Food producers and net zero:a review of progress
April 2024

Cristóbal Budnevich Portales, Valentin Jahn, Simon Dietz and Ali Amin

About the LSE Transition Pathway Initiative Centre
The Transition Pathway Initiative (TPI) Centre is an independent, authoritative source of research anddata on the progress of corporate and sovereign entities in transitioning to a low-carbon economy.
The TPI Centre is part of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment,
which is based at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). The TPI Centre is theacademic partner of TPI, a global initiative led by asset owners and supported by asset managers. As of
March 2024, over 150 investors globally, representing around US$60 trillion combined Assets Under
Management and Advice, have pledged support for TPI.
The TPI Centre provides data on publicly listed equities, corporate bond issuers, banks, and sovereign bondissuers. The TPI Centre’s company data:•assess the quality of companies’ governance and management of their carbon emissions and ofrisks and opportunities related to the low-carbon transition;•

evaluate whether companies’ current and planned future emissions are aligned with international
climate targets and national climate pledges, including those made as part of the Paris
Agreement;•

form the basis for the Climate Action 100+ Net Zero Company Benchmark Disclosure Frameworkassessments; and•are published alongside the methods online and fully open access at
www.transitionpathwayinitiative.org and on GitHub.

About the authors
Cristóbal Budnevich Portales is a Research Analyst at the TPI Centre.
Valentin Jahn is the Principal Research Project Manager at the TPI Centre.
Simon Dietz is the Research Director at the TPI Centre and a Professor of Environmental Policy in the
Department of Geography and Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Ali Amin is a Research Project Manager at the TPI Centre.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Carmen Nuzzo, Executive Director of the TPI Centre and Beata
Bienkowska, Deputy Director of the TPI Centre, for their feedback on this report. Natalie Pearson copyedited the report.
The views in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the hostinstitutions or funders. The authors declare no conflict of interest in preparing this report. For the full
disclaimer about the data and information published in this report, see p20.
This paper was first published in April 2024 by the Transition Pathway Initiative Centre.
© The authors, 2024
Published under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC licence. Permissions requests should be directed toGeorgina Kyriacou: g.a.kyriacou@lse.ac.uk.
Suggested citation: Budnevich Portales C, Jahn V, Dietz S and Amin A (2024) Food producers and net zero: a review
of progress. London: TPI Global Climate Transition Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science.

2

Contents
Executive summary

4

1. Introduction

6

The food sector and its contribution to climate change

6

Carbon Performance methodology overview

7

Emissions intensity metric8

2. Assessment results

9

Assessed companies

9

Emissions intensity pathways and alignment scores

9

Food producers’ emissions breakdown and further analysis

12

3. Disclosure gaps and targets

14

Company disclosure gaps and the evolution of disclosure

14

Target-setting

16

4. Conclusions, recommendations and next steps

19

References

19

Disclaimer

20

Executive summary
The food sector is responsible for up to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Achieving the goalsof the Paris Agreement – limiting the global temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial
levels, while pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5°C – therefore necessitates a transformation of
global food systems, making food a priority sector in the transition to a low-carbon economy. The
attention given to food systems at the 2023 UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) is evidence of this.
However, efforts to assess companies’ alignment with the Paris goals have tended to be restricted to theenergy and industrial sectors. A major reason for the neglect of food is the methodological challenges inassessing the ‘Paris alignment’ of companies in this sector. Low-carbon scenarios for the food sector are
scarcer than for energy/industry, and do not provide comparable data with what food companies
disclose, or account for the high level of product differentiation in the sector. Many data challenges arise
from the sector’s complex supply chains, differences in agricultural practices, and the lack of consistent,
detailed company disclosure of sourced agricultural inputs.
In response to these challenges, the TPI Centre has produced a new methodology to assess the Carbon
Performance of food producers. It quantifies food producers’ historical and future greenhouse gas
emissions and compares them with low-carbon benchmarks for the sector. The methodology focuses on
capturing material greenhouse gas emissions and activity data from food producers, encompassing both
operational emissions (Scopes 1 and 2) and the crucial upstream value chain emissions associated with
agricultural activities and land-use change (Scope 3, Category 1 – purchased goods and services).
The TPI Centre’s Carbon Performance assessments are designed to be used alongside its Management
Quality assessments to fully understand where companies are in their decarbonisation journey, identifying
those actively managing the transition to a low-carbon economy and those lagging behind.
This report presents and analyses the results from applying the Carbon Performance methodology to theworld’s 26 largest publicly listed food producers, which had a combined market capitalisation of
approximately US$930 billion in 2022.

Key findings and recommendations•

Of the 26 food producers assessed, only seven have reported sufficient data to enable theassessment of their historical emissions intensities and emissions reduction targets on acomparable basis. The 73% of companies classified as ‘no or unsuitable disclosure’ is the highest
proportion within any sector assessed by the TPI Centre during the 2023 cycle. Most food producers
do not disclose sourced agricultural inputs in physical units (mass) – information that is essential
for calculating companies’ emissions intensity pathways in a way that is comparable acrosscompanies of different sizes and with different product portfolios.

•

Most of the food producers assessed have set an emissions reduction target; only two have not set
any. Among the 26 companies, 22 medium- and 16 long-term targets have been set. However,
due to disclosure limitations – including on sourced agricultural inputs – only five of the 22
medium-term targets (23%) and three of the 16 long-term targets (19%) can currently beassessed using our Carbon Performance methodology. There is also a notable absence of shortterm targets, with only two companies setting suitable targets covering the period up to 2026.

