Pulker et al.

Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-018-0440-z

RESEARCH Open Access

Global supermarkets’ corporate social

responsibility commitments to public
health: a content analysis
Claire Elizabeth Pulker1* , Georgina S. A. Trapp2,3, Jane Anne Scott1 and Christina Mary Pollard1,4

Abstract
Background: Supermarkets have unprecedented political and economic power in the food system and an inherent
responsibility to demonstrate good corporate citizenship via corporate social responsibility (CSR). The aim of this
study was to investigate the world’s largest and most powerful supermarkets’ publically available CSR commitments
to determine their potential impact on public health.
Methods: The world’s largest 100 retailers were identified using the Global Powers of Retailing report. Thirty-one
supermarkets that published corporate reports referring to CSR or sustainability, in English, between 2013 and 2018,
were included and thematically analysed.
Results: Although a large number of themes were identified (n = 79), and there were differences between each
business, supermarket CSR commitments focused on five priorities: donating surplus food to charities for
redistribution to feed the hungry; reducing and recovering food waste; sustainably sourcing specific ingredients
including seafood, palm oil, soy and cocoa; governance of food safety; and growing the number of own brand
foods available, that are made by suppliers to meet supermarkets’ requirements.
Conclusions: CSR commitments made by 31 of the world’s largest supermarkets showed they appeared willing to
take steps to improve sustainable sourcing of specific ingredients, but there was little action being taken to support
health and nutrition. Although some supermarket CSR initiatives showed promise, the world’s largest supermarkets
could do more to use their power to support public health. It is recommended they should: (1) transparently report
food waste encompassing the whole of the food system in their waste reduction efforts; (2) support healthful and
sustainable diets by reducing production and consumption of discretionary foods, meat, and other ingredients with
high social and environmental impacts; (3) remove unhealthful confectionery, snacks, and sweetened beverages
from prominent in-store locations; (4) ensure a variety of minimally processed nutritious foods are widely available;
and (5) introduce initiatives to make healthful foods more affordable, support consumers to select healthful and
sustainable foods, and report healthful food sales as a proportion of total food sales, using transparent criteria for
key terms.
Keywords: Supermarket, Corporate social responsibility, CSR, Globalization, Public health, Nutrition, Sustainability

* Correspondence: [email protected]
1
School of Public Health, Curtin University, Kent Street, GPO Box U1987,
Perth, WA 6845, Australia
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

© The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121 Page 2 of 20

Background Supermarket corporate social responsibility

Globally, the proportion of foods sourced from supermar- The neoliberal political context favoured by large
kets has increased [1]. A global ‘supermarket revolution’ multi-national corporations aims to minimise the regula-
has been taking place for the last 30 years, with phenom- tory role of government in order to promote free trade
enal growth in supermarket sales in developing countries [14]. This assumes market forces will establish the best out-
[2]. In 2017, IPES-Food reported that a third of global food comes for society. Supporters of the approach say voluntary
sales were made by the ten largest supermarket chains [3], corporate actions are lower cost, more flexible, and less
which highlights the important role of supermarkets in adversarial than traditional regulatory approaches [15]. In
global food provision. The increase in supermarket food response to concerns for the environment, in 1987 the
sales in developing countries has been at the expense of United Nations (UN) called for a global agenda for change
more traditional outlets, and is associated with dietary which considered the relationships between people, re-
changes that may impact public health [1, 4]. For example, sources, environment and ongoing development [16]. The
supermarkets tend to sell a wider variety of highly UN World Commission on Environment and Development
processed foods compared to traditional retailers, which suggested large corporations could do more to address this
can contribute to poor diets and increases in population challenge [16].
overweight and obesity [1, 4]. Corporations have attempted to manage their impact on
the world’s resources and communities by implementing
corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies. These vol-
Supermarket power and influence untary measures have been framed by food companies as
Supermarkets have been described as having unprece- socially responsible initiatives designed to ensure consumer
dented and disproportionate power in the global food welfare [17], however, CSR has been criticized as a means
system [1]. A review of the sources of supermarket for food companies to prevent regulation [18], or place re-
power in Australia identified them as being the primary sponsibility for selecting healthy foods onto consumers
gatekeepers of the food system [5]. Whilst companies [19]. At the same time, CSR has been described as a source
from other sectors of the food industry, including food of structural power, whereby supermarkets are able to use
manufacturers, food service operators, and their industry CSR to set limits on the range of choices available to other
associations, also wield political power [6], their influ- food system actors (e.g. growers, manufacturers,
ence over public policy compared to supermarkets has consumers) by agenda-setting and rule-setting [20]. For
not been explored [5], and supermarkets are the focus of example, Australian supermarkets have used CSR to exert
this study. Some large corporations such as supermar- control over farmers and growers by stipulating environ-
kets have greater economic power than governments [7]. mental management practices that must be met to achieve
In fact, some of the world’s biggest corporations make supplier status [5]. It has also been asserted that govern-
more money than many countries [8]. Using financial ment regulation is the only effective mechanism to prevent
data from 2015, supermarket chain Walmart ranked as the public harm caused by unhealthy food, because the
the tenth largest global economy, higher than Australia purpose of corporations is to maximise profit [21].
at twelfth; and the top 250 global economies included Whilst there is no agreed definition of CSR, Garriga
nine supermarket chains [8]. With such great political and Melé (2004) have mapped the theories and
and economic power, the relationship between corpor- approaches in a conceptual framework that includes: (i)
ation and society becomes critical. instrumental, (ii) ethical, (iii) integrative, and (iv) polit-
One of the most important consequences of supermar- ical theories [7]. Instrumental theories describe CSR as a
ket domination of the food system is growth in super- means to generate profits; ethical theories understand
market own brand foods [9]. Supermarket own brand CSR as an ethical obligation of corporations to society;
foods (also known as private label, in-house brand, store integrative theories argue that CSR is required because
brand, retailer brand, or home brand) are owned by re- corporations rely on society for continued success; and
tailers, wholesalers or distributors and are sold privately political theories state that the power held by large cor-
in their own stores [10], which means they have a dual porations demands they act responsibly via CSR [7]. The
role in manufacturing and retailing. There has been main difference between the CSR theories which have
rapid development and global expansion of supermarket been mapped in the conceptual framework is the appar-
own brand foods [11, 12]. For example, in the UK, Spain ent corporate motivation.
and Switzerland, supermarket own brands account for For the purpose of this study the political CSR lens is
up to 45% of national grocery sales [11]. The products applied, whereby powerful supermarkets have an inherent
can be sourced globally, so there is less dependence on responsibility to society, particularly when neo-liberal gov-
local suppliers [13], enabling increased supermarket ernments fail to protect their citizens [7]. Political CSR
control over supply chains for greater returns [9]. theories include ‘corporate constitutionalism’, which states
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121 Page 3 of 20

that corporate power is limited by constituency groups reports should reflect both positive and negative aspects
within society, who demand corporations act responsibly; of performance to provide balance [34]. The EAT-Lancet
and if their power isn’t used to benefit society it will be lost Commission, established to scientifically assess the
[7]. ‘Corporate citizenship’ is another political CSR theory changes needed to deliver healthy sustainable diets, will
which describes corporations as belonging to a community, report on which companies control the global food system
which they need to take account of by acting responsibly, and whether change is considered possible [35].
and addressing global challenges [22]. The political CSR To date, there have been few investigations of supermar-
lens does not include analysis of ‘corporate political activ- ket CSR commitments to public health internationally.
ity’, which investigates the ways corporations attempt to in- Peter et al. (2007) studied the CSR activities of the top ten
fluence political outcomes that can influence public health, global food retailers, finding that only five supermarkets
for example by lobbying or using legal action [23]. produced dedicated CSR reports [36]. Examination of
CSR commitments to healthy eating by the largest super-
Evaluation of CSR efforts markets in the UK in 2005 concluded that they could do
Assessment of CSR using a political lens is important to more to support their customers [37]. Despite being a nu-
hold large companies, including food retailers, to account trition initiative, the primary motivation for removing
and a number of initiatives currently undertake this task. confectionery from prominent in-store locations was to
The political CSR approach is evident in the Access to Nu- achieve competitive advantage by appealing to customers
trition Index (ATNI) assessment of global food manufac- [38]. Souza-Monteiro et al. (2017) analysis of UK super-
turers’ CSR impact on public health [24]. The ATNI aims markets’ CSR concluded it still appeared to be used as a
to encourage food companies to make healthy products tool for competition [39]. A US study of CSR commit-
more accessible, and influence consumers’ food choice and ments by the country’s top 100 retailers revealed that food
behaviour responsibly [24]. The ATNI has also garnered retailers, including supermarkets and restaurants, had the
support from global investors, who have committed to fac- highest proportion of CSR content on their websites [40].
tor the nutrition practices of food corporations into their Their focus tended to be on social and environmental ini-
investment decisions [25]. Despite the global proliferation tiatives, such as sponsorship of local community charities
of supermarket own brands [12], they are not currently in- and projects [40]. The examples illustrate the marked
cluded within the ATNI’s scope. The International Network differences in the nature and content of supermarket CSR,
for Food and Obesity/Noncommunicable Diseases Re- with CSR activity rarely occurring at the expense of
search, Monitoring and Action Support (INFORMAS) aims commercial priorities [36].
to standardise the monitoring of food environments in di- Supermarket CSR commitments to protect public health
verse countries and settings [26]. Food environments, also should encompass managing a healthy and sustainable
referred to as nutrition environments, include the settings food supply, including taking responsibility for food waste.
(e.g. home, school, workplace, and food retail outlets in- Analysis of publically available CSR commitments to redu-
cluding supermarkets and restaurants) that provide access cing waste by the top ten US supermarket chains has re-
to food [27]. INFORMAS have developed a country-level cently been conducted [41]. Comparisons were made with
supermarket assessment tool to rate CSR policies and com- Tesco in the UK, which was used as an exemplar. Tesco
mitments related to obesity prevention and nutrition, based were commended for extending their food waste efforts
on the ATNI methods [28]. Analysis of Australian super- throughout the supply chain, tracking and reporting on
markets recommends they take much stronger action [29]. progress, and focusing on prevention and partnerships
Global reporting initiatives, including the FTSE4Good [41]. In comparison, all but one US supermarket, Ahold
index [30] and the Dow Jones Sustainability index [31], Delhaize, failed to transparently report food waste and
encourage responsible corporate practices by reporting on only four had food waste reduction commitments [41].
performance to global investors. The UN Global Compact, The significant power of the world’s largest supermar-
which corporations can sign up to, encourages CSR by kets is likely to have many implications for public health.
setting out ten guiding principles which cover human For example, Australian supermarkets were found to
rights, labour, the environment, and anti-corruption [32]. exert influence in three key domains, namely food gov-
In France, the Grenelle Acts enforced annual CSR report- ernance (i.e. how rules or decisions about food are
ing by large companies on 40 topics related to managing made), the food system (i.e. livelihoods and communi-
their social and environmental impact, and commitments ties), and public health nutrition (i.e. determinants of
to sustainable development [33]. The Global Reporting health) [5]. Food environments including supermarkets
Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines pro- have been identified as a driver of poor diet [26, 42, 43],
vide a reference for disclosure of the environmental, social which is one of the most important risk factors for early
and economic impacts of global organisations, to achieve deaths globally [44]. However, public health-led inter-
transparency in CSR reporting, and recommend corporate ventions in supermarket settings can lead to increased
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121 Page 4 of 20

