The Business Benchmark on
Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

Nicky Amos, Dr Rory Sullivan,
Basia Romanowicz and Dr Heleen van de Weerd

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

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 supported by the BBFAW’s founding partner, Compassion in World Farming and supporting
partner, FOUR PAWS, 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 humane 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
FOUR PAWS
FOUR PAWS is the global animal welfare organisation for animals under direct human influence, which reveals
suffering, rescues animals in need and protects them. Founded in 1988 in Vienna by Heli Dungler, the organisation
advocates for a world where humans treat animals with respect, empathy and understanding. FOUR PAWS’sustainable campaigns and projects focus on companion animals including stray dogs and cats, farm animals andwild animals – such as bears, big cats and orangutans – kept in inappropriate conditions as well as in disaster andconflict zones. With offices in Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Kosovo, the Netherlands, Switzerland,South Africa, Thailand, Ukraine, the UK, the USA and Vietnam as well as sanctuaries for rescued animals in elevencountries, FOUR PAWS provides rapid help and long-term solutions.
More information on FOUR PAWS can be found at: www.four-paws.org

Contents
Foreword ........................................................................................................ 4
1. The 2021 Benchmark Highlights ........................................................ 6
2. The 2021 Benchmark Results in Detail............................................18

3. Accelerating Impact .............................................................................29
4. The 2021 Benchmark Methodology ...............................................32
Appendix..................................................................................................... 42• Company Coverage• The 2021 Benchmark Questions and Scoring• Acknowledgements

3

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

Foreword
BBFAW: The First 10 Years
Over the past decade, the BBFAW has become
the leading global measure of farm animal welfare.
It has developed into a global programme thathas enabled investors, companies, and otherstakeholders to understand how well companies
are managing farm animal welfare and, crucially,
to drive improved corporate practice andperformance on the issue.
The Benchmark was launched in 2012 with the mission of driving
higher farm animal welfare standards across the global foodindustry at a time when it was a very new business issue. Companies
were unclear about how they were expected to manage andreport on farm animal welfare, and investors had no real way ofcredibly assessing how well companies were managing risks andopportunities in this area.
The BBFAW was designed as a tool that enabled investors tounderstand how companies were managing farm animal welfare
within their operations and supply chains. It followed the logic applied
by investors when evaluating companies on other environmental,social and governance (ESG) issues. This involved assessing
companies on their management and policy commitments, theirgovernance systems and processes, and their disclosures onfarm animal welfare. BBFAW subsequently increased its focus on
performance reporting and impact, enabling investors to assesscompany practices and processes in farm animal welfare. The
introduction of the BBFAW Impact Rating in 2020, and detailed infull in this report, represents a further strengthening of this focus
on impact. Structuring BBFAW in this way also meant that theBenchmark provided a clear and explicit framework for companies todevelop their own management approaches on farm animal welfare.
BBFAW is not just an assessment framework or an annual report; it
is a comprehensive programme of dialogue and engagement withcompanies and with investors. Alongside the annual Benchmark,the BBFAW has engaged many of the world’s leading investors
in the mission of encouraging food companies to take action on
farm animal welfare. In 2015, the BBFAW established the first everGlobal Investor Statement on the topic and convened the world’s
first Global Investor Collaboration on Farm Animal Welfare. These
programmes are each supported by over 30 institutional investors
with over £2.25 trillion in assets under management.
These efforts – the annual Benchmark and the company andinvestor engagement – have helped to deliver real improvements inthe way that companies manage and report on farm animal welfare.
The 2021 Benchmark reveals that of the 150 companies evaluated,
134 (89%) now acknowledge farm animal welfare as a business issue(compared to 71% of the 68 companies evaluated in 2012), 122
companies (81%) have formal policies on farm animal welfare (46%in 2012), and 119 companies (79%) have published formal objectives
and targets for animal welfare (26% in 2012).

4

The Future
Having helped establish farm animal welfare on the investment andbusiness agenda, the focus now is on ensuring that companies really
do deliver substantial and measurable impact on farm animal welfare.
Our organisations – Compassion in World Farming and FOUR
PAWS – agree that much more needs to be done to drive up welfare
standards for the 80 billion animals farmed for food every year, andto move away from factory farming – the biggest cause of animal
cruelty on the planet and a key driver of climate change and thecollapse of nature.
We want to end factory farming and change the food system in asustainable way through three important strategic interventions.
First, we want to see a significant reduction in the number of animals
farmed for food – aiming for at least a 50% reduction by 2040
globally. Second, we want to make sure that animals who are still
farmed for food experience positive welfare states. Third, we strive
to replace animal-based products with plant-based alternatives.
We will, therefore, be looking to make substantial changes to thestructure and content of the BBFAW Benchmark. We will strengthen
the Benchmark’s emphasis on delivering welfare improvements –through the new BBFAW Impact Rating as well as through adjustments
to the weighting of the performance impact scoring. We will also be
looking to significantly adapt the criteria to focus on the elimination of
the most cruel practices as well as evaluating companies on their meatand dairy reduction commitments and performance.
We anticipate that the process of redesigning and relaunching theBenchmark will take between 9 and 12 months. During this period,
it is our intention to collaborate with companies and investors toensure that the BBFAW continues to play an important role as anaccountability instrument.
The BBFAW is integral to the strategy of our organisations. It will
signal to companies what is expected of them. It will allow investors
and other stakeholders to hold companies to account for theirperformance on farm animal welfare. It will enable us to workwith companies and investors to realise our mission for a world
where factory farming has ended and all animals are treated withcompassion and respect.
Philip Lymbery
Global CEO,Compassion in World Farming

Gerald Dick		
Executive Board Member,
FOUR PAWS

About the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare
The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) is the leading global measure of farmanimal welfare management, policy commitment, performance and disclosure in food companies.
It enables investors, companies, NGOs and other stakeholders to understand corporate practiceand performance on farm animal welfare, and it drives – directly and through the efforts of others –corporate improvements in the welfare of animals reared for food.

Why benchmark food companies? GovernanceFarm animal welfare is an important issue for companies acrossthe food sector, including retailers, food service companies,
manufacturers, processors and producers. This importance has
been driven by a range of factors, including regulation, consumer
concern, pressure from animal welfare organisations, investor
interest, peer pressure, and the brand and market opportunities forcompanies that adopt higher farm animal welfare standards.1

Programme objectives
The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) is
designed to help drive higher farm animal welfare standards in theworld’s leading food businesses. Its aims are:

• To provide investors with the information they need to understandthe business implications of farm animal welfare for thecompanies in which they are invested.

The programme is supported by BBFAW’s founding partner,
Compassion in World Farming and its supporting partner FOUR
PAWS, who together provide technical expertise, guidance, funding
and practical resources.
The BBFAW Steering Committee, comprising senior members fromeach of the partners, oversees the BBFAW programme’s strategic
development and budget.
The programme is managed by an independent Secretariat,
provided by Chronos Sustainability Ltd. In this role, Chronos
Sustainability is responsible for providing the Executive Director andthe other resources necessary to deliver the annual Benchmark, toconduct the company research and evaluations, and to engage withinvestors, companies and other stakeholders.

• To provide investors, governments, academics, NGOs, consumers

The development of the Benchmark is driven by a Technical
Working Group (TWG) comprising the BBFAW Secretariat andrepresentatives of each of the partners. The members of the TWG
for the 2021 benchmarking process were:• To provide guidance to companies interested in improving• Nicky Amos, Executive Director, BBFAW Secretariat.
• Dr Heleen van de Weerd, Animal Welfare Expert,

and other stakeholders with an independent, impartial and reliable
assessment of individual company efforts to adopt higher farmanimal welfare standards and practices.
their management, performance and reporting on farm animal
welfare issues.

Alongside a programme of investor and company engagement,
the key tool for the delivery of these objectives is an annual
benchmark of food companies’ approach to farm animal welfare(‘the Benchmark’). To date, ten Benchmarks have been completed,of which the 2021 Benchmark is the most recent.
Beyond the Benchmark, BBFAW produces a range of guidance
and other materials for companies and investors on issues suchas the business case for farm animal welfare, best practices inmanagement and reporting, and new and forthcoming farm animal
welfare-related regulations and policies.
BBFAW also has an extensive programme of structured engagementwith investors and with companies. This engagement encourages
investors to pay more attention to farm animal welfare in theirinvestment processes and in their company dialogue, andencourages companies to improve their practices, performance andreporting on farm animal welfare.

BBFAW Secretariat.

• Basia Romanowicz, Senior Programme Manager,
BBFAW Secretariat.

• Dr Nathan Rhys Williams MRCVS, Senior Programme Manager,
BBFAW Secretariat.

• Dr Tracey Jones, Director of Food Business, Compassion in
World Farming.

• Louise Valducci, Head of Food Business (EU Programme),
Compassion in World Farming.

• Elisa Bianco, Senior Food Business Manager, Compassion in
World Farming.

• Dr Martina Stephany, Director Farm Animals and Nutrition,
FOUR PAWS.

• Dr Marlene Kirchner, Lead Expert Farm Animals and Nutrition,
FOUR PAWS.

5The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

The 2021 Benchmark
Highlights

6

The 2021 Benchmark Highlights

1. The 2021 Benchmark Highlights
This is the tenth 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, the data are presented on aninteractive online dashboard on the BBFAW website. You can access the dashboard here:
https://bbfaw.com/benchmark/

Overall Findings
1: A decade of implementation of the BBFAW has significantly advanced corporate
management practice and reporting on farm animal welfare
Ten years after the publication of the inaugural Business Benchmark on Farm Animal
Welfare, we have seen significant improvement in the way that companies areincorporating farm animal welfare into their management and disclosure practices.
The 2021 Benchmark reveals that of the 150 companies evaluated, 134 (89%) now
acknowledge farm animal welfare as a business issue (compared to 71% of the 68
companies evaluated in 2012), 122 companies (81%) have formal policies on farmanimal welfare (compared to 46% of companies in 2012), and 119 companies (79%)
have published formal objectives and targets for animal welfare (compared to 26% ofcompanies in 2012). The significant improvement made in companies’ governance offarm animal welfare is clear to see. Despite this, almost one in five food companies (28 of
the 150 companies) have not published a formal farm animal welfare policy.

Companies continue toinvest in animal welfare
but more needs to bedone to demonstratedelivery of welfare
improvements foranimals on the ground.

2: Despite the progress we are seeing, companies are too slow in delivering
meaningful welfare impacts
Consistent with our findings in recent iterations of the BBFAW, performance impact
is not at the level we would expect it to be, given the level of corporate and investor
attention to farm animal welfare over the past decade. In 2021, the overall average score
for the 10 Performance Impact questions is just 12% compared to 8% in 2020.
The lack of emphasis on performance is further highlighted in the 2021 Benchmark. For
example, whilst 100 companies (67%) report some data on the proportion of animals(across laying hens, broiler chickens, pigs and dairy cattle) in their global supply that is
free from close confinement, much of this data is only partially reported and is limited
by geography or product type (e.g. fresh meat). The most widely reported performance
impact data relates to laying hens where 88 companies (62% of companies with laying
hens in their supply chain) report some data, yet, even here, only 23 companies reportthat 60% or more of the laying hens in their global supply chains are cage-free.
What this tells us is that whilst a significant proportion of companies – 119 in total (or79%) – have published formal improvement objectives for farm animal welfare, many ofthese companies are not reporting improved welfare for animals on the ground.

7

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
3: The BBFAW is placing continuing emphasis on performance impact in line with theprogramme’s long-term objective to drive up farm animal welfare standards in global
supply chains
Changes to the 2021 methodology placed further emphasis on companies’
performance reporting and performance impact. This, combined with stricter
interpretation of company disclosures, has seen the overall average score drop from
35% in 2020 to 32% in 2021, and has led to 36 companies dropping a tier. Noteworthy,
given the scale of changes introduced in 2021, six companies have improved their scoresufficiently to increase their ranking by one tier.
Viewed alongside the BBFAW tier ranking, the new Impact Rating, which is publishedin full for the first time this year, provides greater scrutiny of companies by assigning
an A-F rating based on their declared welfare impacts. The baseline results reveal astark disconnect between many companies’ disclosure of management processes
and the subsequent impact on farm animal welfare in their supply chains. None of theevaluated companies achieve an ’A’ Impact Rating. Only five companies – Greggs PLC,
Marks & Spencer PLC, Noble Foods, Premier Foods PLC and Waitrose – achieve a ‘B’
Impact Rating (corresponding to 62-80% of the scores available for the Performance
Impact questions), indicating that these companies (all of whom are in Tiers 1 and 2)
are declaring improved welfare impacts for a reasonable proportion of farm animals intheir global supply chains. Only 18 companies ranked in Tiers 2, 3 and 4 achieve ‘C’ and‘D’ Impact Ratings, indicating that they are declaring improved welfare impacts for alimited proportion of farm animals in their global supply. Notably, 127 (85%) of the 150
companies evaluated achieve an ‘E’ or ‘F’ Impact Rating, signifying that these companies
are failing to demonstrate improved welfare impacts for farm animals in their global
supply chains.
4: Investors have played a major role in influencing corporate practice and 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. In 2015, the BBFAW
established the first ever Global Investor Statement on Farm Animal Welfare and hasconvened the Global Investor Collaboration on Farm Animal Welfare; the first initiative ofits kind globally. These programmes are each supported by over 30 institutional investors
with over £2.3 trillion in assets under management.
Over the ten iterations of the Benchmark, the BBFAW has proactively engaged with theinvestment community, encouraging investors to use their influence to urge companies
to take appropriate action to manage the business risks and opportunities presented
by farm animal welfare. This engagement is widely cited by companies as a key driver for
ensuring that farm animal welfare remains on the management agenda.
The results of our ongoing engagements with investors suggest that – as a result of
the annual Benchmark itself and the BBFAW’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, and increasingly, to seek evidence
that companies’ management practices are capable of delivering impact on the groundfor farm animals.

8

The 2021 Benchmark Highlights

Company Tier Rankings
As in previous Benchmarks, we have grouped the assessed companies into one of six tiers,
based on their overall percentage scores, as indicated in Table 1.1. A composite picture of2021 company scores by Tier ranking and by Impact Rating (IR) appears in Figure 1.1.
Table 1.1: BBFAW Tiers
Tier

Percentage Score

1. 	The company has taken a leadership position on farm animal welfare>80%

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

62 – 80%

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

44 – 61%4. 	The company is making progress on implementing its policies and commitments
on farm animal welfare

5. 	The company has identified farm animal welfare as a business issue but provides
limited evidence that it is managing the issue effectively

6. 	The company provides limited if any evidence that it recognises farm animal
welfare as a business issue

27 – 43%
11 – 26%<11%

Company Impact Ratings

This year, companies’ individual Impact Ratings are published for the first time alongside
their Tier rankings. The BBFAW Impact Rating was introduced in 2020 to provide a moreaccurate picture of the welfare of animals in a company’s supply chain. The Impact Rating
tool supports the BBFAW’s long-term ambition to improve the welfare of animals in the
global food system.
The BBFAW Impact Rating is designed to help investors and other stakeholders tobetter assess whether companies are delivering welfare improvements to animals
in their supply and answer critical questions about the effectiveness of their
management systems and processes such as: whether a company is effectively
implementing its policies in its operations and supply chain; whether it is delivering
on its objectives and targets; whether it is effectively managing the risks andopportunities presented by farm animal welfare; or whether it is improving thewelfare of the animals in its operations and supply chain.
The scores are presented in a six-tier rating, labelled A-F, using the percentage boundaries
presented in Table 1.2. (For details on how the Impact Rating is calculated see page 26.)
Table 1.2: 2021 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 a reasonable proportion of farm animals
in their operations and/or supply chains.
These companies are declaring improved welfare
impacts for at least some farm animals in theiroperations and/or supply chains.

These companies have yet to demonstrate that they
are delivering improved welfare impacts for farmanimals in their operations and/or supply chains.

Number ofcompanies 2020

Number ofcompanies 2021

4

5

3

6

10

12

12

25

121

102

0

0

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

9

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Figure 1.1: Company Tier Rankings and Impact Rating (IR)Tier 1

Leadership4	Marks & Spencer PLC (B)Noble Foods (B)Premier Foods PLC (B)Waitrose (B)Tier 2Integral tobusiness strategy

12
Greggs PLC (B)Cargill (C)Cranswick (C)Groupe Danone (C)Tesco PLC (C)Barilla SpA (D)Co-op UK (D)J Sainsbury PLC (D)Maple Leaf Foods (D) arfrig Global
M
Foods SA (D)
Unilever NV (D)	Wm Morrison
Supermarkets PLC (D)Tier 3

Established but
work to be done

31
Fonterra (C)Nestlé SA (C)	2 Sisters Food Group (D)BRF SA (D)Coles Group (D)	Danish Crown AmbA (D)	Domino’s Pizza
Group (D)ALDI Nord (ALDI Markt) (E)	ALDI Süd/Aldi Einkauf
GmbH&Co (E)Carrefour SA (E)	Charoen PokphandFoods (E)

Tier 4Makingprogress on
implementation
35
	Casino GuichardPerrachon SA (E)
EG Group (E)ICA Gruppen AB (E)	Royal FrieslandCampina (E)Agro Super (F)Ahold Delhaize (F)	Aramark Corporation (F)	Arla Foods Ltd (F)	Associated British
Foods PLC (F)	Campbell Soup
Company (F)	Cheesecake Factory (The)(E)

	Colruyt (F)	Chipotle Mexican Grill (E)	Coopérative U Enseigne (F)	Compass Group PLC (E)	Coop Group(Switzerland)/Coop
Genossenschaft (E)	Elo Group (E)Hilton Food Group (E)	IKEA (Inter IKEA Group) (E)Jeronimo Martins (E)Les Mousquetaires (E)	Migros-GenossenschaftsBund (E)	Mitchells & Butlers PLC (E)
Perdue Farms (E)Whitbread PLC (E)Woolworths Group (E)Yum! Brands Inc (E)JBS SA (F)
Minerva Foods (F)Mowi ASA (F)Terrena Group (F)Vion Food Group (F)	Coop Italia (F)	Cooperl Arc Atlantique (F)	Cremonini SpA (F)	E.Leclerc (F)	Edeka Group (F)	Elior Group (F)	Hormel Foods
Corporation (F)	JD Wetherspoon (F)	KraftHeinz (F)	LDC Groupe (F)	Lidl Stiftung & Co (F)	McDonald’s Corporation (F)	OSI Group (F)	Papa John’s Pizza (F)	Plukon Food Group (F)	Restaurant Brands
International (F)	REWE Group (F)	Saputo Inc (F)	Schwarz Unternehmens
Treuhand/Kaufland (F)	Sodexo (F)	Tönnies Group (F)	Tyson Foods (F)	WH Group (F)

Key
2021
Up at least 1 tierDown at least 1 tierNon-moverNew company(X) Impact Rating (IR)10

Tier 5On the businessagenda but limited
evidence of
implementation
43	Hershey Co (E)	Mars Inc (E)	Albertsons (F)	Amazon/Whole Foods
Market (F)	Bimbo (F)	BJ’s Wholesale Club
Holdings (F)	Camst – La Ristorazione
Italiana Soc. Coop. ARL (F)	Cencosud (F)	Chick-fil-A (F)	ConAgra (F)	Cooke Seafood (F)	Cooperativa Centrale
Aurora Alimentos (F)	Costco Wholesale
Corporation (F)	Cracker Barrel (F)	Dairy Farmers of America (F)	Darden Restaurants PLC (F)	Empire Company/Sobey’s (F)	Ferrero SpA (F)	General Mills Inc (F)	Groupe Lactalis (F) ruppo Veronesi (F)	G	H E Butt Company (F)	Industrias Bachoco (F)	Inspire Brands Inc (F)	JAB Holding Company (F)	Kerry Group (F)	Kroger Company (The) (F)	Loblaw Companies
Limited (F)	Mercadona SA (F)	Metro AG (F)	Mondelēz International (F)	Publix Super Markets (F)	Sanderson Farms (F)	Seaboard Corp (F)	SSP Group (F)	Starbucks Corporation (F)	Subway/Doctor’s
Associates Inc (F)	Sysco Corporation (F)	Target Corporation (F)	UNFI (F)	US Foods (F)Walmart Inc (F)Wendy’s Company (The) (F)Tier 6

No evidence
on thebusiness agenda
25

	Aeon Group (F)	Alimentation
Couche-Tard (F)	Autogrill SpA (F)	Bloomin’ Brands (F)	C&S Wholesale (F)	China Resources
Vanguard (F)	China Yurun Group
Limited (F)	Chuying Agro-Pastoral
Group (F)	CKE Restaurants (F)	CNHLS (F)	Conad Consorzio
Nazionale (F)	Dico’s/Ting Hsin
International Group (F)	Gategroup Holding (F)	Habib’s (F)	Lianhua Supermarket
Holdings Co (F)	Maruha Nichiro (F)	Meiji Holdings (F)	Müller Group (F)	New Hope Liuhe Co (F)	Nippon Ham (F)	Seven & I Holdings (F)	Umoe Gruppen (F)	Wens Foodstuff Group (F)	Yonghui Superstores Co (F)	Zhongpin (F)The 2021 Benchmark Highlights
In the 2021 Benchmark, the overall average score was 32% (compared to 35% in2020). While the overall effect of the methodology changes (see Box 1.1) has been to
significantly lower the average score achieved by companies, important progress has
nevertheless been made by some companies who are continuing to invest in improving
welfare standards. Had we not changed the Benchmark methodology in 2021, theoverall average score would have increased from 35% to 36% between 2020 and 2021,
consistent with previous annual progress.
A more accurate picture of company performance emerges when the Impact Ratings
are presented alongside companies’ Tier rankings (Figure 1.1). Here, we see that whilst
all companies in Tier 1 achieve an Impact Rating B, there are significant variations in the
Impact Ratings of companies in other Tiers. For instance, in Tier 3, 19 companies achieve
an Impact Rating E and five companies achieve an Impact Rating F. Similarly, all 35
companies in Tier 4 achieve a low Impact rating of E or F, indicating that these companies
have yet to demonstrate that they are delivering improved welfare impacts for farmanimals in their operations or supply chains.
The Impact Rating will be an increasingly important indicator of company performanceon farm animal welfare as investors, business-to-business customers, NGOs and otherstakeholders seek assurance that companies’ management policies and practices arecapable of delivering impact on the ground for farm animals.
Box 1.1
Changes to the 2021 Benchmark Methodology
The overall weighting of the Performance Reporting and Impact section increased
from 35% to 45% of the total score available, and the scoring approach for the 10
Impact questions (Q28-37) was modified to provide additional points for companies
who reported partial but substantial performance data (such examples are outlined
on page 26.)

