GLOBAL INDEX 2016

Recommendations

Info

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overall Ranking GLOBAL INDEX 2016 OVERALL RANKING 1 Unilever 6.4 2 Nestlé BMS 5.9 3 Danone BMS 4.9 4 Mondelez 4.3 5 Mars 3.8 6 Grupo Bimbo 3.6 6 PepsiCo 3.6 8 FrieslandCampina BMS 2.8 9 Ferrero 2.6 10 Kellogg Company 2.5 10 General Mills 2.5 12 Campbell 2.4 12 Coca-Cola 2.4 14 Arla Foods 1.9 15 Ajinomoto 1.7 16 ConAgra 1.4 17 Brasil Foods 1.1 18 Kraft 0.8 19 Heinz BMS 0.3 20 Lactalis 0.0 20 Tingyi 0.0 20 Wahaha 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BMS Assessed against the BMS methodology: an adjustment based on the BMS score is incorporated in the overall score Did not provide information to ATNI 8 ACCESS TO NUTRITION INDEX GLOBAL INDEX 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Key findings Food and beverage companies have a powerful role to play in helping tackle the mounting global nutrition crisis One in three people in the world today are undernourished or overweight. Obesity and diet-related chronic diseases, are global pandemics, affecting countries of all income levels. At the same time, undernutrition continues to affect millions of people globally. Given their global reach, food and beverage companies have a powerful role to play alongside governments, international organizations and civil society in helping to tackle this crisis and its grave human and economic consequences. As well as being a social responsibility, this is directly in the companies’ commercial and financial interests as consumers worldwide are increasingly demanding healthier foods from companies. The ATNI has gained widespread recognition as an effective public accountability tool ATNI has gained widespread recognition as an independent benchmarking tool that works with industry, nutrition experts and civil society to measure companies’ contributions to improved nutrition against best practices standards and internationally agreed norms. Since the first Index, companies have increased their engagement with the research process. This shows a positive trend highlighting how the Index can enable the food and beverage industry to improve their policies and practices to help consumers around the globe eat better food. Other stakeholders use the Index as a tool to call on companies for action. Private sector data from the ATNI is used, for instance, in the Global Nutrition Report that is published on an annual basis, while investors in F&B companies are increasingly taking into consideration the ATNI rankings and company scorecards. There have been some improvements but the industry as a whole is still moving too slowly On balance, the outcomes of the second Access to Nutrition Index show some progress, but companies have a long way to go if they are to play their full part in tackling the global nutrition crisis. When considered together, the world’s 22 largest food and beverage manufacturers have improved their contribution to improving consumers’ diets. Some companies have given health and nutrition issues increased weight in their corporate strategies; some have made commitments to improve the nutritional quality of some of their products; some have introduced more healthy options and some have adopted and established reasonably comprehensive back-of-pack labels. Other areas show fewer signs of progress. Overall commitments to market responsibly to children showed no measurable improvement and although most companies have subscribed to global or regional self-regulatory pledges, these remain weak in several areas. Overall, no company scored more than 6.4 out of 10. Three companies continue to lead the rankings The top three companies in the 2016 Index are Unilever, Nestlé and Danone. These three also led the Index in 2013. Although all companies still have a long way to go, Unilever, Nestlé and Danone have clearly embedded a commitment to addressing global nutrition challenges into their core business models; commitments are translated into