Our new report has revealed that greenwashing – a form of advertising or marketing spin in which green PR and green marketing are deceptively used to persuade the public that an organisation’s products, aims and policies are environmentally friendly – is rife across the UK supermarket sector with ALL the major retailers found to be promoting minor green initiatives while avoiding taking significant action on the climate impact of the industrial meat and dairy they sell. Around a third of retailers’ emissions result from sales of industrial meat, dairy and other animal source foods.

Read the report.

Despite UK supermarkets being quick to adopt climate-friendly marketing with ‘green’ packaging, climate targets and advertising campaigns, not one single UK supermarket chain has yet adopted a target to reduce sales of industrial meat and dairy – the single biggest slice of supermarkets’ emissions.

The findings are based on Feedback’s latest Meat and Climate scorecard which assesses supermarkets’ climate claims and in-store practices using twelve indicators, in accordance with academic research into common greenwashing strategies. Tactics include ‘selective disclosure’ where companies disclose on some elements of their climate or environmental impact while avoiding talking about more harmful issues and or using distraction techniques – i.e. shining a spotlight on specific, often ultimately less effective, environmental initiatives.

Key findings reveal:

• The UK’s biggest retailer, Tesco promotes its growing network of electric delivery vans, branded ‘Greener Greens’. Yet even when up to full capacity in 2030, electric vans will only represent an emission saving equivalent to 0.1% of Tesco’s yearly emissions. Meanwhile, Feedback has calculated that Tesco’s meat and dairy sales represent around a third of their emissions, or around 24.8 million tonnes CO2e a year.
• Sainsbury’s, which boasts on its website ‘We’re helping our customers choose healthy and sustainable diets’ recently launched its new value range ‘Stamford Street Co’. The range contains over 35 products containing meat and/or dairy, and only 12 fruit or vegetable products. 
•  Aldi’s website states that ‘Aldi UK and Ireland have been ‘carbon neutral’ since 2019’, without mentioning that this carbon neutral status only applies to the approximately 5% of its total emissions that occur in stores or head office – ignoring the 95% which are related to products and sales.

“It’s astonishing that greenwashing is rife across the industry with all the UK’s largest supermarkets employing ‘distraction’ type green initiatives, which make little impact on their overall footprint yet serve to deflect attention from the real issues. It’s clear from our findings that retailers are still focused on boosting meat sales despite setting net zero targets and pledging to help us eat healthier and more sustainably – and this must now change.” Jessica Sinclair Taylor, Head of Policy at Feedback

With a whopping 95% of retailers’ emissions coming from the products they sell and a third or more of these directly linked to some of their most polluting products, meat and dairy sales – we are calling for:

• Complete transparency amongst retailers about how much of their climate footprint is linked to meat and dairy sales
• A clear and realistic pathway to net zero emissions which includes targets to sell less of their highest-emitting products;
• Action to drop promotions on meat and dairy products with immediate effect – in the same way some retailers have dropped promotions on products high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS).

Sign our petition to supermarkets now.

Following the Advertising Standards Authority’s new guidance for companies on greenwashing, which includes advice that environmental claims made without context on the company’s wider environmental impact could be classed as greenwash PLUS the Competition and Market’s Authority Green Claims Code which states that claims must not mislead consumers by giving them an inaccurate impression of how green or sustainable a business really is. Aldi’s ‘carbon neutral’ claim has been reported to the ASA and we are also pursuing a complaint regarding Tesco’s ‘Greener Greens’ electric delivery vans with Trading Standards.

In addition, Feedback has written to the Competition and Markets Authority with evidence of all the supermarkets’ failure to substantiate environmental claims with real plans to reduce emissions from their supply chain. 

Industrial meat and dairy production contribute to climate change through direct emissions from both animals and their waste and through the destruction of important ecosystems such as the Amazon Cerrado to raise cattle or grow soya for animal feed. The UK imports most of its soya from South America, at least 90% of which is fed to animals, particularly chicken and pork.

The Government’s Committee on Climate Change has said the UK need to cut meat and dairy consumption by 20% by 2030 to meet its climate commitments while the University of Oxford estimates consumption of meats such as beef should be cut by as much as 89% to meet the NHS Eatwell guidelines. We have recently won the right in the Court of Appeal to bring a legal challenge against the government’s current food strategy, on the grounds that it fails to act on the damaging environmental impact of excessive meat and dairy production and consumption.

Read the full report. You can view how we scored the supermarkets here.

We have this week launched a legal challenge against the UK government over inadequate assessment of the environmental impacts of the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The free trade deal gives Australian producers significant access to the UK market to sell beef, lamb and mutton and dairy, potentially undercutting UK producers with agrifoods produced to lower standards.

The key argument is that the Impact Assessment erred in concluding that it was not possible to assess the impact of carbon leakage because data on relative carbon emissions associated with cattle meat was too “variable”. Renowned experts from the Institute of Environmental Science at Leiden University and New York University outline that there is consistent data demonstrating that Australian cattle meat has a materially higher emissions intensity than UK meat. As these same experts demonstrate, a consistent application of the gold standard methodology available would have shown considerable difference in the climate impacts of livestock produced in the United Kingdom and in Australia.

The fundamental issue in the claim is whether the government acted lawfully in deciding not to assess the relative carbon intensities of beef produced in the UK and Australia, for the stated reason that the available evidence was inconclusive and too variable. Experts argue that available statistical evidence on agricultural emissions is categorically not inconclusive and that, in fact, contrary to what the impact assessment concluded, it consistently shows that the emissions intensity from Australian beef is substantially higher than that from the UK.

Globally, agricultural emissions alone are enough to breach 1.5 and even 2 degrees of warming this century. This is in line with evidence from the government’s former advisor on food, Henry Dimbleby, who found that Australian beef had greater emissions intensity and a considerably larger deforestation footprint than beef produced in the UK. The UK government is bound by various legal and international obligations to take climate change, biodiversity and emissions reduction into account when setting trade policies, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement of 2015.

“With its flimsy environmental impact assessment of the UK-Australia trade deal, the government has blithely thrown both British farmers and the Paris Agreement under the bus in its futile bid for positive post-Brexit headlines. At a time of crisis in food and farming, and with global temperature highs broken daily, the government must ensure all trade deals work towards our emissions reduction targets rather than towards further catastrophic heating.” Carina Millstone, Executive Director Foodrise

The impact assessment also fails to quantify the carbon impact of any changes to domestic UK meat and dairy consumption because of tariff-free imports of Australian food. Cheaper Australian goods were touted as one of the key benefits of the agreement for the UK. Australia’s biggest cattle farmer suggested that the trade deal could result in Australian beef exports to the UK rising tenfold. The greater availability of cheap meat on UK supermarket shelves and in the food service industry will increase consumption, undermining recommendations from both the independent review of the National Food Strategy, commissioned by the government in 2019, and the Climate Change Committee (CCC), that substantial reductions in meat and dairy are essential to tackle climate change.

The legal challenge will test whether the government has adequately assessed the impact of this trade agreement. This has important implications for future trade deals.

In an important attempt to safeguard its rights to access environmental justice, Foodrise is also defending claims made by the government that it should not benefit from costs protection rules under the Aarhus Convention. Remarkably, the government is arguing that the judicial review does not relate to the environment, despite the existential threat of climate change. Foodrise is strongly resisting these arguments, which (if successful) may well set a valuable precedent for other environmental NGOs bringing legal challenges against trade deals.

On June 16, the Court of Appeal upheld our claim that the government’s failure to adopt measures to reduce meat and dairy production and consumption in its Food Strategy published in June 2022 was arguably unlawful. A full judicial review hearing will take place in the Court of Appeal in autumn to rule on the legality of the government’s Food Strategy.  

Senior president of tribunals, Lord Justice Keith Lindblom, stated this would allow the arguments to be fully debated in a longer hearing. “The issue of climate change itself and the steps to be taken to achieve net zero are in themselves matters of public interest,” he concluded. 

The livestock industry is responsible for about 14.5% of global emissions and, if current trends continue, the global livestock industry will be using up almost half the world’s 1.5°C emissions budget by 2030. This means tackling emissions from the food and farming sector is key for the government to meet climate targets.  

The Net Zero Strategy published in 2021 expressly stated that the Food Strategy would support the delivery of the Net Zero target, outlining how carbon budgets would be met in the food system.

However, Leigh Day representing us argued that the Food Strategy neither addressed the emissions impact of meat and dairy, nor put in place policies for their mitigation. The full hearing in October will determine if this omission was unlawful. Central to the argument will be whether the Secretary of State relied on the Food Strategy to discharge his duty under Section 13 of the Climate Change Act, which compels him to put in place policies to ensure carbon budgets are met.  

Both the independent review of the National Food Strategy written by Henry Dimbleby and commissioned by the government in 2019 and the Climate Change Committee (CCC) have identified substantial reductions in meat and dairy as essential to tackle climate change. In 2020, it recommended a 20% reduction in meat and dairy consumption by 2030, and a 35% reduction for meat by 2050, as part of its Balanced Net Zero Pathway scenario. 

David Wolfe KC argued for Feedback that the government’s failure to incorporate this advice, in particular the CCC’s recommendations, or explain why it opted to not adopt their expert recommendations was unlawful. This will be decided at the full hearing in October.  

