William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review
Abstract
As climate change intensifies, food sector multinational companies (MNCs), like Nestlé; Mars, Inc.; Unilever; PepsiCo; and Danone, face increasing pressure to reach net-zero by 2050, whereby they would reduce and ultimately eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from their supply chains by 2050. Carbon dioxide emissions are a major business liability, decreasing a firm’s value an average of $212,000 for every one thousand metric tons produced. As companies seek to align their pledges with regional, national, and subnational climate goals, they are legally required to comply with a growing number of disclosure rules for foods entering the United States and the European Union.
This Article exposes the vital role of regenerative agriculture in net-zero pledges. Using a case study approach, this Article examines the global rise of regenerative agricultural practices as a tool to help companies reach net-zero commitments by helping them reduce Scope 3 supply chain emissions. The problem is, as companies rush to make net-zero claims, they need to be careful as these claims are under heavy scrutiny from regulators, self-regulatory bodies, competitors, consumers, and investors who are monitoring deceptive environmental marketing claims and greenwashing. This Article examines recent ongoing litigation, including People v. JBS USA Food Co., in which the New York State Attorney General (N.Y. A.G.) alleges that JBS’s advertisements—“Net Zero by 2040”—are unfair and deceptive under State consumer protection laws and that JBS made these claims with no viable plan to meet them. The case could have far-reaching implications for how companies advertise net-zero targets.
New regulations on the regenerative agricultural market would enable greater consistency in the adoption and use of these practices worldwide. Solutions are presented that include harmonizing regenerative agriculture credentials for food companies to allow them to secure global market access and ensure compliance across regimes leading to reduced risk of ligation, regulatory, or investment enforcement actions. This Article also recommends broadening the scope of SEC climate disclosure to include Scope 3 emissions in line with practices in Europe.