The development of ATNI: valuable lessons
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

The development of ATNI: valuable lessons

on

  • 294 views

Metrics for Agricultural Transformation: Update on Recent and Ongoing Developments

Metrics for Agricultural Transformation: Update on Recent and Ongoing Developments
April 19, 2013
Washington, DC

Statistics

Views

Total Views
294
Views on SlideShare
294
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

The development of ATNI: valuable lessons The development of ATNI: valuable lessons Presentation Transcript

  • The development of ATNI: valuablelessonsIFPRIApril 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 plansOutlineApril 20132
  • What is ATNI?April 20133• The ATNI Global Index rates 25 of the world’s largest food andbeverage (F&B) manufacturers on their approach to addressingobesity and undernutrition• Three additional Indexes will rate the 10 largest F&Bmanufacturers in India, Mexico and South Africa respectively• ATNI was developed over a period of 3 years by GAIN, with thesupport of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and theWellcome Trust using an inclusive, international, multi-stakeholder process• ATNI is intended to:• Enable companies to benchmark their own performanceand compare themselves to their peers• Provide an objective source of information for allstakeholders to use to evaluate companies’ responses totwo of the world’s most pressing public health challenges• Indexes will be published every two years to enable companies’performance to be tracked over timeKey attributes• Independent of industry• Objective• Rigorous• Multi-stakeholder• Global and country-specificfocus
  • ATNI development processApril 20134• Focus established very early on with funders• Review of other indexes conducted• ATNI development led by ATNI team based at GAIN over 3-year periodMalnutrition coverage:Undernutrition and obesityGlobal Index:25 of the world’s largest food andbeverage companies (includingprivately held companies)Type of company:Multinational corporations and regional companiesStage of supply chain:Food manufacturers only3 Spotlight Indexes:10 of the largest companies by F&Brevenue in each market: India,Mexico, South Africa+
  • Modeled on existing indexes, capturing best practiceApril 20135To build a‘best in class’ index, extensiveresearch was conducted to learn lessonsfrom other ratings and rankings• Over 3 month period at beginning ofdevelopment process, ATNI evaluated 32 ofthe most relevant rankings, ratings andindexes, including rankings such as theAccess to Medicine Index• Evaluated 60 aspects of these indexescovering 7 key areas and conductedinterviews for more detailed review of 10indexes• Origins, mission and purpose• Funding models and costs• Stakeholder relationship models• Methodology• Research providers• Communications• Proposition/business model tomonetise output/provide funding baseMany Indexes are relevant to agriculture/foodsecurity or rate countries
  • Lessons learned and gaps identifiedApril 20136• 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 asand 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 thehuge work done to develop the Index.
  • Lessons learned about methodology development7Approach• In reviewing other indexes, focused onapproaches to methodology development• Aspects evaluated included:• Frequency of publication• Level of stakeholder involvement inmethodology development• Basis of evaluation- Foundation documents- Best-practice framework• Categories of criteria• Criteria• Indicators• Scoring and weighting• Data collection methods• Presentation of resultsLessons•Few involved extensive stakeholder consultation•Very few initiatives explain the foundationdocuments or best-practice framework on whichtheir methodology is based: critical to credibility•Need to explain what scoring 100% means; fewinitiatives do so•Recognize that methodology will need to changeover time as practice and knowledge evolves•Standard structure is commitments / performance/ transparency and in some cases innovation /leadership•Scoring system should be understandable – nottoo complex; understand implications of differentscoring and weighting systems•Note that weighting will always be subjective•Be transparent on methodology design process,structure and content: key to credibility. Manyinitiatives do not disclose detail•Wide variety of approaches to presentation ofresultsApril 2013
  • ATNI’s Methodology development processApril 20138• 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 weights9Over 170 Indicators are included in the methodologyApril 2013
  • Future plans10ATNI 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 improvementso 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 ofinitial structure to enable year-on-year comparison• Regularly monitor impact• First version of ATNI represents current state of knowledge and consensusaround best practices• Final report highlights important issues that require further research and/orconsensus building• Facilitate progress by convening key stakeholdersFacilitate nutrition‘knowledge agenda’Publish companyranking every twoyearsEvaluateopportunities forgrowth• Depending on the nature of stakeholder response and demand, consideropportunities such as:o Expanding number of companies evaluatedo Expanding geographic scope (additional Spotlight countries)o Expanding scope across value chain (upstream suppliers, retailers)April 2013
  • AnnexesApril 201311• Logic model• Governance• Scope design principles and methodology structure• Ranking and key findings 2013
