Findings on Overall Distribution
of Scores

When comparing the global benchmark 2021 results to those of 2019, overall, there has been modest improvement from an overall average score of 5.1 in 2019 (adjusted scores[1]) to 5.4 in 2021. Particularly, there are very few companies scoring in the top tier, indicating that most companies are still to consider children as an important stakeholder group.

Since our previous study in 2019, there has been some positive movement, and the total share of Achievers and Leaders has increased. This indicates a slow movement away from the bottom, but there remains a lack of momentum in movement towards the top.

At 9%, the share of companies scoring in the top tier is low. These results indicate that many companies still have some way to go to fully recognise children as stakeholders and adequately address the impact of their business on children’s lives.

Companies that consider children as stakeholders in their business have a lot to gain:

• Lowering their exposure to risks in the areas of child labour, decent work for parents, marketing, product responsibility, impact on the environment and the surrounding community;
• Opportunities to capture market shares and to position themselves as responsible, desirable employers and net contributors to society.

To get examples from other companies about risks and opportunities in relation to children’s rights for your sector, you can use the Magnifier: a tool that can help you uncover your company’s knowledge gaps around children’s rights. You can access the Magnifier here.

[1] When comparing 2019 vs 2021 scores, it is important to note that there have been significant improvements in the methodology in 2021, thus, it was essential to adjust the 2019 scores to the updated methodology to arrive at meaningful comparison. For more information about this adjustment and the changes in the methodology go to About our Benchmark 

What differentiates the Leaders from the Beginners more in detail? The following section contains more information on the highest scoring companies as well as strengths, gaps and opportunities for improvement for each of the performance groups.

Read more about the definition of the different performance groups and the methodology here.

Leader companies score:

• well on the indicators that cover child labour and family-friendly policies (Workplace)
• poorly on the indicators that cover responsible marketing and product responsibility/safety (Marketplace)
• well on indicators relating to environment (Community & Environment)
• poorly on indicators relating to impact on children in the surrounding community, with the exception of collaborating with child rights organisations and having programmes that support children’s health and education (Community & Environment)

Analysis of disclosures from Leader companies on the issues above shows that they understand their impact on children’s lives across a wider range of topics than do lower scoring companies. However, to a high degree, they continue to focus their reporting on policies they have in place. Given this, the primary opportunity for improvement for most Leader companies is in showing that they are not only talk, but also action, by disclosing how their policies are being implemented, and whether they produce the desired results. Further opportunity to improve lies in considering children as stakeholders in companies in relation to, for example, marketing, products or environmental and social impact. This could potentially open up new market opportunities and improve relations with the community in which they operate.

The following tables provide more detailed results on the indicators where Leaders score well.

Best scoring indicators:

*Highest score, indicating that the company discloses how they adress children’s rights in the area

There are also areas where Leaders as a group do not score at the top level, but as compared to companies with lower scores, Leaders still score better on the following indicators:

*Highest score, indicating that the company discloses how they adress children’s rights in the area

The following companies are the highest scoring, with an overall score of 9.0 or higher:

It is notable here that Telecommunications & Technology and Food, Beverage & Personal Care companies are more highly represented compared to other sectors.

For more information on sector comparisons/results and for Vodafone and Samsung case studies, please see here.

Achiever companies score:

• well on indicators that cover child labour (Workplace)
• significantly below Leaders on disclosing their family-friendly policies (Workplace)
• well on having programmes that support parents (Workplace)
• poorly on the indicators that cover responsible marketing and product responsibility/safety (Marketplace)
• well on indicators relating to environment (Community & Environment)
• poorly on indicators relating to impact on children in the surrounding community, with the exception of collaborating with child rights organisations and having programmes that support children’s health and education (Community & Environment)

Our analysis on Achiever companies’ disclosures for these issues shows that, although they are aware of opportunities to provide support for both parents and children, they focus more on presenting what they do (programmes) in positive terms, rather than disclosing on policies, procedures, and potential risks.

The following tables provide more detailed results on the indicators where Achievers score well.

Best scoring indicators:

*Highest score, indicating that the company discloses how they adress children’s rights in the area

There are also areas where Achievers as a group are not all scoring well, but as compared to Improvers and Beginners, Achievers still score better on the following indicators:

*Highest score, indicating that the company discloses how they adress children’s rights in the area

13 Achiever companies score just below 7.6 – the threshold for becoming a Leader. These companies have a real opportunity to improve their scores and become Leaders in the next study in 2023:

Improver companies score:

• well on having child labour policies (Workplace)
• significantly below Achievers on disclosing their family-friendly policies (Workplace)
• well on having programmes that support parents (Workplace)
• poorly on the indicators that cover responsible marketing and product responsibility/safety (Marketplace)

The analysis of Improver companies’ disclosures for the issues above shows that these companies appear to be focused on doing the only what is necessary to comply with expectations on, for example, having a policy on child labour and supporting their own employees. However, they do not disclose a great deal of information with respect to these areas. It is also remarkable that only about half of the Improver companies disclose a policy on reducing negative environmental impact, which could be considered the lowest bar of expectation in corporate sustainability reporting.

