City, 27 March 2025 – The latest Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW), released today, reveals steady progress on farm animal welfare across the global food industry. A leading group of companies, including Greggs PLS, Marks & Spencer and Waitrose, demonstrate that humane standards, such as providing animals with more space or using best practice methods of slaughter, is integral to their business strategy. There are concerns however that a significant block of large food companies (79%), including household names like Nestlé and McDonald’s remain in ‘Tiers 5 and 6’ - the bottom two tiers - for a second consecutive year. The benchmark is supported by partners Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) and global animal welfare organisation FOUR PAWS.

BBFAW is the world’s leading annual assessment of the food industry’s farm animal welfare policies, practices and performance, assessing 150 global food companies across 51 criteria and five pillars, and ranking across six tiers. This year’s results are the second since BBFAW introduced more stringent criteria that put a greater focus on companies’ welfare performance and approach to reducing their reliance on animal sourced food.

Frontrunners & Laggards

There was marginal positive progress this year. Average overall scores across all companies rose one percentage point for the second consecutive year, and 14 companies moved up a tier ranking. These include Greggs PLC, who join Marks & Spencer, Premier Foods and Waitrose as the only companies reaching ‘Tier 2’ of the benchmark - meaning the companies have made farm animal welfare an integral part of their business strategy and achieved a score of between 62-80% against all BBFAW criteria.

Progress for a majority of food companies is slow however. 118 companies (79%), including Nestlé, McDonalds and Cargill, are in the bottom two tiers (Tiers 5 and 6) – meaning they provide limited or no evidence that they have policies or processes in place to manage farm animal welfare effectively. These include 22 companies (15%), who have still not published a formal overarching animal welfare policy including Avolta AG (previously Autogrill).

Impact Ratings

BBFAW’s ‘Impact Rating’ grades companies (from ‘A’ to ‘F’) on their tangible welfare impacts. Grades are based on the Performance Impact questions which, for example, measure the percentage of cage-free laying hens in a company’s supply chain, the proportion of dairy cattle free from disbudding and dehorning, and the proportion of pigs free from tail docking.

At the top of the 2024 Impact Ratings three companies (Marks & Spencer, Premier Foods and Fonterra) qualify for a high ‘B’ grade for the first time. In total 14 companies (9%) increased their Impact Rating in 2024. Most notably Fonterra, with their singular focus on dairy, have placed a significant emphasis on global reporting and impact, resulting in a rise in their Impact Rating by three grades (from ‘E’ to ‘B’). However, a large majority of benchmarked companies (91%) score the lowest ‘Impact Rating’ grades – ‘E’ or ‘F’. This means they have yet to show they are delivering improved welfare impacts for farm animals in their supply chains.

“This is the second year of results since BBFAW introduced more stringent criteria and it’s encouraging to see companies responding positively with 14 companies moving up a tier, and a further 14 improving their Impact Rating. It is not just animals that feel the benefit of those changes – with more space to roam and fewer farm animals suffering mutilations or long-distance live transportation. Companies feel the benefits too - in terms of building their

reputation with consumers and getting ahead of potential regulation. While the leaders are picking up the pace, clearly much more needs to be done with the large majority of food companies, including many household names, stuck in BBFAW’s bottom two tiers. Too many food companies still provide limited evidence that they are managing animal welfare effectively. Perhaps most striking this year is the Atlantic Gap. While the UK is the highest-performing region, practically all North American food companies are stuck in the bottom two tiers of the benchmark,” says Nicky Amos, Executive Director of the BBFAW.

Geographic diversity

This year’s BBFAW results show stark contrast in performance between different geographies. UK-based companies dominate the upper tier rankings, and have an average overall score of 41%. Companies based in Europe and Latin America perform next best with average overall scores of 20%. Average scores for North America were 12% and in the Asia Pacific region just 9%. Given the role of animal welfare in potential UK/US trade discussions the contrast on either side of the Atlantic is perhaps most striking. The UK boasts all four top ranking companies and two of the three companies registering the highest ‘B’ grade for Impact Rating. By contrast 98% (42 of 43 companies) of US-based companies appear in the bottom two tiers (Tiers 5 and 6) and all North American companies receive the worst Impact Rating grades (‘E’ or ‘F’). In Asia Pacific, 19 of 21 companies (90%) appear in Tiers 5 and 6. Many of these are domiciled in China, reflecting the relative immaturity of animal welfare in this region. However, it is notable that one of only three companies to score a ‘B’ Impact Rating grade (Fonterra) is domiciled in this region – based specifically in New Zealand.

