Cranswick PLC
CWK:LN GB0002318888
Key Information
HQ:
United Kingdom
Market Cap:
$1.99bn
Primary Market:
Europe & Russia
Company Information
Company Summary
Cranswick is a British-based producer of fresh pork (32%) and poultry (11%), as well as convenience and gourmet products, including beef. Around three-quarters of its revenues come from retail customers, primarily through their own-label products.
Revenue
Total revenue:
$2.6bn
Revenue by Geography
Revenue by Protein
Revenue by Product Type
Disclosures
CDP ScoresLast Reviewed: 11/10/2023
| CDP Climate | CDP Forests | CDP Water |
|---|---|---|
| Yes | Yes | Yes |
Science Based Target initiativeLast Reviewed: 03/10/2023
| Target classification | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|
| 1.5°C | Targets Set | 2021 |
Coller FAIRR Protein Producer Index
Analysis Overview
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Deforestation & Biodiversity Water Use & Scarcity Waste & Pollution Antibiotics Animal Welfare Working Conditions Food Safety Sustainability Governance Alternative Proteins
Analysis Breakdown
Risk Score
65/100
Low Risk
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
71/100
Scope 1, 2 & 3 Target
65/100
Type of Target
The company discloses its 2030 Science-Based Targets to reduce its Scope 1 and 2 operations by 50% and Scope 3 value chain, including purchased goods and services and upstream leased assets, by 50% per tonne sold. The company's Scope 3 emissions amount to approximately 96% of its total emissions (2,503,825 metric tonnes CO2e). Therefore, it is required to include Scope 3 emissions in its science-based targets. It discloses that methane emissions are included in the target boundaries, and no evidence was found that the company has a specific methane emission reduction target.
0/0
Strength of Target - SBT
The company has SBTi-aligned targets to reduce its Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, and the targets disclosed are aligned with the 1.5C scenario. It states that it is working towards a future SBTi-verified Net Zero target.
3.25/5
Innovation on GHG Emission Reduction
54/100
Innovation to Reduce Agriculture Emissions
The company has launched its 'Second-Nature' (SN) Agricultural Committee, which identifies climate challenges surrounding the feed supply. It is involved in trials with the government and suppliers to minimise emissions from agricultural activities under the Defra Environmental Land Management Scheme. In addition, all of its direct suppliers have received a survey to complete to enable us to understand where suppliers currently sit on various sustainability touchpoints.
0.7/1
Feed Farming Innovation
The company recognises the carbon impact of feed and transitioned to full mass balance RTRS-certified soya for its chicken feed, resulting in a 28% reduction in carbon emissions from their chicken farms. It states that it is trialling sunflower meal and field beans as a less GHG emission-intensive alternative to soy.
1/2
Animal Farming Innovation
The company is developing a low-carbon plan for its outdoor pigs. It trialled planting covering crops, and grass clover lay when the land was not actively used for livestock. It also targets non-mechanical agricultural emissions as a key area to target to achieve net zero.
1/2
Quality of GHG Inventory
85/100
Quality and scope of GHG inventory Completeness
In FY22, the company reported its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions (location-based) as 80,067 t CO2-eq and 33,499 t CO2-eq, respectively. It reports its Scope 3 emissions, which totalled 2,621,111 t CO2-eq, in its CDP response.
1.5/1.5
Feed & Animal Farming Emissions
In 2022/23, Scope 1 emissions were reported as 80,067 t CO2-eq, including non-mechanical agricultural emissions. It discloses its methane emissions from Scope 1 emissions as 21,185 m-t CO2-eq, and its reported Scope 3 emissions from purchased goods and services, including emissions from livestock, as 867,322 t CO2-eq. It reports its Scope 3 emissions from feed production as 549,683 t CO2-eq. It does not produce feed in its operations, so all feed-related emissions fall in the Scope 3 category. It mentions that land-use change emissions do not apply to its operations.
2/2
Transparency of GHG Inventory
The company responded to the CDP Climate Change questionnaire in FY22. PwC has audited the company's Scope 1 and 2 emissions data. However, it clearly states in its CDP Climate disclosure that a third party does not yet verify Scope 3 emissions.
0.75/1.5
Emissions Performance
90/100
Overall Emission Performance
The company reports an absolute reduction in its Scope 1 and 2 emissions from 122,378 in 2021/22 to 113,566 in 2022/23 (i.e., by 7.20%.) It discloses it reduced emissions from chicken farms by 28% due to switching its feed to 100% mass-balanced RTRS soy.
4.5/5
Climate-related Scenario Analysis
60/100
Climate-related Scenarios Analysis Conducted
The company discloses that in FY22, it conducted a climate scenario analysis to understand the effects of a 1.5°C and 4°C global warming trajectory. Further, in FY23, it assessed every operational site for sea level rise and flood risk under two different climate scenarios, 2°C and 4°C.
