The Bitter Reality of Sweet Chocolate: Milka Parent Company Questioned on Transparency in Global Rankings

Chocolate is one of the most familiar indulgences for many people. A piece is eaten when tired, chosen as a seasonal gift, or bought as a snack for children. Chocolate bars and chocolate sweets lining the shelves of supermarkets and convenience stores have become a part of everyday life.

However, there are surprisingly few opportunities to consider where a piece of chocolate comes from. Are cocoa farmers earning a sufficient income? Is child labor being prevented? Is there any involvement in deforestation? Is pesticide use being managed? What consumers see is the packaging, price, and taste image, but behind that lies a complex supply chain.

German media FOCUS online reported on the latest edition of the "Chocolate Scorecard," which evaluates the behind-the-scenes aspects of the chocolate industry. Compiled mainly by the NGO coalition "Be Slavery Free," this evaluation checks global chocolate manufacturers and retail companies from multiple perspectives, including transparency, cocoa farmers' income, child labor, deforestation, pesticides, agroforestry, and gender.

This time, the top spot in the major and mid-sized manufacturers category was taken by Switzerland's HALBA. According to FOCUS online, HALBA topped the list with a sustainability score of 85%. Second place went to the Netherlands' Tony’s Chocolonely with 83%, and third to Germany's Ritter Sport with 71%. Cémoi and Mars Wrigley followed in fourth and fifth places, respectively.

However, it wasn't just the top companies that drew attention. Mondelez, the parent company of Milka, and Starbucks received a negative evaluation, labeled as "Bad Egg," due to insufficient responses to the survey. Milka is a popular brand widely loved in Europe, known for its purple packaging and milky taste. Therefore, the harsh evaluation of its parent company in terms of "transparency" has a significant impact on consumers.

The Chocolate Scorecard is not an official certification mark. It does not simply conclude that "because this ranking is high, it is absolutely safe" or "because it is low, everything is bad." Rather, it is an indicator to visualize how much information companies disclose, where they are progressing, and where they are lagging. Nonetheless, the stance of not responding or not providing information itself becomes a subject of evaluation. The criticism towards Mondelez and Starbucks this time is precisely due to this.

In the chocolate industry, child labor, low wages, and deforestation have long been issues of concern. Especially in the cocoa-producing regions of West Africa, small-scale farmers are heavily affected by price fluctuations and climate change. If farmers' incomes are unstable, children are more likely to be drawn into labor. The pressure to clear forests and expand cultivation areas also increases. The low cost of a piece of chocolate that consumers pick up may be built on the costs borne by someone somewhere.

HALBA, which topped the rankings this time, positioned this evaluation as "external proof of long-term efforts in the cocoa supply chain" in a LinkedIn post. The company emphasizes fair and direct partnerships, dynamic agroforestry, traceability, and long-term responsibility. While reactions to the post included praise such as "great achievement" and "focus on agroforestry is important," there were also more in-depth opinions like "isn't it necessary to produce the final product in the cocoa's country of origin for true transformation?"

Tony’s Chocolonely, which came in second, also reacted significantly on social media. The company announced on LinkedIn that it became one of only two companies worldwide to receive a green evaluation. It explained that it received high evaluations in four areas: living income, child labor and forced labor, traceability, and deforestation, while also stating, "we are not perfect." In the comments section, there were positive voices saying, "the attitude of praising each other rather than isolating as competitors is what sustainability needs," in response to their stance of praising other companies, including HALBA.

However, the reactions on social media are not all praise. Comments on Tony’s Chocolonely's post raised questions like "is the word sustainable becoming a marketing strategy?" Words like environmentally friendly, ethical, and sustainable are now used by many brands. However, whether it truly leads to substantial improvements for farmers and the environment, or if it remains just words to enhance consumer image, is under scrutiny. As the rankings gain attention, consumers are becoming more critical.

Ritter Sport's post also gathered reactions celebrating their third-place ranking. The company emphasized that since 2018, all products use 100% certified cocoa, they have enhanced traceability to the farm level, and are working on long-term cocoa programs. While the comments included voices like "well done" and "delicious and sustainable," there were also critical posts saying, "while I agree with sustainable cocoa and fair conditions for farmers, the treatment of their own employees should also be questioned."

This reaction is important. Modern consumers no longer view corporate sustainability from just one aspect. They are trying to see comprehensively, not only the responsibility to cocoa farmers, environmental impact, and child labor measures, but also employees, local communities, pricing, product volume, and information disclosure. Even if they rank high, they are now being asked, "what about the other parts?"

Additionally, the FOCUS online article touches on the rise in chocolate prices. Fluctuations in cocoa prices and rising raw material costs are affecting consumers' wallets. In Germany, chocolate prices have risen significantly, and more consumers are reducing their purchase frequency. If prices rise, is that portion being directed towards improving farmers' lives and transparency in the supply chain? It's natural for consumers to think that way.