•

No food producer is aligned with the 1.5°C benchmark throughout the three assessed timeframes,
i.e. in the short (2025), medium (2035) and long term (2050). No company aligns with 1.5°C in the
short term; only one (Nestlé) aligns in the medium term; and two (Ajinomoto and Nestlé) align inthe long term (see Figures ES1 and ES2 below).

•

Different factors can influence food producers’ historical emissions intensities, including the mix ofsourced agricultural inputs, the origin of sourced inputs and the energy efficiency of firms’
manufacturing plants. For example, Lindt & Sprüngli’s relatively high emissions intensity can be4

attributed to the substantial share of cocoa in its sourced input mix, which embodies a highcarbon footprint.
•

Besides setting more ambitious emissions targets, a key recommendation of this report is thatfood producers must improve the disclosure of Scope 3 emissions and purchased agricultural
inputs. This includes explicitly stating if emissions from agriculture, land use, land-use change andforestry are included in their Scope 3 emissions accounting and emissions targets. This will enable
more food producers to be assessed against the TPI Carbon Performance methodology and inform
investors’ engagement and decision-making. Existing disclosures by some companies in our sample
suggest such disclosure is feasible.

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2

2°C
Nestlé
ConAgra Brands
Uni-president Enterprises

Below 2°C
Ajinomoto
Lindt & Sprüngli

2050

2049

2048

2047

2046

2045

2044

2043

2042

2041

2040

2039

2038

2037

2036

2035

2034

2033

2032

2031

2030

2029

2028

2027

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

0

2015

1
2014

Emissions intensity (tonnes of carbn dioxide equivalent[tCO2e]/tonnes of agricultural inputs)

Figure ES1. Emissions intensity pathways for food producers

1.5°C
Archer Daniels Midland
Mowi

Notes: Solid lines are the historical data for companies. The dashed lines correspond to the estimated forward-looking values of thefirms' targets. The coloured areas are the emissions intensity benchmarks.

Figure ES2. Food producers’ alignment with emissions intensity benchmarks by time horizon
Ajinomoto,
Nestlé
Mowi
ADM, Conagra Brands,
Lindt & Sprüngli, Unipresident Enterprises

Associated British Foods, Bunge, Campbell Soup,
China Mengniu Dairy, Danone Darling Ingredients, General MillsLong term (2050)

Nestlé
Mowi
Ajinomoto, ADM, Conagra
Brands, Lindt & Sprüngli,
Uni-president Enterprises

Hershey Company, Hormel Foods, J M Smucker,
Kellogg, Kerry Group, Kikkoman

Medium term (2035)

Nestlé
Ajinomoto, ADM, Conagra Brands,
Lindt & Sprüngli, Mowi,
Uni-president Enterprises

Kraft Heinz, Lamb Weston Holdings, McCormick & Co,
Meiji Holdings, Mondelez, Tyson Foods

Short term (2025)

0%

10%

20%

No or unsuitable disclosure

30%

40%

Not aligned

50%
2 Degrees

60%

70%

Below 2 Degrees

80%

1.5 Degrees

Note: Companies with no or unsuitable disclosure are listed once, as their alignment scores remain constant.

5

90%

100%

1. Introduction
The food sector and its contribution to climate change
Due to its direct dependence on nature and immense requirements for land and sea, the food sector has
a fundamental impact on the natural environment. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), agriculture is responsible for 90% of global deforestation [1]. The United Nations Environmental
Programme (UNEP) finds that agriculture is the key driver of global biodiversity loss, responsible for 86%
of the species that are at risk of extinction [2]. As such, agriculture is one of the greatest forces negatively
affecting the balance of different ecosystems worldwide [3]. At the same time, agriculture heavily
depends on the ecosystem services that the natural environment provides.
A major environmental impact of agriculture is greenhouse gas emissions. Although it is notoriously
difficult to measure, studies indicate that the sector is responsible for between one-quarter and one-thirdof total emissions globally, with some studies suggesting an even greater contribution [4][5][6].
Consequently, a transformation of global food systems is required to achieve the Paris Agreement goal of
limiting the global temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, while pursuing efforts tolimit the increase to 1.5°C [7]. While decarbonisation efforts have primarily focused on the energy,transportation, industrial and materials sectors, the critical role of food and agriculture in achieving net
zero goals is receiving increasing recognition, as exemplified by the focus on this issue during the 2023 UN
Climate Change Conference (COP28).
Food system emissions are produced at various stages of the value chain but are mostly concentrated
upstream in the value chain. Upstream emissions from agriculture contribute around 80% of global foodsector emissions [3][8] (see Figure 1.1a). A further breakdown of these emissions shows the largest share(37%) comes from livestock/aquaculture, which can be closely linked to farming and breeding of
ruminant animals, followed by crop production (33%), which is associated with rice cultivation and theuse of synthetic fertilisers (see Figure 1.1b). The remainder are associated with land use change (21%) andother sources such as burning of the savannah and cultivated organic soils [3][8]. Greenhouse gases arealso emitted by energy-intensive processes in the middle and downstream stages of the food value chain,
which includes the manufacturing, transport and packaging of food products; these stages account foraround 20% of the food system's global emissions [3][9][10][11].
From the perspective of a food producers’ emissions accounting, upstream emissions fall under Scope 3,
Category 1 – purchased goods and services. They are therefore of critical importance to include in theanalysis. As such, the TPI Centre incorporates this element within its Carbon Performance methodology
for food producers.
Figure 1.1a. Food system emissions by stage inthe value chain
3% 4%

