How do Alternative Protein businesses strengthen their ability to communicate sustainable impacts?
As sustainability regulations surge globally, alternative proteins are in a prime position to excel.
Every day, everybody makes decisions on what to eat. Few people think about where this food comes from and what systems exist to make what is on our plate possible. But this is changing. A recent PWC survey showed that 9 in 10 consumers report experiencing first-hand the disruptive effects of climate change in their daily lives and are prioritizing consumption that integrates sustainability-focused practices. Alternative protein companies are well-positioned to meet this increasing demand.
Studies consistently show that alternative proteins use a fraction of the land and water to produce compared to conventional meat, generate fewer greenhouse gasses (GHGs), and prevent massive amounts of pollutants from harming our air, water, and soil.
Alternative protein companies can capitalize on this new economy by showcasing their sustainability. However, increasing regulation, such as the EU's Green Claims Directive, makes it crucial to back these claims with clear evidence to avoid greenwashing—making unfounded or exaggerated environmental claims. Companies that mislead customers can face costly fines and significant reputational damage for themselves and the industry.
Why now, more than ever, is this so important?
The global shift towards sustainability reporting
This year (2024) has been transformational in sustainability regulation. This global shift has set in motion an economy focused more on how businesses impact our climate. While the SEC defends its climate disclosure proposal, California has passed the Corporate Climate Accountability Act requiring companies to report their complete carbon inventories, including scope three emissions. Canada has also announced mandatory climate disclosures.
The EU is bringing the most comprehensive sustainability reporting regulation to date into force. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) brings together climate and financial data with assurance for the first time. The CSRD is snowballing globally; the U.K., New Zealand, Japan, China, Brazil, South Korea, and Hong Kong are planning or have passed similar regulations– even 81% of companies that are not subject to the CSRD still plan to meet the requirements. In addition, the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) launched a new global sustainability reporting standard.
In response, companies across sectors are, either quietly or loudly, looking at ways to lessen their impact on our planet. A recent Climate Impact Partners study found that Fortune 500 companies are increasing their net zero commitments. Deloitte found that 74% of public companies plan to invest in sustainability reporting and tools next year. KPMG’s recent survey of CEOs also found that managing their sustainability was a top 3 priority.
This avalanche of climate regulation and standards sets a global tone: businesses must take responsibility for how they operate, where they operate, and the impact this has. This article outlines three simple but critical steps for alternative protein industry professionals looking to navigate sustainability claims.
Navigating sustainability claims
There are three key practical tips taken from the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the EU’s Green Claims Directive for staying ahead of these regulations, showcasing genuine sustainability credentials, and steering clear of greenwashing pitfalls:
Use clear language and substantiate claims. Avoid using vague or misleading language. Vague statements like “better for the planet” are meaningless without supporting data.
Externally verify your claims. Use trusted third parties to assess and verify your claims.
Aim for full disclosure. Avoid cherry-picking and be honest about your achievements and areas for improvement.
Note: Advertising standards vary across jurisdictions, so companies should make themselves aware of which sets of laws apply to their particular ads and product labels, as well as precisely what those different laws require with respect to environmental and sustainability claims. The following principles should help you get started thinking about environmental claim substantiation, but best practice is to consult a professional familiar with the laws governing your geographic segments. Let’s dive in.
1. Use clear language and substantiate claims.
Clarity is paramount. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) recently found that 40% of companies' green claims could be misleading. Ambiguous phrases like "eco-friendly" or "better for the planet" can mislead consumers and invite scepticism unless backed by concrete data. This means being precise about product environmental footprints and potential benefits.
Instead of vague assertions, the CMA and EU’s Green Claims Directive suggest articulating:
What product(s) are you assessing?
Which system boundaries are you using?
How are you calculating impact, i.e., which methodology and functional units are you using?
What is the impact of your product, i.e., how many emissions they produce and how much water or land they use?
Provide a link or reference to the externally verified supporting evidence.
If you are comparing your product to another, clearly describe all of the above for both your product and comparison product.
Once your claims are clear, ensure your marketing and commercial teams are well-versed in environmental specifics. This promotes consistency across communication channels, be it packaging, advertising, sales calls, or social media communication. Mixed messaging fuels doubt and could lead to accusations of greenwashing.
