A message Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor (CCRM) 2025, developed by the NewClimate Institute in partnership with Carbon Market Watch, assesses the transparency and integrity of companies' climate strategies. The latest report contains a detailed in-depth analysis of the food and agriculture sector, focusing on the five largest players by revenue in 2023 (excluding predominantly manufacturing companies): Danone, JBS, Mars, Nestlé and PepsiCoThe aim is to identify good practices and highlight areas for improvement in the corporate climate accountability system. The assessment is based on four main areas of corporate climate action: tracking and disclosing emissions, setting emission reduction targets, strategies for key transitions, and taking responsibility for unabated and residual emissions.

The analysis found that the evaluated agri-food companies represent measures that are unlikely to lead to structural and deep emission reductions in the sectorCompanies often rely on the undefined role of land-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which undermines their emissions reduction targets and diverts attention from insufficient commitments to deep structural reductions, especially in the area of methane emissions.

The problem with removing carbon sequestered on land

One key finding is that agri-food companies are using land-based carbon removal to distract from their lack of commitment to key transitions. Three of the five companies assessed (Danone, Mars, Nestlé and PepsiCo) explicitly state that they rely on unspecified amount of land-based CDR in applying progress towards achieving goalsMany of these companies have set emission reduction targets that are in line with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) guidance for the forestry, land and agriculture (FLAG) sector. While the FLAG guidance sets minimum ambitions (e.g. a net reduction of 30.3% by 2030 compared to 2020 levels), It remains unclear to what extent land-based CDR can be used to meet these emissions reduction targets.According to the interpretation of the report's authors and several large agri-food companies, the FLAG guidance allows for the use of an undefined amount of land-based CDR to achieve both the 2030 and 2050 FLAG targets.

In contrast, the latest draft of the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Guidance explicitly requires companies to set separate targets for emissions reduction and carbon removal and requires reductions and removals to be reported separately. Aggregating land-based removals with emission reductions can mask insufficient action on key sources of emissions, such as methane. Although land-based removals are important at the global level, should not be considered the same as actual emission reductions and should be reported separately. Unspecified reliance on land-based CDR by companies is significant; for example, Nestlé has reported that up to 80% of its target could be met through land-based removals. Standardizers should embed the need for deep and structural emission reductions in their voluntary standards and guidelines and require separate targets for reductions and removals.

Insufficient commitment to key transitions

The report identifies five key transitions needed to decarbonize the agri-food sector: increasing the share of plant-based proteins, halting deforestation, reducing fertilizer use, limiting food loss and waste, and other accompanying measures.

• Switching to plant-based proteins: Most companies rated does not have strong commitments to switching to plant-based proteins, thus neglecting the most important measure to reduce methane emissions. Livestock farming is the largest single contributor to emissions in global agricultural value chains, especially methane emissions. Only Danone has a quantitative target to reduce methane emissions (30% from fresh milk by 2030) and plans to expand its plant-based portfolio, although this is not formulated as an explicit transition goal. Nestlé, for example, emphasizes the importance of dairy products for health and nutrition. JBS does buy plant-based protein brands, but this turns out to be only a supplement to their primary business model focused on animal farming.
• Stopping deforestation: Most companies have committed to halting deforestation (mostly by 2025), which is in line with the SBTi FLAG guidance. However implementation details are generally lacking and deforestation targets do not cover all commodities or indirect suppliers. There is also a problem with the use of commodity certificates without physical traceability (e.g. mass balance, book-and-claim), which may not guarantee that the specific commodities purchased are deforestation-free. These certificates should not count towards reducing emissions from deforestation, according to the draft GHG Protocol Land Sector & Removals Guidance. For example, Mighty Earth and AidEnvironment found that illegal deforestation continues to occur in the JBS supply chain.
• Reducing fertilizer use: Only one company (PepsiCo) explicitly mentions the importance of reducing the use of synthetic fertilizers. Fertilizers are the third largest source of emissions in agriculture, especially nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions. Changing the type of fertilizer (e.g. from synthetic to organic) does not address N₂O emissions from field application. Companies should reduce overall fertilizer consumption.
• Reducing food loss and waste: Three out of five companies present measures and targets to reduce food loss and waste. Only Danone has an ambitious target to halve food waste by 2030, in line with the global Sustainable Development Goal (SDG). Nestlé says it is working towards the SDG but does not report its own commitment or progress. JBS’s target only applies to its US operations. Mars and PepsiCo have no targets or measures in this area.
• Other accompanying measures (e.g. packaging, energy): Most companies, except JBS, mention implementing measures such as switching to renewable energy or reducing emissions from packaging and transport. Quantitative targets are rare, however. Despite plastic reduction targets (e.g. Danone, Mars, Nestlé, PepsiCo), progress in reducing the absolute amount of virgin plastic is mixed; PepsiCo, for example, has seen an increase. While switching to renewable electricity is important, relying on low-quality purchasing structures such as bulk RECs (Environmental Attribute Certificates) may not lead to real additional renewable energy development.

JBS, Nestlé and PepsiCo's goals face considerable uncertainty

The report highlights significant problems with the integrity of some companies' objectives. For example: JBS's target to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions intensity by 2030 is highly insufficient, covers only 4% of total emissions and, if interpreted as a reduction, would only lead to a 1.1% reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to 2019. JBS’s 2030 and net-zero commitments were removed from the SBTi website in 2024 because the company failed to submit or revise its plans to be consistent with limiting global warming to a maximum of 1.5°C. JBS also still does not include land-use change emissions related to meat production in its emissions reporting.

Nestlé's goals are potentially misleading and ambiguous due to an unspecified amount of land-based CDR. Nestlé’s target to reduce emissions by 50% by 2030 is estimated to translate into only 13-26% of emissions reduction compared to 2019 when interpreted without CDR accounting. Nestlé is also likely accounting for emissions through the purchase of commodity EACs without physical traceability, a practice that may be premature and potentially misleading.

PepsiCo has moved its net-zero goal from 2040 to 2050. Although it now lists accompanying emissions reduction targets, achieving the 2030 and 2050 targets likely depends on an unspecified amount of land-based CDR. PepsiCo’s non-FLAG emissions reduction targets have not increased in ambition and fall short of the cross-sector benchmarks.

Although Mars has ambitious short-term goals for 2030, in line with the criteria, which do not explicitly depend on offsets or land-based CDRs, it lacks post-2030 targets, and the undefined role of land-based CDR in the future leaves doubts about the integrity of the long-term goal.

Overall, the report highlights that while agri-food companies are increasing transparency, often lack commitments to structural change and rely on unclear accounting for carbon removals or commodity certificates, undermining the credibility of their climate strategies. It is crucial that companies, as well as standard setters, ensure transparency and integrity of targets by separating emission reductions from removals and clearly linking targets to key sector transitions. Spring