6TH EDITION
METHODOLOGY
·THE 6th 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 Universities, consultants, and civil society groups [1] engaging in transforming the chocolate industry.
[1] Also called Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
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 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 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. It is also a resource for consumers seeking information about the chocolate they purchase.
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 6th 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
Participation & Data collection
The 6th Edition questionnaire was sent to all the participating companies from the 5th 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.
companies assessed in North America and Latin America
Ecuador, United States
companies assessed in Europe
Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland
companies assessed in Asia
Japan, Malaysia
company assessed in Africa
Madagascar
companies assessed in Australia and New Zealand
Australia, New Zealand
90%
OF THE WORLD’S COCOA ARE PURCHASED BY THIS COMPANIES
60
Total numbers of participants
39
Large & Medium Companies assessed
6
Small Companies assessed
15
Retailers assessed
Medium and Large Company Participation
Retailer Participation
Small Company 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 survey 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 survey between November 25, 2024, and February 14, 2025. Participants were given a detailed outline of the research project and asked to consent to their involvement before starting the survey.
Grievance Procedure
Participants were advised of the grievance mechanism, should participants consider the research breached the ethics standard. In the first instance, participants may contact the Ethics Committee of the sponsoring University and an email address is provided. If still dissatisfied, they are also provided with the name and contact of an independent arbiter which is an academic professional with subject matter knowledge. Grievances are only received in relation to an alleged breach of the ethics standard.
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). We offered to provide feedback to companies that provided a draft submission before 15 December and reviewed more than 15 drafts. The Scorecard team was also available for numerous email interactions and one-on-one calls with companies.
Question Development
The Chocolate Scorecard covers six core categories, plus one bonus category of Gender.
Traceability & transparency
Living Income
Child & Forced Labor
Deforestation & Climate
Agroforestry
Pesticides
Gender
Scoring Process
The scoring team consisted of two subject matter experts for each topic, including two experts only scoring the retail-specific questions. 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.
Before the scoring process started, the criteria for each question were determined together with the subject-matter experts. Automated and manual checks were done on the data quality. A kick-off meeting was held with all experts to align on our approach.
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 needed.
4
The overall scores were determined for each participant based on their category scores by the Review and Alignment team.
Scorecard Key
Leading the industry on policy and implementation
100% - 75%
Starting to develop and implement good policies
74% - 50%
Needs more work on policy and implementation
49% - 25%
Needs to catch up with the industry
24% - 0%
Lacks transparency either did not respond or complete
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 ·
Traceability & transparency
Q1.1 What percentage of the company’s total cocoa purchases are part of the company’s direct supply chain? This includes all cocoa purchases, including beans, liquor, butter, powder and chocolate. * This question was not asked to retailers
Less than 50% = 0 points Less than 60% = 1 point Less than 75% = 2 points 75% or more = 3 points
Q1.2 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)? *asked of companies and retailers
Date/year: 0-2024 = 3 points 2025 = 2 points 2026-2030 = 1 point After 2030 = 0 points Percentage: 100% = 2 points 75-99% = 1 point 0-74% = 0 points
Q1.3 What percentage of the company’s total cocoa purchases are traceable to the country of origin? * This question was not asked to retailers
96-100%: 3 points 91-95%: 2 points 86-90%: 1 point 0-85%: 0 points
Q1.4 What percentage of the company’s total cocoa purchases are traceable to a sourcing area? (eg cooperative or district) * This question was not asked to retailers
76-100%: 3 points 61-75%: 2 points 41-60%: 1 point 0-40%: 0 points
Q1.5 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)? * This question was not asked to retailers
61-100%: 3 points 46-60%: 2 points 31-45%: 1 point 0-30%: 0 points
Q1.6 What percentage of the company’s total cocoa purchases is GPS or polygon mapped? * This question was not asked to retailers
70-100%: 3 points 50-69%: 2 points 30-49%: 1 point 0-29%: 0 points
Q1.7 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). * This question was not asked to retailers
No tools = 0 points. Efforts made/tool(s) used but not effective enough = 1 point One effective tool used = 2 points Multiple effective tools used = 3 points
Q1.8 Has the company made public a list of the Farmer groups / cooperatives / districts that they source cocoa from in their direct supply chain? * This question was not asked to retailers
