The kitchen door problem

In 2013, Winnow launched with a simple idea: put a smart scale in commercial kitchens, connect it to a tablet, and start measuring what gets thrown away. The data would tell chefs where they were over-producing, and over-production would go down. It worked. Winnow now operates in kitchens across 70+ countries and claims to have helped its customers save over 120,000 tonnes of food from being wasted.

Leanpath followed a similar path: camera-based food waste tracking, kitchen analytics, reduction targets. Both companies have built credible products that have delivered measurable results for their customers.

But there is a limitation in the measurement-first model that becomes increasingly significant as food waste regulation moves from voluntary to mandatory, and as the expectations of corporate sustainability reporting evolve.

The limitation is this: measurement tools stop at the kitchen door.

What stopping at the kitchen door means

When Winnow or Leanpath identifies food as waste, the tool does its job. It records the event, categorises the food, updates the analytics dashboard. The kitchen manager sees the data. Over time, they adjust production quantities. Waste goes down.

But what happens to the food identified as surplus in the meantime? In most kitchens using measurement-only tools, it goes to bio-waste. The tool told you it was surplus. It did not do anything about the surplus. The redistribution, if it happens at all, is a separate process with separate data in a separate system.

Why this matters for CSRD

Under CSRD’s ESRS E5 framework, food waste reporting requires traceability. The data must show what happened to food identified as surplus: did it go to bio-waste, or was it redistributed? These are materially different outcomes with materially different ESG implications.

A measurement tool that does not connect to the redistribution chain cannot produce the chain of custody that distinguishes between these two outcomes. The chain of custody is broken. And broken chains of custody are a CSRD compliance problem.

The architecture of a complete solution

Zipli was designed to close the chain. When a kitchen logs surplus food in Zipli, two things happen simultaneously. First, the data event is created: timestamp, food type, quantity, donor identity. Second, the redistribution process is initiated: the donation is matched to a nearby hub, the hub sees the incoming donation in real time, and the food is collected and redistributed.

The logging and the redistribution are not two separate processes connected by a manual handoff. They are a single event in a single platform. The chain of custody runs from the moment of logging to the moment of delivery at the redistribution hub, with every step documented in the same data record.

The hardware consideration

Winnow’s Snap AI requires camera hardware at each waste station. Leanpath’s Tracker requires dedicated scales and cameras. For a catering chain rolling out across dozens of sites, the capital cost, installation logistics, and ongoing maintenance creates significant friction.

Zipli’s mobile-first approach changes the deployment calculus entirely. No hardware procurement. No installation. No maintenance. Onboarding a new site takes minutes. And because the tool fits into the kitchen manager’s existing workflow rather than requiring a new one, adoption is more consistent and data quality is more reliable across sites.

When measurement tools are the right choice

This analysis should not be read as a dismissal of Winnow or Leanpath. For an operations team whose primary objective is reducing over-production through kitchen analytics, a measurement-first tool is a sensible starting point. The insights they provide about waste patterns and production efficiency are genuine and valuable.

The question is what the organisation needs the tool to do. If the goal is CSRD-compliant food waste reporting with a complete chain of custody, or a platform that actively connects surplus food to redistribution networks and documents the impact, measurement tools are the wrong starting point.

The food waste technology market is maturing. Measurement and redistribution are different capabilities. The organisations that need both need a platform that does not stop at the kitchen door.

References: Winnow · Leanpath · CSRD ESRS E5 · EU Waste Framework Directive.