Ajinomoto, Archer Daniels Midland, Associated British Foods BRF ...

Ajinomoto, Archer Daniels Midland,Associated British Foods BRF Brasil

Olam International, Saputo, Smithfield Foods, Tyson Foods, Unilever, and W i l m a r I n t e r n a t i o n a l

2012 Sustainability Reporting of the World’s Largest Food Processing Companies

Pacific Sustainability Index Scores:

A benchmarking tool for online sustainability repor ng

Contents Topics Page Company Rankings 3 Lead Analyst’s Commentary 4 PSI Overview 6 PSI Scoring in a Nutshell 7 Sector Performance 8 Visual Cluster Analysis 9 Environmental Topics 10 Social and Human Rights Topics 11 Environmental Intent Scores Ranking 12 Environmental Reporting Scores Ranking 13 Environmental Performance Scores Ranking

14

Social Intent Scores Ranking 15 Social Reporting Scores Ranking 16 Social Performance Scores Ranking 17 Human Rights Reporting Element 18 Performance by Country 19 Relationship Between PSI Scores and Financial Variables

20

Explicit numerical goals Reported 23 Topics Showing Performance Improvement over Previous Year Data

28

Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average

35

Commentaries alphabetically listed by company name

37

Appendix: PSI Questionnaire 130 Questions should be addressed to: Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director ([email protected], 909-621-8190) Elgeritte Adidjaja, Research Fellow ([email protected], 909-621-8698) Roberts Environmental Center Claremont McKenna College 925 N. Mills Ave. Claremont, CA 91711-5916 USA

The Roberts Environmental Center has been the foremost analyst of corporate sustainability reporting for over a decade. We analyze corporate online disclosure using our Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) and publish the results online. The goal of corporate report analysis conducted by the Roberts Environmental Center is to acquaint students with environmental and social issues facing the world’s industries, and the ways in which industry approaches and resolves these issues. The data presented in this report were collected by students at the Roberts Environmental Center:

Lead Analyst Hilary Haskell

Simone Berkovitz

Sustainability Management Analyst Katherine Recinos

Environmental Analyst

Samuel Kahr

Social and Human Rights Analyst Isabel Lane

Special Project Manager

Lucas Van Houten

Media/Public Relation Quinn Chasan Sierra Gibson Jacob Shimkus

Copyright 2013 © by J. Emil Morhardt. All rights reserved.

www.roberts.cmc.edu 2 Sustainability Reporting of the World's Largest Food Processing Companies

6.0912.49

14.41

15.18

15.30

20.08

23.24

24.88

25.81

30.63

31.19

31.88

32.30

36.76

37.30

38.39

39.27

41.52

43.03

45.04

46.64

47.18

48.55

48.88

49.56

50.93

50.94

50.95

51.59

0 20 40 60 80 100

JBS

BRF-Brasil Foods

McCormick & Co

Hillshire Brands.

Saputo

J. M. Smuckers

Olam International

Kerry Group

Corn Products Inc.

Archer Daniels

Bunge

Dean Foods

Wilmar International

Grupo Bimbo

General Mills

Associated British

Tyson Foods

Hormel Foods

Kraft Foods

Hershey

ConAgra Foods

Golden Agri

Kellogg

Nestlé

H.J. Heinz Company

Ajinomoto

Smith�ield Foods

Unilever

Campbell Soup Co.

Danone Group

Company Rankings

Grade Company Name Cou

A+ Danone Group FranceA- Campbell Soup Co. United StatesB+ Unilever NetherlandsB+ Smithfield Foods United StatesB+ Ajinomoto JapanB+ H.J. Heinz Company United StatesB+ Nestlé SwitzerlandB+ Kellogg United StatesB+ Golden Agri-Resources SingaporeB+ ConAgra Foods United StatesB Hershey United StatesB Kraft Foods United StatesB- Hormel Foods Corporation United StatesB- Tyson Foods United StatesB- Associated British Foods United KingdomB- General Mills United StatesC+ Grupo Bimbo MexicoC Wilmar International SingaporeC Dean Foods United StatesC Bunge BermudaC Archer Daniels Midland United StatesC- Corn Products Inc. United StatesC- Kerry Group IrelandC- Olam International SingaporeD+ J. M. Smuckers United StatesD Saputo CanadaD Hillshire Brands. United StatesD McCormick & Co United StatesD- BRF-Brasil Foods BrazilF J lizarBSB

61.86


Lead Analyst’s Commentary Simone Berkovitz ‘14

orporate social and

environmental responsibility is extremely important for companies in the food processing sector

due to direct health impacts on consumers and the environmental impacts from production and sourcing. According to our 2012 Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Scoring, the food processing sector overall was very competitive, with many of the companies receiving similar scores. The top scoring companies were Danone Group and Campbell Soup Co. due to clear, detailed, and comprehensive reporting. While the lowest scoring companies BRF-Brasil Foods and JBS failed to demonstrate a commitment to environmental and social responsibility. The top reported environmental topics included environmental vision statements, energy usage, green food purchasing, and sustainable agriculture. The top reported social topics included occupational health and safety, access to health care for employees, and community development. Green food purchasing is an extremely important topic in the food processing sector. “Green food purchasing” is defined by food purchased that comes from organic sources or sustainable farms or sustainable fisheries. Green food purchasing is both an environmental and health concern. Almost all of the reports addressed nutrition, health, and green issues, in which green food purchasing initiatives fell under both categories. Danone names health and nature as its top strategic priorities, under

which several green food purchasing initiatives are outlined. For example, the “sustainable milk program” includes local organic milk as well as farm assessments in order to ensure health and environmental benefits. Campbell Soup Co. recently developed organic, and all-natural products in order to promote health and wellness as well as better environmental practices. Similarly, top scoring company, Unilever outlines green food purchasing practices as part of their “Sustainable Living Plan” which includes both health and environmental impact initiatives. Across the food processing sector, companies have recognized the importance of green food purchasing due to a rise in consumer demand for these products. In conjunction with green food purchasing, sustainable agriculture and food sourcing are critical issues in the food processing sector. In particular, one of the biggest environmental concerns is sourcing of palm oil. Palm oil is an edible vegetable oil derived from the fruit of oil palms, found mostly in the tropics of Africa, Southeast Asia, and parts of Brazil. The use of palm oil in the food processing industry has risen in the past years due to its use as a replacement for trans fats. However, palm oil production poses a significant environmental threat due to widespread deforestation. Specifically in parts of Indonesia, natural forests are being removed in order to make space for oil-palm monoculture and as a result the Sumatran Orangutan has become critically endangered. Due to these serious environmental concerns many companies that use palm oil have reported changing their practices to be more sustainable. For example, Nestle’s report details a commitment to use traceable sustainable palm oil in order to minimize deforestation. Nestle emphasizes a commitment to

C


sustainability across the supply chain for both agricultural commodities and packaging products. When sourcing raw materials, food processing companies directly impact the local communities and often indigenous populations. Local communities can be both positively and negatively affected by the food processing sector. Communities often benefit from the increased agricultural exports, but can also be hurt by externalities such as deforestation or toxic waste. 52% of the companies we scored discussed local community development initiatives and 20% of companies mentioned measures regarding indigenous people. Companies reported a wide range of development initiatives both company sponsored and in partnership with local NGOs, such as access to drinking water, educational programs, farmer capacity building, entrepreneurship development, reforestation, and more. Additionally, several companies discussed working to protect the rights of indigenous people, violations, and actions taken to avoid future violations. It is apparent across the sector that corporations recognize their impact on local communities and are taking steps to internalize negative externalities. One of the most pressing environmental issues in the food processing sector is waste management. Most companies presented data on waste and discussed recycling efforts. 37% of companies we scored presented “Zero Waste” policies and initiatives in order to demonstrate a commitment to waste management and recycling. “Zero Waste” means the routine manufacturing waste is recycled or converted to energy, instead of taken to a landfill. One notable “Zero Waste” initiative was Hershey’s waste-to-energy food waste incinerators, which not only decrease waste taken to landfills, but

also provide a valuable energy source, reducing fossil fuel reliance. ConAgra reported similar approaches, along with a partnership with a local hunger NGO where food was donated instead of going to waste. Overall, the food processing sector has shown great improvement in both social and environmental responsibility. CSR reports are significantly longer and more detailed than in previous years. Driven by rising social and environmental standards and consumer demand, corporations have recognized the necessity to change their practices.


The Pacific Sustainability Index (PSI) Overview

The PSI Scoring System

The Paci�ic Sustainability Index (PSI) uses a systematic questionnaire to analyze the quality of the overall industry corporate sustainability reporting (CSR), as well as the individual companies' CSRs. Sample companies are the largest corporations listed by the current Forbes list. This report provides a summary �indings of CSR analyses conducted by a team of undergraduate students of the Claremont Colleges--mostly of Claremont McKenna College of which Roberts Environmental Center was founded--for a semester-long research--typically a four month period. The assigned team pre-selected the topics for current analysis from the preliminary review of the downloaded reports, based on the topic's prevalence to the sector and relevance to the current issues faced by the industry.

