The Business Benchmark on
Farm Animal Welfare Report
2020

Nicky Amos, Dr Rory Sullivan & Dr Nathan Rhys Williams MRCVSThe Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2020

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare
The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) is the leading global measure of farm animal welfare
management, policy commitment, performance and disclosure in food companies. It enables investors,
companies, NGOs and other stakeholders to understand corporate practice and performance on farm animal
welfare, and it drives – directly and through the efforts of others – corporate improvements in the welfare ofanimals reared for food.
The BBFAW Secretariat maintains the Global Investor Statement on Farm Animal Welfare and convenes the Global
Investor Collaboration on Farm Animal Welfare, a collaborative engagement between major institutional investors
and food companies on the issue of farm animal welfare. In addition, the BBFAW Secretariat manages extensive
engagement programmes with companies and with investors and provides practical guidance and tools forcompanies and for investors on key animal welfare issues.
The programme is governed and supported by the BBFAW’s founding partners, Compassion in World Farming andWorld Animal Protection, who provide technical expertise, guidance, funding and practical resources, alongsidesupporting the assessed food businesses with training, programmatic expertise and consultancy engagement.
More information on the programme can be found at www.bbfaw.com
Compassion in World Farming
Compassion in World Farming is the leading farm animal welfare charity advancing the wellbeing of farm animals
and their integration into a more humane, sustainable food system, through advocacy, political lobbying andpositive corporate engagement. The Food Business programme works in partnership with major food companies
to raise baseline standards for animal welfare throughout their global supply, and to rebalance their animal
footprint in a food system fit for the future. The team offers strategic advice and expert technical support forthe development, implementation and communication of higher welfare policies and practices, and, increasingly,
solutions and frameworks for a more resilient and sustainable food system.
Compassion engages directly with many of the companies evaluated in the BBFAW to highlight and support
with policy development, welfare improvement and transparent reporting. The Food Business team uses the
Benchmark alongside Compassion’s other tools such as the Supermarket Survey, its Awards programme,
EggTrack, and its advisory services to help companies understand how they are performing relative to their peers,
to identify areas and mechanisms for continuous improvement, and to highlight sources of risk and advantage.
More information on Compassion in World Farming can be found at: www.ciwf.org. More information on the work of
the Food Business team at Compassion in World Farming can be found at: www.compassioninfoodbusiness.com
World Animal Protection
World Animal Protection is a global NGO that works to end the cruelty and suffering of animals. With 14 offices
across the world, World Animal Protection engages with companies, governments, and international bodies to
put farmed and wild animals on the global agenda while inspiring individuals to take action to protect animals andfurther the cause of animal welfare.
Through its corporate engagement work, World Animal Protection works with leading food companies across thevalue chain to support their efforts to improve animal welfare. World Animal Protection offers specialist animal
welfare expertise and provides resources that help companies achieve high animal welfare.
To learn more about World Animal Protection’s work, our news, successes, and how we can support you, please
visit www.worldanimalprotection.org

Contents
Foreword......................................................................................................... 4
1 The 2020 Benchmark Highlights......................................................... 5
2 The 2020 Benchmark Results in Detail............................................13
3 Accelerating Impact..............................................................................19
4 The 2020 Benchmark: Methodology and Scope..........................22
5 Appendices..............................................................................................24• References• Acknowledgements

3

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2020

ForewordMore than any other year, 2020 sharply andirrevocably highlighted the inextricable links
between the health and wellbeing of people
and animals. Like swine and avian flu before it,
COVID-19 has reinforced this connection.
Shockingly, a 2020 UN report finds intensive farming responsible formore than half of all infectious diseases passing between animals
and people since 1940. And the intensive farming links with antibiotic
resistance and the emergence of superbugs are increasingly clear.
Food companies that fail to recognise the connections are taking
a significant risk by ignoring their responsibilities to the animals at
the hearts of their businesses, to their customers and the planet.
It is critical that BBFAW continues to challenge such failures andencourage companies to demonstrate their commitment to thecontinuous improvement of farm animal welfare in their operations
and supply chains.
BBFAW’s 2012 founding by World Animal Protection andCompassion in World Farming (CIWF) is a significant landmark
in business accountability. Since its inception, an increasingly
wide range of stakeholders – including institutional investors andconsumers, and organisations – are expressing their concern
about animal welfare and are calling for transparency. The annual
BBFAW Benchmark and its accompanying investor and company
engagement programmes have made a significant contribution
to defining the core expectations for companies on farm animal
welfare, to building investor and company consensus around these
expectations, and to catalysing change within companies and in theinvestment community.
Today, BBFAW is the leading global measure in farm animal welfare
management, policy commitment, performance and disclosurein food companies. It has driven changes in the practices andperformance of many of the world’s largest food companies.
For example, 79% of the 150 companies covered by the 2020
benchmark have formal overarching policies on farm animal welfare
and have set welfare-related objectives and targets (compared to,respectively, 46% and 26% of the 68 companies originally assessedin 2012), and 82% of the companies continuously assessed by the
BBFAW since 2012 have substantially improved their managementand disclosure on farm animal welfare. The BBFAW has involved
many of the world’s leading investors in the mission of encouraging
food companies to take action on farm animal welfare.
The 2020 results highlight that companies are continuing to
make progress in the Benchmark, with 23 companies moving
up at least one tier, and the overall average score has continued
to increase, indicating that animal welfare continues to receive
management attention. Nearly two-thirds of companies globally –91 of the 150 companies covered by the BBFAW – are now actively
managing the business risks and opportunities associated withfarm animal welfare, corresponding to being ranked in Tiers 1-4 ofthe Benchmark.

4

But farm animal welfare is not static. As BBFAW has delivered realchanges in company governance and in management systems andprocesses, it – and we, World Animal Protection and Compassionin World Farming – have started to much more closely examine therelationship between these traditional measures of management
quality and the outcomes being seen in the actual welfare of animals.
The BBFAW is increasing its emphasis on welfare impact, and it has,since 2018, made it clear to companies that performance is the key
focus. This change in emphasis mirrors the change we have seen in
the investment community, where questions of performance andimpact have become central to how investors assess the way inwhich they deliver on their social and environmental responsibilities.
Even in the last year or two, I have been struck by how much progress
BBFAW and its investor supporters have made in cracking one of
the key challenges that the animal welfare community has faced,
which is how we get companies to establish management systems
and processes that deliver real improvements in the well-beingof animals.
We have a long way to go but BBFAW has provided us with clear
insights into the direction that we must travel, into the expectations
that we need to have of companies, into the role that can be playedby companies and investors, and into the role that we as NGOs must
play – as partners and as campaigners – if we are to catalyse thechanges that we want to see.
BBFAW has been one of the most powerful and inspiring
programmes that I have worked on in my 30-year career working
to improve the lives of animals. It has shown what can be achieved
through working in partnership with companies, with investors andwith civil society organisations. It has forced us to lift our game andto be crystal clear about what we want to achieve. It has shown the
power of hard data and of what can be achieved when you establish
a programme that has a clear sense of purpose and is underpinned
by deep expertise both on animal welfare and on how companies andinvestors operate. It stands, I believe, as an exemplar of what a welldesigned programme of work can be.
As we proudly hand over the baton to FOUR PAWS International,
we welcome the new partners into this important and excitingchange programme. We recognise that improving the welfare of all
animals farmed for food is a collective responsibility; a responsibility
that extends to food companies and investors, and to civil society
organisations that are committed to collaborating with both of thesestakeholder groups. World Animal Protection will continue to takean active interest in the BBFAW as we embark on our new strategy(2021–2030) that will seek to overturn the entrenched systems thatcause so much suffering and anguish to animals.
It has been a privilege for us to support the BBFAW and we know that
FOUR PAWS International and Compassion in World Farming will
support and enthusiastically drive forward the BBFAW programme. I
look forward to celebrating what I know will be the continued successof the BBFAW.
Steve McIvor
CEO, World Animal Protection

