Accounting for impact: Why every food brand needs to make this change

It's beyond disheartening when perfectly good food ends up going to waste.

This reality hit home recently when one of Conscious Alliance's esteemed partners, who had previously contributed numerous semi-truckloads of food, faced a perceived budgetary hitch that led to three trucks filled with a total of 90,000 pounds of food being diverted to a landfill. That equates to a heartbreaking waste of 90,000 potential meals that could have made a significant difference in alleviating hunger.

Unfortunately, this is the norm. In the United States, 120 billion pounds of food go to waste every year—a staggering statistic. Yet, there is an exceedingly simple way brands can help while also making a meaningful impact on food insecurity, the environment and their own bottom line.

It all comes down to a simple accounting shift. Really, it’s that easy.

We are calling on brands to make a basic, yet paradigmatic shift in their budgetary line items. In collaboration with accounting teams, brands can reclassify the allocation of close-to-code, excess and unsellable-but-still-awesome products as write-offs rather than as marketing expenses.

Let us explain further. Most marketing teams have a budget for “buying” products from their organization, typically at cost, for sampling or even donation. That product, which could have otherwise been sold, needs to be accounted for as a marketing expense. Makes sense. 

When it comes to product that cannot be sold—because it is nearing expiration, was produced before packaging change or has minor flaw—that product can either be donated or destroyed. Sadly, it’s often destroyed simply because of the misapplied rule that donated products are a marketing expense. Not only is this a waste, it’s irrational: Destroying product costs money, whereas donating it is cost-neutral and comes with clear marketing and sustainability benefits. 

Donating not only mitigates the additional financial loss, but also channels surplus goods toward philanthropic causes:

By coding close-to-code products as donations rather than marketing expenses, brands can align financial prudence with social responsibility.

It’s important to point out that this is a shift in practice, not a new legal requirement, regulation or standard. Like many accounting practices and behaviors, budgets may be set a certain way and not revisited due to a “This is how we have always done it” or “set it and forget it” mentality. We’re not pointing fingers, but rather challenging brands to take a fresh look at their books and budgets with an eye towards shifting their thinking and doing.

Imagine a world where surplus products fuel social initiatives and environmental stewardship. It's a world where every contribution, no matter how small, makes a difference. By redirecting surplus products to those in need, brands contribute to food security efforts while also addressing environmental concerns.

At its core, this simple shift in accounting practices represents more than just a financial adjustment—it's a reflection of values and a commitment. It's about recognizing that success goes beyond profit margins and quarterly reports—it's about making a tangible difference in the world around us.

As brands embrace this new approach, they not only reduce waste, but also foster a culture of giving back. They become catalysts for change, driving innovation and inspiring others to follow suit.

Let’s feed kids, not landfills.

Have some big ideas or thoughts to share related to the natural products industry? We’d love to hear and publish your opinions in the newhope.com IdeaXchange. Check out our submission guidelines.