METHODOLOGY

<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in <b>/var/www/html/site/templates/src/php/core/app.php</b> on line <b>11</b><br />

THE 5th EDITION CHOCOLATE SCORECARD RANKS AND GRADES CHOCOLATE COMPANIES ON KEY SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES

How we create the Chocolate Scorecard


The Chocolate Scorecard ranks and grades chocolate companies on key sustainability issues. The Chocolate Scorecard is coordinated by Be Slavery Free, with three Universities, consultants, and civil society groups [1] engaging in transforming the chocolate industry.

 

[1] Also called Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s)

We are grateful to the companies who participated and the staff who took the time to engage with us.

The research explores contemporary developments in policy and best practices that companies in the chocolate supply chain are undertaking towards improving their sustainability performance. The Chocolate Scorecard is a resource for consumers seeking information about the chocolate they purchase from companies along the supply chain and for investors and stakeholders seeking to understand a company’s performance. It evaluates the participating companies’ performance in addressing human rights and environmental challenges and seeks to facilitate a productive dialogue to enhance their policies and practices towards improving the whole industry. Many companies use the scorecard to develop their own roadmaps for sustainability.

The Chocolate Scorecard uses the Brundtland Commission's definition of sustainability.

“Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

The 5th Edition Scorecard has been aligned with the approach of the  Science Based Target Initiative (SBTi), the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) , the Accountability Framework (AFi), the International Cocoa Initiative and the questions of the European Initiatives on Sustainable Cocoa

The annual cycle for the Chocolate Scorecard is as follows

NOV - JAN
SCORECARD COMPLETED BY COMPANIES
FEB - MAR
SCORING & DESIGN
SEP - OCT
CONSULTATIONS WITH SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS & COMPANIES ON QUESTIONS
EASTER
RELEASE OF CHOCOLATE SCORECARD
JUL - AUG
REVIEW OF QUESTIONS
EASTER - JUL
1:1 FEEDBACK TO COMPANIES

Participation & Data collection

The 5th Edition questionnaire was developed (see section 2) and sent to all the participating companies from the 4th Edition. In the 5th Edition, 85 companies were invited to participate in the Chocolate Scorecard, compared to 43 in the 4th Edition. The companies selected included all the largest cocoa traders and chocolate manufacturers in the industry. Together, these companies purchase over 90% of the world’s cocoa. They can either take a large toll or make a big positive impact on people and the planet.

8

companies assessed
in North America

United States of America

41

companies assessed
in Europe

Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom

9

companies assessed
in Asia

India, Japan, Malaysia

0

companies assessed
in Africa

 

5

companies assessed
in Australia and New Zealand

Australia

New Zealand

90%

OF THE WORLD’S COCOA ARE PURCHASED BY
THESE COMPANIES

63

Total numbers of participants

38

Big & Medium Companies assessed

9

Small Companies assessed

16

Retailers assessed

Big Companies participation
Big Companies participation
Retailer participation
Retailer participation
Small Companies participation
Small Companies participation

Confidentiality and data protection

This research is conducted in accordance with following Human Research Ethics Committee guidelines under the project titled,

  • The Chocolate Scorecard, project ID 10917, 2022, from Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia;
  • Open University (UK) HREC/4275/Bernardi;
  • The University of Wollongong HREC, project title: Chocolate Scorecard, number: 2022/009.

This process ensures the research is honest, rigorous, transparent, respectful, protects participants, and demonstrates that the research team has adhered to the highest contemporary ethical standards of a genuine research study involving human participants. Sensitive research data is stored on a secure SharePoint platform per the Research Data Sensitivity, Security and Storage Guidelines of Macquarie University.

A link to the online questionnaire was emailed to key personnel within participating companies. Participants held roles which include, but are not limited to, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Managers; Project Managers; Environmental, Health & Safety Managers; Chief Operating Officer; Chief Executive Officer; and Sustainability & Human Rights Directors/Managers. 

Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire between November 5, 2023, and January 24, 2024. Participants were given a detailed outline of the research project and asked to consent to their involvement before starting the questionnaire. They were also advised of the grievance mechanism should participants consider the research breached the ethics standard.

Big Companies participation

Following the survey distribution, 17 companies in total opted not to participate. 

We note the following medium and large companies opted not to participate:

  • General Mills (for the third year)
  • Krüger Group
  • JB Coco and Glico (Asia / Japan)

We view their non-participation as a lack of transparency. We believe that all companies selling chocolate products should be able to provide the information requested in the questionnaire. Consumers and investors have a right to be informed about the conditions under which chocolate is produced.

We welcome back Unilever and Mondelēz. We welcome new companies Friesland Campina, Delica AG to the medium/large Scorecard and genuinely appreciate their participation.

Retailer participation

We believe that when a retailer places their brand onto a chocolate product, they have the same obligations as others in the supply chain to undertake the required due diligence to address human rights and environmental issues.

It has been our practice to include retailers every two years. The 4th Edition was sent to 29 retailers. We learned that a high portion of retailers do not access the necessary data to be able to respond to the same questionnaire as the large companies. They often trust or ‘outsource’ the due diligence to their manufacturer or trader and were unable to respond concerning their proprietary (own) branded private-label chocolate. 

In order to support retailers’ shift to stronger cocoa sustainability programs, we have transitioned to annual participation by retailers and designed a separate, retail-specific questionnaire. This questionnaire includes:

1. Less than half of the questions from the company questionnaire. These questions are the most relevant for retailers
2. Extra questions specifically designed for retailers, such as the due diligence they undertake in relation to other chocolate products on their shelves

Private label manufacturers are still invited to join the company scorecard. Private label manufacturers have similar supply chains to ‘own brand’ manufacturers. Many private label manufacturers also sell their own brands in addition to the private label products they manufacture. We continue to treat all manufacturers and brands the same.

The retailer-specific questions were written with input from retailers and expert knowledge consultant. The questionnaire was provided to all participating retailers for consultation in September 2023.

The following retailers declined to participate:

  • All invited retailers from the USA, namely Albertsons, Costco, CVS, Kroger, Target, Walgreens, Walmart, and Whole Foods
  • All invited retailers owned in New Zealand, namely The Warehouse and Foodstuff
  • Casino, REWE, Tesco, Marks and Spencer and Metro in Europe / UK
  • Seven&i Holdings and Aeon in Japan

We welcome new participants, EDEKA and Migros Retail this year and genuinely appreciate their participation.

Small Companies participation

Many small chocolate brands expressed interest in joining the Chocolate Scorecard.

Many of these brands have sustainability as their key selling point. It is not feasible for the Chocolate Scorecard team to support and evaluate the many companies who expressed interest in participating.

We have also had consistent feedback that in some cases the size of a company can directly impact the kinds of interventions and standards available.