The following tables provide more detailed results on the indicators where Improvers score well.

Best scoring indicators:

*Highest score, indicating that the company discloses how they adress children’s rights in the area

There are also areas where Improvers as a group are not all scoring well, but compared to Beginners, Improvers still score better on the following indicators:

*Highest score, indicating that the company discloses how they adress children’s rights in the area

Beginner companies as a group do not score well on any indicator. Many Beginners fail to disclose any sustainability information, which is concerning. For example, only half of the Beginner companies have established an environmental policy, and a mere 1% have a policy that indicates a commitment to reduce negative impact on the environment.

There are those Beginner companies which score on indicators focused on support for children in various ways; however, the majority of such companies choose to set up their own programmes rather than creating relationships with organisations offering expertise in regard to children’s needs. This creates concern as to the efficacy of these programmes and calls into question the extent to which they truly focus on children’s rights.

Best scoring indicators:

*Highest score, indicating that the company discloses how they adress children’s rights in the area

When considering the sectoral distribution of results, the sectors fall into two groups: those having more than 10% Leaders, i.e., above the global average, and those who have less than 10% Leaders.

Except for Travel & Leisure[1], those sectors with less than 10% Leaders could be considered to be “more removed” from children, in the sense that children don’t as a rule come into direct contact with operations or products. This could explain the lack of focus on children as a stakeholder group in disclosures. Despite that, it would be a mistake to conclude that children are not in fact stakeholders in such businesses and there is in fact great opportunity also for companies in these sectors to contribute to a child-friendly society.

Children do come in contact with many of their products and services, even when they are not the intended user. Children are also dependents of employees, members of the community and perhaps most importantly, one of the groups hardest-hit by climate change. Indeed, the issue of climate change and the connected impact on children’s lives should be taken seriously by sectors such as B2B, Basic Materials and Energy & Utilities, given their large environmental footprint in terms of land and water use as well as in greenhouse gas emissions and pollution.

[1] The total sample of Travel & Leisure companies is relatively small, making any comparisons with other sectors difficult.

The sectors with a higher share of Leaders, i.e., Apparel & Retail, Healthcare (that also has the highest average score – See Sector Results for more info), Food, Beverage & Personal Care, and Technology & Telecommunications could be considered to be “closer to children” through their products and services.

This lack of focus on the impact of products and services from these sectors is a lost opportunity, not only in terms of managing risks to the company (and children), but also in leveraging marketing, products and services to improve children’s lives and create market opportunities while doing so. It is then somewhat confounding that more of them do not qualify as Leaders, and that the share of Achievers in these sectors is not significantly higher than in the lower scoring sectors.

Read more about Sector results and comparisons here. 

By including the largest companies (by revenue) from all regions in the world, the Corporate Sector and Children’s Rights Benchmark has true global coverage.

When looking at the regional distribution of the results among the largest regions –Europe, North America and Asia & Pacific – Europe is in the lead. Europe stands out by having the largest share of both Leaders and Achievers and a very small share of Improvers and Beginners.

Compared to Asia & Pacific, North America has a slightly smaller share of Leaders, but a larger share of Leaders and Achievers combined. Asia & Pacific also has a much larger share of Beginner companies.

Those regions with a smaller share of the global economy and a greater share of developing countries trail behind, with the exception of Latin America & the Caribbean, which scores on par with Asia & Pacific, the largest region in the study.

Also worth noting is that the Middle East & North Africa have improved significantly since the last study in 2019, mainly due to what looks like upward movement on the part of the lowest scoring companies. There also seems to be an uptick in reporting on sustainability and human rights in this region’s companies, although in general there is still an absence of a children’s perspective.

Overall, it’s encouraging to note an improvement in all regions since 2019.[1] For example, there is an increase in both the share of companies with policies against child labour as well as the share of companies that disclose a policy to reduce negative impacts on the environment.

On the downside, a smaller share of companies in Europe, Asia & Pacific, Latin America & the Caribbean and Sub-Saharan Africa report collaborations with or donations to children’s rights organisations. This can potentially be attributed to the global pandemic. If the trend continues, it is obviously a cause for concern.

Likewise, when it comes to collaborations with peers, industry organisations or government on sustainability/human rights issues, the share of companies not disclosing any information whatsoever has increased in every region since 2019.

Taken together, these findings on the trend toward fewer collaborations of all types is vexing, especially in relation to companies’ impact on children’s lives. Why? Because the issue of child labour, to give just one example, is a problem that cannot be addressed successfully by individual businesses working in isolation from other societal actors.

[1] When comparing 2019 vs 2021 scores, it is important to note that there have been significant improvements in the methodology in 2021, thus, it was essential to adjust the 2019 scores to the updated methodology to arrive at meaningful comparison. For more information about this adjustment and the changes in the methodology go to About our Benchmark