Brazilian beef group JBS is no stranger to controversy. Yet as it strives to shake off past storms over deforestation and corruption to brandish its ambitious net zero targets, critics maintain its continued lack of transparency renders any commitments meaningless.
JBS is the largest meatpacker in the world with an annual turnover of $70bn and a portfolio of brands including Pilgrim’s Pride and Moy Park. It is also the meat company with the most-exposure to deforestation risk in the Brazilian Amazon, according to the environmental think tank Imazon.
In its latest sustainability report released in August, JBS reiterated its target to achieve net zero by 2040, an ambition which will require it to mitigate a footprint similar to that of the Netherlands. (The Netherlands is committed to net zero by 2050.) To achieve this, JBS says ending deforestation is the “greatest opportunity for reducing indirect GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions.”
These indirect emissions – known as scope 3 – make up 97% of the company’s total and saw a 7% fall last year compared to when they were first calculated in 2021, according to the report. Crucially, however, this “does not include emissions associated with land use change as those calculations are currently being improved”.
JBS does not specify the sources of its scope 3 emissions, an omission widely criticised by external observers. Three years in a row, its 2040 net-zero goal has ranked “very low” for both transparency and integrity by the Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor, which “did not find evidence of any planned deep decarbonisation measures” in the company’s previous sustainability reports.
“JBS’s emissions disclosure does not allow for a thorough understanding of the emission sources and effectiveness of potential mitigation measures,” it said last year.
Gemma Hoskins, UK senior director at Mighty Earth, believes it is “odd [JBS] are still banding the 2040 net zero date given 97% of their total emissions are in scope 3, and by their own language, they have very little ability to control that.”
Hoskins contrasts the numerous mentions of net zero in JBS’s sustainability reporting to a total absence in its ‘F4’ submission to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ahead of a planned public listing on the New York Stock Exchange.
“It's very strange,” she says, suggesting one reason might be that unlike an annual sustainability report, the F4 is a legal document that could leave JBS open to legal recourse.
This week, 18 investors representing $22bn in assets wrote to the SEC calling for JBS’s IPO to be halted “until it aligns its environmental rhetoric with its true environmental impacts.”
Can blockchain help JBS tackle deforestation?
JBS maintains it is tackling deforestation in all its supply chains and has already eliminated illegal deforestation from direct sellers. It is now aiming to do the same for indirect supply chains by the end of 2025.
It attributes this in large part to its Transparent Livestock Farming Platform which uses blockchain technology to monitor both direct and indirect suppliers for environmental harms, labour abuse, and invasion of indigenous lands. JBS says more than 62% of the cattle it processed last year were enrolled on the platform and it aims to achieve 100% participation by 2025.
JBS has also invested $43m in a mandatory animal identification scheme to enhance transparency and traceability in the Amazon cattle supply. The scheme was launched by Brazilian local government last year and JBS says the money will go towards helping cattle producers pay for identification tags.
Can feed additives alone lower JBS’s methane production?
The livestock sector is estimated to be responsible for 80% of global methane emissions and JBS acknowledges a reduction will be crucial for sustainable livestock production. To try and achieve this, it is investing in new feed additives to enhance digestion and lower methane production, with five types of feed additives tested in its Brazilian feedlots so far.
Methane is responsible for more than 25% of global warming and because it traps more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, it is 80 times more harmful for the 20 years after it is released, according to the UN. But because methane has a much shorter lifespan, reducing it is the “low hanging fruit of climate mitigation”, the UN adds.
JBS does not specify how much methane it produces, leaving observers again unable to assess its reduction plans. “What would be really helpful to see from JBS is what proportion of its estimated scope 3 comes from methane,” says Hoskins. “Because we really need a rapid drive down of greenhouse gases, and obviously tackling methane would offer us some sort of shorter-term relief.”
In total, JBS has invested $150m in projects to reduce scope 1 and 2 emissions within its own operations, and $5m for scope 3. The company claims some success on scope 1 and 2 with a reduction of 17% compared to its 2019 baseline. Its target is a 30% reduction by 2030.
These scope 1 and 2 projects are primarily tied to energy use and methane destruction which will collectively represent an annual reduction of over 400,000 metric tons of CO2e. This is equivalent to 6% of the company’s total scope 1 and 2 emissions in 2023.
“In the US, we have multiple methane-to-renewable-energy conversion initiatives, and in the UK, we have invested in climate-smart facility upgrades and an off-grid poultry farm of the future among other initiatives,” says the report.
Getting its house in order
It has also begun implementing a sustainability platform called Envizi which will house data from every JBS facility on its scope 1 and 2 emissions, energy, water, and waste, in addition to scope 3 emissions.
JBS says “having a single system of record for environmental indicators will allow us to better assess our performance in real time, compare progress between regions and business units, and identify opportunities for future reductions.”
But independent analysts continue to warn JBS is failing to honour its climate pledges. In March, JBS – along with hundreds of companies including Unilever and Microsoft - was struck off the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), an independent standard-setting body for corporate climate goals, after failing to submit sufficiently ambitious targets to limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
In last month’s sustainability report, JBS said SBTi “created new requirements and draft methodologies for agriculture-based companies that fundamentally altered the goal-setting process”. Nonetheless, “our climate ambitions are unwavering,” it says.
Greenwashing accusations persist
US officials are also cracking down. Two weeks prior to its removal from the SBTi register, New York officials announced the state was suing the American arm of JBS, accusing it of “greenwashing” after misrepresenting “fake sustainability claims to boost sales”.
The state’s attorney general Letitia James said the company had pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2040 despite not having a feasible plan to achieve this goal.
In a statement, JBS said it disagreed with the lawsuit and pledged to continue partnering with farmers, ranchers and others toward a "more sustainable future for agriculture".
