12015 REPORTThe Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare
2015 Report
Nicky Amos and Dr Rory Sullivan

22015 REPORTThe Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare
The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) is designed to improve corporate reporting onfarm animal welfare management, policies, practices, processes and performance and, over time, contributeto tangible improvements to the welfare of the animals reared for food within company supply chains. It is thefirst global measure of farm animal welfare management, policy commitment, performance and disclosure infood companies and is designed to enable investors, companies, NGOs and other stakeholders to understandthe relative performance of food companies in this area.
The programme is supported by founding partners, Compassion in World Farming and World Animal
Protection, who provide technical expertise, guidance, funding and practical resources. In 2014, Coller Capital
joined the programme as an additional partner.
More information on the programme can be found at: www.bbfaw.com
Compassion in World Farming
Compassion in World Farming (“Compassion”) is the leading farm animal welfare charity advancing thewellbeing of farm animals through advocacy, political lobbying and positive corporate engagement. The FoodBusiness team was established in 2007, and works in partnership with major food companies to make tangible
improvements to the welfare of the farm animals in their operations and supply chains. The team offers
strategic advice and technical support for the development, implementation and communication of higher
welfare systems.
Compassion engages directly with many of the companies benchmarked in BBFAW to highlight potential
areas for improvement and provide support with policy development, welfare management and transparent
reporting. The Food Business team uses the Benchmark alongside Compassion’s other tools such as theSupermarket Survey, its Awards programme, and its advisory services, to help companies identify areas andmechanisms for continuous improvement, and to highlight sources of competitive advantage.
More information on the work of the Food Business team at Compassion in World Farming can be found at:www.compassioninfoodbusiness.com
Compassion’s involvement in the BBFAW is kindly supported by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation.
www.esmeefairbairn.org.uk

World Animal Protection
World Animal Protection (formerly known as the World Society for the Protection of Animals) has moved theworld to protect animals for the last 50 years. World Animal Protection works to give animals a better life. Its
activities include working with companies to ensure high standards of welfare for the animals in their care,working with governments and other stakeholders to prevent wild animals being cruelly traded, trappedor killed, and saving the lives of animals and the livelihoods of the people who depend on them in disastersituations. World Animal Protection influences decision makers to put animals on the global agenda, and it
inspires people to protect animals and to change animals’ lives for the better.
More information on World Animal Protection can be found at:www.worldanimalprotection.org.uk
Coller Capital
Coller Capital, founded in 1990, is a global private equity firm, and a recognised leader in private equity’s
secondary market. The company is headquartered in London, with additional offices in New York and Hong
Kong, and has assets under management of approximately $14 billion. Coller Capital believes farm animal
welfare is an important issue, which has historically had too low a profile within the investment management
industry. The firm incorporates farm animal welfare in its own Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG)
policies, and is delighted to encourage greater industry engagement with the issue through its support for theBusiness Benchmark.
More information on Coller Capital can be found at:www.collercapital.com

3

CONTENTS

2015 REPORTFOREWORD 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 12

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH 15

CHAPTER 3

OVERARCHING RESULTS 20

CHAPTER 4

DETAILED RESULTS 31

CHAPTER 5

WIDER ISSUES AND REFLECTIONS 64

CHAPTER 6

NEXT STEPS 71

CHAPTER 7

APPENDICES 75
APPENDIX 12015 BENCHMARK QUESTIONS AND SCORING
APPENDIX 22015 BENCHMARK COMPANIESAPPENDIX 3
GLOSSARY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the following for their support of thisproject and their contribution to the design and developmentof the 2015 Benchmark:• Philip Lymbery, Dr Tracey Jones, Jemima Jewell, Jo Cooper,
Dawn Rotheram and the Food Business team(Compassion in World Farming);• Steve McIvor, Martin Cooke, Audrey Mealia, Kai Akram
and Darren Vanstone (World Animal Protection);• Jeremy Coller and Rosie Wardle (Coller Capital);• Dr Steve Webster (Delta-innovation);• Dr Heleen van de Weerd (Cerebrus Associates);• Vanessa Gardner (Footprint Communications);• The many companies, investors and other stakeholders who
participated in meetings and teleconferences, who provided
input to the 2015 Benchmark consultation process, andwho provided feedback on the assessment process
and methodology.

42015 REPORTFOREWORD

FOREWORD

People today want to know that the animals used to produce their food are raised andhandled humanely. It’s a shared responsibility among farmers and food companies toprovide the transparency, candour, continuous improvement and clear measurement
needed at every stage of the value chain – from farm to table.
As farm animal welfare moves up the business agenda and companies invest moreresources in it, those who are serious about improvement need to ask themselves
three questions:• Are we curious – and open-minded – enough to find better ways? Whether afarmer, food company, researcher or advocate, we must open our minds to creative
improvements in all aspects of farm animal welfare, including solutions for complex
challenges such as housing systems, pain mitigation, and antibiotic usage;• Can we accept that we may not have all the answers ourselves? We must be
humble enough to ask for expert advice and engage in constructive, collaborative
dialogue with others in the food chain, research, science and advocacy
communities. Continuous improvement must be the driver, but an open mind
is the facilitator;• Are we telling our story openly, honestly and understandably? We need to share our
performance in a way that is meaningful and relevant to our stakeholders, and weneed to be responsive to their questions.
Farm animal welfare has become a more strategic issue for many companies, withmany making strong corporate and brand commitments to higher animal welfare
practices. At Tyson Foods, we focus on responsible, practical and sustainable animal
well-being practices that are both scientifically defensible and measurable. We
are also committed to playing a lead role in the pursuit of innovative animal welfare
practices and technologies. We do this in concert with our supply chain partners andanimal welfare advisors, who help challenge us with open, ongoing dialogues about
continuous improvement in the raising and handling of food animals.
One important input to our processes and to our reporting on farm animal welfare
is the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare, which provides very clear
expectations of us as a business. The Benchmark has played an important role increating our reporting platform and the annual benchmarking and feedback processhighlights the areas of greatest opportunity in our journey to improve.
Ensuring proper animal welfare in a business environment is a top-down job thathas to be woven into the company’s culture. At Tyson Foods, we have a mind-set,stemming from our core company values, that we strive to be good stewards of theanimals and environment necessary to not only run our business but to help feed theworld. It’s both the right thing to do and a moral responsibility. We owe responsible
farm animal stewardship to our suppliers, customers, team members, shareholders
and, most of all, the animals we depend on for our livelihood.

Donnie Smith
President & CEO
Tyson Foods, Inc52015 REPORTEXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARYSETTING THE SCENE
This is the fourth Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) report,
following previous Benchmarks in 2012, 2013 and 2014. It describes how global
food companies are managing and reporting on farm animal welfare, assesses the
progress that has been made since the first Benchmark report, analyses the factorsthat are driving improvements in corporate practice and performance and reflects
on the obstacles to further progress on farm animal welfare.
ABOUT THE BUSINESS BENCHMARK ON FARM ANIMAL WELFARE PROGRAMMEThe Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) is designed to drive higher
farm animal welfare standards in the world’s leading food businesses. Its aims are:• To provide investors with the information they need to understand the business
implications of farm animal welfare for the companies in which they are invested;• To provide investors, governments, academics, NGOs, consumers and otherstakeholders with an independent, impartial and reliable assessment of individualcompany efforts to adopt higher farm animal welfare standards and practices;• To provide guidance to companies interested in improving their managementof and reporting on farm animal welfare issues.
BBFAW’s key tool for the delivery of these objectives is an annual Benchmark offood companies‘ disclosure on farm animal welfare. BBFAW also produces a rangeof guidance and other materials for companies and investors on issues such as thebusiness case for farm animal welfare, best practices in management and reporting,and new and forthcoming farm animal welfare-related regulations and policies.
BBFAW has an extensive programme of structured engagement with investors andwith companies; this engagement encourages investors to pay more attention tofarm animal welfare in their investment processes and in their company dialogue,
and encourages companies to improve their practices, performance and reportingon farm animal welfare.
Governance
BBFAW was originally developed with the support, technical expertise and funding of leading
farm animal welfare organisations, Compassion in World Farming and World Animal Protection.
In 2014, Coller Capital joined as an additional partner.
BBFAW is managed by an independent Secretariat. In this role, Nicky Amos CSR Services Ltd is
responsible for providing an Executive Director and other resources necessary to coordinate thedevelopment of the Benchmark programme, to conduct the company research and evaluations,and to engage with investors, companies and other stakeholders.
The BBFAW Steering Committee, comprising senior members from each of the funding
partners, oversees the BBFAW programme’s strategic development and budget.
The development of the Benchmark is overseen by a Technical Working Group (TWG)
comprising technical experts, researchers and food business managers, and expert
advisors on investor engagement and corporate responsibility.

62015 REPORTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Benchmark Structure
The Benchmark assessed company approaches to farm animal welfare on the basisof their published information in four core areas:• Management Commitment and Policy, including overarching farm animal welfare
policies as well as specific policies on issues such as close confinement andlong-distance transport;• Governance and Management, including management oversight, farm animal
welfare-related objectives and targets, supply chain management andperformance reporting;• Leadership and Innovation, including research and development and customer
and client engagement;• Performance Reporting.
In order to ensure consistency with previous iterations of the Benchmark, thequestions and the associated scoring have remained relatively unchanged. However,in the 2015 Benchmark, we have assigned a weighting of 10% to the questions on
performance; these questions were assessed in the 2014 Benchmark but did notform part of the company scores.
Benchmark Scope
In total, 90 global food companies were included in the 2015 Benchmark. These
were broadly spread across the three food industry sub-sectors, i.e. (a) food retailers
and wholesalers, (b) restaurants and bars, and (c) food producers (see Table 1).
Relative to the 2014 Benchmark, eleven new companies were added. These were
Albertsons (USA), Chipotle Mexican Grill (USA), ConAgra Foods Inc (USA), Dean
Foods Co (USA), Fonterra (New Zealand), Gruppo Veronesi (Italy), Loblaw Companies
Ltd (Canada), Sysco (USA), Target Corporation (US), Wesfarmers Ltd (Australia), and
Woolworths Limited (Australia). The geographic distribution of the companies ispresented in Table 2.
Table 1: Companies by Sub-sector
SUB-SECTOR (AND ICB CLASSIFICATION)

NUMBER OF COMPANIESFood Retailers and Wholesalers (5337)

32

Restaurants and Bars (5757)

25

Food Producers (3570)

33

Total

90

Table 2: Companies by Country of Listing or Incorporation
COUNTRY OF LISTING OR INCORPORATIONNUMBER OF COMPANIES

USA

23

UK

19

France8Germany

8

Italy

6

Netherlands

4

Switzerland

4

Brazil3Australia

2

Denmark

2

Norway2

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2015 REPORT

COUNTRY OF LISTING OR INCORPORATIONNUMBER OF COMPANIES

Sweden

2

Spain

2

Canada2

Belgium

1

New Zealand

1

People’s Republic of China

1

Key Findings
The practice and reporting of farm animal welfare remain relatively
underdeveloped…
As can be seen in Figure 1, practice and reporting on farm animal welfare, relative
to other corporate responsibility issues, remains in its infancy. While 84% of thecompanies covered by our assessment acknowledge farm animal welfare as abusiness issue, only 69% have formalised their commitment in overarching policies
or equivalent documents, 54% have published farm animal welfare-related objectives
and targets and 51% have described their management responsibilities for farmanimal welfare. These findings indicate that many companies have yet to establish
robust systems and processes for managing, measuring and reporting on farmanimal welfare.
Figure 1: Overall Scores
2015

43%

Management Commitment

38%

2014

34%

2013

29%

2012

33%

Governance and Management

26%
25%
19%
26%

Innovation

26%
25%
18%

Performance Reporting*

10%
33%

OVERALL SCORE

30%
28%
23%

%

0

20

40

60

*Incorporated into company scores for the first time in 2015

80

100

8

2015 REPORTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY...but there are clear signs that farm animal welfare is rising up the businessagenda…
While starting from a relatively low base, companies are continuing to increase theattention they pay to farm animal welfare. The overall score across the universeof companies has continued to increase year-on-year since 2012, with the scoreincreasing by approximately 5% from 2012 to 2013, by 2% from 2013 to 2014 andby a further 3% from 2014 to 2015. This trend is mirrored by changes in specificareas of the Benchmark. For example, the proportion of companies with a publishedfarm animal welfare policy has increased from 46% in 2012 to 69% in 2015, andthe proportion with published objectives and targets for farm animal welfare has
increased from 26% in 2012 to 54% in 2015.
Figure 2 presents a composite picture of company scores. We have classed
the surveyed companies into one of six tiers as indicated in Table 3, with Table 4
illustrating how company rankings have changed from 2012 to 2015.
Table 3: BBFAW Tiers
TIER

PERCENTAGE SCORE

1. Leadership>80%

2. Integral to Business Strategy

62 – 80%

3. Established but Work to be Done

44 – 61%

4. Making Progress on Implementation

27 – 43%

5.On the Business Agenda but Limited Evidenceof Implementation

11 – 26%

6. No Evidence that on the Business Agenda<11%

Domino’s Pizza GroupEl Cortes Inglés
GategroupGroupe AuchanGroupe Lactalis
JD Wetherspoon
Mars Inc
Mondeléz
MüllerOlav Thon Gruppen
Quick
SSP Group
Umoe Gruppen

ABF
Autogrill
Burger King
Camst
CasinoDelhaize2014 (80 companies)
2015 (90 companies)

2012 (68 companies)
2013 (70 companies)

Kraft Foods
KrogerMetro
Mitchells & Butlers
Premier Foods
Rewe Group
Sysco
Vion Food Group
Wendy’s
WH Group
Wm Morrison
Woolworths (Australia)

HJ Heinz

General Mills
FerreroFonterra

2 Sisters Food Group
Aldi Süd
Aramark
Arla Foods
Cargill
Chipotle Mexican Grill
Darden Restaurants
Danish Crown
Dean Foods
Elior
Gruppo Cremonini
SodexoSubwayTesco
Tyson Foods
Walmart
Whitbread

GreggsGroupe Danone
JBS
Nestlé
Kaufland/Schwarz

BRF
Compass Group
FrieslandCampina

Ahold
BarillaMcDonald’s
UnileverMarfrig
MigrosJ Sainsbury

Cranswick

The Co-operative
Food (UK)

Coop Group(Switzerland)Marks & Spencer
Noble Foods
Waitrose2015 REPORT

TargetTerrena Group
Wesfarmers
Yum! Brands

Edeka Zentrale
Gruppo Veronesi
ICA Gruppen
Lidl
Loblaw
Mercadona
Starbucks

Dairy Crest

Albertsons
Aldi Nord
CarrefourConAgraCostco Wholesale

9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Figure 2: Company Rankings

TIER

1 - Leadership

0 2 3 4Non-mover

Up at least 1 tierDown 1 tier

New company

2 - Integral to Business Strategy

3 5 7 7

3 - Established But Work to be Done

6 10 14 16

4 - Making Progress on Implementation

18 16 16 27

5 - On the Business Agenda but Limited Evidence of Implementation

18 14 19 17

6 - No Evidence that on the Business Agenda

23 23 21 19

102015 REPORTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table 4: Number of Companies by Tier
TIER

NUMBER OF COMPANIES
2012

2013

2014

2015

1 Leadership

0

2

3

4

2 Integral to Business Strategy

3

5

7

7

3 Established but Work to be Done

6

10

14

16

4 Making Progress on Implementation

18

16

16

27

5 O
 n the Business Agenda but Limited Evidenceof Implementation

18

14

19

17

6 No Evidence that on the Business Agenda

23

23

21

19

Total

68

70

80

90

From our discussions with leading companies in the Benchmark, it is clear thatthey see farm animal welfare both as a business risk to be managed and as asource of competitive advantage. Within this, customer and client demand are themost important drivers for action. A number of companies have also identified
the Benchmark as an influence on their approach to farm animal welfare, pointing
in particular to the fact that the Benchmark enables companies to benchmark
themselves against their industry peers and provides companies with a clear set of
expectations for their management and reporting on farm animal welfare.
…and we are seeing a growing number of leadership companies across industry
sub-sectors and geographies…
The 11 companies in Tiers 1 and 2 have made strong commitments to farm animal
welfare, have well developed management systems and processes, and have a clear
focus on farm animal welfare performance measures. These companies cover all
three of the food industry sub-sectors (i.e. food retailers and wholesalers, restaurants
and bars, and food producers), are well distributed across the countries (of listingor incorporation) covered by the Benchmark and encompass a range of ownership
structures (public, private and co-operatives). This suggests that it is realistic for foodcompanies, irrespective of their sub-sector, geography or ownership, to aspire to andachieve higher scoring in this Benchmark.
… with institutional investors starting to pay much more attention to farm animal
welfare.
Investors are paying more attention to farm animal welfare in their investment
research and in their engagement. In relation to investment research, the Benchmark
has been used by investors to provide insights into how well companies are identifying
and managing risks in their supply chains and to compare and rank companies
on their approach to farm animal welfare. With the Benchmark about to enter its
fifth iteration, we expect more investors to start using the Benchmark to compare
company performance and to track performance over time.
In relation to engagement, we have seen a striking increase in the willingness ofinvestors to engage with companies to encourage them to improve their practices
and reporting on farm animal welfare. In mid-2015, the BBFAW initiated the firstever international collaborative initiative aimed at encouraging major global foodcompanies to strengthen their management systems and processes on farmanimal welfare.

112015 REPORTEXECUTIVE SUMMARYAt December 2015, the collaborative initiative was supported by 18 institutional
investors from the UK, the Netherlands, France, Canada, the USA and Australia:
ACTIAM, Australian Ethical Investment, Aviva Investors, BNP Paribas Investment
Partners, the Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church, Coller Capital,
EdenTree Investment Management, Epworth Investment Management, The
Sustainability Group (part of Loring, Wolcott & Coolidge Trust), NEI Investments,
Nelson Capital Management, Rathbone Greenbank Investments, Robeco, Royal
London Asset Management (RLAM), Schroders, Trillium Asset Management, Triodos
Bank and Walden Asset Management.
A number of the investor participants in the collaboration have indicated that they areinterested in following up the original letters with meetings and/or raising farm animal
welfare as part of their routine company meetings, in particular for those companies
whose scores have not changed between the 2014 and 2015 Benchmarks. They see
this lack of progress as suggesting that these companies are not paying attention to
the issues and concerns being raised by investors.
Next Steps
We are hugely encouraged by the progress that we have seen in company andinvestor practice. Over the next year, we intend to focus our efforts on:
1. Investor Engagement - Within this, we will:• Continue to engage with investors to ensure that the Benchmark, the universeof companies covered by the Benchmark and the other materials and reports
produced by the Benchmark are relevant and useful to investors;• Continue to raise the profile of farm animal welfare and the investment-relatedrisks and opportunities in the investment community;• Develop the investor collaboration that we established in 2015, with a particularfocus on encouraging greater investor engagement with the companies in the
Benchmark.
2. Strengthening Market Demand - There is a need to create real demand in theinvestment system for research on farm animal welfare, demand for investors to
use their influence with the companies in which they are invested, and demand forinvestors to consider farm animal welfare in their investment research and decisionmaking processes. We will discuss this issue with our NGO partners to consider how
they might help create this demand through their own investment practices, throughthe dialogue that they have with their investment managers, and through mobilising
their members and supporters to ask how their pension funds are addressing farmanimal welfare in their investment practices.
3. Strengthen the Benchmark’s focus on farm animal welfare performance - In the2016 Benchmark, we expect to both increase the weighting on performance-related
questions in the Benchmark and to reward companies performing at a significantly
high level on a particular issue. We will discuss these issues with investors andcompanies in early 2016 and we will present concrete proposals when we consult
on the scope and criteria for the 2016 Benchmark;4. Repeat the Benchmark - We will repeat the Benchmark in August/September
2016, with the aim of releasing the fifth Benchmark report in early 2017. Before wecommence this process, we will – as we have done for each Benchmark – formallyconsult on the criteria to be used, the issues to be covered and the scope of
the Benchmark.

122015 REPORTCHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

13

2015 REPORTINTRODUCTION

1.1

SETTING THE SCENE
Global food companies are paying increasingly more attention to the issue offarm animal welfare. This is being driven by a variety of factors: the 2013 European
horsemeat scandal, food scares, tightening regulatory requirements on animal
welfare and on food safety and quality, investor concerns about how food companies
are managing animal welfare and other risks in their supply chains, and consumer
interest in issues such as food quality, safety, provenance and traceability.
This is the fourth Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) report,
following previous Benchmarks in 2012, 2013 and 20141. In this report, we describe
how global food companies are managing and reporting on farm animal welfare, andassess the progress that has been made since the first Benchmark report. We focus,
in particular, on progress over the past year, analysing the factors that are driving
improvements in corporate practice and performance on farm animal welfare andidentifying what we see as the major obstacles to progress.

