Climate change is accelerating, and the world is rapidly approaching critical tipping points. Methane – a greenhouse gas around 80 times more potent than CO₂ over a 20-year period^[i] – is responsible for nearly half of the total global surface temperature rise since 1750.^[ii] Unlike CO₂, methane is short-lived in the atmosphere, which makes cutting methane one of the fastest and most effective ways to slow global warming in the near term. Methane also contributes to the formation of harmful ground-level ozone, so reducing its emissions not only helps stabilise the climate but also improves air quality and protects ecosystems.^[iii]

Animal agriculture accounts for 32% of global methane emissions,^[iv] with dairy and beef production as key drivers. In the EU alone, methane from cattle – primarily through enteric fermentation and manure management – made up nearly 98% of agricultural methane emissions in 2022.^[v] This highlights both the climate threat and the unique opportunity the dairy sector holds: with ambitious action, it could deliver deep and rapid cuts to global methane emissions.

However, as this report shows, the dairy and coffee house industries – who are significant consumers of dairy – are far from delivering on that potential. Despite the growing visibility of initiatives like the Global Methane Pledge and the Dairy Methane Action Alliance (DMAA) – the only industry initiative specifically targeting methane in the dairy sector – most companies lack methane-specific targets, credible action plans, or even basic transparency around their emissions.

This assessment reviews 20 major dairy and coffee house companies – with combined revenues exceeding $420 billion,^[1] more than the GDP of Denmark – based on their methane reduction goals, action plans, accounting and reporting. It highlights both progress and gaps in tackling this critical climate issue.

The selection of companies includes:

• The largest dairy companies in Europe and North America by annual revenue.
• All eight members of the DMAA – with several DMAA members already ranking among the largest global dairy producers, making their inclusion key to assessing the alliance’s impact.
• The five largest coffee chains in Europe and North America, based on store count. These companies are major consumers of dairy, making them critical players in the methane conversation and relevant for comparison with dairy producers.

The assessment covers the following four main indicator categories, each made up of several sub-indicators (See Chapter 2 for full details):

1. Awareness of methane’s climate impact and shifts in product strategy
2. Methane emissions accounting
3. Methane emissions reporting
4. Methane reduction targets and action plans

Companies were assessed based on publicly available information, and responses to a detailed questionnaire. Of the 20 companies analysed, six (30%) responded to the questionnaire either fully or to a meaningful extent: Arla, Bel Group, Danone, DMK, FrieslandCampina and Saputo. Nestlé shared some information via email but did not complete the questionnaire. While there were a few isolated examples of leadership, the general performance across the sector was weak, with the majority of companies failing to demonstrate credible action or transparency on methane.

Key findings

Despite methane’s outsized climate impact in dairy supply chains, most companies are still treating it as a side issue. Danone scored highest overall (59 out of 100 points), followed by General Mills (53 points), with Nestlé and Arla tied for third place in the ranking (49 points). The Bel Group followed in fifth position (44 points). The overall level of performance on methane action is low, with the vast majority of companies – 18 out of 20 – scoring less than half of the available points in the total ranking. All coffee house companies assessed ranked among the bottom nine, with Dunkin’ at the very bottom, scoring zero points due to the complete absence of methane targets, action plans and relevant emissions disclosures.

Only 6 out of 20 companies were found to account for methane emissions separately, rather than expressing them solely in CO₂-equivalent figures. Of those, only one company — Bel Group — reported methane in a fully disaggregated way (i.e., in CH₄ rather than CO₂e) – a basic step toward genuine accountability and transparency. Where ambition fell shortest was in setting methane reduction targets and action plans. Only one company – Danone – had both a methane-specific target and an aligned, detailed plan. Only two companies, Nestlé and Danone reported methane reductions (13.3% for Danone and 20.56% for Nestlé), but without providing sufficient detail on where these reductions come from. The near-total absence of methane-specific targets and credible action plans sends a clear signal: companies are not yet fully committed to tackling one of the most potent and solvable drivers of global warming.

The results of our analysis reveal that DMAA members outperformed non-members across all four indicators, with the top three performers all being DMAA members. However, only three out of eight DMAA companies have set any form of methane reduction target or published an action plan. On average, DMAA members scored 34.7 points, compared to 22.7 for non-members – reflecting a 12-point difference in performance. However, this still means that DMAA members, on average, only achieved just over a third of the total score available, indicating significant room for further improvement.

How did companies perform in specific areas? 

Significant recognition of methane’s impact, but reluctance on dairy cuts

Companies were assessed on their recognition of methane’s climate impact and their willingness to take action – specifically through supporting or implementing dairy reduction as part of their climate strategy. While methane’s climate impact is widely recognised, most companies continue to avoid the tougher conversation around shifting to alternatives.

• 18 out of 20 companies scored no more than one-third of the available points on this indicator category. While the majority of companies acknowledged methane’s role in climate change, there remains a clear reluctance to recognise that meaningful mitigation must go hand in hand with reducing dairy consumption.
• Nestlé (16/24 points) and Unilever (12/24) were the top performers on this indicator, recognising methane’s climate impact but also acknowledging the need to reduce dairy consumption. Notably, Nestlé was the only company to explicitly support a reduction in dairy consumption as part of its climate strategy. However, none of the assessed companies made a specific commitment to reduce dairy product sales.
• Three companies – US coffee chains Dunkin’ and Starbucks, and UK-based dairy company Froneri – failed to acknowledge the climate impact of livestock methane emissions entirely, suggesting they still do not view methane as a priority.

