food systems industry report 2010

2010 U.S. Industry Report:

FOOD SYSTEM, AGRIBUSINESS AND BEVERAGE

2010FOODSYSTEM, AGRIBUSINESS & BEVERAGEREPORT 1

TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

RISK INSIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Top Risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Food Contamination Incidents and Reputation Risk . . . . . . . 6

Methods Used to Evaluate New and Emerging Risks . . . . . . 8

Methods Utilized to Evaluate Risk Appetite/Tolerance . . . . 10

CLIENT INSIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Enterprise Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Top Benefits of Using a Risk Data Technology . . . . . . . . . . 15

Priorities in Choice of Insurer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Client Buying Behavior/Program Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Retentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Use of Captives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

MARKET INSIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Coverage Terms and Conditions Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Leading Carriers in U .S . Premium Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Common Reasons for Carriers Not Quoting . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Common Reasons For Rejecting a Carrier’s Quote . . . . . . . 22

Premium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

FINANCIAL INSIGHTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

METHODOLOGY, NOTES AND DISCLAIMERS . . . . 27

AON AT A GLANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

KEY CONTACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29


INTRODUCTIONIn today’s complex food system, agribusiness and beverage exposure environment, the need to reduce volatility, stabilize earnings and control pre-loss and post-loss risk exposures is critical .

Whether you are a small business or a global enterprise, your success depends upon understanding and overcoming the risks you face . New risks have emerged as a result of recent changes in regulation and globalization . Issues such as food safety, supply system risk management, bio-terrorism, food defense, genetically engineered foods, climate change, contamination and environmental impact can have financially devastating effects if not properly identified and addressed .

Aon has both the expertise and tools to help drive your vision . Our Food System, Agribusiness and Beverage (FAB) Report provides comprehensive, industry-specific data on key issues and concerns . These findings will allow organizations to benchmark their risk management and risk financing practices against those of others and can help identify practices or approaches that may improve the effectiveness of their own risk management strategies .

If you have any comments or questions about the survey, or wish to discuss the findings further, please contact your Aon account executive .

Best regards,

Richard L. Shanks Lambros Lambrou George M. Zsolnay IV National Managing Director Head of Aon Analytics Head of Aon Analytics -U.S. Food System, Agribusiness lambros .lambrou@aon .com george .zsolnay@ .aon .comand Beverage Aon Risk Solutions rick .shanks@aon .com

2 2010FOODSYSTEM, AGRIBUSINESS & BEVERAGEREPORT 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYOrganizational sustainability demands proactive understanding and management of risk . History provides only a partial understanding of risk for the future . Recent events remind us that threats to organizations increasingly come from all directions and in many different forms .

Staying fully informed and up-to-date with the latest industry trends is the best way to remain

competitive and relevant in the evolving global market . We provide this report to clients for this

reason – to help you stay abreast of emerging issues and to learn what your peers and competitors

are doing to manage risks, overcome challenges and capture opportunities . The report comprises

four main components:

RISK INSIGHTS including top risks faced; food contamination incidents and reputation risk;

methods used to evaluate new and emerging risks; methods utilized to evaluate risk appetite/

tolerance

CLIENT INSIGHTS including enterprise risk management; top benefits for using a risk data

technology; priorities in choice of insurer; retentions/deductibles; limits; use of captives

MARKET INSIGHTS including discussion of coverage terms and conditions; top carriers; common

reasons for rejecting a quote and not quoting; changes in premium rates over the past year

FINANCIAL INSIGHTS including insight into market environment for FAB sector

Key Findings

RISK INSIGHTS• Top Risks - The FAB industry is exposed to a broad

spectrum of risk which, if untreated, may translate into unexpected and unintentionally retained loss for the organization . Some of the key risks faced by this industry include: supply system disruption, food safety & defense, reputation risk and brand damage, regulatory change and sustainability

• Food Contamination Incidents and Reputation Risk - An accidental or malicious food contamination crisis can have a devastating impact on a FAB company’s reputation, profitability, customer loyalty and retention of top employees . FAB companies must continually assess their risk exposures and develop extensive risk strategies to ensure that their company is prepared for unexpected challenges and events

• Methods Used to Evaluate New and Emerging Risks - When asked to identify methods used to evaluate new and emerging risks the two most cited methods were access internal data and knowledge regarding new emerging and/or developing risks (57%), and access information from external providers (54%)

• Methods Utilized to Evaluate Risk Appetite/Tolerance - Overall, the most frequent methods utilized to evaluate risk appetite/tolerance is closely split between three: using industry benchmarks (financial and operational); using formal quantified risk appetite agreed at enterprise level; and basing decisions on corporate “gut feel”


CLIENT INSIGHTS• Stages of ERM Program Development - Most

respondents to the 2010 Global Enterprise Risk Management Survey are past the basic stages of ERM program development, and program maturity has improved since 2007

• Prime Drivers of ERM Implementation - Respondents to Aon’s 2010 Global Enterprise Risk Management Survey most often selected governance and transparency, best practices, and improved performance and decision making as their primary ERM drivers

• ERM Objectives - The most cited objectives of an ERM program by respondents were to embed a risk management culture followed by enable informed risk-based decision making

• ERM Barriers - The most-cited barriers to ERM are lack of tangible benefits (40%), lack of skills to embed ERM (34%) and lack of senior management sponsorship (31%)

• Benefits of Using a Risk Data Technology - In Aon’s 2009 Global Risk Technology Survey, all industry and food processing and distribution respondents ranked accuracy and reliability of data as the number one benefit of using risk technology, or risk management information systems (RMIS) . Agribusiness selected data consolidation/management

• Priorities in Choice of Insurer - Based on Aon’s 2009 Global Risk Management Survey, FAB companies placed financial stability as the highest priority in their choice of insurance carriers

• Retentions/Deductibles - Similar to last year, overall the majority of FAB organizations have not changed their retentions/deductibles . Product Recall/Contamination retentions vary greatly based on size of FAB organization and exposure . Some organizations self-insure this exposure while others purchase insurance cover . Based on a representation of our FAB clients the average retention maintained was approximately $1 .5 million with a maximum retention of $10 million

