Main content
Workers
For millions of people, working in agriculture means poverty, child labor, dangerous conditions and the constant uncertainty that comes with casual work. So the Behind the Brands Scorecard examines what companies say they are doing to ensure the rights of farm workers, including by tackling low pay, poor and unsafe working conditions, and child exploitation.
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
-
Unilever
- Score
- 8
Unilever is a leader when it comes to workers. Unilever’s Responsible Sourcing Policy sets out new requirements for its suppliers in relation to workers’ rights. It could still improve on ensuring its suppliers implement key labour rights, and like the others, it needs to do much more to ensure workers are paid a living wage.
See how Unilever score on other issues -
Coca Cola
- Score
- 6
Coca-Cola’s policies towards workers are, quite strong in many places, but to have a real impact, the company needs to commit to a living wage for all workers in their supply chain.
See how Coca Cola score on other issues -
Nestlé
- Score
- 6
Nestle scores highly on workers rights, but the company could do much more to ensure workers in its supply chain are able to work their way out of poverty. Nestle should start recording the wages that workers are paid so that they can be compared to living wage benchmarks. The company should also develop a strategy for raising low wages.
See how Nestlé score on other issues -
Associated British Foods plc
- Score
- 4
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 Associated British Foods plc score on other issues -
Mars
- Score
- 4
Mars shows some general understanding of issues faced by workers and has made a new commitment on the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. However, like many of the Big Ten, it has limited specific information about workers throughout its supply chain and does not commit to pay workers a living wage.
See how Mars score on other issues -
Mondelez
- Score
- 4
Mondelez has steadily moved up in score on workers but the company has still not committed to living wages nor established a constructive and ongoing dialogue with the union representing workers in its supply chains.
See how Mondelez score on other issues -
Danone
- Score
- 3
A disappointing lack of information means Danone, which has signed up to international labor conventions, doesn’t actually know how many people are in its supply chains. Its recent agreement with the main union for food and agriculture workers globally is a solid step in the right direction.
See how Danone score on other issues -
General Mills
- Score
- 3
General Mills has a slow but steady improvement on worker issues. The company still needs to establish a constructive and ongoing dialogue with its workers’ union.
See how General Mills score on other issues -
Kellogg's
- Score
- 3
There is a slow but steady improvement from Kellogg on worker issues. The company would go a long way by establishing a constructive and ongoing dialogue with the union who represents workers in its supply chain.
See how Kellogg's score on other issues -
PepsiCo
- Score
- 3
PepsiCo has work to do to improve workers’ rights. The company does not appear to have a system for identifying high-risk countries for forced labor or low wages. PepsiCo needs to know where labor rights risks are to manage them effectively.
See how PepsiCo score on other issues