1.2

THE BUSINESS BENCHMARK ON FARM ANIMAL WELFARE
The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) is designed to drive higher
farm animal welfare standards in the world’s leading food businesses. Its aims are:• To provide investors with the information they need to understand the business
implications of farm animal welfare for the companies in which they are invested;• To provide investors, governments, academics, NGOs, consumers and otherstakeholders with an independent, impartial and reliable assessment of individualcompany efforts to adopt higher farm animal welfare standards and practices;• To provide guidance to companies interested in improving their management ofand reporting on farm animal welfare issues.
BBFAW’s key tool for the delivery of these objectives is an annual Benchmark of foodcompanies’ practice and reporting on farm animal welfare. Beyond the Benchmark,
BBFAW produces a range of guidance and other materials for companies andinvestors on issues such as the business case for farm animal welfare, best practices
in management and reporting, and new and forthcoming farm animal welfare-related
regulations and policies2. BBFAW also has an extensive programme of structured
engagement with investors and with companies; this engagement encourages
investors to pay more attention to farm animal welfare in their investment processes
and in their company dialogue, and encourages companies to improve their practices,performance and reporting on farm animal welfare.

1
http://www.bbfaw.com/publications
2
See, further, www.bbfaw.com

142015 REPORTINTRODUCTION

Governance and Oversight

BBFAW was originally developed with the support, technical expertise and funding of leading
farm animal welfare organisations, Compassion in World Farming and World Animal Protection.
In 2014, Coller Capital joined as an additional partner.
The BBFAW Steering Committee, comprising senior members from each of the funding
partners, oversees the BBFAW programme’s strategic development and budget.
The programme is managed by an independent Secretariat. In this role, Nicky Amos CSR
Services Ltd is responsible for providing an Executive Director and other resources necessary tocoordinate the development of the Benchmark programme, to conduct the company researchand evaluations, and to engage with investors, companies and other stakeholders.
The development of the Benchmark is overseen by a Technical Working Group (TWG)
comprising technical experts, researchers and food business managers, and expert advisors
on investor engagement and corporate responsibility. The members of the TWG for the 2015
benchmarking process were:• Nicky Amos, Executive Director, BBFAW;• J emima Jewell, Head of Food Business (and TWG Co-ordinator), Compassion in
World Farming;• Dr Tracey Jones, Director of Food Business, Compassion in World Farming;• Martin Cooke, International Head of Corporate Engagement, World Animal Protection;• Audrey Mealia, Corporate Engagement Manager, World Animal Protection;• Dr Rory Sullivan, Expert Advisor, BBFAW;• Rosie Wardle, Coller Capital.

1.3

REPORT STRUCTURE
The report comprises five main chapters as follows:• Chapter 2 describes the Benchmark criteria, scope and assessment process;• Chapter 3 presents the key findings of the 2015 Benchmark, including a rankingof the companies covered by the Benchmark;• Chapter 4 focuses on company practice against the core elements of the
Benchmark (policies, responsibilities, objectives and targets, management controls,
performance, leadership and innovation), highlighting examples of good and bestpractice in the management of farm animal welfare;• Chapter 5 reflects on the implications of the Benchmark for companies andinvestors, and discusses emerging farm animal welfare-related issues forfood companies;• Chapter 6 describes the future development of the Benchmark.

152015 REPORTCHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH

16

2015 REPORTMETHODOLOGY AND APPROACH

2.1

THE 2015 BENCHMARK
Investor and company engagement are integral parts of the Benchmark development
and improvement process. Since the launch of the third Benchmark report in
February 2014, the BBFAW Secretariat has:
• Participated in a series of telephone calls and meetings with European and North
American investors and companies;• Surveyed food companies on how the Benchmark has influenced their approach
to farm animal welfare;• Surveyed investors on how they are using the Benchmark;• Conducted a formal consultation in June and July 2015 on the scope and criteria
for the 2015 iteration of the Benchmark;• Participated in a series of conferences, roundtables and webinars, including events
convened by Morgan Stanley, NEI Investments, Canadian Business for Social
Responsibility (Canadian BSR), Responsible Investor, South by Southwest (SXSW)Inc, Standard Life Investments Limited and UKSIF3.
This engagement has resulted in us making a number of changes to the Benchmark
itself (see Section 2.2) and to the universe of companies covered by the Benchmark(see Section 2.4).

2.2

3
For a fuller description of BBFAW’s
engagement with companies andinvestors, see:• The 2015 BBFAW Methodology Reportwhich accompanies this Benchmark
Report (Nicky Amos and Rory Sullivan(2015) (BBFAW, London). http://www.
bbfaw.com/media/1318/bbfawmethodology-report-2015.pdf• The Summary of the Consultationon the 2015 Benchmark (Nicky
Amos and Rory Sullivan) (2015),
Summary of Consultation on the2015 Benchmark. Investor Briefing
No. 22. (BBFAW, London) http://www.
bbfaw.com/media/1319/summaryof-consultation-on-the-2015benchmark.pdf• The 2015 surveys of how investors andcompanies are using the Benchmark(Rory Sullivan and Nicky Amos) (2015).
How are Investors Using the Business
Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare?
Investor Briefing No. 20 (BBFAW,
London) http://www.bbfaw.com/
media/1077/how-investors-areusing-the-business-benchmark-onfarm-animal-welfare.pdf
How Are Companies Using theBusiness Benchmark on Farm Animal
Welfare? Investor Briefing No. 16(BBFAW, London) http://www.bbfaw.
com/media/1071/investor-briefingno-16_how-are-companies-usingthe-benchmark.pdf

4
For a more detailed discussion of the
Benchmark criteria, see the 2015
Methodology Report (Note 3).

BENCHMARK STRUCTURE
The Benchmark criteria (see Appendix 1) are set out in four core areas as indicatedin Table 2.14. As with previous Benchmarks, we focused on the corporate entity (orparent company) as a whole rather than subsidiaries. However, the Benchmark doesconsider how companies manage farm animal welfare issues in specific markets orgeographic regions and gives credit for innovative practices and processes in thesemarkets and regions.

172015 REPORTMETHODOLOGY AND APPROACH

Table 2.1: Benchmark Elements
PILLARKEY ELEMENTS

NO. OF POINTS % OF SCOREManagement Commitment• General account of why farm animal welfare is importantto the business, including discussion of the risks andbusiness opportunities.
• O verarching farm animal welfare policy that sets outcore principles and beliefs on farm animal welfare andthat explains how these are addressed and implemented
throughout the business.
• S pecific policy positions on key welfare concerns suchas the close confinement of livestock, animals subjected
to genetic engineering or cloning, routine mutilations,prophylactic antibiotic usage, slaughter without
stunning, and long distance live transportation.

70

34%

Governance and Management• Defined responsibilities for the day-to-day managementof animal welfare-related issues as well as strategic
oversight of how the company’s policy is
being implemented.
• O bjectives and targets including process andperformance measures, with an explanation of how
these objectives and targets are to be delivered and how
progress is to be monitored.
• R eporting, and explaining, performance against
objectives and targets, and company policy.
• I nternal controls such as employee training in farmanimal welfare and the actions to be taken in the event of
non-compliance with the farm animal welfare policy.
• P olicy implementation through supply chains, including
the incorporation of farm animal welfare in suppliercontracts, supply chain monitoring and auditing
processes, and supporting suppliers in meeting thecompany’s standards on farm animal welfare.

85

41%

Leadership and Innovation• C ompany involvement in research and development
programmes to advance farm animal welfare.
• C ompany involvement in industry or other initiatives
directed at improving farm animal welfare.
• A cknowledgement of farm animal welfare performancefrom notable award or accreditation schemes.
• C ompany initiatives to promote higher farm animal
welfare amongst customers or consumers.

30

15%

Performance Reporting• C ompany reporting on prescribed performancemeasures (the proportion of animals in supply chainsthat are free from confinement, the proportion ofanimals in supply chains that are subject to pre-slaughter
stunning, the average, typical or maximum permitted live
transport times for animals in supply chains).
• C ompany reporting on other farm animal welfare
outcome measures.

20

10%

In order to ensure consistency with previous iterations of the Benchmark, thequestions and the associated scoring have remained relatively unchanged. However,in the 2015 Benchmark, we have assigned a weighting of 10% to the questions on
performance; these questions were assessed in the 2014 Benchmark but did notform part of the company scores. Our expectation is that the weighting assigned
to performance-based questions will rise to 35% by 2018 in line with our longerterm aim for the Benchmark to focus on performance rather than exclusively on
management processes.

182015 REPORTMETHODOLOGY AND APPROACH

2.3

THE BENCHMARKING PROCESSThe 2015 Benchmark followed the same process as the three previous Benchmarks.
The initial company assessments were conducted in August and September 2015
by Nicky Amos and Dr Rory Sullivan (from the BBFAW Secretariat), Dr Steve Webster(Delta-innovation) and Dr Heleen van de Weerd (Cerebrus Associates). This desktop
review of each company’s published information involved a detailed review of thematerial on companies’ corporate (i.e. parent company) websites, the material
contained in annual reports, corporate responsibility reports and other publications,and the material on subsidiary company websites. These reviews also coveredmaterials such as company press releases and frequently asked questions.
The company assessments were based on published information only. The reasons
for relying on published information were: (a) to encourage better disclosure, which
is a core objective of the BBFAW, (b) to ensure that companies were assessedin a consistent manner (i.e. via an unbiased, objective evaluation of publishedinformation), (c) to avoid any suggestion that companies working with Compassionin World Farming and/or World Animal Protection were advantaged by theassessment methodology.
Following this initial review and preliminary scoring, individual company reports
were reviewed by members of Compassion in World Farming’s Food Business teamand World Animal Protection’s Corporate Engagement team to check the factual
accuracy of the content and to ensure consistency. The BBFAW Secretariat also
conducted a sensitivity analysis to ensure that companies with different businesscharacteristics (for example, those with complex versus those with simple supply
chains, those with multiple subsidiaries versus those with relatively few subsidiaries,
and those with multiple brands versus those with fewer brands) were being treatedfairly and to ensure the assessment was not penalising or favouring specificbusiness models.
Preliminary assessment reports containing interim findings and scores were emailed
to companies in early November 2015. During November 2015, 32 companies (35%of the companies assessed) responded with written comments or requested further
dialogue on the assessment approach and scoring. As a result of feedback fromcompanies, the scores for five companies were revised and one company moved
up one tier.
The final confidential company reports, showing individual scores and comments
for each question, as well as overall company scores and comparable sector scores,
were sent to companies in January 2016.

19

2015 REPORTMETHODOLOGY AND APPROACH

2.4

COMPANIES COVEREDIn total, 90 companies were included in the 2015 Benchmark (see Appendix 2 forthe full list, including their classification and countries of incorporation). These werebroadly spread across the three food industry sub-sectors, i.e. (a) food retailers andwholesalers, (b) restaurants and bars, and (c) food producers (see Table 2.2).
Relative to the 2014 Benchmark, eleven new companies were added. These were
Albertsons (USA), Chipotle Mexican Grill (USA), ConAgra Foods Inc (USA), Dean
Foods Co (USA), Fonterra (New Zealand), Gruppo Veronesi (Italy), Loblaw Companies
Ltd (Canada), Sysco (USA), Target Corporation (USA), Wesfarmers Ltd (Australia), and
Woolworths Limited (Australia). In addition to the new companies, a number of otherminor changes were made to the universe of companies covered by the Benchmark,in particular:• Clarification that Domino’s Pizza Group plc (a UK domiciled company with
operations in Europe and Asia) rather than Domino’s Pizza LLC (which operates
exclusively in the USA) is the entity covered by the Benchmark;• Hillshire Brands (which was included in the 2014 Benchmark) is now part of Tyson
Foods, with information on Hillshire Brands now being included in the assessmentof Tyson Foods;• Burger King Corporation has changed its country of incorporation from the
USA to Canada.
The geographic distribution of the companies covered in the 2015 Benchmark ispresented in Table 2.3.

Table 2.2: Companies by Sub-sector
SUB-SECTOR (AND ICB CLASSIFICATION)

NO. OF COMPANIESFood Retailers and Wholesalers (5337)

32

Restaurants and Bars (5757)

25

Food Producers (3570)

33

Total

90

Table 2.3: Companies by Country of Listing or Incorporation
COUNTRY OF LISTING OR INCORPORATIONNO. OF COMPANIES

USA

23

UK

19

France8Germany

8

Italy

6

Netherlands

4

Switzerland

4

Brazil3Australia

2

Denmark

2

Norway2

Sweden

2

Spain

2

Canada2

Belgium

1

New Zealand

1

People’s Republic of China

1

202015 REPORTCHAPTER 3

Photo credit: Traditional Norfolk Poultry

OVERARCHING RESULTS

212015 REPORTOVERARCHING RESULTS

3.1

OVERALL FINDINGS
There are two headline findings from the 2015 Benchmark. The first, as indicatedin Figure 3.1, is that practice and reporting on farm animal welfare remain relatively
underdeveloped across all four of the strategic pillars considered in the Benchmark(Management Commitment and Policy, Governance and Management, Innovation,
and Performance Reporting).
Figure 3.1: Overall Scores

2015

43%

Management Commitment

38%

2014

34%

2013

29%

2012

33%

Governance and Management

26%
25%
19%
26%

Innovation

26%
25%
18%

Performance Reporting*

10%
33%

OVERALL SCORE

30%
28%
23%

%

0

20

40

60

80

100

*Incorporated into company scores for the first time in 2015

The second is that companies continue to increase the attention they pay to farmanimal welfare, in particular in the Management Commitment and Governanceand Management pillars of the Benchmark. The overall score across the universeof companies has continued to increase year-on-year since 2012, with the scoreincreasing by approximately 5% from 2012 to 2013, by 2% from 2013 to 2014 andby a further 3% from 2014 to 2015. In fact, the overall score would have increased
by 6% between 2014 and 2015 were it not for (a) the inclusion of the scoring for
Performance Reporting questions for the first time, which reduced the overall score
for 2015 by approximately 2%, and (b) the addition of the 11 new companies who,with an average total score of 26%, reduced the overall average by a further 1%.
This trend of ongoing improvement is mirrored by changes in specific areas of the
Benchmark. For example, the proportion of companies with a published farm animal
welfare policy has increased from 46% in 2012 to 69% in 2015.
We also see the proportion of companies that have published objectives and targets
for farm animal welfare has increased from 26% in 2012, to 41% in 2013 and 2014, to
54% in 2015. This is particularly encouraging, as it signifies that companies are taking
practical steps to put their policy commitments into practice.

222015 REPORTOVERARCHING RESULTS

3.2

INDIVIDUAL COMPANY PERFORMANCE
We have ranked the surveyed companies into one of six tiers, based on theirpercentage scores, as indicated in Table 3.15. Figure 3.2 presents a composite pictureof company scores, and Table 3.2 shows how the number of companies in each tierhas changed over the period 2012 to 2015.
Table 3.1: Number of Companies by Tier5
We have used the same percentage
scores to categorise companies by tier.

TIER

PERCENTAGE
SCORE

1 Leadership>80%

2 Integral to Business Strategy

62 – 80%

3 Established but Work to be Done

44 – 61%

4 Making Progress on Implementation

27 – 43%

5 O
 n the Business Agenda but Limited Evidenceof Implementation

11 – 26%

6 No Evidence that on the Business Agenda<11%

Domino’s Pizza GroupEl Cortes Inglés
GategroupGroupe AuchanGroupe Lactalis
JD Wetherspoon
Mars Inc
Mondeléz
MüllerOlav Thon Gruppen
Quick
SSP Group
Umoe Gruppen

ABF
Autogrill
Burger King
Camst
CasinoDelhaize2014 (80 companies)
2015 (90 companies)

2012 (68 companies)
2013 (70 companies)

Kraft Foods
KrogerMetro
Mitchells & Butlers
Premier Foods
Rewe Group
Sysco
Vion Food Group
Wendy’s
WH Group
Wm Morrison
Woolworths (Australia)

HJ Heinz

General Mills
FerreroFonterra

2 Sisters Food Group
Aldi Süd
Aramark
Arla Foods
Cargill
Chipotle Mexican Grill
Darden Restaurants
Danish Crown
Dean Foods
Elior
Gruppo Cremonini
SodexoSubwayTesco
Tyson Foods
Walmart
Whitbread

GreggsGroupe Danone
JBS
Nestlé
Kaufland/Schwarz

BRF
Compass Group
FrieslandCampina

Ahold
BarillaMcDonald’s
UnileverMarfrig
MigrosJ Sainsbury

Cranswick

The Co-operative
Food (UK)

Coop Group(Switzerland)Marks & Spencer
Noble Foods
Waitrose2015 REPORT

TargetTerrena Group
Wesfarmers
Yum! Brands

Edeka Zentrale
Gruppo Veronesi
ICA Gruppen
Lidl
Loblaw
Mercadona
Starbucks

Dairy Crest

Albertsons
Aldi Nord
CarrefourConAgraCostco Wholesale

23
OVERARCHING RESULTS

Figure 3.2: Company Rankings

TIER

1 - Leadership

0 2 3 4Non-mover

Up at least 1 tierDown 1 tier

New company

2 - Integral to Business Strategy

3 5 7 7

3 - Established But Work to be Done

6 10 14 16

4 - Making Progress on Implementation

18 16 16 27

5 - On the Business Agenda but Limited Evidence of Implementation

18 14 19 17

6 - No Evidence that on the Business Agenda

23 23 21 19

242015 REPORTOVERARCHING RESULTS

Table 3.2: Company Rankings
TIER

NUMBER OF COMPANIES
2012

2013

2014

2015

1 Leadership

0

2

3

4

2 Integral to Business Strategy

3

5

7

7

3 Established but Work to be Done

6

10

14

16

4 Making Progress on Implementation

18

16

16

27

5 O
 n the Business Agenda but Limited Evidenceof Implementation

18

14

19

17

6 No Evidence that on the Business Agenda

23

23

21

19

Total

68

70

80

90

As can be seen from Figure 3.2 and Table 3.2, the average score remains low. Forty
per cent (40%), or 36 out of the 90 companies, appear in Tiers 5 and 6. These arecompanies where there is limited or no evidence that farm animal welfare is on thebusiness agenda. While this signals that there is much work to be done to even get
farm animal welfare on the business agenda of many large global food companies, amore encouraging conclusion is that the proportion of companies in these tiers has
been declining consistently, from 60% in the 2012 Benchmark, to 53% in 2013, 50%
in 2014 and 40% in 2015. Furthermore, 13 of the 40 companies that were in Tiers 5
and 6 in the 2014 Benchmark have started to make substantive progress, improving
their performance enough to move up at least one tier. In fact, six companies(2 Sisters Food Group, Compass Group, Greggs, Kaufland, Metro and Mitchells& Butlers) moved up two tiers, and Whitbread moved up three tiers.
There is also a group of clear leaders. The 11 companies in Tiers 1 and 2 have madestrong commitments to farm animal welfare, have well developed management
systems and processes, and have a clear focus on farm animal welfare performancemeasures. These companies cover all three of the food industry sub-sectors(i.e. food retailers and wholesalers, restaurants and bars, and food producers), arewell distributed across the countries (of listing or incorporation) covered by the
Benchmark and encompass a range of ownership structures (public, private andco-operatives). This is encouraging as it suggests that it is realistic for foodcompanies, irrespective of their sub-sector, geography or ownership, to aspire to
and achieve higher scoring in this Benchmark.
It is particularly encouraging that a significant proportion of the companies coveredby the assessment have made notable improvements in their farm animal welfarerelated management and/or reporting over the past year. In Table 3.3 we highlight
those companies (19 of the 79 that were assessed in the 2014 Benchmark) whose
improvements have enabled them to jump at least one tier. Of the 646 companies
assessed since the first Benchmark in 2012, 34 (or 53%) have seen their ranking
increase by at least one tier over this period. While there are, clearly, many companyspecific factors at play, the majority of the improvements in company scores between
2014 and 2015 appear to be as a result of companies progressively implementing
and reporting on their farm animal welfare management systems and processes. This
contrasts somewhat with the changes between 2012 and 2013, where many of thecompanies that improved their scores were effectively bringing their reporting onfarm animal welfare up to the same standard as their reporting on other social andenvironmental issues.
6This number excludes Kraft Foods GroupInc (now Mondelēz International Inc andKraft Foods Inc), Sara Lee Corporation
and The Hillshire Brands Company (nowpart of Tyson Foods), and Smithfield
Foods (now part of WH Group)25

2015 REPORTOVERARCHING RESULTS

Table 3.3: Companies Improving by at Least One Tier between 2014 and 2015
COMPANY NAMECHANGE FROM 2014
TO 2015

2 Sisters Food Group

Tier 6 to Tier 4

Aldi Nord

Tier 6 to Tier 5

Metro

Tier 6 to Tier 4

Mitchells & Butlers

Tier 6 to Tier 4

Whitbread

Tier 6 to Tier 3

Aldi Süd

Tier 5 to Tier 4

Aramark

Tier 5 to Tier 4

Compass Group

Tier 5 to Tier 3

KauflandTier 5 to Tier 3

GreggsTier 5 to Tier 3

Darden Restaurants

Tier 5 to Tier 4

Elior

Tier 5 to Tier 4

Premier Foods

Tier 5 to Tier 4

BarillaTier 4 to Tier 3

BRF

Tier 4 to Tier 3

SodexoTier 4 to Tier 3

WalmartTier 4 to Tier 3

Marfrig

Tier 3 to Tier 2

Noble Foods

Tier 2 to Tier 1

262015 REPORTOVERARCHING RESULTS

While the overall trends are encouraging, nine companies fell by at least one tier(see Table 3.4). A number of others (not included in Table 3.4) also saw their scores
decline, albeit not enough to cause them to slip a tier. Among the companies whosescores declined, there seem to be four common reasons:• First, some companies had revamped their corporate websites, often deleting or
reducing the information provided on farm animal welfare-related issues;• Second, some had failed to update farm animal welfare-related information eventhough we had raised concerns in the 2014 Benchmark and had stated we would
reduce the scores awarded if the information was not updated in time for the2015 Benchmark;• Third, some had started to produce integrated reports, resulting in them focusing
their attention on those issues regarded by the companies as obviously financiallymaterial, frequently to the exclusion of issues that are considered lessfinancially material;• Fourth, although this is a more speculative point, takeovers do appear to affectthe level of attention focused on farm animal welfare. It is not uncommon for thecompanies that have been taken over to have their sustainability-related reporting
subsumed into that of the acquiring company, often with the loss of much of thedetail on practices and processes on issues such as farm animal welfare. What is
not clear is whether this reflects a permanent loss of capacity and expertise orwhether, over time, the acquiring company will strengthen its farm animal welfarerelated reporting and build on the capacity and expertise of the acquired company.
This is a point we will monitor in future years and will discuss with the companies
covered by the Benchmark.
The other notable point – which we have seen for the first time in this year’s
Benchmark – is that four companies that were in Tier 3 in 2014 are now in Tier 4.
While there are likely to be company-specific factors at play in each case, thesechanges point to the importance of companies maintaining a consistent focus
on farm animal welfare, and of ensuring that they institutionalise and continue
to improve their practices, reporting and performance on farm animal welfare.

