Growing attention over the impacts of climate change and the sustainability of society is driving significant change in the meat industry. This article examines the stance of the international community and national governments toward meat production and consumption, as well as recent trends in ESG indicators relevant to the industry.

The Meat Industry from an ESG Perspective

Concerns about the sustainability of the meat industry are increasingly shared by investors and consumers worldwide. The livestock sector is responsible for 6.2 Gt CO2e every year (*1). The main contributions are enteric fermentation from ruminants (46 % of total livestock emissions), feed production (33 %), and manure (13 %). In particular, beef production has been identified in multiple studies as a significant contributor to climate change due to its intensive water use and high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

At the same time, the global demand for meat continues to rise. Worldwide meat production doubled between 1988 and 2018 (*2). According to the latest FAO/OECD projections (2024), global meat consumption is expected to increase over the ten-year period from 2025 to 2034, with growth driven primarily by population growth and rising incomes in emerging economies (*3). While historical growth in production and consumption has largely been concentrated in high-income countries, similar trends are expected to emerge in low- and middle-income countries as economic development and population growth continue. 

In response to sustainability concerns, the international community and national governments are increasingly reassessing the trajectory of rising meat production and consumption (*4). These efforts have begun to extend into compliance frameworks, including United Nations initiatives and national regulatory regimes (*5). 

The food industry’s supply chains are often long, complex, and cross-border, making traceability particularly challenging. This is especially true for the meat industry, which consists of multiple layers—from feed cultivation and manufacturing, livestock farming, slaughtering and processing, wholesale distribution, retail, to food service—creating extensive upstream and downstream linkages across industries. 

Despite these challenges, sustainability initiatives also present opportunities for companies. Several ESG rating organizations place strong emphasis on sustainability performance in the meat sector, and the growing base of ethical consumers has created differentiation opportunities for sustainably produced meat products. (For further discussion on trends in ethical consumption, please refer to our previous articles.) 

In this article, the term “meat industry” is used broadly to describe these activities, and we outline key global and national ESG trends affecting the sector. Some sections may also apply to the broader livestock industry, including dairy, eggs, sericulture, and leather, as well as to animal-based food systems encompassing fisheries and aquaculture. 

International and Governmental Trends Related to Meat

International Frameworks

The international community is increasingly recognizing the need to reassess the role of the meat industry in developing sustainable food systems. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its 2019 Special Report on Climate Change and Land, recommended policies to reduce meat consumption (*6), noting that plant-based diets represent a major opportunity for climate change mitigation and adaptation. 

The UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS), which reviews and follows up on global food policy, adopted the Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition in 2021 (*7). These guidelines define food systems as encompassing all actors and value-added activities related to food production, aggregation, processing, distribution, consumption, and disposal across agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and food industries (*8). They call on governments, the private sector, and other stakeholders to support sustainable livestock systems and promote responsible investment in livestock production. 

Overseas Governments 

In 2020, the European Commission launched the Farm to Fork Strategy, outlining a roadmap to accelerate sustainability across Europe’s food system (*9). Sales of antimicrobials across the EU-27 declined by 28.3% between 2018 and 2022, achieving more than half of the reduction target set under the Farm to Fork Strategy for 2030 (*10). The EU also plans to incorporate sustainability clauses into all bilateral trade agreements with non-EU countries, aiming to promote international standards on animal welfare, pesticide use, and antimicrobial resistance through trade policy (*11). 

In parallel, debates over meat-specific taxation have intensified in several European countries, including Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Germany, and the Netherlands, as a means of reducing meat consumption (*12). New Zealand has agreed to include livestock emissions in its Emissions Trading Scheme by 2025 (*13), requiring farmers to pay for emissions while also providing incentives to reduce them. 

However, research suggests that in high-income countries, lower socioeconomic groups tend to consume higher amounts of red and processed meat, raising concerns that meat taxes could disproportionately burden low-income households (*14). As a result, governments face significant resistance from producer groups, food companies, and the public. 

ESG Evaluation Frameworks Relevant to the Meat Industry

Growing awareness of climate-related risks, rising capital costs, and societal concerns over animal welfare and sustainability has led investors to recognize increasing long-term financial risks in the meat industry. These concerns are reflected in major ESG evaluation frameworks used by institutional investors. 

This article highlights three frameworks that provide particularly detailed coverage of the meat and livestock sectors: 

①Farm Animal Investment Risk and Return (FAIRR): Protein Producer Index (*15) 

The FAIRR Initiative is a global investor network that aims to raise awareness among investors of ESG risks associated with animal agriculture and to encourage the integration of these risks into investment decision-making processes. As of 2025, FAIRR represents approximately USD 90 trillion in assets under management (*16).  

