Food and agriculture industry climate commitments must go further to really make an impact
Food and agriculture giants are vocal about their climate change ambitions. However, the reality of their commitments and the impact on their emissions remains unclear.
The food and agriculture industry has embraced climate action with fervor. They’re making bold commitments and touting their sustainability credentials. This is a good thing, right?
We want more companies to take responsibility for their role in the climate crisis.
We want more transparency so that consumers can make informed choices about the products they purchase and the businesses they support.
We want more support for the farmers who see the effects of global warming on their crops, animals, and land – and thus, our food systems.
We want more solutions, expertise, and dollars to deal with the mess we’ve made.
The answers, of course, are yes. But most of all, we want them to do it right.
I recently wrote a piece for Food Fix, the go-to source for food policy news and analysis by award-winning reporter Helena Bottemiller Evich. I discussed how much substance really lies beneath the surface when it comes to corporate climate pledges within the food and agriculture sector, which have contributed to progress in the fight against climate change, though gaps persist, and challenges still lie ahead.
To read the full text of my piece, subscribe to Food Fix today, then come back to this post for my takeaways.
My three takeaways
While determining whether these commitments are translating into meaningful emissions reductions and exploring the factors hindering progress, I came away with three main takeaways.
The food and ag sector is leading the way
Climate disclosures and corporate commitments to science-based climate targets are widespread in the food and ag sector, tracking ahead of the economy at large. Most major companies (93%) disclose their emissions and nearly 80% have committed to science-based climate targets.
They’re also making progress on Scope 2 emissions. Companies are making strides in reducing emissions from their own operations (electricity generation) by installing renewable energy and buying green power
Other industries can and should look to food and ag leaders for guidance.
Gaps remain and they are gaping
Companies often lack data on how their products are grown and processed, making it hard to estimate emissions accurately. That’s not good for the company, consumer, industry, or environment.
There’s a correlation between food and agriculture sector companies without disclosures or commitments and yawning regulatory gaps in their market geographies, particularly in the United States and certain states like Texas and Florida.
Results from climate commitments and disclosures aren’t consistent
Disclosure and commitments aren’t consistently delivering improved climate performance or decreased greenhouse gas emissions, particularly in Scope 3, which often constitutes 90% or more of these companies’ emissions. Several major companies with strong commitments and long histories of disclosure have reported wild swings – even as much as 5 times over prior years – in their most recent disclosures of Scope 3 emissions.
So what needs to change?
We need to develop better tools and methods for quantifying Scope 3 emissions.
We need better data. It’s past time to finalize the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Land Sector and Removals Guidance, which will provide a clear framework for measurement. Released in draft form nearly 2 years ago, in September 2022, it’s been languishing in a piloting phase that keeps being extended. According to an update posted at the end of July, the most current estimate of public release is Q1 2025. Companies need methodological certainty to set targets and work against them and these delays jeopardize their ability to credibly set and reliably reach much needed near-term 2030 targets for emissions reductions.
We need to improve traceability of commodities like beef and soy to help companies pinpoint the source of their emissions. This is necessary not just for climate targets, but is also required for other Science Based Targets for Nature, like land and biodiversity.
And most of all, we need more widespread and consistent regulations, particularly in the U.S., Asia, and South America before Scope 3 measurements will be good enough to drive better management and effectively reduce the majority of sector emissions. The EU CSRD is a nice step, but if we wind up with a patchwork global landscape of inconsistent (or absent) regulations, we undermine companies’ ability to deliver impacts as all their energy and resources get tied up complying with reporting.
As leaders in the food and agriculture sector, we must translate commitments into real progress. Corporate climate change commitments have not yet delivered the emissions reductions needed to stave off the worst impacts of climate change. But emissions disclosure and voluntary commitments have helped many companies begin to move the needle, particularly for the emissions under their control that they can reliably measure - Scopes 1 and 2. To truly bend the curve though, we need widespread adoption and improvement in upstream accounting and disclosure. Either harmonized global regulation or at least finalized voluntary disclosure guidance is a critical missing piece to finally moving the needle on emissions.
