2. • What is ATNI?
• ATNI development process
• Lessons learned from other Indexes
• ATNI’s methodology development process
• Evolution and structure of ATNI methodology
• Future plans
Outline
April 20132
3. What is ATNI?
April 20133
• The ATNI Global Index rates 25 of the world’s largest food and
beverage (F&B) manufacturers on their approach to addressing
obesity and undernutrition
• Three additional Indexes will rate the 10 largest F&B
manufacturers in India, Mexico and South Africa respectively
• ATNI was developed over a period of 3 years by GAIN, with the
support of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the
Wellcome Trust using an inclusive, international, multi-
stakeholder process
• ATNI is intended to:
• Enable companies to benchmark their own performance
and compare themselves to their peers
• Provide an objective source of information for all
stakeholders to use to evaluate companies’ responses to
two of the world’s most pressing public health challenges
• Indexes will be published every two years to enable companies’
performance to be tracked over time
Key attributes
• Independent of industry
• Objective
• Rigorous
• Multi-stakeholder
• Global and country-specific
focus
4. ATNI development process
April 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 period
Malnutrition coverage:
Undernutrition and obesity
Global Index:
25 of the world’s largest food and
beverage companies (including
privately held companies)
Type of company:
Multinational corporations and regional companies
Stage of supply chain:
Food manufacturers only
3 Spotlight Indexes:
10 of the largest companies by F&B
revenue in each market: India,
Mexico, South Africa
+
5. Modeled on existing indexes, capturing best practice
April 20135
To build a‘best in class’ index, extensive
research was conducted to learn lessons
from other ratings and rankings
• Over 3 month period at beginning of
development process, ATNI evaluated 32 of
the most relevant rankings, ratings and
indexes, including rankings such as the
Access to Medicine Index
• Evaluated 60 aspects of these indexes
covering 7 key areas and conducted
interviews for more detailed review of 10
indexes
• Origins, mission and purpose
• Funding models and costs
• Stakeholder relationship models
• Methodology
• Research providers
• Communications
• Proposition/business model to
monetise output/provide funding base
Many Indexes are relevant to agriculture/food
security or rate countries
6. Lessons learned and gaps identified
April 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 as
and 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 the
huge work done to develop the Index.
7. Lessons learned about methodology development
7
Approach
• In reviewing other indexes, focused on
approaches to methodology development
• Aspects evaluated included:
• Frequency of publication
• Level of stakeholder involvement in
methodology development
• Basis of evaluation
- Foundation documents
- Best-practice framework
• Categories of criteria
• Criteria
• Indicators
• Scoring and weighting
• Data collection methods
• Presentation of results
Lessons
•Few involved extensive stakeholder consultation
•Very few initiatives explain the foundation
documents or best-practice framework on which
their methodology is based: critical to credibility
•Need to explain what scoring 100% means; few
initiatives do so
•Recognize that methodology will need to change
over time as practice and knowledge evolves
•Standard structure is commitments / performance
/ transparency and in some cases innovation /
leadership
•Scoring system should be understandable – not
too complex; understand implications of different
scoring and weighting systems
•Note that weighting will always be subjective
•Be transparent on methodology design process,
structure and content: key to credibility. Many
initiatives do not disclose detail
•Wide variety of approaches to presentation of
results
April 2013
8. ATNI’s Methodology development process
April 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
9. Methodology and scoring weights
9
Over 170 Indicators are included in the methodology
April 2013
10. Future plans
10
ATNI 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 improvements
o 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 of
initial structure to enable year-on-year comparison
• Regularly monitor impact
• First version of ATNI represents current state of knowledge and consensus
around best practices
• Final report highlights important issues that require further research and/or
consensus building
• Facilitate progress by convening key stakeholders
Facilitate nutrition
‘knowledge agenda’
Publish company
ranking every two
years
Evaluate
opportunities for
growth
• Depending on the nature of stakeholder response and demand, consider
opportunities such as:
o Expanding number of companies evaluated
o Expanding geographic scope (additional Spotlight countries)
o Expanding scope across value chain (upstream suppliers, retailers)
April 2013
11. Annexes
April 201311
• Logic model
• Governance
• Scope design principles and methodology structure
• Ranking and key findings 2013
12. Annex 1: ATNI Logic Model
April 2013
Serve as an impartial
source of information
for interested
stakeholders
Encourage
improvements in
companies’ policies,
practices and
performance to result
in:
•Greater consumer
access to more
nutritious foods and
beverages
•An environment
facilitating the
consumption of
healthier foods and
beverages through
improvements in areas
such as marketing,
labeling, and package
sizes
Improvement over
time as measured by
company ratings on
subsequent versions
of ATNI
Provide companies a
tool to benchmark
their nutrition
practices
Investors
# of statement signatories and $AUM
Media
# of stories about ATNI and companies
Civil society
