The Business Benchmark on
Farm Animal Welfare
2023 Report
Authors: Nicky Amos, Dr Nathan Rhys Williams MRCVS and Jessica Doten Axberg

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 practiceand performance on farm animal welfare, and it drives – directly and throughthe efforts of others – corporate improvements in the welfare of animals
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 withcompanies and with investors and provides practical guidance and tools
for companies and for investors on key animal welfare issues.
The programme is supported by Compassion in World Farming and FOUR
PAWS, who provide technical expertise, guidance, funding and practicalresources, alongside supporting 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 international farm animal
welfare organisation dedicated to ending factory farming and reshaping
the food system to benefit the lives of animals, people, and the healthof the planet. Through campaigning, lobbying for legislative change, andpositive engagement with the global food industry, we seek to influence
key decision makers that shape, make and fund the food system.
Through our Food Business programme, we work in partnership withleading food companies to drive transformational change for farm animal
welfare, reduce the reliance on animal sourced foods and encourage ashift to regenerative farming practices. The team offers strategic advice
and expert technical support for the development, implementation andcommunication of higher welfare policies and practices, and solutions
and frameworks for a future-fit food system.

2

Compassion engages directly with many of the companies evaluatedin 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, ChickenTrack, and its advisory
services to help companies understand how they are performing relative totheir peers, to identify areas and mechanisms for continuous improvement,
and to highlight sources of risk and opportunity.
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 Compassionin World Farming can be found at:www.compassioninfoodbusiness.com

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 withrespect, empathy and understanding. FOUR PAWS has been working
for decades to improve conditions in relation to the breeding, transportand slaughter of so-called farm animals such as cattle, ducks, poultry,
pigs and sheep. FOUR PAWS’ other sustainable campaigns and projects
focus on companion animals including stray dogs and cats and wild animals– such as bears, big cats and orangutans – kept in inappropriate conditions
as well as in disaster and conflict 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 eleven countries, FOUR PAWS provides rapid help
and long-term solutions. For more information on the farm animal welfare
work at FOUR PAWS Farm Animals – FOUR PAWS International –Animal Welfare Organisation www.four-paws.org

3

Contents

4

Foreword

05

Acknowledgements09

1. 2023 Benchmark Highlights

12

2. 2023 Benchmark Results in Detail24

3. Accelerating Impact

52

Appendix

56

Company Coverage

57

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

58

Credits114

ForewordForeword

GreggsPLC

Our purpose is to make great tasting, freshly prepared food accessible toeveryone. At Greggs, we are committed to being a responsible business andfarm animal welfare remains a top priority. Founded in 1939, we are proud
to have been around for over 85 years and now have 2,500 shops and over
32,000 amazing colleagues across the UK. We may have grown, but our
dedication to doing good and leading positive change for our colleagues,
customers, suppliers and the communities in which we serve remains strong.
We launched The Greggs Pledge in 2021, to bring all of the good work wewere already doing and our ambition to do even more under one umbrella
with dedicated strategic focus, clear targets, deliverables, transparency andaccountability through publication externally alongside our Annual Reportand Accounts.
The Greggs Pledge is focused on ten commitments that sit within three
clear strategic priorities in which we know we can make the most impact
and difference and challenge ourselves to be bolder and better: Stronger
healthier communities, Safer planet and Better business.

Our dedication to protecting
animal welfare has beena key strategic priority fora number of years

Our dedication to protecting animal welfare has been a key strategic priority
for a number of years, and so as a business, we felt strongly that it shouldhave its own dedicated commitment as part of The Greggs Pledge. The Board
monitors the progress we make against our pledge commitments, including
Farm Animal Welfare, ensuring it remains a priority and is kept in-focus andfront of mind for our management teams.
Raising animal welfare standards in our supply chain is a team effort: we arein ongoing conversations with our suppliers, setting out what we expect fromthem, and supporting them to achieve it. This engagement usually begins
with educating a supplier on the issues that concern us and the Greggs Farm
Animal Welfare Standards, which we then support them to deliver throughvisits, audits, and questionnaires.
The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) is the leading
global measure of how 150 of the world’s largest food companies aremanaging and reporting on farm animal welfare as an integral part of thetransition to a sustainable food system. Greggs are proud to have been
involved since BBFAW’s inception in 2012, and to be assessed annually since.
Over that time, the company has demonstrated a commitment to continuous
improvement on farm animal welfare and has been ranked amongst the
top-performing companies in the benchmark in recent years.
We are committed advocates for farm animal welfare and welcome BBFAW’s
decision to introduce a new standard with tougher criteria – ultimately
accelerating the pace of change.
In a pilot benchmark of the new standard conducted in 2022, Greggs
moved from Tier Two to Tier Three. While still ahead of average andconsidered a leader in farm animal welfare, given the more demanding
standards now in place, we do not expect to achieve Tier One by 2025
as originally targeted. Instead, we will work towards the new requirements
over the longer term, as part of our continuous journey of improvement.

6Foreword

Continued

We firmly believe that making the standards more demanding is the rightthing to do, placing more emphasis on the welfare outcomes and improving
the lives of the animals reared to feed us.

Driving progress
In 2023 we introduced the Greggs Broiler Chicken Standard andupdated the Greggs Farm Animal Welfare (FAW) standards. We wanted
to improve broiler chicken welfare, fulfilling as many of the Better
Commitment Chicken (BCC) criteria as possible. All our chicken will bereared at a stocking density of 30Kg/M2 with improved mobility and leg
health to the original BCC timing. We will continue to work to move
our supply to slower growing breeds.
Reducing our reliance on animal-sourced foods is an important partof how we can help protect our planet, by reducing carbon emissions andthe use of the planet’s natural resources, like water. It also benefits natureby helping prevent deforestation, increase biodiversity, and support
soil restoration.
Reducing animal-sourced food consumption in favour of a plant-based
diet can benefit human health, while also improving food security byoffering alternatives. Our customers are increasingly looking for alternatives
to animal-sourced foods and we are responding by expanding our Vegan
and Vegetarian Range, reducing our reliance on animal-sourced foods
through protein diversification and reformulation, and by reducing waste.
Another way to reduce our use of animal-sourced foods is to improve
efficiency and avoid waste. ‘Putting an end to food waste’ and ‘Going carbon
neutral’ are both commitments outlined in The Greggs Pledge.

Some of the requirements will take time as they will need changes in practices,
infrastructure, and investment to deliver. There will be ‘bumps’ in the road as
we implement these, but the overall direction of travel is the right one.

Roisin CurrieCEO, Greggs PLC

7

Foreword

FOUR
PAWS

Scientists agree that animals are sentient beings. Yet every year the numberof animals slaughtered for food increases. Factory farming routinely disregards
and harms animals while ignoring their needs. In addition to cruel practices,it fuels the climate crisis, drives deforestation, biodiversity loss and pollution.
On top of that, the massive use of antibiotics poses a threat to humanhealth. There is no doubt that intensive farming harms animals, human healthand the planet.
This is why FOUR PAWS supports BBFAW’s work to encourage higher animal
welfare. The BBFAW report is an important tool to track the status of animal
welfare within the food industry, as its stakeholders have a pivotal position in
facilitating a shift towards better animal welfare.
For the first time, we publish the results of the revised BBFAW criteria,
focusing much more on impact indicators and introducing questions about
reducing our reliance on animal protein. It finds that initiatives are in place andchange is happening. This is great – however, there remains much room for
improvement – and we need to speed up progress as one of the necessary
measures to enable animal welfare is a significant reduction in the numberof animals kept.
The food industry plays a role in driving positive change towards animal
welfare. As society becomes increasingly conscious of animal welfare and theenvironmental impact of industrial farming, it is essential for the food industry
to lead the way in implementing responsible practices. The food industry,
encompassing producers, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers, has thepower to shape consumer preferences.
It is crucial for the food industry to actively adopt and promote animal
welfare and to ensure that animals raised for food are treated with respectand empathy according to the Five Domains. Companies can further empower
consumers to make informed choices by offering transparency in labeling andproviding easily accessible information about the welfare and farming practices
behind their products. By prioritizing animal welfare and supporting plantbased diets, the industry can create a ripple effect that transforms our entire
food system.
Keeping in mind the cruelty towards animals and the massive effect on
our planet, we cannot afford to be slow and change only bits and pieces ina bad system. We need food industry players to collaborate and act as trend
setters and role models, sharing best practices and creating a movement thattransform our entire food system. The food industry needs to work closely withanimal welfare organisations, farmers, and policymakers to establish standards
that ensure the well-being of animals and a diet rich in plants. By sharing
knowledge and expertise, we can collectively create a more compassionate
and sustainable food system within planetary boundaries that is healthy
for animals, humans and the planet.

Dr Martina Stephany
Senior Programmes Director8

Acknowledgements
This report has been prepared by the BBFAW Secretariat run by Chronos
Sustainability Ltd. The lead authors were Nicky Amos, Dr Nathan Rhys Williams
MRCVS and Jessica Doten Axberg.
We would like to thank the following for their support of this project andtheir contribution to the design and development of the 2023 Benchmark:• Philip Lymbery, Dr Tracey Jones, Louise Valducci, Amélie Legrandand the Food Business team (Compassion in World Farming).
• Gerald Dick, Martina Stephany, Marlene Kirchner, Helena Manzenreiter,
Carolina Cardoso Nagib Nascimento, Kaja Salobir and colleagues
at FOUR PAWS.
• The many companies who have engaged with the BBFAW programme overthe past year and who provided feedback during the assessment process.
• The many investors who have continued to engage with the BBFAW
programme and the companies covered by the BBFAW.
• The team of BBFAW assessors and reviewers.

9Revisions to the
BBFAW Benchmark

The BBFAW is the leading global benchmark forassessing companies on their farm animal welfare
policies, practices and performance. Since its
inception in 2012, it has evolved into a comprehensive
programme, enabling investors, companies, andstakeholders to gauge the effectiveness of foodcompanies’ practices in managing farm animal welfare.
BBFAW serves as a catalyst for driving enhanced
corporate performance and practices on critical farmanimal welfare issues. Furthermore, through providing
transparent insights and encouraging accountability,
BBFAW plays a pivotal role in fostering continuous
improvement and advancing global standards forthe welfare of farm animals.

in 2022, the BBFAW partners madethe decision to pause the benchmark
and re-assess how the BBFAW framework
could be updated with a particular focus
on driving performance impact.

Over the last decade, we have seen
a steady increase in overall scores andcompany Tier ranking in the Benchmark,largely due to significant progress bycompanies to formalise their farm animal
welfare management processes and systems,
and an increasing proportion of companies
publishing welfare-related targets andobjectives. Despite this, investors and otherstakeholders remain concerned at the slow
pace of performance improvements bycompanies. For instance, despite introducing
performance indicators in 2016, the overall
average score for the 10 performance
impact questions in 2021 was just 12%,and 48 companies (32%) scored 0%,
meaning they had yet to demonstrate thatthey were delivering any improved welfare
benefits for farm animals in their operations
and/or supply chains. Consequently,

Another significant change has been
the introduction of questions focusedon reducing reliance on animal-sourced
foods in human diets. Our dependence
on intensive animal agriculture is not only
detrimental for animal welfare, but is amajor driver of the global climate, natureand health crises. Over 92 billion land
animals are farmed for food every year1,
with an estimated additional 124 billion
farmed fish2. To enable this level ofproduction, 40% of global crop calories
is used to feed animals1, with, forexample, 97% of the world’s soy destinedfor livestock2. At least three-quartersof farmed land animals are in intensive
production systems that do not allow forgood welfare and many of these systems
rely on the routine use of antibiotics tocompensate for overcrowding and ahigher propensity to disease.

1

10

2

The most substantial change to the 2023
assessment criteria has been the increased
focus on performance impact. The numberof questions on performance impact has
been increased from 10 to 20, and thesequestions now represent 55% of the overallbenchmark score (compared to 45% in2021). This increased focus on performance
impact reflects the Benchmark’s role indriving meaningful change and ensuring
tangible improvements to the lives of farmanimals reared for food.

https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home
https://fishcount.org.uk/fish-count-estimates-2/numbers-of-farmed-fish-slaughtered-each-year

Evolving consumer attitudes to animal
sourced foods, coupled with the need tocreate a more sustainable food system
places an expectation on companies to play
an active part in the transition. Corporate
action is essential to create a sustainable
food system that supports the basic principles
of food nutrition, planetary health, humanwell-being, and animal health and welfare.
The questions introduced are grouped withina new ‘Reducing Reliance on Animal Sourced
Foods’ pillar of the assessment criteria andclosely follow the structure of the establishedfarm animal welfare questions.

The changes introduced have led to aresetting of the benchmark, with the BBFAW
2023 results representing a new baseline.
The reduction in overall average score seen
this year, and the changes to companies’
Tier rankings, are in line with modelling
conducted during development of the revised
criteria in 2022. We expect to continue to
see year-on-year improvements in the overall
average score and company Tier rankingsfrom this new baseline, in line with the
improvements seen over the first 10 yearsof the Benchmark 2012-2021.

92bn
land animals are farmed forfood each year, with an estimatedadditional 124bn farmed fish

11

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

2023 Benchmark
Highlights

1Chapter 1

2023 Benchmark
Highlights

Headline Findings
1. Farm animal welfare remains animportant and relevant business issue

2. Companies have begun to report on
performance impact, but progress is slow

Farm animal welfare remains firmly on
the business agenda for food companies,
with 143 of the 150 global food companies(95%) acknowledging farm animal welfare
as a business issue. Of these companies,
131 (87%) have formalised their management
commitments through published policies.

Reporting on performance impact isincreasingly important for investors if they are
to understand the effectiveness of companies’
animal welfare policy commitments and theirimplementation. In total, 109 companies(73%) report some performance impact data
across their global supply chain, but thenature of this reporting is piecemeal, withdata limited to specific species and/or specificgeographies and/or specific products.

However, 19 global food companies(13%) have yet to publish a formal farmanimal welfare policy, which raises
concerns about whether they haveassessed and understood the businessrisks and opportunities presented byfarm animal welfare in their operations
and supply chains.

95%

of companies acknowledge farmanimal welfare as a business issue

13

Reporting on the proportion of laying hens
that are cage-free (reported on by 67% ofcompanies with eggs in their supply chain)continues to be the most reported performancemeasure. Performance impact, however, islower, with only 28 companies (20%) reporting
more than 60% of the laying hens in theirglobal supply chains are cage-free. Poorer
performance reporting is seen across the otherspecies, particularly beef cattle and farmed
fish, which are new focus areas in the BBFAW,
but also for pigs and dairy cattle, for which
performance impact questions have been
included in the BBFAW since 2016.
Consequently, the average score across 20
performance impact questions is low at just
7%. Individually, companies are assigned an
Impact Rating (A to F) based on their scoring
across all performance impact questions (seeTable 1.2 for definitions of Impact Ratings A-F).
Only 6 companies (4%) achieve a C Impact
Rating, demonstrating welfare benefits fora proportion of farm animals in their global
supply. A majority of companies (93%) achievea E or F Impact rating indicating that thesecompanies are yet to demonstrate that they
are delivering welfare benefits for farm animals
in their supply chains.

Chapter 1

2023 Benchmark Highlights

3. Companies have set time-boundtargets to address critical animal welfare
issues, but these are largely limited
to laying hens and broiler chickens
Over the past decade, there has beensignificant movement in the numberof companies setting time-bound targets
for specific animal welfare issues.
Overall, 110 of the benchmarked companies(73%) have published formal time-boundtargets3 for species-specific animal
welfare improvements.
Time-bound targets on cage-free eggs –an issue that is widely regarded as a baseline
welfare requirement – have been adopted
by 73% of the companies that have eggs
in their supply chains (103 of 141 companies).
Additionally, 31% of companies that have
broiler chickens in their supply chain(42 of 134 companies) have set targets toachieve the ‘Better Chicken Commitment’or ‘European Chicken Commitment’ whichprescribe a specific set of scientifically provenrequirements to improve broiler welfare,by animal welfare NGOs.
Meanwhile, other species are being
overlooked. Only 9% of companies withpigs in their supply chain have set timebound targets for ending the use of sow
stalls/gestation crates for sows (13 of 137
companies) and only 10% have set targets
for ending the use of farrowing crates forsows (14 of 137 companies). Only 18% ofcompanies with dairy cows in their supply
chain have set targets for ending the useof tethering (26 of 144 companies).

14

3

The data for time-bound targets also includes companies that have achieved the specific targets in question.

Chapter 1

2023 Benchmark Highlights

4. One in four global food companies
recognises the need to reduce relianceon animal sourced foods and allow forhigher welfare as part of a sustainable
food system
In line with the findings of major scientificinstitutions – the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2023),
the Intergovernmental Science Platform on
Biodiversity (IPBES 2019), and the EAT-Lancet
Commission (EAT Forum 2019a) – there isincreasing recognition that intensive animal
agriculture is not only detrimental for animal
welfare, but is a major driver of the global
climate, nature and health crises. Animal
sourced foods must begin to play a muchsmaller role human diets if we areto avoid exceeding planetary boundaries,
and a reduction in consumption will facilitatetransition to higher welfare, regenerative
production systems. It is for this reason the
new Reducing Reliance on Animal Sourced
Foods pillar has been introduced to the
Benchmark, to assess whether companies
recognise their role in addressing the issue
and what solutions they are adopting toapproach this issue.

15

25%

of companies recognise the needto reduce reliance on animal
sourced foods

Of the 150 companies in the Benchmark,38 (25%) acknowledge the need to reducereliance on animal sourced foods as abusiness issue, with many of these citing
environmental factors, notably carbon
reduction, and consumer interest inalternative proteins as the main drivers
Nineteen companies (13%) have publishedformal policy commitments on reducing
reliance on animal sourced foods and 21
companies (14%) have published time-boundtargets. Whilst this issue remains a relatively
immature business issue, we expect tosee marked improvements in performanceas companies begin to formalise theircommitments to transitioning to a moresustainable food system.

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 1

2023 Benchmark Highlights

Company Tier Rankings
The companies are grouped into one of six tiers, based on their overall percentage
scores, as indicated in Table 1.1. A composite picture of 2023 company scores byTier ranking and by Impact Rating (IR) appears in Figure 1.1.

Table 1.1

BBFAW Tiers

16

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 farmanimal welfare but has more work to do to ensure itis effectively implemented

44-61%

4

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

27-43%

5

The company has identified farm animal welfare asa business issue but provides limited evidence that
it is managing the issue effectively

11-26%

6

The company provides limited if any evidence thatit recognises farm animal welfare as a business issue<11%

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Figure 1.1

BBFAW 2023 Company Tier Rankings and Impact Rating IR
Tier 1

Tier 2Tier 3Tier 4Tier 5Tier 6

Leadership

Integral tobusiness strategy

Established but
work to be done

Making progress on
implementation

On the business agenda
but limited evidence of
implementation

No evidence on thebusiness agenda

0

17

3

6

Marks & Spencer PLC

C

Co-op UK

D

Premier Foods PLC

C

Cranswick PLC

C

Waitrose

C

Greggs PLC

DGroupe Danone SAC

Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund

C

Noble Foods

D

18

65

ALDI Süd/ALDI Einkauf
SE & Co. Ohg

F(The) Kroger Company

Barilla SpA

58
F

Aeon GroupF

Albertsons

F

Alimentation Couche-Tard

F

Amazon/Whole Foods Market

F

Autogrill SpA

F

Beijing Dabeinong Technology
Group Co., Ltd.

