At the edges of the world\u2019s remaining forests, the expansion of industrial agriculture continues to endanger Indigenous communities and the ecosystems they protect. Indigenous Peoples and local communities face escalating violence, intimidation, and land theft as companies continue to push commodity production into their territories. More than 6,400 attacks on Human Rights Defenders have been documented since 2015, including over 1,000 killings, underscoring the scale and urgency of these threats.<\/p>\n
These abuses are unfolding at the same time that scientists warn that the destruction of intact ecosystems is accelerating both the climate and biodiversity crises. Protecting and restoring forests is not an abstract climate strategy, it is a frontline response that remains essential for stabilizing the planet and safeguarding the rights of the communities who depend on these ecosystems for their survival.<\/p>\n
Global consumer goods companies still play an outsized role in driving deforestation and human rights abuses through the commodities they depend on. Palm oil, pulp and paper, soy, cocoa, beef, and other forest-risk commodities continue to be linked to land grabbing, clearing of intact ecosystems, and threats and violence against the people who defend them.<\/p>\n
Our 2025 Keep Forests Standing Scorecard evaluates ten of the world\u2019s most influential consumer brands\u2014Colgate-Palmolive, Ferrero, Kao, Mars, Mondel\u0113z, Nestl\u00e9, Nissin Foods, PepsiCo, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever\u2014on their progress toward eliminating these harms from their supply chains. This year\u2019s results show once again that corporate action remains slow, uneven, and far from the transformational change brands have promised. While most brands assessed now have No Deforestation, Peat, nor Exploitation (NDPE) policies in place, implementation and verification of these remains piecemeal.<\/p>\n
Recent investigations<\/a> by RAN and others exposed how bad actors within supply chains are increasingly hiding behind complicated corporate structures, potentially in effort to circumvent customer NDPE policies. \u201cClean\u201d sides of a business sell into supply chains with NDPE commitments, while \u201cshadow\u201d arms continue to drive deforestation and human rights abuses. In response, brands need to ensure that NDPE policies are applied across supplier corporate groups and to address supplier relationships where corporate structures attempt to insulate shadow companies from accountability. However, only three of the brands assessed apply NDPE requirements across supplier corporate groups, with two of these excluding many commodity supply chains. Others exclude such requirements entirely, severely undermining the integrity of NDPE policy commitments.<\/p>\n Of all ten brands, Unilever<\/b> once again leads the pack, maintaining a passing score, although only barely with a score of C+ (16 of a possible 24 points). It continues to set the clearest benchmark for NDPE policy alignment, supply chain transparency, and grievance disclosure. In 2025, Unilever<\/b> became the first major company to commit <\/a>to pilot an independent, third-party process for verifying Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)\u2014a key step toward ensuring that Indigenous Peoples\u2019 rights are upheld before any development occurs. Unilever<\/strong> continues to publish a cross-commodity grievance tracker and regularly updates facility-level supplier information. Unilever\u2019s NDPE policies extend across multiple commodity supply chains and at a corporate group level.<\/p>\n Its Human Rights Defender policy, first published in 2022, remains the benchmark against which other brands are assessed, however, three years after publication, Unilever<\/b> has yet to fully operationalize its HRD procedures and risks of violence and intimidation towards Defenders remain within its supply chains. As more brands develop HRD policies, Unilever\u2019s<\/b> role as a leader in this space is being undermined by its lack of action to address these risks through its grievance mechanisms.<\/p>\n Colgate-Palmolive, Kao, Mars, Nestl\u00e9, and PepsiCo<\/b> are the brands leading the middle pack.<\/p>\n While Colgate-Palmolive<\/b>\u2019s score did increase from 10 to 11 (of a possible 24) points, this was due to a change in RAN\u2019s scoring methodology and did not reflect any policy updates from the company. Its Palm Oil and Soy policies specify that commitments apply across all Colgate operations, subsidiaries, joint ventures, and require suppliers to implement NDPE policies at the corporate group level, reducing its risk of exposure to \u2018shadow\u2019 companies.