Reducing emissions with plant-based proteins

From The Boston Consulting Group

Give credit to the consumer. Our latest research shows that people around the world are buying into alternative proteins—and are very happy with what they find. The market share projections that we made in our first Food for Thought report in 2021 are bearing out: current forecast models indicate that alternative proteins will represent 11% of all protein consumption by 2035, and with some help from technology, investors, and regulators, alternative proteins could command 22% of the global market over this time frame.

This is good news for everyone involved in the global effort to combat climate change. The food system accounts for 26% of current global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Animal agriculture, the largest GHG emitter within the food system, is responsible for 15% of global emissions, roughly matching the emissions from the transportation sector. If we remain on track for an 11% share for alternative proteins by 2035, we will see a reduction of 0.85 gigaton of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) worldwide by 2030—equal to decarbonizing 95% of the aviation industry. In comparison with other solutions, such as flying less or retrofitting existing housing stock, the economic and individual consumer tradeoffs involved in shifting to alternative proteins are relatively small. Our survey shows that consumers understand this: more than 30% of consumers consider having a major positive impact on climate to be a primary reason to switch to alternative proteins.

And this is exactly what alternatives proteins do. Investing in the segment has one of the biggest impacts on decarbonization when assessed in terms of the market value of avoided CO2e emissions per dollar invested in mitigation efforts. We call this impact of capital employed (IoCE)—and investments in alternative proteins produce IoCE that is magnitudes greater than corresponding decarbonization investments in other high-emitting sectors of the economy, such as transportation or buildings, can achieve.

The protein transformation is one part of a broader remodeling of the food system. As value pools form around new technologies and processes that help address such critical issues as taste, health, and cost, the need for some long-standing processes, such as animal slaughtering and meat packing, will decline. Every stakeholder along the value chain is likely to feel the impact of the transformation, and many will find big opportunities in contributing to building a sustainable food system.

Alternative proteins have made substantial strides with consumers, who are broadly aware of this emerging food category and are favorably impressed when they try available products. (See Exhibit 1.) A 2022 survey by BCG and Blue Horizon, encompassing more than 3,700 respondents in seven countries, reveals that consumers in most markets appreciate the product attributes of taste, nutritional value, and health the most. We also found that improvements in three key areas—health, taste, and price—are key to boosting demand. Approximately 75% of respondents said that having a healthier diet is the primary motivator for them to start consuming alternative proteins. When it comes to making a purchasing decision between several products, though, taste emerges as a key criterion. Price remains a sticking point in all markets. Consumers are not prepared to pay a premium for a product that offers only taste parity with animal-based products.

Since almost a third of consumers say that they would switch their diets to alternative proteins if doing so would have a major positive impact on climate, there is a clear need for more active positioning and consumer education.

Consumers in all markets express a strong willingness to shift their consumption patterns further if their biggest inhibitions regarding the products—health and nutrition, taste, and safety—are addressed. In that case, the share of respondents who consume mostly or only alternative proteins would double (from 13% to 27%), and the number of people who balance consumption between alternative and conventional proteins would increase by almost a third.


All of this progress comes at a critical time. Reducing animal agriculture in the food value chain is an exceptionally high-impact solution to the global climate crisis.

The UN has projected that GHG emissions will reach 55 gigatons by 2030, absent any change in current government policies. In our 2021 Food for Thought report, we estimated that the shift to alternative beef, pork, chicken, and egg alternatives will save more than 1 gigaton (Gt) of CO2e by 2035—or about 0.85 Gt CO2e. This is equal to decarbonizing most of the aviation or shipping industries or about 22% of the building industry. In our upside scenario (which envisages alternative proteins capturing 22% market share), we see decarbonization of 2.2 Gt CO2e, or 4% of emissions under the UN’s current policies scenario, by 2030. If alternative proteins were to replace the total addressable market of animal proteins with like-for-like alternatives, building on current technology, global emissions would fall by 6.1 Gt CO2e —11% of projected current emissions in 2030. (See Exhibit 2.)

There’s also a climate bonus. Any significant overall change in diets toward more alternative proteins will have an immediate cooling effect on the planet, since GHG emissions from animal farming include a substantial portion of methane—as much as 50%. Methane has a much higher global warming potential than CO2 and a much shorter atmospheric lifetime. Consequently, reducing methane levels in the atmosphere doesn’t just prevent further warming; it comes with a cooling effect. [This implies that the reduction in methane emissions has not been included in the overall calculations]

This is a big opportunity for the food sector. From a macroeconomic perspective, investment in plant-based proteins has the highest CO2e savings per dollar of invested capital of any sector—and therefore the highest IoCE. But despite the favorable economics and attractive potential, including ready consumer interest, investment in sustainable foods is only a fraction of that committed to other sectors. Likewise, other sectors have received many times more mitigation capital than food production, even though emissions are much lower.