In 2024, the planet’s average temperature climbed to more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels for the first time. Our food system is massively impacted by the climate crisis. This year’s flash floods in Valencia, Spain, destroyed large parts of farmers’ citrus and vegetable harvest. Extreme heat killed over 250,000 livestock in South Korea following prior years’ patterns in Iowa and Kansas, U.S.
But the agriculture industry — and particularly the livestock industry — is also a significant contributor to fueling the crisis. While fossil fuel giants like Shell and BP have been the center of attention, the world’s meat and dairy giants have so far escaped the same level of public scrutiny as they too distract, delay and derail climate action.
IATP’s new report “New Paint on Old Barns: An Assessment of Corporate Strategies to Address Emissions in Agri-Food Supply Chains” takes a closer look at agribusiness climate strategies. It draws on examples of 14 livestock companies and four agricultural input companies that claim that they are reducing the emissions in their own supply chains.
Our analysis shows that even though there is some action in the sector, there is no reason to believe that agribusiness will voluntarily deliver the required changes at the speed or scale needed — or drive the transition in a way that is fair for farmers. The report finds that:
- Addressing the climate crisis requires real emission reductions. However, companies rely on offsetting industrial livestock production emissions with soil carbon sequestration.
- New concepts like “insetting” blur the lines between discredited approaches of offsetting corporate pollution with actions taken by others and can distract from the need for corporations to focus on reducing their own supply chain emissions
- Companies focused on technological “fixes,” like biogas or feed additives, are misguided and will maintain the existing unsustainable system. To address the climate problem of our food system, we need to move beyond industrial livestock production based on rearing ever more animals in too little space.
- Farmers, foremost smaller producers, need financial support to transition to more sustainable business models. Some companies have started to set up a form of financial incentives for their farmers to reduce emissions on their farms, through carbon credit markets or payments for implementing specific practices. But questions remain as to whether this will be sufficient.
- Corporations are collecting large amounts of on-farm data to implement their strategies, which raises concerns about farmers becoming even more dependent on already powerful businesses. Corporate climate plans should not allow companies to gain more control over farmers.
The European Union is in the process of formulating its 2040 climate target and policy package, with discussions already underway on what role corporate actors in the agri-food value chain should play in this transition.
Four questions emerge from our assessment of current corporate climate plans that should be considered when assessing any forthcoming policy proposals:
- Does the policy result in companies taking responsibility for the emissions occurring in their own supply chains?
- Does the policy incentivize transformation of the sector rather than relying on technological fixes that uphold the polluting livestock industry or seek to offset emissions with soil carbon sequestration?
- Does the policy provide stable and sufficient financial support for farmers to sustain a just transition?
- Does the policy worsen the power dynamics between farmers and companies in the supply chain, for instance, through control of sensitive farm data?
As we see the climate crisis worsening, the transition to a different food and agriculture system is inevitable. But whether the transition will be just and well-managed is not. Policymakers should look at existing corporate examples of climate plans in the agri-food sector not as blueprints but as cautionary tales.
Read the full report here.