Yes, for all countries = 3 points Yes, for specific countries = 2 points Partially, for specific countries = 1 point No = 0 points
Q1.9 Does the company have a gender strategy? This can be an organization-wide strategy that includes cocoa sourcing or a cocoa-specific strategy. It must include cocoa. Please add details in the answer. This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes with evidence and including cocoa specific parts = 3 points Overall strategy mentioning cocoa, but not specific on cocoa = max 2 points Yes if mentioned in overall strategy but not mentioning the word "cocoa" at all = max 1 point No or no evidence = 0 points
Q1.10 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. * This question was not asked to retailers
At least 50% with evidence = 3 points 10-49% with evidence = 2 points Less than 10% with evidence = 1 point Yes without evidence = 0 points No = 0 points
Q1.11 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). * This question was only asked to Retailers
Supplier code, compliance audits plus direct engagement, or certification = 3-5 pts Supplier code plus compliance audits plus mechanism to resolve non-compliance = 2-3 pts Supplier code or equivalent = 1 pt No response = 0 pts
Q1.12 How many Tier 1 cocoa or chocolate product suppliers of the retailer can provide country of origin information for cocoa supplied to the retailer? * This question was only asked to Retailers
>75-100% = 3 >25-75% = 2 >0-25% = 1 0% of Tier 1 suppliers = 0
Q1.13 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)? * This question was only asked to Retailers
>75-100% = 3 >25-75% = 2 >0-25% = 1 0% = 0
Q1.14 How does the retailer encourage Tier 2 suppliers to take action on sustainability? Tier 2 supplies are suppliers that are the sources where your Tier 1 suppliers get their materials. * This question was only asked to Retailers
no action = 0 engagement (eg through a pre-competitive collaboration or individually = 1 requirement that Tier 1 suppliers conduct due diligence = 2 contractual requirement that Tier 1 suppliers only buy deforestation, child and forced labour free materials = 3 previous plus you conduct due diligence and/or dedicated supply chains from certified growers = 4-5 (We recognise some flexibility required as companies will have slightly different approaches.)
Q1.15 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 highest scores being given for innovative, ambitious, scaled or scalable initiatives.
20% of total score for this section
Living Income
Q2.1 Does the company have a published policy or publicly available statement that states that a living income is a basic human right? * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes = 3 points Yes (no evidence) = 0 points No/Unknown/No answer = 0 points The words "Living income" and "Basic human right" need to be included.
Q2.2 Does the policy include paying a price that would allow farmers to earn a living income in the company or retailer's supply chain? * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes = 3 points (if paid) Yes = 1 point (if included but not paid) No = 0 points If this is only based on high market prices (and nothing else) then = 0 points
Q2.3 How many Tier 1 suppliers for the retailer conform to the living Income policy? * This question was asked only to Retailers
100% plus process to monitor compliance = 2 pts 100% without clear evidence of compliance = 1.5 pt 1-99% = 1 pt 0% = 0 pts Living income policy has to specifically refer to cocoa or have a monitoring system in place that would include cocoa suppliers.
Q2.4 How does the retailer ensure that tier 2 suppliers conform to the living income policy? * This question was asked only to Retailers
Contractual requirement that Tier 1 suppliers only buy verified living income cocoa plus retailer conducts due diligence = 2 points Contractual requirement that Tier 1 suppliers only buy verified living income cocoa = 1.5 points Engagement (eg through a pre-competitive collaboration or individually) = 0.5 points information on Tier 2 suppliers available = 0.5 points No action = 0 points
Q2.5 Does the retailer conduct social due diligence on branded cocoa products that the retailer sells? This can include living income, child labor and other social topics. * This question was asked only to Retailers
0.5 pt for every option selected (with evidence), up to max 2 pts. Rounded up to the nearest point.
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 A living income is not the goal, but only the first step. Include strategies to help farmers go beyond the living income. Please note that paying certification premiums and the mandatory Living Income Differential (LID) is not included. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes, if implemented already = max 3 points Yes, if credible and with target date = 2 points No = 0 points
Q2.7 Does the Living Income action plan have gender-specific components? * This question was not asked to Retailers
Yes (shared evidence or public) = 1-3 points Yes (no evidence) = 0 points No = 0 points
Q2.8 Does the company pay premiums, Living Income Reference Prices (LIRP), cash transfers or any other monetary amount on top of the farmgate price? This can be through Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade certification, organic or through any other method that leads to a price above the farmgate price. The Living Income Differential (LID) is not included. Please specify % of cocoa purchased.