The problem is that even if chocolate prices rise, it does not necessarily translate directly into the living income of cocoa farmers. Even companies that rank high do not score perfectly in all categories. FOCUS online points out that while Mars Wrigley ranked fifth overall, it scored only 16% in the "living income" category. In other words, even companies with relatively high overall evaluations have significant challenges in individual areas.

In this regard, the significance of the Chocolate Scorecard is not just to "determine winners and losers." Rather, it is to make visible to consumers, investors, and business partners where each company is progressing and where it is lagging. The rankings can serve as promotional material for companies, but they also exert pressure to hold them accountable. Companies that receive good evaluations must maintain achievements that match those evaluations. Companies with low evaluations or non-participation are questioned as to why they cannot provide information.

Mondelez, the parent company of Milka, was criticized not simply because it ranked low. The core of the issue is that it is said to have not sufficiently responded to information disclosure for evaluation. The larger the company, the more complex the supply chain, and it is not easy to grasp everything. However, that is precisely why transparency is questioned. How much can a company with a beloved brand explain about cocoa procurement and human rights risks? That stance is now directly linked to brand value.

Even looking at reactions on social media, consumers are not just talking about "which chocolate is delicious." In the comments section of Tony’s Chocolonely, evaluations of child labor measures and transparency are discussed, and in HALBA's post, the debate extends to value creation in the country of origin. In Ritter Sport's post, there is a suggestion that responsibility to cocoa farmers and responsibility to their own employees should be viewed simultaneously. This indicates that sustainability is shifting from being a corporate PR term to a theme that consumers and stakeholders are concretely examining.

Of course, it is difficult for the average consumer to investigate the supply chain of every company each time. That's why third-party evaluations like the Chocolate Scorecard are helpful. However, rather than viewing it as absolute, it is practical to use it as one of the decision-making materials for shopping. For example, how much information does your favorite brand disclose? Do they explain measures against child labor and deforestation? When prices rise, do they properly communicate the background? Just having such a perspective can change the way you choose chocolate.

What this ranking has shown is that the chocolate industry is at a major turning point. Cocoa prices are unstable, climate change is affecting production areas, and consumers are becoming sensitive to price increases. On the other hand, voices demanding consideration for human rights and the environment are growing stronger. Companies are becoming less likely to be chosen based solely on being "delicious," "cheap," or "famous."

Chocolate is sweet. However, the reality behind that sweetness is not. The "Bad Egg" evaluation for Milka's parent company symbolizes that even popular brands are now being scrutinized harshly if they lack transparency. On the other hand, there are companies like HALBA, Tony’s Chocolonely, and Ritter Sport that are enhancing their evaluations. Nonetheless, even top companies have challenges remaining.

In the future, choosing chocolate may become a shopping experience that considers not just taste and price, but also "who made it, where, and how." A consumer's small choice can, when accumulated, become a significant force demanding transparency and responsibility from companies.

Source URL

・FOCUS online. Refer to the overview of the latest Chocolate Scorecard, HALBA's top position, Mondelez and Starbucks' "Bad Egg" evaluation, scores of top companies, and mentions of price increases.
https://www.focus.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/ranking-zeigt-nachhaltigste-schokolade-der-welt-milka-wird-abgestraft_a535c6b6-07a3-4d4b-947b-dd678ebb72fa.html

・Chocolate Scorecard official site. Refer to the overall picture of the rankings, evaluation targets, ranking trends, and the purpose of the scorecard.
https://www.chocolatescorecard.com/

・Chocolate Scorecard official scorecard page. Refer to the rankings and evaluation items of HALBA, Tony’s Chocolonely, Ritter Sport, etc.
https://www.chocolatescorecard.com/scorecards

・Chocolate Scorecard official methodology. Refer to the explanation of evaluation categories, scoring process, and score divisions.
https://www.chocolatescorecard.com/methodology

・HALBA official LinkedIn post. Refer to the company's comments on receiving the top evaluation and the reactions on social media.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/halba-division-coop-genossenschaft_chocolate-scorecard-2026-halba-1-worldwide-activity-7458099715109257216-yLQ6

・Tony’s Chocolonely official LinkedIn post. Refer to the second-place evaluation, mentions of each evaluation area, and reactions of praise and questions in the comments section.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/tony%27s-chocolonely_chocolate-scorecard-2026-activity-7458440645553164288-hrV5

・Ritter Sport official LinkedIn post. Refer to the third-place evaluation, the company's explanation of cocoa procurement and traceability, and reactions in the comments section.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ritter-sport_chocolatescorecard-supplychain-transparency-activity-7458152762329993218-iB44