Abstract

Animal agriculture has disproportionate environmental impacts, accounting for at least 16.5% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This study analysed 1,233 environmental claims from the sustainability reports and websites of 33 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies between 2021 and 2024. The findings reveal that while 68% (841) of claims were climate-related, 98% (1,213) were categorised as greenwashing. Many commitments rely on carbon offsets rather than genuine decarbonisation, with 38% of claims consisting of unverifiable future projections.

Introduction

Food systems contribute approximately one-third of all anthropogenic GHG emissions, with animal-based food production representing 57% of total food production emissions. The animal agriculture sector, particularly large-scale intensified operations, results in substantial absolute emissions of methane and nitrous oxide. Research indicates that the top five emitters—JBS, Marfrig, Tyson, Minerva, and Cargill—account for roughly 47% of total GHG emissions among the 45 largest industry players, exceeding the emissions of individual major oil companies such as Shell and BP. Companies often use sustainability reports to influence investor and consumer perception, though many such communications are classified as greenwashing or ‘future-washing’.

Methods

The study examined publicly available sustainability materials from 33 major meat and dairy companies, excluding those without English-language reports or those in bankruptcy. Researchers manually coded 1,233 environmental claims, distinguishing between climate-specific activities and broader environmental benefits like biodiversity protection. Claims were assessed for the presence of supporting evidence, such as scholarly literature or government data. Claims lacking scientific backing were further evaluated using a structured greenwashing framework consisting of 13 sub-categories to identify deceptive information regarding environmental strategies and motivations.

Results

Of the 1,233 claims identified, the highest volume came from Danone (106). Climate change was the primary lens for sustainability framing, with 841 claims being climate-related. However, many were vague or focused on non-material production areas. Approximately 38% (467) of claims were future promises, and 17 companies have now made net-zero commitments. Only 29% (356) of claims offered any supporting evidence, and most of these referenced internal pilot programmes or case studies. Only three claims across the entire sample were supported by scholarly scientific literature.

Discussion

The meat and dairy industry appears to be using greenwashing to delay meaningful climate action, similar to historical tactics used by the fossil fuel sector. While companies heavily publicise small-scale or pilot initiatives, these often have a negligible impact on their broader environmental footprint. For instance, only 12 companies provided assigned monetary values for environmental investments, totalling USD $4.82 billion, with Nestlé’s USD $4.0 billion commitment representing the vast majority of disclosed capital expenditure. The prevalence of vague language and limited transparency regarding emission measurements continues to mislead consumers and investors.