Figure 1.1b. Breakdown of upstream
emissions by source

5%
6%

RetailFood processing
PackagingTransport
Upstream emissions

82%

6

Carbon Performance methodology overview
The TPI Centre recently published a note on methodology to accompany the first round of food producers’
Carbon Performance assessment results [12]. Our Carbon Performance methodology allows for acomparison of food producers’ historical and forward-looking emissions pathways based on emissions
targets, with three low-carbon benchmark pathways corresponding to the Paris Agreement goals (1.5°C,
Below 2°C and 2°C). The methodology thus tests companies’ ‘Paris alignment’. The benchmarks accountfor emissions from energy and from land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF). Emissions arenormalised by a measure of company activity that is comparable across the sector.
A major challenge is that food producers do not disclose emissions and activity data in a manner that is
consistent with the models that can be used to develop benchmarks. For example, companies often
disclose activity data as weight of product sold instead of sourced agricultural inputs. This inconsistency
means the information disclosed by companies needs to be harmonised with the scenario data producedby models of the low-carbon transition.
Our low-carbon benchmark pathways for the food sector are generated in two steps:1
1. A baseline value is established for the food sector’s emissions intensity in the starting year of 2020.
This is achieved by aggregating data on global agricultural production, combined with data on
global emissions factors of agricultural commodities.
2. Changes in the food sector’s emissions intensity are estimated from 2020 onwards along different
low-carbon scenarios. Scenario data is used from Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) in theacademic literature that simulate changes in agriculture and LULUCF emissions (Scope 3) and iscomplemented with operational emissions (Scope 1 and 2) data from the International Energy
Agency (IEA).
Figure 1.2. The two-step approach to developing low-carbon benchmarks for food producers

Step 1:
Determine thestarting point

Step 2:
Projecttransition
dynamics

Globalagricultural
productionbycommodity

Globalemissionsfactors
database bycommodity
Food systembase year
emissions
intensity(2020)

Scope 3,Category 1
emissionsandagricultural
production

Scope 1 and 2
emissionsusing residual
industrial
emissionsFood
producers’
emissions
intensity
benchmarks(2020–2050)

1

For further details and adjustments to the methodology, see: Carbon Performance assessment of food producers: note on
methodology.

7

Emissions intensity metric
The Carbon Performance methodology is based on an emissions intensity metric that incorporates Scope
1, 2 and 3 (Category 1 – purchased agricultural goods emissions), measured in units of tonnes of CO2
equivalent (tCO2e) per tonne of sourced agricultural inputs:
𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 =𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 1 + 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 2 + 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 3 (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 1, 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖)
𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖(Equation 1)

The inclusion of emissions from Scope 3 (Category 1 – purchased agricultural inputs subcategory) is crucial
as the majority of the emissions attributed to food producers come from upstream in the value chain (seeFigures 1.1a; 1.1b). These upstream emissions are mainly attributable to direct emissions from LULUCF,
coupled with related emissions from farming crops and raising livestock. 2
Given the significance of emissions from LULUCF for food producers, it is essential for companies toexplicitly state the inclusion of agriculture and LULUCF emissions in their greenhouse gas emissions
accounting and decarbonisation targets.
The denominator in the emissions intensity measure is sourced agricultural inputs rather than final foodproducts. The reason for this choice is that unprocessed agricultural inputs align more closely with thecommodities included in the emissions factors and global production data used to derive the benchmark
pathways. It is currently unfeasible to produce low-carbon benchmark pathways for final food products.

2

If the Scope 3, Category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions breakdown is not available (as is the case for mostcompanies evaluated), we assume purchased agricultural inputs emissions to be the same as total emissions from this category,as these typically represent the majority of the emissions.

82. Assessment results
Assessed companies
The TPI Centre has applied its new Carbon Performance methodology to 26 of the world’s largest publicly
listed food producers. These companies are drawn from the ‘Food Products (3577)’ and ‘Farming, Fishing,and Plantations (3573)’ subsectors of the consumer goods sector under the Industry Classification
Benchmark (ICB), version 2.6. Company size is measured by free-float market capitalisation. The 26
companies were selected to optimise sector coverage (based on market capitalisation) within the scopeof the study.
The combined market capitalisation of the firms analysed exceeded US$928 billion in 2022, representing
nearly 76% of the total market capitalisation of the sector (see Table 2.1 below). Most of the assessedcompanies have headquarters in the USA (15) and Europe (6), with the remaining five based in Asia, but
most operate globally. Companies’ public disclosures were evaluated between 1 May and 17 July 2023. 3
As Carbon Performance is only one measure of corporate climate action, the TPI Centre also provides aManagement Quality assessment based on qualitative indicators that evaluate and track the quality ofcompanies’ climate governance and management. These two assessments are complementary andshould be used together (for further details please refer to [13]).

Emissions intensity pathways and alignment scores
The results of the assessment, presented in Figure 2.1 below, show companies' historical emissions
intensities and – where greenhouse targets have been set – their projected future emissions intensities.
The company pathways are compared with three different benchmarks: 1.5°C; Below 2°C; and 2°C.
Companies are categorised into four groups.
•

Group 1: Companies that have no or unsuitable disclosures.

