Crunch Time: US Food Sector Needs to Implement Climate Action Plans to Feed Demand from Hungry Investors

Jul 7, 2022

Reading Time : 4 min

By: Stacey H. Mitchell, Kenneth J. Markowitz, Charles Edward Smith, Radiance Campbell (Summer Associate)

According to Ceres, the food sector3 is responsible for one-third of global GHG emissions. Consistent with its “whole of government” approach to responding to the threats posed by climate change, the Biden administration has thus targeted the high-emitting food sector for climate-related policy: among other things, it has provided funding through the U.S. Department of Agriculture to encourage voluntary adoption of “climate-smart” agricultural policies and practices in certain states. And, of course, the food sector would not be immune from the proposed Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) amendments mandating public companies annually disclose GHG emissions, including from upstream and downstream activities in their value chains.

Nevertheless, to date, according to Ceres, fewer than half of the 50 highest emitting food companies in North America have set short-term GHG emission reduction targets, and none have published a climate transition plan. As a result, Ceres published the Investor Guide as part of its broader “Ceres Ambition 2030” initiative to encourage decarbonization of six of the highest-emitting sectors in the U.S.4 The Investor Guide aims to provide “a common high-level agenda for companies to reduce emissions across the food supply chain.” It details sub-industry specific recommendations for the U.S. food sector, outlining proposed criteria for evaluating companies as they develop, disclose and implement climate transition plans.

According to the Investor Guide, climate transition plans should outline clear and concrete short and medium-term actions to achieve a company’s long term commitment and address climate change throughout the company, from growth strategy to operations. For investors, the Investor Guide identifies “red flags” in climate-related targets, plans and disclosures that could indicate that company is not responding adequately to mitigate emissions to reduce climate-related risk. For companies, these same “red flags” suggest opportunities to clarify and bolster climate-related disclosures to meet anticipated investor demands. We’ve summarized the major themes from the Investor Guide below:

Emissions Disclosure and Emissions Reduction Targets: A company’s emissions reduction targets should align with the science-based target of limiting global temperature rise to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. Additionally, companies should disclose their scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions throughout their business. Because scope 3 emissions make up a majority of a food company’s full GHG emissions profile, it is not possible to know whether a company is accounting for or addressing its major emissions if its disclosures cover only scope 1 and 2 emissions, or if it does not disclose a breakdown of its emissions sources. Similarly, disclosure or target setting for only a limited part of a business (such as just one product line or brand) provides an incomplete understanding of a company’s emissions profile.

Growth and Innovation Strategy: Action on climate-related risks and transition plans should be “embedded as a guiding force of a company’s corporate strategy.” Climate action should be integrated into a company’s core decision-making by ensuring clear and formal board oversight on these issues across the company’s portfolio of brands, subsidiaries, franchisees and other business units, including its supply chain. Companies should plan to reduce emissions not only in the creation of new products, but also in existing brands and services. It should be clear from disclosures how research and development, product development and capital expenditures impact overall emissions reduction goals.

Corporate Procurement Strategies and Supply Chain Implementation: A company should trace, assess and disclose emissions in its supply chain and engage with suppliers to reduce these emissions, such as by requiring supplier target-setting or offering supplier incentives. These policies should address the major sources of emissions in a company’s supply chain, rather than engaging only certain direct suppliers or only certain products, brands, segments, subsidiaries or franchises. If a company pilots a climate-related project, it should demonstrate evidence of intent to scale-up the project.

Operations, Waste, and Transportation: Plans to mitigate emissions must extend to operations, transportation and food loss and waste. A company’s new acquisitions and investments—such as company-owned agricultural lands and operations, food processing and manufacturing plants, and company-owned transportation and distribution—should align with its emissions goals. Food waste should be reduced, according to quantitative methods that can be tracked and disclosed, rather than simply diverted. At the same time, a company should not plan on only reducing operational or transportation emissions, while failing to reduce scope 3 emissions that may make up the majority of its attributable emissions.

A company’s failure to take the above steps should raise “red flags” for investors because not making climate action a guiding force in company decision-making “expose[s] companies to financially material climate risk and can lead investors to over- or underestimate the risks in their portfolio holdings.”5 Ceres encourages investors to engage companies to disclose climate transition plans and thereafter to keep on track to achieve ambitious, science-based emissions reduction targets. Finally, companies in the food sector, whether or not they have publicly adopted GHG reduction targets and other climate-related goals, should be prepared to explain to stakeholders, including investors, why they have not done so.


1 Ceres is a nonprofit organization that works with investors, companies and capital market influencers to solve sustainability challenges by integrating environmental, social and governance practices into business strategies. Through Ceres’s Food Emissions 50, investors are pushing 50 of the highest-emitting public food companies in North America to encourage the food sector toward a net-zero future. In connection with these efforts, such investors are seeking tangible commitments from these companies to improve their disclosures relative to their GHG emissions, as well as more robust disclosures regarding climate transition plans and the extent to which such plans align with the Paris Agreement. See Food Emissions 50, CERES, https://www.ceres.org/climate/ambition2030/food#about-the-initiative.

2 Available at https://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/investor-guide-climate-transition-plans-us-food-sector.