The FAIRR Index evaluates companies across the livestock, fisheries, and aquaculture sectors that produce animal-based protein, using its proprietary set of ESG assessment criteria. 

②GRI Sector Standards for Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Fishing (*17) 

The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is an international non-profit organization that develops frameworks for sustainability-related disclosures (*18). One of GRI’s sector-specific standards under development focuses on agriculture, aquaculture, and fishing. GRI 13: Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Fishing Sectors 2022 was released on 2022 and is one of the 40 planned GRI sector standards. This GRI’s sector came into effect for reporting 1 January 2024 (*19). 

③Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB): Meat, Poultry & Dairy Sustainability Accounting Standard (*20) 

The Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) developed industry-specific standards identifying financially material sustainability topics and metrics for 77 industries to help investors make informed medium- to long-term decisions (*21). Following its 2022 consolidation into the IFRS Foundation, SASB Standards are now maintained by the ISSB as industry-based guidance aligned with IFRS S1 and S2.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

According to the FAO, livestock accounts for 14.5% of global GHG emissions (*22). Feed production and enteric fermentation are the largest sources, representing 45% and 39% of livestock-related emissions, respectively. Methane emissions from enteric fermentation have a global warming potential approximately 25 times greater than CO₂ (*23). 

All three frameworks—the FAIRR Index, the GRI Standards, and the SASB Standards—design their assessment criteria for the meat industry in alignment with the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol, the internationally recognized standard for measuring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions. For example, the FAIRR Index evaluates companies based on factors such as the establishment of science-based Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions targets, demonstrated progress in reducing absolute emissions, and the implementation of climate-related scenario analysis. 

Water and Land Use and Pollution

35% of the world’s agricultural land and 20% of total freshwater withdrawals from rivers, lakes, and groundwater sources are used for livestock production and the cultivation of feed crops (*24). As global population growth and inadequate water management intensify water scarcity, companies in the meat industry—characterized by high water consumption—may face increased operating costs and reduced revenues due to feed price volatility, regulatory constraints, and opposition from local communities. 

The FAIRR Index evaluates whether companies assess and manage water scarcity risks across their entire meat supply chains, establish risk-based targets for water consumption and withdrawals, and collaborate with suppliers to address identified water-related risks. 

Under the GRI Standards, companies are encouraged to voluntarily monitor water-related risks and opportunities through capital investment, operational efficiency improvements, and engagement with regulators and local communities on issues such as water access and wastewater management. 

Overproduction of livestock products, including meat, exacerbates not only water resource challenges but also air, soil, and water pollution resulting from manure and waste. Companies may therefore face legal and regulatory risks, including fines for improper practices, denial of permits, and litigation from affected communities. To address these risks, the SASB Standards include a category titled “Land Use & Ecological Impacts,” which evaluates factors such as the volume of livestock manure and waste, manure management systems, and the proportion of pastureland and grazing areas. 

Biodiversity

Land conversion, deforestation, and the use of agrochemicals associated with livestock production are among the primary drivers of biodiversity loss. 

Under the GRI Standards, corporate efforts to reduce environmental impacts are assessed through topics such as “Natural ecosystem conversion” and “Soil health.” Evaluation criteria include disclosures on soil management plans, as well as the presence of tools or systems for monitoring ecosystems within sourcing regions. 

The FAIRR Index primarily focuses on risks related to deforestation and biodiversity loss associated with the supply of soy used for animal feed and beef production. Its assessment criteria include the existence of internal systems for identifying, assessing, and managing these risks among companies involved in soy and cattle production and processing, as well as efforts to diversify sourcing to mitigate such risks. 

Use of Chemicals

The excessive use of antibiotics in intensive, industrial livestock farming has raised public health concerns, as it can contribute to the emergence and proliferation of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria that reduce the effectiveness of existing treatments. 

Each three ESG frameworks includes assessment criteria related to how companies manage and use chemicals in livestock management and pest control practices. 

The SASB Standards require companies to disclose the proportion of livestock receiving antibiotics, disaggregated by animal type, such as pigs, cattle, chickens, and turkeys. 

Similarly, the FAIRR Protein Producer Index evaluates disclosures on the volume and types of antibiotics used, as well as the priority, scope, and implementation of corporate policies on antibiotic use, including measures to reduce overall usage. 