  • Annex 1: ATNI Logic ModelApril 2013Serve as an impartialsource of informationfor interestedstakeholdersEncourageimprovements incompanies’ policies,practices andperformance to resultin:•Greater consumeraccess to morenutritious foods andbeverages•An environmentfacilitating theconsumption ofhealthier foods andbeverages throughimprovements in areassuch as marketing,labeling, and packagesizesImprovement overtime as measured bycompany ratings onsubsequent versionsof ATNIProvide companies atool to benchmarktheir nutritionpracticesInvestors# of statement signatories and $AUMMedia# of stories about ATNI and companiesCivil society# of invitations to make presentationsPolicymakers# of requests for dialogueAcademics# of times cited in relevant articlesStimulate dialogue and action# of interactions between stakeholdersFood and beverage manufacturers• # of company media interviews• # of company press releases about ATNIOutputs OutcomesActivities ImpactEngagement with and uptake by:(illustrative measures)Increased marketavailability & householdaccessibility of healthyfoods and improvedfood consumptionenvironmentImproved dietsImproved nutritionalstatusImproved health statusThese impacts willnot be directlyattributable to ATNIbut links to impactmay be plausible
  • Annex 2: Governance13Expert GroupProvides technical advice onmethodology for assessing companiesGlobal Stakeholder NetworkWidest possible network of stakeholders,including those involved in public consultation on Index methodologyIndependent Advisory PanelProvides strategic advice on stakeholderengagement, institutional considerationsand financial sustainabilityATNI teamFundersApril 2013
  • Annex 2: Global, multi-stakeholder advisory panels14Independent Advisory PanelKeith Bezanson, ChairFormer President, International DevelopmentResearch Centre; Former Director, Institute ofDevelopment StudiesKelly BrownellCo-Founder and DirectorRudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, YaleUniversityJean-Pierre HabichtProfessor Emeritus, Nutritional EpidemiologyCornell UniversityNihal Kaviratne CBEChairman, AkzoNobel IndiaHannah KettlerSenior Program Officer, Gates FoundationShiriki KumanyikaProfessor of EpidemiologyDepartment of Biostatistics and EpidemiologySchool of Medicine, University of PennsylvaniaKarina LitvackHead of Governance and Sustainable InvestmentF&C Asset ManagementDavid LynnDirector, Strategic Planning & PolicyWellcome TrustJohn OliphantGovernment Employees Pension Fund, South AfricaVictoria QuinnSenior Vice President of ProgramsHelen Keller InternationalJuan RiveraFounding DirectorCenter for Research in Nutrition and HealthNational Institute of Public Health, MexicoMarie RuelDivision Director, Poverty, Health, and Nutrition,IFPRIMarc Van AmeringenExecutive Director, GAINObserver:Francesco BrancaDirector, Department of Nutrition for Health andDevelopmentWorld Health OrganizationExpert GroupShiriki Kumanyika, ChairProfessor of EpidemiologyDepartment of Biostatistics and EpidemiologySchool of Medicine, University of PennsylvaniaJean-Pierre Habicht, Vice-ChairProfessor Emeritus, Nutritional EpidemiologyCornell UniversityLindsay H. AllenDirectorUSDA ARS Western Human Nutrition Research CenterResearch ProfessorDepartment of Nutrition, UC DavisDiederik BaschSenior Equity AnalystSustainable Asset Management AGOlive BolesChief Executive, LeukaLauren CompereManaging DirectorBoston Common Asset ManagementTerry T-K HuangProfessor and Chair, Department of HealthPromotion, Social & Behavioral HealthUniversity of Nebraska Medical CentreCS PandavProfessor and HeadCentre for Community MedicineAll India Institute of Medical SciencesMike RaynerDirector, British Heart Foundation HealthPromotion Research GroupApril 2013
  • Design Principles• Base assessment methodology on internationalnorms and established best practices wherepossible• Ensure relevance and applicability to a range ofcompany 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 andcontinually evolveAnnex 3: Scope and design principlesOut of Scope• Products that are intended to address acuteundernutrition or other special nutrition needs• Products that are a part of a formal weightmanagement program• Social and environmental issues assessed byother indexes:• Food safety• Water management practices;• Environmental sustainability, includingsourcing of ingredients;• Impact on climate change;• Fair treatment of workers and communities• Crop breeding (e.g., hybridization and geneticmodification).April 2013
  • Annex 3: Corporate Profile methodology structure - detail16 April 2013
  • Annex 4: Overall ranking 2013April 201317
  • Annex 4: Key findings 2013April 201318• Across the board, the world’s largest food and beverage manufacturers can do substantially more to improve consumers’access to nutritiono Only three companies scored above 5.0 on a 10-point scaleo The majority of companies scored below 3.0• Many companies are now taking at least some action to improve access to nutritiono Companies are doing the most in the area of incorporating nutrition into their corporate governance and management systemso Many companies are motivated to act by the business risks associated with nutrition, as well as the opportunity to play a moreactive role in addressing nutrition challenges• Danone, Unilever and Nestlé are the highest-ranking companieso They have corporate strategies that include explicit commitments to improving nutrition and the corresponding integration ofnutrition considerations into core business activitieso But even their scores demonstrate that there is significant room for improvemento Danone and Nestlé’s reported lack of compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes is asignificant concern• Companies’ practices often do not measure up to their commitmentso Companies’ scores on nutrition strategy and governance were higher than their scores on product formulation, accessibility,and marketingo 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 scaleo Company scores on undernutrition are significantly lower than those on obesityo 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 practiceso In particular, the lowest-ranked companies on the Index do not disclose sufficient information on their policies and practices toevaluate any approaches they may have to nutrition