The Roberts Environmental Center

The Roberts Environmental Center is an environmental research institute at Claremont McKenna College (CMC). Its mission is to provide students of all the Claremont Colleges with a comprehensive and realistic understanding of today’s environmental issues and the ways in which they are being and can be resolved--beyond the con�ines of traditional academic disciplines and curriculum--and to identify, publicize, and encourage policies and practices that achieve economic and social goals in the most environmentally benign and protective manner. The Center is partially funded by an endowment from George R. Roberts (Founding Partner of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Co. and CMC alumnus), other grants and gifts, and is staffed by faculty and students from the Claremont Colleges.

MethodologyThe team downloads revelant English languages web pages from the main corporate website for the �irst month of analysis and convert them into a PDF format, then a survey of topics for inclusion in the questionnaire is underway. Data exclusively and independently available outside the main corporate website are omitted to keep transparancy score only to include innate information provided by the company. Although we aim to be objective in our analysis, our analysts are encouraged to expressed their subjective view of what they see in the report, allowing creativity to permeate in the individual analyzes of companies and the industry-wide reporting of topics.

Scores and RanksWe offer the opportunity for all companies/institutions analyzed in this report to give answers to the PSI questionnaire we are using, as long as the source of information provided are publicly available online. Our analysts would go through the website analyzing the same questionnaire, irrespective of the response, and merge the results. After scoring is �inalized, we issue a draft report and make it available for companies’ review. We encourage all companies to provide feedback and should it put out additional new online materials within the publication timeline, we will incorporate the new information into our analysis. We will use the contact information speci�ied online or provided in the report for these purposes, however, if the contact information is not provided, we will write a letter to the Public Relation Staff of the company requesting a review our report prior to publication. When response is not received in the time, usually within four weeks, we will publish the results without company’s review.

What do the Score Means?

We normalize all the scores to the potential maximum score. Scores of subsets of the overall score are also normalized to their potential maxima. The letter grades (A+, A, A-, B+, etc.), however, are normalized to the highest scoring company analyzed in the report. Grades of individual companies in the report might be different from grades posted online on the Roberts Environmental Center's website, since the normalization of scores of an individual company online is not limited to the companies analyzed in the sector report, but also includes other companies of the same sector irrespective of the year of analysis.

Companies with scores in the highest 4% get an A+ and any in the bottom 4% get an F. We assign these by dividing the maximum PSI score obtained in the sector into 12 equal parts then rounding fractional score up or down. This means that A+ and F are under-represented compared to the other grades. The same technique applies to the separate categories of environmental and social scores. Thus, we grade on the curve. We assume that the highest score obtained in the sector and any scores near it represent the state-of-the-art for that sector and deserve an A+.


Environmental, Qualitative

2%

Social, Quantitative

10%

Social, Qualitative

11%

Social, Human Rights

16%

Social, Intent19%

Environmental, Intent22%

Environmental, Quantitative

20%

Distribution of Scores by Topics

PSI Scoring in a Nutshell

Types of InformationOur analysis of sustainability reporting are divided into environmental and social categories—the latter including human rights—and into three types of information: 1) intent, 2) reporting, and 3) performance.3. PerformanceFor each “Reporting” topic, two performance points are available. For quantitative topics, one point is given for improvement from the previous reporting period, and one point for better performance than the sector average (based on the data used for this sector report normalized by revenue). For qualitative topics, we give one point for any indication of improvement from previous reporting periods, and one point for perspective.The “human rights” topics are scored differently, with five “reporting” points; 2.5 points for formally adopting a policy or standard and 2.5 points for a description of monitoring measures. In addition, there are two “performance” points; one point for evidence of actions to reinforce policy and one point for a quantitative indication of compliance.

2. ReportingThe “Reporting” topics are each worth five points and are either quantitative (for which we expect numerical data) or qualitative (for which we don’t). For quantitative topics, one point is available for a discussion, one point for putting the information into perspective (i.e. awards, industry standards, competitor performance, etc., or if the raw data are normalized by dividing by revenue, number of employees, number of widgets produced, etc.), one point for the presence of an explicit numerical goal, one point for numerical data from a single year, and one point for similar data from a previous year. For qualitative topics, there are three criteria summed up to five points: 1.67 points for discussion, 1.67 points for initiatives or actions, and 1.67 points for perspective.

1. IntentThe “Intent” topics are each worth two points; one point for a discussion of intentions, vision, or plans, and one point for evidence of specific actions taken to implement them.


Sector Performance

Each vertical-line—sorted by the companies with the highest to lowest overall PSI scores—illustrates the range of the total environmental and social score of each company, divided right in the center with a tick-mark, which is also the PSI overall score. The longer the line, shows the larger discrepancies between the amount of the environmental or social topics reported.Discriptive Statistics of

the Overall Environmental, Social, and PSI Scores

-55

1525

3545

5565

75

Dan

one

Gro

upC

ampb

ell S

oup

Co.

Uni

leve

rSm

ithfie

ld F

oods

Ajin

omot

oH

.J. H

einz

Com

pany

Nes

tléK

ello

ggG

olde

n A

gri-R

esou

rces

Con

Agr

a Fo

ods

Her

shey

Kra

ft Fo

ods

Hor

mel

Foo

ds C

orpo

ratio

nT

yson

Foo

dsA

ssoc

iate

d Br

itish

Foo

dsG

ener

al M

ills

Gru

po B

imbo

Wilm

ar In

tern

atio

nal

Dea

n Fo

ods

Bung

eA

rche

r D

anie

ls M

idla

ndC

orn

Prod

ucts

Inc.

Ker

ry G

roup

Ola

m In

tern

atio

nal

J. M

. Sm

ucke

rsSa

puto

Hill

shir

e Br

ands

.M

cCor

mic

k &

Co

BRF-

Bras

il Fo

ods

JBS

E n v iro n m e n ta l S o c ia l O v e ra l l

Environmental Score Social Score Overall Score

61.86

6.09

14.39

35.73

56.67

9.17

14.54

33.85

1.97

67.05

16.11

37.61

Minimum Score

Standard Deviation

Average Score (mean)

Maximum Score


Visual cluster analysis multivariate data of the sort produced by the PSI are difficult to summarize. Here we have created radar diagrams of the performance of each company analyzed in the sector by its environmental and social intent, reporting, and performance sorted by company ranking. Maximum scores will match the outer sides of the hexagon, which total up to 100 percent. A proportional spider-web shape suggests a balance of reporting in all areas. Visual Cluster Analysis

EI = Environmental Intent, ER = Environmental Reporting, EP = Environmental PerformanceSI = Social Intent, SR = Social Reporting, SP = Social Performance

Danone Group

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Campbell Soup Co.

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Unilever

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Smithfield Foods

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Ajinomoto

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

H.J. Heinz Company

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Nestlé

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Kellogg

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Golden Agri-Resources

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

ConAgra Foods

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Hershey

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Kraft Foods

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Hormel Foods Corporation

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Tyson Foods

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Associated British Foods

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

General Mills

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Grupo Bimbo

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I


- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Dean Foods

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Bunge

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Archer Daniels Midland

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Corn Products Inc.

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Kerry Group

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Olam International

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

J. M. Smuckers

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Hillshire Brands.