<\/p>\n Kao\u2019s<\/b> score increased in 2025, with recognition of its published deforestation and conversion free implementation plans<\/a> for palm oil and pulp and paper supply chains. However, its disclosures reveal a heavy reliance upon certification and self declaration over independent verification, and rights based policy commitments do not include implementation timelines. RAN contends that achieving deforestation free supply chains without clear protections for land rights and a zero tolerance towards violence and intimidation of Defenders is impossible. Importantly, Kao\u2019s<\/b> NDPE policy extends to third party suppliers and their corporate groups.<\/p>\n Nestl\u00e9 <\/b>was one of 2025\u2019s biggest movers, increasing its score from 7 to 10 points. Nestl\u00e9\u2019s<\/b> NDPE requirements to suppliers are detailed in its Responsible Sourcing Core Requirements<\/a> compliance with which is, importantly, a contractual requirement, earning Nestle an increased score under the Mandate for NDPE Adoption criterion. RAN welcomed Nestl\u00e9\u2019s continued public<\/b> support for the European Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), with the company joining multiple public letters calling for the regulation\u2019s implementation. Nestl\u00e9 disclosed land rights focused work in Indonesia, including FPIC supplier guidance<\/a>. In addition, Nestl\u00e9 also disclosed landscape programs addressing FPIC in Colombia and Brazil. RAN welcomes these developments and look forward to further disclosures from Nestl\u00e9 on the fulfillment of FPIC in their supply chain.<\/p>\n Nestl\u00e9<\/b> also published a grievance mechanism and re-entry requirements<\/a> and updated its list of suspended palm suppliers, but fell short of publishing a grievance tracker to demonstrate it is holding bad actors to account. A lack of corporate group level implementation of NDPE policies means that Nestl\u00e9 remains at risk of being linked to suppliers who drive deforestation and rights abuses.<\/p>\n PepsiCo<\/b> was one of 2025\u2019s most improved brands, with its score increasing from 7 to 9 (of a possible 24 points), moving the company into the top half of companies assessed. Of particular note, PepsiCo<\/b> published a grievance tracker for its palm oil supply chain<\/a>, a key tool in holding bad actors to account. The company has also indicated it carried out a forest footprint exercise in East Kalimantan<\/a>; RAN welcomes this announcement and encourages publication of a summary of findings of the exercise. PepsiCo does extend NDPE policy requirements across supplier corporate groups, however, it only does so for its palm oil supply chain, leaving it potentially associated with shadow companies across other forest risk supply chains.<\/p>\n Mars<\/b>\u2019 score did increase to 8 points this year (of a possible 24), after it joined the VOICE network and publicly supported the EUDR. This support, which was welcomed by RAN, suggests a readiness for the implementation of the EUDR that is not reflected in Mars<\/b>\u2019 policy commitments, and RAN believes that Mars has an opportunity to show leadership through the publication of supplier information across all of its forest risk commodity supply chains in 2026.<\/p>\n Mars<\/b>\u2019 operationalization of its NDPE policies remains hampered by its lack of a public grievance log and its failure to mandate supplier compliance through contractual requirements. Mars <\/b>does not demonstrate that NDPE obligations apply at the supplier corporate-group level.<\/p>\n Colgate-Palmolive, PepsiCo, Nestl\u00e9, Mars, and Kao have all made <\/b>commitments to zero tolerance of intimidation, criminalization, and violence towards Human Rights Defenders in their supply chain. These brands need to develop policies and procedures to prevent intimidation towards Human Rights Defenders if they want to continue to enjoy a reputation as a leader in the space.<\/p>\n Procter & Gamble<\/b>, Ferrero<\/b>, and Nissin<\/b> were all graded as D- in 2025, reflecting a lack of progress in NDPE implementation and prioritization from those brands in the middle of the Keep Forest Standing assessment pack.<\/p>\n RAN recently welcomed progress by Procter & Gamble\u2019s<\/b> in updates to its Forest commodities<\/a> and human rights policies<\/a>. However its\u00a0 NDPE policy remains weakened by the company\u2019s failure to include a prohibition of forest degradation.<\/p>\n A lack of corporate group level implementation of NDPE policies means that Procter & Gamble<\/b> remains at risk of sourcing from corporate groups that operate shadow subsidiaries involved in deforestation, degradation, or human rights abuses.