You need to know how to measure! Before credits or negative carbon emissions, come the calculations.
Climate claims only gain traction when measuring, reporting, and verifying go hand in hand with consistent data, clear boundaries, and methodological transparency.
In the "Integral Sustainability" column, we have used music as a starting point to connect technical topics to everyday life in the field. Beyond the cultural reference, it's a way to build bridges: between science and sensitivity, between data and decisions, between global concepts and the reality of dairy farms.
This time, the inspiration comes from "É preciso saber viver" (It's necessary to know how to live), by Roberto Carlos and Erasmo Carlos. The song has transcended generations because it translates, in a simple way, a profound idea: living requires choice, attention, and responsibility in the face of possible paths. In sustainability, especially when we talk about climate, perhaps it's necessary to adapt this advice: it's necessary to know how to measure.
In dairy farming, this difference matters more and more. Terms like "low carbon," "carbon neutral," "carbon credit," and "negative carbon" have gained traction in the market, in reports, and in differentiation strategies. Behind each of these claims, there must be carefully conducted measurements.
These measurements begin with the data, the methodology, the separation between emissions and removals, the analysis of uncertainties, and the ability to explain, transparently, what was measured, what was estimated, and what was left out of the calculation. Before talking about negative carbon, it is necessary to know how to measure it.
When sustainability becomes a public statement.
In recent years, sustainability has ceased to be merely an internal management guideline and has taken center stage in corporate communication. In agriculture, this is evident in packaging, reports, supplier programs, certification projects, institutional campaigns, and commercial strategies.
This movement is positive. It shows that food production is being called upon to demonstrate, more clearly, its impacts, its practices, and its paths to improvement. In the case of dairy farming, this demand is even more relevant because the production of raw materials, in this case raw milk, on the farm, is a crucial step in the environmental footprint of dairy products, involving emissions associated with animals, waste, fertilizers, animal feed, and the use of energy and fuels.
It is important to highlight the difference between saying that a farm adopts good practices and stating that a dairy product is "low carbon," "carbon neutral," or "carbon negative." The first statement is linked to management, efficiency, animal welfare, resource conservation, and engagement with sustainable practices. The second falls into the realm of climate claims, often referred to in the market as climate claims .
Claims are environmental statements used to communicate the climate performance of a product, farm, company , or supply chain. When well-constructed, they help to highlight real progress. When weak, they can generate distrust, confusion, and reputational risk.
Therefore, before communicating a climate attribute, it is necessary to answer a simple but profound question: does the data support the claim?
The reflection that inspired this article
This column arose from a recent reflection on how climate outcomes are being measured, interpreted, and communicated in agri-food chains. The debate was sparked by an analysis published by Takayoshi Yamagiwa on LinkedIn, which discussed the importance of greenhouse gas accounting, the GHG Protocol, and MRV in evaluating climate claims.
MRV is the English acronym for measurement, reporting, and verification. In simple terms, it refers to the set of processes used to measure emissions and removals, communicate the results transparently, and verify the consistency of the information.
The case that prompted this reflection is not the focus of this text. It serves here as a starting point for a broader discussion directly connected to milk: what does a production chain need to demonstrate before using strong climate terms?
This question matters because agriculture has a real role to play in the climate agenda.
Well-managed production systems can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase production efficiency, optimize resource use, conserve areas, and, in some contexts, contribute to CO₂ removals from the atmosphere.
However, transforming that potential into a public claim requires method.
In sustainability, good intentions help pave the way. But what underpins a climate claim is accountability.
The warning that comes from sustainability reports.
A study published in 2026 in the journal PLOS Climate analyzed 1,233 environmental claims made by 33 of the world's largest meat and dairy companies, based on sustainability reports and websites published between 2021 and 2024. The survey showed that 68% of these claims were climate-related, confirming that the climate agenda has become an important communication focus for the sector.
At the same time, the results raise a red flag. Only 29% of the claims presented any kind of supporting evidence, and only three were supported by scientific literature. Furthermore, based on the methodological framework adopted in the analysis, 98% of the claims were classified as including some indicators of greenwashing .
The study also showed that a significant portion of the messages analyzed consisted of future promises, including neutrality or net-zero targets, often without clear plans, verifiable metrics, or a demonstration of feasibility. In several cases, according to the authors, companies prioritized one-off actions, pilot programs, small operational improvements, or offsets, instead of demonstrating structural reductions in emissions.
For the dairy industry, this debate is especially relevant. The pressure for reporting, climate targets, scope 3 inclusion, traceability, and market differentiation is likely to grow. However, for this pressure to generate positive impacts, it needs to be accompanied by a change in the quality of information. Climate communication cannot depend solely on the strength of the chosen word. It needs to provide answers to questions about how the calculation was constructed, what data was used, what sources were included, what exclusions were considered, and what uncertainties remain. The problem is not in communicating climate progress. It is in communicating more than the calculation can sustain.