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

Saputo

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

McCormick & Co

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

BRF-Brasil Foods

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I

JBS

- 1 E

+2 6

3

E R

E P

SP

SR

SI

E I


0.37

0.52

0.48

0.47

0.12

0.03

0.19

0.43

0.38

0.43

0.50

0.24

0.33

0.33

0.50

0.20

0.33

0.77

0.47

0.37

0.17

0.60

0.52

0.43

0.41

0.36

0.29

0.24

0.09

0.52

0.410.31

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Zero Waste PolicyWater used

Waste recycled: solid wasteWaste (solid) disposed of

Waste (office) recycledWaste (hazardous) released to the environment

Waste (hazardous) producedStakeholder consultation

Report contact personRenewable energy used

Reforestation (environmental )Notices of violation

Locally grown organic foodHabitat/ecosystem conservation

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), totalGreen transportation initiatives

Green purchasingGreen food purchasing

Genetically modified foodFood Waste

(environmental )Fines Environmental visionary statement

Environmental policy statementEnvironmental management system

Environmental management structureEnvironmental impediments and challenges

Environmental expenses and investmentsEnvironmental education

Environmental accounting (total )Energy used

Climate change/global warmingBiodiversity

Percentage of Companies Addressing Environmental Topics


0.260.22

0.120.28

0.260.80

0.470.45

0.340.21

0.400.40

0.430.21

0.310.52

0.400.20

0.330.070.09

0.360.31

0.100.43

0.240.41

0.240.22

0.340.360.36

0.240.41

0.520.41

0.340.34

0.53

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Workforce profile: genderWorkforce profile: ethnicities/race

Workforce profile: ageWomen in management

Third-party validationSustainable agriculture

/Supplier screening based on social or environmental performancesupplier management

Social visionary statement Social policy statement

Social impediments and challengesSocial community investment

Sexual harassmentRecordable incident/accident rate

Reasonable working hoursPolitical contributions

Occupational health and safety protectionLost workday case rate

Indigenous peopleHealth and safety, or social organizational structure

Health and safety finesHealth and safety citations

Free association and collective bargaining of employeesFair compensation of employees

Employment for individuals w ith disabilitiesEmployee volunteerismEmployee turnover rate

Employee training for career developmentEmployee satisfaction surveys

Emergency preparedness programElimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory laborEffective abolition of child labor

Degrading treatment or punishment of employeesCommunity education

Community developmentCode of conduct or business ethics

BriberyAnti-corruption practices

Access to health care for employees

Percentage of Companies Addressing Social and Human Rights Topics


9.38

15.63

18.75

18.75

25.00

40.6343.75

43.75

46.88

50.00

50.00

50.00

50.00

56.25

59.38

62.50

62.50

68.7568.75

68.75

68.75

71.88

71.88

78.13

78.13

78.13

78.13

81.25

81.25

0 20 40 60 80 100

Hillshire Brands.

BRF-Brasil Foods

JBS

McCormick & Co

Saputo

Hormel Foods

Corn Products Inc.

Kerry Group

Tyson Foods

Olam International

Bunge

Grupo Bimbo

J. M. Smuckers

Archer Daniels

Dean Foods

Wilmar

Nestlé

Golden Agri

Unilever

Smith�ield Foods

Kraft Foods

Kellogg

Associated British

Campbell Soup Co.

ConAgra Foods

Ajinomoto

Hershey

General Mills

H.J. Heinz Company

Danone Group

Environmental Intent Rankings

Grade Company Name Count

A+ Danone Group FranceA- General Mills United StatesA- H.J. Heinz Company United StatesA- Ajinomoto JapanA- Campbell Soup Co. United StatesA- ConAgra Foods United StatesA- Hershey United StatesB+ Associated British Foods United KingdomB+ Kellogg United StatesB Golden Agri-Resources SingaporeB Kraft Foods United StatesB Smithfield Foods United StatesB Unilever NetherlandsB- Nestlé SwitzerlandB- Wilmar International SingaporeB- Dean Foods United StatesB- Archer Daniels Midland United StatesC+ Bunge BermudaC+ Grupo Bimbo MexicoC+ J. M. Smuckers United StatesC+ Olam International SingaporeC Tyson Foods United StatesC Corn Products Inc. United StatesC Kerry Group IrelandC- Hormel Foods Corporation United StatesD Saputo CanadaD- J lizarBSBD- McCormick & Co United StatesD- BRF-Brasil Foods BrazilF Hillshire Brands. United States

93.75


8.75

8.75

8.75

10.00

11.25

11.67

14.17

15.42

17.92

17.92

20.00

27.92

28.75

30.42

31.67

35.42

37.92

38.75

40.00

41.25

44.17

44.17

44.58

44.58

45.83

49.17

50.42

51.25

55.42

0 20 40 60 80 100

BRF-Brasil Foods

JBS

Kerry Group

McCormick & Co

Corn Products Inc.

Saputo

Olam International

Hillshire Brands.


J. M. Smuckers


Tyson Foods

Kraft Foods

Unilever

Grupo Bimbo

Bunge



Dean Foods

Hormel Foods

ConAgra Foods

General Mills

Hershey

Kellogg

Nestlé

H.J. Heinz Company

Campbell Soup Co.

Danone Group

Smith�ield Foods

Ajinomoto

Environmental Reporting Rankings

Grade Company Name Country

A++ Ajinomoto JapanA+ Smithfield Foods United StatesA Danone Group FranceA Campbell Soup Co. United StatesA H.J. Heinz Company United StatesA- Nestlé SwitzerlandA- Hershey United StatesA- Kellogg United StatesB+ ConAgra Foods United StatesB+ General Mills United StatesB+ Hormel Foods Corporation United StatesB Dean Foods United StatesB Golden Agri-Resources SingaporeB Associated British Foods United KingdomB- Bunge BermudaC+ Grupo Bimbo MexicoC+ Unilever NetherlandsC+ Kraft Foods United StatesC Tyson Foods United StatesD+ Archer Daniels Midland United StatesD+ J. M. Smuckers United StatesD+ Wilmar International SingaporeD Hillshire Brands. United StatesD Olam International SingaporeD- Saputo CanadaD- Corn Products Inc. United StatesD- McCormick & Co United StatesD- BRF-Brasil Foods BrazilD- J lizarBSBD- Kerry Group Ireland

57.08


0.000.00

3.13

3.13

3.13

3.13

3.13

6.25

6.25

6.25

9.38

9.38

9.38

12.50

12.50

15.63

15.63

15.63

15.63

18.75

18.75

18.75

18.75

21.88

21.88

25.00

28.13

28.13

31.25

0 20 40 60 80 100

Kerry Group

Corn Products Inc.


JBS

McCormick & Co

Olam International

BRF-Brasil Foods

Tyson Foods


ConAgra Foods

Hillshire Brands.

Saputo

J. M. Smuckers

Bunge

General Mills

Dean Foods

Hershey

Kellogg

Nestlé

Grupo Bimbo

Kraft Foods

Unilever

H.J. Heinz Company



Danone Group

Smith�ield Foods


Ajinomoto

Campbell Soup Co.

Environmental Performance Rankings


A+ Ajinomoto JapanA+ Campbell Soup Co. United StatesA Associated British Foods United KingdomA Smithfield Foods United StatesA- Danone Group FranceB Golden Agri-Resources SingaporeB Hormel Foods Corporation United StatesB- Grupo Bimbo MexicoB- H.J. Heinz Company United StatesB- Kraft Foods United StatesB- Unilever NetherlandsC+ Dean Foods United StatesC+ Hershey United StatesC+ Kellogg United StatesC+ Nestlé SwitzerlandC Bunge BermudaC General Mills United StatesC- Hillshire Brands. United StatesC- J. M. Smuckers United StatesC- Saputo CanadaD Archer Daniels Midland United StatesD ConAgra Foods United StatesD Tyson Foods United StatesD- BRF-Brasil Foods BrazilD- J lizarBSBD- McCormick & Co United StatesD- Olam International SingaporeD- Wilmar International SingaporeF Corn Products Inc. United StatesF Kerry Group Ireland

31.25


0.00

15.38

26.92

30.77

30.77

30.7734.62

38.46

42.31

42.31

46.15

50.00

50.00

50.00

53.8553.85

53.85

61.54

61.54

69.23

69.23

69.23

73.08

73.08

73.08

73.08

73.08

73.08

0 20 40 60 80 100

J. M. Smuckers

JBS

BRF-Brasil Foods

Hillshire Brands.

Dean Foods

Saputo

Bunge

McCormick & Co

Corn Products Inc.

Kerry Group

Archer Daniels

Associated British

Olam International

Tyson Foods

Kraft Foods

Grupo Bimbo

Hershey

Hormel Foods

General Mills



Smith�ield Foods

Unilever

Ajinomoto

ConAgra Foods

Campbell Soup Co.

Kellogg

Nestlé

H.J. Heinz Company

Danone Group

Social Intent Rankings

A Danone Group FranceB Ajinomoto JapanB Campbell Soup Co. United StatesB ConAgra Foods United StatesB H.J. Heinz Company United StatesB Kellogg United StatesB Nestlé SwitzerlandB Golden Agri-Resources SingaporeB Smithfield Foods United StatesB Unilever NetherlandsB- General Mills United StatesB- Wilmar International SingaporeC+ Grupo Bimbo MexicoC+ Hershey United StatesC+ Hormel Foods Corporation United StatesC Kraft Foods United StatesC Olam International SingaporeC Tyson Foods United StatesC Associated British Foods United KingdomC- Archer Daniels Midland United StatesC- Kerry Group IrelandC- Corn Products Inc. United StatesD+ McCormick & Co United StatesD+ Bunge BermudaD+ Dean Foods United StatesD+ Saputo CanadaD Hillshire Brands. United StatesD- BRF-Brasil Foods BrazilF J. M. Smuckers United StatesF J lizarBSB


0.00

88.46


5.90

11.15

16.15

16.66

18.33

22.43

28.07

31.41

33.58

34.74

35.38

35.89

35.89

37.17

38.33

41.28

43.58

48.20

48.71

49.74

51.53

53.07

53.33

53.71

57.30

58.84

65.50

68.07

68.45

0 20 40 60 80 100

JBS

Saputo

McCormick & Co

General Mills

Olam International

BRF-Brasil Foods

Hillshire Brands.