Additionally, the focus of two questions (Q14 and Q27) was changed to remove
the potential for double scoring. Specifically, Q14 was focused on explanations ofprogress against objectives and targets, and Q27 was focused on explanations ofprogress in performance related to welfare outcome measures, rather than relying on
the reporting of trend data alone.
The 2021 assessments also saw, as in previous years, the BBFAW assessors applying
a stricter interpretation of the evidence. The assessment and review processes aredesigned to focus on objective evidence and defined commitments and actions.
The assessors reduced a company’s score if there was ambiguity in company
statements (e.g. uncertainty around scope), where companies had failed to act onrecommendations arising from previous BBFAW assessments, or where a company
had not provided a reliable account of current practice.
The full 2021 assessment criteria are available on pages 44-65.

The 16 companies now occupying Tiers 1 and 2 (23 in 2020) represent all three subsectors (Retailers and Wholesalers, Producers and Manufacturers, and Restaurants
and Bars) and four geographic regions (Europe, Latin America, North America and UK)
covered by the Benchmark. Without changes to the 2021 benchmark methodology,
21 companies would have been in Tiers 1 and 2.

The 2021 methodology
placed a greater
emphasis on companies’
performance reportingand performance impact.
These changes were in linewith the BBFAW’s longheld ambition to placeincreasing emphasis on
the performance impact
of companies in terms ofimproved standards ofwelfare for animals globally.

Sixty-six companies (44%) are making progress on implementing their policies andcommitments on farm animal welfare, corresponding to Tiers 3 and 4 (68 or 45%
in 2020). However, as the Impact Ratings show, many of these companies havea considerable way to go to demonstrate the quality and effectiveness of their
management practices in delivering welfare impacts on animals. For instance, 24 out of
the 31 companies in Tier 3 achieve an Impact Rating E or F.

11

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Meanwhile, 68 companies (45%) are in Tiers 5 and 6 (59 in 2020). These companies
provide little or no information on their approach to farm animal welfare. Strikingly,
27 of the 68 companies (28 in 2020) in the lowest two rankings still do not publish
a formal farm animal welfare policy.
In total, 30 companies improved their overall average score in 2021, with six of thesecompanies improving their score sufficiently to increase their ranking by one Tier(see Table 1.3); these achievements are particularly noteworthy given the scale ofmethodology changes introduced in 2021. Conversely, 36 companies moved down one
Tier (see Table 1.4) largely due to the changes in methodology. It is also important topoint out that companies whose scoring was close to the lower boundary of a Tier,
were more susceptible to marginal differences in scoring.
Table 1.3: Companies Improving by at Least One Tier between 2020 and 2021
Retailers & Wholesalers

Producers & Manufacturers

Cencosud (Tier 5)

Maple Leaf Foods (Tier 2)

E.Leclerc (Tier 4)

Premier Foods PLC (Tier 1)

6companies have
improved by one Tier
between 2020 and 2021

Restaurants & Bars

Terrena Group (Tier 3)

Industrias Bachoco (Tier 5)
Table 1.4: Companies Falling by One Tier between 2020 and 2021
Retailers & Wholesalers

Coop Group (Switzerland)/Coop
Genossenschaft (Tier 3)
Woolworths Group (Tier 3)
Casino Guichard-Perrachon SA(Tier 4)
Lidl Stiftung & Co KG (Tier 4)
REWE Group (Tier 4)
Schwarz Unternehmens Treuhand
KG/Kaufland (Tier 4)
Costco Wholesale Corporation(Tier 5)
Kroger Company (The) (Tier 5)
METRO AG (Tier 5)

Producers & Manufacturers

Restaurants & Bars

Danish Crown AmbA (Tier 3)

Whitbread PLC (Tier 3)

Fonterra (Tier 3)

Elior Group (Tier 4)

Hilton Food Group (Tier 3)

JD Wetherspoon PLC (Tier 4)

Nestlé SA (Tier 3)

McDonald’s Corporation (Tier 4)

Arla Foods Ltd (Tier 4)

Sodexo (Tier 4)

Hormel Foods Corporation (Tier 4)

Camst – La Ristorazione Italiana
Soc. Coop. ARL (Tier 5)

Cranswick PLC (Tier 2)

KraftHeinz (Tier 4)
LDC Groupe (Tier 4)
Royal FrieslandCampina (Tier 4)
Tyson Foods Inc (Tier 4)

Sysco Corporation (Tier 5)

Cooperativa Centrale Aurora
Alimentos (Tier 5)

Walmart Inc (Tier 5)

Ferrero SpA (Tier 5)

Mitchells & Butlers PLC (Tier 3)

Darden Restaurants PLC (Tier 5)
Wendy’s Company (The) (Tier 5)
Umoe Gruppen AS (Tier 6)

Gruppo Veronesi (Tier 5)
Meiji Holdings (Tier 6)
Despite the level of corporate and investor attention that has been given to farm animal
welfare over the past decade, the 2021 findings indicate that significant work is neededby companies to translate their farm animal welfare commitments into real, measurable
welfare improvements for animals.
Disappointingly, there are twelve companies in Tiers 5 and 6 that have been
continually assessed as part of the BBFAW since 2012, but which lag significantly
behind their industry peers in demonstrating their commitment to farm animal
welfare. These lagging companies are Autogrill, Camst La Ristorazione Italiana
Soc. Coop. ARL, Gategroup, Groupe Lactalis, Mars, Mercadona, Metro AG, Müller
Group, Subway, Starbucks, Umöe Gruppen and Walmart.

12

The 2021 Benchmark Highlights

Trend Companies 2012-2021
Our analysis of the changes in company Tier rankings between 2012 and 2021
(see Table 1.5) highlights the progress made by the 57 food companies that have been
continuously assessed by the BBFAW since 2012, referred to as ‘trend companies’.
Acknowledging that some companies have moved up and down tiers since 2012, and also
noting the changes made to the methodology over this period, the net impact of these
movements indicates that 41 companies (72%) have moved up at least one Tier since2012. Of these, 18 (32%) have moved up one Tier, 17 (30%) have moved up two Tiers andfive (9%) have moved up three Tiers. One company has moved up four Tiers since 2012.
Non-trend companies are those companies that have been added to the scope ofcompanies covered by the BBFAW since its launch in 2012. The number of companies
included in scope increased by approximately 10 companies per year between 2013 and2017. Then, in 2018, 40 companies were added, bringing the total to 150 companies.
When analysed by geography, the relative performance of the trend companies indifferent regions is broadly aligned with the findings from across the total 150 companies
included in the 2021 Benchmark, with UK domiciled companies outperforming those inEurope and North America. The average score for UK domiciled trend companies in 2021
is 61%, European domiciled trend companies 38% and North American 35%. Only one of
the trend companies is domiciled in Latin America, and achieved a total score of 63%.
When analysed by sub-sector, the average scores for trend companies reflect the relative
performance between sub-sectors identified by the 2021 Benchmark. The average score
for Producer and Manufacturer trend companies in 2021 is 51% compared to 27% for
non-trend companies in this sub-sector; for Retailer and Wholesaler trend companies,
the average score is 50% compared to 23% for non-trend companies in this sub-sector;
and for Restaurant and Bar trend companies the average score is 33% compared to
20% for non-trend companies in this sub-sector. In 2012, the overall average score was23%. Notwithstanding the evolving methodology of the Benchmark in the subsequentnine years, the average score for the 57 trend companies in 2021 at 45% demonstrates
significant improvement in the way that these companies have incorporated farm animal
welfare into their management and disclosure practices. Indeed, significant improvementin scores has been seen across all pillars of the assessment, with trend companies
achieving overall average scores in 2021 of 65% for the Management Commitment
section (29% in 2012); 59% for the Governance and Management section (19% in 2012),
and 61% for the Leadership and Innovation section (18% in 2012).

With an overall
average score of45%

the 57 trend companies
demonstrably
outperform the 93
non-trend companies,
whose overall averagescore is just 24%.

The Performance Reporting and Impact section was introduced to the BBFAW
assessment in 2014 and incorporated into company scores for the first time in 2015.
The average score for the entire Performance Reporting and Impact section for thetrend companies in 2021 is 25% (10% in 2015). The average score for trend companies
on the 10 Performance Impact questions within this section in 2021 is 21% compared tojust 6% for the 93 non-trend companies covered by the 2021 Benchmark.

13

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

Table 1.5: Tier Changes 2012 – 2021 (Trend Companies)
Down 1 Tier

McDonald’s
Corporation (Tier 4)
Subway/Doctor’s
Associates Inc(Tier 5)

No Tier change

Up 1 Tier

Camst – La
Ristorazione Italiana
Soc. ARL (Tier 5)

Arla Foods Ltd(Tier 4)
Autogrill SpA(Tier 6)

Co-op (UK) (Tier 2)

Compass GroupPLC (Tier 3)

Coop Group(Switzerland) /Coop
Genossenschaft(Tier 3)

Danish Crown AmbA
(Tier 3)

Groupe Lactalis(Tier 5)

Lidl Stiftung & Co KG(Tier 4)Gategroup Holding
AG (Tier 6)

J Sainsbury PLC(Tier 2)

METRO AG (Tier 5)
Müller Group AG(Tier 6)Royal
FrieslandCampina(Tier 4)

Starbucks
Corporation (Tier 5)
Tyson Foods Inc(Tier 4)

Umoe Gruppen AS(Tier 6)

Unilever NV (Tier 2)

Mercadona SA(Tier 5)MigrosGenossenschaftsBund (Tier 3)

14

Up 4 Tiers

Premier Foods PLC(Tier 1)

Barilla SpA (Tier 2)
Cargill (Tier 2)

Elo Group (Tier 3)

Greggs PLC (Tier 2)

Aramark
Corporation (Tier 4)

Waitrose (Tier 1)

Carrefour SA(Tier 3)

Casino GuichardPerrachon SA(Tier 4)
Cranswick PLC(Tier 2)Cremonini SpA(Tier 4)

Elior Group (Tier 4)

REWE Group (Tier 4)

Marfrig Global Foods
SA (Tier 2)

Noble Foods (Tier 1)
Schwarz
Unternehmens
Treuhand KG/
Kaufland (Tier 4)Groupe Danone SA(Tier 2)Marks & Spencer
PLC (Tier 1)

SSP Group (Tier 5)
Vion Food Group(Tier 3)
Whitbread PLC(Tier 3)

14

ALDI Süd/ALDI
Einkauf SE & Co.
oHG (Tier 3)

Mitchells & Butlers
PLC (Tier 3)

Walmart Inc (Tier 5)2

2 Sisters Food Group(Boparan Holdings
Ltd) (Tier 3)

Up 3 Tiers

Associated British
Foods PLC (Tier 4)

JD Wetherspoon
PLC (Tier 4)

Mars Inc (Tier 5)

ICA Gruppen AB(Tier 4)

Up 2 Tiers

Wm Morrison
Supermarkets PLC(Tier 2)18

Nestlé SA (Tier 3)
Sodexo (Tier 4)
Terrena Group(Tier 3)

Tesco PLC (Tier 2)
Yum! Brands Inc(Tier 3)17

5

1

The 2021 Benchmark Highlights

Sub-sector Comparison
Changes to the overall average score in 2021 have impacted all sub-sectors equally. The
overall average score for Retailers and Wholesalers is 32% (36% in 2020), compared withan average score of 27% for Restaurants and Bars (31% in 2020), and 35% for Producers
and Manufacturers (38% in 2020) (see Figure 1.2). Relative scores have not changed,with Producers and Manufacturers achieving a higher overall average score than theother two sub-sectors.
Four of the six companies rising a tier in 2021 are Food Producers and Manufacturers.
Meanwhile, of the 30 companies who increased their overall score in 2021, 15 are Food
Producers and Manufacturers (compared to nine Retailers and Wholesalers and six
Restaurants and Bars). This shows a continuation of the trend seen in 2020, when Food
Producers and Manufacturers also showed the most significant improvement in overall
score of all three sub-sectors.
Food Producers and Manufacturers continue to be the most represented sub-sector
in Tiers 1 and 2 of the Benchmark, with nine companies showing leadership on farmanimal welfare compared to six Retailers and Wholesalers and one Restaurants andBars company. These companies – Noble Foods, Barilla SpA, Cargill, Cranswick, Groupe
Danone, Maple Leaf Foods, Marfrig Global Foods SA, Premier Foods PLC and Unilever NV –which include five Producers and four Manufacturers, represent four of the five geographic
regions covered by the Benchmark. Asia Pacific is not yet represented in Tiers 1 or 2.
Our analysis shows that Producers and Manufacturers in Latin America, with an averagescore of 37%, are for the second consecutive year outperforming Producers andManufacturers in North America, whose overall average score was 31% (down from 35%
in 2020). Although this finding is based on the performance of just 18 North Americancompanies and eight Latin American companies – Agro Super, Cooperativa Centrale
Aurora Alimentos, Industrias Bachoco, BRF, JBS, Marfrig Global Foods and Minerva Foods– these companies include some of the largest meat producers globally.
Figure 1.2 Sub-sector Comparison 2021
10

0

20

30

40

50

Producers & Manufacturers
49%
48%
50%

Overall Average Score

Producers & Manufacturers

46%

Governance and Retailers & Wholesalers
Management Restaurants & Bars

44%
40%

Overall Average Score

44%

Producers & Manufacturers

52%

Innovation and Retailers & Wholesalers
Leadership Restaurants & Bars

49%
17%

Overall Average Score

43%

Producers & Manufacturers

16%
15%

Overall Average Score

15%

Producers & Manufacturers
Retailers & Wholesalers
Overall Score
Restaurants & Bars
Overall Average Score

70

53%

Management Retailers & Wholesalers
Commitment Restaurants & Bars

Performance Retailers & Wholesalers
Reporting & Impact Restaurants & Bars 11%

60

35%
33%
27%
32%

15

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

Global Perspective
The global picture of company performance across the five regions covered by the
BBFAW (Asia Pacific, Europe excluding the UK, Latin America, North America; and theUK) is similar to 2020, with UK domiciled companies achieving the highest overall averagescore across all regions at 59% (64% in 2020).
As shown in Figure 1.3, UK companies achieved the highest average score across all
sections of the Benchmark. For instance, the UK Food Retailers and Wholesalers subsector achieved the highest average score in the Governance and Management section,
where they achieved an average score of 78% (88% in 2020) and Performance Reportingand Impact, where they achieved an average score of 51% (55% in 2020). Meanwhile,
the UK Restaurants and Bars sub-sector achieved the highest average score in theManagement Commitment and Policy section at 84% (85% in 2020).
The second highest-scoring region was Europe (excluding the UK), which achieved an
overall average score of 36% (40% in 2020). Within this region, the Food Producers andManufacturers and Food Retailers and Wholesalers sub-sectors achieved overall averagescores of 41% (44% in 2020 ) and 38% (42% in 2020) respectively, compared to the
Restaurants and Bars sub-sector in Europe, which achieved an overall average score ofjust 20% (26% in 2020).
The overall average score for companies in Latin America was 31% (32% in 2020)
compared to 25% for companies in North America (29% in 2020). This is the second
consecutive year that Latin America has outperformed the overall average score forcompanies in North America. The overall average score for companies in Asia Pacific was
14% (15% in 2020).
Looking back to the first Benchmark in 2012, company performance has improved
across all regions. In 2012, the average score for UK domiciled companies was 36%,
compared to 59% in 2021. For European domiciled companies, the average score has
improved from just 16% in 2012 to 36% in 2021, and for North American companies,
from 20% in 2012 to 25% in 2021. There was only one Latin American company in the2012 Benchmark, and they scored 36% in 2012, compared to 63% in 2021.
Figure 1.3 Geographic Comparison 2021
0

10Management
Commitment

UK
Europe (excl. UK)
Asia Paciﬁc
North America (USA and Canada)
Latin America
Overall Average Score

Governance andManagement

UK
Europe (excl. UK)
Asia Paciﬁc
15%
North America (USA and Canada)
Latin America
Overall Average Score

Innovation andLeadership

UK
Europe (excl. UK)
Asia Paciﬁc
North America (USA and Canada)
Latin America
Overall Average Score

Performance
Reporting & Impact

Overall Score

16

20

30

40

60

70

80
76%

56%
23%
46%
51%
50%
71%
49%
39%
45%
44%
65%
60%
21%
24%
45%
43%

UK
Europe (excl. UK)
14%
Asia Paciﬁc 7%
North America(USA and Canada) 8%
Latin America
11%
Overall Average Score
15%
UK
Europe (excl. UK)
Asia Paciﬁc
14%
North America (USA and Canada)
Latin America
Overall Average Score

50

43%

59%
36%
25%
31%
32%

The 2021 Benchmark Highlights

17

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

2. The 2021 Benchmark Results in Detail
Farm Animal Welfare Policies
One hundred and thirty-four (89%) of the 150 companies covered by the 2021
Benchmark now acknowledge farm animal welfare as a relevant business issue,compared to 71% of the 68 companies evaluated in the first BBFAW Benchmark in 2012.
Furthermore, 122 companies (81%) have formal overarching policies on farm animal
welfare, compared to 46% of companies in 2012. Despite the significant advancements
seen in the number of companies publishing formal management commitments tofarm animal welfare over the past decade, it is of concern that 28 companies have notpublished overarching policies on farm animal welfare.
As well as measuring the proportion of companies publishing formal policies on farmanimal welfare, we are also interested to understand the scope of these policies andwhether they comprehensively cover the scope of companies’ geographic, species andproduct footprint. Fifty-nine percent of companies have farm animal welfare policies
that lack universal coverage, with their scope being either poorly defined or limited to
specified geographies, species and/or products (see Figure 2.1). In practice, companies
tend to prioritise those species and issues on which they can have the most significant
impact, where they can have the most influence and where there is the greatest level of
public or consumer attention.
Figure 2.1: Scope of Formal Animal Welfare Policies
Universal Policy

No Policy
23%

19%

59%

Partial Policy

Figure 2.2 shows the proportion of companies with management commitments
addressing the eight key welfare topics assessed in the Benchmark.2
The number of companies with published positions on key animal welfare issues
continues to grow, with almost all welfare issues showing a year-on-year upward trend in
the proportion of companies reporting formal positions. However, it is important to pointout that many of the companies publishing management commitments on key welfare
topics achieve only partial scores due to the fact that their commitments are limited to,for example, specific practices (e.g. the avoidance of teeth clipping of pigs but not ofother mutilations on pigs), or to specific species, geographies or products.
In 2021, the most significant increases are seen in companies’ commitment to preslaughter stunning, with 59% of companies stating their position on this issue compared
to 53% in 2020; routine mutilations, with 53% of companies with formal positions
compared to 51% in 2020; and long-distance transport, where 35% of companies now
have formal positions compared to 31% in 2020.
The most actively supported welfare position continues to be the avoidance of close
confinement for all species and the reduction or elimination of routine antibiotics,
followed by company commitments on the avoidance of growth promoting substances
and the avoidance of animals that have not been pre-slaughter stunned. These areas offocus are consistent with our findings in 2020, suggesting that companies are continually
responding to demands for improved welfare being placed on them by their customers
and consumers, by industry peers, by regulatory requirements, and by the campaigning
efforts of animal welfare organisations.
18

90%
Since 2012, almostof companies now
acknowledge farmanimal welfare as abusiness issue.

