Characteristics and mean attribute score of 529 ESG-Nutrition metrics,* by ESG-Nutrition domain
| ESG-Nutrition domain | |||||
| Product healthfulness | Product distribution and equity | Product marketing and labelling | Nutrition-related governance | Total | |
| 126 metrics (23.8%) | 65 metrics (12.3%) | 230 metrics (43.5%) | 108 metrics (20.4%) | 529 (100%) | |
| Frameworks, n (%)† | |||||
| ATNI | 19 (15.1) | 15 (23.1) | 40 (17.4) | 48 (44.4) | 122 (23.1) |
| ATNI UK | 35 (27.8) | 12 (18.5) | 33 (14.3) | 11 (10.2) | 91 (17.2) |
| BIA-Obesity | 32 (25.4) | 19 (29.2) | 92 (40) | 46 (42.6) | 189 (35.7) |
| GRI | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 4 (1.7) | 0 (0) | 4 (0.8) |
| GRI-processed foods | 2 (1.6) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.4) | 3 (2.8) | 6 (1.1) |
| PUP | 9 (7.1) | 3 (4.6) | 6 (2.6) | 0 (0) | 18 (3.4) |
| SASB | 9 (7.1) | 0 (0) | 6 (2.6) | 0 (0) | 15 (2.8) |
| WBA | 20 (15.9) | 16 (24.6) | 48 (20.9) | 0 (0) | 84 (15.9) |
| Subsector, n (%)‡ | |||||
| All | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 4 (1.7) | 0 (0) | 4 (0.8) |
| Catering | 8 (6.3) | 5 (7.7) | 14 (6.1) | 0 (0) | 27 (5.1) |
| Manufacturing | 39 (31) | 24 (36.9) | 83 (36.1) | 66 (61.1) | 212 (40.1) |
| Restaurants | 24 (19) | 12 (18.5) | 37 (16.1) | 15 (13.9) | 88 (16.6) |
| Retail | 55 (43.7) | 24 (36.9) | 92 (40) | 27 (25) | 198 (37.4) |
| Scoring attributes, mean score (SD)§ | |||||
| Materiality | 1.94 (0.78) | 2.28 (0.74) | 1.87 (0.88) | 2.20 (0.72) | 2.01 (0.68) |
| Objectivity | 1.93 (0.75) | 1.83 (0.74) | 2.15 (0.76) | 2.39 (0.78) | 2.11 (0.61) |
| Alignment | 1.40 (0.83) | 1.14 (0.68) | 1.53 (0.87) | 1.15 (0.67) | 1.37 (0.67) |
| Activity | 2.17 (0.85) | 1.80 (0.88) | 1.66 (0.89) | 1.82 (0.69) | 1.83 (0.74) |
| Resolution | 1.58 (0.93) | 1.03 (0.42) | 1.24 (0.80) | 1.07 (0.54) | 1.26 (0.65) |
| Verifiability | 2.02 (0.73) | 2.48 (0.71) | 2.50 (0.75) | 2.40 (0.73) | 2.36 (0.57) |
| Total score¶ | 11.04 (1.30) | 10.55 (1.02) | 10.95 (1.35) | 11.04 (1.02) | 10.94 (1.58) |
*Metrics extracted from eight ESG frameworks across four broad domains. Metrics on topics related to employee health and wellness and workforce nutrition; food loss and food waste; food safety and non-food-related health hazards (chemical exposure, etc) were excluded from this analysis. We also excluded general metrics related to strategy, governance, management and stakeholder engagement, unless health or nutrition was explicitly mentioned.
†ESG frameworks included non-governmental ESG reporting standards and food sector benchmarking and accountability initiative indices, and were selected for this investigation based on the following criteria: non-proprietary and publicly accessible; prescribes explicit measurement methods such as material metrics or guiding questions to assist a company’s ESG disclosure; includes any mention of nutrition and health within framework; in English and published between 2012 and 2022.
‡ESG frameworks defined subsector of the food industry each metric was relevant for. Duplicative metrics (ie, same metric within a framework, but for different subsector) were counted separately in this table. Of the 529 ESG-metrics assessed, 401 were unique.
§Scoring delineations (1–3) for each scoring attribute provided in table 1. Scoring was completed in duplicate by two investigators, and any discordance in scoring was discussed until consensus was reached.
¶Sum of six scoring attributes, all with equal weight. Theoretical range from 6 to 18.
ATNI, Access to Nutrition Initiative; BIA, Business Impact Assessment; ESG, environmental, social and governance; GRI, Global Reporting Initiative; PUP, Plating Up Progress; SASB, Sustainability Accounting Standards Board; WBA, World Benchmarking Alliance.