“We have long known the government’s food strategy was completely useless, today’s ruling suggests it may also be unlawful. The Climate Change Committee has repeatedly sounded the alarm over the climate impacts of livestock and recommended an accelerated shift away from unsustainable diets. We’re confident that the ruling in October will compel the government to re-write the Food Strategy and start listening to its own expert climate advisors.” Carina Millstone, Executive Director of Feedback 

The hearing will take place on June 16 in Court Room 71 at 10:30am. Court room 71 is in the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL. As a high-profile and legally significant case, the hearing will be livestreamed here.

Our lawyers will argue in the Court of Appeal that the government’s failure to adopt measures to reduce meat and dairy production and consumption in its Food Strategy published in June 2022 was unlawful.

Livestock is  responsible for about 14.5% of global emissions and, if current trends continue, the global livestock industry will be using up almost half the world’s 1.5°C emissions budget by 2030. This means tackling emissions from the food and farming sector is key for the government to meet climate targets. The Net Zero Strategy expressly stated that the Food Strategy would outline how carbon budgets would be met regarding the food system.  However, the Food Strategy does not include policies for meat and dairy reduction, essentially the Food Strategy does not provide a  mechanism to fulfill its obligations under Section 13 of the Climate Change Act (CCC).

Both the independent review of the National Food Strategy written by Henry Dimbleby and commissioned by the government in 2019 and the CCC have identified substantial reductions in meat and dairy as essential to tackle climate change. The government failed to incorporate this advice, in particular the CCC’s recommendations, or explain why it opted to not adopt their expert recommendations, which the lawyers representing Feedback will further argue that they were bound to do.

In previous legal proceedings the government’s lawyers have sought to argue that the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the government department that drafted the Food Strategy, is not bound by Section 13 of the Climate Change Act. Instead, only the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), formerly the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is bound by the Section 13 obligations, as the government department tasked with achieving carbon budgets.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal in this case will effectively rule on the scope of Section 13 of the Climate Change Act. The ruling will establish whether it is only the Secretary of State for DESNZ that must formulate policies to meet carbon budgets for his department, or whether other Secretaries of State and their respective departments are bound by the same obligation.

This ruling is therefore expected to have significant implications on the government’s climate policy. It will establish whether DEFRA must develop policies to meet carbon budgets, considering the CCC’s advice in doing so, in this instance in the Food Strategy. It will also establish whether other government departments, such as the Department for Transport (DfT), must equally put in place their own policies to reduce emissions to meet carbon budgets.

We’ve launched a formal legal challenge against the UK government over inadequate assessment of the environmental impacts of the UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The deal gives Australian producers significant access to the UK market to sell beef, lamb and mutton and dairy.  Represented by law firm Leigh Day, we previously sent a legal letter to Environment Secretary Therese Coffey. The response received was unsatisfactory, and so Leigh Day filed a claim form at the Administrative Court, signalling the start of the process for judicial review of the impact assessment of the deal.

The government suggested data uncertainties made drawing conclusions on the emissions impact of the trade deal difficult, choosing not to apply an internationally recognised methodology to ascertain livestock emissions – the ‘gold standard’ methodology according to experts from the Institute of Environmental Science at Leiden University. As these same experts demonstrate, a consistent application of that methodology would have shown considerable difference in the climate impacts of livestock produced in the UK and Australia.

Experts clearly state that the impact of the Free Trade Agreement on overall emissions will have a material impact on international climate targets. Globally agricultural emissions alone are enough to breach 1.5 and even 2 degrees of warming this century. This is in line with evidence from the government’s former advisor on food, Henry Dimbleby, who found that Australian beef had greater emissions intensity and a considerably larger deforestation footprint than beef produced in the UK. The UK government is bound by various legal and international obligations to take climate change, biodiversity and emissions reduction into account when setting policies.

“The government has recklessly sacrificed both British farmers and the climate in a rush for post-Brexit headlines. At a time of crisis in food and farming, the government must ensure all trade deals work towards our emissions reduction targets rather than towards further catastrophic heating.” Carina Millstone, Executive Director of Foodrise

The impact assessment also fails to quantify the carbon impact of any changes to domestic UK meat and dairy consumption. Cheaper Australian goods were touted as one of the key benefits of the agreement for the UK. Australia’s biggest cattle farmer suggested that the trade deal could result in Australian beef exports to the UK rising tenfold. The greater availability of cheap meat on UK supermarket shelves and in the food service industry will increase consumption , undermining recommendations from both the independent review of the National Food Strategy, commissioned by the government in 2019, and the Climate Change Committee (CCC), that substantial reductions in meat and dairy are essential to tackle climate change. The legal challenge will test whether the government has adequately assessed the impact of this trade agreement and in doing so risks the UK’s capacity to deliver on Net Zero targets.  This has important implications for future trade deals.