Kerry Group

J. M. Smuckers

Associated British

Bunge

Archer Daniels

Dean Foods

Wilmar

Corn Products Inc.

Grupo Bimbo

ConAgra Foods

H.J. Heinz

Ajinomoto

Campbell Soup Co.

Kellogg

Hershey

Smith�ield Foods

Golden Agri-

Kraft Foods

Hormel Foods

Nestlé

Tyson Foods

Danone Group

Unilever

Social Reporting Rankings


A+ Unilever NetherlandsA Danone Group FranceA Tyson Foods United StatesA Nestlé SwitzerlandB+ Hormel Foods Corporation United StatesB+ Kraft Foods United StatesB Golden Agri-Resources SingaporeB Smithfield Foods United StatesB Hershey United StatesB Kellogg United StatesB Campbell Soup Co. United StatesB Ajinomoto JapanB- H.J. Heinz Company United StatesB- ConAgra Foods United StatesC+ Grupo Bimbo MexicoC+ Corn Products Inc. United StatesC Wilmar International SingaporeC Dean Foods United StatesC Archer Daniels Midland United StatesC Bunge BermudaC Associated British Foods United KingdomC J. M. Smuckers United StatesC- Kerry Group IrelandC- Hillshire Brands. United StatesD+ BRF-Brasil Foods BrazilD Olam International SingaporeD General Mills United StatesD- McCormick & Co United StatesD- Saputo CanadaF J lizarBSB

70.50


0.00

1.923.85

3.85

3.85

7.69

9.62

9.62

9.62

11.54

11.54

17.31

23.08

23.08

23.08

23.0825.00

25.00

26.92

26.92

30.77

30.77

30.77

32.69

34.62

34.62

34.62

36.54

44.23

0 20 40 60 80 100

JBS

Hillshire Brands.

McCormick & Co

Saputo

Olam International

General Mills

BRF-Brasil Foods

J. M. Smuckers

Dean Foods


Associated British

Ajinomoto

Corn Products Inc.

Bunge

Archer Daniels

Kerry Group

Grupo Bimbo

Hershey

Campbell Soup Co.

H.J. Heinz Company


Nestlé

Smith�ield Foods

Hormel Foods

Kellogg

Kraft Foods

ConAgra Foods

Tyson Foods

Danone Group

Unilever

Social Performance Rankings

A+ Unilever NetherlandsA Danone Group FranceB+ Tyson Foods United StatesB+ ConAgra Foods United StatesB+ Kellogg United StatesB+ Kraft Foods United StatesB Hormel Foods Corporation United StatesB Golden Agri-Resources SingaporeB Nestlé SwitzerlandB Smithfield Foods United StatesB- Campbell Soup Co. United StatesB- H.J. Heinz Company United StatesC+ Grupo Bimbo MexicoC+ Hershey United StatesC+ Archer Daniels Midland United StatesC+ Bunge BermudaC+ Corn Products Inc. United StatesC+ Kerry Group IrelandC- Ajinomoto JapanD+ Associated British Foods United KingdomD+ Wilmar International SingaporeD BRF-Brasil Foods BrazilD Dean Foods United StatesD J. M. Smuckers United StatesD General Mills United StatesD- McCormick & Co United StatesD- Olam International SingaporeD- Saputo CanadaF Hillshire Brands. United StatesF J lizarBSB


48.08


Human Rights Topics Adoption Reinforcement Monitoring Compliance

Human Rights Reporting Elements of the PSI Scores

Percent of Companies Reporting*

Anti-corruption practices 66.67% 46.67% 16.67% 3.33%

Bribery 66.67% 50.00% 16.67% 0.00%

Degrading treatment or punishment of employees

46.67% 16.67% 6.67% 3.33%

Effective abolition of child labor 70.00% 50.00% 30.00% 16.67%

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor

70.00% 46.67% 23.33% 13.33%

Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation

66.67% 36.67% 16.67% 10.00%

Fair compensation of employees 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 13.33%

Free association and collective bargaining of employees

70.00% 53.33% 33.33% 30.00%

Political contributions 56.67% 40.00% 13.33% 3.33%

Reasonable working hours 40.00% 16.67% 10.00% 3.33%

Sexual harassment 66.67% 46.67% 20.00% 0.00%

We assign one point for adoption of a policy standard or for an explicit discussion of an organization’s stance on each of 11 human rights principles.

Adoption

We assign one point for a description of reinforcement actions to make a policy stronger, such as providing educational programs, training, or other activities to promote awareness.

Reinforcement

We assign one point for a description of monitoring measures including mechanisms to detect violations at an early stage, providing systematic reporting, or establishment of committee structure to oversee risky activities.

Monitoring

We assign one point for a quantitative indication of compliance, such as a description of incidences of failure of compliance, or a statement that there were no such incidences.

Compliance

Basis of Scores


Average Overall, Environmental, and Social PSI Scores Performance by Country

Bermuda

Bermuda

Bermuda

Brazil

Brazil

Brazil

Canada

Canada

Canada

France

France

France

Ireland

Ireland

Ireland

Japan

Japan

Japan

Mexico

Mexico

Mexico

Netherlands

Netherlands

Netherlands

Singapore

Singapore

Singapore

Switzerland

Switzerland

Switzerland

United Kingdom

United Kingdom

United Kingdom

United States

United States

United States

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Social

Environmental

Overall

This graph illustrates the average PSI in three categories--overall, environmental, and social--breakdown by countries. Since our sample size follows the world's largest companies from the Forbes list, several countries have only one company score to represent the whole country's sustainability reporting in the sector.

Country N

United States 16

United Kingdom 1

Switzerland 1Singapore 3

Netherlands 1

Mexico 1Japan 1

Ireland 1France 1

Canada 1

Brazil 2Bermuda 1


llarevOemaNynapmoCScore

Sales ($B) Log Sales Profits ($B)

Log Profits

Assets ($B)

Log Assets

Market Value

($B)

Log Market

Value

Relationship Between Overall PSI Score and Financial Indicators

Kraft Foods 42.35 54.40 1.74 3.50 0.54 93.80 1.97 67.90 1.83

Danone Group 60.94 25.00 1.40 2.20 0.34 39.40 1.60 44.80 1.65

Archer Daniels Midland 30.08 88.20 1.95 1.50 0.18 41.50 1.62 21.00 1.32

Wilmar International 31.69 43.20 1.64 1.50 0.18 39.40 1.60 25.10 1.40

General Mills 36.99 15.80 1.20 1.60 0.20 21.50 1.33 25.00 1.40

Bunge 30.70 58.70 1.77 0.90 -0.05 23.30 1.37 9.90 1.00

Associated British Foods 37.69 17.20 1.24 0.80 -0.10 15.70 1.20 14.90 1.17

Kellogg 47.85 13.20 1.12 1.20 0.08 11.90 1.08 18.80 1.27

H.J. Heinz Company 48.76 11.50 1.06 1.00 0.00 12.00 1.08 17.10 1.23

BRF-Brasil Foods 12.34 13.70 1.14 0.50 -0.30 15.40 1.19 18.20 1.26

JBS 5.90 33.10 1.52 0.00 0.00 25.40 1.40 13.70 1.14

ConAgra Foods 45.87 12.80 1.11 0.70 -0.15 11.50 1.06 10.90 1.04

Tyson Foods 38.82 33.00 1.52 0.60 -0.22 11.20 1.05 7.30 0.86

Ajinomoto 50.16 14.50 1.16 0.40 -0.40 12.90 1.11 8.00 0.90

Golden Agri-Resources 46.51 5.80 0.76 1.20 0.08 11.80 1.07 7.20 0.86

Hillshire Brands. 15.09 9.00 0.95 0.50 -0.30 8.20 0.91 12.70 1.10

Campbell Soup Co. 50.82 7.70 0.89 0.80 -0.10 6.70 0.83 10.40 1.02

Grupo Bimbo 36.27 9.60 0.98 0.40 -0.40 9.50 0.98 10.90 1.04

Hershey 44.27 6.10 0.79 0.60 -0.22 4.40 0.64 13.60 1.13

Hormel Foods Corporation 41.12 8.00 0.90 0.50 -0.30 4.30 0.63 7.60 0.88

J. M. Smuckers 19.59 5.40 0.73 0.50 -0.30 9.20 0.96 8.70 0.94

Smithfield Foods 50.26 13.00 1.11 0.40 -0.40 7.10 0.85 3.70 0.57

Corn Products Inc. 25.38 6.20 0.79 0.40 -0.40 5.30 0.72 4.30 0.63

Saputo 15.06 6.60 0.82 0.50 -0.30 3.70 0.57 8.60 0.93

Dean Foods 31.30 13.10 1.12 0.00 0.00 5.80 0.76 2.20 0.34

McCormick & Co 14.23 3.70 0.57 0.40 -0.40 4.10 0.61 6.90 0.84

Kerry Group 24.45 6.90 0.84 0.50 -0.30 6.80 0.83 8.00 0.90

Olam International 22.75 12.90 1.11 0.40 -0.40 10.20 1.01 4.60 0.66

Nestlé 48.27 89.20 1.95 10.10 1.00 119.40 2.08 205.40 2.31

Unilever 50.28 60.20 1.78 5.50 0.74 61.50 1.79 102.40 2.01


Log MarketValue #Name?