•Group 2: Companies with historical emissions intensity data but no projected forward-looking
values.

•Group 3: Companies with historical emissions intensity data and projected forward-looking values,
whose pathways do not align with any of the benchmarks.

•

Group 4: Companies with historical emissions intensity data and projected forward-looking values,
whose pathways align with one or more of the benchmarks.

Out of the 26 companies in the sample, 19 (73%) have no or unsuitable disclosures, meaning they cannot
be assessed against the TPI Centre’s emissions intensity benchmarks; hence they belong to Group 1. This isbecause a considerable number of companies do not disclose their sourced agricultural inputs in units ofmass, a metric which is required to calculate an emissions intensity pathway.
Group 2 comprises Lindt & Sprüngli and Uni-President Enterprises. They both lack quantifiable forwardlooking targets and their historical emissions do not align with any of the benchmarks.
Group 3 is also formed of two companies: ADM and ConAgra Brands. While they disclose quantified
emissions reduction targets, they are not ambitious enough for their emissions intensity pathways to alignwith the benchmarks in any given year.
The emissions pathways of the companies in Group 4 (Ajinomoto, Mowi and Nestlé) align with one ormore of the benchmarks at some point during the assessment horizon.
3

Following the Carbon Performance assessments, companies were given three weeks to provide feedback after they were sentout on 26 June 2023. The results in this report are based solely on the assessment and feedback provided by the companies,
supported by publicly available sources (e.g., company sustainability reports, as well as responses to the annual CDP
questionnaire).

9

Table 2.1. Sample of food producers used by the TPI Centre
Company nameMarket capitalisation(US$ billion)

Country of headquarters

1

Nestlé

339.7

Switzerland

2

Mondelez International

85.5

USA

3

Kraft Heinz

44.9

USA

4

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)

44.1

USA

5

General Mills

43.3

USA

6

Danone35.4

France7

Hershey Company

30.9

USA

8

Hormel Foods

26.2

USA

9

Tyson Foods

24.1

USA

10

Kellogg

22.8

USA

11

McCormick & Co

21.7

USA

12

China Mengniu Dairy

20.0

China

13

Kerry Group

18.9

Ireland

14

Associated British Foods

16.5

UK

15

ConAgra Brands

16.1

USA

16

Lindt & Sprüngli

15.6

Switzerland

17

Ajinomoto

15.0

Japan

18

J M Smucker

14.5

USA

19

Campbell Soup

13.8

USA

20

Bunge

13.8

USA

21

Uni-President Enterprises

13.0

Taiwan22

Kikkoman

12.5

Japan

23

Mowi*

11.3

Norway24

Darling Ingredients

11.2

USA

25

Lamb Weston Holdings

9.9

USA

26

Meiji Holdings

7.4

Japan

Notes: Market capitalisation corresponds to the average quarterly value for the year 2022, based on data provided by FTSE Russell. *Mowi is the
only company categorised in the farming and fishing subsector. All other companies belong to the food products subsector based on the ICB
sector classification (version 2.6).

10

Emissions intensity (tCO2e/tonnes agricultural inputs)

Figure 2.1. Food producers’ emissions intensity pathways

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050

0
2°C
Nestlé
ConAgra Brands
Uni-president Enterprises

Below 2°C
Ajinomoto
Lindt & Sprüngli

1.5°C
Archer Daniels Midland
Mowi

Note: Solid lines represent companies’ historical data. Dotted lines show the estimated forward-looking values of the firms'
targets. If a company has only a dotted line, it means that only one historical data point could be calculated. The coloured areas
are the emissions intensity benchmarks.

These data can be used to assess companies’ alignment with the emissions intensity benchmarks in the
short (2025), medium (2035), and long term (2050). 4 In the short term (2025), only one company isaligned with any of TPI’s benchmarks: Nestlé, which aligns with the Below 2°C benchmark. In the medium
term (2035), two companies align with TPI’s benchmarks: Mowi, which aligns with Below 2°C; and Nestlé,
which aligns with the 1.5°C benchmark. In the long term, Ajinomoto and Nestlé are aligned with 1.5°C,
and Mowi is aligned with Below 2°C. Figure 2.2 below shows a summary of the alignment scores of the 26
food producers for each timeframe.
Overall, the assessment results reveal that limited disclosure is a significant problem in the food sector(see Section 3, Table 3.1 for details on the food producers' disclosure gap). Among all high-emitting
sectors assessed by the TPI Centre during the 2023 cycle, food producers exhibited the highest proportionof companies with ‘no or unsuitable disclosure’ by a large margin (73% versus 50% for the next highest
sector: cement). Furthermore, the ambition of assessed company targets appears insufficient, with overhalf of those disclosing relevant information failing to align with any TPI benchmarks across any of thethree timeframes.

4

If a company's projected emissions pathway does not extend to the specified benchmark years (2025, 2035 or 2050), we use thecompany's last reported value (whether historical or projected) and compare it with the benchmark values of the specified years.
The timeframe for short-term alignment will be extended to 2027 in the next assessment cycle in 2024, and may be updated
annually.

