When the government performs a u-turn on policy, critics are quick to denounce them as indecisive or weak, while defenders argue that adapting to new evidence or changing public priorities is a mark of strong, responsive leadership.
But when it comes to food businesses, the scrutiny isn’t nearly as fierce – and that needs to change.
Every time a major food business quietly scales back or abandons a public commitment – whether it’s on health outcomes, standards for animal welfare, environmental impact or social justice – repercussions ripple throughout the sector. One company’s decision to dilute a greenhouse gas target or drop a waste reduction pledge can set off a domino effect, nudging rivals to follow suit and potentially triggering a race to the bottom.
Sustainability targets and promised action on health, environment or welfare should not vanish from the subsequent year’s corporate reporting, swept quietly under the rug once the headlines fade. Yes, targets must be reviewed periodically to ensure they reflect an evolving context, but being transparent about long and short-term goals is critical for building trust and loyalty.
An accountability crisis
Take the Better Chicken Commitment for example: widely hailed at launch for its push toward higher animal welfare, many European companies signed up. Yet only a select few leading UK retailers, such as Waitrose and M&S, have consistently followed through on those commitments.
This inconsistency highlights why voluntary pledges alone aren’t enough: meaningful progress increasingly requires legislative backing. Hence, it will be interesting to see what develops with the UK government’s proposal for mandatory reporting on health metrics for large food companies in England.
Earlier this year, research by Food Foundation and Feedback Global revealed a telling trend: the UK’s 10 largest supermarkets made an environmental or climate commitment every six days over the past decade. And most were not delivering on those.
In some cases, companies aren’t even publicly tracking or reporting their progress, leaving the public and interested observers in the dark.
For food businesses, the message is clear: hiding missed targets or silently reversing course harms long-term credibility and risks losing public trust. Instead, be honest – whether upholding bold commitments or openly reassessing strategies in response to changing realities. True leadership in the food industry doesn’t mean never changing course – it means being transparent and accountable for the journey.
The future of food business success belongs to those who set ambitious goals, involve stakeholders meaningfully in developing those goals, and communicate progress openly and honestly. Ethical leadership is not just for Christmas – it’s a year-round pursuit.
Dan Crossley, executive director, Food Ethics Council
No comments yet