Search Climate Insights Directory

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform Saputo Inc. that its estimated methane emissions are 0.4 million tonnes, representing 59% to 81% of its overall greenhouse gas emissions depending on the GWP factor used. The letter highlights a systemic lack of transparency among 15 major meat and dairy companies, which collectively emit 12.8 million tonnes of methane—over 80% of the European Union's methane footprint. The authors recommend that Saputo set absolute emissions reduction targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, establish separate methane targets, reduce animal numbers in supply chains, and support policies for sustainable diets.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform Tyson Foods that its estimated methane emissions are 1.6 million tonnes, representing 51% to 75% of its overall greenhouse gas emissions depending on the GWP factor used. The authors highlight a systemic lack of transparency in the meat and dairy industry, noting that none of the 15 largest companies examined disclose supply chain methane emissions. They recommend that Tyson set absolute emissions reduction targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, establish separate methane targets, reduce animal numbers in supply chains, and support policies promoting sustainable diets.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations inform WH Group that its estimated methane emissions are 0.3 million tonnes, contributing to a broader industry trend of poor transparency regarding Scope 3 emissions. The letter recommends that the company set absolute emissions reduction targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, establish separate methane targets, reduce animal numbers in supply chains, and align with UN standards for net-zero commitments.

The Changing Markets Foundation and partner organisations write to Yili to highlight the company's estimated methane emissions of 0.4 million tonnes and the lack of public disclosure regarding its supply chain emissions. The letter calls for Yili to set absolute emissions reduction targets aligned with a 1.5°C limit, establish separate methane targets, reduce animal numbers in its supply chain, and align its lobbying with global climate goals.

The report finds that the fashion industry remains heavily dependent on synthetic fibres, with 25% of analyzed brands increasing their use. It highlights a significant lack of supply chain transparency and an overreliance on recycled polyester from PET bottles rather than fibre-to-fibre recycling. While many brands support proposed EU Textile Strategy legislation, there is a stark gap between their public sustainability marketing and actual decarbonization progress.

The report finds that the fashion industry remains heavily dependent on synthetic fibres, with 25% of analyzed brands increasing their use. It highlights a critical lack of transparency in supply chains and criticizes the reliance on PET bottle recycling as a 'false solution' that does not reduce overall synthetic volumes. Most brands fail to address microfiber pollution or invest significantly in fiber-to-fiber recycling, while some continue to source polyester from coal-based production despite climate pledges.

The report finds that the fashion industry remains heavily dependent on synthetic fibres, with 25% of analyzed brands increasing their use over the last five years. It highlights a systemic lack of supply chain transparency, an over-reliance on recycled polyester from PET bottles as a 'false solution', and a failure to set absolute Scope 3 emissions targets. While many brands express support for the EU Textile Strategy's regulatory measures, the report argues there is a significant gap between these public stances and actual corporate action.

The report exposes how major fashion brands continue to indirectly fund the Russian economy through their reliance on polyester produced by Reliance Industries and Hengli Group, both of which import Russian oil. It further highlights the industry's lack of transparency regarding synthetic supply chains and the risk of brands sourcing polyester made from coal or fracked gas.

The Changing Markets Foundation found that 78% of 50 investigated fashion brands are linked to Reliance Industries (India) and Hengli Group (China), both of which source Russian oil. Despite many brands exiting the Russian market after the invasion of Ukraine, they continue to indirectly support the Russian economy through these synthetic fabric supply chains. The report also highlights risks of brands sourcing polyester made from coal and fracking gas, and criticizes the severe lack of transparency regarding synthetic fiber suppliers.

The Changing Markets Foundation found that 78% of 50 investigated fashion brands are linked to Reliance Industries or Hengli Group, both of which source Russian oil for polyester production. This occurs despite many brands suspending operations in Russia following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The report also highlights a lack of supply chain transparency and the risk of brands sourcing polyester from coal and fracked gas.