F

BJ’s Wholesale Club Holdings

F

Bloomin’ Brands Inc

F

C&S Wholesale

F

Campbell Soup Company

FFE

2 Sisters Food Group(Boparan Holdings Ltd)FBRF SAE

Agro SuperF

Carrefour SA

F

Ahold Delhaize

F

Compass Group PLC

F

Danish Crown AmbA

E

ALDI Einkauf SE & Co.
Ohg (ALDI Nord)F

FonterraE

Aramark Corporation

F

Groupe Lactalis

E

Arla Foods Ltd

F

Hilton Food GroupF

Bellis Topco Ltd./AsdaF

J Sainsbury PLC

D

Bimbo

F

LDC Groupe

F

CargillF

Les Mousquetaires

E

Casino Guichard-Perrachon SA

F

Camst – La Ristorazione Italiana
Soc. Coop. ARL

Marfrig Global Foods SA

E

Charoen Pokphand Foods

F

CencosudF

Minerva Foods

E

Chipotle Mexican GrillF

Chick-Fil-A

F

Royal FrieslandCampina

E

Coles GroupF

China Resources Vanguard

F

Tesco PLC

D

ColruytF

China Yurun Group Limited

F

Unilever NV

E

ConAgraFCKE Restaurants

F

Woolworths Limited

E

Conad Consorzio Nazionale

F

Cooke Seafood Inc

F

Coop Group (Switzerland)/Coop Genossenschaft

F

Cooperativa Central Aurora
Alimentos

F

Costco Wholesale Corporation

F

Coop Italia

F

Cracker BarrelF

Coopérative U EnseigneE

Dairy Farmers Of America

F

Cooperl Arc AtlantiqueF

Darden Restaurants PLC

F

Cremonini SpAF

E.Leclerc

F

Dico’s/Ting Hsin
International GroupF

EDEKA GroupF

Domino’s Pizza Inc

F

Elior GroupF

Empire Company/Sobey’s

F

Elo GroupF

Gategroup Holding AG

F

Ferrero GroupFH E Butt Company

F

General Mills Inc

F

Habib’sF

Gruppo Veronesi

F

Industrias Bachoco

F

Hershey Co

E

Inspire Brands Inc

F

Hormel Foods CorporationF

JAB Holding Company

F

ICA Gruppen AB

F

IKEA (Inter IKEA Group)F

JBS SAFJD Wetherspoon PLC

F

Jeronimo Martins

F

Kerry GroupF

Kraft Heinz Company

F

Maple Leaf Foods

F

McDonald’s CorporationF

METRO AGF

Metro IncF

Mitchells & Butlers PLC

F

Mowi ASAF

Nestlé SA

F

OSI GroupF

Papa John’s Pizza

F

Perdue Farms
Plukon Food Group

Lianhua Supermarket Holdings Co F
Loblaw Companies Limited

F

Mars IncF

Maruha NichiroF

Meiji Holdings

F

Mercadona SA

F

Mondelēz InternationalF

New Hope Liuhe Co Ltd

F

Nippon Ham

F

Publix Super Markets IncF

Seaboard Corp

F

Seven & i Holdings

F

Spar Holding AG

F

Starbucks Corporation

F

Target Corporation

F

UNFI

F

F

Unternehmensgruppe
Theo MüllerFF

US Foods

F

Restaurant Brands International

F

Walmart Inc

F

REWE GroupF

Wayne-Sanderson Farms

F

Saputo IncF

Wendy’s Company (The)F

Schwarz Gruppe

F

Wens Foodstuff GroupF

SodexoF

WH Group Ltd

F

SSP GroupF

Yili GroupF

Subway/Doctor’s Associates Inc

F

Yonghui Superstores Co Ltd

F

Sysco CorporationF

Yum China Holdings

F

Terrena GroupF

Zhongpin IncF

The Cheesecake FactoryE

Tönnies GroupF

Tyson Foods Inc

F

Vion Food GroupF

Whitbread PLC

F

Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC

F

Yum! Brands IncFChapter 1

2023 Benchmark Highlights

Company Impact Ratings
The BBFAW Impact Rating was introduced in 2020 to provide a more accurate
picture of the welfare benefit to animals in a company’s supply chain.
The scores are based on company scoring across 20 Performance Impact questions.
Companies are awarded an Impact Rating of A-F as shown in Table 1.2

Table 1.2

2023 Impact
Ratings*

Impact Rating

A
>80%

B

No. of Companies

0
These companies are declaring improved welfare
impacts for a reasonable proportion of farm animals
in their operations and/or supply chains.

062-80%

C
44-61%

D

6
These companies are declaring improved welfare
impacts for at least some farm animals in theiroperations and/or supply chains.

527-43%

13E
11-26%

F

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

<11%

Note to table:*Impact ratings are based on companies’ scores for the
20 performance impact questions, namely Q29 to Q48.

18

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

126

Chapter 1

2023 Benchmark Highlights

All companies in Tier 2 achieve an Impact
Rating of C whilst companies in Tier 3
achieve an Impact Rating of either C or D,
which suggests a positive correlation between
overall performance in the Benchmark andperformance impact. Elsewhere, there are
significant variations in the Impact Ratingsof companies across Tiers 4, 5 and 6.
For example, of the 18 companies in Tier 4,
a majority (89%) of companies receive an
Impact rating of E or F, which indicates thatthese companies have yet to demonstratethat they are delivering improved welfare
for farm animals in their operations and/or
supply chains.

Figure 2.1

Number of Companies in each Tier
Tier 10Tier 2

3

Tier 3

6

Tier 418

Tier 565

Tier 658

19

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 1

2023 Benchmark Highlights

The overall average score achieved
is 17% and the highest score achieved is
68%. This compares to an overall averagescore of 24% in 2012, when BBFAW
was first launched, and 34% in 2021,
before the revisions to the criteria
developed in 2022 were introduced.

The reduction in overall average score
and the changes to companies’ Tier rankingsin BBFAW 2023 are in line with modelling
conducted during development of the revised
criteria in 2022. However, three companies
achieved Tier 2 status despite the resettingof the benchmark, demonstrating that strong
performance on the new Benchmark criteria
is possible. We expect to continue to see
year-on-year improvements in the overall
average score and company Tier rankingsfrom this new baseline, in line with the
improvements seen over the first 10 yearsof the Benchmark 2012-2021.

68%
The highest score achieved with theoverall average score of just 17%

20

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 1

2023 Benchmark Highlights

Sub-sector Comparison
Producers & Manufacturers outperform
Retailers & Wholesalers and Restaurants& Bars (including foodservice companies)
with an overall average score of 19%.
Retailers & Wholesales achieved an overall
average score of 17%, while the Restaurants& Bars subsector achieved 14%.
Of the nine companies ranked inTiers 2 and 3, four of these are Producers
and Manufacturers and four are Retailers
and Wholesalers. With only one Restaurant
and Bars company achieving a Tier 3 ranking,this sub-sector is underrepresented in the top
Tiers of the Benchmark. The nine companies
in Tiers 2 and 3 – Marks & Spencer PLC,
Premier Foods PLC, Waitrose, Co-op UK,
Cranswick PLC, Greggs PLC, Groupe
Danone SA, Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund,
Noble Foods – are all domiciled in the
UK and Europe (excluding the UK).

Looking at the average scores perpillar, the highest-scoring pillars are
Farm Animal Welfare Policy Commitments
and Farm Animal Welfare Governance& Management. This demonstrates thatcompanies are formalising their managementof farm animal welfare by publishing policy
commitments and establishing governanceand management processes within
their operations and their supply chains.
The BBFAW is widely regarded as having
had a role in driving company performancein these areas since 2012, with companies
responding to increased scrutiny frominvestors and other stakeholders. Animal
welfare is now a widely recognised businessrisk. Notwithstanding this progress,
poor performance is seen on Farm Animal
Welfare Performance Impact and moreneeds to be done in relation to reporting
and achieving impact for animals.

Table 1.3

Sub-sector Comparison and Overall Average Scores 2023
PillarRetailers andWholesalers

Producers andManufacturers

Restaurants
and Bars

Average score

Farm Animal Welfare Policy
Commitments

37%

41%

35%

38%

Farm Animal Welfare Governance& Management

38%

45%

29%

39%

Farm Animal Welfare Targets

21%

22%

27%

23%

Farm Animal Welfare
Performance Impact

7%

9%

4%

7%

Reducing Reliance on Animal
Sourced Foods

12%

7%

9%

9%

Overall Average Score

17%

19%

14%

17%

Chapter 1

2023 Benchmark Highlights

Global Perspective
Across the five regions covered by the
BBFAW (Asia Pacific, Europe excluding
the UK, Latin America, North America andUK), companies in the UK achieved thehighest overall average score of 39%
and the highest average score acrossall pillars of the Benchmark. For example,
the UK Food Retailers and Wholesalers
sub-sector achieved the highest averagescore in the Farm Animal Welfare
Governance and Management pillar(80%) and in the Farm Animal Welfare
Performance Impact section (31%).
While the UK Producers and Manufacturers
sub-sector achieved the highest averagescore in the Farm Animal Welfare Policy
Commitments pillar (65%), the UK
Restaurants and Bars sub-sector achieved
the highest average score in the Farm
Animal Welfare Targets pillar (59%) andthe Animal-sourced Foods pillar (29%).

39%

The overall average score achievedby companies in the UK

Europe (excluding the UK) emerged
as the second highest-scoring region,
attaining an overall average score of
20%. Within the European landscape,notable variations were observed acrossthe three sub-sectors. The Producers andManufacturers sub-sector had the highest
overall average score of 24%, compared
to 20% for Retailers and Wholesalers
and just 11% for Restaurants and Bars.
Latin American companies, with an
overall average score of 18% outperformed
companies in North America and Asia
Pacific with overall average scores of
11% and 8%, respectively. Companies
in Asia Pacific lag behind other regions intheir levels of disclosure on their approachto managing farm animal welfare.

22

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 1

2023 Benchmark Highlights

Across the five regions covered by the
BBFAW (Asia Pacific, Europe excluding theUK, Latin America, North America and UK),
companies in the UK achieved the highest
overall average score of 39% and thehighest average score across all pillarsof the Benchmark.

Figure 1.3

Geographic Comparison 2023
Farm Animal
Welfare Policy
Commitments

UK
Europe (excl UK)
Latin America
North America (USA and Canada)
Asia Pacific

63%
43%
43%
32%
17%

Farm Animal
Welfare Governance& Management

UK
Europe (excl UK)
Latin America
North America (USA and Canada)
Asia Pacific

69%
46%
40%
29%
22%

Farm Animal
Welfare Targets

UK
Europe (excl UK)
Latin America
North America (USA and Canada)
Asia Pacific

52%
25%
19%
16%
8%

Farm Animal Welfare
Performance Impact

UK
Europe (excl UK)
Latin America
North America (USA and Canada)
Asia Pacific

25%
7%
7%
2%
4%

Reducing Relianceon Animal Sourced
Foods

UK
Europe (excl UK)
Latin America
North America (USA and Canada)
Asia Pacific

25%
16%
7%
1%
1%

Overall Average
Score

UK
Europe (excl UK)
Latin America
North America (USA and Canada)
Asia Pacific

39%
20%
18%
11%
8%

23

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

2023 Benchmark
Results in Detail2Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Farm Animal Welfare Policy Commitments
The 2023 Benchmark data shows that 143of the 150 companies (95%) acknowledge
farm animal welfare as a business issue,and 131 companies (87%) have formal policies
of farm animal welfare in place. However,despite the high number of companies
publishing formal management commitments
to farm animal welfare it is disconcertingthat 19 companies are yet to publish
overarching policies on this critical issue.
In addition to measuring the proportion ofcompanies publishing formal policies on farmanimal welfare, we also want to understandthe scope of these policies and whether
they broadly cover the companies’ full

Historical Comparison
The BBFAW has evolved during its
decade of existence and significant
changes were made to the criteria in
2022. While it is not possible to directlycompare all criteria against previous
Benchmarks, certain questions haveremained unchanged, which allows
for some comparison to be madewith historical data. For example, in
2023, 95% of companies (143 of 150)
acknowledge farm animal welfare asa business issue, compared to 89%
in 2021 (134 of 150) and 79% in 2012
(54 of 68 companies). Further, an
increasing number of food businesses
have formal policies for farm animal
welfare in place, 87% of companies
in 2023 (131 of 150), compared to
81% in 2021 (122 of 150) and 46%
in 2012 (31 out of 68 companies).
25

geographic, species and product footprints.
Of the 131 companies that have animal
welfare policies, 73% are limited to specified
geographies, species and/or products.
Only 27% of companies publish universal
animal welfare policies covering all relevant
geographies, species and products.
The welfare issues most addressed bycompanies include ending the use of
close confinement and ensuring the useof humane methods of pre-slaughter
stunning, with 82% and 55% of companies
respectively having partial or universal
policy commitments in place.

Foie Gras
The production of duck andgoose foie gras is associatedwith the use of severe close
confinement in cages and theuse of force feeding (gavage)
causing pain and distress in
the last weeks of production.
Of the 83 companies that haveducks or geese in their supply
chain, only five companies (6%)
have universal commitments
not to produce or sell foie grasor meat from birds reared forfoie gras. This is a new question
within BBFAW and companies
are expected to address
this issue even if they do notcurrently sell foie gras or
associated products. Companies
should be aware that duck andgoose meat may come frombirds reared for foie gras.

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Thirty companies (20%) have madecommitments to ending inhumane animal
production practices. Of these, 18 companies
have committed to ending the culling of
day-old male chicks in egg supply chains,and 16 companies have committed to ending
the live plucking or live harvesting of geese.

Only two companies have made acommitment to avoid cow-calf separation(in dairy and beef supply chains), and only
six companies have committed to avoiding
fully slatted flooring (for pigs, dairy andbeef cattle, ducks and rabbits).

Figure 2.1

Companies with partial or universal policies addressing specificfarm animal welfare issues
Close confinement

82%

Species-specificenrichment

49%

Routine mutilations

48%

Prophylactic androutine metaphylactic
antibiotic use

40%

Long-distance live
transport

33%

Pre-slaughter stunning

55%

Foie Gras

6%

Other inhumane
practices

20%
N.B. The question on foie gras only applies to the 83 companies
with ducks or geese in their supply chain.

27

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Case study examples
Q10: Does the company have a clear
commitment not to produce or sellfoie gras or meat from birds reared
for foie gras?

We do not sell foie gras, meat from birds
reared for foie gras or products from any
animals that have been force fed.

Q11: Does the company have a clear
commitment to ending the use of otherinhumane practices? Practices coveredby this question include the culling of
day-old male chicks in egg supply chains;
cow-calf separation in dairy and beef
supply chains; fully slatted flooringfor pigs, dairy and beef cattle, ducks
and rabbits; and live plucking or live
harvesting for geese.

Marks & Spencer

We do not produce or sell any foiegras and do not support any inhumane
practices of force feeding any animals.
We also do not sell any meat or otherproducts from ducks or geese raisedfor foie gras.
Waitrose

Commitment: Ending the use of otherinhumane practices. Progress Achievedby 2022: Since 2022, culling of dayold male chicks has been prohibitedin Danone’s French shell egg supply
chain. Danone is banning live plucking
or harvesting for geese and otherinhumane practices.
Groupe Danone

Feather and down obtained from thelive plucking of birds must not be used.
100% of cattle in Tesco Sustainable
Dairy and Cheese groups are neverhoused in fully slatted systems.
Tesco PLC

28

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

The 2023 Benchmark results indicatethat a significant proportion of companies
publishing management commitments toaddress specific welfare issues scored only
partial points due to their policies being
limited to specified species, geographies
and/or products.

Figure 2.2

Q4 Commitment to ending close confinement

18% Not addressed.
to certain species,
79% Limited
products or geographies.
across all relevant species,
3% Universal
products and geographies.
Figure 2.3

Q5 Commitment to provision of environmental enrichment

51% Not addressed.
to certain species,
46% Limited
products or geographies.
across all relevant species,
3% Universal
products and geographies.
Figure 2.4

Q6 Commitment to ending the use of routine mutilations

52% Not addressed.
to certain species,
46% Limited
products or geographies.
across all relevant species,
2% Universal
products and geographies.
29

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Figure 2.5

Q7 Commitment to ending the prophylactic and routine
metaphylactic use of antibiotics

60% Not addressed.
to certain species,
35% Limited
products or geographies.
across all relevant species,
5% Universal
products and geographies.
Figure 2.6

Q8 Commitment to ending long-distance live transport

67% Not addressed.
to certain species,
31% Limited
products or geographies.
across all relevant species,
2% Universal
products and geographies.
Figure 2.7

Q9 Commitment to the use of humane methods ofpre-slaughter stunning

45% Not addressed.
to certain species,
52% Limited
products or geographies.
across all relevant species,
3% Universal
products and geographies.

30

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Figure 2.8

Q10 Commitment to not produce or sell foie gras or meatfrom birds reared for foie gras

94% Not addressed.
across all relevant species,
6% Universal
products and geographies.
Figure 2.9

Q11 Commitment to ending the use of other inhumane practices

80% Not addressed.
to certain species,
20% Limited
products or geographies.

31

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Farm Animal Welfare Governance and Management
Governance and management processes
are essential for ensuring robust and efficient
implementation of companies’ farm animal
welfare policies. The 2023 Benchmark reveals
that the processes in place for managing
farm animal welfare across companies
are relatively well established. In total,
81 companies (54%) report on day-to-day
management responsibility for farm animal
welfare and 84 companies (56%) report onsenior management oversight of farm animal
welfare. Furthermore, 77 companies (51%)
describe their provision of employee training
on animal welfare and 80 companies(53%) describe the actions taken in theevent of non-compliance with their farmanimal welfare policies.
Encouragingly, companies appear to
be investing in supply chain managementof farm animal welfare, with 109 companies(73%), describing how they monitor andaudit the implementation of their farmanimal welfare policies, 90 companies(60%) reporting that they include farmanimal welfare in supplier contracts,
and 80 companies (53%) describing
how they provide education andsupport to suppliers.

Analysis of the data by sub-sector reveals
that 67% of Restaurants and Bars include
farm animal welfare in supplier contracts
yet only 27% of companies in this sub-sector
report on the provision of education andsupport on farm animal welfare to suppliers.
Meanwhile, 59% of Food Producers
and Manufacturers report including farmanimal welfare in supplier contracts and
70% provide education and support
on farm animal welfare to suppliers.
Reporting from companies in the Retailers
and Wholesalers sub-sector shows
57% include animal welfare in suppliercontracts and 50% provide educationand support to suppliers.

Other Key Findings:• 42 companies (28%) report on welfare
outcome measures for some or all
relevant species.
• 43 companies (29%) describe how
they use welfare outcome measures
to inform continuous improvementin their operations or supply chain.
• 74 companies (49%) assure a proportionof products to either basic or higher
animal welfare schemes.
• 11 companies (7%) assure all products
to either basic or higher animal
welfare schemes.
• 78 companies (52%) communicate tocustomers on higher farm animal welfare
through education and/or awarenessraising activities.

32

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Case study examples
Q18a: Does the company describe how
it uses welfare outcome measures toinform continuous improvement in its
operations or supply chain?

Since 2020, it is a compulsory
requirement for all Arla farmers to assess
and report animal welfare on a quarterly
basis, within the framework of 4 animalbased indicators: cow mobility, cleanliness,absence of injuries and body condition.
The Arlagården® requirements andcompliance criteria demand that where
the minimum performance levels are notmet, prompt actions are taken by thefarm to address any causative factors.
Arla Foods

Welfare outcome measures are
critically important to validate thatanimal management practices andhousing systems are effectively controlling
animal welfare risks. Welfare outcome
measures additionally serve as animportant mechanism to aid in decision
making regarding animal husbandry
and welfare standards.

We use a combination of input measuresand output measures to assess animal
welfare on farm, during transport andat slaughter…Welfare outcome measures
are obtained by directly observing animals.
They include both physical andbehavioural observations that provide
a picture of animals’ welfare experience.
Some outcome measures, such as body
condition, mobility or effectivenessof stunning, are common to all species.
Others may be species-specific, forexample incidence of particular diseases
or vocalisation at the slaughterhouse.
These measures help us, our retail partners
and our suppliers to understand how
well we are doing, where we can makefurther improvements and to benchmark
best practice and identify trends.
Our suppliers report them periodicallyto us and we review them together
during all supplier visits.
Hilton Food Group

Maple Leaf Foods

33

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Farm Animal Welfare Targets
Over the past decade, there has been asignificant rise in the number of companies
setting time-bound targets on specificanimal welfare issues. In total, 110 ofcompanies (73%) have published formal
time-bound targets4 for specific animal
welfare improvements. These have tended
to focus on poultry welfare, namely
cage-free systems for laying hens globally,
and, in certain regions, higher welfare
production of chicken in accordance withthe requirements of the NGO-developed
Better Chicken Commitment or European
Chicken Commitment.