R2 = 0.0463

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

0 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2 .5

Log Sales ($B)

Ove

rall

PSI S

core

s

R2 = 0.0767

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

0 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2 .5

Log Assets ($B)

Ove

rall

PSI S

core

s


R2 = 0.1794

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

- 0 .6 - 0 .4 - 0 .2 0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 1 1.2

Log Profits ($B)

Ove

rall

PSI S

core

s

R2 = 0.1055

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

0 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2 .5

Log Market Value ($B)

Ove

rall

PSI S

core

s


73

107

27

1446

46

4155

3565

166

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Wilmar InternationalUnilever

Tyson FoodsSmithfield Foods

NestléMcCormick & Co

Kraft FoodsKerry Group

KelloggJ. M. Smuckers

Hormel Foods CorporationHershey

H.J. Heinz CompanyGrupo Bimbo

Golden Agri-ResourcesGeneral MillsDean Foods

Danone GroupConAgra Foods

Campbell Soup Co.Bunge

Associated British FoodsArcher Daniels Midland

Ajinomoto

Number of Explicit Numerical Goals Reported

Topics reported: Companies reporting: Energy used (total) Archer Daniels MidlandCampbell Soup Co.Danone GroupDean FoodsGeneral MillsGrupo BimboH.J. Heinz CompanyHormel Foods CorporationKelloggKraft FoodsMcCormick & CoNestlé


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Energy used (total) Smithfield FoodsFood Waste Danone GroupNestléGreenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total AjinomotoBungeConAgra FoodsDanone GroupDean FoodsGeneral MillsGrupo BimboH.J. Heinz CompanyHersheyHormel Foods CorporationJ. M. SmuckersKelloggKerry GroupKraft FoodsNestléSmithfield FoodsTyson FoodsUnileverWilmar InternationalIndigenous people Tyson FoodsLost workday case rate AjinomotoArcher Daniels MidlandBungeCampbell Soup Co.Kraft FoodsSmithfield FoodsNotices of violation (environmental) Smithfield FoodsRecordable incident/accident rate Ajinomoto


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Recordable incident/accident rate Archer Daniels MidlandBungeCampbell Soup Co.Grupo BimboH.J. Heinz CompanyJ. M. SmuckersKraft FoodsNestléSmithfield FoodsUnileverReforestation ConAgra FoodsGeneral MillsKraft FoodsNestléWilmar InternationalRenewable energy used Campbell Soup Co.H.J. Heinz CompanyUnileverSocial community investment Hormel Foods CorporationSmithfield FoodsWaste (hazardous) produced Smithfield FoodsUnileverWaste (hazardous) released to the environment Smithfield FoodsWaste (office) recycled UnileverWaste (solid) disposed of AjinomotoArcher Daniels MidlandAssociated British FoodsBungeConAgra FoodsDean Foods


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Waste (solid) disposed of General MillsGolden Agri-ResourcesH.J. Heinz CompanyHersheyHormel Foods CorporationJ. M. SmuckersKelloggKraft FoodsMcCormick & CoNestléSmithfield FoodsUnileverWaste recycled: solid waste AjinomotoArcher Daniels MidlandCampbell Soup Co.ConAgra FoodsDean FoodsHersheyHormel Foods CorporationWater used AjinomotoArcher Daniels MidlandBungeCampbell Soup Co.ConAgra FoodsDean FoodsGeneral MillsGrupo BimboH.J. Heinz CompanyHersheyHormel Foods CorporationJ. M. SmuckersKelloggKraft FoodsNestléSmithfield Foods


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Water used Tyson FoodsUnilever


135

1241

91

911

15

84

810

68

5711

310

166

39

69

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Wilmar InternationalUnilever

Tyson FoodsSmithfield Foods

SaputoOlam International

NestléMcCormick & Co

Kraft FoodsKellogg

JBSJ. M. Smuckers

Hormel Foods CorporationHillshire Brands.

HersheyH.J. Heinz Company

Grupo BimboGolden Agri-Resources

General MillsDean Foods

Danone GroupCorn Products Inc.

ConAgra FoodsCampbell Soup Co.

BungeBRF-Brasil Foods


Ajinomoto

Number of Topics Showing Performance Improvement Over Previous Year Data

Topics reported: Companies reporting: Access to health care for employees UnileverCommunity development Archer Daniels MidlandCampbell Soup Co.ConAgra FoodsGeneral MillsKelloggKraft FoodsOlam InternationalSmithfield FoodsUnilever


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Community education Campbell Soup Co.NestléTyson FoodsUnileverWilmar InternationalEmployee satisfaction surveys Associated British FoodsDanone GroupKelloggSmithfield FoodsUnileverEmployee turnover rate ConAgra FoodsDanone GroupGolden Agri-ResourcesTyson FoodsEmployee volunteerism BRF-Brasil FoodsCampbell Soup Co.ConAgra FoodsKraft FoodsSmithfield FoodsEnergy used (total) AjinomotoArcher Daniels MidlandAssociated British FoodsCampbell Soup Co.ConAgra FoodsDanone GroupGeneral MillsGrupo BimboH.J. Heinz CompanyHillshire Brands.J. M. SmuckersKelloggKraft FoodsSaputo


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Energy used (total) Smithfield FoodsUnileverEnvironmental expenses and investments AjinomotoCampbell Soup Co.Danone GroupFines (environmental) Associated British FoodsGolden Agri-ResourcesH.J. Heinz CompanyHersheyFood Waste KelloggGreen food purchasing Associated British FoodsCampbell Soup Co.Kraft FoodsGreen transportation initiatives AjinomotoGreenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total Associated British FoodsBungeCampbell Soup Co.Danone GroupDean FoodsGeneral MillsGolden Agri-ResourcesHersheyHormel Foods CorporationJ. M. SmuckersKelloggKraft FoodsNestléSmithfield FoodsUnileverHealth and safety citations AjinomotoLost workday case rate


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Lost workday case rate Archer Daniels MidlandConAgra FoodsCorn Products Inc.Danone GroupDean FoodsHersheyJ. M. SmuckersKelloggKraft FoodsNestléSaputoSmithfield FoodsWilmar InternationalNotices of violation (environmental) Associated British FoodsGolden Agri-ResourcesGrupo BimboH.J. Heinz CompanyHersheyHormel Foods CorporationOccupational health and safety protection AjinomotoArcher Daniels MidlandBRF-Brasil FoodsBungeCampbell Soup Co.ConAgra FoodsCorn Products Inc.Danone GroupDean FoodsGolden Agri-ResourcesGrupo BimboH.J. Heinz CompanyHersheyHormel Foods CorporationKelloggKraft Foods


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Occupational health and safety protection NestléSmithfield FoodsUnileverWilmar InternationalRecordable incident/accident rate Archer Daniels MidlandAssociated British FoodsBRF-Brasil FoodsCampbell Soup Co.ConAgra FoodsCorn Products Inc.Danone GroupDean FoodsH.J. Heinz CompanyHersheyHillshire Brands.Hormel Foods CorporationJ. M. SmuckersKelloggNestléSaputoSmithfield FoodsTyson FoodsUnileverRenewable energy used Associated British FoodsH.J. Heinz CompanyUnileverSocial community investment Campbell Soup Co.ConAgra FoodsHormel Foods CorporationKelloggSmithfield FoodsSustainable agriculture AjinomotoArcher Daniels Midland


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Sustainable agriculture BungeCampbell Soup Co.Golden Agri-ResourcesH.J. Heinz CompanyNestléUnileverWaste (hazardous) produced BungeWaste (hazardous) released to the environment Smithfield FoodsWaste (office) recycled Campbell Soup Co.Smithfield FoodsWaste (solid) disposed of AjinomotoAssociated British FoodsBungeCampbell Soup Co.ConAgra FoodsDanone GroupDean FoodsGeneral MillsGrupo BimboH.J. Heinz CompanyHersheyHillshire Brands.Hormel Foods CorporationKelloggKraft FoodsNestléTyson FoodsUnileverWaste recycled: solid waste AjinomotoCampbell Soup Co.Danone Group


