20 Food Companies Scored on Animal Welfare
Billions of animals pass through the food industry's supply chains every year. Investors who screen for animal welfare are told to trust ESG ratings and corporate sustainability pledges. The data tells a different story.
Of the 20 major food and beverage companies Mashinii scored on Kind to Animals, exactly one came back positive. Sixteen scored negative. Several of the world's most recognisable brands -- companies that sit in nearly every index fund and many so-called ethical portfolios -- ranked among the worst.
These scores are not based on corporate self-assessments. They draw on regulatory filings, supply chain audits, court records, investigative journalism, and NGO reports. If a company published a glossy welfare commitment but the independently verifiable record shows otherwise, the score reflects the record.
Here is how they rank.
The Full Ranking
| Rank | Company | Ticker | Kind to Animals | Overall Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | PepsiCo | PEP.US | +10 | -15.0 |
| 2 | Hershey | HSY.US | 0 | +3.2 |
| 3 | Danone | BSN.XETRA | 0 | +0.9 |
| 4 | Nestle | NESR.XETRA | 0 | -11.8 |
| 5 | Unilever | ULVR.LSE | -10 | +4.1 |
| 6 | Diageo | DGE.LSE | -10 | -1.4 |
| 7 | Kellanova | K.US | -10 | -1.8 |
| 8 | General Mills | GIS.US | -10 | -5.9 |
| 9 | J.M. Smucker | SJM.US | -10 | -7.7 |
| 10 | Starbucks | SBUX.US | -10 | -13.6 |
| 11 | Campbell's | CPB.US | -20 | -6.8 |
| 12 | Domino's Pizza | DPZ.US | -20 | -12.7 |
| 13 | Mondelez | MDLZ.US | -20 | -16.4 |
| 14 | Chipotle | CMG.US | -20 | -17.3 |
| 15 | Yum! Brands | YUM.US | -20 | -17.7 |
| 16 | McDonald's | MCD.US | -20 | -18.2 |
| 17 | Coca-Cola | KO.US | -20 | -18.2 |
| 18 | Kraft Heinz | KHC.US | -30 | -10.0 |
| 19 | Hormel Foods | HRL.US | -30 | -6.8 |
| 20 | Tyson Foods | TSN.US | -30 | -17.7 |
The sector average on Kind to Animals: -13.5. The sector average across all 11 dimensions: -9.9. Food and beverage is one of the lowest-scoring sectors in the Mashinii database -- and on animal welfare specifically, it is the worst.
The One Positive Score: PepsiCo
PepsiCo (PEP.US) -- Kind to Animals: +10 | Overall: -15.0
PepsiCo's +10 reflects documented steps toward cage-free sourcing commitments and supply chain welfare policies, according to publicly available data. That makes it the only positive score in this entire analysis.
Do not mistake this for an endorsement. PepsiCo's overall average of -15.0 is among the worst in the group. Its -30 on Better Health for All is unsurprising for a company built on sugary beverages and processed snacks. Being the best on animal welfare in the food sector is a low bar -- and PepsiCo barely clears it. For a broader look at how PepsiCo compares with its closest rival, see our Coca-Cola vs PepsiCo ethics comparison.
View PepsiCo's full score breakdown -->
The Neutral Zone: Scoring Zero
Three companies scored 0 on Kind to Animals -- no significant positive or negative evidence in the public record.
Hershey (HSY.US) -- Kind to Animals: 0 | Overall: +3.2
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| Respect for Cultures & Communities | +25 |
| Honest & Fair Business | +20 |
| Kind to Animals | 0 |
| Better Health for All | -10 |
Hershey is the only company here with a positive overall average. Its +3.2 is driven by relatively strong community and governance scores. On animal welfare, the zero means our methodology found no significant documented evidence in either direction. For a confectionery company with dairy supply chain dependencies, neutral is better than most peers manage.
View Hershey's full score breakdown -->
Danone (BSN.XETRA) -- Kind to Animals: 0 | Overall: +0.9
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| Better Health for All | +20 |
| Honest & Fair Business | +10 |
| Planet-Friendly Business | +10 |
| Kind to Animals | 0 |
| Safe & Smart Tech | -10 |
| Zero Waste & Sustainable Products | -20 |
Danone's marginally positive overall average of +0.9 is supported by a +20 on health -- reflecting its yogurt and nutrition-focused product lines. On animal welfare, the neutral score indicates neither documented progress nor documented harm in available public records. A rare case of a food company that does not actively worsen the picture.
View Danone's full score breakdown -->
Nestle (NESR.XETRA) -- Kind to Animals: 0 | Overall: -11.8
The world's largest food company scores zero on animal welfare -- its joint-best result. Seven of Nestle's eleven dimensions are negative, including -30 on health, environment, and tech safety. For a company of this scale and supply chain complexity, the neutral score on animal welfare may reflect the difficulty of documenting specific welfare outcomes across thousands of suppliers, rather than genuinely strong performance.
View Nestle's full score breakdown -->
Mild Negatives: Scoring -10
Six companies scored -10 on Kind to Animals. This group includes some of the sector's most prominent names.
