INVESTORS WEBINAR 2016 GLOBAL ACCESS TO NUTRITION INDEX 19 JANUARY 2016

Transcription

1 INVESTORS WEBINAR 2016 GLOBAL ACCESS TO NUTRITION INDEX 19 JANUARY #ATNI2016 1

2 Speakers Lauren Compere (Managing Director, Boston Common Asset Management; Board member, Access To Nutrition Foundation) Inge Kauer (Executive Director, Access To Nutrition Foundation) Laurence Loubieres (Associate Director, Sustainalytics) 2

3 What ATNF aims to achieve our theory of change Given its size and reach, the private sector can make a significant contribution to addressing obesity and undernutrition. Provide companies a tool for benchmarking their nutrition practices ATNI seeks to Serve as an impartial source of information for interested stakeholders Stimulate dialogue and action Tool for accountability Civil society Facilitate effective advocacy Policymakers Inform regulatory and policy agenda Investors Provide context for company engagement Media Raise profile of industry role in malnutrition Academics Stimulate research on best practices Encourage improvements in companies policies, practices and performance to result in: Greater consumer access to more nutritious foods and beverages An environment facilitating the consumption of healthier foods and beverages 3

4 The global nutrition crisis is not abating imposing mounting economic and societal costs 4

5 The private sector can play a powerful role 5 and has a financial and social responsibility to act

6 Although the F&B industry is growing overall. signs are emerging that consumers want healthier products 6

7 2016 Global Index methodology Structure of 2016 methodology is the same, but it is more extensive and demanding than that of 2013 Much harder therefore for companies to score well and care is needed when comparing results from 2013 and 2016 Category (weight in total score) Description Section1: Nutrition governance and management A (10%) Corporate strategy, management and governance Criteria A1 Corporate nutrition strategy* A2 Nutrition governance and management systems* A3 Quality of reporting* Section 2: Formulating and delivering appropriate, affordable, accessible products B (25%) Formulating appropriate products B1 Product formulation* C (20%) Delivering affordable, accessible products B2 Nutrient profiling system C1 Product pricing* C2 Product distribution* Section 3: Influencing consumer choice and behavior Extensive consultations with a wide range of stakeholders underpin the changes made One new Criterion added (E2) Around 20% of the indicators are new; many others are more stretching or required more quantitative or specific data D3 & D6 (spending on marketing of healthy products by media channel) were excluded from scoring due to lack of data D (20%) E (5%) F (15%) G (5%) Responsible marketing policies, compliance and spending Supporting healthy diets and active lifestyles Product labeling and use of health and nutrition claims Influencing governments and policymakers, and stakeholder engagement D1 Responsible marketing policy: all consumers D2 Auditing and compliance with policy: all consumers D3 Spending: Advertising focus: all consumers* D4 Responsible marketing policy: children D5 Auditing and compliance with policy: children D6 Spending: Advertising focus (children) and policy impact E1 Supporting staff health & wellness E2 Supporting breastfeeding mothers in the workplace E3 Supporting consumer-oriented healthy eating and active lifestyle programs* F1 Product labeling F2 Health and nutrition claims G1 Lobbying and influencing governments and policymakers* G2 Stakeholder engagement* New, much more robust BMS methodology up to 1.5 point deduction to Global Index score for the four BMS companies. 7

8 2016 Global Index methodology 8

9 2016 Global Index methodology 9

10 Overall ranking Unilever leads the Index, with a score of 6.4 out of 10 Nestlé and Danone also remain in the top three, as in 2013 Mars (16 to 5) & FrieslandCampina (19 to 8) have improved the most Eight have risen, six fallen, five stayed the same, three new entrants. 10

11 Overall findings The world s largest food companies must step up efforts to address the global nutrition crisis investors can play a key role Some companies have made improvements but the industry as a whole is moving too slowly: the average score has only increased to 2.5 from 2.2 in the 2013 Index All companies must invest more in embedding nutrition into their global businesses To tackle obesity, they should adopt stronger nutrition strategies and policies and use robust systems to measure the nutritional value of all of their products and make their foods healthier, among other things To tackle undernutrition, they must invest within their businesses and work with governments and civil society to find innovative ways of providing affordable and accessible foods for poorer people Companies must take a global approach; US companies particularly must not just focus on their home markets, as they typically do The marketing practices of all six of the baby food manufacturers evaluated in a new element of the assessment fall short of international standards, undermining breastfeeding which is the optimal form of nutrition for infants 11

12 Key recommendations 12

13 Detailed results Detailed findings and key recommendations available in Global Index report for all Categories and BMS. Leading practice examples are highlighted to show what can be done and encourage other companies to emulate them. Detailed Global Index and separate BMS Scorecards can be downloaded. 13

14 Nutrition General 14

15 Undernutrition 15

16 Category A - Governance Clear leader: Nestlé most comprehensive nutrition and undernutrition strategy robust management system strong disclosure Strongest ranking progress: Mars, FrieslandCampina, Ajinomoto, Brasil Foods Focus on nutrition not embedded into core strategies High-level commitments not translated into global practices Poor tracking of revenues derived from healthy products Over 75% in FY2014 only for Nestlé and Danone +10% increase in sales between for Campbell and Mondelez 16 Recognition of the need to address undernutrition but strategies are lacking 15 companies unable or unwilling to provide data on sales of products formulated for the undernourished.