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Waste recycled: solid waste Dean FoodsGolden Agri-ResourcesGrupo BimboHormel Foods CorporationWater used AjinomotoBungeCampbell Soup Co.Dean FoodsGeneral MillsGolden Agri-ResourcesGrupo BimboH.J. Heinz CompanyHersheyHillshire Brands.Hormel Foods CorporationJ. M. SmuckersJBSKelloggKraft FoodsMcCormick & CoNestléSaputoSmithfield FoodsTyson FoodsUnileverWilmar InternationalWomen in management Campbell Soup Co.ConAgra FoodsDanone GroupH.J. Heinz CompanyNestléUnileverWilmar International


1

5

1

1

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

1

1

3

1

2

1

4

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

UnileverTyson Foods

Smithfield FoodsSaputo

Olam InternationalNestlé

Kraft FoodsKerry Group

KelloggHormel Foods Corporation

H.J. Heinz CompanyGrupo Bimbo

Golden Agri-ResourcesDanone Group

Corn Products Inc.ConAgra Foods

Campbell Soup Co.BRF-Brasil Foods


Ajinomoto

Number of Topics in which Performance was Better than Sector Average*

Topics reported: Companies reporting: Energy used (total) Campbell Soup Co.Hormel Foods CorporationEnvironmental expenses and investments AjinomotoAssociated British FoodsCampbell Soup Co.Danone GroupNestléOlam InternationalSaputoSmithfield Foods


Topics reported: Companies reporting: Reforestation Grupo BimboSmithfield FoodsRenewable energy used AjinomotoAssociated British FoodsBRF-Brasil FoodsDanone GroupGolden Agri-ResourcesNestléSmithfield FoodsUnileverSocial community investment AjinomotoArcher Daniels MidlandCampbell Soup Co.ConAgra FoodsCorn Products Inc.Golden Agri-ResourcesH.J. Heinz CompanyHormel Foods CorporationKelloggKerry GroupKraft FoodsSmithfield FoodsTyson FoodsWaste (office) recycled AjinomotoSmithfield Foods


B+

Environmental Grade: A++Social Grade: B-

Overall Grade: B+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA S46% E

54%

Comparison with sector averages Source of points Distribution of pointsE=Total Environmental Score, ESA=Environmental Sector Average Score, EI=Environmental Intent, ER=Environmental Reporting, EP=Environmental Performance, S=Total Social Score, SSA=Social Sector Average Score, SI=Social Intent, SR=Social Reporting, SP=Social Performance

EI SI ER SR EP SP

A jinomoto

78 735 7 49

3 117

Sustainability Management Topics

Ajinomoto

Topics Percent Coverage Genetically modified food 100

Locally grown organic food 0

Zero Waste Policy 0

Environmental visionary statement 100

Environmental impediments and challenges 100

Environmental policy statement 100

Climate change/global warming 100

Habitat/ecosystem conservation 100

Biodiversity 100

Green purchasing 100

Environmental education 100

Environmental management structure 50

Environmental management system 100

Environmental accounting 100

Stakeholder consultation 100

Social visionary statement 100

Social impediments and challenges 100

Social policy statement 100

Code of conduct or business ethics 0


Environmental Topics

Social and Human Rights Topics

Supplier screening based on social or environmental performance/ supplier management

100

Health and safety, or social organizational structure 50

Workforce profile: age 50

Workforce profile: gender 50

Workforce profile: ethnicities/race 0

Emergency preparedness program 100

Third-party validation 100

Employment for individuals with disabilities 100

Employee training for career development 100

Report contact person 0

Topics Percent Coverage Food Waste 29

Green food purchasing 20

Green transportation initiatives 100

Reforestation 14

Energy used (total) 71

Renewable energy used 57

Water used 86

Waste recycled: solid waste 86

Waste (office) recycled 43

Waste (solid) disposed of 86

Waste (hazardous) produced 0

Waste (hazardous) released to the environment 0

Notices of violation (environmental) 43

Environmental expenses and investments 86

Fines (environmental) 0

Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total 71


Topics Percent Coverage Access to health care for employees 40

Indigenous people 0

Sustainable agriculture 60

Anti-corruption practices 0

Bribery 0

Political contributions 0

Degrading treatment or punishment of employees 14


14

Free association and collective bargaining of employees 14

Fair compensation of employees 0

Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor 50

Reasonable working hours 14

Effective abolition of child labor 50

Community development 40

Employee satisfaction surveys 0

Community education 40

Occupational health and safety protection 60

Employee volunteerism 40

Recordable incident/accident rate 71

Lost workday case rate 71

Health and safety citations 29

Health and safety fines 0

Social community investment 43

Employee turnover rate 29

Women in management 60

Sexual harassment 50


C

Environmental Grade: CSocial Grade: C

Overall Grade: C

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAS

55%

E45%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

A rcher DanielsMidland

5 642

2 036

623





Zero Waste Policy 0





Biodiversity 100














100














Reforestation 0



Water used 43











Social and Human Rights TopicsTopics Percent Coverage Indigenous people 0



Bribery 0




0


















Sexual harassment 0

Access to health care for employees 80


B-

Environmental Grade: A-Social Grade: C-

Overall Grade: B-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAS

40%E

60%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

A ssoc iatedBritish Foods

7 246 3 8 35 28

1 2





Zero Waste Policy 50






Biodiversity 100

Green purchasing 0














100













Reforestation 0



Water used 29












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 50




0




















D-

Environmental Grade: D-Social Grade: D-

Overall Grade: D-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

S63%

E37%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

BRF-Bras ilFoods

16 1 59

2 2

310


BRF-Brasil Foods



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0














100













Reforestation 0



Water used 0












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 0




14


















Sexual harassment 0


C

Environmental Grade: B-Social Grade: C-

Overall Grade: C

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA S48%

E52%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Bunge

50

31 35 3 5

132 3


Bunge



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 100















100













Reforestation 14



Water used 71












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 0




14




















A-

Environmental Grade: A+Social Grade: B

Overall Grade: A-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA S48%

E52%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Campbell SoupCo.

7 8 735 0 50

31 27


Campbell Soup Co.



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 50















100













Reforestation 0



Water used 86












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 14




14




















B+

Environmental Grade: B+Social Grade: B

Overall Grade: B+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAS

54%

E46%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

ConA gra Foods

7 8 7344 44

6

35


ConAgra Foods









Biodiversity 0















100













Reforestation 29



Water used 71












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 0




0


















Sexual harassment 0


C-

Environmental Grade: D+Social Grade: C

Overall Grade: C-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

S64%

E36%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Corn Produc tsInc .

4 4 38

1 1

38

0

23


Corn Products Inc.



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 0















50













Reforestation 0



Water used 29












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 14




14


















Sexual harassment 0


A+

Environmental Grade: A++Social Grade: A

Overall Grade: A+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAS

54%

E46%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Danone Group

9 4 8 8

5 168

2 544


Danone Group








Biodiversity 100














100














Reforestation 14



Water used 57














Bribery 0




64





















C

Environmental Grade: BSocial Grade: D+

Overall Grade: C

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAS

40%E

60%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Dean Foods

59

31 40 3 616 1 0


Dean Foods









Biodiversity 100















0













Reforestation 0



Water used 71












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 14




14




















B-

Environmental Grade: A-Social Grade: C-

Overall Grade: B-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

S38%

E62%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

General Mills

8 162

44

1 7 13 8


General Mills



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 50















100













Reforestation 43



Water used 86












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 0




0


















Sexual harassment 0


B+

Environmental Grade: B+Social Grade: B

Overall Grade: B+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAS

54%

E46%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Golden A gri-Resources

6 9 69

3954

2 2 31











Biodiversity 100

Green purchasing 0














100













Reforestation 43



Water used 57












Indigenous people 14



Bribery 14




0




















C+

Environmental Grade: B-Social Grade: C+

Overall Grade: C+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAS

54%

E46%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Grupo Bimbo50 54

32 4 11 9 25


Grupo Bimbo



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 50















100













Reforestation 57



Water used 57












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 14




14




















B+

Environmental Grade: ASocial Grade: B

Overall Grade: B+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA S50%

E50%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

H.J. HeinzCompany

81 73

4 9 48

1 9 27


H.J. Heinz Company









Biodiversity 0















100













Reforestation 0



Water used 86












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 14




14




















B

Environmental Grade: A-Social Grade: B-

Overall Grade: B

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA S49%

E51%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Hershey

785 4 45 53

1625


Hershey









Biodiversity 100















100













Reforestation 29



Water used 57















Bribery 14




14




















D

Environmental Grade: D-Social Grade: D

Overall Grade: D

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

S62%

E38%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Hillshire Brands .9

27

15

28

92


Hillshire Brands.



