Seaboard Corporation
SEB:US US8115431079
Key Information
HQ:
United States
Market Cap:
$4.51bn
Primary Markets:
Africa, North America, LATAM
Company Information
Company Summary
As an integrated food company, Seaboard Foods is the third-largest US hog producer and fourth-leading pork processor. It produces and sells fresh, frozen and processed pork products to further processors, food service operators, grocery stores, retail outlets and other distributors in the US. Internationally, Seaboard Foods sells to distributors in China, Japan, Mexico and other foreign markets. Seaboard has a 50% non-controlling voting interest in Butterball, one of the largest vertically integrated producers, processors and marketers of branded and non-branded turkey products in the US. The corporation also has an integrated agricultural commodity trading and milling division focused on soybeans, wheat and other commodities.
Revenue
Total revenue:
$9.2bn
Revenue by Geography
Revenue by Protein
Revenue by Product Type
Disclosures
CDP ScoresLast Reviewed: 11/10/2023
| CDP Climate | CDP Forests | CDP Water |
|---|---|---|
| No | No | No |
Science Based Target initiativeLast Reviewed: 03/10/2023
| Target classification | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Has not set SBT | - | - |
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
14/100
High Risk
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
0/100
Scope 1, 2 & 3 Target
0/100
Type of Target
The company is a vertically integrated pork producer primarily producing and selling fresh and frozen pork products to further processors, food service operators, distributors and grocery stores. It has six reportable segments, i.e. Pork, CT&M, Marine, Sugar and Alcohol, Power and Turkey. It also reports producing 70 million gallons of biodiesel from its Food division. However, the company has not yet set a science-based emission reduction target.
0/3
Strength of Target - Non-SBT
The company does not disclose any of its operations' emissions-related targets for Scope 1 and 2. It is a vertically integrated pork producer. However, it purchases animal feed and feed ingredients from third-party suppliers. Emissions from feed would, therefore, be accounted for in Scope 3. However, it does not disclose whether it has set targets to reduce GHG emissions from Scope 3.
0/2
Innovation on GHG Emission Reduction
0/100
Innovation to Reduce Agriculture Emissions
The company does not discuss whether it is working with suppliers to reduce emissions from agriculture.
0/1
Feed Farming Innovation
The company does not engage in innovative projects to reduce or mitigate emissions from feed farming.
0/2
Animal Farming Innovation
The company does not engage in innovative projects to reduce or mitigate emissions from animal farming
0/2
Quality of GHG Inventory
0/100
Quality and scope of GHG inventory Completeness
The company does not disclose any information on GHG emissions.
0/1.5
Feed & Animal Farming Emissions
The company does not disclose any information on GHG emissions from animal farming. The company does not disclose any information on GHG emissions from feed production. The company does not disclose any information on GHG emissions from land use change.
0/2
Transparency of GHG Inventory
The company does not disclose to CDP climate change questionnaire. The company does not disclose the data on GHG inventory is audited by a third party.
0/1.5
Emissions Performance
0/100
Overall Emission Performance
The company does not disclose any information on the emission performance. The company does not disclose a quantitative decrease in emissions arising from feed or enteric fermentation or munure management.
0/5
Climate-related Scenario Analysis
0/100
Climate-related Scenarios Analysis Conducted
The company does not disclose information on a climate-related scenario analysis.
0/1
Disclosure of Analysis Results on Material Risks
The company discusses that fluctuations in commodity pork prices increase the cost of feed components, and the third-party hogs it purchases are driven by matters over which the company has no control, such as weather. These pose a significant risk to the company's finances and overall operations. However, it has yet to carry out a formal climate-related scenario analysis and does not relate this to climate change. The company's seaboard division has a team of veterinarians to guide all the company decisions regarding caring for its pigs. However, there needs to be discussion about the potential increased cost of veterinarians and medicine due to climate change.
0/3
Disclosure of Financial Material Events & Alignment of CAPEX
The company does not disclose its commitment to align capital expenditures with its GHG targets.