A cautionary tale
Even when a company makes specific claims supported by data, it can still be open to criticism if the claims do not provide enough detail on what is being measured. In 2022, a plant-based milk producer’s advertisements were banned in the UK due to misleading claims even though they contained specific information. While the advertisement claimed the company “generates 73% less CO2e vs milk, calculated from grower to grocer,” the UK-based Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) determined the ad failed to specify which product they measured. According to the ASA, comparative claims like this need greater specificity because their calculations will have the most variables. Each advertising claims authority has slightly different specific requirements, so familiarizing yourself with the green claims standards applicable to your jurisdiction will be imperative.
Working with projections
Many alternative protein companies operate at pre-commercial scales and thus model the environmental impact of their production at a commercial scale. This projected data is invaluable for attracting investments and planning future operations. However, it is essential to distinguish between this modeled data and actual data collected from existing operations when reporting your impact. State clearly if your claims are based on projections to avoid greenwashing by, for instance, creating separate sections in reports or using clear visual cues to differentiate between actual and projected data.
Specificity and consistency build consumer trust, meet regulations, and differentiate your brand in a crowded market.
2. Externally verify your claims.
External verification is essential. Internal assessments should only be used for internal purposes. For everything else, third-party data assessment and verification is recommended for investors, consumers, and regulators in many jurisdictions, with the EU’s Green Claims Directive setting the standard. The most common way to do this is by conducting a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), an internationally recognized methodology for businesses aiming to make substantiated, credible environmental product claims.
However, a key challenge in conducting an LCA for alternative proteins is the lack of robust and standardized data to support the analysis of novel ingredients and processes. These data gaps can increase the cost as well as reduce an LCA’s credibility, leading to accusations of greenwashing that harm individual companies and the industry’s reputation. GFI in partnership with Kercombe Consulting has worked to address these gaps by supporting two key resources:
The GFI and Foodsteps Alternative Protein Automated LCA Software
Foodsteps, a specialized sustainability platform, designed and launched a new LCA modeling software in May of 2024. GFI supported the development of the free version, which allows for the assessment of up to five products across three key impact categories—carbon emissions, water use, and land use—measuring products’ ecological footprint from cradle (agricultural stage) to factory gate (end of manufacturing, but pre-packaging).
Currently, the software can best serve plant-based and biomass fermentation products. It guides effective, sustainable decision-making in product design, production scale, and location while providing internal sustainability reporting. Foodsteps’ premium version includes impact certification, ensuring a third party verifies your data to facilitate external claims.
The LCA Best Practice Guide for Alternative Protein Manufacturers.
LCA software may not have the available datasets to calculate the impact of more novel technologies, such as cultivated meat and precision fermentation-enabled proteins. Primary data will be necessary to ensure a precise evaluation where data gaps exist. The GFI LCA best practices guide offers pathways and recommendations for alternative protein manufacturers to conduct different LCA scopes to ensure the study meets your needs.
The above sets out measuring your products based on actual data. However, additional elements must be considered for comparative claims or claims using projected data.
Grounding calculations
For projected data, it's essential that your calculations are grounded in robust modeling techniques and that assumptions are validated. A good practice is to run a few scenarios and understand how results vary. What happens if you change locations, energy sources, production scale, or product recipes? Testing assumptions and running multiple scenarios improve the credibility of your results.
Comparing correctly
When looking at comparative LCAs, the International Standards Organization (ISO) sets specific requirements to ensure valid results:
The systems must be comparable. Specifically, the system boundaries, data quality, and assumptions must be consistent across all products being compared.
The LCA must undergo a critical review. An external panel must validate the study's methodology and ensure that the comparisons are fair and unbiased.
The products must be functionally equivalent. They must have the same function and be measured using the same functional unit(s). In cases where they may have multiple functions, the LCA must address how to allocate environmental impacts among these functions. It is also worth explaining why a specific reference product is being compared. For instance, does it align with the scope of your product (i.e. scale, market, geography, and temporal aspects), or does it represent a market-average or state-of-the-art product?