• Limits - The average Umbrella/Excess Liability total limit purchased by FAB companies increased to $128 million compared to $117 million last year . The highest limit purchased was $400 million, while the lowest

limit purchased was $5 million . For Product Recall/Contamination, the average total limit purchased by FAB companies is $25 million . The highest limit purchased was $235 million, while the lowest limit purchased was $1 million

• Use of Captives - Based on the 2009 Global Risk Management Survey, 49% percent of FAB respondent companies reported having an active captive or protected cell company (PCC)

• Captive Domiciles - Organizations have many options when it comes to the domiciles they can select to establish their captives . Based on 102 captives under management by Aon in the FAB sector, the domiciles used most often for an FAB captive are Bermuda (18%) and Vermont (16%), and the most common type of captive is a single parent captive

MARKET INSIGHTS• Coverage terms and conditions - Overall the FAB

industry remains stable to competitive in terms of coverage provided and enhancements available . In Product Recall/Contamination policies insurers can offer enhancements such as enhanced third party coverage, adverse publicity, government recall and intentionally impaired ingredients

• Premiums Rates - Similar to the prior year, soft market conditions continue . FAB companies have on average experienced flat to single-digit rate decreases for Property, Casualty, and Product Recall/Contamination . Directors’ and Officers’ Liability appears to be experiencing slightly higher decreases

FINANCIAL INSIGHTS• Financial insights - In general, the market environment

for FAB companies has significantly improved . Similarly, consensus forecasts from market analysts expect FAB companies to gain from the general economic recovery in reporting revenue growth in 2010 . Employment in agriculture is recovering from a recent double dip decline and continues to grow . Positively, food and beverage inflation remains muted, with no emerging pressure from agricultural commodity prices . In terms of exports, the weak dollar had a substantial impact on the total value of agricultural exports during 2009


RISK INSIGHTS

General Introduction

The stakes for organizations are high . It has never been more urgent to understand and proactively

address business risk at every level of the organization . Within this section of the report we provide

industry specific insight into:

TOP RISKS

FOOD CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS AND REPUTATION RISK

METHODS USED TO EVALUATE NEW AND EMERGING RISKS

METHODS UTILIZED TO EVALUATE RISK APPETITE/TOLERANCE

Top Risks

The FAB industry is exposed to a broad spectrum of risk which, if goes untreated, may translate into unexpected and unintentionally retained loss for the organization . Identified below are some of the key risks faced by the FAB industry based on our industry expertise .

Top Risks Top Risk Description and Discussion

1 Supply System Disruption

Today’s globally dependent networks of growers, suppliers, distributors and customers must face the reality of possible consequences of supply system disruptions . As the supply system complexity has increased, so has the potential for a disruption . The negative economic consequences of supply system disruptions can be overwhelming and underscore why companies must understand the sources of supply system risk and develop strategies to mitigate them .

2 Food Safety & Defense

Americans depend on a complex system to provide safe, wholesome and nutritious food . This system, as it ranges from producers, to processors, to foodservice and retail establishments, and finally to the consumer, has a responsibility for keeping food safe . The goal is to reduce the potential for contamination at any point along the food supply chain and mitigating potentially catastrophic public health and economic effects of such losses . It involves a wide range of disciplines with a farm-to-table view of the food system and must encompass all aspects from primary production through transportation and food processing to retail and food service .

3Reputation Risk and Brand Damage

Research by PriceWaterhouseCoopers indicates that intangible assets may represent over 60% of a company’s market value (Predicting the Unpredictable: Protecting retail & consumer companies against reputation risk, PWC, 2005) . According to a 2005 Business Week study of brand values, prepared by Interbrand, this is even higher for restaurants at 71% of the market capitalization . An accidental or malicious food contamination crisis can have a devastating impact on a FAB company’s reputation, profitability, customer loyalty and retention of top employees .


Top Risks Top Risk Description and Discussion

4 Regulatory Change

Food safety is a critical area of concern for consumers, government regulators and the companies whose success depends on the consumer confidence . A 2010 survey conducted on behalf of the Pew Charitable Trusts found that 89% of voters support the government putting new safety measures in place and 83% believe that government should be responsible for food safety . With increased regulatory requirements and heightened public awareness to growing consumer unease with threats against the food supply and everyday products, companies cannot risk ignoring this important challenge .

5 Sustainability

Sustainability will transform the food industry in many ways . The environmental, economic and social factors will force food, agribusiness & beverage companies to change the ways that they do business . Global water supplies are being consumed at an unsustainable pace leaving many to wonder how we will feed a population of 9 billion in 2050 . Walmart was the first to require its suppliers to complete a scorecard on energy and climate, material efficiency, natural resources and people and community . Other food companies are now following in the footsteps of the retailing giant .

Food Contamination Incidents and Reputation Risk

A key responsibility of corporate leadership is to protect their organization’s well-being . FAB companies must continually assess their risk exposures and develop extensive risk strategies to ensure that their company is prepared for unexpected challenges and events . One critical threat that is often overlooked is the impact that a supplier may have on your most important asset – your reputation .

Many corporate and risk managers feel unprepared or ill-equipped to address reputation risk . Other managers may mistakenly believe that they have effective risk solutions for this exposure through existing insurance programs and contractual programs . However, recent supplier financial security risk assessments conducted by Aon’s Food System, Agribusiness and Beverage Group indicate that many suppliers’ insurance programs will not respond effectively to a significant contamination event . Further, the vast majority of ingredient suppliers and importers have no coverage for their legal liability should a customer suffer a business interruption or reputation loss caused by their contaminated ingredient . While findings show that most companies have coverage for the bodily injuries associated with a contaminated food, most have no coverage for the resulting loss of revenue caused by loss of consumer trust, damage to their brand name or other expenses associated with a product contamination and recall .

FACTORS AFFECTING YOUR VULNERABILITY TO CONTAMINATIONFactors affecting a company’s vulnerability to accidental or deliberate contamination fall into the following categories . Some of these categories are certainly more controllable and lend themselves to internal procedures to minimize the exposure . Others may be largely outside a company’s direct control .

