When Letitia James, the New York attorney general, revealed that her office was filing a lawsuit against JBS, the largest meat company globally, for deceiving customers regarding its climate commitments, it generated significant attention beyond the food industry. Experts believe that this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for how large corporations advertise their sustainability efforts.
In recent times, there has been a surge in greenwashing lawsuits targeting major airlines, automobile manufacturers, and fashion companies. This trend reflects a long history of companies deceiving the public about their environmental and climate justice impacts. However, there seems to be a shift occurring across Europe and the United States, with increased scrutiny and crackdowns on these deceptive practices. Todd Paglia, the executive director of Stand.earth, an environmental non-profit, believes that addressing greenwashing will be a key issue in the coming years.
According to research, there is a growing demand from citizens for sustainably produced goods. This has caught the attention of big businesses. However, instead of making actual changes to their practices, many of them resort to misleading messaging that falsely suggests their products are more environmentally friendly than they truly are. Their aim is to maintain customer satisfaction.
The attorney general alleges that JBS, the parent company of renowned brands and subsidiaries like Swift, Certified Angus Beef, Pilgrim’s Pride, and Grass Run Farms, is engaging in deceptive practices. According to the legal complaint, JBS has made grand claims about its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, stating that it will achieve ‘Net Zero by 2040.’ However, the complaint argues that these claims lack substance. Not only has JBS failed to take concrete actions towards its goals, but its CEO even admitted in a public forum in September 2023 that the company does not know how to accurately calculate all of its emissions. Consequently, it is evident that without proper measurement, effective mitigation cannot take place.
According to Peter Lehner, managing attorney of the sustainable food and farming program at Earthjustice, consumers are becoming increasingly aware of the significant environmental impact of meat, especially beef. Lehner points out that JBS, a major meat producer, is attempting to reassure consumers by claiming to have the situation under control. However, Lehner argues that the emissions associated with beef production are so substantial and challenging to mitigate that JBS’s efforts may not be sufficient to support their claim.
Making food emissions count
According to data scientist and Oxford researcher Hannah Ritchie, the climate crisis is often portrayed as a problem primarily caused by fossil fuels. While fossil fuels certainly contribute to global warming, simply reducing their emissions to zero would not be enough to address the issue. Ritchie explains that even with zero fossil fuel emissions, our current food systems would still exceed the carbon budget for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees and deplete a large portion of the budget for limiting it to two degrees. This highlights the fact that addressing climate change requires addressing our food systems as well.
JBS, the world’s largest producer of beef, has a significant impact on climate change, surpassing not only plant-based food but also other animal sources of nutrition. Cows, which JBS primarily raises, emit methane through belching. Additionally, these cows are predominantly fed grains grown in monocultures that require excessive fertilizer usage, leading to water pollution and the release of nitrous oxide, another potent greenhouse gas. Moreover, JBS has been frequently associated with deforestation in the Amazon to make way for more cattle.
According to Lehner, while the environmental implications are significant, the lawsuit primarily revolves around consumer fraud. He noted that this is not the first instance of a climate case targeting corporate greenwashing, citing previous lawsuits against Volkswagen for falsely advertising the cleanliness of its diesel engines, as well as cases against Delta and KLM for misleading claims about the climate impact of flying. However, the JBS case stands out as the first of its kind against a beef company.
According to Delci Winders, director of the Animal Law and Policy Institute at Vermont Law and Graduate School, the lawsuit is notable because of the party that filed it. Unlike most greenwashing cases, which are brought by non-profits or individuals, the JBS suit is directly from a state attorney general. Winders emphasized that the government’s involvement in this manner sends a powerful message.
JBS’s pursuit of a case may have been fueled by their blatant disregard for making unsupported claims. They even ignored the advice of the advertising arm of the Better Business Bureau, an industry body that regulates itself. The Better Business Bureau had cautioned JBS to exercise caution in their climate-focused messaging.
According to Lehner, a former employee at the New York attorney general’s office for eight years, the chances of the attorney general winning the case appear promising. 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 no chance of losing.
Implications
What will it signify if the largest meat company in the world loses a lawsuit that aims to curb greenwashing?
According to Paglia, if JBS no longer claims to be a climate hero, it would mean that the company cannot boast about achieving net zero or climate neutrality. Instead, JBS would have to limit its statements to simply saying “we sell meat.”
Even if JBS were to somehow win the case in New York, the company would still face uncertain prospects if other US states or countries decided to bring legal action against it. According to Winders, “They would be exposed to potential liability under other state consumer protection laws.”
Future lawsuits against JBS are not difficult to envision, given the company’s history of controversial actions. In fact, this recent legal action is not the first one taken against JBS. Earlier this year, US senators joined forces to write a bipartisan letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, urging them to prevent the company from listing on the New York Stock Exchange. Their allegations suggested that JBS was involved in fraudulent activities targeting investors. Furthermore, last year, a request for a criminal investigation was filed in France, specifically targeting banks that had invested in JBS. The argument put forth in the request claimed that these banks’ financial support of Brazil’s largest beef companies was contributing to illegal deforestation in the Amazon.
According to Winders, the duration of the attorney general’s case is uncertain. JBS’s legal team’s approach could impact this timeline. They may choose to be minimally cooperative in order to delay the case, or they may opt for a quick settlement to resolve the matter swiftly and avoid public scrutiny.
Regardless of the outcome, the consequences will likely impact the way businesses operate and how they communicate their commitment to addressing climate change in the future.
Paglia believes that if JBS loses, it will send a clear message to other major companies. It will show that simply claiming to be “Paris-aligned” or setting a goal of being net zero by 2030 is not enough. Companies need to have a concrete plan and take action to reduce their climate pollution. According to Paglia, companies cannot continue to deceive and make false claims about their environmental efforts.