Paying a LIRP LIRP for more than 75% = 6 points LIRP for 50-74% = 4 points LIRP 1-49% = 3 points No extra points given on premiums if LIRP is paid. Paying cash transfers Maximum points for cash transfers with premiums = 2 points. Cash transfers for more than USD 240 and at least 20% of cocoa = 2 points Cash transfer for more than USD 240 and at least 10% of cocoa = 1 point All other cash transfers = 0 points extra (Max 2 pts, no extra points given on premiums below) Paying only premiums Maximum points if only certification and/or company premiums = 1 point
Q2.9 Do the premiums you pay differentiate between the cost of running the cooperative, the cost of compliance and additional net farmer income? Please provide the share of total supply that this represents. * This question was not asked to Retailers
Paying more than just cost of compliance = 3 points Knowing the difference = 1-2 points Not knowing = 0 points
Q2.10 Does the company know how many farmers are earning a living income in your supply chain? This equals all cocoa purchases (both direct and indirect). * This question was not asked to Retailers
More than 75% earning a LI = 3 points 50-74% earning a LI = 2 points Knowing for over 90% = 1 point All other answers = 0 points Maximum 3 points
Q2.11 For each Living Income Reference Price, please indicate the country, price calculated, associated volume and source of the calculation. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
If credible = 1-3 points If not credible = 0 points
Q2.12 Does the company have a publicly available farm gate purchasing practices policy or document that outlines what the roles and responsibility are of the company or your suppliers 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. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes (publicly available) = max 5 points Yes (not publicly available) = max 3 points No = 0 points
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. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
20% of total score for this section
Child & Forced Labor
Q3.1 Does the company have a policy for monitoring, reducing or eliminating child labor in the company’s supply chains? Small companies that do not have a policy but do address child labor can explain how child labor is successfully addressed in their supply chains. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes (with evidence) = 1 point
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)). For small companies (below 1,000 tonnes) without a detailed policy: please explain how gender is taken into account when addressing child labor in your supply chains. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes (with evidence) = 1 to 3 points depending on the relative strength of taking gender into account. Generic approach including cocoa = max 1 point Specific approach including cocoa = 2-3 points
Q3.3 Does the company have a policy to monitor, reduce or eliminate the exposure of children to pesticides in the company’s cocoa supply chains? * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes (with evidence) = 1 to 3 points. Consider scale and strength of approach. Generic approach including cocoa = max 1 point Specific approach including cocoa (with information about how it's done/description) = 2-3 points If it does not include cocoa = 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 or other programs that address child labor. A strong system includes raising awareness on child labor and embeds understanding and includes remediation. Please answer for at least the top 3 sourcing countries. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes with evidence of a strong system appropriate for those countries = 2 point for each country up to max 6 points total Must give information for at least the top 3 sourcing countries for full points. If sourcing from less than 3 countries: 6 points with evidence for all countries. For each sourcing country: consider the child labor risk and whether the approach is appropriate. Yes with evidence of a weak system = 1 point maximum Yes without evidence = 0 points No = 0 points
Q3.5 In the most recent available reported 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) * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
% of total sourcing: 80-100% = 3 points 60-79% = 2 points 40-59% = 1 point < 39% = 0 points
Q3.6 How many children in your company’s/organization’s supply chain were covered by a program to address child labor (for example a Child Labor Monitoring and Remediation System (CLMRS))? Small companies (below 1,000 tons) may answer with a description of their approach. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
If credible = 1-3 points If not credible = 0 points
Q3.7 Of these children, how many were ever identified in child labor? The number of children identified over a certain period must be related to children covered (or monitored/visited) during the same period. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
If answered with a credible number = 1-3 points
Q3.8 How many children identified as being in child labor received support? * This question was not asked to Retailers
Any credible number = 1-3 pts A non-credible number = 0 pts No = 0pts
Q3.9 How many children are no longer in child labor after at least two follow-up visits during the past year? * This question was not asked to Retailers
For a realistic number = max 3 points awarded for transparency.
