Amanda Waxman
After gaining a reputation as a big-time polluter, Tyson Foods now touts major sustainability initiatives and a net-zero climate pledge to reassure concerned consumers. But, behind the scenes, has the company actually changed its ways?
As a consensus of scientists, politicians, activists, and consumers call for meaningful action against the climate crisis, big corporations have become acutely aware that they must clean up their act when it comes to climate, or risk being left behind.
Now, Fortune 500 companies across sectors—from Amazon to Microsoft to Walt Disney —spotlight expansive corporate sustainability initiatives to recycle more, plant more trees, or even offset their carbon emissions entirely. But, are these companies actually committed to being part of the climate solution? Or is this simply a PR tactic—misleading consumers and, ultimately, further perpetuating the climate crisis?
A closer look at Tyson Foods' sustainability pledge reveals the latter. This is a phenomenon known as greenwashing: "the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service." Essentially, food companies like Tyson make lofty claims about their sustainability practices to appeal to well-meaning consumers—going so far as to say their chicken production systems actually help the environment—while, behind the scenes, they're still degrading the land, polluting the water, and sending thousands of tons of harmful emissions into the atmosphere.
Making false claims about your product is bad in itself, but greenwashing goes a step further when these companies continue to operate business-as-usual, they're actively harming our planet and putting our futures at risk. Words are not enough when it comes to meeting the crisis at hand. We need action and accountability. When big food companies don't step up to the plate, all of us have to pay the price.
What is Tyson Foods doing to address climate change?
Tyson Foods’ environmental impact
Chances are, if you live in the US, you'll see Tyson Foods logos dotted all over the meat section of your local grocery store. Tyson is the second largest meat processor and marketer in the world, focusing mainly on chicken and poultry. The company's facilities "process" (breed, raise, and kill) over 2.3 billion individual chickens per year, which it supplies to big grocery stores, chain restaurants like KFC, McDonald's, and Taco Bell, and even school cafeterias and prisons. In fact, Tyson holds such a dominance over the country's meat industry that there's a one in five chance that any beef, pork, or chicken product you see came from one of its manufacturing operations. Some experts even go so far as to claim that Tyson has a monopoly over the meat market.
The sheer volume of meat production at Tyson facilities requires huge amounts of energy and resources to support it. It's easy to see where a lot of this input goes—transport trucks that need gallons upon gallons of gas, heavy machinery that processes chickens on an assembly line, and complex climate control systems to ensure that barn sheds are livable for chickens.
But, Tyson's environmental impacts reverberate beyond the 177 slaughterhouses and processing plants that the company operates. This is because the billions of chickens kept in those facilities need food, which often comes in the form of cheap crops like corn. Tyson uses over ten million acres of land to grow feed crops in the United States. That's more total land area than nine states in the US—all dedicated to feeding chickens.
In short: Tyson's massive scale of production makes a massive impact on the environment. The Environment America Research & Policy Center named Tyson the number one water polluter among agricultural companies. It is also the second-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the meat industry. When reporting their findings on Tyson and other big food companies' emissions, experts at the Institute for Agriculture & Trade policy warned that, if their production practices continued business-as-usual, climate catastrophe would become inevitable. In other words, the way Tyson runs its business is simply unsustainable.
Tyson Foods sustainability pledge
Recognizing that the company could not continue down this path, shareholders pressured Tyson to address its major environmental issues. To ease their concerns, the company released a new sustainability pledge, promising shareholders "a holistic approach to sustainability focused on social, environmental and economic stewardship," and committing to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. As part of this "holistic approach," the company committed to implementing sustainable farming practices on two million acres of land by 2020—working with crop suppliers to "adopt more efficient fertilizer practices, and take additional measures to reduce water runoff and soil loss."
2020 came and went, and the program did not take off. Instead, Tyson continued business-as-usual, implementing its new sustainability practices on a modest 408,000 acres of land—less than a quarter of the 2 million acres of cropland that the company promised to implement the practices on, and less than 5% of the total cropland the company uses. While the company admitted that it came up short on its promise, its ultimate response was not to work harder and faster to become more sustainable, but to push back its goal to 2025. Instead of holding themselves accountable, Tyson leadership wrote themselves another pass to continue business-as-usual.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has spent years keeping a close eye on Tyson's environmental practices, and comparing these practices to the company's pledges and press releases. After seeing the company "punt" its sustainability plans down the line far too many times, UCS called out Tyson for "corporate greenwashing." Tyson points to its net-zero pledge to bolster its reputation, reassuring shareholders and concerned consumers that its business model is sustainable, and that its business can be part of the solution to climate change. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the company uses the wiggle room afforded by loose deadlines and vague promises to continue its massive polluting operations business-as-usual—pushing us further toward climate catastrophe.
