What Our Annual Sustainability Engagement Survey Reveals

The annual employee engagement survey on sustainability programs gives us a practical view of how our people understand, experience and influence Fresh Del Monte Produce’s environmental and social commitments. It captures more than awareness of targets: it shows whether colleagues can connect responsible farming, healthy food, community development and ethical business practices with their everyday work.

This review brings together recurring themes from employee feedback across agricultural operations, packing facilities, offices and distribution networks. It also considers what those themes mean in Australia, where water security, food waste, supply-chain transparency and workplace standards shape how customers and employees judge sustainability performance.

Why employee voice matters

A sustainability strategy is only effective when employees can see their role within it. Farm teams may influence soil health, irrigation and biodiversity, while colleagues in procurement, logistics and sales shape supplier expectations, transport decisions and customer communication. The survey helps connect these contributions rather than treating sustainability as the responsibility of a specialist department.

Employee feedback also identifies gaps between policy and practice. A colleague may support water conservation but lack the authority, equipment or time to change an established process. Another may know that a community education program exists without understanding how their site contributes to it. These details are valuable because engagement depends on practical participation, not simply positive opinions.

For Australian employees, the context is especially immediate. Water restrictions and drought conditions are familiar realities in regional communities, while households in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane increasingly look for credible information about food origins and environmental impacts. The survey gives us a way to compare global commitments with the expectations employees encounter in their own communities.

What the survey examined

The review considered four connected dimensions: awareness, confidence, participation and accountability. Awareness asks whether employees understand the company’s goals. Confidence considers whether they believe progress is being measured properly. Participation looks at involvement in projects such as tree planting, habitat protection or educational outreach. Accountability examines whether leaders communicate openly about results and unresolved issues.

Responses also help distinguish between global messages and local relevance. A broad commitment to sustainable sourcing may be understood differently by a plantation worker, a warehouse colleague and a commercial team member. The strongest engagement occurs when a global objective is translated into a visible local action, such as improving irrigation records, reducing packaging waste or supporting a nearby school.

The survey is therefore used as a listening tool rather than a simple approval rating. Patterns in comments and participation can point to training needs, communication gaps and opportunities for shared ownership. They also help us avoid assuming that one program will have the same meaning across every region.

Reading the results through regional experience

One clear lesson from employee feedback is that sustainability becomes more credible when progress is tangible. People respond to evidence they can observe: healthier soil, reduced water use, safer work practices, restored habitat or a community program with measurable reach. General statements have value, but they need to be supported by examples that employees can discuss with their teams.

This principle matters in Australia’s competitive grocery market, where consumers compare fresh produce in supermarkets, independent greengrocers and local farmers’ markets. Seasonal availability, price pressures and concern about food miles can all influence purchasing decisions. Employees who understand how environmental safeguards and responsible sourcing operate are better placed to explain the value of these efforts accurately.

The findings also reinforce the importance of plain-language communication. Sustainability reporting can involve carbon accounting, biodiversity indicators and supply-chain due diligence, yet employees need concise explanations of what those terms mean at a worksite. Short briefings, visual dashboards and local case studies can make technical information useful without reducing its integrity.

Turning feedback into farm action

Employee responses point towards a stronger connection between engagement and operational improvement. Teams are more likely to participate when they can see how a survey theme becomes a specific activity, such as monitoring protected land, improving soil cover or identifying opportunities to reduce fertiliser losses. Clear ownership and regular feedback help transform interest into consistent practice.

Soil health is one area where employee knowledge can support long-term resilience. Our work on soil carbon mapping illustrates how field data can inform decisions about carbon sequestration potential and plantation management. Sharing this kind of work with employees helps explain why measurement matters and how agricultural performance is linked to climate goals.

The same approach applies to tree planting and protected-land monitoring. Employees need to know what is being planted, where restoration is occurring, how survival is assessed and what changes have been observed over time. In Australia, where bushfire risk, invasive species and water scarcity affect land management, locally relevant examples can make global biodiversity commitments easier to understand.

Connecting sustainability with wellbeing

Engagement is strongest when environmental goals sit alongside employee wellbeing and safe, respectful work. Sustainable agriculture relies on people who have appropriate training, protective equipment, reasonable working conditions and a clear way to raise concerns. Survey feedback can reveal whether these foundations are visible in daily operations and whether employees feel their contribution is recognised.

This is particularly relevant in Australia, where the Fair Work Act, work health and safety duties and modern slavery expectations shape workplace and supply-chain conversations. Employees may reasonably expect sustainability programs to address labour practices as well as emissions or water use. Responsible business conduct must therefore include fair treatment, ethical recruitment and clear escalation processes.

Community development also forms part of this wider picture. Educational programs, nutrition initiatives and local partnerships can strengthen trust when they respond to genuine needs rather than operating as isolated events. Employees often provide the most useful perspective on whether a project is accessible, culturally appropriate and connected to the community around a farm, facility or office.

Accountability beyond the survey

An annual survey has value only when its results influence decisions. The review supports a cycle of reporting, action and follow-up: identify common concerns, assign responsibility, communicate the response and measure whether employee experience changes. This creates a clearer relationship between engagement data and sustainability performance.

Water stewardship demonstrates why this process must include external knowledge. Research on groundwater policy options shows how crop diversification and policy design can contribute to responses to groundwater depletion. Such perspectives complement operational experience and encourage employees to see water management as a shared issue involving farms, communities, regulators and markets.

Australian stakeholders are also accustomed to scrutiny around environmental claims. The Australian Consumer Law places boundaries around misleading representations, while climate-related disclosure expectations are increasing across business and investment communities. Accurate evidence, careful language and accessible records help ensure that sustainability communications are trusted rather than overstated.

From review to the next reporting cycle

The survey review points to several priorities for the coming year: make local targets easier to understand, give employees more opportunities to participate, strengthen feedback from farms and facilities, and show clearer evidence of outcomes. Progress should be communicated through regular updates rather than waiting for the next annual survey, especially when a project changes or a target requires adjustment.

The next review will benefit from combining employee sentiment with operational indicators. Participation rates, training completion, water and energy data, tree survival, protected-land observations and community reach can provide a fuller picture of engagement. Together, these measures show whether employees are informed, equipped and able to contribute to meaningful results.

The immediate next step is to publish a site-level action register assigning each priority to an owner, a measure and a review date before the next quarterly sustainability update.