To ensure we address the concerns of comparability of differently sized companies, and to showcase some of the innovative work of the smaller companies, we have separated the small companies from the medium/large companies and created a separate scorecard for them. The threshold for Small Company Scorecard is 1,000 MT of cocoa annually. We will highlight or showcase several of these companies over the coming year to promote their good work.

We welcome small companies Choba Choba, Chocolatemakers, Elements Truffles, Galler Chocolate, Malmö, and Yuraku, and genuinely appreciate their participation.

Support

Support was offered to participants in several ways.
The research team created explanatory webinars (available on demand), and published the full questionnaire, glossary, and relevant research on the website. We held group Q&A Zoom meetings with companies (offered in different time zones), offered to provide feedback to companies that provided a draft submission before 15 December, and offered individual Zoom meetings with companies to answer any questions. More than 13 companies chose to meet (some more than once) individually with some or all of the research team. The Scorecard team was also available for numerous email interactions with companies.

Question development

The Chocolate Scorecard covers six categories:

Rückverfolgbarkeit und Transparenz
Rückverfolgbarkeit und Transparenz
Lebensfähiges Einkommen
Lebensfähiges Einkommen
Kinderarbeit
Kinderarbeit
Waldrodung und Klima
Waldrodung und Klima
Agroforstwirtschaft
Agroforstwirtschaft
Pestizide
Pestizide

These were chosen because they are some of the most pressing, fundamental sustainability areas facing the chocolate industry today.

Question development was determined on several factors. The core team undertook a thorough review of past questions, which included consultation with NGO’s and subject matter experts. All participating companies were offered an opportunity to comment on the questions to ensure we were asking the key and pertinent questions that companies could reasonably answer.

Questions were edited, while the overall categories remained the same. New questions were added on gender as a cross-section theme, with a question(s) in each of the six categories.

As in the 4 th Edition, we again provided companies with the option to provide any other information at the end of each category. We call this the ‘wild card’ – an opportunity for companies to showcase any ambitious or innovative approaches they wish to highlight. In each section, the wildcard contributes 20% of the total score for that category.

Rückverfolgbarkeit und Transparenz

According to the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, a business is responsible for any and all adverse human rights impacts either through their own activities or due to their business relationships with other parties. It is not appropriate to ‘outsource’ this responsibility or to shift the responsibility to the next or another tier in the supply chain. To do so may create the unthinkable situation where eventually, the shifting of responsibility ends up being with the farmer, which is neither just nor fair!

A company that lacks knowledge of its cocoa’s origin (an issue of traceability) cannot genuinely ensure that it is not tainted by extreme poverty, worst forms of child labor, child labor, forced labor, deforestation, or other abuses. Put simply if you can’t see it, you can’t fix it. Without transparency on this traceability, civil society cannot hold companies accountable nor discover ways to help companies. Transparent traceability is a crucial bedrock for all other reforms and development. Traceability and transparency constitute 20% of the total overall score. We analyzed responses in the following areas for this category:

Traceability methodology used:

  • Traceability of cocoa to the country, farm group and farmer level for both direct and indirect sourcing, and how much of the cocoa is traceable;
  • Certification and other methods (such as a company’s own program) are being used;
  • Transparency of the company’s reporting on its traceable supply chains, including
    publicly sharing cooperatives/supply chains; and
  • Tools used to verify traceability.

When scoring the respondents on traceability, the scorers consider that:

  • Traceability is more difficult to achieve for buyers further down the supply chain;
  • Beans are easier to trace than bean derivatives such as cocoa butter, liquor, and powder;
  • There are multiple levels of traceability beyond mass balance, segregated and ‘Identity Preserved.’ This includes working with dedicated farmer groups, origin matching on mass balance cocoa, traceability from farmer-to-farmer group/exporter/supplier/factory, and other ways to achieve traceability in only part of the supply chain;
  • 100% traceability is difficult to accomplish with constant changes in the supply chain. Even after reaching 100%, it may still be 97-98% in some years. This is considered full marks for scoring purposes;
  • Regulation and legislation apply equally to all participating companies and are therefore not included in the scoring.

Lebensfähiges Einkommen

A living income is

The net annual income required for a household in a particular place to afford a decent standard of living for all members of that household.

Elements of a decent standard of living include food, water, housing, education, healthcare, transportation, clothing, and other essential needs including provisions for unexpected events.

A living income is not a reality for the vast majority of cocoa farmers and their families in West Africa. Many live in poverty to extreme poverty, making them more vulnerable to hunger, malnutrition, health crises, and other social challenges, including exposure to child labor and forced labor. We recognize that some farmers are already earning a living income, but this is not the case for the vast majority. Given the tremendous suffering embedded in the low price of cocoa, and the important reforms afoot, we set aside an entire category for the issue of living income. We analyzed the responses in three areas for this category:

  • A policy of paying a credible living income reference price (LIRF) (either set by Fairtrade, the VOICE network or any equivalent credible calculation or higher price [2]) for cocoa in West Africa and globally; and/or have a calculation and is committed to paying (or are paying) an additional premium to farmers they source from;
  • Company programs, determined in consultation with sourcing communities, that work to achieve a living income for farmers and/or address poverty; and
  • Measuring the impact of such programs and sharing the results.

The highest scores were achieved by companies that:

  • Have a statement recognizing a living income as a basic human right
  • Are using an actual living income calculation to benchmark their programs; and/or
  • Are making payments to farmers on top of Living Income Differential (LID) set by the Governments of Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire and certification premiums; and/or
  • Is investing in development projects determined in consultation with the communities they are sourcing from.

The Living Income category contributed 20% to the total overall score.

[2] This particular scorecard is agnostic concerning the type of LIRF adopted. However, using the World Bank’s extreme poverty line or the minimum wage of the country sourced from, is not credible

Kinderarbeit

The NORC Final Report: Assessing Progress in Reducing Child Labor in Cocoa Production in  Cocoa Growing Areas of Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, funded by the US Department of Labor, found the following:

  • 1.56 million children exposed to child labor in cocoa production (including
    approximately 790,000 children in Côte d’Ivoire and 770,000 in Ghana);
  • 1.48 million children were exposed to at least one component of hazardous child labor in cocoa production; and
  • Between 2008/09 and 2018/19, the exposure to agrichemicals became more common, with the proportion of children exposed to agrichemical products increasing approximately five-fold from 5% to 24%.

Despite voluntary corporate efforts promising to eradicate it, the prevalence of child labor has increased by 14% over the past decade. While no specific research has been conducted on the matter, it is possible that the adverse impacts of COVID-19 on economies, supply chains, and schools have increased some children’s exposure to child labor. Poverty and extremely low incomes are linked to children's exposure to child labor and hazardous child labor, depriving them of their future and subjecting them to abuse. It is particularly disheartening given that chocolate is often considered a treat for children, especially around Easter or Halloween. It can also lead to a greater prevalence of forced labor.