Other key findings in this year’s BBFAW include:

• Widening gap: Fourteen companies (9%) moved up a tier ranking with nine of these increasing their overall average score by five per cent or more. In addition, while the overall average score of the top 20% of companies improved 4% this year, to 43%, the overall average score of the bottom 20% remained unchanged, at 3%.
• Sentience: 67 companies (45%) recognise farm animals as sentient beings in 2024, an increase from 54 companies (36%) in 2023.
• Antibiotics: Only 42% of companies have commitments in place to end prophylactic and routine metaphylactic antibiotic use – despite the risk of surging antibiotic resistance.
• Reducing reliance on animal-sourced foods: The results of a set of questions assessing whether companies are reducing their reliance on meat, fish, dairy and eggs show that 29% of the benchmark (43 companies) now acknowledge the need to reduce reliance on animal-sourced foods as a business issue. This is a rise from 25% in 2023. Two companies – Waitrose and Hilton Food Group - scored 85% for this set of questions compared to an average score of just 11%.
• Sub-sectors: The best performing sub-sector in the benchmark is ‘Producers and Manufacturers’ - with an overall average score of 21%; with ‘Retailers and Wholesalers’ achieving the second highest average score (17%). It is notable that UK retailers and wholesalers scored the highest average score on ‘Governance and Management’ achieving 81% for this pillar. ‘Restaurants and Bars’ have the lowest overall average score at 16%, however the score for ‘Restaurants and Bars’ is up from 14% in 2023 and in a further sign of improvement five of the 14 Restaurant and Bar companies moved up a Tier Ranking in 2024 – including Greggs PLC which broke into Tier 2 this year.
• Long-term improvements: 128 companies (85%) have formal policies on farm animal welfare compared to 46% of the 68 companies evaluated when BBFAW started in 2012.
• Species diversity: Animal welfare ambitions differ among species:
  • Pigs: Only 11% of companies (15 of 137) with pigs in their supply chains have published clear time-bound targets to end the use of gestation crates/sow stalls (up from 9% in 2023).
  • Dairy cows: 22% of companies (31 of 142) with dairy cows in their supply chains published time-bound targets to eliminate, or already eliminated, the use of tethering (up from 18% in 2023).
  • Laying hens: 70% of companies (99 of 149) with eggs in their supply chains publish a time-bound target to achieve, or have already achieved, 100% of eggs from cage-free sources (down from 73% in 2023).
  • Broiler chickens: 30% of companies (40 of 134) with broiler chickens in their supply chain have set a time-bound target to achieve the requirements for the Better or European Chicken Commitment (down from 31% in 2023).

“Businesses play a critical leadership role in transforming food systems for a more sustainable and animal welfare-friendly future. A key first step is eliminating cages—and we are already making progress. As the impact of current practices weighs on people, animals, and the planet, the urgency for change will only grow. Every company has the power to drive meaningful progress by shifting toward higher-welfare, cage-free products, diversifying protein portfolios with more plant-based options, and embracing regenerative farming. Together, we can build a food system that respects animals, supports the planet, and creates a better future for all,” says Philip Lymbery, Global Chief Executive, Compassion in World Farming.

BBFAW is supported by a coalition of institutional investors, managing over $2.4 trillion in assets, who will engage with the companies in the year ahead to drive improvement.

“The Business Benchmark on Animal Welfare is a unique yardstick for the market that gives investors a valuable insight into the management quality of individual food companies. It helps to shine a light on which companies are best managing not just on-the-ground animal welfare systems, but business-critical issues such as reputational risk, resilient supply chains and antimicrobial resistance. This year the results tell us a lot about which companies are taking this issue seriously,” says Robert-Alexandre Poujade, ESG analyst, biodiversity lead at BNP Paribas Asset Management.

The full report is available here.

Notes to editor

For further information or to arrange interviews with BBFAW spokespeople, or companies assessed, please contact:

• Sasha Hill, Chronos Sustainability (BBFAW Secretariat)
  T: +44 (0)7732 191 717 | sasha.hill@chronossustainability.com

Background

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) was formed in 2012 and is the globally recognised investor framework for assessing the quality of companies’ practices, processes and performance on farm animal welfare. Companies were assessed on their approach to managing farm animal welfare in five areas: (1) Policy Commitments, (2) Governance and Management, (3) Targets (4) Performance Impact; and (5) Reducing Reliance on animal sourced foods. Company assessments were based on information published by companies on the date of their assessments. All companies were assessed during the period from October to November 2024.

The 31 participants in the BBFAW investor collaboration are: Aberdeen Standard Investments, AMP Capital Ethical Leaders Fund, Australian Ethical Investment, Aviva Investors, Bâtirente, BNP Paribas Asset Management, Boston Trust Walden, Brunel Pension Partnership, Candriam, Cardano, Castlefield, Investment Partners LLP, CCLA, Central Finance Board of the Methodist Church, Coller Capital, EdenTree Investment Management, Epworth Investment Management, Greenbank, Karner Blue Capital, KBI Global Investors, Länsförsäkringar Fondförvaltning AB, NEI Investments, NN Group, OpenInvest, Robeco, RRSE, Simplicity, Sonen Capital, The Sustainability Group of Loring, Wolcott & Coolidge Trust, LLC, Trillium Asset Management, Triodos Investment Management, Vaudoise Assurances Holding SA.