31%

The adoption of time-bound targets
for cage-free eggs has been notable,with this now being seen as a baseline
welfare requirement by 103 (73%) of
the 141 companies evaluated that haveeggs in their supply chains. The issue of
caged systems for laying hens is one thathas long attracted consumer and animal
welfare NGO attention, but the settingof corporate targets accelerated following
a decision in 2015 by McDonald’s to commit
to serve 100% cage-free eggs in all its
U.S. restaurants by 2025 – a target that
was achieved two years earlier.

Of the 134 companies that have broiler
chickens in their supply chain, 42 companies(31%) have set a partial or universal timebound target to achieve the requirements
for the Better Chicken Commitment orEuropean Chicken Commitment. Whilst a
lower proportion than for cage-free eggs,
this is a very specific set of requirements,
including aspects relating to stocking
density, breed, enrichment provision,
humane slaughter and third-party auditing,and demonstrates significant adoption ofthis initiative heavily promoted by animal
welfare NGOs.

of companies have set a partial
or universal time-bound target toachieve the requirements for the
Better Chicken Commitment orEuropean Chicken Commitment

Very few companies have publishedtargets for other species. Among the 137
companies that have pigs in their supply
chain, only 13 companies (9%) havepublished a target to end the use ofsow stalls or gestation crates for sows,and only 14 companies (10%) havepublished targets to end the use of
farrowing crates.

34

4

The data for time-bound targets also includes companies that have achieved the specific targets in question.

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in DetailAmong the 144 companies that havedairy cows in their supply chain, only 26
companies(18%) havepublishedcommitments
a target
Gestationcrate-free
and targets
to end theof tetheringof dairy particularly
cows.
A use
numberof companies,
in the USA,
have set targets for moving to gestation crate-freeTime-boundtargets are
criticalforsupply chains. However,productionin theirporktranslating
management
intothedefinition ofcommitment‘gestation crate-free’
for these
action, andfor ultimatelyis delivering
welfarecommitments
variable, withmany being aligned
benefits foranimals
in company
withEU legislationand supply
therefore permitting 28 days’
chains. The
lack of time-boundtargets
toconfinement
post service.
In contrast,
the BBFAW
address thecriticalin pig and that do notcriteria
arewelfare
lookingissues
for commitments
dairy cowallow
supplysuggeststhat theseanychainstime installs, except
for a maximum
species areseen
by forcompanies
as a lower
of 4
hours
management
purposes. Companies
priority compared
to layinghens andbroilerwith gestationcrate-freecommitments
and targets
chickens.therefore
It is unsurprisingthat the more
do not necessarily
score points within
numerousthe
layinghensunlessand broiler
chickensthe time permitted
BBFAW
they specify
are also theanimalsNGOin stalls
is inattracting
line with greater
the criteria.
attention. Nevertheless, of the companies
that have set time-bound targets for ending
the use of sow stalls/gestation crates for
sows, 92% are domiciled in the UK or
Europe. This finding is not surprising giventhat EU legislation places restrictions
on the use of sow stalls/gestation crates
and UK legislation prohibits their use.
Similarly, 85% of the companies with
time-bound targets for ending the use oftethering for dairy cows are domiciled ineither the UK or Europe. However, notably,
Europe is a region where tethering is
widely practised.

Among the 144 companies that havedairy cows in their supply chain, only 26
companies (18%) have published a target
to end the use of tethering of dairy cows.
Time-bound targets are critical fortranslating management commitment into
action, and for ultimately delivering welfare
benefits for animals in company supply
chains. The lack of time-bound targets toaddress the critical welfare issues in pig anddairy cow supply chains suggests that these
species are seen by companies as a lower
priority compared to laying hens and broiler
chickens. It is unsurprising that the more
numerous laying hens and broiler chickens
are also the animals attracting greater NGO
attention. Nevertheless, of the companies
that have set time-bound targets for ending
the use of sow stalls/gestation crates for
sows, 92% are domiciled in the UK or
Europe. This finding is not surprising giventhat EU legislation places restrictions
on the use of sow stalls/gestation crates
and UK legislation prohibits their use.
Similarly, 85% of the companies with
time-bound targets for ending the use oftethering for dairy cows are domiciled ineither the UK or Europe. However, notably,
Europe is a region where tethering is
widely practised.

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
In total, 109 companies (73%) provide some
performance reporting data from their supply
chain. However, the overall average scoreacross the performance impact questions
is just 7%. This indicates that more needs
to be done by companies to implement theirpolicy commitments.

with dairy cows in their supply chain reportthat a proportion of cows is provided withpasture access. In contrast to laying hens andbroiler chickens, pigs and dairy cattle havereceived more limited attention from NGO
campaigns, which may explain the difference
in reporting between these species.

The species-specific performance impact
measures most reported on by companies are
the proportion of laying hens that is cage-free(reported on by 67% of companies for whom
this species is relevant) and the proportionof broiler chickens reared at lower stocking
densities (reported on by 28% of companies
for whom this species is relevant) and the
proportion of broiler chickens subject tocontrolled atmosphere stunning or electricalstunning without live inversion (reported on
by 28% of companies). These performance
impact measures are the focus of significant
NGO campaign initiatives, which have helped
focus company attention on these issues.

Few companies are reporting theirperformance in relation to the welfare
of beef cattle and farmed fish, although
it is important to acknowledge that these
species are a new focus in the BBFAW.
In this baseline year, only 9% of companies
with beef cattle in their supply chain report
the proportion of cattle group housed
as calves throughout rearing and only 7%
report the proportion free from disbudding/dehorning. Only 5% of companies withsalmon in their supply chain report the
proportion of salmon free from fastinglasting longer than 72 hours.

A notable proportion of companies reporttheir performance impact on pre-slaughter
stunning (33%) and on maximum transport
times (27%) across all species. The higher
proportion of companies reporting thesefigures reflects increased awareness of theseissues being critical for animal welfare aswell as improved data monitoring andreporting by companies.
Despite the longstanding focus on pigs anddairy cattle within the BBFAW performance
impact questions, performance reporting
remains low for these species. Only 9% ofcompanies with pigs in their supply chain
report that a proportion of sows is free fromgestation/sow stalls and 15% of companies
36

Performance Impact Questions
Performance Impact questions
on beef cattle and farmed salmon
have been added to the criteria,broadening the coverage of the
Performance Impact questions
beyond laying hens, broiler
chickens, pigs and dairy cattle.
These questions now provide amore comprehensive assessmentof the impact of companies on
key welfare issues for the mostrepresented species in their
supply chains.

Table 2.1

BBFAW 2023 Impact Ratings
Impact Rating

A
>80%

B
62-80%

C
44-61%

D

Company

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

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

Cranswick PLC | Groupe Danone SA | Marks & Spencer PLC
Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund | Premier Foods PLC | Waitrose

Co-op UK | Greggs PLC | J Sainsbury PLC | Noble Foods | Tesco PLC

27-43%

E
11-26%

F<11%

37

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

Barilla SpA | BRF SA | Danish Crown AmbA | Fonterra | Groupe Lactalis
Hershey Co | Les Mousquetaires | Marfrig Global Foods SA | Minerva
Foods | Royal FrieslandCampina | The Cheesecake Factory | Unilever NV
Woolworths Limited(The) Kroger Company | 2 Sisters Food Group (Boparan Holdings Ltd) | Aeon Group
Agro Super | Ahold Delhaize | Albertsons | ALDI Nord (ALDI Markt) | ALDI Süd/ALDI
Einkauf SE & Co. Ohg | Alimentation Couche-Tard | Amazon/Whole Foods Market
Aramark Corporation | Arla Foods Ltd | Autogrill SpA | Beijing Dabeinong
Technology Group Co. Ltd. | Bellis Topco Ltd./Asda | Bimbo | BJ’s Wholesale
Club Holdings | Bloomin’ Brands Inc | C&S Wholesale | Campbell Soup Company
Camst – La Ristorazione Italiana Soc. Coop. ARL | Cargill | Carrefour SA Casino
Guichard-Perrachon SA | Cencosud | Charoen Pokphand Group Company Ltd.
Chick-fil-A | China Resources Vanguard | China Yurun Group Limited | Chipotle
Mexican Grill | CKE Restaurants | Coles Group | Colruyt | Compass Group PLC
Conad Consorzio Nazionale | ConAgra | Cooke Seafood Inc | Coop Group(Switzerland)/Coop Genossenschaft | Coop Italia | Cooperativa Central 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 | Domino’s Pizza Inc
E.Leclerc | EDEKA Group | Elior Group | Elo Group | Empire Company/Sobey’s
Ferrero Group | Gategroup Holding AG | General Mills Inc | Gruppo Veronesi
H E Butt Company | Habib’s | Hilton Food Group | Hormel Foods Corporation
ICA Gruppen AB | IKEA (Inter IKEA Group) | Industrias Bachoco Inspire Brands Inc
JAB Holding Company | JBS SA | JD Wetherspoon PLC | Jeronimo Martins
Kerry Group | Kraft Heinz Company | LDC Groupe | Lianhua Supermarket Holdings
Co | Loblaw Companies Limited | Maple Leaf Foods | Mars Inc | Maruha Nichiro
McDonald’s Corporation | Meiji Holdings | Mercadona SA | METRO AG | Metro
Inc Mitchells & Butlers PLC | Mondelēz International | Mowi ASA | Nestlé SA
New Hope Liuhe Co Ltd | Nippon Ham | OSI Group | Papa John’s Pizza
Perdue Farms | Plukon Food Group | Publix Super Markets Inc | Restaurant
Brands International | REWE Group | Saputo Inc | Schwarz Gruppe | Seaboard
Corp | Seven & i Holdings | Sodexo | Spar Holding AG | SSP Group | Starbucks
Corporation | Subway/Doctor’s Associates Inc | Sysco Corporation | Target
Corporation | Terrena Group | Tönnies Group | Tyson Foods Inc | UNFI
Unternehmensgruppe Theo Müller | US Foods | Vion Food Group | Walmart Inc
Wayne-Sanderson Farms | Wendy’s Company (The) | Wens Foodstuff Group
WH Group Ltd | Whitbread PLC | Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC | Yili Group
Yonghui Superstores Co Ltd | Yum China Holdings | Yum! Brands Inc | Zhongpin Inc

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Figure 2.10

Proportion of companies reporting on species-specificperformance measures
Laying Hens

Cage-freeFree from beak trimming/tipping
Day-old male chicks are not killed

Broiler
Chickens

Reared at lower stocking densities
Slow growing breeds
Humane stunning

Pigs

Sows free from gestation/sow stalls
Sows free from farrowing crates
Free from tail docking

Dairy Cows
Beef Cattle
Farmed Salmon
All Species

12%
9%
28%
20%
28%
9%
14%
16%

Not tethered

38

67%

Provided with pasture accessFree from disbudding/dehorning
Free from confinement in CAFOs
or feedlots
Group housed as calves,
throughout rearing
Free from disbudding/dehorning
Reared at lower stocking densities
Free from fasting lasting longer
than 72 hours
Effectively stunned and killed
Pre-slaughter stunning
Transported within specified
maximum journey times

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

22%
15%
6%
13%
9%
7%
11%
5%
18%
33%
27%

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Performance measures with greatest progress:
The highest score achieved in the Performance
Impact pillar was 61%. Companies are reporting
the greatest impact on the following
performance measures:

39

20%

Out of the 141 companies with laying hensin their global supply chain, 28 companies(20%), report that more than 60% of thelaying hens are cage-free.

10%

Out of the 144 companies with dairy cattle
in their global supply chain, 14 companies(10%) report that more than 60% of thedairy cows are free from tethering.

12%

Out of the 99 companies with salmon
in their global supply chain, 12 companies(12%) report that more than 60% of salmon
are pre-slaughter stunned.

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Case study examples
Q34 What proportion of broiler
chickens (for fresh/frozen chicken
products and ingredients) in thecompany’s global supply chain is subject
to controlled atmospheric stunning
using inert gas or multi-phase systems,
or effective electrical stunningwithout live inversion?

Q39 What proportion of dairy cattle(for fresh/frozen milk and milk products
and ingredients) in the company’s
global supply chain is provided withpasture access?

...100% of the chickens used for the
manufacture of all products containing
at least 50% chicken meat sold under ourown brands, including our 1st price own
brands, in all departments combined,
are stunned before slaughter. Of these,
37.55% are subjected to controlled
atmospheric stunning using inert gases ormulti-phase systems, or effective electricalstunning without inversion of live animals.

Percentage of direct volume coming fromfarms where lactating cows have access topasture at least 120 days per year (at least
6 hours per day)...62%” and “These direct
volumes represent 44% of the total annual
volume of raw milk collected by Lactalis
Groupe Lactalis

Les Mousquetaires

Q36 What proportion of sows (for fresh/frozen pork products and ingredients) inthe company’s global supply chain is freefrom farrowing crates?

Q42 What proportion of beef cattle(for fresh/frozen beef products andingredients) in the company’s global
supply chain is group housed as calves,
throughout rearing?

We do not allow our pork suppliers touse... farrowing crates. All of our porkcomes from sows raised outdoors or in
bedded barns. In 2022, 100% of our pork
met animal welfare standards, meaning it
was free from crates during... farrowing.

Due to our long standing policies andalso our relationships with our dedicateddairy farmers rearing to our higher welfare
standards, at least 90% of the beef is grouphoused throughout rearing; the remainder(up to 10%) is from a small amount of cattle
that originate from outside our dedicatedrearing supply chain. This applies acrossfresh, frozen & ingredient.

Chipotle

Waitrose40Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Q46 What proportion of farmed
salmon (for fresh/frozen salmon products
and ingredients) in the company’s
global supply chain is stun-killed using
percussion or electrocution or is preslaughter stunned using effective
percussion or electrocution followed
up by a kill method before recoveryof consciousness?

...we percussive stun 100% of our salmon
from all our farm sites and across all
countries to ensure they are effectively
and humanely stunned and killed.
Mowi ASA

Tesco Group suppliers of salmon,
trout, sea bass, sea bream and pangasius
have adopted industry best practicei.e. electrical stunning or automatedpercussive stunning prior to slaughter.
This is applied across 100% of supply
base and methods such as chill-killor gill cut without prior stunning are
explicitly prohibited.
Tesco PLC

41

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Volumes of animal sourced foods by type/methods of production
A new focus within the 2023 BBFAW is that companies are now
expected to quantify the total volume of animal sourced food within
their supply chains. The 2023 Benchmark shows that 20% ofcompanies reported on volumes of animal sourced foods by type/
methods of production.

Case study examples
Q49 Does the company report on
volumes of animal-sourced foods bytype (meat, dairy, fish, eggs) and/orby method of production?

Barilla SpA

Poultry Meat
Total tonnes purchased

Tonnes purchased from the local market

t

t

%

2022

2021

2020

2022

2021

2020

2022

2021

2020

China

11

8

16

11

8

16

100%

100%

100%

Total

11

8

16

11

8

16

100%

100%

100%

Eggs and Egg Products
Total tonnes purchased

Tonnes purchased from the local marketttPercentage of barn eggs

%

%

2022

2021

2020

2022

2021

2020

2022

2021

2020

2022

2021

2020

Italy

15,951

18,392

18,895

13,706

18,392

18,895

86%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

France

3,776

3,571

3,768

3,776

3,498

2,638

100%

98%

70%

100%

100%

100%

United States

42

10

17

42

10

17

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Canada

26

–

–

26

–

–

100%

–

–

0%

–

–

Brazil

446

446

450

446

446

450

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Greece

3

6

3

–

–

–

0%

0%

0%

100%

100%

100%

Turkey

15

20

29

–

–

–

0%

0%

0%

100%

100%

100%

Total

20,258 22,455 22,957

17,99622,346 22,000 89%

99%

95%

99.9%

100%

100%

42

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Beef
Total tonnes purchased

Tonnes purchased from the local market

t

t

%

2022

2021

2020

2022

2021

2020

2022

2021

2020

Italy

766
(95.8%)

716(91.6%)

907(91.8%))

766(95.8%)

716(91.6%)

907(91.8%))

100%

100%

100%

China

34
(4.3%))

66(8.4%)

81(8.2%)

34(4.3%))

66(8.4%)

81(8.2%)

100%

100%

100%

Total

800

782

988

800

782

988

100%

100%

100%

Pork
Total tonnes purchased

Tonnes purchased from the local market

t

t

%

2022

2021

2020

2022

2021

2020

2022

2021

2020

Italy

1,910
(97.9%)

1,943(99.5%)

2,044(99.4%)

1,910(97.9%)

1,943(99.5%)

2,044(99.4%)

100%

100%

100%

China

41
(2.1%)

9(0.5%)

13(0.6%)

41(2.1%)

9(0.5%)

13(0.6%)

100%

100%

100%

Total

1,951

1,952

2,057

1,951

1,952

2,057

100%

100%

100%

Other Products of Animal Origin
Total tonnes purchased

Tonnes purchased from the local market

t

t

%

2022

2021

2020

2022

2021

2020

2022

2021

2020

Wild-caught fish

32

21

64

–

–

–

0%

0%

0%

Butter

6,913

7,219

7,810

156

928

969

2%

9%

12%

Dairy Products

3,143

3,324

3,576

3,143

3,324

3,576

100%

100%

100%

Milk

7,334

7,728

8,184

3,625

4,009

3,051

49%

52%

37%

Total

17,693

18,292

19,634

7,194

7,961

7,596

41%

44%

38%

Barilla SpA’s 2022 Sustainability Report tabulates total weights in tonnes of eggs and egg
products, beef, pork, and chicken purchased from each of the countries in its supply chain,including amounts purchased from the local market and total amounts. Comparisons areshown between 2020, 2021 and 2022.

43

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Reducing Reliance on Animal Sourced Foods
Our dependence on intensive animal
agriculture is not only detrimental foranimal welfare, but is a major driver ofthe global climate, nature and healthcrises. The transition to higher welfare
production for all animals reared for foodnecessitates a concurrent reduction in
numbers of livestock produced in order
to avoid exceeding planetary boundaries.
It is for this reason the new Reducing
Reliance on Animal Sourced Foods pillar has
been introduced so that investors and otherstakeholders can better assess whether andhow companies are approaching this issue.
The overall average score across the
Reducing Reliance on Animal Sourced
Foods pillar is just 9% but the highest scoreachieved is 85%. The low average scorereflects the immaturity of this issue forbusinesses, however, the wide range ofscores achieved provides a positive signthat there are companies already taking
the lead on this issue. Indeed, there arenine companies that scored 50% ormore in this pillar.

Policy Commitments
Encouragingly, 38 of the 150 companies
in the Benchmark (25%) acknowledge
the need to reduce reliance on animal
sourced foods as a business issue. Of thesecompanies, 25 are domiciled in Europe(excluding the UK) (66%) and a further eightare domiciled in the UK (21%). Interestingly,
there is no discernible differences acrossthe three sub-sectors, with companies
representing Retailers and Wholesalers,
Producers and Manufacturers andRestaurants and Bars sub-sectors.

25%of companies recognise the needto reduce reliance on animal
sourced foods

Nineteen companies (13%) havepublished an overarching policy on theneed to reduce reliance on animal sourced
foods. Again, there is a strong regional bias,
with 10 (50%) of these companies being
domiciled in Europe (excluding the UK)
and seven (35%) being domiciled in the UK.
However, two companies – one domiciledin North America and one in Latin America– have also published formal overarchingpolicies on reducing reliance on animal
sourced foods.

44

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Case study examples
Q12: Does the company acknowledge
the need to reduce reliance on animalsourced foods as a business issue?

Les Mousquetaires group recognizes theneed to reduce dependence on foodsof animal origin as part of its carbon
neutrality policy... Les Mousquetaires
encourages their customers to consume
vegetarian products by offering 27
plant-based products in their own
brands in France.
Les Mousquetaires

Our plant-forward menu innovation
initiative... increases consumption offruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans,
lentils, nuts, and seeds. ... Plant-forward
menu options, highlighted by our Cool
Food Meals initiative, are also good forthe planet, help to reduce GHG emissions,promote animal welfare, minimize
demand for water and land resources,
and preserve natural habitats.
Aramark Corporation

Plant-based protein, which means“plant-derived protein”. It is attracting
attention as an environmentally friendly
protein compared to animal products,
such as reducing CO2 emissions
generated in the meat production process.
It is also attractive that it can respond to
the shortage of raw materials for protein
sources (beef, pigs, etc.) in the future dueto the increase in the world population.
Seven & I Holdings

Within our US business our Menus of
Change programme is focused aroundfour key initiatives based around healthy,
sustainable menus. These initiatives are:increasing access to vegetable and fruits
through focusing on plant based cooking;encouraging meat to become a supportingrole within the meal through reductionof meat portion sizes; increasing grain
consumption; and promoting healthand sustainability messages throughmenu planning and communication
at point of choice.
Compass Group PLC

45

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Governance and Management
Companies are in the early stages oftaking action to reduce reliance on animal
sourced foods and are starting to formalise
their internal governance and management
processes to address this issue. Elevencompanies (7%) report on management
responsibility for reducing reliance on
animal-sourced foods.

