Inge Kauer - ATNI 2013

ATNI 2013
Given their size and reach, companies can make a significant contribution to addressing obesity and undernutrition
ATNI seeks to
Provide companies a tool for
benchmarking their nutrition practices
Serve as an impartial source of
information for interested stakeholders
Civil society
Facilitate effective advocacy
and action
Inform development of nutrition policies
Provide context for company engagement
Raise profile of industry role in malnutrition
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 through improvements in areas
such as marketing, labeling, and package sizes
June 2013
Executive Director and
ATNI team
Independent Advisory Panel
Provides strategic advice on stakeholder
engagement, institutional considerations
and financial sustainability
Expert Group
Provides technical advice on
methodology for assessing companies
Global Stakeholder Network
Widest possible network of stakeholders,
including those involved in public consultation on Index methodology
June 2013
Methodology development
Company assessment methodology was developed through an extensive multi-stakeholder process
June 2013
Methodology and scoring weights
June 2013
Geographic scope
Global Index
3 Spotlight Indexes
25 of the worlds largest
food and beverage
10 of the largest
companies by F&B
revenue in each
Regional balance: 1 country per
major region
‘Double burden’ of malnutrition
Large or growing F&B industry
South Africa
June 2013
Value of Spotlight Indexes
Expected outcomes
• Assess the extent to which
multinational companies
implement their global
commitments within specific
• Understand local context and how
that drives/affects companies’
• Compare the performance of
multinational companies between
countries – how consistently do
they implement their
• Compare the performance of local
vs multinational companies – is
there a significant difference in
how they tackle nutrition issues?
• Provide a tool for local
stakeholders to monitor major F&B
companies in their market
• Encourage action from both local
and multinational players
• Identify opportunities for further
research and collaboration with
local organisations and experts
June 2013
Companies in Spotlight Indexes: not yet rated
Britannia Industries
Coca Cola
Coca Cola
Grupo Bimbo
Coca Cola
Gujarat Milk Marketing Federation
Grupo Herdez
Groupe Danone
Grupo Industrial Lala
Kraft Foods Inc (now
Kerala Milk Marketing Federation**
Kellogg Company
Parmalat (now owned by
Mother Dairy Fruit & Veg **
Kraft Foods Inc (now Mondelez)
Pioneer Food Group
Parle Products
Sigma Alimentos (ALFA)
Tiger Brands
* Cooperative
** Government-owned
June 2013
Global ranking 2013
June 2013
Key findings
• Across the board, the world’s largest food and beverage manufacturers can do substantially more to improve consumers’
access to nutrition
o Only three companies scored above 5.0 on a 10-point scale
o The majority of companies scored below 3.0
• Many companies are now taking at least some action to improve access to nutrition
o Companies are doing the most in the area of incorporating nutrition into their corporate governance and management systems
o Many companies are motivated to act by the business risks associated with nutrition, as well as the opportunity to play a more
active role in addressing nutrition challenges
• Danone, Unilever and Nestlé are the highest-ranking companies
o They have corporate strategies that include explicit commitments to improving nutrition and the corresponding integration of
nutrition considerations into core business activities
o But even their scores demonstrate that there is significant room for improvement
o Danone and Nestlé’s reported lack of compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes is a
significant concern
• Companies’ practices often do not measure up to their commitments
o Companies’ scores on nutrition strategy and governance were higher than their scores on product formulation, accessibility,
and marketing
o Within each of these areas, their level of implementation lagged behind their stated commitments
• Companies could do more to address undernutrition and at a broader scale
o Company scores on undernutrition are significantly lower than those on obesity
o Many companies do not articulate a clear recognition of the role they can play in addressing undernutrition
• Many companies are not very transparent about their nutrition practices
o In particular, the lowest-ranked companies on the Index do not disclose sufficient information on their policies and practices to
evaluate any approaches they may have to nutrition
June 2013
Key recommendations
• An essential first step for companies to address the challenges of obesity and undernutrition is to integrate nutrition into
their corporate strategies
o Companies should develop clear and measurable corporate objectives and targets on nutrition
o They should also create robust incentive and accountability structures
• Stronger mechanisms are needed to track companies’ performance on their commitments and targets in order to improve
consumers’ access to nutrition, including:
o External mechanisms, such as independent audits, third-party evaluations, and incorporation of input from experts or other
o Internal mechanisms, such as Board and executive-level oversight of the company’s performance against its nutrition
• Companies’ priorities for improving their approach to nutrition should include:
o Ensuring product formulation, marketing and labeling efforts are in line with recommendations from norm-setting bodies such
as the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
o Setting product formulation targets for all relevant ingredients and across their entire product portfolios and articulating these
targets in a format that allows for a clearer understanding of the scope of such efforts
o Identifying and applying approaches to make products of high nutritional quality more affordable and widely available,
especially to lower-income consumers
