Sustainable performance of the largest global food companies

Society is currently facing great economic, social and environmental challenges. In the search for a more just and prosperous future, the Sustainable Development Agenda for 2030 defined global priorities and established a commitment to more than 193 countries in September 2015. In total, 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), 169 targets and 230 indicators were defined to mobilize efforts from governments, companies and civil society towards the same direction (Szennay, Szigeti, Kovács, & Szabó, 2019).

Different from the Millennium Development Goals, SDGs expand the challenges to be faced beyond poverty, encompassing economic, social and environmental fields on an interconnected basis (Stafford-Smith et al., 2017). In addition, the private sector must participate more in achieving these goals successfully, thus expressing its fundamental role within society and inviting businesses to minimize the negative impacts and maximize the positive ones (SDG Compass, 2015). Multinational companies often have a significant volume of business in relation to the gross domestic product of the countries where they operate, affecting not only their societies but also the planet’s entire ecosystem (Szennay et al., 2019).

The food system encompasses production, transportation, manufacturing, sale, consumption and food disposal, and all these activities have an impact on the environment. Agricultural lands are changed for food production, which affects soil, water, biodiversity and local microclimate. Transformation, transportation and sale of food require energy, water, infrastructure, packaging, etc. The use of chemical products (e.g. agricultural pesticides and other industrial processes) and the elimination of residues (e.g. packages) generate pollution (Benton, Bieg, Harwatt, Pudasaini, & Wellesley, 2021). Food production accounts for almost one-third of the greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, including biodiversity loss, 80% of global deforestation and 70% of the use of the planet’s freshwater (Benton et al., 2021; WWF, 2020).

Considering these environmental and social effects generated by the food sector, the present study is aimed at analyzing and classifying the engagement of large multinational food companies with SDGs in light of the stakeholder and institutional theories. Alignment with SDGs can improve the involvement of stakeholders and reduce legal and reputation risks. The companies supporting SDGs promote confidence, strengthen operational legitimacy and reduce the business risks related to future regulations (SDG Compass, 2015).

The integration of the objectives was a prerequisite during the implementation of SDGs, as a goal can be linked to other ones (Szennay et al., 2019). Despite being necessary during the construction of SDGs, the cross-sectionality of the defined objectives makes their measurement complex and poses a challenge for the evaluation of the business impact. SDG implementation requires a globally integrated innovation system in which regions and societies are connected around the world so that co-production and transfer of knowledge and technology are facilitated (Stafford-Smith et al., 2017).

The complexity of such measurement and the lack of visibility about SDG-related changes hinder companies’ performance, as they do not manage to measure the success of their sustainable actions concerning the defined goals (Schönherr, Findler, & Martinuzzi, 2017). Evaluating the engagement of food companies with SDGs can elucidate the effectiveness of the practices they employ and report, which then allows for comparing sustainable performance among companies. This provides input for management improvement and contributes to a successful sustainable development agenda.

Companies seek support and legitimacy from stakeholders by adopting practices that are perceived as legitimate, and in this way, they get involved with SDGs, mainly to respond to institutional pressures and to strengthen the organizational legitimacy (Heras-Saizarbitoria, Urbieta, & Boiral, 2022). Stakeholders' need for information about companies’ activities has increased significantly in recent decades. The stakeholders expect the companies to report not only financial but also non-financial information (Hussain, Rigoni, & Orij, 2018). According to Elalfy, Weber and Geobey (2021), companies must report their sustainable performance so that internal and external stakeholders capture a higher value regarding the institution, increasing reputation and operational legitimacy and decreasing inequality of access to information. This allows the stakeholders, shareholders and future investors to understand the mission, vision and value of the companies.

The institutional setting shapes organizational behavior by establishing rules that influence efficiency and legitimacy. Institutional factors (e.g. political, legal, economic and sociocultural) and stakeholder pressures influence sustainability reports (Elalfy et al., 2021; Rosati & Faria, 2019). In the food industry, organizations face coercive pressures resulting from food and environmental regulations, normative pressures by consumers for more sustainable products and mimetic pressures through competitive benchmarking, in which the companies replicate the actions of others and enhance competitiveness (Adams, Donovan, & Topple, 2023).

