Improve our climate


The Group are measuring the climate footprint (scope 1 & 2) for the whole Group, and have started mapping and gathering information to further reduce CO2 e for all production, including our partners, from raw materials for feed, to transport to the end consumer (scope 3).

The Group are identifying where the emissions are and where we can make the biggest gains. The Group are switching from diesel to renewable energy (hydropower) on almost all feed barges.

The Group's investments in an efficient and modern value chain are also helping reducing energy use at the factories and locations along the coast. The Group's fleet renewal has given the company one of the most modern trawler fleets in the world, with more effective energy use and also higher utilisation of the residual raw materials on board.

Air transport to overseas markets is a substantial contributor to the Group's total climate footprint, and the Group are addressing that, but the Group are aware that the biggest potential for reduction in CO2 e emissions is in feed, which constitutes approx. 80% of the Group's total CO2 emissions. The Group therefore work closely together with partners and stakeholders to be prime movers when it comes to both testing and implementing new feed raw materials.

The Group uses precautionary principle to guide its environmental and climate related planning activities, decision making process and actions.
Improve our climate


We are committed to reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from our operations.

The Group keeps a focus on eco-friendly solutions and works on keeping both direct and indirect  emissions as low as possible.

The framework selected for calculating CO2 emissions includes emissions from combustion processes required for the Group’s operations. This is referred to below as direct emissions, Scope 1.

The Group also wanted to gain an overview of the indirect impact on global warming of the company's  activities and has therefore also included COemissions from the production of electricity consumed by the Group. This is referred to below as indirect emissions, Scope 2.

All sources of greenhouse gas emissions from the Group's core activities have been included in the calculations.

The purchase of products and services, scope 3 is calculated for 2019 but not for 2020. 

The group had a goal for 2020 to map scope 3 for 2019 in order to set scientific goals by 2030. This was implemented and we are pleased to announce that we have now had our science based targets approved by The Steering Committee of The Science Based Targets initiative.

By introducing SBT, The Group has set a clear course for climate reduction throughout the entire value chain. Both the company's board, group management and employees are behind the goals that have been set and we will work well together through "One Lerøy" to ensure that we will achieve the goals that have been set.

Main goal:

 “Lerøy Seafood Group ASA commits to reduce absolute scope 1, 2 and 3 GHG emissions 46% by 2030 from a 2019 base year.”

The target is aligned with a 1,5 degrees C pathway.

Improve our climate

Greenhouse gas emissions

The tables provide a summary of consumption of fossil fuels and electricity, and  greenhouse gas emissions per segment and in total.

Total Consumption of electricity (Scope 2)

  Unit 2017 2018 2019 2020
Farming  MWh 75 828,6 82 019,7 98 393,0 134 180,2
Wild catch MWh 42 188,6 19 267,5 22 620,7 25 570,4
VAP, Sales and Distribution MWh 15 066,2 9 410,7 25 370,2 29 576,2
The Group MWh 135 628,1 110 697,9 146 383,9 189 326,8


Total Consumption of fossile fuels (Scope 1)

  Unit 2017 2018 2019 2020
Diesel liters 2 152 314 2 231 538 2 609 865 2 639 377
Marine gas oil (MGO) liters 3 873 248 3 540 847 3 656 064 3 549 989
Petrol liters 223 333 189 285 264 596 415 777
Biodiesel fuel (HVO) liters 26 200 - - -
LPG (Propane) kg 58 328 - - -
Fuel oil liters 21 181 26 202 84 271 206 764
Refrigerants kg - - 1 921 478
Wild catch          
Diesel liters - 3 192 9 782 8 589
Marine gas oil (MGO) liters 32 359 151 36 538 544 35 559 152 38 723 297
LPG (Propane) kg - - 203 780
LPG (Propane) liters       1 136
Petrol liters       503
VAP, Sales and Distribution          
Diesel liters 163 577 164 451 556 802 402 883
Petrol liters 22 024 25 154 24 260 28 087
Natural gas m3 2 096 - 24 267 76 287
LPG (Propane) kg - - 50 935 53 825
LPG (Propane) liters - - - 132
Fuel oil liters 18 165 19 254 17 525 18 051
Refrigerants kg 75 74 - 96
The Group          
Diesel liters 2 315 891 2 399 181 3 176 449 3 050 849
Marine gas oil (MGO) liters 36 232 399 40 079 391 39 215 216 42 273 286
Petrol liters 245 357 214 439 288 856 444 367
Biodiesel fuel (HVO) liters 26 200 - - -
Natural gas m3 2 890 - 24 267 76 287
LPG (Propane) kg 58 328 - 51 138 54 605
LPG (Propane) liters - - - 1 268
Fuel oil liters 39 346 45 456 101 796 224 815
Refrigerants kg 76 74 1 921 574



Total tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e)

  Unit 2017 2018 2019 2020
Scope 1 tCO2e 17 092 16 328 18 831 18 461
Scope 2 tCO2e 3 944 3 692 3 837 5 501
Total tCO2e 21 036 20 020 22 668 23 962
Wild catch          
Scope 1  tCO2e 88 543 101 395 98 720 107 501
Scope 2 tCO2e 2 194 867 882 1 048
Total tCO2e 90 737 102 263 99 603 108 549
VAP, Sales and Distribution          
Scope 1  tCO2e 833 841 1 798 1 830
Scope 2  tCO2e 1 981 2 304 2 757 3 376
Total  tCO2e 2 815 3 145 4 554 5 205
The Group          
Scope 1 tCO2e 106 473 118 565 119 349 127 792
Scope 2 tCO2e 8 246 6 863 7 476 9 925
Total tCO2e 114 719 125 427 126 825 137 717


CO2e emissions for fish are in general low. When compared with other types of  proteins we eat, salmon has the lowest eco-footprint.