The 2020 Benchmark highlights

1. The 2020 Benchmark Highlights
This is the ninth annual edition of the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare. It analyses thefarm animal welfare policies, management systems, reporting and performance of 150 of the world’s
largest food companies, across 37 distinct, objective criteria. As such, it is the most authoritative andcomprehensive global account of corporate practice on farm animal welfare.
In addition to the key findings and analysis presented within this report, this year, we have also presented
the data via an interactive online BBFAW data dashboard. You can access the dashboard here
www.bbfaw.com/benchmark/

Overall Results
1: Companies continue to make progress in the Benchmark, showing farm animal
welfare remains a business priority
In the 2020 Benchmark, 23 companies have moved up at least one tier and the overall
average score has continued to increase, marginally, to 35% in 2020, from 34% in 2019,indicating that animal welfare has continued to receive sustained management attention.
The incremental changes we are seeing this year are notable given the tightening of thebenchmark methodology and assessment approach in 2020. They are also encouraging
against a difficult backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, although we anticipate its effecton corporate reporting of farm animal welfare have yet to be fully realised.
2: Progress continues but welfare ‘impact’ remains under-reported
Nearly two-thirds of companies globally, 91 of the 150 companies in the BBFAW, arenow actively managing the business risks and opportunities associated with farm animal
welfare, corresponding to being ranked in Tiers 1-4 of the Benchmark.
Whilst this is broadly similar to 2019, we have for the first time used an ‘Impact Rating’ toassess whether company efforts in managing farm animal welfare are actually translating
into improved welfare impacts for animals. Poor performance in the baseline 2020
Impact Ratings shows that welfare impact remains under-reported. For example, whilst
61% of companies report on the proportion of laying hens free from cages, significantly
fewer companies report on the proportion of laying hens free from routine beaktrimming, or the proportion of pigs free from sow stalls or tail docking, or the proportionof dairy cattle free from tethering or routine tail docking. Companies are also failing todisclose what proportion of broiler chickens in their global supply chains is from slower
growing breeds or is reared at lower stocking densities, or what proportion of animals
in their global supply chains is pre-slaughter stunned or is transported in eight hours
or less. Whilst 79% of companies have published formal improvement objectives forfarm animal welfare (75% in 2019), there is a gap in companies’ disclosure on how thesecommitments are leading to improved welfare performance on the ground.
3: Producers and manufacturers are outpacing retailers and wholesalers, andrestaurants and bars on farm animal welfare management and reporting
For the first time, food producers and manufacturers are the highest scoring sub-sector
with the overall average score for food producers and manufacturers increasing from
35% to 38% compared to scores of 36% for retailers and wholesalers, and 31% forrestaurants and bars.
Thirteen companies in the producers and manufacturers sub-sector improved theirscore by at least one tier between 2019 and 2020, compared to nine retailer andwholesaler companies, and just one company in the restaurants and bars sub-sector.
Food producers are also now the most represented sub-sector in Tiers 1 and 2 of the
Benchmark, with twelve companies – Barilla, Cargill, Cranswick, Danish Crown, Groupe
Danone, Fonterra, Hilton Food Group, Marfrig, Nestlé, Noble Foods, Premier Foods andUnilever – showing leadership on farm animal welfare. These companies represent all
geographic regions (Asia Pacific, Europe, Latin America, North America and UK) coveredby the Benchmark.
5

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2020
The marked improvement by producers and manufacturers in 2020 has revealed asignificant gap between sub-sectors. Whilst the overall average score for the other two
sub-sectors has remained broadly static (36% for retailers and wholesalers and 31%
for restaurants and bars versus 35% and 32% in 2019 respectively), food producers andmanufacturers are outperforming the companies that they supply.
4: Momentum is building for food producers in Latin America and Asia Pacific: regionsthat include some of the biggest names in global meat production
Our analysis of companies by geographic region reveals noteworthy changes in theoverall average score for producer companies in Latin America, whose overall averagescore rose from 29% in 2019 to 40% in 2020. Most improvements were seen in in thescoring of companies (including Agro Super, BRF, Marfrig Global Foods and Minerva
Foods) in the Management and Commitment and the Governance and Management
sections of the Benchmark, indicating that producers in this region are providing moreclarity on their management commitments and policies and are also describing theirgovernance systems and processes for effectively implementing their commitments.
Notable increases in average scores were also seen in Asia Pacific, where producers inthat region saw their year-on-year scores improve from 21% to 27% in the Management
Commitment section and from 14% to 18% in the Governance and Management
section. However, it is worth noting that this rise is from a very low base, and the averageoverall score for these companies increased from 12% to 16% in 2020.

Company Rankings and Performance
As in previous Benchmarks, we have grouped the assessed companies into one ofsix tiers, based on their overall percentage scores, as indicated in Table 1.1. Figure 1.1
presents a composite picture of company scores.
Table 1.1: BBFAW Tiers
Tier

Percentage Score

2. 	The company has made farm animal welfare an integral partof its business strategy

62 – 80%

4. 	The company is making progress on implementing its
policies and commitments on farm animal welfare

27 – 43%

6. 	The company provides limited if any evidence that itrecognises farm animal welfare as a business issue<11%

1. 	The company has taken a leadership position on farmanimal welfare

6

>80%

3. 	The company has an established approach to a farm animal
welfare but has more work to do to ensure it is effectively
implemented

44 – 61%5. 	The company has identified farm animal welfare as abusiness issue but provides limited evidence that it ismanaging the issue effectively

11 – 26%

The 2020 Benchmark highlights
Figure 1.1: Company Rankings

Tier 1

Leadership

Tier 2Integral tobusiness strategy

4

19

CranswickMarks & Spencer

BarillaWaitrose	Coop Group(Switzerland)

Noble Foods

Tier 3

Established but
work to be done

Cargill

Co-op UK

Danish Crown

Fonterra
GreggsGroupe Danone

Hilton Food GroupJ Sainsbury

Marfrig Global Foods
Mitchells & Butlers
Nestlé

Premier Foods
Tesco

UnileverWhitbread

Wm Morrison

Woolworths Group37
2 Sisters Food Group
ALDI Nord

ALDI Süd

Arla Foods

Auchan Holding
BRF

Carrefour
Casino	Charoen PokphandFoods
	Cheesecake Factory (The)
Chipotle Mexican Grill
Coles Group

Compass Group

Domino’s Pizza Group

Elior Group	Hormel Foods
Corporation

	IKEA (Inter IKEA Group)
JBS

JD Wetherspoon	Jeronimo Martins
KraftHeinz

LDC Groupe

Les Mousquetaires

Lidl Stiftung & Co

Maple Leaf Foods
	McDonald’s Corporation
MigrosMinerva Foods
Mowi

Perdue Farms

REWE Group	RoyalFrieslandCampina

Tier 4Makingprogress on
implementation

31

Tier 5On the businessagenda but limited
evidence of
implementation
34

Agro Super

Ahold Delhaize

Aramark	Associated British Foods	Campbell Soup
Company	Camst	Colruyt	Coop Italia

	Cooperativa Centrale
Aurora Alimentos
	Coopérative U
Enseigne	Cooperl Arc Atlantique	Costco
	Cremonini

