Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) developed a scoring system to evaluate 13 large companies across the retail, fast food, and manufacturing sectors that source beef from South America. The methodology uses a 100-point scale across five categories: ambition of deforestation-free commitment, time-bound implementation plans, compliance, transparency, and traceability, monitoring, and verification. Scoring is based on official company sources and Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) reports, with a specific emphasis on whether commitments cover all cattle products and are global in scope.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The UCS selected 13 companies for evaluation based on their size and confirmed sourcing of beef from South America. These include manufacturing companies (ConAgra, Hormel, Jack Link’s, Mars, and Nestlé), retail companies (Walmart, Safeway, and Kroger), and fast food companies (McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, Burger King, Subway, and Wendy’s).
  • The scoring framework consists of five categories totaling 100 points: 'Traceability, Monitoring, and Verification' (35 points), 'Ambition of Deforestation-Free Commitment' (22 points), 'Transparency' (22 points), 'Time-Bound Implementation Plan' (11 points), and 'Compliance' (10 points).
  • The methodology distinguishes between 'beef' (fresh, frozen, jerky, offal, and canned corned beef) and 'cattle products' (which include beef plus tallow, leather, gelatin, and glycerol). Companies are penalized in the 'Ambition' category if their commitments cover only beef rather than all cattle products, or if they are regional rather than global.
  • The evaluation process relied on public English-language information from company sources and Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) reports collected between May 9, 2016, and June 9, 2016. The scoring was performed independently by two authors and then refined through consensus and external review.

Cite the original document

APA
Union of Concerned Scientists (2016). Cattle, Cleared Forests, and Climate Scoring. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/09/ucs-beef-scorecard-methodology-2016.pdf
Chicago
Union of Concerned Scientists. Cattle, Cleared Forests, and Climate Scoring. 2016. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/09/ucs-beef-scorecard-methodology-2016.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Union of Concerned Scientists |title=Cattle, Cleared Forests, and Climate Scoring |date=September 2016 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/09/ucs-beef-scorecard-methodology-2016.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{unionofconcernedscientists2016cattle, author = {{Union of Concerned Scientists}}, title = {{Cattle, Cleared Forests, and Climate Scoring}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2016}, month = sep, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/09/ucs-beef-scorecard-methodology-2016.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated