2022 (River Action, 2024). This pollution is primarily driven by the mishandling of dairy slurry and silage. Regional regulatory inspections, such as a 2022 report in North Devon, have found that up to two-thirds of inspected dairy farms were actively polluting watercourses at the time of the visit (River Action, 2024).


Social Dimension: Food Security and Farmer Welfare

The UK is the eleventh largest milk producer in the world, with the industry worth approximately £4.5 billion (Goddard, 2022). Yet, despite its economic scale, the social fabric of the industry is fraying. Dairy farmers have endured decades of severe financial instability. Between 1988 and 2009, farmgate prices experienced heavy volatility, swinging between 14.6 and 23.8 pence per litre (ppl) (Figure 2). This instability has frequently pushed producers into the red; in 2002/03, for example, 60% of dairy farms failed to cover their production costs. This trend of chronic unprofitability persisted into the following decade, with market prices falling short of production costs by an average of 3.16 ppl between April 2010 and March 2011 (Boulton, et al., 2015). For many small-scale producers, the “economies of scale” required to survive are simply unreachable, leading to a mass exit from the industry (Rose & Paparas, 2023). In 2019 alone, there was a 7.3% annual reduction in producer numbers (Rose & Paparas, 2023).



This creates a perverse social reality: processors are forced to dump excess milk while the public faces fluctuating retail prices (DairyNews.today, 2026; Rose & Paparas, 2023). The push for “sustainable intensification” in agriculture often creates immense pressure on the herdsman and the welfare of the cow (Boulton, et al., 2015). This stress is likely compounded when processors are forced to physically waste the fruits of the farmers’ labour due to oversupply (DairyNews.today, 2026). The ongoing disposal of usable milk by processors highlights a critical inefficiency in the supply chain. Future ESG frameworks should consider quantifying the social cost of destroying food in an era where food insecurity persists.


Governance Dimension: A Failure of Regulation and Market Power

The root of the milk-dumping crisis lies in governance. The UK milk market is highly oligopolistic. The four biggest retailers — Tesco, Sainsbury's, Asda, and Morrisons — hold significant bargaining power over producers (Rose and Paparas, 2023). This allows retailers to dictate prices, often using liquid milk as a “loss leader” to gain customers, which magnifies price fluctuations for the producers while keeping retail prices relatively stable (Rose and Paparas, 2023).


Furthermore, the transition from the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) to the UK's Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) has left many farmers in a state of financial uncertainty (River Action, 2024; Rose & Paparas, 2023). Governance is also failing in the realm of certification. Reports suggest that "Red Tractor" assured farms — the primary environmental standard for UK dairy — are actually responsible for the majority of severe agricultural pollution incidents, proving that current assurance schemes are not an indicator of good environmental performance (River Action, 2024).


A Path Toward Sustainability

To prevent “white rivers” from becoming a seasonal norm, structural reforms supported by academic research and environmental advocacy need to be implemented:


  • Circular Economy Integration: Rather than viewing excess milk or slurry as waste, the government could subsidize technological solutions to re-process dairy by-products into organic, transportable fertilizers (River Action, 2024). This reduces reliance on imported synthetic fertilizers and prevents nutrient run-off.


  • Pricing Incentives for Environmental Performance: Dairy processors could follow the lead of cooperatives like Arla Foods, which has introduced a Sustainability Incentive Model (River Action, 2024). This model rewards farmers with higher prices for meeting verifiable environmental targets, providing the financial stability needed to invest in better waste infrastructure.


  • Robust Regulatory Enforcement: The Environment Agency could move away from “advisory” warnings and start fully enforcing the Farming Rules for Water. Legal deterrents are necessary to ensure that market failures do not result in environmental catastrophes (River Action, 2024).


  • Transparent Price Transmission: Policymakers could curb the dominance of the supermarket oligopoly to ensure fair pricing and efficient information flow through the value chain (Rose and Paparas, 2023).


Reflection

Is the retail price of milk truly reflective of its environmental and social cost of production?


Market design has prioritised price competitiveness over long term resilience. When the market oversupplies, current governance structures deem it more cost-effective to dispose of the product — absorbing the associated environmental externalities — than to financially support the producer. However, a sustainable dairy industry requires a framework where the ecological health of the catchment, animal welfare, and farmer livelihoods are not subordinated to the profit margins of a consolidated retail sector.


The degradation of UK waterways serves as a critical risk indicator. It is time the industry addresses these market failures before the ecosystems meant to sustain agricultural production are irreparably compromised.




References:

Boulton, A., Rushton, J., Wathes, C. & Wathes, D., 2015. Past trends and future challenges for a sustainable UK dairy industry. [Online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alana-Boulton/publication/286113914_Past_trends_and_future_challenges_for_a_sustainable_UK_dairy_industry/links/566fc15308aec0bb67bf8271/Past-trends-and-future-challenges-for-a-sustainable-UK-dairy-industry.pdf [Accessed 2 April 2026].

