Food giants hide their biggest environmental offenses

Imagine a glossy sustainability report from a global food giant. Green fields, smiling farmers, promises of climate neutrality. It looks great. But behind the façade lies an uncomfortable truth: the biggest environmental problems are hardly mentioned.

That’s the conclusion of a new scientific publication from Aarhus University, published in the journal Ecology and Society. Researchers examined ESG reports from 51 of the world’s largest food companies and found a pattern that could shift the debate about agriculture’s role in the climate crisis.

A massive bias

“We see a massive bias. Climate gets all the attention, while the planetary boundaries that agriculture exceeds the most, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and biodiversity, are almost entirely absent,” says Niklas Witt from the Department of Agroecology at Aarhus University, one of the study's lead authors.

The researchers used the so-called planetary boundaries as their framework; nature’s “guidelines” for human activity. Six of the nine boundaries have already been exceeded, and agriculture is the main driver behind several of them. Nevertheless, the analysis shows that only one category, climate, includes quantitative data in the ESG reports. Biogeochemical cycles, which relate to nitrogen and phosphorus, were mentioned only eight times across all reports.

Fact box: Which planetary boundaries does agriculture affect?

• Climate change: CO₂ and greenhouse gases
• Biosphere integrity: biodiversity
• Biogeochemical cycles: nitrogen and phosphorus
• Land-system change: deforestation, land use
• Freshwater use: water resources
• Novel entities: pesticides, chemicals

When what gets measured shapes power

ESG reporting is more than communication. It guides investments, regulation, and consumer trust.

“If companies only report on climate, we risk directing capital and political attention toward the wrong solutions, while nitrogen pollution, water scarcity, and biodiversity loss continue unchecked. It’s a classic example of ‘carbon tunnel vision.’ When everything revolves around CO₂, we overlook the other crises,” explains Niklas Witt.

Fact box: Key figures from the study

• 51 companies analyzed
• 165 disclosures identified
• 44% related to climate
• Only 5% addressed nitrogen/phosphorus
• Only climate included concrete data

A narrative that shapes the future

When companies choose what to report, they also choose what is perceived as “sustainable.” It’s not just numbers, it’s the power to shape the narrative about the future of agriculture.

“We risk creating a green transition that is nothing more than a green illusion. That’s why we call for planetary materiality,” warns Niklas Witt.

Planetary materiality is a new approach that requires reporting to be based on scientifically assessed environmental impacts.

“If we want a genuinely sustainable transition, we must start by measuring what matters most for the planet,” says Niklas Witt.

The research raises an uncomfortable question: If the biggest players in the food sector can define what “green transition” means without acknowledging the largest environmental harms, who then sets the direction for the future of agriculture?

“It’s not just about reports and numbers. It’s about how we, as a society, understand sustainability and which solutions we prioritise. When companies choose to highlight climate while ignoring nitrogen, phosphorus, and biodiversity, they create a narrative that can preserve the status quo. And that has consequences far beyond financial reports. We are in the midst of a global transition, and it is driven by narratives. The current form of reporting allows companies to construct a story about a sustainable future that distracts from the deeper systemic changes needed for a genuine green transformation,” says Niklas Witt.

More information

Partners: Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University

Funding: This work is funded by the MARVIC project, supported by the Horizon Europe Soil Mission, grant agreement no. 101112942, and by the European Joint Program for SOIL (EJP SOIL), supported by the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program, grant agreement no. 862695.

Conflict of Interest: None

Read more: The publication “Undisclosed transgressions? Lacking acknowledgements of large agrifood firms on their impacts on the planetary boundaries” is published in Ecology & Society and written by Niklas Witt, Morten Graversgaard, and Martin Hvarregaard Thorsøe.

Contact: Niklas Witt, Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University. Email: niklaswitt@agro.au.dk