Natural rubber assessment summary - March 2023
ZSL's SPOTT initiative assesses 30 natural rubber producers, processors, traders and manufacturers on their public disclosure regarding their organisation, policies and practices related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. We encourage stakeholders to engage with companies, as policies and commitments may not always translate into effective implementation on the ground.
SPOTT scores natural rubber producers, processors, traders and manufacturers using up to 182 ESG indicators across 10 categories. View the categories below to find out more about key results, and visit company pages to view their full assessments.
Note: Indicators are disabled if they are not applicable to companies due to the nature or location of their operations.
41.5%
Average total score:
-
Sustainability policy and leadership
62.6%
- 11 companies / 17 (64.7%) publish clear sustainability policies that apply to all their operations.
- 19 companies / 29 (65.5%) publicly extend their sustainability policies to all their suppliers.
- 14 companies / 30 (46.7%) publish a high-level position (excluding board members) with responsibility for sustainability.
- 19 companies / 28 (67.9%) publish one or more board members with responsibility for sustainability.
- 13 companies / 30 (43.3%) publicly disclose the percentage or number of women in their senior management team.
- 15 companies / 28 (53.6%) publicly disclose the percentage or number of women within their board of directors.
- 11 companies / 30 (36.7%) are members of multiple industry schemes or other external initiatives to reduce negative environmental or social outcomes associated with natural rubber production.
- 14 companies / 30 (46.7%) publish evidence of collaboration with multiple stakeholders to reduce negative environmental or social outcomes associated with natural rubber production.
- 25 companies / 30 (83.3%) have published a sustainability report within the last two years.
- 21 companies / 30 (70.0%) publicly report through standardised reporting systems.
- 9 companies / 30 (30.0%) publish an assessment of climate-related risks.
-
Landbank, maps and traceability
29.5%
- 26 companies / 30 (86.7%) publicly disclose their countries of operation and nature of operations in each country.
- 5 companies / 29 (17.2%) publicly disclose the countries they are sourcing from.
- 9 companies / 17 (52.9%) publicly disclose the total land area managed for natural rubber.
- 12 companies / 17 (70.6%) publicly disclose their total land area planted with natural rubber.
- 1 company / 9 (11.1%) publicly discloses its total land area planted with natural rubber in scheme/outgrower smallholder plantations.
- 5 companies / 17 (29.4%) publicly disclose their total unplanted area (areas designated for future planting).
- 7 companies / 17 (41.2%) publicly report their areas set aside for conservation, including High Conservation Value (HCV) areas.
- 2 companies / 17 (11.8%) publish geo-referenced maps for all estates/management units.
- 1 company / 17 (5.9%) publishes management plans available for all estates/management units.
- 1 company / 17 (5.9%) publishes monitoring information on the implementation of all estates/management units.
- 0 companies / 9 (0.0%) publicly disclose geo-referenced maps for all scheme/outgrower smallholder plantations.
- 0 companies / 25 (0.0%) publicly disclose the names and locations of all their third-party supplying industrial estates/management units.
- 1 company / 29 (3.4%) publicly discloses a list of the jurisdictions where sourcing natural rubber from smallholders.
- 15 companies / 20 (75.0%) publicly disclose the number of company-owned natural rubber processing facilities.
- 7 companies / 20 (35.0%) publicly disclose the names and locations of company-owned natural rubber processing facilities.
- 7 companies / 20 (35.0%) publish the number (or percentage) of company-owned processing facilities that source from company-owned operations and third parties.
- 9 companies / 20 (45.0%) publish the total volumes (or percentages) sourced by company-owned processing facilities that come from company own operations and third-parties.
- 1 company / 19 (5.3%) publicly discloses the number of third party supplying processing facilities they source from.
- 0 companies / 19 (0.0%) publish the names and locations of all third party supplying processing facilities.
- 1 company / 19 (5.3%) publishes the number (or percentage) of third party supplying processing facilities that source from their own plantations and third party plantations.
- 1 company / 19 (5.3%) publishes the total volume (or percentages) sourced from third-party supplying processing facilities that come from the supplying facilities own operations and third parties.
- 1 company / 15 (6.7%) publicly discloses the total volume (or percentage) sourced for manufacturing that comes from intermediary traders rather than directly from processing facilities.
- 4 companies / 17 (23.5%) publicly disclose a time-bound commitment to achieve 100% traceability to processing facility level.
- 3 companies / 17 (17.6%) publicly disclose the percentage of supply traceable to processing facility level.