27

2015 REPORTOVERARCHING RESULTS

Table 3.4: Companies Falling by at Least One Tier

3.3

COMPANY NAMECHANGE FROM 2014
TO 2015

Arla Foods

Tier 3 to Tier 4

Wm MorrisonsTier 3 to Tier 4

Vion Foods

Tier 3 to Tier 4

Wendy’s

Tier 3 to Tier 4

General Mills

Tier 3 to Tier 4

Dairy Crest

Tier 4 to Tier 5

Yum! Brands

Tier 4 to Tier 5

Delhaize Group

Tier 5 to Tier 6

JD Wetherspoon

Tier 5 to Tier 6

PERFORMANCE BY SUB-SECTOR
Figure 3.3 presents the results of the 2015 Benchmark, broken down by sub-sector(i.e. food retailers and wholesalers, restaurants and bars, and food producers).
Performance across all three of the sectors is relatively poor, with the restaurants
and bars sector continuing to be a noticeably poorer performer than the other two
sectors. Notwithstanding a notable improvement in the average score for companies
in the restaurants and bar sector between 2014 (18%) and 2015 (26%), the gap
between this and the other food sub-sectors has not changed much since the first
Benchmark in 2012.
The relatively poor performance of restaurants and bars appears, at least in part,to reflect companies’ proximity to consumers or the public. If we look at thoserestaurants and bars in the sample that have a strong high street presence andtrade under the corporate brand name (this group includes Burger King, Domino’s
Pizza Group, Greggs, JD Wetherspoon, McDonald’s, Quick, Starbucks, Subway andWendy’s), we find that the average score for these ten companies is 29%. In contrast,
business-to-business companies that have less (or relatively unknown) proximity
to the public or that trade under multiple service brands scored significantly worse.
For example, if we take Compass Group, Cremonini, Elior, Gategroup, Olav Thon
Gruppen, SSP Group, and Umoe Gruppen, as representative of business-to-businesscompanies, we see that the average score for these seven companies is just 17%.

28

2015 REPORTOVERARCHING RESULTS

Figure 3.3: Sub-sector Comparison
Food Producers

48%

Management Commitment

38%

Restaurants and Bars

41%

Food Retailers

43%

Overall Average Scores

37%

Governance and Management

26%
34%
33%
27%

Innovation

12%
36%
26%
9%

Performance Reporting

7%
13%
10%
37%

OVERALL SCORE

26%
35%
33%

%

0

20

40

60

80

100

29

2015 REPORTOVERARCHING RESULTS

3.4

PERFORMANCE BY GEOGRAPHY
As part of our research, we analysed whether there is a difference between thecompanies as a result of their country of origin. In Figure 3.4, we compare theaverage scores of the 19 UK companies, the 23 US companies, and the 39 European(excluding the UK) companies with the average scores of the 90 companies coveredby the Benchmark. While the research suggests that UK domiciled companies may
be slightly better performers, we are wary of drawing any strong conclusions at thispoint given the relatively small sample size involved and the potential for a small
number of high performing companies to significantly skew the results. More detailed
and comprehensive country studies would be required to offer more definitive
conclusions on whether a company’s country of origin is a significant influenceon performance.
Figure 3.4: Geographic Comparison

UK Average Scores

61%

Management Commitment

35%

Europe (ex UK) Average Scores

41%

US Average Scores

43%

Overall Average Scores

47%

Governance and Management

26%
30%
33%
36%

Innovation

27%
15%
26%
28%

Performance Reporting

5%
5%
10%
48%

OVERALL SCORE

27%
29%
33%

%

0

20

40

60

80

It is also interesting to note that the four emerging market companies (i.e. BRF,
JBS and Marfrig in Brazil, and WH Group in China) had an average score of 48%(up from 41% in 2014). While this sample is too small to offer anything other thanthe most generic of comments, it does suggest that investors should be careful
about drawing conclusions about a company’s farm animal welfare performance
simply because of its country of origin.

100

30

2015 REPORTOVERARCHING RESULTS

3.5

PERFORMANCE BY OWNERSHIPWe analysed company performance by ownership and found some differences in
performance between listed and unlisted companies7 (see Figure 3.5). These findings
broadly mirror the findings in the 2014 Benchmark, with publicly listed companies
continuing to perform better (with an average score of 33% in the 2015 Benchmark)than private companies (with an average score of 26% in the 2015 Benchmark).
The difference may be partly attributable to the greater scrutiny faced by publicly
listed companies, and the associated pressures to provide more comprehensive
disclosures on sustainability-related issues.
Figure 3.5: Public Versus Private Ownership
PublicManagement Commitment

44%

Private37%

Overall Average Scores

43%

Governance and Management

33%
24%
33%

Innovation

24%
19%
26%

Performance Reporting

9%
5%
10%

OVERALL SCORE

33%
26%
33%

%

7
We included nine co-operatives (Arla,
Camst, Coop Group (Switzerland),
Fonterra, Migros, Rewe Group,
FrieslandCampina, The Cooperative
Food (UK) and the Terrena Group) in our
research. While these scored significantly
better than the private or publicly listedcompanies (with an overall average of47%), they have not been included in thegraph because of the small sample size.

0

20

40

60

80

100

31

2015 REPORTCHAPTER 4

DETAILED RESULTS32

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

4.1

MANAGEMENT COMMITMENT AND POLICYIs Farm Animal Welfare Recognised as a Business Issue?
Acknowledging farm animal welfare as a business issue is an important first step
towards developing and implementing an effective approach to the managementof farm animal welfare. Of the 90 companies covered by the 2015 Benchmark, 84%
recognise farm animal welfare as a business issue, the same proportion as in 2014,
and noticeably higher than the 71% in the 2012 and 2013 Benchmarks. This is hugely
encouraging as the explicit acknowledgement by a company of an issue as having
business relevance is the necessary first step towards taking action on the issue.
Companies present different reasons for focusing on farm animal welfare. For
some, it is the ethical arguments that are most important. For others, it is moreconventional business arguments such as the need to comply with legislation andrelevant voluntary and industry standards, the need to meet stakeholder, customer
and consumer expectations, and/or market opportunities (for example, for higher
welfare products). What is striking is that relatively few comment on the significanceof farm animal welfare to their business, e.g. the costs likely to be incurred to comply
with legislation, or the potential sales of higher welfare products. There are, however,some interesting examples of companies explaining how they have assessed
farm animal welfare in the context of their wider business risk assessment and risk
management processes. For example, Greggs describes on its website how its
animal welfare policy benefits the company by helping Greggs strive to do the rightthing, build consumer trust, improve the profile of the brand, reduce risk by ensuring
traceability and create market opportunities through recognition andconsumer communications8.
A number of companies identify animal welfare as a material issue. By way of example,
we have included extracts of the materiality assessments conducted by Darden
and Marfrig in Box 4.1 and Box 4.2 respectively. We stress that we are not offering aview on the details of Darden’s or Marfrig’s assessments or on whether they should
assign a greater or lesser importance to farm animal welfare. Rather, the point wewish to highlight is that farm animal welfare presents risks and opportunities for foodcompanies and is of concern to the stakeholders of these companies. As such, farmanimal welfare should be incorporated into these sorts of structured risk assessment
processes, and companies should explain how the significance of farm animal
welfare-related risks and opportunities compares to the risks and opportunities
presented by other social and environmental issues.

8
http://corporate.greggs.co.uk/socialresponsibility/food-our-customers-cantrust/farm-animal-welfare-strategy

2015 REPORT33

DETAILED RESULTS

Box 4.1: Darden’s Materiality Assessment9

HIGH
3

Water
Land-Based Proteins(Supply Chain)
Stewardship
Animal Welfare

2.75

Water (Restaurants) Business Ethics

Antibiotics & Waste (Restaurants)
Hormones inProteins

Climate Change(Supply Chain)

Importance to Stakeholders

2.5

Seafood
Stewardship
Food Security

2.25

Political Contributions, Lobbying

1.75

Economic
Development(Supply Chain)

Taxes

Locally-Grown &Seasonal Foods

Employee Health &Safety (Restaurants)

Alcohol
Responsibilty

1.5

Nutrition, Health& Wellness

Labor Relations

Corporate
Governance

Data
Privacy
Employee
Development

Responsible
Marketing

1.25

0Organic
Production

Employee Relations

Energy/GHGs(Restaurants)

Employee
Diversity

Community, Volunteerism
and Philanthropy

Packaging(Take-Out)
Economic Development(Restaurants)
Packaging(Supplier)2

1

Biodiversity & Working Conditions(Supply Chain)
Natural Capital

Food Safety
and Qualityof CR Issues

LOW

HIGH
11

.251

.5

1.75

2

2.25

2.52

Business Impact

People Issues

9
Darden 2014 Citizenship Report (p.13),
available at https://www.darden.com/
citizenship/reporting-library

Planet Issues

Plate Issues

.753

34

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Box 4.2: Marfrig’s Materiality Assessment10

Do Companies Publish Overarching Policies on Farm Animal Welfare?
It is through formal policies (or equivalent statements) that companies set out theirformal commitments on farm animal welfare. While the specific content of thesepolicies will inevitably vary, high quality farm animal welfare policies should include:• A clear statement of the reasons why farm animal welfare is important tothe business;• A commitment to compliance with relevant legislation and to otherrelevant standards;• A commitment to continuous farm animal welfare performance improvement;• A description of the processes in place to ensure the policy iseffectively implemented;• Clear accountabilities for the implementation of the policy, and• A commitment to public reporting on performance.
10
http://www.keystonefoods.com/files/
Marfrig_RA14_ENG.pdf

352015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Of the 90 companies covered by the 2015 Benchmark, 49 (54%) had publishedcomprehensive farm animal welfare policies, and another 13 (14%) had publishedbasic policy statements that provided limited information on how the policy
statements would be implemented. While these numbers are broadly the sameas the 2014 Benchmark, they do represent a step change improvement from the2012 Benchmark where just 34% of companies had comprehensive (i.e. covering
geographic coverage and some information relating to species and product scope)
policies and 12% had basic policy statements.
Mirroring the finding of previous Benchmarks, many policies had limited scope. Of
the 62 companies with published farm animal welfare policies, 46 apply their policies
to all geographies, 33 apply their policies to all relevant animal species and 30 apply
their policies to all products produced, manufactured or sold. In discussions withBBFAW, a number of companies pointed to the difficulties they face in imposing
their policies on suppliers. They noted that this is most difficult in situations where
suppliers are significantly more powerful than the purchasing company and/or where
the purchaser accounts for only a small part of the supplier’s turnover. Anotherinteresting point raised by food companies was that they want to prioritise action on
their key ingredients (typically those that represent the largest volume and/or thelargest business spend). This has resulted in companies developing policies for thesekey ingredients but not – at least to date – for all of the animals in their supply chains.
Do Companies have Specific Policies on Farm Animal Welfare?
In practice, high level corporate policies set the strategic direction for companies
but do not prescribe the specific actions that need to be taken. The Benchmark
therefore assesses whether companies have adopted policies on seven key farmanimal welfare-related issues, namely:• Close confinement;• The use of genetically modified or cloned animals;• The use of growth promoting substances;• The use of antibiotics for prophylactic purposes;• Routine mutilations;• Pre-slaughter stunning;• Long-distance live transportation.
In Figure 4.1, we indicate the proportion of companies that have made at least partial
commitments on these issues and – with the exception of the question on theprophylactic use of antibiotics which was first asked in 2014 – how these compare
to the 2012, 2013 and 2014 Benchmarks.

362015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Figure 4.1: Percentage of Companies with Specific Policies on Farm
Animal Welfare Issues
2015

%

2014

64%

72%

Close confinement

66%

2013

49%

2012

30%

Genetically modified or cloned animals

21%
27%
38%
38%

Growth promoting substances

34%
29%
18%
39%

Prophylactic antibiotic use*

35%

36%

Routine mutilations

23%
13%
7%
32%

Pre-slaughter stunning

34%
26%
13%
19%

Long distance transport

10%
6%
6%

%

0

20

40

60

80

100

* Reported for the first time in 2014

The data presented in Figure 4.1 suggest that companies – albeit from a low base inmany cases – are slowly starting to establish formal policies on specific farm animal
welfare issues. This reflects the normal evolution of corporate practice, wherecompanies tend to start with high level policies and then, over time, supplement
these with more detailed policies on specific issues.
Close confinement
The high proportion of companies with policies on close confinement may reflectchanges in animal welfare legislation banning battery cages and sow stalls (gestationcrates) in the EU, or the impact of NGO campaigns and public concerns about
eggs from caged hens and the use of sow stalls. In many cases, however, thesecommitments have been limited to those markets where NGO pressures, publicconcerns and legislation pressure are the greatest. In a number of cases – with anumber of the companies in Tiers 5 and 6 having this characteristic – companies havemade specific commitments but not published an overarching farm animal welfare
policy. That is, the fact that a company has been targeted by (and responded to)campaigns on specific issues does not necessarily mean that the company will takea structured proactive approach to managing farm animal welfare in the round.

37

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

A number of companies have continued to question BBFAW’s emphasis oncompanies adopting formal policy commitments, arguing that such policies should
not be necessary for issues that are covered by legislation. While we have some
sympathy with this argument, we recognise that farm animal welfare legislation is notcomprehensive across all species, is not global in its outreach and where it does exit,
is often not adequately enforced. For example:• Within the EU, there is no specific animal welfare legislation relating to species suchas fish, dairy cows, ducks, rabbits or turkeys, although there is legislation for laying
hens, pigs and calves;• With the exception of a few States which have legislation relating to barren battery
cages for laying hens, there is no US legislation establishing minimum welfare
standards for farms animals;• The EU’s legislative requirement for the provision of ‘manipulable’ material for pigs
is not enforced or provided for the majority of pigs in the EU.
Given that most companies source globally, they therefore need global policies toensure their operations and, critically, their suppliers, meet minimum standards ofperformance, irrespective of where they operate. We also think that companies
should be willing to show leadership in this area. In that context, formal policies areimportant in articulating the standards they wish to work to and in setting out thestandards they expect of their suppliers and business partners.
Figure 4.2: Company Commitments to the Avoidance of Close Confinement0%

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

28%

52%

20%

In many countries, the majority of farm animals are kept in highly intensive production
systems, with the aim of minimising costs while maximising the output of meat, milkor eggs. Examples of these systems include large-scale beef feedlots, battery cages
for laying hens, veal crates for calves, tether systems for cows, calves and sows, andsow stalls and farrowing crates for pregnant and lactating sows respectively. In thesesystems the space available to each animal is severely restricted, allowing little morethan the space to stand and lie down (or, in the case of fish, to swim), the environmentis barren and, as a consequence, animal well-being is compromised. While issuesof confinement are most clearly seen in caged systems they can also be seen insystems where animals are housed in sheds, pens or feedlots; examples include
intensive meat chicken (broiler) and pig production facilities, and large scale
feedlots for beef cattle.

38

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

In our research, we found (see Figure 4.2) that no companies have madecommitments to the complete avoidance of close confinement. However, mirroring
our comments above, a significant number have made partial commitments (forexample, within a certain geographic region or for certain species) (see Box 4.3).
Particular progress has been made in relation to laying hens (with a number ofcompanies having made commitments to cage-free or free range eggs) the phasingout of sow stalls, and the sourcing of some meats from either EU organic systems(which include animal welfare specifications) or free range systems. While these arewelcome and important commitments, we have also – as we discuss later – been
struck that many companies provide no information on the progress they have madeagainst these commitments.
Box 4.3: Case-Studies: Company Positions on Close Confinement
Metro11Since October 2009, Metro subsidiary, Real, has banned the sale of eggs from caged hens.
Real works closely with the ‘Association for Controlled Alternative Animal Husbandry’ (KAT),
which provides important control mechanisms in the testing of eggs in Germany and elsewherein Europe. Real has also committed to using only cage-free eggs in its private label products
which use eggs as an ingredient, such as egg pasta, confectionery, biscuits, finished products,
delicatessen, salads and mayonnaises.
Wesfarmers12
Wesfarmers reports that its subsidiary, Coles – one of Australia’s leading food retailers – hasmade a broad commitment to the avoidance of close confinement. All Coles brand eggs
are barn laid or free range and, as a result, about 350,000 hens per year will never be caged.
Furthermore, following extensive work with its pork suppliers, all its fresh pork is sow stall-free
and this will benefit approximately 34,000 pigs. Additionally, Coles’ local and imported Coles
brand ham and bacon is sow stall-free.
WH Group13
One of Smithfield Foods’ (a WH Group subsidiary) animal care targets is a commitment to thecomplete conversion to group housing systems for pregnant sows on company farms by theend of 2022. This includes complete conversion to group housing systems for pregnant sowson US company-owned farms by the end of 2017 and complete conversion to group housing
systems for pregnant sows on US contract farms and in joint ventures worldwide by 2022.
The company’s US sow housing conversion target was first announced in 2007. Operations in
Poland and Romania have already completed their conversions from gestation stalls to group
housing systems. Smithfield Foods is modernising farms to provide more advanced housing andfeed delivery systems for the animals, improving the quality of life of the pigs while making its
business more competitive for the future.

11
http://www.real.de/unternehmen/
unternehmensverantwortung/sortiment/tierschutz/verzicht-aufkaefigeier.html
12https://www.coles.com.au/
corporate-responsibility/
responsible-sourcing/responsiblesourcing
13
http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/
integrated-report/sustainabilityprogress-commitments/key-datasummary392015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

The Use of Genetically Modified or Cloned Animals
Figure 4.3: Company Commitments to the Avoidance of Genetically Modified
or Cloned Animals

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

11%

19%

0%

70%

The cloning of farm animals (which is primarily used to produce identical copies ofhigh yielding and fast growing breeds), and the use of genetically engineered animals
is becoming more common in intensive farming systems, despite potential adverse
impacts on the welfare of the animals involved and their descendants14.
Our research (see Figure 4.3) suggests that relatively few companies have madeformal commitments to the avoidance of genetically modified or cloned animals
or their progeny. Box 4.4 presents examples of company statements on the useof genetically modified or cloned animals. Where companies have made thesecommitments it has generally (as with close confinement) been in response to strong
consumer pressure, often in relation to safety or potential health concerns in their
key markets. It is also relevant to note that some companies have qualified theircommitments by noting that, if these consumer concerns could be addressed or
overcome, they will consider using genetically modified or cloned animals or
their progeny.

14
For an overview of the animal
welfare issues associatedwith cloning and with genetic
modification, see Peter Stevenson(2012), Cloning and Genetic
Engineering of Animals. BBFAW
Investor Briefing No 6 (September2012) (BBFAW, London, UK).
http://www.bbfaw.com/media/1083/
briefing-no6_cloning-and-geneticengineering-of-farm-animals.pdf

402015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Box 4.4: C ase-Studies: Company Positions on Genetically Modified
or Cloned Animals
McDonald’s15
McDonald’s has had a clear position on the avoidance of animals subject to genetic engineeringand cloning since 2007. Whilst the restaurant chain states that it is unaware of any current
research that establishes public health or safety concerns related to cloning, it has decided not
to permit the use of animal products sourced from cloned animals in its supply chain due to alack of customer acceptance.
Wm Morrison16
Morrisons is clear that it does not use genetically modified ingredients in any own-brandproducts and indicates that it has a comprehensive and continuous product sampling
programme in place to help monitor this. In addition, the company does not accept products
from cloned or genetically modified animals from third party suppliers.

The Use of Growth Promoting Substances and Antibiotics
Growth promoting substances are used to increase the muscle (meat) or milk
production of animals farmed for food. Examples include the hormone BST used toincrease milk yield in cows, hormone feed additives in pig production (for example,
ractopamine) and low dose antibiotics. The use of hormone and antibiotic growthpromoters is not permitted by EU legislation, and products treated with hormone
growth promoters cannot be imported into the EU. The same, however, is not trueof products produced with antibiotic growth promoters. The use of growth promoting
substances can undermine animal welfare by pushing animals to their physiologicaland metabolic limits.