0/1
Deforestation & Biodiversity
0/100
Deforestation/Conversion-free Target - Soy for Animal Feed
0/100
Risk Assessment to Identify High-risk Locations
The company does not disclose information related to where soy used in animal feed is sourced and how it manages deforestation risks linked to soy. The company owns and operates eight feed mills as part of its hog production facilities, and soy is a key feed ingredient for its hog production. It also owns a Commodity Trading and Milling (CT&M) Segment which is an integrated agricultural commodity trading, processing, and logistics company. Overall, the CT&M segment has facilities at 13 locations in 9 countries. This segment sources, transports, and markets wheat, corn, soybeans, soybean meal, and other commodities.
0/0.5
Strength of Deforestation Commitment
The company does not disclose having a deforestation/conversion-free target for soy.
0/3.25
Transparency - Progress Against Commitment
The company does not report progress against its commitment. Nor did it responded to the CDP Forest Questionnaire in 2022.
0/1.25
Engagement, Monitoring & Traceability - Soy for Animal Feed
0/100
Supplier Engagement
The company does not disclose information related to how it engages soy suppliers on deforestation risks.
0/1.25
Compliance monitoring & Traceability
The company does not disclose how compliance in monitored or what actions are taken if non-compliance occurs. Further, the company does no disclose the level of traceability it has of its soy supply chain.
0/3.25
Feed Innovation
The company does not discuss innovations and/or practices to move towards sustainable feed sources.
0/0.5
Water Use & Scarcity
3/100
Water Use & Scarcity in Facilities
4/100
Monitoring Water Consumption & Withdrawals
The company has not conducted a risk assessment for its processing facilities. It discloses water recycling as its water conservation measure. It tells waster use intensity relating to the production of pork. However, it does not disclose the total amount of water consumed in its processing facilities.
0.2/0.75
Target to Reduce Water Consumption & Withdrawals
The company has not set a time-bound water reduction target to reduce total water withdrawals at facilities in the reporting year.
0/1
Disclosure & Performance of Water Risks in Facilities
The company does not report water withdrawals/consumption by source or by water stress level. It does not disclose water related CAPEX or OPEX and has did not respond to the CPD Water Questionnaire.
0/3.25
Water Use & Scarcity in Feed Farming
0/100
Supplier Engagement in Water Use in Feed Farming
The company sources soy as a critical ingredient for its hog and turkey operations. However, it does not disclose information relating to water scarcity risks in feed farming. The company broadly states that water conservation is part of its natural resource conservation efforts, but no further details are provided.
0/2.5
Disclosure of Water Risks in Feed Farming
The company does not disclose feed water intensity, or the proportion of feed sourced from water stresses areas. Further, the company does not provide evidence that it is investing in sustainable feed production from a water use perspective.
0/2.5
Water Use & Scarcity in Animal Farming
4/100
Supplier Engagement in Water Use in Animal Farming
The company discloses that it carries out weekly monitoring of farm water use whereby it assesses the condition and the style of drinking systems to minimize waste. However, it does not provide further detail.
0.2/3
Disclosure of Water Risks in Animal Farming
The company has not established partnerships with third parties to input into sourcing/farming strategy, including water use.
0/2
Waste & Pollution
5/100
Wastewater at Facilities
8/100
Disclosure & Targets for Wastewater Quality & Volume Discharged
The company has not indentified facilities that operate in locations with high and medium water stress from a quality perspective. It has not set a quality or volume target for wastewater, and does not report the number of incidences of non-compliance with water quality permits, standards, and regulations.
0/1.5
Transparency on Water Pollution Risks
The company mentions that it performs farm audits to maintain its feed and water lines alongside the quality and consistency of manure applications. There needs to be more information regarding third-party audits of wastewater discharged by the company.
0/2
Performance on Wastewater Quality & Volume Discharged
The company produces biogas from the Seaboard Foods wastewater system by repurposing animal fat via its subsidiary - Seaboard Energy. The company recovers the organic matter from wastewater to turn it into biogas. The energy is transferred to the interstate pipeline network.
0.4/1.5
Nutrient Management in Feed Farming
0/100
Supplier Engagement in Nutrient Pollution Risks
The company does not disclose information relating to pollution management and water quality in feed farming. It makes a high-level reference to soil conservation and using natural fertiliser in its Seaboard Foods division. However, it is unclear if these measures extend to feed suppliers.
