I am a fan of the Access to Nutrition Index
(ATNI).
ATNI collects data (including a big chunk of self-reported) from 25 of
the largest food and beverage companies in the world. This is the first report since 2013 (19 of
the 25 companies are featured in both 2013 and 2016 reports, although the
numbers are not comparable since there are many new questions).
I am a fan because, like the Global Nutrition Report, ATNI seeks to both
shine a light on practices and commitments and also to serve as a beacon on the
way forward. The index scores companies across
7 categories, with an additional breast milk substitutes (BMS) category for the
companies that derive more than 5% of their sales from baby foods.
So what are the key findings of the newly released 2016 report (the second after the first in 2013)?
The scores are pretty bad. The median score for the companies across all
7 categories (out of 10) is 2.4. The top
score is 6.4 (Unilever). Five companies scored below 1, principally because
they did not provide data to Sustainalytics the firm that conducted the data
collection for ATNI. And remember these scores don’t have to max out at 10
because this merely signifies that a company is achieving best practice against
the current state of knowledge—companies could do better than best practice.
Some categories of performance are a real problem for
the sector: accessibility (are healthy and fortified foods affordable and
accessible to those who need them most?) has an average score of 1.2 and engagement with
governments scored an average of 1.0 largely because many companies were
unwilling to disclose their activities in this area.
None of the 6 breast milk substitute companies in the
set of 25 companies (Danone, Nestle, FrieslandCampina, Heinz, Abbot and Mead
Johnson) apply their policies in all markets as recommended by the BMS
Code—instead they apply them differentially in high risk and low risk markets.
All 5 companies other than Nestle state they will follow local regulations even
if weaker than their own policies (which are weaker than the code). This is a really depressing failure of
leadership and one with potentially fatal consequences for children.
None of the companies have integrated undernutrition
at a strategic level. Businesses have
not grasped the nettle of developing affordability healthy products for
potential customers at the bottom of the pyramid.
Most companies do not systematically or structurally
implement and report on their stated nutrition commitments. This is pretty troubling from an
accountability perspective.
Reflections on ATNI 2016? I have not read the full report, only the 35
page summary, but here goes:
*I would like to see more reflection on how ATNI is
being used, especially by the food and beverage investment advisors—does it
change their recommendations to their clients?
I would also like to know more about why some companies provide data and
some don’t—good to interview the latter.
*The BMS adjustment seems timid. At one extreme, one could say that any BMS
violations, because of their serious impacts on mortality, should result in a
zero overall score. Another less radical
approach would be to multiply the other scores by the proportional BMS score,
so if a company with a non BMS score of 5.0 overall gets a BMS score of 2/10, their overall score would be adjusted to 5x0.2=1.0. At the moment the BMS score is deducted from
the overall score. Currently its BMS
scores are keeping Nestle from attaining the overall number 1 spot, but the overall
rankings of the 6 BMS manufacturers are not altered that dramatically.
*I can’t figure out why the weighting for “promoting
healthier lifestyles among employees and customers” provides such a low
contribution to the overall score (2.5%).
If there is a mounting global crisis and if companies have powerful
global reach, surely their efforts to do more in this area would attract more
than 2.5% of the overall score?
ATNI is on the way towards becoming a really powerful
tool to effect change. To do that it needs to rely more on the kinds of in
country research it undertook in Indonesia and Vietnam. This is where we see how policies, values and
governance plays out at the front line.
I would also like to see the Access to Nutrition Foundation (who are behind ATNI) be more ambitious on
strengthening the public dialogue around business and nutrition.
As my colleagues will tell you I am puzzled as to why
more companies are not stepping up and going beyond best practice when it comes to advancing nutrition. Surely there is money in it, as well as
nutrition. Dialogue might uncover the
win-wins we are all looking for (or perhaps it will reveal they are far and few
between, I don’t know).
All in all, and based on the extensive summary
document, this is a strong second showing for ATNI and my congratulations to
the team who produced it and the funders who had the vision to supported it.
No comments:
Post a Comment