1/1
Disclosure of Analysis Results on Material Risks
The company considers the climate-related risk of increasing resource scarcity and price volatility of feed ingredients. It is working with suppliers to create sourcing plans to secure the supply of raw materials and review alternatives for key crops for use in animal feed. It considers the climate-related risk of increasing heat stress and mortality of animals. It mentions some response actions such as ventilation systems, evaporative cooling, misting systems, which can reduce temperatures by 4°C, and insulated huts to manage airflow. It discusses expected increases in energy prices and has discussed increasing its use of renewable energy and improving energy efficiencies to address this. It discusses that governments should increase carbon pricing and energy taxes to encourage carbon reduction. Further, it discloses several current and proposed projects that can potentially mitigate future carbon price increases.
2/3
Disclosure of Financial Material Events & Alignment of CAPEX
The company's disclosure on capital expenditure does not indicate that sustainability criteria are considered a policy. Its disclosure has weakened between reporting periods.
0/1
Deforestation & Biodiversity
71/100
Deforestation/Conversion-free Target - Soy for Animal Feed
90/100
Risk Assessment to Identify High-risk Locations
The company states that soya is procured to be included in animal feed. It uses soy in the form of soybean meal and other soy derivatives. The percentage of procurement spent on soy is 1-5%. Furthermore, the company discloses that 91-99% of its revenue is dependent on soy, as it is a key component of animal feed used in its own and external protein production. It discloses that soy is sourced from the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina, with Brazil and Argentina both being high-risk regions with regard to deforestation. The company states that it is transitioning towards 100% verified deforestation and conversion-free soya for use as feed on its farms. This year, it discloses that 100% of soy in its poultry feed was mass balance RTRS certified soya. All of the soy in its pig feed is regional mass balance RTRS certified soya, and it is aiming to have 100% of soy used in pig feed to be full mass balance RTRS certification by 2023. Despite this, the company does not disclose that 100% of its soy is from deforestation-free regions or suppliers. It provides details of risks identified with the potential to have a substantive financial or strategic impact on its business with respect to soy and discusses its risk mitigation strategy. However, the risk assessment does not identify all high-risk locations.
0.25/0.5
Strength of Deforestation Commitment
The company provides a public commitment to switching animal feed to 100% verified deforestation and conversion-free soya by 2025. It also has a target to source from verified zero-deforestation areas by 2025. The company has joined the UK Soy Manifesto and is committed to removing deforestation and habitat destruction from UK soy supply chains by 2025. Further, the cut-off date for all signatories is January 2020.
2/2
Regional & Operational Coverage of Commitment
The company aims to source from verified zero deforestation areas by 2025. Therefore, its commitment applies to all sourcing regions. The company is working with suppliers to increase the transition of all of the feed used on its farms to 100% verified deforestation and conversion-free soya.
1.25/1.25
Transparency - Progress Against Commitment
The company discloses that in FY22, 100% of the soy used in its poultry feed was mass balance RTRS certified. Since the company's soybean supply is RTRS-certified, this information has been audited. The company has also disclosed data in the CDP Forests 2022.
1/1.25
Engagement, Monitoring & Traceability - Soy for Animal Feed
52/100
Supplier Engagement
The company is committed to ensuring that its supply chain is made aware of the impact of soya on deforestation in particular areas of South America. Further, it is committed to engaging with its suppliers to make progress and embed sustainability. The company states that it is involved in multi-partnership and stakeholder initiatives like the Cerrado Working Group (GTC) and the UK Roundtable on Sustainable Soy. Cranswick is also a supporter of the Government Round Table on sustainable soya and a signatory to the Statement of Support for the Cerrado Manifesto.
1.25/1.25
Compliance monitoring & Traceability
The company is working with its direct soy suppliers. It monitors compliance with the forests-related policies, commitments, and other requirements by issuing a sustainability pledge and questionnaire to 500 soy suppliers in 2021. The questionnaire covered general sustainability issues, including those relating to forest risk commodities. The company has managed to trace 100% of procured soya to locations of origin. However, it is currently unable to ascribe a % value to each individual location. The countries of origin are the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina.
1.1/3.25
Feed Innovation
The company is assessing options to replace soya from livestock diets with sunflower meal and field beans.
0.25/0.5
Water Use & Scarcity
42/100
Water Use & Scarcity in Facilities
66/100
Monitoring Water Consumption & Withdrawals
The company has conducted a water risk assessment using the WRI Aqueduct Tool and found that two of its operational sites are in areas of water stress. Water withdrawals and operational sites are assessed using the WRI Aqueduct and WWF Water Risk Filter Tools to identify areas of water stress. The results disclose that only 1/18 of its production facilities are considered to have potential exposure to water risk. The company reports its water consumption. It reports investing in initiatives to help conserve and reuse water across all operations. Further, it is investigating water recycling technology at pig farms.