17 Category B - Products Unilever leads with significant margin over Nestlé Higher ranking than in 2013: FrieslandCampina, Mars and Ferrero Lower ranking: Kellogg s and ConAgra Inadequate efforts to improve products nutritional quality Nutrient Profiling system: only 13 companies report having one % of products that can be advertised to children Proxy for healthiness of product portfolio Only Danone and Unilever provided data Fortification of products to tackle undernutrition Only Ajinomoto, Danone, FrieslandCampina, Mondelez, Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Unilever have formulated a commitment 17

18 Category D - Marketing Highest-scoring Category, Danone leads. Marketing to all consumers 7 companies without evidence of a responsible marketing policy Marketing to children Most companies subscribing to selfregulatory pledges But significant gaps remain in pledges Not applied to all media Do not cover over 12s Audience threshold for children 35% Definition of marketability to children Only Kellogg, Ferrero, Danone, Nestlé and Unilever use a robust NPS 18 GLOBAL policies on responsible marketing to children and adults, applied to all channels, particularly new media, are required. No data on marketing spending on healthy products

19 Categories C, E, F and G average scores very low Category C: Accessibility and affordability Critical issue Lowest scoring Category on the Index, as in Companies expected to do much more to make healthy foods in developed and developing markets more affordable and more accessible. Category E: Support for healthy and active lifestyles Generally a low-scoring Category Employee wellness programs need to be strengthened and extended More focus needed on supporting breastfeeding mothers at work Companies need to move to supporting independently designed and implemented programs to support consumers Category F: Labelling and claims Back-of-pack labelling commitments reasonably good; generally not globally consistent and some key nutrients missed Lack of data from companies on extent of policy roll-out Focus needs to be on useful front-of-pack labelling and responsible use of health and nutrition claims. Category G: Engagement with stakeholders and policymakers Most companies engage with nutrition stakeholders but unclear whether and how they use the results to improve policies and practice Very little engagement on undernutrition Much more transparency is needed on companies lobbying activities on nutrition 19

20 Companies need to do much more on undernutrition Undernutrition remains largely neglected by companies Few have made specific commitments Little translation into action The top three companies on the Index also top the undernutrition subranking Mars and Ajinomoto show leading practice in some areas Although many companies plan to expand into emerging economies, none have integrated a commitment to undernutrition at a strategic level; they need to do much more strategy and market research Only four companies provided evidence of initiatives to formulate products specifically for the undernourished through targeted micronutrient fortification Experts urge a focus on particularly high-priority countries few companies seem to be aware of which they are - and on two key population groups: women of childbearing age and children under two, which few companies also state a focus on. 20

21 Marketing of breast-milk substitutes (What should go in this slide? Just one picture like this one:?) 21

22 BMS marketing is a central nutrition issue 22

23 Total baby food sales were c. US$50 bn in 2014 Market shares and revenues from baby foods of the world s ten largest manufacturers FY2014 global market share FY2014 baby food revenues ($m) Share of company s FY2014 revenue 1 Nestle SA 23.7% 13, % 2 Group Danone 12.3% 6, % 3 Mead Johnson Nutrition Co 10.6% 5, % 4 Abbott Laboratories Inc 7.1% 4, % 5 Royal FrieslandCampina 3.0% 1, % 6 Hangszhou Beingmate Group Co Ltd 2.2% 1, Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group Ltd 1.8% 1, Biostime International Holdings Ltd 1.8% Hipp GmbH & Co Vertrieb KG 1.4% China Mengniu Dairy Co Ltd 1.2% Source: Euromonitor 64% 36,

24 First published in-depth analysis of six major baby food companies marketing policies & practices Are baby food companies marketing breast-milk substitutes (BMS) in line with The WHO Code? We answered this question by using a robust two-part methodology developed with global experts input BMS 1: Corporate Profile Is the company s BMS marketing policy aligned with The International Code? Does the company have good procedures, training programs, incentives, auditing systems etc? Does the company publish its policies, procedures, results of audits etc? BMS 2: In-country assessment (Vietnam and Indonesia) of companies marketing practices Interviews with healthcare workers and mothers Informational posters and flyers Media monitoring (TV, print and online adverts) In-store promotions Labels 24

25 Conclusion: no companies market BMS in line with The International Code and other international standards 25

26 All companies need to make substantial improvements. 26 and governments need to adopt regulations in line with The Code, to create a level playing field for all companies, and monitor and enforce them effectively.

27 Next steps Focus for 2016 is engaging with companies to drive improvements in their performance on nutrition Investors are a critical constituency Investor meeting in NYC with ICCR: 3rd Feb Other presentations to investor groups, as requested How can ATNF best support you to engage and integrate nutrition issues into your investment analysis? Can we work together? Could we present or offer the information and/or data in a more user-friendly way? Are there other issues you would like us to cover? 27

28 Discussion 28