Português

This report investigates JBS, the world’s largest meat producer. Analyzing corporate documents, government records, and interviews with key informants, the author explores where the company’s funding comes from, how its money is spent, and who benefits the most from its profits. They also examine the link between JBS’s government-backed growth and social and economic conditions, particularly in the cities where the company is most active. Finally, they offer a set of recommendations to address the growing issues highlighted in the analysis.

Humble Beginnings, Meteoric Rise

JBS was founded as a local family butchery in 1953, but has since grown to become the biggest meat producer in the world. This growth is a direct consequence of Brazil’s “national champions” policy, which aimed to strengthen JBS (and thus Brazil) on the global stage by capturing new markets. Between 2003 and 2017, the Brazilian Development Bank, a public financial institution owned by the Brazilian government, invested over US$6 billion and leveraged political ties to help JBS achieve its goals. Other crucial maneuvers for JBS included:

• Offering shares on the Brazilian stock market beginning in 2007;
• Diversifying its product line beyond raw beef into other meats and ready meals; and
• Very aggressive acquisition of competitors, particularly during financial crises.

With further billions in funding from global finance entities like the Bank of China and Royal Bank of Canada, JBS has accumulated massive wealth. In comparison, 20 of the 27 federal states in Brazil, which together account for nearly 40% of the national population, each make less revenue than what JBS earns in a single year.

So how is this wealth distributed? In most years, about 70% of JBS’s profits are reinvested into reserves for acquiring competitors. However, in 2021, 54% of the profits went to shareholders. And, while the five top executives earn roughly US$424,000 per month — and their pay continues to rise — the company’s 113,000 workers earn just US$393 a month. This is a third of what’s estimated as a living wage in Brazil.

Wealth Not Trickling Down

As the author highlights, this stark wage divide reflects a broader pattern across JBS’s operations in Brazil. The country’s “national champions” policy originally aimed to increase local economic growth, yet there’s been a 50% increase in demand for government social assistance, particularly in cities where JBS operates. Even though the company provides close to 3% of national employment, poverty and hunger have increased in 11 out of 12 of its key locations.

While company policy caps wage increases for workers at 10%, executives and administrators have received up to 229% salary hikes in past years. And, despite its slogan, “We feed the world with the best,” and endorsement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, only one board meeting over a 10-year period briefly addressed the topic of food provision. Thus, the author argues, JBS’s wealth is failing to translate into social improvements in Brazil.

A Murky Future?

Despite public investment, the company’s decision-making remains primarily in the hands of its founding family, whose influence continues to shape its direction. In recent years, up to 40% of shareholders, including the Brazilian Development Bank, have voted against the huge executive salary increases. Regardless, these pay packages were approved. The author also raises concerns that JBS’s listing on the New York Stock Exchange could shift more control to foreign investors and further limit public influence over the company’s governance.

To address these issues, the author concludes that coordinated action is necessary and offers the following recommendations:

• The meat industry should pay factory workers a living wage and limit how much executives can earn. It should stop expanding through acquisitions and be fully transparent about its operations.
• Investors should stop putting money into industrial meat companies. Instead, they should fund sustainable and socially beneficial food systems.
• Consumers should reduce their meat consumption and choose local, socially responsible products when they do eat meat. They should also support policies for fairness, transparency, and better regulation of the meat industry.
• Shareholders should demand fair-pay policies and push for greater social impact. They should also encourage foreign governments and pension funds to divest from the meat industry.
• Policymakers should support small-scale farmers instead of large meat companies. They should raise the minimum wage, ensure fair working conditions in meat corporations, and require government-funded companies to be more transparent. Taxes and limits on advertising in the meat industry are also recommended.