	Darden Restaurants	Edeka Group	Albertsons
	Amazon/Whole Foods
MarketBimbo	BJ’s Wholesale Club
Holdings
	Chick-fil-A	ConAgra

Cooke Seafood	Cracker Barrel	Dunkin’ Brands

Dairy Farmers ofAmerica	E.Leclerc

	Empire Company/
Sobey’s	Ferrero	Gruppo Veronesi

General Mills Inc
	Groupe Lactalis	H E Butt Company

Metro AG	OSI Group	JAB Holding Company
	Kerry GroupICA Gruppen
	Kroger Company (The)	Hershey Co
	Inspire Brands

No evidence
on thebusiness agenda

25

	Aeon Group	Autogrill	Bloomin’ Brands
	C&S Wholesale	Cencosud	China Resources
Vanguard
	China Yurun Group
Limited	Chuying Agro-PastoralGroup
CKE Restaurants
	CNHLS
	Conad Consorzio
Nazionale	Couche-Tard

	Dico’s/Ting Hsin
International Group	Gategroup Holding	Habib’s	Industrias Bachoco

Papa John’s Pizza	Plukon Food Group	Restaurant Brands
International
	Saputo	Loblaw Companies
Limited	Lianhua Supermarket
Holdings Co
	Maruha Nichiro

Meiji Holdings	Mercadona	Mondelēz International	Nippon Ham
	Seven & i Holdings

Terrena Group	Tönnies Group

Publix Super Markets
	Sanderson Farms

	WH GroupSSP Group	Starbucks

	Sysco Corporation

	Walmart Inc/Asda	Wendy’s Company

Mars	Seaboard Corp

2020

	Schwarz
Unternehmens
Treuhand/Kaufland

Down at least 1 tierTyson Foods

	Umoe Gruppen

New company

Yum! Brands

US Foods

Key

Tier 6

Up at least 1 tierSodexo	Subway/Doctor’s
Associates	Target Corporation

Non-moverVion Food GroupUNFI	Müller Group	New Hope Liuhe Co	Wens Foodstuff Group	Yonghui Superstores Co
	Zhongpin

7

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2020
In the 2020 Benchmark, the overall average score achieved has increased marginallyto 35%, from 34% in 2019. The small increase in the overall average score reflects the
improvements made by companies, particularly producers and manufacturers, and the
23 companies (see Table 1.2) who moved up at least one tier, balanced with the changes
introduced to strengthen the methodology this year. The scores achieved in the 2020
Benchmark have been adversely affected by the addition of four new questions, introduced
in 2019 and scored for the first time in 2020, as well as a further slight adjustment to
the weighting of the 10 performance impact questions. If we were to exclude the 2020
methodological changes, then the overall average score would have been 37%, which iscomparable to the progress seen in the Benchmark in the last two years.
Box 1.1
Changes to the 2020 Benchmark Methodology
This year, we marginally adjusted the weighting of the performance question scoresto place greater emphasis on welfare impacts.1This means that the 10 questions
relating to welfare impact now account for 60% of the weighting of the Performance
Reporting and Impact section (from 56% in 2019). In addition, the scores from four
new questions introduced in 20192 were included in the 2020 Benchmark for the firsttime, and the scoring of one further question was modified.3 These changes resulted
in 11 companies being ranked one tier lower than they would otherwise have ranked
and a decrease of 1.2% in the overall average score for all companies.
With 23 companies now appearing in Tiers 1 and 2 (22 in 2019), it is encouraging to seethat the companies who have made farm animal welfare integral to their business strategy
and who are demonstrating leadership on farm animal welfare represent all three subsectors (retailers and wholesalers, producers and manufacturers, and restaurants and bars)
and all geographic regions (Asia Pacific, Europe, Latin America, North America and UK)
covered by the Benchmark. A further 70 companies are making progress on implementing
their policies and commitments on farm animal welfare (corresponding to Tiers 3 and
4). Overall, this shows that almost two-thirds of companies are actively managing thebusiness risks and opportunities associated with farm animal welfare.
As well as the 23 companies that have moved up at least one tier (as shown in Table 1.2), 15
companies have moved down at least one tier (see Table 1.3). The number of companies
moving down is higher than we have seen in previous years. Our analysis of the scoring
indicates that 11 of the 15 companies moved down a tier as a result of the changes tothe 2020 methodology. A further explanation for this could be the disruption caused by
the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for the restaurants and bars sector, which has led tosome companies failing to update their reporting.

23

companies have
improved by at least
one tier between
2019 and 2020

Table 1.2: Companies Improving by at Least One Tier between 2019 and 2020
Retailers & Wholesalers

Producers & Manufacturers

Auchan Holding

Bimbo

Ahold Delhaize

BJ’s Wholesale Club Holdings
Carrefour SA

IKEA (Inter IKEA Group)
Jeronimo Martins

Lidl Stiftung & Co KG

Schwarz Unternehmens Treuhand
KG/Kaufland
Woolworths Group

BarillaCharoen Pokphand Foods
Cooke Seafood Inc

Cooperativa Centrale Aurora
Alimentos
Fonterra

KraftHeinz

Marfrig Global (risen by two tiers)
Mars Inc

Meiji Holdings

Minerva Foods (risen by two tiers)
Unilever NV
US Foods

8

Restaurants & Bars
Papa John’s Pizza

The 2020 Benchmark highlights
Table 1.3: Companies Falling by at Least One Tier between 2019 and 2020
Retailers & Wholesalers

Producers & Manufacturers

Restaurants & Bars

Coop Group (Switzerland)/Coop
Genossenschaft

Perdue Farms

Chipotle Mexican Grill

ALDI Süd

ICA Gruppen AB

General Mills Inc

Aramark Corporation
CKE Restaurants

Terrena GroupSSP Group

Metro AG

Subway/Doctor’s Associates Inc

Migros (fallen by two tiers)
Publix Super Markets Inc
UNFIFifty-nine of the 150 companies appear in Tiers 5 and 6, indicating that these companies
provide little or no information on their approach to farm animal welfare. Across thesetiers, 28 companies (19%) still do not publish a farm animal welfare policy, highlightingthat there is significant work to be done before the business risks associated with farmanimal welfare are considered to be effectively managed by the food industry globally.
Notably, there are 10 companies in Tiers 5 and 6 that have been continually assessed aspart of the BBFAW since 2012, yet these companies significantly lag their industry peers
in demonstrating their commitment to farm animal welfare. The companies are Autogrill,
Gategroup, Groupe Lactalis, Mars, Mercadona, Müller Group, Subway, SSP Group,
Starbucks and Umoe Gruppen.
Our analysis of the changes in company tier rankings between 2012 and 2020 (seeTable 1.4) highlights the progress made by the 57 food companies that have been
continuously assessed by the Benchmark since 2012. Acknowledging that somecompanies have moved up and down tiers since 2012, Table 1.4 provides the net impactof these movements across tiers. In total, 47 (82%) have moved up at least one tier since2012 and, of these, 15 (26%) have moved up one tier, 21 (37%) have moved up two tiersand 11 (19%) moved up three tiers. These improvements are even more striking given
the tightening of the Benchmark criteria and the increased emphasis on performance
reporting and impact over time.
Table 1.4: Tier changes 2012 – 2020 (trend companies)
Down 1 Tier

No Tier change

Subway/Doctor’s
Associates Inc

Autogrill
Co-op (UK)
Gategroup Holding
Groupe Lactalis
ICA Gruppen
McDonald’s
Corporation
Müller Group
Starbucks
Unilever1

Up 1 Tier

Arla Foods
Coop Group(Switzerland)Compass GroupJ Sainsbury
Mars
Mercadona
Metro AG
Noble Foods*
Royal
FrieslandCampina
SSP Group
Terrena Group
Tyson Foods
Umoe Gruppen
Vion Food GroupWm Morrison

915

Up 2 Tiers

2 Sisters FoodGroup
ALDI Süd
Aramark
Associated British
Foods
Camst
Carrefour
Cremonini
Danish Crown
Groupe Danone
JD Wetherspoon
Lidl Stiftung & Co
Marfrig Global
Foods
Marks & Spencer*
MigrosMitchells & Butlers
REWE Group
Schwarz
Unternehmens
Treuhand KG/
Kaufland
Tesco
Walmart Inc/Asda
WhitbreadYum! Brands

21

Up 3 Tiers

Auchan Holding
BarillaCargillCasinoCranswick*Elior Group
GreggsNestlé
Premier Foods
SodexoWaitrose*

11*Tier 1 company in 2020

Although we have previously reported 55 trend companies, the actual number is 57.