11

Figure 2.2. Food producers’ alignment with emissions intensity benchmarks by time horizon(n=26)Long term (2050)

73%

Medium term (2035)

73%

Short term (2025)

73%

0%
10%
20%
No or unsuitable disclosure

15%

4%

19%

23%

30%
40%
50%
Not aligned
2 Degrees

60%
70%
Below 2 Degrees

8%

4% 4%

4%

80%
90%
1.5 Degrees

100%

Food producers’ emissions breakdown and further analysis
To demonstrate the materiality of upstream value chain emissions in the food sector, Figure 2.3 shows theshare of upstream emissions in total Scope 1, 2 and 3 (Category 1) emissions for the year 2021. Scope 3(Category 1) emissions account for more than 80% of total relevant emissions for all companies in thesample except for ADM. The mean share is nearly 90%. The figure also highlights the concentrated natureof the sector, with six of the 20 companies who report Scope 1, 2 and 3 (Category 1) emissions accounting
for 80% of total food sector emissions (Nestlé, Bunge, ADM, Kraft Heinz, Mondelez International andDanone). Collectively, the absolute emissions total approximately 340 million tonnes of CO2e, which iscomparable to over half of the total Scope 1 emissions from the aviation sector in 2021 [14].

Kilotones of CO2e

Figure 2.3. Food producers’ emissions breakdown and Scope 3 (Category 1) as a proportion of total
emissions, 2021
100,000

100%

90,00090%

80,00080%

70,00070%

60,00060%

50,00050%

40,00040%

30,00030%

20,00020%

10,00010%

00%

Scope 1

Scope 2

Scope 3 - Category 1% Scope 3 - Category 1 to total emissions

Notes: *The reported data for Conagra Brands and General Mills is from 2020 due to unavailable disclosure for the 2021. Twenty of
26 companies reported Scope 1, 2 and 3 (Category 1) emissions.

12

The mix of agricultural inputs sourced can have a substantial impact on a company’s emissions intensity(see Figure 2.4). For the three companies that provide a breakdown of their sourced agricultural inputs,
we evaluate their emissions intensity based on a simple categorisation of their input mix. 5 Lindt &Sprüngli’s relatively high emissions intensity can be explained by the high share of cocoa in their input mix:
dark chocolate has a global median carbon footprint of 46.8 kilograms of CO2 equivalent (kgCO2e) per
kilogram of product [3][8]. In contrast, Uni-president Enterprises’ emissions intensity is only slightly above
the 1.5°C benchmark. This might seem counter-intuitive given that dairy products tend to embody
relatively high greenhouse emissions. For instance, cheese has a global median emissions intensity of
23.9kgCO2e per kilogram of product. However, Uni-president Enterprises’ emissions intensity is lower
because it only sources milk, which has a global median intensity of 3.2kgCO2e per kilogram of product[3][8]. The results highlight that food companies face different challenges in their efforts to decarbonisein line with international climate goals.
Other factors, including where inputs are sourced from6 and how energy-efficient manufacturing plants
are, can affect food producers’ emissions intensities. ADM’s emissions intensity is difficult to reconcile with
its sourced input mix as almost 98% of the company’s sourced ingredients are soy and other plant-based
products, which generally have a low emissions intensity. However, this can be explained by a highemissions intensity in the food processing stage. ADM’s large share of Scope 1 and 2 emissions as aproportion of its total emissions (40%) is suggestive of this. As shown in Figure 2.4, ADM’s large share of
Scope 1 and 2 emissions as a proportion of its total emissions makes it an outlier within the sector.

100%

10

90%

9

80%

8

70%

7

60%

6

50%

5

40%

4

30%

3

20%

2

10%

1

Emissions intensity (tCO2e/tonne agricultural inputs)

Agricultural inputs mix share

Figure 2.4. Effect of sourced agricultural inputs mix (left axis) on company’s emissions intensity (rightaxis), 2021–2022

00%Archer Daniels Midland (2021)

Lindt & Sprüngli (2022)

Uni-president Enterprises (2021)

Animal products

Dairy products

Soy products

Palm oil

Cocoa

CoffeePlant based

Other

Emissions intensity

1.5°C benchmark

Notes: ADM and Uni-president Enterprises are compared against the 2021 1.5°C emissions intensity benchmark, whereas Lindt &Sprüngli is compared against the 2022 value due to a more comprehensive disclosure of its sourced inputs for that year. The white
dotted lines represent the difference between each company’s emission intensity and the 1.5°C emissions intensity benchmark
value for the assessed year.

5
6

These categories include animal products, dairy products, cocoa coffee, palm oil, plant-based products, soy products, and others.
For further details please check [3][8].

133. Disclosure gaps and targets
Company disclosure gaps and the evolution of disclosures
In the 2023 Carbon Performance assessment cycle, 19 of the 26 food producers (73%) were found to haveno disclosures or unsuitable disclosures, meaning that this proportion could not be assessed. The reasonsfor this are summarised below and detailed in Table 3.1.
•

Six companies did not disclose data on Scope 3 (Category 1) greenhouse gas emissions.

•

Sixteen companies did not disclose the quantity of their sourced agricultural inputs in physicalunits (mass), the denominator of the emissions intensity metric. In addition, only three of 26
companies provided a breakdown of sourced inputs by commodity type. Without this, companies'
emissions intensities cannot be verified using emissions factors from the academic literature.

•

Two companies disclosed both sourced agricultural inputs and Scope 1, 2 and 3 (Category 1)
emissions, but inconsistent reporting boundaries prevented their emissions intensity pathways
from being calculated.

•

Nineteen of 26 companies did not explicitly mention whether their emissions disclosures andemissions reduction targets factored in emissions from LULUCF. Given the materiality of upstream
emissions for food producers, their inclusion is essential to the accurate assessment of companies'
Carbon Performance.

