Sector Alignment on the Use of Nutrient Profile Models (NPMs)

Poor diet is linked to one in five deaths globally, highlighting the critical need for healthier food options. As awareness grows among health experts, investors, and consumers, the investor community is increasingly recognizing the importance of integrating healthy diets into sustainable investment strategies. However, the lack of a globally accepted method to define and measure the healthiness of food portfolios presents a significant challenge. This lack of standardization complicates efforts to assess and compare food companies’ commitments to healthier products.

To address this, the Access to Nutrition Initiative (ATNI) launched a research series in 2023-2024 aimed at harmonizing the approach to defining and measuring healthy foods. This initiative employed a three-round Delphi process, which included three surveys and two roundtable events, to achieve cross-sectoral alignment on the use of Nutrient Profile Models (NPMs) for evaluating food industry portfolios.

During the three Delphi Rounds, participants evaluated the need and feasibility of aligning on NPMs used for reporting, the essential features of a robust Nutrient Profile Model (NPM), and reporting standards. The final results are based on participant alignment (>70% agree or strongly agree) or a high level of agreement (>60% agree or strongly agree) with a statement.​

A total of 86 participants from 14 countries, representing various stakeholders such as the food industry, investors, academic experts, and NGOs, contributed to this research.

Three NPMs—Health Star Rating (HSR), Nutri-Score, and the UK NPM—were identified as suitable for future investor reporting, using components of the proposed Reporting Guidelines.

The Reporting Guidelines are proposed building on ATNI’s experience and participants’ choices to include the following elements when reporting on NPM results:

• The methodology of reporting includes details of the NPM guidelines applied, data sources used, handling of missing values, relevant inclusions/exclusions of products, and any deviations from the NPM guidelines.
• Details of the audit process which is conducted or validated by an impartial third party using a standardized protocol.
• Results are reported for the overall portfolio globally, by product category, and if relevant by region and/or country.
• Total number of products in the full portfolio and the number by product category, and includes the percentage of products scored as ‘healthier’ or ‘unhealthier’.
• Total sales and the percentage of sales from ‘healthier’ and ‘unhealthier’ products.
• Showcases the change in sales-weighted NPM results over time and highlights reformulation efforts that have occurred.
• Reporting on marketing spending for healthier vs unhealthier products and lobbying information related to health and nutrition policies.

In addition to the Delphi study, a comparative analysis was performed to evaluate and compare the performance of the selected NPMs across 17 different product categories and four types of company portfolios.

The comparative analysis revealed complete agreement across NPMs in categorizing ‘Confectionery’ and ‘Sweet Biscuits, Snack Bars and Fruit Snacks’ as less healthy as these categories did not meet the criteria for healthiness of any NPM. Disparities were found in the classification of ‘Ice Cream,’ ‘Juice,’ and ‘Sports Drinks,’ indicating low agreement among the NPMs. The mixed, dairy, and beverages portfolios showed greater variability compared to the consistent classification in the “indulgent” portfolio. The findings from the comparative analysis highlight the need to consider multiple NPMs for a comprehensive assessment of product healthiness, as relying on a single model may result in varying conclusions.