Case study example

Q21: Has the company assigned
day-to-day and board or senior
management responsibility for
reducing reliance on animalsourced foods?

We’ve established Compass’ Global
Culinary Council, a group of senior chef
leaders from across our business whomeet regularly to share experiences anddrive forward our strategic approach insome incredibly important areas, including
plant-forward meals and the reductionof food waste.
Compass Group PLC

46

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in DetailOf the 38 companies that recognise theneed to reduce animal sourced foods intheir supply chains, 25 companies (66%)
communicate tocustomers through education
and/or awareness-raising activities.

Case study examples
Q22: Does the company communicate
to customers on reducing reliance on
animal-sourced foods?
ColruytCompass47

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Case study examples
Q22: Does the company communicate
to customers on reducing reliance on
animal-sourced foods?
SodexoCarrefour

Unilever48

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Targets and Performance Reporting
Twenty-one companies (14%) have publishedtime-bound targets for reducing reliance on
animal sourced foods and twelve of these(8%) report on progress towards their targets.

Case study examples
Q28 & 50: Has the company set timebound targets for reducing relianceon animal-sourced foods and reporton progress?

At Albert Heijn, the protein ratio within
our 2022 sales consisted of 57.4% animal
proteins and 42.6% vegetable proteins…
in 2023, we want to grow to 47.6%
in plant-based proteins (an extra 5
percentage points compared to 2022).
Our ambition is that by 2025, 50% of
the total number of kilograms of proteins
sold in our stores will be of plant origin,rising to 60% by 2030.
Ahold Delhaize[By 2025,] 50% of main meals offeredin our restaurants will be plant-based...
80% of all packaged food offered will
be plant-based… As of October 1st, 2022,
all our markets now offer plant-based
food at the same or a lower price thanthe meat-based alternative. This includes
our veggie balls, plant balls, veggie hotdogs, and plant-based soft ice. A growing
number of our customers are opting forour plant-based food products, withsales of our plant balls and veggie balls
increasing by 62% compared with theprevious year, and sales of our veggie
hotdogs increasing more rapidly thanthe meat-based original.
IKEA (Inter IKEA Group)

49

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

BBFAW 2022 Benchmark Pilot
In response to feedback received during the consultation on the revisions to the
Benchmark, held in February 2023, it was decided to run the BBFAW 2022 assessments
as a pilot of the new benchmark criteria and not to publish a ranking of companies5.
In April and May 2023, the BBFAW conducted the pilot assessment of 150 companies
against the new benchmark criteria. This provided an opportunity for any issues with the
new assessment criteria to be identified and rectified in advance of the 2023 benchmark
assessments in October 2023. The pilot also provided an opportunity for companies toreceive feedback on their score under the new criteria, with time for them to prepare for
the BBFAW 2023 assessments. Whilst no analysis of the data was presented following
the assessments, the overall average score and average scores per pillar were published.
Despite the short timeframe between the conclusion of the BBFAW 2022 Benchmark
Pilot and the BBFAW 2023 assessments, the BBFAW 2023 data shows encouraging
early signs of improvement in company performance.

Pillar2022 Average Score

2023 Average Score

Farm Animal Welfare Policy Commitments

36%

38%

Farm Animal Welfare Governance & Management

37%

39%

Farm Animal Welfare Targets

23%

23%

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact

6%

7%

Reducing Reliance on Animal Sourced Foods

9%9%

Overall Average Score

16%

17%

Beyond the small increases in average pillar scores, it is clear some companies
have made significant efforts to adapt their disclosures to the new benchmark criteria.
Thirteen companies increased their score sufficiently to move up one Tier.

50

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 22023 Benchmark Results in Detail

Tier Movements

Number of Companies

+1

13

-1

6

Seven out of the 13 companies that increased one Tier were Producers and Manufacturers,
five companies were Retailers and Wholesalers and one company was Restaurant and Bars.
Of the six companies that fell one Tier, two of these fell due to the changes made to how
the questions on reducing reliance on animal sourced foods were assessed in BBFAW 2023.

5 Reference: https://bbfaw.com/media/2148/bbfaw-2022-report-on-consultation.pdf

51

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Accelerating
Impact3

Chapter 3

Accelerating Impact

The BBFAW has been substantially revised toaccelerate the pace at which the world’s largest foodcompanies are delivering welfare benefits for farmanimals in their operations and supply chains. It is
acknowledged that improving animal welfare throughchanges in management approaches and production
systems demands sustained management attention,robust governance and management, and collaboration
between companies and their suppliers as well aswith their customers and consumers. It also requiresconsiderable investment in time and resources.
Meanwhile, companies need to balance their animal
welfare commitments against other priorities suchas the transition to a low carbon economy and the
responsible use of materials in a resource constrained
world. It therefore follows that improvements tothe way in which animals are reared, transported
and slaughtered need to be considered alongsideissues such as climate change, biodiversity loss,
and human health.

53

This baseline assessment provides
solid proof that animal welfare remains
an important business issue for foodcompanies. It also provides assurance
that many companies have formalised their
management and reporting of animal welfare
policies and commitments. Whilst we are
only at the start of this journey, early signs
show that companies remain engaged andcommitted to incrementally improving theirperformance in the benchmark. For instance,
48 companies (32%) provided feedbackon their preliminary assessments, and many
companies have requested meetings with
the BBFAW secretariat and with the FoodBusiness Team at Compassion in World
Farming to understand how they might
improve their scoring in the benchmark.
We see that there are three main challenges
for companies. The first and most easy
to address relates to companies providing
an accurate account of their current
commitments and performance against these.
The absence of a BBFAW assessment cycle
in 2022 has clearly resulted in a number ofcompanies failing to update their reporting onfarm animal welfare. With the reinstatementof the annual BBFAW assessments, we expect
these companies to bring their reporting up
to date ahead of the 2024 BBFAW iteration.
The second challenge relates to companies
needing time to understand and respondto the revised criteria. We appreciate thatit typically takes two or three benchmark
iterations for companies to become familiar
with the criteria and to make the necessary
adjustments to their management processes
and their reporting. The third challenge
for companies relates to the need toevidence the impact that their policies andcommitments are having on farm animals
under their control. With the baseline study

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Chapter 3

Accelerating Impact

revealing that two-thirds of companies
are reporting at least some performancedata, we expect companies to incrementally
improve their performance reporting throughexpanding the scope of their reporting tocover more species, more geographiesand more products.
The revised BBFAW frameworkprovides companies with guidance andclear expectations on how to structure
their management processes and reporting.
It also helps companies to understand the
expectations and interests of key stakeholders(e.g. clients, customers, investors).

Company engagement with the BBFAWThe 2023 company assessment reports
provide tailored recommendations tocompanies on how to strengthen their
management approaches and their impact
reporting. Additionally, the annual BBFAW
report enables companies to understandtheir performance relative to their industry
peers. This helps senior management
understand the company’s overall
performance and can support theinternal case for investment and action.
Beyond the annual company assessments
and reports, companies are encouraged
to engage with the BBFAW Secretariat tobetter understand how they can improvetheir response to the BBFAW methodology
and assessment. Additionally, the FoodBusiness Team at Compassion in World
Farming is able to support companies looking
to improve their performance on animal
welfare and in the BBFAW benchmark. It isparticularly important given the substantialchanges to the BBFAW criteria and scoringthat companies understand the nuancesof the benchmark and how their publishedinformation will be assessed against therevised criteria.

Ahead of the 2024 BBFAW benchmark iteration, the BBFAW will:

54• Continue to engage with companies
on their 2023 assessment findings andprovide guidance on how to improvetheir performance in the Benchmark;• Invite companies to participate in a working
group to discuss how the BBFAW mightassess companies in the future on theircommitments related to choice of breeds.

• Invite companies to participate in a
webinar series and to respond to theannual public consultation in May 2024
on the proposed 2024 benchmark
criteria and company scope.

• Conduct a survey of companies tounderstand how the BBFAW can support
company performance in the Benchmark
through, for example, technical briefings,
webinars or training events.

Chapter 3

Accelerating Impact

Ahead of the 2024 BBFAW benchmark
iteration, the BBFAW will:• Continue to engage with investors on
the BBFAW Benchmark and related tools.
In particular, it will be important to explore
what additional tools will be useful toinvestors in 2024 to support their decisionmaking and their company engagements.
• Coordinate the annual lettersfrom investors in the BBFAW Investor
Collaboration to company CEOs on
their companies’ performance in the2023 Benchmark.
• Seek to recruit additional investors into
the BBFAW Investor Collaboration andto invite investors to become signatories
to the BBFAW Global Investor Statement
on Farm Animal Welfare.
• Invite investors to participate in a webinar
series and to respond to the BBFAW’s
annual public consultation in May 2024
on the proposed 2024 benchmark criteria
and company scope.
• Conduct a survey of investors tounderstand how the BBFAW can support
investor engagement in the Benchmark
through, for example, technical briefings,
webinars or training events.

Investor engagement in the BBFAWThe Secretariat continues to have active
engagement with investors to ensure thatthe Benchmark remains relevant to investors,
and to help the investment industry catalysechange in the management of farm animal
welfare risks and opportunities throughtheir investment decision-making and their
engagement with companies.
Having established the first ever Global
Investor Statement on Farm Animal Welfare
and the BBFAW Global Investor Collaboration
on Farm Animal Welfare in 2015, these
programmes are now supported by over
32 institutional investors with over £1.9 trillion
in assets under management. Furthermore,
the results of our ongoing engagements withinvestors suggest that – as a result of theannual Benchmark and the BBFAW partners’
and the Secretariat’s extensive dialogue andcapacity building efforts – investors are
increasingly likely to engage with companies
to encourage them to better manage theissue of farm animal welfare. This engagement
is widely cited by companies – particularlyin their responses to the annual letters sent
by investors to CEOs – as a key driver forthem to take action on farm animal welfare.
In 2023, investors in the BBFAW
Investor Collaboration wrote to the CEOsof all companies covered by the BBFAW
to signal their support of the revised
BBFAW and to encourage companies
to update their reporting ahead of the2023 Benchmark assessments.

In total, 46 of the 150 companies (31%) submitted
formal responses to investors and 33% of these
responses were from Board directors.

55

Appendix

Appendix

Company Coverage
The Benchmark scope
In total, 150 of the world’s largest food companies were included in the 2023 Benchmark.
These companies were broadly spread across the three food industry subsectors. The universeof companies is global although it continues to be weighted towards North American andEuropean companies.

Table A1

Companies by sub-sector

57

Sub-sector (ICB Classification)

Number of Companies

Food Retailers & Wholesalers (5337)

54

Food Producers (3570)

63

Restaurants & Bars (5757)

33

Total

150

Country of Listing or Incorporation

Number of Companies

USA

44

UK

18

France

13

China

12

Germany

8

Italy

8

Canada7

Brazil6

Netherlands

6

Japan

5

Switzerland

4

Sweden3Australia

2

Chile

2

Denmark2

Mexico2

Norway1

Belgium

1

Ireland1

New Zealand

1

Portugal

1

Spain

1

Thailand1

Luxembourg

1

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark
Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Policy Commitments
Question 1.

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

Rationale

Acknowledging farm animal welfare as a relevant business issue is an importantfirst step towards implementing a comprehensive approach to farm animal welfare
management. It is good practice for food companies to identify whether and why
farm animal welfare is a relevant issue for the business. Recognising animals as
sentient beings provides a strong foundation for animal welfare policies.

Scoring

No evidence that farm animal welfare is regarded as a relevant business issue.

0

The company identifies farm animal welfare as a relevant business issue.

2.5

The company identifies farm animal welfare as a relevant business issue andrecognises farm animals as sentient beings.

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes• This question is looking for an acknowledgement by the parent company that farmanimal welfare is a relevant business issue and that farm animals are sentient beings.
• Companies that publish policies that address farm animal welfare, even if they
do not explain why this is relevant to the business, are awarded points.
• Companies that acknowledge farm animal welfare as a relevant business issue
and/or set out the reasons why it might be a business issue (e.g. because of public
or customer concerns, security and sustainability of supply, cost, etc.)
are awarded points.
• Maximum points are awarded to companies that also recognise farm animals as
sentient beings. This may be through recognition of the ‘Five Freedoms of Animal
Welfare’ in combination with recognition of the need to promote positive welfare
states, recognition of the ‘Five Domains of Animal Welfare’, or explicit recognitionof animal sentience.
• The score does not take account of the importance assigned by companies
to farm animal welfare (e.g. relative to other corporate responsibility issues).

58

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Policy Commitments
Question 2.

Does the company publish an overarching farm animal welfare policy (or equivalent)?

Rationale

It is good practice for companies to formalise their approach to animal welfare in apolicy (or equivalent document such as a statement of guiding principles, a code ofpractice 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.

Scoring

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).

2.5

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 thatthe policy is effectively implemented.

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes• The assessment does not differentiate between companies that publish stand-alone
farm animal welfare policies and companies that incorporate farm animal welfare
into wider responsible sourcing or sustainability policies or codes of practice.
• Companies that publish a clear statement of commitment to farm animal welfare
that provides a starting point for the company’s accountability to its stakeholders
are awarded a score of 2.5 points.
• Policies issued by company subsidiaries are not considered as overarching policies,and companies with such policies but no overarching (i.e. at the parent company
level) policy are therefore not awarded points for this question. These policies are
considered when deciding whether to award points for Questions 1, 4-11, 2328 and 29-48.
• Policies focused on specific farm animal welfare issues (e.g. antibiotics where farmanimal welfare is mentioned in passing) are not considered as overarching policies.
Companies with such policies but no overarching policy on farm animal welfare are
therefore not awarded points for this question. These policies are considered when
deciding whether to award points for Questions 1, 4-11, 23-28 and 29-48.
• Companies that supplement these commitments or principles with detailsof how these are to be implemented are awarded a score of 5 points. To scoremaximum points, company farm animal welfare policies need to include most/allof the following:– A clear statement of the reasons why farm animal welfare is important to thebusiness (including both the business case and the ethical case for action)– A clear position regarding expected standards of farm animal welfare– A description of the processes in place to ensure that the policy is effectively
implemented (e.g. senior management oversight, commitments to continuous
improvement, performance monitoring, corrective action if the policy is not
being effectively implemented)– A commitment to continuous improvement and public reporting on performance.

59

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Policy Commitments
Question 3.

Does the farm animal welfare policy provide a clear explanation of scope?

Rationale

Understanding the scope of a policy is important to understand the breadthof a company’s commitment to action on farm animal welfare.

Scoring

3a. Geographic scope
Geographic scope is not specified.

0

Scope is limited to certain specified geographies.

1.5

Scope is universal across all geographies.

33b. Geographic scope
Species scope is not specified.

0

Scope is limited to certain specified species.

1.5

Scope is universal across all relevant species.

3

3c. Geographic scope
Product scope is not specified.

0

Scope is limited to certain specified products (such as own-brand products).

1.5

Scope is universal across own brand and other brand products.

3(Max Score 9)60

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

Explanatory Notes

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring• This question is only scored if points have been awarded for Question 2, i.e.
when the company has a published farm animal welfare policy.
• The sub-questions on geography, species and products are scored separately(i.e. companies could score up to 3 points in each of the three sub-questions,and the scores for each sub-question do not influence the scores awarded forthe other sub-questions).
• The question acknowledges that policies can vary from market to market, acrossspecies and across product ranges. Companies are given credit if they clearlyspecify the limits to the application of their farm animal welfare policies.
• To qualify for partial points on product scope, policies need 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 (in the caseof retailers and wholesalers). Policies which apply to limited product ranges are notawarded points.
• In some cases, companies use terms such as ‘all animals’ or ‘all products’. For the
purposes of this assessment, we take this to mean that the policy has universal
application (with respect to animals and products respectively) and companies
receive 3 points for these sub-questions. When unclear, we ask companies toclarify the scope in order to keep receiving these points in future Benchmarks.
• For companies involved in or using the products from finfish aquaculture, we do
not assume that the corporate farm animal welfare policy also applies to finfish(i.e. the policy has universal application) unless the company states otherwise,or has a separate policy that applies to finfish. If it is unclear whether finfish areincluded, only partial points are awarded for the species-part of the question.
• We define finfish aquaculture as the breeding, rearing and harvesting of aquatic
vertebrates (i.e. cold blooded animals with a bony or cartilaginous skeleton and asegmented spinal column) in all types of water environment enclosures, including
ponds, rivers, lakes and the ocean.
• We do not consider policies for finfish that focus on conservation or sustainablefishing, unless there is an explicit reference to animal welfare within these.

61

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Policy Commitments
Question 4.

Does the company have a clear commitment to ending the use of close confinement
for all species?

Rationale

Many of the most significant farm animal welfare concerns result from close
confinement practices (e.g. cages (battery, enriched/colony and combination/limitedaccess systems) for laying hens; cages for rabbits and other poultry; gestation/sow
stalls and farrowing crates for sows; concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs
or feedlots) for beef cattle; permanent housing for dairy cows and beef cattle;
single penning, tethering, veal crates for young ruminants; force-feeding systems;
and, for finfish, recirculating aquaculture systems and close confinement of solitaryfinfish species, e.g. turbot) or from high stocking densities. It is good practice forcompanies to commit to no close confinement of farm animals and to avoid highstocking densities.

Scoring

Not addressed.

0

Limited to certain species, products or geographies.

2.5

Universal across all relevant species, products and geographies.

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes• This question may be scored even if points have not been awarded for Question 2.
Points may be awarded for policies issued by company subsidiaries.
• Companies that simply mention they avoid close confinement but do not state thespecific confinement to be avoided receive zero points.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation is not treated as a proxy for having a clear
position on the issues in question. 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 isabsent. Companies that state that they comply with legislation but do not have aformal policy are, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that specifies
any of these issues is not treated as a proxy for having a clearly stated position,
unless the commitment to the issue in question is made explicit (e.g. compliancewith the standard is presented as a way of delivering on its commitment).
• The question acknowledges that policies can vary from market to market and acrossproduct ranges. Companies are given credit if they clearly specify the limits to theapplication of their policies.
• To qualify for partial points on product scope, policies need 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 (in the caseof retailers and wholesalers). Policies which apply to limited product ranges are notawarded points.
• In some cases, companies use terms such as ‘all animals’ or ‘all products’. For the
purposes of this assessment, we take this to mean that the policy has universal
application (with respect to animals and products respectively) and companies
receive 5 points. When unclear, we ask companies to clarify the scope in orderto keep receiving these points in future Benchmarks.

62

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

Explanatory Notes
Continued

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring• Regarding gestation/sow stalls, this question is looking for commitments that do notallow any time in stalls, except for a maximum of 4 hours for management purposes.
Companies are expected to state the maximum time permitted within their policies
and reporting.
• Regarding CAFOs and feedlots, these are defined as systems in which beef cattle are
kept at high stocking densities, indoors on fully slatted or solid floors, or outdoors,
and there is no opportunity for grazing, instead, feed is brought to the animals.
• For companies involved in or using the products from finfish aquaculture, we do
not assume that the corporate farm animal welfare policy also applies to finfish (i.e.
the policy has universal application) unless the company states otherwise, or has aseparate policy that applies to finfish. If it is unclear whether finfish are included, only
partial points are awarded.

63

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Policy Commitments
Question 5.

Does the company have a clear commitment to the provision of effective, speciesspecific enrichment for all species?

Rationale

Companies are expected to provide animals with stimulating and complex
environments that enable species-specific behaviours. 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 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; for fish, physical enrichment such as (artificial) plants, floor substrates andstructures, as well as sensory enrichment, such as cover or lighting, or occupational
enrichment such as currents or water flow to induce swimming exercise. Animals
with outdoor access should not be excluded from enrichment (provided outdoors orindoors). The BBFAW does not score outdoor access per se as enrichment. See the
BBFAW briefing paper on environmental enrichment for further guidance on suitable
forms of enrichment per species.

