ABF has made some strong progress on land, and limited progress on women. The socio-economic impact assessment that were completed by its sugar business Illovo have helped. And ABF has also slightly improved on water. But the company continues to score relatively low overall in the scorecard, let down by its weak commitments to improve the plight of women, workers and farmers, and to address climate change, water and land issues. Bottom of the pile on transparency and climate change, ABF still needs to improve on a number of issues.Note: the scores for Associated British Foods exclude its Primark business
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?
- 8 - 10Good
- 6 - 7Fair
- 4 - 5Some progress
- 2 - 3Poor
- 0 - 1Very poor
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 other companies score on Land
ABF has projects to support rural women, but lacks policies to support them. Plenty still to do.See how other companies score on Women
ABF has started to measure its impact on small-scale farmers, but now needs to consider how it can support farmers through guidance and requirements for its own suppliersSee how other companies score on Farmers
ABF now recognizes a range of key workers’ rights and unlike many companies on the scorecard , has made an explicit commitment to a Living Wage. However, ABF should now develop a strategy to raise low wages.See how other companies score on Workers
ABF has improved on climate but still has a long way to go. Some of ABF’s companies set targets to reduce emissions for themselves, but none set them for its suppliers. ABF does at least acknowledge the issue though.See how other companies score on Climate
ABF receives the lowest score on transparency (3), with no changes from the previous year. Although it does provide some information about where it sources its raw materials, the information on suppliers and auditing is limited and no information on lobby practices is provided.See how other companies score on Transparency
ABF made some limited progress on water last year with particular businesses setting actual targets and disclosing the company’s proportion of its water footprint used for agricultural purposes. That said, the company remains at bottom our our water scorecard. A key gap that remains is no official recognition of the human right to water.See how other companies score on Water