Category G: Engagement

Scores improved significantly overall, with all but two companies increasing their score – most by a considerable margin – and the average score almost doubling. This can partly be explained by changes in the methodology, with companies now being credited for practices such as including anti-bribery policies in their Codes of Conduct and whistleblowing mechanisms that are common to nearly all of the companies assessed. Many companies were also credited for having other management systems related to lobbying, which had not previously been researched by ATNI. There was also evidence of significant improvement in some respects since 2018, such as 10 more companies disclosing their lobbying positions on certain important nutrition-related topics, including front-of-pack labelling and health claims regulation, and more companies committing to support governments’ efforts to combat all forms of malnutrition. The scores for Arla, Danone, Nestlé, Kellogg and Unilever increased most significantly, with Nestlé leading this criterion.

Danone and PepsiCo were the only companies found to publicly express a commitment to only engage with governments and policymakers with the intention of supporting measures to prevent and address malnutrition. For example, in its 2020 Advocacy Policy, Danone states that, in addition to lobbying in support of its mission of “bringing health through food to as many people as possible”, it will do so “with the interests of the consumer in mind and the will to meet public health goals (of which tackling obesity, mal- or under-nutrition).”

No other companies expressed new commitments to this effect, while several companies that had made a similar commitment previously no longer appeared to do so publicly at the time of research. Seven companies, meanwhile, made commitments to the effect of ensuring that their lobbying is evidence-based or scientifically-grounded. However, none explicitly stated that this scientific evidence must be ‘independent’ and ‘peer-reviewed’, as specified in the Responsible Lobbying Framework.

On the other hand, almost all companies were found to have Codes of Conduct that feature measures to prevent bribery and corruption in their relations with public officials, including the offering and receiving of gifts, hospitality, or other financial and in-kind incentives. Sixteen of these extended this commitment to third parties (paid or unpaid by the company).

To ensure alignment between the companies’ lobbying activities and their core commitments, policies, and Codes of Conduct, it is essential that they have effective management systems to manage and control these, including lobbying undertaken by third parties. At a basic level, it was positive to see that almost all companies assessed had an internal whistleblowing mechanism. In addition, 11 companies have assigned to their Board oversight of their lobbying positions, processes and practices, and eight companies carry out internal or independent audits of their lobbying activities. Four companies, Danone, Nestlé, General Mills, and Kraft Heinz, were found to have all three measures in place.

Regarding lobbying contributions and engagement, disclosure remained more or less the same as in 2018 in terms of the number of companies that publish lists of trade association memberships, dues paid to those organizations, governance conflicts of interest, and Board seats on these associations – with 17 companies disclosing at least some information (see Table 1). Although no company’s disclosure was fully comprehensive, that of Mars continues to be the most extensive since 2018, as it provides a list of ‘key’ trade association memberships and Board seats held at these associations, while stating no governance conflicts of interest exist and that it does not make political donations.

Danone, Coca-Cola, Conagra and Mondelez also disclose more than other companies. There remains significant room for improvement, however, with very few companies disclosing complete lists of their trade association memberships, the precise amounts spent on lobbying, Board seats at these organizations, and conflicts of interest.

When using lobbyists and lobbying firms, companies predominantly rely on public transparency registers to make these kinds of disclosures. While US law requires the publication of quarterly reports on companies’ lobbying activities and contributions in the USA under the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), which are published on the Senate’s website, only nine companies active in the US market provided links to this database on their own website or in a relevant report. Coca-Cola demonstrates best practice in this regard, publishing its quarterly reports directly on its website. Despite most companies assessed being active in European markets, only five companies (Danone, Unilever, Nestlé, Mondelez, Mars, and Ferrero) publicly state that they voluntarily disclose their lobbying activities at EU-level via the EU Transparency Register. With regards to lobbying in other markets, no evidence of disclosure could be found on the companies’ public domains. This shows that companies have a long way to go to improve the transparency of their lobbying activities, as Table 1 shows.

Whereas only two did so in 2018, 12 companies disclosed at least one lobbying position on important nutrition topics, with Front-Of-Pack labelling being the most common. PepsiCo continues to be the most transparent in this regard, being one of two companies (alongside General Mills) to explicitly state that they lobby for responsible marketing legislation. It is also one of two companies, alongside Coca-Cola, to disclose their position on fiscal measures. While both companies state that they oppose taxation on sugary beverages to address obesity, they are transparent about doing so.

General Mills, meanwhile, has significantly improved its disclosure, publishing a web page with numerous specific examples of its engagement with the US government (at both Federal and State levels) in relation to school feeding programs and food insecure communities; supporting strong Dietary Guidelines for Americans and redefining the official ‘Healthy’ definition; and labelling and marketing – including links to formal position statements and public consultation submissions on these matters. However, it makes no disclosure in relation to its lobbying in other markets.

Only three companies (FrieslandCampina, Kellogg, and General Mills) publicly disclose a commentary on their lobbying measures to prevent and address all forms of malnutrition. Kellogg, for example, describes in detail in its latest ‘Wellbeing Milestones’ report its engagement with numerous governments in the US, Latin America, and Europe to address hunger and malnutrition among children from low-income households.

Separate from lobbying, 10 companies now make some form of commitment to playing an active and constructive part in supporting governments’ efforts to combat all forms of malnutrition – with Unilever, Meiji, and Tingyi joining the six companies that already did so in 2018. These efforts include engaging in partnerships with public authorities, participating in their nutrition campaigns and programs, or responding to government calls to action. Meiji, for example, participates in the Nutrition Japan Public Private Platform (NJPPP), supporting the Japanese government’s global agenda to improve nutrition in association with the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games, while Tingyi commits to actively participate in the Chinese government’s National Nutrition Plan (NNP).