- 4 companies / 25 (16.0%) publicly disclose a time-bound commitment to achieve 100% tracebility to industrial plantations.
- 1 company / 16 (6.3%) publicly discloses the percentage of supply from own processing facilities traceable to industrial plantation level.
- 1 company / 18 (5.6%) publicly discloses the percentage of supply from third party processing facilities traceable to industrial plantations.
- 4 companies / 29 (13.8%) publish a time-bound commitment to achieve 100% traceability to jurisdictional level for smallholders.
- 0 companies / 20 (0.0%) publicly disclose the percentage of supply from own processing facilities traceable to smallholder at jurisdictional level.
- 1 company / 19 (5.3%) publicly discloses the percentage of supply from third party processing facilities traceable to smallholders at jurisdictional level.
-
Certification standards/Sustainability initiatives
30.5%
- 17 companies / 30 (56.7%) are members or a subsidiary/parent are members of the Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber (GPSNR).
- 17 companies / 30 (56.7%) have submitted a self-declaration form for the Sustainable Natural Rubber Initiative (SNR-i).
- 2 companies / 17 (11.8%) have certified some of their estates under the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Forest Management (FM) scheme.
- 3 companies / 17 (17.6%) publicly report a time-bound plan for achieving Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Forest Management (FM) certification of estates/management units.
- 0 companies / 9 (0.0%) publicly disclose the percentage of scheme/outgrower smallholders Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Forest Management (FM) certified.
- 0 companies / 9 (0.0%) publicly disclose a time-bound plan for achieving Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Forest Management (FM) certification of scheme/outgrower smallholders.
- 1 company / 20 (5.0%) publicly discloses the percentage of natural rubber supply from independent smallholders/outgrowers/third-party natural rubber suppliers that is FSC certified.
- 1 company / 20 (5.0%) reports the percentage of all natural rubber products handled/traded/processed (tonnes) that is FSC-certified.
- 1 company / 13 (7.7%) has certified some of its estates under the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) scheme for Forest Management (FM).
- 23 companies / 30 (76.7%) are certified under a voluntary sustainability certification scheme.
- 9 companies / 30 (30.0%) publicly disclose a commitment to become 100% certified under a voluntary sustainability certification scheme.
-
Deforestation and biodiversity
34.3%
- 4 companies / 17 (23.5%) clearly and publicly commit to zero conversion of natural ecosystems.
- 7 companies / 29 (24.1%) extend their clear and public commitment to zero conversion of natural ecosystems to all suppliers.
- 11 companies / 17 (64.7%) have a clear public commitment to zero deforestation.
- 20 companies / 29 (69.0%) extend their clear and public commitment zero deforestation to all suppliers.
- 8 companies / 17 (47.1%) publicly disclose a criteria and cut-off date for defining deforestation and/or ecosystem conversion.
- 18 companies / 29 (62.1%) publicly disclose a criteria and cut-off date for defining deforestation and/or ecosystem conversion in their suppliers operations.
- 3 companies / 17 (17.6%) publish strong evidence of monitoring deforestation in their own operations.
- 4 companies / 29 (13.8%) publish evidence of monitoring deforestation in supplier operations.
- 4 companies / 17 (23.5%) publicly disclose the amount of deforestation and/or ecosystem conversion recorded in their own operations from a specified cut-off date.
- 2 companies / 29 (6.9%) publicly disclose the amount of deforestation and/or ecosystem conversion recorded in their suppliers operations from a specified cut-off date.
- 9 companies / 17 (52.9%) publicly commit to restore all non-compliant deforestation/conversion in their own operations from a specified cut-off date.
- 15 companies / 29 (51.7%) publicly commit to restore all non compliant deforestation/convesion in supplier operations from a specified cut-off date.
- 5 companies / 30 (16.7%) publish examples of implementing a landscape or jurisdictional approach.
- 0 companies / 17 (0.0%) publish a biodiversity policy which extends beyond conservation set-asides and includes clear time-bound targets to measure the impact of the policy.
- 0 companies / 29 (0.0%) publish a biodiversity policy that applies to all their suppliers.
- 7 companies / 17 (41.2%) identify and publicly disclose species of conservation concern, referencing international or national systems of species classification.
- 3 companies / 17 (17.6%) that control land provide publicly available examples of species and/or habitat conservation management.
- 4 companies / 17 (23.5%) publicly commit to no hunting or only sustainable hunting of species.
- 9 companies / 29 (31.0%) extend their public commitment to no hunting or only sustainable hunting of species to to all suppliers.
- 6 companies / 17 (35.3%) publicly commit to protect forest areas from illegal activities.