practice and reported on publicly. This is commendable. It should be regarded as an example of best practice and as a guide to improvement for other companies. Unilever leads with regards to providing healthier products to consumers worldwide. The company has a strong Nutrient Profiling System (NPS) against which the global product portfolio is checked for levels of key nutrients. Nestlé stands out with a clear corporate nutrition strategy that is approved at the highest levels of the company and includes a comprehensive set of objectives that cover the reformulation of products to make them healthier, access to healthy foods and responsible marketing. Danone remains relatively strong in including nutrition in its business strategies as well as its processes. It leads for including affordability considerations in its product Research & Development (R&D) programs, and for stakeholder engagement. However, Danone dropped in the overall rankings mostly because the company’s nutrition targets for the next few years had not yet been published at the time of the research for this report. Eight companies have improved their ranking, six have fallen, while five have remained the same and three were new additions to the 2016 Global Index. Mars and FrieslandCampina have risen the most on the 2016 Global Index (Mars rose from 16th to 5th and FrieslandCampina rose from 19th to 8th). Both significantly improved disclosure regarding nutrition policies. Mars has invested in assessing the nutritional quality of its product portfolio and adopted several new nutrition related policies, while FrieslandCampina has adopted new responsible marketing policies and also reports on the healthiness of its product portfolio (using a strong NPS). Mondelez is a new entrant to this Global Index following its split with Kraft, and has performed relatively well. ACCESS TO NUTRITION INDEX GLOBAL INDEX 2016 9
Page 1 and 2: ACCESS TO NUTRITION INDEX GLOBAL IN
Page 3 and 4: ACCESS TO NUTRITION INDEX GLOBAL IN
Page 5 and 6: Preface I am pleased to introduce t
Page 7 and 8: Executive summary © Alamy ACCESS T
Page 9: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Methodology and a
Page 13 and 14: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Key recommendatio
Page 15 and 16: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY © Alamy © Alamy
Page 17 and 18: Categories59 A Governance 60 B Prod
Page 19 and 20: Introduction Contents Global state
Page 21 and 22: INTRODUCTION • Micronutrient defi
Page 23 and 24: INTRODUCTION The global food and be
Page 25 and 26: INTRODUCTION Commercial opportuniti
Page 27 and 28: INTRODUCTION In 2011 the Special As
Page 29 and 30: INTRODUCTION Scope and guiding prin
Page 31 and 32: INTRODUCTION Ensure relevance and a
Page 33 and 34: INTRODUCTION 35 Stuckler D and Nest
Page 35 and 36: Methodology 2016 Contents Consultat
Page 37 and 38: METHODOLOGY Methodology structure -
Page 39 and 40: METHODOLOGY • For some indicators
Page 41 and 42: METHODOLOGY TABLE 2 Baby Food Baker
Page 43 and 44: METHODOLOGY Also, although pilot nu
Page 45 and 46: METHODOLOGY Companies’ role in pu
Page 47 and 48: Rankings © Alamy ACCESS TO NUTRITI
Page 49 and 50: GLOBAL RANKING 1 Overall ranking GL
Page 51 and 52: GLOBAL RANKING 3 Undernutrition GLO
Page 53 and 54: GLOBAL RANKING © Alamy ACCESS TO N
Page 55 and 56: GLOBAL RANKING Three companies cont
Page 57 and 58: GLOBAL RANKING Marketing practices
Page 59 and 60: GLOBAL RANKING ° ° Guidance by th
Page 61 and 62:
Categories The following sections s
Page 63 and 64:
GOVERNANCE CATEGORY A Methodology c
Page 65 and 66:
GOVERNANCE CATEGORY A Key recommend
Page 67 and 68:
GOVERNANCE CATEGORY A • A telling
Page 69 and 70:
GOVERNANCE CATEGORY A Detailed resu
Page 71 and 72:
GOVERNANCE CATEGORY A What are comp
Page 73 and 74:
GOVERNANCE CATEGORY A Detailed resu
Page 75 and 76:
PRODUCTS CATEGORY B Changes to the
Page 77 and 78:
PRODUCTS CATEGORY B Key recommendat
Page 79 and 80:
PRODUCTS CATEGORY B Basis for compa