The 2021 Benchmark Results in Detail
Figure 2.2: Proportion of Companies with Specific Policies on Farm Animal Welfare Issues
0

10

20

30

40

50

2021
2020
2019
2018
Close 2017confinement 2016
2015
2014
2013
2012

64%
66%

49%

2021
51%

2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
GMOs 2016
2015
2014
2013
2012

41%
32%
30%

21%

2021
2020
2019
Growth 2018
promoting 20172016
substances 2015
2014
2013
2012

27%

90

46%

72%

77%
77%
79%
77%

56%
55%

50%
50%

45%

51%
38%

34%

29%

45%

54%

60%
59%

54%

18%

55%
47%

39%

35%

41%
33%

2021
2020
2019
2018
Long-distance 2017transport 2016
2015
2014
2013 6%2012 6%

23%

13%

7%

2021
2020
2019
2018
Pre-slaughter 2017
stunning 2016
2015
2014
2013
2012

0

80

38%

2021
2020
2019
Prophylactic 2018
antibiotic use* 2017
2016
2015
2014

Routinemutilations

70

81%
81%

Environmental
2020
enrichment** 2019

2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012

60

45%

65%
67%
65%
61%

53%
51%

45%

36%

59%

26%

13%

24%

10%

10

19%

21%

20

27%

32%
34%

31%

37%

41%
43%

47%

53%

35%

27%

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

*Reported for the first time in 2014**Reported for the first time in 201919

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
This is the second year in which we have included the scores from a relatively new policyquestion3 relating to the provision of species-specific environmental enrichment. This
question reflects growing recognition of the importance of providing animals withstimulating and complex environments that enable species-specific behaviours. Suchenrichment can include, for example, brushes for dairy cows, manipulable materials
such as straw for pigs, pecking and dustbathing substrates and perches for chickens.
However, of the 84 companies (56%) making commitments to provide species-specificenvironmental enrichment (see Figure 2.4), only 50 (33%) companies had madeclearly defined but partial commitments and just one company had made universal
commitments across all relevant geographies, species and products. Indeed, of all the
key welfare topics assessed in the Benchmark, environmental enrichment has the lowest
proportion of companies with defined commitments, suggesting the relative immaturity
and lack of understanding of this topic by food businesses.
It continues to be the case that relatively few management commitments are universal
in scope (i.e. covering all geographies, all species and all products). The key welfare
topics with the greatest proportion of companies scoring maximum points for adopting
universal commitments are: the avoidance of genetically modified or cloned animals(19% of companies) (Figure 2.6), the avoidance of animals that have not been stunned
prior to slaughter (11% of companies) (Figure 2.8), the avoidance or reduction of theroutine use of antibiotics (11% of companies) (Figure 2.7).
Figure 2.3: Commitment to the Avoidance ofClose Confinement
3%

Figure 2.4: Commitment to Requiring theProvision of Environmental Enrichment

1%

19%

33%

44%

13%

22%

65%
No information
Partial commitment but unclear scope
Partial commitment with clear scope
Universal commitment

No information
Partial commitment but unclear scope
Partial commitment with clear scope
Universal commitment

Figure 2.5: Commitment to the Avoidance ofGrowth Promoting Substances

Figure 2.6: Commitment to the Avoidance ofGenetically Modified and Cloned Animals

8%

27%

19%

50%

40%
24%

25%

No information
Partial commitment but unclear scope
Partial commitment with clear scope
Universal commitment
20

7%
No information
Partial commitment but unclear scope
Partial commitment with clear scope
Universal commitment

The 2021 Benchmark Results in Detail

Figure 2.7: Commitment to the Reduction or
Avoidance of Antibiotics

Figure 2.8: Commitment to Requiring
Pre-slaughter Stunning

11%

11%
35%

32%

41%

38%

22%

10%

No information
Partial commitment but unclear scope
Partial commitment with clear scope
Universal commitment
Figure 2.9: Commitment to the Avoidance ofLong-distance Transportation

No information
Partial commitment but unclear scope
Partial commitment with clear scope
Universal commitment
Figure 2.10: Commitment to the Avoidance ofRoutine Mutilations

1%

7%
21%

35%
47%

7%

65%

17%
No information
Partial commitment but unclear scope
Partial commitment with clear scope
Universal commitment

No information
Partial commitment but unclear scope
Partial commitment with clear scope
Universal commitment
21

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

Governance and Management
We continue to see year-on-year improvements in the way in which companies arestrengthening their internal governance and management processes for ensuring theeffective implementation of company policies. For instance, 80 companies (53%) now
describe their provision of employee training on animal welfare (49% in 2020), and 84(56%) describe the actions taken in the event of non-compliance with their farm animal
welfare policies (55% in 2020). This is encouraging given that performance in these twoareas has historically lagged other Governance and Management topics.
Scores on other Governance and Management topics have remained static since 2020.
For example, 77 companies (51%) have assigned senior management oversight offarm animal welfare and 119 companies (79%) have published formal objectives andtargets for animal welfare. However, when compared with the first 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.
The scores achieved within the Governance and Management section of the Benchmark
reveal differing approaches across the company sub-sectors. Whereas 68% (66% in2020) of Restaurants and Bars companies report that they include farm animal welfare
in supplier contracts, only 26% (26% in 2020) provide any support and/or education
to suppliers on farm animal welfare. This contrasts with Producers and Manufacturers,
where 52% of companies in this sub-sector (48% in 2020) include farm animal welfare insupplier contracts and 62% (57% in 2020) provide associated support and/or education
to suppliers. The equivalent findings for Retailers and Wholesalers are 55% (54% in 2020)
and 47% (46% in 2020) respectively. These findings are perhaps not surprising given that
Producers and Manufacturers are more likely to be operating shorter or less complex
supply chains than Retailers and Wholesalers or Restaurants and Bars.
Key findings:
64% of companies (63% in 2020) report some information on assigned management
responsibilities for farm animal welfare, at either or both senior management andoperational levels.

•• 79% of companies (79% in 2020) have set farm animal welfare-related objectives andtargets.

• 57% of companies (54% in 2020) report that they include farm animal welfare insupplier contracts.

• 71% of companies (67% in 2020) describe how they monitor and audit theimplementation of their farm animal welfare policies.

• 53% of companies (49% in 2020) report on providing animal welfare training to theiremployees.

• 56% (55% in 2020) report on having internal controls for managing non-compliancewith their farm animal welfare policies.

Question 14 was changed in 2021 to encourage companies to provide explanationsof progress against objectives and targets, rather than simply reporting trend data.
Through this change, the BBFAW is seeking evidence that companies have effective
systems in place for monitoring progress against their objectives and targets and are
actively using these insights to inform or adapt their management approach to deliveron their stated aims.

22

119
Whilstcompanies (79%)
have set farm animal
welfare-related
objectives and targets,
only 63 companies(42%) provide an
explanation of progressagainst these.

The 2021 Benchmark Results in Detail

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 achieve welfare impacts for animals in food industry
supply chains. The 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 is another powerful driver of change.
Initiatives focused on developing the right policy frameworks, incentives, knowledge andunderstanding across the industry are important to ensuring that improved practices are
adopted across the industry.
Forty-one percent (40% in 2020) of the 150 companies covered by the Benchmark now
describe their involvement in research and development programmes and 44% (48%in 2020) report that they are involved in industry initiatives directed at improving farmanimal welfare. Fifty-four percent of Producers and Manufacturers and 42% of Food
Retailers and Wholesalers report on their involvement in research and development
projects, compared to just 18% of Restaurant and Bar companies.
Examples of research initiatives include:• A European retailer trialling a new dual-purpose broiler chicken breed.
• An Asian producer developing improved pig handling measures to reduce stressduring loading and transport.

• A European producer conducting research into environmental enrichment for cleaner
fish species used in Atlantic Salmon production.

This year, some companies lost points due to a lack of current, or sufficiently detailed,reporting on their involvement in research and development projects, with a number ofcompanies citing historical research projects or failing to provide updates on existing
projects. Furthermore, a higher proportion of companies lost points on their reportingon industry initiatives aimed at advancing farm animal welfare. Here, a number ofcompanies did not provide sufficient detail on the specific role their company wasfulfilling as part of an industry initiative, or they cited industry initiatives that did not havea clear and focused commitment to improving farm animal welfare.

Customer and Consumer Engagement
Food companies have an important role to play in promoting higher farm animal welfare
standards to customers (both business customers and consumers). The provision of
information on farm animal welfare is important at all levels of the food supply chain if
companies are to play a role in driving greater awareness, demand and support for higher
welfare products.
Overall, the 2021 Benchmark data suggest that the proportion of companies promoting
higher farm animal welfare to customers has remained broadly unchanged. Seventyeight companies (52%) provide some information to their customers on farm animal
welfare (53% in 2020), with 60% of Food Producers and Manufacturers and Food
Retailers and Wholesalers respectively reporting on their efforts to engage consumers.
As with previous years, companies in the Restaurants and Bars sub-sector significantly
lag their industry peers on this issue, with just 24% of companies in this sub-sector
scoring points for their customer or consumer communications on farm animal welfare.

23

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

Farm Animal Welfare Performance
The Performance Reporting and Impact section was introduced to the BBFAW
assessment in 2014 and incorporated into company scores for the first time in 2015.
Despite this, company scoring in the Performance Reporting and Impact section remains
very low, with an overall average score of just 15% (14% in 2020). Performance reportingon farm animal welfare is neither comprehensive (i.e. the scope of reporting is limited to
specified geographies, species or products) nor clearly defined. Analysing the scoring by
sub-sector shows that Food Producers and Manufacturers achieve a marginally higher
average score of 16% in this section, compared to the average score for Food Retailers
and Wholesalers at 15%, and Restaurants and Bars at 11%.

Performance Disclosure by Welfare Issue
Figure 2.11 summarises company scoring across the seven Performance Reporting
questions (Questions 20-26), which appear in the first half of the Performance Reportingand Impact section. These questions relate to all species managed by companies
across all geographies and all products and cover: the proportion of animals free fromclose confinement, the proportion of animals provided with effective species-specificenvironmental enrichment, the proportion of animals free from routine mutilations,the proportion of animals pre-slaughter stunned, the proportion of animals subject torepeat-stun, the proportion of animals transported in eight hours or less, and the extent
that companies report on welfare outcome measures, partially or fully.
Reporting on the proportion of animals free from close confinement (across laying
hens, broiler chickens, pigs and dairy cattle) remains the highest reported topic, with 100
companies (67%) reporting at least some data (65% in 2020). However, the majority of
performance reporting on this topic remains limited to specified countries, species or
product lines, with only seven companies (5%) providing universal data.
Other findings:
49 companies (33%) report some data on the proportion of animals transported in eight
hours or less (29% in 2020), with only eight companies (5%) providing universal data.

•• 42 companies (28%) report welfare outcome measures for specific species (e.g.

lameness rates in pigs, feather cover in laying hens, and sea lice infection rates infarmed fish) (23% in 2020). Given the importance of welfare outcome measures forevaluating the performance of farm animal welfare systems and practices, this issue
remains significantly under-reported with 108 companies reporting no data at all.

• 39 companies (26%) report some data on the proportion of animals provided withspecies-specific enrichment (22% in 2020), with only four companies (3%) providing
universal data.

24

The 2021 Benchmark Results in Detail
Figure 2.11 Proportion of Companies Reporting on Performance 2014-2021
0

10

20

2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014

% companies
reporting on the
proportion ofanimals free fromclose confinement

30

40

50

60

70
67%
65%
63%

51%
54%
33%
33%
18%

% companies reporting 2021
on the proportion of2020
animals provided with2019
environmental enrichment

26%
22%
13%
33%

2021

% companies 2020
reporting on the2019
proportion of
2018
animals free fromroutine mutilations 2017

31%
26%
24%
19%

2016 5%
33%

2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014 5%% companies
reporting on the
proportion of animals
pre-slaughter stunned

31%
24%
24%
19%
10%
11%

% companies reporting on2021
the proportion of animals
2020
subject to back-up or
repeat stunning 2019 5%
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014 3%% companies
reporting on the
proportion ofanimals transported
in <8 hours

2021
2020
2019
% companies
reporting on welfare 2018
outcome measures 20172016
6%2015 2%
2014 3%

0

17%
13%

33%
29%
25%
20%
18%
8%
8%

28%
23%
16%
13%
11%

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Note: Performance Reporting questions were introduced in 2014,
with additional questions introduced in 2016, 2018 and 2019.

25

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

Performance Impact
In line with BBFAW’s objective to place increasing emphasis on welfare impact, theweighting of the Performance Impact questions has been increased in increments
over the past five Benchmark cycles: from 24% of total points (in 2017) to 35% (2018to 2020) to 45% in 2021. Meanwhile, since 2020, adjustments have been made to theweighting of the 104 Performance Impact questions to represent 60% of the available
points in this Performance Reporting and Impact section.
As part of the changes to the methodology in 2021, a further adjustment was made to
the scoring of the Performance Impact questions, to award more than minimum points
to companies who reported partial but substantial progress on the welfare impacts foranimals in their global supply chains.
Some examples:• A company reporting that 100% of laying hens in its European operations were

cage-free, would previously have been awarded minimum points if the company
was unable to state what proportion of global supply this data related to. Under therevised methodology, the company scored additional points for achieving substantial
progress, even though this was limited in geographic scope.

• A company reporting that 70% of fresh pork globally was from sows that were freefrom sow-stalls after the first four weeks of pregnancy would previously have been
awarded minimum points because the product scope was limited to fresh meat
(and, therefore, did not include cured, frozen or ingredient products). Under therevised methodology, the company scored additional points for achieving substantial
progress, even though this was limited in product scope.

Recognising that company disclosure on performance impact is significantly underdeveloped, the aim of this scoring adjustment was two-fold. First, it presented an
opportunity to incentivise companies who had yet to report on their performance impact
by encouraging them to make substantial progress in one part of the business, even if
this was limited by geographic or product scope. Second, it presented an opportunity
to recognise those companies already reporting substantial yet partial impact data
more fairly.
Overall, 67 companies benefitted from the new scoring for reporting Performance
Impacts that were partial but substantial, and there were 185 instances wherecompanies received three points for such reporting. The new scoring had a marginal
impact on company scores, with an average uplift on the overall score of +0.67%.

Impact Rating
The Impact Rating tool supports the BBFAW’s long-term objective to improve thewelfare of animals in the global food system. Introduced in 2020, the Impact Rating isdesigned to help investors and other stakeholders better assess the effectiveness of acompany’s management systems in delivering welfare improvements on the ground.
Individual company ratings were introduced but not publicly disclosed in 2020 and wereshared with individual companies on a confidential basis. At the time, companies were
notified of the BBFAW’s intention to publish company Impact Ratings from 2021.
The Impact Rating is calculated using the scores achieved by companies across the
10 Performance Impact questions. Eight of the 10 questions assess companies on
species-specific performance for the most numerously sourced animals (excluding fish)
worldwide (namely laying hens, broiler chickens, dairy cows and pigs). These speciesspecific questions focus on key welfare issues covering close confinement, routine
mutilations and, in the case of broiler chickens, fast growing breeds. Two additionalquestions focus on pre-slaughter stunning (of all species) and long-distance live
transportation (excluding fish) for the species relevant to a company’s operations andsupply chains.
The Impact Rating (see Table 2.1) highlights that performance impact is not at the level
we would expect it to be given the level of corporate and investor attention afforded tofarm animal welfare over the past decade.

26

The 2021 Benchmark Results in Detail
Table 2.1: 2021 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 proportionof farm animals intheir operations and/or supply chains.

Company
Greggs PLC, Marks & Spencer PLC, Noble Foods, Premier Foods PLC,
Waitrose

These companies are
declaring improved
welfare impacts
for at least somefarm animals in theiroperations and/or
supply chains.

Cargill, Cranswick PLC, Fonterra, Groupe Danone SA, Nestlé SA,
Tesco PLC

These companies
have yet todemonstrate thatthey are delivering
improved welfare
impacts for farmanimals in theiroperations and/or
supply chains.

ALDI Nord (ALDI Markt), ALDI Süd/ALDI Einkauf SE & Co, Carrefour
SA, Casino Guichard-Perrachon SA, Charoen Pokphand Foods (CPF),
Cheesecake Factory (The), Chipotle Mexican Grill, Compass Group
PLC, Coop Group (Switzerland)/Coop Genossenschaft, EG Group, EloGroup, Hershey Co, Hilton Food Group, ICA Gruppen AB, IKEA (Inter
IKEA Group), Jeronimo Martins, Les Mousquetaires, Mars Inc, MigrosGenossenschafts-Bund, Mitchells & Butlers PLC, Perdue Farms, Royal
FrieslandCampina, Whitbread PLC, Woolworths Limited, Yum! Brands Inc

2 Sisters Food Group (Boparan Holdings Ltd), Barilla SpA, BRF SA, Co-op
UK, Coles Group, Danish Crown AmbA, Domino’s Pizza Group PLC,
J Sainsbury PLC, Maple Leaf Foods, Unilever NV, Marfrig Global Foods
SA, Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC

Aeon Group, Agro Super, Ahold Delhaize, Albertsons, Alimentation
Couche-Tard, Amazon/Whole Foods Market, Aramark Corporation,
Arla Foods Ltd, Associated British Foods PLC, Autogrill SpA, Bimbo,
BJ’s Wholesale Club Holdings, Bloomin’ Brands Inc, C&S Wholesale,
Campbell Soup Company, Camst – La Ristorazione Italiana Soc. Coop.
ARL, Cencosud, Chick-fil-A, China Resources Vanguard, China Yurun
Group Limited, Chuying Agro-Pastoral Group, CKE Restaurants, CNHLS,
Colruyt, Conad Consorzio Nazionale, ConAgra, Cooke Seafood Inc,
Coop Italia, Cooperativa Centrale Aurora Alimentos, Coopérative U
Enseigne, Cooperl Arc Atlantique, Costco Wholesale Corporation,
Cracker Barrel, Cremonini SpA, Dairy Farmers of America, Darden
Restaurants PLC, Dico’s/Ting Hsin International Group, E.Leclerc,
EDEKA Group, Elior Group, Empire Company/Sobey’s, Ferrero SpA,
Gategroup Holding AG, General Mills Inc, Groupe Lactalis, Gruppo
Veronesi, H E Butt Company, Habib’s, Hormel Foods, Corporation,
Industrias Bachoco, Inspire Brands Inc, JAB Holding Company, JBS
SA, JD Wetherspoon PLC, Kerry Group, KraftHeinz, Kroger Company(The), LDC Groupe, Lianhua Supermarket Holdings Co ,Lidl Stiftung& Co KG, Loblaw Companies Limited, Maruha Nichiro, McDonald’s
Corporation, Meiji Holdings, Mercadona SA, METRO AG, Minerva
Foods, Mondelēz International, Mowi ASA, Müller Group AG, New Hope
Liuhe Co Ltd, Nippon Ham, OSI Group, Papa John’s Pizza, Plukon FoodGroup, Publix Super Markets Inc, Restaurant Brands International,
REWE Group, Sanderson Farms, Saputo Inc, Schwarz Unternehmens
Treuhand KG/Kaufland, Seaboard Corp, Seven & i Holdings, Sodexo,
SSP Group, Starbucks Corporation, Subway/Doctor’s Associates Inc,
Sysco Corporation, Target Corporation, Terrena Group, Tönnies Group,
Tyson Foods Inc, Umoe Gruppen AS, UNFI, US Foods, Vion Food Group,
Walmart Inc, Wendy’s Company (The), Wens Foodstuff Group, WH
Group Ltd, Yonghui Superstores Co Ltd, Zhongpin Inc

27

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Whilst 102 (68%) of the 150 companies (66% in 2020) covered by the Benchmark now
score some points within the 10 Performance Impact questions, the overall averagescore for these questions is just 12% (a marginal increase from 8% in 2020). The large
distribution of companies in the lower Impact Rating bands underlines the immaturityof this area of company performance and highlights the need for significant progress bycompanies to demonstrate the quality and effectiveness of their management practices
in delivering welfare improvements for animals.
An example of the lack of emphasis on performance is illustrated in the Performance
Impact questions related to close confinement (covering the proportion of laying hens
free from cages, the proportion of broiler chickens reared at stocking densities of 30
kg/m2 or less, the proportion of sows free from sow stalls/gestation crates, and the
proportion of dairy cattle free from tethering). Whilst 100 companies (67% of the 150
companies) report some data on these questions (65% in 2020), much of the data ispartially reported and is limited by geography or product type (e.g. fresh product only).
The most widely reported Performance Impact data relates to laying hens where 88
companies (62% of companies with laying hens in their supply chain) report some data.
Even here, only around one in four (26%) of these companies reports any significant
impact, namely that 60% or more of the laying hens in their global supply chains are
cage-free.
Key findings:
While overall average scores on the 10 Performance Impact questions remains very low,
there are some early signs of progress. For example:• Thirty companies have improved their Impact Rating since 2020.
• Twenty-six companies (19% of those with broiler chickens in their supply chain) reporton the proportion of broiler chickens from strains of birds with improved welfare
outcomes and with a slower growth potential. This is an increase from 11% in 2020.

• Twenty companies (14%) report on the proportion of laying hens that is free frombeak trimming, compared to 11% in 2020.

• Thirty-seven companies (26% of those with dairy cows in their supply chain) are

reporting on the proportion of dairy cows that is free from tail docking, compared to
19% in 2020.

• Fifty-one companies (34%) report on the proportion of animals (including fin fish) in
their global supply chains that is pre-slaughter stunned, compared to 31% in 2020.

28

30
Whilstcompanies have
improved their Impact
Rating between 2020
and 2021, the overall
average score for the
10 questions on which
the Impact Rating isbased, is just 12%.

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, and 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. Throughout the year, theBBFAW partners and the BBFAW secretariat have engaged with more than half of thecompanies covered by the Benchmark – through one-on-one meetings and calls, andthrough online group events. In addition, 49 of the 150 companies assessed provided
comments on their draft 2021 assessments and 24 of the 150 companies responded
to the BBFAW annual company survey on their animal welfare approaches, on proposedchanges to the Benchmark and on the role being played by the BBFAW 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.
It has worked closely with investors since 20115 to ensure that the Benchmark andassociated tools remain relevant to investors, and to help the investment industry catalysechange in the manner in which companies manage farm animal welfare through theirinvestment decision-making and their engagement with 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).