9The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2020

Sub-sector Comparison
The marked improvement by producers and manufacturers in 2020 has revealed asignificant gap between sub-sectors. Whilst the overall average score for the retailers
and wholesalers sub-sector improved marginally from 35% to 36%, and the score forthe restaurants and bars reduced from 32% to 31%, the overall average score for the
producer and manufacturer sub-sector increased from 35% to 38%. As highlighted inBox 1.2 below, this improvement in scoring has been bolstered by significantly improved
scoring for producers in the Latin America and Asia-Pacific regions.
Box 1.2
Sub-sector Focus: Producers and Manufacturers
The food producer and manufacturer sub-sector has for the first time become thehighest scoring sub-sector in the Benchmark, with the overall average score for thissub-sector increasing from 35% in 2019, to 38% in 2020.
Food producers are also now the most represented sub-sector in Tiers 1 and 2 of
the Benchmark, with twelve companies showing leadership on farm animal welfare(compared to eight retailers and wholesalers and three restaurants and bars). These
twelve producers and manufacturers – Barilla, Cargill, Cranswick, Danish Crown,
Fonterra, Groupe Danone, Hilton Food Group, Marfrig, Nestlé, Noble Foods, PremierFoods and Unilever – include representatives of all geographic regions (Asia Pacific,
Europe, Latin America, North America and UK) covered by the Benchmark.
Looking at the companies that moved up at least one tier in 2020, it is interesting
to note that more than half of the producers and manufacturers moving up werecompanies that we included in the Benchmark for the first time in 2017. These
included Bimbo, Charoen Pokphand Foods, Cooke Seafood Inc, Cooperativa Centrale
Aurora Alimentos, Meiji Holdings, Minerva Foods and US Foods, a majority of which
are located in the Latin America and Asia Pacific regions.
Our analysis of companies by geographic region reveals substantial changes in theoverall average score for producer companies domiciled in Latin America, whose
overall average score rose to 40% in 2020 (from 29% in 2019). Although this finding isbased on the performance of just eight companies, these companies include someof the largest meat producers globally (Agro Super, Cooperativa Centrale Aurora
Alimentos, Industrias Bachoco, BRF, JBS, Marfrig Global Foods and Minerva Foods).
This means that producers in Latin America are now outperforming producers andmanufacturers in North America whose overall average score was 35% (up from 33%
in 2019). Most improvements for Latin American producers and manufacturers wereseen in the scores in the Management and Commitment and the Governance andManagement sections, indicating that producers and manufacturers in this region areproviding more clarity on their management commitments and policies and are also
describing the systems and processes in place for implementing them. Increases inaverage scores were also seen in Asia Pacific, where producers and manufacturers
in that region saw their year-on-year scores improve from 21% to 27% in theManagement Commitment section and from 14% to 18% in the Governanceand Management section. Notwithstanding these improvements, producers andmanufacturers in the Asia Pacific region still lag behind their peers in other regionswith an overall average score of 16% (12% in 2019), compared to producers andmanufacturers in Europe who achieved an average score of 44% (43% in 2019) andthose in the UK who achieved an average score of 61% (57% in 2019).
Reflecting on the improvements seen in companies that have only been assessedby the Benchmark since 2017, we generally anticipate that it will take three to five
years for companies to be reporting performance data that enables assessmentof the effectiveness of their management systems and, over time, the impact ofthese systems in terms of improved welfare outcomes for animals. It is therefore
encouraging to see that these recently introduced companies are engaging
with the Benchmark and making significant improvements in their management
and reporting.

10The 2020 Benchmark highlights

Global Perspective
UK domiciled companies, with an average score of 64%, continue to outperform
companies in other geographies. The strongest overall performance came from UK
companies across all sub-sectors. Despite a decline in the overall average scores insome sections, UK retailers and wholesalers, achieved the highest average scores for
Governance and Management at 88% (up from 87%) and for Performance Reportingand Impact (55%, compared with 61% in 2019), while UK restaurants and bars achieved
the highest average score for Management Commitment and Policy at 85% (comparedwith 91% in 2019). UK restaurants and bars achieved a lower overall average scoreof 57% (60% in 2019), suggesting that companies in this sub-sector have either not
updated their performance data or have failed to clarify the scope of their reporting.
The second highest-scoring region remains Europe (excluding the UK), which achieved
an average score of 40%. Here, food retailers and food producers achieved broadly thesame overall average scores (42% and 44% respectively), but were significantly ahead ofrestaurants and bars, whose average score was just 26%.
Although other geographic regions continue to lag, this year the average overall scorefor Latin American companies, at 32%, has now overtaken North American companies,
at 29%. Asia-Pacific was the only other geographic region to see a rise in average overall
score in 2020, increasing from 12% to 16%. However, it is worth noting that this rise isfrom a very low base.

Impact Rating
For the first time this year, we have analysed company scores using an ‘Impact Rating’for the ten Performance Impact questions.4 Eight of these questions assess companies
on species-specific performance for the most numerously sourced animals (excludingfish) worldwide (namely laying hens, broiler chickens, dairy cows and pigs) with a focus
on key welfare issues for each of these species (covering close confinement, routine
mutilations and fast-growth rate breeds) and two questions focus on cross-species
performance on pre-slaughter stunning and long-distance live transportation.
Companies are only assessed on questions that are relevant to the species in their
supply chains. The baseline scores are presented in a six-tier rating, labelled A-F, using
the percentage boundaries presented in Table 1.5.
Despite the BBFAW introducing performance impact questions in 2016, company
reporting on welfare impact remains immature. The BBFAW recognises that
performance disclosure is essential to driving improvements in the welfare of animals
managed by companies and their supply chains but that this can only be achieved
and sustained once companies have established effective internal and supply chain
processes for managing and governing farm animal welfare. The Impact Rating has
been introduced to provide an additional level of granularity to help investors gauge theeffectiveness of companies’ commitments to improving the lives of farms animals intheir supply now and to help companies identify where they need to make significant
improvements in the welfare of animals in their global supply chains.
Table 1.5 2020 Impact Ratings*
Impact Rating
A >80%

B 62-80%
C 44-61%
D 27-43%
E 11-26%
F <11%

These companies are declaring improved welfare impacts for areasonable proportion of farm animals in their operations and/or
supply chains.

These companies are declaring improved welfare impacts for atleast some farm animals in their operations and/or supply chains.
These companies have yet to demonstrate that they are delivering
improved welfare impacts for farm animals in their operations and/or supply chains.

Number of companies

0
4
3

10
12
121

*Impact ratings are based on companies’ scores for the 10 performance impact questions, namely Q28 to Q37.

11

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2020

The 2020 baseline Impact Ratings (see Table 1.5) show there are few companies
achieving Impact Ratings A-E. Companies from across Tiers 2 to 6 achieved an Impact
Rating of F (albeit only two companies from Tier 2), suggesting that whilst somecompanies score well on their management systems and governance of farm animal
welfare, these strategies have yet to deliver improved welfare impacts. Indeed, 39
companies (26%) scored points on only one Performance Impact question, whilst 51
companies (34%) scored 0%.
Since 2012, the BBFAW has played an important role in defining expectations for andencouraging disclosure on management and governance processes for farm animal
welfare, a majority of food sector companies have responded to meeting these
expectations. The challenge now is for the BBFAW to encourage increased delivery of
welfare impacts for animals in their global supply chains. The BBFAW Secretariat and its
partners will work with companies to drive improvements in the monitoring and disclosureof their welfare impacts, and the BBFAW plans to publish individual Impact Ratings for allcompanies on an annual basis from the 2021 Benchmark.

12

The 2020 Benchmark Results in detail

2. The 2020 Benchmark Results in Detail
Farm Animal Welfare Policies
One hundred and thirty-four (89%) of the 150 companies covered by the 2020
Benchmark now acknowledge farm animal welfare as a relevant business issue, and 119
companies (79%) have formal overarching policies on farm animal welfare. Nevertheless,
31 major food companies (21%) have still not published overarching policies on farmanimal welfare, indicating that these companies have yet to formalise their managementof farm animal welfare.
Two-thirds of farm animal welfare policies lack universal coverage with their scope being
either poorly defined or limited to specified geographies, species and/or products(see Fig. 2.1). In practice, companies tend to prioritise those species and issues where
they have the most significant impact, where they have the most influence and where
there is the greatest level of public or consumer attention. Whilst 55% of policies apply
to all species (54% in 2019), our view is that farmed fin fish continue to be frequently
overlooked in companies’ farm animal welfare or associated policies.

1in5
major food companies
does not have a farmanimal welfare policy

Figure 2.1 Formal Animal Welfare Policies
Universal Policy

No Policy

25%

21%

Farmed fin fish continue
to be overlooked in many
companies’ policies.

54%

Partial Policy
Figure 2.2 shows the proportion of companies with management commitments
addressing the eight key welfare topics assessed in the Benchmark.5 The top threewelfare topics addressed by company commitments continue to be the avoidance of
close confinement, the reduction or elimination of routine antibiotics and the avoidanceof growth promoting substances, reflecting the attention these topics have received
from the media and from NGO campaigns across multiple geographies.
This is the first year in which we have included the scores from a new policy question6
relating to the provision of species-specific environmental enrichment, which reflects
increasing recognition of the importance of providing animals with stimulating andcomplex environments that enable species-specific behaviours. Such enrichment
can include, for example, brushes for dairy cows, manipulable materials such as straw
for pigs, pecking and dustbathing substrates and perches for chickens. Despite thefact that this question was recently introduced, it is notable that commitments toprovide species-specific environmental enrichment are already the fourth mostnumerous out of the key welfare topics addressed in the Benchmark. However, of the
55% of companies making commitments to provide species-specific environmental
enrichment, only 58% of these commitments are clearly defined (54%) or universal (4%)
in scope. Indeed, of all the key welfare topics assessed in the Benchmark, environmental
enrichment has the lowest proportion of companies with defined commitments,suggesting that management approach to this issue is relatively immature and that
there is a lack of understanding of this topic.

13

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2020
It continues to be the case that relatively few commitments are universal in scope.
The key welfare topics with the greatest proportion of universal commitments are theavoidance of genetically-modified or cloned animals at (35%), the avoidance of animals
that have not been stunned prior to slaughter (24%) and the avoidance of long-distancelive transportation (24%), suggesting that these issues are better understood bycompanies and their supply chains.
Figure 2.2: Percentage of Companies with Specific Policies on Farm Animal Welfare Issues
0

10

20

30

40

50

49%
55%
51%
50%
46%
41%
45%
32%
30%
21%
27%
38%
59%

2020
2019
2018
2017
Growth 2016
promoting 2015
substances 2014
2013
2012

54%
51%
54%
45%
38%
34%
29%
18%
67%

2020
2019
2018
2017
Prophylactic 2016
antibiotic use* 2015
2014

65%
55%
61%
47%
39%
35%
51%
45%
41%
45%
33%
36%
23%
13%
7%

2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
Pre-slaughter 2015
stunning 2014
2013
2012
2020
2019
2018
2017
Long-distance 2016transport 20152014
2013 6%2012 6%

53%
47%
41%
43%
37%
32%
34%
26%
13%
31%
27%
24%
27%
21%
19%
10%

10

20

Reported for the first time in *2014, **2019
14

90

72%

2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
GMOs 2015
2014
2013
2012

0

80

64%
66%

Environmental 2020
enrichment** 2019

Routinemutilations

70

81%
77%
77%
79%
77%

2020
2019
2018
2017
Close 2016
confinement 2015
2014
2013
2012

2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012

60

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

The 2020 Benchmark Results in detail

Governance and Management
We are seeing evidence of an increasing proportion of companies having establishedgovernance and management systems and processes for addressing the business risks
associated with farm animal welfare in their supply chains, 51% of companies in 2020
having assigned senior management oversight of farm animal welfare and 79% having
published formal objectives and targets for animal welfare. When compared with thefirst Benchmark in 2012, where just 22% of companies reported on senior management
oversight of farm animal welfare and only 26% had published formal improvement
objectives for farm animal welfare, it is clear to see the significant improvement that has
been made in companies’ governance of farm animal welfare.
We continue to see year-on-year improvements in the way in which companies arestrengthening their internal processes for ensuring the effective implementation ofcompany policies. For instance, 49% of companies now describe their provision of
employee training on animal welfare (42% in 2019), and 55% describe the actions takenin the event of non-compliance with their farm animal welfare policies (42% in 2019).
This is encouraging given that performance in these areas has historically lagged other
Governance and Management criteria.
The scores achieved within the Governance and Management section of the Benchmark
reveal differing approaches between the company sub-sectors. Whereas 66% ofrestaurants and bars report that they include farm animal welfare in supplier contracts, only
26% report they provide support and/or education to suppliers on farm animal welfare.
This contrasts with producers and manufacturers, of which 48% include farm animal
welfare in supplier contracts and 57% provide associated support and/or education to
suppliers. The equivalent percentages for retailers and wholesalers are 54% and 46%
respectively. This suggests that producers and manufacturers appear to be providing most
support to their suppliers on implementing their farm animal welfare commitments.
Key findings:• 63% of companies (59% in 2019) report some information on management

responsibilities for farm animal welfare, at either or both senior and operational levels.

• 79% of companies (75% in 2019) have now set farm animal welfare-related objectives
and targets.

• 54% of companies (50% in 2019) report that they include farm animal welfare insupplier contracts.

• 67% of companies (63% in 2019) describe how they monitor and audit the79%
Whilstof global foodcompanies have set
farm animal welfarerelated objectives andtargets, we have yet
to see this reflected
in improved welfare
impact disclosure foranimals across theiroperations and supply
chainsimplementation of their farm animal welfare policies.

• 49% of companies (43% in 2019) report on providing animal welfare training to theiremployees, and 55% (42% in 2019) report on having internal controls for managing
non-compliance with their farm animal welfare policies.

