Print this page

Published: 8 September 2014

Peak meat production strains land and water resources


The strain meat production places on global resources could be reduced by eating less meat, feeding livestock with grass instead of grain, using natural fertilisers and ending factory-style livestock operations, according to a recent Worldwatch Institute analysis.

Close to 70 per cent of the planet's agricultural land is used for animal pasture. Another 10 per cent is used to grow grains to feed livestock for meat and dairy.
Close to 70 per cent of the planet's agricultural land is used for animal pasture. Another 10 per cent is used to grow grains to feed livestock for meat and dairy.
Credit: ©istock/dhughes9

Industrial-scale livestock production has led to the loss of forests to expand grazing lands as well as the use of large quantities of water. Production also uses grains, such as corn or soybeans, for animal feed and relies on heavy doses of antibiotics in animals. Beef is particularly resource-intensive.

Limiting environmental and health impacts requires understanding the kind of meat that people consume worldwide, according to Worldwatch Institute researcher, Michael Renner.

Global meat production rose to a new peak of 308.5 million tons in 2013, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a more than fourfold increase over the last five decades. Even more startlingly, meat production has grown 25-fold since 1800.

The growth in meat consumption has not been constrained by rising prices. Worldwide, meat consumption stood at 42.9 kg per capita in 2013. Even though the gap is beginning to close, people in industrial countries continue to eat much larger quantities of meat (75.9 kg) than those in developing nations (33.7 kg).

Close to 70 per cent of the planet's agricultural land is used for animal pasture. Another 10 per cent is used to grow grains to feed livestock. Producing beef is much more resource-intensive than producing pork or chicken, requiring roughly three to five times as much land to generate the same amount of protein. Beef production alone uses about 60 per cent of global farmland, but yields less than 5 per cent of the world's protein.

Agriculture uses about 70 per cent of the world's available freshwater, and one-third of that is used to grow the grain fed to livestock. Beef is by far the most water-intensive of all meats. The more than 15,000 litres of water used per kilogram is more than is required by staple foods such as rice (3400 litres per kg), eggs (3300 litres), milk (1000 litres), or potatoes (255 litres).

Worldwide, more than 40 per cent of wheat, rye, oats, and corn production is fed to animals, along with 250 million tons of soybeans and other oilseeds.

Heavy doses of antibiotics are used to speed livestock growth and reduce the likelihood of disease outbreak in cramped conditions. In the US, 13,600 tons of antibiotics were sold for use in livestock operations in 2011 – almost four times the 3,500 tons used to treat ill people. Even this number, however, pales in comparison with the possibly more than 100,000 tons used in China's meat production.

Alternative practices could reduce these environmental and health impacts: for example, switching feed from grains to grass and other plants; using natural instead of synthetic fertilisers; and ending factory-style livestock operations. But dietary choices also make a big difference.

Country and regional highlights from the report:

  1. Asia's 131.5 million tons of meat accounted for close to 43 perc ent of world output in 2013. Europe was second (58.5 million tons), followed by North America (47.2 million tons) and South America (39.9 million tons).

  2. China accounted for nearly half of global pig-meat production in 2013.

  3. The ten largest meat companies, measured by 2011–13 sales, are headquartered in just six countries: Brazil (JBS, BRF, Marfrig), the US (Tyson Food, Cargill, Hormel Foods), Netherlands (Vion), Japan (Nippon Meat Packers), Denmark (Danish Crown AmbA) and China (Smithfield Foods – acquired by Shuanghui International Holdings in 2013).

Source: Worldwatch Institute







Published: 4 July 2011

Assured sustainability reporting – navigating obligations

Nick Fleming

As the way in which organisations address environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues comes under increasing scrutiny, sustainability reporting is gathering importance and momentum. Yet reporting must be seen as a product of sustainable business practices, not the focus of it.

Emphasis on more robust sustainability reporting is helping to drive the wider assessment and reform of companies’ associated supply chains and logistics infrastructure.
Emphasis on more robust sustainability reporting is helping to drive the wider assessment and reform of companies’ associated supply chains and logistics infrastructure.
Credit: iStockphoto

While sustainability reporting is new territory for some organisations, many leading businesses have been engaged in reporting for over a decade. Indeed, sustainability reporting is typically one of the first vehicles for engagement with the topic and issues of sustainability, often at the encouragement of a few passionate staff.