purchases of healthy foods [45, 46]. They have the power largest 100 retailers comprised 44 supermarket chains,
to create food environments supportive of healthy food hypermarket chains, and discount supermarket chains
choices, which UK supermarkets have publically ac- (referred to simply as supermarkets henceforth), which
knowledged [47]. What is missing is an assessment of were selected for this study. The Fortune 500 report was
the CSR activity of the world’s largest and most powerful not used as the tool for selecting the world’s largest su-
supermarkets, to understand where progress is being permarkets, as it only considers companies that are in-
made on protecting public health, and the improvements corporated and operate in the US [54].
needed. Critique of supermarkets’ CSR has the potential
to stimulate change throughout the food system [48]. Data collection
To date, there has not been a systematic analysis of Websites for each of the selected supermarkets were
global supermarket CSR commitments to protect public searched for company reports referring to CSR or sustain-
health. There is a significant gap in knowledge about ability. The GRI’s Sustainability Disclosure Database (GRI
how supermarkets address the global challenge of sup- database) [34] was also searched to identify whether re-
porting and encouraging healthy and sustainable diets. ports had been lodged by the supermarkets, and whether
This study aimed to investigate publically available CSR they were in the recommended format (i.e. GRI-G4).
commitments that impact public health by the world’s Reports in languages other than English were excluded for
largest and most powerful supermarkets. practical reasons (13 reports). Corporate reports that
referred to CSR or sustainability were identified. For each
Methods included supermarket, information about the dominant
Study scope retail format (e.g. discount store, hypermarket), country of
The specific research question was: What public health re- origin, annual retail revenue, the number of countries
lated CSR commitments have been made by supermarket where they operate, and the number of supermarkets were
chains globally? This analysis focused on CSR commit- recorded. Participation in the GRI database, and presence
ments related to food and non-alcoholic beverages in the on the Fortune 500 list were also recorded. Supermarket
three domains of food governance, the food system, and reports referring to CSR or sustainability provided the
public health nutrition. Food governance CSR commit- research materials for this study.
ments describe rules or decisions that impact the food Supermarket reports had a number of different names
system [49]. Food system CSR commitments impact the assigned by the corporations, including: global responsibility
people whose livelihoods depend upon making food avail- report, sustainability report, corporate responsibility report,
able, including farmers and food manufacturers, and their annual activity and responsible commitment report, sustain-
communities [50]. CSR commitments to public health nu- able retailing performance, green mission report, and
trition impact the provision of safe, nutritious, affordable, corporate citizenship report. In addition, CSR was referred
secure, and environmentally sustainable food [51]. to within some annual reports. Separate CSR commitments
Supermarkets’ CSR activity to reduce the environmental or strategies were published by some supermarkets, and
impact of buildings and distribution networks, and these were included as research materials.
minimise harm from alcohol, tobacco, gambling, or other
business interests were excluded. These initiatives are an Theoretical framework applied
important way for supermarkets to reduce their impact on A framework was developed to analyse the CSR reports
people and the planet, but are beyond the scope of this re- based on evidence of how supermarket power impacts
view due to the focus on how supermarkets can support public health [5] (Fig. 1). For this study, content analysis
and encourage healthy and sustainable diets. of CSR reports identified themes relating to the follow-
ing 14 attributes: general governance, influencing policy,
Selection of companies setting supplier rules, influencing livelihoods, influencing
INFORMAS, which aims to standardise food environ- communities, accessibility, availability, food cost and af-
ments monitoring in diverse countries and settings [26], fordability, food preferences and choices, food safety and
recommends focusing on predominant food outlet types quality, nutritional quality, animal welfare, food and
[52]. Therefore, the focus of this study was commitments packaging waste, and other sustainability issues.
made by the largest supermarket chains worldwide to
support and encourage healthy and sustainable diets. Data analysis
The world’s largest one hundred retailers (of all types) Supermarket reports were entered into NVivo11 and the
were identified using the 2018 Global Powers of Retailing first author reviewed them for content relating to the
report [53]. Compiled annually by auditor Deloitte, this theoretical framework, with each segment of coded text
report ranked retailers using publically available infor- referred to as a ‘CSR statement’. The process included
mation for the financial year ending in June 2017. The initial familiarisation with the reports, followed by
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121 Page 5 of 20

Supermarket impacts on public health

Food Public health

Food system
governance nutrition
impacts
impacts impacts
Accessibility

General governance Availability

Influencing livelihoods Food cost and
affordability
Food preferences and
choices

Influencing policy Food safety and quality

Nutritional quality
Sustainability:
Influencing
communities - Animal welfare
Setting supplier rules - Food and packaging
waste
- Other

Fig. 1 Framework of supermarket impacts on public health, based on evidence of how supermarket power impacts public health [5]; it includes
three domains and 14 attributes

coding selected text to the 14 attributes listed above. Table 2 provides details of the CSR themes reported
Each of the coded text segments was reviewed again for across all supermarkets. Table 3 summarises the CSR
important themes. commitments made by each supermarket, cross-refer-
enced with the themes reported in Table 2 that were in-
Results cluded in the publically available reports.
Thirty-one supermarkets met the inclusion criteria for this The following results highlight common and less
study, i.e. a supermarket listed in the top 100 retailers (of common CSR themes identified. For each key domain,
all types) in the 2018 Global Powers of Retailing report an example of a supermarket CSR commitment is given.
[53], with a CSR or sustainability report available in Eng-
lish. The list includes five companies listed on the Fortune Food governance
500 list (Table 1). Supermarket countries of origin The food governance related theme most commonly re-
included Germany, France, the Netherlands, the UK, ported by the supermarkets referred to setting standards
Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Finland, the US, for manufacturers of supermarket own brand products
Canada, Australia, South Korea, Chile, South Africa, and (15/99 food governance CSR statements). For example,
Hong Kong. Six of the companies only operated in one Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc required all own brand
country (the US, the UK or Canada) and the rest operated suppliers to adhere to their policy of meeting salt targets.
in between two and 50 countries. For example, US-based Eight supermarkets also set standards for suppliers’ social
Walmart operated supermarkets in 27 countries including and environmental performance, including The Kroger
Argentina, Canada, Ghana, China, India, Japan, and Co. which required all suppliers to agree to the vendor
Uganda; Netherlands-based Ahold Delhaize operated su- code of conduct. The Kroger Co. assessed the risk of hu-
permarkets in 11 countries including the US, Belgium, man rights violations in the supply chain, and conducted
Greece, and Romania; South Korea-based Lotte Shopping audits for compliance with the code requirements that
operated supermarkets in six countries including China, included child and forced labour, discrimination, environ-
Indonesia, and Russia. The number of supermarket outlets ment, ethics, freedom of association, health and safety,
ranged from 245 (Hy-Vee Inc) to 6548 (Dairy Farm Inter- subcontracting, working hours and compensation.
national Holdings Ltd). Most (24/31) supermarkets partic- Commitments to improving nutrition and health were
ipated in the GRI database, however only 12 reports were only stated in reports from 12 supermarkets. Seven super-
compliant with the GRI-G4 standard. markets made statements about working with government
Supermarket CSR reports addressed 79 themes (listed to develop and implement public health initiatives, includ-
1–79 in Table 2) across the 14 attributes included in the ing Australian companies Wesfarmers Ltd. and Wool-
theoretical framework (Fig. 1). Most (57/79) themes re- worths Ltd. who referred to membership of the Healthy
lated to public health nutrition, followed by food govern- Food Partnership, a public-private-partnership initiative
ance (10/79), and then food system (12/79) themes. led by the Australian government [55].
Table 1 Summary of the world’s largest supermarkets based on data sourced from Global Powers of Retailing [53]
FY2016 Retail Name of Dominant Country FY2016 Retail Number of Number of Main Participate in the Type of report (as Fortune 500 Title of reviewed report
revenue rank company retail format of origin revenue (US$M)a countries supermarkets supermarket GRI Sustainability per GRI database) company (year), and website link
chain(s) Disclosure Databaseb for non-GRI reports
1 Wal-Mart Stores, Hypermarket/ US 485,873 29 11,700 Walmart, Yes GRI-G4 #1 Global responsibility report
Inc. Supercentre/ Sam’s, (2017)
Superstore Club
Massmart,
Asda
3 The Kroger Co. Supermarket US 115,337 1 2796 Kroger, Yes Non-GRI #18 Sustainability report (2017)
Ralphs,
Dillons,
Smith’s
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health

8 Aldi Einkauf Discount Germany 84,923 17 10,132 Aldi Yes North: Non-GRI; – Aldi North Group: Sustainability
GmbH & Co. oHG Store South: GRI-G4 report (2015), Aldi South Group:
International corporate
responsibility report (2015)
9 Carrefour S.A. Hypermarket/ France 84,131 34 11,935 Carrefour, Yes GRI-G4 – Annual activity and responsible
Supercentre/ Champion commitment report (2016)
Superstore
(2018) 14:121