Figure 4.4: Company Commitments to Not Using Growth
Promoting Substances

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

12%

14%

62%

12%

15
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/
mcd/sustainability/sourcing/animalhealth-and-welfare/issues-were-focusing-on/animal-cloning-_genetic-engineering.html
16
http://www.morrisons-corporate.
com/policy/genetic-modificationgm/

41

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Box 4.5: Case-studies: Company Commitments on the Avoidance of Growth
Promoting Substances
Migros17
Migros has made a formal commitment to the avoidance of all growth promoting substances
for all company branded products. Its Technical Dossier on Animal Welfare includes a zero use
policy on the use of growth-promoting substances, which includes antibiotics and hormones.
Mitchells & Butlers18
Mitchells & Butlers’ Procurement Policy specifies that the company does not permit growthpromoters in the production of livestock used to produce its meat and poultry. The policy isimplemented and monitored by the Food Purchasing team.

The prophylactic use of antibiotics
Antibiotics are medicines used to control infectious diseases in humans andanimals19. It is believed that farm animals may receive nearly half of all the antibiotics
produced worldwide. Every time an animal receives a dose of antibiotics it gives any
bacteria present an opportunity to develop resistance to that drug.
Used correctly, antibiotics are an important component in ensuring animals recoverfrom illnesses. However, the routine use of antibiotics on-farm is frequently
prophylactic (used to prevent disease rather than treat it): they are used to ‘propup’ an environment where the welfare potential of animals is very low. The confined,
cramped conditions - where animals are bred to operate at their physiological limits
and weaned at a young age - are stressful, and compromise the animals’ immune
systems, making sickness more likely. Intensive farming, therefore, often relies
on prophylactic use of antibiotics to compensate for an inherently low
welfare environment.
The over-use of antibiotics (especially in low doses or incomplete courses) is themain reason for the increase in antibiotic resistance in farmed animals and in humans.
This resistance means that antibiotics can be ineffective when they are most needed,
i.e. to treat serious disease. Furthermore, reliance on frequent, prolonged, or
low-dose use of antibiotics in farmed animals creates ideal conditions for antibiotic
resistant strains of bacteria to develop.

17
http://www.migros.ch/generation-m/de/nachhaltigkeitbei-der-migros/konsum/tierwohl.
html
18
http://www.mbplc.com/aboutus/
ourapproachtobusiness/workinginpartnership/19
A more detailed discussion isprovided in Vicky Bond and Jemima
Jewell (2014), The Impacts of
Antibiotic Use in Animals on Human
Health and Animal Welfare. BBFAW
Investor Briefing No 17 (August2014) (BBFAW, London, UK).http://
www.bbfaw.com/media/1070/
briefing-17-impacts-of-antibioticuse-in-animals-on-human-healthand-animal-welfare.pdf

422015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Figure 4.5: Company Commitments to the Reduction or Avoidanceof Antibiotics for Prophylactic use

11%

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

17%

61%

11%

Our research for the 2015 Benchmark, see Figures 4.4 and 4.5, indicates that
relatively few companies have published formal positions on the use of growthpromoting substances or have made commitments to the reduction or avoidance ofantibiotics for prophylactic use. Examples of companies that publish clear guidelines
on these issues are presented in Boxes 4.5 and 4.6 respectively.
One noticeable feature of the 2015 Benchmark is that a number of companies
have made explicit commitments to reduce or avoid the use of antibiotics thatare important to human medicine (such as Cephalosporins, Fluoroquinolones orMacrolides) rather than all antibiotics. There are various reasons, including new
industry guidelines issued by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration that will restrict theuse of medically-important drugs to uses “that are considered necessary for assuring
animal health” and will require veterinary oversight.

432015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Box 4.6: Case-studies: Company Commitments on the Avoidance of Antibiotics
for Prophylactic Use
2 Sisters Food Group20
2 Sisters Food Group has published an antibiotic policy and strategy document for poultry.
In developing this, the food producer considered the views of the World Health Organisation(WHO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and The European Medicines Authority(EMA). In order to be able to monitor and set targets for antibiotic use, 2 Sisters recognised theneed to establish and implement a monitoring methodology which provides a balanced view. As
such, the company will record and report on combined indicators (covering milligrams of active
antibiotic used per kilogramme of animal bodyweight produced, and daily defined dosage (i.e.
the number of days of treatment in a flock). The policy acknowledges that responsible use is
not simply about reducing antibiotic usage. Using the 3Rs (Replace, Reduce, Refine) approach,the company commits to: replace any antibiotics currently used as a first resort treatment using
vaccinations, changes to husbandry, biosecurity, reduction of stress, etc; avoid the use of thirdand fourth generation cephalosporins, fluoroquinolones or macrolides (which are important tohuman health), and establish two trial farms (one antibiotic and coccidiostat-free and the otherantibiotic-free, while maintaining the use of coccidiostats). The company will reduce the numberof day old chicks receiving treatment and actively monitor performance across the Group, and it
will oversee and further refine the strategy by establishing an internal committeeof stakeholders.
Chipotle Mexican Grill21
As an integral part of its vision for Food with Integrity, restaurant chain Chipotle Mexican Grill(‘Chipotle’) has had a policy for its Responsibly Raised Meat in place for over a decade. It strictly
prohibits the use of antibiotics in the meat that it serves. The company’s protocol allows the useof antibiotics necessary to treat sick animals, but it insists that those animals must be removed
from Chipotle’s supply chain. Chipotle has explored various approaches with a view to continual
improvement and it is currently evaluating if this strict ‘never-ever’ antibiotic protocol is best for
the animals, acknowledging the view of some experts who believe that animals can be treated
when necessary and allowed to remain in the herd.
FrieslandCampina22
In 2012, FrieslandCampina developed a Quality and Safety Roadmap which focused on
improving the microbiological quality of the milk and reducing the quantity of antibiotics given
to dairy cows. The company is working to reduce antibiotic use to 1999 levels and reports on
progress against this target in its annual Sustainability Report. In 2014, FrieslandCampina had
reduced its daily doses to 2.4 per year compared with 2.9 the previous year23. The company
provides a continuous information programme for its dairy farmers, which aims to draw
attention to the reduced and more appropriate use of antibiotics.

20
http://www.2sfg.com/globalassets/
corporate/about-us/how-we-work/
antibiotics/antibiotic-policy-final-april-2015.pdf
21
http://ir.chipotle.com/phoenix.
zhtml?c=194775&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1847311&highlight22
https://www.frieslandcampina.com/
app/uploads/sites/3/2015/07/Foqus-brochure.pdf
23
https://www.frieslandcampina.com/
app/uploads/sites/2/2015/07/
FrieslandCampina-CSR-Report-2014.pdf
24
http://www.carrefour.com/sites/
default/files/Registration%20Document%202014_1.pdf

Carrefour24
Carrefour Quality Lines (CQLs) are a partnership between Carrefour and farmers andprocessors, with the aim of ensuring a long-term commercial outlet in exchange for a guarantee
of product quality and the use of agro-ecological farming practices. Products are developedwith demanding specifications and an improvement plan, which are independently audited. In
2013, Carrefour launched its first CQLs for chickens raised without antibiotics in partnershipwith 150 breeders. In 2014, the company extended this approach with three new products:
pork, eggs and salmon. Carrefour points to the use of phytotherapy, which helps to strengthen
the immune system to prevent disease, ensuring the animals’ well-being.

442015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Routine Mutilations
Figure 4.6: Company Commitments to the Avoidance of Routine Mutilations
5%

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

20%

64%
11%

Many farm animals are subjected to procedures that alter their bodies, often with noanaesthesia, causing immediate and often long-term pain and distress. Examples
include beak trimming of laying hens (where part of the bird’s beak is removed using a
hot blade, secateurs or an infra-red beam), surgical castration of beef cattle, brandingof animals with hot irons, disbudding of dairy calves with hot irons or caustic paste,dehorning adult cattle with wire or saws, the castration and tail docking of pigs, andfin clipping which is used to mark the origin of hatcheries in farmed fish. The majorityof these mutilations can be avoided if animals are kept in well-managed conditions,provided with plenty of space to move freely and given a varied environment toexpress a range of natural behaviours that are important to them (for example
foraging, pecking, rooting). Other mutilations can be avoided via the use andselection of polled cattle breeds (so removing the need to dehorn cattle), or the useof vaccinations to delay the onset of puberty (so removing the need to castrate pigs).
Our research for the 2015 Benchmark, see Figure 4.6, indicates that very few
companies have made formal commitments to the avoidance of routine mutilations.
This reflects the reality that many animals are produced in systems that are notsuited to their needs. This, in turn, means that mutilations, particularly beak trimming,
tail docking and male piglet castration are widely seen as an inevitable part of the
management of animals in these systems. There are also wide variations in countryspecific approaches to routine mutilations – see, for example, the discussion
on piglet castration in Box 4.7 – which illustrates how legislation alone may notadequately address the welfare considerations. Box 4.8 details Nestlé’s and Noble
Foods’ commitments to the avoidance of routine mutilations.

45

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Box 4.7: Country-specific approaches to Piglet Castration in Europe
In their first seven days, many male piglets are surgically castrated, often without anaesthetic
or pain relief. In Europe, this affects around 70% of all males (equivalent to around 90 million
piglets per year). Piglets are castrated primarily to prevent “boar taint”, an undesirable smell or
taste of pork which is caused by the sex hormones, testosterone and androsterone (althoughpeople’s sensitivity to boar taint varies considerably across nationalities). Males reared without
castration (entire males) may also be aggressive and show more sexual behaviour, causing injury
to others when fighting or mounting other pigs, and can be dangerous to farm workers if they
are aggressive during handling.
Castration without any anaesthetic or pain relief (analgesics) causes short and long-term pain,
long-lasting stress and leaves piglets more prone to infection from open wounds, with limited
immunity given their age. Measures to alleviate this distress are rarely adopted, other than where
they are required by legislation.
Castration has been banned in Norway (since 2002) and in Switzerland (since 2010). In other EU
countries (such as Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Lithuania) a combinationof anaesthesia and/or pain relief must be administered. While the use of pain relief and nonaversive anaesthetic help minimise the pain suffered, they do not address the fact that theact of mutilation causes distress to the piglets and risks their health and welfare.
There are alternatives to castration. These include rearing entire males (as practised incountries such as the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands and parts of Spain, Portugal and Greece), andadministering a vaccination such as Improvac, which stops boar taint by delaying the maturity ofpigs (as practised in EU countries including Belgium and Sweden). In the future it may be possible
to breed pigs which have lower levels of boar taint, by reducing the presence of the two main
hormones responsible. This is a long term solution and would take five to 10 years to work, andaggression between the males would still need to be controlled.
The need to find and implement alternatives to castration is likely to grow. Public pressure has
led to a voluntary declaration, already signed by Belgium, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands andDenmark, aimed at ending the surgical castration of pigs in Europe by 2018. As a first step in
implementing this declaration, the signatories committed to ensuring that prolonged pain relief
or anaesthetic would be used for all surgical castration of pigs from 2012.

Box 4.8: Case-studies: Nestlé’s and Noble Foods’ Commitment to the Avoidanceof Routine Mutilations
Nestlé 25
As part of the company’s commitment to continuous improvement with respect to farming
practices in its supply chain, Nestlé has committed to eliminating dehorning, tail docking,disbudding and castration without anaesthetic and analgesia in dairy cattle, and tail docking andsurgical castration in pigs. Using learnings from its farm assessments, the company is planningto implement remediation activities in North America and is engaging its suppliers in Europe
on remediation plans to ensure that suppliers make continuous improvements in meeting its
Responsible Sourcing Guidelines. Initially, efforts will be focused on ensuring better practices
with respect to anaesthesia and analgesia for calf disbudding.
Noble Foods26
Noble Foods has committed to reducing the reliance on infra-red beak trimming through a
combination of management techniques, genetic improvement via its partner suppliers, andbreed selection. It aims to have 50% of non-treated beaks by 2020.

25
http://www.nestle.com/csv/
rural-development-responsible-sourcing/responsible-sourcing/animal-welfare
26
www.noblefoods.co.uk/assets/
PDFs/ANIMAL-WELFARE-RESULTS-2015.pdf

46

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Pre-Slaughter Stunning
Figure 4.7: Company Commitments to Pre-Slaughter Stunning
4%

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

18%

10%
68%

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. Most developed
and many developing countries have legislation that requires pre-slaughter stunning,although these often provide exceptions for authorised religious slaughter. For
example, EU law allows animals to be slaughtered without pre-stunning for Halal meatfor Muslim communities and for Kosher meat for Jewish communities. It is, however,important to note that it is possible for animals to be stunned and to comply with therequirements for religious slaughter. For example, a substantial proportion of British
Halal meat comes from animals which are stunned before slaughter. Furthermore,
a number of food companies now insist on pre-stunning for all meat including Halal(see, for example, the case of Yum! Brands in Box 4.9).
While our research (see Figure 4.7) suggests that fewer than one third of thecompanies covered by the Benchmark have published a policy statement committing
to pre-slaughter stunning, many of the companies we interviewed in the course ofthis research pointed to the fact that pre-slaughter stunning is a formal requirement
in many countries and that they fully comply with this requirement. While we
acknowledge that many companies stun their animals prior to slaughter, we arelooking for them to make a formal commitment to the use of pre-slaughter stunning.
We are also looking for them to clarify whether or not their commitments apply in all
countries, and whether or not their commitments apply to animals that are subject toreligious slaughter.

47

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Box 4.9: Case-studies: McDonald’s and Yum! Brands’ Commitments
to Pre-Slaughter Stunning
McDonald’s27
McDonald’s Animal Health & Welfare Guidelines and Audit Criteria policy document outlines its
approach for broiler chickens at slaughter. The detailed document covers personnel training andsupervision, audit procedures, welfare indicators and the processes in place for non-compliance.
McDonald’s makes it clear that if companies have what it refers to as Category 1 noncompliance audit failures, McDonald’s will immediately discontinue purchasing raw materials
from the affected facility, and will require a corrective action plan and re-audit prior to restarting
the purchase of raw materials from the facility.
McDonald’s specifies that all stunning methods must induce death or insensibility to pain andloss of consciousness prior to cutting and bleeding. If stunning to render the bird insensible
versus stunning to kill the bird, the stun must be sufficient to ensure that the bird remains
insensible until death. The stunning method used must be accepted as humane by local
legislation and, if applicable, by legislation established by the importing country.
Regarding ritual slaughter, McDonald’s recognises that religious requirements may vary frommarket to market and between Halal and Kosher. The company states that “Whenever legallyallowed and acceptable to the Halal authority of the exporting/importing country, McDonald’s
requires the use of non-penetrative stunning (pneumatic mushroom stunner) for cattle. If
a pneumatic mushroom stunner is not acceptable, [suppliers] must use head only electricalstunning. If head only electrical stunning is not permitted, [they] must use an upright standingbox with head lift, following design and construction guidelines developed by Dr. Temple Grandin.
In the event that the exporting/importing country forbids stunning of any type, a standing box orother device that holds the animal in a comfortable upright position shall be used in such a waythat the animal is held in an upright position. When allowed by Halal authority, it is conditional andmust result in a non-lethal stun. The definition of a non-lethal stun is the animal would regain‘sensibility’ if left alone for a period of time. For cattle, penetrating captive bolt, pithing and theuse of gas mixtures are prohibited as these methods result in a non-reversible stun (not possible
for the animal to regain sensibility).”
Yum! Brands28
Yum! Brands’ KFC brand states that all of its suppliers humanely stun birds prior to slaughter
using the ‘stun-to-stun’ technique. This approach applies universally, including to chicken for
its Halal restaurants. Before trialling Halal foods, the company consulted leading animal welfare
groups to ensure that Halal-certified chicken complied with its welfare standards. Yum! Brands
requires that all slaughter facilities are continuously supervised by vets, are regularly inspected
and are approved by the British Retail Consortium or equivalent.

27
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/
mcd/sustainability/sourcing/animal-health-and-welfare/issues-we-refocusing-on/farm-animal-welfare.html
28
http://kfc-csr.co.uk/food/poultry-welfare.
html
http://kfc-csr.co.uk/food/halal.html

482015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Long-distance Live Transportation
Figure 4.8: Company Commitments to the Avoidance ofLong-distance Live Transportation
7%

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

5%

7%

81%

Many animals are transported several times during their lifetime and most aretransported to slaughter, often over long distances both within and between
countries. Transport may be via road, rail, sea, or, in the case of breeding animals,by air. Transport conditions can be very poor, and journeys may last many hoursor, in some cases, days, weeks or months. Animals can experience hunger, thirst,
discomfort, pain, frustration, fear and distress, whilst physical welfare problems
include injury, disease, and, in the worst cases, death. For all these reasons, transportof live animals should be minimised wherever possible and journeys should be kept as
short as possible. Specifically, any transport of a live animal that exceeds eight hours,
from loading to unloading, has been shown to decrease welfare significantly.
Our research, see Figure 4.8, has shown that relatively few companies have madeformal commitments to the avoidance of long distance transport which include
clearly stated maximum journey times. We found a number that stated they werecommitted to the avoidance of long-distance transport but either did not specify
what they meant by long distance or described their commitment in terms of the
distances, as opposed to the time, travelled by animals. While, all things being equal,
shorter distances should result in shorter journey times, for the purposes of the
Benchmark, and based on advice from Compassion in World Farming and World
Animal Protection, we have defined long-distance transport as journey times thatexceed eight hours (measured from the time of loading to the time that the animal isunloaded). That is, account needs to be taken of standing time (e.g. waiting to depart,
waiting to unload) as well as actual travel times.
While this definition is broadly accepted by European-based companies, foodcompanies in jurisdictions where live journeys typically exceed eight hours havechallenged this definition, arguing that it is the conditions in which animals aretransported (food and water provision, temperature, ventilation, etc) rather thanjourney time per se which is the key determinant of animal welfare.

49

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Box 4.10: Case-study: Greggs’ and Migros’ Company Commitments
to the Avoidance of Long-distance Live Transportation
Greggs29
Greggs’ live transport policy applies to all purchases of primary source raw pork, raw beef, andraw mutton, cooked chicken, and egg laying hens (for whole eggs) at the end of lay. The policy
is underpinned with species-specific commitments stating a maximum journey time of eight
hours for pigs, cattle, sheep and chickens from loading to unloading. Greggs will extend its policy
to its remaining species according to a published timescale which identifies its short (2015),
medium (2016-17) and long term (2018-2020) priorities.
Migros30
Acknowledging that Swiss animal welfare provisions are among the strictest in the world, Migros’
policy is that the transport of live animals should last a maximum of six hours. The company’s
principles also specify that animals must have sufficient space, adequate air supply andsuitable weather protection and that ‘hustle and bustle’ and forceful driving should be avoided
throughout the journey.

29
https://corporate.greggs.co.uk/socialresponsibility/food-our-customers-cantrust/farm-animal-welfare-strategy
30
www.migros.ch/generation-m/de/nachhaltigkeit-bei-der-migros/konsum/
tierwohl/hoehere-anforderungentierwohl.html

502015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

4.2

GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENTDo Companies Define Responsibilities for Farm Animal Welfare?
In most large companies, there is generally a clear delineation between those staff
members who are responsible for the oversight of a policy and those staff members
who are responsible for day-to-day implementation of the policy. Policy oversight isgenerally the responsibility of senior management or the board, and encompasses
tasks such as defining the overall policy goals, monitoring the implementation of thepolicy, acting in the event the policy is not being complied with and ensuring the policy
remains relevant to the organisation. In contrast, day-to-day implementation is
generally the responsibility of specific individual(s) or team(s), and encompasses
tasks such as developing and implementing management systems and processes,
setting objectives and targets, measuring and monitoring performance,and reporting.
Understanding how companies structure their governance and management isparticularly important in the case of farm animal welfare given that farm animal
welfare continues to be a relatively new area of management attention for many
companies, that the issues are technically complex, and that farm animal welfare
presents potentially significant risks and opportunities. Companies need to have thetechnical and operational staff to enable them to be confident the issues associatedwith farm animal welfare are being effectively managed. Companies also need toensure that their senior management and boards are aware of the business
implications of farm animal welfare and are prepared to intervene when needed, bothto ensure that the policy is effectively implemented (e.g. in situations where there
are tensions between the company’s farm animal welfare policies and other businessobjectives) and when evidence emerges of failures in the company’s management
systems and controls.
The results from the 2015 Benchmark suggest that many companies have yet toformalise their management of farm animal welfare issues. In fact, 44 (49%), an
improvement on the 59% in the 2014 Benchmark, of the companies reviewed do not
publish details of who is responsible, at either a senior management or operational
level, for farm animal welfare. Of the 46 that have specified responsibilities, 7 define
operational responsibilities only, 14 define senior management responsibilities only
and 25 defined both (some examples are presented in Box 4.11). It is important toqualify these findings by noting that it was frequently difficult to tell how much, if any,senior management attention was actually being focused explicitly on farm animal
welfare. In the majority of cases, farm animal welfare was presented as just one of awhole range of corporate responsibility-related issues that needed to be managed
by these companies.
Box 4.11: Case-studies: Corporate Governance and Management of Farm
Animal Welfare at JBS and Tesco
JBS31
Food processing company, JBS, has assigned senior level responsibility for farm animal welfare
to its Sustainability Committee. At an operational level, a dedicated Animal Welfare Department
and Animal Welfare Teams are assigned at each of the company’s beef, chicken, pork and lambprocessing facilities.

