The development of ATNI: valuable

lessons

IFPRI

April 19 2013

• What is ATNI?

• ATNI development process

• Lessons learned from other Indexes

• ATNI’s methodology development process

• Evolution and structure of ATNI methodology

• Future plans

Outline

April 2013 2

What is ATNI?

April 2013 3

• The ATNI Global Index rates 25 of the world’s largest food and

beverage (F&B) manufacturers on their approach to addressing

obesity and undernutrition

• Three additional Indexes will rate the 10 largest F&B

manufacturers in India, Mexico and South Africa respectively

• ATNI was developed over a period of 3 years by GAIN, with the

support of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the

Wellcome Trust using an inclusive, international, multi-

stakeholder process

• ATNI is intended to:

• Enable companies to benchmark their own performance

and compare themselves to their peers

• Provide an objective source of information for all

stakeholders to use to evaluate companies’ responses to

two of the world’s most pressing public health challenges

• Indexes will be published every two years to enable companies’

performance to be tracked over time

Key attributes

• Independent of industry

• Objective

• Rigorous

• Multi-stakeholder

• Global and country-specific

focus

ATNI development process

April 2013 4

• Focus established very early on with funders

• Review of other indexes conducted

• ATNI development led by ATNI team based at GAIN over 3-

year period

Malnutrition coverage: Undernutrition and obesity

Global Index: 25 of the world’s largest food and

beverage companies (including

privately held companies)

Type of company: Multinational corporations and regional companies

Stage of supply chain: Food manufacturers only

3 Spotlight Indexes: 10 of the largest companies by F&B

revenue in each market: India,

Mexico, South Africa +

Modeled on existing indexes, capturing best practice

April 2013 5

To build a‘best in class’ index, extensive

research was conducted to learn lessons

from other ratings and rankings

• Over 3 month period at beginning of

development process, ATNI evaluated 32 of

the most relevant rankings, ratings and

indexes, including rankings such as the

Access to Medicine Index

• Evaluated 60 aspects of these indexes

covering 7 key areas and conducted

interviews for more detailed review of 10

indexes

• Origins, mission and purpose

• Funding models and costs

• Stakeholder relationship models

• Methodology

• Research providers

• Communications

• Proposition/business model to

monetise output/provide funding base

Many Indexes are relevant to agriculture/food

security or rate countries

Lessons learned and gaps identified

April 2013 6

• Mission and purpose:

• Often poorly articulated

• Few had a theory of change or impact model; none had set out impact measurement metrics

• Governance:

• Separate two-level governance arrangements best approach for ATNI:

• Independent, multi-stakeholder strategic advisory panel to guide initiative at high level

• Expert input needed from technical specialists to guide development of the methodology

• Build broad stakeholder network as develop the Index; hold engagement meetings as

and when possible/budget allows

• Stakeholder relationships

• Many different models depending on the type of Index

• Essential to think through key stakeholders and appropriate engagement with them early on;

don’t just let them evolve

• For Indexes that evaluate corporates, an investor statement and signatory body very valuable

• Branding, communications and transparency

• Quality of branding and communications very mixed; little use of social media (changed now)

• Poor transparency on development process, governance structure, methodology

• Launches often rushed and an after-thought; done with very small budgets => undermines the

huge work done to develop the Index.

Lessons learned about methodology development

7

Approach

• In reviewing other indexes, focused on

approaches to methodology development

• Aspects evaluated included:

• Frequency of publication

• Level of stakeholder involvement in

methodology development

• Basis of evaluation

- Foundation documents

- Best-practice framework

• Categories of criteria

• Criteria

• Indicators

• Scoring and weighting

• Data collection methods

• Presentation of results

Lessons

•Few involved extensive stakeholder consultation

•Very few initiatives explain the foundation

documents or best-practice framework on which

their methodology is based: critical to credibility

•Need to explain what scoring 100% means; few

initiatives do so

•Recognize that methodology will need to change

over time as practice and knowledge evolves

•Standard structure is commitments / performance

/ transparency and in some cases innovation /

leadership

•Scoring system should be understandable – not

too complex; understand implications of different

scoring and weighting systems

•Note that weighting will always be subjective

•Be transparent on methodology design process,

structure and content: key to credibility. Many

initiatives do not disclose detail

•Wide variety of approaches to presentation of

results

April 2013

ATNI’s Methodology development process

April 2013 8

• Developed by ATNI (not research provider)

