Environmental Law | Global Trend | Business Litigation

JBS’s ‘Net Zero by 2040’ promise is now on trial — a beef giant accused of serving up greenwash instead of climate action.

1. Introduction

The world’s largest meatpacker, JBS, is now facing a new legal challenge in the United States. On 28 October 2025, Mighty Earth filed a lawsuit in the District of Columbia against JBS USA, alleging that the company’s public climate commitments — in particular a pledge to be “Net Zero by 2040” — amount to misleading greenwashed claims because the company lacks any credible plan to deliver them and omits the bulk of its emissions footprint. (Reuters)

The lawsuit arrives at a critical moment , before the global climate summit in Brazil, and is part of a broader pattern of litigation targeting corporate climate claims. The case raises major questions about how agricultural-industrial operations account for their environmental impact, how consumers and investors interpret sustainability promises, and how enforcement agencies respond to alleged “greenwashing.”

2. Background & Environmental Footprint

2.1 JBS’s Emissions and Supply Chain Context

• JBS S.A. has operations across meat, poultry and beef production on multiple continents; its operations are linked to large-scale deforestation (especially in Brazil’s Amazon region) and significant methane emissions from livestock. (Mighty Earth)
• The company’s announced goal to reach “Net Zero by 2040” is central to the dispute. However, independent analysis claims this target excludes or inadequately covers the largest portion of the company’s emissions — its Scope 3 (indirect emissions, including those from its supply chain, product use and land-use change) which may account for ~97% of its total footprint. (Mighty Earth)

2.2 Previous Regulatory & Legal Actions

• In February 2024, the New York State Office of the Attorney General filed an earlier lawsuit against JBS USA alleging misrepresentation of its environmental impact, including claims about net-zero commitments and failure to account for deforestation. (Reuters)
• The advocacy group Mighty Earth has also lodged complaints with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over alleged misleading “sustainability-linked bonds” issued by JBS, tied to its climate claims. (Mighty Earth)

3. Legal Claims & Regulatory Themes

3.1 Consumer Protection & False Advertising

In the DC lawsuit, the claim is that JBS USA’s consumer-facing statements (e.g., “Net Zero by 2040”, “sustainability champion”, “agriculture can be part of the climate solution… steak with net zero emissions”) are false or misleading because they omit material facts about the company’s true emissions and supply-chain impacts. (Mighty Earth) The case invokes consumer-protection statutes (for example, the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act) alleging material omissions and deceptive marketing.

3.2 Investor & Bondholder Risk

Beyond consumer claims, the litigation touches investor protection: JBS issued billions in Sustainability-Linked Bonds (SLBs) referencing its climate targets. The complaint argues that these financial instruments misled investors because the underlying climate claims were unsubstantiated. (Mongabay)

3.3 Environmental Accountability & Supply Chain Transparency

The broader environmental stake lies in how companies in sectors with large land-use and methane emissions (e.g., beef/animal agriculture) are held to account for their full climate footprint, not just what is reported. The case emphasises the importance of Scope 3 emissions, deforestation ties, and whether a net-zero claim is meaningful or just aspirational. (Mighty Earth)

4. Why This Case Matters Now

4.1 Climate Policy Timing

With major climate negotiations scheduled in Brazil in November 2025 (COP30 in Belém) and increasing attention on agricultural emissions and deforestation, this lawsuit places meat-industry practices under global spotlight. The timing suggests heightened regulatory and reputational risk for agribusiness.

4.2 Precedent Effect for Greenwashing Litigation

This case is part of a wave of “greenwash” lawsuits across industries (for example, the recent win against TotalEnergies in France). If successful, it could broaden enforcement of climate claims and sustainability disclosures across food and agricultural sectors.

4.3 Supply Chain & Land-Use Challenge

Agriculture and land-use change are among the hardest sectors to decarbonise. The litigation highlights the tension between expansion of production (e.g., beef) and declared climate targets. If companies cannot credibly map or commit to reducing all emissions (including indirect ones), their public sustainability promises may be legally vulnerable.

5. Risks & Outcomes

5.1 For JBS

• Legal liability: The company faces the risk of injunctions requiring changes to its marketing, disgorgement of profits, penalties and reputational damage.
• Financial & investor risk: If investors believe the claims are unsound, JBS may face higher financing costs or withdrawal of investor support.
• Operational risk: If regulators or courts force stricter disclosure of Scope 3 and supply-chain emissions, JBS may need to overhaul its operations, costing capital and possibly growth.

5.2 For the Industry

• A strong ruling against JBS could spur similar suits in other meat/animal-agriculture companies, increasing scrutiny of emissions claims in protein production.
• Companies with large indirect emissions or deforestation ties may face higher compliance burdens, mandatory disclosures, and tougher regulation.
• On the other hand, if JBS defends successfully (or settles on favourable terms), the industry may maintain the current “aspiration-target” model of climate commitments, but this could also delay credible action and transparency.

5.3 For Environmental Governance

• The case may shape how courts treat net-zero climate commitments: whether they are mere marketing, or enforceable targets with disclosed methodologies and timelines.
• It will test whether disclosures must cover full emissions (including Scope 3 and land-use change), or if partial disclosure is sufficient under law.
• Regulators may respond by tightening rules on sustainability-linked bonds, green claims, and deforestation-linked supply chains.

6. Conclusion

The lawsuit by Mighty Earth against JBS USA marks a significant intersection of climate accountability, consumer/investor protection, and corporate transparency in a high-impact sector. For the environment, the case underscores that climate pledges — especially in sectors like animal agriculture — cannot remain aspirational without substantive underlying plans and full emissions accounting.

As litigation proceeds, companies in climate-sensitive sectors will need to ensure that their public commitments are backed by credible targets, transparent disclosures and supply chains aligned with actual purpose. Otherwise, they risk legal, financial and reputational consequences — and the broader climate agenda may suffer as promises without substance proliferate.