Global beef giant JBS has dropped its pledge to become a net zero company by 2040 for its entire value chain, joining the ranks of other large corporations.Beef giant JBS, one of the largest poultry firms in the world, has abandoned its targets for 2040 to become a net zero company by 2040 within its entire value chain. The Brazilian meat company announced the change in tandem with the release of the 2025 Sustainability Report, which has new targets for emissions reduction that are only applicable to its direct operations. The choice has sparked fresh questions about the role of corporations in climate change, and it represents an important change in the company's environmental policy. The net zero goal for JBS, the Scope 3 emissions, emissions from the beef industry, the JBS sustainability report and the climate targets are now at the heart of the conversations about the company's new approach.

The effects of focus shifting away from scope 3 emissions.

Although Scope 3 emissions make up over 90% of the company's total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, it has been incorporated into JBS' long-term climate target. The vast majority of scope 3 emissions come from purchased goods and services, and livestock is one of those purchased goods – hundreds of thousands of independent farmers and ranchers around the world provide livestock. With its climate commitments limited to Scope 1 and 2 emissions, JBS states it is focusing on areas where it has more control and can make measurable progress.

Company claims that the complexity of their supply chain made it impractical to meet the original goal.

JBS Global Chief Sustainability Officer Jason Weller, in a statement that accompanied the sustainability report, explained that it faced significant challenges in its efforts to implement its value chain net zero commitment.

The company's supply chain extends to hundreds of thousands of independent agricultural producers on tens of millions of hectares in dozens of countries, Weller says. The farming practices of each of the suppliers varies, as do the emissions baselines employed and the approach to measuring greenhouse gas emissions.

He said the original intent was to promote collaboration across the food system, but as implementation unfolded, more and more challenges arose. The rising demand of investors, regulators, customers and communities for measurable, transparent and actionable sustainability targets are driving a new trend toward non-aspirational goals, Weller said.

Livestock continue to be a significant contributor of global emissions.

The announcement comes at a time when the livestock sector is under increasing pressure regarding its role in climate change. The methane emissions from cattle and other ruminants are one of the largest sources of GHGs in agriculture, and deforestation associated with cattle ranching has come under global environmental spotlight.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that livestock contribute around 14.5% of global human-caused GHGs. The challenge of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of the agricultural sector, which are distributed over millions of farms and agricultural activities, is one of the most difficult ones for governments and businesses.

But accurately measuring and reducing emissions outside of its own direct operations is difficult and complex for businesses like JBS, which operate across several continents and with independent producers.

Net Zero commitments made earlier will now be subject to closer scrutiny.There will be closer scrutiny on earlier Net Zero commitments.

In recent years, JBS has been subjected to relentless criticism on its climate commitments. Environmental groups and regulators voiced their concerns about the company's ability to set out credible paths to reach its ambitious 2040 net zero target.

The Attorney General of New York brought a lawsuit against JBS in 2024 for falsehoods about its environmental promises. The grievance claimed that the company published its net zero goal without adequate consideration of its emissions and was not backed by enough evidence to prove it could reach the goal.

The lawsuit argued that JBS was not able to reasonably guarantee stakeholders that it would achieve complete elimination of its GHGs by 2040. In 2025, the company agreed to pay $1.1 million in settlement for the case without going to trial; another spotlight on the trustworthiness of corporate climate promises.

The new Climate Targets are about direct operations.

Instead of striving to achieve a value chain-wide net zero, JBS will now focus on actions to reduce emissions within its own direct area of responsibility.

The firm has pledged to cut emissions intensity of its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 30% by 2030 from 2019. It has set itself the target of reducing those emissions by 70% by 2050 as well.

Continuing investments in lower carbon electricity use by JBS facilities, the 60% renewable electricity target is also expected to be achieved by 2030, with a further 40% delivered by renewables in the company's last decade of operations.

The new commitments are said to be a more realistic and accountable framework, enabling JBS to show measurable environmental progress and remain on track to achieve its formal climate commitments, while continuing to collaborate with suppliers on emissions reductions beyond its climate targets.

The decision highlights other challenges to broader goals of companies tackling climate issues.

JBS' news example shows the type of obstacles that companies are encountering when trying to establish and maintain ambitious climate commitments, especially in industries that have long and complex supply chains that are spread across the globe.

With growing regulatory scrutiny and stakeholders' expectations of transparency, many companies are re-evaluating sustainability long-term objectives to determine whether they are backed by solid data and realistic implementation plans.

JBS' move to drop a full value chain net zero target highlights the challenges of tackling emissions in complex agricultural value chains. As the food industry grapples with balancing sustainability with business realities, the decision is sure to have its eyes on, whether investors, policymakers or sustainability experts.