The NORC Report (2019), revealed a significant increase in the number of children in child labor exposed to harmful pesticides (from 10% to 27%) along with an increase in injuries, impacts on health and level of care needed (including hospitalization). Exposure of children to chemicals is regarded as a “worst form of child labor.”

We analyzed responses in three areas for this category:

  • Any child labor policy, monitoring, and remediation system or equivalent (Child Labor Monitoring and Remediation Systems - CLMRS);
  • Percentage of farms covered by the scheme; and
  • Presence of a plan to scale up programs and processes to address child labor and forced labor.

A CLMRS is the most common way of addressing child labor. However, we do not believe that CLMRS in and of itself will effectively abolish child labor, unless we work together to address the underlying root causes of child labor which are systemic. These include poverty and other human rights factors.

The Child Labor category contributed 20% of the total overall score.

Waldrodung und Klima

Cocoa is a major global driver of forest destruction. West Africa produces 75% of the world’s cocoa, with Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana being the largest producers. These two countries have lost most of their forest cover in the past sixty years - around 94% and 80%, respectively, with approximately one-third of forest loss from cocoa growing. In 2018, these two countries also had the highest rise in primary forest loss of any tropical country. In 2020, another 47,000 ha of forest was lost in cocoa growing areas of Côte d'Ivoire.

Cocoa from almost anywhere, from Asia to Africa to Latin America, studies show it is tied to deforestation, which negatively impacts climate change. Forests absorb carbon, but when they die, they release carbon and no longer serve as a carbon sink. Forests are also a key habitat for some of the most endangered species in the world, including gibbons and great apes. 

As such, this section also focuses on the industry’s contribution to global annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions leading to severe climate change.

To address this, the governments of Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana, 35 leading cocoa and chocolate companies, and farmers have joined together to end cocoa driven deforestation through the Cocoa & Forest Initiative (CFI), and subsequently Colombia and Cameroon have developed similar Initiatives. There is more to do, and CFI has not yet lived up to its promises.

Even beyond forest efforts like CFI, chocolate companies have taken a wide range of climate actions, with the chocolate sector being particularly active in the recent “Race to Zero” (aimed at zeroing out overall emissions).

In recognition of the immense challenges but also the broad range of actions taken to address these problems, deforestation and climate change actions contributed 20% of the total overall score.

We analyzed the responses in the following areas:

  • Application of no-deforestation policy to global sourcing and percentage of cocoa purchased through a deforestation-free monitoring system;
  • Percentage of cocoa sourced from deforested areas since various cut-off dates;
  • Detailed plans for how to respond to evidence of suppliers sourcing cocoa from recently deforested land; and
  • Policy to achieve net zero carbon emissions company-wide or using science-based targets.

Agroforstwirtschaft

Though cocoa has been a major driver of deforestation worldwide, it can become the reverse - an agent of re-greening and re-wilding around the planet. Agroforestry, as opposed to pesticide-soaked monoculture, is a more ecologically sound way of growing cocoa and restoring farming landscapes. Scientific research demonstrates that robust agroforestry cocoa systems are better for the planet, carbon sequestration, soil and air moisture retention, and biodiversity. Studies show it is also better for farmers’ food security and income diversification. When implemented correctly, it is a win-win for people, the planet, farmers, forests, and endangered species, including primates. Birds and animals may also return to agroforestry environments.

The deforestation in Africa has destroyed much of the natural habitat of great apes, gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobo but there is some evidence that primates may be able to re- populate in agroforestry contexts. This has been the case in Madagascar for some of the 107 endemic species of endangered Lemur.

Agroforestry contributed 10% to the total overall score. 

We analyzed the responses in four areas for this category:

  • Any agroforestry policy and its definition;
  • Application of the agroforestry policy, either globally or to West Africa only;
  • Assessment and monitoring of the agroforestry policy;
  • Support and investment in farmers within the supply chain to transition to agroforestry growing methods.

Pestizide

As we face an insect mass extinction crisis, largely driven by chemicals used in agriculture, it is imperative for chocolate companies to reassess their current methods and adopt more sustainable cocoa farming practices. This entails reducing dependency on harmful agrichemicals and instead investing in practices that support and enhance cocoa farming. Increased productivity via chemical inputs cannot be the primary means for companies sourcing increasing amounts of cocoa. Instead, the long-term sustainability of the industry, the health of the farming communities (who often rely on neighboring rivers for drinking and bathing), soil health, and the planet's health must become a priority.

To achieve this, companies must eliminate the most hazardous pesticides entirely and move towards reducing the overall use of agrichemicals. They should support farmers in transitioning to agricultural practices that do not rely on dangerous chemicals while helping them maintain their yield and income through safer methods of fertilization and pest control.

Companies should emphasize non-chemical interventions such as grafting, pruning, hand pollination, and education around best agroecological practices and Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) to increase yields for farmers.

We analyzed the responses in three areas for this category:

  • Any stated targets and policy to reduce pesticides;
  • Assessment and monitoring of hazardous pesticides in the supply chain and action to phase the use of hazardous pesticides out;
  • Support for the adoption of non-chemical alternatives.

Pesticides management contributed 10% to the total overall score.

Scoring process

The scoring team consisted of multiple subject matter experts for each topic, including category scorers (evaluating a single category) and overall scorers (determining the overall score). All scorers are considered experts in their field of expertise. You can find the full list of scoring team members here.

The scoring process was rigorous and underwent several stages of grading and review. A workshop was initially held with the research team on scoring each category, including suggested responses for each question and grading consideration.

A four-step approach was taken:

1

Each category scorer first evaluated all company responses individually.

2

Category scorers compared their scores and agreed on one final score per company.

3

Category scorers discussed with scorers from other categories and adjusted scores if necessary.

4

The overall scorers were determined from the overall score for each participant based on their category scores by the Core Team.

Scorers contact companies for clarification when answers were unclear and/or Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) provided were broken or irrelevant.

Each company received a ‘color score’ for each individual category; the scores of each category were then compiled to determine a composite ‘overall score.’ Low scores on one category could result not only in a ‘red’ (meaning the company is falling behind the industry) for a specific issue but could also drag down a company’s overall score. This explains how companies with similar colors can still have divergent final scores.

The core research team made the final decision after receiving all grades and feedback from the subject matter experts.