Unilever (ULVR.LSE) -- Kind to Animals: -10 | Overall: +4.1
Unilever has the highest overall average (+4.1) of any company scoring negative on animal welfare. Six of its eleven dimensions are positive. Yet its -10 on animal welfare coexists with -30 on governance and -30 on environment.
This is exactly why single-score ESG ratings obscure more than they reveal. Unilever's animal welfare score reflects documented supply chain concerns according to publicly available reports -- concerns that a blended rating would bury beneath strong financial inclusion and worker respect numbers. Mashinii scores across 11 independent dimensions so that investors see both.
View Unilever's full score breakdown -->
Diageo (DGE.LSE) -- Kind to Animals: -10 | Overall: -1.4
Diageo -- the company behind Johnnie Walker and Guinness -- has lower animal welfare exposure than meat or dairy producers, yet still scores -10 based on documented supply chain practices. Its -20 on health is unremarkable for a spirits company. Its +25 on community relations is the strongest in that dimension among the negative-scoring companies here.
View Diageo's full score breakdown -->
Kellanova (K.US) -- Kind to Animals: -10 | Overall: -1.8
Kellanova (formerly the Kellogg's snacking division) carries the highest governance score in this entire analysis at +50, alongside a -10 on animal welfare. A well-governed, transparent company that still scores poorly on how animals are treated in its supply chain. If that seems contradictory, it is -- and it illustrates why traditional ESG ratings often miss the full picture.
View Kellanova's full score breakdown -->
General Mills (GIS.US) -- Kind to Animals: -10 | Overall: -5.9
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| Safe & Smart Tech | +10 |
| Kind to Animals | -10 |
| Better Health for All | -20 |
| Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing | -20 |
| Respect for Cultures & Communities | -25 |
General Mills -- maker of Cheerios, Haagen-Dazs, and Betty Crocker -- has one positive dimension (+10 on tech safety) and five negative ones. Its profile is typical of mid-tier packaged food companies: flat, slightly negative, unremarkable in both directions.
View General Mills' full score breakdown -->
J.M. Smucker (SJM.US) -- Kind to Animals: -10 | Overall: -7.7
J.M. Smucker owns Jif, Folgers, and the Meow Mix pet food brand. The negative animal welfare score is notable given its direct involvement in pet nutrition. Community relations (+25) is its strongest dimension, but the -7.7 overall average reflects persistent weaknesses in sourcing, governance, and environmental performance.
View J.M. Smucker's full score breakdown -->
Starbucks (SBUX.US) -- Kind to Animals: -10 | Overall: -13.6
Animal welfare is not Starbucks' worst problem. Its -70 on Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing is the single lowest dimension score of any company in this analysis, reflecting documented concerns about coffee sourcing practices according to publicly available investigative reports. Its -20 on worker respect has drawn public attention in recent years. The +30 on community relations provides a sharp contrast that a blended ESG score would average away.
View Starbucks' full score breakdown -->
Moderate Negatives: Scoring -20
Seven companies scored -20 on Kind to Animals. This tier includes some of the highest-profile names in global food.
McDonald's (MCD.US) -- Kind to Animals: -20 | Overall: -18.2
McDonald's serves approximately 69 million customers daily. Its supply chain impact on animal welfare is immense. The company has made public commitments on cage-free eggs and chicken welfare, but our methodology scores on independently verified outcomes, not pledges. Based on available evidence from regulatory filings and supply chain audits, the company scored -20.
Nine of eleven dimensions are negative. McDonald's -18.2 overall average ties for the lowest in this analysis. For investors holding it as part of a broad index fund, the score merits attention.
View McDonald's full score breakdown -->
Chipotle (CMG.US) -- Kind to Animals: -20 | Overall: -17.3
Chipotle built its brand on "Food With Integrity" and "Responsibly Raised" sourcing claims. The data does not support the narrative. The company scored -20 on animal welfare, -30 on ethical sourcing, and -30 on worker respect. Eight of eleven dimensions are negative.
The gap between Chipotle's brand messaging and its independently scored ethical profile is one of the widest we have observed in the food sector. This is the kind of disconnect our ESG rating gap analysis was built to expose.
View Chipotle's full score breakdown -->
Yum! Brands (YUM.US) -- Kind to Animals: -20 | Overall: -17.7
Yum! Brands is the parent of KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut. KFC alone sources billions of chickens annually, making Yum! one of the largest poultry purchasers on Earth. The -20 on animal welfare reflects documented supply chain practices identified in publicly available reports. Its -40 on tech safety is the worst single score for the company. Community relations (+25) is the only positive dimension.
View Yum! Brands' full score breakdown -->
Coca-Cola (KO.US) -- Kind to Animals: -20 | Overall: -18.2
A -20 on animal welfare may seem unexpected for a beverage company. But the Kind to Animals dimension evaluates supply chain practices broadly, including agricultural sourcing and operational impact on wildlife habitats. Coca-Cola's overall average of -18.2 ties with McDonald's for the lowest in this analysis. Its -40 on worker respect is the worst among the beverage companies examined. For more on how Coca-Cola and PepsiCo compare head to head, see our dedicated comparison.