What causes our emissions?

The three most important options to decrease our emissions:

  • Changing feed composition
  • Less transportation by air
  • Switching to alternative fuels
Improve our climate

R&D project reducing CO2 emissions

Production of sugar kelp

Producing sugar kelp is a very efficient way of binding CO2 already dissolved in the sea. Farming sugar kelp does not require any input of freshwater, fertiliser, pesticides or land. The plant captures the nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon (as CO2) directly from the ocean. On average, 1.000 kg (wet weight) sugar kelp contains 26 kg carbon equal to 100 kg CO2 – which is higher than the same volume for wood.

Ocean Forest AS is an R&D company, and the Group has a 50% share in this company together with NGO Bellona Holding AS. The company is focusing on the production of low trophic species such as macro algae, blue mussels and polychaeta.

Main goal:

  • To reduce the footprint of our fish farming activities by capturing dissolved nitrogen, phosphorus and carbon dioxide from the water
  • To develop new ingredients for human consumption or animal feed
  • To develop new species for the Norwegian aquaculture industry

Utilise sugarkelp as an feed ingredient for cattles, giving an substantial reduction in emissions from cattle farming.

Sugar kelp

Production of blue mussel meal

Ocean Forest AS also focuses on the production of blue mussels, not for human consumption but mainly as a source of marine protein. We have conducted  a series of growth studies with Atlantic salmon demonstrating that blue mussel is an excellent  fishmeal replacement.

The challenge has been to produce a blue mussel meal free of shell fractions  on an industrial scale. We have now ordered special equipment that will enable us to separate the meat  from the shell on an industrially efficient scale. Testing and implementation of the equipment will take place  in 2020. Blue mussels will also contribute to cuts in CO2 emissions.

More efficient feed control

The Group has a constant focus on the footprint from our fish farming activities. Faeces and uneaten feed  on the seabed beneath our cages can represent a local undesired impact on the environment. This issue is addressed with an increased focus on feed control but also how to optimize the raw material used and  the amount and physical quality of the faeces.

Ocean Forest focuses on the organic matter that reaches the seabed and how we can increase the  turnover of this material. Our focus is on polychaeta; how to support the establishment of an active and heathy community of this species and how to harvest the surplus for use in e.g. fish feed for other species than salmon.

In collaboration with the Institute of Marine Research in Norway and the University of Wageningen, we have in recent years conducted a series of studies  indicating the turnover rate and species present. We have developed a “polychaeta vacuum cleaner” for  harvesting and one of our employees is now studying in detail these challenges in a PhD programme with the Institute of Marine Research/University of Bergen.

New raw material for feed

The Group has a major ongoing programme for developing new innovative raw material for fish feed. Historically, Lerøy has been a prime mover regarding  the use of Omega-3 fatty acids produced from microalgae to increase the level of Omega-3 in our  feed compared to industry standard, and for the  introduction of Camelina oil and the ban on ethoxyquin. Last year, we were the first company to start using  insect meal in all our freshwater feed delivered by one of our feed suppliers.

Today, we buy the full volume of insect meal the producer can produce. We are also involved in very interesting projects relating to blue mussel meal and seaweed in salmon feed. Both projects are part of a major EU-supported project – “Holofood”, involving a series of issues, such as feed utilisation and retention, growth performance, fish and gut health.

Methane reduction with sugar kelp

The Group is also delivering sugar kelp to an exciting project in Denmark. In the project, they mix sugar kelp with feed for cows. Compared with ordinary diets with normal cow feed, the project shows that  this mixture provides a 50% reduction in the methane emissions from the cows. Fermented sugar kelp in feed also proved successful.

Methane concentration from pure sugar kelp feed,  maize silage and sugar beet pulp fermented.

While the use of antibiotics is almost non-existent in Norwegian fish farming, it is a major problem in  production of red meat. Here too, sugar kelp can be helpful. The trials in Denmark show that sugar kelp in pig feed, helps with intestinal health and reduces the need for antibiotics.

Improve our climate

Climate scenario analysis

The three last years represents a clear shift in several markets with regard to sustainability requirements.

In addition to customers, other stakeholders like banks, investors and insurance companies have requirements regarding sustainability.

The Group believes that its increased focus on climate and environmental sustainability represents a significant opportunity for the Group, the seafood industry and for Norway.

Norwegian aquaculture's food production is a part of the solution to feed the world's population in the future. In this context, it is the responsibility of both industry and political authorities to exploit these opportunities. It requires reason and knowledge to prevail in the years to come.

Regardless of the good position of the industry, the Group shall work actively to reduce the footprint of the Group's activities.

