资源描述
1 The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2018 Nicky Amos of these, 17 (31%) moved up one Tier , 20 (36%) moved up two Tiers and 8 (15%) moved up three Tiers. These improvements are even more striking given the tightening of the Benchmark criteria and the increased emphasis on performance reporting and impact over this time. Down 1 Tier No Tier change Up 1 Tier Up 2 Tiers Up 3 Tiers Subway Autogrill Co-op Food UK Gategroup Groupe Lactalis Mars McDonalds Mller Group Starbucks Unilever Associated British Foods Arla Foods Carrefour Compass Group Danish Crown FrieslandCampina Auchan Holdings ICA Gruppen J Sainsbury Kaufland Marfrig Mercadona Mitchells companies, and their stakeholders, need to be sure that policies and associated management systems and processes deliver the desired outcomes in terms of farm animal welfare performance. While we are seeing a gradual improvement in the proportion of companies reporting animal welfare performance data, the quality of performance reporting in terms of consistency, comparability and coverage is still not fit for purpose. Despite 77 companies (51%) now reporting at least some animal welfare performance data, it is often not possible to understand how companies are translating policy commitments into action, nor is it possible to get an accurate picture of the welfare impact on animals. In turn, this makes it very difficult to assess the quality of a companys management systems or to answer questions such as whether a company is effectively implementing its policies, whether it is delivering on its objectives and targets, whether it is effectively managing the risks and opportunities presented by farm animal welfare, or whether it is improving the welfare of the animals in its operations and supply chain. It is also not possible to make meaningful performance comparisons between companies, or to understand which companies are leading on delivering positive animal welfare impacts. 5. Lackofkno wledge(e. g. onthe wider businessand mark eting benefits ofhigher w elf ar e) andc onsumer willingnesst o pa y ar ethek e y barrier st o pr ogr ess Lack of knowledge and customer willingness to pay remain the key barriers to food companies adopting higher standards of farm animal welfare and affects the level of investor interest in the issue. In our 2018 survey of how companies use the Benchmark, 82% of respondents identified customer willingness to pay as a barrier to adopting higher standards of farm animal welfare. Companies also identified the absence of a compelling business case for adopting higher welfare standards, and a general lack of awareness of the wider business and marketing benefits of higher welfare as key barriers to progress. We note that progress is being made to address these barriers. For example, many companies now provide financial incentives (e.g. higher pricing, extended-term contracts) to adopt higher standards as well as support with capital investment, and an increasing number provide suppliers with access to education, training, marketing and technical support on farm animal welfare. A ddr essingthe barrier s t o f arm animalw elf ar e is ak e y objectiv e of the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare. Over the ne xttw oy ear s , w ewillf ocus on: 1. Strengthening the signals being sent by investors to food companies about the importance of farm animal welfare as a business issue. We will do this through: Increasing the number of investor signatories to the Global Investor Statement on Farm Animal Welfare. Increasing the number of investors that participate in the Global Investor Collaboration on Farm Animal Welfare. Encouraging investors to proactively raise the issue of farm animal welfare with the food companies in which they are invested. 2. Raising investor awareness of the investment risks and opportunities associated with farm animal welfare. We will focus particular attention on the investment community in North America, Latin America and Asia. 3. Encouraging companies to improve their practices and reporting on farm animal welfare, with a particular emphasis on encouraging better consumer education and better reporting on farm animal welfare impacts. We will encourage investors and other stakeholders to support these efforts in their engagement with companies. 4. Building relationships with other stakeholders in particular , intergovernmental agencies, standards bodies and financial institutions to encourage them to integrate BBFAWs criteria into their lending and standards criteria. 5. Exploring the potential to develop country and market-specific benchmarks. 6. Consider increasing the emphasis we place on improving animal welfare performance in the Benchmark itself. 