Table 3.1 shows the years for which companies made the relevant data publicly available. These data aregrouped into two categories: essential and desirable. Essential elements are the minimum data required
to estimate an emissions intensity value. Desirable elements allow for a more precise calculation,enhancing the accuracy of companies’ disclosure.
On average, food producers started disclosing Scope 3 (Category 1) emissions and their sourced
agricultural inputs in units of mass in 2018, with some having reported them as early as 2013. However,
only seven companies explicitly mention the inclusion of LULUCF emissions in their accounting andtargets, with an average starting year of 2019. 7 Additionally, only four companies disclosed a Scope 3(Category 1) breakdown and five disclosed sourced agricultural inputs by type, starting in 2020 on
average (see Box 3.1 below for a case study).
These trends illustrate that company disclosure in the food producers’ sector is a relatively new
phenomenon compared to other sectors assessed by the TPI Centre such as electricity utilities, in which
disclosures typically began in 2013 or 2014. This gap may be attributed to the complexities of collecting
Scope 3 (Category 1) emissions data.
We also assessed the progress made by the ten companies from the 2022 pilot assessment cycle (listed inbold in Table 3.1). 8 The reassessment of these initially assessed companies showed a lack of progress: none
had disclosed any new information relevant to the calculation of emissions intensity pathways, thus they
continued to have no or unsuitable disclosures.

Photo: BBC World Service/Flickr
7

During this first Carbon Performance assessment cycle, the TPI Centre assumed, where appropriate, that LULUCF emissions
were included in company reporting, even if they did not explicitly state this. This assumption will be revisited in futureassessment cycles.
8
See the full results of the pilot assessment in the TPI Centre’s 2022 discussion paper.

14

Table 3.1. Food producers’ disclosures, with the year in which they were made available
Essential

Desirable

Discloses Scope 3(Category 1)

Explicit mention of
LULUCF emissions
included in
Upstream Scope 3
accounting

Discloses
Discloses Scope 3
Discloses
sourced inputs(Category 1) fromsourced inputs inby commodity
purchased
units of massin units ofagricultural inputs
mass

Total share (and number) ofcompanies disclosing
related data

77% (20)

27% (7)38% (10)15% (4)19% (5)

Average year of disclosure

2018

2019

2018

2020

2020

Ajinomoto

2016

n/a

2014

n/a

n/a

Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)

2019

2021

2021

n/a

2021

Associated British Foods

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Bunge

2018

2018

n/a

n/a

n/a

Campbell Soup

2018

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

China Mengniu Dairy

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

ConAgra Brands

2018

2021

2019

2020

n/a

Danone

2015

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Darling Ingredients

n/a

n/a

2019

n/a

n/a

General Mills

2014

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hershey Company

2019

2020

n/a

n/a

n/a

Hormel Foods

2021

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

JM Smucker

2019

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Kellogg

2019

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Kerry Group

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Kikkoman

2018

n/a

2018

n/a

2018

Kraft Heinz

2017

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Lamb Weston Holdings

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Lindt & Sprüngli

2020

2021

2019

2021

2019

McCormick & Co

2018

n/a

n/a

2018

n/a

Meiji Holdings

2017

n/a

2014

n/a

2021

Mondelez International

2013

2017

n/a

2019

n/a

Mowi

2018

n/a

2018

n/a

n/a

Nestlé

2013

2018

2013

n/a

n/a

Tyson Foods

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

Uni-president Enterprises

2020

n/a

2020

n/a

2020

Note: Companies in bold represent the subset of companies that were part of the pilot assessment cycle on which the 2022
discussion paper was based.

15

Box 3.1. Good practice example: Lindt & Sprüngli’s disclosure
In its 2021 and 2022 Sustainability Reports, Lindt & Sprüngli
disclosed its Scope 3 (Category 1) emissions by sub-category,
quantifying the contributions of its main sourced inputs, which
are cocoa and other raw materials (dairy, sugar and hazelnuts).
Furthermore, the company states that it has analysed satellite
imagery of its cocoa farms over the past 20 years to increase theaccuracy of their calculated emissions from land-use change.
Similarly, Lindt & Sprüngli discloses the quantity of sourced
agricultural inputs by type in units of mass, including cocoa,
sugar, palm oil, hazelnuts and sugar. This comprehensive
disclosure allows the company's historical emissions intensity
pathway to be accurately calculated [15][16].