View Coca-Cola's full score breakdown -->
Mondelez (MDLZ.US) -- Kind to Animals: -20 | Overall: -16.4
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| Kind to Animals | -20 |
| Zero Waste & Sustainable Products | -20 |
| Planet-Friendly Business | -30 |
| Honest & Fair Business | -40 |
| Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing | -50 |
Mondelez -- the company behind Oreo, Cadbury, and Toblerone -- scores -20 on animal welfare and -50 on ethical sourcing. The sourcing score reflects documented concerns about cocoa and palm oil supply chain practices in publicly available investigative reports. Governance at -40 compounds the picture. Seven of eleven dimensions are negative.
View Mondelez's full score breakdown -->
Domino's Pizza (DPZ.US) -- Kind to Animals: -20 | Overall: -12.7
Domino's -20 on animal welfare is tied to the welfare implications of large-scale cheese and meat sourcing. Its +20 on governance is its sole positive score. The -40 on worker respect reflects documented concerns about franchisee labour practices, according to publicly available regulatory and legal filings.
View Domino's full score breakdown -->
Campbell's (CPB.US) -- Kind to Animals: -20 | Overall: -6.8
Campbell's scores -20 on animal welfare and -6.8 overall. Community relations (+25) and health (+10) are its only positives. As a processed food company with meat-based product lines, its animal welfare challenges are structural.
View Campbell's full score breakdown -->
The Worst Tier: Scoring -30
Three companies hit -30 on Kind to Animals -- the lowest in this analysis. All three are heavily involved in animal protein production or processing.
Kraft Heinz (KHC.US) -- Kind to Animals: -30 | Overall: -10.0
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| Better Health for All | +10 |
| Kind to Animals | -30 |
| Planet-Friendly Business | -30 |
| Fair Pay & Worker Respect | -20 |
| Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing | -20 |
| Zero Waste & Sustainable Products | -20 |
Kraft Heinz owns Oscar Mayer, Lunchables, and Philadelphia cream cheese. Its extensive reliance on dairy and meat creates significant animal welfare exposure. The sole positive -- +10 on health -- is modest. Four dimensions scored zero, suggesting limited available evidence rather than genuinely strong performance.
View Kraft Heinz's full score breakdown -->
Hormel Foods (HRL.US) -- Kind to Animals: -30 | Overall: -6.8
Hormel -- maker of SPAM, Skippy, and Applegate -- scores +40 on governance and -30 on animal welfare. It processes millions of hogs and turkeys annually. Good governance and poor animal welfare outcomes are not contradictory. They simply measure different things. Hormel's -30 reflects documented concerns from supply chain audits and investigative reports in the public record.
View Hormel's full score breakdown -->
Tyson Foods (TSN.US) -- Kind to Animals: -30 | Overall: -17.7
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| Respect for Cultures & Communities | +25 |
| Kind to Animals | -30 |
| Zero Waste & Sustainable Products | -30 |
| Honest & Fair Business | -40 |
| Safe & Smart Tech | -40 |
| Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing | -50 |
Tyson is the largest meat processor in the United States. Its -30 on animal welfare sits alongside a -50 on ethical sourcing (the second worst in this analysis, after Starbucks), -40 on governance, and -40 on tech safety. The overall average of -17.7 ties with Yum! Brands for the lowest. For investors screening on animal welfare, Tyson represents one of the highest-exposure holdings in any diversified portfolio.
View Tyson's full score breakdown -->
Three Patterns in the Data
The entire sector fails. The average animal welfare score across these 20 companies is -13.5. One positive. Three neutral. Sixteen negative. This is not an industry with a few bad actors -- it is an industry where poor animal welfare is the default.
Pledges are not outcomes. Chipotle, McDonald's, and Starbucks have all made public welfare commitments. None scored positive. Our methodology measures independently verifiable results, not intentions. Corporate commitments that have not translated into documented outcomes do not improve a company's score.
Animal welfare is independent of overall ethics. Kellanova scores +50 on governance and -10 on animal welfare. Hormel scores +40 on governance and -30 on animal welfare. Unilever scores +4.1 overall and -10 on animal welfare. This is why Mashinii scores across 11 independent dimensions instead of producing a single blended number. A company's governance quality reveals nothing about how it treats animals. See our rankings page for a broader look at how companies compare across every dimension.
How We Score
Mashinii scores are built from independently verifiable sources: regulatory filings, supply chain audit results, court records, investigative journalism, and NGO reports. Companies cannot influence their scores through self-reporting or sustainability disclosures.
The Kind to Animals dimension evaluates 13 specific KPIs including cruelty-free certification coverage, alternative testing adoption, humane operations certification, cage-free sourcing rates, supplier welfare audits, and investments in animal-free alternatives. Scores range from -100 to +100.
Learn how our methodology works -->
Check Your Portfolio
If you hold a broad market index fund, you almost certainly own several of these companies. Tyson, McDonald's, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Starbucks, and Mondelez are all S&P 500 constituents. Many appear in portfolios marketed as ESG-compliant.
The question is whether their animal welfare track record aligns with what you care about. You can find out in under 60 seconds.