New York is Suing One of the Country’s Largest Meat Processors for Greenwashing
JBS is facing a lawsuit for making false climate claims. Here’s why that’s a big deal.
JBS USA is one of the largest meat processors in the world, self-reportedly generating 32 billion pounds of product each year. A few years ago, JBS announced that it would “achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2040.” Typically, this is understood to mean reducing as much pollution as possible, while undertaking climate benefitting measures to offset unavoidable emissions. JBS promised to eliminate Amazon deforestation from its supply chain within a few years and cut its emissions by 30 percent by 2030. It promised to deliver bacon and chicken wings as a climate solution—with zero emissions.
And then it got sued for it.
New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against JBS because its claim of pursuing net neutral emissions is not substantiated by actual changes in company behavior. Not only has the company not established an accurate enough estimate of its emissions, it has documented plans to increase production, which will increase emissions. JBS USA’s parent company reported greenhouse gas emissions of 71 million tons in 2021. This is higher than the total emissions of some countries. Concentrated animal agriculture is high in emissions because of things such as improper manure management and land used to grow feed. However, JBS’s estimate of its footprint does not include the emissions impact of deforestation—the company is responsible for clearing millions of acres in the Amazon.
This lawsuit alleges that JBS made these declarations anyway, knowing that it would be received positively by the public, creating a financial incentive. This is known as “greenwashing.”
JBS is not the only company to make extravagant climate claims. Many companies have made similar pledges. As a business, committing to reducing your emissions footprint is a good thing, when it’s done authentically. This lawsuit is an attempt to hold a company accountable for benefitting from an untrue message.
The outcome of this case could set an important precedent in the food industry and beyond.
Futurewashing
Tom Lyon, PhD, of the University of Michigan and the Greenwash Lab, says that he thinks James has a good case and could win.
“JBS hadn’t done anything to measure their existing footprint,” says Lyon. “So, if you have no idea of what your current footprint is, it’s really hard to develop a credible plan for reducing it over time.”
JBS is not the only company that has made a promise to achieve net zero emissions by a certain year. When a promise is not backed by a legitimate plan, this is a particular type of greenwashing called “futurewashing,” says Lyon.
“When we get to this futurewashing, it’s just a story about the future,” says Lyon. “So, there’s no way to verify if it’s true or not, because it hasn’t happened yet.”
READ MORE
Want to eat less meat but aren’t sure where to start? Sign up for Vox’s Meat/Less newsletter course.
There’s still a lot of gray area when it comes to the legal repercussions of greenwashing, but outside of the US, strides are being made.
This year, Canada passed a new law that requires companies to back up their sustainability claims. Companies that put forth net zero plans must also shoulder a burden of proof.
“If they don’t have any documentation to back it up, then they may be at risk of some sort of litigation,” says Lyon.
The United Nations, the Science Based Targets Initiative, and others are reaching a shared, science-backed understanding of what “net zero” can mean in the corporate world.
If James wins this case, it will mean that JBS must cease its “net zero by 2040” claims to continue selling its product in New York, potentially having a ripple effect beyond just one state.
Connect with experts
“When you have too many animals in one place, you’re going to have too much waste in one place, and that waste becomes a problem—that waste becomes a pollutant,” says Chris Hunt, Deputy Director of Socially Responsible Agriculture Project (SRAP). Modern Farmer’s reporting is strengthened by the expertise of organizations like SRAP.
Skepticism and grace
Maisie Ganzler, a strategic advisor for Bon Appétit Management Company, says that bold company goals need to be grounded in reality and transparency. There’s a difference between corporate greenwashing and failing to achieve a goal that was planned.
“We do need companies to make bold commitments to stick their neck out, maybe even without having all of their ducks in a row and their plans in place. But that’s very different than making a claim that is seemingly impossible, that you don’t have any plan as to…how to measure, much less how to meet.”
In Ganzler’s recent book, You Can’t Market Manure at Lunchtime: And Other Lessons from the Food Industry for Creating a More Sustainable Company, she writes that companies that make positive strides toward authentic sustainability can create a ripple effect toward industry change, for good and bad.
“I think that when one company sets the bar, their competitors have to come to that bar,” says Ganzler. “And a lot of positive change is made that way with true leaders raising the bar on their industry and forcing others along. But there is the shadow side of when false promises are made, it inspires other companies to also make false promises to appear competitive.”
LEARN MORE
Watch Right to Harm, a documentary about how industrial animal production affects communities living nearby.
For companies that want to be leaders in sustainability without greenwashing, Ganzler recommends setting audacious goals with specific plans to achieve them. Don’t make a promise about something that is beyond your scope to know, such as what happens at every stage in the supply chain. If those plans go awry, be transparent with your consumers about why. In her book, Ganzler details an experience she had at Bon Appétit, when she realized that its pork supplier wasn’t meeting the welfare standards to which Bon Appétit had committed. Bon Appétit had inaccurately overstated its supplier’s welfare practices, but found a new supplier and issued a press release owning up to the mistake. Instead of facing backlash, Bon Appétit was praised by the Humane Society for its progress.
As for consumers, Ganzler says everyone has a responsibility to do a little bit of research. But in the end, it’s important to approach the companies they shop from with a balanced perspective.
“[You should have] both a healthy dose of skepticism, but also on the other side, a healthy dose of grace,” says Ganzler. “You should question commitments that companies are making, but also have grace for companies who aren’t truly trying to do the right thing and may fall short.”
We have seen “positive strides toward authentic sustainability can create a ripple effect toward industry change, for good and bad.” Not only have our competitors tried to come to the bar, but also our suppliers. I worked for Bon Appétit in the infancy of the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program. These were very difficult conversations with suppliers and local fishermen. The changes not only in restaurants but in the retail industry and consumer education are amazing. “I think that when one company sets the bar, their competitors have to come to that bar,” says Ganzler. “And a lot of positive… Read more »
If the company is sued and loses, what do they lose? Are there meaningful fines? We know that operations will not be shut down. Do they get to continue business as usual only in the absence of meaningless rhetoric? A company “MAY be at risk for some sort of litigation” is governmental code for “no consequences”.