0/4
Innovation to Improve Nutrient Management in Feed Farming
The company does not invest in sustainable feed production to improve nutrient management or disclose information about pesticide use in its feed supply chain.
0/1
Manure Management in Animal Farming
6/100
Disclosure of Pollution Risks from Manure
The company mentions that it captures methane from its hog lagoons and injects it as renewable natural gas into the local pipeline infrastructure. Seaboard does not mention whether effluents from the lagoons are treated before being applied to the land. It maps farms to understand where environmental threats may exist in neighbouring fields. However, it needs to provide further details.
0.28/1.25
Supplier Engagement in Manure Management
The company does not make site-specific nutrient management plans a part of its supplier's contractual agreement and/or own farms management. Nor does it provides technical and/or financial support to suppliers and/or own farms to develop nutrient management plans and improve manure storage.
0/1.5
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.
0/2.25
Antibiotics
35/100
Policy on Antibiotics Use
55/100
Policy on Antibiotics Use
The company commits to excluding medically essential antibiotics for therapeutic, prophylactic, or growth-promotion purposes, employing only non-medically necessary antibiotics for medicinal needs. It maintains comprehensive records of antibiotics used and adheres to necessary withdrawal periods. Furthermore, it aims to minimise antibiotic use by maintaining pig health through proper housing, cleanliness, nutrition, and vaccinations.
2.75/5
Disclosure of Quantity of Antibiotics Used
15/100
Disclosure of Quantity of Antibiotics Used
The company commits to reducing antibiotic use in future years and maintains detailed internal records. However, it does not publicly disclose this data or report the percentage of animals treated with antibiotics.
0.75/5
Animal Welfare
8/100
Animal Welfare Policy
14/100
Welfare Policy
The company commits to animal welfare through an animal care programme overseen by veterinarians and maintains a zero-tolerance policy for mistreatment. It provides employee training on barn and handling protocols, adhering to industry standards. However, it does not publicly endorse the Five Freedoms and lacks disclosure on actions taken for policy breaches.
0.7/2
Key Welfare Issues
The company adheres to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and National Pork Board guidelines on animal welfare. It is also part of a USDA Process Verified Programme on animal handling. Furthermore, the Seaboard division complies with Pork Quality Assurance Plus (PQA Plus) for animal transportation. However, the company does not commit to humane slaughter or avoiding close confinement. It also lacks specific guidelines on minimising long-distance animal transportation.
0/3
Assurance & Certification
10/100
Auditing & Assurance by an Animal Welfare Organisation
The company's fresh pork products from Seaboard Foods are USDA Process Verified, focusing on proper in-plant handling for animal welfare and meat quality. It also commits to daily animal handling audits and employee training. However, its operations are not certified by a farm assurance programme.
0.5/4
Public Reporting on Welfare
The company does not disclose information in relation to animal welfare certifications or assurance programs for its beef operations.
0/1
Performance on Key Material Risks
0/100
Performance on Key Material Welfare Risks by Protein
The company states pain medication is supplied after tail docking and surgical castration in pork production. It also uses carbon dioxide chambers and captive bolt methods to euthanise pigs under three weeks old.
0/5
Working Conditions
24/100
Human Rights
0/100
Strength of Policy
Tthe company does not disclose a comprehensive policy or commitment to respect all human rights.
0/1
Due Diligence Process
The company does not disclose how it assesses, monitors and mitigates potential human rights risks.
0/3
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
36/100
Policy for Direct Operations
The company's Food division mentions in its Code of Conduct that discrimination and harassment against employees are not tolerated. It further says it is committed to a work environment free from human trafficking, including forced labour, unlawful child labour and commercial sex trafficking. The Food division also extends these commitments to its supply chain. However, these commitments do not cover the company's operations outside the Food division. Furthermore, the company must audit these policies or commit to promoting fair wages.
1.28/3
Monitoring & Discosure
Suppliers are not mandated to undergo audits concerning human rights policies.
