beta
close ✕

2 of 5 food and beverage conglomerates not fully committed to major global climate initiatives

This a 2022 report. It is the most current climate report for US big food and beverage available on Spendwell.

rankings

MORE INFO
Corporations doing more to mitigate their negative impact on the climate rank higher.
better choice

General Mills

climate
environmental impact
General Mills is transparent about its climate impact, has made a commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, and has made a verifiable commitment to reducing its overall negative climate impact with measurable future targets.

1/10

PepsiCo

climate
environmental impact
PepsiCo is transparent about its climate impact, has made a commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, and has made a verifiable commitment to reducing its overall negative climate impact with measurable future targets.

2/10(tied)

Mars

climate
environmental impact
Mars is transparent about its climate impact, has made a commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, and has made a verifiable commitment to reducing its overall negative climate impact with measurable future targets.

2/10(tied)

Nestlé

climate
environmental impact
Nestlé is transparent about its climate impact, has made a commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, and has made a verifiable commitment to reducing its overall negative climate impact with measurable future targets.

4/10

Kellogg

climate
environmental impact
Kellogg is transparent about its climate impact, has made a commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, and has made a verifiable commitment to reducing its overall negative climate impact with measurable future targets.

5/10

Danone

climate
environmental impact
Danone is transparent about its climate impact, has made a commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, and has made a verifiable commitment to reducing its overall negative climate impact with measurable future targets.

6/10

Mondelez

climate
environmental impact
Mondelez is transparent about its climate impact and has made a verifiable commitment to significantly reducing its negative climate impact with measurable future targets. Mondelez has not committed to 100% renewable energy consumption through any independent initiative currently tracked by Spendwell.

7/10

Coca-Cola

climate
environmental impact
Coca-Cola is transparent about its climate impact and has made a verifiable commitment to significantly reducing its negative climate impact with measurable future targets. Coca-Cola has not committed to 100% renewable energy consumption through any independent initiative currently tracked by Spendwell.

8/10

Kraft

climate
environmental impact
Kraft is transparent about its climate impact, but has made no verifiable commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, nor to reducing its negative climate impacts in line with internationally recognized standards.

10/10(tied)

Associated British Foods

climate
environmental impact
Associated British Foods is transparent about its climate impact, but has made no verifiable commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, nor to reducing its negative climate impacts in line with internationally recognized standards.

10/10(tied)

worse choice

report summary

While the largest food and beverage companies operating in the US all actively report on their climate impact to CDP, several are failing to fully take on climate emergency leadership by choosing not participating in the RE100 initiative or Science Based Targets. Two of these conglomerates, Kraft and Associated British Foods, do not participate in either the RE100 or the Science Based Targets initiatives.

about this industry

[beta*]

Climate Emergency Methodology

This Spendwell ranking is predicated on the values-based statement a corporation should do all that it can to address and ultimately reverse its negative impact on the global climate. Most individual value rankings reported by Spendwell consist of a singular data point or a combination of like data points over set time periods (e.g., executive pay in each of the last 3 years, averaged). Measuring climate and other environmental impacts is significantly more complex.

Adding to this complexity is the third criteria for inclusion of a data point in any individual Spendwell value ranking: the data point should be independently verified. Typically, data points are derived from a company's self-reporting to regulatory bodies. In some instances, data is self-reported to independent, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and entities committed to transparency and truth-telling. Measurable climate data points are almost exclusively reported to the latter, complicating the process of compiling a value ranking, as nongovernmental bodies rarely have regulatory authority (e.g., the ability to require self-reporting). Fortunately, public interest in corporate climate impact has fostered a robust, independent NGO-based reporting system that Spendwell can tap into and distill data for publicly accessible, directly measurable and independently verified data points.

Three active climate accountability initiatives are currently reported by Spendwell and included in Spendwell’s initial climate impact value rankings:

  1. CDP’s annual climate change disclosure effort,
  2. The Climate Group and CDP’s RE100 initiative generating corporate commitments to 100% renewable energy consumption, and
  3. Science Based Targets (SBT), a corporate climate action commitment and measurement effort of CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute and the World Wide Fund for Nature.