31
http://jbss.infoinvest.com.br/static/enu/
comites-de-assessoramento-do-ca.
asp?idioma=enu
32
http://www.tescoplc.com/assets/files/
cms/Welfare_standards_for_farmed_
fish_082015.pdf

Tesco32
Tesco expects suppliers of farmed fish to adhere to the same high animal welfare standards
as for terrestrial animals. The company has appointed a dedicated Aquaculture Manager who
works with suppliers and industry to effectively implement company policy and improve welfare
standards through regular discussion on common challenges and opportunities.

51

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Have Companies Set Objectives for Farm Animal Welfare?
Objectives and targets are the point where policy commitments are translated into
substantive action, and where resources and responsibilities are allocated for thedelivery of these objectives and targets. Of the 90 companies covered by the 2015
Benchmark, 49 (54%) have now set farm animal welfare-related objectives andtargets, markedly higher than the 33 (41%) who had set objectives and targets in2014 and 2013, and the 26% in 2012. A significant proportion of these companies– 35 out of the 49 that have published objectives and targets – provide a reasonableamount of information on how the target is to be achieved (for example, who is
responsible, what resources are allocated, what the key steps or actions towards
the target are).
While these are encouraging findings, it is also important to acknowledge thatmany of the targets continue to focus on management processes (for example,
to formalise farm animal welfare management systems, to introduce audits) and/or on a single farm animal welfare-related issue (for example, to eliminate sowstalls (gestation crates), to move towards cage-free eggs). This is not unsurprising.
The relative novelty of farm animal welfare as a management issue means thatmany companies are at the early stages of developing and implementing their
management systems, processes, and reporting (and, hence, it is here that they
are focusing their efforts). In many cases, those companies that have made specificcommitments on specific farm animal welfare issues have faced significant consumer
or non-governmental organisational pressure on these issues, and the settingof objectives and targets can be seen as a part of the corporate response tothese pressures.
One interesting trend is that food companies, in particular producers, are starting
to set sustainability-related targets for what they consider to be priority ingredients(which is generally based on volumes or sales), where these targets often include
some animal welfare-related aspects. However, perhaps reflecting the relative
novelty of these targets, it is often difficult to tell how much weight is being assigned
to animal welfare or whether (and how) animal welfare is traded off against othersustainability issues.
The other point to note here is that many companies are not ‘closing the loop’ on
their reporting. While, as discussed in Section 4.1, 62 of the 90 companies covered by
the Benchmark have established formal policy commitments on farm animal welfare,
only 33 report on how they have performed against these policies. Similarly, of the 49
companies that have set formal farm animal welfare-related objectives and targets,just 33 report on their performance against these or against previous objectives andtargets that they had set for themselves.
There are, however, an increasing number of companies that have set detailed
objectives and targets, and that have reported on progress against these. Some
examples are presented in Box 4.12.

522015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Box 4.12: Case-studies: Ferrero’s and Noble Foods’ Targets on
Farm Animal Welfare
Ferrero33
Ferrero’s 2020 goals include an objective to source 100% of eggs from cage-free hens living inbarns. The company achieved this target for all its EU plants by September 2014. However, thefood producer acknowledges that there is still work to be done, with two new manufacturing
plants having been established in Turkey and Mexico; countries where cage-free eggs supplies
are unconventional. Although the eggs used in these plants represent just 5% of Ferrero’s global
consumption, the company is committed to implementing its global sourcing target throughengagement and dialogue with its new suppliers.
Noble Foods34
Noble Foods has published detailed animal welfare-related targets for laying hens in its supply
chain. These include:• R educing the reliance on infra-red beak trimming though a combination of management
techniques, genetic improvement via its partner suppliers and breed selection. The company
will also aim to reduce to 50% non-treated beaks by 2020;• 1
 00% of farms within its network will conduct pre-slaughter stunning by 2016;• 1
 00% of its birds will travel less than 12 hours to slaughter by 2016, with 80% travelling lessthan 8 hours and 50% less than 4 hours;• 7 0% of its birds will be free from confinement by 2020, covering all territories, products
and brands;• Feather cover scores will improve to an average of 2.00 on a 5-point scale by 2020.
The company provides annual updates on progress against these targets, alongside publishedoutcome measures and performance indicators.

Do Companies Describe Their Control Systems for Farm Animal Welfare?
Thirty-six (or 40%) of the 90 companies covered by the 2015 Benchmark report thatthey include farm animal welfare in supplier conditions, a clear increase on the 34%
in the 2014 and 2013 Benchmarks and the 15% in the 2012 Benchmark. Of these 36
companies, 25 state that they include farm animal welfare in all relevant contracts and
11 that they include farm animal welfare in some but not necessarily all contracts.
From our discussions with companies, the emphasis on supplier contracts seems to
be attributable to the increased company focus on supply chain management moregenerally, rather than animal welfare in particular. The 2013 European horsemeat
scandal appears to have been particularly important in heightening the level ofcompany attention being paid to supply chains. The actions companies have taken
have included shortening their supply chains for particular products, increasing thequantities channelled through existing producers and emphasising food provenanceand local sourcing.

33
http://www.ferrerocsr.com/inc/
downloadDoc.php?IDD=1586
34
https://www.noblefoods.co.uk/
assets/PDFs/ANIMAL-WELFARERESULTS-2015.pdf

It is important to stress that this increased focus on supply chain management may
not result in companies achieving better farm animal welfare outcomes, although
we do acknowledge that better auditing and traceability processes are importantbuilding blocks for improving the management and oversight of farm animal welfare.
Our research this year found that 58% of companies describe how they audit thefarm animal welfare performance of their suppliers (compared to 45% in 2014, 43% in2013 and 35% in 2012) yet only 47% describe their supplier education and capacitybuilding initiatives (compared to 36% in 2014, 34% in 2013 and 31% in 2012). While
the overall scores remain low, we are seeing some significant efforts being madeby certain companies to collaborate with their suppliers on developing innovative
online tools, sharing knowledge and best practices, and improving management
understanding of performance through enhanced monitoring and reporting
practices. Some examples are highlighted in Box 4.13.

53

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Box 4.13: Case-studies: Cargill’s and FrieslandCampina’s Engagement
Cargill35
Cargill’s turkey and pork businesses in the United States run programmes to educate
employees, truck drivers and first responders on animal handling in the event of emergencies.
The company requires National Pork Board Transport Quality Assurance training for alltransporters delivering livestock to its facilities. Cargill is also the only turkey producer in the
United States to educate and certify all of its contract growers on how to properly handle birds.
The company’s Certified Animal Handler and on-farm audit programmes have been endorsedby animal science expert Dr Michael Hulet of Penn State University. In Canada, Cargill conducts
CowSignals training programmes for dairy farmers to help them analyse environmental andhealth factors that affect their cows’ comfort, milk production and longevity. Since 2013, groupsof local farmers have participated in more than 175 sessions on topics ranging from stall spacing
and animal bedding to hoof trimming and nutrition.
FrieslandCampina36
FrieslandCampina promotes outdoor grazing by offering its member dairy farmers a special
premium. Starting from 2015, this outdoor grazing premium has been increased from EUR
0.50 to EUR 1.00 per 100 kg of milk. To receive the premium, the dairy farmer must allow hisdairy cows to graze outdoors at least six hours a day on a minimum of 120 days a year. Thereis also a partial outdoor grazing arrangement for dairy farmers who do not meet the meadow
milk standards, but do allow a quarter of their herd to graze in the meadow on a minimum of
120 days a year. Farmers with partial outdoor grazing receive a EUR 0.46 premium per 100 kg
of milk. By promoting outdoor grazing FrieslandCampina wants to reach its sustainability goalof maintaining the 2012 level of meadow grazing on member dairy farms. The outdoor grazing
percentage in 2014 was 77.2%, compared to 81% in 2012.
In 2014, FrieslandCampina organised more than 100 workshops for member dairy farmers on
the topics of improving udder health, hoof health and the responsible use of animal medicine.
During 2015, the company also increased dairy farmers’ expertise in respect of meadow
grazing, including putting it on the agenda of educational establishments and by providing
weekly advice about meadow grazing via e-mail (from ‘the Meadow Man’). The company is also
initiating a project whereby member dairy farmers who keep their cows indoors are helped toswitch to meadow grazing. In addition, Farm Walk provides member dairy farmers with practical
tools, such as a grassland usage calendar, grassland height meter and a manuring and grazing
plan to assist planning. Participating dairy farmers get together regularly under the leadership ofan experienced and trained meadow coach. In 2014, the first 12 meadow coaches successfullycompleted the Meadow Grazing Foundation’s Practical Meadow Grazing School.

The Benchmark also asks about internal controls, specifically whether companies
provide training on farm animal welfare to their internal staff (i.e. direct employees
rather than suppliers) and whether they have corrective action processes that they
implement in the event of non-compliances with their farm animal welfare policies.
This year, we have seen a significant increase, although starting from a very low base,in the number of companies reporting farm animal welfare-related training (29%in 2015 compared to 16% in 2014) and on their internal controls for farm animal
welfare (29% in 2015 compared to 16% in 2014). While the proportion of companies
reporting on these issues, i.e. training and internal controls, is not particularly high,we are encouraged to see an improvement in the quality of reporting by somecompanies on the training provided to employees who are directly involved in the
management and handling of farm animals (see Box 4.14 for examples) and on thecontrols in place for managing non-compliance with animal welfare policies (see thecase-study on in Box 4.15).

35
http://www.cargill.com/corporateresponsibility/responsible-supply-chains/
animal-welfare/index.jsp
http://www.cargill.com/wcm/groups/
public/@ccom/documents/document/
na31881260.pdf (p.5)
36https://www.frieslandcampina.com/
en/sustainability/csr-cases/outdoorgrazing-cows-in-meadows/

542015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Box 4.14: Case-studies: JBS’s, Marfrig’s and Unilever’s Approaches
to Employee Training
JBS37
JBS has signed a partnership with World Animal Protection which has resulted in four training
sessions which have led to more than 120 JBS team members being trained on farm animal
welfare practices.
Marfrig38
Marfrig’s ‘See It? Stop It!’ programme generates immediate action for better animal welfare
and emphasises the integrity of the company’s philosophies on responsible animal care. The
programme stresses that proper animal care is the responsibility of everyone who is engaged
with animals. Following semi-annual training, employees sign an agreement to maintain thehighest standards of animal care and protection. They are encouraged to report any incident
that they see and feel is inconsistent with Marfrig’s programme standards through a toll-freehotline number. The promises of confidentiality and of investigating all good-faith reports
are ingrained in the initiative that is already raising awareness, empowering employees, anddemonstrating results.
Unilever39
Unilever’s Sustainable Livestock Implementation Guide details the company’s requirementsfor poultry products (broiler meat and eggs), dairy, pork and beef suppliers and their farmers
on the requirements of the Unilever Sustainable Agriculture Code. The Guide covers theneed for training of farmers and stock-keepers in all aspects of dairy, broiler chicken, pork andbeef farming. It further requires that employees involved in cattle handling, movement andtransportation should be properly trained to handle cattle at all stages of production, keeping
stress to the animal at a minimum.

Box 4.15: Case-Studies: Sysco’s Internal Control Procedure
Sysco40
Sysco employs a three-level objective audit programme to monitor and verify compliance withthe animal welfare and handling practices among Sysco brand suppliers. All third-party audits are
conducted by agencies approved by the Sysco Quality Assurance Department. Random audits
are conducted throughout the year, both on a scheduled and an unscheduled basis, by Sysco QA
personnel who have been trained in animal handling and/or certified by the Professional Animal
Auditing Certification Organization (PAACO).
Sysco’s Animal Welfare Advisory Council meets up to three times a year with the Sysco Quality
Assurance team to discuss animal welfare issues, including supplier performance.

37
http://relatorioanual.jbs.com.br/app/
downloads/complete-report.pdf
38
http://www.keystonefoods.com/files/
Final_2013-2014_CSR_Report.pdf (p.19)
39
https://www.unilever.com/Images/sustainable-livestock-implementationguide_tcm244-424266_en.pdf
40
http://sustainability.sysco.com/supplyingfood-responsibly/sourcing-foodresponsibly/animal-welfare.php

552015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Are Companies Reporting Against Farm Assurance Schemes?
Figure 4.9: Farm Animal Welfare Assurance Standards

1%

5%

0%

No assurance standard specified
A proportion audited to basic farmassurance standard, but noinformation on the balance
A proportion audited to basic
and/or higher assurance, but no 37%
information on the balance
100% of products audited to basic
farm assurance standard
100% of products audited to a basic
and/or a higher welfare assurance
standard
100% of products audited to higher
level assurance standard

37%

20%

Formal farm animal welfare assurance schemes can play an important role inpromoting welfare standards. Examples of schemes which offer many welfare
advantages relative to standard industry practice include the Soil Association,
RSPCA Assured, Beter Leven, KRAV, Label Rouge, Best Aquaculture Practices(Global Aquaculture Alliance), Global GAP Aquaculture Standard and GAP5Step.
Despite these, and other higher welfare assurance schemes, the reality is that
there is an absence of global standards for higher farm animal welfare. Until globallyagreed frameworks for assessing farm animal welfare are developed, these assurance
standards will have a critical role to play in driving higher standards, in providing robust
auditing and assurance processes, and in providing reassurance to consumers andstakeholders about the performance outcomes being achieved.
Most assurance schemes tend to have limited geographic scope (there are manynational schemes) and tend to be species-specific. That is, companies may findthat they need to sign up to a number of assurance schemes in order to ensure
all their farmed animals are covered by an assurance standard. Furthermore, it isoften difficult to compare schemes because of differences in the requirementsof participating schemes (e.g. in relation to the space requirements specified, thetraining requirements for those companies involved in animal handling, monitoring
and corrective action processes, the welfare outcomes that are required) anddifferences in the schemes’ auditing and assurance processes (e.g. the frequency
of auditing, the qualifications of the auditors).

56

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

One of the most important issues is that many of the widely cited assurance
standards (for example, British Lion) are primarily concerned with quality and safetyrelated issues, and have relatively little to say about farm animal welfare other than,perhaps, that producers or suppliers should comply with relevant legal requirements.
While these assurance standards are not farm animal welfare standards per se(and should not be presented as such), they do provide many of the core processelements (e.g. on auditing, on traceability) that companies need if they are to
implement effective farm animal welfare management processes in their supply
chains. That is, companies should be able to build their animal welfare implementation
processes on the back of the systems and processes they have established to meetthe requirements of these quality and safety assurance standards.
The results (Figure 4.9) provide a clear account of the current state of play. Thereis relatively little reporting on the standards to which animals are being managed.
Thirty-seven per cent of companies do not provide any information on the standards
to which their animals are reared, transported, and slaughtered, although thisrepresents a slight improvement on the 38% in the 2014 Benchmark. Most of thosethat report do so in a piecemeal manner. Reporting tends to be confined to specificspecies and specific geographies, although this can, at least in part, be explained by
the fact that most of the assurance standards currently available tend
to be species- and geography-specific.

572015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

4.3

LEADERSHIP AND INNOVATIONAre Companies Advancing Farm Animal Welfare in their Industry?
Thirty of the 90 companies (33%) covered by the 2015 Benchmark provide
information on whether they are involved in research and development (R&D)
programmes on farm animal welfare (which is a significant increase on the 19
companies (24%) in 2014), whilst 34 companies (38%) (compared to 21 companies(26%) in 2014) describe their involvement in initiatives directed at improving farmanimal welfare practices across the industry. These trends are encouraging, as theysuggest that companies are starting to move beyond the management of farmanimal welfare in their own operations to a more holistic conception of their rolein promoting and advancing farm animal welfare across the food industry. In Box
4.16 we present the example of farm animal welfare-related R&D projects involving
Fonterra, and in Box 4.17 we present an example of a Danish industry initiative on
farm animal welfare. One of the reasons for highlighting these examples is that they
have an explicit focus on farm animal welfare, whereas many food system-related
R&D programmes seem to pay little attention to farm animal welfare.
Box 4.16: Case-study: Fonterra’s investment in animal welfare-related
R&D projects
Fonterra41
Fonterra is engaged with a number of projects dedicated to advancing farm animal welfare.
The company has partnered with DairyNZ for its Mastitis Support Programme, which seeks to
identify, treat and prevent the cause of mastitis in supplier herds. Together, they have introduced
a rapid response process to provide prompt identification and support for farmers with highsomatic cell counts in their herds - an indicator of mastitis – and work with them to develop
individual action plans to reduce the cell counts.
A further example is the development of an animal welfare early response programme, whereby
the company is analysing data from a small number of farms that have experienced welfare
challenges over the past two years. The aim is to see whether the data collected on all of its
suppliers’ farms is a useful way to forecast potential welfare issues. If shown to be an effective
tool, regular screening for these parameters and farm visits will take place to resolve any issues.

Box 4.17: Case-study: Danish Crown’s industry initiative on farm animal welfare
Danish Crown42
Most pigs are marked by a tattoo hammer before being sent to the slaughterhouse so thatthey can be easily identified when mixed with other pigs. Danish Crown has been testing analternative system to tattooing, whereby farmers deliver their pigs for slaughter in groups.
This means that the pigs do not need to be individually identified. The new system has proved
to be a positive experience for the farmers as they know they are not causing the pigs
unnecessary harm by using the tattoo hammer. The tests have been so successful that thecompany is working on implementing this system for delivery to other Danish slaughterhouses.

41
http://www.fonterra.com/nz/en/
recycle+bin/sustainability/environment/
animal+welfare/animal+welfare42
http://www.danishcrown.com/DanishCrown/CSR/What-we-are-doing/
Animal-welfare.aspx

582015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Are Companies Advancing Farm Animal Welfare in their Industry?
30 of the 90 companies (33%) assessed in the 2015 Benchmark provide information
to their customers or consumers on farm animal welfare, a slight reduction on the
proportion (40%) in the 2014 Benchmark. Eighteen of the 30 companies present
multiple examples of their engagement with their customers, suggesting that farmanimal welfare is an important part of their customer messaging and engagement.
Box 4.18 presents a number of examples, covering all three of the sub-sectors(retailers, producers, restaurants and bars), a range of geographies and a variety
of topics and species. The proactive communication of farm animal welfare issues
is hugely important; it raises consumer awareness, it directs consumers to higher
welfare choices, and it establishes consumer expectations that farm animal welfare
should be an integral part of companies’ approaches to corporate sustainability.
Box 4.18: Case-studies: Ahold’s and Chipotle’s Customer and Consumer
Communications on Farm Animal Welfare
Ahold43
Ahold provides information and videos about the farming of meat and eggs in a section on
animal welfare on its website and has further videos posted on YouTube. The videos help informconsumers about animal products and show how and where Ahold’s products are farmed.
Ahold’s animal welfare web pages also feature a lengthy FAQ section for consumers.
Chipotle44
Chipotle Mexican Grill takes a proactive approach to consumer communications regarding
animal welfare. The ‘What’s Happening?’ and ‘Talk to Us’ sections of its corporate website
provide educational content for consumers on topics such as: ‘What do we mean by ‘PastureRaised’?’. The company also advises the public about changes in supply of its Responsibly
Raised meat through press releases on its website.
Chipotle’s integrated marketing campaign, ‘Friend or Faux: The Game of Food, Flavours andFakery’, is an interactive digital experience designed to educate consumers on fast foodingredients. Hosted on the company’s website, and supported by social media channels Twitterand Facebook, Friend or Faux reinforces ‘the beauty of simplicity in food’ by contrasting Chipotle
ingredients with those commonly used to make fast food. There’s also a ‘study guide’ whereusers can learn about the ingredients before playing the game and sharing their experience with
their social networks.

43
http://www.ah.nl/over-ah/meer-doen/
dierenwelzijn
44
www.chipotle.com/friendorfaux
http://ir.chipotle.com/phoenix.
zhtml?c=194775&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1847311
http://ir.chipotle.com/phoenix.
zhtml?c=194775&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=2067992

592015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

4.4

PERFORMANCE REPORTING
The 2012 and 2013 Benchmarks focused primarily on corporate policies andprocesses. This was a deliberate choice, as we recognised that companies would
need time to develop their reporting in these areas before they would be ready toconsider reporting on performance.
In line with our aim to increase the focus on company performance over time, theBenchmark will increasingly take account of both the level/quality of a company’s
disclosure on their performance, and the company’s impact on the animals
concerned. We refer to these two aspects respectively as performance reportingand performance impact (see further Box 4.19).
In the 2014 Benchmark, as the start of this expansion from process to performance,
we introduced four additional questions relating to performance measures. These
questions were divided as follows: (a) three questions that assessed whether
companies are reporting on commonly accepted welfare issues (close confinement,
long distance live transportation and pre-slaughter stunning), and (b) one questionthat assessed whether companies are reporting on species-specific welfare
outcome indicators. In the 2014 Benchmark, the scores for the new performance
reporting questions were excluded from the overall scores/rankings. However, as
discussed above, we allocated a 10% weighting to these questions in the 2015
Benchmark, and we intend to increase the weighting of performance-related
questions to 35% by 2018.
In developing and introducing performance-related questions into the Benchmark,we are mindful of the fact that performance reporting presents real challenges forcompanies. These challenges include: the fact that many companies have multiple
animal species and production systems across geographies; the fact that companies
frequently manage animal species to different standards; the relative difficulties
in reporting on ingredients versus fresh produce; and the reality of the absenceof universal global performance standards for animal welfare. Furthermore, many
companies are concerned about ensuring a level playing field through the accuracy
and consistency of reported data, companies are concerned about inappropriate
benchmarking and comparisons, and companies are concerned that their ability todeliver competitive advantage through their approach to farm animal welfare may
be undermined if they are required to disclose too much information. Our approach,which is based on extensive company and investor dialogue and on a staged andprogressive introduction of performance-related questions, is intended to ensurethat we properly deal with the very real technical and business challenges faced bycompanies while also bringing companies and other stakeholders with us.