29

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Box 3.1
The Importance of Impact to Investors
Since the first BBFAW in 2012, the investor perception of farm animal welfare haschanged dramatically, from perception as a niche investment issue, to one where
there is now widespread awareness of the importance of assessing and managing
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 2021 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 of 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 ten iterations of the Benchmark, the Secretariat has proactively engaged with theinvestment community, encouraging investors to use their influence to urge companies
to take effective action on farm animal welfare. We have established the first ever Global
Investor Statement on Farm Animal Welfare and the BBFAW Global Investor Collaboration
on Farm Animal Welfare; both of these are now supported by over 30 institutional investors
with over £2.3 trillion in assets under management. Furthermore, the results of ourongoing engagements with investors suggest that – as a result of the annual Benchmark
itself and the BBFAW partners’ and the Secretariat’s extensive dialogue and capacitybuilding efforts – investors are increasingly likely to engage with companies to encouragethem to better manage the issue of farm animal welfare. This engagement is widely citedby companies – particularly in their responses to the annual letters sent by investors to
CEOs – as a key driver for them to take action on farm animal welfare.
In 2021, 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, 49 of the 150 companies (33%) submitted formal responses to investors, which islower than last year but within the range of previous years (46% in 2020, 25% in 2019 and
39% in 2018). In 2021, we saw an increase in Board level responses – 42% of responses(compared to 19% in 2020) were from Board directors. This indicates that for an
increasing proportion of companies, animal welfare has become a strategic issue.
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.

30

Accelerating Impact
Box 3.2

The findings of the first regional benchmark, BBFAW Nordic, were published in June
2021. Using the same methodology as the global Benchmark, the first chapterof the Nordic Benchmark assessed 26 leading Food Retailers and Wholesalers,
Food Producers and Restaurants and Bars in Norway between 1 December 2020
and 31 January 2021. The findings revealed an overall average score of 32%, with24 companies (92%) acknowledging farm animal welfare as a business issue, and16 companies (62%) publishing a farm animal welfare policy. This compares to an
average score of 26% in the inaugural Global Benchmark in 2012, where 71% ofcompanies acknowledged farm animal welfare as an important business issue and
46% of companies had published a farm animal welfare policy. The relatively positive
findings from the inaugural BBFAW Norway Benchmark can be partially explainedby the requirement for mandatory reporting on farm animal welfare within the
Norwegian meat and egg industry. Notwithstanding this fact, the 2021 findings
indicate that Norwegian companies have a solid base on which to progress theirfarm animal welfare performance. However, there remains minimal detail provided
by Norwegian companies on their internal and supply chain governance andmanagement approaches and limited or no performance disclosure.
Many Norwegian food companies have indicated that the BBFAW provides a usefulframework for structuring their farm animal welfare management and reporting. The
annual assessment cycle – which is scheduled again for 2022 during March and April– is accompanied by an active programme of company engagement.
For further details, see https://bbfaw-nordic.com/

31

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

4. The 2021 Benchmark Methodology
This section provides an overview of the BBFAW, including a description of the programme, thestructure of the Benchmark, the assessment approach and assessment criteria and the companies
covered by the Benchmark. It also describes the questions and scoring in the 2021 Benchmark.
The list of companies covered by the 2021 Benchmark and the BBFAW Glossary can be found here:
https://bbfaw.com/publications/

The structure of the Benchmark
This section describes the framework used to evaluate companies on their farm animal
welfare management and reporting. It also discusses changes to the framework andmethodology since the 2020 Benchmark.6

Alignment with corporate responsibility
reporting
The structure of the BBFAW aligns with the way in which companies report on othersustainability-related issues. For any particular social or environmental issue, investors
and other stakeholders generally expect companies to provide:7• Information on the company’s activities to the extent that such information isnecessary to put its social and environmental impacts into context.

• A description of the company’s governance and management arrangements for theenvironmental or social issue(s) in question.

• Details of the business risks and impacts of the issue(s) in question, together with aclear statement on the financial implications – positive or negative – of these issues
for the business.

• Details of their policies on the issue(s) in question.
• A description of the company’s engagement with relevant stakeholders on theissue(s) in question.

• Their objectives, targets and key performance indicators for the issue(s) in question,

together with a discussion of how they intend to deliver on these objectives and targets.

• An assessment of their progress towards meeting their objectives and targets, and theirimpact, together with a discussion of the factors that have affected their performance.

• An assessment of their performance against their policies and against othercommitments (e.g. codes of conduct) that they have made.

• Forward-looking information on how performance is expected to evolve over time andthe key factors (changes in the business environment, public policy and regulation,
consumer trends, stakeholder pressures, etc.) that may affect performance.

32

The 2021 Benchmark Methodology

Benchmark structure
The Benchmark has been designed to align with the reporting expectations above. The
Benchmark covers four core areas as follows:• Management Commitment – description of the company’s policies and positions

on farm animal welfare, including specific commitments on critical animal welfare
measures (e.g. the avoidance of close confinement, providing effective environmental
enrichment, long distance live transportation).

• Governance and Management – board and senior management oversight of farmanimal welfare strategy, targets and objective setting, internal controls, the adoptionof assurance standards, and reporting on progress against policy commitments andagainst objectives and targets.

• Leadership and Innovation – investment in projects to advance farm animal welfare
and advocacy on farm animal welfare.

• Performance Reporting and Impact – reporting on the company’s performanceagainst key animal welfare policies, targets and welfare outcome-based measures(e.g. species-specific indicators of animal well-being) together with a discussion on
the progress being made by the company

Farm animal welfare-specific issues
While, in many ways, farm animal welfare can be reported in a similar manner to othercorporate responsibility issues, there are several specific issues and data that should
also be reported by companies. Those that are relevant to the Benchmark are set out
briefly here:
Management Commitment and Policy
Companies should provide a general account of why farm animal welfare is important totheir business, including a discussion of the business risks and opportunities. Examplesof the business issues that may be relevant, include compliance with legislation
and relevant voluntary and industry standards, security and sustainability of supply,
productivity, stakeholder/consumer expectations, pricing, risk management, reputation
management, market opportunities, and business development.
Companies should publish an overarching farm animal welfare policy that sets out theircore principles and beliefs on farm animal welfare, and that explains how these beliefs are
addressed and implemented throughout the business. The policy should include:• A clear statement of the reasons why farm animal welfare is important to the business.
• A clear position on its expected standards of farm animal welfare.
• A description of the processes (e.g. senior management oversight, commitments
to continuous improvement, performance monitoring, corrective action processes,
public reporting on performance) in place to ensure that the policy is effectively
implemented.

• A clear definition of the scope of the policy, specifically whether the policy applies toall relevant animal species or not (including whether the policy – or a separate policy– applies to finfish aquaculture), whether the policy applies in all geographies or not,and whether the policy applies to all products the company produces, manufacturesor sells, or not.

As relevant to their activities and operations, companies should set out their positions
on priority farm animal welfare issues, including their positions on close confinement andintensive systems for livestock and finfish, on the provision of effective species-specificenvironmental enrichment, on the use of meat from genetically modified or cloned
animals or their progeny or descendants, on the use of growth promoting substances,on the use of prophylactic antibiotics, on the avoidance of routine mutilations, on the
avoidance of meat from animals that have not been subject to pre-slaughter stunning,and on long distance live transportation.

33

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Governance and Policy Implementation
Companies should specify who (i.e. the position/title of the relevant individual(s)) is
responsible for managing farm animal welfare-related issues on a day-to-day basis,
and who is responsible at senior management level for overseeing the company’s farmanimal welfare policy and its implementation.
Companies should:• Publish the objectives they have set for farm animal welfare. These may be process
objectives (e.g. to formalise their farm animal welfare management systems, tointroduce audits), performance objectives (e.g. to phase out specific non-humane
practices, to ensure that specific standards are met for all species) or somecombination of the two.

• Specify the measures they are using to assess performance against these objectives
and targets.

• Explain how these objectives and targets are to be delivered including, as appropriate,
details of the capital and other costs that are expected to be incurred, and thetimeframe for the delivery of these objectives and targets.

• Report on their performance against the objectives and targets they have set forthemselves.

Companies should describe their internal systems and controls for farm animal welfare.
This should include discussion of:• Training in farm animal welfare for relevant employees.
• The actions to be taken in the event of non-compliance with the farm animal welfare
policy.

• Monitoring processes (e.g. CCTV, whistle-blowing processes, testing procedures) inplace to ensure compliance with the farm animal welfare policy.

Companies should describe how they implement their farm animal welfare policy
through their supply chains. This should include discussion of:• How farm animal welfare issues are integrated into supplier contracts or codes ofconduct, including (as relevant) how farm animal welfare issues are considered inperformance reviews, monitoring and auditing.

• How supplier performance on farm animal welfare is promoted.
• How employee and supplier competencies to effectively manage farm animal welfare
are developed and maintained (e.g. training).

Companies should report on whether they assure their animals to a company-specificscheme, to a certified national farm assurance scheme or to third-party assured
schemes such as RSPCA Assured, Label Rouge, GAP 5-step or EU organic standards.
Leadership and Innovation
Companies should indicate whether they are involved in research and development
programmes to advance farm animal welfare, or in industry or other initiatives directed at
improving farm animal welfare.
Companies should describe how they engage with their customers or clients on farmanimal welfare.
Performance Reporting and Impact
Companies should report on their performance on farm animal welfare.8 Within this,they should report on commonly accepted welfare issues and the proportion of animals
affected by their policies (e.g. on close confinement, on environmental enrichment, on
routine mutilations such as tail docking, on pre-slaughter stunning, on ineffective stunning(i.e. back-up or repeat stunning), on maximum achieved journey times) as well as on
species-specific welfare outcome measures (e.g. gait score and footpad dermatitis in
broiler chickens, tail-biting and lameness in pigs, bone breakage and feather coverage inlaying hens, or those related to mental wellbeing and expression of natural behaviour).
Companies should report on trends in performance, including discussion of the factorsthat have influenced performance (positively or negatively).

34

The 2021 Benchmark Methodology
Companies should report on their performance on key welfare issues for specificspecies, as measured by:• The proportion of defined species (e.g. laying hens, sows, dairy cattle, broiler chickens)
free from close confinement.

• The proportion of defined species (e.g. laying hens, pigs, dairy cows) free from routine
mutilations.

• The proportion of broiler chickens of a slower-growing breed with higher welfare potential.
• The proportion of animals subject to pre-slaughter stunning.
• The proportion of animals transported within specified maximum journey times.

Weightings

The Benchmark criteria (see page 44) cover four core areas as indicated in Table 4.1, withpoints allocated to each area. In total, the Benchmark comprises 37 questions.
Table 4.1 Benchmark Elements
Pillar
1. Management Commitment

2. Governance and Management
3. Innovation and Leadership

4. Performance Reporting and Impact% weighting in 2021
(2020 weightings)
22 (26)24 (28)9 (11)

45 (35)

Changes from the 2020 Benchmark
Structure
The overall structure of the Benchmark remained the same in 2021. However, theweighting of the Performance Reporting and Impact section increased to 45% in 2021.
The proportion of the scores allocated to Performance Reporting (Q20-27) in thissection remained at 40% and the proportion of the scores allocated to Performance
Impact (Q28-37) remained at 60%. Across the Benchmark as a whole, the 10
Performance Impact questions (Q28-37) accounted for 27% of a company’s potential
maximum score.
The Impact Ratings that were introduced in the 2020 BBFAW assessment, based on thescores achieved across the 10 Performance Impact questions, were only reported inaggregate in the 2020 Benchmark report with the individual Impact Ratings being sharedwith companies on a confidential basis. However, as planned, companies’ individual Impact
Ratings are published for the first time in the 2021 report (see main report, Figure 1.1).
Changes were made to the assessment of the Performance Impact questions.
Alongside the increase in weighting for the 10 Performance Impact questions (Q28-37),
the scoring approach for these questions was modified in two ways. Firstly the scoringclassification was revised, as follows (and see Table 4.2 for an illustration):• Changing the maximum number of points per question from 5 points to 10 points.
• Changing the percentage boundaries for the points awarded and increasing thenumber of points options, to align the scoring with the reported percentages.

• Changing the percentage bracket for full points from 100% to 99-100%, to allow

an amount of leeway at the upper end of performance, acknowledging the practicalchallenges associated with reporting 100% achievement against stated criteria.

35

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Table 4.2. The revised scoring for all 10 Performance Impact questions (Q28-37),
with laying hens as an example
Percentage reported
0% [of laying hens is cage-free, etc.], or noreported information

Points01% – 20% [of laying hens is cage-free, etc.]

1

41 – 60% [of laying hens is cage-free, etc.]

521 – 40% [of laying hens is cage-free, etc.]
61 – 80% [of laying hens is cage-free, etc.]
81 – 98% [of laying hens is cage-free, etc.]

99 – 100% [of laying hens is cage-free, etc.]

3
7
9

10

The second change was to increase the points available for partial impact reporting,where the reporting was substantial in scope. This was intended to both encourage
those companies yet to start reporting impact and to better reward companies alreadydoing so for substantial parts of their supply chains.
In previous Benchmarks, companies that did not report progress in line with therequirements of the Performance Impact questions (reporting data reflecting thecompany’s impact on the issue in question across all relevant geographies and all
relevant products across their global supply chain) were awarded 0.5 points out of 5
points (equivalent to 1 out of 10 points). Many companies failed to provide sufficientdetail in their reported performance data to make it possible to accurately determine theproportion of animals in their global supply chain that was impacted. BBFAW refers tosuch reporting as ‘partial impact reporting’.
In 2021, the points awarded for partial impact reporting which was ‘substantial’ in scope
was increased from the equivalent of 1 point to 3 points out of 10, with the condition thatthe description of the scope of the reported data was clear. A substantial scope included
reporting on an entire species, or geography, subsidiary or form of livestock productwhich covers a significant percentage of the company’s business or volumes. Examplesof partial but substantial reporting are provided in ‘The 2021 Assessment Criteria’
section of this report.
An insubstantial scope included reporting for specific product lines or reporting data withan unclear scope. Such partial impact reporting was awarded 1 point out of 10, as perprevious Benchmarks.

36

The 2021 Benchmark Methodology

The Assessment Approach
Focus on the corporate entity
The focus of the evaluation was the corporate entity (i.e. the parent company) rather
than subsidiaries. This reflects the aim of the Benchmark to assess how each group
entity manages farm animal welfare issues. The Benchmark did however give credit for
the actions (e.g. innovative practices and processes) of subsidiaries or for actions in
specific geographic regions.

Reliance on published information
Each company was assessed on the information that was publicly available at the timeof its assessment (company assessments were conducted in the period August to
September 2021). The information reviewed for each company included formal reports(e.g. annual reports, corporate responsibility reports), the information on the company’s
corporate and consumer websites, and the information provided in documents suchas press releases and frequently asked questions.9 We conducted similar reviews of thewebsites of company subsidiaries and brands, and, where relevant, postings on social
media (but only if signposted from company’s corporate websites).
We did not give credit for information in the public domain that was not provided by thecompany. Examples of such reporting might include a press release citing a company’s
involvement in a farm animal welfare industry initiative, or an award conferred on acompany by an independent organisation. Such absence of reporting raises questions
about the level of attention being paid to farm animal welfare more generally by thecompany in question.
Company assessments were based entirely on information published at the time of
the assessments. The reasons for relying on published information are to:• Encourage better disclosure, which is a core objective of the BBFAW.
• Ensure that companies are assessed in a consistent manner (i.e. via an unbiased,
objective evaluation of published information).

• Avoid any suggestion that companies working with BBFAW Partner organisations
are advantaged by the assessment methodology.

Focus on farm animal welfare, not corporate
responsibility/sustainability
The focus of the Benchmark was on farm animal welfare rather than on corporate
responsibility or sustainability. We, therefore, did not give credit for general corporate
responsibility or sustainability disclosures unless the company explicitly linked these tofarm animal welfare and/or it was clear that farm animal welfare was an integral part ofthe company’s CSR/sustainability management system.

Quality assurance and company reviews
The BBFAW ensures consistency and fairness in the assessment process thoroughquality control. This process was overseen by Nicky Amos (Executive Director of
the BBFAW) and the assessment team leader (Dr Heleen van de Weerd). It ensures
the factual accuracy of the assessments, the correct and consistent application ofthe (updated) criteria and ensures that biases were not being introduced into theassessments.

37

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
The quality control process included the following aspects:• Annual training of all assessors on the BBFAW methodology and research process andon annual changes in its methodology.

• Training of new assessors involved completion of two company assessments andindividual review of results.

• All initial company assessments were reviewed by an experienced member of theassessment team and any inconsistencies were corrected.

• BBFAW Secretariat checks were carried out to ensure updated criteria were applied

across all company assessments. They also ensured that assessments were notpenalising or favouring specific business models (for example, complex versus simple
supply chains, principal business operations within Europe versus operations mainly
outside of Europe, and multiple brands versus fewer brands).

• Initial company assessments were reviewed by members of the BBFAW Partnerorganisations to further check the factual accuracy and to ensure consistency of theassessment methodology.

Companies were granted access to their preliminary company reports with interim
findings and scores in December 2021. Forty-eight of the 150 companies respondedwith written comments or requested further dialogue on the assessment approach andscoring. As a result of these discussions, we raised the scores for 38 companies, withseven of these resulting in an increase in Tier.
Company scores were revised only in situations where there had been
misinterpretations or inconsistencies in the assessment process, either because ofincorrect scores being awarded or because information that was in the public domain at
the time of the assessment had been overlooked or misinterpreted.
The final confidential company reports, showing individual scores and comments foreach question, as well as overall company scores and comparable sector scores, weremade available to the companies in January 2021.

38

The 2021 Benchmark Methodology

The 2021 Assessment Criteria
The 2021 assessment criteria are presented on page 44. Each question was supported
by a rationale, the scoring framework and explanatory notes on how the assessment
was conducted.
Notes on the scoring framework:• A number of the questions were binary (i.e. yes/no) in nature. Examples include

Question 1 and the two parts of Question 15. In these questions, companies scoredeither full marks or zero for the question.

• Certain questions affected the scoring of subsequent questions. For example,

Question 2 was scored only if points had been awarded for Question 1, and Question
3 was scored only if points had been awarded for Question 2.

• For the majority of questions, the scoring was granular, allowing for criteria thatare partially met to be acknowledged (for example, where evidence is limited to aparticular geography, species or product).

• Questions 28 to 35 were species-specific, and we only asked and incorporated intoscores if the species were relevant to the company.

Changes from the 2020 Benchmark
Several changes were made to update or clarify the criteria for the 2021 Benchmark.
Based on a review of the BBFAW assessment criteria in 2020, the BBFAW is intended
to remove the potential for double scoring within the assessment. Double scoring canoccur in cases where the same evidence provides the basis for points being awardedin more than one question. This applied to the questions in the Governance andManagement section (Question 14) and the Performance Reporting and Impact section(Q20 to Q37).
In the 2021 Benchmark, the first step towards removing the potential for double scoring
was taken by changing:• Question 14: to focus on the explanation of progress against objectives and targets,
which may be qualitative or quantitative (no change in maximum points available).

• Question 27: to focus on the explanation of progress in performance for welfare
outcome measures (and a change in the maximum points available from 10 to 5
points).

By placing the emphasis on the explanation of progress (rather than reporting perse), we sought evidence that companies were monitoring progress and were actively
using these insights to inform or adapt their management approach to deliver on theirobjectives and targets.10
Further changes to questions were as follows:
Management Commitment and Policy[Clarification] Q4, on the avoidance of close confinement:

The rationale for this question was modified by adding more examples of intensive
housing systems: cages (battery and enriched/colony) for laying hens, rabbits, otherpoultry; gestation/sow stalls and farrowing crates for sows) and high stocking densities
for pigs and poultry.
[Clarification] Q5, on the provision of effective species-specific environmental
enrichment:

It was explained that chains for pigs and enriched/furnished cages for laying hens were
not classed as effective enrichment.

39

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
[Clarification] Q8, on the avoidance of antibiotics:

It was explained that in the absence of a clear position on the reduction or avoidance ofantibiotics for prophylactic use, companies that marketed a particular product line as
antibiotic-free, or focused solely on critically important antibiotics, were not awarded
any points.
Clarifications to Questions 5 to 11:

It was explained that companies that made a commitment on a specific welfare issue for a
specific product or limited product range were awarded a score of 1 point, in contrast to aclear scope such as a policy for all own-brand products, for which 3 points were awarded.
Governance and Management[Clarification] Q13, on setting objectives and targets:

It was explained that objectives and targets could also be linked to welfare outcome
measures but that the reporting on progress against these was assessed in Question 26
and Question 27.
[Change] Q14 (see also above), on the explanation of progress against objectives
and targets:

The revised question assessed whether the company provided an explanation ofprogress against at least one objective or target, awarded with 3 points; or against
multiple objectives and targets, awarded with 5 points. If no explanations were provided,no points were awarded.
Innovation and Leadership
No changes.
Performance Reporting and Impact[Clarification] Q20, reporting on close confinement and Q29, reporting the proportion ofsows free from sow stalls:
It was explained that statements on the proportion of sows that are free from stalls (after
the insemination period) needed to be transparent and clearly indicate how much timesows in the sow stall-free supply spend in sow stalls. For example, this could be ‘zero days’or ‘the first 4 weeks of pregnancy’ (in line with BBFAW criteria), in order to receive points.
[Change] Q27 (see also above), on the explanation of progress in performance for
welfare outcome measures:

The revised question assessed whether the company provided an explanation of progressagainst at least one welfare outcome measure, but limited to certain geographies, species,
or products, awarded with 3 points; or an explanation for at least one welfare outcome
measure for each relevant species across all geographies and products, awarded with 5
points. If no explanations were provided, no points were awarded.
Clarifications to Questions 28 to 37, partial, substantial impact reporting:

It was explained that depending on whether the scope of the partial reporting was
substantial or not, companies were either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 3 points.
Examples of partial but substantial reporting are provided below:• “In Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, 100% of the eggs we purchase are either freerange or cage-free [...] In North America, 27% of the eggs we purchase are cage-free.
In Latin America, 31% of the processed eggs we purchase are cage-free.”• “All Own Brand shell eggs sold nationally are cage-free [...] 36% of all Own Brand
products with egg are cage-free.”• “100% of UK sows are loose housed throughout their gestation and free from sow
stall confinement.”