Additionally, managers prioritize stakeholders based on their perception of relevance, which is determined by power, legitimacy and urgency (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). The institutional theory explains the similarity in organizational behavior by relating the companies’ practices (e.g. sustainability reports) to social norms, whereas the stakeholder theory is grounded on the reasons why companies are focused on reporting topics that reinforce their legitimacy among the stakeholders and in society. This approach is more reactive than proactive as it responds to the stakeholders’ expectations and events, such as the process of adopting SDG, in which the companies often emphasize positive aspects (Elalfy et al., 2021).

An effective report addresses stakeholders’ concerns and focuses on material issues, that is, those with relevant environmental, economic and social impacts that influence evaluations and decisions made by stakeholders (SDG Compass, 2015). In this sense, SDGs provide a unified structure for corporate communication with stakeholders on sustainability (SDG Compass, 2015) and they can be aligned with the dimensions of the triple bottom line (TBL) as follows: environmental (SDGs 6, 13, 14 and 15), social (SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11 and 16) and economic (SDGs 8, 9, 10 and 12). SDG 17 promotes global partnerships for sustainable development (Szennay et al., 2019).

There is currently no established rule indicating how companies should report their sustainability performance. However, the institutions can be guided by three main models, namely, the United Nations (UN) Global Compact’s Communication on Progress, the Global Reporting Initiative’s (GRI's) G3 standards and AccountAbility’s AA1000 Series (Tschopp & Huefner, 2015). The most used for reporting sustainability actions by organizations is the GRI model, which is employed by 74% of the largest companies (Hussain et al., 2018; Szennay et al., 2019).

GRI categorizes the sustainability indicators into the TBL dimensions (Szennay et al., 2019). Hussain et al. (2018) investigated the relationship between corporate governance and North American companies’ performance in the three dimensions of TBL: economic, social and environmental. Their study concluded that adopting the GRI model to report sustainability indicators and embracing internal mechanisms of corporate governance can help companies achieve their sustainability goals.

Other academic studies have analyzed the relationship between SDG and GRI indicators (Calabrese, Costa, Gastaldi, Ghiron, & Montalvan, 2021; Rosati & Faria, 2019; Szennay et al., 2019; Van der Waal & Thijssens, 2020). Rosati and Faria (2019) examined the relationship between the organizations’ willingness to use SDG for their GRI-based sustainability reports and several external institutional, social and economic factors related to the company’s country of origin, such as employment protection laws, the rigor of environmental policy, economic development, economic freedom, market coordination, ownership concentration, human development and civic engagement, among others.

Szennay et al. (2019) examined SDGs based on the most used GRI indicators. Of the 149 GRI indicators of environmental, social, economic and global organization categories, 90 were attributed to 17 SDGs, generating a total of 244 links between GRI indicators and SDGs. Van der Waal and Thijssens (2020) investigated the relationship between companies' commitment to SDG and their characteristics, such as size, country, industrial sector and UN Global Compact adhesion, as well as evaluating what the companies actually disclosed. They found that UN Global Compact adhesion was the only consistently significant factor in all analyses.

Calabrese et al. (2021) presented a model to evaluate the level of companies’ engagement by using the correspondence between SDGs and GRI indicators. The authors elaborated two numeric indexes and a comparative matrix to allow a general visualization of a specific sector about SDGs but also a comparison among companies. The first index was termed as SDG Coverage Index, which measures SDGs being reported by the company and is based on the percentage of GRI indicators present in the report. The second index was termed as SDG Commitment Index, which measures the company’s involvement in managing and committing to the reported SDGs. The greater the value of the SDG Commitment Index, the greater the company’s efforts to achieve SDGs by monitoring and improving the actions adopted. In sum, this index measures the quality of the information disclosed by the company (Calabrese et al., 2021).

Considering that little is known about the actual dissemination and progression towards SDGs at an organizational level, including a lack of general understanding and empirical studies on corporate commitment to SDGs (Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2022; Van der Waal & Thijssens, 2020), the present study proposes to use the methodology developed by Calabrese et al. (2021) to analyze and classify the engagement of the largest food companies with UN SDGs for 2030. The private sector plays a central role in food systems, with a few multinational companies controlling a major part of the global food supply (Mackay et al., 2022). The food industry is a complex and interlinked network that influences both human nutrition and environmental sustainability, with its practices being related to SDGs (Prasanna et al., 2024). Industry’s actions can play a key role in the advancement of several SDGs, including Zero Hunger (SDG 2), Good Health and Well-Being (SDG 3), Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG 6), Affordable and Clean Energy (SDG 7), Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12) and Life on Land (SDG 15) (Mackay et al., 2022).