Overall score

Führend in Strategie und Umsetzung Führend in Strategie und Umsetzung
At least 75% and at least 3 green scores
Fortschritte in Strategie und Umsetzung Fortschritte in Strategie und Umsetzung
At least 50% and at least 3 yellow scores
Verbesserungsbedarf in Strategie und Umsetzung Verbesserungsbedarf in Strategie und Umsetzung
At least 25% and at least 3 orange scores
Rückstand in Strategie und Umsetzung Rückstand in Strategie und Umsetzung
1-24% or more than 3 red scores
Mangelnde Transparenz - nicht geantwortet oder nicht vollständig Mangelnde Transparenz - nicht geantwortet oder nicht vollständig

RAISING THE BAR ON SCORING

To acknowledge the evolving nature of the industry and the increasing performance of some companies, demonstrating how much can be achieved, we raised the scoring bar. This is particularly pertinent regarding what it takes to earn a ‘green’ (‘leading the industry’) score. As top-performing companies improve, what it takes to be considered an industry leader is also evolving.

The Survey

Rückverfolgbarkeit und Transparenz

Rückverfolgbarkeit und Transparenz

Q1.1 Bean purchases What percentage of the company’s total cocoa product purchases are purchased as cocoa beans versus cocoa bean derivatives and products (such as cocoa liquor, butter, powder, chocolate)? Please calculate the cocoa bean equivalent..

All other cocoa products (including liquor, butter, powder, chocolate):

  • 0-49% = 0 pts 
  • 50-74% = 2 pts
  • 75-100% = 3 pts

(Bonus points for those that buy mostly or only derivatives, because it is more difficult to achieve 100% traceability)

Q1.2 Direct and indirect supply What percentage of the company’s total cocoa purchases are part of the company’s direct supply chain?

% Direct:

Less than 50% = 0 pts

Less than 60% = 1 pt

Less than 75% = 2 pts

75% or more = 3 pts 

Q1.3 Certification What percentage of total cocoa purchases are certified?

Any certification program

Over 25% = 1 pt

Over 50% = 2 pts

Over 75% = 3 pts

Multiple certification programs (2 or more)

Over 25% = 1 pt

Over 50% = 2 pts

Over 75% = 3 pts 

Q1.4 Company program What percentage of the company’s total cocoa purchases is sourced through a company program?

For credible program:

Over 50% = 1 pt

Over 75% = 2 pt

Q1.5 Traceability target Does the company have a target date or roadmap for traceability (including GPS or polygon mapping) from farmer or farmer group (as specified in the public commitment) to the company’s customers (for trading and processing) or the company’s brands (for manufacturing and retail)?

Yes without evidence = 0 points.

Yes with evidence = see below.

Date/year:

  • 0-2023 = 3 pts
  • 2024-2025 = 2 pts
  • 2026-2030 = 1 pt
  • After 2030 = 0 pts

Percentage:

  • 100% = 2 pts
  • 75-99% = 1 pt
  • 0-74% = 0 pts

Maximum 5 pts

Q 1.6 Traceable to country level What percentage of the company’s total cocoa purchases are traceable to the country of origin?

96-100%: 3 points

91-95%: 2 points

86-90%: 1 point

0-85%: 0 points

Q 1.7 Traceable to Farmer Group/cooperative level What percentage of the company’s total cocoa purchases are traceable to a sourcing area?

76-100%: 3 points

61-75%: 2 points

41-60%: 1 point

0-40%: 0 points

Q 1.8 Traceable to farmer level What percentage of the company’s total cocoa purchases are traceable to the production unit? (e.g. farm, plantation, identifying the farmers with unique farmer ID’s)?

61-100%: 3 points

46-60%: 2 points

31-45%: 1 point

0-30%: 0 points

Q 1.9 Mass Balance and traceability Does the company have any other variants of traceability than those covered in the questions above? This may include a mass balance approach with traceability from farm to first point of purchase, from farm to processing factories, from farm to customer, etc. This may also include a mass balance approach with financial or in-kind support to specific Farmer Groups. Please add the details in the answer, including the number of groups and the percentage of the overall supply that this represents. 

Extra points given for stronger Mass Balance models than basic Mass Balance.

3 extra points may be given if 0 points scored on Q1.7 and Q1.8

Q 1.10 Mapping What percentage of the company’s total cocoa purchases is GPS or polygon mapped?

71-100%: 3 points 51-70%: 2 points 31-50%: 1 point 0-30%: 0 points

Q1.11 Mapping Please identify the tools being used for cocoa traceability and verifying the purchase location (e.g. Scientific methods (such as trace element verification), Blockchain, Barcodes, Geo-tagging, other electronic tools).

No tools = 0 pts.

Efforts made/tool(s) used but not effective enough = 1 pt

One effective tool used = 2 pts

Multiple effective tools used = 3 pts

Q1.12 Has the company made public a list of all Farmer groups/cooperatives/districts that they source cocoa from in their direct supply chain?

No = 0 pts Yes or No, but the information will be provided to civil society by agreement and on request:

Yes, for all countries = 3 points

Yes, for specific countries = 2 points

Partially, for specific countries = 1 point

No = 0 points

Q1.13 Overarching gender strategy Does the company have a gender strategy? This can be an organization-wide strategy with cocoa-specific components or a cocoa-specific strategy. It must include cocoa. Please add details in the answer.

Yes as a gender strategy = 2pts

yes if mentioned in overall strategy = 1 pt

no = 0 pts

Q1.14 Gender Does the company know what percentage of farmers in the Farmer Groups in question are female?

Yes with evidence = 2 pts

Yes without evidence = 0 pts

No = 0 pts

If Yes with evidence: reward companies for good percentage with maximum +1 pt. 

Maximum 3 pts

Q1.15 Gender Does the company know what percentage or number of women hold leadership or decision making positions in the Farmer Groups in the supply chain? These may be women with positions on the board of a cooperative of Farmer Group. Please add details in the answer.

Yes with evidence = 2 pts

Yes without evidence = 0 pts

No = 0 pts

If Yes with evidence: reward companies for good percentage with maximum +1 pt. 

Maximum 3 pts

Q1.16 How many Tier 1 suppliers does the retailer work with for supply of private label products containing cocoa? This question is not scored but will be used to score the following questions.
Not scored (used to score other questions)
Q1.17 How many Tier 1 cocoa or chocolate product suppliers of the retailer can provide country of origin information for cocoa supplied to the retailer?

For Q1.17 and subsequent questions about Tier 1 suppliers: divide the Tier 1 suppliers for these answers by the Tier 1 suppliers in Q1.16 to get the % of suppliers for grading.

0% of Tier 1 suppliers = 0

>0-25% = 1

>25-75% = 2

>75-100% = 3

If less than 75% then the maximum score for the traceability section is orange.

Q1.18 How many Tier 1 cocoa or chocolate product suppliers of the retailer can provide lists of their suppliers (the Tier 2 suppliers of the retailer)?

The answer for Q1.18 divided by the answer for Q1.17 (share of total Tier 1 suppliers)

0% = 0

>0-25% = 1

>25-75% = 2

>75-100% = 3

Q1.19 If needed, please add extra context on the information that the Tier 1 suppliers can provide. This question will not be scored but may improve the scores on the previous questions.

