WOOLWORTHS says fully traceable, deforestation-free beef, is still part of the long-term goal – after announcing earlier this year that it was focusing on other commodities in the short term.
Woolworths in Darra, a suburb of Brisbane.
The company has followed Europe’s declaration that Australian beef is a “low risk” of deforestation in its sustainability report earlier this year, saying it will instead focus on the other “high risk” commodities; paper, pulp and timber (packaging and products), palm oil (food and non-food), cocoa, and soy (in stockfeed).
However, in published speech from yesterday’s annual general meeting, chair Scott Perkins said “deforestation-free” beef was still part of the plan.
“As noted in our 2025 Sustainability Report, the European Commission recently revised the deforestation risk rating for Australia. This risk rating was referenced as a relevant factor when determining prioritisation of effort at the time of setting the Group’s no deforestation goal,” Mr Perkins said.
“The recent change has informed our approach but does not change the scope of our no deforestation goal and its application to fresh beef.”
Woolworths has come under criticism from environmental groups like the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society since setting its target – saying they are “not taking it seriously”.
The Wilderness Society was pushing its agenda to yesterday’s AGM, through superfund Future Super and another investment company called SIX.
They have instead backed Coles’ plan to trace beef back to the point of last transaction from the beginning of next year – which will mean tracing back to a feedlot on most occasions.
When Coles released its sustainability report earlier this year, it mentioned that it did not have access to the National Livestock Identification System database and, therefore, could not do lifetime traceability yet. That paved the way for green groups to pressure Government and industry to give all consumers access to NLIS.
That idea was refuted by Cattle Australia, who argued that it was not set up for deforestation and that industry levies had paid for the system.