Eating the Planet

More and more people recognize the link between their everyday consumption and the progressing climate crisis. In this context, many are also questioning the environmental impact of their diets: the ratio of plant-based diets has visibly increased during the Covid-19 pandemic (Wood 2021). Consumers question which route their food has taken and which (production) steps preceded the product in the supermarket and will follow consumption. For many people, meat, and in particular beef, plays an important role in their diet and will therefore be examined closely below as an illustrative example. By using the imagery of "happy cows in green pastures" companies are trying to distract attention from the potentially long journey of meat from the farm to our plates. The Corona crisis encouraged many people to question their food consumption behavior and the aforementioned "journey" of their food: as many as 20 percent say they are intensifying their consumption of regional foods (BMEL 2021).

That is why our consumer, as they are standing in front of the meat section in the supermarket, starts to ponder:

Customer: What the company presents to me looks too good to be true. I can hardly imagine that the cows are actually kept in such a nature-like way on green meadows as shown in the advertisements. What is hidden from me as a customer? Surely industrial meat production on this scale must have an effect on the environment?

In a world of global capitalism, the places of production and consumption are often geographically separated, yet linked by complex connections. There has been an "unprecedented increase in material  flows entering international trade in recent decades, having multiple impacts on ecosystems" (Godar et al. 2015: 25). These interlaced networks of corporations and material flows make it increasingly difficult for consumers and policy makers to track the environmental impact of goods along the way.

The Footprint Family provides the conceptual framework for representing environmental impacts. To provide this with appropriate data, some methodological considerations need to be taken into account. These will be presented below.

Methods of data collection: The life cycle approach (LCA), which works as a guidance for data collection (see Figure 2), offers the opportunity to track the footprint through the various stages of the supply chain by collecting data of the environmental impacts from raw material extraction through transportation, production, use, and disposal (Harangozó et al. 2015).

This approach takes into account a temporal component (an "element of time") in addition to the spatial dimension of the production and consumption process, thus providing a more realistic view of the environmental impact. Moreover, it offers the opportunity to compare a company's performance over time or with other similar companies (another temporal aspect) (ibid.). Each node in the supply chain resembles a corporate actor involved in the life cycle of a product (Goldstein, Newell 2020). The LCA provides a much broader perspective than traditional Global Commodity Chain or Global Value Chain research (ibid.). Nonetheless, it mainly focuses on direct impacts, whereas input-output analysis (top-down) also considers indirect impacts (see below) "by using certain standard emission factors of input-output matrix based methodologies" (Harangozó et al. 2015: 68).

Scope and system boundaries: Another important aspect is the question of scope and system boundaries of the organization. This has an influence on which effects are included in the analysis, whereby both direct (scope 1) and indirect (scope 2 and 3) effects should be taken into account (see Figure 3) (Harangozó et al. 2015). "However, assessment of the indirect impacts is also the most challenging aspect of footprint calculations concerning methodology and data requirements" (ibid.: 52). A hybrid method of data collection that also uses (ecologically extended) input-output analysis (EEIOA) can help to capture the indirect influences (especially within long supply chains) as well, for example via monetary flows (Mózner 2015). "Indirect impacts are emerging upstream or downstream along the supply chains linked to organizational activities, but falling outside of the organizational boundaries." (Harangozó et al. 2015: 63).

Research shows the great importance of scope 3 impacts, some of which can account for over 70% of a company's environmental impacts, but are much less often considered as they are usually embodied in other components (Mózner 2015).

The calculator below offers the possibility to calculate the day-to-day footprint and demonstrates some aspects of the concept in a practical way.

Some advantages and disadvantages of the concept are briefly described below.

Difficulty of data collection

• Obtaining a suitable and substantial data basis (Schaltegger et al. 2015)
• Current research mostly focused on individual companies, not their supply chain linkages (Goldstein et al. 2020)
• Lack of transparency and high complexity of supply chains (Goldstein et al. 2020)
• Companies may sanitize data to remove problematic factors (Goldstein et al. 2020)

Hence, Goldstein and Newell introduced a methodological framework that aims to uncover linkages, hotspots of environmental degradation, and key nodes of governance which does not necessarily rely on corporate data (ibid.): Tracking Corporations Across Space and Time (TRACAST). Data will be obtained through a hybrid approach combining in-situ (primary data, e.g. interviews, site visits) and ex-situ (secondary data, e.g. remote-sensing data, maps) methods based on the aforementioned LCA and (EE)IOA (ibid.).