 Adjust the score for Q1.17 and Q1.18 based on this answer by a maximum of 1 point for each question, up to 3 points total.

Q1.20 How does the retailer encourage suppliers to take action on sustainability? (e.g. through a supplier code of conduct, expectations for audits or certification, paying a higher price) Add proof, URL or attachment

No response = 0

Supplier code or equivalent = 1

Supplier code plus compliance audits plus mechanism to resolve non-compliance = 2

Supplier code, compliance audits plus direct engagement, or certification = 3

Scoring flexibility for answers that don't fit into this pattern

Q1.21 Add attachment if required
Q1.22 Branded products Does the retailer conduct due diligence on the traceability of branded cocoa products that the retailer sells?

No = 0

Yes = 1

Q1.23 Which brands has the retailer examined in the last 12 months?

None = 0 points

1 or more = 1 point

Q1.24 What type of due diligence does the retailer undertake?

Requesting data from the brand about the supplies: No = 0 points, Yes = 1 point

Checking the certification status of products: No = 0 points, Yes = 1 point

Inquiring whether products in general are covered by the brand’s traceability scheme: No = 0 points, Yes = 1 point

Checking the veracity of ‘sustainability’ or ‘ethical’ claims on packaging and promotion: No = 0 points, Yes = 1 point

Other: Judge based on responses. Max 1 pt.

Maximum 5 pts total

Q1.25 This question is an opportunity for the company to ‘showcase’ any program, policy or initiative there have not been questions about. This question is scored, with highest scores being given for innovative, ambitious, scaled or scalable initiatives. Please add any additional information on traceability and transparency the company would like to include. Please provide volumes and percentage of the overall supply that these projects represent.

Companies: 11 pts

Small companies: 10 pts

Retailers: 8 pts

(20% of total score for this section)

Q1.26 Please indicate below that you understand that all these questions will be used to generate a company score [I understand and wish to proceed]
Lebensfähiges Einkommen

Lebensfähiges Einkommen

Q2.1 Does the company have a published policy or publicly available statement that states that a living income is a basic human right?

Yes = 3 pts

Yes (no evidence) = 0 pts

No/Unknown/No answer = 0 pts

Q2.2 Does this policy or action plan have gender-specific components? Please add details in the answer.
  • Policy of non-discrimination only (eg ILO foundational principles) = 1 pt
  • Programs which empower women (like a VSLA or the like) = 2 or 3 depending on the scale of the project.
  • Number of interventions = 3pts
  • Non-discrimination, programs and some affirmative action (eg assisting with land ownership rights) = 4 pts
Q2.3 Does the policy cover its own brand or both its own brand and branded cocoa products? Branded products are products that are not owned by the retailer. These include the brands of the large chocolate manufacturers that are sold in the stores of the retailer. This question will not be scored

This question is not scored. 

Maximum 0 points. 

Q2.4 How many Tier 1 suppliers for the retailer conform to this policy?

Refer to Q1.16 for the total number of Tier 1 suppliers.

100% = 2 pts

1-99% = 1 pt

0% = 0 pts

Q2.5 Does the policy include paying a living income to cocoa farmers?

Yes = 5 pts (if paid)

Yes = 1 pt (if included but not paid)

No = 0 pts 

If NO then retailer cannot score higher than yellow on Living Income

Q2.6 Does the company have a time-bound living income action plan for cocoa purchasing that includes purchasing practices – explicitly addressing farm gate pricing? Farm gate pricing means monetary value paid directly to farmers. Examples of increases are living income reference pricing and premiums aimed at increasing the income rather than covering costs of compliance Please note that the mandatory Living Income Differential (LID) is not included.

Yes, if implemented already = max 5 pts

yes, if credible and with target date = 4 pts

No = 0 pts

Q2.7 What percentage of the cocoa in the company's total cocoa supply chain (direct and indirect) is paid for with a price above the farm gate price? This question is about payments that are made to farmers (directly or through Farmer Groups), not payments to Farmer Groups only.

Above 50%: = 3 pts

Above 30% = 2 pts

Above 1% = 1 pt

0% = 0 pts

Q2.8 Certification premiums Does the company pay premiums, for example through Rainforest Alliance or Fairtrade certification?

Above 50%: = 2 points

Above 1% = 1 pt

0% = 0 pts

Points will also be given for Organic certificaiton.

Q2.9 Living Income Reference Price (LIRP): What percentage of the total number of farmers in the company’s supply chain are paid the Living Income Reference Price? For retailers or brand/manufacturers: what percentage of the total cocoa volume in the final products was purchased by the company’s suppliers for the Living Income Reference Price?

2 points for showing accurate LIRP calculation 

1 point if farmers are paid LIRP

1 point if there is a timebound action plan for farmers to receive a LIRP 

Q2.10 Living Income Reference Price (LIRP): For each Living Income Reference Price, please indicate the country, price calculated and source of the calculation

Validation question (to validate Q2.9) 

Q2.11 Does the company have a method for verifying payments to farmers such as e-payment systems?

Yes = 2 points

No, but we are investigating = 1 point

No = 0 points

Q2.12 Purchasing practices Does the company have a publicly available purchasing practices policy or document that outlines what the roles and responsibility are of the company when it comes to fair remuneration (a fair price), risk sharing of farmers, and full transparency in communication about this? This applies to direct cocoa purchases from farmers/cooperatives/farmer groups.

Yes (publicly available) = 5 pts

Yes (not publicly available) = 3 pts

No = 0 pts

Q2.13 This question is an opportunity for the company to ‘showcase’ any program, policy or initiative there have not been questions about. This question is scored, with highest scores being given for innovative, ambitious, scaled or scalable initiatives. Please add any additional information on living income the company would like to include. Guiding questions: Besides the activities in the company’s core business of buying cocoa, what program-based activities is the company undertaking to increase net income for farmers? Please show the proof of impact and the percentage of overall supply that these projects represent. More points will be awarded for proven impact compared to effort.

Companies: 7 pts

Small companies: 7 pts

Retailers: 7 pts

(20% of total score for this section)

Q2.14 Please indicate below that you understand that all these questions will be used to generate a company score [I understand and wish to proceed]
Kinderarbeit

Kinderarbeit

Q3.1 Does the company have a policy for monitoring, reducing or eliminating child labor in the company’s supply chains?

Yes (with evidence) = 3 points

Yes (no evidence or misunderstanding of eliminating child labor) = 0 pts

No = 0 pts

Q3.2 Does this policy or action plan take gender into account? Please explain how. (e.g. a gender specific approach to child labor monitoring (female adults and young girls)) Please add details in the answer.

Yes (with evidence) = 5 points

Yes (no evidence or misunderstanding of eliminating child labor) = 0 pts

No = 0 pts

Q3.3 Does the company have a policy to monitor, reduce or eliminate the exposure of children to pesticides in the company’s supply chains?

