Sustainability update April 2025

Senior UK food industry professionals warn companies are failing to disclose the true scale of food security risk

A coalition of food industry professionals claiming to represent more than half of the UK’s grocery market addressed a letter to investors, directors, owners and creditors warning that food security solutions were failing to meet the level of supply risk and that companies were ignoring valuable insights offered by nature-related disclosure frameworks. 

The letter suggested there was a “bias towards pleasing rather than being honest” with stakeholders and cautioned that many businesses viewed nature-related disclosures as nothing more than a compliance tick-box. It argued that vague information and a lack of hard data was limiting transparency and underplaying systemic risk. Food security strategies were largely “wishful” and “light on detail” with insufficient consideration given to long-term issues and the cumulative effects of sourcing changes and investments in alternative foods on global supply chains. 

The authors suggested investors engage with industry actors and regulators to test the robustness of their investments and answer three core questions: whether sourcing regions and key commodities were likely to provide stable long-term supply; whether business and government initiatives to improve the security of supply were material enough to manage escalating nature-related risks; and whether alternative plans to sustain food sourcing would be sufficient to navigate reduced global production capacity and increasingly competitive markets. These recommendations align with many aspects of Greenbank’s ongoing engagement with companies on nature-related impacts and dependencies, in addition to our work to encourage better transparency on nutrition-related food system risks. 

A separate briefing paper by the First Sentier MUFG Sustainable Investment Institute urged food industry investors to enhance their climate risk management, calculating that a 2.5°C warming scenario could result in up to $38 trillion in damages by 2050. The paper warned that while global food demand was likely to outstrip population growth in almost every region, increasing extreme weather events and impacts would undermine the world’s capacity to sustain a sufficient supply. It further advised investors to facilitate a “course correction” in global food supply chains by incorporating climate risk and environmental sustainability frameworks into their due diligence and portfolio management processes.

A briefing paper by the First Sentier MUFG Sustainable Investment Institute calculated that a 2.5°C warming scenario could  result in up to $38 trillion in damages by 2050.

Our ongoing work to map nature-related risks and dependencies across Greenbank’s investment portfolios supports these views, with preliminary findings indicating that food industries are highly dependent on nature across several critical areas such as water, soil health, pollination, biodiversity, and climate. Disruptions in any of these can significantly impact food security, sustainability, costs, and supply chain resilience. 

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) vote to expedite Omnibus proposal despite continuing opposition in European Parliament

The European Commission’s proposal to delay the implementation of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) faced its first vote in the European Parliament at the beginning of April.  These two policy measures have the potential to create a step change in the way that companies and investors monitor, manage and report sustainability-related risks across their operations and supply chains. They place greater emphasis on the need to proactively identify potential social or environmental harms and to have appropriate systems in place to manage them. While applying in the EU, the rules also capture international companies with a significant economic presence in EU member states, meaning the reach extends beyond just European companies. 

MEPs voted in favour of an extended adoption timescale for both directives and agreed to reduce the number of businesses covered by their mandates in an attempt to limit compliance costs for European businesses in increasingly competitive markets. The Omnibus proposal also recommended reducing reporting obligations by 25% for large private firms and 35% for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). MEPs supporting the proposal argued it was a constructive measure to ensure long-term European competitiveness and provide affected companies with the “clarity and breathing room” to grow and innovate. Those against the proposal claimed it was a “scandal” for the European Parliament to bow to pressure from the private sector, arguing that diluting agreed legislation risked undermining the ecological and social progress made by previous parliaments. 

After MEPs voted to expedite the delaying process, a coalition of eight NGOs lodged a formal complaint with the European Ombudsman, condemning the undemocratic and untransparent development of the Omnibus proposal. Accusing the European Commission of sidestepping broader consultation, the coalition argued the Commission had failed to gather and present sufficient evidence to support Omnibus’s principal aims and was technically in breach of its obligations under EU Climate Law. The coalition also insisted that weakening environmental and human rights requirements would undermine rather than enhance the region’s competitiveness objectives.

In a further move to streamline bloc-wide regulatory processes, the European Commission acted on feedback from member states to simplify aspects of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR)which is due for rollout on 30 December 2025. The EUDR aims to ensure that certain commodities and goods sold in or exported from EU markets do not contribute to deforestation or forest degradation. 

While it is disappointing that the level of ambition in incoming sustainability-related regulations across the EU is being lowered, it is important to recognise that even the stripped back regulations are a step in the right direction toward greater corporate accountability for wider social and environmental impacts. 

UK energy summit delegates support the argument that “energy security is national security”

Ministers and high-level officials from 60 countries met in London for two days of UK and International Energy Agency-led talks on the future of global energy security. Despite ongoing geopolitical tensions and differing opinions on methods for securing energy supplies, all parties agreed that prioritising energy security was essential for social and economic progress.

The UK used the occasion to accelerate its clean energy agenda with Sir Keir Starmer insisting that the country’s overreliance on volatile international fossil fuel markets had increased the vulnerability of working people and the wider economy. Taking aim at recent domestic criticism of the government’s commitment to net zero, Starmer told delegates that boosting renewable energy generation was core to securing the UK’s future prosperity and would protect critical infrastructure, energy networks and key supply chains. The government’s more confident stance on net zero follows the Climate Change Committee’s latest carbon budget which chose to take a more “pro-market and less prescriptive approach” to policy advice, giving governments more latitude to adjust for unexpected circumstances or innovations in the private sector.

Despite ongoing geopolitical tensions and differing opinions on methods for securing energy supplies, all 60 parties in attendance at the IEA-led talk agreed that prioritising energy security was essential for social and economic progress.

Summit attendees also discussed the increasing “weaponisation” of fossil fuel supplies during conflicts and how progressing the transition to alternative energy sources would reduce geopolitical exposures and tackle the climate crisis. Unsurprisingly, US Department of Energy delegate Tommy Joyce offered a dissenting viewpoint arguing that “abstract” net zero targets threatened national security interests while China’s domination of the rare earths and minerals markets risked escalating low-carbon technology costs. Though China abstained from attending the London summit, President Xi Jinping spoke at a separate closed-door meeting convened by the UN expressing veiled criticism of US protectionism and positioning China as a principal driver of global climate action, claiming the country had built the world’s fastest-growing renewable energy systems and “the largest and most complete new energy industrial chain.”