Reporting Framework

The reporting framework of the Zero Hunger Private Sector Pledge aims to assess progress on the implementation of commitments made as part of the initiative. It was developed by independent consultants of Walk the Talk, under the supervision and guidance of the Pledge Coordinator, the Shamba Centre for Food & Climate.

As of the beginning of 2025, and since the initiative’s launch in 2021, 68 companies have successfully submitted a pledge towards aligning their investment to address UN SDG Goal 2: Zero Hunger. In their submission, these companies committed to “being able to report on resources allocation, progress, impact and challenges in the context of the agreed collaboration.”

Objective & Target

The reporting framework is a first step in accountability and long-term impact for all participants in the Zero Hunger Private Sector Pledge (“the Pledge”). It provides a guideline and methodology on how to verify if companies are honouring their pledges through an evidenced investment. It serves as a high-level instrument which can be used to hold companies to account, and to establish a proof of concept, so that more companies join the initiative.

The reporting framework contributes to the biennial reporting exercise, which aims to publish a report with aggregated data on all pledges of over USD 1 million. For the 2025 reporting report, the ambition is to verify the following information:

1. Establish that the pledged investment took place 

2. Confirm the country/region in which it was spent 

3. Confirm the amount that was spent

This framework is also designed to guide companies in reporting on an impact indicator as part of their commitment to the Zero Hunger Pledge. It serves two key purposes:

1. Reveal trends and insights – by surfacing how companies measure progress across the ten Ceres2030 areas of intervention:
2. Foster a community of practice – allowing companies to see how peers measure the outcomes of private-sector investments

Data Collection & Monitoring

This section concerns all companies whose pledge totalled at least USD 1 million.

Baseline Data

The Pledge submission form requests of pledging companies that they provide information related to:

• Type of Financial Commitment

• Ceres2030 Area of Investment

• Type of Investment 

• Country

• Implementing Organisation(s) and/or  Partner(s)

• Project Name

• Financial Contribution 

If some information was missing in the original JotForm submission, the reporting exercise provides an opportunity to update and fill in those gaps.

Reporting Data

The following data will be collected from organisations. Given the burden of reporting, the reporting framework enables flexibility on how the data is compiled as well as means of verification of the information reported.

Pledge implementation partner(s)

Description of the partnerships involved in the implementation of the pledge: business entities, partner companies, NGOs, community organisations, etc.

Reporting Entity / Data Evidence

The Pledge states that “the company must name the partners it will work with to achieve the action: these could include one of the implementing organisations; another international or regional organisation; the local, regional, or national government; or another civil society organisation.”

Given the varying partnership structures and levels between companies and the implementing organisation(s) / partner(s) named in their pledge, the first point of contact for this reporting exercise will be the company itself. The company can choose to be the “Reporting Entity” and submit the information directly. In this instance, it will communicate on the provenance and source of information as well as means of verification. The company can also assign the submission of information to the implementing organisation(s) / partners or another external organisation – provided that the said organisation has agreed to provide verification. The submitting entity will be the “Reporting Entity.”

Different means of verification shall be acceptable, depending on the data collection method (self-reporting versus externally provided/validated) and the status of the pledging company (listed versus private company). Verification can be provided by:

• An external partner in the project;

• A separate/philanthropic arm of the company: foundation, charity, fund;

• A third-party (reporting) organisation;

• Project beneficiaries;

• For listed companies, a written signed statement confirming the status of the implementation can be provided. If the data is compiled by a person within the company, they should indicate how they are verifying this data.

Project Name(s)/Reference

We would like to see that the programme can be cross-referenced in a document provided by the reporting entity. If we can find a press release or a mention of this project in one of the company’s reports, we can infer that the project exists and thus the pledge, implemented.

Intervention Implementation

We encourage companies to report specifically on their pledge but accept information gathered through publicly available information – provided it can be directly linked to the pledge commitment. Overview of activities undertaken to fulfill the commitment can be referenced through a variety of sources including:

• Reports;

• Photos (dated);

• Conversation/interviews with beneficiaries or testimonies;

• Geo-mapping;

• Partner statements; and

• Interviews.

Amount spent over the period (vs amount committed)

Amounts deployed from the pledge submission date (JotForm) until the end of the last reporting period and considering whether the commitment is a single or multi-year commitment. The ambition is not to audit companies’ spending but to ensure that their commitment can be verified.

Spending can be referenced through a variety of sources including:

• Certificate of investment;

• Mention in a report / press release ;

• Audited accounts / bank statements / Invoices;

• Reporting by the implementing organisation(s) and/or partner(s): this could be in the form of a statement sent by email attesting to the implementation; and

• For a listed company, a signed written statement.

