2.5/10 in Deforestation Scorecard

Greenpeace Australia's 2024 Deforestation Scorecard assessed how 10 of Australia's major beef buyers and producers stack up in terms of becoming deforestation-free by 2025. Australia has one of the worst rates of deforestation in the world, driven largely by the bulldozing of forests for beef cattle grazing. JBS scored 2.5/10. "JBS has a very weak commitment for a company that processes more beef than any other, with an implementation deadline of 2035. While JBS discusses how cattle are traced, it's unclear if it is using this system to address deforestation and conversion in its supply chain."

Source: Greenpeace (2024)

Feedlot operations

This company operates six feedlots. A feedlot is an intensive confinement animal feeding operation (CAFO) for cattle, much like a factory for 'battery chickens'. Each animal has 5 to 10 square metres of space in a pen of 50 to 200 cattle. The cattle are forced to stand and sleep in their own dung and urine, and endure extremes of weather (especially heat). Close confinement means a much higher risk of disease so antibiotic drugs are routinely used. Grain feed commonly causes their digestive systems to be acidic. Cattle spend up to a year in feedlots, where they are fattened up before slaughter.

Source: company website (2020)

Price fixing in USA

In 2021 this company agreed to pay US$20 million to settle a consumer class-action lawsuit alleging the company conspired to fix prices for pork. The settlement states that JBS will pay the money into a settlement fund that will be used to compensate the consumer class and cover litigation fees and expenses.

Source: news article (2021)

Price fixing in USA

In 2023 this company agreed to pay US$25 million to commercial beef purchasers that accused the meat-packing company of conspiring with industry rivals to restrict market supply in order to keep prices artificially high. This follows a similar settlement in 2022 where JBS paid US$52.5 million to grocers and other plaintiffs that make up the "direct" beef purchaser class.

Source: news article (2023)

Deforestation in Brazil

Amazon Watch's 2020 report, Complicity in Destruction III, reveals how a network of leading international financial institutions is linked to conflicts on indigenous lands, illegal deforestation, land grabbing, the weakening of environmental protections, and the production and export of conflict commodities. The report found that this agribusiness company has been directly or indirectly involved in conflicts affecting Indigenous peoples and their territories.

Source: Amazon Watch (2020)

Illegal grazing in the Amazon

According to a 2020 report by Amnesty International, cattle illegally grazed in protected areas of Brazil's Amazon rainforest have entered this company's supply chain. JBS contributes to human rights abuses against Indigenous peoples and residents of Reserves by participating in the economic incentives for cattle illegally grazed in protected areas. JBS has been aware of these risks since 2009, but has failed to implement an effective monitoring system for its supply chain.

Source: Amnesty Intl (2020)

4/100 in KnowTheChain Benchmark

In 2023 KnowTheChain benchmarked 60 food and beverage companies on their efforts to identify and tackle forced labour risks in their supply chains. This company received a score of 4/100. The average score was a disappointing 16/100 and the highest score was 56/100.

Source: KnowTheChain (2023)

31.1% in Forest 500 Rankings

Forest 500 identifies the 350 companies and 150 financial institutions with the greatest exposure to tropical deforestation risk, and annually assesses them on the strength and implementation of their deforestation and human rights commitments. This company received a score of 31.1%.

Source: Forest 500 (2023)

"Net zero" greenwash

'The Big Con' is a 2021 report by Corporate Accountability, Friends of the Earth and others that makes clear that Big Polluters' idea of "net zero" is part of their continued plan to protect deeply unjust global systems, distract from taking the real action needed, and to evade responsibility for the climate crisis and to continue to pollute. This company was named in the report as one whose "net zero" climate commitments are anything but real action.

Source: Corporate Accountability (2021)

9.6% in methane scorecard

The livestock sector is the single largest contributor to man-made methane emissions. Even though rapid reductions of methane emissions are needed to slow the rate of global warming, the largest meat and dairy corporations are oblivious to the problem. Changing Markets' 2021 report 'Blindspot' investigated the policies and actions of 20 meat and dairy giants to reduce their methane emissions. This company scored 9.6/100 for their methane policy and actions.

Source: Changing Markets (2021)

D- grade in Plastic Promises Scorecard

As You Sow's 2024 Plastic Promises Scorecard measures the corporate ambition and action of 225 large companies across six industries on six core pillars of plastic packaging pollution prevention: 1) Recyclability, 2) Reduction, 3) Recycled Content, 4) Recovery, 5) Reuse, and 6) Producer Responsibility. This company received a grade of D-.

Source: As You Sow (2024)

Water risk management

In their 2019 report 'Feeding Ourselves Thirsty', Ceres looks at how food sector companies are responding to water risks. 40 companies were assessed on a 0-100 point basis across four categories of water management: governance and management, direct operations, manufacturing supply chain and agricultural supply chain. This company received a score of 22.

Source: Ceres (2019)

Fined over Covid-19 outbreak

In 2021 was fined US$3.6 million by a local Brazilian court in respect to damages related to employees following a Covid-19 outbreak at a beef processing facility.

Source: Just Food (2021)

5.5/20 in Social Benchmark

The 2024 Social Benchmark assesses the world's 2,000 most influential companies on their responsibility in meeting society's fundamental expectations towards three measurement areas: respecting human rights, providing decent work, and acting ethically. This company was assessed in 2023 and received a score of 5.5/20. The average score was an alarmingly low 4.6/20 and the highest score was 15.5/20.

Source: World Benchmarking Alliance (2024)

Tier 5 in farm animal welfare rankings

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) 2023 Report ranks global food companies on their farm animal welfare policies, practices and performance. This company appeared in tier 5, "On the business agenda but limited evidence of implementation", with tier 1 being the best, and tier 6 the worst.

Source: BBFAW (2023)

21/100 S&P Global ESG Score

This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 21/100 in the Food Products category of the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices (last updated 7 Feb 2021). The rankings are based on an analysis of corporate economic, environmental and social performance, assessing issues such as corporate governance, risk management, environmental reporting, climate strategy, human rights and labour practices.

Source: S&P Global (2021)

Part owned by J&F Investimentos, which has criticisms

This company is 40% owned by J&F Investimentos, which has criticisms and an overall Shop Ethical rating of 'F'

Source: Shop Ethical (2018)

16.2% in Food and Agriculture Benchmark

The 2023 Food and Agriculture Benchmark assessed 350 keystone companies across the entirety of the food system, from farm to fork. It covers three dimensions where transformation is needed: nutrition, environment and social inclusion. This company ranked #174/350, with a total score of 16.2/100.

Source: World Benchmarking Alliance (2023)

14.2% in Nature Benchmark

The Nature Benchmark ranks 816 companies across 20 industries on their efforts to protect our environment and its biodiversity. Companies were assessed in three phases between 2022 and 2024 using three measurement areas: governance and strategy; social inclusion and community impact; and ecosystems and biodiversity. This company was assessed in 2023 and is ranked #410/816, with a total score of 14.2/100.

Source: World Benchmarking Alliance (2023)