11 Tesco PLC Hypermarket/ UK 72,390 8 6809 Tesco Yes Non-GRI – Annual report and financial
Supercentre/ statements (2017), Little Helps
Superstore Plan (2017)
14 Ahold Delhaize Supermarket Netherlands 68,950 11 6556 Delhaize, Yes GRI-G4 – Supplementary report on
Albert Heijn sustainable retailing performance
Food Lion, (2016), Annual report (2016)
Hannaford
17 Albertson’s Supermarket US 59,678 1 2300 Albertsons, No – #49 Sustainability update (2016) https://
Companies, Inc. Safeway www.albertsons.com/our-company/
Tom Thumb social-responsibility/
18 Auchan Holding Hypermarket/ France 57,219 14 3778 Auchan, Yes Non-GRI – CSR section of the 2016 management
SA Supercentre/ Jumbo report (2016)
Superstore Alcampo,
Simply,
Market
21 Wesfarmers Supermarket Australia 47,690 4 801 Coles Yes GRI-G4 – Sustainability report (2017)
Limited
22 Rewe Group Supermarket Germany 44,641 11 14,728 Rewe, Yes GRI-G4 – Sustainability report (2015/16)
Penny,
Adeg
23 Woolworths Supermarket Australia 40,773 3 1179 Woolworths, Yes GRI-G4 – Corporate responsibility strategy
Limited Countdown 2020 (2017), Annual report (2017),
Corporate social responsibility
report (2017)
24 Casino Guichard- Hypermarket/ France 39,856 27 12,969 Casino, No – – Annual and corporate social
Perrachon S.A. Supercentre/ Franprix responsibility performance report
Superstore Leader Price, (2016) https://www.groupe-casino.
Libertad fr/en/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2
Pão de Açúcar 017/06/RA-2016-GB.pdf
29 Publix Super Supermarket US 34,274 1 1182 Publix Yes Non-GRI #85 Sustainability report (2017)
Markets, Inc.
Page 6 of 20
Table 1 Summary of the world’s largest supermarkets based on data sourced from Global Powers of Retailing [53] (Continued)
FY2016 Retail Name of Dominant Country FY2016 Retail Number of Number of Main Participate in the Type of report (as Fortune 500 Title of reviewed report
revenue rank company retail format of origin revenue (US$M)a countries supermarkets supermarket GRI Sustainability per GRI database) company (year), and website link
chain(s) Disclosure Databaseb for non-GRI reports
30 Loblaw Hypermarket/ Canada 34,235 6 2300 Loblaws, Yes Non-GRI – Corporate social responsibility report
Companies Supercentre/ Zehrs, (2016)
Limited Superstore Provigo
31 J Sainsbury plc Supermarket UK 34,048 2 1200 Sainsbury’s Yes Non-GRI – 20 × 20 sustainability plan (2014),
Annual report and financial
statements (2017)
39 Migros- Hypermarket/ Switzerland 24,152 3 685 Migros Yes GRI-G4 – Annual report (2016)
Genossenschafts Supercentre/
Bund Superstore
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health

40 Lotte Shopping Hypermarket/ South 23,991 6 886 Lotte Mart Yes GRI-G4 – Annual report (2016), Sustainability
Co., Ltd. Supercentre/ Korea report (2014)
Superstore
43 Coop Group Supermarket Switzerland 28,744 7 2295 Coop, Yes Cites GRI – Sustainability progress report (2016)
Sapori d’Italia
The Karma,
(2018) 14:121

shop
47 Mercadona, S.A. Supermarket Spain 21,905 2 1574 Mercadona No – – Satisfying “The Boss” Annual report
(2015) https://info.mercadona.es/en/
who-we-are/press-hall/annual-reports
48 Wm Morrison Supermarket UK 21,744 1 491 Morrisons Yes Non-GRI – Corporate responsibility report
Supermarkets PLC (2016/17)
53 Empire Company Supermarket Canada 18,065 1 1500 Sobeys No – – Annual report (2016) https://
Limited www.empireco.ca/wp-content/upl
oads/2017/03/Empire-AR-2016_ENG-
FINAL-SEDAR.pdf
59 Whole Foods Supermarket US 15,724 3 481 Whole Foods, Yes Non-GRI #176 Green mission report (2012)
Market, Inc. Market
64 Cencosud S.A. Supermarket Chile 14,525 5 384 Jumbo, Yes Non-GRI – Annual memory (2016)
Gbarbosa
Santa Isabel,
Wong,
Metro
67 Marks and Department UK 13,837 50 1025 Marks and, Yes GRI-G4 – Plan A report (2017), Plan A 2025
Spencer Group store/ Spencer commitments (2017)
plc Supermarket
70 John Lewis Department UK 13,361 6 352 Waitrose Yes Non-GRI – Sustainability report (2016), Annual
Partnership plc store/ report and accounts (2017)
Supermarket
78 Conad Consorzio Supermarket Italy 12,345 2 2673 Conad, No – – Annual report (2015) https://en.calameo.
Nazionale, Margherita, com/read/001456897077b0490e97a
Dettaglianti Soc. Todis,
Coop. a.r.l. Sapori &,
Dintorni
Page 7 of 20
Table 1 Summary of the world’s largest supermarkets based on data sourced from Global Powers of Retailing [53] (Continued)
FY2016 Retail Name of Dominant Country FY2016 Retail Number of Number of Main Participate in the Type of report (as Fortune 500 Title of reviewed report
revenue rank company retail format of origin revenue (US$M)a countries supermarkets supermarket GRI Sustainability per GRI database) company (year), and website link
chain(s) Disclosure Databaseb for non-GRI reports
80 ICA Gruppen AB Supermarket Sweden 11,824 5 1300 ICA, Yes GRI-G4 – Sustainability report: Jan-March, Apr-
Rimi June, Jul-Sept (2017), Annual report
(2017)
85 Dairy Farm Supermarket Hong Kong 11,201 11 6548 Wellcome, No – – Annual report (2016) https://
International Yonghui, www.dairyfarmgroup.com/en-US/
Holdings Limited Cold Storage, Investors/Financial-Reports
Jasons,
Marketplace
Giant
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health

88 S Group Supermarket Finland 10,835 5 1633 S Market, Yes GRI-G4 – Responsibility report (2016)
Prisma,
Alepa,
Sale
94 Shoprite Holdings Supermarket South 10,340 15 2689 Shoprite, Yes Non-GRI – Integrated report (2017)
Ltd. Africa Usave,
Checkers
(2018) 14:121

99 Hy-Vee, Inc. Supermarket US 9800 1 245 Hy-Vee No – – Corporate citizenship report (2017)
https://www.hy-vee.com/corporate/
our-company/corporate-citizenship-
report
Page 8 of 20
Table 2 Thematic analysis of supermarket corporate social responsibility commitments that impact public health
Food governance
General (1) Participates in global (2) Aims to improve (3) Upholds ethical
governance governance initiatives, population nutrition practice by a code
e.g. GRI database, Dow and health of conduct or similar
Jones Sustainability
Index, Global Compact
Influencing (4) Participates in (5) Works with key (6) Is transparent about
policy government-led public influencers on setting relationships including
health nutrition food, nutrition, or with external groups,
initiatives sustainability standards and own brand
and policies suppliers
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health

Setting rules (7) Requires third party (8) Sets standards for (9) Sets other private (10) Sets rules for social
for suppliers quality accreditation, producers of supermarket standards for suppliers and environmental issues
e.g. Global Gap own brand products
Food system
Influencing (11) Sources local food (12) Pays food producers (13) Pays staff a fair (14) Deals with suppliers (15) Provides (16) Promotes local
(2018) 14:121

livelihoods products a fair price and/or has fair wage, and/or provides in an ethical way financial assistance or regional foods in
payment terms healthy working e.g. loans, or other countries
conditions training to small/
local businesses
Influencing (17) Highlights charitable (18) Makes food donations (19) Provides other (20) Supports community (21) Provides (22) Provides
communities food donations made for animals support to food organisations via provision community support emergency aid to
charities e.g. of space and other via funding specific communities or staff
infrastructure, resources food and nutrition affected by natural
training projects disasters
Public health nutrition
Accessibility (23) Considers the (24) Considers the (25) Provides consumer (26) Provides consumer (27) Has promotions (28) Increases
location of stores location of foods in stores education initiatives to education initiatives related to encourage sales accessibility of
in communities e.g. removes unhealthy support healthy eating, to sustainability, e.g. ways of healthy foods supermarket own
foods from prominent e.g. store tours, menu to reduce food waste, brands by making
locations planning, cooking skills animal welfare information them available to
other retailers or
other countries
Availability (29) Sells healthy foods (30) Sells sustainable (31) Sells locally sourced (32) Sells fresh food (33) Sells products (34) Sells supermarket (35) Sells
foods or regional foods to meet specific own brand products convenient
needs products
Food cost and (36) Offers foods that (37) Ensures healthy foods (38) Tracks shopping (39) Offers foods that meet (40) Keeps the cost (41) Offers discounts
affordability are affordable are no more expensive basket affordability via specific needs at a of supermarket own or subsidies on
than unhealthy foods ongoing monitoring competitive price brand products healthy foods, or
down other foods that meet
specific needs
Food preferences (42) Has food labelling (43) Has food labelling (44) Has food labelling/ (45) Has food labelling/ (46) Highlights (47) Highlights (48) Highlights
and choices initiatives to enable initiatives to enable marketing initiatives to marketing initiatives healthier food healthier food choices sustainability
consumers to identify consumers to identify identify locally sourced related to animal welfare choices using on shopping websites messages e.g.
healthy and/or foods that meet specific or regional products, in-store signage minimise food
sustainable foods needs, e.g. free from, e.g. logos, catalogues e.g. shelf edge waste, recycle
Page 9 of 20
Table 2 Thematic analysis of supermarket corporate social responsibility commitments that impact public health (Continued)
vegetarian labels food packaging
Food safety and (49) Makes food safety (50) Makes statements (51) Emphasises (52) Ensures hygienic stores (53) Avoids use of (54) Avoids use of
quality statements about food quality traceability artificial ingredients, genetically modified
e.g. colours, flavours, ingredients
preservatives, BPA-free
packaging
Nutritional (55) Has a nutrient (56) Has specific healthy (57) Has established (58) Has established targets (59) Has established
quality reduction programme food ranges targets for healthy to improve the overall targets to reduce
for supermarket own foods to contribute nutritional profile of foods portion sizes of single
brand foods a significant proportion sold serve snacks
of total food sales
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health