Figure 1 helps to illustrate this risk based on the study's key figures. The data should not be interpreted as a generalization for all livestock farming, but as a methodological warning: when communication advances faster than the evidence, trust in the sector weakens. This is precisely why measuring, reporting, and verifying become central steps in building robust climate claims.
Figure 1. The data warning: evidence and risk of greenwashing in environmental claims by major global meat and dairy companies.
Source: Data extracted from Bach et al., PLOS Climate, 2026. The study analyzed sustainability reports and corporate websites published between 2021 and 2024.
Carbon footprint, inventory, and climate claim are not the same thing.
A frequent source of confusion lies in the use of similar terms as if they were equivalent. Carbon footprint, emissions inventory, carbon balance, neutrality, and negative carbon belong to the same universe, but they do not mean the same thing.
The carbon footprint of a product consists of greenhouse gas emissions, expressed in carbon dioxide equivalents, per unit of a given product (CO₂eq/unit; e.g., CO₂eq/kg fat- and protein-corrected milk). The carbon footprint of raw milk, for example, considers sources such as enteric fermentation, manure management, fertilizers, energy, and fuels, all translated into a common unit of comparison, kg of CO₂eq/kg of fat- and protein-corrected milk. Detailed information can be found in the technical materials prepared and published by ESGpec, indicated at the end of this column.
An emissions inventory, in turn, can be done at different scales: country, organization, farm, product, supply chain, or project. It organizes emission sources, activity data, and emission factors. In the case of national inventories, the National Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals Handbook explains that the principles of transparency, accuracy, completeness, consistency, and comparability are fundamental so that the results can be understood, verified, and compared.
A climate claim, on the other hand, concerns how the result is communicated to the market. Here's a crucial difference: good measurement can support good communication, but the number alone doesn't indicate any conclusion.
Saying that a farm has reduced its carbon footprint relative to a baseline is different from saying that milk is carbon neutral. Saying that there are practices with the potential to sequester carbon in the soil is different from claiming that the product is carbon negative. Saying that a supply chain monitors emissions is different from claiming that all climate impacts are offset. Each claim requires a type of evidence.
To facilitate this understanding, Figure 2 presents the main points that should be observed before transforming a climate result into a public statement. The aim is not to create a single rule, but rather to show that climate communication in milk depends on a technical sequence: defining what is being measured, understanding where the data comes from, separating emissions and removals, recognizing uncertainties, and choosing words compatible with the level of evidence available.
Figure 2. Before communicating, what needs to be clear?
Taken together, these points show that the credibility of a climate claim does not stem solely from the final result. It arises from the possibility of retracing the calculation, understanding the assumptions made, and interpreting what the number actually means. The clearer this path is, the greater the confidence of producers, technicians, industries, investors, and consumers in the claims presented.
The role of digital tools
Brazilian dairy farming faces an additional challenge: transforming data, which is often scattered, into reliable information.
Part of it is in the producer's notebook. Another part is in the management system. Another part is with the technician. Another part is in the industry. Another part is in invoices. Another part is in estimates.
Digital tools can help precisely with this organization. They allow for the recording of data on herds, production, milk composition, feed, ingredients, pastures, manure management, energy, fuels, and fertilizers. This data is fundamental for estimating emissions and calculating the carbon footprint.
The technologies available for performing these measurements should not be seen merely as calculators. They have another very important function: learning on the part of those who use them.
When producers understand why their footprint is larger or smaller, they can prioritize actions. When technicians visualize the sources of emissions, they can provide better guidance. When the industry consolidates supplier data, it can structure sustainability programs with greater consistency. When the entire sector monitors the evolution over time, the conversation moves from the realm of promises to that of evidence. It is at this point that the climate agenda goes beyond communication and becomes part of management at different levels of the production chain.
Brazilian milk has potential, but it needs consistency.
Brazilian dairy farming has characteristics that can be favorable to the climate agenda: diversity of systems, tropical pastures, possibility of sustainable intensification, recovery of areas, integration of regenerative practices, improvement of productive efficiency, technological advancement, and increasing capacity for data organization.
There are also challenges: heterogeneity among farms, information gaps, low standardization of records, difficulty in collecting data on small farms, limited access to technical assistance, and the risk of turning preliminary results into messages that are too strong.
That's why the discussion about climate claims needs to be balanced. It's not about avoiding terms like "low carbon" or "carbon neutral" forever, but rather using them when there is sufficient basis for their analysis.
Furthermore, it's not about devaluing removals, soil carbon, or regenerative practices. This careful communication will enhance the value of these practices, preventing them from being reduced to a promise that is difficult to uphold.