Yes and URL link provided = 3 points

Yes but no evidence = 1 point

No = 0 points

Q3.4 Does the company have a program, either operated through a specific agreement or partnership through a certification program, trader or processor, the International Cocoa Initiative or the company’s own CLMRS, that seeks to prevent, monitor, remediate children in situations of child labor?

Yes with evidence = 2 points

Yes without evidence = 0 pts

No = 0 points Retailers:

Yes with evidence = 8 points

Yes without evidence = 2 pts

No = 0 points

Q3.5 Which countries does this program cover? Please list the countries

No points. Used for validation. 

Q3.6 Please provide further details about the program that is used by the company. If the company is using a different model (for example a risk-based model) please add the details here. This question is not scored, but more points may be awarded on the previous questions if the company can demonstrate the impact of the program.

Only score points if this shows impact, not effort.

Any points to be added to the wild card question. 

Q3.7 In the past year, how many cocoa farmer households were included in programs or schemes to address the situation where children are found to be in situations of child labor?  (In absolute numbers, as well as in % of total sourcing, for both direct and indirect supply)

% of total sourcing:

80-100% = 3 points

60-79% = 2 points

40-59% = 1 point

< 39% = 0 points

Number of households is not scored - Needed to calculate cases and reduction in the next questions.

Q3.8 How many children were covered by a program to address child labor (for example a Child Labor Monitoring and Remediation System (CLMRS))?

If credible = 3 points

If not credible = 0 points

Credibility is based on overall volume (see section 0) and number of households (Q3.7). Indicator: 2 kids per MT of cocoa, or 2 kids per household or more. 

Q3.9 How many cases have been identified of the worst forms of child labor in the past year? The number of children identified over a certain period must be related to children covered (or monitored/visited) during the same period.

If answered with a credible number = 5 pts

If not answered = 0 pots 

Q3.10 How many children, among those identified as being in child labor, received support?

Any credible number = 3 pts

A non-credible number = 0 pts

No = 0pts

A credible number would be around 15-20% or higher of children identified

Q3.11 How many children are no longer in the worst forms of child labor after follow-up visits during the past year?

For a realistic number = 5 points awarded for transparency.

Guidance:

  • within 3 years 50% should no longer be in child labor.
  • a 10% reduction or higher would score points.
Q3.12 Has the company publicly communicated any numbers related to programs or schemes to prevent, monitor, and remediate child labor during the past year, or reported on actions to prevent and address child labor to any national authorities in the past 12 months?

Yes and credible = 5 points

No = 0 points 

Q3.13 Does the company have evidence that the programs or schemes are reducing the prevalence of child labor situations? Please include evidence over several years to prove impact over time (the prevalence rate). Answer yes if an impact evaluation or other study has been conducted that shows the system's impact on reducing child labor.

Credible evidence = 5 points (maximum).

Scores can be 0-1-2-3-4-5.

Highest scores for impact evaluations and not just participation evaluations.

Lowest scores for pilots with no evaluation processes.

Q3.14 Does the company have a policy to monitor, reduce or eliminate forced labor and human trafficking in the company’s supply chain?

Yes and URL link provided = 2 points

Yes but no evidence = 1 point

No = 0 points

Q3.15 Has the company found and successfully remediated any cases of forced labor and human trafficking in the past 12 months?
Not scored. Credibility question. If you have a credible answer then the points can be added to the Wild Card question
Q3.16 This question is an opportunity for the company to ‘showcase’ any program, policy or initiative there have not been questions about. This question is scored, with the highest scores being given for innovative, ambitious, scaled or scalable initiatives. Please add any additional information, or attach any documents on child labor, forced labor and human trafficking the company would like to include. Please provide volumes and percentage of overall supply that these projects represent. Guiding questions:Are there any other policies or activities, for example healthcare? Does the company support the provision of good quality, context appropriate education and schools for children in farmer communities including monitoring school attendance and incentivization for children to attend school (e.g. meal provided or additional payment to farmer)?

Companies: 11 pts

Small companies: 9 pts

Retailers: 8 pts

Worth more than 20% for retailers because retailers were not asked many questions

Q3.17 Please indicate below that you understand that all these questions will be used to generate a company score [I understand and wish to proceed]
Waldrodung und Klima

Waldrodung und Klima

Q4.1 Does the company have a policy or commitment to no-deforestation / no-conversion production or sourcing?

Yes with evidence = 3 points.

Yes without evidence = 0 pts

No = 0 points

Q4.2 Does the policy cover its own brand or both its own brand and branded cocoa products?

Own brand only = 3 pts

Both own brand and branded products = 5 pts

No = 0 pts Maximum 5 pts

No answer: Can only score a maximum of yellow on deforestation section

Q4.3 How many Tier 1 suppliers for the retailer conform to this policy?

Refer to Q1.16 for the total number of Tier 1 suppliers.

0% = 0

>0-25% = 1

>25-75% = 2

>75-100% = 3

Q4.4 What mechanisms does the retailer use to ensure that own brand suppliers source deforestation or conversion free cocoa?

No response = 0

Supplier code or equivalent = 1

Supplier code plus compliance audits plus mechanism to resolve non-compliance = 2

Supplier code, compliance audits plus direct engagement, or certification = 3

Flexibility for answers that don't fit into this pattern

Q4.5 What percentage of the total cocoa volume that the company purchases is covered by a deforestation-free monitoring system? A deforestation-free monitoring system is different from certification, although certification may contribute to it. This question is limited to the monitoring system that the company or their suppliers have developed to track deforestation and assess deforestation risk.

80-100% = 3 points

 60-79% = 2 points

40-59% = 1 point

< 39% = 0 points

Q4.6 Does the company have a target year to cease sourcing from deforested areas, or has the company already accomplished this? Please enter both the year and the percentage.

Already accomplished = 3 pts

2024-2025 = 2 pts

2026-2030 = 1 pts

2031 or beyond = 0 pts

100% deforestation free: add 3 pts

Maximum 6 pts

Q4.7 Which cut-off date does the company use to assess its deforestation baseline? For example, 2010 when high quality satellite maps became more readily available for all cocoa regions. Rainforest Alliance established 2014 as a single cut-off date for deforestation. The Cocoa and Forests Initiative was established in 2017. The EUDR uses December 31, 2020 as the cut-off. If the company uses different dates for different countries, please put this in the text box below. If the company uses a date other than those listed in the example, please provide the rationale in the following question.

0-2013 = 5 pts

2014-2016 = 4 pts

2017-2018 = 3 pts

2019 through Dec 30, 2020 = 0 pt (EUDR compliance)

2021 or later = 0 pts

If multiple dates then the latest date is scored. 

Q4.8 How does the company monitor compliance for its no-deforestation / no-conversion commitment? Which standards are used?