Sustainability - (60) Encourages (61) Minimises use of (62) Upholds the five (63) Sells cage-free eggs (64) Sets standards for (65) Has other (66) Bans
animal welfare sustainable fishing hormones or antibiotics freedoms of animals dairy cow welfare initiatives to improve products from
practices to ensure their welfare animal welfare sale due to
animal welfare
concerns
(2018) 14:121

Sustainability - (67) Has established (68) Sells imperfect fresh (69) Has established (70) Has established targets (71) Sources packaging (72) Has established
food and targets to reduce food produce, or uses it to targets to reduce waste to reduce and recycle materials from sustainably targets to reduce waste
packaging waste make meals or products in the whole of the packaging waste managed forests by moving paper-
waste food system based marketing
materials e.g. coupons,
to digital formats
Sustainability - (73) Sustainably sources (74) Sustainably sources (75) Sustainably sources (76) Sustainably sources (77) Sustainably sources (78) Sources organic (79) Has other
other coffee cocoa palm oil soy other ingredients products product related
sustainability
commitments
Page 10 of 20
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121 Page 11 of 20

Table 3 Summary of the world’s largest supermarkets’ corporate social responsibility commitments that impact public health
Name of company Food Food Public health nutrition
governance system
Accessibility Availability Food cost and Food Food safety Nutritional Sustainability
affordability preferences and quality quality
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 2, 4, 5, 9, 10 11, 13, 15, 23, 25, 26 – 36, 41 42, 47 49, 51, 53 55, 56 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,
(n = 37) 17, 19, 22 65, 67, 68, 69, 70,
75, 76, 77, 79
The Kroger Co. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, – 33, 34 – 43, 44, 45 49, 50, 52, – 60, 61, 63, 64, 65,
(n = 35) 6, 8, 9, 10 17, 22 53 66, 67, 70, 72, 73,
75, 79
Aldi Einkauf GmbH 7, 9 11, 13, 17, 24, 25, 26 32, 33, 34 – 42, 43, 44, 50, 53, 54 55 60, 62, 65, 66, 70,
& Co. oHG (n = 29) 21 45 73, 74, 75, 79
Carrefour S.A. (n = 30) 1, 2, 8 11, 12, 17, 23, 27, 28 31, 33, 34, 36, 39, 40 43 49, 50, 51 – 60, 61, 67, 69, 75,
19, 21, 22 35 77, 79
Tesco PLC (n = 29) 1, 2 12, 13, 17, 24 34 36, 37, 40, 41 46, 47 49 55, 58 60, 64, 65, 67, 68,
20, 21 69, 70, 74, 75, 77,
79
Ahold Delhaize 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 13, 17, 18 25 33, 34 36 42, 43, 45, 49, 50 55, 57 60, 64, 66, 67, 68,
(n = 31) 46 69, 73,74, 75, 76,
77
Albertson’s – 17, 22 25 34 – – – – 70, 75
Companies, Inc.
(n = 6)
Auchan Holding 1 11, 13, 15, 24, 25, 27 29, 33, 34 36 42, 43, 45 49, 51, 52, – 60, 67, 70, 75, 79
SA (n = 29) 16, 17, 18, 54
19, 20, 21
Wesfarmers Limited 1, 4, 8, 9 11, 12, 13, – 32 36 42 49, 51, 53 55 60, 62, 63, 65, 67,
(n = 28) 15, 17, 22 68, 70, 73, 74, 75,
77
Rewe Group (n = 34) 1, 3, 5, 8, 9 13, 17 25 30, 21, 33, – 42, 43, 44, 49, 50 – 60, 62, 63, 64, 65,
34 45, 47 66, 67, 68, 70, 74,
75, 76, 77, 78, 79
Woolworths Limited 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 17, 24 – 36, 38 42, 45, 47, 53 55 60, 63, 64, 65, 67,
(n = 32) 10 21, 22 48 68, 69, 70, 73, 74,
75, 77
Casino Guichard- 2, 3, 7, 8 11, 12, 17 23, 25, 28 33, 34 36, 39, 40, 41 44 49 55, 57 60, 61, 63, 64, 65,
Perrachon S.A. 68, 70, 75, 77, 79
(n = 30)
Publix Super Markets, 3 13, 17, 18 – 34 – 46 – – 60, 61, 62, 65, 67,
Inc. (n = 12) 70
Loblaw Companies 2, 5 17, 19, 22 25 33, 34 – 46, 47 49, 51 – 60, 61, 63, 64, 65,
Limited (n = 22) 68, 70, 74, 75, 77
J Sainsbury plc 2, 3, 10 11, 13, 17, 25 33, 34 36 42, 43, 47 – 55, 56, 57 61, 63, 65, 67, 69,
(n = 25) 18 70, 75, 77
Migros- 2, 7, 8 13, 17, 23 25 33 – 42, 43, 44 49 55 60, 65, 66, 67, 70,
Genossenschafts 73, 74, 75, 76, 77,
Bund (n = 24) 79
Lotte Shopping 1, 3, 9 11, 12, 13, – – 41 44 49, 51, 52 – 67, 70, 72
Co., Ltd. (n = 16) 15, 21
Coop Group (n = 26) 1, 7, 8, 9 17, 22 23, 26 30, 31, 33, – 44, 45 51 – 60, 63, 64, 65, 70,
34 73, 74, 75, 76, 77,
79
Mercadona, S.A. 1, 4, 5 11, 12, 13, – 33, 34 36 – 49 – 68, 79
(n = 13) 17
Wm Morrison 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 14, 17, – – 41 42, 43, 46, 49 55, 56, 57 60, 61, 63, 67, 68,
Supermarkets 8, 9 20 47 69, 70, 75, 76
PLC (n = 28)
Empire Company – 11, 17, 19, 24, 25 33, 34 36 45 49 – 63, 65, 67, 68, 69,
Limited (n = 19) 21 70, 77, 79
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121 Page 12 of 20

Table 3 Summary of the world’s largest supermarkets’ corporate social responsibility commitments that impact public health
(Continued)
Name of company Food Food Public health nutrition
governance system
Accessibility Availability Food cost and Food Food safety Nutritional Sustainability
affordability preferences and quality quality
Whole Foods Market, 8, 10 15, 17, 20, 25 29, 33 – 43, 45 50, 54 – 60, 61, 62, 65, 67,
Inc. (n = 22) 21 70, 73, 78
Cencosud S.A. (n = 10) 1, 3, 6, 9, 10 11, 13, 14, – – – 44 – – –
17
Marks and Spencer 1, 5, 8, 9, 10 13, 17, 20, 24 33 41 – 53 56, 57, 58, 60, 67, 70, 73, 74,
Group plc (n = 26) 21 59 75, 76, 77, 79
John Lewis 3, 7, 8 11, 12, 13, 25, 28 34 – – 49 55 60, 64, 75, 76
Partnership plc 17, 18
(n = 17)
Conad Consorzio 8 11, 12, 16, 25 31, 33, 34 36, 39 43, 44, 46 49, 54 – 71, 79
Nazionale, Dettaglianti 17
Soc. Coop. a.r.l.
(n = 18)
ICA Gruppen AB 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, 17, 25, 26 29, 30, 31, 36 42 49, 50, 52 – 62, 65, 67, 68, 69,
(n = 31) 8, 9 21 34, 35 70, 75, 79
Dairy Farm – 17 – 34, 35 – – 49 – –
International Holdings
Limited (n = 4)
S Group (n = 14) 2, 3, 5 13, 17 27 30, 32, 33 36 – – – 60, 67, 73, 75
Shoprite Holdings Ltd. 8, 9 11, 13, 15, – 29, 34 36, 41 – 49, 52 – 67, 70
(n = 17) 17, 20, 21,
22
Hy-Vee, Inc.(n = 5) – 13 – – – 42 – – 60, 67, 68
Footnote: (1) Participate in global governance initiatives; (2) Aim to improve population nutrition and health; (3) Uphold ethical practice by a code of conduct or
similar; (4) Participate in government-led public health nutrition initiatives; (5) Work with key influencers on setting food, nutrition, or sustainability standards and
policies; (6) Be transparent about relationships including with external groups, and own brand suppliers; (7) Requires third party quality accreditation; (8) Sets
standards for producers of supermarket own brand products; (9) Sets other private standards for suppliers; (10) Set rules for social and environmental issues; (11)
Sources local food products; (12) Pays food producers a fair price and/or has fair payment terms; (13) Pays staff a fair wage, and/or provides healthy working
conditions; (14) Deals with suppliers in an ethical way; (15) Provides financial assistance or training to small/ local businesses; (16) Promotes local or regional foods
in other countries; (17) Highlights charitable food donations made; (18) Makes food donations for animals; (19) Provides other support to food charities; (20)
Supports community organisations via provision of space and other resources; (21) Provides community support via funding specific food and nutrition projects;
(22) Provides emergency aid to communities or staff affected by natural disasters; (23) Location of stores in communities; (24) Location of foods in stores; (25)
Consumer education initiatives on healthy eating; (26) Consumer education initiatives related to sustainability; (27) Promotions to encourage sales of healthy
foods; (28) Increases accessibility of supermarket own brands by making them available to other retailers or other countries; (29) Availability of healthy foods; (30)
Availability of sustainable foods; (31) Availability of locally sourced or regional foods; (32) Availability of fresh food; (33) Availability of products to meet specific
needs; (34) Availability of supermarket own brand products; (35) Availability of convenient products; (36) Offers foods that are affordable; (37) Ensures healthy
foods are no more expensive than unhealthy foods; (38) Tracks shopping basket affordability via ongoing monitoring; (39) Offers foods that meet specific needs
at a competitive price; (40) Keeps the cost of supermarket own brand products down; (41) Offers discounts or subsidies on healthy foods, or other foods that
meet specific needs; (42) Food labelling initiatives to enable consumers to identify healthy and/or sustainable foods; (43) Food labelling initiatives to enable
consumers to identify foods that meet specific needs; (44) Food labelling/ marketing initiatives to identify locally sourced or regional products; (45) Food labelling/
marketing initiatives related to animal welfare; (46) Highlights healthier food choices using in-store signage; (47) Highlights healthier food choices on shopping
websites; (48) Highlights sustainability messages; (49) Makes food product safety statements; (50) Makes statements about food quality; (51) Emphasises
traceability; (52) Ensures hygienic stores; (53) Avoids use of artificial ingredients; (54) Avoids use of genetically modified ingredients; (55) Has a nutrient reduction
programme for supermarket own brand foods; (56) Sells healthy food ranges; (57) Established targets for healthy foods to contribute a significant proportion of
total food sales; (58) Established targets to improve the overall nutritional profile of foods sold; (59) Established targets to reduce portion size of single serve
snacks; (60) Encourages sustainable fishing practices; (61) Minimises use of hormones or antibiotics; (62) Upholds the five freedoms of animals to ensure their
welfare; (63) Sells cage-free eggs; (64) Sets standards for dairy cow welfare; (65) Other initiatives to improve animal welfare; (66) Bans products from sale due to
animal welfare concerns; (67) Established targets to reduce food waste; (68) Sells imperfect fresh produce, or uses it to make meals or products; (69) Established
targets to reduce waste in the whole of the food system; (70) Established targets to reduce and recycle packaging waste; (71) Sources packaging materials from
sustainably managed forests; (72) Established targets to reduce waste by moving paper-based marketing materials; (73) Sustainably sources coffee; (74)
Sustainably sources cocoa; (75) Sustainably sources palm oil; (76) Sustainably sources soy; (77) Sustainably sources other ingredients; (78) Sources organics; (79)
Other product related sustainability commitments