0.65/0.75
Target to Reduce Water Consumption & Withdrawals
The company discloses its target to reduce water intensity by 25% by 2025 at all of its manufacturing sites against a 2020 baseline. Furthermore, the company reports that it has currently reduced 6.7% of water intensity against a 2020 baseline.
0.5/1
Disclosure & Performance of Water Risks in Facilities
The company discloses that its water is sourced from groundwater and third-party sources (i.e., a utility provider). It discloses that 1.9% of the total water withdrawn and 0.6% of the total water consumed was from an area of high baseline water stress. It discloses a decline of water-related CAPEX by 82% and states this was due to the previous year's expenditure being high due to growth within the business. The company discloses that water-related OPEX has increased by 13% in the last reporting period. Water usage is monitored through internal and third-party certification audits and the company disclosed data to CDP Water in 2022. The company's absolute water usage has increased year-on-year. However, the water intensity has reduced by 2.3% year-on-year due to investment in initiatives to help conserve and reuse water across operations.
2.16/3.25
Water Use & Scarcity in Feed Farming
10/100
Supplier Engagement in Water Use in Feed Farming
The company aims to communicate the expectations for good water stewardship to its supply chain, including setting water reduction targets. It is part of an oversight panel of the WRAP Water Stewardship Roadmap that looks to explore risks associated with water management. However, it is unclear if this includes feed supply.
0.5/2.5
Disclosure of Water Risks in Feed Farming
The company discloses that it is working with the Soy Transparency Coalition to provide more visibility of its soy supply chain, thereby enabling reporting of data relating to feed sourced from water-stressed areas. However, the company does not currently report this information. It does disclose that less than 1% of its contractors and producers are located in areas of high or extremely high baseline water stress. However, it is unclear if this includes external feed suppliers. The company discloses that it is aiming to diversify the plant raw materials used in its animal feed, reducing reliance on soy and wheat. However, this does not seem to have the aim of improving water efficiency.
0/2.5
Water Use & Scarcity in Animal Farming
50/100
Supplier Engagement in Water Use in Animal Farming
The company has a Group Water Policy in which it discloses its strategy to address water scarcity, including in its own farming operations. However, the company does not have a target specifically for its animal farming operations.
1.5/3
Disclosure of Water Risks in Animal Farming
The company has signed up for the WRAP Water Roadmap with the aim of increasing fresh food sourced from areas with sustainable water management, including the internal supply chain.
1/2
Waste & Pollution
21/100
Wastewater at Facilities
35/100
Disclosure & Targets for Wastewater Quality & Volume Discharged
The company discloses that during FY23, there were zero incidents of non-compliance with water quality permits, standards and regulations. It discloses the use of the WRI Aqueduct tool. However, it states that it only evaluates this risk from the perspective of baseline water stress and depletion.
0.5/1.5
Transparency on Water Pollution Risks
The company reports the volume of wastewater discharged in the reporting year. This includes all effluent/wastewater discharged onsite and off-site. The company has responded to the 2022 CDP Water Security questionnaire, however, It does not verify any water-related information that it reports.
0.75/2
Performance on Wastewater Quality & Volume Discharged
The company's wastewater discharge decreased in the reporting year. Notably, the company discloses that this reduction was due to an issue with the treatment plant at one of its sites, meaning a greater volume had to be directly discharged off-site.
0.5/1.5
Nutrient Management in Feed Farming
12/100
Supplier Engagement in Nutrient Pollution Risks
The company discusses soil health and regenerative practices and is part of an initiative that addresses policies for more sustainable crop rotations. However, it is unclear whether this is implemented within the company's feed production.
0/4
Innovation to Improve Nutrient Management in Feed Farming
The company states that regenerative farming is vital to continue producing food sustainably. The company is involved in a supply chain pilot with DEFRA, Natural England and WWF to trial sustainable farming approaches. One of the trials being undertaken involves rotational grazing of pigs, and as such, this is linked to feed farming.
0.6/1
Manure Management in Animal Farming
15/100
Disclosure of Pollution Risks from Manure
The company discloses that all animal litter and manure from its pigs are managed according to a nutrient management plan. ‘Straw for muck’ arrangements are used, which ensures local arable farmers utilise manure for their crops.
0.25/1.25
Supplier Engagement in Manure Management
It is unclear whether the company requires nutrient management plans from the animal suppliers it sources from.
0.3/1.5
Innovation to Improve Nutrient Management in Animal Farming
The company does not integrate nutrient management performance into incentive schemes for farmers. It does not discuss innovation in manure or provide evidence of a community engagement plan in relation to pollution.