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0














100













Reforestation 0



Water used 43












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 14




14




















B-

Environmental Grade: B-Social Grade: B-

Overall Grade: B-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

S58%

E42%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Hormel FoodsCorporation

415 4

4 15 9

22 33





Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 0















100













Reforestation 0



Water used 86












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 50




64




















D+

Environmental Grade: CSocial Grade: D-

Overall Grade: D+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

S36%

E64%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

J. M. Smuckers

5 0

0

1 8

3 4

9 10


J. M. Smuckers



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 0















0













Reforestation 0



Water used 43












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 14




0


















Sexual harassment 0


F

Environmental Grade: D-Social Grade: F

Overall Grade: F

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

E


EI SI ER SR EP SP

JBS

19

0

96

30


JBS



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0














0













Reforestation 0



Water used 29












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 0




0


















Sexual harassment 0


B+

Environmental Grade: A-Social Grade: B

Overall Grade: B+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAS

55%

E45%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Kellogg

72 73

45 5 2

163 5


Kellogg









Biodiversity 50















100













Reforestation 29



Water used 86












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 14




14




















B+

Environmental Grade: A-Social Grade: B

Overall Grade: B+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAS

55%

E45%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Kellogg

72 73

45 5 2

163 5


Kellogg









Biodiversity 50















100













Reforestation 29



Water used 86












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 14




14




















C-

Environmental Grade: D+Social Grade: C-

Overall Grade: C-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

S65%

E35%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Kerry Group

44 4 2

9

3 1

0

23


Kerry Group



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 50














100













Reforestation 0



Water used 14












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 14




14




















B

Environmental Grade: BSocial Grade: B-

Overall Grade: B

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESAS

55%

E45%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Kraf t Foods

6 950

29

57

1935


Kraft Foods








Biodiversity 100














100














Reforestation 43



Water used 57














Bribery 14




14





















D

Environmental Grade: D-Social Grade: D

Overall Grade: D

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

S63%

E37%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

McCormick & Co1 9

35

101 6

3 4


McCormick & Co



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0














100













Reforestation 0



Water used 29












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 14




0


















Sexual harassment 0


B+

Environmental Grade: B+Social Grade: B+

Overall Grade: B+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

S58%

E42%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Nes tlé

6 3 73

4666

1631


Nestlé



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 100

Green purchasing 0














100













Reforestation 29



Water used 86















Bribery 50




50




















C-

Environmental Grade: C-Social Grade: D+

Overall Grade: C-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA S52%

E48%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

OlamInternational

50 50

14 18

3 4


Olam International



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 100

Green purchasing 0














100













Reforestation 14



Water used 14















Bribery 0




0


















Sexual harassment 0


D

Environmental Grade: DSocial Grade: D-

Overall Grade: D

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA S50%

E50%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Saputo

2 531

12 1 1 94


Saputo



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0














100













Reforestation 0



Water used 29












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 0




0




















B+

Environmental Grade: ASocial Grade: B

Overall Grade: B+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA S50%

E50%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Smithf ield Foods

69 695 5 53

2 8 31


Smithfield Foods









Biodiversity 100















100













Reforestation 43



Water used 71












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 14




14




















B-

Environmental Grade: CSocial Grade: B

Overall Grade: B-

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

S66%

E34%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Tyson Foods4 7 50

2 8

6 8

6

3 7


Tyson Foods



Zero Waste Policy 0






Biodiversity 0

Green purchasing 0














100













Reforestation 0



Water used 71















Bribery 50




50




















B+

Environmental Grade: BSocial Grade: A-

Overall Grade: B+

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

S61%

E39%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

Unilever

69 69

3 0

71

19

4 8


Unilever









Biodiversity 100















100













Reforestation 29



Water used 71












Indigenous people 0



Bribery 50




64




















C

Environmental Grade: C+Social Grade: C

Overall Grade: C

0 2 5 50 75 10 0

E

ESA

S57%

E43%


EI SI ER SR EP SP

WilmarInternational

63 62

183 7

3 12





Zero Waste Policy 0





Biodiversity 100

Green purchasing 0













100














Reforestation 29



Water used 57














Bribery 14




14


















Sexual harassment 0



EI4Report contact person

-Discussion: identifies the person specifically designated to answer questions about the report or sustainability issues. Investor relations or public relations contact representatives are not valid contacts for this question. -Initiatives/actions: to facilitate such contact, i.e. providing email address, phone number, or a link for feedback and questions.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

1

Links:

5Environmental visionary statement

-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational commitment to good environmental performance. -Initiatives/actions: include measures to fulfill that commitment.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

2

Links:

6Environmental impediments and challenges

-Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in attempting to realize its environmental vision and commitments.-Initiatives/actions: include measures to overcome them.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

3

Links:

9Environmental policy statement

-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the organization's environmental policy or plan.-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being implemented.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

4

Links:

Appendix 1: PSI Questionnaire, Page 1 of 20www.roberts.cmc.edu 130 Sustainability Reporting of the World's

Largest Food Processing Companies

10Climate change/global warming

-Discussion: of the organization's position on climate change and/or global warming.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken by the organization to decrease its contribution to climate change.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

5

Links:

11Habitat/ecosystem conservation

-Discussion: of the organization's position on conserving natural ecosystems and habitat.-Initiatives/actions: taken to increase conservation of natural ecosystems either associated with or separate from the organization's business activities.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

6

Links:

12Biodiversity

-Discussion: of the organization's position on biodiversity.-Initiatives/actions: taken by to the organization to foster biodiversity.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

7

Links:

13Green purchasing

-Discussion: about preferential purchasing of eco-friendly (non-polluting, recycled, recyclable, etc.) products.-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such purchasing.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

8

Links:

16Environmental education

-Discussion: of efforts to promote environmental education and awareness of employees, the general public, or children.-Initiatives/actions: taken to provide such education.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

9

Links:

19Environmental management structure

-Discussion: of the organization's environmental management structure or staffing.-Initiatives/actions: include identification of individuals currently holding the staff positions.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

10

Links:



20Environmental management system

-Discussion: includes a statement of adoption of ISO 14001 or other formal environmental management system. -Initiatives/actions: include information on the extent to which the system has been implemented.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

11

Links:

21Environmental accounting

-Discussion: of environmental expenditures.-Initiatives/actions: include detailed accounting of such expenditures.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

12

Links:

23Stakeholder consultation

-Discussion: of consultation and dialogue with stakeholders about the organization's environmental aspects or impacts.-Initiatives/actions: include identification of specific consultation activities.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

13

Links:

207Genetically modified food

Discussion of the company's position or policy on genetically modified food

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

14

Links:

303Zero Waste Policy

-Discussion: the city has adopted a formal Zero Waste plan-Initiatives/actions: the plan has resulted in a decrease in the city's volume of waste going to landfills and incinerators.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

15

Links:

316Locally grown organic food

-Discussion: the company has implemented a program to encourage the use of locally grown organic food-Initiatives/actions: the company has a numerical goal for the percentage of locally grown organic foods used and a stated time frame for achieving it.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

16

Links:



SI17Workforce profile: ethnicities/race

-Discussion: of racial or ethnic distribution of workforce.-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid racial or ethnic discrimination.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

1

Links:

18Workforce profile: gender

-Discussion: of gender distribution of workforce.-Initiatives/actions: taken to avoid gender discrimination and achieve appropriate balance

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

2

Links:

42Social visionary statement

-Discussion: includes a clear visionary statement expressing an organizational commitment to good social performance.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to fulfill that commitment.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

3

Links:

43Social impediments and challenges

Discussion: of impediments and challenges faced by the organization in attempting to realize its social vision and commitments.Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to overcome them.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

4

Links:

45Social policy statement

-Discussion: includes a formal statement of the company's social policy or plan.-Initiatives/actions: include a description of how the policy is being implemented.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

5

Links:



47Code of conduct or business ethics

-Discussion: includes a formal organizational code of conduct or of ethical behavior.-Initiatives/actions: include measures to assure that the code of conduct is followed.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

6

Links:

49Supplier screening based on social or environmental performance/ supplier management

-Discussion: or description of procedures to evaluate and select suppliers on their ability to meet the requirements of the company's social or environmental policy and principles.-Initiatives/actions: include measures to implement or assure such screening or selection.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

7

Links:

51Health and safety, or social organizational structure

-Discussion: of organizational structure or staffing for ensuring health and safety or social responsibility.-Initiatives/actions: include identification of the individuals currently holding the staff positions.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

8

Links:

52Workforce profile: age

-Discussion: of age distribution of workforce.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to avoid age discrimination or to encourage a balanced age structure.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