DairyNews.today, 2026. UK Dairy Oversupply Leads to Increased Milk Disposal by Freshways [Online] Available at: https://dairynews.today/global/news/uk-dairy-oversupply-leads-to-increased-milk-disposal-by-freshways.html [Accessed 30 March 2026].

 

Goddard, R., 2022. An investigation of the impacts of a dairy industry waste on river water quality and the appropriateness of current monitoring approaches and regulation. [Online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.24382/1253 [Accessed 31 March 2026].

 

Morris, J., 2026. Clean-up after 1,750 gallons of milk enter stream. [Online] Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3930rxyd71o [Accessed 30 March 2026].

 

River Action, 2024. The Dairy Industry and River Pollution. [Online] Available at: https://riveractionuk.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/River-Action-Dairy-Report-2024.pdf [Accessed 31 March 2026].

 

Rose, R. & Paparas, D., 2023. Price Transmission: The Case of the UK Dairy Market. [Online] Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2813-2432/2/1/4 [Accessed 31 March 2026].


(Date: 27th April, 2026)


內地價格戰窒礙ESG發展


近年流行的「內捲」一詞,描述一種非理性過度競爭的惡性循環:在產能過剩的背景下,企業競相壓價求存,導致利潤持續萎縮,最終令整個行業陷入「增量不增益」的困境。「內捲式」價格戰對環境、社會及管治(ESG)三個維度均製造了顯著的阻礙,嚴重威脅中國企業的可持續發展能力。


企業往往優先削減不直接影響短期生產的支出,包括環境保護投入。以電動車供應鏈為例,在成本控制壓力下,企業在原料選取和加工處理中被迫放棄更有利於環境保護的選擇。外賣行業的低價競爭則導致大量增加一次性包裝品的使用,對環境造成額外負擔。


資源浪費延緩雙碳達標


過剩產能造成資源浪費,大量工廠在低利用率情況下運作(例如,部分省份集中式太陽能電站虧損超過180億元人民幣),令Scope 1和Scope 2排放相對於每單位有效產出大幅上升。此外,持續的通縮壓力令企業難以為碳排放管理投入必要資金,延緩了「雙碳」目標的實現進程。


「內捲式」競爭最直接的社會影響是對勞工群體的系統性壓榨。企業為維持成本競爭力,普遍採取壓低薪酬、延長工時的策略。長期來看,此類行為不僅引發員工流失,更可能導致勞動爭議,嚴重損害企業在國際市場上的品牌聲譽和ESG評級。部分行業龍頭企業憑藉其強勢地位對供貨商極限壓價、不合理延長付款期限,導致供應鏈內「三角債」問題加劇。這種行為損害供應鏈中小企業的生存能力。


企業內捲推高財務壓力


「內捲」正是以突破ESG底線來獲取價格優勢。在安全、質量、健康、真實宣傳等「看不見」的地方降級,以及對供應鏈上下游施加不合理的成本壓縮。「內捲」壓力下,企業在承受財務壓力的同時,亦難以維持高質量的ESG披露。在成本壓力最大的時期,企業更傾向於壓縮ESG合規投入,或傾向「漂綠」(Greenwashing)以維持表面形象。


最後,因價格太便宜,消費者傾向不珍惜,購買很多用不着產品,造成大量浪費!自2024年起,內地已將整治「內捲式」競爭列為核心政策任務,並在中央經濟工作會議、《政府工作報告》及《反不正當競爭法》修訂中多次強調。從數量競爭轉向質量競爭,與ESG高質量發展理念高度契合。M&G Investments指,在「反內捲」政策框架下,最有可能勝出的企業將是那些兼具規模優勢、技術深度及高環境資質的企業,而非單純依賴低成本競爭的企業。


本文於2026年4月1日刊登於《東方日報》「宏觀視野」專欄,題為《內地價格戰窒礙ESG發展》。


葉榮鏗 (Angus) 博士

國際可持續發展協進會(ICSD)創會主席



2026年3月30日ICSD為會員舉辦免費CPD網上講座。題目為”ESG Report Assurance” (由PwC 合伙人及CPA Australia 香港區主席Mr. Cyrus Cheung主講)。其後由CPA Australia 高級業務發展經理Ms. Cora Cheung 介紹成為CPA之路。有超過230人參加



website-logo.png
國際可持續發展協進會
CEP-transparent background_edited.png
CEM_logo_transparent_edited.png
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Youtube

© 2026 International Chamber of Sustainable Development Limited | All Rights Reserved

bottom of page