Landscape analysis of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing metrics for consumer nutrition and health in the food and beverage sector.

Meghan O'Hearn, Julia Reedy, Ella Robinson, Christina Economos, John B Wong, Gary Sacks, Dariush Mozaffarian
Author Information
  1. Meghan O'Hearn: Food Systems for the Future Institute, Chicago, Illinois, USA. ORCID
  2. Julia Reedy: Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  3. Ella Robinson: Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
  4. Christina Economos: Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  5. John B Wong: Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  6. Gary Sacks: Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
  7. Dariush Mozaffarian: Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Abstract

Introduction: The private sector plays a critical role in influencing food choices and health outcomes of consumers. Among private sector actors, investors are a powerful yet underutilised stakeholder for driving scalable public health impact. There are systems to facilitate investors' involvement, notably environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing, which is well placed to include an assessment of business risks to social well-being. However, nutrition efforts within the ESG agenda (ESG-Nutrition) are nascent. We aimed to critically assess the strength of existing ESG-Nutrition metrics to advance the science of measuring business impacts on consumer nutrition and health.
Methods: ESG-Nutrition metrics were extracted from eight ESG frameworks and categorised across four domains: product portfolio healthfulness; product distribution and equity; product marketing and labelling; and nutrition-related governance. The strength of each metric was evaluated and scored 1-3 (best), independently by two researchers, based on six attributes: materiality, objectivity, alignment, activity, resolution and verifiability. The total score (range 6-18) and intercorrelation for each attribute was calculated.
Results: Across 529 metrics, most related to product marketing and labelling (n=230, 43.5%), followed by product healthfulness (n=126, 23.8%), nutrition-related governance (n=108, 20.4%) and product distribution and equity (n=65, 12.3%). Across all metrics, average total score was 10.94 (1.58), with average attribute scoring highest for verifiability (mean: 2.36 (SD: 0.57)), objectivity (2.11 (0.61)) and materiality (2.01 (0.68)) and lowest for activity (1.83 (0.74)), alignment (1.37 (0.67)) and resolution (1.26 (0.65)). Most intercorrelations were null, suggesting attributes were measuring distinct characteristics of each metric. Significant heterogeneity across domains and frameworks was also observed.
Conclusions: This research identifies a range of nutrition-related metrics used in ESG frameworks with respect to food companies, but with substantial heterogeneity in relevant nutrition domains covered and strength of each metric. Efforts are required to improve the quality of metrics across frameworks, establish standardised reporting and align these with investor priorities.

Keywords

References

  1. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018 Apr 01;39:169-188 [PMID: 29328880]
  2. BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Dec 14;4(6):e001882 [PMID: 31908864]
  3. Nat Food. 2021 Oct;2(10):809-818 [PMID: 37117986]
  4. Adv Nutr. 2018 Mar 1;9(2):148-150 [PMID: 29659690]
  5. Public Health Nutr. 2012 Mar;15(3):503-17 [PMID: 22014282]
  6. BMJ. 2020 Mar 17;368:m545 [PMID: 32184211]
  7. JAMA. 2008 Oct 15;300(15):1808-11 [PMID: 18854543]
  8. BMJ. 2018 Jun 13;361:k2426 [PMID: 29898890]
  9. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Nov;6(11): [PMID: 34819325]
  10. Nat Commun. 2022 Nov 22;13(1):7066 [PMID: 36414619]
  11. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2020 Jan;28(1):161-170 [PMID: 31858741]
  12. Front Psychol. 2020 Dec 23;11:577816 [PMID: 33424688]
  13. Health Policy. 2014 Feb;114(2-3):163-73 [PMID: 24309298]
  14. Food Policy. 2021 Feb;99:101983 [PMID: 33767525]
  15. Curr Nutr Rep. 2022 Mar;11(1):39-55 [PMID: 35080755]
  16. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2022 Aug;76(8):1047-1052 [PMID: 35075230]

Grants

  1. R01 HL115189/NHLBI NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0metricsproduct0ESGhealthgovernancenutritionframeworks1sectorfoodsocialESG-Nutritionstrengthacrossnutrition-relatedmetric2privateenvironmentalinvestingbusinessmeasuringconsumerhealthfulnessdistributionequitymarketinglabellingmaterialityobjectivityalignmentactivityresolutionverifiabilitytotalscorerangeattributeAcrossaverageheterogeneitydomainsIntroduction:playscriticalroleinfluencingchoicesoutcomesconsumersAmongactorsinvestorspowerfulyetunderutilisedstakeholderdrivingscalablepublicimpactsystemsfacilitateinvestors'involvementnotablywellplacedincludeassessmentriskswell-beingHowevereffortswithinagendanascentaimedcriticallyassessexistingadvancescienceimpactsMethods:extractedeightcategorisedfourdomains:portfolioevaluatedscored1-3bestindependentlytworesearchersbasedsixattributes:6-18intercorrelationcalculatedResults:529relatedn=230435%followedn=126238%n=108204%n=65123%109458scoringhighestmean:36SD:5711610168lowest837437672665intercorrelationsnullsuggestingattributesdistinctcharacteristicsSignificantalsoobservedConclusions:researchidentifiesusedrespectcompaniessubstantialrelevantcoveredEffortsrequiredimprovequalityestablishstandardisedreportingaligninvestorprioritiesLandscapeanalysisbeveragedietarypatterns

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)