Photo: BBC World Service, Flickr

Target-setting
To complement our analysis of the disclosure gap in the food producers’ sector, we have mapped allcompanies’ emissions reduction targets according to their time horizon and suitability for assessments ofCarbon Performance (see Table 3.2). Our analysis reveals that most food producers have set medium(2027–2035) and long-term (2036-2050) emissions targets: 85% of companies (22 of 26) have mediumterm targets and 62% (16 of 26) have long-term targets (see Box 3.2 below for a case study). However,
only 23% of medium-term targets (5 of 22) and 19% of long-term targets (3 of 16) can ultimately beassessed on Carbon Performance. This is due to a combination of two factors:
1. Some companies set emissions reduction targets on a basis that is inconsistent with the TPI
Centre’s Carbon Performance methodology. For instance, companies may set targets on a groupwide basis rather than stating how they will apply them to their food-producing operations
specifically. Targets that are stated on a basis consistent with the TPI Centre’s methodology arelabelled “suitable” targets and are highlighted in green in Table 3.2. below.
2. When companies’ historical emissions intensities cannot be calculated due to a lack of disclosure,the future emissions intensities implied by their targets cannot be measured either, as there is nobaseline against which to apply the targets. This limitation also applies to suitable targets as
defined in point (1), explaining why some companies with suitable targets could still not be
assessed during the 2023 cycle.
Box 3.2. Good practice example: Nestlé’s Net Zero Roadmap
In March 2023, Nestlé published a Net Zero Roadmap which
outlines its plan to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by
2050. The company sets an interim goal which aims for a 50%
reduction in emissions by 2030 compared to 2018 levels. Nestlé's
decarbonisation strategy prioritises reductions across all scopes ofemissions, with a particular emphasis on Scope 3.
Nestlé has defined intermediate objectives that will support its
goal to achieve net zero by 2050. These include: 100% renewableelectricity use in all its sites by 2025; transforming its productportfolio by promoting plant-based alternatives; and sourcing 50%
of its key ingredients through regenerative agricultural methods
by 2030. The listing of interim actions to support long-term
decarbonisation goals allow investors and practitioners toevaluate companies’ current and planned actions to reduce
their emissions [17][18].
16

Photo: GeographTable 3.2. Emissions reduction target-setting in the food producers’ sector
Short-term targets[2023–2026]

Medium-term targets[2027–2035]

Long-term targets[2036–2050]

Ajinomoto

2030

2050

ADM

2035

Associated British Foods

2030

Bunge

2030

Campbell Soup

2030

China Mengniu Dairy

2025

2030

ConAgra Brands

2030

Danone2030

Darling Ingredients

2050

2050
2050

General Mills

2030

Hershey Company

2030

2050

Hormel Foods
JM Smucker

2030

Kellogg

2030

2050

Kerry Group

2030

2049

Kikkoman

2030

2050

Kraft Heinz

2030

2050

Lamb Weston Holdings

2030

Lindt & Sprüngli

Year-on-year target

Year-on-year target

McCormick & Co

2030

2050

Meiji Holdings

2030

2050

Mondelez International

2023

2025

2050

Mowi
Nestlé

2025

Tyson Foods

2030

2050

2030

2050

2030

2050

Uni-president Enterprises
Share (and number) ofcompanies with targets

15% (4)85% (22)62% (16)

Total targets suitable forcarbon assessment

2

16

12

Share (and number) of total
targets assessed in 2023

25% (1)23% (5)19% (3)

Note: In bold and italics, companies that have an emissions intensity pathway and, in bold, the years for which the company’s
targets can be assessed under the TPI Centre’s methodology. Green cells represent targets that are (or could be) quantified in thecompany Carbon Performance assessment if a historical data point was available, while red cells represent targets set on aninconsistent boundary with TPI Centre’s methodology.

17

4. Conclusions,recommendations andnext steps
Achieving international climate goals enshrined in the Paris Agreement demands significant
decarbonisation across many economic sectors – including food production. Projections based on current
trends and stated policies suggest that food systems will continue to contribute around one-third ofglobal greenhouse emissions in 2050 [7][19]. Therefore, food producers, including leading publicly listedcompanies, have a crucial role to play in driving the transition to a low-carbon food system.
Yet few food producers can demonstrate alignment with the Paris temperature goals at present. Most do
not provide suitable disclosures for the assessment of their Carbon Performance. Only two of 26
companies have long-term targets aligned with 1.5°C (Ajinomoto and Nestlé); only one company isaligned with 1.5°C in the medium term (Nestlé); and none are aligned with 1.5°C in the short term.
Assessing the Carbon Performance of food producers is complex and requires relatively detailed
information on emissions and activity. This goes some way to explain the current lack of suitable company
disclosures in the sector. Through their engagement with food producers, investors can play a key role inpromoting better disclosures. Improved disclosures for food producers would include advancements in thefollowing areas:
1. Disclosure of sourced agricultural inputs: Companies should disclose data on the quantity ofsourced agricultural inputs in physical units (ideally by commodity). The practice of reporting on
responsibly sourced commodities, already undertaken by some companies, suggests the feasibilityof data collection and reporting in this area.
2. Scope 3 (Category 1) emissions and clarity on LULUCF: Companies should break out emissions
associated with agricultural inputs from broader Scope 3 (Category 1) disclosures. They should also
explicitly state whether agricultural and LULUCF emissions are factored into these disclosures. As alarge source of emissions for food producers, this information is crucial for understanding thecoverage of their reporting and the underlying ambition of their emissions reduction efforts.
3. Verification of disclosed data: Companies should consider verifying their reported data on
emissions and sourced agricultural inputs. This could contribute to increased confidence in theaccuracy of company disclosures.
The TPI Centre will continue to conduct yearly Carbon Performance assessments of food producers. We
plan to progressively expand our company coverage, thereby creating an accessible record with which toanalyse the sector’s historical environmental performance and its decarbonisation efforts in the pursuit of
net zero emissions.

