Summary

A shift by four leading meat companies in Thailand from chicken and pork to plant-based protein can lead to significant savings in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and land use. To produce the same amount of protein, a mixture of pulses, tofu, fermentation and mycoprotein-based products produces half the CO2e emissions on two-thirds of the land required for chicken. For pork, plant-based alternatives produce over five times fewer CO2e emissions and use over half the land. For the companies involved, the financial benefits of this transition are projected to exceed the costs, resulting in a 15%, 29% or 65% increase in net profits after tax for the 30%, 50% and 100% protein transition scenarios respectively, compared to a 6% loss if they maintain only animal-based production.

Emissions and land use in the context of Thailand

The four companies—Charoen Pokphand Foods (CPF), Betagro, Saha Farms and Cargill Meats TH—produce 2.5% of Thailand’s total GHG emissions and 59% of the country’s GHG emissions from chicken and pork production. Their combined chicken and pork supply chains occupy 2.5% of Thailand’s total land area and 8.2% of its arable land. Only 15.9% of these emissions are related to export production, meaning that the majority of footprint reductions should come from a protein transition within the domestic Thai market rather than transitions outside the country.

Thailand’s emission and land use targets

Thailand’s most recent Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) 3.0 sets a net emissions reduction target of 47% by 2035 compared to 2019 levels. Furthermore, the National Forest Policy aims to designate at least 40% of the country’s territory as forest area, including conserved and economic forests. In 2023, Thailand’s forestry areas accounted for only 31%, highlighting the significant need for land savings and reforestation efforts that a protein transition could facilitate.

The protein transition can reduce Thai GHG emissions and land use

The report models three transition scenarios: moving from a base scenario of nearly 100% animal protein to 30%, 50% and 100% plant-based proteins by 2050. These scenarios would reduce CO2e emissions by 22%, 36% and 73% respectively compared to the base scenario. A 100% transition would save 8,375 km2 of land, equivalent to 38 times the area of Amsterdam. The report argues that transition is far more effective than on-farm emission-reduction measures in animal agriculture, which would only yield a maximum 16% reduction.

Leaders’ climate emissions and land use

The report investigates the methodologies used to calculate these footprints, primarily applying Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) 3.0 emission factors. For the leading company, CPF, total Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions amounted to 39.3 million tonnes of CO2e in 2024. CPF produces 18% of Thailand’s chicken and 51% of its pork, while Betagro produced 17% of pork and 9% of chicken in 2023. While some companies have small existing plant-based brands, such as CPF’s Meat Zero and Cargill’s PlantEver, their current market scale remains limited.

Protein transition pathways and footprint

The transition assumes that replacing chicken and pork with plant-based alternatives provides the same amount of protein. For CPF specifically, a 100% transition could reduce CO2e emissions by 5.3 million tonnes and reduce land use by 48%, or approximately 4,141 km2. The report concludes that these transitions are essential, as global demand for protein is expected to grow due to population increases, making emissions gaps relative to SBTi targets wider if traditional animal-based production continues to dominate.

Costs and benefits of a protein transition

The transition involves significant costs, including building new plant-based processing capacity, supporting farmers in business model switches and increased marketing expenditures. However, these are offset by substantial benefits, such as much lower raw material costs for grains and soy, lower interest rates on debt through sustainability-linked loans and improved ESG ratings. In financial terms, a 100% transition for CPF could enhance market capitalisation by up to 104%, whereas remaining in the base scenario could result in an 11% reduction in value due to regulatory and reputation pressures.