Despite some good initiatives, the climate strategies of top food and agriculture corporations are not cutting the mustard, according to a preview of the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor. Danone ranks highest among the assessed companies, while JBS is bottom of the class.
Out today, a sector-specific preview of the annual Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor focuses on five of the world’s largest food and agriculture corporations, together representing $342 billion in annual revenue and 352 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2023.
The in-depth assessment concludes that these companies are making glacial progress towards slashing their long-term emissions and their climate plans are woefully inadequate to place them on a decarbonisation pathway that is compatible with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Given its huge climate and ecological footprint, representing about a third of global emissions, it is crucial that the food and agriculture sector take urgent climate action. However, its largest corporations are failing to do so. Society will reap the consequences of the agrifood sector’s failure to sow the seeds of a sustainable future.
“While many agri-food companies are advancing their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this year’s poor performance by the five industry giants underscores the need for stronger accountability,” says Benja Faecks, expert on global carbon markets at CMW; “Standard setters must reinforce the push for structural emission reductions and require separate targets for emission reductions and carbon removals.”
“Commitments to key, structural emission reductions are generally lacking in the agrifood sector. Instead of implementing crucial transitions such as shifting to plant-based protein and halving food loss and waste to achieve their targets, companies plan to heavily rely on unspecified volumes of land-based removals.” adds NewClimate Institute’s Sybrig Smit, a co-author of the CCRM.
Tough nut to crack
The sectoral evaluation is based on a number of parameters required to tackle the agrifood sector’s carbon footprint. These include bolstering the share of plant-based proteins, halting deforestation, reducing fertiliser use and cutting food waste.
Although the covered companies are taking steps, albeit insufficient ones, to reduce their emissions in the short term, they do not adequately target their long-term carbon footprint and sustainability.
Too many of the companies still rely on offsetting (including using the related practice of “insetting”) some of their climate impact or excluding the bulk of their emissions. Others are increasingly leaning on the crutch of carbon removals.
One promising development is the increasing commitment, in words if not always in deeds, to halting deforestation.
Best and worst
Despite an assessment of “moderate”, Danone still topped the league of agrifood companies assessed. Among the aspects propping up the French dairy giant’s climate performance is its plans to tackle several key transition measures identified as crucial for the decarbonisation of the sector, notably its commitment to reduce emissions from methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than CO2.
The company seems to be on track to achieve its target to tackle deforestation. In addition, it has targets to halve food waste by 2030, to reduce its milk-related methane emissions, and to increase the share of plant-based protein in its output.
Languishing at the bottom is Brazilian meatpacking giant JBS. Although the company pledges to reach net-zero emissions by 2040, no emissions reductions targets accompany this vague promise. In addition, JBS’s commitments account for only around 1% emission reductions for its 2030 target compared to a 2019 base year. The company’s commitment to end illegal deforestation in Brazil is welcome, but the company is silent on legal deforestation.
About CCRM
First launched in 2022, the annual Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor is a joint initiative between NewClimate Institute and Carbon Market Watch. NewClimate leads on investigating corporate climate strategies and CMW leads on the policy implications and recommendations of the research.