Nevertheless, balancing sustainability with cost-efficacy relationships and market competitiveness is still a challenge (Prasanna et al., 2024). The model proposed by Calabrese et al. (2021) allows for analyzing the companies’ engagement with SDGs through voluntarily reported GRI indicators, regardless of the characteristics of the country of origin, companies or institutional environment in which they operate.

In 2020, the major sustainability reporting organizations stated their intention to standardize their indicators and understand the contribution of companies to SDGs. Several companies incorporated this approach into their reports, thus improving their quality (Elalfy et al., 2021). However, due to their voluntary nature, these reports can lead to practices such as greenwashing and SDG-washing, both academic terms related to the symbolic and non-substantive commitment to SDGs and sustainability (Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2022; Szennay et al., 2019). Analysis of indexes, as proposed by Calabrese et al. (2021), can provide clues on these practices.

The objective of this study is to analyze and classify the engagement of large multinational food companies with SDGs. To do so, the sustainable actions disclosed by the six largest global food companies in their sustainability reports in the year 2021 were quantitatively and qualitatively investigated, including how they linked their activities, operations and initiatives to SDGs and the GRI model.

Forbes Global 2000 ranking (www.forbes.com/lists/global2000/) was used to screen the companies. It ranks the largest companies in the world based on four criteria: sales, profits, assets and market value. According to the 2022 ranking, the following food companies were selected from the 500 largest ones: Nestlé (46th), Mondelez (221st), Archer Daniels Midland (236th), Tyson Foods (317th), Danone (329th), Kraft Heinz (359th), JBS (399th) and General Mills (430th).

By analyzing the sustainability reports, it was found that three companies (Mondelez, Tyson Foods and Danone) did not use the GRI standard or disclose GRI indicators in their reports. The use of the GRI standard is needed to apply the method and compare results. The search was further expanded to up to 600 companies, and Bunge (531st) was included, yielding six companies in the end: Nestlé, Archer Daniels Midland, Kraft Heinz, JBS, General Mills and Bunge. Although some companies operate mainly in the production of finished goods (Nestlé, Kraft Heinz, JBS and General Mills) and others in the supply of food inputs for other industries (Archer Daniels Midland and Bunge), all of them operate in several steps of the food production system and manufacture products for the final consumer.

Data collection was performed based on GRI indicators disclosed by the companies in their 2021 sustainability reports published on their official sites. These reports were analyzed by using a matrix of three pillars (economic, social and environmental) to map which goals and indicators are being reported and achieved. The methodology is based on the study by Calabrese et al. (2021). Their evaluation matrix analyzes the correlation between GRI indicators and SDGs in the companies’ reports. The adoption of the GRI standard to structure the sustainability reports is adequate to allow for this correlation between the indicators (i.e. GRI, 2022).

Calabrese et al. (2021) selected 152 GRI indicators commonly used to describe and monitor SDGs (GRI, 2022), which were divided into economic, social and environmental fields so that a more detailed parameter can be obtained on the companies’ performance. As a result, 14 SDG indicators corresponded to 24 GRI indicators in the economic dimension, 24 SDG indicators corresponded to 73 GRI indicators in the environmental dimension and finally 19 SDG indicators corresponded to 59 GRI indicators in the social dimension. The total number of GRI indicators (156) is greater than 152 because a GRI indicator can correspond to more than one SDG indicator, thus highlighting the interdisciplinarity of the goals (Calabrese et al., 2021). For instance, GRI 102–8 (information on employees and other workers) is linked to two different SDG indicators, namely, 10.3.1 (proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months) and 8.5.1 (average hourly earnings of employees, by sex, age, occupation and persons with disabilities). A table showing the correlations between SDG and GRI is in the  Supplementary Material section. By counting the GRI indicators individually (i.e. removing repetitions), this study analyzed 74 GRI indicators, out of which 23 were environmental, 34 social and 17 economic.

