Big Emissions, Empty Promises

The briefing examines the climate impact of 22 global meat and dairy corporations, finding that their combined emissions are comparable to those of entire countries or major oil companies. It argues that the industry uses 'green smokescreens'—such as weak net-zero targets, unproven techno-fixes, and regenerative agriculture—to distract from the need to reduce livestock production. The document further highlights a lack of mandatory agricultural methane targets in the 11 countries where these companies are headquartered, attributing this to 'agricultural exceptionalism' and industry political influence.

• The emissions from the largest meat and dairy companies are vast; a 2022 report found that 15 of the biggest companies had combined greenhouse gas emissions slightly higher than those of Germany, and five of the largest polluters—JBS, Minerva, Marfrig, Cargill, and Dairy Farmers of America—have combined methane emissions surpassing those of ExxonMobil, Shell, TotalEnergies, Chevron, and BP.
• Corporate net-zero targets in the sector generally lack alignment with the 1.5°C warming limit. Of 15 companies with net-zero targets, only two (Danone and Nestlé) have 1.5°C targets aligned to net zero, and several companies lack Scope 3 disclosures or absolute reduction targets.
• The industry relies heavily on 'techno-fixes' and biogas, which the report describes as insufficient or misleading. While 16 of 22 companies pursue additives or vaccines, R&D spending is low—for example, JBS spends $20 million annually on these solutions, which is only 6.2% of its marketing expenditure. Biogas is criticized as a 'distraction' because 82% of cattle methane comes from enteric fermentation, while manure management accounts for only 18%.
• Regenerative agriculture is frequently used as a greenwashing tool to justify existing industrial livestock farming. The report notes that a shift to grass-fed beef in the U.S. would actually result in a 43% increase in methane emissions.
• National policy frameworks in the 11 countries where these companies are headquartered generally lack mandatory agricultural methane reduction targets. The report identifies 'agricultural exceptionalism' as a reason why the sector operates outside legally binding climate agreements, often resulting in 'all-carrots-and-no-sticks' approaches.

APA

Changing Markets Foundation (2024). Big Emissions, Empty Promises. https://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Big-Emissions-Empty-Promises.pdf

Chicago

Changing Markets Foundation. Big Emissions, Empty Promises. 2024. https://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Big-Emissions-Empty-Promises.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Changing Markets Foundation |title=Big Emissions, Empty Promises |date=November 2024 |url=https://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Big-Emissions-Empty-Promises.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{changingmarketsfoundation2024big, author = {{Changing Markets Foundation}}, title = {{Big Emissions, Empty Promises}}, institution = {Changing Markets Foundation}, year = {2024}, month = nov, url = {https://changingmarkets.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Big-Emissions-Empty-Promises.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }