2026/4/7
Comparison of FARMWISE and BBFAW evaluation items: Japan’s efforts measured by international standards
The FARMWISE Impact 2026 (FARMWISE), which the Animal Rights Center has been releasing since 2026, is an NGO-led corporate assessment of major Japanese companies to evaluate how much “impact” their animal welfare initiatives have on actual improvements in welfare for livestock and farmed fish. FARMWISE is an NGO-led corporate assessment of major Japanese companies to evaluate the extent to which their animal welfare initiatives have an “impact” on actual welfare improvements.
International assessment criteria are mainly based on European standards, but there are cultural differences in Japan, such as underdeveloped technology and limited species of fish handled. Therefore, FARMWISE has set evaluation items that are tailored to Japan’s actual situation, and by referring to FARMWISE, domestic companies can easily set realistic targets that are “within their reach”.
However, if a company continues to compete only within Japan, it will not be able to compete internationally. Companies aiming for growth will eventually need to refer to international evaluation standards as well. A well-known international standard for animal welfare is “The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare” (BBFAW).
Therefore, by comparing FARMWISE and BBFAW, this section explains “how each company and investor should perceive the results of the FARMWISE evaluation from the perspective of international standards.
The documents to be referenced are (1) the FARMWISE questionnaire as well as the 2026 FARMWISEevaluation results, and BBFAW’s 2024 (2) evaluation report and (3) report on methodology (BBFAW’s 2025 report will be available after May 2026).
(1) Companies to be evaluated
As of April 2026, FARMWISE is evaluating 107 companies that handle or are involved in the distribution of livestock products, seafood, eggs, and alternative proteins in the Japanese market (the number of eligible companies will be reviewed and increased in the future).
On the other hand, the 2024 BBFAW covers 150 global companies (food retailers and wholesalers, food manufacturers, and restaurants and bars). Five Japanese companies are included in the assessment: AEON Group, Maruha Nichiro, Meiji Holdings, Nippon Ham, and Seven & i Holdings (see (iii) Report on Methodology, p. 23-25).
These five companies are referred to below as the “Five Major Companies. Since the five major companies are also evaluated by FARMWISE, the results of their evaluations can be directly compared.
(2) How are the five major companies evaluated by BBFAW and FARMWISE?
In FARMWISE, the total scores of the five main companies are as follows
| Company Name | FARMWISE Total Score |
|---|---|
| Japan Ham | 25 |
| ion | 18 |
| Seven & i Holdings Co. | 18 |
| Maruha Nichiro | 13 |
| Meiji Holdings Co. | 9 |
On the other hand, according to BBFAW’s assessment as of 2024, these five companies are all in “Tier 6”. Tier 6 is the lowest tier, where about 11% of the 150 companies fall from the bottom (② Evaluation Report, p. 17). They also have the lowest “F” rating in the “Impact Rating” (a score limited to evaluation items related to impact).
(3) Differences in evaluation items
This difference in ratings is due to differences in their evaluation methods. The evaluation items for both are compared in the spreadsheet ” BBFAW vs. FARMWISE Comparison Chart ” prepared separately.
- Items marked with an “X” are those with which there is at least partial agreement; some BBFAW questions are further subdivided, but these are not included in the table.
- BBFAW question items and FARMWISE labeled items with a red background indicate “no corresponding item for the other benchmark”.
The table clearly shows a noticeable red color on the BBFAW side. This means that there are many items that are rated by BBFAW but not by FARMWISE. For example,
- Establish policies for all livestock species
- Clarification of policy scope
- Commitment to Better Chickens (Better Bred Chickens)
- Understanding the actual situation of dehorning and declawing of dairy cows in the supply chain
and other items are not evaluated in FARMWISE. This is because there are very few Japanese companies that are currently working on these items, and it has been judged that “evaluation of these items will not be effective”.
Although few in number, there are also items on the FARMWISE side that are colored red, i.e., “items that are rated by FARMWISE but not by BBFAW. For example,
- Items of “there are initiatives related to ~” such as “there are initiatives related to cage-free”.
These are, so to speak, items in which “incremental efforts are also subject to evaluation. For example, even if a company does not have a cage-free policy or does not know the percentage of cage-free eggs used in its operations, it will receive points simply for “handling cage-free eggs. This is intended to differentiate between “companies that are even slightly involved in animal welfare” and “companies that show no interest at all.
