ESG Enforcement Tracker

Key facts:

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) filed a lawsuit against Tyson Foods Inc (Tyson), the second-largest meat company in the world, accusing it of misleading consumers about the environmental impact of its industrial beef production. EWG alleged that representations concerning Tyson’s net zero greenhouse gas emissions target, and its production of “climate-smart” beef, were false and misleading under the CPPA. In November 2025, Tyson denied wrongdoing but agreed to settle without any admission of liability.

Net Zero

The lawsuit highlighted Tyson’s pledge to achieve “net zero greenhouse gas emissions across its global operations and supply chain” by 2050. This commitment included ‘scope 3’ emissions, which comprise the majority of Tyson’s emissions, and result from the animals used for slaughter, the production of their feed, and the land used for grazing. EWG claimed that this created the impression that Tyson had an achievable net zero plan in place, which it argued was false and misleading for several reasons:

1. Tyson did not have complete information concerning its own emissions. Its calculations excluded land use change (such as clearing land for crops), which is a major source of its scope 3 emissions. Moreover, Tyson had stated that its net zero target was not “science-based”, and that it only anticipates setting a science-based target in the next two years.
2. Tyson did not have an actionable plan to achieve net zero by 2050. The available information suggested that at most, Tyson was operating a small number of voluntary pilot programs aimed at adopting “climate-smart practices” for farmers. This was juxtaposed by the fact that Tyson did not plan to rid its supply chain of deforestation before 2030.
3. Tyson spent only a small fraction of its revenue on emissions reductions, and that given the scale of its emissions, Tyson could not hope to reach its net zero target by purchasing carbon offsets.

“Climate-smart” beef

In March 2023, Tyson unveiled its “climate-smart” beef program, aimed at achieving a 30 percent reduction of “cradle-to-gate” greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Tyson represented that the program “combines tried-and-true rancher ingenuity with the latest data and technology”, and that cattle used for its Brazen Beef brand are “raised with emissions reduction practices in mind”, meaning that “the emissions of each animal are evaluated to ensure they meet the base emissions and program qualifications”.

According to EWG, despite these representations, Tyson nowhere defined what “climate-smart” beef was, what baseline was used for comparison, nor how any emissions reductions were measured. EWG emphasised a lack of data showing that particular products were “climate-smart”, or that any practices adopted by ranchers or feedlot owners in the program had reduced emissions from Tyson’s supply chain. For example, an industrial feedlot, said to be the source of some of Tyson’s “climate-smart” beef, appeared capable of holding tens of thousands of cattle which, EWG argued, no reasonable consumer would view as climate-smart.

EWG ultimately argued that even if Tyson were to reduce emissions from its beef products by 10-30%, it would still not be a “climate-smart” choice for consumers given the significant overall climate footprint of Tyson’s beef. Accordingly, EWG alleged that Tyson’s “climate-smart” beef claim misled consumers, and EWG sought to compel Tyson under the CPPA to redress consumer misunderstanding about the climate impact of its industrial beef production.

Settlement

Under the terms of the settlement, Tyson is prohibited from making any “net-zero” or “climate-smart” claims for a period of five years, unless such statements are independently verified by a mutually agreed third-party expert. The agreement defines these claims broadly to include any representation of low-emission beef or corporate net-zero ambitions. Tyson also agreed to resolve all related legal claims while maintaining its position that it acted lawfully.