However, the call for greater organisational accountability and transparency is growing. An increasing number of shareholder resolutions are placing pressure on company boards to ensure they are effectively identifying, disclosing and addressing ESG risks. Institutional investors are already using ESG data to differentiate firms and guide investment decisions.1

Powerful customers are also forcing their suppliers to become more transparent. The classic example is Walmart, which launched a supplier sustainability initiative in July 2009. Locally, Woolworths recently announced its own Sustainable Fish Sourcing Strategy.2

There is also an expectation for assurance. This reflects a stakeholder desire for reports to be relevant, reliable and free from bias, while the reporting organisation wishes to build a case for lower costs for finance and insurance. This all takes time and money; reporting can be a costly exercise and carries risks.

The banking sector provides an insight to the challenges posed by sustainability reporting. In Australia, banks have typically lead sustainability reporting and have performed well against international benchmarks such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Yet this year, the big four banks have been publically criticised over their involvement with coal-fired power stations.3 People ask how an organisation that receives sustainability accolades can also finance environmental pollution. This questions the connectivity between sustainability reporting and governance.

Scrutiny is also being applied by the regulators. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has prosecuted cases against companies such as GM Holden and Prime Carbon for overstating their ‘green’ credentials. It’s clear that inaccurate communication on ESG matters presents serious risks to an organisation’s reputation – and that of the rating or assurance agency.

These issues have been behind recent reviews of reporting guidelines and benchmarking methods.4,5 The reviews found that ratings and reporting tend to be backward-looking measures of compliance with ‘good practice’, failing to enable a meaningful assessment of an organisation’s ability to create and sustain value, in the short and longer term.

What’s lacking is adequate interrogation and reporting of the strategic capabilities and the core competencies required to underpin business continuity and delivery of sustainable outcomes; that is, a truly sustainable enterprise.

However, the push for integrated financial and non-financial (sustainability) reporting may offer a silver lining – the trigger to focus conversations among executives and boards about the things that will drive genuine business continuity, profitability and sustainability. Without these conversations, there will neither be the understanding, focus nor commitment to cultivate truly sustainable enterprises.

The adage ‘What gets measured gets managed’ remains true; as does ‘It’s what you do, not what you say, that counts’. Reporting without subsequent actions to manage risks and create value is meaningless, and arguably harmful.

While there are growing market and stakeholder pressures for integrated reporting of financial and ESG matters, reporting should only be entered into with an eye on:

  1. material business risks

  2. core competencies for organisational continuity

  3. a core set of meaningful performance measures that offer real insight

  4. integrating reporting into governance

  5. commitment to real action in response to identified risks and opportunities.

Organisations that assume this approach take sustainability reporting beyond a ‘nice?to?have’ PR exercise to a ‘must?have’ business improvement tool. It’s a factor in the superior financial performance demonstrated by ethical and sustainable organisations. Getting it right is good for business – and good for communities.

Dr Nick Fleming is Chief Sustainability Officer Sinclair Knight Merz, leading the application of sustainability thinking in business operations and client services. Through his Sustainable Enterprise column, Nick provides insight to how businesses and organisations are effectively putting sustainability theory into practice.


1 Ernst & Young (2011). Shareholders press boards on social and environmental risks. tinyurl.com/social-environmental-risks
2 tinyurl.com/sustainable-fish
3 Greenpeace (2011). Pillars of pollution. www.greenpeace.org.au/climate/GI-profundo.php
4 Eccles RG, Cheng B, Saltzman D (Eds) (2010). The landscape of integrated reporting: reflections and next steps. Harvard Business School. tinyurl.com/integrated-reporting
5 SustainAbility (2011). Rate the raters: uncovering best practices. www.sustainability.com/library/rate-the-raters-phase-one




ECOS Archive

Welcome to the ECOS Archive site which brings together 40 years of sustainability articles from 1974-2014.

For more recent ECOS articles visit the blog. You can also sign up to the email alert or RSS feed