WhenJBS, the world's largest meat company, pledged to reach net zero by 2040, it took out a full-page advertisement in theNew YorkTimesand dedicated eight pages of its sustainability report to the commitment.
What it did not include was a credible plan for how to get there, according to researchers at the University of Miami who examined the company's sustainability documents.
The company's own footnote to the pledge acknowledged that "whether the company is successful in achieving this very ambitious goal will depend on numerous factors outside of the company's control”.
However, it then raised $1bn in sustainability-linked bonds on the back of that pledge. In 2024, the attorney general of New York filed a lawsuit against JBS alleging the claim was misleading because the company had no clear and achievable path to its 2040 target.
JBS is not alone. According to a new studypublishedon Wednesday in the journalPLOS Climateby the same researchers, most of the claims made by 33 of thelargest meat and dairy companiescan be categorised as“greenwashing”– the practice of making environmental claims that are misleading, unverifiable or unsupported by evidence.
Researchers examined the sustainability reports and websites of the 33 largest meat and dairy companies in the world and found that nearly 98 per cent of their environmental claims, 1,213 out of 1,233, did not stand up to scrutiny.
It is the most systematic examination of its kind, covering claims made between 2021 and 2024 by companies including Nestlé, Danone, Tyson Foods, Arla, Fonterra and Danish Crown.
The meat and dairy industry accounts for at least 16.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and 57 per cent of total food production emissions, more than twice the emissions of plant-based foods. Despite this, the researchers found the companies are making sweeping environmental promises with almost no scientific backing. Of the 1,233 claims identified, only three were supported by scholarly scientific evidence.
Arla Foods, the world's fourth-largest dairy company with operations in over 32 countries and a cooperative of more than 12,700 farmers, cited installing solar panels on the roof of a single cheese packaging site in Oswestry in the UK – panels that cover 12 per cent of that one site's electricity needs – as evidence ofclimate action.
The same company launched a "regenerative agriculture pilot" on 24 farms, representing 0.0019 per cent of its total global operations. Tyson Foods framed its net-zero commitment not as a target but as something the company "continually aspires to achieve”, the researchers noted.
Arla disputed the study's findings. "We fundamentally disagree with the conclusions in this report and stand firmly behind our data," Bjarke Munk Kamstrup, head of global media relations at Arla, toldThe Independent.
Advertisement
"Our climate goals and plan have been approved by the Science Based Targets initiative since 2019, and our annual climate reporting is rigorously validated by external auditors. Our plan is working – we have reduced our operational emissions by 43.6 per cent since 2015, and through our FarmAhead incentive programme, our farmers have achieved a 9.9 per cent emissions reduction per kilo of milk since 2020."
Researchers said more than a third of all claims they studied – 467 in total – were promises about the future with no clear steps for how they would be delivered. Nestlé made 55 such promises, Danone 49, Danish Crown 34. The number of companies with net-zero commitments has quadrupled since 2020, from four to 17.
But the researchers found these commitments appeared to rely on offsetting emissions rather than actually cutting them – a pattern they compared directly to the fossil fuel industry.
JBS and Tyson both announced net-zero targets while simultaneously expanding production, according to the paper. Tyson opened two new facilities and announced a $200m plant expansion in 2022, while JBS opened two new plants in Brazil and one in Missouri and said it would "pursue additional value-enhancing growth opportunities”.
"Greenwashing was rampant in the sustainability reports of the world's largest meat and dairy companies, which can create the illusion of climate progress," said Maya Bach, lead author of the study. "We are concerned that these claims can mislead the public, influence consumers, and reduce pressure on policymakers to take climate action."
The consequences go beyond public perception. Sustainability reporting strengthens a company's image with investors and can broaden its social and financial licence to operate, the researchers note. In the case of a sector responsible for a disproportionate share of global emissions, the paper warns, greenwashing may be doing what it has done in the fossil fuel industry for decades — delaying meaningful action.
"Meat and dairy companies are talking a lot about climate change, which makes sense because animal-based foods lead to more emissions and other environmental impacts than other kinds of foods," said Jennifer Jacquet, professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami and the study's corresponding author.
"But when so much of what these companies say seems to be empty promises that are not backed up with evidence or investments, it starts to look more like a public relations exercise rather than caring for the planet."
Legal pressure is beginning to mount. The paper notes that in addition to the New York lawsuit against JBS, cases involving misleading environmental advertising are being pursued against Danish Crown, Tyson, Arla and Fonterra. In 2023, California passed new emissions reporting requirements for large companies doing business in the state.
Fonterra said it took claims of greenwashing seriously and believed scrutiny could support good business practice. "We have a robust internal review process for sustainability statements, supported by data and subject to governance and assurance where appropriate," Charlotte Rutherford, Fonterra's director of sustainability toldThe Independent. "This can include pilots and early-stage programmes that are not yet delivering improvements at scale, and we disclose key assumptions, uncertainties and risks to achieving targets."
The Independenthas approached JBS, Tyson, Danone, Nestlé, and Danish Crown for comment.
0 Comments