3 The Investor Guide covers agricultural products, food distributors, packaged foods and meats, food retailers, hypermarkets and supercenters, restaurants.

4 The six highest-emitting sectors in the U.S. are banking, electric power, food, oil and gas, steel and transportation. See Ceres Ambition 2030, CERES, https://www.ceres.org/climate/ambition2030?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjrP198jD-AIVgtzICh1lCQVEEAAYASAAEgIBsfD_BwE.

5 See The Investor Guide at 14.

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

Speaking Sustainability

February 19, 2025

Wind energy projects along the coasts are facing uncertainty due to President Trump’s Presidential Memorandum1 issued on January 20, “Temporary Withdrawal of All Areas on the Outer Continental Shelf from Offshore Wind Leasing and Review of the Federal Government’s Leasing and Permitting Practices for Wind Projects.” This Memorandum introduces substantial policy changes that impact both onshore and offshore wind development.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

January 24, 2025

Beginning on Monday, there have been a flurry of executive orders from the Trump administration reversing Biden-era energy policies, emphasizing oil and gas production, lifting the liquified natural gas (LNG) export permitting pause and withdrawing from all accords and commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) including the Paris climate agreement. The orders also target electric vehicles (EVs), wind energy, international climate aid and the use of the social cost of carbon in agency decision making. For close tracking of these orders and more to come, visit the Akin Trump Executive Order tracker. Concurrently, President Trump’s nominees for the Department of the Interior (DOI), Department of Energy (DOE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have each passed their initial rounds of committee confirmation votes, and now await votes before the Senate floor.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

January 10, 2025

In the final days of his term, President Joe Biden has taken significant steps to solidify his administration’s climate legacy. The administration finalized rules for various clean energy tax credits established under the Inflation Reduction Act. However, these rules, intended to stimulate clean energy advancements through 2032, face opposition from Congressional Republicans, who are considering scaling back or repealing the credits through budget reconciliation.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

December 19, 2024

The twilight hours of the Biden administration and the 118th Congress have been marked by intense legislative and regulatory activity, underscored by President-elect Trump’s derailment of last-minute congressional budget talks, and stalled progress on energy permitting reforms.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

December 11, 2024

The Biden administration’s environmental policies and the future of infrastructure projects are facing pivotal legal challenges and political shifts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit questioned the viability of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2024 power plant emissions rule, particularly its reliance on carbon capture technology, while the 6th Circuit overturned the EPA’s rejection of Kentucky’s smog plan, which comes only three days after the EPA issued its defense of its “good neighbor” smog control plan responding to the Supreme Court’s decision to halt its implementation in June. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s handling of the first National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) case in some time, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, could substantially alter the scope of environmental reviews, with potential immediate implications for the oil & gas industry. These judicial reviews may be influenced by a potential change in administration and Congress, as Trump-era officials, including Vivek Ramaswamy, advocate for scaling back NEPA regulations to expedite infrastructure projects. Additionally, the Department of Energy’s recent clarity on liquified natural gas (LNG) export authorizations underscores the broader tension between expanding fossil fuel infrastructure and adhering to environmental regulations amidst a polarized political and legal landscape.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

October 3, 2024

NYC Climate Week included over 900 events with an estimated 100,000 participants swarming the City. While indicative of growing interest in climate action, some note that the record turnout foreshadows a smaller presence at COP 29 in Azerbaijan.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

September 19, 2024

Recent legislative and regulatory developments reflect ongoing tensions between environmental policies and economic priorities in the U.S. energy landscape. The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s advancement of three resolutions targeting Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules on power plants, vehicle emissions and air quality standards marks a broader Republican effort to counter President Biden’s environmental agenda, though these resolutions face likely vetoes. In contrast, House Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled openness to retaining certain green energy tax credits, reflecting a pragmatic approach as some Republican districts benefit from these investments. Simultaneously, bipartisan efforts to boost critical mineral production, led by Senators Hickenlooper and Tillis, aim to reduce U.S. reliance on Chinese imports, while the White House has raised tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and solar products, a move seen as both protective of domestic industries and potentially disruptive to supply chains. Legal battles continue, as seen in the judicial blocking of the Interior Department’s methane rule in five states and ongoing litigation over EPA’s cross-state pollution rule, which the agency has been allowed to revise. Meanwhile, grid operators have expressed concerns that the EPA’s carbon emissions rule could threaten power plant operations, pushing for legal revisions to protect grid reliability. Together, these developments reflect the broader debate over balancing environmental regulations with economic and energy security concerns.

...

Read More

Speaking Sustainability

September 12, 2024

After a recent permitting reform bill was passed out of a Senate Committee, House Republicans took steps to draft their own permitting reform legislation. Rep. Westerman (R- AR) held a hearing to discuss his draft bill, which most notably places limitations on the environmental permitting process for energy projects. This comes as both parties position energy policy as a key election issue, with Vice President Harris recognizing a role for oil and gas production during the Presidential debate in response to Republican criticism of her climate policies. Meanwhile, former President Trump vowed to pull back unspent dollars approved for greenhouse gas reduction and energy transition projects under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). The IRA has already spurred significant renewable energy investment, particularly in rural electric co-ops using the funds to replace coal generation with clean energy and battery storage.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.