The company's Food division has a grievance mechanism in place which allows employees to report violations anonymously and without any fear of retaliation. However, it is unclear if the policy is designed in consultation with the stakeholders or if suppliers have access to a grievance mechanism. The Food division does not report the number of grievances it received in the reporting year.
0.5/2
Safety & Turnover Data
19/100
Committee representation of workers
The company states that a safe and humane work environment is a priority but does not disclose an occupational health and safety certification. The company does not disclose having health and safety committees.
0.24/2
Disclosure of safety and turnover data
The company shows an upward trend in its Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR). The company's Food division reported 1.04 TRIR in processing plants in FY2020, and this rate increased to 2.78 in FY20221. Six lost time plant injuries and 23 lost time farm injuries were recorded in FY2020, which, in the reporting year, increased to 22 plant injuries and decreased to 17 farm injuries. The company does not disclose fatality data. The Food division has a turnover rate of 26%.
0.7/3
Freedom of Association
41/100
Strength of Policies
The company's Food division mentions that employees have the right to associate freely and that, in 2022, 36% of employees were union members. However, no company division describes measures taken to support rights. Furthermore, the company does not discuss whether suppliers must respect their employees' right to freedom of association and collective bargaining.
1/3
Disclosure of Collective Bargaining Metrics
The company's hourly salaried employees in their processing facilities, which account for 45% of all employees of the pork division, are all covered by a collective bargaining agreement that expires in 2026. Also, the company provides breakdowns of its hourly and salaried staff, both for its processing facilities and animal farms. It also includes information on the number of animal farms that are contract farms. However, it does not disclose what type of contractual agreements are in place on their contract farms, nor does it provide a breakdown of the nature of the contracts of their salaried staff.
1.05/2
Food Safety
38/100
Food Safety System
20/100
Certifications
The company's Seaboard Foods division follows HACCP protocols and practices. Moreover, it states that its quality control points are certified by USDA Process Verified. Regarding GFSI-recognised standards, it reports that its Guymon pork processing plant is SQF-certified. However, it is unclear what proportion of total sites this constitutes, and it does not disclose whether any other sites are GFSI-certified. Further, it does not confirm whether suppliers are expected to hold GFSI certification nor reveal the portion of those that do.
1/3.5
Performance
To operate a USDA Process Verified Program, the company underwent a rigorous application process, including source verification through third-party and independent audits. However, it does not disclose the frequency of audits related to food safety or a corrective action rate. It specifies that its pork products can be traced back to source farms through a source verification system. The USDA also verifies this. However, the traceability system is not explicitly mentioned to be consumer-facing.
0/1.5
Product Recalls & Market Bans
55/100
Product Recall Systems
The company has identified product recalls as a material risk that could adversely impact its operations, financial condition and business. However, it does not describe its product recall system. It disclosed zero product recalls in 2021.
2.25/3
Performance
The company does not disclose any incidents of market bans, and none were detected in media screening during the reporting period.
0.5/2
Sustainability Governance
10/100
Assessment of a Company's Sustainability Governance
10/100
Board Sustainability
The company discloses a range of risks within its annual report. However, it is still being determined how these risks were identified and the level of involvement the board of directors has in identifying them. Furthermore, the company does not discuss whether the board has a formal mandate to discuss ESG issues or if it holds any board-level expertise in sustainability, food safety or innovation.
0.5/2
Incentives & Policy Engagement
The company has not disclosed executive monetary remunerations linked with climate or sustainability performance. Nor has it disclosed engaging with civil or trade associations on ESG issues, a comprehensive list of trade association memberships or if it aligns any policy-engagement activities to restrict global temperature rise to 1.5C.
0/2.5
Innovation & Benchmarking
The company does not disclose a strategic approach to sustainability innovation or state whether it benchmarks itself against peers in sustainability and innovation.
0/0.5
Alternative Proteins
0/100
Diversification of Products to Alternative Protein Sources
0/100
Existing product portfolio
The company does not explicitly acknowledge that protein diversification is a material business issue. Further, it has not yet set a timebound target to diversify protein sources, nor does not report revenue/sales linked to alternative protein sources
0/2.5
Investing for future growth
The company does not indicate having an approach towards diversifying its product range to include plant-based and alternative proteins.