Food system food not suitable for sale (but safe for consumption) as
Highlighting charitable food donations was the most responsible management of food waste. French super-
commonly reported commitment that impacts the food markets referred to the country’s legal requirement to
system, made by all supermarkets apart from Hy-Vee donate surplus food (see [56]). American supermarkets
Inc. and Lotte Shopping Co. Ltd. (29/124 food system referred to the Environmental Protection Agency’s food
CSR statements). Supermarkets positioned donation of recovery hierarchy that prioritises feeding hungry people
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121 Page 13 of 20

(see [57]). Supermarkets aimed to assist in reducing Four supermarkets described consumer education ini-
hunger, and ‘success’ was often measured by the number tiatives related to sustainability. For example, Wal-Mart
of meals provided through a supermarket’s contribu- Stores Inc.’s Asda supermarkets in the UK gave con-
tions. Shoprite Holdings Ltd. operated mobile soup sumers advice on food storage and recipes ideas for left-
kitchens in addition to making charitable food dona- overs, in an effort to reduce food waste.
tions. However, Conad Consorzio Nazionale point out
“Large retail welfare must not and cannot replace the Availability
role of institutions, which are in charge of putting solid Twenty supermarkets referred to own brand product
measures in place to ensure those on low incomes have availability (20/56 availability CSR statements). The mag-
sufficient food.” nitude of some own brand ranges was described, including
Six supermarkets supported local charities by providing the organic own brand range from Alberton’s Companies
space and other resources. Tesco Plc made 56 community Inc. which was the largest available in the USA. Aldi,
rooms available for classes and meetings across their UK which is well known for its focus on own brand products,
network of stores. Many Whole Foods Market Inc. stores stated the highest proportion was found in the Belgian
provided space for farmers markets or served as pick-up and Luxemburg stores at 99.7%. Tesco Plc had developed
locations for community supported agriculture schemes. 2422 supermarket own brand products over the year.
Seventeen supermarkets mentioned fair payment for In contrast, only four supermarkets made statements
employees. Some referred to exceeding national minimum about healthy foods available in their stores, and four su-
wages (e.g. J Sainsbury, John Lewis Partnership Plc), whilst permarkets made statements about sustainable foods.
others referred to allowing labour representation and col- Three supermarkets made statements about available
lective bargaining (e.g. Shoprite Holdings Ltd., Mercadona fresh foods.
SA). Some supermarkets described the efforts they made
to support the health and wellbeing of employees. Food cost and affordability
Although nine supermarkets committed to paying Fifteen supermarkets committed to offering foods that
food producers a fair price or fair payment terms, only were affordable, the most common commitment within
four supermarkets referred to dealing with suppliers in food cost and affordability (15/30 food cost CSR state-
an ethical way. For example, Wm Morrison Supermar- ments). For example, Ahold Delhaize stated “We want
kets Plc and Woolworths Ltd. both referred to member- every family in our trading areas to be able to do their
ship of the Supplier Ethical Data Exchange which is a weekly shopping with one of our [stores], regardless of their
web-based system used to share ethical information and budget, so every supermarket continues to make pricing
reduce auditing requirements for suppliers. more competitive.” Other efforts included Auchan Holding
SA’s Russian stores’ commitment to sell some fruits and
vegetables below market price so they were affordable to
Public health nutrition
all shoppers. S Group described their commitment to low-
Public health nutrition commitments varied considerably
ering prices as a long-term strategic decision to make
across the supermarkets. Sustainable sourcing initiatives
shopping affordable. Shoprite Holdings Ltd. described the
relating to ingredient sourcing (80 CSR statements), ani-
importance of helping to put food on the table, and said
mal welfare (79 CSR statements), and reduction of food
affordability was a key measure of their success.
and packaging waste (69 CSR statements) were most
Three supermarkets committed to offering specific
commonly referred to. Nutritional quality (23 CSR state-
foods at competitive prices. For example, Carrefour SA
ments), food cost and affordability (30 CSR statements),
in Argentina guaranteed the lowest prices for 800 prod-
accessibility (35 CSR statements), and food preferences
ucts every day. In addition, three supermarkets made
(55 CSR statements) were referred to the least.
statements about keeping the cost of supermarket own
brand products down. Tesco Plc was the only supermar-
Accessibility ket chain to make a commitment to ensure shoppers al-
Consumer education initiatives on healthy eating was ways paid the same price or less for healthier options.
most popular theme within accessibility, with 15 super- Woolworths Ltd. was the only supermarket chain to
markets making commitments (15/35 accessibility CSR commit to introducing an affordable healthy eating
statements). For example, Casino Guichard-Perrachon index based on shopper preferences.
SA had a Responsible Food truck which provided free
cooking workshops using recipes to promote a healthy Food preferences and choices
and sustainable diet; and Loblaw Companies Ltd. fo- Statements about food labelling initiatives to enable con-
cused on educating children on how to read food labels sumers to identify healthy or sustainable foods were
and use the Guiding Stars nutrition rating system. made by 12 supermarkets (12/55 food preferences CSR
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121 Page 14 of 20

statements). Seven made statements about assisting con- Four supermarkets referred to healthy own brand
sumers to select healthy foods, and five referred to an ranges: J Sainsbury’s ‘My Goodness!’ range; Marks and
aspect of sustainability. For example, Australian com- Spencer Group Plc’s ‘Count on Us’ and ‘Balanced for
panies Wesfarmers Ltd. and Woolworths Ltd. had intro- You’ ranges; Wal-Mart Stores Inc’s ‘Great for You’
duced the voluntary Health Star Rating front-of-pack range; and Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc’s ‘Eat Smart’
nutrition labelling device on own brand products. range. Criteria used to determine product healthiness
Six supermarkets highlighted healthier food choices in were not disclosed.
stores using signage: Ahold Delhaize and Loblaw Com- Four supermarkets committed to healthy supermarket
panies Ltd. used the Guiding Stars system of rating all own brand foods contributing a significant proportion of
products available within a store and applied labels on total food sales. Marks and Spencer Group Plc and J
grocery shelves to indicate the healthier choices; and Sainsbury Plc set targets for the contribution of all
Tesco Plc held a ‘Little Helps to Healthier Living’ event healthy foods (not just own brand) to total food sales.
which included ‘Helpful Little Swaps’ signs to highlight Criteria used to define healthy foods were not provided.
products lower in sugar, fat or salt compared to regular
alternatives. Products with the ‘Helpful Little Swap’ signs Sustainable sourcing
saw a 30% increase in sales during the event. Commitments to sustainable fishing were made by 22
Seven supermarkets stated they highlighted healthier supermarkets (22/79 animal welfare CSR statements).
choices on their shopping websites: Tesco Plc used the For example, the sustainable fishing policies of Auchan
‘Helpful Little Swaps’ campaign; J Sainsbury’s swapping Holding SA and Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. oHG re-
campaign identified lower calorie options; Loblaw Com- ferred to not stocking species that were categorised as
panies Ltd. applied the Guiding Stars system; and Wm endangered or protected. Some supermarkets referred to
Morrison Supermarkets Plc had a dedicated healthier third party schemes for ensuring the sustainability of the
living section which included healthier products. own brand fish sold in their stores, including the Sus-
With the exception of the Australian Health Star Rat- tainable Fisheries Partnership, Marine Stewardship
ing algorithm which is publically available, none of the Council, Aquaculture Stewardship Council, RSPCA
supermarkets provided the criteria used to determine Freedom Food, Seafish Responsible Fishing Scheme,
healthy and sustainable foods identified via product la- WWF Seafood Group, International Seafood Sustainabil-
belling, in-store signs, or websites. ity Foundation, and Sustainable Seafood Coalition.
Commitments to reduce food waste were made by 22
Food safety and quality supermarkets (22/69 food and packaging waste CSR
Statements about the importance of food safety were statements). Three supermarkets, Ahold Delhaize, J
made by 20 supermarkets, with seven making specific Sainsbury Plc and Tesco Plc, committed to transparently
traceability commitments (20/49 food safety CSR state- reporting food waste. Tesco Plc had taken this a step
ments). Most statements referred to the rigorous pro- further by making a joint commitment with 24 of their
cesses in place to ensure suppliers of supermarket own largest suppliers to reduce overall food waste across the
brand products adhered to the supermarket’s require- supply chain. Other food waste reduction initiatives in-
ments for quality control. Some committed to ensuring cluded a partnership between ICA Gruppen AB in
all suppliers were compliant with requirements for food Sweden and Karma, a food application, to trial selling
safety and correctly labelled products. Third-party assur- food products near their best before date at reduced
ances were often required from suppliers to demonstrate prices. J Sainsbury replaced multi-buy promotions with
suitable standards were in place. lower regular prices to reduce bulk purchasing, which
often resulted in wasted food at home. US supermarkets
Nutritional quality referred to the Environmental Protection Agency’s food
Few supermarkets made commitments to nutritional recovery hierarchy which prioritises source reduction,
quality (12/31). Eleven supermarkets committed to nu- followed by feed hungry people, feed animals, industrial
trient reduction programmes for own brand products uses, composting, with landfill or incineration at the bot-
(11/23 nutritional quality CSR statements). Targeted nu- tom (see [57]).
trients included fat, saturated fat, salt or sodium, sugar, Supermarket commitments to sustainably sourcing
and added sugar, with sugar and sodium receiving the products related to own brand products. Standards re-
most attention. In addition, Migros-Genossenschafts ferred to include the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm
Bund aimed to increase the fibre content of own brand Oil, UTZ Certified, Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade USA,
products. Specific nutrient targets were not provided, Fairtrade International, and Bio Suisse. Sustainable sour-
with percent reduction, or total amount removed pro- cing of palm oil was referred to the most, by 21 super-
vided by some supermarkets. markets (21/80 sustainable sourcing CSR statements).
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121 Page 15 of 20

