Unsustainable Promises: Greenwashing In The Meat And Dairy Industries

In 2024, the Attorney General of New York filed a lawsuit against JBS, the largest meat company in the world, in response to their public commitment to be “net zero” by 2040, citing the company’s lack of a clear and achievable plan. Despite growing public scrutiny, many meat and dairy companies continue to make misleading environmental claims, otherwise known as greenwashing.

Animal agriculture causes disproportional environmental impact relative to other types of food production. The industry is responsible for roughly 32% of human-generated global methane emissions, which have heat-trapping properties 28 times that of carbon dioxide. Like the oil and gas industries, meat and dairy companies are aware of their environmental impact and the importance of sustainability for the public. To preserve consumer and investor trust, these companies employ strategies that exaggerate the degree of their environmental practices. This greenwashing involves policies and initiatives that give the appearance of progress towards sustainability while resulting in little to no meaningful change. Greenwashing in industries that produce more pollution, such as meat and dairy, is particularly problematic. It allows companies to continue harmful practices that undermine broader climate commitments and still maintain an environmentally friendly image.

This study evaluated 1,233 environmental claims made by 33 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies, using a pre-established framework for identifying and categorizing greenwashing tactics. The researchers relied on company websites and publicly available sustainability reports published between 2021 and 2024. They assessed whether the claims were climate related, noted any company pledges and efforts focused on the future, and documented the number of claims for which companies offered evidence. They also categorized the type of evidence provided.

The researchers found broad agreement over whether the claims constituted greenwashing or not. However, there was disagreement over how to sub-categorize many of the claims according to the framework (for example, whether to label a greenwashing claim as vague or empty), and so they decided not to report on these sub-categories.

Of the 1,233 environmental claims, 98% could be classified as greenwashing. Over two-thirds (68%) of the claims were climate related, and 38% were unverifiable promises about the future such as “achieve carbon neutrality by 2030.” Additionally, just 29% of the claims offered supporting evidence, raising questions about their credibility and making assessment difficult. Of those that provided evidence, more than half (52%) referenced an internal pilot program or case study and only three cited scholarly literature.

Many environmental claims were vague or trivial in impact. For example, ABP Group, a meat company, highlighted how they were looking into a “more all-round sustainable beef production model for the dairy herd” without providing details. Another meat company, NH Foods, reduced the width of the tape used for their sausage products by three millimeters. Some simply cited alignment with broader climate initiatives or government policies, such as the Science Based Targets initiative and Paris Agreement, as proof of their support for climate action and progress.

Seventeen of the 33 companies have made net-zero commitments. While all but one of these (Dairy Farmers of America) set a specific target year, few have actually laid out plans for implementation. Even when discussed in detail, these plans often rely on carbon offsets and fail to address other forms of pollution.

This study was limited in several ways. First, the evaluation framework relied on qualitative assessments that were highly subjective. This led to disagreement between the researchers responsible for coding the claims. Moreover, the framework didn’t account for the reliability or scientific credibility of company claims, making them difficult to verify. Lastly, the study didn’t assess the scope or impact of different claims. For example, China Yurun, a meat company, reported providing microwaves to encourage employees to bring their own lunches, while JBS sought to eliminate the majority of greenhouse gas emissions at one of their beef facilities — claims that are clearly not equivalent in terms of scope or impact.

Instead of focusing on measurable, concrete action plans for reducing their environmental impact, many meat and dairy companies appear to prioritize and publicize small-scale, marginally impactful initiatives. These types of greenwashing behaviors allow polluting companies to delay meaningful action while continuing to cause disproportionate harm to the environment. However, it may also open them up to legal action for misleading advertising, as in the case of JBS.

Animal advocates can use this study to construct counter-messaging campaigns and push companies for greater transparency around their environmental goals. Doing so could help the public more accurately assess the environmental and ethical implications of their dietary choices.