0.18/2.25
Antibiotics
80/100
Policy on Antibiotics Use
100/100
Policy on Antibiotics Use
The company commits to a comprehensive antibiotics policy aligned with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidelines, restricting the use of highest priority critically important antibiotics (HP-CIAs) under stringent conditions and prohibiting routine use including growth promotion. It is also committed to the continual revision and enforcement of its antimicrobial policies. Furthermore, it undertakes measures such as biosecurity and vaccination protocols to diminish disease incidence, reduce animal confinement, and routine procedures including castration, tail docking, and teeth clipping. The company also commits to providing appropriate living conditions and environmental enrichment for each species.
5/5
Disclosure of Quantity of Antibiotics Used
59/100
Disclosure of Quantity of Antibiotics Used
The company reports that its average antibiotic use for the period 2022-2023 was 57.1mg/pcu in pig farming and 6.7mg/pcu in poultry farming, both figures significantly below industry standards. It notes a decrease in antibiotic usage in poultry farms from 13.92mg/pcu in 2021/22 to 6.7mg/pcu in 2022/23. However, antibiotic use in pig farms increased from 47.4mg/pcu in the 2021/22 period to 57.1mg/pcu in 2022/23, attributed to labour and supply chain issues. Despite this increase, the company's antibiotic usage remains below industry averages of 87mg/pcu for pigs and 14mg/pcu for poultry.
2.95/5
Animal Welfare
78/100
Animal Welfare Policy
92/100
Welfare Policy
The company commits to the Five Freedoms in its animal welfare policy and extends this commitment across operations and supply chains. It also promotes animal welfare training for all staff. In the case of a policy breach, it has protocols to work with suppliers or cease trading. Additionally, it collaborates with customers and suppliers to address animal welfare in pig and poultry chains, and has established three concept farms for welfare-focused research.
2/2
Key Welfare Issues
The company commits to preventing close confinement across all species and ensures 100% crate-free pork from its owned farms. It also commits to avoiding routine procedures like tail docking and teeth clipping on pigs and beak trimming on poultry. Transport times for all livestock are capped at eight hours, and pre-stunning prior to slaughter is standard. Furthermore, it mandates environmental enrichment for various species across its supply chain.
2.6/3
Assurance & Certification
66/100
Auditing & Assurance by an Animal Welfare Organisation
The company discloses that in its pork operations, supplying approximately 50% of its pork, 79% is certified to RSPCA standards and 100% to Red Tractor standards. The company discloses that all its poultry production aligns with Red Tractor standards. The company discloses that all of its poultry and pork production align with Red Tractor standards, categorised as a 'low-tier' programme.
3.07/4
Public Reporting on Welfare
The company has annually reported animal welfare outcome measures such as Dead on Arrivals, lameness, slips/falls, and body lesions since 2016 and cites improvement in body lesions in 2022. However, the data is only disclosed up to 2020, and no updated figures were released during the reporting period.
0.25/1
Performance on Key Material Risks
76/100
Performance on Key Material Welfare Risks by Protein
The company discloses that 100% of its pork and 96% from suppliers are crate-free and commits to avoiding tail docking, though only 30% of supplied pigs comply. It also commits to eliminating pig castration, with 70% of European pork meeting this criterion. Furthermore, 2.3% of laying hens and all ducks are free from mutilations, and it endorses environmental enrichment for pig suppliers. All poultry meet Red Tractor standards, and the company commits to 100% effective stunning before slaughter. However, standards are not universally applied, the stunning method remains undisclosed, and there is no mention of higher welfare breeds.
3.81/5
Working Conditions
54/100
Human Rights
40/100
Strength of Policy
The company commits in writing to uphold human rights per the United Nations (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Labour Organization (ILO) Core Conventions on labour standards, working hours and health and safety for workers.
1/1
Due Diligence Process
The company discloses that it identifies and mitigates slavery and human trafficking risks. The company states that all of its sites undergo unannounced SEDEX Ethical Trade Audits every other year, and these are supported by the company's annual ethical verification audits conducted by an Internal Social Systems Auditor. In addition, the company utilises a mapping tool to categorise suppliers by risk level. However, these assessments only cover slavery and human trafficking risks, and there is no information regarding a human rights due diligence process protecting all other human rights.
To mitigate risk, the company provides employees with information, guidance, training and equipment on issues related to human rights, modern slavery, and human trafficking. However, the company does not discuss how to provide remediation or implement mitigation procedures in response to an identified risk.
1/3
Evidence of Remediation
The company does not disclose whether it has identified any human rights risks in its operations through human rights due diligence
0/1
Fair Working Conditions
77/100
Policy for Direct Operations
The company commits in writing to prohibit forced labour, child labour, inhumane treatment and discrimination in its operations and requires suppliers to comply with these commitments. However, the company does not discuss if it ensures its employees are paid a living wage. All company sites undergo SMETA audits. These globally recognised social audits are widely used and cover all selected policies.
2.1/3
Monitoring & Discosure
The company discloses that suppliers are monitored continuously through the Group Technical Services (GTS) team or third-party audits, such as the Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (SEDEX) and BRCGS Food Safety Standard.
