80×
Methane's warming power over a twenty-year period compared with carbon dioxide.
Independent policy case study
Beyond the Farm
How companies shape climate action beyond their own operations, using Danone's dairy methane strategy as a case study.
Explore
01 · Context
Why this project?
This project began as independent research during the Terra.do Climate Fellowship. The aim was to understand how a major food company can influence climate outcomes through public affairs, partnerships and sector-wide coordination.
I focused on Danone because I live in France, regularly use its products, and was curious about how a company so present in everyday life approaches methane reduction. Its visible work on coalitions, reporting standards and agricultural policy made it a useful case for the questions I wanted to explore.
02 · The climate case
Why methane?
Methane is a fast climate lever. Its warming effect is strongest in the near term, while its atmospheric lifetime is much shorter than that of carbon dioxide.
12
Approximate years methane remains in the atmosphere.
30%
The reduction target under the Global Methane Pledge by 2030.
Why dairy?
Dairy methane is concentrated in known supply chains, making it more measurable and actionable than many diffuse agricultural sources.
03 · Case profile
Why Danone?
Danone offered a practical way to study both direct emissions reduction and the policy architecture around it.
Featured organisation
Danone
Fresh dairy methane across direct milk supply, with public targets, third-party verification and visible engagement in upstream policy work.
Close enough to feel familiar. Large enough to influence the rules around an entire sector.
I chose Danone partly because I live in France and their products are a regular part of everyday life here, including in my own kitchen. That proximity made me curious about what methane reduction looks like inside a major dairy company.
Danone also publishes more detailed, third-party-verified information on dairy methane than many companies in the sector. Its May 2025 Dairy Methane Action Plan gives enough detail to examine both what has been achieved and where the gaps remain.
My professional background is in policy and advocacy, so the upstream work interested me most. Danone has been active in industry coalitions, reporting standards and agricultural policy discussions. That made the company a useful case for understanding how corporate influence can shape climate action beyond direct supply-chain interventions.
Scope note: the reported methane figures cover direct fresh-milk supply. Indirect dairy ingredients, packaging and logistics are measured separately and require different approaches.
04 · Following the evidence
What did I find?
The evidence points to meaningful progress, alongside unresolved questions about coverage, measurement and the financial burden placed on farmers.
25.3%
Reduction in methane from fresh dairy milk.
Open finding →92%
Direct milk volumes assessed at farm level.
Open finding →60k
Dairy farmers in direct relationships.
Open finding →DMAA
Pre-competitive work on dairy methane reporting.
Open finding →EU
Advocacy for methane in agricultural policy.
Open finding →6.5k
Smallholder farms targeted through Sistema.bio.
Open finding →30%
Coverage under contracts with GHG targets.
Open question →MRV
Different tools, countries and assumptions.
Open question →€?
Farmer financing remains unclear.
Open question →05 · Beyond the farm
The policy ecosystem
Farm technologies operate inside a wider system. Select a lever to see how it shapes whether methane reduction becomes credible, affordable and scalable.
Company
influence
influence
01
Government and policy
Policy signals determine which practices are rewarded, where public finance flows, and how quickly voluntary action becomes a sector expectation.
- EU Vision for Agriculture and Food
- Global Methane Pledge
- Regulatory approval of feed solutions
06 · Justice
Whose transition?
The same transition looks different depending on where you sit in the system. Choose a stakeholder to see the pressures they face.
Farmer
Investment arrives before the return.
Farmers may need to finance biodigesters, manure systems or feed changes before savings or premiums appear. Smallholders have the least access to capital and often face verification systems designed for much larger organisations.
07 · Open questions
What remains unresolved?
A credible case study should show where the evidence stops. These were the questions that remained after the research.
Coalitions can create shared standards and lower coordination costs. Their weakness is participation. More credible actors may carry the cost while others benefit without making equivalent commitments.
A fair transition requires companies and public funders to absorb a meaningful share of the risk rather than leaving farmers to carry it alone.
Farm-level models remain necessary, but claims need harmonised assumptions, transparent boundaries and proportionate third-party verification.
Extensive grass-based systems cannot simply import technologies designed for high-input confined farms. Solutions need to reflect local feeding systems, farm economics and administrative capacity.
08 · Reflection
I began by looking at methane reduction. I finished thinking much more about standards, finance, coalitions and public affairs. Those upstream systems often determine whether climate solutions reach farms and whether they last.