Before Christmas, The Coca‑Cola Company announced updated voluntary environmental goals “with the aim of delivering on the company’s purpose to Refresh the World and Make a Difference”. Sounds positive.
However, the soft drinks giant has actually binned efforts aimed at shifting from single-use to reusable packaging, made its recycling targets more flexible and pushed them further into the future; cut an actual figure from its greenhouse gas emissions reduction target and given itself another five years to reach the yet-to-be-declared target; and dropped a sustainable sourcing pledge it’s been working towards for years. On water stewardship, Coca-Cola has held firm, it seems.
It amounted to a watering down of key environmental targets by one of the world’s largest and best-loved brands. And it isn’t the only food and drink corporate to have ripped up its ESG targets and penned new ones.
Unilever also faced widespread criticism when it shifted its goals in April last year. Planet Tracker published a comparison of the Marmite and Magnum maker’s old and new voluntary ESG targets; the NGO was disappointed but not despondent after three were dropped and four were reduced but five new ones arrived.
At the very least, Planet Tracker wants to see transparency. “What should not be accepted is when targets are manipulated,” reads its blog on Unilever’s changes. “This is evident when companies adopt a ‘greenrinsing’ strategy, whereby targets are changed before they are achieved, often re-stated at a higher level at a more distant date in the future. [We] identified this tactic being previously used by both Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.”
Nestlé, a business that has so far been one of the most transparent about its targets and the realities of meeting them, has been accused of such tactics, too. Bloomberg revealed last year that the owner of KitKat and Nespresso had altered the language in one of its packaging pledges – a move that reportedly amounted to 280,000 metric tonnes of additional non-recyclable plastic waste a year.
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles
on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Company Profile – free
sample
Your download email will arrive shortly
We are confident about the
unique
quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most
beneficial
decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by
submitting the below form
By GlobalData
Mighty Earth has also questioned Nestlé’s target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030. “[…] it claims that measures in its dairy and livestock supply chains will cut emissions by 23% by 2030, which in reality equate to only 5%,” explains Gemma Hoskins, a director for the NGO in the UK. Without robust and transparent emissions data and credible reductions plans, ESG targets risk becoming “little more than greenwashing”, Hoskins adds, pointing to JBS’s ‘net-zero by 2040’ claim that was judged to be misleading.
Glasses are certainly emptying rather than filling at present. Just Food recently reported on a sobering survey showing ESG issues have “nosedived” as a priority for businesses as other global and macro matters continue to cause them nightmares. A report by GlobalData, Just Food‘s parent, found the proportion of respondents who feel ESG is the theme that will most impact their business in the next 12 months is at one of its lowest points for at least three years.
In food, there have also been reports that sustainability efforts among UK supermarkets have “gone up in flames”. CSOs, or chief sustainability officers, are reporting stress as they struggle with increasing amounts of climate-related reporting and short-term targets to reduce emissions begin to loom on the horizon.
The disappearance of Coca-Cola’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction target has disturbed campaigners and left some staff puzzled. The company had previously set a science-based target to reduce absolute emissions (Scopes 1, 2 and 3) by 25% by 2030 against a 2015 baseline. The company’s latest report to CDP, the sustainability disclosure platform, showed emissions needed to be cut from 69.9MtCO2e in 2015 to around 52.4MtCO2e in 2030. By 2022, its total emissions stood at 64.9MtCO2e, so just over a quarter of the reductions necessary had been achieved.
Now the aim is “to reduce the company’s Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions in line with a 1.5°C trajectory by 2035, from a 2019 baseline”. Also noteworthy is this sentence: “The company’s acquired businesses [including Costa and Innocent] will be excluded from this goal. The company expects to prepare these businesses for integration into its 1.5°C trajectory over time.”
Time is the one thing we don’t have. However, food and drink companies are all grappling with complex calculations of their carbon emissions. The introduction of FLAG (forest, land and agriculture) emissions to net-zero planning and standards has caused headaches. There is a mid-2025 deadline under the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) to set additional FLAG targets. Just 7% of the protein processors assessed by the $70trn-backed FAIRR investor network have officially set or submitted such targets. Danone, Fonterra, seafood giant Mowi and poultry group Scandi Standard have mentioned they are making progress.