602015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Box 4.19: Farm Animal Welfare Performance – Some Definitions
Animal welfare encompasses not only physical wellbeing, but mental wellbeing and the ability to
express important species-specific behaviours. All three aspects must be present for an animal
to have a good quality of life. Animal welfare is about the welfare of the individual animal, andshould be addressed through minimising the negative and maximising the positive experiencesof the individual animals reared for food.
Animal welfare provision is underpinned by good feeding, good housing (including appropriate
design and environment provision), good health care, good breeding, and good management
and stockmanship on farm, and of course good transport and slaughter conditions.
Performance in farm animal welfare is the action or process of achieving an acceptablelevel of welfare throughout the process of breeding, rearing/finishing, transporting andslaughtering of animals in the food industry. Performance reporting of a company’s practices
refers to disclosure of a combination of resource/management inputs and indicators from theanimals themselves (outcomes), both of which can be recorded quantitatively and objectively.
Performance impact refers to the combination of these achievements on animal welfare.
Input-based measures refer to the type of production system (e.g. caged, barn, free-range)used – this includes aspects of the housing (e.g. space allowance, provision of environmental
enrichment), treatments and procedures, breed use, feeding and health management (e.g. theuse of preventative antibiotics) – as well as the practices for transport and slaughter.
Outcome-based measures focus on the most important species-specific measures (e.g.
lameness and mastitis in dairy cows, gait score and footpad dermatitis in broilers, tail-biting
and lameness in pigs, bone breakage and feather coverage in laying hens). Outcome-based
measures are not confined to physical measures of wellbeing but also include aspects of mental
wellbeing (e.g. reaction to humans or novelty, fear, comfort) and behaviour (e.g. time spent lying– resting, ruminating, or being active - foraging, perching, dust-bathing, socialising).

Figure 4.10: Performance Reporting by Sub-sector
Companies reporting on the
proportion of animals thatare free from confinement
Companies reporting on
the proportion of animals
that are stunned prior toslaughter
Companies reporting
information on transport
times
Companies reporting
information on welfare
outcome measures

39%

Food Producers

13%
13%
6%
35%

Restaurants and Bars

12%
6%
3%
24%

Food Retailers

8%
8%
4%
33%

OVERALL AVERAGE SCORES

11%
9%
4%

%

0

20

40

60

80

100

61

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Our central finding is that reporting on farm animal welfare performance remains in
its infancy, although there are early signs that companies are starting to respond toincreased interest in their performance against key policy commitments.
For example:• 30 of the 90 companies (33%) in 2015, compared to just 14 out of 80 companies(18%) in 2014, provide some information on the proportion of animals that are freefrom close confinement;• 10 companies (11%) in 2015, compared to 4 (5%) in 2014, report on the proportionof animals that are stunned prior to slaughter;• 8 companies (9%) in 2015, compared to 3 (4%) in 2014, provide quantitative
information on transport times;• 4 companies (4%) in 2015, report on farm animal welfare outcomes.
In the majority of cases, however, the reporting is limited to selected species or
to particular geographies.
Our discussions with companies point to a number of reasons why the performance
reporting scores are relatively low: many companies are still focusing onstrengthening their internal management systems and processes; reporting on
performance is largely seen as being for internal rather than external audiences;companies generally have multiple animal species; companies frequently manage
animal species to different standards. A number of companies commented that,over time, they expect to face greater customer and NGO pressure to report on theirperformance impact. Some also commented that such reporting will only become
standard when there is a consensus on the performance data that needs to bereported and a critical mass of companies are already reporting this information.

622015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

Box 4.20: Examples of Unilever’s and Noble Foods’ Reporting on Performance
Unilever45
Unilever has prioritised the sourcing of cage-free eggs in its supply chain based on the highvolumes it purchases. The company has reported significant progress in partnership with its
suppliers, so that in 2014, 41% of its global egg supply was cage-free. The company’s Food
Solutions website in the US confirms its commitment to cage-free and the scale of its impact:“In North America, for Hellmann’s Light Mayonnaise alone, producing the cage-free formula
involves sourcing approximately 3.5 million pounds (1.6 million kilos) of eggs from an estimated125,000 hens. That’s enough to produce 30 million jars of mayonnaise! Hellmann’s cage-free
egg products are American Humane Certified by the American Humane Association (AHA),
the leading certifier of cage-free eggs in the US.”
Noble Foods46
Noble Foods’ Animal Welfare Results document provides an annual update on the company’s
progress on confinement. It reported that for 2015: “57% of our birds are free from
confinement” and notes that 100% of its ‘Speciality’ eggs are all free range. A summary of
the company’s bird supply base is shown graphically below.
The document also confirms that for the period July 2014 to June 2015 100% of birds were
subject to pre-slaughter stunning, and that the average transit time to slaughter was 7.6 hours,with 98% of birds travelling less than 12 hours and 34% of birds travelling less than 4 hours.

Figure 4.11: Breakdown of Noble Foods’ bird supply base1%

Colony 5.2m
Free Range 6.0m
Speciality 160k
Organic 291k
Barn 371k

46
https://www.noblefoods.co.uk/
assets/PDFs/ANIMAL-WELFARERESULTS-2015.pdf

3%

43%

50%

45
http://www.unileverfoodsolutions.
us/who-we-are/news/detail-1599.
hellmanns_real_mayonnaise_made_with_cage_free.html

3%

63

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

While we have suggested three specific farm animal welfare performance measuresin the Benchmark (on close confinement, on long distance live transportation and on
pre-slaughter stunning), we have been struck by the variety of other indicators anddata points being reported by companies (see Table 4.21) that could form the basis
for standardised corporate performance reporting on farm animal welfare. While
Table 4.21 is not comprehensive, it points to the potential to develop a performance
reporting framework that captures scale (i.e. the number of animals affected),business relevance (for example, sales), processes (for example, antibiotic usage)
and farm animal welfare outcomes (for example, by reference to recognised
species-specific standards).
Box 4.21: Sample Indicators and Measures reported by Companies
INDICATOR/METRICREPORTED BY

Volume and/or proportion of animals sourced bycountry

Arla Foods, Coop Group(Switzerland), Marfrig

Proportion of products audited to basic and/or higher
welfare standards

Ahold, The Cooperative Food
(UK), J Sainsbury, Kaufland,
Marfrig, Premier Foods, Yum!
Brands, Unilever, Waitrose

Volume and/or proportion of eggs sourced that are
cage-free

Coop Group (Switzerland),
Greggs, Kraft Foods,
McDonald’s, Marks & Spencer,
Noble Foods, Premier Foods,
The Cooperative Food (UK),
Unilever, Waitrose, Wesfarmers

Proportion of pregnant sows in company-owned farms
in US transitioned from gestation crates to group
housing systems

WH Group

Levels of antibiotics administered/feed grade antibiotics
used per weight of product

WH Group% products produced free of antibiotics

Compass Group (USA)

Proportion of time animals are allowed outdoors;
Average space available to animals

Arla Foods, FrieslandCampina

Average transportation time vs legal limit

The Cooperative Food (UK),
Greggs, Noble Foods

Volume or proportion of species involved intransportation accidents/ Proportion of animal fatalities(by species) in transit

McDonald’s, Waitrose,
WH Group

Average feather cover score for lay hens

Noble Foods

Proportion of supplier meat processing plants audited
and/or proportion of supplier meat processing plants
passing audits

McDonald’s, Compass Group(USA), Sysco, Tyson Foods

Number of dairy herds (by geography) tested for
Neospora / Cost to average cow herd

Wm Morrison

Proportion of animals processed by species

Marfrig, Tyson Foods, WH Group

Proportion of products bearing Red Tractor (or other)farm assurance labelling

Lidl, Subway, Waitrose

Proportion of revenue/sales of higher welfare products;
Proportion of sales by welfare system

Coop Group (Switzerland),Migros, The Cooperative Food(UK)

KPIs (e.g. lairage data, farm data and health reports) for
all livestock supply chains

Waitrose

Membership voting on farm animal welfare

The Cooperative Food (UK)642015 REPORTCHAPTER 5

Copyright: Istockphoto

WIDER ISSUES AND REFLECTIONS652015 REPORTWIDER ISSUES AND REFLECTIONS

5.1

WHAT HAS DRIVEN THE CHANGES IN BENCHMARK SCORES?
Since the launch of the first Benchmark in 2012, we have seen a consistentimprovement in corporate performance on farm animal welfare, with significant
improvements in the number of companies that have published formal policies onfarm animal welfare and, more recently, a significant strengthening of companies’
internal processes for the implementation of these policies. Since the publication of
the 2014 Benchmark, we have discussed the Benchmark with many of the companies
that are included in the Benchmark and, in May 2015, we conducted an email surveyof the 80 companies covered by the 2014 Benchmark47. These discussions andthe survey have provided important insights into the factors that are influencing
companies’ farm animal welfare practices and reporting, and in turn contributing to
improvements in their Benchmark scores.
A key finding from the company survey – which is confirmed by the latest Benchmark
findings – is that companies are paying greater attention to farm animal welfare, with
80% of the companies responding to the survey stating that they had developed
their farm animal welfare approach in the past two years. For many companies, thiswork has formed an integral part of their evolving sustainability strategies and their
ongoing commitment to continuous improvement. Examples of actions include:• A UK-based food producer that has recently added animal welfare to its global
supply chain standards in order to ensure greater consistency in sourcing meat anddairy products globally and in order to respond to topical issues such as Halal meatand food authenticity and provenance;• A global retailer based in the UK that has established a specialist Agriculture
Team to work with its farming base to drive continuous improvement, including
improvement in animal welfare standards;• A global retailer based in the US that has published a new position on animal welfare
and the responsible use of antibiotics in farm animals;• A global fast food restaurant based in the US that has established a global animal
health and welfare team;• A UK-based restaurant that has published a five-year road map for implementing
farm animal welfare standards across all ingredients.
Customer and client demand are the most important influences on companies’
approach to farm animal welfare, with a number of companies also noting that animal
welfare is becoming an increasingly important topic for consumers. A number ofcompanies indicated that the Benchmark had directly influenced their approach tofarm animal welfare. The respondents identified four main mechanisms throughwhich the Benchmark exerts influence:• The Benchmark enables companies to benchmark themselves against theirindustry peers;• The Benchmark helps companies to continually improve their approach to farmanimal welfare;• The Benchmark provides companies with a clear set of expectations;• The Benchmark is backed by leading animal welfare organisations, Compassionin World Farming and World Animal Protection, with a track record of working withfood companies.

47
Nicky Amos and Rory Sullivan (2015),
How Are Companies Using the Business
Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare?
Investor Briefing No. 21 (BBFAW London).
http://www.bbfaw.com/media/1317/
how-are-companies-using-thebusiness-benchmark-on-farm-animalwelfare-2015.pdf

662015 REPORTWIDER ISSUES AND REFLECTIONS

It is interesting to note that, despite the Benchmark being identified as an important
influence, relatively few companies identified investors as an important driver of
performance. This reflects the findings of a BBFAW investor survey in May 201548
which suggested that while most of the investors that responded to our survey haveconsidered how the Benchmark might be used in their investment research, a smaller
proportion (approximately half of those surveyed) has used the Benchmark in theircompany engagement.
In relation to investment research, the Benchmark has been used to:• Assess the business risks and opportunities of farm animal welfare for companies;• Provide insights into how companies are identifying and managing risks in their
supply chains;• Cross-check investors’ own assessments of companies’ sustainability approaches
and strategies;• Understand the evolution of farm animal welfare as an investment subject and asa corporate management priority;• Communicate with internal investment research teams on the investment
relevance of farm animal welfare issues.
In relation to engagement, the Benchmark has been used to:• Prioritise companies for engagement. Investors have used the Benchmark bothto identify laggards (i.e. poor performers) and leaders (to understand what hasenabled these companies to become leaders);• Inform investors’ engagement with companies, whether on the specific subject offarm animal welfare or as part of wider discussions on sustainability strategy andgovernance. In 2015, BBFAW produced a short guide on how investors could use
the Benchmark in their engagement with companies;49• Underpin the collaborative engagement on farm animal welfare described inBox 5.1;• Inform questions at company AGMs. For example, during 2015, ShareAction, acharity which promotes responsible investment, raised questions at the AGMs of
Associated British Foods, Dairy Crest, Whitbread, Greggs and JD Wetherspoon
regarding their performance in the 2014 Benchmark.
While the influence of investor engagement has been relatively modest to date,
one of the most significant developments has been the international investor
collaboration, convened by the BBFAW Secretariat, (see Box 5.1). This is the first timethat investors have collaborated in such a coordinated, structured manner on thefarm animal welfare practices of global food companies, and signals a step change inthe manner in which investors engage with the issue of farm animal welfare.
48
Rory Sullivan and Nicky Amos (2015),
How are Investors Using the Business
Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare.
Investor Briefing No. 20 (BBFAW, London)
http://www.bbfaw.com/media/1077/
how-investors-are-using-the-businessbenchmark-on-farm-animal-welfare.pdf
49
Rory Sullivan, Nicky Amos and Abigail
Herron (2015), Engagement on Farm
Animal Welfare: A User’s Guide. Investor
Briefing No. 19 (BBFAW, London).
http://www.bbfaw.com/media/1076/
investor-briefing-no-19-engagementon-farm-animal-welfare-a-users-guide.
pdf

67

2015 REPORTWIDER ISSUES AND REFLECTIONS

Box 5.1: Investor Collaboration on Farm Animal Welfare
In mid-2015, the BBFAW initiated an international collaborative initiative aimed at encouraging
major global food companies to strengthen their management systems and processes onfarm animal welfare. The initiative, which acknowledges leading practice in this area whilst
encouraging major global food companies to strengthen their farm animal welfare approaches,is – at December 2015 - supported by 18 institutional investors from the UK, the Netherlands,
France, Canada, the US and Australia: ACTIAM, Australian Ethical Investment, Aviva Investors,
BNP Paribas Investment Partners, the Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church,Coller Capital, EdenTree Investment Management, Epworth Investment Management, The
Sustainability Group (part of Loring, Wolcott & Coolidge Trust), NEI Investments, Nelson CapitalManagement, Rathbone Greenbank Investments, Robeco, Royal London Asset Management(RLAM), Schroders, Trillium Asset Management, Triodos Bank and Walden Asset Management.
The collaboration has focused on both the high (i.e. the 10 companies that were ranked in Tiers
1 and 2 of the 2014 Benchmark) and low (i.e. the 40 companies that were ranked in Tiers 5 and 6of the 2014 Benchmark) performing companies in the Benchmark. The participating investors
wrote to the leading companies to commend them for their performance in the Benchmark, andto encourage them to maintain their high level of performance.
The letters to the low performing companies explained that investors see farm animal welfare
as a business risk that needs to be managed effectively and as a potential future source ofbusiness opportunity and growth. These letters expressed concern about these companies’
performance in the Benchmark, and asked these companies to explain whether they will
be taking action to improve their performance and to respond to the recommendations on
potential areas for improvement made by the BBFAW Secretariat. These letters also stated thatthe participating investors would use the annual Benchmark report to monitor their progress.
While it is too early to offer a definitive view on the effectiveness of this engagement, the signs
are encouraging. A number of companies have already improved their performance, and somehave written to us indicating that they intend to take substantive actions ahead of the 2016
benchmarking process.
A number of the investor participants in the collaboration have indicated that they are interested
in following up the original letters with meetings and/or raising farm animal welfare as part oftheir routine company meetings, in particular for those companies whose scores have notchanged between the 2014 and 2015 Benchmarks. They see this lack of progress as suggestingthat these companies are not paying attention to the issues and concerns being raised byinvestors. We see this engagement as hugely important in encouraging change and will continue
to support investors in these efforts.

We are also encouraged by the feedback we have received from companies on
their 2015 preliminary evaluations (as discussed in Section 2.3, checking thefacts with companies is an integral part of our research process). A number ofcompanies have provided positive feedback, commenting on the robustness of theassessments and the usefulness of the annual Benchmark in evaluating the qualityof their management and reporting approach, and in signalling areas for continuous
improvement. While somewhat anecdotal, we have noted that our dialogue withmany companies (specifically those that have been benchmarked for a numberof years) is much less focused on the methodology and the specific questions,and much more on the actions that companies plan to take in advance of future
Benchmark iterations. A number of companies have scheduled meetings with
the BBFAW Secretariat throughout 2016 to help with their planning. This is hugely
encouraging, as it indicates an acknowledgement by companies that they are taking
the issue of farm animal welfare management and reporting seriously, that they are
increasingly aware of and understand the needs of investor and other audiences
for information on their farm animal welfare approach, and an endorsement bycompanies that the Benchmark offers a useful and practical framework for reporting.

682015 REPORTWIDER ISSUES AND REFLECTIONS

5.2

IMPLICATIONS FOR INVESTORS
Reflecting the core message from the previous Benchmarks, the key conclusion
for investors is that farm animal welfare continues to be a systemic risk that many
companies in the food industry are either not effectively managing or not properly
reporting. Despite a group of 7 large institutional investors writing to the companies
in Tiers 5 and 6 (see Box 5.1), many of these companies do not appear to havetaken action to improve their management of farm animal welfare-related risks andopportunities, nor have they signalled that they intend to do so. Having said this,
13 of the companies that were ranked in Tiers 5 and 6 in the 2014 Benchmark have
improved their scores sufficiently in the 2015 Benchmark to move up one or two
Tiers, signalling a willingness to improve their practices and performance over time.
Our view is that investors should continue to prioritise the companies in Tiers 5 and
6 for engagement, whether as part of their routine engagement with companies
or as part of the collaborative engagement convened by the BBFAW Secretariat.
The focus of this engagement should, in the first instance, be to ensure that thesecompanies are aware of the Benchmark and associated guidance material (e.g. onreporting) produced by the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare, and thento encourage these companies to explain how they plan to manage the risks andopportunities presented by farm animal welfare, and how they plan to track and reporton their progress in this regard.
Investors also have an important role to play in encouraging companies to achieve
and maintain leadership on farm animal welfare. There is much to be learned fromthose companies that have achieved leadership positions in the Benchmark, inrelation to the actions that they have taken and the business benefits that haveresulted. We encourage investors to engage with these companies so that they
can better understand the characteristics of good and best practice on farm animal
welfare. It would be extremely useful if, as part of this engagement, investors could
encourage these companies to talk publicly about their experiences. The reason isthat many of the companies not in the top tiers of the Benchmark continue to see
farm animal welfare primarily in terms of downside risk management, rather thanseeing the potential for higher standards of farm animal welfare to provide businessbenefits and opportunities (e.g. access to new markets, access to new clients,
better product quality, lower losses). This is something that we will look to encouragethrough the collaborative engagement process.

69

2015 REPORTWIDER ISSUES AND REFLECTIONS

5.3

NEW AND EMERGING ISSUESIn the course of our engagement with investors and other stakeholders, we havereceived a number of suggestions on how the Benchmark might be strengthened
and on the issues that should be covered by the Benchmark. We have also seen
companies starting to report on farm animal welfare-related issues that are notcovered by the Benchmark. In Box 5.2, we list the issues we see as gaining increased
profile in the area of farm animal welfare. We have already started to address anumber of these – e.g. antibiotics – in the Benchmark.
Box 5.2: New and Emerging Farm Animal Welfare Issues• In-ovo gender identification (sexing) – relevant for laying hens and dairy cows;• E mergency planning (loss of power, natural disasters, major road traffic accidents involving
live animal transportation, etc);• Casualty euthanasia;• Slaughter stunning methods;• Selective breeding;• By-catch/Fishing methods (for finfish aquaculture);• Farming of exotic species (e.g. frogs, bison, crocodile, kangaroo);• Higher welfare food labelling;• Standards on game farming;• Animal health and nutrition;• Traceability/remote monitoring of supply chains;• Cultured meat/meat substitutes.