• Company Profile – Higher profile and visibility equates to a higher exposure

• Type of Products – Products aimed at children (candies, toys, clothing) and those with little protective packaging (fresh fruits, vegetables, meats) make for attractive targets

• Packaging – A well-protected product may lessen the exposure to a deliberate contamination simply because it is more difficult to tamper . However it is important to keep in mind that no package is tamper proof

• Labor relations – Facility closings, downsizings and layoffs, union relations and general employee relations contribute to a company’s vulnerability

• Geographic exposures – How widely and to where products are distributed


• Quality Control/Quality Assurance Procedures – The most obvious and regulated factor to minimize and detect a potential contamination

• Product Shelf Life – What is the amount of product in the stream of commerce and what inventory is available to replace any recalled products

• Product coding – Smaller lot size, as well as forward and backward traceability will affect the scope and size of the recall

KEY STRATEGIES TO IMPROVING THE CHANCES OF RECOVERY FROM MAJOR REPUTATIONAL DAMAGEBad news travels fast . And in todays global communications world, bad news travels faster than ever before, creating new challenges for organizations . Failure to implement the appropriate program, risk management processes and liability and product recall protection can open the door to crippling financial loss and irreparable erosion of consumer confidence in the event of a serious contamination or recall incident . Some basic strategies to improve your organization’s chances of recovery from a major contamination or recall incident include:

Crisis Planning Methodology

Pre-Incident Planning

Crisis Management

Communication

Post-Incident Analysis

Crisis Event

Response Recovery

PRE-INCIDENT PLANNINGThe first step in managing the risk of food contamination incidents is proper advance planning . No amount of insurance can replace customer confidence lost due to poor planning and/or execution of a crisis and recall strategy . If the public perceives that a company’s products are unsafe or that a company is more concerned with its bottom line than the public’s safety, the company will lose business .

Inevitably, these crisis situations occur at the least opportune time – a Friday afternoon, the day before earnings are released, or other times when management may be distracted . Once an incident or suspected incident becomes known to the media, a company can expect difficult questions from a range of interested parties . First and foremost, customers need and will want to have a clear understanding of the potential danger and measures the company is taking to minimize or eliminate the danger . Likewise, governmental agencies, suppliers, distributors and other external parties will have questions on how this affects them . Internally, employees, marketing, public relations, quality control, and the company’s general counsel will also be seeking information and direction .

Every company should have a well-documented and practiced product recall or retrieval plan . This plan should be designed to quickly and efficiently identify, locate and recover any suspected contaminated product . The plan needs to include customer, vendor, distributor and retailer notification procedures, as well as appropriate notification messages to be sent through the media . Media in the 21st century has expanded at an incredible pace and now, more than ever, managing the messages and providing accurate and timely information will greatly enhance the retrieval process .


CRISIS MANAGEMENT PLANTogether with an effective pre-incident plan, an appropriate crisis management plan should be in place for every company . The crisis management program goes beyond the pre-incident plan and coordinates all activities associated with the crisis . The crisis management plan defines the crisis management team and their respective roles in responding to specific aspects of the crisis . Team members may include the Chief Executive Officer, General Counsel, Risk Manager and representatives from security, marketing, public relations, quality control, human resources, distribution and manufacturing . All members need to be reachable at a moments notice . In many instances, the crisis team is supplemented by outside members that may include public relations and crisis management consultants .

Methods Used to Evaluate New and Emerging Risks

While monitoring and managing current risks is the keystone of any successful risk management program, an organization must look beyond what is known to attempt to see emerging risks and prepare for events that have no historic documentation . The identification of new and emerging risks requires some degree of crystal-ball gazing and the continual tweaking of what-if scenarios, and is a very difficult task . In looking to the past, organizations may know what has happened to them, to a competitor, or to a peer . But they rarely step outside their doors to think about what tempests might be gathering force on the horizon .

When asked to identify methods used to evaluate new and emerging risks the two most cited methods were access internal data and knowledge regarding new emerging and/or developing risks (57%) and access information from external providers (54%) .

Companies that are linked to industry information providers have a better understanding of external trends . However, even organizations that look externally for direction may not find or understand risk information easily . A risk scenario may never have occurred before, or if it occurred in the past it might be so distant or relatively small that it does not resonate with current leadership . Although it is common to consider natural disasters, worldwide economic and political events, and competitive discoveries as harbingers of new and emerging risks, many future risks develop internally as well .

Companies that are successful in identifying hidden problems both internally and externally often cultivate risk management cultures that extend down to the employee level . New and emerging risks are often identified within operations — for example, a plant floor supervisor noticing an ingredient quality issue that may affect product liability, a procurement manager hearing of a potential supply chain interruption, or a sales manager learning through the grapevine that a key customer is taking business elsewhere . Companies that approach risk assessment with a strong blend of top-down and bottom-up risk awareness are best suited to see the potential impact of isolated and siloed risk information and use this information to enhance corporate strategy and operating plans .


Methods Used to Evaluate New and Emerging Risks

All Industries

Revenue: Less than

$1BRevenue:

$1B - $4 .9BRevenue:

$5B - $9 .9BRevenue: $10B

- $14 .9BRevenue:

$15B - $24 .9B

Revenue: Greater than

$25B

Access internal data and knowledge regarding new emerging and/or developing risks

57% 52% 51% 70% 79% 67% 54%

Access information from external providers

54% 40% 51% 59% 79% 67% 63%

Develop knowledge with major project and program managers

43% 44% 44% 44% 50% 27% 42%

Engage stakeholders to develop information

36% 24% 38% 44% 36% 40% 46%

Access information from suppliers and customers

36% 32% 35% 37% 43% 40% 42%

Conduct cross functional “what if” analysis to identify new emerging and/or developing risks

35% 20% 38% 48% 64% 40% 25%

Develop knowledge with externally facing marketing and strategy executives

28% 20% 21% 33% 36% 47% 42%

Our organization does not have a method to identify new and emerging risks

12% 14% 17% 11% 0% 7% 8%

Not Specified 5% 14% 1% 0% 0% 0% 8%

Other 1% 2% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Data Source: Global Enterprise Risk Management Survey


Methods Utilized to Evaluate Risk Appetite/Tolerance

Overall, the most frequent methods utilized to evaluate risk appetite/tolerance is closely split among three: using industry benchmarks (financial and operational); using formal quantified risk appetite agreed at enterprise level; and basing decisions on corporate “gut feel .” Organizations should be encouraged to make decisions based on quantitative and qualitative data rather than gut feeling, thereby lessening subjective views on risks and opportunities . Companies in the mature stages of ERM base decisions on information from both internal and external sources, rather than intuitive or incomplete information requiring individual interpretation .