Third-party service providers = 1 pt

Internal company systems = 1 pt

Other = add up to 1 pt if equivalent to internal company system or third-party service provider, to a maximum of 2 pts total

No monitoring = 0 pts

Q4.9 Does the above monitoring system use satellite, GPS monitoring or polygon mapping?

Yes - remote sensing = 3 pts

Yes - waypoint mapping and/or

Yes - Polygon mapping = 1 pt

Q4.10 How often does the company perform a deforestation risk assessment? A deforestation risk assessment includes assessing risks during clearing season, due-diligence at point of purchase, more frequent checks in previously cleared areas and publishing reports where possible.

Every 6 months: selected and verified = 1 pt

Every year: selected and verified = 1 pt

Every 2 years: selected and verified = 1 pt

As and when necessary: selected and verified = 1 pt

Never: 0 pts

Other (add):

  • selected and verified = 1 pt
  • No answer: 0 pts
  • Maximum 1 pt
Q4.11 What percentage of the total cocoa volume that the company sources are from:

% Sources where the deforestation status of the cocoa is unknown

0-5% = 3 pts

6-10% = 2 pts

11-15% = 1 pt

16% and over = 0 pts

Q4.12 Does the company have a public grievance mechanism that addresses noncompliance including deforestation complaints?

Yes with evidence = 3 pts

Yes without evidence = 0 pts

No = 0 pts

Q4.13 Does the company have a clear noncompliance policy with clearly defined expectations for time-bound improvement plans, remediation and thresholds for supplier exclusion based on noncompliance on deforestation? Examples of remediation are restoration of the cleared areas, supporting the replanting of that forest patch and monitoring over a period. Supplier exclusion should be a last resort.

Yes with evidence = 3 pts

Yes without evidence = 0 pts

No = 0 pts

Q4.14 Does the company have a program that helps women achieve land and tree tenure?

Yes with evidence = 3 pts

Yes without evidence = 0 pts

No = 0 pts

 if any percentage between 10-50% is provided, 1 point; if 51-100%, 2 points

 

Maximum 5 pts

Q4.15 Does the company’s strategy include a climate transition plan that aligns with a 1.5°C world?
  • Yes, we have a climate transition plan which aligns with a 1.5°C world - Selected and verified = 2 points
  • No, but our strategy has been influenced by climate-related risks and opportunities, and we are developing a climate transition plan within two years - Selected and verified = 1 point
  • No, our strategy has been influenced by climate-related risks and opportunities, but we do not plan to develop a climate transition plan within two years - Selected and verified = 0 points
  • No, and our strategy has not been influenced by climate-related risks and opportunities- Selected and verified = 0 points
  • Other - If valid and equivalent to 1.5 degree strategy: selected and verified = 2 points
  • No answer – 0 pts Evidence needed for points to be given.

Maximum 2 pts

Q4.16 Did the company have a science-based emissions target for scope 1 and 2 emissions that were active in the reporting year?
  • Yes, and this target has been approved by the Science Based Targets initiative: Selected and verified (https://sciencebasedtargets.org/companies-taking-action#dashboard) = 5 points
  • Yes, we consider this a science-based target, and the target is currently being reviewed by the Science Based Targets initiative: Selected and verified (https://sciencebasedtargets.org/companies-taking-action#dashboard) = 3 points
  • Other: If credible, verified AND equivalent to answer A = 5 points. If not = 0 points
  • Any other answer = 0 pts

Evidence needed for points to be given. Maximum 5 pts

Q4.17 Did the company have a science-based emissions target for scope 3 emissions that was active in the reporting year?
  • Yes, and this target has been approved by the Science Based Targets initiative: Selected and verified (https://sciencebasedtargets.org/companies-taking-action#dashboard) = 5 points
  • Yes, we consider this a science-based target, and the target is currently being reviewed by the Science Based Targets initiative: Selected and verified (https://sciencebasedtargets.org/companies-taking-action#dashboard) = 3 points
  • Yes, we consider this a science-based target, and we have committed to seek validation of this target by the Science Based Targets initiative in the next two years: Selected = 2 points
  • Yes, we consider this a science-based target, but we have not committed to seek validation of this target by the Science Based Targets initiative within the next two years: Selected = 1 point
  • No, but we are reporting another target that is science-based: If credible and equivalent to answer A = 5 points. If not credible and equivalent = 0 points
  • No, but we anticipate setting one in the next two years: If selected = 1 point
  • No, and we do not anticipate setting one in the next two years = 0 pts
  • Other: If credible and equivalent to answer A = 5 points. If not credible and equivalent = 0 points
  • No answer = 0 pts

Evidence needed for points to be given. Maximum 5 pts

Q4.18 Did the company disclose scope 3 emissions data for the most recently completed reporting year?

Yes with evidence = 3 points

Yes without evidence = 0 pts

No = 0 points

Q4.19 This question is an opportunity for the company to ‘showcase’ any program, policy or initiative there have not been questions about. This question is scored, with the highest scores given for innovative, ambitious, scaled or scalable initiatives.   Please add any additional information on deforestation and climate action the company would like to include. Please provide volumes and percentage of the overall supply that these projects represent. Guiding questions:How does the company contribute to forest restoration in protected areas (national parks, forest reserves) deforested by cocoa? How much forest area has the company helped restore since 2017?

Companies: 13 pts

Small companies: 12 pts

Retailers: 12 pts

(20% of total score for this section)

Q4.20 Please indicate below that you understand that all these questions will be used to generate a company score [I understand and wish to proceed]
Agroforstwirtschaft

Agroforstwirtschaft

Q5.1 What is the company’s agroforestry policy or approach, and to which sourcing countries does it apply?

Maximum of 3 points (irrespective of the number of countries) with:

a) 0 points if no policy in any country,

b) between 1 and 3 points depending on how many countries (out of the total list of source countries listed) are covered by an AF policy, and

c) 2 points is global AF policy cover all source countries.

Q5.2 What percentage of the cocoa sourced by the company is currently grown in an agroforestry setting and what is the agroforestry target per country?

Max 5 pts for the current % 0 if AF is not used in any country,

1 for 1-20%,

2 for 21-40%,

3 for 41-60%,

4 for 61-80% and 5

 for 81-100 %.

Target % and When (year) are scored in Q5.5.

Q5.3 What are the parameters that are used by the company to define cocoa agroforestry?

Maximum 15 pts total.

