Meat giant JBS abandons net-zero by 2040 target

JBS drops 2040 net-zero target after legal pressure

JBS, the world’s largest meatpacker, has abandoned its 2040 net-zero emissions commitment. The company announced the decision in its July 2026 sustainability report. It now focuses solely on reducing emissions from its own operations.

The change represents a significant retreat from climate commitments in the global meat industry. JBS originally pledged in March 2021 to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions across its entire value chain. That included livestock-related emissions, which make up the vast majority of the company’s environmental impact.

This reversal followed years of regulatory challenges and legal action. Regulators and advocacy groups questioned whether the company had any realistic plan to achieve its stated goal. The New York Attorney General sued JBS in 2024, alleging the company misled consumers about its climate commitments.

For UK businesses watching corporate climate claims come under scrutiny, the JBS case highlights growing legal and reputational risks. Companies making net-zero pledges without credible plans now face enforcement action from regulators. Therefore, businesses need verifiable strategies before making public climate commitments.

March 2021 pledge covered all emission scopes

When JBS announced its 2040 target, it became the first major global protein company to commit to net zero across all three emission scopes. Scope 1 covers direct emissions from company operations. Scope 2 includes purchased energy. Scope 3 encompasses indirect emissions from the supply chain.

For meat producers, Scope 3 emissions dwarf operational impacts. Livestock farming generates methane and other greenhouse gases throughout the production cycle. These emissions occur on farms JBS does not own or control directly.

The company submitted its commitment to the Science Based Targets initiative in June 2021. However, it later withdrew from the validation process. SBTi clarified that agricultural companies must include land-based Scope 3 emissions in their calculations. JBS could not meet this requirement.

By 2023, regulators began questioning the pledge’s credibility. In June of that year, the National Advertising Division recommended JBS stop making net-zero claims. The regulatory body said the company lacked evidence of a vetted plan likely to succeed.

New York lawsuit alleged misleading consumer claims

New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a lawsuit against JBS in February 2024. The legal action alleged the company misled consumers by advertising a commitment to net zero without a viable plan. Moreover, JBS had not assessed whether reaching the goal was economically feasible.

The Attorney General highlighted that JBS had no strategy to meaningfully reduce Scope 3 emissions. These emissions stem from livestock farming, which produces most of the company’s carbon footprint. Consequently, the 2040 pledge appeared unachievable from the outset.

A New York court dismissed the case without prejudice in January 2025. This allowed the Attorney General to refile with additional evidence. Nevertheless, JBS reached a settlement later that year.

Under the settlement terms, JBS agreed to reframe its 2040 target as a goal or ambition rather than a pledge or commitment. The company also agreed to detail specific steps when claiming it is taking real action. Additionally, JBS paid $1.1 million to Cornell University’s New York Soil Health and Resiliency Program.

July 2026 report removes Scope 3 targets entirely

JBS officially dropped its 2040 net-zero commitment in its latest sustainability report. Published in July 2026, the report eliminates all Scope 3 targets. The company now concentrates exclusively on Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions.

Jason Weller, JBS Global Chief Sustainability Officer, confirmed the change. He stated that the company adjusted its goals to eliminate targets for Scope 3 greenhouse gas output. For JBS, this includes emissions produced by all livestock it slaughters.

The revised targets focus on operational emissions only. JBS maintains its existing commitment to a 30% intensity reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030, using 2019 as the baseline. The company added a new target: a 70% absolute reduction in processing facility emissions by 2050.

JBS also retained its ambition to use 100% renewable electricity by 2040. However, the absence of Scope 3 targets means the company no longer addresses the largest source of emissions in its value chain. This represents a fundamental shift in the scope of its climate strategy.

Revised commitments narrow focus to direct operations

The company’s new approach concentrates on emissions it controls directly. Processing facilities and energy purchases fall within this remit. Livestock farming, by contrast, occurs upstream in the supply chain.

JBS now commits to three specific targets. First, it will reduce Scope 1 and 2 intensity by 30% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels. Second, it aims for a 70% absolute reduction in processing facility emissions by 2050. Third, it aspires to power operations entirely with renewable electricity by 2040.

Critics note that these targets allow continued expansion of meat production. A company can reduce intensity per unit of output while increasing total emissions through volume growth. Absolute targets for 2050 lie far enough in the future to avoid near-term accountability.

The New Climate Institute analysed JBS’s previous commitments for an advocacy group complaint. It found that the company’s interim targets would lead to only a 1% emission reduction compared to 2021 levels. Even this modest figure assumed the most generous interpretation of the company’s plans.