TRACAST is the first approach that attempts to capture the environmental performance of multinational companies as holistically as possible. It combines concepts from supply chain research with the LCA approach and NGO activities and various methods of data collection (see Figure 4). Nevertheless, data collection is also associated with great difficulties (intransparency, data aviability, etc.).

Quality of Data

• Consistent data needed to make comparisons within the industry and over time (Schaltegger et al. 2015)
• Lack of comprehensive standardization of the footprint approach leads to different calculation methods and data bases (Harangozó et al. 2015; Vanham et al. 2019)

Complementing existing research

• Current methods of corporate climate accounting are insufficiently spatially sensitive (Godar et al. 2015)
• Footprint Family: "A particular strength in their use is that they quantify pressure along the whole supply chain, up to the consumer level (potentially including the end of life level)" (Vanham et al. 2019: 8)

Comprehensibility of the indicator

• Trade-off between applicability, understandability, and amount of information that can be conveyed through indicators (Harangozó et al. 2015)
• "appeal of the footprint indicators is based on their inherently expressive nature, which makes communication easier, although the amount of information communicated may be limited in some cases" (Harangozó et al. 2015: 52)

Customer: Given all these tracking problems of the products, how can I estimate the environmental impact of the meat industry? Which are the most important corporations? How are they structured? What is their record regarding environmental damage?

The three most notable corporations in the meat industry are Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., Tyson Foods Inc., and the Brazilian corporation JBS S. A. While Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. is amongst the largest privately owned businesses in the world (Forbes 2020), the latter two are listed on the stock market of their respective countries. They are providing a combined estimate of around 400,000 employees between the three of them as well as being responsible for as more greenhouse emissions than oil-giant BP (Heinrich Böll Foundation 2017). Map 1 shows the greenhouse emissions of these corporations in the US reported to the US Environmental Protection Agency in 2019.

The heatmap above (Map 1) shows the intensity of GHG emissions: the warmer the shade, the more emissions have been recorded in this area. This may be due to a high density of production sites on the one hand, or to a high intensity of emissions from fewer sites on the other hand.

• Headquarters: São Paolo, São Paolo - Brasil
• 70 brands in 190 countries (JBS 2020) lead to difficulties in accurately following the supply chains
• > 81,000 suppliers only in JBS USA Holdings Inc.
• Interrelated with the Brazil administration
• Global Code of Ethics & Anti-corruption Policy
• Nonetheless: corruption scandal (Brito, Bautzer 2017) and involvement in deforestation of Amazon Rain Forest (Campos et al. 2020; Mighty Earth 2020)
• Figure 6 visualizes the company structure and its relations to the Brazil government

Given constantly reappearing reports of JBS' involvement in the deforestation of the Amazon Rain Forest, its close relation to the government over the last centuries is rather suspicious. Whether or not JBS had a role in controlling policy developments remains ambiguous, but it is obvious that JBS had the means to make their worries and goals very prominent in the ears of the actual policy makers.

• Subsidiary of Cargill (produces palm oil, cocoa and other nutritional products)
• Headquarters: Minnetonka, Minnesota - USA
• Delivers to supermarkets including Edeka, Aldi, Carrefour and fast food chain restaurants
• Privately owned, thus even less transparent; supply chains are unknown
• Prominent history of being involved in environmental exploitation

The vast number of partly drastic criminal activities (see Map 2) and the habit of failing to live up to its own promises (Collingsworth 2018; zu Ermgassen et al. 2018) led the NGO Mighty Earth to name Cargill the worst privately owned company in the world (Mighty Earth 2019) - indicating that Cargill's self-imposed Green Book so far proved to be rather insufficient.

• Headquarters: Springdale, Arkansas - US
• Difficulties to follow supply chains and determine the number of suppliers
• Many brands included in Tyson Foods Inc. (Tyson Foods Inc. 2021), with Figure 7 only showing a sample of them
• Measures to effectively reduce participation in deforestation and to commit to sustainability - so far not known to be acting against these commitments

The intransparency of multinational corporations regarding their supply chains complicates understanding the actual environmental footprint of such corporations. Thereby, the companies help to make the TRACAST approach more difficult. For instance, uncovering the mentioned examples of environmental crimes required extensive journalistic research. Thus, it is unlikely that all environmentally harmful activities of these corporations have yet been identified.