Ten supermarkets committed to sourcing coffee sustain- appropriate food in socially acceptable ways [61]. Ironic-
ably. Ten supermarkets referred to sustainably sourcing ally, many supermarket employees in the US have been
cocoa, although often this was for specific own brand found to rely on food assistance such as the Supplemental
ranges and did not apply to all products. Eight supermar- Nutrition Assistance Program due to low wages, and lack
kets referred to sustainably sourcing soy, which was widely of health care and child care cover [48]. This clearly raises
used for animal feed. Fourteen supermarkets referred to a challenge for supermarkets to provide fair and liveable
sustainably sourcing other ingredients including tea, beef, wages [48].
rice, bananas, fruit juice, hazelnuts, and sugar. Three super- The powerful supermarkets in this study have reinforced
markets made commitments to sourcing organic products. discourse that entwines responsible management of food
waste with feeding the hungry. However, charitable food
Discussion redistribution does not address the underlying structural
Publically available CSR commitments made by 31 of the causes of food insecurity which include poverty, and may
world’s largest and most powerful supermarkets included even increase inequality [59, 62]. It has been argued that
79 themes, identified using a theoretical framework devel- whilst supermarkets continue to support food charities to
oped by Pulker et al. (2018) to demonstrate how super- feed the hungry, governments will not make the social
market power impacts public health [5]. Some CSR policy reforms needed to ensure citizens’ rights to food
commitments from some supermarkets indicate they have are protected [63]. Italy based Conad Consorzio Nazionale
potential to positively impact public health, but supermar- were the only supermarket to state that it was the respon-
ket CSR efforts were generally disappointing. sibility of the state to support those on low incomes to
Although a large number of themes were identified, have sufficient food. Supermarket CSR efforts to feed the
and there were differences between each business, super- hungry should not replace the need for governments to
market CSR commitments consistently focused on the protect the human right to food.
same five priorities. Supermarkets’ efforts to demon-
strate good corporate citizenship focused on: (1) donat- Reducing and recovering food waste
ing surplus food to charities for redistribution to feed Food waste is a significant global problem, described as a
the hungry; (2) reducing and recovering food waste; (3) structural symptom of the ‘broken globalised food system’
sustainably sourcing ingredients including seafood, palm [63] (p83). Globally, a third of the food produced is never
oil, soy and cocoa including via third-party accreditation; eaten [64]. Food is wasted throughout the global food sys-
(4) governance of food safety including via third-party tem, including from growers, processors, manufacturers,
accreditation; and (5) growing the number of own brand distributors, retailers, food service operators, and end
foods available, that are made by suppliers to meet su- consumers [65]. For example, a UK study showed that
permarkets’ requirements. These priority themes are de- most (70%) losses occurred in the home [61].
scribed below with real world examples from global The World Resources Institute provides companies with
supermarkets. guidance on food loss and waste reporting [66]. Commit-
ting to reduce food waste throughout the whole of the
Donating surplus food to charities for redistribution to food system forces supermarkets to address their own
feed the hungry practices which contribute to generating waste. These
Food charities, such as food banks, provide emergency practices include setting cosmetic standards for fresh pro-
food relief to people who would otherwise go hungry, duce that mean imperfect looking produce is discarded
and have proliferated in many high-income countries in [56]; providing inappropriate packaging formats (e.g.
response to increased food insecurity [58]. To date there oversized) [67]; encouraging increased food purchases
is little evidence that charitable food redistribution of with offers such as ‘buy one get one free’ [68]; or labelling
unsalable food is an appropriate response for recipients, foods with ‘best before’ dates to indicate optimal product
and researchers challenge the food bank model as a quality not required by food regulations [61].
long-term strategy [59]. Concerns have been raised Tesco Plc have been commended for their actions on
about the ‘industry’ of food banking, described as a transparently reporting food waste [41]. They have re-
business solution that delivers food system efficiency by ported waste profiles for the most commonly purchased
removing the need for costly landfill [60]. foods, including levels and causes, to create tailored
Food donations are essential to food banks, but due to waste reduction plans [69]. Recently, they announced
the variability of donated foods nutritional quality cannot removing best before dates from packaging [70]. Only
be guaranteed [58]. Countries relying on food donations two other supermarkets have committed to transparently
to charities for redistribution to address hunger do not reporting food waste, so there is much room for im-
meet human rights obligations, specifically that everyone, provement in the scale and impact of global supermarket
regardless of income, has the right to select nutritious and food waste reduction efforts. Working on solutions that
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121 Page 16 of 20

encompass the whole of the food system rather than supermarkets in this study highlighted their strategies to
passing the problem onto other actors is essential [56]. grow own brand ranges, describing the scale of new prod-
uct development, strict standards which were often assured
Sustainable sourcing by third parties, and the ability to innovate with healthy
Supermarkets in this study consistently framed sustainably and sustainable products. Own brand foods offer large glo-
sourcing ingredients as the primary method to address bal supermarkets the opportunity to positively impact the
sustainable food systems. This included consideration of availability, accessibility, affordability, nutritional quality,
animal welfare, social, and environmental impacts. Analysis product quality, and sustainability of the food supply.
of global food manufacturers found that such sustainable
sourcing initiatives overlooked the most important factor, Gaps in supermarket CSR actions to support public health
that is how to achieve healthy and sustainable diets [71]. Findings show that supermarkets made few CSR com-
Australian research has evaluated the environmental im- mitments to the public health nutrition attributes of ac-
pact of ‘discretionary’ foods, which are not essential for a cessibility, availability (other than supermarket own
healthy diet [72, 73], recommending a reduction in produc- brand food development), food cost and affordability,
tion and consumption as a priority, along with meat reduc- food preferences, and nutritional quality. Whilst super-
tion, to improve the sustainability of the food system [73]. markets appeared willing to take steps to improve sus-
Discretionary foods are more likely to be ‘ultra-processed’ tainable sourcing of specific ingredients, there was little
[74] nutrient-poor industrially processed foods [75]. Dietary action being taken to support health and nutrition. The
guidelines incorporating principles of sustainability recom- following section identifies gaps and opportunities.
mend avoiding these ultra-processed foods [76].
Although not included in the CSR report, ICA Grup- Accessibility
pen in Sweden has taken action to encourage consumers Supermarket CSR initiatives to address accessibility of
to reduce meat consumption and eat more vegetarian healthy and sustainable food mainly focused on education.
food instead [77]. Supermarkets wishing to make mean- Other CSR initiatives such as ensuring underserved com-
ingful CSR commitments to support sustainable diets munities had access to supermarkets, and committing to
could start by recognising the importance of reducing locate nutritious foods in more prominent in-store
production and consumption of discretionary foods, locations than nutrient-poor foods were less common. The
meat, and other ingredients with high social and envir- amount of shelf space and the location of foods in stores
onmental impacts, rather than encouraging ongoing influence food choice [52]. CSR commitments to remove
growth from third-party accredited ‘sustainable’ sources. nutrient-poor confectionery, snacks, and sweetened
beverages from checkouts and other prominent areas
Private governance of food safety would assist in protecting public health.
The neoliberal political context that minimises regulations
in order to promote free trade allows supermarkets to Availability
privately govern the food system [5]. The ability to set so Few CSR commitments were made regarding the public
called ‘voluntary’ standards for suppliers that must be met health priority of increasing availability of heathy, sustain-
is a source of supermarket power that enables control of ably sourced, local, or fresh foods. Instead, supermarket
the supply base [78]. On the other hand however, a major own brand product ranges that meet specific needs such as
benefit of supermarket private food safety standards is an additive free, vegetarian, organic, and free from common
increasingly safe food supply [5]. Most of the supermar- allergens were highlighted. Supermarkets are an important
kets in this study focused on assuring safe, correctly source of healthy foods, however availability is less than
labelled foods from all suppliers. ideal: less than half of packaged foods available in Australia
and New Zealand could be classified as healthy [82];
Growth of supermarket own brand foods household availability of nutrient-poor ultra-processed
Supermarkets have extended their control over the food foods in European countries ranged from 10% in Portugal
system by introducing supermarket own brands. Own to 50% in the UK [83]. Ultra-processed foods are increas-
brand products offer supermarkets practical benefits, such ingly sold in supermarkets around the world [84]. There-
as flexible global sourcing [79], particularly for shelf-stable fore, ensuring a variety of nutritious fresh or minimally
processed foods. They can enforce private standards for processed foods are widely available in the world’s largest
own brands to manage risk by controlling products, pro- supermarkets is essential for public health.
cesses, and movement through the supply chain [80]. Glo-
bally, market share of supermarket own brands is predicted Food cost and affordability
to grow until they dominate the food supply, led by the lar- Commitments to ensuring food is affordable were made
gest supermarket chains [81]. Consistent with the literature, by a number of supermarkets, however, only two referred
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121 Page 17 of 20