All food production results in a footprint, and it is important not to forget this in our eagerness to improve. The Group's operations are closely linked to the natural conditions in Norwegian and international freshwater sources and marine areas. Access to clean water and clean seas is a prerequisite for the Group's operations.

Climate related risks & opportunities

Transition Risks

Transition risks are risks associated with society’s adaptation to climate change. It involves the risk that changes in policy, liability and technology can impact markets and consumer behavior. The TCFD framework divides transition risks into the following categories: Policy & legal, Technology, Market and Reputation.

Policy and Legal

Climate policies aim to mitigate the negative effects of climate change. Policy changes and new regulations can pose a negative risk for companies through failure of compliance, or through increased costs of operation, such as carbon pricing, increased prices of feed ingredients.

For LSG, the introduction of new and more stringent climate-related regulations were identified as risks mainly in two areas: new regulations directly impacting operations, and new regulations directly impacting the purchase of raw materials.


Emerging regulation impacting direct operations & purchase of raw materials:

There is a general uncertainty risk associated with new legislation, and how this will impact LSG and their operations. This was pointed out by several participants as a general risk. More specifically the following risks were identified:

  • Uncertainty related to the EU Taxonomy and how this will impact LSG short term.
    • As the seafood sector is among the sectors for which criteria are yet to be developed, there is high uncertainty associated with whether LSG’s operations will be classified as green activities.
  • Carbon pricing and taxes.
    • LSG transports products to oversea markets by air freight. Any carbon taxes will have a significant financial impact, making products less competitive.
    • LSG uses MGO and diesel in their operations (both in farming and wild catch), and any taxation on fossil fuels will impact cost of fuel consumption significantly.
  • Potential new legislation prohibiting direct sea operations, rather requiring production in closed systems.
    • A prohibition of direct sea operations will directly impact LSG’s entire mode of production and business model.
  • Potential new legislation prohibiting the use of trawlers in wild fish operations due to the large emissions associated with the use of marine gas oil (MGO), alternatively prohibiting the use of MGO.
    • Both would entail a change of the entire trawler fleet which would imply a large investment cost.
  • Risk of regulatory changes in relation to CO2 emissions allowance per site.
  • Litigation risks in local operation areas.
  • Quota regulations wild fish.
  • More stringent ASC/MSC certifications.
    • If ASC/MSC certification criteria are not met, LSG’s products will lose its certification, potentially leading to loss of markets
  • Taxation on existing car fleet in European markets
    • Potential regulations regarding local pollution levels and fuel use could potentially increase transportation costs.
  • New legislation and requirements concerning the use and disposal of styrofoam and plastics.
    • More stringent regulation concerning the use and recycling of plastics in all markets may increase operation costs or lead to investments in new types og packaging material and transportation boxes.
  • Taxation on, or prohibition of use of soy in fish feed.
    • A stigmatization of soy use can prohibit soy as component in feed composition, which can further impact the cost of feed.


Technological solutions will function as an effort to restrain carbon emissions through substitution or upgrade of existing products and services. Unsuccessful investments in new technologies, or the cost of transitioning to lower emission technologies may pose a risk to companies.

  • Unsuccessful investments in new technologies pose a financial risk.
    • For example: Large investments in a new fleet that may again need to be changed in a few years when technology and requirements develop further.
  • Technological developments in alternative protein production.
    • The increasing awareness of the meat industry’s global carbon impact is shifting the market to alternative sources of plant-based protein, and lab-based protein production may pose a threat to LSG if the market shifts from seafood to these alternative protein sources.
  • The technological development of sea fleets is too slow, and there is a risk that LSG will end up with an entire fleet that cannot be used.
  • Technological developments in land-based fish farming.
    • Land-based farming poses a threat to LSG as this moves production closer to the market, eliminating the need for long-distance transport, especially air freight.


Climate change enlightenment creates shifts in demand and supply, which can impact and pose risks on both supplier- and consumer side.


  • Change in consumer needs and behavior.
    • Young consumers (with future purchasing power) are changing their eating habits and have a larger focus on climate issues. Alternative protein sources can push LSG out of the market. Potentially large financial impact.
      • It was noted that there is a difference in markets. Climate is becoming increasingly important for consumers in Norway, where it poses the largest market risk.
    • Consumers set higher demands and requirements to the products they purchase. There may be an increase in demand for certified fish. This may have a financial impact if these demands are not met.
  • There is a risk of industry wide propaganda.
    • There is a risk of seafood products losing their value of being a healthy and sustainable product which will potentially impact sales.


Reputational risks are risks associated with consumers perception of a company’s contribution, or lack thereof, to the transition to a low carbon economy.

Brand specific:

  1. LSG is a well-known name to consumers. Reputational risks are therefore significantly larger for LSG than other companies within the industry.
  2. Any damage to LSG’s reputation regarding climate and sustainability will reach the consumer, who may stop buying their products. If LSG are associated with large contributions of GHG emissions and harming the marine ecosystem, this can significantly impact revenue.
  3. Reputational value today is much larger than 10-15 years ago. Young consumers have more opinions, and there is a large risk in not winning them over.

