The overwhelming majority of environmental claims made by the animal agriculture sector amount to misleading “greenwashing”, often built on vague commitments or distant projections, according to a study published on April 22, 2026, in PLOS Climate. The research was led by Maya Bach and Jennifer Jacquet from the University of Miami, alongside their collaborators.

The meat and dairy sector is responsible for a substantial share of global emissions, contributing 57% of emissions from food production and at least 16.5% of total greenhouse gas output worldwide. In this analysis, the researchers examined environmental messaging from 33 of the world’s largest meat and dairy corporations to determine whether their claims presented credible, actionable pathways for reducing environmental harm—or whether they instead fell into the category of greenwashing, defined as deceptive or intentionally misleading communication.

In total, the team reviewed 1,233 environmental claims sourced from publicly available sustainability reports and company websites, covering the period from 2021 to 2024. Of these, 841 claims (68%) were classified as climate-related, meaning they addressed greenhouse gas emissions or climate impacts either directly or indirectly. This emphasis suggests that climate change has become the dominant lens through which companies frame their sustainability narratives.

A significant portion of these claims—467 (38%)—consisted of unverifiable future-oriented statements, such as pledges to achieve carbon neutrality or restore large volumes of water by 2030. Despite the volume of claims, supporting evidence was limited: only 356 (29%) were backed by company-provided documentation, and just three claims cited peer-reviewed scientific evidence, two of which related to climate issues. Meanwhile, the number of companies committing to net-zero targets has grown, rising from four in 2020 to 17 in the current analysis. However, these commitments appear to depend largely on carbon offsetting rather than direct emissions reductions.

Using an established framework to evaluate greenwashing, the authors concluded that 98% of the claims—1,213 in total—could be classified as misleading. Examples include long-term pledges such as achieving “net climate-neutral dairy” by 2050, which often lack clear implementation strategies or measurable benchmarks.

The researchers emphasise that such patterns are not unique to the meat and dairy industry, though the sector’s environmental footprint makes the implications particularly significant. According to Bach, greenwashing is widespread across corporate sustainability reporting in this space, creating a false impression of meaningful climate progress. She warns that such messaging can mislead consumers, shape public perception, and ultimately weaken pressure on policymakers to enact substantive climate policies.

Jacquet adds that while it is unsurprising for meat and dairy companies to focus on climate issues—given the relatively high emissions associated with animal-based foods—the lack of concrete evidence and investment behind many of these claims raises concerns. When sustainability messaging is dominated by vague promises rather than measurable action, it risks functioning more as a public relations strategy than a genuine commitment to environmental stewardship.

More information: Maya Bach et al, Environmental claims, climate promises, and ‘greenwashing’ by meat and dairy companies, PLOS Climate. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000773

Journal information: PLOS Climate Provided by PLOS