Essential facts about the JBS climate target reversal

• JBS announced its original 2040 net-zero commitment in March 2021, becoming the first major meat company to pledge elimination of emissions across all scopes.
• The National Advertising Division recommended in June 2023 that JBS stop making net-zero claims due to lack of a credible plan likely to succeed.
• New York Attorney General Letitia James sued JBS in February 2024, alleging the company misled consumers with climate commitments lacking viable implementation strategies.
• JBS settled the lawsuit in 2025 by reframing its target as an ambition rather than a commitment and paying $1.1 million to a Cornell University agriculture program.
• The company’s July 2026 sustainability report eliminated the 2040 net-zero goal and all Scope 3 targets, focusing instead on operational emissions only.
• New targets include 30% Scope 1 and 2 intensity reduction by 2030 and 70% absolute reduction in processing emissions by 2050.

Scope 3 emissions remain unaddressed in meat production

The JBS reversal exposes a fundamental challenge facing the meat industry. Livestock farming generates substantial greenhouse gas emissions. Cattle produce methane through digestion. Manure management creates additional emissions. Land use changes for grazing and feed production compound the impact.

These emissions occur throughout the supply chain, often on farms the meat processor does not own. Consequently, companies struggle to implement reduction strategies. They lack direct control over farming practices. Furthermore, alternative production methods that significantly reduce emissions remain unproven at commercial scale.

Industry observers widely criticized the original 2040 pledge as greenwashing. The term describes environmental claims that sound meaningful but lack substance. JBS excluded the most polluting activities from its reduction plans. It relied instead on offsetting strategies that environmental groups consider ineffective.

Offsetting typically involves planting trees or purchasing carbon credits rather than reducing actual emissions. However, agricultural offsets face significant credibility problems. Tree planting projects may fail to sequester promised carbon amounts. Credits may not represent genuine emission reductions. Consequently, offsets allow companies to continue high-emission activities while claiming climate progress.

UK procurement rules demand credible climate action

British businesses should note the growing regulatory scrutiny of corporate climate claims. Public sector procurement increasingly requires suppliers to demonstrate genuine carbon reduction. PPN 06/21 mandates that suppliers publish carbon reduction plans when bidding for central government contracts above certain thresholds.

These requirements demand more than aspirational statements. Contracting authorities expect specific reduction targets, interim milestones, and evidence of progress. Suppliers must address Scope 3 emissions where they represent a significant portion of the carbon footprint. Consequently, vague commitments without implementation plans will not satisfy procurement requirements.

Private sector supply chains are adopting similar standards. Large corporations increasingly require suppliers to report emissions and demonstrate reduction efforts. Therefore, businesses throughout the supply chain face pressure to address climate impacts credibly.

The JBS case demonstrates that regulators will challenge unsubstantiated claims. Companies making public commitments without viable plans risk legal action. The New York lawsuit specifically targeted the gap between public statements and operational reality. Other jurisdictions may follow this enforcement approach.

UK businesses making climate commitments should ensure they can demonstrate progress. ESG compliance support can help companies develop credible carbon reduction strategies. Plans should include specific targets, realistic timelines, and measurable actions.

Manufacturing and food sector face particular challenges

Companies in manufacturing and food production encounter specific difficulties reducing Scope 3 emissions. Supply chains often extend across multiple countries and involve numerous suppliers. Each tier of the supply chain contributes emissions. Consequently, total Scope 3 impacts can exceed direct operational emissions by a factor of ten or more.

Food manufacturers relying on agricultural inputs face challenges similar to JBS. They depend on farming practices they do not control. Weather, soil conditions, and traditional farming methods all affect emissions. Changing these factors requires working with suppliers who may lack resources or expertise to implement new practices.

Manufacturing businesses must consider emissions from raw material extraction, transportation, and processing. Complex products may have components from dozens of suppliers. Each supplier has its own supply chain. Therefore, mapping total Scope 3 emissions requires significant effort and data collection.

Despite these difficulties, businesses cannot ignore Scope 3 impacts. Regulators increasingly expect companies to address supply chain emissions. Carbon reporting programs now typically include Scope 3 in their requirements. Companies that focus solely on operational emissions may find their overall climate claims questioned.

Practical steps exist for businesses serious about supply chain emissions. Start by mapping major emission sources in your supply chain. Identify which suppliers contribute most significantly to your carbon footprint. Then work collaboratively with those suppliers to develop reduction strategies. This approach allows focused effort on the areas with greatest potential impact.