18

References[1] FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization] (2022) FRA 2020 Remote Sensing Survey. FAO Forestry Paper
No. 186. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb9970en[2] Benton T, Bieg C, Harwatt H et al. (n.d.). Food system impacts on biodiversity loss.
[3] Ritchie H, Rosado P and Roser M (2022) Environmental Impacts of Food Production. Our World In
Data. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food[4] Crippa M, Solazzo E, Guizzardi D et al. (2021) Food systems are responsible for a third of global
anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nat Food 2: 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00225-9[5] Costa C, Wollenberg E, Benitez M et al. (2022) Roadmap for achieving net-zero emissions in global
food systems by 2050. Scientific Reports 12(1): 15064. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18601-1[6] Tubiello F, Rosenzweig C, Conchedda G, et al. (2021). Greenhouse gas emissions from food systems:
Building the evidence base. Environmental Research Letters 16(6): 065007. https://doi.org/10.1088/17489326/ac018e[7] Ruggeri Laderchi C, Lotze-Campen H, DeClerck, F et al. (2024). The Economics of the Food System
Transformation. Food System Economics Commission (FSEC), Global Policy Report.
[8] Poore J and Nemecek T (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers andconsumers. Science, 360(6392): 987-992.
[9] Clark M, Domingo N, Colgan K et al. (2020) Global food system emissions could preclude achieving
the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets. Science, 370(6517): 705–708.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba7357[10] Tubiello F et al. (2014) Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Emissions by Sources and Removals
by Sinks. ESS Working Paper No.2. http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3671e/i3671e.pdf[11] FAO (2020) Emissions due to agriculture. Global, regional and country trends 2000–2018. FAOSTAT
Analytical Brief Series No 18. Rome https://www.fao.org/3/cb3808en/cb3808en.pdf[12] Dietz S and Jahn V (2024) Carbon Performance assessment of food producers: note on methodology.
London: Transition Pathway Initiative Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science.
[13] Jahn V, Ingham R and and Dietz S (2024) TPI’s methodology report: Management Quality andCarbon Performance Version 5.0. London: Transition Pathway Initiative Centre, London School of
Economics and Political Science.
[14] IEA [International Energy Agency] (2023) Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5 °C
Goal in Reach. IEA: Paris https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-roadmap-a-global-pathway-to-keep-the15-0c-goal-in-reach[15] Lindt & Sprüngli (2022) Sustainability Report 2021.
[16] Lindt & Sprüngli (2023) Sustainability Report 2022.
[17] Nestlé (2023) Accelerate, Transform, Regenerate: Nestlé’s Net Zero Roadmap. March 2023.
[18] Jahn V and Dietz S (2023) Response to the Transition Plan Taskforce (TPT) Disclosure Framework and
Implementation Guidance consultation. London: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change andthe Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science.
[19] Nguyen H (2018) Sustainable food systems: Concept and framework. Food and Agricultural
Organisation (FAO).

Disclaimer
1.

Data and information published in this report and on the TPI Centre website are intended principally
for investor use but, before any such use, you should read the TPI Centre’s website terms andconditions to ensure you are complying with some basic requirements which are designed tosafeguard the TPI Centre while allowing sensible and open use of the methodologies and of the dataprocessed by the TPI Centre. References in these terms and conditions to “data” or “information” on
the website shall include the Carbon Performance data, the Management Quality indicators orscores, and all related information.

2.

By accessing the data and information published in this report and on the website, you acknowledge
that you understand and agree to the website terms and conditions. In particular, please readparagraphs 4 and 5 below which detail certain data use restrictions.

3.

The processed data and information provided by the TPI Centre can be used by you in a variety ofways – such as to inform your investment research, your corporate engagement and proxy-voting, toanalyse your portfolios and publish the outcomes to demonstrate to your stakeholders your delivery ofclimate policy objectives and to support the TPI Centre in its initiative. However, you must make yourown decisions on how to use the TPI Centre’s data as the TPI Centre cannot guarantee the accuracyof any data made available, the data and information on the website is not intended to constitute orform the basis of any advice (investment, professional or otherwise), and the TPI Centre does not
accept any liability for any claim or loss arising from any use of, or reliance on, the data or
information. Furthermore, the TPI Centre does not impose any obligations on supportingorganisations to use TPI Centre data in any particular way. It is for individual organisations todetermine the most appropriate ways in which the TPI Centre can be helpful to their internal
processes.

4.

Subject to paragraph 3 above, the Management Quality and the Carbon Performance indicators thatare part of the TPI online tool and available publicly on the TPI Centre’s website are:•

Free, if they are used for internal and not for commercial purposes, including for research, as oneof the inputs to inform portfolio construction, for financial decision-making including cases oflending and underwriting, for engagement and client reporting, for use in proprietary models as
part of climate transition analysis and active investment management.

•

Restricted, unless licensed where the use is for further commercial exploitation throughredistribution, derived data creation, analytics, and index or fund creation (inclusive of where theindex is used as the basis for the creation of a financial product, or where TPI data is a key
constituent of a fund’s construction).

5.

Notwithstanding any other provision of these website terms and conditions, none of the data or
information on the website may be reproduced or made available by you to any other person exceptthat you may reproduce an insubstantial amount of the data or information on the website for theuses permitted above.

6.

The data and information on the website may not be used in any way other than as permitted above.
If you would like to use any such data or information in a manner that is not permitted above, youwill need the TPI Centre’s written permission. In this regard, please email all inquiries to
info@transitionpathwwayinitiative.org.

20

LSE Transition Pathway Initiative Centre
Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change
and the Environment
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street
London WC2A 2AE, UK
T +44 (0)20 7107 5027
E tpi@lse.ac.uk

Transition Pathway Initiative
C/o UNPRI Association
5th Floor, 25 Camperdown Street
London E1 8DZ, UK
T +44 (0)20 3714 3141
E info@transitionpathwayinitiative.org@tp_initiativetransitionpathwayinitiative.org