Why meat and dairy climate claims are often misleading

The meat and dairy industry has become much louder about climate action in recent years. But a new study suggests that much of this environmental language is more about image than real change.

According to the researchers, most sustainability claims made by major animal agriculture companies are vague, future-focused, or poorly supported. As a result, they amount to greenwashing rather than credible climate action.

Researchers from the University of Miami examined the public sustainability reports and websites of 33 of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies. 

They focused on whether the companies’ environmental claims actually described clear, achievable plans to cut their impact or whether they mainly served as polished corporate messaging.

Meat production drives emissions

According to the study, the industry is responsible for 57 percent of total global food production emissions and at least 16.5 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. 

That means any serious global effort to cut emissions has to reckon with animal agriculture. It also means that when these companies talk about sustainability, those claims carry weight with consumers, investors, and policymakers.

The researchers wanted to know whether the environmental promises being made by these firms reflected meaningful action or whether they mostly created the appearance of progress.

To answer that, they analyzed 1,233 environmental claims published between 2021 and 2024.

Climate claims dominate messaging

One of the clearest patterns in the study was just how heavily these dairy and meat companies now lean on climate language.

Out of the 1,233 claims, 841, or 68 percent, were classified as climate-related because they addressed greenhouse gas emissions either directly or indirectly.

In other words, climate change has become the main way these firms present their sustainability efforts.

That is not especially surprising, since climate is now the dominant environmental issue in public debate, and companies clearly know that.

The study suggests the presence of climate language should not automatically be mistaken for a meaningful climate strategy.

Future promises raise questions

A large share of the claims turned out to be promises about the future that could not really be checked in the present.

The researchers found that 467 claims, or 38 percent, were unverifiable projections. These included promises to “achieve carbon neutrality by 2030” or “enable the restoration of 600 billion liters of water in water-stressed regions by 2030.”

These are the kinds of statements that sound bold and impressive but are often hard to pin down.

Companies often point far into the future without clearly explaining what will happen, how they will do it, or how anyone can judge whether they are meeting the promise.

Little proof for sustainability claims

Companies backed only 356 out of 1,233 claims (29 percent) with supporting evidence. And when the researchers looked for stronger backing from scholarly scientific evidence, the number dropped to almost nothing.

Only three claims had support from scientific research. Just two of those were climate-related. That is a strikingly small number, especially for an industry that now talks so often about environmental responsibility.

It suggests many of these companies are making confident claims without much solid evidence underneath them.

The researchers also found that 17 of the 33 companies had made net-zero commitments. That is up sharply from just four companies making such pledges in 2020.

However, these net-zero commitments appeared to rely mainly on offsetting carbon emissions rather than directly reducing them.

Offsetting allows companies to balance emissions through outside projects, at least in theory. Direct decarbonization means cutting emissions from the business itself. 

The study suggests many firms are leaning heavily on the first route, which can make progress sound more concrete than it really is.

Most claims labeled greenwashing

The researchers then used a greenwashing framework to assess the full set of claims. A total of 1,213 out of 1,233 claims, or 98 percent, could be categorized as greenwashing – a deceptive marketing tactic that portrays a company, product, or service as more environmentally friendly than it actually is.

That does not mean every company was misleading in exactly the same way. Some claims were vague, some were unverifiable, and some sounded ambitious but had little evidence behind them.

Taken together, the picture the study paints is one of an industry speaking the language of sustainability much more confidently than it demonstrates it.

The researchers note that this kind of strategy is not unique to meat and dairy since plenty of industries use soft promises, future targets, and hard-to-check claims. Still, animal agriculture stands out because its climate footprint is so large.

“Greenwashing was rampant in the sustainability reports of the world’s largest meat and dairy companies, which can create the illusion of climate progress,” said lead author Maya Bach, a graduate student at the University of Miami. 

“We are concerned that these claims can mislead the public, influence consumers, and reduce pressure on policymakers to take climate action.”

Rethinking climate language

Meat and dairy companies are increasingly emphasizing climate change in their messaging. Animal-based foods tend to produce higher emissions and environmental impacts than other food sources.

“When so much of what these companies say seems to be empty promises that are not backed up with evidence or investments, it starts to look more like a public relations exercise rather than genuine care for the planet,” said corresponding author Jennifer Jacquet from the University of Miami.

An industry with such a large climate footprint can wrap itself in green language without much evidence behind it. That can distort how progress looks and make inaction sound like responsibility.

The study was published in the journal PLOS Climate.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–