Land

In many low-income countries, where disputes over land use are already acute and land ownership is horribly skewed, communities depend on their land for their lives and livelihoods. Yet companies and governments are seizing land and evicting families to grow crops for export. The Behind the Brands Scorecard looks at whether the big food companies say they do the right thing by the land and the communities who live on it, and have policies in place to deal with suppliers who violate land rights.

How are the scores formed?

We assessed publicly available information on the policies and commitments of the 'Big 10' food companies towards the sourcing of agricultural commodities from developing countries. The Scorecard looks at seven themes, weighing each theme equally. The index tackles some cutting edge issues that will require rigorous debate and dialogue between companies, civil society and industry experts. Find out more...

What do the scores mean?

  1. 8 - 10Good
  2. 6 - 7Fair
  3. 4 - 5Some progress
  4. 2 - 3Poor
  5. 0 - 1Very poor
  1. Coca Cola

    Score
    8

    Coca-Cola leads the way on land rights. After being the first to adopt “zero tolerance” for land grabs throughout its supply chain, its supplier guiding principles on human/worker rights now refer to fair compensation and grievance mechanisms where land rights have been violated.

    See how Coca Cola score on other issues
  2. Nestle

    Score
    8

    In August 2014, Nestle adopted a strong policy – it committed to zero tolerance for land grabbing. Nestle also requires its suppliers to support the ‘Free, Prior, and Informed Consent’ of indigenous and local communities, and commits to advocate to sourcing country governments to implement strong land tenure.

    See how Nestle score on other issues
  3. PepsiCo

    Score
    7

    PepsiCo has added plenty of fizz on land rights. In March 2014, the company became the second to commit to ‘zero tolerance’ for land grabs, recognizing communities’ land rights and ensuring its bottlers and suppliers do the same. PepsiCo’s land rights policy covers everything from sugar and palm oil to potatoes and corn.

    See how PepsiCo score on other issues
  4. Unilever

    Score
    7

    Unilever’s Responsible Sourcing Policy includes a commitment to ‘Free, Prior, and Informed Consent’ for all communities and makes explicit its ‘zero tolerance’ for land grabs.

    See how Unilever score on other issues
  5. Associated British Foods

    Score
    5

    ABF has taken some important steps in recognising land rights of communities and has begun telling suppliers to do the same. But more impressive is one of ABF’s subsidiary’s - Illovo Sugar - ‘zero tolerance’ for land grabs commitment. Will ABF follow Illovo’s lead on land?

    See how Associated British Foods score on other issues
  6. Kelloggs

    Score
    5

    Kellogg took big steps forward on land. In addition to including a provision on land rights in its supplier code of conduct, it now also recognizes the complexity of land rights and even identified countries from which it sources where land tenure security cannot be assured. Next up: A ‘zero tolerance’ for land grabs commitment?

    See how Kelloggs score on other issues
  7. Mars

    Score
    4

    Mars commits to respect communities’ right to “give or withhold” their ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent’ when acquiring land used for some agricultural commodities. But why not for all commodities? Mars could do a lot more to ensure that it respects communities’ land rights throughout its supply chain.

    See how Mars score on other issues
  8. Mondelez

    Score
    4

    Mondelez understands how important land is for smallholders and communities. Why not take that understanding to the next level and commit to ‘zero tolerance’ for land grabs?

    See how Mondelez score on other issues
  9. Danone

    Score
    2

    Danone scores very poorly on land. The company has not committed to zero tolerance for land grabs and doesn’t require suppliers to consider how land affects lives. One bright spot is that it now recognizes the principle of FPIC in its palm oil policy. It could be doing so much more.

    See how Danone score on other issues
  10. General Mills

    Score
    2

    General Mills needs to step up in a big way. It recognizes ‘Free, Prior, and Informed Consent’ in its palm oil policy, but that’s not enough to ensure that it and its suppliers aren’t pushing people off their land.

    See how General Mills score on other issues