Methods Utilized to Evaluate Risk Appetite/Tolerance

All Industries

Revenue: Less than $1B

Revenue: $1B - $4 .9B


Revenue: $10B - $14 .9B

Revenue: $15B - $24 .9B

Revenue: Greater than $25B

Using industry benchmarks (financial and operational)

32% 24% 38% 22% 36% 40% 33%

Using formal quantified risk appetite agreed at enterprise level

31% 20% 28% 37% 43% 47% 42%

Based on corporate “gut feel”

30% 28% 39% 19% 14% 40% 21%

We do not have a formalized risk appetite (or tolerance) evaluation process

26% 26% 24% 33% 21% 13% 33%

Using formal quantified risk appetite agreed at divisional / functional / process level

20% 18% 20% 15% 36% 33% 13%

Based on shareholder expectations (related to earnings estimates)

16% 22% 13% 22% 7% 27% 8%

Not Specified 5% 14% 1% 0% 7% 0% 8%



CLIENT INSIGHTS


Organizations are operating within a very dynamic and complex business environment . Those

organizations with access to up-to-date risk management analytics are empowered to make more

effective and informed business decisions . Benchmarking against other companies of similar

industries can provide very helpful decision-making support . Within this section of the report, we

provide industry-specific insight into:

ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENT

TOP BENEFITS OF USING A RISK DATA TECHNOLOGY

PRIORITIES IN CHOICE OF INSURER

RETENTIONS/DEDUCTIBLES

LIMITS

USE OF CAPTIVES

Enterprise Risk Management

As professional risk management has entered the mainstream and become a standard management practice, many organizations have made or are making the transition from a culture of risk avoidance to risk optimization . Accepting risk encourages growth, and not all risks can or should be mitigated back to zero . Understanding risks as well as their quantified impact on risk appetite and risk capacity is a necessary condition for effective risk acceptance .

Best-practice organizations that are mature in their ERM efforts have moved into opportunity recognition, weighing the benefits and likelihood of achieving growth against potential risk impact and cost of mitigation . In effect, risk management becomes opportunity management, with leadership teams choosing not necessarily the path with the least risk but the path with the best return for an acceptable amount of risk — bearing in mind the organization’s abilities to identify and manage financial and operational exposures .

Risk management becomes a very strong competitive advantage when organizations can identify risks and opportunities earlier than competitors, and when they are better positioned to manage foreseeable and unpredictable events .


CURRENT STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT OF ORGANIZATION’S ERM STRATEGY AND FRAMEWORKMost respondents to the 2010 Global Enterprise Risk Management Survey are past the basic stages of ERM program development, and program maturity has improved since 2007 . 58% of 2010 respondents describe themselves at the “Defined” or “Operational” level, meaning that they have policies and techniques in place to identify, measure, monitor and manage some risk components . This is a healthy 20 point increase over the 2007 level .

Stage

Current Stage of Development of Organization’s ERM Strategy and Framework

All Industries

Revenue: Less than

$1B



Revenue: $10B - $14 .9B

Revenue: $15B - $24 .9B

Revenue: Greater

than $25B

Initial/Lacking

Component and associated activities are very limited in scope and may be implemented on an ad-hoc basis

11% 16% 15% 11% 0% 0% 4%

BasicLimited capabilities to identify assess manage and monitor risks

22% 26% 25% 19% 14% 13% 21%

Defined

Sufficient capabilities to identify measure manage report and monitor major risks; policies and techniques are defined and utilized (perhaps independently) across the organization

39% 32% 38% 48% 50% 53% 33%

Operational

Consistent ability to identify measure manage report and monitor risks; consistent application of policies and techniques across the organization

16% 8% 18% 11% 14% 27% 29%

Advanced

Well-developed ability to identify measure manage and monitor risks across organization; process is dynamic and able to adapt to changing risks and varying business cycles; explicit consideration of risk and risk management

7% 6% 3% 11% 21% 7% 8%


PRIME DRIVERS OF ERM IMPLEMENTATIONPrimary drivers for implementing ERM are linked to strategy development and policy setting at the corporate or enterprise level . Respondents to Aon’s 2010 Global Enterprise Risk Management Survey most often selected governance and transparency, best practices, and improved performance and decision making as their primary ERM drivers . Other drivers include regulatory pressure, CEO impetus, rating agency requirements and stakeholder pressure .


Prime Drivers of ERM Implementation

All Industries




Revenue: $10B - $14 .9B

Revenue: $15B - $24 .9B


Corporate Governance/transparency

65% 54% 73% 59% 71% 47% 79%

Best practice 53% 54% 52% 52% 79% 40% 50%

Improved performance and decision making

49% 44% 46% 44% 64% 73% 46%

Regulatory pressure 23% 36% 11% 33% 29% 7% 29%

CEO impetus 19% 20% 15% 26% 29% 7% 25%

Rating agency / financial institution requirements

16% 6% 15% 26% 14% 13% 29%

Peer / external stakeholder pressure

9% 14% 7% 4% 7% 13% 8%

Other 4% 2% 6% 11% 0% 0% 0%

Not Specified 2% 6% 1% 4% 0% 0% 0%


KEY OBJECTIVES OF THE ERM PROGRAMThe most cited objectives of an ERM program by respondents were to embed a risk management culture followed by enable informed risk-based decision making . Companies are able to drive the most value through ERM when it is tailored to each organization’s culture, processes and structure .