The report reveals that 39 out of 50 studied fashion brands are linked to Reliance Industries (India) and Hengli Group (China), both of which import Russian oil to produce polyester. Despite many brands suspending operations in Russia, their reliance on synthetic fibers continues to support the Russian economy. The investigation also highlights the use of other controversial fossil fuels, including coal-to-polyester projects and oil from Saudi Aramco, while noting a severe lack of transparency in synthetic supply chains, with 84% of responding brands providing limited information.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies produce combined methane emissions of 12.8 million tonnes, representing 11.1% of global livestock-related methane. These emissions exceed the total methane footprints of countries like Russia, Canada, and Australia. The authors highlight a severe lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the analyzed companies fail to report total supply chain (scope 3) emissions. The report criticizes governments for relying on 'techno fixes' like anaerobic digesters rather than reducing livestock numbers, and calls for binding targets and a just transition toward agroecology.

The report estimates that five major meat and ten major dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 11.1% of global anthropogenic methane emissions from livestock. These companies' total greenhouse gas emissions (734 million tonnes CO2 equivalent) exceed those of Germany. The authors highlight a significant lack of transparency, noting that 60% of these companies do not report full supply chain (Scope 3) emissions, and none report supply-chain methane. The document calls for mandatory emissions disclosure and a reduction in livestock numbers to meet the 1.5°C global warming limit.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of livestock-related methane. These combined emissions exceed the methane footprints of several countries, including Russia, Canada, Australia, and Germany. The authors highlight a pervasive lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the companies fail to report total GHGs or scope 3 emissions, and none report supply chain methane. The report calls for mandatory reporting, binding reduction targets, and a systemic shift away from industrial animal agriculture.

The report estimates that five of the largest meat companies and ten of the largest dairy corporations emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock methane. Total greenhouse gas emissions for these companies reach 734 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, exceeding Germany's national emissions. The authors highlight a lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of the analyzed companies do not report total emissions or Scope 3 emissions, and none reported supply chain methane. The report calls for binding reduction targets, mandatory reporting, and a systemic shift toward agroecology to meet the 1.5°C global warming limit.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock methane. The combined greenhouse gas emissions of these companies (734 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent) exceed those of Germany. The document highlights a significant lack of corporate transparency, with 60% of the analyzed companies failing to report total emissions or scope 3 emissions. It calls for binding emission targets, mandatory reporting, and a systemic shift toward agroecology to meet the 1.5°C warming limit.

The report finds that 15 major meat and dairy companies collectively emit approximately 12.8 million tonnes of methane, representing 3.4% of all anthropogenic global methane emissions and 11.1% of global livestock-related methane. The authors highlight a significant lack of corporate transparency, noting that 60% of these companies do not report total emissions across their value chain (Scope 3). The document calls for binding government targets for agricultural emissions and a systemic shift toward agroecological systems to meet the 1.5°C warming limit.

The document argues that current efforts, including the Global Methane Pledge, are insufficient to meet the 40–45% reduction in methane emissions required by 2030. It proposes a global agreement based on three pillars: an updated monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) framework; national methane action plans for the energy, agriculture, and waste sectors; and technical and financial assistance for developing countries.

The document argues that the EU faces a 'policy vacuum' regarding methane emissions from livestock farming, which accounts for 53% of the EU's anthropogenic methane. While the Global Methane Pledge targets a 30% reduction by 2030, business-as-usual projections suggest livestock methane will only drop by 3.7%. The report identifies failures in the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and the Effort Sharing Regulation, and highlights the undue influence of the agri-food lobby on the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED). It concludes that shifting to healthier diets offers the highest potential for reductions and calls for a specific 2030 methane reduction target.

The document advocates for the European Commission to maintain and strengthen the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) by targeting industrial farms with 150 or more Livestock Units (LSU). It argues that these farms, representing only 7.5% of EU livestock farms, are responsible for a disproportionate share of ammonia and methane emissions. The authors reject 'light' permitting systems and registration systems, calling for robust pollution prevention and animal welfare measures to meet the goals of the European Green Deal and the Global Methane Pledge.