Q3.10 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? * This question was not asked to Retailers
Yes and credible for all high risk countries in top 3 sourcing countries = 2 points If only for part of high-risk countries in top 3 sourcing countries = max 1 point
Q3.11 Does the company have evidence that the programs or schemes are reducing the prevalence of child labor situations? * This question was not asked to Retailers
Credible evidence = 3 points maximum. Highest scores for impact evaluations and not just participation evaluations. Lowest scores for pilots with no evaluation processes.
Q3.12 Does the company have a policy and action to monitor, reduce or eliminate forced labor and human trafficking in the company’s supply chain? * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes and URL link provided and specific to cocoa = 2 points Yes but no evidence and/or not specific to cocoa = 1 point
Q3.13 Has the company found and successfully remediated any cases of forced labor and human trafficking in the past 12 months? * This question was not asked to Retailers
Yes (with numbers) = 2 points Yes (no numbers) = 1 point No or no answer = 0pt
Q3.14 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. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
20% of total score for this section
Deforestation & Climate
Q4.1 Does the company have a policy or commitment to no-deforestation / no-conversion production or sourcing? * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes with evidence = 1 point. Yes without evidence = 0 points
Q4.2 Does the environmental policy cover branded cocoa products that the retailer sells? This needs to include no deforestation. * This question was asked only to Retailers
0.5 pt for every option selected (with evidence), up to max 2 pts. Rounded up to the nearest point.
Q4.3 How many Tier 1 suppliers for the retailer conform to this policy? * This question was asked only to Retailers
0% = 0 >0-25% = 1 >25-75% = 2 >75-100% = 3
Q4.4 What mechanisms does the retailer use to ensure that their own brand suppliers source deforestation or conversion free cocoa? This applies to all private label products containing cocoa. * This question was asked only to Retailers
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
Q4.5 How does the company support farmers in their preparations for the EUDR transition? * This questions was not to Retailers
Evidence of monetary or in-kind support to farmers to help them prepare for EUDR = 1-2 points If pushed down the supply chain = 0 points No or no evidence = 0 points
Q4.6 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 questions was not asked to Retailers.
80-100% = 3 points 60-79% = 2 points 40-59% = 1 point < 39% = 0 points
Q4.7 Does the company have a target year to cease sourcing from deforested areas, or has the company already accomplished this? * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Already accomplished = 3 points 2024-2025 = 2 points 2026-2030 = 1 points 2031 or beyond = 0 points % deforestation free: if 0-99% = subtract 1 point
Q4.8 Which cut-off date does the company use to assess its deforestation baseline? Examples include - Rainforest Alliance: January 1st, 2014 - Fairtrade: December 31, 2018 - The Cocoa and Forests Initiative CFI: established in 2017 - The EUDR: December 31, 2020 * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
If only: 2014-2016 = 4 points 2017-2018 = 3 points Anything with 2020 = 1 point 2021 or later = 0 points
Q4.9 How does the company monitor compliance for its no-deforestation / no-conversion commitment? Which standards are used? * This questions was not asked to Retailers
Third-party service providers = 1 point Internal company systems = 1 point Other = add up to 1 point if equivalent to internal company system or third-party service provider, to a maximum of 2 points total No demonstrated monitoring = 0 points
Q4.10 Does the above monitoring system use satellite, GPS monitoring or polygon mapping? * This questions was not asked to Retailers
Yes - remote sensing = 1 point Yes - waypoint mapping and/or Polygon mapping = 1 point Yes - on the ground checks = 1 point
Q4.11 What percentage of the total cocoa volume that the company purchases is from deforestation-free sources? Answer according to the deforestation cut-off date used by the company. * This questions was not asked to Retailers
% Sources where the deforestation status of the cocoa is unknown 0-5% = 3 points 6-10% = 2 points 11-15% = 1 point 16% and over = 0 points If % area deforested is greater than 5%: subtract 2 points.