to measures that combined cost with health. UK based Four supermarkets have shown leadership by setting
Tesco Plc stated they would ensure healthy foods cost no targets for the nutritional quality of own brand food sold
more than the less healthy version, which refers to some and two have extended this commitment to all food.
foods where the nutritional quality can vary considerably These initiatives have great potential to hold supermar-
between products, for example salt-reduced canned kets to account for their impact on population diets.
vegetables compared with standard canned vegetables, or Again, transparency of criteria to determine what consti-
fat-reduced cheese compared with full-fat cheese. tutes healthy products is needed.
Australia based Woolworths referred to developing an
affordable healthy eating index. Whilst both initiatives Strengths and limitations
show promise, transparency in determining the foods to There are strengths and limitations to this study. A major
monitor, criteria used to define ‘healthy’, impact on shop- strength is the systematic method adopted to select the
per behaviour, and actions to address unintended conse- world’s largest supermarkets, which means the CSR initia-
quences are needed. Making data from these initiatives tives described have enormous scale and reach in the glo-
publically available to enable independent scrutiny would bal population. This is the first study to summarise CSR
be of benefit to public health. commitments by global supermarkets that impact public
health, which is important because of their governance role
within the food system (whereby they influence policy and
Food preferences and choices
set rules). The number of countries affected by the selected
Supermarkets committed to a variety of food labelling ini-
supermarkets’ CSR actions demonstrates the global nature
tiatives to assist consumers to identify foods that are:
of their impact on public health. Limitations include the
healthy or sustainable, meet specific needs, are locally
possibility that some important information was over-
sourced, or that address animal welfare concerns. Some su-
looked, as the research materials were restricted to reports
permarkets highlighted healthier foods using shelving sign-
that referred to CSR or sustainability for practical reasons.
age or on their websites. The Guiding Stars scheme,
Supermarkets’ corporate websites may include additional
implemented by Ahold Delhaize in the US and Loblaws in
information on their CSR actions, or provide some of the
Canada, aims to overcome the plethora of packaging infor-
detail that was lacking in CSR reports, such as criteria
mation by highlighting healthy choices using a shelf-edge
applied to determine healthy products. Supermarkets were
tag and includes branded and own brand foods [85]. Guid-
not contacted to provide further information or clarifica-
ing Stars has been effective in encouraging consumers to
tion as the purpose of the review was to examine publically
purchase more healthy foods [86]. A drawback of the
available information. Quality of the statements made in
Guiding Stars scheme is the lack of transparency in the
supermarket reports was not evaluated as that was not the
algorithm applied to determine healthy foods, as it is a pro-
purpose of this descriptive analysis. It is recommended that
prietary scheme [87]. This is important because nutrition
further research is undertaken to explore these potential
ratings systems and symbols currently used around the
gaps and that quality should be considered in any future
world vary in their purpose and methods, achieving incon-
analysis of specific CSR commitments. The scope of this
sistent dietary outcomes [88]. The benefit of supermarket-
study did not include the ‘corporate political activity’ of
led whole-of-store schemes is that they remove the reliance
global supermarkets (i.e. activity undertaken with the aim
on multiple manufacturers for implementation of voluntary
of influencing political outcomes that can impact public
front-of-pack labelling, facilitating widespread adoption and
health, including lobbying and legal action [23]) which is
consumer use. Going forward, integrated assessment of
an important gap in knowledge.
environmental and nutritional factors is needed to promote
healthy and sustainable food selection [89].
Conclusions
The political CSR lens applied in this study identified the
Nutritional quality inherent responsibilities of powerful supermarkets to soci-
Nutrient targets for reformulation of processed own brand ety, including food governance, the food system, and all as-
foods were referred to by some supermarkets. Whilst pects of a safe, nutritious and environmentally sustainable
nutrient reduction policies of food manufacturers and food system. CSR commitments made by 31 of the world’s
retailers have been encouraged by many working in public largest supermarkets showed how they claim to support
health [28], others challenge this strategy, referring to it as and encourage healthy and sustainable diets. Supermarkets’
‘damage limitation’ [21], expressing concern that it may efforts to demonstrate good corporate citizenship focused
encourage consumption of ultra-processed foods [90]. on: donating surplus food to charities to feed the hungry,
Provision of own brand food ranges designated as healthy reducing and recovering food waste, sustainably sourcing
may assist consumers, however transparency of criteria ingredients, governance of food safety, and growing their
used by supermarkets is needed to enable assessment. own brand foods. Although a number of supermarket CSR
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121 Page 18 of 20

initiatives identified showed some progress is being made Publisher’s Note

to address food waste, assure food safety and quality, and Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
support selection of healthy foods, the world’s largest
supermarkets could do more to use their power to support Author details
1
public health, including: School of Public Health, Curtin University, Kent Street, GPO Box U1987,
Perth, WA 6845, Australia. 2Telethon Kids Institute, The University of Western
Australia, PO Box 855, West Perth, WA 6872, Australia. 3School of Population
 Transparently report food waste encompassing the and Global Health, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway,
whole of the food system in waste reduction efforts; Crawley, WA 6009, Australia. 4East Metropolitan Health Service, Kirkman
House, 20 Murray Street, East Perth, WA 6004, Australia.
 Support healthy and sustainable diets by reducing
production and consumption of discretionary foods, Received: 17 July 2018 Accepted: 15 November 2018
meat, and other ingredients with high social and
environmental impacts;
 Remove confectionery, sweetened beverages and References
1. Hawkes C. Dietary implications of supermarket development: a global
nutrient poor snacks from prominent areas in perspective. Dev Policy Rev. 2008;26(6):657–92.
stores; 2. Reardon T. The supermarket revolution in developing countries: policies to
 Ensure a variety of nutritious fresh and minimally address emerging tensions among supermarkets, suppliers and traditional
retailers. Eur J Dev Res. 2006;18(4):522.
processed foods are available; and 3. IPES-Food. Too big to feed. Exploring the impacts of mega-mergers,
 Introduce initiatives that aim to make healthy foods consolidation and concentration of power in the agri-food sector. Louvain-
more affordable, support consumers to select la-Neuve: IPES-Food; 2017.
4. Qaim M. Globalisation of agrifood systems and sustainable nutrition. Proc
healthy and sustainable foods, and measure and Nutr Soc. 2017;76(1):12–21.
report the proportion of healthy food sales as a 5. Pulker CE, et al. What are the position and power of supermarkets in the
proportion of total food sales, using transparent Australian food system, and the implications for public health? A systematic
scoping review. Obes Rev. 2018;19(2):198–218.
criteria for key terms. 6. Mialon M, et al. Systematic examination of publicly-available information
reveals the diverse and extensive corporate political activity of the food
Abbreviations industry in Australia. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1–13.
ATNI: Access to nutrition index; CSR: Corporate social responsibility; GRI 7. Garriga E, Melé D. Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the
database: Global reporting initiative sustainability disclosure database; territory. J Bus Ethics. 2004;53(1):51–71.
GRI: Global reporting initiative; INFORMAS: International network for food 8. Global Justice Now. 10 biggest corporations make more money than most
and obesity/noncommunicable diseases research, monitoring and action countries in the world combined 2016 30 April 2018]; Available from: http://
support; UN: United Nations www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/2016/sep/12/10-biggest-corporations-make-
more-money-most-countries-world-combined.
Acknowledgments 9. Hattersley L, Dixon J. Supermarkets, food systems and public health: Facing
The authors would like to thank Frances Foulkes-Taylor for assistance with the challenges. In: Lawrence G, Lyons K, Wallington T, editors. Food security,
data collection. nutrition and sustainability. London: Earthscan; 2010. p. 188–203.
10. Nenycz-Thiel M. Private labels in Australia: a case where retailer concentration
does not predicate private labels share. J Brand Manag. 2011;18(8):624–33.
Funding
11. Olbrich R, Hundt M, Jansen HC. Proliferation of private labels in food
C.E.P. has a Health Promotion Research Training Scholarship from Healthway
retailing: a literature overview. Int J Mark Stud. 2016;8(6):63.
(No. 24124), and is supported through an Australian Government Research
12. Cuneo A, et al. The growth of private label brands: a worldwide
Training Program Scholarship. G.S.A.T. is supported by a NHMRC Early Career
phenomenon? J Int Mark. 2015;23(1):72–90.
Research Fellowship (No. 1073233). The funders had no role in study design,
13. Burch D, Dixon J, Lawrence G. Introduction to symposium on the changing
data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the
role of supermarkets in global supply chains: from seedling to supermarket:
manuscript.
Agri-food supply chains in transition. Agric Hum Values. 2013;30(2):215–24.
14. McKeon N. Food security governance : empowering communities,
Availability of data and materials regulating corporations. London: Routledge; 2015.
The thematic analysis compiled during the current study is available from 15. McCarthy D, Morling P. Using regulation as a last resort: Assessing the
the corresponding author on reasonable request. performance of voluntary approaches. Sandy: Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds; 2015.
Authors’ contributions 16. United Nations. Report of the World Commission on Environment and
CEP conceived the study design and research objectives in consultation with Development: Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.
CMP, CEP developed the research questions, collected and analysed the 17. Sharma LL, Teret SP, Brownell KD. The food industry and self-regulation:
data, CEP wrote the first draft of the article in consultation with CMP. All standards to promote success and to avoid public health failures. Am J
authors reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved Public Health. 2010;100(2):240–6.
the final manuscript. 18. Dorfman L, et al. Soda and tobacco industry corporate social responsibility
campaigns: how do they compare? PLoS Med. 2012;9(6):e1001241.
19. Kraak VI, Story M. An accountability evaluation for the industry's responsible
Ethics approval and consent to participate
use of brand mascots and licensed media characters to market a healthy
Not applicable.
diet to American children. Obes Rev. 2015;16(6):433–53.
20. Clapp J, Fuchs D. Agrifood corporations, global governance, and
Consent for publication sustainability: a framework for analysis. In: Corporate power in global
Not applicable. agrifood governance; 2009. p. 1–26.
21. Moodie R, et al. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of
Competing interests tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 2013;381(9867):670–9.
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121 Page 19 of 20