• Led by an expert with extensive experience of developing similar indexes

• Based on an extensive global multi-stakeholder process

• Comprised several steps to refine it, including pilot phase

• Took 2 years – fairly standard for these types of initiatives

Methodology and scoring weights

9

Over 170 Indicators are included in the methodology

April 2013

Future plans

10

ATNI has the potential to magnify its impact over time in numerous ways and improve:

• First version of Global Index launched in March 2013; Spotlight Indexes during 2013

• In order to maximize impact:

o Release rankings on a regular basis to track company improvements

o Allow enough time between editions for companies to make meaningful changes

• Constructively engage with companies to augment impact of ranking

• Iterative approach to improving methodology for future versions but maintain most of

initial structure to enable year-on-year comparison

• Regularly monitor impact

• First version of ATNI represents current state of knowledge and consensus

around best practices

• Final report highlights important issues that require further research and/or

consensus building

• Facilitate progress by convening key stakeholders

Facilitate nutrition

‘knowledge agenda’

Publish company

ranking every two

years

Evaluate

opportunities for

growth

• Depending on the nature of stakeholder response and demand, consider

opportunities such as:

o Expanding number of companies evaluated

o Expanding geographic scope (additional Spotlight countries)

o Expanding scope across value chain (upstream suppliers, retailers)

April 2013

Annexes

April 2013 11

• Logic model

• Governance

• Scope design principles and methodology structure

• Ranking and key findings 2013

Annex 1: ATNI Logic Model

April 2013

Serve as an impartial

source of information

for interested

stakeholders

Encourage

improvements in

companies’ policies,

practices and

performance to result

in:

•Greater consumer

access to more

nutritious foods and

beverages

•An environment

facilitating the

consumption of

healthier foods and

beverages through

improvements in areas

such as marketing,

labeling, and package

sizes

Improvement over

time as measured by

company ratings on

subsequent versions

of ATNI

Provide companies a

tool to benchmark

their nutrition

practices

Investors

# of statement signatories and $AUM

Media

# of stories about ATNI and companies

Civil society

# of invitations to make presentations

Policymakers

# of requests for dialogue

Academics

# of times cited in relevant articles

Stimulate dialogue and action

# of interactions between stakeholders

Food and beverage manufacturers

• # of company media interviews

• # of company press releases about ATNI

Outputs Outcomes Activities Impact

Engagement with and uptake by:

(illustrative measures)

