Smithfield Foods
1. Governance
1.1—Board Oversight
Board or board committee has oversight over sustainability (+1 point) OR board or board committee has explicit oversight over water-related issues (+2 points).
1.0
2.0
Board or board committee is regularly briefed by management on water related issues (+3 points).
0.0
3.0
1.2—Senior executive oversight
The individual with the highest level of direct responsibility for water-related issues reports directly to a member of the Executive Management Committee (+3 points) OR the individual with the highest level of direct responsibility for water-related issues reports to the CEO (+4 points).
3.0
4.0
Water is linked to pay or incentive compensation for senior executives implicitly or explicitly (+1 points).
0.0
1.0
1.3—Business planning
Considers water risks as part of major business planning activities and investment decisions (+3 points).
3.0
3.0
Company specifically identifies and discloses water-related risks within its value chain that have the potential to have substantial financial or strategic impact on its business (+2 points).
0.0
2.0
Company has a detailed strategy for achieving water balance for all new siting and expansion of direct operations or procurement in watersheds of high or medium stress (+1 point) OR company aligns new research and development, capital expenditure, and merger and acquisition activities with its corporate water targets (+1 point).
0.0
1.0
1.4—Supplier policies
Has a publicly available supplier policy outlining expectations for Tier 1 suppliers regarding water use and water quality that exceed regulatory compliance (+3 points).
0.0
3.0
AND the policy has a clear requirement for agricultural suppliers to have a water use plan in high risk regions (+1 point).
0.0
1.0
AND the policy has clear requirements for agricultural suppliers regarding water quality that exceed regulatory compliance in high risk regions (+1 point).
0.0
1.0
AND the policy clearly defines protocols for non-compliance (+1 point).
0.0
1.0
Total
7
22
2. Risk Assessment
2.1—Risk assessment for owned operations
Discloses the percentage and volume of total water withdrawal from regions with high baseline water stress (+3 points).
0.0
3.0
AND/OR discloses the percentage and volume of total water consumed from regions with high baseline water stress (+3 points).
0.0
3.0
Analysis explicitly includes risks associated with water quality (+4 points).
2.0
4.0
Analysis explicitly discloses high risk watersheds based on water quality (+2 points) AND/OR based on water availability (+2 points).
0.0
4.0
2.2—Risk assessment for agricultural supply chain
Discloses the percentage of agricultural products sourced from regions with high baseline water stress (+6 points).
0.0
6.0
Analysis explicitly includes risks associated with water quality (+4 points).
0.0
4.0
Analysis explicitly discloses high risk watersheds based on water quality (+2 points) AND/OR based on water availability (+2 points).
0.0
4.0
Total
2
28
3. Targets
3.1—Water target(s) for owned operations
Has time-bound water use reduction targets for direct operations (+3 points).
0.0
3.0
Uses a risk-differentiated, context-based, or science-based approach, focusing on watersheds with high water stress (+3 points).
0.0
3.0
Has targets to reduce water pollution impacts of its operational discharge, focusing on pollutants of concern (+3 points).
0.0
3.0
3.2—Water target(s) for agricultural regions/commodities
Has time-bound water use reduction targets for agricultural regions/commodities (+4 points).
0.0
4.0
Uses a risk-differentiated, context-based approach, focusing on watersheds with high water stress (+3 points).
0.0
3.0
3.3—Time-bound sustainable agriculture commitment(s) that promote water outcomes
Time bound and quantifiable: The commitment has a publicly-disclosed target achievement date and is paired with clear performance indicators that define sustainably sourced (+4 points).
4.0
4.0
AND impact oriented: The commitment aims to measure and improve environmental and water-related performance either directly (sustainable agriculture practices linked to high-risk watersheds, water efficiency per acre, nitrogen reduction per ton, etc.) or indirectly (e.g. the adoption of specific practices such as cover cropping that have a related performance improvement) (+4 points).
4.0
4.0
AND commodity breadth: The commitment applies to a majority of the company's significant agricultural inputs, defined as crops that are documented to have highwater scarcity or pollution impacts and are material to the business (+4 points).
2.0
4.0
AND commodity depth: The commitment applies to a significant portion of the procurement of the commodity in question (+4 points).
2.0
4.0
AND company must employ metrics-based platforms and standards to measure and disclose progress against sustainable sourcing goals (+4 points).
2.0
4.0
Total
14
36
4. Implementation
4.1—Financial support for growers
Provides financial incentives to producers to encourage adoption of practices that reduce impacts and dependence on water (+2 points).
2.0
2.0
AND long-term plan, pilots or set of projects for at least 50% of suppliers and/or linked to goal (+1 points).
1.0
1.0
AND identified in high-risk watershed specifically (+1 points).
0.0
1.0
4.2—Education and indirect financial support to growers
Provides education or indirect financial incentives to producers to encourage adoption of practices that reduce impacts and dependence on water (+2 points).
2.0
2.0
AND long-term plan, pilots or set of projects for at least 50% of suppliers and/or linked to goal (+1 points).
1.0
1.0
AND identified in high-risk watershed specifically (+1 points).
0.0
1.0
4.3—Collective watershed action
Has developed a watershed protection plan or strategy for key watersheds identified as high risk in their agricultural supply chain which includes plans to support projects that improve conditions for the watershed in collaboration with key local stakeholders (+4 points).
0.0
4.0
Consistently advocates for public policy action to protect water resources in company's priority watersheds (+2 points).
0.0
2.0
Total
6
14
2021 Total Score:
29.00
100
Points
2019 Total Score:
37.50
100 Points
2017 Total Score:
32.50
100 Points
2015 Total Score:
33.00
100 Points