# of invitations to make presentations
Policymakers
# of requests for dialogue
Academics
# of times cited in relevant articles
Stimulate dialogue and action
# of interactions between stakeholders
Food and beverage manufacturers
• # of company media interviews
• # of company press releases about ATNI
Outputs OutcomesActivities Impact
Engagement with and uptake by:
(illustrative measures)
Increased market
availability & household
accessibility of healthy
foods and improved
food consumption
environment
Improved diets
Improved nutritional
status
Improved health status
These impacts will
not be directly
attributable to ATNI
but links to impact
may be plausible
13. Annex 2: Governance
13
Expert Group
Provides technical advice on
methodology for assessing companies
Global Stakeholder Network
Widest possible network of stakeholders,
including those involved in public consultation on Index methodology
Independent Advisory Panel
Provides strategic advice on stakeholder
engagement, institutional considerations
and financial sustainability
ATNI team
Funders
April 2013
14. Annex 2: Global, multi-stakeholder advisory panels
14
Independent Advisory Panel
Keith Bezanson, Chair
Former President, International Development
Research Centre; Former Director, Institute of
Development Studies
Kelly Brownell
Co-Founder and Director
Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Yale
University
Jean-Pierre Habicht
Professor Emeritus, Nutritional Epidemiology
Cornell University
Nihal Kaviratne CBE
Chairman, AkzoNobel India
Hannah Kettler
Senior Program Officer, Gates Foundation
Shiriki Kumanyika
Professor of Epidemiology
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology
School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
Karina Litvack
Head of Governance and Sustainable Investment
F&C Asset Management
David Lynn
Director, Strategic Planning & Policy
Wellcome Trust
John Oliphant
Government Employees Pension Fund, South Africa
Victoria Quinn
Senior Vice President of Programs
Helen Keller International
Juan Rivera
Founding Director
Center for Research in Nutrition and Health
National Institute of Public Health, Mexico
Marie Ruel
Division Director, Poverty, Health, and Nutrition,
IFPRI
Marc Van Ameringen
Executive Director, GAIN
Observer:
Francesco Branca
Director, Department of Nutrition for Health and
Development
World Health Organization
Expert Group
Shiriki Kumanyika, Chair
Professor of Epidemiology
Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology
School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania
Jean-Pierre Habicht, Vice-Chair
Professor Emeritus, Nutritional Epidemiology
Cornell University
Lindsay H. Allen
Director
USDA ARS Western Human Nutrition Research Center
Research Professor
Department of Nutrition, UC Davis
Diederik Basch
Senior Equity Analyst
Sustainable Asset Management AG
Olive Boles
Chief Executive, Leuka
Lauren Compere
Managing Director
Boston Common Asset Management
Terry T-K Huang
Professor and Chair, Department of Health
Promotion, Social & Behavioral Health
University of Nebraska Medical Centre
CS Pandav
Professor and Head
Centre for Community Medicine
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Mike Rayner
Director, British Heart Foundation Health
Promotion Research Group
April 2013
15. Design Principles
• Base assessment methodology on international
norms and established best practices where
possible
• Ensure relevance and applicability to a range of
company 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 and
continually evolve
Annex 3: Scope and design principles
Out of Scope
• Products that are intended to address acute
undernutrition or other special nutrition needs
• Products that are a part of a formal weight
management program
• Social and environmental issues assessed by
other indexes:
• Food safety
• Water management practices;
• Environmental sustainability, including
sourcing of ingredients;
• Impact on climate change;
• Fair treatment of workers and communities
• Crop breeding (e.g., hybridization and genetic
modification).
April 2013
18. Annex 4: Key findings 2013
April 201318
• Across the board, the world’s largest food and beverage manufacturers can do substantially more to improve consumers’
access to nutrition
o Only three companies scored above 5.0 on a 10-point scale
o The majority of companies scored below 3.0
• Many companies are now taking at least some action to improve access to nutrition
o Companies are doing the most in the area of incorporating nutrition into their corporate governance and management systems
o Many companies are motivated to act by the business risks associated with nutrition, as well as the opportunity to play a more
active role in addressing nutrition challenges
• Danone, Unilever and Nestlé are the highest-ranking companies
o They have corporate strategies that include explicit commitments to improving nutrition and the corresponding integration of
nutrition considerations into core business activities
o But even their scores demonstrate that there is significant room for improvement
o Danone and Nestlé’s reported lack of compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes is a
significant concern
• Companies’ practices often do not measure up to their commitments
o Companies’ scores on nutrition strategy and governance were higher than their scores on product formulation, accessibility,
and marketing
o 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 scale
o Company scores on undernutrition are significantly lower than those on obesity
o 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 practices
o In particular, the lowest-ranked companies on the Index do not disclose sufficient information on their policies and practices to
evaluate any approaches they may have to nutrition
