Search Climate Insights Directory

The report details how 'Big Meat and Dairy' companies employ tactics similar to those of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to avoid environmental regulation. These strategies include 'greenwashing' through weak net-zero targets, funding industry-biased research to minimize the impact of methane emissions, and aggressive lobbying to prevent binding legislation. The document highlights a pattern of 'carrot-only' approaches where companies promote voluntary technological fixes while spending more on advertising than on actual R&D for low-carbon solutions. A detailed case study on Italy reveals the use of transnational far-right narratives and online disinformation to frame cultivated meat as a threat to tradition and health, thereby supporting legislative bans.

The report argues that 'Big Meat and Dairy' corporations employ strategies similar to those of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to avoid environmental accountability. It identifies three primary tactics: distraction through greenwashing and targeting Gen Z; delaying action by promoting voluntary technical solutions over systemic dietary changes; and derailing legislation through political lobbying and 'revolving doors' between industry and government. The analysis covers 22 major corporations across four continents, finding that none meet UN integrity standards for climate goals. Specific case studies highlight how these tactics have weakened the EU's Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategy, influenced the US Inflation Reduction Act, and blocked agricultural emission regulations in New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, and Italy.

The report identifies a 'corporate playbook' used by the meat and dairy industry to avoid environmental regulation through three main tactics: distraction (greenwashing and funding biased science), procrastination (prioritizing advertising over low-carbon R&D), and dismantling (aggressive lobbying to weaken climate policies). It highlights how these strategies are applied globally, particularly in the EU, US, and Brazil, to maintain the status quo of animal agriculture.

The report reveals a 'corporate playbook' used by 'Big Meat and Dairy' to avoid environmental regulation through greenwashing, industry-funded science, and aggressive political lobbying. It argues that these companies use 'distract, delay and derail' tactics—similar to those used by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries—to maintain the status quo and prevent dietary shifts toward plant-based proteins. The investigation highlights how the industry promotes voluntary technological fixes over mandatory emissions cuts and leverages political influence to secure 'all-carrots-and-no-sticks' regulatory approaches.

The report exposes how 'Big Meat and Dairy' corporations employ strategies similar to those of the tobacco and fossil fuel industries to avoid environmental regulation. It identifies three primary tactics: distracting the public through greenwashing and targeting Gen Z via social media; delaying action by promoting voluntary targets and industry-funded science (such as GWP* metrics and 'regenerative agriculture'); and derailing legislation through political lobbying and 'revolving door' appointments. The analysis covers 22 major corporations across four continents, highlighting a systemic lack of scientific integrity in their climate goals and a preference for spending on advertising over low-carbon research and development. Specific case studies in the US, EU, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, and Great Britain illustrate how these tactics have successfully weakened policies like the EU Green Deal and the Global Methane Pledge.

The document argues that the EU's 2040 climate target must include a specific methane reduction target of at least 44% to prevent crossing irreversible tipping points and limit warming to 1.5 ºC. The authors express concern over the removal of a proposed 30% reduction target for non-CO2 emissions in agriculture and call for mandatory mitigation measures across the agriculture, waste, and energy sectors, including the regulation of imported fossil fuels.

The report finds that major polyester producers in India and China have deepened their reliance on Russian oil, while most fashion brands have failed to sever these links or provide transparency regarding their supply chains. It argues that the industry's shift toward recycled polyester from PET bottles is a 'false solution' that fails to address microplastic pollution or the underlying fossil fuel dependency.

The report analyzes over 285 million social media posts from June 2022 to July 2023 to identify trends in meat and dairy misinformation. It categorizes misinformation into 'disparage' narratives targeting alternatives and 'enhance' narratives promoting animal products. The study finds that a small number of 'misinfluencers' drive significant engagement, often linking food systems to far-right conspiracy theories like 'The Great Reset'. These narratives are shown to undermine scientific consensus and hinder government efforts to reduce agricultural emissions in countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands.

The report examines the GWP* metric, which focuses on changes in methane emissions over time rather than absolute levels. It argues that this methodology allows high-polluting companies and countries to present minor reductions as negative emissions, thereby escaping accountability and undermining the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C goal. Through case studies of Tyson, Fonterra, and New Zealand, the document demonstrates how GWP* can make significant emitters appear climate neutral. It further details lobbying efforts by the animal agriculture industry in the US, UK, Ireland, and New Zealand to adopt this metric.

The report identifies two primary misinformation strategies: 'disparage' (78% of cases), which attacks alternative proteins and climate science, and 'enhance' (22%), which promotes animal products through health-washing and greenwashing. It highlights the role of 'misinfluencers'—where 50 accounts drive 50% of total engagement—and examines how these narratives intersect with far-right ideologies and real-world policy debates in the Netherlands and Ireland.