Danone, Nestlé, FrieslandCampina, and PepsiCo, meanwhile, are the only companies that publish more comprehensive, globally-applicable commitments to support governments efforts to combat malnutrition.  Nestlé, for example, in its ‘Policy on Transparent Interactions with Public Authorities’, states “shall, to the best of its abilities, support the actions of public authorities that aim to enhance quality of life and contribute to a healthier future for individuals and families, for communities and for the planet. This includes, but is not limited to, support to government efforts to address malnutrition and diet related chronic diseases.”

Thirteen companies provided concrete examples of actively working with governments to address malnutrition in the countries they are active in. However, only three (FrieslandCampina, Nestlé and Unilever) could do so for three or more countries. For example, Nestlé works with the Sri Lankan Government to raise awareness of iron deficiency and how to address it, reaching an estimated 13 million people. They have partnered with Ecuador’s Ministry of Education to produce and broadcast an educational TV series, “The Invincible Team”, to promote healthier habits, while also collaborating with regional governments in Mexico to promote a program aiming to improve the adoption of healthy lifestyles through educational activities for women. They also have a range of examples in India that were featured within the 2020 India Spotlight Index.

• Companies are encouraged to publicly commit to lobby responsibly; that is, with an explicit focus on supporting measures designed to improve health and nutrition with a solid grounding in independent, peer-reviewed science. They are advised develop adequate internal controls to ensure their lobbying activities align with company policy. More information can be found in the Responsible Lobbying Framework.

• To be as comprehensive and accurate as possible, all companies can expand their public disclosure of lobbying-related matters. This shows external stakeholders how the company is seeking to shape government policy, and demonstrates their commitment to lobby responsibly and fosters trust in doing so. Companies therefore are recommended to ensure they publish complete lists of the trade associations they engage with, as well as the specific dues they pay and how much of this is earmarked for lobbying purposes. They could consider following Coca Cola’s example and make it as easy as possible for stakeholders by publishing their lobbying disclosure reports directly on their websites. Moreover, while some companies provide links for US and EU-based lobbying reports, they are encouraged to do so for each market they actively lobby in (or state otherwise).

• Following Nestlé, FrieslandCampina, and Danone’s example, companies could take a more active and constructive role in supporting governments’ efforts to combat all forms of malnutrition, ensuring they do so not only in their home countries, but in other markets the company is active in.

Seventeen companies provided evidence of some form of engagement with stakeholders designed to improve or develop their nutrition strategy, policies, or programs – a slight improvement from 2018. Eight companies report that they engage with civil society organizations, while seven companies state that they engage with academic institutions and scientific bodies, seven companies report engaging with international organizations (such as UN bodies), and three companies mention engaging with national-level public authorities. Meanwhile, nine have partnerships with, or formally support, prominent international initiatives/organizations that address malnutrition in priority populations. For example, seven companies are members of the SUN Business Network, six work with GAIN, and four work with the World Food Program.

That said, only eight companies (one fewer than in 2018) engage in a comprehensive, well-structured and focused manner – others could only provide more limited or relatively ad hoc examples. Of these eight, Nestlé, Danone, Ajinomoto, and Kellogg engaged with stakeholders internationally, while Mars, PepsiCo, FrieslandCampina and Mondelez provided examples from single markets only. A promising example is Kellogg, which states that it actively engages in ongoing conversations with multilateral organizations, governments, and NGOs. It does in order to: identify risks and opportunities in relation to nutrition; inform new programs and food innovations; and guide its Wellbeing Strategy, commercial strategy, and corporate policies relating to undernutrition. Danone now partners with FAO and local expert groups to analyze local health and nutrition contexts and develop strategies to address malnutrition in many of the markets its active in.

However, disclosure on companies’ stakeholder engagement was quite limited. While 13 companies publish a broad statement about the benefits of nutrition-related stakeholder dialogue, only two – Nestlé and Unilever – publish a detailed narrative about their stakeholder engagement. Meanwhile, no company was found to publicly disclose specific examples of how input has been used to adapt nutrition-related policies/programs.

Twelve companies were found to consult specialists on addressing obesity and diet-related chronic diseases on a strategic/Board level in some way. However, only five of these (Arla, Mars, Danone, Campbell’s, and General Mills) have a formal panel of experts – the other companies were found to consult on a less systematic, more ad-hoc basis. Campbell, for example, produced its first corporate position paper on sodium with consultation from a panel of scientific advisors.

Promisingly, all but four companies subscribe to at least one relevant voluntary international standard or code of conduct relating to food supply chains, most commonly the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (19 companies), UN Global Compact (18 companies), and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (13 companies). In addition, Friesland Campina, Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Kraft Heinz all adhere to the ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (MNE Declaration); while Nestlé, Mars, Arla, and Danone are members of the 2016 FAO/OECD Guidance for Responsible Agricultural Supply Chains.

• When developing or updating their nutrition-related strategies, policies or programs, companies are recommended to conduct comprehensive and well-structured stakeholder engagement and expert consultation processes. Through two-way communication, gathering feedback, and learning, companies ensure that their strategies, policies, or programs effectively contribute to addressing public health issues in their respective markets.

• Companies are therefore advised to ensure they engage with a wide range of stakeholder types, including organizations and individuals with reputed expertise on nutrition-related topics, at both a national and international level.

• Meanwhile, companies that have not yet done so are encouraged to establish a formal panel of experts encompassing a wide-range of expertise and backgrounds to advise on their nutrition strategies, policies, and programs; especially in relation to addressing obesity and diet-related NCDs, undernutrition, and micronutrient deficiencies.

• In order to demonstrate to other stakeholders the engagement process that informed their new nutrition-related strategies, policies, or programs, companies are recommended to ensure they publicly disclose information about these processes, including who was engaged and how their feedback was taken on board.