Third-party validation matters for climate commitments

The JBS experience highlights the importance of independent verification. The company withdrew from Science Based Targets initiative validation when it could not meet the requirements. This undermined the credibility of its net-zero claim.

SBTi provides a widely recognized standard for corporate climate targets. The initiative requires companies to set goals consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Targets must cover all material emission sources. For agricultural companies, this includes land-based Scope 3 emissions.

Companies seeking SBTi validation must submit detailed reduction plans. The initiative reviews these plans to ensure they rest on realistic assumptions. It checks that interim targets create a credible pathway to the long-term goal. Finally, it verifies that companies report progress transparently.

When JBS withdrew from this process, it signaled that its plans would not withstand independent scrutiny. Environmental groups and regulators took note. Subsequently, the company faced legal challenges to its climate claims.

UK businesses developing net-zero strategies should consider third-party validation from the outset. This provides assurance that targets are achievable and science-based. It also strengthens the credibility of climate claims with customers, investors, and regulators. Moreover, the validation process itself helps identify gaps in reduction plans before they become public commitments.

Reputational and legal risks of unsubstantiated claims

Companies making climate commitments without credible plans face both reputational and legal consequences. The JBS case resulted in regulatory recommendations to cease advertising, a lawsuit from a state attorney general, and ultimately abandonment of the original pledge. Each step damaged the company’s reputation with customers concerned about sustainability.

Consumer trust matters increasingly in purchasing decisions. Research shows that buyers, particularly younger demographics, prefer brands with genuine environmental credentials. However, they react negatively when they perceive greenwashing. A company caught making false or misleading environmental claims may suffer boycotts and long-term brand damage.

Legal risks are rising as well. The New York lawsuit against JBS represents a template other enforcement authorities may follow. UK regulators have similar powers to challenge misleading environmental claims. The Competition and Markets Authority published guidance on green claims in September 2021, making clear that businesses must substantiate environmental statements.

Companies should review their climate communications carefully. Ensure that any commitment described as a pledge or promise has a detailed implementation plan. Avoid absolute statements unless you can demonstrate how you will achieve them. Use terms like goal or ambition for aspirational targets that depend on future technological developments or industry-wide changes.

Document the assumptions underlying your climate strategy. If challenged, you must show that your plan rests on reasonable projections. The New York Attorney General specifically criticized JBS for failing to assess economic feasibility before making public commitments. UK businesses should conduct similar feasibility assessments before announcing climate targets.

Practical considerations for SMEs developing climate strategies

Small and medium-sized businesses may wonder whether the JBS case holds lessons for them. After all, few SMEs will make global net-zero pledges. However, the underlying principles apply to climate strategies at any scale.

First, match your public commitments to your ability to deliver. If you announce a target, you must be prepared to explain how you will reach it. This requires understanding your current emissions, identifying reduction opportunities, and assessing the resources required for implementation.

Second, focus on emissions you can actually influence. JBS struggled because it made commitments about supply chain emissions it could not control. SMEs should concentrate on direct operations and energy use where they have clear authority to make changes. Address supply chain impacts through supplier engagement rather than unilateral targets.

Third, document your climate strategy thoroughly. Write down your baseline emissions, reduction targets, planned actions, and expected timelines. This documentation serves multiple purposes. It helps you track progress internally. It provides evidence if your claims are questioned. It also forms the basis for reporting requirements in public procurement and customer requests.

Fourth, seek support when you need it. Training on carbon reduction strategies can help you understand what actions will deliver meaningful results. Professional advice ensures your strategy aligns with current standards and regulatory expectations. This investment reduces the risk of developing plans that cannot withstand scrutiny.

Finally, communicate your climate efforts honestly. Describe what you are actually doing rather than what you hope to do eventually. Customers and procurement teams value genuine progress over ambitious claims. If you have reduced energy consumption by 15%, say that. Do not extrapolate to a net-zero commitment that depends on uncertain future actions.

Sources for further information on climate commitments

The UK government’s net zero strategy provides official policy context for business climate action. It outlines expected contributions from different sectors and explains regulatory developments.

The Science Based Targets initiative website explains the standards for corporate climate goals. It includes sector-specific guidance and examples of validated targets from companies across industries.

The government’s Procurement Policy Note 06/21 details carbon reduction plan requirements for public sector suppliers. This document is essential reading for any business tendering for government contracts.

The Competition and Markets Authority’s green claims guidance explains legal requirements for environmental marketing. It clarifies what substantiation businesses need before making sustainability claims.

For businesses in the food and agriculture sector, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs publishes guidance on agricultural emissions and sustainable farming practices.