Key Objectives of the ERM Program

All Industries




Revenue: $10B - $14 .9B

Revenue: $15B - $24 .9B


Embed a risk management culture

60% 54% 65% 70% 79% 47% 46%

Enable informed risk-based decision making

55% 42% 52% 63% 79% 53% 71%

Implement a process to align risk management with compliance and governance

51% 48% 54% 44% 64% 53% 46%

Integrate different functional approaches to managing risk

45% 50% 39% 52% 50% 27% 50%

Drive value creation for the organization

31% 24% 24% 30% 71% 60% 29%

Manage the Total Cost of Risk (TCoR)

29% 22% 35% 26% 29% 40% 25%

Manage volatility to earnings and other key financial metrics

27% 24% 20% 30% 43% 47% 29%

Other 6% 2% 10% 4% 14% 7% 0%

Not Specified 4% 8% 1% 4% 7% 0% 4%



ERM IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERSHow important is an effective dedicated risk executive (whether CRO or other position) to the success of an organization’s ERM program? The most-cited barriers to ERM are lack of tangible benefits (40%), lack of skills to embed ERM (34%), lack of senior management sponsorship (31%), lack of a clear implementation plan (28%), and failure to communicate the case for change (27%) — all of which can be linked back to executive leadership for risk . Anecdotal evidence suggests that ERM programs falter or fail without clear executive leadership .

ERM Implementation Barriers All Industries




Revenue: $10B - $14 .9B

Revenue: $15B - $24 .9B


Lack of tangible benefits

40% 32% 48% 30% 29% 60% 42%

Lack of skills and capability to embed ERM business

34% 40% 27% 37% 29% 20% 54%

Lack of senior management sponsorship

31% 30% 32% 44% 29% 27% 21%

Unclear ownership and responsibility for implementation

30% 26% 27% 33% 21% 47% 38%

Lack of a clear implementation plan

28% 28% 28% 30% 21% 27% 29%

Failure to clearly communicate the business case for change

27% 30% 18% 44% 29% 20% 33%

Lack of capital to invest in risk management

24% 22% 30% 19% 29% 20% 21%

Lack of access to key people

12% 18% 10% 19% 7% 0% 8%

Other 7% 6% 10% 4% 14% 0% 4%

Not Specified 6% 10% 1% 7% 14% 0% 8%



Top Benefits of Using a Risk Data Technology

In Aon’s 2009 Global Risk Technology Survey, all industry and food processing, distribution, and beverage respondents ranked accuracy and reliability of data as the number one benefit of using risk technology, or risk management information systems (RMIS), which indicates that these organizations likely use their RMIS to manage daily business operations and generate accurate financial information .

Organizations in the agribusiness sector indicated the most important benefit as data consolidation and management, reflecting that they likely use these systems to collate multiple-source data into one place for consistent and reliable reporting .

Industry Benefit 1 Benefit 2 Benefit 3

All Industries Accuracy & Reliability of DataData Consolidation/ Management

Management Reporting Improvements

Agribusiness Data Consolidation/ManagementManagement Reporting Improvements, Accuracy & Reliability of Data (tie)

Automation of Processes, Communication Improvements (tie)

Food Processing, Distribution and Beverage

Accuracy & Reliability of DataManagement Reporting Investments

Automation of Processes, Data Consolidation/ Management (tie)

Data Source: Global Risk Technology Survey

Priorities in Choice of Insurer

Based on Aon’s 2009 Global Risk Management Survey, FAB companies placed financial stability as the highest priority in their choice of insurance carriers . This same group also appeared to prioritize value for money lower and flexibility/ innovation/ creativity higher than the all industry group . One of the reasons that flexibility/ innovation/creativity is important to FAB companies is that the industry has unique complex risks that can present challenges in claim situations . Companies value the partnership and collaboration of carriers willing to address these risks and who have an understanding of the process when a claim arises .

Priorities in choice of insurer FAB All Industry

Financial stability/rating 1 1

Claims service 2 3

Flexibility/innovation/creativity 3 7

Industry experience 4 5

Value for money 5 2

Prompt settlement of large claims 6 9

Capacity 7 4

Long-term relationship 8 6

Ability to deliver a global program 9 8

Speed and quality of documentation 10 10

Data Source: Global Risk Management Survey


Client Buying Behavior/Program Design

RETENTIONS/DEDUCTIBLESSimilar to last year, overall the majority of FAB organizations have not changed their retentions/deductibles . The driving factors behind this include:

• a general sense of comfort with historical retention levels

• budget pressures on insureds to not increase overall premium spend (by reducing the retention)

• trade-offs in premium offered by carriers (either up or down) were not deemed to be yielding meaningful savings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

HigherSameLower

08-09 Workers Compensation

09-10 Workers Compensation

08-09 General Liability

09-10 General Liability

08-09 Automobile Liability

09-10 Automobile Liability

08-09 Directors & Officers Liability

08-09 Property

09-10 Property

9.1%

3.1%

5.2%

5.1%

6.1%

5.2%

2.1%

89.8%

92.3%

92.2%

92.3%

85.7%

94.7%

93.1%

90.9%

89.4%

1.1%

4.6%

2.6%

2.6%

8.2%

5.3%

6.9%

3.9%

8.5%

*Product Recall/Contamination change in retentions are based on observations in the marketplace .

Data Source: Other Aon Proprietary Databases

Product Recall/Contamination retentions vary greatly based on size of FAB organization and exposure . Some organizations self-insure this exposure while others purchase insurance cover . Based on a representation of our FAB clients the average retention maintained was approx . $1 .5 million with a maximum retention of $10 million .


Product Recall/Contamination Retentions

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

Maximum3rd QuartileMedianAverage1st QuartileMinimum

$10,000 $150,000

$1,478,333

$500,000$1,000,000

$10,000,000

LIMITSUmbrella/Excess LiabilityThe average Umbrella/Excess Liability total limit purchased by FAB companies increased to $128 million compared to $117 million last year . The highest limit purchased was $400 million, while the lowest limit purchased was $5 million . Similar to last year there appears to be a correlation between organizational size and limit – with larger FAB companies maintaining higher limits . Also based on our data it appears the majority of FAB companies are maintaining their limits purchased .

Revenue Minimum 1st Quartile Average Mode Median 3rd Quartile Maximum

All $5,000,000 $50,000,000 $127,636,364 $100,000,000 $100,000,000 $187,500,000 $400,000,000

<$250M $10,000,000 $25,000,000 $31,666,667 $25,000,000 $27,500,000 $33,750,000 $65,000,000

$251M - $1,000M

$5,000,000 $50,000,000 $52,692,308 $50,000,000 $50,000,000 $55,000,000 $100,000,000

$1,001M - $5,000M

$50,000,000 $100,000,000 $117,352,941 $100,000,000 $100,000,000 $150,000,000 $250,000,000

$5,001M - $10,001M

$100,000,000 $175,000,000 $225,000,000 $200,000,000 $225,000,000 $262,500,000 $400,000,000

>$10,000M $50,000,000 $150,000,000 $213,636,364 $150,000,000 $250,000,000 $287,500,000 $350,000,000


Product Recall/Contamination

For Product Recall/Contamination, the average total limit purchased by FAB companies is $25 million . The highest limit purchased was $235 million, while the lowest limit purchased was $1 million .