o Implementing a strict and comprehensive policy on marketing to children that applies to all media channels and all countries in
which a company operates
o Increase efforts to address undernutrition and scale up those approaches that are the most successful
o For companies that manufacture breast-milk substitutes, ensure compliance with the International Code of Marketing of
Breast-milk Substitutes
• Companies should increase public disclosure of their nutrition activities
June 2013
Post launch reaction to ATNI:
What companies are saying
“High ranking in ATNI index
particularly around
products, lifestyle &
engagement with an action
plan for improvement”
Unilever News
“#Nestle ranks highly in
#ATNI: We commit to further
action on malnutrition in
new CSV report”
“We welcome a continuous
dialogue with ATNI (the
index) that enables us to
identify and address
challenges collaboratively”
“On the next index in two
years, we will perform
News from Nestle
June 2013
Post launch reaction to ATNI:
What media are saying
“New nutrition index rates food
with thought”
Nancy Hellmich
USA Today
“Danone, Unilever and Nestlé
ranked top for nutrition – but
could do better”
Caroline Scott-Thomas
“Nutrition index ranks US below
European producers”
Andrew Jack
Financial Times
“Work to be done to address
global nutrition challenges”
Eric Schroeder
Food Business News
“indexes such as the ATNI can be used to increase the buy-in of stakeholders
and to monitor corporate behaviour by reinforcing companies with the best
business practices and identifying those that fail to improve”
The Lancet
June 2013
Investor support
40 firms collectively managing over $2.6 trillion in assets have signed the ATNI Investor Statement
June 2013
Assessing impact
improvements in
companies’ policies,
practices and
performance to result
Increased market
availability & household
accessibility of healthy
foods and improved
food consumption
• Greater consumer
access to more
nutritious foods and
Improved diets
Engagement with and uptake by:
(illustrative measures)
Provide companies a
tool to benchmark
their nutrition
Food and beverage manufacturers
• # of company engagements
• # of company press releases about ATNI
Stimulate dialogue and action
# of interactions between stakeholders
Serve as an impartial
source of information
for interested
# of statement signatories and $AUM
# of stories about ATNI and companies
• An environment
facilitating the
consumption of
healthier foods and
beverages through
improvements in
areas such as
marketing, labeling,
and package sizes
Improved health status
Civil society
# of invitations to make presentations
# of requests for dialogue
# of times cited in relevant articles
Improved nutritional
Improvement over
time as measured by
company ratings on
subsequent versions
These impacts will
not be directly
attributable to ATNI
but links to impact
may be plausible
June 2013
Future plans
ATNI has the potential to magnify its impact over time in numerous ways and improve:
Publish company
ranking every two
• First version of Global Index launched in March 2013; Spotlight Indexes during 2013
• In order to maximize impact:
o Release rankings on a regular basis to track company improvements
o Allow enough time between editions for companies to make meaningful changes
• Constructively engage with companies to augment impact of ranking
• Iterative approach to improving methodology for future versions but maintain most of
initial structure to enable year-on-year comparison
• Regularly monitor impact
Facilitate nutrition
‘knowledge agenda’
• First version of ATNI represents current state of knowledge and consensus
around best practices
• Final report highlights important issues that require further research and/or
consensus building
• Facilitate progress by convening key stakeholders
opportunities for
• Depending on the nature of stakeholder response and demand, consider
opportunities such as:
o Expanding number of companies evaluated
o Expanding geographic scope (additional Spotlight countries)
o Expanding scope across value chain (upstream suppliers, retailers)
June 2013
Knowledge agenda
Issues requiring further research and/or consensus-building
Greater clarity on what constitutes a robust nutrient profiling system and movement towards a consensus ‘gold
A standard format in which to report product reformulation efforts, which allows an understanding of the scope of
such efforts and comparison of companies’ efforts
Research on how pricing affects low-income consumers’ purchasing decisions of healthier products
Characterization of how individual companies affect the food consumption environment (for instance, through their
marketing activities or labeling practices), and development of metrics that capture these impacts
Assessment of companies’ role in encouraging food safety (for example, through efforts such as package labeling
systems that provide transparency in the production of food or educate consumers on appropriate ways to prepare
foods at home to ensure their safety)
Guidelines for and methods to assess company performance on responsible:
o Commercial sports sponsorship
o Nutrition education (or, more broadly, support of healthy diet and active lifestyles)
o Marketing to adolescents
Development of a rigorous, transparent and methodologically reliable on-the-ground assessment of breast-milk
substitute manufacturers’ marketing practices
Characterization of food purchasing patterns among consumers in markets with a significant burden of undernutrition,
so as to better understand the role played by processed foods in their diets
Role of fortification of packaged foods in the context of broader national fortification strategies
Appropriate role for food and beverage companies in interventions other than fortification to address undernutrition
Guidelines for the responsible marketing of foods, particularly for those being sold in markets with a burden of
undernutrition where guidance is less well developed, including complementary foods
June 2013
Corporate Profile methodology structure - detail
June 2013