Q4.12 Does the company have a public grievance mechanism that addresses noncompliance including deforestation complaints? If you have a policy for your suppliers, demonstrate how your suppliers apply this down the supply chain at the cooperative or farmer group level. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes with evidence = 1-2 points Yes without evidence = 0 points
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. * This questions was not asked to Retailers
Yes with evidence = 1-2 points Yes without evidence = 0 points
Q4.14 How does the company transition non-compliant farmers out of their supply chain and remediate the effects of non-compliance by the farmer who was in their supply chain? For example if farmers are excluded from the supply chain due to non-compliance with EUDR requirements, high risk levels or other reasons. * This questions was not asked to Retailers
Evidence of support (remediation, compensation, conditions for rejoining the group etc) = up to 2 points. No support or remediation = 0 points
Q4.15 Does the company’s strategy include a climate transition plan that aligns with a 1.5°C world? * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
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 points
Q4.16 Did the company have a science-based emissions target for scope 3 emissions that was active in the reporting year? This can be for the most recent year that was reported on or for the 12 month period that the survey is answered. Small companies (below 1,000 tons) may answer with a description of their approach. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes, and this target has been approved by the Science Based Targets initiative: Selected and verified = 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 = 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 points Other: If credible and equivalent to answer A = 5 points. If not credible and equivalent = 0 points No answer = 0 points
Q4.17 Did the company disclose scope 3 emissions data for the most recently completed reporting year? This can be for the most recent year that was reported on or for the 12 month period that the survey is answered. Small companies (below 1,000 tons) may answer with a description of their approach. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes with evidence = 3 points Yes with evidence for only part of supply chain = 2 points Yes without evidence = 0 points No = 0 points
Q4.18 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. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
20% of total score for this section
Agroforestry
Q5.1 What is the company’s agroforestry policy or approach, and to which sourcing countries does it apply? * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
maximum of 5 points (irrespective of the number of countries) with: No policy in any country = 0 point Only RA and/or CFI = maximum 1 point Global = 0-5 points depending on the quality Only for one of top 3 sourcing country = max 2 points 2 of top 3 sourcing country = max 3 points All 3 top 3 sourcing country = max 4 points All sourcing countries/ global = max 5 points
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 (current %, target % and year)? * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Max 5 points for the current % 0 if Agroforestry 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%.
Q5.3 How many Tier 1 suppliers of the retailer are compliant with this policy? * This question was asked only to Retailers
0% = 0 >0-25% = 1 >25-75% = 2 >75-100% = 3
Q5.4 How does the retailer ensure compliance of Tier 1 suppliers? * This question was asked only to Retailers
No response/no mechanism = 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 Will need some scoring flexibility for answers that don't fit into this pattern
Q5.5 What are the parameters that are used by the company to define cocoa agroforestry? - Adult trees per ha - % crown coverage - # of tree species - % native species - number of vertical strata
If answers given for multiple countries: use the average to score Adult trees per ha: Maximum 3 points. 0 -15 trees/ha = 0 point 15-30 = 1 point 30-50 = 2 points >50 = 3 points % crown coverage: Maximum 3 points. 0-5% = 0 point 5-10% = 1 point 10%-30% = 2 points >30% = 3 points If they only answer one of the previous two questions then max 6 points if the value is high # of tree species per ha: Maximum 3 points. 0-3 = 0 point 3-8 = 1 point 8-12= 2 points and >12 = 3 points % native species: Maximum 3 points Open-sun cocoa = 0 points 1-25% of native species = 1 point 26-50% of native species = 2 points ≥51% of native species = 3 points Number of vertical strata: Maximum 3 points. Open-sun cocoa= 0 points Shade canopies with 1 shade stratum = 1 point Shade canopies with 2 strata = 2 points ≥ 3 strata = 3 points Maximum 18 points
Q5.6 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 points when no support is given to farmers, 1 point for any in-kind support anywhere 1 point for any monetary support anywhere If it covers a significant share (at least half of the volume of the top 3 sourcing countries): add up to 3 points. Maximum 5 points
Q5.7 Are there other efforts that the company makes to improve local ecosystems? This can be on-farm or off-farm and can include regenerative agriculture, biodiversity and other ways to improve local ecosystems.
0 points if nothing is done to improve local ecosystem 1 point if advice is given to improve the local ecosystem (water, waste management...) 2 points if support (material or monetary) is given to improve local environment 3 points if support is given AND its impact is monitored Maximum 1 point if it's only for a small share of supply (less than 10%)
Q5.8 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 * This question was asked only to Retailers
0 pts when no support is given to farmers, 1 pt for any in-kind support anywhere 1 pt for any monetary support anywhere Add 1 point for monetary and in-kind support at scale.
