The same approach to scoring and ranking has been kept. To generate each company’s overall score and ranking, the following process was used:
- The methodology was adapted for each company, as necessary. Indicators that were not considered applicable to a company’s product portfolio (such as those relating to adding vegetables to products where this would not be feasible and all those relating to fat and wholegrains for companies that only make beverages) were not included a company’s overall score. Similarly market presence was taken into account – so companies with less than 5% of their food and beverage sales in non-OECD markets are not scored against the undernutrition indicators. This is to ensure that the methodology reflects the realities of all companies operations and is not a one size fits all approach.
- Each company is scored against all relevant indicators in the methodology. The top performance level on an indicator is ten points, with lower scores awarded on a sliding scale for lower levels of performance.
- For some indicators, a healthy multiplier and / or a geographic multiplier was applied, both ranging between 1 (no multiplier applied) and 2 (maximum multiplier applied). A healthy multiplier gives a higher weight to companies with a robust definition of healthy products and the geographic multiplier to reflect whether companies apply the same policies and practices across markets of operation or only in selected regions or their home markets.
- A company’s score on all the indicators within a Criteria (e.g. Criteria B1) are then added together and weighted according to whether the indicators assess Commitment (25%), Performance (50%), or Disclosure (25%).3 Similar to the 2013Global Index, Performance is given double the weight of Commitment and Disclosure to reinforce the importance of turning commitments into practice. Together the three components generate the company’s score for each Criteria.
- Each Criteria receives an equal weight within its Category. A company’s score for a category is the average score of the Criteria within that Category.
- The separate nutrition general and undernutrition scores are calculated by applying the 75% nutrition weight and 25% undernutrition weight. The score of companies with less than 5% sales from non-OECD countries were based on 100% nutrition weight.
- A company’s overall score is generated by calculating a weighted average of its Category scores. The weights assigned to each Category are listed in Table below.
- For the four BMS manufacturers an additional adjustment is made to their score, based on their results in the BMS sub-ranking.
Overall ranking on the Global Index is based on companies’ scores on the entire Corporate Profile methodology. Separate rankings on nutrition and on undernutrition are also presented in this report. The sub-ranking for nutrition reflects companies’ efforts to deliver healthy food choices to ALL consumers, and to responsibly influence consumer behavior. The sub-ranking for undernutrition reflects additional actions that companies can take to address undernutrition, including the fortification of products with micronutrients otherwise deficient in the diet.
The nutrition general and undernutrition scores and rankings were calculated using the same approach as described above for companies’ overall scores, but using only the indicators applicable to each ranking. As several levels of weights were applied to each of these rankings, it is not possible to take a simple average of the nutrition general and undernutrition scores to arrive at the overall score.
Overall, Category A which assesses a company’s nutrition governance and management has a weight of 12.5%, the Categories that assess a company’s practices related to producing and delivering products (Categories B and C) account for 45% of a company’s score, while the portion of the methodology that reviews their practices related to influencing consumer choice and behavior (Categories D through G) account for 42.5% of a company’s score.