The GRI Standards assess corporate policies on the use of chemicals for pesticides and fertilizers, as well as employee training programs related to chemical management. 

Labor Conditions

All three standards emphasize the importance of labor conditions in the meat industry. One key reason is that working environments in processing facilities are often associated with a high incidence of occupational injuries, due to the intensive use of industrial machinery and chemicals, fast-paced production lines, and high noise levels. 

The FAIRR Protein Producer Index assesses corporate transparency regarding disclosures on occupational health and safety, fair labor conditions, human rights, and workforce diversity. It also evaluates the existence, implementation, and monitoring of relevant corporate policies. 

Under the GRI Standards, multiple indicators are established to assess labor conditions for workers in the meat industry. These include issues such as forced labor, child labor, occupational health and safety, non-discrimination, and equal opportunity. 

The SASB Standards require companies to disclose data on occupational injury and illness rates, including fatality rates. In addition, they call for disclosure of corporate initiatives to assess, monitor, and mitigate risks related to employees’ respiratory health. 

Food Safety

In recent years, food safety in the food industry has come under increasingly strict scrutiny and monitoring. Meat recalls can result not only in reputational damage, fines, and reduced revenues for companies, but may also lead to tighter regulations, including trade restrictions. Obtaining food safety certifications and ensuring that suppliers comply with food safety guidelines can help companies in this industry safeguard product safety and communicate product quality to buyers. 

For example, the FAIRR Index evaluates whether companies and their suppliers have obtained food safety certifications from third-party certification bodies, as well as the effectiveness of corporate systems for preventing and responding to product recalls. 

Animal Welfare

In intensive industrial livestock farming, animals such as pigs and poultry are kept in confined buildings at high stocking densities, often with limited movement (*25). These systems often involve practices such as confinement, overcrowding, debeaking, forced breeding, physical mutilation, as well as housing conditions, transportation, and slaughter methods designed primarily to maximize productivity. Concerns over animal welfare in livestock production have been increasingly raised by NGOs and consumers alike. As a result of government regulations, growing consumer awareness, and pressure from the media, animal welfare has become a critical issue for the meat industry. 

The FAIRR Index assesses a range of corporate policies related to animal welfare in the meat industry, including practices concerning animal confinement, physical mutilation, transportation, slaughter, and assurance and certification schemes. 

The GRI Standards address animal welfare by evaluating corporate engagement in animal health plans, the use of animal welfare certifications and monitoring by external organizations, and the disclosure of practices related to the use of medicines and hormone treatments. 

Links to the Spread of Infectious Diseases

FAIRR has assessed 60 major global companies involved in animal-based food production over the past four years using its proprietary methodology and has publicly disclosed the results (*26). According to FAIRR, the meat industry continues to demonstrate weak performance on material ESG risks, with many companies lacking adequate disclosure and governance on issues such as climate change (*27).  

Beyond climate-related concerns, the meat industry is increasingly expected to address public health risks associated with infectious diseases as a long-term ESG issue. Structural factors such as antibiotic use in livestock production and labor conditions have been identified as key areas of risk. A FAIRR survey conducted in 2020 found that 73% of assessed companies were rated as high risk in “worker safety,” while 70% were classified as high risk with respect to “antibiotic use” (*28). 

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria resulting from livestock production may be transmitted from animals to humans, potentially contributing to emerging infectious diseases that are difficult to treat or control (*29). A United Nations report published in 2020 noted that more than half of zoonotic diseases that have emerged since the 1940s are associated with intensive livestock farming (*30). 

Labor conditions in the meat industry are closely linked to the risk of infectious disease transmission among workers. Factors such as enclosed facility designs, inadequate hygiene management, long working hours, insufficient protective equipment, and sustained low-temperature working environments have been identified as structural vulnerabilities to infectious diseases (*31). 

Strengthening occupational health and safety should therefore be regarded as a long-term and systemic approach to managing public health and infectious disease risks, rather than as a temporary response to past outbreaks. 

How to Efficiently Link ESG Information to Corporate Value Creation

As discussed in this article, increasing scrutiny through ESG indices and growing investor attention are placing greater pressure on the meat industry to improve sustainability across multiple dimensions. As part of this effort, it is important not only to understand the three ESG indices introduced here, but also to recognize variations among a wide range of indices and to identify more advanced ESG benchmarks. Many companies are seeking to increase opportunities to enhance corporate value—or to reduce the risk of value erosion—through ESG management and investment. The key question, then, is how these opportunities and risks can be effectively identified and addressed. 

