Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University, Melbourne3125, Australia.
Mozaffarian Research Group, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, MA, USA.
Public Health Nutr. 2023 Dec;26(12):2677-2690. doi: 10.1017/S1368980023002215. Epub 2023 Oct 23.
Corporate sustainability assessment tools are increasingly used to evaluate company performance on environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria. Given the growing burden of diet-related disease and nutrition-related business risks, it is important to understand the scope of nutrition-related ESG data currently available. This study aimed to compare the nutrition-related assessment criteria and associated food company performance across three prominent assessment tools.
Key attributes and assessment criteria of two civil society-led and one commercially available corporate sustainability assessment tools were extracted and compared for the year 2021. Company performance scores for twenty-five major food and beverage manufacturers using these three tools were analysed by nutrition domain: 'Product Portfolio', 'Labelling', 'Marketing', 'Accessibility and Affordability', 'Governance and Reporting', 'Stakeholder Engagement' and 'Employee Health'. To enable comparison between tools, company performance scores were assigned to categories of (score = 0-25 % score or D), (25-50 % or C), (50-75 % or B) and (75-100 % or A).
Global.
N/A.
The tools covered similar nutrition domains; however, there was heterogeneity in the assessment criteria used to evaluate each domain. When applied to assess the performance of twenty-five major food and beverage manufacturers, a median nutrition-related performance score of or was observed across all tools. The highest scoring domain was 'Governance and Reporting', and the lowest scoring domains were 'Product Portfolio' and 'Accessibility and Affordability'.
Greater standardisation of the nutrition-related criteria against which food companies are assessed is needed as part of efforts to drive improvements in food company practices.
企业可持续性评估工具越来越多地被用于评估公司在环境、社会和治理（ESG）方面的表现。鉴于与饮食相关的疾病和营养相关业务风险的负担不断增加，了解当前可用的与营养相关的 ESG 数据的范围非常重要。本研究旨在比较三种知名评估工具中与营养相关的评估标准和相关食品公司的绩效。
提取并比较了两份民间团体主导的和一份商业性的企业可持续性评估工具在 2021 年的主要属性和评估标准。使用这三种工具对二十五家主要食品和饮料制造商的公司绩效评分进行了营养领域分析：“产品组合”、“标签”、“营销”、“可及性和负担能力”、“治理和报告”、“利益相关者参与”和“员工健康”。为了能够在工具之间进行比较，将公司绩效评分分配到以下类别：(得分=0-25%或 D)、(25-50%或 C)、(50-75%或 B)和(75-100%或 A)。
全球。
无。
这些工具涵盖了相似的营养领域；然而，用于评估每个领域的评估标准存在差异。当应用于评估二十五家主要食品和饮料制造商的绩效时，所有工具的平均营养相关绩效评分为或。评分最高的领域是“治理和报告”，评分最低的领域是“产品组合”和“可及性和负担能力”。
需要针对食品公司进行评估的营养相关标准进行更大程度的标准化，这是推动改善食品公司实践的努力的一部分。