<\/p>\n Ferrero <\/b>joined Nestl\u00e9<\/b> and Mars<\/b> in publicly voicing support for the EUDR, however, its NDPE policy commitments remain limited in scope, implementation, and verification. Ferrero <\/b>could most effectively begin to address these inadequacies by applying its NDPE policies through the publication of a grievance tracker aligned with UNGP principles. A lack of corporate group level applicability of its policies undermines the credibility of Ferrero\u2019s<\/b> deforestation-free claims.<\/p>\n Nissin<\/b> issued a public commitment<\/a> to zero tolerance of intimidation or violence towards Human Rights Defenders. However, its revised Supplier Code of Conduct lacks application across the corporate group as defined by AFi and explicit mention of NDPE core elements such as protection of HCS forests, HCV areas, and peatlands. The Code of Conduct also does not require suppliers to adopt an NDPE policy.<\/p>\n Mondel\u0113z<\/b>, producer of Oreo cookies, was the weakest performer across nearly all indicators. It continues to omit clear commitments to protect Human Rights Defenders and has not published a grievance tracker. While it participated in creating a Human Rights Defenders guidance note<\/a> through the Consumer Goods Forum, it has yet to turn this into a meaningful, company-wide policy and procedure.<\/p>\n In recent updates, Mondel\u0113z disclosed that it has carried out a Forest Footprint using RAN\u2019s methodology in major Palm growing countries and regions<\/a>. RAN welcomes this news and looks forward to a summary of findings from the footprint exercise. Mondel\u0113z shared information about the \u201cRespecting Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities Rights Affected by Agricultural Production in Indonesia\u201d program<\/a> it is involved with other brands. RAN commends programs addressing land rights and their positive outcomes, but emphasizes that these cannot replace company-wide policies and procedures.<\/p>\n Mondel\u0113z <\/b>does apply NDPE policy expectations across its palm oil supplier\u2019s \u201cparent groups.\u201d However, the company has not confirmed whether its definition of parent group aligns with the AFi definition of corporate group, nor does it extend this requirement across its other supply chains.<\/p>\n Mondel\u0113z <\/b>was the only company assessed that has not published up-to-date supplier information across at least one forest risk commodity supply chain, one of the most elementary steps in the implantation of NDPE policies. While other brands publicly supported the EUDR, 2025 saw an about face from Mondel\u0113z<\/b>, which reversed on its previous support for the regulation, calling instead for a delay in its implementation<\/a>, cementing Mondel\u0113z\u2019s<\/b> position as the worst performing of all brands assessed.<\/p>\n 2025 was expected to clarify which global brands were prepared for a deforestation-free future. Instead, it revealed a deeper problem: many companies are still relying on unverified claims, selective transparency, and corporate structures designed to shield harmful operations from scrutiny.<\/p>\n Several companies publicly endorsed the EUDR. Yet most have not built the systems needed to comply with it. These gaps include supplier-level grievance disclosure, group-level accountability, independent verification of land rights and Free, Prior and Informed Consent, and traceability systems that reach beyond mill gates. For Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights Defenders, this disconnect is not abstract. It perpetuates the violence, intimidation, and land grabbing that continue across many of the commodity frontiers feeding global supply chains.<\/p>\n The widening distance between corporate commitment and on-the-ground implementation has become a liability. Forests continue to be cleared under the watch of brands that claim to oppose deforestation. So-called clean subsidiaries continue to mask the activities of shadow companies implicated in abuses. As more brands commit to zero tolerance of intimidation, criminalization, and violence towards Human Rights Defenders, brands need to take the next step and put in place the procedures needed to identify, prevent, and address the escalating risks that Defenders face.<\/p>\n The Keep Forests Standing campaign calls on global consumer goods companies to meet this moment with the level of action the crisis demands. Investors, regulators, and frontline communities no longer accept promises as progress. In 2026, companies must ensure that proof, rather than policy, is the new baseline.<\/p>\nThe Leader<\/h3>\n
Top of the Middle<\/h3>\n
Middle of the Pack<\/h3>\n
The Laggard<\/h3>\n
A Year of Exposure, Not Progress<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.ran.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/DJI-00012-home-1.jpg\")
\t\t<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"