115 global food companies have made commitments to the avoidance of close confinement in one or more of the major markets in which they operate9 Chapter heading 1. The 2018 Benchmark An overview10 The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2018 The Benchmark assesses companies across four pillars as indicated in T able 1.1 3 . While this is the same structure as in previous years, the performance reporting and impact section now accounts for 35% of company scores, compared to 24% in 2017, in line with our long-term goal to increase the Benchmarks emphasis on performance impact 4 . T able 1.1: Benchmark elements Pillar Key elements % weighting (2017 weightings in brackets) 1. M anagement Commitment Explanation of why farm animal welfare is important to the business. Statement of overarching farm animal welfare policy that sets out core principles and beliefs on farm animal welfare and that explains how these are addressed and implemented throughout the business. Statement of specific policy positions on key welfare concerns such as close confinement, routine mutilations, antibiotic usage, pre- slaughter stunning, and long-distance live transportation. 26 (30) 2. Governance and Management Allocation of responsibilities for day-to-day management and oversight of the companys farm animal welfare policy. Adoption of farm animal welfare-related objectives, targets and performance indicators, including the allocation of resources and responsibilities for the delivery of these. Establishment of appropriate control systems such as employee training on farm animal welfare, corrective action processes, auditing and supply chain monitoring. 28 (33) 3. Leadership and Innovation Involvement in research and development programmes to advance farm animal welfare. Involvement in industry or other initiatives directed at improving farm animal welfare. Promotion of higher farm animal welfare amongst customers or consumers. 11 (13) 4. P erf ormanc e Reporting and Impact Reporting on farm animal welfare performance measures such as the proportion of animals that are free from confinement and from routine mutilations, the proportion of animals that are pre-slaughter stunned, and permitted live transport times. Impact on key farm animal welfare issues, such as the actual proportion of animals that are free from close confinement, the proportion of animals that are free from routine mutilations, the proportion of animals that are pre-slaughter stunned and the proportion of animals that are transported within specified maximum journey times. 35 (24) The Benchmark structure This is the seventh Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) report 2 . As with previous Benchmarks, it analyses the farm animal welfare policies, management systems, reporting and performance of the worlds largest food companies11 1. The 2018 Benchmark: an overview The benchmarking process 5 Companies were assessed solely on the basis of information published at the time of the assessments (August/September 2018). The preliminary company assessments were peer reviewed and quality checked prior to a technical review conducted by Compassion in World Farming and by World Animal Protection in early October . Following this, the BBFAW companies were invited during October and November 2018 to review their draft assessments to check the factual accuracy of the assessments and to ensure that all relevant information had been considered by the assessor . Companies covered In line with the BBFAWs longer-term objective to progressively broaden the coverage of the Benchmark, both in terms of the number of companies and the geographic regions covered, we have increased the number of companies from 110 in the 2017 Benchmark to 150 in the 2018 Benchmark. We removed three companies 6 and added 43 companies (based on their scale and significance). A full list of the companies covered by the 2018 Benchmark is provided in Appendix 2. T able 1.2: Companies added to the 2018 Benchmark Retailers and Wholesalers Producers and Manufacturers Restaurants and Bars Amazon/Whole Foods Market BJs Wholesale C the 17 companies in Tiers 1 and 2 are those that have taken leadership positions on farm animal welfare and have made farm animal welfare an integral part of their business. These figures specifically, the 63 companies in Tiers 3 and 4 also tell us that an increasing number of global food companies are making substantial progress in implementing their policies and commitments on farm animal welfare, although they are not yet at the point where farm animal welfare can be considered integral to their business strategy. The Benchmark data confirm that leadership and improved management practices are starting to become institutionalised. Of the 150 companies covered by the Benchmark, 64 (43%) now have explicit board or senior management oversight of farm animal welfare, and 106 (71%) now have published formal improvement objectives for farm animal welfare. These are significant changes from earlier Benchmarks; in the 2012 Benchmark, only 22% of companies reported on senior management oversight of farm animal welfare and only 26% had published formal improvement objectives for farm animal welfare. They also tell us that we have