Industry wide:

  1. The use of soy in fish feed impacts reputation.
    • Even though 100 % of the soy used in feed is certified, the use of soy alone can damage reputation.
    • The market has decided that soy is a bad raw material in terms of climate, which may impact purchasing decisions of end consumers.
  2. Growing awareness of use of air freight in transportation may harm the overall reputation of seafood.
  3. There is a long term risk that aquaculture potentially may be blamed for ruining the ecosystem in the ocean.

Physical Risks

Physical risks are risks associated with direct implications of climate change, such as higher temperatures (chronic) and more extreme weather (acute).

Financial implications vary from costs associated with damage of sites and boats, to the larger impacts associated with loss of fish and less stable access to raw materials, substantially impacting the main revenue source of LSG. 


Acute physical risks are risks associated with more frequent extreme weather such as storms, hurricanes, floods and heavy precipitation of rain and snow. Such events may impact LSG’s direct operations, or cause disruptions further up in the supply chain.

For LSG, any events delaying production has a financial implication. Due to the uncertainty of the timing of events, it is crucial for LSG to be prepared for such scenarios. Acute physical risks can also impact the supply of raw materials used in fish feed, which is a large dependency for LSG.

Direct operations

  • Extreme weather events such as storms and waves can have direct implication on production sites and fishing operations:
    • Storms and waves increase the load on all installations. This may lead to major material damage and could cause LSG to lose production capacity short term which will have a direct impact on revenue.
    • Material damage on production sites further increases the risk of escapes.
    • Extreme weather can damage fleet so that fishing operations are not possible, directly impacting production capacity and revenue.
  • Extreme weather can cause oil spill along the Norwegian coastline, further impacting aquaculture. If there are no healthy fish in Norwegian waters, operations stand still, directly impacting revenue.
  • Extreme weather events pose direct HSE risks on all sites and fleet.
  • Facilities in coastal areas are increasingly exposed to landslides.
  • Extreme weather events can impact logistics and distribution.
    • For example: Large amounts of snow in Northern Norway can delay deliveries of fresh fish and hence lose value. Customers may not want to purchase at same price.
  • Extreme weather events can lead to changes in water quality, leading to disease, parasites and algae that can kill the fish overnight. This will have direct impact on revenue.
    • Any events impacting the biology in the ocean, especially algae bloom, is potentially a risk that can have large impacts on LSG’s bottom line.

Supply chain

  • Extreme weather, such as drought and floods can affect the production of raw materials that LSG depends on in feed (soy, wheat, rapeseed oil, corn).
    • This can impact both availability and cost of raw materials


Chronic climate risks are risks derived from shifts in climate patterns in the long run, such as higher temperatures in air and sea, and change in sea levels. As has been pointed out in most interviews, the sea is LSG’s biggest asset, and any changes in sea levels or temperature that directly impacts the marine biology can potentially impact the company’s livelihood in the long run.

Rising sea temperatures:

Wild catch
  • Sea temperatures affect the migration patterns of wild fish.
    • Changes in sea temperatures lead the cod stock further north. This causes the fishing zones to move, directly impacting the transportation radius of trawlers, increasing fuel use and hence costs.
    • It poses a large challenge for coastal fishing if cod is no longer found along the Norwegian coast line.
    • There is a financial risk if LSG can not prove to their investors that they can take advantage of full fishing quota.
  • A rise in sea temperature may cause a change in the substances found in fish. This could make products less attractive to the market and can potentially have direct impact on revenue.


  • Changes in sea temperatures lead other fish stocks north (and closer to the coast) - mackerel shoals and turbot. These can make holes in the cages that can result in escapes.
  • Increased sea temperatures provide better conditions for salmon lice.
    • This currently makes operations in the south more challenging and can also affect aquaculture in the north in the long term.
  • A rise in sea temperature may cause a change in the substances found in salmon. This could make products less attractive to the market and can potentially have direct impact on revenue.
  • Changes in oxygen levels, increased precipitation, changes in sea levels in fjords can lead to poorer conditions for farming, increasing the risk of disease and mortality.

Rising air temperatures

  • An increase of air temperature will increase the need for refrigerants to keep the fish cold during transportation.
    • This requires more energy and can impact costs.
    • This requires more ice, making transportation heavier. This leads to higher emissions which can potentially impact costs.


Companies prepared to operate in a low-carbon economy, and manage and face climate-related risks, will obtain a competitive advantage. Technological improvements may lead to resource efficiency. Additionally, an increasing supply of low-/zero-emission energy sources, combined with potential carbon pricing, may create a shift in demand for these services.

Exploit market shifts towards climate friendly products and services

  • Alternative transportation solutions (blue wrap or sub chilling) to increase durability of fresh fish will eliminate or reduce dependency on air freight of fresh fish. This may reduce costs and improve reputation.
  • Innovations enabling production of fish feed ingredients in markets closer to home, potentially in lab based controlled environments, may eliminate or reduce dependency of unstable supply of raw materials such as soy. This will also reduce transportation, further reducing costs and emissions.
  • Moving towards more climate friendly packaging, with focus on recycling, is a clear signal to the customer that LSG have serous considerations regarding climate and sustainability and is a measure that will be visible to end consumer in store at point of purchase. This may have a positive impact on reputation, an impact that can be further reinforced in social media to amplify reach.
  • There are large opportunities associated with reaching young and future consumers who are concerned about climate change, as this can impact revenue.