40

The 2021 Benchmark Methodology

Clarifications to the criteria
In this section we highlight aspects of the 2021 criteria to clarify how scoring decisions weremade with a view to align assessments across assessors and to enhance transparency.
Comprehensive animal welfare policies
Most companies deal with one or more animal species within their supply chain.
Alongside a few primary species, companies will also manufacture and/or sell certain
processed products, which may include ingredients originating from other animal
species (e.g. eggs, dairy or fish).
The BBFAW methodology requires companies to assume responsibility for both themain, as well as these additional species. This responsibility also applies to animals thathave reached the end of their productive lives in the supply chain, such as end-of-lay
hens, dairy cows and sows. Thus, all animal species in a supply chain should be covered in
the animal welfare policy/commitments in order to receive full points.
The scope of the animal welfare policy (Q3)
There continued to be variation among companies regarding how clearly the scopeof the animal welfare policy or position statement was explained. This also applied tocompanies that operate in one geography but who did not state clearly whether theirpolicy scope was restricted to this geography only, or whether they sourced animalbased products from outside their main geographic base.
Overall, it needs to be made very clear which geographies, animal species and products
were included in the animal welfare policy commitment(s) if companies are to beawarded full points for this question. In cases where companies had been asked to clarify
the scope, but subsequently failed to provide clarification, the points previously awarded
were reduced.
Clearly stated intent of commitments (Q4 to Q11)
Companies continue to make statements on farm animal welfare that are ambiguous orvague, or that do not allow us to make a robust assessment of their policies, practices
or performance. For example, a number of companies made high-level statementson specific issues (e.g. on the avoidance of long-distance transport or requiring theprovision of environmental enrichment) but these statements did not specify what
this meant in practice (e.g. live transportation not specified in the context of maximum
journey times or not stating the specific enrichment that needed to be provided tovarious species), which made it difficult to assess whether such statements would leadto performance on their stated intent (and ultimately impacting on the lives of animals).
Conversely, several companies reported on animal welfare practices (e.g. on live
transport times, cage-free eggs and types of enrichment provision) without thecompany clearly stating an overarching company policy or position on these practices.
To reiterate, in order to receive points the Benchmark is looking for explicit statements,
specific commitments and clear explanations about the management of farmanimal welfare.
Clarification on promoting higher farm animal welfare to consumers (Q19)
Companies sometimes suggested that webpages showing how products for a certain
brand are sourced or produced or listing its ingredients (e.g. mentioning that products are
cage-free or contain cage-free eggs) should have been assessed as promoting higher
animal welfare to consumers. However, such examples were not sufficient for awarding
points, unless there was an explicit focus on explaining the welfare of farm animals.
Clarification on reporting on stunning (Q23, Q24, and Q37)
The BBFAW asks companies to report on the proportion of animals that is subjected
to back-up or repeat stunning (Q24). Several companies reported on the proportion ofanimals that were effectively stunned. However, for this question the reporting needed
to be specifically on the proportion of animals that was subjected to back-up or repeat
stunning, as reporting on the effectiveness of stunning per se does not necessarily
guarantee the use of back up stunning (and the checks that lead to the use thesemethods). Q23 and Q36 assessed reporting on the proportion of animals that was preslaughter stunned.

41

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

APPENDIX
Company Coverage
Benchmark scope

In total, 150 of the world’s largest food companies were included in the 2020 Benchmark.
These companies were broadly spread across the three food industry subsectors (seeTable 4.3). The universe of companies is global although it continues to be weighted
towards North American and European companies (see Table 4.4).
Table 4.3: Companies by sub-sector
Sub-sector (ICB Classification)

Food Retailers & Wholesalers (5337)

Number of Companies
54

Food Producers (3570)

63

Restaurants & Bars (5757)

33

Total

150

Table 4.4: Companies by country of listing or incorporation
Country of Listing or Incorporation
USA
UK

FranceChina

Germany
Italy

BrazilCanadaNetherlands
Japan

Switzerland
SwedenAustralia
Chile

Denmark
MexicoNorwayBelgium
Ireland

New ZealandPortugal
Spain

ThailandTaiwanLuxembourg

42

Number of Companies
4411
20
13
9
9
8
6
6
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Appendix

Changes in the companies covered by the2021 Benchmark
We assessed one company under its new parent company, which was already included in
the Benchmark scope, and assessed one other company under its new parent company,
which was not previously included in the Benchmark scope. These changes reflect thecompletion of recent company acquisitions. The changes are summarised in Table 4.5.
The number of companies in the 2021 Benchmark remained at 150.
Table 4.5: Updates to the 2021 company list
Retailers and Wholesalers

Asda Stores Ltd will be assessed
under its new parent company,
EG Group, following its acquisition by
EG Group from Walmart Inc

Food Producers

Restaurants and Bars

Dunkin’ Brands Inc will beassessed as part of its newparent company, Inspire Brands

The 2021 Benchmark covered:• 91 public companies.
• 40 private companies.
• 15 cooperatives.
• 4 joint stock/partnership owned companies.

43

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

The 2021 Benchmark Questions and Scoring
Management Commitment and Policy

Question 1. Does the company acknowledge farm animal welfare as a business issue?

Acknowledging farm animal welfare as a business issue is an important first step towards implementing a comprehensive
approach to farm animal welfare management. It is good practice for food companies to identify whether and why farmanimal welfare is a relevant issue for the business.
No evidence that farm animal welfare is regarded as a relevant business issue.
The company identifies farm animal welfare as a relevant business issue.

0

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking for an acknowledgement by the parent company that farm animal welfare is a business issue.
• Companies that published a farm animal welfare policy or statement, even if that did not explain why farm animal welfare
was a relevant issue for the business, were awarded the maximum points.
• Companies that acknowledged farm animal welfare as a business issue and/or set out the reasons why farm animal might
be a business issue (e.g. because of public or customer concerns, security and sustainability of supply, cost) were awarded
the maximum points.
• The score did not take account of the importance assigned by companies to farm animal welfare (e.g. relative to othercorporate responsibility issues). The importance assigned by individual companies to farm animal welfare depends on
factors such as the nature of their business, their existing management practices, the other business risks and priorities
they need to manage, and their perceptions of customer and stakeholder pressure for action.
• The inclusion of farm animal welfare as an explicit subject in a Materiality Matrix, even if considered to be a low priority, wassufficient for points to be awarded for this question.
Question 2. Does the company publish an overarching corporate farm animal welfare policy (or equivalent)?

It is good practice for companies to formalise their approach to animal welfare in a policy (or equivalent document such as astatement of guiding principles, a code of practice or a sourcing charter). While the existence of a policy may not provide aguarantee of implementation, the absence of a policy is a clear sign that farm animal welfare is not firmly on the business agenda.
No evidence of a formal policy statement (or equivalent) on farm animal welfare.

0

The company has a broad commitment to farm animal welfare within a policy statement (or equivalent)
and a description of the processes in place to ensure that the policy is effectively implemented.

10

The company has a broad commitment to farm animal welfare in a policy statement (or equivalent) but
no description of how the policy is to be implemented.

5(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes:• The assessment did not differentiate between companies that published stand-alone farm animal welfare policies andcompanies that incorporated farm animal welfare into wider responsible sourcing or sustainability policies or codes of practice.
• Companies that published a clear statement of commitment to farm animal welfare and/or farm animal welfare-related
principles that provided a starting point for the company’s accountability to its stakeholders were awarded a score of 5 points.
• Policies issued by company subsidiaries were not considered as overarching policies, and companies with such policies but
no overarching (i.e. at the parent company level) policy were therefore not awarded points for this question. These policies
were considered when deciding whether to award points for Questions 1 and 4-11.
• Policies focused on specific farm animal welfare issues (e.g. antibiotics where farm animal welfare is mentioned in passing)were not considered as overarching policies and points were therefore not awarded. These policies were considered when
deciding whether to award points for Questions 1 and 4-11.
• Companies that supplemented these commitments or principles with details of how these were to be implemented wereawarded a score of 10 points. To score maximum points, company farm animal welfare policies needed to include most/allof the following:• A clear statement of the reasons why farm animal welfare was important to the business (including both the businesscase and the ethical case for action)• A commitment to compliance with relevant legislation• A clear position regarding expected standards of farm animal welfare• A description of the processes in place to ensure that the policy was effectively implemented (e.g. senior management
oversight, commitments to continuous improvement, performance monitoring, corrective action if the policy was not
being effectively implemented)• A commitment to continuous improvement and public reporting on performance.

44Appendix
Question 3. Does the policy statement provide a clear explanation of scope?

Understanding the scope of a policy is important to understand the breadth of a company’s commitment to action on farmanimal welfare.
3a. Geographic scope

Geographic scope is not specified.

0

Scope is universal across all geographies.

5

Scope is limited to certain specified geographies.
3b. Species scope

2

Species scope is not specified.

0

Scope is universal across all relevant species.

5

Scope is limited to certain specified species.
3c. Product scope

Product scope is not specified.

Scope is limited to certain specified products (such as own-brand products).
Scope is universal across own brand and other brand products.

2

0
2
5

(Max Score 15)

Explanatory Notes:• This question was only scored if marks had been awarded for Question 2, i.e. when the company had a published farmanimal welfare policy.
• The sub-questions on geography, species and products were scored separately (i.e. companies could score up to 5 points
in each of the three sub-questions, and the scores for each sub-question did not influence the scores awarded for theother sub-questions).
• The question acknowledges that policies can vary from market to market, across species and across product ranges.
Companies were given credit if they clearly specified the limits to the application of their farm animal welfare policies.
• To qualify for partial points on product scope, policies needed to apply to a significant proportion of a company’s supply
chain, such as a substantial business division (e.g. a restaurant brand or manufacturing division) or own-brand products (inthe case of retailers and wholesalers). Policies which apply to limited product ranges are not awarded points.
• In some cases, companies used terms such as ‘all animals’ or ‘all products’. We asked companies to clarify whether thismeant that the policy had universal application (with respect to animals and products) in order to receive points in futureassessments.
• For companies involved in or using the products from finfish aquaculture, we did not assume that the corporate farmanimal welfare policy also applied to finfish (unless the company stated otherwise, or had a separate policy that applied to
finfish. If it was unclear whether finfish were included, partial points were awarded for the species-part of the question.
• We defined finfish aquaculture as the breeding, rearing and harvesting of aquatic vertebrates (i.e. cold blooded animals witha bony or cartilaginous skeleton and a segmented spinal column) in all types of water environment enclosures, including
ponds, rivers, lakes and the ocean.
• We did not consider policies for finfish that focused on conservation or sustainable fishing, unless there was an explicit
reference to animal welfare within these.
Question 4. Does the company have a clear position on the avoidance of close confinement and intensive systems forlivestock (e.g. cages (battery and enriched/colony) for laying hens, rabbits, other poultry; gestation/sow stalls andfarrowing crates for sows; concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs or feedlots), permanent housing for dairy
cows, single penning, tethering, veal crates; force feeding systems; high stocking densities for poultry, and, for finfish,high stocking densities and close confinement of solitary finfish species, e.g. turbot)?
Many of the most significant farm animal welfare concerns result from close confinement practices (such as those listed above)or from high stocking densities in the case of finfish. It is good practice for companies to commit to no close confinement offarm animals and to avoid excessively high stocking densities.
No stated position.

0

The company makes a partial commitment to the avoidance of confinement and the scope of thecommitment (in terms of geography, species or products) is clearly defined.

3

The company makes a partial commitment to the avoidance of confinement but the scope (in terms ofgeography, species or products) is not clearly defined.

The company makes a universal commitment to avoid confinement across all relevant species, ownbrand and other brand products and geographies.

1

5(Max Score 5)

45

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking for a clear position on the avoidance of close confinement.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation (e.g. with EU Directives referring to egg-laying hens and sow stalls) was nottreated as a proxy for having a clear position on the avoidance of close confinement. The reasons are (a) legislation, even in
the EU, does not cover all close confinement practices, (b) a commitment to compliance with legislation does not provide
guarantees on performance in countries where such legislation is absent. Companies that stated that they complied withlegislation but did not have a formal policy on close confinement were, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that prohibits close confinement was not treated as aproxy for having a clearly stated position, unless the commitment to avoidance was made explicit (e.g. compliance with thestandard was presented as a way of delivering on its commitment to the avoidance of close confinement).
• Companies that made a commitment to the avoidance of close confinement but were not clear about the scope (in termsof geography, species, or products) were awarded a score of 1 point.
• Companies that made a commitment to the avoidance of close confinement for a specific product or limited productrange (e.g. using only free-range eggs) and were clear about the scope, were awarded 3 points, even if the scope did notinclude all geographies or all brands.
• For the purposes of this question, sow-stall-free referred to the avoidance of confinement for individual sows during the
gestation (pregnancy) period (i.e. it does not cover confinement for insemination and observation, or lactation). Within thisdefinition, and in line with EU legislation, confinement of sows up to the first four weeks of pregnancy is permitted.
• Companies that did not permit any confinement or explicitly limited confinement to a maximum of the first four weeks ofpregnancy were awarded a score of 3 or 5 points depending on the scope of their commitment. For companies that did not
clearly state how long this confinement period was, we asked them to clarify their position to continue to receive points infuture assessments.
Question 5. Does the company have a clear position on the provision of effective species-specific environmental
enrichment?

Companies are expected to provide animals with stimulating and complex environments that enable species-specificbehaviours. Effective environmental modifications allow for the performance of strongly motivated species-specificbehaviours and lead to the expression of a more complex behavioural repertoire. Examples include (but are not limitedto) brushes for cattle; manipulable materials such as straw for pigs; pecking and dustbathing substrates, and perches forchickens; bathing water for ducks; outdoor range enhancement, such as artificial or natural shelter; (artificial) plants, floor
substrates and structures for fish. Animals with outdoor access should also be provided enrichment (outdoors or indoors).
No stated position.

0

The company makes a partial commitment to providing effective species-specific enrichedenvironments and the scope (in terms of geography, species or products) is clearly defined.

3

The company makes a partial commitment to providing effective species-specific enrichedenvironments but the scope (in terms of geography, species or products) is not clearly defined.

The company makes a universal commitment to providing effective species-specific enrichedenvironments across all relevant geographies, species, and products.

1

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking for a clear position on the provision of effective species-specific environmental enrichment.
• The term environmental enrichment is often used to describe modifications to a captive environment to enhance theperformance of strongly motivated species-specific behaviours or encourage the expression of natural behaviours.
• Chains for pigs and enriched/furnished cages for laying hens were not classed as effective enrichment.
• We did not award companies points for providing outdoor access under this question as this is assessed under thequestion on the avoidance of close confinement. Animals provided with outdoor access should still be provided withenvironmental enrichment.
• Chains for pigs and enriched/furnished cages for laying hens were not classed as effective enrichment.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation was not treated as a proxy for having a clear position on the provision of speciesspecific enrichment. The reasons are (a) legislation, even in the EU, does not cover all relevant issues, (b) a commitment
to compliance with legislation does not provide guarantees on performance in countries where such legislation is absent.
Companies that stated that they comply with legislation but did not have a formal policy were, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that specifies environmental enrichment was nottreated as a proxy for having a clearly stated position, unless the commitment to provide environmental enrichment wasmade explicit (e.g. compliance with the standard is presented as a way of delivering on its commitment to the provision of
species-specific enrichment).
• Companies that made a commitment to the provision of species-specific environmental enrichment but were not clear
about the scope (in terms of geography, species or products) were awarded a score of 1 point.
• Companies that made a commitment to the provision of species-specific environmental enrichment for a specific productor limited product range were awarded a score of 1 point (in contrast to a clear scope such as a policy for all own-brandproducts, for which 3 points were awarded).
• Companies that made a commitment to the provision of species-specific environmental enrichment for a minor productor limited product range were awarded a score of 1 point (in contrast to a clear scope such as a policy for all own-brandproducts, for which 3 points were awarded).
• Companies that simply mentioned they provided enrichment, but without context or a description of the enrichment (orfor which species) received a score of 1 point and a comment that in order to keep receiving such points they would needto clarify their statements further.
46

Appendix
Question 6. Does the company have a clear position on the avoidance of products from farm animals subject to genetic
engineering and cloning and/or their progeny or descendants throughout its products?
Both cloning and genetic engineering raise serious animal welfare concerns . In farmed fish species this includes heat
treatment of eggs to induce triploidy, which renders fish sterile.
No stated position.

0

The company has made a partial commitment to the avoidance of animals subject to genetic
engineering and cloning and the scope (in terms of geography, species or products) is clearly defined.

3

The company has made a partial commitment to the avoidance of animals subject to genetic
engineering and cloning but the scope (in terms of geography, species or products) is not clearly defined.

The company makes a universal commitment to avoidance of animals subject to genetic engineeringand cloning across all relevant species, own-brand and other brand products and geographies.

1

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking for a clear position on the avoidance of products from farm animals subject to genetic
engineering or cloning and their progeny or descendants.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation was not treated as a proxy for having a clear position on the avoidance of
products from farm animals subject to genetic engineering and cloning and/or their progeny or descendants. The reasonsare (a) legislation, even in the EU, does not cover all relevant issues, (b) a commitment to compliance with legislation does
not provide guarantees on performance in countries where such legislation is absent. Companies that stated that they
complied with legislation but did not have a formal policy were, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that prohibits genetic modification was not treated as a proxyfor having a clearly stated position unless the commitment to avoidance was made explicit (e.g. compliance with the standard
was presented as a way of delivering on its commitment to the avoidance of genetically modified and cloned animals).
• Companies that made a commitment to the avoidance of products from farm animals subject to genetic engineering or
cloning and their progeny or descendants but were not clear about the scope (in terms of geography, species or products)
were awarded a score of 1 point.
• Companies that made a commitment to the avoidance of products from farm animals subject to genetic engineering andcloning for a specific product or limited product range were awarded a score of 1 point (in contrast to a clear scope such asa policy for all own-brand products, for which 3 points were awarded).
• Companies that made a commitment to the avoidance of products from farm animals subject to genetic engineering andcloning for a minor product or limited product range were awarded a score of 1 point (in contrast to a clear scope such as apolicy for all own-brand products, for which 3 points were awarded).
• Companies that only referred to a specific genetic engineering technique (e.g. somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning), only
received 1 or 3 points depending on the scope of their commitment.
• Companies that published general statements on the avoidance of products or ingredients subject to genetic engineering
or cloning were not awarded points unless these statements explicitly referred to animals as a part of these products or
ingredients. For example, we did not consider statements relating to genetically modified crops used in animal feed.
• We did not award points to companies that stated that they would not use products from farm animals subject to genetic
engineering and cloning and/or their progeny or descendants so long as these were prohibited by legislation or opposed byconsumers. That is, we were looking for unqualified rather than qualified commitments.
Question 7. Does the company have a clear position on the avoidance of growth promoting substances?

Antibiotics given at low doses improve food conversion rates, most likely by changing the composition of gut microbiota
in a way that enables animals to grow faster using less feed. Hormonal growth promoters are used to specifically promoteabnormal muscle growth or milk production in animals farmed for food. The use of growth promoting substances canundermine animal welfare, as they may enable animals to grow or produce milk in a way that puts excessive strain on their
physiological capabilities. While the use of hormonal growth promoters and the use of antibiotics for growth promotion arebanned in the EU, their use is widely practised outside of Europe. Essential oils and organic acids are not classed as growthpromoters for the purpose of this question, although they are often used to support gut health (in pigs and poultry) in theabsence of antibiotic growth promotors.
No stated position.

0

The company has made a partial commitment to the avoidance of growth promoting substances, but
the scope (in terms of geography, species or products) is clearly defined.

3

The company has made a partial commitment to the avoidance of growth promoting substances, but
the scope (in terms of geography, species or products) is not clearly defined.

The company makes a universal commitment to the avoidance of growth promoting substances.