The undersigned organizations argue that the EU's proposed EPR for textiles lacks essential waste prevention and performance targets, which could lead to increased exports of textile waste. They propose specific 2030 targets for collection (60%), recycling (30%), and reuse (30%), while advocating for 'progressive fees' based on production volumes to combat fast fashion. The statement also calls for the inclusion of online marketplaces in EPR obligations, the expansion of scope to include mattresses and carpets, and a governance overhaul of Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs) to prevent corporate capture.

An investigation using airtag trackers on 21 items of good-quality clothing submitted to ten fashion brands in the UK, France, Belgium, and Germany found that these take-back schemes often fail to prioritize reuse. Findings show items in excellent condition were downcycled, destroyed, or shipped to African markets where they often become waste, while others remained stagnant in warehouses. The report argues these schemes provide a false sense of environmental responsibility and often encourage further consumption through discounts, calling for stronger EU legislation and extended producer responsibility.

The document is a formal letter from several NGOs to the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) arguing that current SBTi guidelines are insufficient to meet the standards set by the UN High Level Expert Group's 'Integrity Matters' report. The authors identify gaps in environmental integrity, accountability, and credibility, specifically calling for a strict 1.5°C baseline, full Scope 3 emissions disclosure, and the phase-out of fossil fuels. They demand that SBTi increase transparency regarding company submissions and remove entities that fail to meet their commitments, citing JBS as an example of misleading claims.

The investigation tracked 21 items of clothing submitted to ten fashion brands across the UK, France, Belgium, and Germany using airtag trackers. The findings reveal a significant gap between brand promises of reuse and recycling and the actual outcomes: 60% of items were either destroyed, downcycled, or remained stuck in warehouses, while others were shipped to African markets where they often become waste. Only five items were successfully resold within Europe. The report argues that these schemes often encourage further consumption through discount vouchers and lack transparency and traceability, effectively shifting the waste burden to the Global South.

The report reveals a significant gap between the sustainability claims of fast fashion brands and the reality of their take-back schemes. By tracking 21 high-quality items across Europe, the investigation found that many items were downcycled, destroyed, or shipped to African countries where they often end up in landfills, rather than being reused or recycled into new clothing.

The report tracks 21 high-quality clothing items deposited in take-back bins of ten major fashion brands across the UK, France, Belgium, and Germany using Airtag trackers. The findings reveal a significant gap between corporate claims of 'closing the loop' and reality: many items in excellent condition were downcycled, incinerated, or exported to African markets where they often end up in landfills. The study highlights a failure in sorting processes and argues that these schemes often encourage further consumption through discount vouchers while providing consumers with a false sense of environmental responsibility. The authors call for stronger Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation in the EU to regulate waste exports and mandate reductions in overproduction.

The Changing Markets Foundation asserts that Nestlé's net zero roadmap is a "green mirage" that fails to meet any of the UN's Integrity Matters recommendations. The analysis highlights a significant "methane blindspot," noting that Nestlé does not separately report methane emissions, which are estimated to be twice those of Switzerland's entire livestock sector. The author criticizes Nestlé's reliance on regenerative agriculture over proven solutions and its strategy to grow plant-based portfolios alongside dairy rather than using them as substitutes to reduce overall emissions. Furthermore, the document claims that Nestlé's actual emissions have reduced by only 1% over five years, contradicting the company's reported 6.4% reduction achieved through "creative accounting."

The briefing finds that Nestlé's net-zero plan fails to meet any of the nine relevant recommendations from the UN Integrity Matters report, primarily due to a lack of specific methane targets and an over-reliance on regenerative agriculture. While Nestlé targets a 42% reduction in dairy and livestock emissions against a business-as-usual scenario, this represents only a 14% reduction from its 2018 baseline. The analysis estimates that Nestlé's methane emissions from cattle are roughly 8.7 million tonnes of CO2e, and notes that between 2018 and 2022, targeted GHG emissions dropped by only 1%.

The report finds that Nestlé's net-zero plan fails to meet any of the nine relevant UN Integrity Matters recommendations. It highlights a critical 'methane blindspot,' where the company avoids setting specific methane targets despite dairy and livestock being its largest emission sources. The analysis argues that Nestlé uses 'creative accounting' via business-as-usual scenarios to mask minimal absolute emission reductions and relies on unverified regenerative agriculture and insetting to meet goals. Furthermore, the report identifies greenwashing in the carbon-neutral claims of flagship brands like Nespresso and KitKat, which rely heavily on unreliable offsets.

The report finds that greenwashing is rampant in the food sector, particularly among high-emission meat and dairy companies. It highlights the use of vague or misleading terms like 'carbon neutral' and 'climate positive' to influence consumer behavior, noting that a significant portion of consumers in the UK and Germany are more likely to purchase products with such labels.