Search Climate Insights Directory

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform Itoham Foods Inc. that it scored 1.6 out of 100 in a ranking of meat and dairy companies' climate policies, specifically noting a lack of methane-specific emissions reporting and targets. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins and recommends the adoption of science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, including the reduction of absolute emissions and support for sustainable diets.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to JBS Foods to demand concrete action and transparency regarding methane emissions. Citing their 'Blindspot' report, the authors state that none of the 20 largest meat and dairy companies analysed report methane emissions separately or have meaningful targets to reduce them. JBS specifically scored 9.6 out of 100 in the ranking. The letter recommends that JBS set science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C, report absolute emissions rather than intensity, and invest in alternative proteins. It also requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations wrote to Lactalis Group on 20 December 2021, citing a report that found a "complete lack of action" among the 20 largest meat and dairy companies regarding methane emissions. The letter highlights that Lactalis scored 3.2 out of 100 in their ranking and lacks specific methane targets or separate emissions reporting. The authors recommend that Lactalis set science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, establish absolute methane reduction plans, invest in alternative proteins, and support policies promoting sustainable diets. The letter also requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and dairy alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organizations write to Marfrig to highlight the company's lack of concrete methane reduction targets and to request specific data on investments in abatement technologies and meat alternatives.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform Mengniu Dairy that it scored 4.0 out of 100 in a ranking of climate policies, noting the company has not set specific methane reduction targets or reported methane-specific emissions. The authors call for the company to adopt science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, report CO2 and methane separately, and invest in alternative proteins.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to Nestlé CEO Mark Schneider to demand transparency and action on methane emissions. Referencing their 'Blindspot' report, the authors state that none of the 20 largest meat and dairy companies analysed report methane emissions separately or have concrete targets to reduce them. Nestlé specifically scored 34.6 out of 100 in the ranking, indicating insufficient action. The letter requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives over the last five years and recommends that Nestlé set science-based targets for absolute emissions reductions, including scope 3, and support policies that drive a shift toward sustainable diets.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform NH Foods Ltd that it scored 7.2 out of 100 in a ranking of meat and dairy companies' climate policies, citing a lack of specific methane reduction targets or separate emissions reporting. The authors demand disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins over the last five years and recommend that the company set absolute methane reduction targets aligned with a 1.5°C global heating limit.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to OSI Group to highlight the company's poor performance in methane emission reductions, scoring 4.0 out of 100 in a ranking of 20 meat and dairy companies. The letter notes that none of the analysed companies report methane emissions separately or have concrete targets to reduce them. It recommends that OSI Group set science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C, establish absolute methane reduction plans, invest in alternative proteins, and support policies promoting sustainable diets. The authors request specific data on investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform Saputo Inc. that the company scored 8.0 out of 100 in a ranking of meat and dairy companies' climate policies, specifically noting a lack of methane-specific targets or reporting. The letter demands disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins, and recommends that Saputo adopt science-based targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, including scope 3 emissions.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to Tyson Foods to demand the implementation of science-based methane reduction targets and the disclosure of investments in methane abatement and alternative proteins. The letter references a report, 'Blindspot', which found that none of the 20 largest meat and dairy companies analysed report methane emissions separately or have concrete action plans to reduce them. Specifically, Tyson Foods scored 11.2 out of 100 in the ranking, showing no action toward methane reduction. The authors recommend that Tyson set targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, report absolute emissions rather than intensity, and support policies that shift diets toward sustainable, low-carbon food systems.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform Vion Food Group that it scored 4.0 out of 100 in a ranking of meat and dairy companies' climate policies, specifically noting a lack of methane-specific emissions reporting and reduction targets. The authors recommend that Vion set science-based targets aligned with 1.5°C, report CO2 and methane emissions separately, and invest in alternative proteins. The letter requests specific data on investments in methane abatement and meat alternatives over the last five years.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to Yili Industrial Group highlighting that the company scored 3.2 out of 100 in a ranking of climate policies, indicating a lack of action on methane emissions. The authors demand disclosure of investments in methane abatement and protein alternatives, and recommend that Yili set absolute methane reduction targets and support policies for sustainable diets.

The Changing Markets Foundation and other organisations urge the European Commission to strengthen the 2020 EU Methane Strategy by setting specific EU-wide and national targets for the agriculture sector. They highlight that agriculture accounts for 53% of anthropogenic methane emissions in the EU, with the vast majority coming from enteric fermentation and manure management. The authors call for binding monitoring, reporting, and reduction measures for large meat and dairy corporations, noting that none of the 20 largest EU-headquartered firms in this sector currently report their methane emissions. They specifically recommend targeting large farms with more than 50 livestock units, which are responsible for approximately 40% of all methane emissions in the EU.

Reclaim Finance criticizes the Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) for its energy sector benchmark, claiming it erroneously labels companies like TotalEnergies, Eni, and RWE as 1.5°C-aligned. The author argues the TPI methodology is flawed because it relies on company declarations rather than capital expenditure plans, ignores scope 3 emission targets, and overlooks the necessity of immediate short-term emission cuts, focusing instead on long-term targets for 2050.

As of November 16, 2021, net zero target coverage reached 92% for emissions and 86% for population globally. However, the document highlights significant gaps in integrity, noting that a vast majority of country, regional, and city targets fail to specify the use of offsets, and only 32% of corporate targets cover all Scope 3 emissions. Conversely, there is growing corporate momentum, with the number of companies meeting 'minimum procedural standards' nearly doubling in the last year.

The briefing argues that while multilateral development banks (MDBs) have made some progress in aligning direct investments with the Paris Agreement, they remain far from fulfilling their overall commitment. Key deficiencies include a lack of standardized fossil fuel exclusion policies, inconsistent greenhouse gas accounting, and a failure to align indirect investments and policy-based loans. The author emphasizes that MDBs must reform their financial instruments and engage in debt relief to ensure developing countries do not sacrifice climate action due to COVID-19 related debt burdens.

The report documents the legal victory of Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, where the District Court in The Hague ordered Shell to reduce its net carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 relative to 2019 levels. It explains the use of the 'duty of care' and human rights arguments to hold a corporate actor liable for its contribution to climate change, including Scope 3 emissions. The document also provides a 'mini-toolkit' for other NGOs planning strategic climate litigation, covering research, fundraising, and media strategies.

The report critiques the GFANZ network, noting that while it represents over a third of the world's investable capital, its guidelines are riddled with loopholes. Key failures include the lack of mandatory absolute emission targets, the omission of fossil fuel restrictions in the Race to Zero criteria, and a reliance on 'analysis paralysis' through complex financed emissions accounting. The author recommends that alliances mandate the cessation of financial services for new fossil fuel supply and require clients to adopt robust phase-out plans for coal, oil, and gas.

The document argues that Shell engaged in a campaign of deception regarding climate change despite internal reports as early as 1988 warning that impacts could be the greatest in recorded history. It highlights a contradiction between Shell's public net-zero pledges and its financial investments, noting that between 2010 and 2018, only 1.3% of capital expenditures went to low-carbon projects. Furthermore, the briefing asserts that Shell's nature-based offset plans are unrealistic, requiring forest planting on a scale comparable to the size of Spain or Brazil.

The report argues that methane emissions from livestock are a critical 'blind spot' in climate policies. It finds that neither the 18 largest producing countries nor the 20 largest industry companies have set sufficient targets to reduce methane, often ignoring the necessity of reducing livestock numbers and meat consumption to meet Paris Agreement goals.