Innovation and Leadership

Advancing Farm Animal Welfare in the Food Industry
Companies have an important role to play in supporting research and development
programmes to improve farm animal welfare, helping ensure that these are focusedon delivering results that can drive welfare impacts for animals in food industry
supply chains. Collective involvement of companies and other stakeholders, such as
governmental and industry organisations, NGOs and academia, in industry initiatives
aimed at improving farm animal welfare are another powerful driver of change.
Initiatives focused on developing the right policy frameworks, incentives, knowledge andunderstanding across the industry are important to ensure that improved practices are
adopted across the industry.
Forty percent of the 150 companies covered by the Benchmark now describe theirinvolvement in research and development programmes and 48% report that they are
involved in industry initiatives directed at improving farm animal welfare. These figures
represent an increase on the proportions of companies reporting on these activities in
the 2019 Benchmark (37% and 43% respectively).

15

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2020
Whereas average scores in the Innovation and Leadership section of the Benchmark
have remained relatively unchanged for companies in Europe, North America andthe UK, the scores have increased significantly for companies in Latin America, from
25% in 2019 to 43%, and Asia Pacific, from 14% to 24%. This improvement has been
driven predominantly by more companies reporting their involvement in research anddevelopment and industry initiatives, indicating that companies in these regions arerecognising that farm animal welfare is a collective issue.

Consumer Engagement
A further key role for companies within the food industry is the promotion of higher
farm animal welfare standards to customers (both business customers and consumers).
Provision of information on farm animal welfare is important at all levels of the foodsupply chain if companies are to play a role in driving greater awareness, demand andsupport for higher welfare products.
Overall, the 2020 Benchmark data suggest that the proportion of companies promoting
higher farm animal welfare to customers has remained unchanged. This is perhaps not
surprising given the significant and persistent disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic
on food companies globally. Seventy-nine (53%) of the 150 companies assessed
were found to provide information to their customers on farm animal welfare in 2020.
However, the proportion of producers and manufacturers providing evidence in this area
has increased markedly since the previous Benchmark, suggesting that farm animal
welfare is growing into a significant issue for these companies and their customers(see Box 2.1)
Box 2.1
Focus on the Producers and Manufacturers Sub-sector
Overall, and in line with the general trend we have seen elsewhere in the Benchmark,most progress is being seen by producers and manufacturers, whose average score
for the Leadership and Innovation section increased from 45% in 2019 to 52%
in 2020. In contrast, the average score for the other sub-sectors in this section
increased slightly, from 48% to 49% for retailers and wholesalers, and from 17% to
18% for restaurants and bars.
We have seen notable rises in the proportion of producers and manufacturers
reporting their involvement in innovation and leadership activities. Fifty-nine percent
of producers and manufacturers now report involvement in industry initiatives
directed at improving farm animal welfare, an increase from 46% in 2019, whereas
reporting by the other sub-sectors on this issue has remained largely unchanged.
In addition, the proportion of producers and manufacturers now providing evidenceof promoting higher farm animal welfare standards to customers has also increased
significantly, from 40% to 60%, compared to relatively unchanged performance on
this issue in the other sub-sectors.

Farm Animal Welfare Performance
Whilst companies are increasingly reporting animal welfare performance data, theaverage score achieved in the Performance Reporting and Impact section remains
very low. With an average score of just 14% (11% in 2019), it is clear that company
performance reporting is neither comprehensive (i.e. the scope of reporting is limited to
specified geographies, species or products) nor clearly defined.
It is important to acknowledge the BBFAW’s strict interpretation of the criteria for thequestions relating to performance impact, which require companies to report a single
figure reflecting their impact on the issue in question across 100% of their global supply
chain (N.B. for retailers and wholesalers some of these questions apply to own-brandproducts only7). Many companies fail to provide sufficient detail in their reported
performance data to accurately determine the proportion of animals in their global
supply chains that is impacted. For example, companies may report data for a particularcountry or a particular product line, but they do not provide any context for these data. In
the absence of any clarity on what these data represent as a proportion of global supply,
we are unable to award companies more than minimal points.
16

The 2020 Benchmark Results in detail

Performance Disclosure
Figure 2.4 shows that an increasing proportion of companies are reporting performancedata across the specific welfare topics covered by the Benchmark – the avoidance of close
confinement, the provision of species-specific environmental enrichment, the avoidanceof routine mutilations, the requirement for and the effectiveness of pre-slaughter
stunning, long-distance live transportation and welfare outcome measures (WOMs).
There have been some increases in the proportion of companies reporting on theprovision of species-specific environmental enrichment, from 13% of companies in2019 to 22% in 2020, and on the proportion of animals subject to back-up or repeat
pre-slaughter stunning, from 5% of companies in 2019 to 13% in 2020. Questions
addressing these two issues were added to the Benchmark in 2019 and were scored forthe first time in 2020.
Figure 2.4 Performance Reporting by Companies 2014-2020
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70
65%

2020
63%

2019

% animals free 2018from close
2017
confinement

51%
54%
33%

2016

33%

2015
18%

2014

% animals provided 2020
with environmental
2019
enrichment

22%
13%

2020

31%

% animals free 2019from routine 2018
mutilations 2017

26%
24%
19%

2016 5%
2020

31%

2019

24%

% animals 2018pre-slaughter 2017
stunned 2016

24%
19%
10%

2015

11%

2014 5%% animals subject
2020
to back-up or
repeat stunning 2019 5%

13%

2020

29%

2019

25%

% animals 2018transported in 2017<8 hours 2016

8%

2015

8%

20%
18%

2014 3%
23%

2020
16%

2019

% companies 2018
reporting welfare 2017
outcome measures 2016

13%
11%
6%

2015 2%
2014 3%

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Note: Performance reporting questions have been introduced from 2014, withadditional questions introduced in 2016, 2018 and 2019.
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014

17

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2020
Close confinement remains the highest reported area of performance, with 65%
of companies reporting at least some data. However, the majority of performance
reporting on this topic remains limited to specific countries, species or product lines, with
only 5% of companies reporting across all relevant geographies, species and products.
Only 23% of companies report on farm animal welfare outcomes (for example, dataon measures such as lameness rates in pigs; feather cover in laying hens; and sea lice
infection rates in farmed fish). Despite the importance of welfare outcome measuresfor evaluating the performance of farm animal welfare systems and practices, company
reporting on them remains limited.

Performance Impact
Over the last two Benchmark cycles we have gradually increased the emphasis on
welfare impact through increasing the weighting of the performance impact questions.
In 2020, whilst keeping the overall weighting of the Performance Reporting andImpact section at 35%, the weighting on the 10 performance impact questions has
been marginally adjusted from 56% to 60% of the available points in the Performance
Reporting and Impact section. This is in line with the BBFAW objective to drive improved
animal welfare standards in food industry supply chains.
Whilst 99 of the 150 companies covered by the Benchmark (66%) now score somepoints within the 10 performance impact questions, 39% of these score points on justone of the 10 questions. Most companies score points for reporting on the proportion oflaying hens that is cage-free, which mirrors the proportion of companies with publishedcommitments on the avoidance of cages for laying hens.
Key findings:
Only one in eight companies reports on the proportion of laying hens free from beaktrimming and on the proportion of broiler chickens from strains of birds with improved
welfare outcomes and with a slower growth potential.

•• Just four companies (3%) report that more than 25% of laying hens is free from beaktrimming in their global supply chains.

• Only one company (<1%) reports that more than 25% of broiler chickens in its global

supply chain is from strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes and with a slower
growth potential.