The company describes grievance mechanisms available for employees and external stakeholders, allowing anonymous reporting. However, it does not mention involving employees or their representatives in the design or evaluation of the channel. The company reports that 14 whistleblowing reports were received by the independently operated hotline during the reporting period. It states these were predominantly related to human resource-related matters but does not categorise them further.
1.75/2
Safety & Turnover Data
70/100
Committee representation of workers
The company has a health and safety policy, and all its sites are accredited to the ISO45001 Health and Safety Management system. The company supports a framework for employees that includes site-based health and safety committees, committee meetings held at least quarterly, and appointed representatives from recognised trade unions under the safety representatives and safety committees where required. However, it does not disclose the portion of facilities/sites with health and safety committees with worker representatives. Further, the company's Group Antimicrobial Resistance Policy does not discuss risk for its workforce.
0.75/2
Disclosure of safety and turnover data
The company discloses its reporting of injuries, diseases and dangerous occurrences regulations (RIDDOR) frequency rate per 100,000 hours to be 0.24 in 2023, an improvement compared to 2022, where the RIDDOR reported was 0.27. In addition, the company discloses that the fatality rate was zero in both the reporting and the previous year.
The company also reports that the average employee turnover rate has increased from 2.91% to 3.34% since the prior year due to increased labour competition. However, it does not provide a breakdown of turnover by seniority level or whether it is at the factory/corporate level.
2.75/3
Freedom of Association
30/100
Strength of Policies
The company respects its employees' right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. However, it does not disclose a unionisation rate. The company also expects suppliers to respect their employees' right to collective bargaining and freedom of association. However, this is not an explicit requirement.
1/3
Disclosure of Collective Bargaining Metrics
While the company provides a basic statement on collective bargaining rights, it does not disclose the percentage of its workforce covered by collective bargaining agreements. Moreover, the company does not disclose the distribution of its workforce across existing contractual agreements.
0.5/2
Food Safety
78/100
Food Safety System
70/100
Certifications
The company discloses that the GFSI certification used across facilities is BRCGS. It reports that 19 of 22 facilities have received a BRC grade of A or above. Therefore, it is clear that the majority of its facilities are GFSI-certified. Its new acquisitions were also audited by BRC and received grades A and AA. Further, it discloses that suppliers are approved through GTS audits or independent third-party audits, such as the BRCGS. It reports that 100% of its animal protein suppliers are certified to a GFSI programme. However, it does not explicitly require its suppliers to obtain this. Further, none of its independent producers are certified to a GFSI programme. As it does not provide the total number of suppliers and categorisation between animal protein suppliers and independent producers, the exact proportion of suppliers certified by GFSI certification is unclear.
2.5/3.5
Performance
The company discloses that 17 production facilities were audited against the BRCGS Food Safety standard. In FY23, 384 internal audits were carried out across the Group compared to 481 in FY22. The rate for major and minor non-conformances was reported as 0 and 3.35, respectively. The corrective action rate for major non-conformances is zero, and for minor non-conformances is 100%. Further, it has introduced a new Cranswick Manufacturing Standard (CMS) that ensures greater consistency in the safety, traceability, quality, and provenance of raw ingredients and manufacturing processes. It embeds the CMS across all of its production sites so that they automatically comply with any new customer specifications or standards. However, it is still being determined whether this technology is available for end consumers.
1/1.5
Product Recalls & Market Bans
85/100
Product Recall Systems
The company recognises food safety incidents as material, as those incidents could lead to product recall costs, reputational damage, and regulatory penalties. It has a crisis management procedure and has introduced Food Safety and Quality Committees at sites with representatives from all functions and shifts. The company is encouraged to disclose full details regarding its product recall system. There were two food safety-related recalls in FY23 and one in FY22. It reveals that its product recall of 284.8kg in 2022 led to lower revenue from the Cooked Poultry business unit. However, net of mitigation, the recall did not have a material impact on the company's results. Further, it states that the total number of audits conducted in FY23 is less compared to FY22, due to additional support required to one of its sites following the FY22 recall incident. In response to the recalls, it states it has implemented additional food safety checks, streamlined internal communication channels and created additional internal training programmes.
2.25/3
Performance
The company reports that there were no market bans during the reporting year, and none were detected in the media screening.
2/2
Sustainability Governance
92/100
Assessment of a Company's Sustainability Governance
92/100
Board Sustainability
The company discloses that the board oversees its sustainability strategy and objectives. The company discloses that it has conducted a risk assessment and discloses its principal risks based on high likelihood and impact, which the board reviews. Some main risks identified and mapped include reliance on key customers and exports, disease and infection within livestock, cyber security, consumer demand, and climate change. The company has also undertaken an individual materiality assessment dedicated solely to climate-related risks and plots risks by risk impact and whether the risk is short, medium or long-term. The company disclose board-level expertise in sustainability, food safety and innovation.