1

5(Max Score 5)

47

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking for a clear position on the avoidance of growth promoting substances which are typically used
to increase the muscle (meat) or milk production of animals farmed for food. Examples include the hormone BST used toincrease milk production (in dairy cattle), hormone feed additives in pig production (e.g. ractopamine) and low dose antibiotics.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation was not treated as a proxy for having a clear position on the avoidance of growthpromoting substances. The reasons are (a) legislation, even in the EU, does not cover all relevant issues , (b) a commitment
to compliance with legislation does not provide guarantees on performance in countries where such legislation is absent.
Companies that stated that they complied with legislation but did not have a formal policy were, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that prohibits the use of growth hormones was nottreated as a proxy for having a clearly stated position unless the commitment to avoidance was made explicit (e.g. compliancewith the standard was presented as a way of delivering on its commitment to the avoidance of growth promoting substances).
• Companies that stated that they avoided the use of antibiotics as preventative measures but did not explicitly prohibit theiruse as growth promoters were not awarded points for this question (but they could be awarded points for such a statement in
the question on the reduction or avoidance of antibiotics for prophylactic use).
• Companies with a stated target to reduce the level of growth promoting substances (rather than avoidance) were notawarded points for this question.
• Companies that stated compliance with legislation or guidance on eliminating (human) medically important antibiotics used as growthpromotors, were not awarded points as we are looking for a clear position on the avoidance of all growth promoting substances.
• In the absence of a clear position on the avoidance of growth promoting substances, companies that marketed a particular
product line as containing zero growth hormones were not awarded any points. The rationale for this is because a) this question
is looking for a clear commitment from the company on the avoidance of growth promoting substances, rather than evidenceof selected products that avoid certain substances, b) the question applies to all growth promoting substances (i.e. not justhormones); and c) in certain jurisdictions (e.g. the US), it is illegal to administer steroid growth hormones to poultry and pigs (so, if
a poultry or pig product states that the animals are not fed hormones, the product is simply complying with legislation).
• Companies that made a commitment to the avoidance of growth promoting substances for a minor product or limited
product range were awarded a score of 1 point (in contrast to a clear scope such as a policy for all own-brand products, forwhich 3 points were awarded).
Question 8. Does the company have a clear position on the reduction or avoidance of antibiotics for prophylactic use?
The over-use of antibiotics in humans and in animals is directly linked to the increase in antibiotic resistance. The use ofantibiotics on-farm (typically through feed or water) is frequently prophylactic; effectively ‘propping up’ intensive farming
systems where animals are kept in confined and stressful conditions and where their immune systems are compromised anddisease outbreaks can spread rapidly. Companies are expected to commit to reducing the levels of antibiotics they administerroutinely and to develop animal production systems that are not reliant on the routine use of antibiotics for disease prevention.
No stated position.

0

The company has made a partial commitment to the reduction or avoidance of the routine use ofantibiotics, and the scope (in terms of geography, species or products) is clearly defined.

3

The company has made a partial commitment to the reduction or avoidance of the routine use ofantibiotics, but the scope (in terms of geography, species or products) is not clearly defined.

The company makes a universal commitment to the reduction or avoidance of the routine use ofantibiotics across all geographies, species and products.

1

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes:• We defined antibiotics as medicines used to control infectious (bacterial) diseases in humans and animals.
• There are four broad categories of on-farm use of antibiotics, namely: therapeutic (i.e. giving a treatment when clinicaldisease is identified), metaphylactic (i.e. giving treatment to a group of animals when some are showing signs of illness),
prophylactic (i.e. giving a treatment to an animal or group of animals in anticipation of a disease or when there is a risk ofinfection), and growth promotion (i.e. giving antibiotics to improve the growth rates of animals). This question was looking
for a clear position on the reduction or avoidance of antibiotics for prophylactic use.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation was not treated as a proxy for having a clear position on the reduction or
avoidance of antibiotics for prophylactic use.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that prohibits or restricts antibiotic use was not treatedas a proxy for having a clearly stated position, unless the commitment to reduction or avoidance of antibiotic use wasmade explicit (e.g. compliance with the standard was presented as a way of delivering on its commitment to the reduction
or avoidance of antibiotic use).
• In the absence of a clear position on the reduction or avoidance of antibiotics for prophylactic use, companies thatmarketed a particular product line as antibiotic-free, or focused solely on critically important antibiotics, were not awarded
any points. The rationale for this was because a) this question was looking for a clear commitment from the company
to the reduction or avoidance of antibiotics for prophylactic use, b) the question applied to all antibiotics (i.e. not justantibiotics that are critical to human health).
• Companies that made a commitment to the reduction or avoidance of the routine use of antibiotics for a minor productor limited product range were awarded a score of 1 point (in contrast to a clear scope such as a policy for all own-brandproducts, for which 3 points were awarded).

48

Appendix
Question 9. Does the company have a clear position on the avoidance of routine mutilations (castration, teeth
clipping, tail docking, toe clipping, dehorning, desnooding, de-winging, disbudding, mulesing, beak trimming or tipping,fin clipping)?
Many farm animals are subjected to procedures that alter their bodies, often with no anaesthesia, causing pain and distress.
Examples include beak trimming/tipping, castration of beef cattle with knives, branding with hot irons, dehorning of dairy
cattle with hot irons, castration and tail docking of pigs, sheep and calves (surgical, rubber rings or clamping), and fin clipping in
finfish aquaculture.
No stated position.

0

The company has made a partial commitment to the avoidance of routine mutilations and the scope(in terms of geography, species or products) is clearly defined.

3

The company has made a partial commitment to the avoidance of routine mutilations but the scope (interms of geography, species or products) is not clearly defined.

The company makes a universal commitment to the avoidance of routine mutilations across all
relevant species, own-brand and other branded products and geographies.

1

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking for a clear position on the avoidance of routine mutilations.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation was not treated as a proxy for having a clear position on the avoidance of routine
mutilations. The reasons are (a) legislation does not cover all routine mutilations, (b) a commitment to compliance withlegislation does not provide guarantees on performance in countries where such legislation is absent. Companies thatstated that they complied with legislation but did not have a formal policy on the avoidance of routine mutilations were,
therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that prohibits routine mutilations was not treated as aproxy for having a clearly stated position unless the commitment to avoidance was made explicit (e.g. compliance with thestandard was presented as a way of delivering on its commitment to the avoidance of routine mutilations).
• Companies that made a commitment to the avoidance of routine mutilations but were not clear about the scope (in termsof geography, species or products) were awarded a score of 1 point.
• Companies that made a commitment to the avoidance of routine mutilations for a minor product or limited product range
were awarded a score of 1 point (in contrast to a clear scope such as a policy for all own-brand products, for which 3 points
were awarded).
• Companies that specified certain breeds (e.g. genetically polled cattle) in their supplier guidelines but did not have a clear
position on the avoidance of routine mutilations were not awarded any points.
• Companies that specified immuno-castration as an alternative to surgical castration were awarded points, but only if thiswas clarified by a commitment to the avoidance of surgical castration with a clear scope for this commitment.

Question 10. Does the company have a clear position on the avoidance of meat from animals that have not been subjected
to pre-slaughter stunning, or (in the case of finfish) meat from animals that have not been rendered insensible?
It is essential to render an animal unconscious before it is slaughtered in order for it to be insensible to pain, discomfort andstress, until death occurs.
No stated position.

0

The company makes a partial commitment to avoid the use of meat from animals that have not been
subjected to pre-slaughter stunning or from finfish that have not been rendered insensible and thescope (in terms of geography, species or products) is clearly defined.

3

The company makes a partial commitment to avoid the use of meat from animals that have not been
subjected to pre-slaughter stunning or from finfish that have not been rendered insensible but thescope (in terms of geography, species or products) is not clearly defined.

The company makes a universal commitment to avoid the use of meat from animals that have notbeen subjected to pre-slaughter stunning or from finfish that have not been rendered insensible
across all species, own-brand and other branded products and geographies.

1

5(Max Score 5)

49

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking for a clear commitment to the use of stunning (typically using controlled atmosphere stunningor electrical stunning methods) to render animals unconscious immediately prior to slaughter (or rendered insensible in thecase of finfish).
• Simply stating compliance with legislation was not treated as a proxy for having a clear commitment to pre-slaughter
stunning. The reasons are (a) legislation may not be comprehensive, (b) a commitment to compliance with legislation does
not provide guarantees on performance in countries where such legislation is absent. Companies that stated that they
complied with legislation but did not have a formal policy were, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that requires pre-slaughter stunning was not treatedas a proxy for having a clearly stated position, unless the commitment to avoidance was made explicit (e.g. compliance withthe standard was presented as a way of delivering on its commitment to the avoidance of meat from animals that have notbeen subjected to pre-slaughter stunning).
• Companies that made a commitment to pre-slaughter stunning but were not clear about the scope (in terms ofgeography, species or products) were awarded a score of 1 point.
• Companies that made a commitment to pre-slaughter stunning for a minor product or limited product range were awarded ascore of 1 point (in contrast to a clear scope such as a policy for all own-brand products, for which 3 points were awarded).
• Companies that described the actions taken (e.g. the installation of CCTV in abattoirs) but did not make a formal policy
commitment to pre-slaughter stunning were awarded a score of zero points for this question.
• Most developed and many developing countries have legislation that requires pre-slaughter stunning. However, exceptions
are made which permit some religious communities to slaughter without pre-stunning, e.g. slaughter by the Jewish method(Shechita) or by the Muslim method (Halal). Companies that made exceptions to requirements for pre-slaughter stunning toaccount for religious concerns were awarded 3 points, so long as the scope of the exception was clearly defined.
Question 11. Does the company have a clear position on the avoidance of long-distance live transportation?

When being transported, animals can experience hunger, thirst, discomfort, pain, frustration, fear and distress, as well as physicalwelfare problems including injury, disease, and, in the worst cases, death. For these reasons, transport of live animals should
be minimised wherever possible and journeys should be kept as short as possible, and less than 8 hours. Any transport of a live
animal that exceeds 8 hours, from loading to unloading, has been shown to decrease welfare significantly. In the case of farmed
fish, handling practices and water quality conditions, particularly oxygenation, can have a significant impact on welfare.
No stated position.

0

The company makes a partial commitment to avoid the use of long-distance transport and the scope(in terms of geography, species or products) is clearly defined.

3

The company makes a partial commitment to avoid the use of long-distance transport but the scope(in terms of geography, species or products) is not clearly defined.

The company makes a universal commitment to avoidance of long-distance live transportation acrossall species, own-brand and other branded products and geographies.

1

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking for a clear commitment to the avoidance of long-distance live transportation, where long-distancewas defined as eight hours or more from loading to unloading.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation was not treated as a proxy for having a clear commitment to the avoidance of longdistance live transportation. The reasons are (a) legislation may not be comprehensive, (b) a commitment to compliance withlegislation does not provide guarantees on performance in countries where such legislation is absent. Companies that statedthat they complied with legislation but did not have a formal policy were, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that imposes limits on transportation times was nottreated as a proxy for having a clearly stated position, unless the commitment to avoidance was made explicit (e.g. compliancewith the standard was presented as a way of delivering on its commitment to the avoidance of long-distance transport) andthe maximum journey time was specified.
• Companies that stated that transport distances are low (e.g. because of local sourcing, or the geographic boundaries of
the areas where they operate), or those that stated distances in kilometres, were not considered to have made a policy
commitment to the avoidance of long-distance live transport.
• Companies that made a commitment to the avoidance of long-distance live transportation but were not clear about thescope (in terms of geography, species or products) were awarded a score of 1 point.
• Companies that made a commitment to the avoidance of long-distance live transportation for a minor product or limited
product range were awarded a score of 1 point (in contrast to a clear scope such as a policy for all own-brand products, forwhich 3 points were awarded).

50Appendix
Governance and Management

Question 12. Has the company assigned management responsibility for farm animal welfare to an individual or
specified committee?

When looking at the management of farm animal welfare, both oversight and implementation responsibilities are important.
Oversight is necessary to ensure that senior management is aware of the business implications of farm animal welfare and isprepared to intervene when needed (e.g. if there are tensions between the organisation’s farm animal welfare policy and otherbusiness objectives). However, it is often the case that those charged with oversight know relatively little about the specificdetails of how to effectively manage farm animal welfare. It is, therefore, important that there are individual(s) responsible for
ensuring that the farm animal welfare policy is implemented and that farm animal welfare is effectively managed.
12a. Management responsibility

No clearly defined management responsibility.

0

The company has published details of the management position with responsibility for farm animal welfare
on a day-to-day basis.

512b. Board or senior management responsibility

No clearly defined board or senior management responsibility

The company has published details of how the board or senior management oversees the implementationof the company’s farm animal welfare policy.

05(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes:• The two sub-questions were scored separately (i.e. companies could score 5 points for publishing details of who was
responsible for farm animal welfare on a day-to-day basis and 5 points for publishing details of senior management
responsibility for overseeing the farm animal welfare policy).
• For the purposes of scoring on day-to-day responsibility, the question was not looking for named individuals, but evidenceof roles with responsibility for farm animal welfare (e.g. a statement that this was the responsibility of a dedicated technicalor sourcing manager, or a statement that responsibility was divided among a number of functions, with information on thevarious roles and responsibilities).
• For the management oversight sub-question, we recognised that companies may assign responsibility to a named
senior person or that farm animal welfare may form part of the remit of a wider sustainability, CSR or sourcing committee.
Therefore, 5 points were awarded if the company provided a clear account of board or senior management oversight.
• For the purposes of scoring, the emphasis was on the management of farm animal welfare. General information on the
management or oversight of CSR or sustainability was only credited if it was clear that this included farm animal welfare.
Question 13. Has the company set objectives and targets for the management of farm animal welfare?

Objectives and targets are the point where policy commitments are translated into substantive action, and where resources
and responsibilities are allocated for the delivery of these objectives and targets.
No published objectives and targets.

0

The company has published objectives and targets together with information on the actions to be taken toachieve these, the resources allocated and the schedule for the delivery of these objectives and targets.

10

The company has published objectives and targets but with no information on how these are to be achieved.

5(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking for evidence of explicit farm animal welfare-related objectives and targets, and for evidence thatthe company had a clear plan for achieving these objectives and targets.
• We did not award points for objectives and targets adopted for other purposes (e.g. quality), unless improving farm animal
welfare was an explicit aim of these objectives and targets.
• For the purposes of scoring, we did not differentiate between objectives and targets relating to process (e.g. to formalise
their farm animal welfare management systems, to introduce audits) and performance (e.g. to phase out specific nonhumane practices, to ensure that specific standards are met for all species).
• Objectives and targets can also be linked to welfare outcome measures but the reporting on progress against these wasassessed in Question 26 and Question 27.
• Companies with multiple objectives and targets, but without further, or very limited, information on how these were to beachieved, were awarded 5 points.
• Companies were awarded maximum points if they provided information on how objectives and targets were to beachieved, e.g. by specifying the main actions to be taken, by indicating the time frame, by indicating the financial and otherresources required.

51

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Question 14. Does the company provide an explanation of progress against its animal welfare objectives and targets?
Companies should provide an explanation of progress against their objectives and targets

The company does not provide an explanation of progress against its objectives and targets.

0

The company provides an explanation of progress on how it has performed against its multiple objectives
and targets.

5

The company provides an explanation of progress against at least one objective or target.

3(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes:• The purpose of this question was to encourage companies to continuously report on progress against their objectives
and targets, and to provide a narrative on current challenges and opportunities that aid or hinder achievement of theseobjectives and targets.
• For the purposes of scoring, we did not differentiate between explanations of progress on objectives and targets relating
to process (e.g. to formalise their farm animal welfare management systems, to introduce audits) and performance (e.g. tophase out specific non-humane practices, to ensure that specific standards are met for all species).
• We did not award points if the company used terms such as ‘improved’ or ‘decreased’ but did not provide a precise
definition (e.g. a number, a rate) for these terms.
• We expected companies to continue to comment on reporting when specific targets or objectives have been reached (e.g.
are at 100%) to ensure that their performance is maintained at 100% and that this performance was continually monitored(e.g. a company could report that they only use 100% cage free eggs, but we still expected year-on-year explanations thatthe performance remains at 100%).
• Explanations of progress on objectives and targets related to Welfare Outcome Measures were not considered for thisquestion, instead they may have been awarded points under Question 27.
Question 15. Does the company describe its internal processes for ensuring that its farm animal welfare policy iseffectively implemented?

The effective implementation of a farm animal welfare policy relies on employees who are competent to oversee theimplementation of the policy, and on controls that allow the company to respond quickly and effectively in the event of noncompliance with the policy.
15a. Employee training

No information provided on employee training in farm animal welfare.

The company provides specific training to employees in farm animal welfare.
15b. Actions taken in the event of non-compliance

The company provides no information on the actions to be taken in the event of non-compliance with thefarm animal welfare policy.

The company describes the actions it takes in the event of non-compliance with its farm animal welfare policy.

0
5
0
5

(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes:• The sub-questions (on training and on internal controls) were scored independently (i.e. the scores for each sub-question
did not influence the scores for the other sub-question).
• On training, companies were only awarded 5 points if the training provided was aimed at employees and if it explicitly
addressed farm animal welfare-related issues.
• The training question did not address the quality of the training provided, the manner in which skills or competencies wereassessed, the number of employees receiving training or the number of hours of training provided.
• On internal controls, companies were only awarded 5 points if they explicitly discussed the actions that they take in relation
to employee and/or supplier non-compliance with their farm animal welfare policy, e.g. when audit failures are identified.
Descriptions of internal controls in relation to CSR or product quality-related policies were not awarded points for this subquestion unless it was clear that these policies and processes also covered farm animal welfare.

52

Appendix
Question 16. Does the company describe how it implements its farm animal welfare policy (or equivalent) through its
supply chain?
Many of the business risks and opportunities associated with farm animal welfare relate to companies’ supply chains.
Companies have the ability to influence their suppliers’ performance both formally (e.g. through contracts, auditing
processes) and informally (e.g. through capacity building and education).
No description of processes for implementing farm animal welfare policy through supply chain.

0

No information on how farm animal welfare is included in supplier contracts.

0

The company incorporates farm animal welfare into contractual obligations for suppliers across all species,
products and geographies.

5

No information provided on how supplier compliance with contract conditions is monitored.

016a. Does the company describe how it implements its farm animal welfare policy (or equivalent) through its supply
chain via supplier contracts?
The company incorporates farm animal welfare into contractual obligations for suppliers, but this is limited
by geography and/or certain products or species

316b. Does the company describe how it implements its farm animal welfare policy (or equivalent) through its supply
chain via monitoring and auditing?
The company specifies farm animal welfare as part of supplier auditing programme.

516c. Does the company describe how it implements its farm animal welfare policy (or equivalent) through its supply
chain via education and support?
No information provided on the specific support and/or education provided to suppliers.

The company provides specific support and/or education provided to suppliers on farm animal welfare
policy/issues.

05(Max Score 15)

Explanatory Notes:• The sub-questions (on contracts, auditing and supplier education) were scored independently (i.e. the scores for each subquestion did not influence the scores for the other sub-questions).
• On contracts, companies were awarded 3 points if they indicated that they included farm animal welfare in contracts but
did not indicate whether this applied to all relevant contracts or if they indicated that farm animal welfare was not included
in all contracts.
• On auditing, companies were only awarded 5 points if it was clear that their auditing processes explicitly covered farmanimal welfare. Many of the companies reviewed reported that they audited their suppliers against safety and/or quality
standards but, unless it was clear that these audit processes covered farm animal welfare, companies scored zero for thissub-question.
• On supplier support and/or education, 5 points were awarded to companies that published case studies or examples and/or provided a more comprehensive description of their approach. The award of 5 points was not dependent on the number
or proportion of suppliers receiving this support and/or education. A number of companies described their support tosuppliers on a range of supply chain issues. However, unless it was clear that this support also covered farm animal welfare,companies scored zero for this sub-question.
Question 17. Does the company assure its welfare scheme to a prescribed standard?

Farm assurance schemes provide frameworks for managing farm animals, including their health and welfare, provenanceand the legal compliance of the systems used. They can also play an important role in promoting higher welfare standards.
Where species-specific legislation exists, schemes should ensure that minimum legislative standards are met and preferably
schemes should lift the standards above the minimum. Where there is no species-specific legislation, assurance standards are
increasingly important for protecting welfare. For retailers and wholesalers, this question applies to all own-brand products.
No assurance standard specified.

0

A proportion of products audited to a combination of basic and higher farm assurance (or equivalent
company) standard.

6

A proportion of products audited to basic farm assurance (or equivalent company) standard.

3

100% of products audited to basic farm assurance (or equivalent company) standard.

10100% of products audited to higher level (or company equivalent) assurance standard.

20

100% of products audited to a combination of a basic farm assurance (or equivalent company) standard anda higher welfare assurance (or company equivalent standard).

