Authors: Claire Carlisle and Bridget Ware are Research Associates at DeSmog. Originally published on DeSmog.
Despite being the world’s biggest polluters, global meat and dairy giants are investing only a small fraction of their revenues in reducing emissions, according to new estimates.
A report by campaign group Changing Markets Foundation found that corporate advertising spending has outstripped spending on low-carbon solutions as companies step up efforts to appeal to consumers by highlighting their environmental concerns.
The meat and dairy industries, which are responsible for more than 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions, have come under increasing pressure in recent years to address significant harm to the climate.
New Merchant of SuspicionThe report, released on Thursday, examines the climate targets, lobbying records and advertising campaigns of 22 of the largest livestock companies through case studies from the US, UK, EU, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Brazil.
Cows emit large amounts of greenhouse gases through burping and farting, and the expansion of the livestock industry Leading the rise As meat consumption increases, so do emissions. Meat and dairy companies are also contributing to deforestation in the Amazon and other important carbon sinks, where vast swaths of forest have been destroyed. felled To allow for the production of soybeans for ranching or for export as livestock feed.
None of the companies featured in the report have emissions reduction targets in line with the guidelines set by UN experts.
The report found that the industry is spending millions on sustainability marketing without taking action to reduce emissions. Companies have faced a series of greenwashing allegations in recent years, with several companies, including Brazilian meat giant JBS, forced to withdraw misleading advertising last year. Ordered US advertising watchdog calls for an end to “net zero” claims.
The report said the industry’s campaigns were heavily targeted at younger Gen Z consumers through partnerships with TikTok and YouTube, as well as school education programs.
The researchers contrast this green marketing with behind-the-scenes lobbying by the livestock industry, where companies and trade groups have opposed nature-friendly legislation in several countries, including efforts to curb methane, a potent greenhouse gas, the report noted.
The report “exposes the blatant hypocrisy of big meat and dairy companies,” said Nusa Urbancic, CEO of the Changing Markets Foundation.
“They claim to be working to solve climate change, yet they use deceptive tactics to obstruct, delay and prevent meaningful action. These tactics are similar to those of Big Oil and Big Tobacco, allowing them to continue their harmful practices unchecked.”
“Greenwashing”
The majority of companies analyzed are pursuing net zero or carbon neutral goals, but most have not disclosed how much they plan to invest in reducing emissions.
The report analyzed publicly available data and found that companies spend just 1% of their revenue on research and development (R&D), which includes spending on sustainability improvements.
In many cases where spending information was available, companies spent more on advertising than on their decarbonization efforts.
JBS, the world’s largest meat company, is estimated to have invested just 0.03% of its annual revenue into climate action, equivalent to about 6% of the company’s total advertising spend, while the report found that dairy giants Fonterra, Nestlé and Arla all spend more on advertising than on research and development into low-carbon solutions.
Nestlé – 87.5 million tonnes Emissions these are, Chile The report found that the company spent 14 times more on “marketing and management” last year than it had spent on “regenerative agriculture” – its flagship sustainability spending pledge – over the previous five years.
“Regenerative agriculture,” including organic and no-till farming, has been widely touted as a solution to the growing emissions caused by livestock companies. But the World Resources Institute, a nonprofit research organization, says: I found that While it’s good for the environment, its “potential” to mitigate climate change is limited.
Fonterra’s director of sustainability, Charlotte Rutherford, said the report’s figures were not an accurate reflection of the organisation’s investment in sustainability, and “only covered outdated capital investments, rather than the significant investments we have made across the co-operative”.
She added that Fonterra has a “large team of sustainability experts” and is “working constructively with industry and government to ensure our emissions reduction strategies deliver.”
A Nestlé spokesman said the company is investing in and implementing a “net zero roadmap” and plans to reduce agricultural emissions in its supply chain by 50% by 2030.
“We continue to leverage world-class research and development, including through the Nestlé Institute of Agricultural Sciences, to strengthen our climate action,” the companies said in an emailed statement. “We also advocate for the creation of the right policy environment to accelerate large-scale decarbonization in agriculture and provide transparent reporting on our activities.”
Other companies and organisations mentioned in this article were contacted for comment but did not receive a response before publication.
The report also found that companies’ big marketing budgets are sometimes used to mislead consumers through greenwashing claims.
For example, companies did this by putting vague and misleading claims on their product packaging: Danish dairy company Arla advertised its cheddar cheese as “building a sustainable future” despite not having a 1.5°C climate target, the report found.
JBS, the world’s largest meat producer, is currently Being sued New York Attorney General Letitia James sued the company over allegations that it misled consumers about its climate change efforts.
company Said The company disagrees with the Attorney General’s explanation of its sustainability efforts.
The Changing Markets Foundation report also found that the meat and dairy industries are targeting younger consumers through tailored social media campaigns and online collaborations with influencers, gamers and popular athletes.
Gen Z, currently aged 14 to 27, is generally seen as more concerned about the environment, climate change and animal welfare and therefore more likely to move towards a lower-carbon diet.
The report gives one example of a collaboration between industry group the American Dairy Farmers Association and US-based YouTube influencer Sean Evans, where the two teamed up as part of a larger marketing campaign in 2022.
Evans, who hosts First We Feast’s “Hot Ones,” which sees celebrities eat spicy chicken wings, created a sponsored video for her 13.6 million subscribers promoting milk as a way to protect against spicy foods and “to also help keep the planet from getting too hot.”
Falling short on climate targets
Of the 22 companies analysed, 15 had published climate targets or were working towards setting them, but the report found that these were not in line with expert advice.
united nations Published Fears that insufficient targets could lead to greenwashing have prompted guidance to set meaningful targets for 2022 ahead of COP27. The report found that none of the companies analysed had complied with recommendations calling for measures to be applied across their supply chains to reduce emissions overall.
Insufficient targets could foster a “culture of climate misinformation and confusion,” the UN chief said. Are listed January 2023.
The livestock industry is responsible for more than 30 percent of global methane emissions, a greenhouse gas that has 80 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.
However, of the companies analysed, only dairy giant Danone had set a methane target – another key UN recommendation.
Global methane emissions have increased dramatically over the past two decades.
The report found that meat and dairy companies made a number of misleading statements, including downplaying their industries’ role in methane emissions. Assert The argument that methane emissions are a natural part of the carbon cycle and therefore absorbed by plants. Such arguments ignore the significant short-term warming caused by industrial methane emissions.
Among companies that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, methane emissions are Increased That’s a 6 percent increase between 2022 and 2023.
Lobbying and the revolving door
So far, the industry has largely avoided legislation to curb its negative climate impacts, instead using its “special political access” to resist nature-friendly laws, the report said.
The analysis found that meat and dairy companies had more than 600 meetings with the European Commission’s top decision-makers over the past decade. In the United States, the revolving door is in full swing. The report highlighted that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack served as Secretary of Agriculture under former US President Barack Obama and later served as chairman of the US Dairy Export Council.
The agriculture industry also won a major victory in the United States’ signature climate change policy, the Stop Inflation Act. The 2022 law provided billions of dollars in funding for emissions reductions but failed to regulate the agriculture industry, thanks to lobbying by companies like Cargill and Nestlé.
“The livestock industry has incredible access to the highest levels of politics,” said Nusa Urbancic of the Changing Markets Foundation.
“China is shamelessly using this to set the political agenda and even define the realm of what is possible when it comes to environmental regulation.”
“The major players in this space are so opposed to regulation that we end up taking the weakest approach – all carrots and no sticks.”