Scoring

Not addressed.

0

Limited to certain species, products or geographies.

2.5

Universal across all relevant species, products and geographies.

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes• This question may be scored even if points have not been awarded for Question 2.
Points may be awarded for policies issued by company subsidiaries.
• Companies that simply mention they provide environmental enrichment but do notstate the specific environmental enrichment to be provided, receive zero points.
• ‘Enriched’ cages are not awarded points.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation is not treated as a proxy for having a clear
position on the issues in question. 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 isabsent. Companies that state that they comply with legislation but do not have aformal policy are, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that specifies
any of these issues is not treated as a proxy for having a clearly stated position,
unless the commitment to the issue in question is made explicit (e.g. compliancewith the standard is presented as a way of delivering on its commitment).
• The question acknowledges that policies can vary from market to market and acrossproduct ranges. Companies are given credit if they clearly specify the limits to theapplication of their policies.
• To qualify for partial points on product scope, policies need 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 (in thecase of retailers and wholesalers). Policies which apply to limited product ranges
are not awarded points.
• In some cases, companies use terms such as ‘all animals’ or ‘all products’.
For the purposes of this assessment, we take this to mean that the policy has
universal application (with respect to animals and products respectively) andcompanies receive 5 points. When unclear, we ask companies to clarify thescope in order to keep receiving these points in future Benchmarks.
• For companies involved in or using the products from finfish aquaculture, we
do not assume that the corporate farm animal welfare policy also applies to finfish(i.e. the policy has universal application) unless the company states otherwise,or has a separate policy that applies to finfish. If it is unclear whether finfish areincluded, only partial points are awarded.

64

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Policy Commitments
Question 6.

Does the company have a clear commitment to ending the use of routine
mutilations for all species?

Rationale

Many farm animals are subjected to procedures that alter their bodies, often with noanaesthesia, causing pain and distress. Examples include beak trimming/tipping andany type of flight restraint in poultry, branding with hot irons, as well as disbudding/dehorning of ruminants and tail docking and castration in ruminants and pigs
(surgical, rubber rings or clamping), tooth resection in pigs, and fin clipping in finfish
aquaculture.

Scoring

Not addressed.

0

Limited to certain species, products or geographies.

2.5

Universal across all relevant species, products and geographies.

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes• This question may be scored even if points have not been awarded for Question 2.
Points may be awarded for policies issued by company subsidiaries.
• Companies that simply mention they avoid routine mutilations, but do not state
the specific mutilations to be avoided, receive zero points.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation is not treated as a proxy for having aclear position on the issues in question. The reasons are (a) legislation, even in theEU, does not cover all relevant issues, (b) mutilations are still commonly performed
under derogations (c) a commitment to compliance with legislation does notprovide guarantees on performance in countries where such legislation is absent.
Companies that state that they comply with legislation but do not have a formal
policy are, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that specifies
any of these issues is not treated as a proxy for having a clearly stated position,
unless the commitment to the issue in question is made explicit (e.g. compliancewith the standard is presented as a way of delivering on its commitment).
• The question acknowledges that policies can vary from market to market and acrossproduct ranges. Companies are given credit if they clearly specify the limits to theapplication of their policies.
• To qualify for partial points on product scope, policies need 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 (in thecase of retailers and wholesalers). Policies which apply to limited product ranges
are not awarded points.
• In some cases, companies use terms such as ‘all animals’ or ‘all products’.
For the purposes of this assessment, we take this to mean that the policy has
universal application (with respect to animals and products respectively) andcompanies receive 5 points. When unclear, we ask companies to clarify thescope in order to keep receiving these points in future Benchmarks.
• For companies involved in or using the products from finfish aquaculture,
we do not assume that the corporate farm animal welfare policy also applies
to finfish (i.e. the policy has universal application) unless the company statesotherwise, or has a separate policy that applies to finfish. If it is unclear
whether finfish are included, only partial points are awarded.

65

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Policy Commitments
Question 7.

Does the company have a clear commitment to ending the prophylactic
and routine metaphylactic use of antibiotics for all species?

Rationale

Prophylaxis is the treatment of animals without clinical sign of disease. Metaphylaxis is
the treatment of a group of animals when some within the group are showing clinicalsigns of disease.
The over-use of antibiotics in humans and in animals is directly linked to theincrease in antibiotic resistance. The use of antibiotics on-farm (typically throughfeed or water) is frequently prophylactic or metaphylactic; effectively ‘propping up’
intensive farming systems where animals are kept in confined and stressful conditions
and where their immune systems are compromised and disease outbreaks can spread
rapidly. Companies are expected to commit to reducing the levels of antibiotics theyadminister routinely and to develop animal production systems that are not reliant
on the routine use of antibiotics for disease prevention. Points are not awarded
for supply chains marketed as antibiotic-free, e.g., ’no antibiotics ever’ due to the
incentive this creates to withhold antibiotics from animals in need of treatment.
For farmed fish, this question is looking for a clear commitment to ending theprophylactic use of antibiotics only.

Scoring

Not addressed.

0

Limited to certain species, products or geographies.

2.5

Universal across all relevant species, products and geographies.

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes• This question may be scored even if points have not been awarded for Question 2.
Points may be awarded for policies issued by company subsidiaries.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation is not treated as a proxy for having
a clear position on the issues in question. The reasons are (a) legislation, evenin the EU, does not cover all relevant issues, (b) a commitment to compliancewith legislation does not provide guarantees on performance in countries wheresuch legislation is absent. Companies that state that they comply with legislation
but do not have a formal policy are, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that specifies
any of these issues is not treated as a proxy for having a clearly stated position,
unless the commitment to the issue in question is made explicit (e.g. compliancewith the standard is presented as a way of delivering on its commitment).
• The question acknowledges that policies can vary from market to market and acrossproduct ranges. Companies are given credit if they clearly specify the limits to theapplication of their policies.
• To qualify for partial points on product scope, policies need 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 (in thecase of retailers and wholesalers). Policies which apply to limited product ranges
are not awarded points.
• Partial points may be awarded for commitments focused on prophylactic use
in the absence of a commitment on routine metaphylactic use.
• In some cases, companies use terms such as ‘all animals’ or ‘all products’.
For the purposes of this assessment, we take this to mean that the policy has
universal application (with respect to animals and products respectively) andcompanies receive 5 points. When unclear, we ask companies to clarify thescope in order to keep receiving these points in future Benchmarks.•• For companies involved in or using the products from finfish aquaculture,
we do not assume that the corporate farm animal welfare policy also applies
to finfish (i.e. the policy has universal application) unless the company statesotherwise, or has a separate policy that applies to finfish. If it is unclear
whether finfish are included, only partial points are awarded.

66

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Policy Commitments
Question 8.

Does the company have a clear commitment to ending long-distancelive transport for all species?

Rationale

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 animals
should be minimised wherever possible and journeys should be kept as short as
possible; less than 4 hours for poultry and rabbits, and less than 8 hours for otherspecies. Unweaned animals, heavily pregnant animals and animals unfit for transportshould not be transported. Transport of animals exceeding these limits, including
loading and unloading, has been shown to decrease welfare significantly. In the caseof farmed fish, handling practices and water quality conditions, particularly
oxygenation, can have a significant impact on welfare.

Scoring

Not addressed.

0

Limited to certain species, products or geographies.

2.5

Universal across all relevant species, products and geographies.

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes• This question may be scored even if points have not been awarded for Question 2.
Points may be awarded for policies issued by company subsidiaries.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation is not treated as a proxy for having a clear
position on the issues in question. 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 isabsent. Companies that state that they comply with legislation but do not have aformal policy are, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that specifies
any of these issues is not treated as a proxy for having a clearly stated position,
unless the commitment to the issue in question is made explicit (e.g. compliancewith the standard is presented as a way of delivering on its commitment).
• The question acknowledges that policies can vary from market to market and acrossproduct ranges. Companies are given credit if they clearly specify the limits to theapplication of their policies.
• To qualify for partial points on product scope, policies need 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 (in thecase of retailers and wholesalers). Policies which apply to limited product ranges
are not awarded points.
• In some cases, companies use terms such as ‘all animals’ or ‘all products’. For the
purposes of this assessment, we take this to mean that the policy has universal
application (with respect to animals and products respectively) and companies
receive 5 points. When unclear, we ask companies to clarify the scope in orderto keep receiving these points in future Benchmarks.
• For companies involved in or using the products from finfish aquaculture,
we do not assume that the corporate farm animal welfare policy also applies tofinfish (i.e. the policy has universal application) unless the company states otherwise,or has a separate policy that applies to finfish. If it is unclear whether finfish areincluded, only partial points are awarded.

67

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Policy Commitments
Question 9.

Does the company have a clear commitment to the use of humane
methods of pre-slaughter stunning for all species?

Rationale

It is essential to render an animal unconscious before it is slaughtered in order for it to
be insensible to pain, discomfort and stress, until death occurs. For poultry, controlled
atmospheric stunning using inert gas or multi-phase systems, or effective electricalstunning without live inversion, should be used. For pigs, this question is looking forcommitments to end the use of high concentration CO2 gas systems. For salmon
and trout, this question is looking for commitments to use percussion or electricalmethods. For other fish this question is looking for commitments to end the useof ice slurry.

Scoring

Not addressed.

0

Limited to certain species, products or geographies.

2.5

Universal across all relevant species, products and geographies.

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes• This question may be scored even if points have not been awarded for Question 2.
Points may be awarded for policies issued by company subsidiaries.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation is not treated as a proxy for having a clear
position on the issues in question. 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 isabsent. Companies that state that they comply with legislation but do not have aformal policy are, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that specifies
any of these issues is not treated as a proxy for having a clearly stated position,
unless the commitment to the issue in question is made explicit (e.g. compliancewith the standard is presented as a way of delivering on its commitment).
• The question acknowledges that policies can vary from market to market and acrossproduct ranges. Companies are given credit if they clearly specify the limits to theapplication of their policies.
• To qualify for partial points on product scope, policies need 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 (in the caseof retailers and wholesalers). Policies which apply to limited product ranges are notawarded points.
• In some cases, companies use terms such as ‘all animals’ or ‘all products’. For the
purposes of this assessment, we take this to mean that the policy has universal
application (with respect to animals and products respectively) and companies
receive 5 points. When unclear, we ask companies to clarify the scope in orderto keep receiving these points in future Benchmarks.
• For companies involved in or using the products from finfish aquaculture, we
do not assume that the corporate farm animal welfare policy also applies to finfish(i.e. the policy has universal application) unless the company states otherwise, or has
a separate policy that applies to finfish. If it is unclear whether finfish are included,
only partial points are awarded.

68

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Policy Commitments
Ducks or Geese
Question 10.

Does the company have a clear commitment not to produce or sell foie grasor meat from birds reared for foie gras?

Rationale

Welfare issues associated with the production of foie gras include over-feeding,force-feeding (gavage) and the close confinement of ducks and geese within cages.

Scoring

Not addressed.

0

Universal across all relevant species, products and geographies.

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes• This question may be scored even if points have not been awarded for Question 2.
Points may be awarded for policies issued by company subsidiaries.
• This question is only assessed for those companies that have ducks or geesein their supply chains.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation is not treated as a proxy for having
a clear position on the issues in question. The reasons are (a) legislation, even in
the EU, does not cover all relevant issues, (b) a commitment to compliance withlegislation does not provide guarantees on performance in countries where such
legislation is absent. Companies that state that they comply with legislation but
do not have a formal policy are, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that specifies
any of these issues is not treated as a proxy for having a clearly stated position,
unless the commitment to the issue in question is made explicit (e.g. compliancewith the standard is presented as a way of delivering on its commitment).
• Partial policies, which are limited to certain species, products or geographies,
are not awarded points.•• In some cases, companies use terms such as ‘all animals’ or ‘all products’.
For the purposes of this assessment, we take this to mean that the policy has
universal application (with respect to animals and products respectively) andcompanies receive 5 points. When unclear, we ask companies to clarify thescope in order to keep receiving these points in future Benchmarks.

69

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Policy Commitments
Laying Hens, Pigs, Dairy Cattle, Beef Cattle, Rabbits, Ducks or Geese
Question 11.

Does the company have a clear commitment to ending the use of otherinhumane practices?

Rationale

Practices covered by this question include the culling of day-old male chicks inegg supply chains; cow-calf separation in dairy and beef supply chains; fully slatted
flooring for pigs, dairy and beef cattle, ducks and rabbits; and live plucking or live
harvesting for geese.

Scoring

Not addressed.

0

Limited to certain species, products or geographies.

2.5

Universal across all relevant species, products and geographies.

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes• This question may be scored even if points have not been awarded for Question 2.
Points may be awarded for policies issued by company subsidiaries.
• This question is only assessed for those companies that have laying hens, pigs,
dairy cattle, beef cattle, rabbits, ducks or geese in their supply chains.
• Acceptable alternative practices to the culling of day-old male chicks include
the use of in-ovo sexing methods and the use of dual-purpose breeds.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation is not treated as a proxy for having
a clear position on the issues in question. The reasons are (a) legislation, even in
the EU, does not cover all relevant issues, (b) a commitment to compliance withlegislation does not provide guarantees on performance in countries where such
legislation is absent. Companies that state that they comply with legislation but
do not have a formal policy are, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that specifies
any of these issues is not treated as a proxy for having a clearly stated position,
unless the commitment to the issue in question is made explicit (e.g. compliancewith the standard is presented as a way of delivering on its commitment).
• The question acknowledges that policies can vary from market to market andacross product ranges. Companies are given credit if they clearly specify thelimits to the application of their policies.•• To qualify for partial points on product scope, policies need 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 (in thecase of retailers and wholesalers). Policies which apply to limited product ranges
are not awarded points.•• In some cases, companies use terms such as ‘all animals’ or ‘all products’.
For the purposes of this assessment, we take this to mean that the policy has
universal application (with respect to animals and products respectively) andcompanies receive 5 points. When unclear, we ask companies to clarify thescope in order to keep receiving these points in future Benchmarks.

70

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Animal-Sourced Foods Policy Commitments
Question 12.

Does the company acknowledge the need to reduce reliance on animal-sourced
foods as a business issue?

Rationale

Reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods, which may be achieved directly or
through protein diversification, is key to ensuring that all animals farmed for food areable to be produced in high welfare systems capable of delivering a good quality oflife, and that the food system contributes to planetary and human health. It is goodpractice for food companies to identify whether and why this is a relevant issue forthe business.

Scoring

No evidence that reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods is regarded
as a relevant business issue.

0

The company identifies reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods as arelevant business issue.

5(Max Score 5)

Explanatory Notes• This question is looking for an acknowledgement by the parent company
that reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods is a relevant business issue.
• Companies that publish policies that address reducing reliance on animal-sourced
foods, even if they do not explain why this is relevant to the business,
are awarded points.
• Companies that acknowledge reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods as arelevant business issue and/or set out the reasons why it may be a business issue(e.g. because of public or customer concerns, security and sustainability of supply,
cost, etc.) are awarded points.
• The score does not take account of the importance assigned by companies
to reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods (e.g. relative to other corporate
responsibility issues).

71

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Animal-Sourced Foods Policy Commitments
Question 13.

Does the company publish an overarching policy (or equivalent) on reducing
reliance on animal-sourced foods?

Rationale

It is good practice for companies to formalise their approach to reducing relianceon animal-sourced foods in a policy (or equivalent document such as a statementof guiding principles, a code of practice or a sourcing charter). Reducing relianceon animal-sourced foods may be achieved in multiple ways, including direct action
on reduction (e.g., waste reduction, better utilisation, changes to business focus)
or through protein diversification (e.g., new product development, reformulation).
While the existence of a policy may not provide a guarantee of implementation,
the absence of a policy is a clear sign that reducing reliance on animal-sourced
foods is not firmly on the business agenda.

Scoring

No evidence of a formal policy statement (or equivalent) on reducing relianceon animal-sourced foods.

0

The company has a broad commitment to reducing reliance on animal-sourced
foods within a policy statement (or equivalent).

5

The company has a broad commitment to reducing reliance on animal-sourced
foods within a policy statement (or equivalent) and a description of the processes
in place to ensure that the policy is effectively implemented.

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only scored if points have been awarded for Question 12, i.e.,
if the parent company recognises that reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods
is a relevant business issue.
• The assessment does not differentiate between companies that publish standalone policies on reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods and companies thatincorporate reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods into wider responsible
sourcing or sustainability policies or codes of practice.
• Companies that publish a clear statement of commitment to reducing relianceon animal-sourced foods that provides a starting point for the company’s
accountability to its stakeholders are awarded points.
• Policies issued by company subsidiaries are not considered as overarching policies,and companies with such policies but no overarching (i.e. at the parent company
level) policy are therefore not awarded points for this question. These policies are
considered when deciding whether to award points for Questions 22 and 28.
• Companies that supplement these commitments or principles with details of how
these are to be implemented are awarded a score of 10 points. To score maximum
points, company policies need to include most/all of the following:– A clear statement of the reasons why reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods
is important to the business (including both the business case and the ethical casefor action).
– A description of how reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods is to be achieved,
such as through protein diversification, product reformulation or communication
to consumers– A description of the processes in place to ensure that the policy is effectively
implemented (e.g. senior management oversight, commitments to continuous
improvement, performance monitoring, corrective action if the policy is not being
effectively implemented)– A commitment to continuous improvement and public reporting on performance.

72

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Animal-Sourced Foods Policy Commitments
Question 14.

Does the policy on reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods provide
a clear explanation of scope?

Rationale

Understanding the scope of a policy is important to understand the breadth of acompany’s commitment to action on reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods.

Scoring

14a. Geographic scope
Geographic scope is not specified.

0

Scope is limited to certain specified geographies.

2.5

Scope is universal across all geographies.

5

14b. Business division scopeBusiness division scope is not specified.

0

Scope is limited to certain specified business divisions.

2.5

Scope is universal across all business divisions.

5(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only scored if points have been awarded for Question 13, i.e. when
the company has a published policy on reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods.
• The sub-questions on geography and products are scored separately (i.e. companies
could score up to 5 points in each of the two sub-questions, and the scores for each
sub-question do not influence the scores awarded for the other sub-question).
• The question acknowledges that policies can vary from market to market and acrossbusiness divisions. Companies are given credit if they clearly specify the limits to theapplication of their policies.

73

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Governance and Management
Question 15.

Has the company assigned day-to-day and board or senior management
responsibility for farm animal welfare?

Rationale

When looking at the management of farm animal welfare, both oversight andimplementation responsibilities are important. Oversight is necessary to ensurethat senior management is aware of the business implications of farm animal welfare
and is prepared to intervene when needed (e.g., if there are tensions between theorganisation’s farm animal welfare policy and other business objectives). However,
it is often the case that those charged with oversight know relatively little about the
specific details 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 effectively managed.

Scoring15a. Management responsibility
No clearly defined management responsibility.

0

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

515b. Board or senior management responsibility
No clearly defined board or senior management responsibility.

0

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

5(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• The two sub-questions are scored separately (i.e. companies could score 5 points
for publishing details of who is responsible for farm animal welfare on a day-to-day
basis and 5 points for publishing details of senior management responsibility foroverseeing the farm animal welfare policy).
• For the purposes of scoring on day-to-day responsibility, the question is not looking
for named individuals, but evidence of roles with responsibility for farm animal
welfare (e.g. a statement that this is the responsibility of a dedicated technical orsourcing manager, or a statement that responsibility is divided among a number offunctions, with information on the various roles and responsibilities).
• For the management oversight sub-question, we recognise 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 are awarded if the company provides a clear account of board or senior
management oversight.
• For the purposes of scoring, the emphasis is on the management of farmanimal welfare. General information on the management or oversight of CSR or
sustainability is only credited if it is clear that this includes farm animal welfare.

74

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Governance and Management
Question 16.

Does the company describe its internal processes for ensuring that its farm animal
welfare policies are effectively implemented?

Rationale

The effective implementation of a policy relies on employees who are competent tooversee the implementation of the policy, and on controls that allow the company torespond quickly and effectively in the event of non-compliance with the policy.

Scoring

16a. Employee training
No information provided on employee training in farm animal welfare.

0

The company provides specific training to employees in farm animal welfare.