15(Max Score 20)

53

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Explanatory Notes:• Basic farm assurance standards typically do not go beyond legislative requirements for welfare and so contribute relatively
little to enhanced welfare. In general, these involve yearly inspections by an independent body. Examples of standards
which provide basic farm assurance (typically within a wider quality context) include: Assured British Meat Scheme;
Aquaculture Standards Council (ASC); BEIC Lion Quality; Best Aquaculture Practice (BAP); BFC Certification de Conformitéde Produits; Global Standards; FMI Animal Welfare Standards; GLOBALG.A.P.; North American Meat Institute; Red Tractor
Farm Assurance Schemes; Viande de Porc Française.
• Farming systems that provide for behavioural freedom without compromising health can be described as having higher
welfare potential. Whilst it is essential to set high standards to ensure livestock production systems have higher welfare
potential, it is also important to monitor welfare outcomes (such as mortality, disease, lameness, injuries and theoccurrence of normal and abnormal behaviours) to assess the overall performance of the system. In general, schemeswith an animal welfare focus require system inputs that offer a higher welfare potential. However, they may also include
more detailed welfare outcome measures and more frequent/detailed inspections than basic farm assurance standards.
Examples of higher welfare schemes, which offer many welfare advantages relative to standard industry practice for all
species include: Animal Welfare Approved; Better Animal Welfare (Denmark); Beter Leven; Certified Humane; European
Organic Certification; Global Animal Partnership (GAP 5-Step); KRAV; Neuland; Soil Association Organic; RSPCA Assured;Label Rouge (Label Rouge pork is not systematically higher welfare, except if “fermier”).
• Where companies report on performance by reference to their own internal standards, we need a clear description of how
the company standard compares to the relevant basic or higher assurance standards outlined above in order for points tobe awarded.
• Companies that report on performance by reference to the proportion of products audited but without specifying whether
these are to basic or higher farm assurance standards are awarded 3 points.
• There are a number of voluntary schemes that claim to incorporate animal welfare components but are, in fact, designed
to assure quality or safety standards. In these instances, it is not always clear what standards, if any, of farm animal welfare
are expected. Companies that describe their performance against these sorts of standards generally do not receive points
unless there is a clear description of the farm animal welfare elements of such standards.

Innovation

Question 18. Is the company currently investing in projects dedicated to advancing farm animal welfare practices
within the industry?

Farm animal welfare is a collective issue for the food industry as well as being an individual issue for each company in theindustry. Making progress and raising standards across the industry requires individual companies to support research anddevelopment programmes to improve farm animal welfare, to share their knowledge and expertise with their suppliers andwith their industry peers, to play a supportive role in public policy debates around farm animal welfare, and to support industry
and stakeholder initiatives directed at improving farm animal welfare.
18a. Involvement in research and development

No evidence of company involvement in research and development programmes to improve farmanimal welfare.

0

Evidence of current company involvement in research and development programmes to improve farmanimal welfare.

5

No evidence of active company involvement in industry or other initiatives directed at improving farmanimal welfare.

0

18b. Involvement in industry or other initiatives

Evidence of active company involvement in industry or other initiatives (e.g. working groups, supporting
NGO activities, responding to government consultations) directed at improving farm animal welfare.

5(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes:• The sub-questions (on research and development and industry initiatives) were scored independently (i.e. the scores foreach sub-question did not influence the scores on the other sub-question).
• Companies that reported on their involvement in initiatives or programmes to improve farming techniques onenvironmental, safety or quality grounds, for example, were not awarded a score unless there was a clearly defined farmanimal welfare element to these initiatives.
• Similarly, only those industry initiatives that were explicitly directed at improving farm animal welfare were eligible to be scored.
• In order to receive a score of 5 points for either sub-question, it was necessary for companies to demonstrate not onlythat the initiatives had a meaningful farm animal welfare dimension but that the company had played a significant role in
the initiative. That is, companies had to demonstrate that they were dedicating significant time, resources or expertiseto the initiatives in question. For example, it was not sufficient simply to say that the company had attended roundtables
or working groups with industry peers. However, if a company had initiated or become a founding member of an initiative
aimed at advancing farm animal welfare, a score of 5 points would have been awarded.
• Regarding research, points were only awarded for recent, updated information. If similar information appeared to berepeated year on year, a comment was added to prompt for an update to keep receiving points in future Benchmarks.

54

Appendix
Question 19. Does the company promote higher farm animal welfare to consumers through education and/or
awareness-raising activities?

Companies have an important role to play in raising awareness of farm animal welfare among their customers and clients.
This, in turn, should contribute to increases in demand for higher welfare products.
No evidence of promoting higher farm animal welfare.

0

Multiple examples of promoting higher farm animal welfare to consumers.

10

At least one example of promoting higher farm animal welfare to consumers.

5(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes:• The activities that could be considered in this question were defined broadly. Examples included:• The provision of farm animal welfare information on the company’s website. Note: This is not just about providing
information in the corporate responsibility section of the website but making farm animal welfare an integral part ofcustomer communications and engagement.
• On-pack or on-shelf labelling – provided this was evidenced on the company’s website, in its published reports or onsocial media platforms.
• Information leaflets or information packs.
• Media promotions.
• Supporting third party campaigns or programmes e.g. the RSPCA Farm Animal Week.
• Customer farm visits, seminars or roundtables.
• Social media campaigns.
• In order to receive a score of 5 or 10, the focus of activities had to be on farm animal welfare.
• Initiatives aimed at showing how products are sourced or produced but without an explicit focus on the welfare of farmanimals, were not scored in the assessment.
• Companies that produced multiple consumer-facing videos on farm welfare issues were awarded five points, unless it was
clear that these were linked to separate consumer engagement programmes or themes.
• Companies were only awarded maximum points where there was clear evidence of multiple platforms or channels used topromote higher animal welfare to consumers.
• Social media channels were not separately reviewed, so companies had to link to these channels from their webpages inorder to receive points (e.g. for YouTube videos).
Performance Reporting and Impact

Question 20. Does the company report on the proportion of animals (or volume of fresh or frozen animal products andits ingredients) in its global supply chain that is free from close confinement (i.e. those in barn, free-range, indoor grouphoused, indoor free-farrowing, outdoor bred/reared)?
In addition to having clear policy commitments and management practices, companies are expected to maintain strict
reporting criteria for animals in their supply chain. This question is looking specifically at measures linked to the housing
systems used for animals in their supply chains. This is because many of the most significant farm animal welfare concerns
result from close confinement practices (such as barren battery cages, sow stalls, farrowing crates, veal crates, concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs or feedlots), permanent housing for dairy cows, tethered systems, close confinement ofsolitary finfish species, e.g. turbot). For retailers and wholesalers, this question applies to all own-brand products.
No reporting on the proportion of animals free from close confinement0

The company reports fully on the proportion of animals free from close confinement, covering all relevant
geographies, species and products.

5

The company reports on the proportion of animals free from close confinement, but this reporting is limited
to certain geographies, species or products.

3(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking specifically for explicit reporting on the proportion of animals that is free from close
confinement. Companies that reported using proxy measures (e.g. the proportion of animals managed to certain farmanimal welfare standards) were not awarded points unless they explicitly stated that the standard meant that the relevant
animals were free from close confinement.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed were not awarded points.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our animals” or “All animals” being free from close confinement were
not awarded points unless they could demonstrate that these statements were supported by monitoring data (e.g. withstatements such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• Companies that made statements on the proportion of sows that were free from stalls, (after the insemination period)
needed to be transparent and clearly state how long this confinement period was, in order to receive 3 or 5 points.

55

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Question 21. Does the company report on the proportion of animals in its global supply chain that is provided witheffective species-specific enriched environments?

In addition to having clear policy commitments and management practices, companies are expected to maintain strict
reporting criteria for animals in their supply chain. Examples can include (but are not limited to) brushes for cattle; manipulable
materials such as straw for pigs; pecking and dustbathing substrates, and perches for chickens; bathing water for ducks;
outdoor range enhancement, such as artificial or natural shelter; (artificial) plants, floor substrates and structures for fish. For
retailers and wholesalers, this question applies to all own-brand products.
No reporting on the proportion of animals provided with effective species-specific enriched environments.

0

The company reports fully on the proportions of animals provided with effective species-specific enrichedenvironments across all relevant geographies, species and products.

5

The company reports on the proportion of animals provided with effective species-specific enrichedenvironments, but this reporting is limited to certain geographies, species or products.

3(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes:• This question was specifically looking for explicit reporting on the proportion of animals that is provided with effective
species-specific environmental enrichment.
• Chains for pigs and enriched/furnished cages for laying hens were not classed as effective enrichment.
• Companies that reported using proxy measures (e.g. the proportion of animals managed to certain farm animal welfare
standards) were not awarded points unless they explicitly stated that the standard meant that the relevant animals were
provided with environmental enrichment.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed were not awarded points.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our animals” or “All animals” being provided with environmental
enrichment were not awarded points unless they could demonstrate that these statements were supported by monitoringdata (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• Companies that just mentioned that they provided enrichment to a proportion of their animals, but without context or adescription of the enrichment (or for which species) received partial points and a comment that to keep receiving such
points they should clarify their statements further.
Question 22. Does the company report on the proportion of animals in its global supply chain that is free from routine
mutilations (i.e. castration, teeth clipping, tail docking, toe clipping, dehorning, desnooding, de-winging, disbudding,mulesing, beak trimming/tipping, fin clipping)?
In addition to having clear policy commitments and management practices, companies are expected to maintain strictmeasurement criteria for animals in their supply chain. This question is looking specifically at measures linked to the routine
mutilation of animals in their supply chains. For retailers and wholesalers, this question applies to all own-brand products.
No reporting on the proportion of animals that is free from routine mutilations

0

The company reports fully on the proportion of animals that is free from routine mutilations, covering all
relevant geographies, species and products.

5

The company reports on the proportion of animals that is free from routine mutilations, but this reporting islimited to certain geographies, species or products.

3(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking specifically for explicit reporting on the proportion of animals that is free from routine
mutilations. Companies that reported using proxy measures (e.g. the proportion of animals managed to certain farmanimal welfare standards) were not awarded points unless they explicitly stated that the standard meant that the relevant
animals were free from routine mutilations.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed were not awarded points.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our animals” or “All animals” being free from routine mutilations were
not awarded points unless they could demonstrate that these statements were supported by monitoring data (e.g. withstatements such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• Companies that reported on the use of anaesthesia or analgesics in association with routine mutilations were not awarded
points because this question is looking for an explicit commitment to the avoidance of routine mutilations.

56

Appendix
Question 23. Does the company report on the proportion of animals (including finfish) in its global supply chain that is
subject to pre-slaughter stunning?

In addition to having clear policy commitments and management practices, companies are expected to maintain strictmeasurement criteria for animals in their supply chain. This question is looking specifically at measures linked to the slaughterof animals (or the rendering of fish insensible) in their supply chains. It is essential to render an animal unconscious before it isslaughtered in order for it to be insensible to pain, discomfort and stress, until death occurs. For retailers and wholesalers, thisquestion applies to all own-brand products.
No reporting on the proportion of animals subject to pre-slaughter stunning.

0

The company reports fully on the proportion of animals subject to pre-slaughter stunning, covering all
relevant geographies, species and products.

5

The company reports on the proportion of animals subject to pre-slaughter stunning, but this reporting islimited to certain geographies, species or products.

3(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking specifically for explicit reporting on the proportion of animals that is subject to pre-slaughter
stunning. Companies that reported using proxy measures (e.g. the proportion of animals managed to certain farm animal
welfare standards) were not awarded points unless they explicitly stated that the standard meant that the relevant animals
were subject to pre-slaughter stunning.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed were not awarded points.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our animals” or “All animals” being subject to pre-slaughter stunningwere not awarded points unless they could demonstrate that these statements were supported by monitoring data (e.g.
with statements such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
Question 24. Does the company report on the proportion of animals (excluding finfish) in its global supply chain that isineffectively stunned, i.e. is subject to back-up or repeat stunning?
In addition to having clear policy commitments and management practices, companies are expected to maintain strictmeasurement criteria for animals in their supply chain. It is essential to render an animal unconscious before it is slaughteredin order for it to be insensible to pain, discomfort and stress, until death occurs. This question is looking specifically atmonitoring the effectiveness of pre-slaughter stunning of animals (excluding finfish) in their supply chains as well as theattentiveness of operators to identify when a back-up stun or a repeat stun is required. For retailers and wholesalers, thisquestion applies to all own-brand products.
No reporting on the proportion of animals subject to back-up or repeat stunning.

0

The company reports fully on the proportion of animals subject to back-up or repeat stunning, covering all
relevant geographies, species and products.

5

The company reports on the proportion of animals subject to back-up or repeat stunning, but this reportingis limited to certain geographies, species or products.

3(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking specifically for explicit reporting on the proportion of animals that were subjected to back-up or
repeat stunning. Companies that reported on the effectiveness of stunning (x% of animals effectively stunned) were notawarded any points.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected.
• Companies that reported on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total
number of animals used or processed were not awarded points.
• Companies that made general statements about “None of our animals” or “No animals” required back-up or repeat
stunning, were not awarded points unless they could demonstrate that these statements were supported by monitoringdata (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).

57

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Question 25. Does the company report on the average, typical or maximum permitted live transport times for the
animals in its global supply chain?

In addition to having clear policy commitments and management practices, companies are expected to maintain strictmeasurement criteria for animals in their supply chain. This question is looking specifically at measures linked to the live
transportation of animals in their supply chains. When being transported, animals can experience hunger, thirst, discomfort,
pain, frustration, fear and distress, as well as physical welfare problems including injury, disease, and, in the worst cases, death.
For these reasons, transport of live terrestrial animals should be minimised wherever possible and journeys should be kept
as short as possible. Specifically, any transport of a live terrestrial animal that exceeds 8 hours, from loading to unloading,has been shown to decrease welfare significantly. In the case of farmed fish, handling practices and water quality conditions(particularly oxygenation) can have a significant impact on welfare. Conditions for transportation of fish must therefore
be suitable and a maximum time limit may be required as determined from species-specific welfare risk assessments. For
retailers and wholesalers, this question applies to all own-brand products.
No reporting on live transport times.

0

The company reports fully on the live transport times for animals, covering all relevant geographies, species
and products.

5

The company reports on the live transport times for animals, but this reporting is limited to certain
geographies, species or products.

3(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking specifically for explicit reporting on the average, typical or maximum live transport times foranimals. Companies that reported using proxy measures (e.g. the proportion of animals managed to certain farm animal
welfare standards) were not awarded points unless they explicitly stated that the standard meant that the transport times
were limited to eight hours or less.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the average, typical or maximum transport times for animals
affected. Companies that reported on the average, typical or maximum distance travelled by animals without specifying
transport times were not awarded points.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our animals” or “All animals” being subject to average, typical or
maximum journey times were not awarded points unless they could demonstrate that these statements were supported
by monitoring data (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• Companies that reported on measures taken to the comfort of animals during transportation (e.g. stocking levels, accessto water, rest breaks, etc.) were not awarded points as this question is looking explicitly at journey times for animals.
Question 26. Does the company report on welfare outcome measures (i.e. measures linked to the physical, emotional
and/or behavioural wellbeing of animals)?

In addition to having clear policy commitments and management practices, companies are expected to maintain strictmeasurement criteria for animals in their supply chain. This question is looking specifically at welfare outcome measures(WOMs) relating to the physical, emotional and/or behavioural wellbeing of animals. WOMs may be quantitative, or qualitative.
They should focus on the most important species-specific measures, of physical wellbeing, mental wellbeing and behaviour.
There is an increasing focus on positive outcome measures (e.g. active and play behaviour). For retailers and wholesalers, thisquestion applies to all own-brand products.
WOMs might include for example:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

For all species: mortality rates.
For laying hens: end of lay feather coverage, keel bone fractures, bone breakages at slaughter.
For dairy cows: lameness, mastitis, body condition, involuntary culling rate.
For pigs: lameness, tail bites and other lesions.
For broiler chickens: gait score, footpad dermatitis, hockburn, breast blisters.
For beef: body condition, lameness.
For rabbits: foot lesions, fur coverage, eye condition.
For fish: fin and body damage.
For mental wellbeing: reaction to humans or novelty, fear, comfort
For behaviour: time spent lying/resting, ruminating or being active – foraging, perching, dustbathing, socialising.
For transportation: injuries, slips and falls, fatigue, road traffic incidents, mortality (dead-on-arrival/DOA).
For slaughter: effectiveness of stunning.

No reporting on welfare outcome measures.

0

The company reports fully on one welfare outcome measure for each relevant species, covering all
geographies and products.

3

The company partially reports on welfare outcome measures but this reporting is limited to certain
geographies, species or products.

The company fully reports on multiple welfare outcome measure for each relevant species, covering all
geographies and products.

58

1

5
(Max Score 5)

Appendix
Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking specifically for explicit reporting on welfare outcome measures such as:• Mortality rates (as an indicator of potential pain, suffering and suboptimal performance), for fish: survival rates.
• Bone breakages (as an indicator of pain, suffering, suboptimal performance, and poor house design).
• Lameness (as an indicator of potential pain, behavioural restriction and suboptimal environmental and housing
conditions).
• Body marks/injuries (as an indicator of aggressive fight damage, especially during mixing or competition at feeding, orfrom sexual behaviours).
• Body condition (as an indicator of good feed management, or competition at feeding).
• Cleanliness (as an indicator of good environmental control, thermal comfort).
• Positive flock or herd behaviour (as an indicator of a varied stimulating environment, good management and suitablebreed for production system).
• Negative flock or herd behaviour, such as injurious feather pecking or tail biting in pigs (as a signpost of a barren nonstimulating environment, poor environmental control, low space allowance, feed and health problems).
• Scores were not awarded for reporting on input-based measures (i.e. measures relating to the type of production system,e.g. caged, barn, free-range, as well as to the practices for transport and slaughter).
• Scores were awarded for some health indicators (e.g. somatic cell count and mastitis for dairy cows), although strictly
speaking these are not regarded as WOMs. However, points were not awarded for production measures (e.g. egg output).
• Similarly, scores were not awarded for companies that reported on the proportion of animals managed according toparticular farm animal welfare standards but did not report on the welfare outcomes resulting from the implementation ofthese standards.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed were not awarded points.
Question 27. Does the company provide an explanation of progress in performance for welfare outcome measures?

Companies should provide an explanation of progress in performance and clearly define the scope of reporting (i.e. bygeography, by species, by production system, by welfare outcome). For retailers and wholesalers, this question applies to all
own-brand products.
The company does not provide an explanation of progress in performance for welfare outcome measures

0

The company provides an explanation of progress in performance for at least one welfare outcome
measure for each relevant species across all geographies and products.

5

The company provides an explanation of progress in performance for at least one welfare outcome
measure, but this is limited to certain geographies, species, or products.

3(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes:• We awarded scores for companies that provided an explanation of progress for outcome-based measures which areindicators that relate to the physical and mental wellbeing of the animals themselves. See Q26 for specific examples.
• The purpose of this question was to encourage companies to provide a narrative on current challenges and opportunities
that aid or hinder progress on welfare outcome measures.
• We did not award points if the company used terms such as ‘improved’ or ‘decreased’ but did not provide a precise
definition (e.g. a number, a rate) for these terms.
Question 28. What proportion of laying hens (for shell eggs and fresh/frozen products and ingredients) in thecompany’s global supply chain is cage-free?

Companies making public commitments to source cage-free eggs should report on the proportion of own-brand shell eggs
and eggs used as ingredients that is from cage-free hens.
NB. Companies that report on the proportion of shell eggs or eggs as ingredients that is sourced from laying hens that are
cage-free but do not specify the scope will be awarded minimal points. For retailers and wholesalers, this question applies toall own-brand products.
0% of laying hens is cage-free, or no reported information.

0

21 – 40% of laying hens is cage-free.

3

1 – 20% of laying hens is cage-free.

41 – 60% of laying hens is cage-free.
61 – 80% of laying hens is cage-free.
81 – 98% of laying hens is cage-free.

99 – 100% of laying hens is cage-free.

1
5
7
9

10

(Max Score 10)i

59

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Explanatory Notes:• This question was only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell eggs or egg-based products.
• This question was looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of shell eggs or eggs as ingredients in the company’s
global supply chain that was sourced from laying hens that are cage-free.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed globally were awarded minimal points.
• Companies that reported on the proportion of laying hens that is cage-free but limited their reporting to specified
products and/or geographies were either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 3 points, depending on whether the scope of thispartial reporting is substantial or not.
• If the scope of reported figures was unclear, companies were awarded minimal points.
• Scores were not awarded for companies that reported on the proportion of animals managed according to particularhigher welfare or organic standards but did not explicitly report on the proportion of laying hens that are cage-free in linewith these standards.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our animals” or “All animals” being free from close confinement
were not awarded points unless there was explicit reporting on the proportion of laying hens that is cage-free (e.g. withstatements such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• We expected companies to report impact figures in an easy to understand format and with a clear description of the
proportion of the supply chain represented without relying on the assessor to make any calculations.
Question 29. What proportion of fresh/frozen pork products and ingredients in the company’s global supply chain issourced from pigs that are free from sow stalls?

Companies making public commitments to source sow-stall-free or gestation-crate-free pork should report on the
proportion of sows that are free from stalls. NB. Companies that report on the proportion of fresh/frozen pork products andingredients that is sourced from pigs that are free from sow stalls but do not specify the scope will be awarded minimal points.
For retailers and wholesalers, this question applies to all own-brand products.
0% of sows is free from sow stalls, or no reported information.

0

21 – 40% of sows is free from sow stalls.

3

1 – 20% of sows is free from sow stalls.

41 – 60% of sows is free from sow stalls.
61 – 80% of sows is free from sow stalls.
81 – 98% of sows is free from sow stalls.

99 – 100% of sows is free from sow stalls.