Exploit opportunities that follow a new positioning in a low carbon market

  • A shift in market preference from whole fresh to refined fillets or frozen may increase market share, directly impacting revenue, and lower costs and emissions from air freight.
  • There are large opportunities associated with the perception of seafood and aquaculture as a contributor to a sustainable future.
    • EAT, European Green Deal, WRI etc. are all pointing to aquaculture as a contributor to a sustainable future. This may influence market perception.
    • A growing population will increase global demand for food and protein. If seafood is viewed as a healthy and sustainable protein there are opportunities of new and growing markets, which will impact revenue growth.
  • Eligibility for support schemes such as Enova


Exploit collaborative efforts

  • Improve competitive advantage through positioning as a sustainable protein provider by collaborating with suppliers to reinforce efforts to a shift to climate friendly solutions.
    • Work actively with suppliers to improve life cycle analyses (LCA) of fish feed, to further improve composition and make climate friendly decisions. This can improve reputation, and potentially impact revenue.
    • Work actively with transportation providers to be in the forefront of low-emission goods transportation to improve reputation and lower emissions, potentially reducing costs through avoided carbon or fuel taxes.
  • Active communications with authorities and involvement in policy making will reduce uncertainty risks and enable LSG to lie ahead of any regulatory changes.


Resource efficiency

Resource efficiency as an equivalent to cost efficiency, can be obtained through:

  • Increased resource efficiency in processing of fish.
    • More efficient use of products, such as in fish feed, or as fish flour/oil, can reduce costs.
    • Filleting fish in Norway for lower weight in freight to processing plants in Europe can reduce transportation costs
  • Increased efficiency in waste management:
    • Circularity and return schemes in packaging and plastics from the ocean can reduce costs.
  • Better data technologies for all systems may lead to increased control of operations, further improving efficiency and potentially reducing costs.

Suvey ranking: Top 3 climate related risks & opportunities

The following three climate-related risks and opportunities were identified as the most strategically and financially important based on the results of the survey shared with each participant after the interview process was concluded:

Top 3 risks:

  1. Reputation: The risk of LSG being perceived as an unsustainable brand. If LSG are associated with large contributions of GHG emissions and harming the marine ecosystem, this can significantly impact revenue.
  2. Policy & legal: The introduction of new climate related regulations directly impacting operations. Potential new legislation prohibiting direct sea operations will directly impact LSG’s entire mode of production. New legislations regulating trawler fleet or fuel use can also have a direct financial impact as LSG might be forced to change the entire trawler fleet. There is also a risk of local regulatory changes in relation to fuel and CO2 emission allowance per site.
  3. Policy & legal: The introduction of new climate related regulations directly impacting purchase of raw materials. Examples of prohibition of, or taxation on, the use of soy as a component in feed can limit the supply of, or increase the cost of feed, which is pointed out as one of LSG’s main contributing input factors.


Top 3 opportunities:

  1. Market: Influencing the market to view seafood as a sustainable protein source. EAT, European Green Deal, WRI etc. are all pointing to aquaculture as a contributor to a sustainable future. This may influence market perception. Additionally, the population is growing, which will increase the global demand for food and protein. If seafood can maintain its positioning as a healthy and sustainable source of protein, there are opportunities to be exploited in a growing market.
  2. Products & services: LSG can improve and increase a competitive advantage in a low-carbon economy by actively collaborating with their suppliers of fish feed and transportation providers to reduce GHG emissions and save costs.
  3. Resource efficiency: LSG can reduce costs through resource efficiency and circularity in all operations. This includes more efficient use of biproducts, reducing transportation volumes of fish to processing plants in Europe, return schemes to reduce waste and use of plastics, and the introduction of technologies to improve data availability and control, further improving efficiency.

The below document with tables summarize the findings from the interviews.

Note that the risk and opportunity assessments are provisional and will be further developed. The heatmapping is result of a preliminary assessment of risk level based on interview input. We intent to stress-test this resilience in the future by using scenarios.

Improve our climate

Safeguarding local environments

We comply with local environmental standards and regulations, and work to limit local pollution.

Non-compliance with environmental laws and regulations

The company had no violations of the regulations which resulted in fines in this area.

Water usage 

The worlds dependency on clean freshwater have never been greater. With an increasing global population, increased temperatures due to increased Co2 emissions and increased pollution, it has become even more important to govern our water sources in a sustainable manner.

LSG take this responsibility seriously and strive to protect and safeguard the freshwater sources we draw water from. We have devised strict protocols and procedures to make sure that we never draw on more water than we are allowed to. 

We do this based on extensive risk analysis and preventive actions. This also protects local habitats and wildlife in addition to reduce our impact on local water levels. We also continue our effort to switch all flow through systems to RAS. In 2020 we closed down 5 flow through systems and replaced them with one facility using RAS technology. This change was the biggest contributor to reaching our goal of a 5 % reduction in fresh water use. In total we reduced our usage of freshwater with 5,1 % in 2020. 

In our operations, and mainly the Smolt operations, there have been identified risks which may have a negative impact on our operations. Long term drought has the highest consequences for our operations and may cause severe impacts on both fish welfare and our financial situation. Long term drought which will deplete our water reserves in magazines is however deemed unlikely since access to clean high quality freshwater in Norway is good. 