Page 81 and 82:
PRODUCTS CATEGORY B • Only ten co
Page 83 and 84:
PRODUCTS CATEGORY B B2 Nutrient Pro
Page 85 and 86:
PRODUCTS CATEGORY B NOTES 1 Note th
Page 87 and 88:
ACCESSIBILITY CATEGORY C Changes to
Page 89 and 90:
ACCESSIBILITY CATEGORY C Key recomm
Page 91 and 92:
ACCESSIBILITY CATEGORY C Detailed r
Page 93 and 94:
ACCESSIBILITY CATEGORY C C2 Product
Page 95 and 96:
ACCESSIBILITY CATEGORY C • Some c
Page 97 and 98:
© Alamy © Alamy ACCESS TO NUTRITI
Page 99 and 100:
MARKETING CATEGORY D Changes to the
Page 101 and 102:
MARKETING CATEGORY D Key recommenda
Page 103 and 104:
MARKETING CATEGORY D ° ° To not u
Page 105 and 106:
CATEGORY D Do companies audit compl
Page 107 and 108:
MARKETING CATEGORY D Many civil soc
Page 109 and 110:
MARKETING CATEGORY D Have companies
Page 111 and 112:
MARKETING CATEGORY D Age restrictio
Page 113 and 114:
MARKETING CATEGORY D Marketing in a
Page 115 and 116:
MARKETING CATEGORY D NOTES 1 The ma
Page 117 and 118:
LIFESTYLES CATEGORY E Changes to th
Page 119 and 120:
LIFESTYLES CATEGORY E Key recommend
Page 121 and 122:
LIFESTYLES CATEGORY E TABLE 7 Compo
Page 123 and 124:
LIFESTYLES CATEGORY E UNICEF estima
Page 125 and 126:
LIFESTYLES CATEGORY E E3 Supporting
Page 127 and 128:
LIFESTYLES CATEGORY E in India. •
Page 129 and 130:
LABELING CATEGORY F Changes to the
Page 131 and 132:
LABELING CATEGORY F Key recommendat
Page 133 and 134:
LABELING CATEGORY F In addition to
Page 135 and 136:
LABELING X CATEGORY DF TABLE 8 Key
Page 137 and 138:
LABELING X CATEGORY DF F2 Use of nu
Page 139 and 140:
LABELING X CATEGORY DF NOTES 1 Code
Page 141 and 142:
ENGAGEMENT CATEGORY G Changes to th
Page 143 and 144:
ENGAGEMENT CATEGORY G Key recommend
Page 145 and 146:
ENGAGEMENT CATEGORY G Is there evid
Page 147 and 148:
ENGAGEMENT CATEGORY G NOTES 1 For e
Page 149 and 150:
Marketing of breast-milk substitute
Page 151 and 152:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS To perf
Page 153 and 154:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS BMS 2:
Page 155 and 156:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS The imp
Page 157 and 158:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS Approac
Page 159 and 160:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS BOX 24
Page 161 and 162:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS TABLE 1
Page 163 and 164:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS While D
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS As illu
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS BMS 2 I
Page 173 and 174:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS ACCESS
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS Of thes
Page 179 and 180:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS own BMS
Page 181 and 182:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS This se
Page 183 and 184:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS Challen
Page 185 and 186:
BREAST-MILK SUBSTITUTES BMS NOTES 1
Page 187 and 188:
Company Scorecards Contents Ajinom
Page 189 and 190:
COMPANY SCORECARD GLOBAL INDEX 2016
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
COMPANY SCORECARD SCORECARD GLOBAL
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
COMPANY SCORECARD SCORECARD GLOBAL
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
ACCESS TO NUTRITION INDEX GLOBAL IN
Page 213 and 214:
Annexes Contents 1 Company selectio
Page 215 and 216:
COMPANY SELECTION APPROACH ANNEX 1
Page 217 and 218:
BOARD, INDEPENDENT ADVISORY PANEL,
Page 219 and 220:
BOARD, INDEPENDENT ADVISORY PANEL,
Page 221 and 222:
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ANNEX 4 World
Page 223 and 224:
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ANNEX 4 Fein,
Page 225 and 226:
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ANNEX 4 World
Page 227 and 228:
ACRONYMS ANNEX 5 NCDs NetCode NGO N
Page 229 and 230:
COPYRIGHT Copyright © 2016 Access
show all

GLOBAL INDEX 2016

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?