0/2.5
Workstream Information
2023 Risk Score:
14/100
Level:
High Risk
Ranking:
51/60
Main Protein:
Pork
Assessed Proteins:
Pork
Company Feedback Given:
No
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
Waste & Pollution Engagement
Analysis Overview
Risk Assessment Value Chain Coverage Risk Mitigation Circularity Company Engagement
Summary
The company has not engaged with the investor signatories and has not progressed in any of the areas included in the engagement.
Analysis Breakdown
Risk Assessment
Poor
Coverage of water quality risk assessment
The company does not disclose undertaking an assessment.
The company does not identify processing facilities that operate in locations with high and medium water stress, from a quality perspective.
Transparency and disclosure of water quality indicators
The company does not disclose wastewater quality metrics for any of the wastewater it discharges.
The company does not disclose the number of incidences of non-compliance with water quality permits, standards, and regulations.
Recognition of nutrient pollution risk on biodiversity
The company does not mention 'biodiversity' or 'water quality' within its annual report or sustainability highlights.
Value Chain Coverage
Poor
Inclusion of upstream feed and livestock suppliers in risk assessment
The company does not disclose undertaking a formal risk assessment of nutrient pollution risk around farms. It discloses that it undertakes farm mapping surveys utilising internal and external resources to identify environmental threats that exist in neighbouring fields, however this seems to be in the context of spreading effluents.
Feed is not discussed as part of the company's assessment of its exposure to areas of medium or high water risk or biodiversity risk.
Downstream use of manure by animal feed suppliers
The company discloses that it applies effluent to neighbouring crop fields, but it is unclear if any crops are used in the company's feed supply.
Acknowledgment of regulatory risks
The company mentions that changing laws and regulations are a risk to the business. However, it does not refer to changing nutrient/pollution regulation explicitly.
Transparency on non-compliance from suppliers
The company states that it follows local and state environmental laws to maintain levels of our lagoons and apply the effluent to neighbouring crop fields. However, no further detail is provided, and it is not clear on the level of monitoring the company undertakes of its livestock suppliers.
The company does not disclose the number of incidences of non-compliance with water quality permits, standards, and regulations.
Risk Mitigation
Poor
Biogas generation and organic fertilisers from animal waste
Seaboard does not disclose the volume of wastewater it produces. It states that effluent from lagoons is applied to neighbouring fields. It also states that it uses 'multiple systems to handle and process biological waste in a safe and efficient manner' but does not provide more detail.
The company states that it provided 1.5 million lb of Nitrogen fertiliser to local farmers. However, it is unclear the company does not detail treatment methods. The company states that it is constructing renewable natural gas sites with its integrated model of hog operations, covered anaerobic digester lagoons and biomethane upgrading facilities at certain of its existing hog farms in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, with a few sites complete and in early stages of operations. The company produced biodiesel at facilities in Oklahoma and Missouri, and renewable diesel at a facility in Kansas. Seaboard discloses that these are both produced from pork fat supplied by the pork processing plants and other animal fats and vegetable oils purchased from third parties.
It is not clear from the company's disclosure if it supports contracted farmers in biogas capture, or if the investments described above are only made to owned operations.
Target-setting for water quality
The company does not disclose that it identifies areas of high or medium water risk. Nor does it disclose site specific plans for nutrient management.
Support to third-party suppliers
The company undertakes farm mapping to understand the environmental pressures of neighbouring fields before the application of effluents and manure. Seaboard states that it partners with local farmers to provide natural fertiliser and organic matter for their crop fields. However, it is unclear what processes are in place to support farmers.
Circularity
Poor
Pilot projects around nutrient circularity
The company does not disclose information on pilots or research into circular solutions to waste other than biogas recovery.
Disclosure of investment in circular solutions
The company does not disclose information.
Targets to increase share of manure under circular initiatives
The company does not disclose information.
Company Engagement
Poor
Level of company engagement with the coalition
The company did not engage with the investor signatories.
Workstream Information
2024/25 level
Poor
Index Waste & Pollution Score:
5/100
Assessed Proteins:
Pork
Last Updated:
26 June 2024
2024/25 Resources
Waste & Pollution Engagement