Each of these meet Spendwell’s value-ranking criteria and all 3 initiatives combined demonstrate corporate climate transparency and commitment to action — 2 fundamental criteria underpinning global consensus on climate change. Just as important, these 3 initiatives represent some — if not the only — cross-industry, independent climate change-reporting efforts active on a global scale.

CDP’s annual disclosure is an incredibly robust effort that results in a score for each participating corporation and a score for corporations that were asked to participate, yet declined. In order to develop their score, CDP’s disclosure questionnaire is exhaustive, representing a significant commitment to transparency on behalf of the responding corporation. While CDP’s score does not meet Spendwell’s publicly accessible and directly measurable criteria for inclusion in a value ranking, participation in CDP’s annual disclosure as a binary data point does: A corporation discloses their climate information to CDP or they do not.

Yes or no is not a number, so Spendwell assigns a corporation 15 points for climate transparency for participating in CDP’s annual disclosure and 0 points for nonparticipation and lack of transparency.

Both the RE100 and SBT initiatives require significant commitments to action by corporations and both involve rigorous, scientifically guided and independently approved goal- and target-setting. Both initiatives produce numerically comparative data points representing corporate commitment to positive climate impacts, level of positive impact attainment and a timeframe for achieving those positive impacts. An approved RE100 commitment consists of a target year for attaining 100% renewable energy consumption. An approved SBT target consists of a target year for attaining 1 of 3 levels of progressively positive climate impact: an impact level consistent with a “2 degrees Celsius” rise in global temperatures, a “well-below 2 C” rise, or a “1.5 C” or less rise.

Spendwell assigns a corporation 30 points for participation in the RE100 initiative. Corporations are awarded points for each year a 100% renewable energy target is sooner than 2050. For example, if a corporation’s RE100 target year is 2025, they will be awarded 25 bonus points.

Corporations participating in the SBT initiative are assigned 30 points for entering the program and an additional 50 points for agreeing to the minimum target of “2 degrees C.” Spendwell assigns 75 points if that target is at the “well-below 2 C” level or 100 points if that target is at the “1.5 C” or lower level. You can find out more about each of these independent, science-led climate emergency initiatives through the following links:

CDP 2021 CLIMATE DISCLOSURES AND SCORES

RE100 COMMITTED COMPANIES

SBT COMMITTED COMPANIES

[All methodologies are in beta. They can and many will be revised before final release and updates will be likely for many even after final release.]
[beta*]

Climate Emergency Methodology

This Spendwell ranking is predicated on the values-based statement a corporation should do all that it can to address and ultimately reverse its negative impact on the global climate. Most individual value rankings reported by Spendwell consist of a singular data point or a combination of like data points over set time periods (e.g., executive pay in each of the last 3 years, averaged). Measuring climate and other environmental impacts is significantly more complex.

Adding to this complexity is the third criteria for inclusion of a data point in any individual Spendwell value ranking: the data point should be independently verified. Typically, data points are derived from a company's self-reporting to regulatory bodies. In some instances, data is self-reported to independent, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and entities committed to transparency and truth-telling. Measurable climate data points are almost exclusively reported to the latter, complicating the process of compiling a value ranking, as nongovernmental bodies rarely have regulatory authority (e.g., the ability to require self-reporting). Fortunately, public interest in corporate climate impact has fostered a robust, independent NGO-based reporting system that Spendwell can tap into and distill data for publicly accessible, directly measurable and independently verified data points.

Three active climate accountability initiatives are currently reported by Spendwell and included in Spendwell’s initial climate impact value rankings:

  1. CDP’s annual climate change disclosure effort,
  2. The Climate Group and CDP’s RE100 initiative generating corporate commitments to 100% renewable energy consumption, and
  3. Science Based Targets (SBT), a corporate climate action commitment and measurement effort of CDP, the United Nations Global Compact, World Resources Institute and the World Wide Fund for Nature.

Each of these meet Spendwell’s value-ranking criteria and all 3 initiatives combined demonstrate corporate climate transparency and commitment to action — 2 fundamental criteria underpinning global consensus on climate change. Just as important, these 3 initiatives represent some — if not the only — cross-industry, independent climate change-reporting efforts active on a global scale.