702015 REPORTWIDER ISSUES AND REFLECTIONS

5.3

REPORTING PRACTICE
One of the most encouraging findings from both the 2015 and 2014 Benchmarks has
been the significant improvement we have seen in the quality of corporate reporting.
An increasing number of companies now provide a consolidated and organised
account of their approach to farm animal welfare. Notable examples include CoopGroup (Switzerland), Cranswick, Marks & Spencer, McDonald’s (Europe), Nestlé,
Noble Foods, The Co-operative Food (UK), Tesco, Unilever, Waitrose and Walmart. In
the best cases, this reporting not only facilitates our work when evaluating company
approaches and performance, but it allows stakeholders to understand the business,to understand the relevance of farm animal welfare to the business, to understandhow the company is currently managing farm animal welfare, and to understand how
the company will manage farm animal welfare in the future. This, in turn, allows for abetter informed dialogue between companies and their stakeholders.
Despite the progress, companies could do much more to ensure their reportingis useful to investors and other stakeholders. First, they should consolidate theirinformation in a single location on their website. At present, many companies
scatter information through their CSR reports, their press releases and otherpublications. This creates the impression that the company itself does not have aclear understanding of its approach or of the outcomes that it is trying to achieve.
It also means that important information is often overlooked and not reported. For
example, we found a number of companies that had received notable awards fromorganisations such as Compassion in World Farming and the Humane Society butthat did not even mention these awards on their websites or in their communications.
Second, companies should provide regular and timely updates on practice andperformance. While companies often provide a good account of their activities andactions for well-established issues such as climate change and health and safety,
farm animal welfare is more selectively reported and is often not reported year-onyear in the way that these other, more entrenched, sustainability issues are.
Third, companies need to ensure that the information they provide is actually useful
to investors and stakeholders. Specifically, companies need to avoid providing‘boiler plate’ or standard text that provides no meaningful insights into practiceor performance. Perhaps the most common issue we see at the moment is thatcompanies fail to explain how they interpret or implement their farm animal welfare
policies. For example, some companies have made high level commitments on
specific issues (e.g. on the avoidance of long distance live transport) but not specified
what these mean in practice (e.g. not specifying maximum journey times). Similarly,
some companies make commitments to action but do not specify how these are
to be achieved, how they are to be measured or when they will be delivered. Where
we have identified these sorts of issues, we have provided detailed feedback tocompanies and, when companies have not responded to this feedback, we haveawarded lower scores in the Benchmark in subsequent iterations of the Benchmark.

71

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

CHAPTER 6

NEXT STEPS

72

2015 REPORTNEXT STEPSWe see the Benchmark as a long-term change programme. We recognise there ismuch that needs to be done, but we are hugely encouraged by the progress madeto date in defining core expectations for companies, in building consensus aroundthese expectations and in catalysing change within companies and in theinvestment community.
Over the next year, we intend to focus our efforts on:

6.1

INVESTOR ENGAGEMENT
From the very beginning, the investor community has been the key audience for
BBFAW, and the Benchmark has been designed with investors’ interests in mind.
For 2016, we will prioritise four aspects:• Ensuring that the Benchmark itself (i.e. criteria, scoring, company-specificinformation), the universe of companies covered by the Benchmark and theother materials and reports produced by the Benchmark are relevant and useful
to investors. We will do this through regular one-to-one meetings with investors,
through participating in investment-related seminars and events, and through ourannual survey of how investors are using the Benchmark;• Continuing to raise the profile of farm animal welfare and the investment-relatedrisks and opportunities in the investment community, through direct engagementwith investors, through our press and communications activities and throughparticipating in investment-related seminars and events;• Developing understanding of the business case and the investment case for farmanimal welfare;• Developing the investor collaboration that we established in 2015, with aparticular focus on encouraging greater investor engagement with thecompanies in the Benchmark;• For investors interested in animal welfare and the wider sustainability aspects ofintensive farming please see the Farm Animal Investment Risk & Return (FAIRR)
initiative, network and latest investment risk report. www.fairr.org50

50
www.fairr.org
Factory Farming: Assessing Investment
Risks 2016 Report (FAIRR)
http://www.fairr.org/wp-content/uploads/
FAIRR_Report_Factory_Farming_
Assessing_Investment_Risks.pdf

732015 REPORTNEXT STEPS

We have received a number of suggestions on how the Benchmark might bestrengthened or made more useful to investors. These suggestions appear
in Box 6.1 below:
Box 6.1: Investor Suggestions for Strengthening the Benchmark• B BFAW provides a more detailed account of each company’s performance.
– BBFAW Response: We will seek to improve the two-page company summaries by providing
more contextual information on each company’s performance. We hope that thesechanges, together with our published short guide to investor engagement, will enhance theusefulness of the information being provided.
• M ake the company profile information more readily available (e.g. through a login on the
BBFAW website rather than on request as at present).
– BBFAW Response: We have addressed this via our refreshed BBFAW website, which
now includes a dedicated log-in section for investors, allowing direct access to company
summary reports.
• Broaden the number and geographic scope of the companies covered by the Benchmark.
– BBFAW Response: We have increased the number of companies covered by the
Benchmark from 68 in 2012 to 90 in 2015. Our expectation is that we will benchmark
100 companies in 2016.
– BBFAW Response: In relation to geographic coverage, we have progressively extended ourcoverage of US-based companies and have added some companies from Brazil, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand. We intend to add more emerging market companies in 2016,
and will, as we have done since the inception of the Benchmark, consult with investors on
the universe of companies to ensure that we are focusing on companies and geographiesthat are relevant to them.
• Provide more information on the business case for farm animal welfare.
– BBFAW Comment: This is a priority for us. We have received an increasing number ofquestions about the business case for companies to focus on farm animal welfare. Overthe past two years we have produced a number of briefings on elements of the businesscase (e.g. on the scale of consumer demand for higher welfare products). We have also
encouraged investment analysts to produce research on the investment case for farmanimal welfare, and have seen some progress with both Morgan Stanley and Natixis
discussing farm animal welfare with their clients. However, we do not expect that BBFAW
will produce reports analysing the investment implications or company-specific financial
implications of farm animal welfare. Our view is that this is work that is best and mostcredibly done by the investment industry itself. Where investors do produce such research,
we reference it in our work and bring it to the attention of investors and other stakeholders.
• P rovide more information on key farm animal welfare and investment issues.
– BBFAW Response: We produce briefings and other materials in response to requests frominvestors. Examples include the briefings we have produced on antibiotics, on cloning
and on genetic engineering, and on finfish. We actively seek feedback from investors on
potential topics, as we want to ensure that the materials that we produce are relevant toinvestors.

6.2

STRENGTHENING MARKET DEMAND
Investors have continued to emphasise that getting the investment community
to take action on farm animal welfare is not just a matter of providing data andinformation, and assuming that investors will then automatically use this information.
Given that many investors do not see farm animal welfare as a financially material
issue, they are unlikely to focus explicit attention on farm animal welfare unless there
is demand from their clients. That is, there is a need to create real demand in theinvestment system for research on farm animal welfare, demand for investors to
use their influence with the companies in which they are invested, and demand forinvestors to consider farm animal welfare in their investment research and decisionmaking processes. We will continue to discuss this issue with our NGO partners toconsider how they might help create this demand through their own investment
practices, through the dialogue they have with their investment managers, andthrough mobilising their members and supporters to ask how their pension funds
are addressing farm animal welfare in their investment practices.

74

2015 REPORTNEXT STEPS

6.3

INCREASING THE FOCUS ON FARM ANIMAL WELFARE PERFORMANCE
The introduction of four performance-related questions into the 2014 Benchmark
marked the first step toward evaluating companies on their farm animal welfare
performance rather than focusing primarily on their management commitments
and processes. As we discussed in Section 4.4 above, the reality is that performance
reporting lags significantly behind reporting on management systems and processes.
Nevertheless, we are encouraged to see that some companies are starting to
respond to the growing interest in their performance by disclosing quantitative dataon animals impacted by their production systems and processes. Despite this, weare aware that the four performance questions in the 2015 and 2014 Benchmarks
provide limited insight into the relevant performance of companies on specificissues or on animal welfare outcomes more generally. For example, irrespective of
their actual performance, companies will receive a partial or full score for publishingdata on the proportion of animals that are free from confinement, that are stunned
pre-slaughter or that are transported within a maximum journey time of eight hours.
Accepting that these questions were especially developed to provide a low entry
point for companies to report on their farm animal welfare performance, we intend
to develop a more judicious approach to evaluating performance impact in the 2016
Benchmark (see also Box 4.19). Accepting that our thinking will inevitably develop andbecome more refined in the coming months, we expect to:• Retain the same performance questions (Questions 20 to 23) in order to maintaina low entry point for companies to introduce an element of performance reportingon farm animal welfare. However, from the 2016 Benchmark, we expect to propose
the introduction of discretionary scoring for performance impact, rewarding
companies performing at a significantly high level on a particular issue. For
example, a company reporting that 100% of relevant species are free from close
confinement, would be awarded additional points on this particular issue. (NB.
The scoring of additional criteria in the performance impact questions will likely be
excluded from the overall Benchmark score in 2016, to allow companies to prepare
for the introduction of these questions in 2017.);• Consider introducing additional performance questions to ensure full coverageof the policy issues covered by the Benchmark. These might, for example, include
a question on performance relating to the proportion of animals that are freefrom routine mutilations, or the proportion of animals that are free from growthpromoting substances or the routine prophylactic use of antibiotics;• Increase the weighting on performance disclosure from 10% in 2015 to between
15 and 20% in 2016.

6.4

THE NEXT ITERATION OF THE BENCHMARK
We plan to repeat the Benchmark in August/September 2016, with the aim of
releasing the fifth Benchmark Report in early 2017. Before we commence thisprocess, we will – as we have done for each Benchmark – formally consult on thecriteria to be used, the issues to be covered and the scope of the Benchmark.
To inform the consultation we will repeat our company and investor surveys in early
2016, to understand how they are using the Benchmark, to understand how theBenchmark might be made more useful to them and to gather their suggestions
on potential changes to the Benchmark.

75

2015 REPORTDETAILED RESULTS

CHAPTER 7

APPENDICES

76

2015 REPORTAPPENDIX 11- 2015 BENCHMARK QUESTIONS AND SCORING

APPENDIX 1
BUSINESS BENCHMARK ON FARM ANIMAL WELFARE
2015 BENCHMARK QUESTIONS AND SCORINGMANAGEMENT COMMITMENT AND POLICY
Question 1

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

Rationale

Acknowledging farm animal welfare as a business issue is an important first step towards implementing
a comprehensive approach to farm animal welfare management. It is good practice for food companies
to identify whether and why farm animal welfare is a relevant issue for the business.

Scoring

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

0

Farm animal welfare is identified as a relevant business issue.

10(Max Score 10)
Question 2

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

Rationale

It is good practice for companies to formalise their approach to animal welfare in a policy (or equivalent
document such as a statement of guiding principles, a code of practice or a sourcing charter). While theexistence of a policy may not provide a guarantee of implementation, the absence of a policy is a clear
sign that farm animal welfare is not on the business agenda.

Scoring

No evidence of a formal policy statement (or equivalent) on farm animal welfare.

0

Broad commitment to farm animal welfare in a policy statement (or equivalent) but no description

5of how the policy is to be implemented.
Broad commitment to farm animal welfare within a policy statement (or equivalent) and a description

10of the processes in place to ensure that the policy is effectively implemented.
(Max Score 10)
Question 3

Does the policy statement provide a clear explanation of scope?

Rationale

Understanding the scope of a policy is important to understand the breadth of a company’scommitment to action on farm animal welfare.

Scoring

Scope not specified.

0

Geographic scope

Not specified.

0

Scope is limited to certain specified geographies.

2

Scope is universal across all geographies.

5

Not specified.

0

Scope is limited to certain specified species.

2

Scope is universal across all relevant species.

5

Not specified.

0

Scope is limited to own-brand products or ingredients (i.e. the policy does not apply to imported

2

Species covered

Products coveredor other brand products).
Scope is universal across own brand, imported and other brand products.

5(Max Score 15)
Question 4

Does the company have a clear position on the avoidance of close confinement and intensive
systems for livestock (e.g. sow stalls, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs),
feedlots, farrowing crates, single penning, battery cages, tethering, veal crates, force feeding
and, for finfish, high stocking densities and close confinement of solitary finfish species)?

Rationale

Many of the most significant farm animal welfare concerns result from close confinement practices(such as those listed above) or from high stocking densities in the case of finfish. It is good practicefor companies to commit to no close confinement of farm animals and to avoid excessively highstocking densities.

Scoring

No stated position.

0

The company has made a partial commitment to the avoidance of confinement but the scope (in terms

1of geography, species, products) is not clearly defined.
The company has made a partial commitment to the avoidance of confinement and the scope of the3commitment (in terms of geography, species and products) is clearly defined.
Universal commitment to avoid confinement across all relevant species, own-brand and other brandproducts and geographies.
(Max Score 5)5

772015 REPORTQuestion 5

APPENDIX 1- 2015 BENCHMARK QUESTIONS AND SCORING

Does the company have a clear position on the avoidance of products from farm animals subject
to genetic engineering or cloning and/or their progeny or descendants throughout its products?

Rationale

Both cloning and genetic engineering raise serious animal welfare concerns1. In farmed fish species
this includes heat treatment of eggs to induce triploidy, which renders fish sterile.

Scoring

No stated position.

0

The company has made a partial commitment to the avoidance of animals subject to genetic

1

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

3

engineering or cloning and the scope (in terms of geography, species and products) is clearly defined.
Universal commitment to avoidance of animals subject to genetic engineering or cloning across all5

relevant species, own-brand and other brand products and geographies.
(Max Score 5)
Question 6

Does the company have a clear position on the avoidance of growth promoting substances?

Rationale

Antibiotics given at low doses improve food conversion rates, most likely by changing the composition ofgut microbiota in a way that enables animals to grow faster using less feed. Hormonal growth promoters
are used to specifically promote abnormal muscle growth or milk production in animals farmed for food.
The use of growth promoting substances can undermine animal welfare, as they may enable animals togrow or produce milk in a way that puts excessive strain on their physiological capabilities. While the useof hormonal growth promoters and the use of antibiotics for growth promotion are banned in the EU,
their use is widely practised outside of Europe.

Scoring

No stated position.

0

The company has made a partial commitment to the avoidance of growth promoting substances,1

but the scope (in terms of geography, species or products) is not clearly defined.
The company has made a partial commitment to the avoidance of growth promoting substances,3

but the scope (in terms of geography, species and products) is clearly defined.
Universal commitment to the avoidance of growth promoting substances.

5(Max Score 5)
Question 7

Does the company have a clear position on the reduction or avoidance of antibiotics forprophylactic use?

Rationale

The over-use of antibiotics in humans and in animals is directly linked to the increase in antibiotic
resistance. The use of antibiotics on-farm (typically through feed or water) is frequently prophylactic;
effectively ‘propping up’ intensive farming systems where animals are kept in confined and stressful
conditions and where their immune systems are compromised and disease outbreaks can spread
rapidly . Companies are expected to commit to reducing the levels of antibiotics they administerroutinely and to develop animal production systems that are not reliant on the routine use ofantibiotics for disease prevention.

Scoring

No stated position.

0

The company has made a partial commitment to the reduction or avoidance of the routine use

1of antibiotics, but the scope (in terms of geography, species or products) is not clearly defined.
The company has made a partial commitment to the reduction or avoidance of the routine use

3of antibiotics, and the scope (in terms of geography, species and products) is clearly defined.
Universal commitment to the reduction or avoidance of the routine use of antibiotics acrossall geographies, species and products.
(Max Score 5)

1
For a detailed discussion of theanimal welfare implications of cloning
and genetic engineering, see Peter
Stevenson (2012), Cloning and Genetic
Engineering of Farm Animals. BBFAW
Investor Briefing No. 6 (September 2012)(BBFAW, London). http://www.bbfaw.com/
media/1083/briefing-no6_cloning-andgenetic-engineering-of-farm-animals.
pdf

5

78

2015 REPORTQuestion 8

APPENDIX 1- 2015 BENCHMARK QUESTIONS AND SCORING

Does the company have a clear position on the avoidance of routine mutilations (castration,
teeth clipping, tail docking, toe clipping, dehorning, desnooding, de-winging, disbudding,mulesing, beak trimming, fin clipping)?

Rationale

Many farm animals are subjected to procedures that alter their bodies, often with no anaesthesia,
causing pain and distress. Examples include beak trimming, castration of beef cattle with knives,
branding with hot irons, dehorning of dairy cattle with hot irons, castration and tail docking of pigs,
and fin clipping in finfish aquaculture.

Scoring

No stated position.

0

The company has made a partial commitment to the avoidance of routine mutilations but the scope1(in terms of geography, species or products) is not clearly defined.
The company has made a partial commitment to the avoidance of routine mutilations and the scope3(in terms of geography, species and products) is clearly defined.
Universal commitment to avoidance of routine mutilations across all relevant species, own-brand5and other branded products and geographies.
(Max Score 5)
Question 9

Does the company have a clear position on the avoidance of meat from animals that have notbeen subjected to pre-slaughter stunning, or (in the case of finfish) meat from animals thathave not been rendered insensible?

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.

Scoring

No stated position.

0

The company has made a partial commitment to avoid the use of meat from animals that have not1been subjected to pre-slaughter stunning or from finfish that have not been rendered insensible
but the scope (in terms of geography, species or products) is not clearly defined.
The company has made a partial commitment to avoid the use of meat from animals that have not3been subjected to pre-slaughter stunning or from finfish that have not been rendered insensible andthe scope (in terms of geography, species and products) is clearly defined.
Universal commitment to avoid the use of meat from animals that have not been subjected to5

pre-slaughter stunning or from finfish that have not been rendered insensible across all species,
own-brand and other branded products and geographies.
(Max Score 5)
Question 10

Does the company have a clear position on the avoidance of long distance live transportation?

Rationale

When being transported, animals can experience hunger, thirst, discomfort, pain, frustration, fear anddistress, 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. Specifically, any transport of a live animal that exceeds 8 hours,
from loading to unloading, has been shown to decrease welfare significantly. In the case of farmed fish,handling practices and water quality conditions, particularly oxygenation, can have a significant impact
on welfare.

Scoring

No stated position.

0

The company has made a partial commitment to avoid the use of long distance transport but the scope1(in terms of geography, species or products) is not clearly defined.
The company has made a partial commitment to avoid the use of long distance transport and the scope3(in terms of geography, species and products) is clearly defined.
Universal commitment to avoidance of long distance live transportation across all species, own-brandand other branded products and geographies.
(Max Score 5)5

792015 REPORTAPPENDIX 1- 2015 BENCHMARK QUESTIONS AND SCORING

GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
Question 11

Has the company assigned management responsibility for farm animal welfare to an individualor specified committee?

Rationale

When looking at the management of farm animal welfare, both oversight and implementation
responsibilities are important. Oversight is necessary to ensure that senior management is aware of thebusiness implications of farm animal welfare and is prepared to intervene when needed (e.g. if there aretensions between the organisation’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 that farm animal
welfare is effectively managed.

Scoring

No clearly defined management responsibility.

0

Published details of the management position with responsibility for farm animal welfare on

5a day-to-day basis.
Published details of how the board or senior management oversees the implementation of the compa-

5ny’s farm animal welfare policy.
(Max Score 10)
Question 12

Has the company set objectives and targets for the management of farm animal welfare?

Rationale

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

Scoring

No published objectives and targets.

0

Published objectives and targets but with no information on how these are to be achieved.

5

Published objectives and targets together with information on the actions to be taken to achieve these,10

the resources allocated and the schedule for the delivery of these objectives and targets.
(Max Score 10)
Question 13

Does the company report on its performance against its animal welfare policy and objectives?

Rationale

Companies should explain how they have performed against their policy commitments, against theobjectives and targets, and provide an explanation of progress and trends in performance.

Scoring
PolicyThe company does not report on how it has performed against the commitments set out in its

0overarching policy.
The company reports on how it has performed against the commitments set out in its overarching policy.

5

The company does not report on how it has performed against its objectives and targets.

0

The company reports on how it has performed against its objectives and targets.

5

Explanation of progress

The company does not report on progress on animal welfare performance (either in terms of input

0

and trends in performancemeasures or welfare outcome measures).

Objectives and targets

The company reports on progress on at least one animal welfare performance measure (either an input

4

measure or a welfare outcome measure), but this is limited to certain species, products or geographies
and there is no explanation of trends in performance.
The company reports on progress on at least one animal welfare performance measure (either an input

6

measure or a welfare outcome measure) in its supply chain, but this is limited to certain species, products
or geographies, although it does provide an explanation of progress and trends in performance.
The company reports on at least one performance measure (either an input measure or a welfare

8

outcome measure) per relevant species across all geographies but there is no explanation of progressor trend in performance.
The company reports on at least one performance measure (either an input measure or a welfare
outcome measure) per relevant species across all geographies, and it provides an explanation ofprogress or trend in performance.
(Max Score 20)

10

80

2015 REPORTQuestion 14

APPENDIX 1- 2015 BENCHMARK QUESTIONS AND SCORING

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

Rationale

The effective implementation of a farm animal welfare policy relies on employees who are competent tooversee the implementation of the policy, and on controls that allow the company to respond quickly andeffectively in the event of non-compliance with the policy.

Scoring
Training of internal staff

Internal controls

No information provided on employee training in farm animal welfare.

0

Specific training provided to employees in farm animal welfare.

5

No information provided on the actions to be taken in the event of non-compliance with the farm0

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

5

welfare policy.
(Max Score 10)
Question 15

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
Supplier Contracts

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

0

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

0Farm animal welfare incorporated into contractual obligations for suppliers but limited by geography3

and/or certain products or species.
Farm animal welfare incorporated into contractual obligations for suppliers across all species, products

5and geographies.
Monitoring and Auditing

Education and Support

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

0

Farm animal welfare specified as part of supplier auditing programme.