In 2020 LSG sourced 97,8 % of its fresh water from surface water sources, and 1,3 % from Municipality sources. In total we used 0,27 m3 freshwater per kg fish produced in the group. The farming segment used 14,09 m3 per kg fish produced, while our slaughterhouses used 0,00063 m3 freshwater per kg fish produced, and our VAP segment used 0,0065 m3.  

MAINE GOAL: We continue our goal of a 5 % reduction in freshwater use also for 2021. 


The RAS (Recirculating Aquaculture Systems) technology allows Lerøy Seafood Group to produce  fish with up to 99% reduction in water use compared  to conventional flow-through systems. The Group  started to use RAS-technology already in 2005. In  2021, approximately 80% of all salmon smolt in Lerøy Seafood Group will be reared with this technology.

Waste water 

We continue our work with water treatment and discharge. Most of our processing factories, new and old, are equipped with fat separators and UV light treatment. In some factories, where it’s necessary, we also have chemical treatment of waste water in addition to mechanical treatment. 

New technology and proximity to a biogas facility in Sweden have made it possible for one of our factory to send wastewater for treatment there, and at the same time recover biogas from the waste water. This has resulted in eliminating treatment on site which is beneficial for all parties.  

Our operations consummation of freshwater is not significant. We have therefore defined our discharge of wastewater to be the same as our intake of freshwater.  

Waste handling and Sorting 

Improving our handling and sorting of waste is a continuous priority for LSG. Sorting waste for reuse, recycling and recovery will greatly impact our environment through reduction of unwanted, hazardous and non-biodegradable waste in the environment . 

We have implemented strict sorting regimes in all our locations and strive, in collaboration with our waste handling companies, to make sure that all our waste is handled correctly by us and the recipient of the waste. In this the different waste handling companies and local governments are the main contributor and drivers to make the big changes. Without involvement, dedication and investments from them, it will be difficult to see a significant change in share of waste being recycled, reused and recovered.

Many have argued that the incentives to sort and handle waste correctly is somewhat mute, because large quantities of waste is sent to landfills or to undisclosed destinations for incineration. Because of this we are committed to continue our work in different forums like the UN Global Compact initiative to do what we can to push for change. 

Our goal for 2020 was to increase the share by 10 % compared to 2019.  

We experienced however a decline with 4,73 % % compared to last year. This may be explained by several factors. The 7 % overall reduction of non-organic waste we generated in 2020 is one of them. Another contributing factor is that our waste fractions are more or less constant. Meaning that without change in how our waste is handled by waste handling companies, our share of waste which is recycled, reused and recovered will also be more or less constant. We can partly solve this with higher involvement with private companies which can reuse our waste to other purposes.  

We have therefore revised our goal for 2021 and will work to increase the non-organic waste which is reuse, recovered or recycled with 5 %. 

MAIN GOAL: We continue our goal of a 5 % increase of the non-organic waste which is reuse, recovered or recycled also for 2021.

The share of hazardous waste in LSG is about 2% of the total amount of waste we generate. Some of our factories still use fluorescent lights, so by changing them to LED lights we can reduce this even further. In addition, the electrifying of our feeding stations will also reduce our hazardous waste by eliminating the use of oils and lubricants for our generators.   


The Group has established different revolutionary measures in order to reduce environmental impact; from obtaining power from land, hybrid fleets, floating  solar cells, to working boats.

Wherever it is possible, the Group seeks to use electricity sourced from land-based powerlines  instead of electricity from generators at each production site.


Power from land:

Power from land usually makes good overal  economic sense.

Power from land results in:

  • Reduced emissions
  • Less noise
  • Good economy
  • Less maintenance

The further development of power from land should entail a degree of overcapacity, thus enabling any future electrified boats to be recharged.

More than 65% of our sites now run on power from  land – a figure that will increase in the coming years. In 2020, there is a plan to replace fossil-fuelled  generators at 19 production sites. We will then have  85% of the Group`s sites on renewable electricity.

The various measures require technological  development and a high level of expertise, and in many ways, they represent a breakthrough in the industry.

Where the infrastructure is insufficient for land-based electricity, Lerøy Seafood Group is developing hybrid solutions that allow for up to 30% more efficient use of fossil fuels at each site. The Group has hybrid solutions with batteries at two production sites.


Organic non-edible materials

Organic non-edible materials from all our activities represent about 26% of our total volume produced. We categorize these from 1-3. Of the total volume of organic non-edible materials, 0,1% is category 35,8% is category 2, and 59,1% category 3.

The Group strives to increase the share for human consumption, and  aims to increase this by 50% by 2024. Projects across the Group have been ongoing since 2018.

We have e.g. invested in a harvest boat which will significantly increase fish welfare and volumes for harvest from our farming operations. This will reduce the volume in Category 2 significantly. In addition, several projects in our VAP, Sales and Distribution segment will  contribute to the reduction of food waste and increase the level of raw materials for human consumption.


The Group is actively involved in the process of recovering plastic waste from the oceans through different programes, in order to protect marine wildlife. One of the activities is recycling our fish farming nets, yarn and old trawls.

