Hall of Fame: Sustainability statements in Food & Beverage

As the Omnibus simplification unfolds, companies are looking for clarity on what changes lie ahead. Despite the desire for clarity on new rules, the core principles for effective disclosure — including double materiality, clear structure and strong communication — are still the benchmark for quality and impact.

In this edition of the Hall of Fame, we showcase best practice reports from the food and beverage sector.

Royal Unibrew

Double Materiality Assessment ★★★★☆ (4/5)

The result of the DMA is presented in a structured way, with topics aligned to the ESRS topic list. The assessment identified dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystems and noted that these were considered in the process. However, no material risks or opportunities were derived from them. The DMA identifies only a limited number of risks and no opportunities, which creates an imbalanced representation of impacts, risks and opportunities. This suggests that the material impacts identified do not significantly affect the company’s financial risks or opportunities; this could be because of the company’s business resilience, or perhaps this aspect of the DMA was not sufficiently explored. On a positive note, the report achieves a good balance between explaining the process and presenting outcomes, while disclosing the time horizons of material IROs. In total, 22 IROs are reported — comprehensive yet still manageable.

Communication & visuals ★★★★☆ (4/5)

The design of the report is clean and effective. Icons are used as simple illustrations that support clarity, for example, in the operating model illustration. Image quality and diversity are solid, creating a professional look and feel. The language is direct and easy to follow; however, storytelling is limited —while the report informs readers effectively, it does not go beyond to engage or inspire with narrative. If you’re looking to create your sustainability statement with minimal yet effective design, Royal Unibrew’s can be good inspiration.

Navigation & structure ★★★★★ (5/5)

The report is user-friendly thanks to an interactive table of contents, which allows smooth navigation between sections. Headings are clear and logically structured, contributing to a strong overall flow. The consistent tagging of ESRS disclosure requirements throughout is a good example as it is clear and does not overwhelm readers.

JDE Peets

Double Materiality Assessment ★★★★★ (5/5)

JDE Peet’s DMA is both thorough and easy to follow. The process is explained with clarity, for example, providing details on the qualitative and quantitative scales and parameters used for scoring material IROs. The representation of IROs is well-balanced, and the time horizons of material IROs are also disclosed, making the description of the outcomes comprehensive. Dependencies are also considered in the process, with risks and opportunities clearly derived from them and explicitly marked in the report. JDE Peets also leveraged an external tool to rate their material dependencies — an approach worth considering for companies in sectors that are heavily dependent on natural resources. In total, the assessment identifies 8 impacts and 15 risks and opportunities — a realistic and manageable number of topics.

Communication & visuals ★★★★☆ (4/5)

The report stands out for its great use of illustrations that feel distinctively aligned with the JDE Peet’s brand. These visuals support the content, with the value chain illustration standing out as a particularly strong example — both creative and informative — as it highlights the distribution of impacts, risks and opportunities across business activities. The language is clear and straightforward, with some storytelling elements that make the content more engaging. While the use of charts and graphs is limited, those included are useful. The report, however, contains relatively few images, and their quality varies, which slightly reduces the overall visual impact.

Navigation & structure ★★★☆☆ (3/5)

Navigation is generally smooth, supported by an interactive table of contents and tabs at the top of each page that enable easy movement across sections. However, the section-specific tables of contents are not interactive — a feature that would have further enhanced usability. The report does not include ESRS tagging throughout, which feels like a missed opportunity, as it would have provided clearer alignment with the standards. Still, readers familiar with the ESRS will find the headings useful in distinguishing which disclosure requirements are being addressed. Overall, the sustainability statement is well-structured.

Austevoll Seafood ASA

Double Materiality Assessment ★★★★☆ (4/5)

The DMA is presented with a thorough explanation of the process, though it leans more on describing the methodology than on describing the outcomes. A balanced number of material risks and impacts is identified, yet only one material opportunity is reported. Time horizons for material IROs are clearly disclosed, and in total, 21 IROs are identified — a manageable scope. Topics and subtopics are linked to the ESRS topic list, ensuring consistency and alignment with the ESRS.

Communication & visuals ★★★☆☆ (3/5)

The visual highlight of the report is the very informative and visually appealing value chain illustration. However, much of the report is text-heavy, with significant white space that could have been enhanced through additional photographs, illustrations, or more creative design elements. The language is clear and compliance-focused, but it lacks storytelling to further engage readers. Visual data representation is limited, with very few charts included. 

Navigation & structure ★★★★☆ (4/5)

Navigation is strong, with an interactive table of contents and a side tab that provides a user-friendly alternative to top navigation. ESRS tagging is applied consistently at the disclosure requirement level, and the overall structure of the sustainability statement aligns closely with ESRS requirements. Headings and subheadings are clearly distinguished, though section headers could have been made more prominent to strengthen readability and hierarchy.