COFCO

 

2018 SCORE

2016 SCORE

26.5

NOT SCORED

COFCO is newcomer to the ranking, scoring 26.5. The Chinese agro-industrial giant lacks an overall inclusive forest policy for soy it produces, trades, or processes that applies to all its global operations including all subsidiaries, all suppliers, and all joint ventures.

However, COFCO’s policy does require its suppliers–which it has a pre-financing direct contract with–to comply with Brazilian Rural Environmental Registry (CAR), the Amazon Soy Moratorium, to not source from areas cleared of natural habitat after July 2008, and to not source soybeans from land that has been converted from High Conservation Values areas. As of 2017, COFCO had screened 1,002 pre-financed suppliers in the Amazon and Cerrado biomes covering 955,000 ha of soy farms.

COFCO lags behind its peers because it lacks traceability of its soy supply chains. COFCO has no commitment to implement full traceability of its direct and indirect suppliers in this area. This is important because COFCO’s rapid expansion into Latin America has led to frequent and demonstrable accusations of land grabs and deforestation.

POLICY

1.A

The company has a forest policy for soy produced, traded or processed that applies to its global operations including all subsidiaries and joint ventures. The company also requires its suppliers to follow the policy.

NO

1.B

The policy excludes the sourcing of  raw materials or products originating from natural forests including both primary and secondary forests.

NO

1.C

The policy specifically excludes the sourcing of raw materials or products originating from High conservation Value (HCV) areas.

YES

1.D

The soy policy explicitly requires the company to comply with the Brazilian soy moratorium.

YES

1.E

The company specifically commits to not sourcing from other sensitive land area such as savannahs (for instance the Brazilian Cerrado).

NO

1.F

In Brazil  the company commits to only buy from farms enrolled in the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR).

YES

1.G

The company has pledged to use (or uses) a third party for compliance verification of its policy.

HALF

1.H

The company has developed and published a non-compliance procedure that outlines thresholds for the suspension and/or cancellation of contracts with suppliers in breach of the policy.

NO

1.I

The company has committed to developing a traceability system that allows of soy back to the farm of origin.

NO

1.J

The company specifically commits (and requires its suppliers to do so) to respect the rights of Indigenous and local communities to give or withhold their Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) to development on their lands.

YES

1.K

The company has programs that support farmers or small holders  in its supply chain with support that goes beyond purely financial considerations and the soy supply chain but addresses longer term development.

NO

1.L

The company has programs that support farmers or small holders  in its supply chain with support that goes beyond purely financial considerations and the soy supply chain but addresses longer term development

NO

IMPLEMENTATION & TRANSPARENCY

2.A

Date by which the company aims to achieve full traceability to farms for its entire supply chain.

Full points are given if this date is by 2018. Half points are given if the date is 2019 or 2020. No points are given if the date is after 2020, no date is given or if the company does not commit to full traceability to plantations including for its third party suppliers.

NO

2.B

The company or the relevant third party publishes detailed processes and results of the policy verification assessments.

NO

2.C

The company has established and published an accessible and transparent grievance and dispute resolution mechanism.

NO

2.D

The company reports on its progress towards meeting its policy goals at least annually against measurable indicators.

YES

2.E

The company makes names or locations of the farms or silos in its supply chain public.

NO

3.A

Points are deducted for the following (occurring since January 1, 2015). There is public evidence that since January 1, 2015 the company has in its own operations not met criteria 1.C, or  1.E  (or uses soy from protected areas). Or the company has sourced from suppliers that have not met these criteria. Or the company had its RTRS   (or other certification) license revoked or suspended since that date. Or there is evidence of significant workers rights violations or social conflicts

HALF

See all of the rankings of major palm oil and soy companies on their adherence to forest conservation requirements on the Green Tiger and Green Jaguar index.