This audio is generated automatically. Please let me know if you have any comments.
Diving overview:
- Major food and beverage companies are lagging in their efforts to prevent and address forced labor risks exacerbated by climate change across their supply chains, according to a recent assessment supported by the international non-profit Business and Human Rights Centre.
- Then benchmark Rating of 45 largest food and beverage companies It gave an average rating of 15 out of 100 for efforts to prevent and address forced labor globally, a decrease since the last evaluation three years ago.
- Almost half of the companies Less than 10 points out of 100Only Australian supermarkets Coles and Woolworths scored above 50. Unilever, Tesco and The Hershey Company lagged behind in the rankings with 40 points. All other companies, including Smucker, evaluated the benchmark. Mondelēz International and Nestle — Your score is less than 40.
Dive Insights:
According to the United Nations, approximately 1.3 billion people worldwide are employed in agri-food systems, and the food and beverage industry remains the world’s largest. In 2024, the International Labor Organization calculated global illicit profits from forced labor at $236 billion, an increase of $64 billion over 10 years, with global agricultural work generating about $5 billion.
The latest benchmark was released earlier this month by KnowTheChain, a project of the Business and Human Rights Center. Resources to help companies and investors identify and address forced labor risks within their global supply chains.
Coles, Hershey, Tesco, Unilever, Woolworths and Smucker’s scored highest on this year’s benchmark, similar to their 2023 rankings. Seven companies, including Tesco, Smucker’s, Nestlé, and Walmart, have seen their scores drop by more than 10% since 2023. Supermarkets performed best with an average score of 24 out of 100, while packaged foods and meat performed worst with an average score of 12 out of 100.
Companies headquartered in jurisdictions with mandatory import bans and due diligence and disclosure requirements for forced labor scored higher than those that did not. Two Australian companies scored an average of 56 points, European companies scored an average of 19 points, and American companies scored an average of 15 points. Meanwhile, companies in Asia scored an average of 7 points, and companies in Latin America scored an average of 4 points.
Food and beverage companies scored highest on the ‘Commitment and Governance’ topic, with 91% of companies saying they have a supplier code of conduct that prohibits forced labour. However, only 40% of companies disclosed their board’s oversight of forced labor policies and received very low scores on the most important practices in the field. Companies received an average score of 3 out of 100 for responsible purchasing practices, 5 out of 100 for accessibility to problem resolution, 6 out of 100 for freedom of association, and 7 out of 100 for monitoring of supply chain workers. Only one in five companies said they directly engaged rights holders or their legitimate representatives in forced labor efforts. Additionally, only 7% of companies disclosed forced labor policy training for their downstream suppliers.
Tracking and transparency scores were also weak. Only 11% of companies disclosed at least part of their tier 1 supplier list, and only 24% of companies disclosed information related to the sourcing of at least one of the 18 high-risk products.
The disconnect between promises and practice means “paper promises to eradicate forced labor are now completely inadequate,” said a senior labor rights fellow at the Center for Business Human Rights. isobel archer said in press release. “Governments are introducing legislation that will require companies to prevent and address forced labor in their supply chains, rather than simply making promises. Our research shows that many food and drink companies are unprepared for that level of scrutiny.”