Another activity is: “ Only on loan”. This is a project in which Lerøy Seafood works together with waste and recycling company Norsk Recycling to ensure that the packaging for products packed in aluminium trays is returned for recycling after use.  Such packaging is therefore only “on loan”. Waste is a resource that is not properly utilised, and we aim to do something about this. We also focus on using the  correct packaging and the correct size of products in order to avoid waste.

Nofir video

Effects of recycling of fish farming nets, yarn and old trawls

Sugar kelp

The Group is also producing sugar kelp, which is another example of recycling. When we produce sugar kelp we use the nutritions from fish farming to produce sugar kelp and blue mussels.

Improve our climate

Fish feed

The Group work actively to further the development of sustainable fish feed.

Our fish  feed ingredients should be from sustainable and traceable sources.

Lerøy Seafood Group has taken an active role in influencing the further development of feed composition to ensure product quality in a sustainable way.


We work actively to further the development of sustainable fish feed. Our fish feed ingredients should be from sustainable and traceable sources.

In 2020, the Group purchased 273 497 tons of fish feed.

CO2e for production of fish feed

The feed producers had an average emission of 3,18 kg CO2e per kg feed produced for the Group in 2019. 

The total CO2 emissions from feed for the Group in 2020 were 846.372.50 1,8 kg CO2e.  (Calculated with land use change)

Source of marine raw ingredients in fish feed

Source of vegetable raw ingredients in fish feed

  • Soya SPC
  • Sunflower Extract
  • Wheat Gluten
  • Faba beans
  • Wheat
  • Pea Protein
  • Guar Meal
  • Peas, Dehulled
  • Rapeseed oil
  • Camelina oil
  • Linseed oil
Improve our climate

Requirement raw material

The Group cooperates with different feed suppliers in the work to achieve requirements.

The Group has established requirements for its suppliers of fish feed  to make sure that raw materials are managed in a sustainable manner. Moreover, the Group will require  its suppliers to monitor closely how quotas are established and respected, and how the catch is utilised.

  • Fished/ harvested in an ethically sound manner and in compliance with legal frameworks
  • Based on sustainable harvesting or fishing
  • Increased usage of raw materials certified according to a sustainability standard
  • Compliance with demands in ASC feed standard
  • Traceability back to origin (farm/ geographical area)
  • Increased use of trimmings
  • For use of soy from Brazil, se below
  • Electronic transmission of traceability data for all species


Policy:  Fish feed

KPI:  Raw materials fish feed

KPI:  Deforestation

Conscious choices

The Group has worked for a long time to change feed composition and have made some decisions regarding the fish feed we use for our salmon:

Our feed contains:

  • No salmon oil
  • No GMO
  • No ethoxyquin
  • No palm oil
  • No chitin inhibitors
  • No bone or blood meal
  • Insect meal
  • Microalgae
  • Camelina oil
  • 5% EPA and DHA
  • Less Omega 6 than an average Atlantic salmon

These choices has resulted in a new product brand: «Lerøy Salmon™»

Improve our climate

Marine Feed ingredient Certified according to a sustainability standard


  2020 2019
Total share of certified raw materials % 40,85 40,25
Share of certified marine ingredients % 90,27 89,53


Improve our climate

Proportion of marine raw material


  2020 2019 2018
Share marine raw materials % 20 22 23
Share vegetables % 80 78 77


Improve our climate

FFDR Salmon

FFDR, salmon  (ASC formula)


  2020 2019 2018
FFDR m 0.39 0.37 0.49
FFDR 0 1.7 2.09 1.49
Improve our climate

Project 50/50-5 Food waste

Globally food waste contribute to 8-10 % of greenhouse gas emissions. By reducing food waste we also reduce our climate foot print. About 2 kg of CO2e are emitted for 1 kg of food waste.  

Food waste includes all usable parts of food produced for humans, but which are either discarded or removed from the food chain for purposes other than human food.  

In project 50/50-5, the Group has chosen to include reduced mortality in farming and utilisation of residual raw materials from wild catches to produce fishmeal, fish oil or silage. Such raw materials are used for human consumption or animal feed, generating food for humans.

The Group has participated in a SINTEF project to map the amount of food waste that occurs in the seafood industry, enabling sub-projects to be set up that have an impact.  

We aim to increase the edible proportion of today's food waste by 50%, including reduction in mortality in farming and increased utilisation of residual raw materials from wild catches (fishmeal, oil, silage) and reduction of floor fish and unsold products in the Industry/VAP segment.

Level of fishmeal, oil and silage produced from residual raw material have increased by 39% from 2019 to 2020. 

The increase is mainly cause of the new vessel Kongsfjord producing silage and optimalization of oil and meal production. Volumes in 2021 and 2022 will not have such significant increase, increase will mainly be in optimizing meal, oil & silage production. Level of meal, oil and ensilage production was in 2020 40% of available residual raw material.   

In Industry and VAP segment reducing food waste is to among other sub projects reduce level of floor fish (products falling on the floor in the production) and unsold products (products expired or ingredients not used in products).