Two files were structured to ensure all companies were analyzed under the same parameters, thus making the analyses more robust. These materials served as consultation sources between the authors and for eliminating doubts, which were discussed to ensure coherence and conformity in the analyses. The first file had information on GRI indicators that were analyzed. In this way, one had access to the same description of each GRI for analysis of the companies. The table had the following information: (1) number of each GRI indicator; (2) dimension to which it belongs; (3) SDGs related to GRI; (4) a description of the related SDGs and (5) a description of the GRI according to GRI standards.

The second file had the following information in detail and on a standardized basis: (1) which GRI indicators were addressed by the company; (2) pages of the reports where each GRI was found; (3) the score assigned to each GRI and (4) the justification for the score given. Moreover, the quantitative rules presented in the study by Calabrese et al. (2021) were structured into some propositions for verification, analysis and distribution of the scores given to each GRI reported by the companies as follows:

• (1)

  All external links disclosed by the companies in their sustainability reports were considered for analysis, provided that they were specific to the initiative being evaluated and non-generic (e.g. front page of the company’s official site).

• (2)

  In cases where the company has disclosed contemplating a given GRI content in the index present in the sustainability report, but did not cite the minimum content required by GRI standards, the GRI was disregarded.

• (3)

  In cases where the company has disclosed contemplating a given GRI but presented the required information only to a non-significant part of the operation, the GRI was disregarded.

• (4)

  Five of the six companies analyzed used the 2016 GRI standards for their sustainability reports, as did Calabrese et al. (2021), which serves as the methodological basis for the present study. However, Archer Daniels used the 2021 resolution, which differs only in the general listing of GRIs. This study used the correspondence between the 2016 and 2021 resolutions (available on the GRI website) to make the analysis possible.

After analyzing the GRIs reported by the companies, one could calculate two indicators for the companies under study: coverage index and commitment index. The coverage index measures the level of coverage in which a company is reporting SDGs and was calculated based on the percentage of GRI indicators disclosed in the sustainability reports. As the index increases, so does the company’s level of awareness (Calabrese et al., 2021).

As for the commitment index, it measures the depth of the company’s disclosure of its indicators. A score ranging from 1 to 4 is assigned to each one of the GRI indicators as follows: 1 = qualitative; 2 = quantitative; 3 = quantitative temporal series and 4 = quantitative temporal series and quantitative goals for the future. The sum of these scores was divided by the maximum possible value, generating one index per company. The higher the percentage value of the commitment index, the more tangible the company’s effort in contributing to the success of the goals (Calabrese et al., 2021).

It became clear throughout the analysis that some GRIs, which essentially require merely descriptive statements by the companies, had a maximum score of 1 (descriptive), like GRIs 102–21, 102–22 and 122–24. The present study’s authors noted this trait when the methodology was applied; this was not a deviation from the method.

The last phase consisted of inserting the companies into a matrix, where the x-axis represented commitment indexes and the y-axis, coverage indexes. The quadrants of the matrix were identified by a combination of the letters H (high) and L (low) to make visualization easy. In addition to the general matrix, specific matrices were designed for social, economic and environmental dimensions, thus allowing for a comparison of the companies not only as a whole but also specifically for each dimension (Calabrese et al., 2021).

The following calculations were used for the insertion of the companies in the matrices:

• (1)

  Real coverage index: the amount of valid GRIs disclosed in the company’s report;

• (2)

  Maximum coverage index: the total amount of GRIs considered valid for study (74 GRIs individually, being 23 environmental, 34 social and 17 economic);

• (3)

  Coverage index: $RealcoverageindexMaximumcoverageindex$⁠;

• (4)

  Real commitment index: the sum of GRI scores (from 1 to 4);

• (5)

  Maximum commitment index: the maximum score a company can receive for its commitment to GRI, calculated by multiplying the real coverage index by 4 (the maximum score) and

• (6)

  Commitment index: $RealcommitmentindexMaximumcommitmentindex$⁠.

From the application of the methodology to the selected companies, this study could identify the level of engagement of each of them with SDGs based on quantitative values assigned to the GRI indexes, thus defining a comparative scenario within the food sector. Considering all the processes used as well as the nature of the results obtained, this study is characterized by a qualitative approach in which the content of the report is analyzed so that one can have a quantitative view of the results found. Figure 1 shows a synthesis of the methodological path.

Figure 2 shows the matrices with economic, environmental, social and general results.

