The poultry and meat industries are always looking for ways to be more environmentally sustainable, but companies have to be mindful of greenwashing, according to Frank Mitloehner, Ph.D., UC Davis, Department of Animal Science, who presented at the International Production and Processing Expo (IPPE) 2024.
So, what is greenwashing?
The United Nations defines greenwashing as “misleading the public to believe that a company or other entity is doing more to protect the environment than it is.”
Examples of greenwashing include using misleading environmental labels or promoting sustainability goals while having no actual plan to reach them.
“We have to be very careful of not being accused of greenwashing, because our critics in animal agriculture say, well, they are now promising net zero that and net zero this or carbon neutrality or climate neutrality, and so every association has their own goals, but they’re not capable of reaching those anyhow,” said Mitloehner.
“So, we have to be really, really mindful of, in my opinion, developing goals that are understandable to those people interested in them.”
How does greenwashing harm the poultry industry?
When companies and organizations make climate goals that they ultimately do not reach, they will lose consumer confidence.
Consumer confusion is also a risk, according to Mitloehner, due to a “lack of standardization and harmonization;” with different organizations setting different climate goals, consumers will not know which ones are actually legitimate or greenwashing.
This confusion will inevitably hurt the image of the entire industry.
Mitloehner also warned about one generation of a corporation setting environmental goals that the next generation will not be able to achieve.
“And many of those people making these bold claims [environmental goals] will be retired by 2030, but the companies will be held to those claims,” said Mitloehner. “And this is a significant liability.”
In other words, “Making these bold claims” may work for a company’s image in the short-term but it sets the company up for failure in the future.
“If you are not sure whether or not you can achieve something by 2030, 2040, 2050, don’t promise it because there’s absolutely nothing that’s worse,” Mitloehner added.