Justify the allocation of impacts. In some cases, a production process will produce products and by- or co-products as well as waste. You must be clear on how the overall impact is allocated to these different outputs and ensure the same methodology(s) are used for your product and the comparison.
The study must be transparently undertaken and communicated. Comparative LCAs require detailed documentation of all assumptions, data sources, and methodologies used to ensure transparency and reproducibility of the results.
External verification is expected by many stakeholders and essential to align with regulations. It transforms your sustainability efforts from claims to proven results and safeguards your brand against accusations of greenwashing.
3. Aim for full disclosure
It is easy to focus on the wins when communicating results, but cherry-picking data presents a skewed image that can damage your credibility and integrity. Instead, focus on providing a complete set of disclosures and transparently sharing your achievements and areas for improvement.
Acknowledge limitations
Whether it's a missed target or an unexpected environmental impact, being honest about these difficulties—and outlining the strategies you are implementing to address them—reinforces your commitment to sustainability. It also shows that you are actively working towards solutions, which can inspire confidence among consumers and investors.
In the case of LCAs, ISO standards set out what information should be shared:
Clearly state the goal and scope of your LCA, including the functional unit, system boundaries, data sources, allocation methods, impact categories, and critical review procedures. By carefully considering the goal and scope of the assessment and by choosing the appropriate LCA modeling approach, the risk of misinterpretation of the results can be limited.
Provide sufficient information to enable the reader to understand the comparison's results and limitations and verify the credibility and reliability of the data and methods used.
The results should be presented in a fair, complete, and balanced way to avoid bias, distortion, or misuse. For instance, in the case of project results, companies should clearly state that the information is based on projected data and that they plan to update the study using actual results at a prescribed time.
Use appropriate tools and techniques, such as sensitivity analysis, hotspot analysis, normalization, weighting, and aggregated scores to facilitate the interpretation and communication of the results.
Include a disclaimer that states the LCA's intended use and audience and warns against inappropriate or unauthorized use of the result.
How can I get all of this on my carefully designed packaging?
Environmental labels (“ecolabels”) are a common way to promote your product’s environmental credentials. However, with over 147 food-focused ecolabels available globally, the credibility of these labels varies significantly. While some ecolabels are widely recognized and trusted, others lack rigorous standards, making it essential for companies to choose wisely. The information these labels require from companies and provide to consumers also varies significantly from “certified organic,” “100% Natural”, and carbon footprint labels. Wageningen University recommends that when communicating your product’s environmental impact, it's best to choose a label that utilizes your LCA data, as many do not, and ideally links to your website with the detailed information above.
While research on the impact of ecolabels on consumer behavior is mixed, most studies find a marginal influence on behavior. A recent study by Tiboni-Oschilewski et al. (2024) found that a clear positive trend between ecolabels and consumer behaviour was most prominent when consumers already had some awareness and concern about environmental impacts.
Various factors, including design, recognisability, education campaigns, and local legal framework, heavily impact an ecolabel’s effectiveness. After reviewing EIT Food, academic and business resources, companies should consider the following when choosing the right ecolabel for your product:
Evaluate credibility and recognition: Select ecolabels that are well-established and recognized for their rigorous standards and credibility.
Utilize robust underlying data: The label is based on quantitative data on your product that has been independently verified.
Align with consumer values: To enhance trust and engagement, choose ecolabels that resonate with your target consumers' values and environmental concerns.
Consider regulatory trends: Many countries in the European Union are on a clear path to mandatory labeling. Stay informed about regulatory developments in your markets to ensure compliance and future-proof your product offerings.
Providing a full and balanced set of disclosures positions your company as credible and truly committed to sustainability and continuous improvement.
Leading the way
As the alternative protein sector expands, transparency and accountability in sustainability reporting are critical to building consumer trust and avoiding greenwashing. Companies can strengthen their green credentials and more closely align with emerging global regulations by using clear, specific language, verifying claims through credible third parties, and practicing full disclosure.
In this new climate economy, alternative protein companies that adopt these practices will mitigate risk and position themselves as industry leaders in the transition toward a more sustainable food system.
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult their own legal counsel for advice specific to their circumstances.Co-authored by The Good Food Institute. Published on Substack here.