In advance of the United Nations’ COP27 climate conference last fall, Coca-Cola, a leading beverage corporation, was announced as a sponsor, leading to immediate backlash. Sustainability activists accused the UN of greenwashing by partnering with a company significantly contributing to plastic pollution, which the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) attributes to 3.4% of global emissions. A petition with 240,000 signatures was launched to remove Coca-Cola as a sponsor, but this request was ultimately ignored.
In an open letter, over 60 public health organizations called for an end to the “corporate capture” of climate discussions by polluting companies. Coca-Cola responded to PBS by asserting that its involvement highlighted the company’s dedication to reducing emissions. The petition and the ensuing attention starkly illustrated the divide between climate advocates warning of imminent environmental collapse and the food industry. In reaction to mounting pressure from sustainability advocates and consumers, food and beverage companies have laid out ambitious plans to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from their supply chains over the next decade. However, experts remain skeptical about the industry’s ability to achieve meaningful progress.
Some companies, like Mars, have indicated their commitment by linking executive compensation to emissions targets. Three major consumer packaged goods companies—Mars, PepsiCo, and Nestlé—reported to Food Dive that they are on track to meet their emissions reduction goals, with significant progress anticipated in 2023. While some experts see these efforts as a positive development, they doubt that the industry will reach its targets within the projected timelines. This skepticism is likely to intensify pressure from activists, who place a significant portion of the blame for the climate crisis on food and beverage manufacturers. According to the United Nations, the food industry is responsible for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Jim Walsh, policy director of the sustainability advocacy group Food & Water Watch, remarked that the current initiatives by the industry will not produce substantial results in reducing emissions. “This is big agriculture essentially engaging in a marketing campaign to greenwash a destructive global food system,” he stated. At least 110 countries have committed to achieving net-zero emissions—meaning balancing the emissions produced with those removed from the atmosphere—by 2050, according to emissions measurement firm Net0. Achieving this goal will necessitate a comprehensive overhaul of how nations, businesses, and consumers approach food production and consumption.
Marketing and the development of new products are becoming essential to how consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies communicate their carbon reduction ambitions to consumers. Brands, both established like Bud Light and newcomers like Neutral Milk, have introduced carbon-neutral products, claiming to offset all greenhouse gases generated during production. This typically involves purchasing carbon credits or investing in carbon offset projects, such as reforesting areas affected by deforestation. However, reliance on carbon offset credits may prove ineffective and could jeopardize their credibility, according to Shon Hiatt, an associate professor at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business. “They may face reputational risks, as it can be perceived as greenwashing,” Hiatt noted, highlighting the lack of regulation and the associated risks.
Companies are also exploring carbon “insetting” projects—such as restoring forests and agricultural land—which do not involve purchasing carbon credits and focus on “doing more good rather than doing less bad,” as stated by the World Economic Forum. The industry differentiates between Scope 1 and 2 emissions, which arise from their own operations and facilities, and Scope 3 emissions, which stem from indirect sources like suppliers and product transportation. Scope 3 emissions account for 90% of food companies’ emissions, according to the sustainability nonprofit Ceres.
In many food companies’ emissions reduction plans, “regenerative agriculture” is positioned as a primary solution. This approach encompasses a range of agricultural practices aimed at restoring soil health and water used in production. Examples include cover crops, continuous no-till farming, and crop rotation. However, not all agricultural experts support these methods. No-till farming requires substantial amounts of pesticides and chemical fertilizers, which can make it more harmful than beneficial, according to Walsh from Food & Water Watch. “These companies promote regenerative agriculture, and because it’s largely undefined, it allows them to justify harmful practices that yield little to no climate benefits,” Walsh stated.
While some regenerative practices could be advantageous, Tara Chandrasekharan, a senior ESG analyst at sustainability investor group FAIRR, emphasized the need for companies to be transparent about the actual emissions reductions these practices can achieve. Nestlé, the world’s largest food company, has implemented a combination of techniques to meet its goal of halving absolute emissions by 2030, including regenerative agriculture and insetting projects. The company noted that its pumpkin brand, Libby’s, is adopting reduced tillage practices, working with a third-party organization to gather and analyze agricultural data to assess emissions.
Mars Wrigley, which has pledged net-zero emissions by 2050, is on track to reduce total operational emissions by 42% by the end of 2025 through initiatives aimed at eliminating deforestation and implementing “climate-smart” agricultural practices, especially in cocoa production. “We have several forward-thinking programs, such as our farm-level cocoa initiatives in Ecuador and Colombia, where we optimize inputs like fertilizer and water use, utilize renewable energy, and leverage trees to sequester carbon in soil and biomass,” stated Alastair Child, chief sustainability officer, in an email to Food Dive.
PepsiCo views its regenerative agriculture strategy as crucial for transforming its supply chain to achieve net-zero emissions by 2040. The company believes it has a strong foundation for emissions reductions in 2023, according to Roberta Barbieri, vice president of sustainability. New initiatives include decarbonizing a snacks plant in the Netherlands by storing and transforming renewable energy and installing a biodigester at a factory in Portugal. However, Barbieri noted challenges in getting supply chain partners to adopt new technologies that require larger investments and managing data on project progress, which could improve.
Despite companies’ commitment to these goals, experts are doubtful about their ability to meet them in the intended timeframe due to the extensive and costly transformation needed in global supply chains. Some practices associated with “regenerative agriculture” are under scrutiny, as Jason Hill, an environmental expert and professor at the University of Minnesota, pointed out that the term itself is often criticized for its lack of a clear definition. Furthermore, there are questions regarding whether these farming methods reduce emissions as claimed by the industry.
The meat and dairy industry is responsible for 14.5% of human-caused emissions, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and is scrutinized for its methane production, a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide. FAIRR’s sustainability investor group has stated that meat giant Tyson will likely not meet its goal of a 30% emissions reduction by 2030, as emissions from its operations have risen by 7% compared to its baseline target. Tyson has announced plans to update its emissions goal by the end of 2023.
To monitor emissions, many companies rely on third-party organizations for an accurate assessment of their carbon output. Climate Trace, a nonprofit tracking emissions from livestock companies, noted that accurately determining progress toward emissions goals is challenging due to a lack of reliable data sources. The nonprofit estimates emissions from farms by calculating methane released through livestock and rice cultivation.
Although CPGs express confidence in their ability to reduce emissions, sustainability groups argue this is insufficient. These groups advocate for U.S. lawmakers to regulate the carbon footprint of major food corporations. Senator Cory Booker introduced a bill in 2021 aimed at reforming the agricultural system to enhance sustainability. Walsh stated that passing this bill is crucial for reducing industry emissions and strengthening the supply chain’s resilience, especially against crises. “Factory farms contribute to a food system that is less sustainable and less resilient to various supply chain shocks,” he remarked.
FAIRR, supported by an investor network with assets totaling $70 trillion, believes that its emissions reporting can compel companies to adopt more robust emissions goals. “We have the data available for investors to use in their engagements,” said Thalia Vounaki, senior manager for research and engagements at FAIRR.
As companies navigate these complex challenges, the need for innovative solutions like now calcium citrate tablets may also emerge as part of their sustainability strategies, aligning health benefits with environmental responsibility.