Revenue Minimum 1st Quartile Average Mode Median 3rd Quartile Maximum

All $1,000,000 $5,000,000 $25,000,000 N/A $8,500,000 $20,000,000 $235,000,000

Directors’ and Officers’ LiabilityFor Directors’ and Officers’ Liability, the average limit purchased by all publicly traded FAB clients is $107 million . The highest limit purchased was $445 million, while the lowest limit purchased was $5 million . Similar to umbrella/excess liability, there appears to be a correlation between size of the organization and limit carried .

Market Cap Minimum 1st Quartile Average Mode Median 3rd Quartile Maximum

All $5,000,000 $50,000,000 $107,000,000 $125,000,000 $85,000,000 $130,000,000 $445,000,000

<$1,000M $5,000,000 $25,000,000 $58,889,000 N/A $40,000,000 $75,000,000 $200,000,000

$1,001M - $5,000M

$5,000,000 $60,000,000 $95,000,000 $150,000,000 $80,000,000 $137,500,000 $150,000,000

>$5,000M $125,000,000 $125,000,000 $175,000,000 $125,000,000 $127,500,000 $156,250,000 $445,000,000

Limit data shown above represents policies incepting between July 1, 2008 and June 31, 2009 .

Data Source: Other Aon Proprietary Databases

Use of Captives

Captives exist or are created because they fill a niche that cannot be easily, or as efficiently, filled by the conventional insurance marketplace . While not for everyone, captives can be an important part of a professionally constructed risk financing program that recognizes the value of retaining certain risks in meeting overall corporate financial objectives . Captive owners benefit from reduced insurance costs, access to reinsurers, an ability to insure the ‘uninsurable’ and improved cover and control . Many organizations in the FAB industry utilize these alterative risk transfer mechanisms as part of their risk management/insurance programs . Based on the 2009 Global Risk Management Survey, 49% of FAB respondent companies reported having an active captive or protected cell company (PCC) . For this same group the most common coverages currently underwritten were:

• Property

• Auto liability

• Employers liability/workers compensation

• Product liability/tampering

• Crime/fidelity

• Marine


Organizations have many options when it comes to the domiciles they can select to establish their captives . Based on 102 captives under management by Aon in the FAB sector the domiciles used most often for an FAB captive are Bermuda (18%) and Vermont (16%) and the most common type of captive is a single parent captive .

Domicile Percentage

Bermuda 18%

Vermont 16%

Guernsey 11%

Luxembourg 10%

Dublin 9%

Cayman 7%

Sweden 5%

Switzerland 5%

Barbados 3%

Gibraltar 3%

Isle of Man 3%

Netherlands 3%

Netherlands Antilles 3%

Hawaii 2%

Kentucky 1%

Malta 1%

Singapore 1%

Vancouver 1%

Other, 1%Group Captive, 1%

Association Captive, 1%Cell Captive, 3%

Single Parent Captive, 94%


MARKET INSIGHTS


Understanding which markets to approach with a placement and the goings-on in the marketplace

is vital to every effective renewal process . To assist our clients and brokers in this process, Aon has

developed the Aon Global Risk Insight Platform® . Aon GRIP is the world’s leading global repository

of global risk and insurance placement information, providing fact-based insights into Aon’s USD $54

billion in global premium flow . Within this section of the report we provide industry-specific insight

based primarily on data from Aon GRIP . Findings by line of coverage include:

COVERAGE TERMS AND CONDITIONS DISCUSSION

LEADING CARRIERS IN U.S. PREMIUM VOLUME

COMMON REASONS FOR CARRIERS NOT QUOTING

COMMON REASONS FOR REJECTING A CARRIER’S QUOTE

CHANGES IN PREMIUM RATES OVER THE PAST YEAR

Aon GRIP Dashboard


Coverage Terms and Conditions Discussion

Overall the FAB industry remains stable to competitive in terms of coverage provided and enhancements available . In Product Recall/Contamination policies insurers can offer enhancements such as enhanced third party coverage, adverse publicity, government recall and intentionally impaired ingredients . In the exhibit below we have outlined by line of coverage current market conditions as it relates to coverage terms and conditions .

CoverageCoverage Terms and Conditions by Line of

Coverage

Workers Compensation

General Liability /

Automobile Liability /

Umbrella/Excess Liability /

Product Recall/Contamination

Directors & Officers Liability /

Property /

Coverage Terms and Conditions Broadening

Coverage Terms and Conditions Stable

Coverage Terms and Conditions Restricting

Carrier/Marketplace Participation

The exhibits shown below are based on information from Aon GRIP . Data shown in this section provides insights into carrier/marketplace participation for Casualty, Liability, Workers Compensation, Automobile, Financial Lines and Property .

Leading Carriers in U .S . Premium Volume (Alpha Order)

Casualty/Liability Automobile Workers Compensation Financial Lines Property

ACE ACE ACE Chartis (AIG) ACE

Chartis (AIG) Chartis (AIG) Chartis (AIG) Chubb Chartis (AIG)

Nationwide Nationwide Liberty HCC Allianz

Travelers Old Republic Old Republic Travelers FM Global

Zurich Travelers Zurich Zurich Zurich

Data Source: Global Risk Insight Platform


Common Reasons for Carriers Not Quoting


Uncompetitive - Price Uncompetitive - Price Class of Business Class of Business Exposures

Class of Business Class of Business Uncompetitive - Price Uncompetitive - Price Uncompetitive - Price

Exposures Exposures Exposures Client Financials Class of Business

Premium Threshold Loss Experience Loss ExperienceUncompetitive - Terms/Conditions

Geographic Concerns

Loss Experience Premium Threshold Premium Threshold Coverage Capacity


Common Reasons for Rejecting a Carrier’s Quote


Inferior Pricing Inferior Pricing Inferior Pricing Inferior Pricing Inferior Pricing

Incumbent Relationship Incumbent Relationship Incumbent Relationship Incumbent Relationship Inferior Terms/Conditions

Inferior Terms/Conditions Inferior Terms/Conditions Inferior Terms/Conditions Inferior Terms/Conditions Incumbent Relationship

New coverage or new layer not purchased

Limited Familiarity Limited FamiliarityNew coverage or new layer not purchased

New coverage or new layer not purchased

Limited FamiliarityNew coverage or new layer not purchased

Carrier Financials Limited Familiarity


Premiums

Similar to the prior year, soft market conditions continue . FAB companies have on average experienced flat to single digit rate decreases for Property, Casualty, and Product Recall/Contamination* . Directors’ and Officers’ Liability appears to be experiencing slightly higher decreases .