5Specific support and/or education provided to suppliers on farm animal welfare policy/issues.

5(Max Score 15)
Question 16

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

Rationale

Farm assurance schemes provide frameworks for managing farm animals, including their health andwelfare, provenance and the legal compliance of the systems used. They can also play an important rolein 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 theminimum. Where there is no species-specific legislation, assurance standards are increasingly importantfor protecting welfare.

Scoring

No assurance standard specified.

0

A proportion of products audited to basic farm assurance (or equivalent company) standard, but no3

information on the balance.
A proportion of products audited to a combination of basic and higher farm assurance (or equivalent

6

company) standard, but no information on the balance.
100% of products audited to basic farm assurance (or equivalent company) standard.

10100% of products audited to a combination of a basic farm assurance (or equivalent company) standard

15

and a higher welfare assurance (or company equivalent standard).
100% of products audited to higher level (or company equivalent) assurance standard.
(Max Score 20)

20

81

2015 REPORTAPPENDIX 1- 2015 BENCHMARK QUESTIONS AND SCORINGINNOVATION
Question 17

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

Rationale

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

Scoring

No evidence of involvement in advancing farm animal welfare beyond company practices.

0

Research and development

Evidence of current involvement in research and development programmes to improve farm animal

5

welfare.
Lobbying and industry

Evidence of active involvement in industry or other initiatives (e.g. working groups, supporting NGO

engagement

lobbying, responding to government consultations) directed at improving farm animal welfare.

5(Max Score 10)
Question 18

Has the company received any notable awards or accreditations for its farm animal welfare
performance in the last two years?

RationaleAwards from credible animal welfare organisations, consumer associations and industry and farming
bodies provide tangible evidence that companies are achieving good/best practices in those areas of
their operations covered by the awards. Awards can also play an important role within companies throughmotivating employees and signalling to senior management that farm animal welfare is an area where
the organisation is achieving good/best practice.

Scoring

No evidence of notable awards or accreditations in the last two years.

0

The company has received a notable award or accreditation for a single category or species.

5

The company has received a significant award relating to its efforts across a number of species, or the10company has received awards for its efforts on different species.
(Max Score 10)
Question 19

Does the company promote higher farm animal welfare to consumers 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 in demand for higher
welfare products.

Scoring

No evidence of promoting higher farm animal welfare.

0

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

5

Multiple examples of promoting higher farm animal welfare to consumers.

10(Max Score 10)822015 REPORTAPPENDIX 1- 2015 BENCHMARK QUESTIONS AND SCORINGPERFORMANCE REPORTING
Question 20

Does the company report on the proportion of animals (or volume of animal products) in its
supply chain that is free from confinement (i.e. those in barn, free range, indoor group housed,indoor free-farrowing, outdoor bred/reared)?

Rationale

In addition to having clear policy commitments and management practices, companies are expected
to maintain strict reporting criteria for animals in their supply chain. This question is looking specificallyat measures linked to the housing systems and environmental enrichment of animals in their supply
chains. This is because many of the most significant farm animal welfare concerns result from close
confinement practices and barren living conditions (such as barren battery cages, sow stalls, farrowing
crates, veal crates, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), feedlots, tethered systems, close
confinement of solitary finfish species).

Scoring

No reporting on the proportion of animals free from confinement0

The company reports on the proportion of animals free from confinement, but this reporting is

3

limited to certain geographies, species or own-brand products.
The company reports fully on the proportion of animals free from confinement, covering all5

relevant geographies, species and own-brand products.
(Max Score 5)
Question 21

Does the company report on the proportion of animals in its supply chain that are subject
to pre-slaughter stunning or (in the case of finfish) are rendered insensible?

Rationale

In addition to having clear policy commitments and management practices, companies are expected tomaintain strict measurement criteria for animals in their supply chain. This question is looking specificallyat measures linked to the slaughter of animals (or the rendering of fish insensible) in their supply chains. 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.

Scoring

No reporting on the proportion of animals subject to pre-slaughter stunning.

0

The company reports on the proportion of animals subject to pre-slaughter stunning, but this reporting3

is limited to certain geographies, species or own-brand products.
The company reports fully on the proportion of animals subject to pre-slaughter stunning, covering all5

relevant geographies, species and own-brand products.
(Max Score 5)
Question 22

Does the company report on the average, typical or maximum permitted live transport times
for the animals in its supply chain?

Rationale

In addition to having clear policy commitments and management practices, companies are expected tomaintain strict measurement criteria for animals in their supply chain. This question is looking specificallyat measures linked to the live transportation of animals in their supply chains. When being transported,animals can experience hunger, thirst, discomfort, pain, frustration, fear and distress, as well as physicalwelfare problems including injury, disease, and, in the worst cases, death.
For these reasons, transport of live terrestrial animals should be minimised wherever possible andjourneys should be kept as short as possible. Specifically, any transport of a live terrestrial animal thatexceeds 8 hours, from loading to unloading, has been shown to decrease welfare significantly.
In the case of farmed fish, handling practices and water quality conditions (particularly oxygenation) canhave a significant impact on welfare. Conditions for transportation of fish must therefore be suitable anda maximum time limit may be required as determined from species-specific welfare risk assessments.

Scoring

No reporting on live transport times.

0

The company partially reports on the live transport times for animals, but reporting is limited to certain

3

geographies, species or products.
The company reports fully on the live transport times for animals, covering all relevant species
and geographies.
(Max Score 5)5

832015 REPORTQuestion 23

APPENDIX 1- 2015 BENCHMARK QUESTIONS AND SCORING

Does the company report on 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 tomaintain strict measurement criteria for animals in their supply chain. This question is looking specificallyat welfare outcome measures (WOMs) relating to the physical, emotional and/or behavioural wellbeingof animals. WOMs may be quantitative, or qualitative. They should focus on the most important speciesspecific measures (e.g. lameness and mastitis in dairy cows, gait score and footpad dermatitis in broilers,
tail-biting and lameness in pigs, bone breakage and feather coverage in laying hens), and include aspectsof mental wellbeing (e.g. reaction to humans or novelty, fear, comfort); and behaviour (e.g. time spentlying – resting, ruminating; or being active – foraging, perching, dustbathing, socialising).

Scoring

No reporting on welfare outcome measures.

0Partial reporting on at least one welfare outcome measure but reporting is limited to certain species or3

geographies.
Company fully reports on at least one welfare outcome measure per relevant species and/or per relevant
geography.
(Max Score 5)5

842015 REPORTAPPENDIX 2 - 2015 BENCHMARK COMPANIESAPPENDIX 2 - 2015 BENCHMARK COMPANIESCOMPANYOWNERSHIPICB CLASSIFICATIONCOUNTRY OF
INCORPORATION

1

Ahold NV

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Netherlands

2

Albertsons

Private5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

USA

3

Aldi Nord (Aldi Markt)

Private5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Germany

4

Aldi Süd/Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co

Private5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Germany

5

Carrefour SA

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

France6Casino Guichard-Perrachon SA

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

France7(The) Co-operative Food (UK)

Cooperative

5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

UK

8

Coop Group (Switzerland)/Coop Genossenschaft

Cooperative

5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Switzerland

9

Costco Wholesale Corp

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

USA

10

Delhaize Group SA

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Belgium

11

Edeke Zentrale

Private5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Germany

12

El Corte Inglés SA

Private5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Spain

13

Groupe Auchan SA

Private5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

France14

ICA Gruppen/ICA Eiendom Norge AS

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Sweden15

J Sainsbury Plc

Public5337: Food Retailers and WholesalersUK

16

Kroger Company (The)

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

USA

17

Lidl Stiftung & Co KG

Private5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Germany

18

Loblaw

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Canada19

Marks & Spencer Plc

Public5337: Food Retailers and WholesalersUK

20

Mercadona SA

Private5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Spain

21

Metro AG

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Germany22

Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund

Cooperative

5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Switzerland

23

Rewe Group

Cooperative

5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Germany

24

Schwarz Unternehmens Treuhand KG/KauflandPrivate5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Germany

25

Sysco Corporation

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

USA

26

Target Corporation

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

USA

27

Tesco Plc

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

UK

28

Waitrose

Partnership

5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

UK

29

Walmart Stores Inc/Asda

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

USA

30

Wesfarmers

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Australia

31

Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

UK

32

Woolworths Limited

Public5337: Food Retailers and Wholesalers

Australia

33

Aramark Corporation

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

USA

34

Autogrill SpA

Joint Stock

5757: Restaurants and Bars

Italy

35

Burger King Corporation

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

Canada36

Camst - La Ristorazione Italiana Soc. Coop. ARL

Cooperative

5757: Restaurants and Bars

Italy

37

Chipotle Mexican Grill

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

USA

38

Compass Group Plc

Public5757: Restaurants and BarsUK

39

Cremonini SPA

Private5757: Restaurants and Bars

Italy

40

Darden Restaurants Inc

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

USA

41

Domino’s Pizza Group Plc

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

UK

42

Elior

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

UK

43

SSP Group Limited

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

Sweden44

Gategroup Holding AG

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

Switzerland

45

Greggs Plc

Public5757: Restaurants and BarsUK

46

JD Wetherspoon Plc

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

UK

47

McDonald’s Corporation

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

USA

85

2015 REPORTAPPENDIX 2 - 2015 BENCHMARK COMPANIESCOMPANYOWNERSHIPICB CLASSIFICATIONCOUNTRY OF
INCORPORATION

48

Mitchells & Butlers Plc

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

UK

49

Olav Thon Gruppen AS

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

Norway50

Quick Restaurants

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

France51

SodexoPublic5757: Restaurants and Bars

France52

Starbucks Corporation

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

USA

53

Subway/Doctor’s Associates Inc

Private5757: Restaurants and Bars

USA

54

Umoe Gruppen AS

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

Norway55

Wendy’s Company (The)Private5757: Restaurants and Bars

USA

56

Whitbread Plc

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

UK

57

Yum! Brands, Inc

Public5757: Restaurants and Bars

USA

58

2 Sisters Food Group (Boparan Holdings Ltd)Private3570: Food Producer

UK

59

Arla Foods Ltd

Cooperative

3570: Food Producer

Denmark

60

Associated British Foods Plc

Public3570: Food Producer

UK

61

Barilla SPA

Private3570: Food Producer

Italy

62

BRF SA

Public3570: Food Producer

Brazil63

Cargill

Private3570: Food Producer

USA

64

ConAgraPublic3570: Food Producer

USA

65

Cranswick Plc

Public3570: Food Producer

UK

66

Dairy Crest Plc

Public3570: Food Producer

UK

67

Danish Crown AmbA/Tulip

Joint Stock

3570: Food Producer

Denmark

68

Dean Foods

Public3570: Food Producer

USA

69

Terrena Group

Cooperative

3570: Food Producer

France70

Ferrero SpA

Joint Stock

3570: Food Producer

Italy

71

Fonterra

Cooperative

3570: Food Producer

New Zealand

72

General Mills Inc

Public3570: Food Producer

USA

73

Groupe Danone SA

Public3570: Food Producer

France74

Groupe Lactalis

Private3570: Food Producer

France75

Gruppo Veronesi

Private3570: Food Producer

Italy

76

H.J. Heinz

Private3570: Food Producer

USA

77

JBS SA

Public3570: Food Producer

Brazil78

Kraft Foods Group Inc

Public3570: Food Producer

USA

99

Mondelēz International

Public3570: Food Producer

USA

80

Marfrig Alimentos SA

Public3570: Food Producer

Brazil81

Mars Inc

Private3570: Food Producer

USA

82

Müller Group AG

Private3570: Food Producer

Germany

83

Nestlé SA

Public3570: Food Producer

Switzerland

84

Noble Foods Ltd

Private3570: Food Producer

UK

85

Premier Foods Plc

Public3570: Food Producer

UK

86Royal Friesland Campina NV

Cooperative

3570: Food Producer

Netherlands

87

WH Group Ltd

Public3570: Food Producer

PRC

88

Tyson Foods Inc

Public3570: Food Producer

USA

89

Unilever NV

Public3570: Food Producer

Netherlands

90

VION Food Group

Private3570: Food Producer

Netherlands

862015 REPORT872015 REPORTAPPENDIX 3 - GLOSSARY

APPENDIX 3 GLOSSARY

Androsterone - an endogenous steroid
hormone and pheromone formed in testes
from the breakdown of progesterone,excreted in the urine and plasma of entire(non-castrated) males, and responsible forboar taint and unpleasant odour/taste
to meat.
Animal welfare - the physical and mental
wellbeing of animals; the Farm Animal Welfare
Council adopted the Five Freedoms (seebelow) to demonstrate the attributes ofgood animal welfare.
Basic farm assurance - certification schemesthat ensure certain standards of safety andquality are met, often including some animal
welfare standards similar to the legislativerequirements of the market(s) in which
they operate.
Barren battery cage - a cage used to houseseveral laying hens, usually providing spaceequivalent to less than an A4 sheet of paper
per hen; provision is limited to food and water;
barren battery cages are prohibited by EU
legislation although they are common in otherparts of the world.

Close confinement - provision of very limited
space, representing inadequate space to allow
an animal to move around or express normal
patterns of behaviour.
Coccidiostat - an in-feed chemical agent
that prevents coccidial infection (by Eimeria
protozoa parasites) in the intestines of poultry(particularly) by supressing the parasite’slife cycle. Resistance to in-feed products isa growing problem, so vaccination against
coccidiosis to initiate the development of
immunity is increasingly used.
Concentrated animal feeding operations(CAFOs) - also known as a factory farm, a
CAFO is a production process for meat thatsqueezes many animals into a small andconfined space (for at least 45 days in a 12month period under the US Environmental
Protection Agency’s definition). The animals
have very little room to move and the land isbare of vegetation so, instead of grazing, feedis brought to the animals.
Disbudding - removal of the horn buds inyoung animals (calves, kids) using a hot iron or
chemical cauterisation.

Battery caged hens - hens housed in barren
battery cages.

Dehorning - removal of the horns of adultanimals by cutting or sawing.

Beak trimming - removal of part of the beak(laying hens, parent broilers and turkeys) using
a hot blade, secateurs or an infra-red beam.
Infra-red is the only method permitted inEngland; in the EU no more than a third of
the beak may be removed.

Desnooding - removal of the snood of aturkey, the fleshy part hanging from theforehead and over the beak.

Broiler chickens - chickens reared formeat production.
Cephalosporins - antibiotics used inpreventative medicine and the treatmentof gram positive (first generation) bacteria,
which were first discovered in 1945.
Increasingly, antibiotics to treat gram negativeand broad spectrum (fourth generation)
bacteria are used. Some strains of bacteria
have developed resistance to Cephalosporins,
and fourth generation Cephalosporins are
considered among medicine’s last defenses
against several serious human infections.
Cloning - the process of producing
genetically identical individuals using donor
DNA and a surrogate mother. In farm animals,cloning may be used to create copies of highyielding animals for breeding whose progeny
may then be used in food production. The
majority of cloning is performed with cattle,
but pigs, goats and sheep have also been
subject to the procedure. Animal welfare
concerns associated with cloning include
risks associated with the surgical procedures
undergone by the donor and surrogate
animals, high rates of pregnancy loss andjuvenile deaths, birth complications, andpotential loss of genetic diversity.

Dry sows - pregnant female pigs.
Farm animal welfare - the physical andmental wellbeing of animals reared for food,
fibres and other commodities. In 2012, theBBFAW defined farm animal welfare as it
relates to egg laying hens, broiler chickens,pigs, dairy cows and calves, ducks, guinea fowl,
rabbits, turkeys, geese, beef cattle, sheep
and game.
Farrowing crate - a metal cage used
to confine a single sow during farrowing(birth) and lactation; the crate is designed
to obstruct transition between lying andstanding and does not allow the sow toturn around or engage properly withher piglets.
Feedlot - an intensive animal feeding
operation used to fatten livestock prior toslaughter. Animals such as pigs, sheep orcattle are confined in small areas and suppliedwith a high protein feed.
Finfish - so-called ‘true fish’, this term isused to distinguish fish with gills, fins and abackbone from other aquatic animals such asshellfish and jellyfish.

882015 REPORTAPPENDIX 3 - GLOSSARY

Five Freedoms - a framework for analysisof animal welfare within any system which
includes the following requirements forgood welfare:

Mutilation - A procedure that interfereswith the bone structure or sensitive tissuesof an animal, usually to prevent an abnormal
behaviour such as tail biting (pigs) or injurious
pecking (laying hens).

1. F reedom from thirst, hunger andmalnutrition
2. Freedom from discomfort
3. Freedom from pain and disease
4. Freedom to express normal behaviour
5. Freedom from fear and distress

Neospora caninum - a microscopic
protozoan parasite that causes the disease
neosporosis, a major cause of abortionin cattle.

Fluoroquinolones - antimicrobials, usedtypically to treat bone, joint and skin infections
caused by microorganisms.

Phytotherapy - the study of the use of
extracts of natural origin as medicinesor health-promoting agents. Traditional
phytotherapy is more akin to herbalism oralternative medicine.

Food companies - food businesses including
producers, processors, manufacturers, foodretail and service companies.
Free-farrowing - these systems housepregnant sows, and those with new litters,in larger pens than the sow stall, enabling
the sow to move more freely, nest build (ifprovided with manipulable material), better
exhibit maternal behaviour and other natural
behaviours.
Free range - free range livestock have accessto the outdoors for at least part of the day,allowing greater freedom of movement.
Gait score - a method for assessing
lameness in poultry using indicators suchas balance, stride length, and the positionof the feet.
Gilts - young female pigs that have yet to
be mated or become pregnant.
Growth promoting substances - used toincrease the muscle (meat) or milk productionof animals farmed for food. Examples include
the hormone BST used to increase milk
production, hormone feed additives in pig
production (ractopamine) and low dose
antibiotics. Antibiotic and hormonal growthpromoters are not permitted by EU legislation.
In-Ovo Gender Identification (Sexing) identifying the sex of the embryo whilst stillin the egg. Various techniques are being
researched for future commercial applicationin the egg laying industry, where male chicks
are currently routinely destroyed at one
day old.
Lairage - holding pens for livestock following
transport to a slaughter house.
Long distance transportation - anytransport of a live animal that exceeds 8hours, from loading to unloading; welfare has
been shown to decrease significantly
in journeys lasting more than 8 hours.
Mulesing - removal of skin from the hindquarters of sheep breeds with excess folds ofskin on their rumps, often without adequate
pain relief.

Pithing - a technique used to kill an animal byinserting a needle or metal rod into its brain
after stunning with a penetrative captive
bolt. Pithing is also used as an alternative
to bleeding during emergency slaughter or
disease control situations, where the meat
is not used for consumption. Current USA
and European Union regulations prohibit
importation of beef from cows pithed due
to risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy(BSE, or “mad cow”) disease.
Ractopamine - a feed additive used topromote live weight gain and lean meat
deposition, as well as improve feed efficiency
and reduce fat deposition, in farm animals,
particularly cattle, pigs and broiler chickens.
Ractopamine use has been banned inmany countries, including European Union
countries, mainland China and Russia, butis permitted in countries such as the USA,
Canada and Japan.
Routine Mutilations - the mutilation of all
animals at a certain stage within a certain
system to help prevent problems associatedwith abnormal behaviours. Usually occurs
instead of addressing the underlying issues
with the system that may lead to theabnormal behaviours.
Sow stall - a narrow metal crate used toconfine individual sows for their 16-weekpregnancy, without sufficient room for sows
to turn around; also called gestation crates.
Stockmanship - the knowledgeable andskillful handling and rearing of livestock ina safe, efficient, effective, and low-stressmanner.
Tail docking - removal of part of the tail(usually up to two-thirds) using a hot docking
iron, sharp blade (pigs) or tight rubber ring(lambs, cattle); routine tail docking of pigs is
not permitted by EU legislation.

892015 REPORTAPPENDIX 3 - GLOSSARY

Teeth clipping - reduction (cutting) of apiglet’s 8 sharp needle teeth shortly after birthusing sharp clippers or pliers; routine teeth
clipping is not permitted by EU legislation.
Tethering - tying of an animal (usually grazing
animals such as cattle and goats, but alsosows) to a fixed point; tethering prevents ananimal from carrying out its normal behaviour,
not permitted in the EU for calves (certain
exceptions) and pigs.
Toe clipping - the removal of the ends oftoes, including the whole toenail, from poultry.
Triploidy - triploid fish have one extra setof chromosomes than the natural diploidstate, rendering them sterile. Aquacultureusing artificially induced triploidy avoids
problems such as early sexual maturation andinterbreeding between wild and cultured fish.
However, triploids may be more susceptible
to eye cataracts, temperature stress,
deformities, and suffer slower growth andlower survival rates.

Veal crate - a pen or box to confine a single
dairy calf; calves are often tethered in thesesystems and do not have adequate space
to turn around; the use of veal crates is
prohibited in the EU and some US states.
Welfare outcome measures - performancemeasures directly linked to the physical,
emotional and/or behavioural wellbeingof animals.

902015 REPORT912015 REPORTFor further information pleasecontact the BBFAW Executive Director,
Nicky Amos, at secretariat@bbfaw.com
www.bbfaw.com

Printed on 100% recycled paper