Eco-Labels with Empty Promises

JBS and Tyson Agree to Stop Greenwashing Beef

Food labels touting big claims backed by vague language have confused consumers for years. JBS and Tyson Foods have found themselves at the epicenter of greenwashing lawsuits questioning the validity of their climate- smart marketing and net-zero pledges.  Both corporations launched climate smart products leading consumers to believe they were and are actively reducing greenhouse gas emissions and working towards net-zero goals by the year 2040. Multiple investigations revealed that both JBS and Tyson had made marketing maneuvers never backed by baseline emissions calculations or robust plans to map and measure decreases.

In 2023 the National Advertising Division recommended that JBS stop using eco-labeling with climate-smart language. JBS never responded to or took action on the recommendation. Meanwhile, the Environmental Working Group made similar recommendations to Tyson who also made no shift in marketing strategy. Fast forward to today and both companies have settled lawsuits and agreed to end climate- smart labeling and set net-zero goals rather than pledges within the beef industry. Both companies also maintain the settlements were not an admission to greenwashing, but rather a strategic move to dismantle negative perception and carry forward their stewardship agenda.

The dispute over semantics has fueled consumer questions. Is net-zero an impossible feat for the beef sector leading these major meat packers to throw in the towel? Have corporate marketing tactics simply outpaced meaningful shifts in climate smart production? Or, were eco-lables just a deceptive marketing campaign?

Is Net Zero an Option for Big Beef?

Recent lawsuits have questioned exactly how JBS and Tyson Foods plan to measure emission reductions which could be a much more involved endeavor for large scale producers than for small operations. Current data suggests that the methods of beef production favored by the Big Four meat packers, which keep regular supplies of meat in our supermarkets, are not the most eco-friendly according to climate smart definitions. The win for now goes to ranches with smaller numbers of animals on larger plots of land with intensive grazing rotations. 

The sheer size and scale of industrial agricultural entities eyeing expansion opportunities may never quite fit into the regenerative model. Goals to reduce emissions might just be held in tension with goals to increase production capacity resulting in both Tyson and JBS scaling back on an agenda to reach environmentally minded consumers.  Rather than an outwrite attempt to mislead, perhaps the Big Four are just, as they say, moving in a different direction.

Complex supply chains make it more challenging to truly measure emissions and their impact. Industrial beef producers have remained somewhat vague about their methods for supporting climate-smart beef. JBS has contributed to technological innovations, traceability tactics and farmer awareness initiatives that support a broad theme of sustainability. These are valuable investments but ones that don’t always translate to farm-level change in a way that correlates directly to a climate-smart label on steak and can’t be measured in terms of percentages.

In the same way, a significant shift in greenhouse gas emissions produced while transporting beef might never offset emissions produced by consolidated industrial herds of animals.  Net-zero may have never been feasible when big beef pledged to achieve it and, even with an increase in data and technology, “by 2040” might have been a lofty timeline.  Perhaps the branding storyline simply moved faster than the technical ability to make it a reality.

Was Climate- Smart Just a Marketing Strategy?

Yet branding strategy has been a central component of legal investigations for JBS and Tyson. When it comes to branding and consumers who feel duped by eco-labels left and right, settlements by any of the Big Four meat packers hint at a marketing strategy that preyed on shoppers more than it invested in the environment.  Pledges and commitments to emission reductions successfully caught the eye of consumers, 95% of whom are inclined to purchase foods with eco labeling and willing to pay more for them if it means supporting a healthier environment.

Whether either company knew how they were going to execute and measure the success of carbon reduction strategies or not, as a marketing strategy it was effective to jump aboard the climate-smart bandwagon. And, not a bad business strategy if that pursuit fell in alignment with fiscal policy and government encouragement.  What would business have looked like if JBS and  Tyson hadn’t made any commitments at all? Would sales have fallen or partnerships dismantled?

Toting a low carbon beef label, Tyson’s products claimed to have been made with 10% fewer emissions. The problem arose when they failed to demonstrate the metrics used to calculate the 10%.  While they certainly swayed demand for their beef products, it is difficult to determine how much their efforts reshaped environmental stewardship practices and the actual health of ecosystems.  Without the information to fill the gap we are left with a marketing tactic that feels misleading.  

Did Climate-Smart Change the Beef Industry?

If we are strictly talking about marketing, then climate-smart lines of beef pit small farms against industrial agriculture on yet another battlefield.  Small beef production is more equipped to shift operations quickly, but tends to lack the capital to launch robust marketing strategies that connect their emission reduction data to reliable eco-lables, and ultimately to consumers willing to pay a premium. Industrial beef production, on the other hand, lacks the agility to pivot quickly but does have access to full teams of marketing specialists and the ability to secure the experts needed to develop eco-friendly brand lines and labeling to go with it. 

Because there are no universal standards, restrictions or regulatory requirements governing the majority of climate- smart labeling, small farms lacked the ability to effectively distinguish their products from industrial competition. Even if small farms had the superior product through the lens of environmental sustainability parameters, they have been less accessible to consumers and still pricier.  At the very least, the recent lawsuits have been a step in the direction of governing this type of labeling and building the framework for the entire beef industry to not only use claims to connect with consumers, but articulate the methods they utilize to be able to make such claims.