The amounts will be compiled in the currency used for the company’s pledge submission. The exchange rate will be calculated based on the World Bank official exchange rates for the year(s) covered in the reporting period.

Start date of the intervention/ Disbursement date

Whether this is a revolving/multi-year intervention or a single-year commitment, disbursement must have happened after the Pledge was submitted in order for the intervention to be valid. Evidence can be provided such as:

• Proof of money spent at x date;

• Company announcement of activities deployed;

• Assurance/Reporting by the implementing organisation(s) / partner(s); and

• Written statement by the reporting entity.

Impact Indicator

Methodology

This framework draws on the input of reporting companies and the ZHP Technical Committee. Through a consultative process, stakeholders shared practices, challenges, and lessons learnt in tracking the impact of their investments. The resulting framework emphasises the use of consistent, outcome-level indicators, aligned with internationally recognised standards such as:

• World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA)
• Standards of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
• IRIS+ Metrics (GIIN)
• FAO/SDG Indicator Frameworks

Each indicator is mapped to one of the ten Ceres2030 intervention areas. 

Definition of Impact

In this context, impact refers to long-term positive change. While impact may be difficult to attribute directly, companies can measure outcomes to measure change on a shorter timeline. Outcome indicators reflect a change in condition (e.g., increased farmer income, reduced food waste). These go beyond output indicators that focus on activity delivery, such as the number of beneficiaries reached or hectares under improved practices.

Reporting Guidance

Given the diverse investment contexts, companies may rely on data from implementing partners, drawing from a mix of quantitative and qualitative evidence. As much as possible, indicators should be relevant and feasible and have the following qualitative attributes:

• Measurable – using reliable data sources
• Specific – clearly linked to the intervention's intended change
• Time-bound – reported against a defined time frame
• Trackable – feasible to monitor regularly over time
• Practical – realistic to collect, especially in partnership with local actors

For this reporting exercise, in the Jotform reporting form, companies will be asked to choose at least one indicator corresponding to the Ceres2030 area of their commitment: On the Farm, Empower the Excluded, or On the Move.

The table of indicators provided below is illustrative. Companies are encouraged to use it as a reference but may also report custom indicators that better reflect their investment. We will require all reporting companies to select at least one indicator from the reference list (or add in a custom indicator) but will not be collecting (nor reporting) any data this year nor expect companies to measure this indicator, as 2025 will provide the baseline year. We do not expect a company to provide an indicator for each programme at this stage. 

Companies may not be able to isolate their contribution to a specific outcome. In such cases, indicators may reflect contribution or alignment rather than direct attribution. Companies are encouraged to share any supporting documentation outlining the methodology used to collect these indicators, if such a methodology has been developed.

Data Assessment & Analysis

 Through the data collected, the report will analyse trends such as outlined below.

What types of interventions have taken place?

1. Country distribution (high priority countries vs medium and low) of interventions;

2. Industry/Sector distribution of companies pledging;

3. Pledge progress overall (% spent vs overall commitment and yearly spending (2023, 20224); and

4. Intentionality and engagement (i.e., assessment of the mention(s) by each company of their commitment in their public communications, review of the type and number of communications that involve the mention of the commitment, etc.).

How are pledges being implemented?

5. Alignment with Ceres2030 investment areas. This information was already collected via the submission. Wherever possible, the pledge progress will be analysed per investment area.

What are some best practices to assess the effectiveness of the pledge implementation?

6. Best/Median/Learner practice. The report will identify additional information that is reported by the Reporting Entities pertaining to the below:

7. Quantitative and qualitative data on progress achieved such as:

   • Analysis of the results against the targets / milestones set by the company in relation to their pledge;

   • Explanation of any significant deviations from the expected outcomes;

   • Description of challenges encountered (for companies unable to confirm implementation of their pledge due to conflict, difficulty accessing finance, etc.);

   • Indicators and metrics used to measure progress; and

   • Explanation from the implementing organisation(s) and/or partner(s) of any data collection challenges faced and how they were addressed.

8. Best Practices and Innovation / Challenges and lessons learned.

9. Stakeholder engagement (e.g., are the implementing organisation(s) and/or partner(s) aware that the intervention falls within the scope of the Zero Hunger Private Sector Pledge commitment?).

Key Considerations

1. As part of the Pledge, companies committed to comply with host state laws and regulations as well as internationally accepted principles. We ask companies to confirm that they still comply with host state laws and regulations as well as international agreed principles, namely:

   • Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS-RAI);

   • International Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes;

   • Principles of the UN Global Compact; and

   • UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights.

Read the reporting FAQ