Adding to that, their continuous growth is helping them to outsource responsibilities for misbehavior along their GVCs. It is easy to point to suppliers and refer to existing guidelines. The increasing number of suppliers is not only leading to surveillance inefficiencies but is also likely to pose a threat to the livelihood of local, sustainable farmers all around the globe. In this context, the costs of environmental degradation are highly unevenly distributed along the supply chain due to power structures.

For our customer, it becomes evident that as soon as big corporations are involved in the production process, tracking the product becomes almost impossible. Thus, if they want to be certain that the companies behind the product are not committing serious environmental crimes, they ought to turn to local producers where they could observe the production process if they wanted to.

Remote sensing data can also be used as an addition (ex-situ approach). This enables various dimensions of the environmental impact of companies to be observed and compared over a longer period of time. While this particular example can't be directly sourced to one of the companies mentioned in the preceding chapters, it nevertheless does show the viability of remote sensing data in detecting the environmental impact of beef (or other harmful) production in vulnerable ecosystems like the brazilian rainforest. Thus it serves as a uselful example, proving the effectiveness of the method.

The destruction of formerly intact rainforest can best be tracked by comparing the satellite imagery of 2013-2018 (see Figure 8), where an increasing intensity and speed of the clearing can be seen.

The area shown here lies within the protected area of Triunfo do Xingu, near the city of São Félix do Xingu in the State of Pará and experiences one of the highest rates of foliage loss within Pará. Aditionally, São Félix is also the municipality with the second-most cattle in Brazil (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística 2016).

Customer: And what about certifications and regulations? How can these help to increase the transparency of supply chains or to track and mitigate the environmental impact of companies?

Certifications and regulations are a way to help consumers choose the right product for their needs. However, due to the constantly increasing number, the informative value of the certifications is decreasing. Accordingly, each company and association may develop its own certification - only a few of them are defined by law. Therefore, consumers have to do their own research to find out which certification uses what kind of standards (vzbv 2017).

Any certification thus only serves to support the credibility of legal regulations, standards, and industry guidelines. The companies’ main goal of using certifications is often to attract customers and to justify a higher price (Theuvsen et al. 2007).

An example of an uninformative and deceptive certification in Germany is the "Haltungsform" (EN: Husbandry form). The certification is organized by the supermarkets with the most market power in Germany. The criteria are space, husbandry, feeding, and addition of antibiotics as well as dehorning of calves. However, a closer look at the individual husbandry forms 1 - 4 reveals that only the last form "Premium" is to be understood as completely animal and environmentally friendly. The adjacent table (see Figure 9) gives a rough overview of the differences between the husbandry form 1 and 4 (Haltungsform 2021).

Certifications of approval and regulations can be used as a tool, but one should not rely completely on them and do own research about the desired requirements. In addition, certifications do not give any information about how sustainable the company otherwise works or how big the ecological footprint is (see also LCA method) and local standards and certifications are often only valid for a certain geographical area (Theuvsen et al. 2007).

As Ponte (2019) says it is not possible to "buy our way into a sustainable future". Therefore, certifications are a possibility to pay attention to the production process of beef but cannot replace a more conscious consumption with fewer animal products.

There are several challenges involved with tracking products from multinational companies. While general data at the regional, national or global level is usually relatively easy to access, there is a lack of systematic collection and publication of this data at the corporate level. There is also a lack of sufficient supply chain transparency and the access to according data is limited or impossible for researchers, policy makers and customers. The TRACAST method (Goldstein, Newell 2020) presents an approach to fill this gap, although it involves extensive and time-consuming data collection. In the future, it would be desirable if corporate data on environmental impact were collected in a standardized way, systematized, and published openly.

Customer: Considering what I just learned, I decide to pay better attention to certifications and to buy and consume higher-quality beef from now on. On the other hand, I will probably have to reduce my animal consumption in general in order to lower my own environmental footprint and thereby hopefully also have an impact on the exploitative meat and beef producers.

---

---

Imprint: This storymap was created as part of the master's seminar "World of/in chains: Labor, Nature and Uneven Development in the Globalized Ecnonomy" of the Chair of Economic Geography (Prof. Dr. Stefan Ouma, Saumya Premchander) at the University of Bayreuth.

Authors: Jessica Gaudeck, Luis Koch, David Mayer, Mara Neidlinger, Jennifer Pflügler