2/2
Incentives & Policy Engagement
The company discloses linking Executive Directors' long-term incentives with emissions, energy, and water intensity targets and the percentages of variable remuneration related to these target areas.
The company reports that through multi-stakeholder partnerships, it engages with various non-governmental organisations (NGOs) at the national and local levels and strategic partners, including retailers, food companies and universities, to help set policies, improve industry standards and develop innovative solutions. The topics of engagement range from climate action, tackling plastic and food waste, zero deforestation, sustainable farming, animal welfare, and responsible use of antibiotics. The company also discusses trade association memberships and states that it actively engages with BMPA and that this association involves engaging with governments on climate change in alignment with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
2.1/2.5
Innovation & Benchmarking
The company aims to remove plastics from the packaging through streamlining and materials innovation. Additionally, the company is investing in technology and innovative processing techniques to tackle issues such as food waste and energy efficiency. The company also discloses that this year, it has been ranked first in the second annual edition of The Better Food Index, which ranks the performance of UK food companies based on their social and environmental impact.
0.5/0.5
Alternative Proteins
5/100
Diversification of Products to Alternative Protein Sources
5/100
Existing product portfolio
The company acknowledges that consumers' shifting dietary trends may reduce demand for core products as they become more aware of the environmental impacts. This is recognised as a climate-related business risk. It is responding by offering alternative protein options to meet changing customer requirements. However, it has not yet set a timebound target to diversify protein sources, nor does it report sales/revenue linked to alternative protein sources.
0.25/2.5
Investing for future growth
In FY22, the company acquired two UK-based European vegan cuisine businesses to expand its non-meat offering alongside its Cranswick Mediterranean Foods business. These include Ramona’s Kitchen, a Mediterranean plant-based dips and foods supplier, and Atlantica UK, which imports continental produce such as tortillas and pastes. However, it is not clear whether these brands offer non-animal-based products that directly substitute and/or mimic animal protein or ingredients.
0/2.5
Members-only Content
To register as a member of the FAIRR network, please fill out the sign up form or if you need additional information on the FAIRR network, please contact investoroutreach@fairr.org.
Workstream Information
2023 Risk Score:
65/100
Level:
Low Risk
Ranking:
5/60
Main Protein:
Pork
Assessed Proteins:
Poultry and eggs, Pork
Company Feedback Given:
Yes
Last Updated:
31 October 2023
2023 Resources
2023/24 Index Report Summary (Mandarin) 报告总结摘要（中文） Launch of the Coller FAIRR Protein Producer Index 2023/24 2023/24 Company Dialogue Questions 2023/24 Full Report Coller FAIRR Protein Producer Index
Coller FAIRR Climate Risk Tool
Analysis Overview
Cost Increase
Cost Increase
EBIT Margin
Cost Increase (%)
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
Net Zero Aligned
BAU
High Climate Impact
Cost Breakdown
| 2030 | Net zero aligned | BAU | High climate impacts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Costs | 2% | 9% | 8% |
| Carbon Tax | 2% | 3% | 2% |
| Feed | 0% | 6% | 6% |
| Feed Additives | N/A | N/A | 0% |
| Heat Stress | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 2050 | Net zero aligned | BAU | High climate impacts |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Costs | 1% | 8% | 18% |
| Carbon Tax | 2% | 4% | 4% |
| Feed | -1% | 4% | 13% |
| Feed Additives | N/A | N/A | 0% |
| Heat Stress | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Members-only Content
To register as a member of the FAIRR network, please fill out the sign up form or if you need additional information on the FAIRR network, please contact investoroutreach@fairr.org.
Workstream Information
Last Updated:
5 April 2023
2023/24 Resources
Climate Risk Tool Walkthrough 2023 Public Report 2023 (English) Public Report 2023 (Mandarin) Coller FAIRR Climate Risk Tool
Working Conditions Engagement
Analysis Overview
Grievance Mechanisms Economic Incentives Distribution by Contract Type Oversight of Governance Structure Support Worker Representation Engage Workers on Industry Trends
Analysis Breakdown
Health & Safety
Low
Grievance Mechanisms - Availability & Access
The company discloses it has a whistleblowing hotline open to employees and third parties, which is operated by a third party, Safecall. Anonymous reporting is permitted, and the mechanism is available online or via telephone, 24/7 and in multiple languages. The company also reports taking steps to publicise the availability of the mechanism to employees but does not provide details of these steps.
The company’s whistleblowing policy also details that grievances can be raised internally through a line manager, senior manager or the HR department.
Good
Grievance Mechanisms - Effectiveness & Evaluation
Cranswick reports conducting an internal review of its whistleblowing procedures but does not clarify if this was part of a regular evaluation process or a one-time review. The company also runs an annual group-wide staff survey with an engagement rate of 80% in FY2022. However, it is not evident from public disclosure whether this survey includes any points on the effectiveness of grievance mechanisms.