The companies covered, on average, 5 of the 17 GRIs taken into consideration. They presented a better result for the commitment index, with the second-highest mean in three fields of evaluation (63%). This result is six points above the average of the index in the general analysis, as detailed further on. Moreover, from this perspective, five of the six companies scored above 60%.

As for the coverage index, on the other hand, the result is somewhat discouraging. The average was 30%, characterizing the worst result among the economic, social and environmental dimensions. Four out of the six companies showed coverage equal to or lower than 29%, whereas only Nestlé achieved coverage above 50%, occupying the HH quadrant with a large advantage. When the indexes are analyzed as a whole, it becomes clear that the companies could achieve a better result if they had a wider coverage of indicators (coverage index), since the commitment index would enable four of them to move to HH quadrant.

JBS stands out in the commitment index as the company has taken leadership in the sector with an average 20 points advantage, highlighted by the Amazon Fund initiative. Nevertheless, the company had the third worst result in the coverage index (24%), thus occupying the HL quadrant. In the year 2021, the company worked on four of the 17 economic GRI indicators considered in this study, performing well on GRIs 203–1 and 203–2, both concerned with economic impacts (positive and negative) on the local communities (JBS, 2022).

Nestlé leads the group, this time alone in the HH quadrant. Despite not deeply exploring all the indicators (see commitment index), the company contemplated 10 of the possible 17 economic GRI indicators for this analysis. Like JBS, Nestlé stands out in the GRIs 203–1 and 203–2 through interesting projects that are disclosed, like the Cocoa Plan and Youth Opportunities Program (Nestlé, 2022).

Kraft Heinz showed its worst result in an exclusively economic perspective, where it occupies the LL quadrant. The company contemplated seven of the possible 17 GRI indicators but with a low level of detail, thus receiving a score of 1 (descriptive) for the majority of the indicators. Additionally, in the year 2021, no project of significant impact on the communities was disclosed, which reflects the company’s weakness compared to competitors’ results and the magnitude of its operations in the food sector worldwide (Kraft Heinz (2022).

The environmental dimension revealed the most positive results. Four of the six companies (Kraft Heinz, JBS, Nestlé and General Mills) demonstrated more commitment and wider coverage of GRI indicators. The environmental pillar is mainly focused on keeping the best production practices, with low rates of gas emission, residue disposal, water use, etc. The total of GRIs for the environmental pillar is 23 indicators, with the 6 companies presenting 57% of these in their reports, on average.

By using the matrix to evaluate the companies’ performance in the environmental GRIs, it was noticed that the graphic dispersion of the companies was more concentrated in the HH quadrant, with two of them standing out in different perspectives in this quadrant, namely, Nestlé, for demonstrating more commitment by emphasizing current projects, future aspirations and ambitious goals (e.g. net zero emissions by 2050), and Kraft Heinz, for presenting a higher level of coverage.

Bunge (2022), which had a median result for the environmental dimension compared to the other companies, presented a coverage index of 61% and a commitment index of 50%. There is an improvement compared to the company’s coverage index in the economic dimension, but the lower level of commitment demonstrated that environmental actions were only superficially reported.

Lastly, a company stands out for its divergence between indexes. Archer Daniels Midland (2022), which had the lowest result with a coverage index of 35%, disclosed only eight GRIs considered to be relevant for analysis. On the other hand, the company shows a high performance in the commitment index, with a score of 100%. Archer was the only company that described its main goals for the future and its current action plan in all eight environmental GRIs reported.

The social pillar is aimed at structuring and developing good practices among employees and in the community either locally or globally. The majority of the practices mapped by the GRIs are focused on hiring, training, labor risk, diversity and inclusion. The total of GRIs for the social pillar is 34, and the 6 companies disclosed an average of 40% of these indicators in their reports.

By analyzing the social matrix, the results of the companies for social GRI indicators are mostly in the LL quadrant, which represents the worst performance compared to the economic and environmental analyses. Low levels of both coverage and commitment, as detailed in the companies’ reports, explain the results.

Only three companies managed to achieve an intermediate performance in this dimension: Nestlé, Archer Daniels and Kraft Heinz. These organizations disclosed an average of 15 GRIs relevant for analysis, which represents an advantage in the coverage index, and an average commitment index of 49%, with the three moving to better performance quadrants (i.e. LH and HL). Although those three companies presented a better performance in this dimension, they ranked lower than their economic and environmental pillars, particularly Nestlé and Kraft Heinz, which led the ranking.