Increased market

availability & household

accessibility of healthy

foods and improved

food consumption

environment

Improved diets

Improved nutritional

status

Improved health status

These impacts will

not be directly

attributable to ATNI

but links to impact

may be plausible

Annex 2: Governance

13

Expert Group

Provides technical advice on

methodology for assessing companies

Global Stakeholder Network

Widest possible network of stakeholders,

including those involved in public consultation on Index methodology

Independent Advisory Panel

Provides strategic advice on stakeholder

engagement, institutional considerations

and financial sustainability

ATNI team

Funders

April 2013

Annex 2: Global, multi-stakeholder advisory panels

14

Independent Advisory Panel

Keith Bezanson, Chair

Former President, International Development

Research Centre; Former Director, Institute of

Development Studies

Kelly Brownell

Co-Founder and Director

Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Yale

University

Jean-Pierre Habicht

Professor Emeritus, Nutritional Epidemiology

Cornell University

Nihal Kaviratne CBE

Chairman, AkzoNobel India

Hannah Kettler

Senior Program Officer, Gates Foundation

Shiriki Kumanyika

Professor of Epidemiology

Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology

School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania

Karina Litvack

Head of Governance and Sustainable Investment

F&C Asset Management

David Lynn

Director, Strategic Planning & Policy

Wellcome Trust

John Oliphant

Government Employees Pension Fund, South Africa

Victoria Quinn

Senior Vice President of Programs

Helen Keller International

Juan Rivera

Founding Director

Center for Research in Nutrition and Health

National Institute of Public Health, Mexico

Marie Ruel

Division Director, Poverty, Health, and Nutrition,

IFPRI

Marc Van Ameringen

Executive Director, GAIN

Observer:

Francesco Branca

Director, Department of Nutrition for Health and

Development

World Health Organization

Expert Group

Shiriki Kumanyika, Chair

Professor of Epidemiology

Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology

School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania

Jean-Pierre Habicht, Vice-Chair

Professor Emeritus, Nutritional Epidemiology

Cornell University

Lindsay H. Allen

Director

USDA ARS Western Human Nutrition Research Center

Research Professor

Department of Nutrition, UC Davis

Diederik Basch

Senior Equity Analyst

Sustainable Asset Management AG

Olive Boles

Chief Executive, Leuka

Lauren Compere

Managing Director

Boston Common Asset Management

Terry T-K Huang

Professor and Chair, Department of Health

Promotion, Social & Behavioral Health

University of Nebraska Medical Centre

CS Pandav

Professor and Head

Centre for Community Medicine

All India Institute of Medical Sciences

Mike Rayner

Director, British Heart Foundation Health

Promotion Research Group

April 2013

Design Principles

• Base assessment methodology on international

norms and established best practices where

possible

• Ensure relevance and applicability to a range of

company types

• Identify, reward and spread good practice

• Encourage transparency as well as good practice

• Utilize an inclusive approach, incorporating multi-

stakeholder input

• Recognize current state of knowledge and

continually evolve

Annex 3: Scope and design principles

Out of Scope

• Products that are intended to address acute

undernutrition or other special nutrition needs

• Products that are a part of a formal weight

management program

• Social and environmental issues assessed by

other indexes:

• Food safety

• Water management practices;

• Environmental sustainability, including

sourcing of ingredients;

• Impact on climate change;

• Fair treatment of workers and communities

• Crop breeding (e.g., hybridization and genetic

modification).

April 2013

Annex 3: Corporate Profile methodology structure - detail

16 April 2013

Annex 4: Overall ranking 2013

April 2013 17

Annex 4: Key findings 2013

April 2013 18

• Across the board, the world’s largest food and beverage manufacturers can do substantially more to improve consumers’

access to nutrition

o Only three companies scored above 5.0 on a 10-point scale

o The majority of companies scored below 3.0

• Many companies are now taking at least some action to improve access to nutrition

o Companies are doing the most in the area of incorporating nutrition into their corporate governance and management systems

o Many companies are motivated to act by the business risks associated with nutrition, as well as the opportunity to play a more

active role in addressing nutrition challenges

• Danone, Unilever and Nestlé are the highest-ranking companies

o They have corporate strategies that include explicit commitments to improving nutrition and the corresponding integration of

nutrition considerations into core business activities

o But even their scores demonstrate that there is significant room for improvement

o Danone and Nestlé’s reported lack of compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes is a

significant concern

• Companies’ practices often do not measure up to their commitments

o Companies’ scores on nutrition strategy and governance were higher than their scores on product formulation, accessibility,

and marketing

o Within each of these areas, their level of implementation lagged behind their stated commitments

• Companies could do more to address undernutrition and at a broader scale

o Company scores on undernutrition are significantly lower than those on obesity

o Many companies do not articulate a clear recognition of the role they can play in addressing undernutrition

• Many companies are not very transparent about their nutrition practices

o In particular, the lowest-ranked companies on the Index do not disclose sufficient information on their policies and practices to

evaluate any approaches they may have to nutrition