- 4 companies / 29 (13.8%) extend their commitment to protect forest areas from illegal activities to all their suppliers.
- 2 companies / 17 (11.8%) publicly report multiple examples of protecting forest areas from illegal activities.
-
HCV, HCS and impact assessments
41.1%
- 13 companies / 17 (76.5%) publicly commit to conduct High Conservation Value (HCV) assessments for all new development and planting.
- 21 companies / 29 (72.4%) publicly commit all suppliers to conduct HCV assessments for all new development and planting.
- 1 company / 10 (10.0%) makes all their HCV assessments for all new plantings planted since 1st April 2019 publicly available.
- 1 company / 10 (10.0%) makes all their High Conservation Value (HCV) management and monitoring plans for all new plantings planted since 1st April 2019 publicly available.
- 7 companies / 17 (41.2%) publicly commit to the High Carbon Stock (HCS) Approach.
- 15 companies / 29 (51.7%) publicly commit all their suppliers to the HCS Approach.
- 2 companies / 12 (16.7%) make some or all of their High Carbon Stock (HCS) assessments publicly available.
- 0 companies / 12 (0.0%) publishes a peer review of all High Carbon Stock (HCS) assessments undertaken since April 2015 by the HCSA Quality Assurance Process.
- 0 companies / 30 (0.0%) publicly commit to conduct social and environmental impact assessments (SEIAs).
- 0 companies / 29 (0.0%) publicly commit all their suppliers to conduct social and environmental impact assessments (SEIAs).
- 2 companies / 30 (6.7%) make all their social and environmental impact assessments (SEIA) and associated management and monitoring plans publicly available.
-
Soils, fire and GHG emissions
42.5%
- 9 companies / 17 (52.9%) publicly commit to prohibit planting on peat of any depth.
- 21 companies / 29 (72.4%) publicly commit all their suppliers to no planting on peat of any depth.
- 5 companies / 17 (29.4%) publicly disclose their total landbank or planted area on peat.
- 0 companies / 12 (0.0%) publish evidence that their landbank/planted area on peat has not increased in the last 2 years.
- 7 companies / 17 (41.2%) publicly commit to best management practices for soils and peat.
- 5 companies / 29 (17.2%) publicly commit all their suppliers to best management practices for soils and peat.
- 2 companies / 17 (11.8%) published evidence of implementing best management practices for soils and peat.
- 6 companies / 17 (35.3%) publicly commit to use best/sustainable tapping practices on their plantations.
- 3 companies / 29 (10.3%) publicly commit all their suppliers to use best/sustainable tapping practices on their plantations.
- 1 company / 17 (5.9%) publish evidence of implementing best/sustainable tapping practices.
- 11 companies / 17 (64.7%) clearly and publicly commit to zero burning.
- 18 companies / 29 (62.1%) clearly and publicly commit all their suppliers to zero burning.
- 6 companies / 17 (35.3%) publicly disclose clear information relating to monitoring and managing fires in their own operations.
- 7 companies / 17 (41.2%) publicly disclose details of the hotspots/fires in their own estates.
- 0 companies / 29 (0.0%) publicly disclose clear information relating to the number of hotspots/fires in supplier operations/jurisdictions.
- 10 companies / 30 (33.3%) publish a time-bound commitment to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity.
- 10 companies / 30 (33.3%) publicly report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity.
- 0 companies / 12 (0.0%) publicly report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from land use change in their own operations.
- 4 companies / 30 (13.3%) publicly report a reduction in their GHG emissions intensity over time.
- 17 companies / 30 (56.7%) publicly report the methodology used to calculate their GHG emissions.
-
Water, chemical and pest management
32.3%
- 7 companies / 30 (23.3%) publish a time-bound commitment to improve water use intensity.
- 10 companies / 30 (33.3%) publicly report a water use intensity figure that is under two years old.
- 8 companies / 30 (26.7%) publicly report a reduction in their water use intensity over time.
- 2 companies / 29 (6.9%) publish a time-bound commitment to improve water quality.
- 3 companies / 29 (10.3%) publicly report progress towards their water quality commitment.
- 11 companies / 20 (55.0%) publicly disclose evidence of treatment of effluents from processing facilities.
- 6 companies / 15 (40.0%) publicly disclose evidence of treatment of effluents from manufacturing facilities.
- 0 companies / 17 (0.0%) publicly commit to protect natural waterways through buffer zones.
- 2 companies / 17 (11.8%) publish multiple examples of how they protect natural waterways through buffer zones.
