Opinion: The private sector needs food security reporting standards

The actions of private companies producing the essential food and materials needed to feed the world can be a multiplying factor when it comes to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. And given we are presently on a trajectory to fail to reach SDG 2: Zero hunger — with 800 million people going hungry every day, it’s clear that we need private companies to take greater accountability for their food security related impacts.  

As the conflict in Ukraine escalates, vulnerabilities in global food supply chains are increasing. Forty percent of the world’s calorie intake is derived from essential crops, such as maize, rice, and wheat — globally, Ukraine and Russia account for 27% of wheat exports and 14% of trade in maize.

Not all world regions are exposed equally. Countries in Africa and the Middle East in particular are heavily dependent on wheat imports from Russia and Ukraine. As the World Food Programme has warned, countries dependent on food exports from the conflict-affected region are being hit hardest and there is heightened concern over insufficiency of food availability.

Most food is produced, processed, traded, and distributed by private businesses, and individual companies are starting to play a greater role in addressing food security, especially in the lower-income world. But in an age of increased transparency on sustainability issues, how can businesses measure and assess their impacts in this specific area and be held accountable?  

The Global Reporting Initiative standards enable any organization to understand and report on its impacts on the economy, environment, and people in a comparable and credible way. The GRI Agriculture, Aquaculture and Fishing Standard, or GRI 13, launched in June, supports organizations operating in these sectors to communicate and disclose their sustainability impacts in a comprehensive and comparable way.

This new reporting standard singles out food security as a significant issue that companies need to consider, providing a new global baseline for transparency on the topic.

There is no silver bullet solution to global food security. But myriad approaches and actions can be applied and measured, such as:

Strengthening capacity for farmers to increase production and supply. The newly launched $1.5 billion African Emergency Food Production Facility aims to do that by delivering urgently needed seeds and fertilizers and supporting producers to cover food shortages in the region. Rising fuel and transportation costs are another pressure on farmers’ incomes, further increasing the vulnerability of small producers. By reporting their contribution to economic inclusion of farmers, companies can demonstrate the capacity-strengthening role they are playing — and where more action is needed.

Partnerships and collaboration to alleviate food security concerns, with some companies working with governments and international development institutions. For example, a link-up between the International Finance Corporation and Olam Agri will boost exports of wheat, maize, and soy to low-income countries. Companies’ existing distribution channels can be leveraged in cases of a crisis for a prompt response. This is why GRI 13 recognizes partnerships on food security as key information to report.

Greater action on food loss to ensure more food is preserved for human consumption. Globally almost 14% of food is lost from harvest to distribution. And of course, mitigating food loss also brings cost savings and economic benefits, while reporting can help assess the efforts to minimize food loss.

Developing or strengthening food sovereignty policies to emphasize local resilience within agriculture systems. This would support countries that are largely dependent on food imports to redress the balance and reduce vulnerability to crises in other regions. Localized food production also reduces the distance between producers and consumers. By reporting actions to strengthen food security at the local and regional levels, companies can highlight how they address food security locally or regionally.

Trade-offs and compromises for sustainability — such as those related to land use for food production, or changes to align dietary choices with sustainably produced food. As the EAT-Lancet Commission report outlines, food production needs to shift to be beneficial for both human health and the environment. This means businesses need to be taking active decisions about how they are using land and natural resources.

The global population is projected to rise to nearly 10 billion by 2050, and the issue of food security will continue to rise up priority lists — for governments, policymakers, and big businesses alike. That means that civil society groups, responsible investors, and other stakeholders will press companies to be transparent. The integration of food security considerations into private companies’ sustainability strategies, as encouraged through GRI’s new standard 13, is a crucial next step toward long-term solutions.