Confusion all around: who is the most sustainable supermarket? Albert Heijn? No, still Plus. Oh no, also SPAR, Jan Linders and Boni. Durk Bosma has his life-size doubts with 2 well-known rankings.
Over the past few weeks, the roaring messages flew around our ears. Both GfK and the Sustainable Brand Index announced which supermarket according to the consumer is the most sustainable. For the marketers of the supermarkets that are at the top, it was every reason to fly the flag. Wonderful content for the press release, accompanied by a photo with a big smile.
But something strange is going on. Both Albert Heijn as PLUS are the most sustainable supermarket. And really more sustainable supermarkets, such as Ekoplaza, are apparently not the most sustainable. Does the number 1 position in these kinds of rankings actually mean anything? Barely. If the total scores of 2 brands in a photo finish are very close to each other, it is nonsense to declare one the winner. Anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics knows that. The photo is far too out of focus due to apparent precision.
No distinction on sustainability
GfK presents scores with 2 decimal places. Based on a 0,02 difference, GfK has named the PLUS the most sustainable supermarket. A rookie mistake from a nevertheless very professional agency. That is remarkable. Consumers find Boni and Jan Linders just as sustainable. The same goes for SPAR. The conclusion must therefore be that no supermarket distinguishes itself on the basis of sustainability and that there is therefore no winner.
SB Insight AB, the Swedish company behind the Sustainable Brand Index, makes it even more colorful. The business model behind the Sustainable Brand Index is selling reports. In order to be able to do this, the company organizes an annual survey and then presents the results with a lot of noise. SBI bases its ranking on just 2 questions, a wafer-thin score. In addition, SBI adds 2 answer options ('good' and 'very good') without doing justice to the difference between those 2 answer categories.
Scores not communicating
A brand about which all respondents say they are doing 'good' will therefore receive the same score from SB Insight as a brand that all respondents say are doing 'very well'. The absolute scores are not communicated (at least if you do not buy the report), so that we do not gain insight into how big the difference is between the different brands. Inquiries showed that sometimes the winners do and sometimes do not distinguish themselves - according to the basic rules of statistics - as real winners.
Who ends up as the winner is largely determined by who participates. You can at least question the selection procedure of SB Insight. For example, the small Campina Botergoud brand is among the most sustainable food brands, but Jan Linders - who is doing so well according to GfK - is not at all on the list of sustainable supermarkets.
SBI could not give a good explanation for this. It is clear that a small brand that is very sustainable can never become the most sustainable brand through this selection procedure. The question is whether it is justified to declare a brand the most sustainable in its category, if you do not include all relevant competitors in the comparison.
Reputation
The 2 questions of the Sustainable Brand Index are asked to everyone who knows a certain brand even slightly (by name). It should be clear that if you ask that question to people who have no experience with a brand or company, you are only measuring an opinion. Thus, the reputation of a well-known brand is mainly assessed and a superficial general image that largely has to do with the category in which a brand is active.
So it's no wonder that Albert Heijn has emerged as the most sustainable supermarket at SB Insight. What really goes on under the hood remains out of sight. Yet in all kinds of messages we see a proud CEO telling how well Albert Heijn has done. In reality, we do not know at all how well Albert Heijn has done, only that more people think that Albert Heijn has done better than the rest. And we don't even know that for sure, because we don't know whether the score differs enough from the number 2 Jumbo (not coincidentally also number 2 in terms of market share) to be considered significant.
How do you recognize a 'good' ranking?
Rankings are useful because they can get organizations moving. But then those rankings must be based on thorough and transparent research. And all relevant competitors must be included. In addition, the way in which results are presented must do justice to the limitations of survey research. Anyone who doesn't want to take that into account is fooling around.
This article is part of the content collaboration between Boerenbusiness en foodlog.
© DCA Market Intelligence. This market information is subject to copyright. It is not permitted to reproduce, distribute, disseminate or make the content available to third parties for compensation, in any form, without the express written permission of DCA Market Intelligence.