Despite the generally poor performance in this section, there are some encouraging
signs of improvement in the data. For example:• Eighty-three companies (61%) report on the proportion of laying hens in their global
supply chains that is free from close confinement (cage-free).
•Of these, 21 companies (26%) state that more than 50% of the laying hens in theirglobal supply chains is free from close confinement.

• Although low, the proportion of companies that report on the proportion of broiler

chickens from strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes and with a slower
growth potential has increased to 13% from just 4% in 2019. This question was added
to the Benchmark in 2019 and scored for the first time in 2020.

• Thirty-one percent of companies, compared to just 21% in 2019, report on the
proportion of animals (including fin fish) in their global supply chains that is preslaughter stunned.
•

18

Five percent of companies indicate that 100% of animals (including fin fish) in theirglobal supply chains is pre-slaughter stunned.

Accelerating Impact

3. Accelerating Impact
In addition to producing the annual Benchmark, the BBFAW programme works further to address thechallenges and issues identified in this report, and to encourage the changes – in policies, in management
systems, in reporting, in performance – that we think are needed to respond to these challenges.

The Company and Investor Perspective
Company engagement is central to the Benchmark process. Each year, the BBFAW
partners and the Secretariat engage directly with companies on their scores in the
Benchmark (41% of the companies assessed provided comments on their draft
assessments in 2020), on proposed changes to the Benchmark and on the role being
played by the Benchmark in driving change in their farm animal welfare policies, practices
and performance.
The Secretariat continues to have a high and active level of engagement with investors.
The BBFAW Secretariat has worked closely with investors since 20119 to ensure thatthe Benchmark and associated tools remain relevant to investors, and to help theinvestment industry to catalyse change in the manner in which companies manage
farm animal welfare through their investment decision-making and their engagementwith companies.
Companies and investors agree that the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare has
been a key driver for change. The main ways in which BBFAW has driven change have been:• It provides companies with guidance and clear expectations on how to structure their
management processes and reporting.

• It helps companies to understand the expectations and interests of key stakeholders(e.g. clients, customers, investors).

• It enables companies to benchmark themselves against their industry peers. This

helps senior management understand the company’s overall performance and cansupport the internal case for action and for investment.

• It enables comparisons to be made between internal business units and product lines,
enabling strengths and weaknesses to be identified.

• It is used by investors to assess the business risks and opportunities of farm animal

welfare for individual companies, to provide insights into companies’ quality ofmanagement, to assess the suitability of companies for inclusion in screened (ethical)
funds, and to identify potential investment opportunities in the food sector.

• It is used by investors in their company engagement, both to prioritise companies forengagement (e.g. to identify leaders and laggards) and to define their expectations ofcompanies (e.g. expectations that companies will achieve a specific tier ranking withina particular period of time).

• It is now seen as the most authoritative global benchmark for the assessment ofcorporate farm animal welfare practice. Companies use their performance in the
Benchmark as tangible evidence of their commitment to farm animal welfare; in fact,
26 of the 150 companies covered by the 2020 Benchmark have reported on theirperformance in the Benchmark in their corporate communications (e.g. on theirwebsites, in their annual reports and sustainability reports, in media releases).

19

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2020
Box 3.1
The Importance of Impact to Investors
Since the first BBFAW Benchmark in 2012, the investor perception of farm animal
welfare has changed dramatically, from perception as a niche investment issue, to
one where there is now widespread awareness of the importance of assessing andmanaging the investment risks and opportunities related to farm animal welfare.
Through engagement with companies on their approach to farm animal welfare,investors are increasingly looking for evidence that the management processes
companies are putting in place are leading to impact on farm animal welfare insupply chains. Such evidence enables investors to assess the effectiveness of the
management processes companies have implemented, and therefore the resulting
risk and opportunity associated with the company’s approach.
Disconnects between a company’s ability to disclose their management processes
and their subsequent impact on farm animal welfare in supply chains, such as
those we have found in the BBFAW 2020 data, raise important questions about theeffectiveness of company approaches to managing the supply chain risks associatedwith farm animal welfare.

How Does BBFAW Aim to Accelerate Impact?
Improving the welfare of all animals farmed for food is a collective responsibility; aresponsibility that clearly extends to food companies and to their investors. This is why
the work of the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare and the efforts of theinvestors that have signed the Global Investor Statement of Farm Animal Welfare andthat participate in BBFAW’s International Investor Collaboration on Farm Animal Welfare
is crucial. Investors have played a critical role in making sure that farm animal welfare is on
the agenda for food companies, in ensuring that companies have effective systems andprocesses in place to manage the business risks and opportunities presented by farmanimal welfare, and in encouraging these companies to improve the welfare of animals
across their entire supply chains.
Over the nine iterations of the Benchmark, we have proactively engaged with
the investment community, encouraging investors to use their influence to urge
companies to take effective action on farm animal welfare. We have established thefirst ever Global Investor Statement on Farm Animal Welfare and the BBFAW Global
Investor Collaboration on Farm Animal Welfare; these are now supported by 32 and 29
institutional investors respectively, with over £2.1 trillion in assets under management.
Furthermore, the results of our ongoing engagements with investors suggest that – asa result of the annual Benchmark itself and the BBFAW Secretariat’s extensive dialogue
and capacity-building efforts – investors are increasingly likely to engage with companies
to encourage them to better manage the issue of farm animal welfare. This engagement
is widely cited by companies as a key driver for them to take action on farm animal
welfare.
In 2020, investors in the BBFAW Investor Collaboration wrote to the CEOs of allcompanies covered by the BBFAW to commend leading and improving companies on
their performance in the Benchmark and to challenge poorer performers to improve.
In total, 69 of the 150 companies formally responded to investors, which is our highest
response rate to date and reflects the influential role of investors in ensuring that farmanimal welfare remains on the business agenda.
A key focus of the BBFAW in the years ahead will be to support investor engagement withcompanies on driving impact disclosure. Impact reporting forms a critical part in enabling
investors to assess the effectiveness of company approaches to managing the farmanimal welfare risks in their supply chains.

20

Accelerating Impact

BBFAW 2021
With effect from April 2021 and the start of the tenth Benchmark cycle, we are delighted
to welcome FOUR PAWS International as a supporting partner of the BBFAW. FOUR
PAWS will take over from World Animal Protection who, alongside Compassion in World
Farming, has steered the BBFAW since its inception in 2012. The BBFAW is extremely
grateful to World Animal Protection for its vision, dedication, technical expertise andfinancial support over the past ten years. FOUR PAWS and BBFAW founding partner,
Compassion in World Farming, will together play an instrumental role in providing the
BBFAW programme with technical expertise, guidance, funding and practical resources.
 OUR PAWS International is the global animal welfare organisation for animals underF
direct human influence, which reveals suffering, rescues animals in need and protects
them. Their vision is a world where humans treat animals with respect, empathy andunderstanding. The organisation has been working for decades to improve conditions inrelation to the breeding, transport and slaughter of animals reared for food.

We are excited to report that the findings of the first regional benchmark, BBFAW
Nordic, will be published during 2021. Based on the same methodology as the global
Benchmark, the first chapter of the benchmark will cover 26 leading food retailers
and wholesalers, food producers and restaurants and bars in Norway. These findings
will shine a spotlight on the state of farm animal welfare management and reporting
within the Norwegian food industry, and will form the baseline assessment on
which to measure company performance over time. The annual assessment cycle
will be accompanied by an active programme of company
engagement. We also plan to work with companies and animal
welfare specialists to develop country-specific questions as asupplement to the core assessment criteria.
For further details, see: https://bbfaw-nordic.com/

21

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2020

4. The 2020 Benchmark Methodology and Scope
A detailed description of the benchmark company research process and a full listof the companies covered by the 2020 Benchmark is available in the BBFAW 2020
Methodology Report which accompanies this report.