For the remainder of 2010 insureds with an attractive risk profile should continue to experience flat to single-digit rate decreases in most casualty lines . Insureds with extreme exposure reductions or unfavorable loss history should anticipate rate increases .

We expect Property rates to continue their downward trend for most accounts in 2010 . Record early season losses are not expected to negatively impact the property market . FM Global announced a membership credit of up to 20% for business renewing after June 30, 2010 . It is important to note that this membership credit is not a rate reduction, but a one-time credit against current rates with future renewals based on the current expiring rate . Non nat/cat exposed business continues to be an attractive counter-balance to most property markets and remains quite competitive .

We expect pricing for Directors’ and Officers’ Liability to remain soft for most insureds as long as there continues to be ample capacity in the marketplace and carriers competing for business .


Year-Over-Year Change in Average Rate

-16% -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0%

2009-20102008-2009

Workers Compensation

General Liability

Automobile Liability

Umbrella/Excess Liability

Directors' & Officers' Liability**

Property-0.2

-10.9

-6.2

-0.2

-3.7

-4.2

-1.7

-13.6

-2.7

-0.25

-3.3

-2.2

*Product Recall/Contamination change in rates are based on our experiences in the marketplace . **Directors’ and Officers’ Liability rate change represents S&P Industry Groups: Food & Staples Retailing and Food, Beverage & Tobacco for the Q1 ‘10 and Q2 ‘10 only . Data Source: Other Aon Proprietary Databases


FINANCIAL INSIGHTS


Understanding current performance and perception of the future financial strength of a sector are

important factors in any analysis . Within this section of the report we provide insight into market

environment for FAB sector .

Industry Data

In general, the market environment for FAB companies has significantly improved . In terms of market performance, listed FAB companies were less affected by the broad market declines last year and have maintained growth into 2010 . Similarly, consensus forecasts from market analysts expect FAB companies to gain from the general economic recovery in reporting revenue growth in 2010 . Employment in agriculture is recovering from a recent double dip decline and continues to grow . In addition, the trend in food manufacturing employment appears to have arrested its decline and seems poised to report annualized employment growth by the next quarter . Positively, food and beverage inflation remains muted, with no emerging pressure from agricultural commodity prices . In terms of exports, the weak dollar had a substantial impact on the total value of agricultural exports during 2009 .

Market Performance of FAB Sector vs Russell 3000

9095

100105110115120125130135140145150

Food and Beverage*Russell 3000 Index

May

'10

Ap

r'10

Mar

'10

Feb'

10

Jan'

10

Dec

'09

Nov

'09

Oct

'09

Sep

'09

Aug

'09

Jul'0

9

Jun'

09

May

'09

Ap

r'09

Source: BLOOMBERG, *Food and Beverage companies in the Russell 3000


Annualized % Change in Consumer Prices

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

CPI indexFood and beverage

Ap

r'10

Feb'

10

Dec

'09

Oct

'09

Aug

'09

Jun'

09

Ap

r'09

Feb'

09

Dec

'08

Oct

'08

Aug

'08

Jun'

08

Ap

r'08

Feb'

08

Dec

'07

Oct

'07

Aug

'07

June

'07

Ap

r'07

Feb'

07

Source: BLOOMBERG

% Change in Annualized Employment

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Food ManufacturingAgri SectorTotal Non Farm

May

'10

Ap

r'10

Mar

'10

Feb'

10

Jan'

10

Dec

'09

Nov

'09

Oct

'09

Sep

'09

Aug

'09

Jul'0

9

Jun'

09

May

'09

Ap

r'09

Mar

'09

Feb'

09

Jan'

09

Dec

'08

Nov

'08

Oct

'08

Sep

'08

Aug

'08

Jul'0

8

Jun'

08

May

'08

Ap

r'08

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Food and Beverage % Annual Revenue Change

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Food Producers*Beverages *Russell 3000 Companies

Q4'

10 (

f)

Q3'

10 (

f)

Q2'

10 (

f)

Q1'

10

Q4'

09

Q3'

09

Q2'

09

Q1'

09

Q4'

08

Q3'

08

Q2'

08

Q1'

08

Q4'

07

Q3'

07

Q2'

07

Source: BLOOMBERG, *Food and Beverage companies in the Russell 3000


Commodity Price Performance

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

SoybeanWheatCorn

May

'10

Ap

r'10

Mar

'10

Feb'

10

Jan'

10

Dec

'09

Nov

'09

Oct

'09

Sep

'09

Aug

'09

Jul'0

9

Jun'

09

May

'09

Ap

r'09

Source: BLOOMBERG

% Change in Annualized Exports

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Agri ExportsTotal Exports

Ap

r'10

Mar

'10

Feb'

10Ja

n'10

Dec

'09

Nov

'09

Oct

'09

Sep

'09

Aug

'09

Jul'0

9Ju

n'09

May

'09

Ap

r'09

Mar

'09

Feb'

09Ja

n'09

Dec

'08

Nov

'08

Oct

'08

Sep

'08

Aug

'08

Jul'0

8Ju

n'08

May

'08

Ap

r'08

Mar

'08

Feb'

08Ja

n'08

Dec

'07

Nov

'07

Oct

'07

Sep

'07

Source: US Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce


METHODOLOGY, NOTES AND DISCLAIMERS This report is based on data from Aon’s 2009 Global Risk Management Survey, Aon 2010 Global Risk Management Survey, Aon’s 2009 Global Technology Risk Survey, Aon GRIP and other proprietary databases .