5

16b. Actions taken in the event of non-compliance
The company provides no information on the actions to be taken in the eventof non-compliance with the farm animal welfare policy.

0

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

5(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• The sub-questions (on training and on internal controls) are scored independently(i.e. the scores for each sub-question do not influence the scores for the othersub-question).
• On training, companies are only awarded 5 points if the training provided is aimed
at employees and if it explicitly addressed farm animal welfare-related issues.
• The training question does not address the quality of the training provided, themanner in which skills or competencies are assessed, the number of employees
receiving training or the number of hours of training provided.
• On internal controls, companies are 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 qualityrelated policies are scored zero for this sub-question unless it is clear that thesepolicies and processes also cover farm animal welfare.

75

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Governance and Management
Question 17.

Does the company describe how it implements its farm animal welfare policy(or equivalent) through its supply chain?

Rationale

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).

Scoring

No description of processes for implementing farm animal welfare policy
through supply chain.

017a. Does the company describe how it implements its farm animal welfare policy(or equivalent) through its supply chain via supplier contracts?
No information on how farm animal welfare is included in supplier contracts.

0

The company incorporates farm animal welfare into contractual obligations for
suppliers, but this is limited by geography and/or certain products or species.

1.5

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

3

17b. Does the company describe how it implements its farm animal welfare policy(or equivalent) through its supply chain via monitoring and auditing?
No information provided on how supplier compliance with contract conditions
is monitored.

0

The company specifies farm animal welfare as part of supplier auditing programme.

317c. 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.

0

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

3(Max Score 9)
Explanatory Notes• The sub-questions (on contracts, auditing and supplier education) are scoredindependently (i.e. the scores for each sub-question do not influence the scoresfor the other sub-questions).
• On contracts, companies are awarded partial points if they indicated that they
included farm animal welfare in contracts but do not indicate whether this applied
to all relevant contracts or if they indicated that farm animal welfare is not included
in all contracts.
• On auditing, companies are only awarded 3 points if it is clear that their auditing
processes explicitly covered farm animal welfare. Many of the companies reviewed
reported that they audited their suppliers against safety and/or quality standards but,unless it is clear that these audit processes covered farm animal welfare, companiesscored zero for this sub-question.
• On supplier support and/or education, 3 points are awarded to companies thatpublish case studies or examples and/or provide a more comprehensive descriptionof their approach. The award of 3 points is not dependent on the number or
proportion of suppliers receiving this support and/or education. A number ofcompanies described their support to suppliers on a range of supply chain issues.
However, unless it is clear that this support also covered farm animal welfare,companies scored zero for this sub-question.

76

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Governance and Management
Question 18.

Does the company describe and report on its use of welfare outcome measures(i.e. measures linked to the physical, emotional and/or behavioural wellbeing of animals)?

Rationale

In addition to having clear policy commitments and management practices,companies are expected to maintain strict measurement criteria for animals intheir 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), as well as Qualitative Behavioural Assessment (such as animals being
content, happy, or fearful, agitated). For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants
and bars, this question applies to all own-brand products.
WOMs might include for example:• For all species: mortality and cull rates, disease incidence.
• For laying hens: end of lay feather coverage, feather cleanliness, keel bone
fractures, bone breakages at slaughter.
• For dairy cows: lameness, mastitis, body condition, involuntary culling rate,
longevity, ease of calving, lesions, swellings, cleanliness, stomach ulcers, acidosis.
• For sows: Longevity, lameness, body condition, shoulder and vulva lesions,ear and flank biting.
• For pigs: lameness, cleanliness, tail bites, fight marks, bursitis and other lesions.
• For broiler chickens: gait score, leg culls, footpad dermatitis, hock burn, breast
blisters, feather cleanliness, muscle myopathies.
• For beef: body condition, lameness, lesions, swellings, cleanliness, stomach
ulcers, acidosis.
• For rabbits: foot lesions, fur coverage, eye condition.
• For fish: fin and body damage, sea lice and other ectoparasite infestations,skeletal deformities, condition factor, mortality and behaviour.
• For mental wellbeing: reaction to humans or novelty, fear, comfort; qualitative
behavioural analysis.
• For behaviour: time spent lying/resting, ruminating or being active –foraging, perching, dustbathing, bathing (ducks), socialising, swimming (fish).
• For transportation: injuries, slips and falls, fatigue, road traffic incidents,
mortality (dead-on-arrival/DOA).
• For slaughter: effectiveness of stunning.

77

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

18a. Does the company describe how it uses welfare outcome measures to inform
continuous improvement in its operations or supply chain?
No information provided on how the company uses welfare outcome measures
to inform continuous improvement in its operations or supply chain.

0

The company describes how welfare outcome measures are used to inform
continuous improvement in its operations or supply chain.

2

18b. Does the company report on welfare outcome measures (i.e. measures linked
to the physical, emotional and/or behavioural wellbeing of animals)?
No reporting on welfare outcome measures.

0

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

1

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

3

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

5(Max Score 7)
Explanatory Notes• For the sub-question on how welfare outcome measures are used to inform
continuous improvement in a company’s operations or supply chain, points areawarded to companies that provide a clear description of their approach to using
welfare outcome measures. This may include description of how welfare outcome
measure data are used to help drive continuous improvement, or as indicatorsfor corrective action.
• The sub-question on reporting is looking for explicit, quantitative reportingon welfare outcome measures such as:– Mortality rates (as an indicator of potential pain, suffering and suboptimal
performance), for fish: mortality or 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 andsuboptimal environmental and housing conditions).
– Body marks/injuries (as an indicator of aggressive fight damage, especially during
mixing or competition at feeding, or from 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 suitable breed for production system).
– Negative flock or herd behaviour, such as injurious feather pecking in poultry or
tail biting in pigs (as a signpost of a barren non-stimulating environment, poor
environmental control, low space allowance, feed and health problems).

78

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

Explanatory Notes
Continued

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring• Scores are 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 thepractices for transport and slaughter).
• Scores are awarded for some health indicators (e.g. somatic cell count and mastitis
for dairy cows), as these are often related to high levels of production thereby
affecting welfare. Points are not awarded for production measures (e.g. egg output).
• Similarly, scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportionof animals managed according to particular farm animal welfare standards but
do not report on the welfare outcomes resulting from the implementation ofthese standards.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of animals
affected. Companies that report on the total number of animals affected but do not
put this number into context of the total number of animals used or processed are
not awarded points.

79

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Governance and Management
Question 19.

Does the company assure its welfare scheme to a prescribed standard?

Rationale

Farm assurance schemes provide frameworks and auditing for managing farmanimals, including their health and welfare, provenance and the legal complianceof the systems used. They can also play an important role in promoting higher
welfare standards. Where species-specific legislation exists, schemes should ensurethat 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 and restaurants and bars, this question applies to all ownbrand products.

Scoring

No assurance standard specified.

0

A substantial proportion of products audited to either basic or higher farmassurance (or equivalent company) standard.

1

All products audited to basic farm assurance (or equivalent company)
standard across all species, products and geographies.

2

All products audited to a combination of a basic farm assurance (or equivalent
company) standard and a higher welfare assurance (or company equivalent
standard), across all species, products and geographies.

4

All products audited to higher welfare (or company equivalent) assurance
standard, across all species, products and geographies.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• For the purposes of this question, we assess farm assurance schemes as either
providing a basic or higher standard of animal welfare. Higher welfare schemes
include indoor and outdoor (free range, organic) production systems.
• 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);Best Aquaculture Practice (BAP); Certification de Conformité de Produits; Global
Standards; FMI Animal Welfare Standards; GLOBALG.A.P.; North American
Meat Institute; Red Tractor Farm Assurance Scheme (standard production),
VPF (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 through input requirements, it is also important to monitor
welfare outcomes (such as mortality, disease, lameness, injuries and the occurrenceof normal and abnormal behaviours) to assess the overall performance of the system.
Examples of higher welfare schemes include: Animal Welfare Approved; AEBEA
levels A, B, C (France), Better Animal Welfare (Denmark); Beter Leven; Certified
Humane; European Organic Certification; Global Animal Partnership (GAP 5-Step);
KRAV; Neuland; Soil Association Organic; RSPCA Assured; Red Tractor Enhanced
Welfare and Free-range; Label Rouge (for poultry, but not pigs).
• Companies may have developed their own higher welfare standards that they audit
their suppliers against. Where this is the case, we need a clear description of how
the company standard compares to the relevant basic or higher welfare assurance
standards outlined above in order for points to be awarded.
• If companies audit against other voluntary schemes that claim to incorporate animal
welfare components but without specifying them, they will typically not receive any
point, unless they provide a clear description of the farm animal
welfare requirements of such standards.

80

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Governance and Management
Question 20.

Does the company communicate to customers on higher farm animal welfare
through education and/or awareness-raising activities?

Rationale

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 indemand for higher welfare products.

Scoring

No evidence of communicating to customers on higher farm animal welfare.

0

At least one example of communicating to customers on higher farmanimal welfare.

5

Multiple examples of communicating to customers on higher farmanimal welfare.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• The activities that could be considered in this question are 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 these issues an integral part of customer communications
and engagement.
– On-pack or on-shelf labelling – provided this is evidenced on the company’s website,
in its published reports or on social 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.
• Initiatives aimed at showing how products are sourced or produced but without
an explicit focus on the welfare of farm animals are not scored in the assessment.
• Companies that produce multiple consumer-facing videos on farm animal welfare
are awarded five points, unless it is clear that these are linked to separate consumer
engagement programmes or themes.
• Companies are only awarded maximum points where there is clear evidenceof multiple platforms or channels used to communicate to consumers.
• Social media channels are not separately reviewed, so companies haveto link to these channels from their webpages in order to receive points(e.g. for YouTube videos).

81

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Animal-Sourced Foods Governance and Management
Question 21.

Has the company assigned day-to-day and board or senior management
responsibility for reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods?

Rationale

When looking at the management of reducing reliance on animal-sourced
foods, which may be achieved through protein diversification, both oversight andimplementation responsibilities are important. Oversight is necessary to ensurethat senior management is aware of the business implications of reducing relianceon animal-sourced foods and is prepared to intervene when needed (e.g. if there
are tensions between the organisation’s policy on reducing reliance on animal-sourced
foods and other business objectives). However, it is often the case that those charged
with oversight know relatively little about the specific details of how to effectively
manage reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods. It is, therefore, importantthat there are individual(s) responsible for ensuring that the policy on reducing
reliance on animal-sourced foods is implemented and effectively managed.

Scoring

21a. Day-to-day management responsibility
No clearly defined day-to-day management responsibility.

0

The company has published details of the management position with responsibility
for reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods on a day-to-day basis.

5

21b. Board or senior management responsibility
No clearly defined board or senior management responsibility0

The company has published details of how the board or senior management
oversees the implementation of the company’s policy on reducing reliance on
animal-sourced foods.

5(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is only scored if points have been awarded for Question 12, i.e.,
if the parent company recognises that reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods
is a relevant business issue.
• This question recognises reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods may beachieved in multiple ways, including direct action on reduction (e.g., waste reduction,better utilisation, changes to business focus) or through protein diversification (e.g.,
new product development, reformulation).
• The two sub-questions are scored separately (i.e. companies could score 5
points for publishing details of who is responsible for reducing reliance on animalsourced foods on a day-to-day basis and 5 points for publishing details of senior
management responsibility for overseeing the policy on reducing reliance on
animal-sourced foods).
• For the purposes of scoring on day-to-day responsibility, the question is notlooking for named individuals, but evidence of roles with responsibility for reducing
reliance on animal-sourced foods (e.g. a statement that this is the responsibilityof a dedicated technical or sourcing manager, or a statement that responsibility is
divided among a number of functions, with information on the various roles andresponsibilities).
• For the management oversight sub-question, we recognise that companies may
assign responsibility to a named senior person or that reducing reliance on animalsourced foods may form part of the remit of a wider sustainability, CSR or sourcing
committee. Therefore, 5 points are awarded if the company provides a clear accountof board or senior management oversight.
• For the purposes of scoring, the emphasis is on the management of reducing relianceon animal-sourced foods. General information on the management or oversight of
CSR or sustainability is only credited if it is clear that this includes reducing relianceon animal-sourced foods.

82

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Animal-Sourced Foods Governance and Management
Question 22.

Does the company communicate to customers on reducing reliance on
animal-sourced foods through education and/or awareness-raising activities?

Rationale

Companies have an important role to play in raising awareness of reducing relianceon animal-sourced foods among their customers and clients. This, in turn, should
contribute to shifts in dietary consumption away from animal-sourced foods.

Scoring

No evidence of communicating to customers on reducing relianceon animal-sourced foods.

0

At least one example of communicating to customers on reducing
reliance on animal-sourced foods.

5

Multiple examples of communicating to customers on reducing
reliance on animal-sourced foods.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is only scored if points have been awarded for Question 12, i.e.,
if the parent company recognises that reducing reliance on animal-sourced
foods is a relevant business issue.
• This question recognises reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods may beachieved in multiple ways, including direct action on reduction (e.g., waste reduction,better utilisation, changes to business focus) or through protein diversification(e.g., new product development, reformulation).
• The activities that could be considered in this question are defined broadly.
Examples included:– The provision of information on reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods
or protein diversification on the company’s website. Note: This is not just aboutproviding information in the corporate responsibility section of the website but
making these issues an integral part of customer communications and engagement.
– On-pack or on-shelf labelling – provided this is evidenced on the company’s
website, in its published reports or on social media platforms.
– Information leaflets or information packs.
– Media promotions.
– Supporting third party campaigns or programmes.
– Customer farm visits, seminars or roundtables.
– Social media campaigns.
• Companies that produce multiple consumer-facing videos on reducing
reliance on animal-sourced foods are awarded five points, unless it is clear thatthese are linked to separate consumer engagement programmes or themes.
• Companies are only awarded maximum points where there is clear evidenceof multiple platforms or channels used to communicate to consumers.
• Social media channels are not separately reviewed, so companies haveto link to these channels from their webpages in order to receive points(e.g. for YouTube videos).

83

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Targets
Laying Hens
Question 23.

Does the company publish a clear target for ending the use of cages(battery and enriched/colony) for laying hens, or provide evidence
that this has already been achieved?

Rationale

Targets are the point where policy commitments are translated into substantive action,
and where resources and responsibilities are allocated for the delivery of the targets.

Scoring

No stated position.

0

The company has published a partial time-bound target, or evidenceof achievement, and the scope (in terms of geography or products) isclearly defined.

5

The company has published a universal time-bound target, or evidenceof achievement, across all relevant own-brand and other brand products
and geographies.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell
eggs or egg-based products.
• This question is looking for a clear target for ending the use of cages (battery
and enriched/colony) for laying hens within a reasonable timeframe, or evidence
that this has already been achieved. It is anticipated that this question will expand inscope to also cover combination and limited access systems in future assessments.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation is not treated as a proxy for having
a clear position on the avoidance of cages. The reasons are (a) legislation, evenin the EU, does not cover all close confinement practices, (b) a commitment
to compliance with legislation does not provide guarantees on performancein countries where such legislation is absent. Companies that state that they
comply with legislation but do not have a formal policy on cages are, therefore,
awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that prohibits
cages is not treated as a proxy for having a clearly stated position, unless thecommitment to avoidance is made explicit (e.g. compliance with the standard ispresented as a way of delivering on its commitment to the avoidance of cages).
• To qualify for partial points on product scope, policies need to apply to asignificant proportion of a company’s supply chain, such as a substantial businessdivision (e.g. a restaurant brand or manufacturing division) or own-brand products(in the case of retailers and wholesalers). Policies which apply to limited productranges are not awarded points.

84

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Targets
Broiler Chickens
Question 24.

Does the company publish a clear target for achieving the requirements of the
Better Chicken Commitment/European Chicken Commitment for broiler chickens
as a minimum, or provide evidence that this has already been achieved?

Rationale

Targets are the point where policy commitments are translated into substantive action,
and where resources and responsibilities are allocated for the delivery of the targets.

Scoring

No stated position.

0

The company has published a partial time-bound target, or evidenceof achievement, and the scope (in terms of geography or products) isclearly defined.

5

The company has published a universal time-bound target, or evidenceof achievement, across all relevant own-brand and other brand products
and geographies.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell
chicken or chicken-based products.
• This question is looking for a clear target for achieving the requirementsof the Better Chicken Commitment or European Chicken Commitment
for broiler chickens or evidence that this has already been achieved(see www.betterchickencommitment.com/policy/ and www.welfarecommitments.
com/europeletter/).
• Simply stating compliance with legislation is not treated as a proxy for having a clear
position on the requirements of the Better Chicken Commitment/European Chicken
Commitment. The reasons are (a) legislation, even in the EU, does not cover all
relevant practices, (b) a commitment to compliance with legislation does not provide
guarantees on performance in countries where such legislation is absent. Companies
that state that they comply with legislation but do not have a formal policy on therelevant practices are, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard is not treatedas a proxy for having a clearly stated position, unless the commitment to therequirements of the Better Chicken Commitment/European Chicken Commitment
is made explicit (e.g. compliance with the standard is presented as a way ofdelivering on its commitment to the relevant practices).
• To qualify for partial points on product scope, policies need 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 (in thecase of retailers and wholesalers). Policies which apply to limited product ranges
are not awarded points.

85

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Targets
Pigs
Question 25.

Does the company publish a clear target for ending the use of gestation/sow
stalls for sows, throughout pregnancy and during the observation period,or provide evidence that this has already been achieved?

Rationale

Targets are the point where policy commitments are translated into substantive action,
and where resources and responsibilities are allocated for the delivery of the targets.

Scoring

No stated position.

0

The company has published a partial time-bound target, or evidenceof achievement, and the scope (in terms of geography or products) isclearly defined.

2.5

The company has published a universal time-bound target, or evidenceof achievement, across all relevant own-brand and other brand products
and geographies.

5(Max Score 5)
Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sellpork or pork-based products.
• This question is looking for a clear target for ending the use of gestation/sow
stalls for sows, throughout pregnancy and during the observation period (the period
between weaning and pregnancy confirmation), within a reasonable timeframe,or evidence that this has already been achieved.
• This question is looking for targets that do not allow any time in stalls, except for a
maximum of 4 hours for management purposes. Companies are expected to state
the maximum time permitted within their policies and reporting.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation is not treated as a proxy for having aclear position on the avoidance of gestation/sow stalls. 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 incountries where such legislation is absent. Companies that state that they comply
with legislation but do not have a formal policy on gestation/sow stalls are, therefore,
awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that prohibits
gestation/sow stalls is not treated as a proxy for having a clearly stated position,
unless the commitment to avoidance is made explicit (e.g. compliance with thestandard is presented as a way of delivering on its commitment to the avoidanceof gestation/sow stalls).
• To qualify for partial points on product scope, policies need 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 (in thecase of retailers and wholesalers). Policies which apply to limited product ranges
are not awarded points.

86

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Targets
Pigs
Question 26.

Does the company publish a clear target for ending the use of farrowing
crates for sows, or provide evidence this has already been achieved?

Rationale

Targets are the point where policy commitments are translated into substantive action,
and where resources and responsibilities are allocated for the delivery of the targets.

Scoring

No stated position.

0

The company has published a partial time-bound target, or evidenceof achievement, and the scope (in terms of geography or products) isclearly defined.

2.5

The company has published a universal time-bound target, or evidenceof achievement, across all relevant own-brand and other brand products
and geographies.

5(Max Score 5)
Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sellpork or pork-based products.
• This question is looking for a clear target for ending the use of farrowing crates forsows within a reasonable timeframe, or evidence that this has already been achieved.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation is not treated as a proxy for having aclear position on the avoidance of farrowing crates. 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 incountries where such legislation is absent. Companies that state that they comply
with legislation but do not have a formal policy on farrowing crates are, therefore,
awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard thatprohibits farrowing crates is not treated as a proxy for having a clearly statedposition, unless the commitment to avoidance is made explicit (e.g. compliancewith the standard is presented as a way of delivering on its commitment to the
avoidance of farrowing crates).
• To qualify for partial points on product scope, policies need 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 (in thecase of retailers and wholesalers). Policies which apply to limited product ranges
are not awarded points.

87

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Targets
Dairy Cows
Question 27.

Does the company publish a clear target for ending the use of tethering
for dairy cows, or provide evidence this has already been achieved?

