When Letitia James, the New York attorney general, made the announcement that she would be filing a lawsuit against JBS, the largest meat company in the world, for deceiving customers about its climate commitments, it generated widespread attention beyond just the food industry. Experts believe that the implications of this lawsuit have the power to shape how large corporations approach their advertising of sustainability.
ExxonMobil is facing allegations of “greenwashing” after it was revealed that the company failed to invest in a carbon capture plan that it had promoted.
According to Todd Paglia, executive director of environmental non-profit Stand.earth, there has been a surge in lawsuits targeting major airline, automobile, and fashion companies for their greenwashing practices. Paglia states that for the past two decades, companies have been dishonest about their environmental and climate justice impacts. However, he believes that the tide is turning, with Europe and the US starting to crack down on these deceptive practices. Paglia emphasizes that greenwashing will be a critical issue over the next five years.
Research indicates that consumers are becoming more aware of the importance of sustainable products, leading to increased demand for such goods. This growing trend has caught the attention of large corporations, prompting them to respond accordingly. However, instead of implementing genuine changes in their practices, many businesses resort to misleading messaging that falsely portrays their products as more environmentally friendly than they truly are, all in an effort to retain customer satisfaction.
The attorney general alleges that JBS, the parent company of well-known brands and subsidiaries like Swift, Certified Angus Beef, Pilgrim’s Pride, and Grass Run Farms, is not living up to its claims of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to the legal complaint, JBS has made extensive promises to consumers about becoming “Net Zero by 2040.” However, the complaint argues that these claims lack substance, as JBS has not taken concrete actions toward achieving these goals. Furthermore, in a public forum in September 2023, the CEO openly admitted that the company doesn’t even have the knowledge to calculate all of its emissions. Consequently, if JBS cannot measure its emissions, it will be unable to effectively address and mitigate them.
Peter Lehner, managing attorney of the sustainable food and farming program at Earthjustice, pointed out that consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the significant climate impact of meat, particularly beef. He criticized JBS for attempting to assure consumers that they have the situation under control, stating, “But these emissions are so substantial and challenging to reduce that JBS’s actions do not demonstrate the plausibility of achieving their claim.”
Making food emissions count
This Article Includes
According to data scientist and Oxford researcher Hannah Ritchie, the climate crisis is commonly attributed to fossil fuels as the main cause. While reducing fossil fuel emissions to zero would be a significant step, it would not be enough to address the issue. Ritchie emphasizes that our current food systems also contribute significantly to climate change. In fact, even if we magically eliminated all fossil fuel emissions, our food systems alone would exceed the carbon budget for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees and deplete most of the budget for 2 degrees. This highlights the crucial connection between addressing climate change and transforming our food systems.
JBS, the world’s largest producer of beef, has a significantly higher climate impact compared to plant-based food and other animal sources of nutrition. Cows emit methane, and their predominantly grain-based diet contributes to water pollution and the release of nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas. Additionally, JBS has been implicated in the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest to make way for more cattle.
According to Lehner, despite the significant environmental implications, the lawsuit primarily focuses on consumer fraud. He pointed out that this is not the first climate case to address corporate greenwashing. Lehner cited previous cases involving Volkswagen, which was sued for misleading claims about the cleanliness of its diesel engines, as well as lawsuits against Delta and KLM for downplaying the climate impact of flying. However, the JBS case stands out as the first one targeting a beef company.
According to Delci Winders, director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute at Vermont Law and Graduate School, the JBS suit is unique not only because of its content but also because of the entity that filed it. Unlike most greenwashing cases that are brought by non-profits or individuals, this particular lawsuit is being pursued by a state attorney general. Winders believes that the government’s involvement in this case sends a powerful message.
JBS’s pursuit of a case may have been driven by their blatant and baseless claims. Despite being advised by the advertising arm of the Better Business Bureau, a self-regulating industry body, to exercise caution with their climate-focused messaging, JBS chose to disregard this counsel.
According to Lehner, who spent eight years at the New York attorney general’s office, the chances of the attorney general winning the case are highly favorable. He confidently states, “The evidence in this case is at least as strong, if not stronger, than the evidence in many other successful consumer fraud cases.”
According to Paglia, the attorney general has absolutely no chance of losing.
Implications
What implications would arise if the largest meat company in the world were to lose a lawsuit that aims to combat greenwashing?
According to Paglia, if JBS were to divest from the deforestation-linked companies, it would no longer be able to position itself as a climate hero. Instead of making claims about achieving net zero or climate neutrality, the company would have to focus solely on its meat-selling activities.
Even if JBS were to win the case in New York, it would still face uncertainty if other US states or countries chose to take legal action against the company. According to Winders, JBS could be exposed to potential vulnerabilities under different state consumer protection laws.
It’s easy to envision future lawsuits on the horizon, especially considering that this is not the initial legal action taken against JBS. Earlier this year, a bipartisan letter was written by US senators to the Securities and Exchange Commission, urging them to prevent the company from being listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The letter essentially accused the company of engaging in investor fraud. Additionally, a request for a criminal investigation into banks that have invested in JBS was filed in France last year. The argument put forth was that the financial support provided by these banks to Brazil’s largest beef companies was contributing to illegal deforestation in the Amazon.
According to Winders, it is uncertain how long the attorney general’s case will last. The duration could be influenced by JBS’s legal team’s strategy. They may choose to be minimally cooperative to prolong the case or opt for a quick settlement to resolve the matter swiftly and avoid public scrutiny.
The outcome of these events will likely impact the way businesses operate and how they communicate their commitment to climate change in the future.
According to Paglia, if JBS loses, which she believes is inevitable, it will serve as a clear message to other major companies. The message being that simply claiming alignment with the Paris agreement or setting a net-zero target for 2030 without a concrete plan is not enough. Paglia emphasizes that companies cannot continue to deceive the public by making false claims about their efforts to address climate change, especially when their emissions continue to rise.