It has been challenging finding a good reporting solution for Industry/VAP facilities in reporting floor fish and unsold product total for the Group. We therefor do not have sufficient data from 2019 to compare with. Level of floor fish and unsold products was in 2020 around 412 000 kg total in the group. All facilities are working according the action plan to reduce floor fish and unsold products.

Some sub projects Food waste 

  • Utilisation of residual raw materials from wild caught segment as a circular economy within the Group   
  • Increased utilisation of residual raw materials from white fish processing plants – “we use it all”.
  • Opportunity to develop new products utilising residual raw materials in our plant in Stamsund, producing fish cakes, puddings etc.
  • Increased shelf life for retail products to contribute to lower food waste at retail level. By using new technology like CO2 emitters in consumer packages, we have increased shelf life for certain consumer packages by +24% (5 days) 
  • Projects investigating new opportunities to extract protein and meal from residual raw materials
  • Measures to reduce products falling on the floor in all our facilities. A single project will give a reduction of 12 000 kg of food loss by a reduction of 70%.
  • Optimizing trimmings in our facilities to develop new products from trimmings and new by-products.
Improve our climate

Project 50/50-5 Plastic

About 5 kg of CO2e are emitted for 1 kilogram of plastic – 2 kg resulting from the production of the plastic and 3 kg of CO2 are emitted when the plastic is burned after use. For some types of plastic, the number may be 4.5 – and for others 5.5. Source: Norwegian Climate Foundation 

Lerøy’s programme, as a Group, is reduce non-recyclable plastic consumption by 50%, including reduction in total plastic consumption. All 60 companies in the Group will contribute to achieving the goal and have established sub-projects with goals for each company.

Each company has established a detailed action plan so that the Group can achieve the target in total by 2024. Cooperation, reporting and following up takes place at three segment levels: Farming, Wild catch and VAP, Sales & Distribution. Cooperation at segment level allows us to utilise ideas and actions across similar operations within the Group, improving our contribution towards achieving the main goals. 

Over the past year, the Group has carried out a thorough evaluation of the sub-projects to assess the actual effect and impact of the measures taken – and to ensure that they are making a difference!

Our understanding is that all plastic is recyclable as long as it is possible to collect and sort in the right fractions. Therefore, "non" recyclable plastic is interpreted as plastic in wrong place. 

We aim to reduce non-recyclable plastic consumption by 50%, including reduction in total plastic consumption. For Farming we measure amount of feed tubes and ropes purchased, for wild catch, Industry and VAP we measure amount of vacuum film, plastic bag sheet and single use hygienic equipment purchased. 

Summarized;  to  reduce plastic purchased as a result of the different sub projects. Less plastic used equals less plastic in wrong place or less kg of plastic per kg products produced. 


For 2020 the group used 1 931 731 kg of plastic within the identified areas. No sufficient data from 2019. 

Some sub projects plastic 

  • On four-pack frozen salmon and frozen whitefish products, we use one plastic chamber for the label. By removing the last chamber with label, we are able toreduce plastic consumption by 10.000 kg.
  • Reduce disposable / hygiene items at each site and replace with multi-use articles.
  • Reduce the use of disposable cleaning agent containers and replace them with multi-use containers.
  • By making changes to just one product, we can reduce plastic waste by 2.5 tonnes by changing the use of vacuum film. This change will also reduce costs. 
  • By working together with our customerwe can increase the “degree of filling” in each packaging, reducing the use of plastic per kg o product. 
Improve our climate

Emissions 2020

Emissions 2020 

Lerøy Seafood Group («Lerøy») is continuously working to improve its Co2e emission monitoring and reporting. Information on emissions is crucial for understanding and responding to environmental pollution. However, we acknowledge that the data quality is not perfect and we strive to improve our data quality and current reported values will be updated if we identify any deviations.   

The Group has completed a comprehensive analysis of climate related risks and opportunities to which we believe the Group is exposed over the short, medium and long term. This analysis has confirmed the importance of measuring and reporting environmental performance  

Lerøy has set ambitious science based targets to reduce our environmental footprint: We aim to reduce our Co2e emissions by 46% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. (ref: Climate Policy). Lerøy has defined 2019 as the base year for our science-based climate target as this was the first year all operating segments in the Group were included in the emission reporting. The Group’s operating segments comprise the following: 1) Wild Catch 2 ) Farming  and 3) Value Added Processing which also includes sales and distribution.  

Our emissions are reported according to the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard.  

The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard requires reporting a minimum of scope 1 and scope 2 emissions and you will find this in our updated 2020 emission report. This means that our 2020 report is based on operational control and includes only activities which Lerøy controls. We aim to include emissions data from relevant scope 3 activities in 2021.  

The reported emission figures have been collected throughout 2020 from relevant suppliers via invoices and direct monitoring,  and are based on the same data source as the figures reported in Lerøy’s 2019 annual report.  

The reported figures provide the best estimates at the end of the reporting period and any amendments will be implemented in our annual report for 2021.  

Emissions data covers reporting of the following greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). The Group has not been contributing to any biogenic Co2 emissions in 2020. 

For more details regarding methods for calculating Scope 1 and Scope 2 as well as conversion factors, please see link to the appendix below: 

Improve our climate

Emission factors 2020 - Scope 1 and 2

Improve our climate

Methodology Scope 1 and 2