Rationale

Targets are the point where policy commitments are translated into substantive action,
and where resources and responsibilities are allocated for the delivery of the targets.

Scoring

No stated position.

0

The company has published a partial time-bound target, or evidenceof achievement, and the scope (in terms of geography or products) isclearly defined.

5

The company has published a universal time-bound target, or evidenceof achievement, across all relevant own-brand and other brand products
and geographies.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell
dairy or dairy-based products.
• This question is looking for a clear target for ending the use of tethering fordairy cows within a reasonable timeframe, or evidence that this has alreadybeen achieved.
• Simply stating compliance with legislation is not treated as a proxy for having a clear
position on the avoidance of tethering. The reasons are (a) legislation, even in theEU, does not cover all close confinement practices, (b) a commitment to compliancewith legislation does not provide guarantees on performance in countries where such
legislation is absent. Companies that state that they comply with legislation but do
not have a formal policy on tethering are, therefore, awarded zero points.
• Similarly, simply stating compliance with a farm assurance standard that prohibits
tethering is not treated as a proxy for having a clearly stated position, unless thecommitment to avoidance is made explicit (e.g. compliance with the standard ispresented as a way of delivering on its commitment to the avoidance of tethering).
• To qualify for partial points on product scope, policies need 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 (in thecase of retailers and wholesalers). Policies which apply to limited product ranges
are not awarded points.

88

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Animal-Sourced Foods Targets
Question 28.

Has the company set time-bound targets for reducing reliance on
animal-sourced foods?

Rationale

Targets are the point where policy commitments are translated into substantive action,
and where resources and responsibilities are allocated for the delivery of the targets.

Scoring

No published time-bound targets.

0

The company has published a partial time-bound target, or evidenceof achievement, and the scope (in terms of geography or products) isclearly defined.

5

The company has published a universal time-bound target, across all
geographies and business divisions.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is only scored if points have been awarded for Question 12, i.e.,
if the parent company recognises that reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods
is a relevant business issue.
• This question is looking for evidence of explicit, time-bound targets for reducing
reliance on animal-sourced foods within a reasonable timeframe.
• This question recognises reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods may beachieved in multiple ways, including direct action on reduction (e.g., waste reduction,better utilisation, changes to business focus) or through protein diversification(e.g., new product development, reformulation).
• Targets explicitly focused on efforts to decrease volumes or proportions of animal
sourced foods will be eligible for maximum points (10 points), whereas targets which
imply reductions in animal sourced foods (e.g. focused on increasing the proportionof alternative proteins menu items) will be eligible for partial points (5 points).

89

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Laying Hens
Question 29.

What proportion of laying hens (for shell eggs and fresh/frozen products
and ingredients) in the company’s global supply chain is cage-free?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of laying hens that is cage-free.
For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants and bars, this question applies
to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of laying hens is cage-free, or no reported information.

0

1 – 20% of laying hens is cage-free.

1

21 – 40% of laying hens is cage-free.

2

41 – 60% of laying hens is cage-free.

3

61 – 80% of laying hens is cage-free.

5

81 – 98% of laying hens is cage-free.

7

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

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell eggs
or egg-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of laying hens in
the company’s global supply chain that is cage-free, including battery and enriched/colony cages. It is anticipated that this question will expand in scope to also covercombination and limited access systems in future assessments.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of laying
hens affected. Companies that report on the total number of laying hens affectedbut do not put this number into context of the total number of animals used orprocessed globally (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear), are awarded
minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of laying hens that is cage-free but limit
their reporting to specified products and/or geographies are either awarded theequivalent of 1 or 2 points, depending on whether the scope of this partial reportingis substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of laying
hens managed according to particular higher welfare or organic standards but do
not explicitly report on the proportion of laying hens that is cage-free in line withthese standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our laying hens” or “All laying
hens” being cage-free are not awarded points unless there is explicit reporting on
the proportion of laying hens that is cage-free (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx%of our laying hens …’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format
and with a clear description of the proportion of the supply chain that this data
represented (i.e., it should not be necessary for the assessor to have to calculate
the data in order to arrive at a percentage of the global supply chain).

90

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Laying Hens
Question 30.

What proportion of laying hens (for shell eggs and fresh/frozen products and ingredients)
in the company’s global supply chain is free from beak trimming or tipping?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of laying hens that is free frombeak trimming or tipping. For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants andbars, this question applies to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of laying hens is free from beak trimming or tipping, or noreported information.

0

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

1

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

2

41 – 60% of laying hens is free from beak trimming or tipping.

3

61 – 80% of laying hens is free from beak trimming or tipping.

5

81 – 98% of laying hens is free from beak trimming or tipping.

7

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

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell
eggs or egg-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of laying hensin the company’s global supply chain that is free from beak trimming or tipping.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of animals
affected. Companies that report on the total number of animals affected but do
not put this number into context of the total number of animals used or processed
globally, (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear) are awarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of laying hens that is free from beaktrimming or tipping but limited their reporting to specified products and/or
geographies are either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, depending onwhether the scope of this partial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of animals
managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not explicitly
report on the proportion of laying hens that is free from beak trimming or tippingin line with these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our laying hens” or “All chickens”
being free from beak trimming or tipping are not awarded points unless there is
explicit reporting on the proportion of laying hens that is free from beak trimmingor tipping (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format
and with a description of the proportion of the supply chain represented, without
relying on the assessor to make the calculations.

91

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Laying Hens
Question 31.

What proportion of laying hens (for shell eggs and fresh/frozen products andingredients) in the company’s global supply chain is from supply chains in which
the day-old male chicks are not killed?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of laying hens that is from supply
chains in which the day-old male chicks are not killed. For retailers and wholesalers
and restaurants and bars, this question applies to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of laying hens from supply chains in which the day-old malechicks are not killed, or no reported information.

0

1 – 20% of laying hens from supply chains in which the day-old
male chicks are not killed.

1

21 – 40% of laying hens from supply chains in which the day-old
male chicks are not killed.

2

41 – 60% of laying hens from supply chains in which the day-old
male chicks are not killed.

3

61 – 80% of laying hens from supply chains in which the day-old
male chicks are not killed.

5

81 – 98% of laying hens from supply chains in which the day-old
male chicks are not killed.

7

99 – 100% of laying hens from supply chains in which the day-old
male chicks are not killed.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell
eggs or egg-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of laying hensin the company’s global supply chain that is from supply chains in which the day-old
male chicks are not killed.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of animals
affected. Companies that report on the total number of animals affected but do
not put this number into context of the total number of animals used or processed
globally, (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear) are awarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of laying hens that is from supply chainsin which the day-old male chicks are not killed but limited their reporting to specified
products and/or geographies are either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points,
depending on whether the scope of this partial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of animals
managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not explicitly
report on the proportion of laying hens that is from supply chains in which the
day-old male chicks are not killed in line with these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our laying hens” or “All chickens”
being from supply chains in which the day-old male chicks are not killed are notawarded points unless there is explicit reporting on the proportion of laying hens
that is from supply chains in which the day-old male chicks are not killed (e.g.
with statements such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format
and with a description of the proportion of the supply chain represented, without
relying on the assessor to make the calculations.

92

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Broiler Chickens
Question 32.

What proportion of broiler chickens (for fresh/frozen chicken products andingredients) in the company’s global supply chain is reared at lower stocking
densities (specifically, 30kg/m2 or 6lbs/sq ft or less)?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of broiler chickens that is reared
at lower stocking densities (specifically, 30kg/m2 or 6lbs/sq ft or less). For retailers
and wholesalers and restaurants and bars, this question applies to all ownbrand products.

Scoring

0% of broiler chickens is reared at lower stocking densities,
or no reported information.

0

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

1

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

2

41 – 60% of broiler chickens is reared at lower stocking densities.

3

61 – 80% of broiler chickens is reared at lower stocking densities.

5

81 – 98% of broiler chickens is reared at lower stocking densities.

7

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

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell
chicken or chicken-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of broiler
chickens in the company’s global supply chain that is reared at lower stocking
densities, specifically, 30kg/m2 or 6Lbs/sq ft or less.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of broiler
chickens affected. Companies that report on the total number of broiler chickens
affected but do not put this number into context of the total number of broiler
chickens used or processed globally, (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear)are awarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of broiler chickens that is reared atlower stocking densities, but limited their reporting to specified products and/or
geographies are either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, dependingon whether the scope of this partial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of broiler
chickens managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not
explicitly report on the proportion of broiler chickens that is reared at lower
stocking densities in line with these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our broiler chickens” or “All broiler
chickens” being reared at lower stocking densities are not awarded points unlessthere is explicit reporting on the proportion of broiler chickens that is free fromclose confinement (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of our broiler chickens …’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format
and with a description of the proportion of the supply chain represented, without
relying on the assessor to make the calculations.

93

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Broiler Chickens
Question 33.

What proportion of broiler chickens (for fresh/frozen chicken products andingredients) in the company’s global supply chain is from approved breeds
with improved welfare outcomes or with a slower growth potential)?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of broiler chickens that is from breeds
with improved welfare outcomes or with a slower growth potential. For retailers andwholesalers and restaurants and bars, this question applies to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of products is from breeds with improved welfare outcomes
and with a slower growth potential, or no reported information.

0

1 – 20% of broiler chickens is from breeds with improved welfare
outcomes and with a slower growth potential.

1

21 – 40% of broiler chickens is from breeds with improved welfare
outcomes and with a slower growth potential.

2

41 – 60% of broiler chickens is from breeds with improved welfare
outcomes and with a slower growth potential.

3

61 – 80% of broiler chickens is from breeds with improved welfare
outcomes and with a slower growth potential.

5

81 – 98% of broiler chickens is from breeds with improved welfare
outcomes and with a slower growth potential.

7

99 – 100% of broiler chickens is from breeds with improved welfare
outcomes and with a slower growth potential.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or
sell chicken or chicken-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of broiler
chickens in the company’s global supply chain that is from breeds that meet the
Better Chicken Commitment/European Chicken Commitment requirements, withimproved welfare outcomes or with a slower growth potential, defined as <40g/d
averaged over the growth cycle according to the breeding company specification(see www.betterchickencommitment.com/policy/ and www.welfarecommitments.
com/europeletter/).
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of broiler
chickens affected. Companies that report on the total number of broiler chickens
affected but do not put this number into context of the total number of broiler
chickens used or processed globally, (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear)are awarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of broiler chickens that is from breeds withimproved welfare outcomes or a slower growth potential but limited their reportingto specified products and/or geographies are either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2
points, depending on whether the scope of this partial reporting is substantial or not.

94

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

Explanatory Notes
Continued

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of broiler
chickens managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not
explicitly report on the breeds with improved welfare outcomes or with slower
growth potential in line with these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our broiler chickens” or “All broiler
chickens” being from breeds with improved welfare outcomes or a slower growthpotential are not awarded points unless there is explicit reporting on the proportionof broiler chickens that is from breeds with improved welfare outcomes or slower
growth potential (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of our broiler chickens …’).
• Where companies report on their own breeds with improved welfare outcomesor slower growth potential, they needed to provide a clear description of how thecompany’s breed standard(s) compare to other breeds with improved welfare
outcomes or a slower growth potential.
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format
and with a description of the proportion of the supply chain represented by thisdata, without relying on the assessor to make the calculations.

95

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Broiler Chickens
Question 34.

What proportion of broiler chickens (for fresh/frozen chicken products andingredients) in the company’s global supply chain is subject to controlled
atmospheric stunning using inert gas or multi-phase systems, or effective
electrical stunning without live inversion?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of broiler chickens that is subject tocontrolled atmospheric stunning using inert gas or multi-phase systems, or effective
electrical stunning without live inversion. For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants
and bars, this question applies to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of broiler chickens is subject to controlled atmospheric stunning
using inert gas or multi-phase systems, or effective electrical stunningwithout live inversion, or no reported information.

0

1 – 20% of broiler chickens is subject to controlled atmosphericstunning using inert gas or multi-phase systems, or effective electricalstunning without live inversion.

1

21 – 40% of broiler chickens is subject to controlled atmosphericstunning using inert gas or multi-phase systems, or effective electricalstunning without live inversion.

2

41 – 60% of broiler chickens is subject to controlled atmosphericstunning using inert gas or multi-phase systems, or effective electricalstunning without live inversion.

3

61 – 80% of broiler chickens is subject to controlled atmosphericstunning using inert gas or multi-phase systems, or effective electricalstunning without live inversion.

5

81 – 98% of broiler chickens is subject to controlled atmosphericstunning using inert gas or multi-phase systems, or effective electricalstunning without live inversion.

7

99 – 100% of broiler chickens is subject to controlled atmosphericstunning using inert gas or multi-phase systems, or effective electricalstunning without live inversion.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or
sell chicken or chicken-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of broiler
chickens in the company’s global supply chain that is subject to controlled
atmospheric stunning using inert gas or multi-phase systems, or effective
electrical stunning without live inversion.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportionof broiler chickens affected. Companies that reported on the total numberof broiler chickens affected but do not put this number into context of thetotal number of broiler chickens used or processed globally, (i.e. the scopeof reported figures is unclear) are awarded minimal points.

96

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

Explanatory Notes
Continued

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring• Companies that report on the proportion of broiler chickens that is subject
to controlled atmospheric stunning using inert gas or multi-phase systems,
or effective electrical stunning without live inversion but limited their reportingto specified products and/or geographies are either awarded the equivalentof 1 or 2 points, depending on whether the scope of this partial reporting issubstantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that reported on the proportion of broiler
chickens managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do
not explicitly report on the proportion of animals that is subject to controlled
atmospheric stunning using inert gas or multi-phase systems, or effective electricalstunning without live inversion in line with these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our broiler chickens” or “All broiler
chickens” being subject to controlled atmospheric stunning using inert gas or multiphase systems, or effective electrical stunning without live inversion are not awarded
points unless there is explicit reporting on the proportion of broiler chickens that is
subject to controlled atmospheric stunning using inert gas or multi-phase systems,
or effective electrical stunning without live inversion (e.g. with statements such as:‘xx% of our broiler chickens …’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format
and with a description of the proportion of the supply chain represented by thedata, without relying on the assessor to make the calculations.

97

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Pigs
Question 35.

What proportion of sows (for fresh/frozen pork products and ingredients)
in the company’s global supply chain is free from gestation/sow stalls?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of sows that is free fromgestation/sow stalls throughout pregnancy and during the observation period.
For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants and bars, this question applies
to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of sows is free from gestation/sow stalls, or no reported information.

0

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

1

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

2

41 – 60% of sows is free from gestation/sow stalls.

3

61 – 80% of sows is free from gestation/sow stalls.

5

81 – 98% of sows is free from gestation/sow stalls.

7

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

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, useor sell pork or pork-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of sowsin the company’s global supply chain that is free from gestation/sow stalls
throughout pregnancy and during the observation period (i.e are group housed
from weaning to pre-farrowing).
• This question is looking for commitments that do not allow any time in stalls,
except for a maximum of 4 hours for management purposes. Companies are
expected to state the maximum time permitted within their policies and reporting.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of sows
affected. Companies that report on the total number of sows affected but do not
put this number into context of the total number of sows used or processed globally,(i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear) are awarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of sows that is free from gestation/sow
stalls but limited their reporting to specified products and/or geographies are either
awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, depending on whether the scope of thispartial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of sowsmanaged according to particular higher welfare or organic standards but do
not explicitly report on the proportion of sows that is free from gestation/sow
stalls in line with these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our sows” or “All sows” being
free from gestation/sow stalls are not awarded points unless there is explicit reportingon the proportion of sows that is free from gestation/sow stalls (e.g. with statements
such as: ‘xx% of our sows…’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format
and description of the proportion of the supply chain represented, without having
to do any calculations.

98

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Pigs
Question 36.

What proportion of sows (for fresh/frozen pork products and ingredients)
in the company’s global supply chain is free from farrowing crates?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of sows that is free from farrowing
crates. For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants and bars, this question applies
to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of sows is free from farrowing crates, or no reported information.

0

1 – 20% of sows is free from farrowing crates.

1

21 – 40% of sows is free from farrowing crates.

2

41 – 60% of sows is free from farrowing crates.

3

61 – 80% of sows is free from farrowing crates.

5

81 – 98% of sows is free from farrowing crates.

7

99 – 100% of sows is free from farrowing crates.

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sellpork or pork-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of sowsin the company’s global supply chain that is free from farrowing crates.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of sows
affected. Companies that report on the total number of sows affected but do not
put this number into context of the total number of sows used or processed globally,(i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear) are awarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of sows that is free from farrowing
crates but limited their reporting to specified products and/or geographies areeither awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, depending on whether thescope of this partial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of sowsmanaged according to particular higher welfare or organic standards but do
not explicitly report on the proportion of sows that is free from farrowing crates
in line with these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our sows” or “All sows” being
free from farrowing crates are not awarded points unless there is explicit reportingon the proportion of sows that is free from farrowing crates (e.g. with statements
such as: ‘xx% of our sows…’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format
and description of the proportion of the supply chain represented, without having
to do any calculations.

99

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Pigs
Question 37.

What proportion of pigs (for fresh/frozen pork products and ingredients)
in the company’s global supply chain is free from tail docking?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of pigs that is free from tail docking.
For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants and bars, this question applies
to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of pigs is free from tail docking, or no reported information.

0

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

5

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

7

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

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sellpork or pork-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of pigs
in the company’s global supply chain that is free from tail docking.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of pigs
affected. Companies that reported on the total number of pigs affected but do not
put this number into context of the total number of pigs used or processed globally,(i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear) are awarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of pigs that are free from tail docking
but limited their reporting to specified products and/or geographies are either
awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, depending on whether the scope of
this partial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of pigs
managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not explicitly
report on the proportion of pigs that are free from tail docking in line withthese standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our pigs” or “All pigs” being
free from tail docking are not awarded points unless there is explicit reporting on
the proportion of pigs that are free from tail docking (e.g. with statements suchas: ‘xx% of our pigs…’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format
and with a description of the proportion of the supply chain this data represented,
without relying on the assessor to make the calculations.

100

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Dairy Cows
Question 38.

What proportion of dairy cattle (for fresh/frozen milk and milk products
and ingredients) in the company’s global supply chain is free from tethering?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of dairy cattle that is free fromtethering. For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants and bars, this question
applies to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of dairy cows is free from tethering, or no reported information.

0

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

1

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

2

41 – 60% of dairy cows is free from tethering.

3

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

5

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

7

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

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell
dairy or dairy-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of dairy cows
in the company’s global supply chain that is free from tethering.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of dairy
cows affected. Companies that report on the total number of dairy cows affectedbut do not put this number into context of the total number of dairy cows usedor processed globally, (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear) are awarded
minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of dairy cows that is free from tethering
but limited their reporting to specified products and/or geographies are either
awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, depending on whether the scope of thispartial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of dairy cows
managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not explicitly
report on the proportion of dairy cows that is free from tethering in line withthese standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our dairy cows” or “All dairy cows”
being free from tethering are not awarded points unless there is explicit reportingon the proportion of dairy cows that is free from tethering (e.g. with statements suchas: ‘xx% of our dairy cows…’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format anddescription of the proportion of the supply chain represented, without having to do
any calculations.

101

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Dairy Cows
Question 39.

What proportion of dairy cattle (for fresh/frozen milk and milk products andingredients) in the company’s global supply chain is provided with pasture access?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of dairy cattle that is provided withpasture access (at least 6 hours per day for 120 days per year). For retailers andwholesalers and restaurants and bars, this question applies to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of dairy cows is provided with pasture access,or no reported information.

0

1 – 20% of dairy cows is provided with pasture access.

1

21 – 40% of dairy cows is provided with pasture access.

2

41 – 60% of dairy cows is provided with pasture access.

3

61 – 80% of dairy cows is provided with pasture access.

5

81 – 98% of dairy cows is provided with pasture access.

7

99 – 100% of dairy cows is provided with pasture access.

