METHODOLOGY
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
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.
companies assessed
in North America
United States of America
companies assessed
in Europe
Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom
companies assessed
in Asia
India, Japan, Malaysia
companies assessed
in Africa
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
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:
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.
Traceability and Transparency
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.
Living Income
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
Child Labor
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.
Deforestation and Climate
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.
Agroforestry
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.
Pesticides
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
Leading in policy and practice 
Progressing in policy and practice 
Needs improvement in policy and practice 
Trailing in policy and practice 
Lacks transparency 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 and Transparency
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)
% Direct:
Less than 50% = 0 pts
Less than 60% = 1 pt
Less than 75% = 2 pts
75% or more = 3 pts
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
For credible program:
Over 50% = 1 pt
Over 75% = 2 pt
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
96-100%: 3 points
91-95%: 2 points
86-90%: 1 point
0-85%: 0 points
76-100%: 3 points
61-75%: 2 points
41-60%: 1 point
0-40%: 0 points
61-100%: 3 points
46-60%: 2 points
31-45%: 1 point
0-30%: 0 points
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
71-100%: 3 points 51-70%: 2 points 31-50%: 1 point 0-30%: 0 points
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
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
Yes as a gender strategy = 2pts
yes if mentioned in overall strategy = 1 pt
no = 0 pts
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
No = 0
Yes = 1
None = 0 points
1 or more = 1 point
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
Companies: 11 pts
Small companies: 10 pts
Retailers: 8 pts
(20% of total score for this section)
Living Income
Yes = 3 pts
Yes (no evidence) = 0 pts
No/Unknown/No answer = 0 pts
- 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
This question is not scored.
Maximum 0 points.
Refer to Q1.16 for the total number of Tier 1 suppliers.
100% = 2 pts
1-99% = 1 pt
0% = 0 pts
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
Yes, if implemented already = max 5 pts
yes, if credible and with target date = 4 pts
No = 0 pts
Above 50%: = 3 pts
Above 30% = 2 pts
Above 1% = 1 pt
0% = 0 pts
Above 50%: = 2 points
Above 1% = 1 pt
0% = 0 pts
Points will also be given for Organic certificaiton.
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
Validation question (to validate Q2.9)
Yes = 2 points
No, but we are investigating = 1 point
No = 0 points
Yes (publicly available) = 5 pts
Yes (not publicly available) = 3 pts
No = 0 pts
Companies: 7 pts
Small companies: 7 pts
Retailers: 7 pts
(20% of total score for this section)
Child Labor
Yes (with evidence) = 3 points
Yes (no evidence or misunderstanding of eliminating child labor) = 0 pts
No = 0 pts
Yes (with evidence) = 5 points
Yes (no evidence or misunderstanding of eliminating child labor) = 0 pts
No = 0 pts
Yes and URL link provided = 3 points
Yes but no evidence = 1 point
No = 0 points
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
No points. Used for validation.
Only score points if this shows impact, not effort.
Any points to be added to the wild card question.
% 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.
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.
If answered with a credible number = 5 pts
If not answered = 0 pots
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
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.
Yes and credible = 5 points
No = 0 points
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.
Yes and URL link provided = 2 points
Yes but no evidence = 1 point
No = 0 points
Companies: 11 pts
Small companies: 9 pts
Retailers: 8 pts
Worth more than 20% for retailers because retailers were not asked many questions
Deforestation and Climate
Yes with evidence = 3 points.
Yes without evidence = 0 pts
No = 0 points
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
Refer to Q1.16 for the total number of Tier 1 suppliers.
0% = 0
>0-25% = 1
>25-75% = 2
>75-100% = 3
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
80-100% = 3 points
60-79% = 2 points
40-59% = 1 point
< 39% = 0 points
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
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.
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
Yes - remote sensing = 3 pts
Yes - waypoint mapping and/or
Yes - Polygon mapping = 1 pt
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
% 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
Yes with evidence = 3 pts
Yes without evidence = 0 pts
No = 0 pts
Yes with evidence = 3 pts
Yes without evidence = 0 pts
No = 0 pts
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
Yes with evidence = 3 points
Yes without evidence = 0 pts
No = 0 points
Companies: 13 pts
Small companies: 12 pts
Retailers: 12 pts
(20% of total score for this section)
Agroforestry
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pesticides
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
Yes (published policy) = 3 pts
Yes (no evidence) = 0 pts
No = 0 pts
Confectionery: 2 pts.
If one or more others are included: add 2 pts
Max 4 pts
Refer to Q1.16 for the total number of Tier 1 suppliers.
0% = 0
>0-25% = 1
>25-75% = 2
>75-100% = 3
Evaluated for a mix of compliance (eg certified organic, audits) and support (eg technical expertise, dialogue, etc).
Maximum 3 pts
- 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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
0.5 points for each topic mentioned.
Round the total to the nearest whole number (integer).
0.5 points for each topic mentioned.
Round the total to the nearest whole number (integer).
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
Companies: 7 pts
Small companies: 4 pts
Retailers: 5 pts
(20% of total score for this section)