The panel discussed how producers report on progress on sustainability issues, what their main challenges are when reporting, or the reasons why they do not report.
It is the second time that I have participated in this event, the previous time was in Amsterdam, in 2023. I remember my surprise at the announcement that the food served was 100% vegetarian, everything of plant origin, and most of the presentations announced the transition to a plant-based diet or the reduction of the corporate footprint (for example Ahold) through the reduction of the purchase of beef or by-products. In this event, in the United States, the approach was very different. First, because there were animal proteins in all the lunches, and also because the companies that were exhibiting included beef processors such as Tyson, JBS and other retail companies sharing their supply strategy, which included meat.
Personally, I felt more “welcome” at this event than at the same event in Amsterdam. I think that reflects the European reality and the different perspective that exists in each region regarding beef consumption.
The main topic of the event was sustainability reports, data and how to reach the producer, especially the indirect one, that is, the one that does not have a direct link with the companies that have assumed sustainability goals.
Different success stories were presented, but most indicated the difficulties of having 100% of their supply mapped out, measured and on a path towards continuous improvement. Most of the companies presented about SBTi (Science Based Target Initiative). There were also discussions on SBTN (Science Based Target for Nature) and TNFD (TaskForce on Nature Financial Disclosure).
Discussions about climate data are expanding and moving to analyze Nature or Biodiversity data. Most indicators I’ve seen that companies should collect are very specific and I don't know how realistic they are. I think they seek perfection, but I don't know if they are possible when we talk about large volumes of supply, from different origins, and a multiple number of transactions and suppliers.
Beyond my own opinion and analysis, I believe that we at GRSB should align ourselves even more with these reports and collaborate with our members to think about strategies or projects so the data they need can be collected. Our network is close to producers and understands local realities, I think that is an advantage few organizations have. The effort should be at a global and national level.
As Rory suggests, above, starting by compiling existing reports is a good first step. We will be able to better understand the reporting and how to achieve greater specificity and identify areas of risk or opportunities for improvement to design projects.
Projects with a jurisdictional focus is a trend that many companies are doing, where common areas of supply are identified, and specific issues to be resolved. For example: traceability, deforestation or conversion, soil data, carbon, and even the possibility of issuing bonds/ carbon or nature credits by jurisdiction). GRSB could play a role in the design of these projects and monitor and report progress.
%2011.55.41_p._m..png)
.png)
