Top US Food and Beverage Companies Scope 3 Emissions Disclosure and Reductions

Food and beverage companies are major emitters of greenhouse gases (GHG) across their global operations, and face substantial risks by failing to adequately account for the full range of GHG emissions embedded within their value chains.

In 2019, Ceres for the second time analyzed 50 of the top food and beverage companies that sell value-added, consumer-ready goods processed in the U.S. and Canada. The aim of this work was to assess the extent to which 50 of the top food and beverage companies disclose on scope 3 emissions in their supply chains.

The list of 50 companies in this analysis was adapted with some modifications from Food Processing’s 43rd Annual Top 100 List from 2018, which ranks food and beverage processors based on their sales of value-added, consumer-ready goods processed in the U.S. and Canadian facilities.[1] Of the 50 companies analyzed, 34 (68%) are publicly traded and 16 (32%) are private. Each made at least US$2.3 billion in 2017 food sales.

List of 50 companies included in analysis:




  1. Anheuser-Busch InBev
  2. Archer Daniels Midland
  3. Bunge
  4. Campbell Soup Co.
  5. Coca-Cola Co.
  6. Conagra Brands Inc.
  7. Constellation Brands
  8. Danone*
  9. Dean Foods Co.
  10. Flowers Foods Inc.
  11. General Mills Inc.
  12. Grupo Bimbo*
  13. Hershey Co.
  14. Hormel Foods Corp.
  15. JBS*
  16. J.M. Smucker Co.
  1. Kellogg Co.
  2. Keurig Dr. Pepper
  3. Kraft Heinz Co.
  4. Maple Leaf Foods*
  5. Molson Coors Co.
  6. Mondelēz International
  7. Nestlé*
  8. Pepsi
  9. Pilgrim's Pride
  10. Pinnacle Foods
  11. Post Holdings Inc
  12. Procter & Gamble
  13. Sanderson Farms
  14. Saputo Inc.*
  15. Smithfield Foods Inc.
  16. TreeHouse Foods Inc.
  17. Tyson Foods Inc.
  18. Unilever U.S.


  1. American Foods Group LLC
  2. California Dairies Inc.
  3. Cargill Inc.
  4. Dairy Farmers of America
  5. E&J Gallo Winery
  6. Foster Farms LLC
  7. Great Lakes Cheese Co.
  8. Koch Foods Inc.
  9. Lactalis American Group
  10. Land O'Lakes Inc.
  11. Mars Inc.
  12. McCain Foods
  13. National Beef Packing Co.
  14. Perdue Farms Inc
  15. Prairie Farms Dairy Inc.
  16. Rich Products Corp.

* Publicly traded outside of the U.S.

Ceres analyzed GHG emissions data from company-submitted 2018 Climate Disclosure Project (CDP) Climate Change and/or Supply Chain reports, largely corresponding to company activity during the 2017 calendar year, as well as other publicly available information listed on company websites and company sustainability reports.

This continued analysis reveals where this set of companies falls short on disclosure and management of GHG emissions, and offers opportunities for investors to engage companies on improved GHG reporting and mitigation action.

Who is Disclosing on Emissions?

Of the 50 companies included in this analysis, 16 (32%) do not publicly disclose on company-specific GHG emissions at all.

Who is Disclosing on the full range of Scope 3 Emissions?

Of the 50 companies analyzed, 24 (48%) report on full scope (1+2+3) emissions, down from 54% in 2017. However, only 16 companies report on full scope (1+2+3) emissions inclusive of scope 3 “purchased goods and services” (this “purchased goods and services” sub-category includes upstream emissions from agriculture), up from 15 in 2017 reporting (Table 2).

Table 2: Companies that report on scope 3 emissions from purchased goods and services


Mars Inc. 

Archer Daniels Midland

Molson Coors Co.

Campbell Soup Company

Mondelēz International 

Coca-Cola Co.




General Mills Inc.

Procter & Gamble 


Saputo Inc. 

Kraft Heinz Co.

Unilever U.S.

Among those companies reporting on full scope 3 emissions, scope 3 emissions constituted on average 89% of total reported company emissions (scopes 1+2+3). On average, scope 1 emissions accounted for 6% of company emissions and scope 2 emissions accounted for the remaining 5% of company emissions.

What Do Company Emissions Disclosures Reveal About the Magnitude of Scope 3 Emissions?

Reported scope 3 emissions from these companies in 2017[2] totaled roughly 692.4 million tonnes CO2e, equivalent in magnitude to CO2 emissions from 77.9 billion gallons of gasoline consumed or annual CO2 emissions from 178 coal-fired power plants[3]

Who is Including Scope 3 Emissions in their Climate Mitigation Targets?

Of the 50 companies analyzed, 32 have active, company-specific GHG emissions reduction targets. Of these 32, only 9 have explicit targets to reduce scope 3 emissions (versus solely scope 1+2).

Table 3: Companies that report on scope 3 emissions and
have explicit targets to reduce scope 3 emissions


Reduce scope 1+2+3 emissions by 25% by 2025 from base year of 2017.

Coca-Cola Co.

The Coca-Cola Company sets a target to reduce absolute scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions 25% by 2030 from a 2015 base-year.


Reduce scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions per ton of sold product 50% by 2030, from a 2015 base year.

General Mills Inc.

Reduce absolute GHG emissions across full value chain (scope 1+2+3) by 28% by 2025 from base year 2010.


Reduce scope 3 emissions by 20% by 2030, and by 50% by 2050 from base year 2015.

Mars Inc.

Reduce scope 1+2+3 emissions by 27% by 2025, and by 67% by 2050, from base year 2015.


Reduce scope 3 emissions by 8% by 2020 from base year 2014.


Reduce scope 3 emissions by 20% by 2030 from base year 2015.

Unilever U.S.

Reduce scope 1+2+3 emissions from the lifecycle of their products by 50% per consumer use by 2030 from base year 2010.

Overall, this analysis reveals the disproportionately high contribution of scope 3 emissions to the total emissions of food and beverage companies, and an outsize opportunity for effective climate risk management that, to-date, the top food and beverage companies have largely been failing to address. Other supply chain emissions analyses corroborate the large contribution of scope 3 emissions to the broader company or sectoral emissions picture; across all economic sectors in the U.S., scope 3 emissions are estimated to account for 74% of total emissions,[4] while, for companies operating in the food and beverage sector, an estimated 75-90% of a typical food product’s carbon footprint occurs in the supply chain upstream of the point of sale.[5] The failure of most top food and beverage companies to adequately monitor, disclose on, and reduce scope 3 emissions from agriculture poses substantial material risk, particularly in light of the growing necessity to assess and address threats and opportunities in exposure to the impacts of climate change, and increasing stakeholder demand for greater corporate transparency on ESG principles.

For information on how companies can better measure and manage GHG emissions, please download our resource: Measure the Chain: Tools for Assessing GHG Emissions in Agricultural Supply Chains.


[1] Fusaro, D. 2018. Top 100 Food and Beverage Companies for 2018. Food Processing.

[2] Most but not all companies reported on emissions referring to the 2017 calendar year.

[3] Emissions equivalencies derived from US EPA. 2017. Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator.

[4] Matthews, H.S., et al. 2008. The Importance of Carbon Footprint Estimation Boundaries. Environmental Science and Technology 42: 5839-5842.

[5] Tidy, M. et al. 2016. The Role of Supplier Relationship Management in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Food Supply Chains: Supplier Engagement in the UK Supermarket Sector. Journal of Cleaner Production 112(4): 3294-3305.