1
5
7
9

10

(Max Score 10)i

Explanatory Notes:• This question was only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell pork or pork-based products.
• This question was looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of fresh/frozen pork products and ingredients in thecompany’s global supply chain that was sourced from sows that are free from sow stalls.
• For the purposes of this question, sow-stall-free referred to the avoidance of confinement for individual sows during the
gestation (pregnancy) period (i.e. it does not cover confinement for insemination and observation, or lactation). Within thisdefinition, and in line with EU legislation, confinement of sows up to the first four weeks of pregnancy is permitted.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed globally were awarded minimal points.
• Companies that reported on the proportion of sows that is free from sow stalls but limited their reporting to specified
products and/or geographies were either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 3 points, depending on whether the scope of thispartial reporting was substantial or not.
• If the scope of reported figures was unclear, companies were awarded minimal points.
• Scores were not awarded for companies that reported on the proportion of animals managed according to particularhigher welfare or organic standards but did not explicitly report on the proportion of sows that is free from sow stalls in linewith these standards.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our sows” or “All sows” being free from sow stalls were not awarded
points unless there was explicit reporting on the proportion of sows that is free from sow stalls (e.g. with statements suchas: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• We expected companies to report impact figures in an easy to understand format and with a description of the proportionof the supply chain represented, without relying on the assessor to make any calculations.
• Companies that made statements on the proportion of sows that are free from stalls, (after the insemination period)
needed to be transparent and clearly state how long this confinement period is, in order to receive points.

60

Appendix
Question 30. What proportion of fresh/frozen milk or milk products and ingredients in the company’s global supply
chain is sourced from cows that are free from tethering?

Companies making public commitments to source milk from dairy cows that are not tethered should report on the proportionof own brand milk and milk products (including ingredients) that are from dairy cows that are not tethered.
NB. Companies that report on the proportion of milk or milk products and ingredients that is sourced from cows that are freefrom tethering but do not specify the scope will be awarded minimal points. For retailers and wholesalers, this question applies
to all own-brand products.
0% of dairy cows is free from tethering, or no reported information.

0

21 – 40% of dairy cows is free from tethering.

3

1 – 20% of dairy cows is free from tethering.

1

41 – 60 of dairy cows is free from tethering.

5

61 – 80% of dairy cows is free from tethering.

7

81 – 98% of dairy cows is free from tethering.

99 – 100% of dairy cows is free from tethering.

9

10(Max Score 10)i

Explanatory Notes:• This question was only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell dairy-based products.
• This question was looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of milk or milk products and ingredients in thecompany’s global supply chain that was sourced from dairy cows that are free from tethering.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed globally were awarded minimal points.
• Companies that reported on the proportion of cows that are free from tethering but limited their reporting to specified
products and/or geographies were either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 3 points, depending on whether the scope of thispartial reporting was substantial or not.
• If the scope of reported figures was unclear, companies were awarded minimal points.
• Scores were not awarded for companies that reported on the proportion of animals managed according to particular farmassurance standards but did not explicitly report on the proportion of dairy cows that is free from tethering in line withthese standards.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our dairy cows” or “All cows” being free from tethering were not awarded
points unless there was explicit reporting on the proportion of dairy cows that is free from tethering (e.g. with statements
such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• We expected companies to report impact figures in an easy to understand format and with a description of the proportionof the supply chain represented, without relying on the assessor to make any calculations.
Question 31. What proportion of broiler chickens for own-brand fresh/frozen products and ingredients in thecompany’s global supply chain is reared at lower stocking densities (specifically, 30 kg/m2 or less)?

Companies making public commitments to source broiler chickens to higher welfare standards should report on the stocking
densities of own brand fresh and frozen chicken meat and ingredients. NB. Companies that report on the proportion of broiler
meat that is sourced from broiler chickens reared at lower stocking densities but do not specify the scope will be awarded
minimal points. Companies will not be scored for reporting on the proportion of broiler chickens that are cage-free (thatis, the actual stocking density or higher welfare/free range systems must be specified). For retailers and wholesalers, thisquestion applies to all own-brand products.
0% of broiler chickens is reared at lower stocking densities, or no reported information.

0

21 – 40% of broiler chickens is reared at lower stocking densities.

3

1 – 20% of broiler chickens is reared at lower stocking densities.

41 – 60% of broiler chickens is reared at lower stocking densities.
61 – 80% of broiler chickens is reared at lower stocking densities.
81 – 98% of broiler chickens is reared at lower stocking densities.

99 – 100% of broiler chickens is reared at lower stocking densities.

1
5
7
9

10

(Max Score 10)i

61

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Explanatory Notes:• This question was only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell chicken or chicken-based products.
• This question was looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of broiler meat in the company’s global supply chainthat was sourced from broiler chickens that are reared at lower stocking densities.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed globally were awarded minimal points.
• Companies that reported on the proportion of broiler chickens that is reared at lower stocking densities but limited theirreporting to specified products and/or geographies were either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 3 points, depending onwhether the scope of this partial reporting was substantial or not.
• If the scope of reported figures was unclear, companies were awarded minimal points.
• Scores were not awarded for companies that reported on the proportion of animals managed according to particularfarm assurance standards but did not explicitly report on the proportion of broiler chickens that is reared at lower stocking
densities in line with these standards.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our broiler chickens” or “All meat chickens” being reared at lower
stocking densities were not awarded points unless there was explicit reporting on the proportion of broiler chickens thatare reared at lower stocking densities (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• We expected companies to report impact figures in an easy to understand format and with a description of the proportionof the supply chain represented, without relying on the assessor to make any calculations.
Question 32. What proportion of laying hens in the company’s global supply chain is free from beak trimming or tipping?

Companies should report on the proportion of laying hens that is free from beak trimming or tipping. NB. Companies thatreport of the proportion of shell eggs or eggs as ingredients that is sourced from laying hens that are free from beak trimmingor tipping but do not specify the scope will be awarded minimal points. For retailers and wholesalers, this question applies to all
own-brand products.
0% of laying hens is free from beak trimming or tipping, or no reported information.

0

21 – 40% of laying hens is free from beak trimming or tipping.

3

1 – 20% of laying hens is free from beak trimming or tipping.

41 – 60% of laying hens is free from beak trimming or tipping.
61 – 80% of laying hens is free from beak trimming or tipping.
81 – 98% of laying hens is free from beak trimming or tipping.

99 – 100% of laying hens is free from beak trimming or tipping.

1
5
7
9

10

(Max Score 10)ii

Explanatory Notes:• This question was only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell eggs or egg-based products.
• This question was looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of shell eggs or eggs as ingredients in the company’s
global supply chain that was sourced from laying hens that were free from beak trimming or tipping.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed globally were awarded minimal points.
• Companies that reported on the proportion of laying hens that is free from beak trimming or tipping but limited theirreporting to specified products and/or geographies were either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 3 points, depending onwhether the scope of this partial reporting was substantial or not.
• If the scope of reported figures was unclear, companies were awarded minimal points.
• Scores were not awarded for companies that reported on the proportion of animals managed according to particular farmassurance standards but did not explicitly report on the proportion of laying hens that is free from beak trimming or tippingin line with these standards.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our laying hens” or “All chickens” being free from beak trimming or
tipping were not awarded points unless there was explicit reporting on the proportion of laying hens that is free from beaktrimming or tipping (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• We expected companies to report impact figures in an easy to understand format and with a description of the proportionof the supply chain represented, without relying on the assessor to make any calculations.

62

Appendix
Question 33. What proportion of pigs in the company’s global supply chain is free from tail docking?

Companies should report on the proportion of pigs that is free from tail docking. NB. Companies that report on the proportion of
fresh/frozen pork products and ingredients that is sourced from pigs that are free from tail docking but do not specify the scope
will be awarded minimal points. For retailers and wholesalers, this question applies to all own-brand products.
0% of pigs is free from tail docking, or no reported information.

0

21 – 40% of pigs is free from tail docking.

3

1 – 20% of pigs is free from tail docking.

1

41 – 60% of pigs is free from tail docking.

5

61 – 80% of pigs is free from tail docking.
81 – 98% of pigs is free from tail docking.

99 – 100% of pigs is free from tail docking.

7
9

10

(Max Score 10)ii

Explanatory Notes:• This question was only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell pork or pork-based products.
• This question was looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of fresh/frozen pork products and ingredients in thecompany’s global supply chain that was sourced from pigs that are free from tail docking.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed globally were awarded minimal points.
• Companies that reported on the proportion of pigs that are free from tail docking but limited their reporting to specified
products and/or geographies were either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 3 points, depending on whether the scope of thispartial reporting was substantial or not.
• If the scope of reported figures was unclear, companies were awarded minimal points.
• Scores were not awarded for companies that reported on the proportion of animals managed according to particular farmassurance standards but did not explicitly report on the proportion of pigs that are free from tail docking in line with these standards.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our pigs” or “All pigs” being free from tail docking were not awarded
points unless there was explicit reporting on the proportion of pigs that are free from tail docking (e.g. with statements
such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• We expected companies to report impact figures in an easy to understand format and with a description of the proportionof the supply chain represented, without relying on the assessor to make any calculations.
Question 34. What proportion of dairy cows in the company’s global supply chain is free from tail docking?

Companies should report on the proportion of dairy cattle that is free from tail docking. NB. Companies that report on the
proportion of fresh/frozen milk products and ingredients that is sourced from cows that are free from tail docking but do not
specify the scope will be awarded minimal points. For retailers and wholesalers, this question applies to all own-brand products.
0% of dairy cows is free from tail docking, or no reported information.

0

21 – 40% of dairy cows is free from tail docking.

3

1 – 20% of dairy cows is free from tail docking.

41 – 60% of dairy cows is free from tail docking.
61 – 80% of dairy cows is free from tail docking.
81 – 98% of dairy cows is free from tail docking.

99 – 100% of dairy cows is free from tail docking.

1
5
7
9

10

(Max Score 10)ii

Explanatory Notes:• This question was only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell dairy or dairy-based products.
• This question was looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of fresh/frozen milk products and ingredients in thecompany’s global supply chain that was sourced from dairy cows that are free from tail docking.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed globally were awarded minimal points.
• Companies that reported on the proportion of dairy cows that is free from tail docking but limited their reporting to
specified products and/or geographies were either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 3 points, depending on whether thescope of this partial reporting was substantial or not.
• If the scope of reported figures was unclear, companies were awarded minimal points.
• Scores were not awarded for companies that reported on the proportion of animals managed according to particular farmassurance standards but did not explicitly report on the proportion of dairy cows that is free from tail docking in line withthese standards.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our dairy cows” or “All dairy cows” being free from tail docking were
not awarded points unless there was explicit reporting on the proportion of cows that is free from tail docking (e.g. withstatements such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• We expected companies to report impact figures in an easy to understand format and with a description of the proportionof the supply chain represented, without relying on the assessor to make any calculations.

63

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021
Question 35. What proportion of the company’s supply of chicken meat (fresh/frozen/processed and ingredient) comesfrom strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes and with a slower growth potential (defined as <55g/d averaged
over the growth cycle according to the breeding company specification)?

Breeds of chicken selected for high growth rate, lean meat deposition and high feed conversion efficiency suffer a range ofphysiological and metabolic health issues, as well as poor immunity and walking ability. Such breeds are lethargic and haveincreasing meat quality issues. Breeds with slower growth potential tend to have better welfare outcomes. NB. Companies
that report on the proportion of chicken meat that is sourced from slower growing strains but do not specify the scope will beawarded minimal points. For retailers and wholesalers, this question applies to all own-brand products.
0% of products is from strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes and with a slower growth potential, or
no reported information.

0

21 – 40% of products is from strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes and with a slower growth potential.

3

1 – 20% of products is from strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes and with a slower growth potential.

1

41 – 60% of products is from strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes and with a slower growth potential.

5

61 – 80% of products is from strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes and with a slower growth potential.
81 – 98% of products is from strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes and with a slower growth potential.

99 – 100% of products is from strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes and with a slower growth potential.

7
9

10

(Max Score 10)iii

Explanatory Notes:• This question was only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell chicken or chicken-based products.
• This question was looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of chicken meat in the company’s global supply chainthat is from strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes and with a slower growth potential.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed globally were awarded minimal points.
• Companies that reported on the proportion of chicken meat that is from strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes
and a slower growth potential but limited their reporting to specified products and/or geographies were either awarded theequivalent of 1 or 3 points, depending on whether the scope of this partial reporting was substantial or not.
• If the scope of reported figures was unclear, companies were awarded minimal points.
• Scores were not awarded for companies that reported on the proportion of chicken meat from birds managed according toparticular farm assurance standards but did not explicitly report on the strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes andwith slower growth potential in line with these standards.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our chicken meat” or “All chicken “ being from strains of birds withimproved welfare outcomes and a slower growth potential were not awarded points unless there was explicit reporting on
the proportion of chicken meat that is from strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes and slower growth potential(e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• Where companies reported on their own breeds with improved welfare outcomes and slower growth potential, theyneeded to provide a clear description of how the company’s breed standard(s) compare to other breeds with improved
welfare outcomes and a slower growth potential.
• We expected companies to report impact figures in an easy to understand format and with a description of the proportionof the supply chain represented, without relying on the assessor to make any calculations.

Question 36. What proportion of animals (including fin fish) in the company’s global supply chain is pre-slaughter stunned?
This question is looking specifically at measures linked to the slaughter of animals in their supply chains. It is essential torender an animal unconscious (through for example captive bolt and stun-to-kill methods including electrical stunning,gas stunning) before it is slaughtered in order for it to be insensible to pain, discomfort and stress, until death occurs. NB.
Companies that report on the proportion of animals that have been pre-slaughter stunned but do not specify the scope will
be awarded minimal points. For all companies, this question applies to all products (own-brand and other).
0% of products is from animals that have been pre-slaughter stunned, or no reported information.

0

21 – 40% of products is from animals that have been pre-slaughter stunned.

3

1 – 20% of products is from animals that have been pre-slaughter stunned.

41 – 60% of products is from animals that have been pre-slaughter stunned.
61 – 80% of products is from animals that have been pre-slaughter stunned.
81 – 98% of products is from animals that have been pre-slaughter stunned.

99 – 100% of products is from animals that have been pre-slaughter stunned.

64

1
5
7
9

10

(Max Score 10)iv

Appendix
Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of animals in the company’s global supply chain that
had been pre-slaughter stunned.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed globally were awarded minimal points.
• Companies that reported on the proportion of animals that is pre-slaughter stunned but limited their reporting to specified
products and/or geographies were either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 3 points, depending on whether the scope of thispartial reporting was substantial or not.
• If the scope of reported figures was unclear, companies were awarded minimal points.
• Scores were not awarded for companies that reported on the proportion of animals managed according to particular farmassurance standards but did not explicitly report on the proportion of animals that was pre-slaughter stunned in line withthese standards.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our animals” or “All animals” being pre-slaughter stunned were notawarded points unless there was explicit reporting on the proportion of animals that have been pre-slaughter stunned (e.g.
with statements such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• We expected companies to report impact figures in an easy to understand format and with a description of the proportionof the supply chain represented, without relying on the assessor to make any calculations.
Question 37. What proportion of animals (excluding fin fish) in the company’s global supply chain is transported within
specified maximum journey times?

This question is looking specifically at measures linked to the live transportation of animals in their supply chains. When beingtransported, animals can experience hunger, thirst, discomfort, pain, frustration, fear and distress, as well as physical welfare
problems including injury, disease, and, in the worst cases, death. For these reasons, transport of live terrestrial animals should
be minimised wherever possible and journeys should be kept as short as possible. Specifically, any transport of a live terrestrial
animal that exceeds 8 hours, from loading to unloading, has been shown to decrease welfare significantly. NB. Companies thatreport on the proportion of animals that have been transported in 8 hours or less but do not specify the scope will be awarded
minimal points. This question currently excludes finfish because the key welfare issues concern the pumping, crowding andpoor handling of finfish, as well as the deterioration of water quality, especially the depletion of oxygen or accumulation ofcarbon dioxide and ammonia. For all companies, this question applies to all products (own-brand and other).
0% of animals is transported in 8 hours or less, or no reported information.

0

21 – 40% of animals is transported in 8 hours or less.

3

1 – 20% of animals is transported in 8 hours or less.

1

41 – 60% of animals is transported in 8 hours or less.

5

61 – 80% of animals is transported in 8 hours or less.

7

81 – 98% of animals is transported in 8 hours or less.

99 – 100% of animals is transported in 8 hours or less.

9

10(Max Score 10)iv

Explanatory Notes:• This question was looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of animals in the company’s global supply chain thatare transported in 8 hours or less.
• Points were only awarded if the company was explicit about the proportion of animals affected. Companies that reported
on the total number of animals affected but did not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed globally were awarded minimal points.
• Companies that reported on the proportion of animals that is transported in 8 hours or less but limited their reporting to
specified products and/or geographies were either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 3 points, depending on whether thescope of this partial reporting was substantial or not.
• If the scope of reported figures was unclear, companies were awarded minimal points.
• Scores were not awarded for companies that reported on the proportion of animals managed according to particular farmassurance standards but did not explicitly report on the proportion of animals that was transported in 8 hours or less in linewith these standards.
• Companies that made general statements about “Our animals” or “All animals” were not awarded points unless there was
explicit reporting on the proportion of animals that was transported in 8 hours or less (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of
our animals…’).
• We expected companies to report impact figures in an easy to understand format and with a description of the proportionof the supply chain represented, without relying on the assessor to make any calculations.
Notes
i 	
For questions 28-31 (on close confinement), we only assess those questions that are relevant to the company. The maximum possible scorebeing ten (10) points per question and we use the scores to calculate the overall average for these relevant questions.
ii

iii

iv

	For questions 32-34 (on mutilations), we only assess those questions that are relevant to the company. The maximum possible score being ten(10) points per question and we use the scores to calculate the overall average for these relevant questions.
	For question 35 (on strains of birds with improved welfare outcomes and with a slower growth potential), we only assess this question if it isrelevant to the company. The maximum possible score for this question is ten (10) points.

	For questions 36-37 (on slaughter and transport), we only assess this question if it is relevant to the company. The maximum possible score foreach of these questions is t en (10) points.

65

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

66

Appendix

References1	These issues and other aspects of the business case for action are discussed in the briefing and otherpapers on the BBFAW website, https://bbfaw.com/publications/2	These are: the avoidance of close confinement; the provision of effective species-specific environmental
enrichment; the avoidance of products from animals subject to genetic engineering or cloning; theavoidance of growth promoting substances; the reduction or avoidance of antibiotics for prophylactic use;
the avoidance of routine mutilations; the avoidance of meat from animals that have not been subjected to
pre slaughter stunning; and the avoidance of long-distance live transportation.
3	This question was asked for the first time in 2019 and the scoring has been included in company scores for thesecond time this year. This is consistent with the way that the BBFAW has previously introduced new criteria.
4

Questions 28 - 37. The full list of questions is provided in the Appendix.

5	We estimate that we have engaged with over 300 institutional investment organisations in this time, and withmany of these on multiple occasions.
6	The preparation of a methodology report is an integral part of our transparency and accountability processes
for the annual Benchmarks. Previous Benchmark and associated methodology reports can be found on the
BBFAW website at https://bbfaw.com/publications/7	Nicky Amos and Rory Sullivan (2018), The Business of Farm Animal Welfare (Routledge, Abingdon); Rory
Sullivan (2011), Valuing Corporate Responsibility: How Do Investors Really Use Corporate Responsibility
Information? (Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield).
8	For further information, see Nicky Amos and Rory Sullivan (2014), Reporting on Performance Measures for
Farm Animal Welfare Investor Briefing No. 14 (Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare, London).
http://www.bbfaw.com/media/1074/investor-briefing-14_briefing-on-performance-measures.pdf
9	One of the reasons for such a broad approach to information gathering was that, for many companies,
reporting on farm animal welfare is not consolidated in a single location. While there have been significant
improvements, many continue to report on farm animal welfare in an unstructured manner - with disparate
references to policies and programmes across their websites or obscured within FAQs and press releases,
and with inadequate signposting to relevant sources of information.
10	Question 13 assessed whether or not the company has published objectives and targets for the
management of farm animal welfare.
11	This includes Zhongpin Inc, a Chinese meat and food processing and distribution company based in China
but listed on NASDAQ.

67

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2021

Acknowledgements
This report has been prepared by the BBFAW Secretariat run by Chronos Sustainability Ltd.
The lead authors were Nicky Amos, Dr Rory Sullivan, Basia Romanowicz and Dr Heleen vande Weerd.
We would like to thank the following for their support of this project and their contribution
to the design and development of the 2021 Benchmark:• Philip Lymbery, Dr Tracey Jones, Louise Valducci, Elisa Bianco and the Food Businessteam (Compassion in World Farming).

• Gerald Dick, Martina Stephany, Marlene Kirchner and colleagues at FOUR PAWS.
• The many companies, investors and other stakeholders who participated in meetings
and teleconferences, who provided input to the 2021 Benchmark consultation
process, and who provided feedback on the assessment process and methodology.

Photography credits
Cover:
ChristiLaLiberte/Istock.com
Contents
zlikovec/Shutterstock.com
P6:
Baronb/Shutterstock.com
P13:
MD_style/Shutterstock.com
P14:
Shutterstock.com
P17:
Kishyru/Shutterstock.com
P21:
zlikovec/Shutterstock.com
P24:
Kharkhan Oleg/Shutterstock.com
P28
Ewa Studio/Shutterstock.com
P31
kamisoka/Istock.com
P36
slowmotiongl/Shutterstock.comi
P38
zlikovec/Shutterstock.com
P43
WLDavies/Istock.com
P66
Damian Hadjiyvanov/Shutterstock.com

68

AppendixFor further information please email
secretariat@bbfaw.com