METHODOLOGY
METHODOLOGY
How we score companies and read the results
The results are based on a demographically representative sample of the target audience, and respondents need to be sufficiently familiar with the company that they rate. Data is collected on a 1-7 Likert scale and rescaled to a 0-100 range for easier comparability. Our methodology deliberately avoids filters, weights, and other adjustment factors to protect the integrity of the data. For efficiency and understandable interpretation of the results, we apply a simplified way to calculate the margins of error, based on sample size only and fixed standard deviation. The approach assumes 95% confidence level and standard deviation of 20 for all scores. Both scores and differences between scores are rounded for simplicity of use.
Part 1
Our analysis in Part 1 draws on tracking of stakeholder perceptions of 12 parent companies across eight markets, carried out between January and June 2026. The driver analysis (Figures 5 and 6) and company scores (Figure 7) cover January to April 2026.
The companies span food and drink groups such as Nestlé, Mars and Coca-Cola, and household and personal care businesses such as P&G, Unilever and Colgate-Palmolive.
TRACKING DETAILS
Markets Tracked
Parent companies Tracked
FIELDWORK
January–June 2026
MARKETS TRACKED
COMPANIES TRACKED
Part 2
In Part 2, we examined the relationship between corporate brands and the product brands they own. We tracked perceptions of. We tracked perceptions of 10 product brands in each of eight markets: five owned by Nestlé and five owned by P&G. Brazil is the exception, with nine brands (four Nestlé, five P&G). The brand mix changes from market to market because each company's local portfolio does. In Japan, for example, Nestlé's set includes KitKat and Milo, while P&G's includes SK-II and Febreze.
Part 3
In Part Three, we examined perceptions of ten reputational risks to the FMCG sector. Fieldwork ran from 23 March to 5 April 2026.
Respondents rated how far they agree with one statement per risk, on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). For eight statements, disagreeing (1–3) signals a concern. For Environmental Transparency and Supply Chain Risk, agreeing (5–7) does. We call this the “risk answer.”
We use two measures:
- Risk frequency: the share of respondents who give the risk answer.
- Trust penalty: the average Trust & Like Score given by respondents who give the risk answer, minus the average given by those who don’t.
The ten risks and the statements behind them:
- Price & Value Fairness: “I feel that the prices charged by major consumer goods brands reflect fair value for what I get.”
- Independent Accountability: “Consumer goods companies can generally be trusted to do the right thing without needing pressure from governments or regulators.”
- Geopolitical Sensitivity: “I am comfortable buying consumer goods brands regardless of where in the world they are headquartered or where their products are made.”
- Sector Trust: “Overall, I trust large consumer goods companies to act in the best interests of consumers.”
- Responsible Sourcing: “I am confident that the consumer goods brands I buy source their ingredients and materials responsibly.”
- Ingredient Safety: “I trust that the ingredients used in consumer goods products have been adequately tested for their effects on human health.”
- Labelling Trust: “The information on consumer goods packaging gives me a clear and honest picture of what I am buying.”
- Meets Changing Dietary Needs: “Consumer goods companies are keeping pace with the way people’s health and dietary needs are changing.”
- Environmental Transparency: “It is important to me that consumer goods companies are transparent about the environmental impact of their products and packaging.”
- Supply Chain Risk: “I am concerned that global political instability is making consumer goods less affordable or less available.”
For the last two, agreeing (5–7) is the risk answer. For all the others, it’s disagreeing (1–3).
Smarter decisions start with stakeholder intelligence.