A critical first step is to accurately understand these opportunities and risks. However, doing so requires a long-term value perspective and comparative analysis of ESG data not only from one’s own company, but also from peers across industries and regions. 

At the same time, there are dozens of major ESG indices, both domestically and internationally, each consisting of numerous evaluation criteria that are updated annually. As a result, it is challenging for companies to continuously and comprehensively monitor global ESG trends and systematically assess the business risks and opportunities that arise from them. 

Furthermore, linking identified ESG trends and indicators to a company’s internal business data for quantitative analysis—and translating those insights into business strategy—requires substantial data processing and labor. Even when focusing solely on the “G” (governance) component of ESG, the diversity of indicators and calculation methodologies makes analysis highly complex and structurally layered. 

To conduct both “broad” and “deep” ESG analysis efficiently, it is often far more effective to rely on a specialized team that consolidates expertise and know-how, rather than having individual companies independently carry out similar processes. Such an approach reduces redundant work and significantly improves both efficiency and effectiveness. 

While this article has highlighted one ESG trend as an illustrative example, cuoncrop leverages a team of ESG management and data analysis experts—many with backgrounds in global strategy consulting firms—along with proprietary analytical systems and methodologies. Through services such as the “ESG/SDGs Management 360° Assessment & Improvement Support” and “My-Eco-Ruler,” cuoncrop supports companies in identifying and improving the ESG initiatives necessary to remain competitive and “chosen” by stakeholders. 

These services are designed not only to improve analytical efficiency for companies that already have internal ESG teams, but also to support smaller organizations that do not yet have dedicated ESG resources but recognize the need to shift toward ESG-driven management. Companies interested in a scientific and efficient analytical approach to accelerating ESG management are encouraged to contact cuoncrop for further information. 

cuoncrop ESG 
Global Trend Research Division

References

*1　  

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912426000040?utm

*2  

https://www.fairr.org/article/meat-esg-risks-and-performance-in-the-meat-sector

*3  

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/07/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook-2025-2034_3eb15914/full-report/meat_5462e384.html

*4  

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/meat-industry-s-role-as-polluter-poses-financial-risk-to-investors-60565131

*5  

https://www.maff.go.jp/j/kanbo/kankyo/seisaku/being_sustainable/attach/pdf/sustainable2030-10.pdf

*6

‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎https://‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎ www.ipcc.ch/srccl/‎‎‎‎‎‎‎‎ㅤ

*7  

https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs/Docs2021/Documents/CFS_VGs_Food_Systems_and_Nutrition_Strategy_EN.pdf

*8  

https://www.maff.go.jp/j/kokusai/kokusei/kanren_sesaku/FAO/fss.html

*9  

https://ec.europa.eu/food/system/files/2020-05/f2f_action-plan_2020_strategy-info_en.pdf

*10  

https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/veterinary-antimicrobials-in-europes-environment-a-one-health-perspective

*11  

https://www.jetro.go.jp/biz/areareports/2020/a718804066114a95.html

*12  

https://www.tappcoalition.eu/nieuws/16831/increasing-number-of-countries-start-taxing-meat-and-dairy-

*13  

https://www.fairr.org/article/the-livestock-levy-progress-report

*14  

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4974628

*15  

https://www.fairr.org/index

*16  

https://www.fairr.org

*17  

https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/standards-development/sector-standard-project-for-agriculture-aquaculture-and-fishing

*18  

https://www.jpx.co.jp/corporate/sustainability/esgknowledgehub/disclosure-framework/05.html

*19  

https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/environment-sustainability/gri-releases-new-standard-for-agriculture-aquaculture-and-fishing-sector

*20  

https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2022/08/ifrs-foundation-completes-consolidation-with-value-reporting-foundation

*21  

https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2022/08/ifrs-foundation-completes-consolidation-with-value-reporting-foundation

*22  

https://www.fao.org/4/i3437e/i3437e.pdf

*23   

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar4/syr

*24  

https://www.fao.org/3/ca5685en/ca5685en.pdf

*25  

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02525-3

*26  

https://www.fairr.org/index/methodology

*27  

https://www.fairr.org/resources/reports/protein-producer-index-2023

*28  

https://www.fairr.org/article/one-year-of-covid-19-the-meat-industry-continues-to-drag-its-feet-on-pandemic-risk

*29  

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaw1944

*30  

https://www.bbfaw.com/media/1942/bbfaw-report-2020.pdf

*31  

https://www.fairr.org/article/meat-industry-performs-poorly-on-pandemic-prevention