22. Carroll AB. The four faces of corporate citizenship. Bus Soc Rev. 1998;100- 49. Chatzopoulou S. The dynamics of the transnational food chain regulatory
101(1):1–7. governance: an analytical framework. Br Food J. 2015;117(10):2609–27.
23. Mialon M, Swinburn B, Sacks G. A proposed approach to systematically 50. Food and Agriculture Organization. Influencing food environments for
identify and monitor the corporate political activity of the food industry healthy diets. Rome: FAO; 2016.
with respect to public health using publicly available information. Obes Rev. 51. Public Health Association of Australia. A future for food. Healthy, sustainable,
2015;16(7):519–30. fair. Canberra: PHAA; 2012.
24. Access to Nutrition Index. Global Index 2016. Utrecht: Access to Nutrition 52. Ni Mhurchu C, et al. Monitoring the availability of healthy and unhealthy
Foundation; 2016. foods and non-alcoholic beverages in community and consumer retail food
25. Access to Nutrition Foundation. Access to Nutrition Index Investor Statement. environments globally. Obes Rev. 2013;14(Suppl 1):108–19.
2016 20 May 2016]; Available from: https://www.accesstonutrition.org/investors. 53. Deloitte. Global Powers of Retailing 2018. Transformative change,
26. Swinburn B, et al. INFORMAS (international network for food and obesity/ reinvigorated commerce. Australian edition. Sydney: Deloitte Touche
non-communicable diseases research, monitoring and action support): Tohmatsu Limited; 2018.
overview and key principles. Obes Rev. 2013;14(S1):1–12. 54. Fortune Magazine. Fortune 500. 2018 [cited 17 May 2018; Available from:
27. Glanz K, et al. Healthy nutrition environments: concepts and measures. Am J http://fortune.com/fortune500/list/.
Health Promot. 2005;19(5):330–3. 55. Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation. Healthy
28. Sacks, G. and L. Vanderlee. BIA-Obesity (Business Impact Assessment - Food Partnership Communique. 2015; Available from: http://www.health.
Obesity and population nutrition) Tool. Methods: Supermarkets v1.0 . 2018 gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/hfp-communique.
26 February 2018]; Available from: https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7ee332_ 56. Devin B, Richards C. Food waste, power, and corporate social
21a6728c439645a19eb0c321dda7b736.pdf. responsibility in the Australian food supply chain. J Bus Ethics. 2016;
29. Sacks G, Robinson E, Cameron A. INFORMAS. Inside our supermarkets: 150(1):199–210.
Australia. Assessment of company policies and commitments related to 57. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Sustainable management of
obesity prevention and nutrition. Melbourne: Deakin University; 2018. food: Food recovery hierarchy. 2017 19 April 2018]; Available from: https://
30. FTSE Russell. FTSE4Good Index Series. 2018 16 May 2018]; Available from: www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-recovery-hierarchy.
http://www.ftse.com/products/indices/FTSE4Good. 58. Loopstra R. Interventions to address household food insecurity in high-
31. Robeco SAM. Dow Jones Sustainability Indices. 2018 16 May 2018]; Available income countries. Proc Nutr Soc. 2018;77(3):270–81.
from: https://www.sustainability-indices.com/index-family-overview/. 59. Middleton G, et al. The experiences and perceptions of food banks amongst
32. United Nations Global Compact. Our mission. 2018 16 May 2018]; Available users in high-income countries: an international scoping review. Appetite.
from: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc/mission. 2018;120:698–708.
33. Office of the Ambassador at large for Corporate Social Responsibility. The 60. Booth S, Whelan J. Hungry for change: the food banking industry in
French legislation on extra-financial reporting: built on consensus. 2012 21 Australia. Br Food J. 2014;116(9):1392.
May 2018]; Available from: https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/ 61. Caraher M, Furey S. Is it appropriate to use surplus food to feed people in
Mandatory_reporting_built_on_consensus_in_France.pdf. hunger? Short-term band-aid to more deep rooted problems of poverty.
34. Global Reporting Initiative. G4 Sustainability reporting guidelines: London: Food Research Collaboration Policy Brief; 2017.
Implementation manual. Amsterdam: Global Reporting Initiative; 2013. 62. Silvasti T. Food aid – Normalising the abnormal in Finland. Soc Policy Soc.
35. Rockström J, Stordalen GA, Horton R. Acting in the Anthropocene: the EAT 2015;14(3):471–82.
lancet commission. Lancet. 2016;387(10036):2364–5. 63. Riches G. Food bank nations: Poverty, corporate charity and the right to
36. Jones P, Comfort D, Hillier D. Corporate social responsibility: a case study of food. New York: Routledge; 2018.
the top ten global retailers. EuroMed J Bus. 2007;2(1):23–35. 64. Gustavsson J, et al. Global food losses and food waste. Extent, causes and
37. Jones P, Comfort D, Hillier D. Healthy eating and the UK's major food prevention. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
retailers: a case study in corporate social responsibility. Br Food J. 2006; Nations; 2011.
108(10):838–48. 65. Bagherzadeh, M., M. Inamura, and H. Jeong, Food waste along the food
38. Piacentini M, MacFadyen L, Eadie D. Corporate social responsibility in food chain. 2014.
retailing. Int J Retail Distrib Manag. 2000;28(11):459–69. 66. Food Loss and Waste Protocol. Food loss and waste accounting and
39. Souza-Monteiro D, Hooker N. Comparing UK food retailers corporate social reporting standard. Washington DC: World Resources Institute; 2016.
responsibility strategies. Br Food J. 2017;119(3):658–75. 67. Aschemann-Witzel J, de Hooge I, Normann A. Consumer-Related Food
40. Lee M-Y, Fairhurst A, Wesley S. Corporate social responsibility: a review of Waste: Role of Food Marketing and Retailers and Potential for Action. J Int
the top 100 US retailers. Corp Reput Rev. 2009;12(2):140–58. Food Agribus Mark. 2016;28(3):271–85.
41. Molidor, J., S. Feldstein, and J. Figueiredo, Checked Out: How U.S. 68. Wrap. Food promotions - guidance for retailers. 2018 29 May 2018];
Supermarkets Fail to Make the Grade in Reducing Food Waste. 2018, The Available from: http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/
Center for Biological Diversity and The ‘Ugly’ Fruit and Veg Campaign. Food%20Promotions-%20Guidance%20for%20Retailers.pdf.
42. Story M, et al. Creating healthy food and eating environments: policy and 69. Tesco. Tesco and society: Food waste hotspots. 2014 6 February 2017];
environmental approaches. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:253–72. Available from: https://web.archive.org/web/20151129130305/http://www.
43. Hawkes C, Jewell J, Allen K. A food policy package for healthy diets and the tescoplc.com:80/assets/files/cms/Resources/Food_waste?T_S_Hotspots_
prevention of obesity and diet-related non-communicable diseases: the 190514v3.pdf.
NOURISHING framework. Obes Rev. 2013;14:159–68. 70. Brook, B. UK supermarket chain Tesco to ditch best-before dates. 2018 24
44. Forouzanfar MH, et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk May 2018]; Available from: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/food/food-
assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and warnings/uk-supermarket-chain-tesco-to-ditch-bestbefore-dates/news-story/
metabolic risks or clusters of risks in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic 1f7c1e15c4878719025f4ca7f667030d.
analysis for the global burden of disease study 2013. Lancet. 2015; 71. Scott C. Sustainably sourced junk food? Big food and the challenge of
386(10010):2287–323. sustainable diets. Glob Environ Politics. 2018;18(2):93–113.
45. Cameron AJ, et al. A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Supermarket- 72. National Health and Medical Research Council. Australian Dietary Guidelines.
Based Interventions Involving Product, Promotion, or Place on the Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2013.
Healthiness of Consumer Purchases. Curr Nutr Rep. 2016;5(3):129–38. 73. Hadjikakou M. Trimming the excess: environmental impacts of discretionary
46. Adam A, Jensen JD. What is the effectiveness of obesity related food consumption in Australia. Ecol Econ. 2017;131:119–28.
interventions at retail grocery stores and supermarkets? —a systematic 74. Pulker CE, Scott JA, Pollard CM. Ultra-processed family foods in Australia:
review. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1247. nutrition claims, health claims and marketing techniques. Public Health
47. White C. Food industry body admits that voluntary agreements lack punch. Nutr. 2018;21(1):38–48.
BMJ. 2016;352:i1508. 75. Monteiro CA, et al. NOVA. The star shines bright. World Nutr. 2016;7(1–3):28–38.
48. Taillie LS, Jaacks LM. Toward a just, nutritious, and sustainable food 76. Monteiro CA, et al. Dietary guidelines to nourish humanity and the planet
system: the false dichotomy of localism versus supercenterism. J Nutr. in the twenty-first century. A blueprint from Brazil. Public Health Nutr. 2015;
2015;145(7):1380–5. 18(13):2311–22.
Pulker et al. Globalization and Health (2018) 14:121 Page 20 of 20

77. Food Climate Research Network. Sweden’s supermarkets’ campaign to

reduce meat consumption. 2016 29 September 2016]; Available from:
http://www.fcrn.org.uk/research-library/sweden%E2%80%99s-supermarkets-
campaign-reduce-meat-consumption.
78. Konefal J, Mascarenhas M, Hatanaka M. Governance in the global agro-food
system: backlighting the role of transnational supermarket chains. Agric
Hum Values. 2005;22(3):291–302.
79. Burch D, Lawrence G, Hattersley L. Watchdogs and ombudsmen: monitoring
the abuse of supermarket power. Agric Hum Values. 2013;30(2):259–70.
80. Richards C, Lawrence G, Burch D. Supermarkets and agro-industrial foods.
Food Culture Soc. 2011;14(1):29–47.
81. Fuchs D, Kalfagianni A. Discursive power as a source of legitimation in food
retail governance. Int Rev Retail Distrib Consum Res. 2009;19(5):553–70.
82. Ni Mhurchu C, et al. Nutrient profile of 23 596 packaged supermarket foods
and non-alcoholic beverages in Australia and New Zealand. Public Health
Nutr. 2016;19(3):401–8.
83. Monteiro CA, et al. Household availability of ultra-processed foods and obesity
in nineteen European countries. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):18–26.
84. Pan American Health Organization. Ultra-processed food and drink products
in Latin America: Trends, impact on obesity, policy implications. Washington
DC: Pan American Health Organization; 2015.
85. Fischer LM, et al. Development and implementation of the guiding stars
nutrition guidance program. Am J Health Promot. 2011;26(2):e55–63.
86. Cawley J, et al. The impact of a supermarket nutrition rating system on purchases
of nutritious and less nutritious foods. Public Health Nutr. 2015;18(01):8–14.
87. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Examination of Front-of-Package Nutrition
Rating Systems and Symbols: Phase I Report. Washington D.C: The National
Academies Press; 2010.
88. Hawley KL, et al. The science on front-of-package food labels. Public Health
Nutr. 2013;16(3):430–9.
89. Hallström E, et al. Using dietary quality scores to assess sustainability of food
products and human diets: a systematic review. Ecol Indic. 2018;93:219–30.
90. Scrinis G, Monteiro CA. Ultra-processed foods and the limits of product
reformulation. Public Health Nutr. 2018;21(1):247–52.