2020 Benchmark companies
The 2020 Benchmark assessed 150 food companies. Some changes were made to theuniverse of companies as follows:• Dairy Farmers of America (a cooperative) was assessed in place of Dean Foods

following its acquisition of the majority of the assets of Dean Foods in the wake of its
bankruptcy.

• Tulip Ltd, previously assessed as part of Danish Crown AmbA, was assessed as part ofits new parent company, JBS SA, following its acquisition from Danish Crown AmbA.

• Chuying Agro-Pastoral Group delisted from the Shenzhen Stock Exchange, therefore
its ownership category has changed from Public to Private.

As a result of these changes, the 2020 Benchmark covered:• 92 public companies (94 in 2019)• 39 private companies (38 in 2019)• 15 cooperatives (14 in 2019)• 4 joint stock/partnership owned companies.

The 2020 Benchmark companies comprise:• 52 Retailers & Wholesalers• 63 Producers & Manufacturers• 35 Restaurants & Bars.

Global reach

The total number of countries of origin covered by the BBFAW in 2020 remained at
24. Thirty-four percent of the companies are based in Europe, 33% are based in North
America, 13% in Asia Pacific, 13% in the UK, and 7% in Latin America.

Checks and balances
The preliminary company assessments were reviewed and quality checked prior toa technical review conducted by Compassion in World Farming and by World Animal
Protection in early December 2020. Following this, the BBFAW companies were invited toreview their preliminary assessments to check the factual accuracy of the assessment
and to ensure that all relevant information had been considered by the assessor.

Positioning for impact
This year’s methodology was updated to place a greater emphasis on welfare impacts
within the performance question scores. It means that 10 welfare impact questions
relating to animal quality of life now account for 60% of the weighting of the Performance
Reporting and Impact section, compared to 56% in 2019. Overall, the Performance
Reporting and Impact section continues to be weighted to represent 35% of the total
assessment.
For further details of the BBFAW Methodology and the changes introduced in 2020, see:
http://www.bbfaw.com/publications/.

22

The 2020 Benchmark Methodology and Scope

Global power of BBFAW companies>US$2.5 trillion
combined retail revenues of
BBFAW retailers and wholesalers>US$500 billion
combined revenues of
BBFAW Producers and Manufacturers>US$220 billion
combined revenues of
BBFAW Restaurants and Bars

23

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2020

References
1

These are:•

Q28. Proportion of laying hens that is cage-free.

•

Q30. Proportion of dairy cows that is free from tethering.

•
•
•
•
•

Q29. Proportion of pigs free from sow stalls/gestation crates.
Q31. Proportion of broiler chickens at lower stocking densities.
Q32. Proportion of laying hens free from beak trimming.
Q33. Proportion of pigs free from tail docking.

Q34. Proportion of dairy cattle free from tail docking.

•	Q35. Proportion of broiler chickens from strains of birds with improved welfare
outcomes and with a slower growth potential.
•

Q36. Proportion of animals (excluding fin fish) pre-slaughter stunned.

•	Q37. Proportion of animals (including fin fish) transported within specified
maximum transport times.
2

The four new questions introduced in 2019 and scored for the first time in 2020 are:•	Q5. Commitment to provision of effective species-specific environmental
enrichment.
•	Q21. Reporting on provision of effective species-specific environmental
enrichment.
••

Q24. Reporting on ineffective pre-slaughter stunning.

Q35. Proportion of broiler chickens of strains of birds with improved welfare
outcomes and with a slower growth potential.

3	Q26. Reporting on welfare outcome measures. See the Summary of Responses to
the Public Consultation on the 2020 Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare
for further detail. http://www.bbfaw.com/publications/.
4

These are Q28. - Q37.

5	These are: the avoidance of close confinement; the provision of effective speciesspecific environmental enrichment; the avoidance of products from animals
subject to genetic engineering or cloning; the avoidance of growth promoting
substances; the reduction or avoidance of antibiotics for prophylactic use; theavoidance of routine mutilations; the avoidance of meat from animals that have notbeen subjected to pre slaughter stunning; and the avoidance of long-distance live
transportation.
6	This question was asked for the first time in 2019 and the scoring has been included
in company scores for the first time this year. This is consistent with the way that theBBFAW has previously introduced new criteria.
7

These are:•

Q28. Proportion of laying hens that is cage-free.

•

Q30. Proportion of dairy cows that is free from tethering.

•
•
•
•
•

8

Q29. Proportion of pigs free from sow stalls/gestation crates.
Q31. Proportion of broiler chickens at lower stocking densities.
Q32. Proportion of laying hens free from beak trimming.
Q33. Proportion of pigs free from tail docking.

Q34. Proportion of dairy cattle free from tail docking.

•	Q35. Proportion of broiler chickens of strains of birds with improved welfare
outcomes and with a slower growth potential.
These are Q28. - Q37.

9	We estimate that we have engaged with over 300 institutional investment
organisations in this time, and with many of these on multiple occasions.

24AppendicesAcknowledgements
This report has been prepared by the BBFAW Secretariat run by Chronos Sustainability
Ltd. The lead authors were Nicky Amos, Dr Rory Sullivan and Dr Nathan Rhys Williams,
with contributions from Elisabeth Tjärnström, Darren Vanstone, Dr Steve Webster, Dr
Heleen van de Weerd, Lyndsey Hurley, Dr Jon Day, and Robert Black.
We would like to thank the following for their support of this project and theircontribution to the design and development of the 2020 Benchmark:• Philip Lymbery, Dr Tracey Jones, Louise Valducci and the Food Business team(Compassion in World Farming).

• Steve McIvor, Dr Sarah Ison, Rafel Servent, Dr Nancy Clarke and the Corporate
Engagement team (World Animal Protection).

• The many companies, investors and other stakeholders who participated in meetings
and teleconferences, who provided input to the 2020 Benchmark consultation
process, and who provided feedback on the assessment process and methodology.

After ten years of supporting the BBFAW, World Animal Protection has indicated that it will
no longer be a BBFAW partner beyond March 2021. The BBFAW is grateful to World Animal
Protection for its leadership and dedication to the BBFAW programme. The success of
the BBFAW can be attributed to its founding partners, Compassion in World Farming andWorld Animal Protection, who, since 2011, have provided the vision, technical expertise,guidance, funding and practical resources to the programme. These organisations
acknowledged that the ability of any benchmark to drive change at corporate and industry
levels could only be realised over the longer-term, and, as such, their commitment tosupporting the BBFAW over nine iterations demonstrates exceptional commitment to
the programme and to both organisations’ strategic aims of advancing animal welfare
standards in the world largest food companies. The Technical Working Group wishes
World Animal Protection continued success in protecting the lives of billions of animals
around the world. The Group also looks forward to continuing its work on the BBFAW with
Compassion in World Farming and their new BBFAW partner, FOUR PAWS.
Photography credits
Cover:
Clara Bastian/istockphoto.com
David Tadevosian/shutterstock.com
Contents
Chokniti Khongchum/shutterstock.com
Deyana Stefanova Robova/shutterstock.com
P6:
jess311/istockphoto.com
galsand/shutterstock.com
P12:
Ed Phillips/shutterstock.com
ABrowne/shutterstock.com
P21:
ChristiLaLiberte/istockphoto.com
Clara Bastian/istockphoto.com

25For further information please email
secretariat@bbfaw.com