The companies with the lowest indexes of coverage and commitment were General Mills, Bunge and JBS. These organizations had the lowest level of detailed actions and projects, which led them to receive scores ranging from 1 (qualitative) to 2 (quantitative) in all GRIs disclosed in their reports.

By considering not only the importance of the social perspective to successfully implement SDGs but also the representativeness of the food industry operation in the world and the potential impact of the companies analyzed, the results of this study are important as they show that global food companies have a strong need for improving their social performances.

The intersection of the three dimensions and the evolution of one of them can produce positive effects on the others, thus maximizing effectiveness (Hussain et al., 2018). Therefore, albeit the usefulness of analyzing each of the dimensions separately, a general analysis demonstrates the actual performance of the companies in the sustainability spectrum.

In the analysis of the general result matrix, considering the three dimensions for sustainable development, two companies were in the HH quadrant (Nestlé and Kraft Heinz), three in the HL quadrant (JBS, Archer Daniels and General Mills) and none in the LH quadrant, with Bunge occupying the LL quadrant alone.

By comparing the indexes in a broader context, the food companies demonstrated a better performance in the commitment index, with an average of 57%. A higher score for the commitment index means that the companies disclosed in their sustainability reports not only the execution of actions according to the indicators they chose but also the measurement of the generated impact, according to the methodology used in this study.

As for the coverage index, on the other hand, it becomes clear that there is a sensitive point, as the companies had a lower performance (average of 43%). That means that, despite working on the goals they chose for their sustainability actions, global food companies demonstrated a low coverage of SDGs as a whole.

Considering that the intersection between economic, social and environmental dimensions of the TBL results in competitive advantage (Hussain et al., 2018), this study concludes that Nestlé is the company with the best general sustainability performance, therefore being the one with the greatest competitive advantage under the sustainability lens.

Kraft Heinz also has a good performance in the food sector, according to the scores of the two indexes in the general perspective. It actually disputes the leadership with Nestlé (Coverage Index: Nestlé 54% vs Kraft Heinz 55%; Commitment Index: Nestlé 59% vs Kraft Heinz 57%). In turn, Nestlé stands out for being the company with the best balance among the three dimensions, occupying the HH quadrant in both economic and environmental dimensions, and the LH quadrant in social dimensions, whereas Kraft Heinz occupies the LL, HH and HL quadrants in economic, environmental and social dimensions, respectively.

Archer Daniels is in a peculiar position as it leads the commitment index to the chosen goals (70%), despite having the lowest coverage index (31%). For each of the eight environmental GRIs contemplated in the 2021 report, Archer Daniels not only discloses earlier impacts but also lists concise goals that allow its progress to be measured each year.

JBS demonstrates a good commitment to the indicators chosen to be worked on (61%); however, compared to competitors, the company should widen its coverage of GRIs, as eight percentage points in the coverage index would place the company in a better quadrant. The company’s result is inflated by the environmental dimension, which brings it to HH quadrant. However, its overall performance ends up being negatively impacted by the social dimension, in which the company is in the LL quadrant.

Bunge, on its turn, demonstrates the worst overall result. The company occupies the HL, HH and LL quadrants, respectively, in the economic, environmental and social dimensions, contemplating 61% of the possible GRIs with a moderate commitment to them. Therefore, considering a broad perspective and the intersection between the three dimensions for competitive advantage, the company has the worst sustainability performance and is in a disadvantageous position, which indicates the need for reevaluation and restructuring of its sustainability practices. A more focused approach aiming at specific goals and gradual expansion can be a starting point to change this position.

Lastly, General Mills (2022) had the second worst result in the coverage index (34%), but the company remains in the HL quadrant with two competitors despite being only four percentage points from the threshold. That means that, despite being better ranked than Bunge, General Mills presents a point of attention on both coverage and commitment to sustainable actions.

By comparing the results of this study to those of Calabrese et al. (2021), despite them being conducted in different sectors (i.e. energy and food), one can note that the social matrix showed the lowest score regarding both coverage and commitment in the two samples: in the energy sector, companies had the lowest average coverage index in this dimension, while in the food sector, companies had the lowest average in both coverage and commitment indexes. Still, food companies’ worst performance is shown by their distribution along the LL quadrant.