Updating targets to align with the science even if less ambitious should not be criticised
A spokesperson at investor network FAIRR
FAIRR, which has been tracking progress among major protein producers, is among those who suggest there is an “evolution” of target-setting underway as the science becomes better understood, frameworks gain clarity and methodologies become more robust. It is not, however, an opportunity to put the brakes on. “Updating targets to align with the science even if less ambitious should not be criticised,” explains a spokesperson. “Realism here creates credibility, specially when supported by a thorough and actionable sustainability strategy.”
Hoskins at Mighty Earth is less accepting. She is among those blaming corporates for the crisis of confidence in environmental commitments. “The need to amend climate targets rests with the lack of action to deliver on those commitments, rather than ‘over-ambitious’ or ‘non-realistic’ targets,” she says. “Had companies adequately resourced climate actions plans and shown serious commitment to deliver on those pledges at the senior level […] they would have made much more progress and eliminated the need to readjust targets.”
Carbon is complex
Buy-in from company boards has been a barrier for sustainability teams. Around 2020 and 2021, a number of CEOs at food and drink companies enjoyed their moment in the sustainability spotlight as they joined the ‘race to net-zero’. And with commitments extending way out into the future, 2040, 2045 or 2050, there was little immediate concern about the reductions in carbon required.
With five years to go until 2030 – when emissions must be cut by at least 45% (versus 2010) to keep global heating to 1.5°C – and food responsible for around a third of all emissions, it’s all got a little bit real. One of the most common reasons for changing ESG targets is the realisation that meeting them is “easier said than done”, explains João Brites, director of growth and innovation at HowGood, a US food rating and environmental accounting firm.
And it is the CSOs set to deal with the failures. “I am not at all surprised by the changes announced in sustainability target-setting or broader long-term company commitments,” explains Peter Hajipieris, former group CSR director at Nomad Foods and now a consultant to chief sustainability officers.
Hajipieris set his first five-year sustainability plan 16 years ago and has since developed many others over much longer timescales. “The most complex of these environmental commitments is unquestionably decarbonisation towards net-zero”, he says. “Its complexity increases with geographical market presence, category scope, product and services mix, the capability of the workforce and of the supply chain.” There are many twists and turns to come, he adds.
I am not at all surprised by the changes announced in sustainability target-setting
Peter Hajipieris, consultant and former Nomad Foods CSR director
Others who have experience heading-up sustainability teams in large food businesses are also calling for some degree of patience. We can’t keep kicking the carbon can down the road but it is “inevitable” that medium-term goals will change, suggests Susan Thomas, a former sustainability director at UK supermarket chain Asda and now a sustainability consultant with Snowstorm Consulting. “We are learning so much all the time – and it’s right to course-correct in the light of new information,” she explains. “This space is not the same as something really well established like sugar, where we know for sure the ‘what’, ‘how’, ‘why’, ‘how much’.”
The data that companies are equipped with on their emissions, for example, has improved considerably in the past two years or so (and will continue to improve). Many companies are yet to start measuring, let alone mitigating, their Scope 3 emissions (those indirect ones that make up the lion’s share of any food or drink companies’ footprint) but those who have say more granular is data really help their cause.
A senior sustainability official at a large FMCG group admits the first commitments were made “quite ambitiously, quite boldly and in some ways quite naively”.
“We have learned a massive amount in the past two or three years,” they add. “For example, the data we have now is very different to 2020. We are using much more primary data and where we aren’t we are transparent about that and the assumptions we are making.”
Many action plans on net-zero were certainly made (and marketed) without granular data and “nearly always” without a complete reduction strategy in place, says Brites at HowGood. However, companies need to be “very careful” when adjusting them, he warns, because forward-looking statements are “a type of ‘green claim’”, so “if they are not met or are back-tracked, regulators, competitors and consumers might consider the company has made an unsubstantiated claim that gave an unfair advantage in the marketplace during a certain period of time”.