- 14 companies / 29 (48.3%) publicly report evidence of reducing odours from natural rubber processing or manufacturing facilities.
- 6 companies / 17 (35.3%) publicly commit to minimise the use of chemicals, including pesticides and chemical fertilisers.
- 7 companies / 29 (24.1%) publicly commit all their suppliers to minimise the use of chemicals, including pesticides and chemical fertilisers.
- 6 companies / 17 (35.3%) publicly commit to no use of paraquat in their plantations.
- 7 companies / 29 (24.1%) publicly commit all their suppliers to no use of paraquat in their plantations.
- 7 companies / 17 (41.2%) publicly commit to prohibit the use of World Health Organisation (WHO) Class 1A and 1B pesticides.
- 8 companies / 29 (27.6%) publicly commit all their suppliers to prohibit the use of World Health Organisation (WHO) Class 1A and 1B pesticides.
- 7 companies / 17 (41.2%) publicly commit to prohibit the use of chemicals listed under the Stockholm Convention and Rotterdam Convention.
- 7 companies / 29 (24.1%) publicly commit all their suppliers to prohibit the use of chemicals listed under the Stockholm Convention and Rotterdam Convention.
- 5 companies / 17 (29.4%) publicly report their chemical usage per hectare or provide a comprehensive list of chemicals used within their operations.
- 1 company / 17 (5.9%) publicly reports reductions in chemical fertiliser usage.
- 2 companies / 17 (11.8%) publicly disclose evidence of implementing an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach.
-
Community, land and labour rights
54.8%
- 23 companies / 30 (76.7%) publicly commit to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or equivalent.
- 19 companies / 29 (65.5%) publicly commit all their suppliers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
- 3 companies / 30 (10.0%) publicly disclose evidence of taking actions to implement their human rights policies.
- 12 companies / 21 (57.1%) publicly commit to respect Indigenous and local communities rights.
- 13 companies / 29 (44.8%) publicly commit all their suppliers to respect Indigenous and local communities rights.
- 11 companies / 21 (52.4%) publicly commit to respect legal and customary land tenure rights.
- 14 companies / 29 (48.3%) publicly commit all their suppliers to respect legal and customary land rights.
- 16 companies / 21 (76.2%) publicly commit to the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).
- 18 companies / 29 (62.1%) publicly commit all their suppliers to the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).
- 6 companies / 21 (28.6%) publicly disclose details of their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) process.
- 3 companies / 21 (14.3%) publish multiple examples of local stakeholder engagement to prevent conflicts.
- 6 companies / 21 (28.6%) publicly disclose details of their process for addressing land conflicts.
- 0 companies / 17 (0.0%) publish evidence they are taking action to support the inclusion of women across their operations, including addressing barriers faced.
- 10 companies / 17 (58.8%) publicly commit to mitigate impacts on food security.
- 1 company / 17 (5.9%) publish examples of efforts to mitigate impacts on food security.
- 13 companies / 17 (76.5%) publicly commit to provide essential community services and facilities.
- 2 companies / 17 (11.8%) publish multiple examples of implementing their commitment to provide essential community services and facilities.
- 15 companies / 21 (71.4%) publicly commit to provide business/work opportunities for local communities.
- 24 companies / 30 (80.0%) publicly commit to the Fundamental ILO Conventions or Free and Fair Labour Principles.
- 16 companies / 29 (55.2%) publicly commit all suppliers to the Fundamental ILO Conventions or Free and Fair Labour Principles.
- 4 companies / 30 (13.3%) publish evidence of implementing their commitment to respect all workers rights.
- 24 companies / 30 (80.0%) publicly commit to eliminate gender related discrimination with regards to employment.
- 20 companies / 29 (69.0%) publicly commit all suppliers to eliminate gender related discrimination with regards to employment.
- 3 companies / 30 (10.0%) publish evidence of implementing their commitment to eliminate gender related discrimination with regards to employment.
- 21 companies / 30 (70.0%) publicly report the percentage or number of temporary employees.
- 21 companies / 30 (70.0%) publicly report the percentage or number of female employees.
- 10 companies / 30 (33.3%) publicly commit to pay a living wage.
- 5 companies / 29 (17.2%) publicly commit all suppliers to pay a living wage.
- 1 company / 30 (3.3%) publish the ratio of living wages to local minimum wages paid across its operations.
- 0 companies / 30 (0.0%) publicly disclose salary reporting by gender.
- 27 companies / 30 (90.0%) publicly commit to address occupational health and safety.
- 19 companies / 29 (65.5%) publicly commit all suppliers to address occupational health and safety.