Concerning the environmental matrix, energy companies presented the highest average for commitment, and food companies had a better performance in both coverage and commitment dimensions. This result demonstrates that companies are focused on the environmental dimension to the detriment of the economic and social ones.

Heras-Saizarbitoria et al. (2022) observed that the majority of companies have a superficial approach to SDGs, except for a small number of organizations that effectively integrate SDGs into their sustainability reports by referring to strategies, objectives, goals, indicators, actions or specific results. The organizational operationalization of SDGs was found to be superficial or even nonexistent in the majority of the companies they investigated. In this sense, one can conclude that companies with a high coverage index but a low commitment index are more concerned with showing their engagement with many SDGs without demonstrating a deep commitment to them. This can be a good sign of greenwashing.

SDG reporting by some organizations is a strategic response to the expectations of governments, the private sector and civil society, thus helping the companies ensure their legitimacy, increase goodwill and mitigate operational risks (Elalfy et al., 2021). By identifying and giving priority to stakeholders, the companies determine which entities are more important for their operations (Mitchell et al., 1997). Aligned to GRI, the reporting of SDGs reacts to social pressures and thus strengthens the legitimacy of the companies. Changes in corporate practices often result from coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures (Elalfy et al., 2021).

Sustainability reporting is a way through which companies seek to increase their reputation and strengthen their operational legitimacy among stakeholders. This approach is more reactive than proactive (Elalfy et al., 2021), as it means trying to meet stakeholder expectations. The results indicate that companies are focusing on the environmental rather than the social dimension, presenting low indexes of coverage and commitment to the latter pillar. This may occur due to poor understanding of social demands or insufficient pressure from stakeholders. In this context, multinational companies should consider local conditions as well as those of the country of origin, thus ensuring that the stakeholders’ concerns are integrated into the businesses in all communities they operate (Adams et al., 2023). Institutional theory explores similarities in organizational behavior: one can observe that large companies as a whole present comparable results regarding the social and environmental dimensions.

Analysis of the reports demonstrates the companies’ need for engagement in sustainable initiatives in the different dimensions of TBL. For instance, Nestlé ranked first by achieving a balance between the three dimensions, slightly standing out compared to Kraft Heinz, which obtained similar overall scores. Archer Daniels, on the other hand, focused too much on the environmental dimension while obtaining an intermediate position in the overall result.

By comparing commitment and coverage indexes, the results of this study showed that although large global food companies have a relatively high commitment to SDGs, they still have opportunities to improve the coverage of these indicators. The environmental dimension had a good result, but the social one requires more attention, mainly because of the magnitude of the operations and potential impact on the communities, both direct and indirect. For those stakeholders who are genuinely concerned with environmental and social issues, superficial commitment to SDGs and the lack of concrete actions can serve as a trigger for pressing the organizations to adopt more significant and well-structured sustainability practices (Heras-Saizarbitoria et al., 2022).

As an academic contribution, this study used a methodology developed by Calabrese et al. (2021) to evaluate how companies operating in a completely diverse sector are reporting and engaging SDGs. As suggestions for future research, Calabrese et al. (2021) recommend conducting empirical studies on other sectors to monitor the companies’ progress toward sustainable development. The application of the proposed methodology to another sector is a contribution to its consolidation. In practical terms, this study contributed to helping companies examine the quality of their sustainability reports by deeply analyzing SDGs at the level of indicators in terms of scope and accuracy. This allows companies to reflect on their strategies for the challenges of SDGs, that is, whether they are more focused on scope or depth, in addition to serving as a parameter for comparison with their competitors. Managers and stakeholders can use the results of the analysis to critically reflect on the companies’ sustainability strategies. Also, this serves as an alert for companies that vaguely disclose a substantial number of SDGs in their reports without relating them to indicators and precise targets.

This study has limitations, such as the fact that companies were selected from a specific sector, meaning that the results cannot be generalized to other sectors of the economy. Moreover, although the analyses have been discussed by a group of authors to ensure consistency based on well-defined parameters, every qualitative evaluation involves some level of subjectivity. It should also be considered that only 2021 reports were examined, a period still under the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic when vaccination had just started and workplace presence resumed, which might have affected the indicators being analyzed. Future studies can evaluate the evolution of the sector by comparing the results from sustainability reports over the years.

Funding: This work was supported by Fundação Instituto de Administração (FIA).

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.