9

Links:

53Emergency preparedness program

-Discussion: of emergency preparedness programs to prepare employees or the public to cope with potential emergencies at the organization's facilities.-Initiatives/actions: include measures taken to implement such programs.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

10

Links:



54Third-party validation

-Discussion: of the value (or lack thereof) of third-party auditing or validation. -Initiatives/actions: include formal auditing or validation by a qualified external third-party source.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

11

Links:

80Employment for individuals with disabilities

-Discussion: of appropriate actions to accommodate employees with disabilities.-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such accommodations.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

12

Links:

82Employee training for career development

-Discussion: of training, skills and learning programs appropriate to support employees' upward mobility.-Initiatives/actions: taken to implement such training.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

13

Links:

ER

Programs to encourage carpooling, mass transit or other reductions in total commuting.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context

Improvement Over Previous

163Green transportation initiatives1

Links:

Amount of food purchases come from local or organic sources, sustainable farms, or sustainable fisheries.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


166Green food purchasing2

Links:

ER



Efforts to plant trees to restore a natural ecosystem of a disturbed forest

Discussion

Context

Goal

Current Period Quantitative Dat

Previous Quantitative Data


186Reforestation1

Year Data Values Units

Links:

Disposal of food material

Discussion

Context

Goal




228Food Waste2


Links:



The sum of all greenhouse gases released, which could include CO2, CH4 (methane), N2O (nitrous oxide), SF6 (Sulphur hexafluoride), PFCs (Perfluorocarbons) and HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons).

Discussion

Context

Goal




83Greenhouse gases (or CO2 equivalents), total3


Links:

Government imposed fines for environmental infractions.

Discussion

Context

Goal




40Fines (environmental)4


Links:



An accounting of money spent or invested specifically to decrease environmental damage or to benefit the environment.

Discussion

Context

Goal




39Environmental expenses and investments5


Links:

Notices of violation (NOVs) for environmental infractions.

Discussion

Context

Goal




38Notices of violation (environmental)6


Links:



Amounts of hazardous materials released into the environment, total (TRI, PRTR, HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices), may include mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality of the organization, this could be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory), "substance releases," or something else.

Discussion

Context

Goal




37Waste (hazardous) released to the environment7


Links:

Sum of all hazardous materials remaining after production, irrespective of final disposition. Hazardous wastes include items identified as TRI, PRTR, HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutants), and similar indices, and may include mercury or lead. Depending on the nationality of the organization, this could be labeled "TRI" (Toxic Release Inventory,) "substance releases" , or something else.

Discussion

Context

Goal




35Waste (hazardous) produced8


Links:



Includes solid hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfilled, incinerated, or transferred.

Discussion

Context

Goal




34Waste (solid) disposed of9


Links:

Office recycling of paper, cardboard, metal, or plastic.

Discussion

Context

Goal




32Waste (office) recycled10


Links:



Sum of all solid waste recycled, including hazardous waste.

Discussion

Context

Goal




30Waste recycled: solid waste11


Links:

Sum of all water used during operations.

Discussion

Context

Goal




29Water used12


Links:



Energy used from renewable sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, or other renewable sources.

Discussion

Context

Goal




27Renewable energy used13


Links:

Sum of the energy used by the organization in all different forms, including electricity, fuel, natural gas and others.

Discussion

Context

Goal




26Energy used (total)14


Links:

SR

Efforts to promote sustainable agriculture programs

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


272Sustainable agriculture1

Links:



Efforts to provide access to employees, especially those who are working off-shores

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


185Access to health care for employees2

Links:

Relative numbers of women in management.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


2Women in management3

Links:

Efforts to promote employee volunteerism in social or environmental projects.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


72Employee volunteerism4

Links:

Efforts to provide a safe and healthy working environment at all sites.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


70Occupational health and safety protection5

Links:

Efforts to support education in the communities where the company is located.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


68Community education6

Links:

Surveys to monitor employee satisfaction.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


67Employee satisfaction surveys7

Links:



Efforts to participate in social activities that improve the quality of life of communities including that of indigenous people, where the organization operates.

Discussion

Initiatives/Actions

Context


66Community development8

Links:

SR

Total number of operations in or adjacent to Indigenous Peoples' territories, and number and percentage of operations or sites where there are formal agreements with Indigenous Peoples' communities.

Discussion

Context

Goal




279Indigenous people1


Links:

Annual employee turnover rate.

Discussion

Context

Goal




3Employee turnover rate2


Links:



Amount of money spent on community outreach, including education grants, donations, and relief effort funds.

Discussion

Context

Goal




81Social community investment3


Links:

Fines levied against a company for health and safety violations.

Discussion

Context

Goal




77Health and safety fines4


Links:



Number of health and safety citations or notices of violation. If it is stated that there were none, check lines 1,2,3, 4, and 6.

Discussion

Context

Goal




76Health and safety citations5


Links:

Number of employee injuries or illnesses that resulted in one or more lost workdays.

Discussion

Context

Goal




75Lost workday case rate6


Links:



Number of employee incidents or accidents, such as: “total case incident rate,” “incident rate,” or "accident rate."

Discussion

Context

Goal




74Recordable incident/accident rate7


Links:

SR

Rejection of any form of sexual harassment.

Adoption of PolicyAction to Reinforce Policy

Monitoring

Quantiative Indication of Compliance

1Sexual harassment1

Links:

Rejection of illegal child labor by the company or its affiliates.


Monitoring


65Effective abolition of child labor2

Links:

Compliance with applicable laws and industry standards on working hours, including overtime.


Monitoring


64Reasonable working hours3

Links:



Assurance that all employees enter employment with the company of their own free will, not by compulsion.


Monitoring


63Elimination of all forms of forced and compulsory labor

4

Links:

Assurance that wages paid meet or exceed legal or industry minimum standard.


Monitoring


62Fair compensation of employees5

Links:

Efforts to respect the right of employees to form and join trade unions of their choice and to bargain collectively.


Monitoring


61Free association and collective bargaining of employees

6

Links:

Commitment not to engage in any kind of discrimination based on ethnicity, caste, religion, disability, sex, age, sexual orientation, union membership, or political affiliation in hiring practices or employee treatment.


Monitoring


60Elimination of discrimination in respect to employment and occupation

7

Links:

Commitment to oppose any corporal/hard labor punishment, mental/physical coercion, or verbal abuse.


Monitoring


59Degrading treatment or punishment of employees8

Links:



Policy about political contributions.


Monitoring


7Political contributions9

Links:

Rejection of bribery


Monitoring


8Bribery10

Links:

Efforts to uphold the highest standards of business ethics and integrity. May be found under a Code of Conduct.


Monitoring


58Anti-corruption practices11

Links:



Ajinomoto, Archer Daniels Midland,Associated British Foods, BRF-Brasil F o o d s , B u n g e , C a m p b e l l S o u p , C o n A g r a F o o d s , C o r n P r o d u c t s International, Danone, Dean Foods, General Mills, Golden Agri-Resources, Grupo Bimbo, Hershey, Hillshire Brands, HJ Heinz, Hormel Foods, J. M.Smuckers, JBS, Kellogg, Kerry Group, Kraft Foods, McCormick & Co, Nestlé, Olam International, Saputo, SmithfieldFoods, Tyson Foods, Unilever, andW i l m a r I n t e r n a t i o n a l

Contact InformationContact Information

Roberts Environmental CenterRoberts Environmental Center

The Roberts Environmental Center is a research institute at Claremont McKenna College, endowed by George R. Roberts, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. The Center is managed by faculty and staff, and its research, including the material in this report, is done by students at the Claremont Colleges.

Dr. J. Emil Morhardt, Director, Phone: 909-621-8190, email: [email protected] Adidjaja, Research Fellow, Phone: 909-621-8698, email: [email protected] Environmental Center, Claremont McKenna College, 925 N. Mills Avenue, Claremont, CA 91711-5916, USA.

Claremont McKenna College, a member of the Claremont Colleges, is a highly selective, independent, coeducational, residential, undergraduate liberal arts college with a curricular emphasis on economics, government, and public affairs.

Claremont McKenna CollegeClaremont McKenna College

The Claremont CollegesThe Claremont CollegesThe Claremont Colleges form a consortium of five undergraduate liberal arts colleges and two graduate institutions based on the Oxford/Cambridge model. The consortium offers students diverse opportunities and resources typically found only at much larger universities. The consortium members include Claremont McKenna College, Harvey Mudd College, Pitzer College, Pomona College, Scripps College, Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences, and the Clremont Graduate University which—includes the Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management.

Date post:	12-Feb-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lequynh
View:	221 times
Download:	3 times

Ajinomoto, Archer Daniels Midland, Associated British Foods BRF ...

Documents