However, when viewed from a global standard, the evaluation hardly reflects this.
Another item that is evaluated in FARMWISE but not in BBFAW (or there is a discrepancy in the content of the evaluation) is the item related to farmed fish. This is due to cultural differences in the species of fish consumed.
Another is “Do you engage with animal welfare stakeholders?” Although a small percentage of the total, FARMWISE also includes the presence or absence of communication with domestic NGOs in its evaluation.
However, Q13, “Are there any other AW-related initiatives?” Although also shown in red, this item also evaluates other initiatives such as calving stalls and enrichment, so it may be said that some of the BBFAW items are partially reflected in this item.
As we have seen above, the FARMWISE is designed so that if you can meet the FARMWISE evaluation criteria, you will be able to achieve a certain score in the BBFAW, but it is important to note that an excellent performance in the FARMWISE does not necessarily guarantee a high evaluation in the BBFAW.
(4) Points that both benchmarks emphasize
The BBFAW evaluation items (51 items in total) are divided into five major areas, with scores allocated to each area in the following proportions
| area | distribution |
|---|---|
| Commitment to farm animal welfare policy | 15% |
| Governance and management of farm animal welfare | 14% |
| Livestock Welfare Goals | 7% |
| Livestock welfare performance and impact | 55% |
| Reduction of dependence on foods of animal origin | 9% |
The FARMWISE assessment items (16 items in total) are divided into four areas, each with scores distributed in the following proportions
| area | perfect score | ratio |
|---|---|---|
| Overall Animal Welfare Policy for Livestock and Fishery Products | 11 | 14% |
| Procurement policies and practices to switch animal materials coming from closed confinement and intensive systems | 59 | 75% |
| Policies and Practices Concerning Conversion from Animal Materials | 8 | 10% |
| governance | 1 | 1% |
(However, the “Governance” area of FARMWISE consists of only one question on engagement with NGOs. In contrast, BBFAW’s “Governance and Management of Farm Animal Welfare” has no section on engagement with NGOs, but focuses on internal responsibility structures and internal and external communication mechanisms).
The emphasis in both benchmarks is on “having a specific procurement policy in place and a concrete track record. The next most important factor is that “the company has established company-wide goals and commitments.
(5) Roadmap to be evaluated by international standards
How can we be recognized as “reasonably committed to animal welfare” even in light of international animal welfare standards such as BBFAW, and how can we stay ahead of the curve in this area among domestic companies?
We have organized our recommendations for domestic companies into three categories on the “Recommendations” sheet of the above spreadsheet: “Things that could be realized immediately,” “Things that could be realized in the medium term,” and “Things that could be realized in the medium to long term. It is also included below:
| time | recommended items | Related Assessment Items (BBFAW) | remarks |
| What can be achieved immediately | Discontinuation of handling of foie gras | Q11 | Commitment not to produce or sell foie gras or meat from birds raised for foie gras production |
| Formulation of each commitment | Q1-Q12, Q24-Q29 | The target should have a scope and timeframe for the species, region, and product. | |
| Elimination of long-distance transportation | Q8, Q48 | ||
| Reduce reliance on foods of animal origin | Q13-Q15, Q22, Q23, Q29 | ||
| Reporting the percentage of products that are AW-friendly | Q30-Q51 | Welfare performance by livestock species” has the highest weight, with zero points given for no report and one point added if even 1% of the products are AW-conscious. | |
| Establishment of internal management system | Q16, Q22 | Clarify responsibility for AW policy for senior management and staff in charge | |
| Communication with internal and external stakeholders (education to customers) | Q21, Q23 | ||
| What can be achieved in the medium term | Transitioning egg-laying hens to cage-free | Q30 | |
| Transitioning pigs to gestation stall-free | Q30 | ||
| Loss of consciousness before slaughter | Q36 | ||
| Enrichment implementation | Q5 | ||
| What can be achieved in the medium to long term A14 | Transitioning pigs to farrowing stall-free | Q37 | |
| Procurement of poultry slaughtered in gas stanning | Q35 |
As described above, FARMWISE functions as a realistic standard to measure “how far Japanese companies can go now,” while BBFAW functions as a standard to measure “how far they have progressed on an international level. By looking at both in combination, companies can better understand both their “domestic position” and “international position” and more easily promote more strategic animal welfare initiatives.