  • Adult trees per ha: Maximum 3 points. If answers given for multiple countries/rows: use the average to score.
    • 0 -15 trees/ha = 0 point,
    • 15-30 = 1 point,
    • 30-50 = 2 points,
    • >50 = 3 points.
  • % crown coverage: Maximum 3 points. If answers given for multiple countries/rows: use the average to score
    • 0-5% = 0 point,
    • 5-10% = 1 point,
    • 10%-30% = 2 points,
    • >30% = 3 points.
  • # of tree species per ha: Maximum 3 points. If answers given for multiple countries/rows: use the average to score
    • 0-3 = 0 point,
    • 3-8 = 1 point,
    • 8-12= 2 points,
    • >12 = 3 points
  • % native species: Maximum 3 points. If answers given for multiple countries/rows: use the average to score.
    • 0 for open-sun cocoa,
    • 1 point for 1-25% of native species,
    • 2 points for 26-50% of native species,
    • 3 points for ≥51% of native species.
  • Number of vertical strata: Maximum 3 points. If answers given for multiple countries/rows: use the average to score
    • 0 point for open-sun cocoa,
    • 1 point for shade canopies with 1 shade stratum,
    • 2 points for shade canopies with 2 strata,
    • 3 points for ≥ 3 strata.
Q5.4 What kind of support for cocoa agroforestry is provided by the company? This may be a monetary value or a description of the support provided

0 pts when no support is given to farmers,

1 pt when only training is provided,

2 pts when on-farm advice is provided, and

3 pts when monetary support (alone or in combination with training or on-farm advice) is provided.

If answered for multiple countries or regions: If any of the above are provided anywhere then the points are given (it does not have to be for multiple countries).

Maximum 3 pts.

Q5.5 This question is an opportunity for the company to ‘showcase’ any program, policy or initiative there have not been questions about. This question is scored, with highest scores being given for innovative, ambitious, scaled or scalable initiatives.   Please add any additional information on agroforestry the company would like to include. Please provide volumes and percentage of overall supply that these projects represent.   Please also include any relevant information or data from the company’s Cocoa & Forests Initiative reporting on agroforestry. Here the company can also talk about other agricultural methods such as regenerative agriculture and Climate Smart Agriculture.

Maximum 7 points for small companies and medium/large companies

Maximum 4 points for retailers

Worth more than 20% for retailers because they are only asked Q5.1.

Q5.6 Please indicate below that you understand that all these questions will be used to generate a company score [I understand and wish to proceed]
Pestizide

Pestizide

Q6.0 Does the company source 100% certified organic cocoa? Provide evidence confirming your company's organic certification status.

100% with evidence = Full points for the entire Pesticide section. The remaining questions do not need to be answered or scored.

No = 0 points and continue with the remaining questions for section 6

Q6.1 Does the company have a pesticide policy for the cocoa that the company sources? This may include alignment with external certification programs.

Yes (published policy) = 3 pts

Yes (no evidence) = 0 pts

No = 0 pts

Q6.2 Which own brand products are included?

Confectionery: 2 pts.

If one or more others are included: add 2 pts

Max 4 pts

Q6.3 How many Tier 1 suppliers of the retailer are compliant with this policy?

Refer to Q1.16 for the total number of Tier 1 suppliers.

0% = 0

>0-25% = 1

>25-75% = 2

>75-100% = 3

Q6.4 How does the retailer support their Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers in implementing their policy on pesticide use?

Evaluated for a mix of compliance (eg certified organic, audits) and support (eg technical expertise, dialogue, etc).

Maximum 3 pts

Q6.5 Does the company have a strategy or program to address chemical management or pesticide use that includes cocoa? This may include alignment with certification programs. Please add these details in the answer.
  • Aligned with external certification programs + additional company requirements = 3pts
  • Aligned with external certification programs only (if it applies to at least 90% of sourcing) = 2 pts
  • Aligned with external certification programs only (less than 90% of sourcing) 1pt
  • Company strategy only – score according to content. 
  • Aligned with external certification programs only (less than 100% of sourcing) 1pt
  • No or No answer = 0 pts
Q6.6 Does the company use an existing list of active substances that are monitored, prohibited and/or restricted from the company’s supply chain, for example through a certification program?

Note: this question can only add points to the score for Q6.5, up to a maximum of 3 pts for Q6.5.

Yes – uses RA/FT lists and own lists beyond those – 3 pts

Yes with proof that it uses external certification program lists = 2 pts 

Yes with another credible list = 2 pts 

Yes but without evidence = 0 pts 

No or No Answer = 0 pts

Q6.7 Does the company use its own list of active substances that is different from the list provided in the previous question?

Uses additional lists beyond external certification program lists = 3 pts.

If using only company lists and these cover not only acutely toxic to humans but also chronic health effects and/or environmental effects  = 2 pts.

If using only company lists, and these cover only acutely toxic to humans = 1pt.

Yes, but no evidence provided = 0 pts.

Q6.8 What is included in the company’s pesticide policy or commitment?

0.5 points for each answer selected.

Round the total to the nearest whole number (integer). 

Only whole numbers given as the final score. 

Maximum 3 pts

Q6.9 What data is collected about pesticide use in the supply chain?

0.5 points for each answer selected.

Round the total to the nearest whole number (integer). 

Only whole numbers may be given as the final score. 

Maximum 3 pts

Q6.10 What steps is the company taking to address these issues identified? Please mention any methods which help to manage insect pests, cocoa diseases or weeds with less need for pesticide application.

IPM trials or research  = 1 pt.

Farmer training on IPM or non-chemical methods = 1 pt.

Provision of or support for access to biological pesticides or botanical extracts or tools or labour  for cocoa tree pruning  or grove renewal = 1 pt.

Q6.11 Which pesticides, if any, is the company prioritizing for phaseout?

Mention of PAN International HHP List  = 1 pt.

Mention of HHPs = 1 pt.

Mention of any specific active substances or groups (e.g. neonicotinoids or those harmful to bees) = 1 pt.

Maximum 3 pts.

Q6.12 How is the company reducing pesticide exposure and harm to farmers and farm workers?

0.5 points for each topic mentioned. 

Round the total to the nearest whole number (integer). 

Q6.13 How is the company reducing environmental contamination and harm from pesticides?

0.5 points for each topic mentioned. 

Round the total to the nearest whole number (integer). 

Q6.14 Are you taking actions to substantially reduce or eliminate lead and cadmium from your cocoa or chocolate products?

Details on measures to remove/remedy soil contamination by these metals = 2 pts

At the stage of identifying contamination hotspots or making a reduction plan or conduct residue testing = 1 pt

No = 0 pts

Q6.15 This question is an opportunity for the company to ‘showcase’ any program, policy, or initiative there have not been questions about. This question is scored, with the highest scores given for innovative, ambitious, scaled, or scalable initiatives.   Please add any additional information on pesticide management the company would like to include. This may also include (innovative) approaches the company is investing in. Please provide the volumes and percentage of the overall supply that these projects represent.

Companies: 7 pts
Small companies: 4 pts
Retailers: 5 pts
(20% of total score for this section)

Q6.16 Please indicate below that you understand that all these questions will be used to generate a company score [I understand and wish to proceed]

Títular del toast

Lorem ipsum dolor aemet