Low
Grievance Mechanisms - Categories & Reporting
The company reports grievances received but does not disclose a breakdown by type of grievance. In 2022, the independently operated hotline received 14 whistleblowing reports, predominantly on human resource matters. While whistleblowers can report across 18 categories of grievance, the company does not provide a categorisation breakdown of the whistleblowing cases received.
Low
Grievance Mechanisms - Channels for H&S and Worker Rights
The group's internal and external channels reportedly include health and safety risks. However, the policy is not clear that worker rights concerns can be reported through the channel.
Partial
Grievance Mechanisms - Resolution Process
The company provides a detailed description of its Whistleblowing Line resolution process, including parties involved, following a case reported through internal channels, i.e. directly to a senior manager or HR manager. The company also outlines in what instance the whistleblowing line may be used instead of this internal channel.
Good
Economic Incentives - Sick Pay Entitlement
The company does not publicly disclose information on its sick pay policy.
Did Not Find
Economic Incentives - Other Economic Incentives
The company does not disclose the other economic incentives it makes available to workers.
Did Not Find
Fair Working Conditions
Partial
Distribution by Contract Type
The company states it has over 13,700 workers and is working to reduce its reliance on agency workers. However, it does not disclose metrics on the distribution of its workforce across the different types of employment contracts.
Low
Oversight of Governance Structure
Cranswick’s public reporting indicates that its Audit Committee review quarterly reports of Whistleblowing Line cases and that the Board reviews these metrics annually. The Board also reviews reports from the Non-Executive Directors on workforce engagement. The company does not publicly disclose the specific metrics discussed in these reports.
Partial
Worker Representation
Low
Support Worker Representation - Internal & External Structures
Board-level representation
The company discloses that workers are indirectly represented at the Board level through engagement with Work Councils and regular site visits. Cranswick’s Board undertook several site visits during 2022 to engage with its workforce. Non-executive directors also undertake individual site visits where they are encouraged to engage directly with workers at all levels, following which they report back to the Board. The company is looking to expand these visits through its new designated non-executive director, Yetunde Hofmann, who will coordinate site visits to go beyond consulting only works councils. The company publicly reports that feedback from workers covered various topics in 2022, including the groups' sustainability strategy and improvements to working facilities. In response to employee feedback on inflationary pressures, the Board also approved a mid-year pay rise, targeting those on lower incomes. In addition, the Board has been involved in reviewing strategies to tackle labour shortages.
Internal committees
Cranswick discloses that internal worker representation is available through works councils which operate on-site. However, it does not report on the number of plants with this structure in place.
Dialogue with trade unions
There is no discussion of external representation through constructive dialogues with trade unions in the company’s public disclosure.
Partial
Support Worker Representation - Restrictions Under Law
The company does not operate in markets where freedom of association is restricted under law.
N/A
Support Worker Representation - Operations in China
N/A
Support Worker Representation - Collective Bargaining
Unlike in 2020, in its 2021 and 2022 disclosures, Cranswick does not acknowledge collective bargaining agreements in its disclosure. The company does not report the collective bargaining agreement coverage of its workforce.
Did Not Find
Engage Workers on Industry Trends - Impact assessment on Employees
Automation
Cranswick continues to invest in automation to combat labour shortages and boost capacity. However, beyond safer working conditions, the company does not assess the impact of automation on its workforce.
Climate risk
Cranswick has a target to be “an operational Net Zero business” by 2040. It also has two SBTi-approved targets to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 50% by 2030 and to reduce Scope 3 emissions by 50% per tonne by 2030. The company does not report assessing the impact of its climate strategies on its workforce.
Low
Engage Workers on Industry Trends - Workforce Engagement
The company reports that workers have raised Cranswick’s climate strategy, Second Nature, for discussion during non-executive director visits. It is not apparent from this disclosure whether the non-executive directors and/or Board members directly raise this topic for a formal consultation with workers.
Cranswick does not disclose whether it engages workers or their representatives in discussions about its automation strategy.
Partial
Engage Workers on Industry Trends - Just Transition
Cranswick does not publicly state its support for a Just Transition in the food sector.
Did Not Find
Members-only Content
To register as a member of the FAIRR network, please fill out the sign up form or if you need additional information on the FAIRR network, please contact investoroutreach@fairr.org.
Workstream Information
YoY Performance:
No Change
Index Working Conditions Score:
54/100
Assessed Proteins:
Poultry & eggs, Pork
Last Updated:
18 March 2024
2023 Resources
Phase 3 | Progress Report Working Conditions Engagement
Waste & Pollution Engagement
Analysis Overview
Risk Assessment Value Chain Coverage Risk Mitigation Circularity Company Engagement
Summary
Cranswick will begin the TNFD process and is likely to disclose the initial results in 2025.