CDP’s annual disclosure is an incredibly robust effort that results in a score for each participating corporation and a score for corporations that were asked to participate, yet declined. In order to develop their score, CDP’s disclosure questionnaire is exhaustive, representing a significant commitment to transparency on behalf of the responding corporation. While CDP’s score does not meet Spendwell’s publicly accessible and directly measurable criteria for inclusion in a value ranking, participation in CDP’s annual disclosure as a binary data point does: A corporation discloses their climate information to CDP or they do not.

Yes or no is not a number, so Spendwell assigns a corporation 15 points for climate transparency for participating in CDP’s annual disclosure and 0 points for nonparticipation and lack of transparency.

Both the RE100 and SBT initiatives require significant commitments to action by corporations and both involve rigorous, scientifically guided and independently approved goal- and target-setting. Both initiatives produce numerically comparative data points representing corporate commitment to positive climate impacts, level of positive impact attainment and a timeframe for achieving those positive impacts. An approved RE100 commitment consists of a target year for attaining 100% renewable energy consumption. An approved SBT target consists of a target year for attaining 1 of 3 levels of progressively positive climate impact: an impact level consistent with a “2 degrees Celsius” rise in global temperatures, a “well-below 2 C” rise, or a “1.5 C” or less rise.

Spendwell assigns a corporation 30 points for participation in the RE100 initiative. Corporations are awarded points for each year a 100% renewable energy target is sooner than 2050. For example, if a corporation’s RE100 target year is 2025, they will be awarded 25 bonus points.

Corporations participating in the SBT initiative are assigned 30 points for entering the program and an additional 50 points for agreeing to the minimum target of “2 degrees C.” Spendwell assigns 75 points if that target is at the “well-below 2 C” level or 100 points if that target is at the “1.5 C” or lower level. You can find out more about each of these independent, science-led climate emergency initiatives through the following links:

CDP 2021 CLIMATE DISCLOSURES AND SCORES

RE100 COMMITTED COMPANIES

SBT COMMITTED COMPANIES

[*All methodologies are in beta. They can and many will be revised before final release and updates will be likely for many even after final release.]

Ranking



rankings

MORE INFO
Corporations doing more to mitigate their negative impact on the climate rank higher.
better choice

General Mills

climate
environmental impact
General Mills is transparent about its climate impact, has made a commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, and has made a verifiable commitment to reducing its overall negative climate impact with measurable future targets.

1/10

PepsiCo

climate
environmental impact
PepsiCo is transparent about its climate impact, has made a commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, and has made a verifiable commitment to reducing its overall negative climate impact with measurable future targets.

2/10(tied)

Mars

climate
environmental impact
Mars is transparent about its climate impact, has made a commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, and has made a verifiable commitment to reducing its overall negative climate impact with measurable future targets.

2/10(tied)

Nestlé

climate
environmental impact
Nestlé is transparent about its climate impact, has made a commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, and has made a verifiable commitment to reducing its overall negative climate impact with measurable future targets.

4/10

Kellogg

climate
environmental impact
Kellogg is transparent about its climate impact, has made a commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, and has made a verifiable commitment to reducing its overall negative climate impact with measurable future targets.

5/10

Danone

climate
environmental impact
Danone is transparent about its climate impact, has made a commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, and has made a verifiable commitment to reducing its overall negative climate impact with measurable future targets.

6/10

Mondelez

climate
environmental impact
Mondelez is transparent about its climate impact and has made a verifiable commitment to significantly reducing its negative climate impact with measurable future targets. Mondelez has not committed to 100% renewable energy consumption through any independent initiative currently tracked by Spendwell.

7/10

Coca-Cola

climate
environmental impact
Coca-Cola is transparent about its climate impact and has made a verifiable commitment to significantly reducing its negative climate impact with measurable future targets. Coca-Cola has not committed to 100% renewable energy consumption through any independent initiative currently tracked by Spendwell.

8/10

Kraft

climate
environmental impact
Kraft is transparent about its climate impact, but has made no verifiable commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, nor to reducing its negative climate impacts in line with internationally recognized standards.

10/10(tied)

Associated British Foods

climate
environmental impact
Associated British Foods is transparent about its climate impact, but has made no verifiable commitment to 100% renewable energy consumption, nor to reducing its negative climate impacts in line with internationally recognized standards.

10/10(tied)

worse choice


This report is based on data collected through 2022-05-15.
Report id: 47--2022-08-10T07:34:08.088Z