Q5.9 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. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
20% of total score for this section
Pesticides
Q6.1 Does the company source 100% certified organic cocoa? Provide evidence confirming your company's organic certification status. Companies that source 100% certified organic cocoa do not need to complete the pesticide and agrichemical section. They will receive full points for this section because they source 100% organic cocoa. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Full points for this section if the company sources 100% organic cocoa
Q6.2 Does the company have a pesticide policy for the cocoa that the company sources? This may include alignment with external certification programs. Please include the percentage of total cocoa purchases that this applies to. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Yes (published policy) = 3 points Yes (alignment with RA/FT sourcing 90% or more) = 2 points Yes (alignment with RA/FT sourcing <90%) = 1 point Yes (no evidence) = 0 points No = 0 points Maximum if just relying on certification = 2 points
Q6.3 What is included in the company’s pesticide policy or commitment? -Fully reliant on certification through Fairtrade and/or Rainforest Alliance (other options not available if selected) -Alignment with the pesticide approach of third-party certification programs - General or specific pesticide goal - Education of farmers - Monitoring, evaluation and learning - Integrated Pest Management - Measures to protect and enhance beneficial insects - Safety and exposure - Restrictions on which pesticides are permitted - Using chemical methods as last resort after having applied all Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and biological options - Advocacy - Pilots - Other * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
0.5 points for each answer selected. Round the total to the nearest whole number (integer). Max 5 points total Max 3 points if fully reliant on RA/FT. Scorers can deduct points if the scale is small.
Q6.4 How many Tier 1 suppliers of the retailer are compliant with this policy? * This question was asked only to Retailers
0% = 0 >0-25% = 1 >25-75% = 2 >75-100% = 3
Q6.5 How does the retailer support their Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers in implementing their policy on pesticide use? * This question was asked only to Retailers
No policy/no support = 0 points Engage suppliers on pesticides in cocoa = 1 point Training suppliers on pesticides policy = 2 points Financial incentives (premiums) for implementing policy = 3 points
Q6.6 Does the company have a strategy, program or action plan to address chemical management or pesticide use in cocoa farming? * This question was not asked to Retailers
Score if it has been implemented already: - Aligned with external certification programs + additional company requirements = up to 5 points - Aligned with external certification programs only (if it applies to at least 90% of sourcing) = max 2 points - Aligned with external certification programs only (less than 90% of sourcing) max 1 point Company strategy only = score according to content.
Q6.7 Does the company use an existing list or their own list of active substances that are monitored, prohibited and/or restricted from the company’s supply chain, for example through a certification program? * This question was not asked to Retailers
Yes – uses RA/FT lists and own lists beyond those = 3 points Yes with proof that it uses external certification program lists = 2 points Yes with another credible list = 2 points Yes but without evidence = 0 points No or No Answer = 0 points
Q6.8 What data is collected about pesticide use in the supply chain? Check all that apply: - Overall pesticide use - Disaggregated pesticide use by product or active ingredient - HHP use - Pesticide exposure and harm to farmers and workers - Uptake of non-chemical alternatives * This question was not asked to Retailers
We are looking for companies that collect data in their supply chains. 1 point for each answer selected with evidence provided. 0 points if no evidence provided. If only certification = 0 points. Maximum 5 points
Q6.9 What actions is the company taking to reduce pesticide exposure and harm to producers and environmental contamination? Please mention any methods which help to manage insect pests, cocoa diseases or weeds with less need for pesticide application, and how the is company reducing pesticide exposure and harm to farmers, farm workers, or the environment. * This question was not asked to Retailers
IPM trials or research = 1 point Farmer training on IPM or non-chemical methods = 1 point Provision of or support for access to biological pesticides or botanical extracts or tools or labour for cocoa tree pruning or grove renewal = 1 point Others that demonstrate action: add points up to max 3 total. Points can be deducted if the scale of the project or approach is considered small. If only certification = 0 points
Q6.10 Which pesticides, if any, is the company prioritizing for phaseout? * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
Mention of PAN International HHP List = 1 point Mention of HHPs = 1 point Mention of any specific active substances or groups (e.g. neonicotinoids or those harmful to bees) = 1 point If only certification = max 1 point If only certification but with some demonstrated knowledge = max 2 points Maximum 3 points
Q6.11 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. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
20% of total score for this section
Gender
Add information about any other relevant project or initiative related to gender that has not been mentioned previously. * This question was asked of companies and retailers.
6 bonus points. The points do not count towards the overall score but are used to determine the winners of the gender award.