Agriculture and livestock farming are fundamental parts of the climate solution, and therefore need to present understandable, auditable, and coherent communications, so that they are recognized and valued.
In practice, the safest sequence is: measure, interpret, improve, monitor, and only then communicate more forcefully. This sequence protects the producer, the industry, and the consumer. It also protects the very concept of sustainability, which loses value when used generically.
Knowing how to measure to know how to communicate
The song that inspires this column speaks of the wisdom needed to navigate life. Perhaps the advice regarding milk sustainability is similar.
Knowing how to measure means understanding that a number without clear boundaries can be confusing. It means recognizing that emissions and removals should not be mixed without explanation. It means accepting that uncertainty is not failure, but part of good science. It means realizing that a farm doesn't improve because it received a label, but because it gained a better understanding of its own system.
Knowing how to interpret means transforming results into decisions. It means thinking outside the box and looking at the sources. It means understanding that each farm has its own unique combination of challenges and opportunities.
Knowing how to communicate means respecting the weight of words. "Low carbon," "carbon neutral," and "carbon negative" are statements that need to be supported by method, data, and transparency.
Before negative carbon emissions comes the bill. Before the bill comes a choice: to build the sustainability of milk production with the same seriousness with which one builds a lasting production system, step by step, data by data, decision by decision.
References and readings that inspired this column.
Bach, M.; Loy, L.; Mach, K.J.; Shukla McDermid, S.; Jacquet, J.Environmental claims, climate promises, and 'greenwashing' by meat and dairy companies. PLOS Climate, 2026.
Daterra Coffee. Balance of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from Coffee Production on Daterra Coffee Farms.
Takayoshi Yamagiwa. Analysis published on LinkedIn about the Daterra Coffee public study through the lens of GHG accounting, GHG Protocol, and MRV. What does it actually take to substantiate a “carbon negative” claim in agriculture?
GHG Protocol. Land Sector and Removals Standard. ( GHG Protocol )
International Dairy Federation. The IDF global Carbon Footprint standard for the dairy sector. Bulletin of the IDF No. 520/2022. ( FIL-IDF )
International Dairy Federation. C-Sequ LCA guidelines for calculating carbon sequestration in cattle production systems. Bulletin of the IDF No. 519/2022. ( FIL-IDF )
ISO. ISO 14067:2018, Greenhouse gases, Carbon footprint of products, Requirements and guidelines for quantification. ( ISO )
ESGpec. eBook - Carbon Footprint in Milk Production: a practical guide for producers and technicians.
ESGpec. eBook - Understanding the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory - An approach applied to the agricultural context.
The "Integral Sustainability" column is a column published by ESGpec in Leite Integral magazine , which has established itself as a space for dialogue between science, innovation, and practice in the field. Each article invites reflection on the future of dairy farming and on how we can balance productivity, animal welfare, and environmental responsibility.
Check out all the columns published in the magazine:
The winds of change — a call to recognize that the time for sustainability has arrived and that agriculture needs to act now.
Modern times — practical and technological solutions to reduce methane emissions in livestock farming.
Beyond the horizon — a vision of how innovation and regeneration open new paths for the milk of the future.
A simple way — how each producer's choice can transform livestock farming, making ESG something accessible and real in the field.
Nothing is by chance — animal behavior and welfare: The science applied to sustainable dairy production.
COP30: Time doesn't stop — What is the role of livestock farming on a planet under pressure?
COP30: We'll need everyone — What the world's largest climate conference revealed for Brazilian milk and why the next decade demands data, transparency, and real implementation in the field.
FROM JANUARY TO JANUARY: Sustainability starts with the basics — This article shows how consistent decisions, from the herd to the soil, reduce emissions and increase efficiency in milk production.
"Those Who Know How, Make the Time" - The International Year of Women in Agriculture and ESG Beyond Carbon — This article discusses why the future of dairy farming depends not only on environmental metrics, and why ESG needs to go beyond carbon to generate real resilience.
NEW ERA - Animal welfare on the global milk sustainability agenda — This article discusses why animal welfare has ceased to be peripheral and has become an integral part of milk sustainability.
WHAT IS IT? Learn what Scope 3 is and what it demands of milk production — Scope 3 and the strategic repositioning of the milk supply chain — Climate governance of the supply chain begins on the farm and defines competitiveness, risk, and market access.
Each in their own place - Why the sustainability of livestock farming depends on well-defined roles in the dairy chain — Sustainability in dairy farming has been progressing, but the challenge goes far beyond the technical scope.
You need to know how to measure! Before credits or negative carbon emissions come the calculations — Climate claims only gain strength when measuring, reporting, and verifying go hand in hand with consistent data, clear boundaries, and methodological transparency.
🌿 This column is the result of a partnership between ESGpec and Revista Leite Integral , and reinforces our commitment to making sustainability a practical, measurable, and inspiring topic.