Incomplete accounting practices that mask methane’s role

Our analysis examined how companies account for their emissions (their emissions inventory). Most companies follow standard emissions accounting, but few go further to account for methane emissions separately.

• 15 companies account for absolute emissions across all scopes using the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a globally recognised standard that companies and governments can use to account for and report their emissions.
• However, only six companies – Arla, Danone, DMK, General Mills, Bel and Saputo – account for methane separately in disaggregated form, despite its outsized climate impact.
• Arla Foods claims in its questionnaire response that its emission accounting includes more granular information about the major sources of its methane emissions, such as enteric fermentation, manure management, feed production, food loss and waste. However, our research found no publicly available evidence to support this level of detail, which is reflected in a lower score on reporting.
• Clover Sonoma, Dunkin’ and Müller showed no evidence of methane-specific accounting, highlighting a major gap in climate responsibility.

Weak reporting undermines trust

We assessed companies on how they disclose their emissions inventory. Most dairy companies publish their overall emissions, but still fail to report livestock methane in a clear, disaggregated way or identify major methane emission sources. Without transparent data, stakeholders cannot verify progress or hold companies accountable.

• Only four companies – Danone, General Mills, Bel, Nestlé – scored above half of available points for methane reporting.
• 16 out of 20 companies do not report methane in a disaggregated way (i.e., in CH₄ rather than only in CO₂e).
• The highest score in this category was 16 out of 24 points, achieved by Bel Group and General Mills. Bel Group stood out for fully disclosing its livestock methane emissions in CH₄, not just in CO₂e. General Mills disclosed it in CO₂e, but identified some of the major sources.
• Some companies made partial efforts. For example, Lactalis does report methane in disaggregated form – but only for its US subsidiary, not at the group level. Nestlé also discloses methane emissions in CH₄, but only for its “ingredients” category, without providing transparent information on what share of its total emissions this represents.
• Seven companies – Clover Sonoma, Costa, Dairy Farmers of America, DMK, Dunkin’, Froneri and Müller – scored zero, with no public methane reporting in any form.

Missing targets, missing action

​​In the final set of indicators, companies were assessed on their efforts to establish targets and action plans for methane reduction. For dairy and coffee house companies, setting such targets is essential to demonstrate meaningful progress in addressing their climate impact. Most companies are failing to set meaningful targets or outline how they plan to reduce methane emissions.

• Danone was the only company to receive full marks for setting a methane-specific reduction target and publishing an aligned action plan. Its plan includes ‘a 30% reduction in methane emissions from fresh milk by 2030’, aligned with the Global Methane Pledge.
• Four companies – DMK, FrieslandCampina, General Mills and Nestlé – received half points for having either a methane-specific target to reduce livestock-related emissions across the entire value chain by 2030, or a broader livestock or dairy emissions reduction target of at least 30% below 2020 levels.
• 14 out of 20 (70%) scored zero on this indicator, having set neither a methane, livestock or dairy reduction target nor an associated action plan. This includes all coffee companies assessed.
• 18 out of the 20 companies did not provide a public action plan outlining specific methane reduction activities or expected emissions reductions. Only Arla and Nestlé received partial credit for this indicator, as they listed associated expected dairy – not livestock – emission reductions.

Time for action

These findings underscore a troubling disconnect between the scale of methane’s climate impact and the limited action taken by some of the most powerful players in the global food system. Under the Global Methane Pledge, over 150 countries have committed to reducing global methane emissions by 30% by 2030, compared to 2020 levels. At the Climate Conference in Dubai (COP28), a food declaration set the tone for countries to include methane reduction into their National Determined Contributions (NDCs) that are to be presented at COP30 in Belem. In the EU, discussions on an emissions trading system for agriculture are ongoing and the latest review of the National Emission Ceilings Directive could include methane in the upcoming review. Corporate accountability legislation is also in the mix and will come into force in the coming years, notably with the crackdown on greenwashing. In this shifting regulatory landscape, companies that act now – by setting methane targets and reduction plans as well as improving transparency – will be better positioned to comply, adapt and lead. Early movers will not only gain credibility but also reduce future compliance costs and risk.

Detailed recommendations for companies, policymakers and consumers can be found at the end of this report.

^[1] Revenues from companies vary across different years, specifically between 2022 and 2024. Additionally, revenues for three companies are not available, so the total sum is higher.

^[i] Climate and Clean Air Coalition (n.d.) Methane. www.ccacoalition.org/en/slcps/methane

^[ii] Wedderburn-Bisshop, G. (2025) Increased transparency in accounting conventions could benefit climate policy. Environmental Research Letters, 20(4), 044008. doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/adb7f2​

^[iii] UNEP (2021) Methane emissions are driving climate change. Here’s how to reduce them. www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/methane-emissions-are-driving-climate-change-heres-how-reduce-them

^[iv] Jackson, R.B., Saunois, M., Bousquet, P., Canadell, G., Poulter, B., Stavert, A.R., Bergamaschi, P., Niwa, Y., Segers, A. and Tsuruta, A. (2020) Increasing anthropogenic methane emissions arise equally from agricultural and fossil fuel sources. Environmental Research Letters, 15(7): 071002. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab9ed2

^[v] European Environment Agency (2023) Methane, climate change, and air quality in Europe: Exploring the connections. www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/methane-climate-change-and-air-quality-in-europe-exploring-the-connections