Results shown in this report based on the 2009 Global Risk Management Survey, 2009 Global Technology Risk Survey represent responses from the agribusiness, food processing and distribution and beverages industry and are not limited to the United States .

2010 Global Enterprise Risk Management Survey responses represent all industry groups and are not limited to the United States .

Aon GRIP is the world’s leading global repository of global risk and insurance placement information providing fact-based insights into Aon’s USD $54 billion in global premium flow . Results shown in this report based on Aon GRIP data represent placements in the United States between July 1, 2009 and July 1, 2010 .

All pricing data and publicly available financial information included under the financial Insights section of the report sourced from Bloomberg, U .S . Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce and Bureau of Labor Statistics . Bloomberg Data incorporated pursuant to license . Aon takes no responsibility as to the accuracy of any of the reported information .

In addition to the resources discussed above, we have included data from other proprietary databases . Results shown in this report, unless noted, based on data from these other databases represent placement information from the United States between July 1, 2009 and June 31, 2010 .

Along with the support of other Aon insurance and industry specialists, Aon Analytics collected and tabulated results, provided analysis and interpretation of findings and prepared this report .

Copyright 2010 Aon Corporation . This report is furnished for informational purposes only . Do not distribute or copy . Aon has endeavored to confirm the correctness of the data and opinions expressed in this report, however, neither Aon nor its employees make any representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the data or opinions expressed herein . Aon has no liability to the recipient or any other party resulting from the use of, or reliance upon, the contents of this report .


Aon Analytics provides clients with forward-looking business intelligence, comprehensive benchmarking and total cost-of-risk analysis as well as global market insights using proprietary technology like the Aon Global Risk Insight Platform to enable more informed and fact-based decision making around risk management, risk retention and risk transfer goals and objectives .

Aon Global Risk Insight Platform® (Aon GRIP) is the world’s leading global repository of global risk and insurance placement information . By providing fact-based insights into Aon’s USD $54 billion in global premium flow, Aon GRIP helps identify the best placement option regardless of size, industry, coverage line or geography .

The Web-accessible data produced by Aon GRIP helps Aon brokers evaluate which markets to approach with a placement and which carriers may provide the best value for clients . It also gives Aon brokers a leg up when it comes to negotiations, making sure every conversation is based on the most complete, most current set of facts .

Based in Dublin, Ireland, the Aon Centre for Innovation and Analytics provides Aon colleagues and their clients around the globe fact-based market insights . As the owner of the Aon Global Risk Insight Platform (GRIP), one of the world’s largest repositories of risk and insurance placement information, the Centre analyzes Aon’s USD $54 billion global premium flow to identify innovative new products and to provide Aon brokers insights as to which markets and which carriers provide the best value for clients .

As the world’s leading insurance broker and risk advisory firm, Aon is committed to helping clients respond quickly and effectively to changing market conditions that may impact their businesses . The Aon Situation Room™, accessible at www .aon .com, provides clients with fact-based information to help guide their businesses through this volatile period .

In the Aon Situation Room, clients will find current insurer financial strength ratings and the most recent updates from Aon’s Market Security Committee on specific carriers . The latest news, legislative action, and earnings information is included on the site as well . Clients can also register to receive up-to-date e-mail alerts .

Aon Corporation (NYSE: AON) is a leading global provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance brokerage, and human capital consulting . Through its more than 36,000 colleagues worldwide, Aon readily delivers distinctive client value via innovative and effective risk management and workforce productivity solutions . Aon’s industry-leading global resources and technical expertise are delivered locally through more than 500 offices in more than 120 countries .

Named the world’s best broker by Euromoney magazine’s 2008, 2009 and 2010 Insurance Survey, Aon also ranked

highest on Business Insurance’s listing of the world’s largest insurance brokers based on commercial retail, wholesale, reinsurance and personal lines brokerage revenues in 2008 . A .M . Best deemed Aon the number one insurance broker based on brokerage revenues in 2007 and 2008, and Aon was voted best insurance intermediary, best reinsurance intermediary and best employee benefits consulting firm in 2007, 2008 and 2009 by the readers of Business Insurance . Visit http://www .aon .com for more information on Aon and http://www .aon .com/unitedin2010 to learn about Aon’s global partnership and shirt sponsorship with Manchester United .

AON AT A GLANCE


KEY CONTACTSFOOD SYSTEM, AGRIBUSINESS AND BEVERAGE PRACTICERichard L. Shanks National Managing DirectorFood System, Agribusiness and Beverage Practice Aon Risk Solutionsrick .shanks@aon .com +1 .816 .698 .4666

Tami GriffinManaging DirectorFood System, Agribusiness and Beverage Practice Aon Risk Solutionstami .griffin@aon .com +1 .816 .698 .4634

AON ANALYTICSLambros LambrouHead of Aon Analyticslambros .lambrou@aon .com+1 .312 .381 .3915

George M. Zsolnay IVHead of Aon Analytics - U .S .george .zsolnay@ .aon .com+1 .312 .381 .3955

AON CRISIS MANAGEMENTBernie StevesManaging Director Aon Crisis Managementbernie .steves@aon .com +1 .312 .381 .4945

ENTERPRISE RISK MANAGEMENTLaura TaylorManaging Director and Global Practice Leader Aon Global Risk ConsultingEnterprise Risk Managementlaura .taylor@aon .com +1 .212 .441 .1435

FINANCIAL INSIGHTSNicholas KeyeResearchThe Aon Centre for Innovation and Analyticsnick_keye@aon .ie+353 .1 .266 .6419

FOR MEDIA AND PRESS INQUIRESKelly DrinkwineDirector of Public RelationsAon Risk Solutionskelly .drinkwine@aon .com+1 .312 .381 .2684

CONTRIBUTORSMatthew Mochel Susie Crawford Cathy Gavin Richard Miller Heath Morton Joanne Seery Peter M . Trunfio Stephanie Vogel, CFA

food systems industry report 2010

Documents

digit rate decreases

unintentionally retained loss

lowest limit purchased

senior management sponsorship

global premium flow

corporate gut feel

purchase insurance cover

aon situation room