We highly value scientific information with regards to our business, including climate change and our choices towards net-zero. Vion employs a team of senior scientists to rely on the latest scientific information. We also steer on relevant and actual data whenever possible to enable data- and science-driven choices. When climate science and objective data are not used, the risk of introducing unsubstantiated opinions increases. Unfortunately, the used scoring methodology is not science-based and is at points inconsistent. Furthermore, in the references used for evaluation we have counted in the reference list of 17 pages, three peer-reviewed scientific articles published in scientific journals and 10 references to IPCC reports. As such, the scientific relevance, merit and generation of meaningful insights arising from the review do not meet our standards. Vion sees great value in transparency and therefore maintains transparency websites. In that respect we plan to publish on these websites your evaluation of Vion together with our views on the scientific validity and contribution of such subjective and opinionated evaluations in building a sustainable future together.
Scientific data show that there is a tremendous variation among different animal production practices with regard to carbon emissions as Poore and Nemecek (2018) report in a meta-analysis of global carbon footprint data. Reports of many thousands of studies, most of these data concern food of animal origin, show that the difference among farming practices can have an overwhelming effect on the actual carbon footprint emission. Vion has provided substantial data to show the real carbon footprint emission of a subset of our pig and cattle producers. Unfortunately there is no reference to these real Dutch data that reflect the current actual carbon emissions more accurately than general global data that are referred to in the evaluation report.
On page 16, of the reference document of the NewClimate Institute, intensive livestock farming is excluded as an acceptable business. This represents a political statement that is not in accordance with the views of Vion. It is a pity that the report is substantially weakened by taking this reference as base for your evaluation.
- Tracking and disclosing information
We do indeed disclose full details of the Scopes 1 and 2 in our annual CSR report, with a clear breakdown into sources such as gas, electricity, transport and fugitive emissions (the latter being a combination of methane, HFC refills and CO2 for stunning and packaging). We present both actual and historical data. Furthermore the reporting of Scope 3 emissions is deemed unsatisfactory. We do argue that we present supply chain emissions on page 92 of our annual CSR report. As dictated by, amongst others, the European PEF guidelines, the claims related to final products should be based on life cycle analysis. The unit of presenting is not dictated by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol
nor the PEF guidelines, and we therefore chose the science-based approach for meaningful comparisons of food items. We show in the graph on the mentioned page in the CSR report what the supply chain emissions are for the pigs and cows that we purchase. We agree that these are not in a form that immediately state the total emissions, but do show our estimation of Scope 3 emission intensity and extrapolation can be made relatively straightforward. The real field data show that the used farming practices in pigs and cattle farming in the Netherlands result in a substantial lower carbon footprint than that global figures suggest. This is clearly a result of the strong craftmanship of the Dutch farmers and other relevant partners in our food supply chains.
The livestock production supply chains are complex and require many inputs and have various outputs. Calculations only become meaningful when they are factual and based on real data. We are depending on the willingness and ability to share data by several thousands of our stakeholders. Furthermore, guidelines on the full coverage of Scope 3 are still in development. Carbon removal is a natural process occurring in agriculture and its inclusion in calculations is acknowledged, but objective consensus on how to include this process in the calculations is still pending. The draft guidance from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol on this topic is only expected to be available for both pilot testing and review in June 2022. Publication is expected in early 2023. As such, full realistic quantification and disclosure of Scope 3 has not been possible to date. To hold a firm nonetheless accountable for not providing detailed disclosure is not in line with a meaningful and objective classification system.
Lastly, the 13 MtCO2e that is referred to for Scope 3 is a calculation made by an external company, without contacting us for relevant and actual data, nor using these data from our published annual reports. As such, it is not in line with our science-based calculations for Scope 3 and also not in line with–and comparable to–our Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Surely, NewClimate Institute realizes the difficulty and danger in comparing results from different modelling studies. It is therefore in our case an irrelevant number to use.
- Setting emission reduction targets
We gladly provide additional information regarding the percentage reduction and replacement that were shared with you. For Scope 1, we aim for a 2% reduction in energy usage every year and 5-7% replacement with renewable sources every year. That amounts to a total reduction of energy usage of 16% and a replacement of energy from renewable sources with an additional 40%.
Regarding the comment on share of reduction and compensation towards net-zero in 2045: a realistic distinction is currently difficult to make and depends on the system changes we can realize in livestock production. We will strive for the maximal reduction by optimising the supply chain together with supply chain partners, which also depends on science and innovations that are still to be invented and developed, and will need to compensate the remaining part in ways that are science-based and acceptable to the society and authorities in the field of sustainability. We argue that a factual and meaningful assessment on this topic is dependent on new scientific developments for the period until 2045-2050.
- Reducing own emissions
Scope 2 for Vion concerns solely purchased energy. We have set a target to 80% renewable electricity in 2025 and will submit that to the Science-based targets initiatives. We will achieve that through increasing the production of biogas from our byproducts and sewage sludge (we already do that in the Netherlands and parts of Germany) and by installing more solar panels. Initiatives to join or invest larger-scale renewable energy are also ongoing. That will however not be enough and the remainder will be achieved by purchasing renewable energy from our energy suppliers, assured with Certificates of Origin. Any judgment on the possibility for ‘contentious neutralisation measures’, as noted on page 60, is based on gut feeling and/or opinion of the assessor, and not an objective evaluation based on available information. In our journey towards net-zero we base choices on science and data as much as possible.
A substantial limiting factor in the reduction of scope 1 and 2 carbon emissions are the food safety requirements that may not be mitigated. In any case food items in general need to be cooled to safe temperatures and goes along with substantial use of energy, with whatever technology that is used. We will assure that the energy originates from renewable sources.
- Climate contributions and offsetting claims.
The concept of rewarding climate contributions is surely applaudable, but only relevant and valid when objective and science-based approaches are available to quantify the unabated emissions and to provide evidence for joining such initiatives on the journey to net-zero. As described under 1, full quantification is due, and yet partly available. We are discredited for that under 1 and again under 4. In scientific multicriteria evaluation such an approach, with dependent categories, is considered flawed. In other words the reported categories aren’t independent of each other, which can result in a low scoring in all categories as a result of one exclusion reference.
In conclusion Vion thanks the NewClimate Institute for the efforts made to evaluate the climate policy of Vion. The evaluation of scope 1 and 2 is welcomed by Vion and will be used in our further steps towards net-zero. However it is a pity that the evaluation of scope 3 is based on the full exclusion of intensive farming practices. We hope that the NewClimate Institute will correct this on the basis of sound science and realistic data.
Reference
Poore J. and T. Nemecek, 2018. Science 360: 987-992.