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell
dairy or dairy-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of dairy
cows in the company’s global supply chain that is provided with pasture accessfor at least 6 hours per day for 120 days per year.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of dairy
cows affected. Companies that report on the total number of dairy cows affectedbut do not put this number into context of the total number of dairy cows usedor processed globally, (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear) are awarded
minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of dairy cows that is provided with pastureaccess but limited their reporting to specified products and/or geographies are either
awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, depending on whether the scope of thispartial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of dairy cows
managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not explicitly
report on the proportion of dairy cows that is provided with pasture access in linewith these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our dairy cows” or “All dairy cows”
being provided with pasture access are not awarded points unless there is explicit
reporting on the proportion of dairy cows that is provided with pasture access (e.g.
with statements such as: ‘xx% of our dairy cows…’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format anddescription of the proportion of the supply chain represented, without having to do
any calculations.

102

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Dairy Cows
Question 40.

What proportion of dairy cows (for fresh/frozen milk and milk products
and ingredients) in the company’s global supply chain is free fromdisbudding/dehorning?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of dairy cattle that is free fromdisbudding/dehorning. For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants and bars,
this question applies to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of dairy cows is free from disbudding/dehorning,or no reported information.

0

1 – 20% of dairy cows is free from disbudding/dehorning.

1

21 – 40% of dairy cows is free from disbudding/dehorning.

2

41 – 60% of dairy cows is free from disbudding/dehorning.

3

61 – 80% of dairy cows is free from disbudding/dehorning.

5

81 – 98% of dairy cows is free from disbudding/dehorning.

7

99 – 100% of dairy cows is free from disbudding/dehorning.

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell
dairy or dairy-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of dairy cows in
the company’s global supply chain that is free from disbudding/dehorning. Reporting
related to the proportion of polled breed animals in the company’s global supply
chain will also be taken into account.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of dairy
cows affected. Companies that reported on the total number of dairy cows affectedbut do not put this number into context of the total number of dairy cows usedor processed globally, (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear) are awarded
minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of dairy cows that is free from disbudding/dehorning but limited their reporting to specified products and/or geographies areeither awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, depending on whether the scope of
this partial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of dairy cows
managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not explicitly
report on the proportion of dairy cows that is free from disbudding/dehorning in linewith these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our dairy cows” or “All dairy cows”
being free from disbudding/dehorning are not awarded points unless there is explicit
reporting on the proportion of dairy cows that is free from disbudding/dehorning(e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of our dairy cows …’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format
and with a description of the proportion of the supply chain represented by thedata, without relying on the assessor to make the calculations.

103

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Beef Cattle
Question 41.

What proportion of beef cattle (for fresh/frozen beef products and ingredients)
in the company’s global supply chain is free from confinement in CAFOs
or feedlots?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of beef cattle that is free from
confinement in CAFOs or feedlots. For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants
and bars, this question applies to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of beef cattle is free from confinement in CAFOs or feedlots,
or no reported information.

0

1 – 20% of beef cattle is free from confinement in CAFOs or feedlots.

1

21 – 40% of beef cattle is free from confinement in CAFOs or feedlots.

2

41 – 60% of beef cattle is free from confinement in CAFOs or feedlots.

3

61 – 80% of beef cattle is free from confinement in CAFOs or feedlots.

5

81 – 98% of beef cattle is free from confinement in CAFOs or feedlots.

7

99 – 100% of beef cattle is free from confinement in CAFOs or feedlots.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell
beef or beef-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of beef cattle
in the company’s global supply chain that is free from confinement in CAFOs or
feedlots. CAFOs and feedlots are defined as systems in which beef cattle are kept
at high stocking densities, indoors on fully slatted or solid floors, or outdoors,
and there is no opportunity for grazing, instead, feed is brought to the animals.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of beef cattle
affected. Companies that report on the total number of beef cattle affected but do
not put this number into context of the total number of beef cattle used or processed
globally, (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear) are awarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of beef cattle that is free from confinement
in CAFOs or feedlots but limited their reporting to specified products and/or
geographies are either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, depending onwhether the scope of this partial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of beef cattle
managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not explicitly
report on the proportion of beef cattle that is free from confinement in CAFOs or
feedlots in line with these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our beef cattle” or “All beef
cattle” being free from confinement in CAFOs or feedlots are not awarded points
unless there is explicit reporting on the proportion of beef cattle that is free from
confinement in CAFOs or feedlots (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of ourbeef cattle …’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format anddescription of the proportion of the supply chain represented, without having to do
any calculations.

104

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Beef Cattle
Question 42.

What proportion of beef cattle (for fresh/frozen beef products and ingredients) inthe company’s global supply chain is group housed as calves, throughout rearing?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of beef cattle that is group housed
throughout rearing, including calves from birth (minimum pairs), calves originatingfrom the dairy supply and veal calves. For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants
and bars, this question applies to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of beef cattle is group housed throughout rearing,or no reported information.

0

1 – 20% of beef cattle is group housed throughout rearing.

1

21 – 40% of beef cattle is group housed throughout rearing.

2

41 – 60% of beef cattle is group housed throughout rearing.

3

61 – 80% of beef cattle is group housed throughout rearing.

5

81 – 98% of beef cattle is group housed throughout rearing.

7

99 – 100% of beef cattle is group housed throughout rearing.

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell beef
or beef-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of beef cattle inthe company’s global supply chain that is group housed throughout rearing, including
calves from birth (minimum pairs) and calves originating from the dairy supply.
• Animals that are diseased or injured may be kept in hospital pens as required toprotect the animals’ health and welfare.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of beef cattle
affected. Companies that reported on the total number of beef cattle affected but do
not put this number into context of the total number of beef cattle used or processed
globally, (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear) are awarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of beef cattle that is group housed
throughout rearing but limited their reporting to specified products and/or
geographies are either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, depending onwhether the scope of this partial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of beef cattle
managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not explicitly
report on the proportion of beef cattle that is group housed throughout rearing inline with these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our beef cattle” or “All beef cattle”
being group housed throughout rearing are not awarded points unless there is
explicit reporting on the proportion of beef cattle that is group housed throughout
rearing (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of our beef cattle …’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format andwith a description of the proportion of the supply chain represented by the data,
without relying on the assessor to make the calculations.

105

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Beef Cattle
Question 43.

What proportion of beef cattle (for fresh/frozen beef products and ingredients)
in the company’s global supply chain is free from disbudding/dehorning?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of beef cattle that is free from disbudding/dehorning. For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants and bars, this question
applies to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of beef cattle is free from disbudding/dehorning,or no reported information.

0

1 – 20% of beef cattle is free from disbudding/dehorning.

1

21 – 40% of beef cattle is free from disbudding/dehorning.

2

41 – 60% of beef cattle is free from disbudding/dehorning.

3

61 – 80% of beef cattle is free from disbudding/dehorning.

5

81 – 98% of beef cattle is free from disbudding/dehorning.

7

99 – 100% of beef cattle is free from disbudding/dehorning.

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sell beef
or beef-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of beef cattle inthe company’s global supply chain that is free from disbudding/dehorning. Reporting
related to the proportion of polled breed animals in the company’s global supply
chain will also be taken into account.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of beef cattle
affected. Companies that reported on the total number of beef cattle affected but do
not put this number into context of the total number of beef cattle used or processed
globally, (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear) are awarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of beef cattle that is free from disbudding/dehorning but limited their reporting to specified products and/or geographies areeither awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, depending on whether the scope of
this partial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of beef cattle
managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not explicitly
report on the proportion of beef cattle that is free from disbudding/dehorning inline with these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our beef cattle” or “All beef cattle”
being free from disbudding/dehorning are not awarded points unless there is explicit
reporting on the proportion of beef cattle that is free from disbudding/dehorning(e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of our beef cattle …’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format andwith a description of the proportion of the supply chain represented by the data,
without relying on the assessor to make the calculations.

106

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Farmed Salmon
Question 44.

What proportion of farmed salmon (for fresh/frozen salmon products andingredients) in the company’s global supply chain is reared at lower stocking
densities (specifically, 10kg/m3 or less)?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of farmed salmon that is reared
at lower stocking densities. For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants and bars,
this question applies to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of farmed salmon is reared at lower stocking densities,
or no reported information.

0

1 – 20% of farmed salmon is reared at lower stocking densities.

1

21 – 40% of farmed salmon is reared at lower stocking densities.

2

41 – 60% of farmed salmon is reared at lower stocking densities.

3

61 – 80% of farmed salmon is reared at lower stocking densities.

5

81 – 98% of farmed salmon is reared at lower stocking densities.

7

99 – 100% of farmed salmon is reared at lower stocking densities.

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sellfarmed salmon or farmed salmon-based products.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of farmed
salmon in the company’s global supply chain that is reared at lower stocking
densities (specifically, 10kg/m3 or less).
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of farmed
salmon affected. Companies that report on the total number of farmed salmon
affected but do not put this number into context of the total number of farmed
salmon used or processed globally, (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear)are awarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of farmed salmon that is reared atlower stocking densities but limited their reporting to specified products and/or
geographies are either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, dependingon whether the scope of this partial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of farmed
salmon managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not
explicitly report on the proportion of farmed salmon that is reared at lower
stocking densities in line with these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our farmed salmon” or“All farmed salmon” being reared at lower stocking densities are not awarded
points unless there is explicit reporting on the proportion of farmed salmon thatis reared at lower stocking densities (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of ourfarmed salmon …’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format
and description of the proportion of the supply chain represented, without having
to do any calculations.

107

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Farmed Salmon
Question 45.

What proportion of farmed salmon (for fresh/frozen salmon products andingredients) in the company’s global supply chain is free from fasting lasting
longer than 72 hours?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of farmed salmon that is free fromfasting lasting longer than 72 hours. For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants
and bars, this question applies to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of farmed salmon is free from fasting lasting longer than 72 hours,
or no reported information.

0

1 – 20% of farmed salmon is free from fasting lasting longer than 72 hours.

1

21 – 40% of farmed salmon is free from fasting lasting longer than 72 hours.

2

41 – 60% of farmed salmon is free from fasting lasting longer than 72 hours.

3

61 – 80% of farmed salmon is free from fasting lasting longer than 72 hours.

5

81 – 98% of farmed salmon is free from fasting lasting longer than 72 hours.

7

99 – 100% of farmed salmon is free from fasting lasting longer than 72 hours.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sellfarmed salmon or products containing farmed salmon.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of farmed
salmon in the company’s global supply chain that is free from fasting lasting longer
than 72 hours.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of farmed
salmon affected. Companies that reported on the total number of farmed salmon
affected but do not put this number into context of the total number of farmed
salmon used or processed globally, (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear) areawarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of farmed salmon that is free from fastinglasting longer than 72 hours but limited their reporting to specified products and/or geographies are either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, depending onwhether the scope of this partial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of farmed
salmon managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not
explicitly report on the proportion of farmed salmon that is free from fasting lasting
longer than 72 hours in line with these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our farmed salmon” or “All farmed
salmon” being free from fasting lasting longer than 72 hours are not awarded points
unless there is explicit reporting on the proportion of farmed salmon that is freefrom fasting lasting longer than 72 hours (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of ourfarmed salmon …’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format andwith a description of the proportion of the supply chain represented by the data,
without relying on the assessor to make the calculations.

108

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
Farmed Salmon
Question 46.

What proportion of farmed salmon (for fresh/frozen salmon products andingredients) in the company’s global supply chain is stun-killed using percussion
or electrocution or is pre-slaughter stunned using effective percussion orelectrocution followed up by a kill method before recovery of consciousness?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of farmed salmon that is stun-killedusing percussion or electrocution or is pre-slaughter stunned using effective
percussion or electrocution followed up by a kill method before recoveryof consciousness. For retailers and wholesalers and restaurants and bars,
this question applies to all own-brand products.

Scoring

0% of farmed salmon is effectively stunned and killed,
or no reported information.

0

1 – 20% of farmed salmon is effectively stunned and killed.

1

21 – 40% of farmed salmon is effectively stunned and killed.

2

41 – 60% of farmed salmon is effectively stunned and killed.

3

61 – 80% of farmed salmon is effectively stunned and killed.

5

81 – 98% of farmed salmon is effectively stunned and killed.

7

99 – 100% of farmed salmon is effectively stunned and killed.

10(Max Score 10)

Explanatory Notes• This question is only assessed for those companies that produce, use or sellfarmed salmon or products containing farmed salmon.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of farmed
salmon in the company’s global supply chain that is stun-killed using percussion orelectrocution or is pre-slaughter stunned using effective percussion or electrocution
followed up by a kill method before recovery of consciousness.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of farmed
salmon affected. Companies that reported on the total number of farmed salmon
affected but do not put this number into context of the total number of farmed
salmon used or processed globally, (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear)are awarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of farmed salmon that is effectively
stunned and killed but limited their reporting to specified products and/or
geographies are either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, depending onwhether the scope of this partial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of farmed
salmon managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not
explicitly report on the proportion of farmed salmon that is effectively stunned
and killed in line with these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our farmed salmon” or “All farmed
salmon” being effectively stunned and killed are not awarded points unless there is
explicit reporting on the proportion of farmed salmon that is effectively stunned andkilled (e.g. with statements such as: ‘xx% of our farmed salmon …’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format andwith a description of the proportion of the supply chain represented by the data,
without relying on the assessor to make the calculations.

109

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
All Species
Question 47.

What proportion of animals (excluding fin fish) in the company’s global
supply chain is transported within specified maximum journey times?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of animals that is transported within
specified maximum journey times. When being transported, animals can experiencehunger, thirst, discomfort, pain, frustration, fear and distress, as well as physicalwelfare problems including injury, disease, and, in the worst cases, death. For thesereasons, transport of live animals should be minimised wherever possible and journeys
should be kept as short as possible; less than 4 hours for poultry and rabbits, and lessthan 8 hours for other species. Transport of animals exceeding these limits, including
loading and unloading, has been shown to decrease welfare significantly. For allcompanies, this question applies to all products (own-brand and other).

Scoring

0% of animals is transported within specified maximum journey times,
or no reported information.

0

1 – 20% of animals is transported within specified maximum journey times.

1

21 – 40% of animals is transported within specified maximum journey times.

2

41 – 60% of animals is transported within specified maximum journey times.

3

61 – 80% of animals is transported within specified maximum journey times.

5

81 – 98% of animals is transported within specified maximum journey times.

7

99 – 100% of animals is transported within specified maximum journey times.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is assessed for all companies.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of animals in
the company’s global supply chain that are transported within specified maximum
journey times.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of animals
affected. Companies that reported on the total number of animals affected but do
not put this number into context of the total number of animals used or processed
globally (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear) are awarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of animals that is transported within
specified maximum journey times but limited their reporting to specified products
and/or geographies are either awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, dependingon whether the scope of this partial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that report on the proportion of animals
managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not explicitly
report on the proportion of animals that is transported within specified maximum
journey times in line with these standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our animals” or “All animals” arenot awarded points unless there is explicit reporting on the proportion of animals
that is transported within specified maximum journey times (e.g. with statements
such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format andwith a description of the proportion of the supply chain represented by the data,
without relying on the assessor to make the calculations.

110

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
All Species
Question 48.

What proportion of animals (including fin fish) in the company’s global supply
chain is pre-slaughter stunned?

Rationale

Companies should report on the proportion of animals that is pre-slaughter stunned.
It is essential to render an animal unconscious (through for example captive bolt andstun-to-kill methods including electrical stunning, gas stunning) before the animal isslaughtered in order for it to be insensible to pain, discomfort and stress, until deathoccurs. For all companies, this question applies to all products (own-brand and other).

Scoring

0% of products is from animals that have been pre-slaughter stunned,
or no reported information.

0

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

5

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

7

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

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is assessed for all companies.
• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the proportion of animals
in the company’s global supply chain that had been pre-slaughter stunned.
• Points are only awarded if the company is explicit about the proportion of animals
affected. Companies that reported on the total number of animals affected but do
not put this number into context of the total number of animals used or processed
globally (i.e. the scope of reported figures is unclear) are awarded minimal points.
• Companies that report on the proportion of animals that is pre-slaughter stunned
but limited their reporting to specified products and/or geographies are either
awarded the equivalent of 1 or 2 points, depending on whether the scope of thispartial reporting is substantial or not.
• Scores are not awarded for companies that reported on the proportion of animals
managed according to particular farm assurance standards but do not explicitly
report on the proportion of animals that is pre-slaughter stunned in line withthese standards.
• Companies that make general statements about “Our animals” or “All animals” being
pre-slaughter stunned are not awarded points unless there is explicit reporting on
the proportion of animals that have been pre-slaughter stunned (e.g. with statements
such as: ‘xx% of our animals…’).
• We expect companies to report impact figures in an easy-to-understand format andwith a description of the proportion of the supply chain represented by the data,
without relying on the assessor to make the calculations.

111

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Farm Animal Welfare Performance Impact
All Species
Question 49.

Does the company report on volumes of animal-sourced foods by type(meat, dairy, fish, eggs) and/or by method of production?

Rationale

Companies are expected to publish volumes of animal-sourced foods by type and/orby method of production, increasing transparency of the extent to which the company
is reliant on animal-sourced foods and supporting higher welfare production. Volumes
may be reported as numbers of animals.

Scoring

No reporting on volumes of animal-sourced foods by type(meat, dairy, fish, eggs) and/or by method of production.

0

The company reports on volumes of animal-sourced foods by type(meat, dairy, fish, eggs) and/or by method of production, but thisreporting is limited to certain geographies, species or products.

5

The company reports fully on volumes of animal-sourced foodsby type (meat, dairy, fish, eggs) and/or by method of production,
covering all relevant geographies, species and products.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is looking specifically for reporting on the volumes of animal-sourced
foods by type (meat, dairy, fish, eggs) and/or by method of production in thecompany’s supply chain.
• Reporting should reflect volumes, by weight, of product sold (for companies in
the Retailers and Wholesalers, and Restaurants and Bars sub-sectors) or produced(for companies in the Producers and Manufacturers sub-sector). Alternatively,
numbers of animals may be reported. Companies can report volumes in thecontext of overall volumes, i.e., to demonstrate a relative change in volume.
• Volumes of different forms of meat, dairy, fish or eggs may be reported separately
or combined. For example, one combined volume of meat may be reported for pork,
beef and poultry. However, this question is looking for volumes of each category(meat, dairy, fish and eggs) to be reported separately.
• For maximum points, the question is looking for reporting that covers all relevant
geographies, species and products, and encompasses all products containing meat,
dairy, fish or eggs as ingredients.

112

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Appendix

The 2023 Benchmark Questions and Scoring

Animal-Sourced Foods Performance Reporting
Question 50.

Does the company report on progress towards its targets for reducing relianceon animal-sourced foods?

Rationale

In addition to having clear policy commitments and management practices,companies are expected to develop reporting criteria and publish details ofprogress made against targets set for reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods.

Scoring

No reporting on progress towards targets for reducing relianceon animal-sourced foods.

0

The company reports on progress towards targets for reducing
reliance on animal-sourced foods, but this reporting is limited
to certain geographies or business divisions.

5

The company reports fully on progress towards targets for reducing
reliance on animal-sourced foods, covering all relevant geographiesand business divisions.

10(Max Score 10)
Explanatory Notes• This question is only scored if Question 28 is met fully or partially.
• This question recognises reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods may
be achieved in multiple ways, including direct action on reduction (e.g. waste
reduction, better utilisation, changes to business focus) or through protein
diversification (e.g., new product development, reformulation).
• Reporting on targets explicitly focused on efforts to decrease volumes or proportionsof animal sourced foods will be eligible for maximum points (10 points), whereas
reporting on targets which imply reductions in animal sourced foods (e.g. focusedon increasing the proportion of alternative proteins menu items) will be eligible forpartial points (5 points).
• This question is looking specifically for explicit monitoring data, this can bequantitative (e.g., reporting on the proportion by which the company has reduced
its sales of animal-sourced foods, or the proportion by which the company has
increased its sales of alternative proteins).

113

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2024

Credits

Photography

Front CoverIga Palacz

Page 5

Kishyru

Page 11

Oliver Sharp

Page 12

Miguel Ángel Díaz Magister

Page 14

Clayton Chase

Page 20

Brett Jordan

Page 24

Lightpoet

Page 25

Bri Tucker

Page 26

Grant Durr

Page 35

Dmitry Kalinovsky

Page 51

Lesha Delgado

Page 52

Monika Kubala

Page 56

Slowmotiongli

Back Cover

Priscilla Du Preez

DesignSuperfried design studio

114

superfried.com

bbfaw.com