a long way to go. Seventy of the 150 companies appear in Tiers 5 and 6, indicating that these companies provide little or no information on their approach to farm animal welfare. T o an extent, this reflects the fact that we have added 43 new companies to the Benchmark, with 36 of these new companies appearing in Tiers 5 and 6. However , it also reflects the reality that we have much to do if we are to get to the point where farm animal welfare is well managed by the food industry globally20 The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2018 T able 2.3: Companies improving by at least one Tier between 2017 and 2018 T able 2.4: Companies falling by one Tier between 2017 and 2018 Retailers and Wholesalers Producers and Manufacturers Restaurants and Bars Casino Groupe Auchan Les Mousquetaires Lidl Publix Supermarkets Wm Morrison Wesfarmers CP Foods Group Danone Groupe Lactalis Groupo Veronesi Kraft Heinz LDC Noble Foods Vion Food Group Chipotle Mexican Grill Dunkin Brands Whitbread Yum! Brands Retailers and Wholesalers Producers and Manufacturers Restaurants and Bars Ahold Delhaize Kaufland Migros Sysco Walmart BRF Danish Crown Dean Foods General Mills JBS McDonalds Subway Despite the increased emphasis on performance reporting and impact, 19 of the 107 companies assessed in 2017 (see T able 2.3) improved by at least one Tier in the 2018 Benchmark. While this is welcome, 12 companies fell by at least one Tier (see T able 2.4). We had recognised that the increased weighting on performance reporting and impact would create a downward pressure on most companies scores and had estimated that 23 companies covered by the 2017 Benchmark would fall by at least one Tier . We wrote to these companies in advance of the 2018 Benchmark alerting them to the changes and encouraging them to strengthen their performance reporting. The fact that only five of the 23 companies at risk fell by one Tier , and of these only two companies actually achieved lower scores in the performance reporting and impact section, suggests that companies responded to our communications. More generally, given that approximately half of the number of companies predicted to fall by at least one Tier did so, implies that companies are continuing to respond to the signals being sent by the BBFAW and are working hard to either maintain or improve their ratings. companies have improved by at least one Tier since 2017 19 Analysis of impact of increased weighting of performance reporting and impact section Of the 23 companies at risk from the increased weighting of the performance reporting and impact questions, six maintained the same score as in 2017, 15 improved their scoring, and just two companies lost points. We note that several companies are paying particular attention to their performance reporting and impact, with some companies increasing their scores in this section by as many as 27 points against 201721 2. The 2018 Benchmark Results Figure 2.3 presents the results of the 2018 Benchmark by sub-sector . The most notable finding is that for the first time, all three sub-sectors achieved virtually the same average overall score (31% for producers and manufacturers, 32% for retailers and wholesalers, and 32% for restaurants and bars). This levelling down is partly attributable to the fact that the restaurant and bars sub-sector continues to improve and has closed the gap on the other two sub-sectors, and partly due to the fact that most of the new companies (84% of which appear in Tiers 5 and 6) are in the retailer and wholesaler and the producer and manufacturer sub-sectors, and these additions have exerted a significant downward influence on the average scores. Management Commitment Governance and Management Innovation and Leadership Performance Reporting and Impact Overall Score 01 02 03 04 05 06 0 47% 52% 44% 46% 40% 40% 39% 40% 27% 17% 33% 29% 16% 15% 17% 15% 32% 32% 32% 31% Producers and Manufacturers Retailers and Wholesalers Restaurants and Bars Overall Average Scores Key 01 02 03 04 05 06 0 01 02 03 04 05 06 0 01 02 03 04 05 06 0 Figure 2.3: Sub-sector comparison 201822 The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2018 Figure 2.5: Restaurants and Bars 0 Gr eggs Whitbread 2 Aramark Cheesecake Factory (The) Chipotle Mexican Grill Compass Group Dominos Pizza Group Elior Group JD Wetherspoon McDonalds Mitchells the high proportion of companies with policies on close confinement reflects the significant and sustained NGO campaigning pressure and media attention on the issue of close confinement (in particular in relation to eggs from caged hens), the use of sow stalls/ gestation crates, and, more recently, stocking densities for broiler chickens. These campaigns have led to many global food companies publishing commitments to phase out eggs from caged hens, to eliminating sow-stalls and to reducing the maximum stocking density for broiler chickens in specified geographies. It is important to note that these commitments are rarely u
展开阅读全文