“The meat industry is one of the largest contributors to the climate crisis by sector, and one of the biggest winners from this Free Trade Agreement. Our client’s scientific evidence shows that Australian beef is far more damaging for the climate than UK beef, yet tens of thousands of tonnes of it will be imported tariff free as a result of this deal. The legislation implementing the new tariff rules was, our client will argue, based on an impact assessment, which completely ignored that science. It is argued that this irrationality renders the statutory instrument unlawful, and our client is asking the Court to quash it.”  Leigh Day solicitor Rowan Smith

A couple of weeks ago, Foodrise travelled to Birmingham to put a question to HSBC’s board of directors  at the bank’s annual general meeting (AGM). We wanted to find out why the bank persists in financing industrial livestock companies despite their outsized contribution to climate change, deforestation and human rights violations. 

We found our seats in a large conference hall, where the board of directors sat looking back at us from behind their podiums on the stage. No doubt in a bid to avoid the chaos that ensued following protests in previous years, HSBC’s strategy for managing dissent in 2023 seemed to be to suck all of the energy out of the room. Despite person after person standing up to protest the bank’s financing of climate destruction, each director remained unmoved. Towards the beginning, a group of middle-aged professional types sitting in front of us suddenly got up and burst into song. Unfurling long, hand sewn banners from underneath their dress shirts, they accused HSBC of being arsonists and liars, and criticised them for all of the money they continue to sink into fossil fuels. After the singers were carted out by security, another couple jumped into action, donning head-to-toe cleaning outfits and scrubbing the “filthy” meeting down– did somebody say greenwash? Finally, after a series of speeches by directors, it was time for the Q&A section. This was dominated by concerned shareholders, NGOs, and activists further pressing HSBC to stop bankrolling the climate crisis. Our names were read, one by one, by a booming-big brother voice that appeared to emanate from the heavens. Perhaps it was AI, perhaps it was God. Either way, it succeeded in both making me feel small and watched. I proceeded with my question.

I reminded Noel Quinn, HSBC’s Group Chief Executive that his bank has pledged to reduce the carbon emissions it finances to Net Zero by 2050 or sooner, and to not support businesses directly involved in deforestation. I wanted to know why HSBC is investing in companies whose actions stand in direct contradiction with these commitments. 

HSBC’s supposed commitment to Net Zero doesn’t add up, not only because it persists in financing fossil fuel companies, but also due to its funding of the industrial livestock industry, which is a massive global emitter. If growth trends continue, animal agriculture will be using up almost half the world’s 1.5°C emissions budget by 2030– making staying within safe levels of climate change virtually impossible. 

One of the companies HSBC provides finance to is Brazilian beef giant JBS, the world’s largest meat producer. In 2021, JBS’ emission footprint alone was larger than the entire country of Spain’s. JBS’  supply chain has been repeatedly accused of links to illegal deforestation. HSBC has been well aware of this for some time. The bank’s  own analysts warned in 2020 that JBS: “has no vision, action plan, timeline, technology or solution” for monitoring whether the cattle it buys originate from farms involved in rainforest destruction. Additionally, JBS has also faced multiple allegations of  Indigenous land theft and modern day slavery in its supply chains. Despite that, our research has uncovered that HSBC was still holding $3.5 million in JBS shares as of the end of last year. 

However, when I asked Noel Quinn why HSBC continues to finance one of the world’s highest-emitting companies, in which it holds millions of dollars’ worth of shares, he simply shrugged, and claimed that he is not familiar with JBS.

Seriously?

I pushed back on his response. Surely, after the extensive media coverage of JBS and its connection with the destruction of the Amazon, which experienced record breaking wildfires in 2022, simply ‘not knowing’ is no longer good enough. Quinn would’ve certainly heard about JBS from his own analysts. My mic was shut off and we were soon on to the next question, but the bank’s skirting of responsibility was clear. Be it indifference or true ignorance at the helm of HSBC, the response its CEO gave me in Birmingham is unacceptable. Not knowing is a privilege that those most impacted by climate change do not have.

We all have to live with the consequences of this bank financing climate chaos, and it’s time HSBC took that responsibility seriously. Other financial institutions have already cut off financial support for  JBS, deeming the company too risky: for example, in 2020, Nordea Asset Management pulled out $45 million from the company– over 12 times HSBC’s investments. If Nordea can do it, why can’t HSBC?

It’s clear that HSBC needs to stop funding climate destruction, including its financing for livestock companies like JBS as well as its funding of fossil fuels. The Board of Directors spent a decent amount of time in the AGM paying lip service to various climate positive commitments, but ultimately that rhetoric is worthless without concrete targets for change– especially if we can’t even get a simple, truthful, recognition of their relationships with the companies destroying our planet.

Watch this space for Foodrise’s upcoming research on UK banks’ funding for industrial livestock. In the meantime, check out our 2020 report Butchering the Planet.