- 2 companies / 30 (6.7%) publish evidence that they provide personal protective equipment and related training to employees.
- 17 companies / 30 (56.7%) publicly report time lost due to work-based injuries.
- 14 companies / 30 (46.7%) publicly disclose the number of fatalities as a result of work-based accidents.
-
Smallholders and suppliers
23.7%
- 19 companies / 29 (65.5%) publicly commit to support smallholders.
- 5 companies / 29 (17.2%) publicly report the percentage of natural rubber supply from smallholders.
- 1 company / 19 (5.3%) publicly reports a programme to support scheme smallholders/outgrowers in its supply chain.
- 0 companies / 19 (0.0%) publicly disclose the percentage of scheme/outgrower smallholders supported by their programme.
- 7 companies / 28 (25.0%) publicly report a programme to support independent smallholders in their supply chain.
- 2 companies / 28 (7.1%) publicly report the percentage of independent smallholders supported by their programme.
- 3 companies / 29 (10.3%) publicly report a clear process for assessing and engaging smallholder suppliers on compliance with company policy and/or legal requirements.
- 2 companies / 29 (6.9%) publicly report the number or percentage of smallholder suppliers engaged on compliance with company policy and/or legal requirements.
- 10 companies / 25 (40.0%) publicly report a clear process to prioritise, assess and engage non-smallholder suppliers on compliance with company policy and/or legal requirements.
- 2 companies / 25 (8.0%) publicly report the number or percentage of non-smallholder suppliers assessed and/or engaged on compliance with company policies and/or legal requirements.
- 2 companies / 25 (8.0%) publicly disclose the sustainability criteria by which non-smallholder suppliers are excluded or suspended, including steps that will be taken and timeframes for action.
- 1 company / 29 (3.4%) publicly discloses timebound action plans (including Key Performance Indicators) for suppliers to be in compliance with sourcing commitments.
- 0 companies / 29 (0.0%) publicly report the proportion of direct and indirect supply from third-parties that comes from natural rubber plantations which are compliant with sourcing policies.
- 0 companies / 29 (0.0%) publicly report the percentage of supply coming from agroforestry.
-
Governance and grievances
57.2%
- 24 companies / 30 (80.0%) publicly commit to both ethical conduct and prohibition of corruption.
- 19 companies / 29 (65.5%) publicly commit all suppliers to ethical conduct and prohibition of corruption.
- 3 companies / 30 (10.0%) publicly report progress on their commitment to ethical conduct and prohibition of corruption.
- 5 companies / 30 (16.7%) publicly disclose their management approach to tax and payments to governments.
- 19 companies / 30 (63.3%) publicly report a whistleblowing procedure.
- 20 companies / 30 (66.7%) publicly report a grievance or complaints system open to all stakeholders.
- 3 companies / 30 (10.0%) publicly disclose details of complaints and grievances.
Key findings
- The average score of companies is 41.5% in March 2023, compared to 39.3% during the last assessment of natural rubber companies in March 2022.
- 16/29 (55%) companies assessed in 2022 saw an increase in their scores in 2023 – the average change in score was +7.1 percentage points.
- 12/29 (41%) companies assessed in 2022 saw a decrease in their scores in 2023 – the average change in score was -2.8 percentage points.
- The average score per supply chain segment is producers 38.6%, processors 39.5%, traders 30.8%, and manufacturers 44.7%.
- The average score of Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber (GPSNR) members (17 companies), including companies with subsidiary or parent company members, is 53.9% vs. 26.0% for non-GPSNR members (13 companies).
Average scores by type
About SPOTT
Developed by the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), SPOTT is an online platform supporting sustainable commodity production and trade. By tracking transparency, SPOTT incentivises the implementation of corporate best practice. SPOTT assesses commodity producers, processors and traders on their public disclosure regarding their organisation, policies and practices related to environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues. SPOTT scores companies annually against sector-specific indicators to benchmark their progress over time. Investors, buyers and other key influencers can use SPOTT assessments to inform stakeholder engagement, manage risk, and increase industry transparency. For more information, visit spott.org.
About ZSL
ZSL (Zoological Society of London) is an international conservation charity working to create a world where wildlife thrives. From investigating the health threats facing animals to helping people and wildlife live alongside each other, ZSL is committed to bringing wildlife back from the brink of extinction. Our work is realised through our ground-breaking science, our field conservation around the world and engaging millions of people through our two zoos, ZSL London Zoo and ZSL Whipsnade Zoo. For more information, visit zsl.org.