Reap what you sow. Or not
There is little doubt food and drink companies enjoyed a positive PR and a reputational bounce in committing to net-zero. Whether they will fall flat if they fail is moot. “[…] firms do not face penalties for failing their emissions reduction targets,” noted US academics in a paper just published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The team, led by Xiaoyan Jiang at the Stern School of Business at New York University, examined the emissions targets of 1,041 companies in an attempt to better understand how targets are disclosed, whether media covers the outcomes and what the consequences are of failure. They found “positive and statistically significant improvements in long-term media sentiment and in both Asset4 and MCSI environmental scores following announcements of the 2020 targets” but “limited accountability and low awareness of the target outcomes”.
In other words: many companies made hay when setting the targets, then were quite happy to hide away as the deadlines loomed. Indeed, 320 (31%) of the targets disappeared, while another 88 (9%) were missed. “Our findings raise concerns for the accountability of emissions targets ending in 2030 and 2050,” the academics warned.
The 2020 targets preceded the rush to make net-zero commitments at COP26 in Glasgow (2021). Now, in 2025, we are entering a period of more plausible plans being published – at least according to those are happy to change the goalposts. Whether this is good news or bad depends on who you speak to.
“Coca-Cola are one of the world´s biggest and most loved brands which perhaps means they lack enough incentive to change,” notes Gill Wilson, professor of sustainable marketing at IE Business School in Madrid. “Having the title of being number one plastic polluter doesn´t appear to be doing much damage to the brand but this may not always be the case if they don´t evolve.”
Plastic pushback
Some NGOs are reticent to criticise what they see as committed companies caught in somewhat of a Catch-22. Perhaps Coca-Cola’s move is simply recognition of where the world is right now in the fight against single-use packaging and mitigating carbon emissions? “We know we will have more chapters in our journey and that we can’t do it alone,” said Bea Perez, executive vice president and global chief communications, sustainability and strategic partnerships officer at Coca‑Cola. “Continued collaboration, targeted investments and well-designed policies are crucial to help create shared value for all.”
Nestlé and Unilever have both made similar noises and, as Thomas points out, some of the packaging goals were made at a time when brands were being assured that regulation would help them along.
Coca-Cola isn’t the only one that has struggled on plastic. PepsiCo, Nestlé, Danone and Mars have, too. The 2024 report from The Ellen MacArthur Foundation covering the global plastics commitment admits, as other regional pacts have done of late, that the 2025 targets are unlikely to be met. However, “signatories continue to significantly outperform their peers and demonstrate the roadblocks and challenges on the path ahead”, said Aisha Stenning, lead for business action for EMF’s plastics initiative. She has to say that: if the 20% of the global plastic packaging market that have signed up to the voluntary initiative start pulling out, then hope is lost.
Blame game
In criticising the 20%, it is easy to forget the 80%. “[…] it’s difficult to make change if it’s entirely voluntary,” explained Jodie Roussell, global public affairs lead for packaging and sustainability at Nestlé in a recent webinar. “So often, the companies that are taking voluntary actions are often criticised publicly but you have to ask about all the companies who are saying nothing, because it’s unlikely that they’re taking voluntary action if they’re saying nothing about it”.
More companies may well hit the pause button on some of their ESG targets this year. They will point to the laggards and the legislators that mean there is no level playing field. They will make note of geopolitics, conflicts, AI and high inflation, too. In a period of possible resets, it would be easy to think we are going backwards but let’s not be too quick to blame the big companies alone.
“It’s like we are not allowed to say ‘we can only do things if it’s not commercial suicide,” says Thomas. “We are supposed to do them because ‘it’s the right thing to do’, even if no-one else in the wider system, including the government, are doing them.”
She adds: “I would prefer we said ‘this has to make commercial sense and it can if we do it in the following way.’” That, surely, is better than hiding and pretending about the realities?
