[[link removed]]

PORTSIDE CULTURE

DANONE AND NESTLÉ HIT BACK AFTER NEW REPORT ACCUSES BIG FOOD OF
‘CORPORATE GREENWASHING.’  
[[link removed]]


 

Elaine Watson
June 5, 2025
Agfundernews.com
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Climate progress by large food companies is hobbled by lack of
commitment to deep, structural emission reductions, especially
regarding methane. _

NewClimate Institute and Carbon Market Watch: Corporate Climate
Responsibility Monitor 2025, Agfundernews

 

The world’s largest food companies are overstating their climate
progress by “relying on carbon removals and weak certifications”
while failing to cut emissions at source, claims a new report
[[link removed]] accusing
firms of “corporate greenwashing.”

According to the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor 2025
[[link removed]],
relying on land-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to meet
sustainability targets via carbon insetting or offsetting initiatives
such as soil carbon sequestration or reforestation distracts from the
need to reduce emissions at source.

According to the report, penned by nonprofits NewClimate Institute
[[link removed]] and Carbon Market Watch,
[[link removed]] “This focus on CDR distracts
distracts from their lack of commitments to deep, structural emission
reductions, especially regarding methane.

“While the draft GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance
[[link removed]] recommends
setting separate targets for emissions reductions and removals, the
current SBTi FLAG guidance
[[link removed]]appears
to allow companies to count removals toward their reduction targets.
Danone, Nestlé and PepsiCo seem to be taking this approach.”

It adds: “Companies are exploiting loopholes in voluntary standards
like SBTi FLAG
[[link removed]] and
the GHG Protocol [[link removed]], which allow them to
blend removals with reductions in a single figure, masking a lack of
real mitigation.”

While all companies apart from meat giant JBS have committed to source
deforestation-free commodities by 2025, meanwhile, these commitments
“include caveats such as limited coverage of commodities or only
covering direct suppliers,” claims the report.

“Targets on sourcing deforestation-free cocoa appear to be the
weakest: Nestlé is not on track to reach its 2025 commitment, PepsiCo
does not provide information on its progress, and Mars does not
present a target year for sourcing 100% deforestation-free cocoa.”

It also takes issue with the use of “commodity certificates without
physical traceability” such as the RSPO’s “book and claim”
initiative
[[link removed]],
which allows companies to buy credits that support the production of
certified sustainable palm oil but do not guarantee that the palm oil
they use in their products can be traced to a sustainable source.
Supporters of the scheme, however, say that what matters is whether it
is increasing the acreage of sustainable palm oil, not exactly where
that oil ends up.

‘A MISLEADING IMPRESSION OF PROGRESS’

Overall, the report “raises serious concerns about corporate
greenwashing
[[link removed]] and
the integrity of food sector climate commitments,” say the authors.

“None of the companies assessed has committed to reducing livestock
production or meaningfully shifting to plant-based protein, despite
livestock being the sector’s largest emissions source. Fertilizer
emissions, responsible for roughly 25% of agricultural greenhouse
gases, are largely ignored.”

The report recommends that emissions reduction targets are set
separately from carbon removals; that targets should be broken down by
gas (methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide); that companies avoid
using untraceable certificates to claim emissions reductions; and that
standard-setters “urgently close loopholes in climate reporting
frameworks, requiring separate accounting for reductions and
removals.”

ACCORDING TO THE REPORT:

* “NESTLÉ could rely on land-based removals for up to 80% of its
2030 target. The removals are poorly defined, lack transparency, and
create a misleading impression of progress.
* “JBS has no valid emissions reduction target, continues
expanding its high-emissions operations, and omits deforestation
emissions from its disclosures. Its interim targets for 2030 would
lead to a 1% emission reduction compared to its reported 2019
emissions, if interpreted generously.
* “PEPSICO lacks targets for methane or food waste reduction.
Virgin plastic use is rising, even though packaging accounts for 25%
of its total emissions.
* “MARS has no plan to shift away from animal-based protein and
is preparing to include removals in future climate targets, despite
lacking a credible transition strategy.
* “DANONE is the only company with a methane reduction target
(30% from fresh milk by 2030) and plans to grow its plant-based
portfolio. However, it also intends to rely on removals without
setting clear limits.”

NESTLÉ: ‘OUR PROGRESS IS CLEAR’

Nestlé rejected the greenwashing allegations,
telling _AgFunderNews_ that it “disagrees with the conclusions of
the report, which do not reflect Nestlé’s progress and commitment
to achieve its net zero commitments.”

Asked to address claims about an over-reliance on land-based removals
rather than reductions in emissions at source, the company claimed
that 91% of the decline in its GHG emissions in 2024 was due to
reductions, with the remaining 9% from “high quality carbon removals
within our value chain.”

It added: “Since carbon reductions alone are insufficient to enable
the agri-food sector to meet Net Zero, capturing carbon from the
atmosphere offers an opportunity for the sector and removing carbon
for example, through agroforestry programs, also has wider benefits
– e.g., for biodiversity and helps restore degraded land.”

Meanwhile, Nestlé has reduced methane emissions by 20.56% versus
2018, it claimed. “We are reducing our greenhouse gas emissions,
including methane, as part of our Net Zero roadmap which has
SBTi-validated targets. Rather than setting targets for individual
gases, we are focused on reducing our absolute GHG emissions by 50% by
2030. This includes reducing methane from dairy and livestock.

“Our progress is clear: we have reduced GHG emissions by 20.38%
versus 2018, one year ahead of our target, and we have sourced 21.3%
of our key ingredients from farmers adopting regenerative agriculture
practices, one year ahead of our target as well.”

Finally, “93.5% of our primary supply chain was assessed as
deforestation-free for coffee, cocoa, meat, palm oil, pulp and paper,
soy and sugar,” added the food giant.

“We believe that a mix of different measures will help us to reduce
emissions. For example, we work closely with farmers and run more than
100 climate projects worldwide to reduce and remove GHG emissions and
support regenerative agriculture on dairy farms
[[link removed]].
Also, we are exploring
[[link removed]]
feed solutions to reduce methane produced during digestion. “

DANONE: ‘STEADY PROGRESS’

Asked about the report’s claims that Danone is overly reliant on
carbon removals rather than reducing its own emissions, Danone told
us: “Although we see value in helping farming partners transition to
regenerative agriculture practices
[[link removed]],
these targets do not include soil carbon removals.”

The company added: “In 2024, we made steady progress on the eight
strategic programs of our climate transition plan, which are currently
on track to achieve their near-term objectives. We will continue to
operate in a transparent way as we move ahead with our plans to cut
emissions and achieve a traceable, verified deforestation- and
conversion-free value chain on our key direct commodities by 2025.

“Danone is fully committed to reducing GHG emissions across its full
value chain, with ambitious 2030 reduction targets and 2050 Net Zero
targets aligned with 1.5°C pathway on scopes 1, 2 and 3, that have
been validated by the Science Based Target initiative (SBTi).”

JBS, Mars, and PepsiCo did not respond to requests for comment.

* greenwashing
[[link removed]]
* food companies
[[link removed]]
* Climate Change
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit portside.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 



########################################################################

[link removed]

To unsubscribe from the xxxxxx list, click the following link:
[link removed]