While Tyson's offenses against the climate and its consumers are egregious, it is far from the only company that takes part in this greenwashing. In fact, the situation at Tyson reveals a broader trend in corporate sustainability, centered around the controversial concept of "net-zero."
What’s the problem with net-zero climate pledges?
What is a net-zero climate pledge?
"Net-zero" is a hot topic in the climate movement—as of 2021, over 130 countries are considering net-zero emissions goals, and 20% of the world's largest companies have set their sights on net-zero in the private sector. But, what does net-zero actually mean?
When they set net-zero climate goals, countries and companies aren't actually aiming for zero greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the goal of net-zero is to balance out greenhouse gas emissions with carbon offsets—projects that absorb excess carbon from the atmosphere and slow climate change, like planting forests or restoring soil. Theoretically, if a country or company invests in an equal amount of carbon offsets to its emissions, its climate footprint would net zero emissions, and it would not further exacerbate climate change. Because of this, some experts refer to "net-zero" as "carbon neutral" or "climate neutral."
These pledges are purposefully vague—as in, they allow companies and countries to "choose their own adventure" when it comes to how they will offset their emissions. It sounds good in theory—but, in practice, many companies see net-zero as a signed permission slip to continue emitting massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, so long as they offset it at a later date. Corporate Accountability, a citizen watchdog group, goes as far as to call net-zero "The Big Con" in a 2021 report of the same title. They state:
“At the end of the day, ‘net-zero’ schemes are Big Polluters’ reinvigorated attempt to preserve business as usual and keep profiting. After decades of denial, it’s no coincidence Big Polluters are pushing ‘net-zero’ into the center of climate action—it provides an avenue for boosting profits and talking about ‘climate action’ without even mentioning a managed fossil fuel decline or decreasing the production and consumption of emissions intensive products.”
Tyson Foods net-zero pledge
We see this scheme in action with Tyson Foods—one of the biggest "Big Polluters'' out there—spotlighting its net-zero pledge and sustainability plans, while not actually reducing its emissions. And, the scheme starts to look more nefarious when considering that Tyson is one of the meat companies that severely underreported its emissions estimates, according to an analysis by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and non-profit GRAIN. Tyson uses these manipulated numbers to paint a much rosier picture about how it's working to be more sustainable, as well as to ease consumer worries about climate change. Behind the scenes, the company continues to scale up production and pollute our air, water, and soils: the very definition of greenwashing.
So, Tyson's net-zero pledge doesn't represent meaningful climate action. Instead, it represents a growing trend of greenwashing in the meat industry. "In the face of mounting evidence of the livestock industry's climate impacts and a growing array of meat alternatives, the sector has developed a multipronged PR strategy that seeks to legitimize not only the industry's current activities but also its plans to scale up production—despite clear warnings from scientists that this could scupper efforts to meet climate targets," according to an independent investigative report by Desmog. In short, meat companies like Tyson use net-zero pledges and deceptive marketing to position themselves as part of the climate solution, when they're actually further perpetuating the problem.
What you can do
When multibillion-dollar corporations like Tyson Foods don’t pull their weight and act on climate, we all pay the price. But, not all hope is lost. When we stay informed and act to hold these corporations accountable, we say “no” to the meat industry’s false climate narratives and carve out a path to a more sustainable future. Here’s what you can do to be part of it.
Look out for greenwashing & make informed choices
It's already difficult enough to ensure your buying choices fit you and your family's needs while minimizing your impact on the environment. When Tyson and other companies greenwash their products, these choices become even more difficult. But, thankfully, there are ways to stay informed about corporate deception.
A great place to start is by looking into the Seven Sins of Greenwashing, a short guide developed by TerraChoice, the environmental consulting firm which originally coined the term in 2007. They warn consumers to look out for companies that market products with vague sustainability claims, that don't offer proof to back up their claims, or that market their products as "a lesser of two evils." Between the vagueness of its net-zero pledge, the lack of proof that it will meet its net-zero pledge, and its marketing of chicken as a more sustainable protein than other animal products, Tyson is guilty of many of these sins.
Once we're familiar with what signs to look for, greenwashing becomes easy to spot. And, when we look past greenwashing and into the reality of our food's impact, we can make truly informed consumer choices. In spite of their tight grip over the industry, we don't have to support Tyson or other Big Ag companies that deceive consumers and destroy the environment in the process. Instead, we can choose foods that are good for our planet, good for local economies, and good for our bodies—no trade-offs or "lesser evils" required. One of the proven ways that we can do this is by swapping out emissions-intensive meat and dairy products for plant-based foods, which requires a fraction of the energy, land, soil, and water that traditional meat does. And, in addition to trying more plant-based foods, there's no better way to know where your food comes from than when you shop locally—keeping our money out of the pockets of multibillion-dollar corporations like Tyson and giving it back to farmers in our community. When more of us start making these informed choices and fight back against Big Ag, we can create a food system that works for us all.