Analysis Breakdown
Risk Assessment
Medium
Coverage of water quality risk assessment
The company conducts a water risk analysis each year for its own direct operations. The company considers both water availability and water quality at a basin/catchment level. The company mentions using different tools such as the WRI Aqueduct tool, WWF Water Risk Filter, as well as internal company methods.
The company discloses only two facilities at risk from water scarcity. Concerning water quality, the company only mentions that declining water quality from its outdoor pig farms can damage the company´s brand. The company mentions contaminated water from direct run-off from farms and the need to adopt soil conservation practices. However, it does not specify regions that are currently at risk from water quality.
The company also mentions it has completed initial biodiversity screening against a 2021 baseline and is undertaking an analysis of soil nutrient levels that support a good habitat for soil micro-organisms.
Transparency and disclosure of water quality indicators
The company discloses monitoring BOD, COD, suspended solids and pH values for each site but doesn't report a company average, or any specific site where emissions exceed the IFC EHD guideline or any other standard. Checking for nitrates and phosphates is done at a few sites but the volumes are not measured. The company does not disclose the concentrations of nutrients in wastewater discharged in priority bodies.
The company discloses in its CDP report that its water related capex increased in 2023, but it doesn't make explicit the share of its £85.1m capex spend allocated to water quality.
There were no incidents of non-compliance in 2022 and 2023.
Recognition of nutrient pollution risk on biodiversity
While the company has not identified areas of high biodiversity value or especially sensitive to nutrient pollution, it does acknowledge that outdoor pig units can cause runoff and contaminate water.
The company discusses biodiversity as a strategy risk and opportunity, and it mentions that it is working with the Rivers Trust on restoration projects. It also discusses the potential impacts of its suppliers on biodiversity from water quality though there is no clear link at present to how this approach drives risk assessments.
Value Chain Coverage
Poor
Inclusion of upstream feed and livestock suppliers in risk assessment
The risk assessment only partially cover its animal suppliers, with a focus on critical supplier sites.
Regarding feed, the company only discloses information about its efforts to overcome transparency challenges in the production of soya when referring to high or extremely high baseline water stress, but the company does not provide more details about it. There is no information about other crops.
The use of fertiliser and manure by feed ingredient suppliers is also not discussed in the company's climate despite its target of cutting relative scope 3 emissions by 50%.
Downstream use of manure by animal feed suppliers
The company mentions using "Straw for muck" arrangements with local farmers to use manure for their crops.
Acknowledgment of regulatory risks
While the company discusses the potential brand damage caused by nutrient pollution from outdoor pig operations, it does not discuss regulation.
Transparency on non-compliance from suppliers
The company conducted 360 supplier audits in 2023 but these are focused on food safety and traceability. There is no indication that the company audits manure storage or compliance with nutrient management plans.
There is no disclosure of non-compliance by suppliers.
Risk Mitigation
Poor
Biogas generation and organic fertilisers from animal waste
The company discloses that it is trialling anaerobic digestion at one poultry processing site and investing in slurry management infrastructure but doesn't disclose the percentage of manure from indoor-raised pigs and poultry receiving some treatment.
Target-setting for water quality
The company does not have a water quality or animal waste target.
The company mentions undertaking surface and groundwater digital mapping across its pig herd breeding units to ensure adequate measures are in place to prevent water run-off and soil erosion. The company explains different measures it aims to implement to decrease the run-off of nutrients. However, the company does not disclose information about locations in areas of high water quality risk and does not mention specific actions for those operations.
Support to third-party suppliers
The company discusses working with its supply chain to address biodiversity loss from water pollution but does not disclose what this consists of. The company discloses that all its own manure is managed under a nutrient management plan through "Straw for muck" agreements but not whether any agronomic support is provided.
The company is trialling diet adjustments, but these are focused on replacing soy exposed to deforestation with certified soy and other ingredients to reduce soy-related emissions.
Circularity
Poor
Pilot projects around nutrient circularity
The company does not disclose this information.
Disclosure of investment in circular solutions
The company does not disclose this information.
Targets to increase share of manure under circular initiatives
The company does not disclose this information.
Company Engagement
Good
Level of company engagement with the coalition
The company provided a response to the investor letter and responded to the engagement questions. The company met with investors within the engagement period. The company did not acknowledge the FAIRR’s assessment and it did not provide feedback.
Members-only Content
To register as a member of the FAIRR network, please fill out the sign up form or if you need additional information on the FAIRR network, please contact investoroutreach@fairr.org.
Workstream Information
2024/25 level
Poor
Index Waste & Pollution Score:
21/100
Assessed Proteins:
Poultry and eggs, Pork
Last Updated:
26 June 2024
2024/25 Resources
Phase 3 | Investor Briefing Pack Waste & Pollution Engagement