JBS is preparing to launch its first African operations with a $2.5 billion investment in Nigerian slaughterhouses, a move that has triggered a legal challenge from Greenpeace. The environmental group is using Dutch law to demand transparency regarding the beef giant’s potential climate and human rights impacts in the region.
JBS’s $2.5 Billion Beef Push in Nigeria
The world’s largest meat company is pivoting toward the African continent, signaling a massive shift in its global footprint. Following an agreement signed with the Nigerian government in 2024, Inside Climate News reports that JBS plans to invest $2.5 billion to establish at least six slaughterhouses across the country. This regional expansion represents nearly half of the company’s much larger $6 billion global growth strategy.
While the company frames this as a strategic entry into a growing market, environmental advocates see a looming ecological crisis. The scale of JBS’s operations has long drawn scrutiny, particularly regarding its methane emissions. Recent data from 2023 suggests the company’s methane output—a greenhouse gas significantly more potent than carbon dioxide—surpassed the combined emissions of Shell and ExxonMobil.
The lack of granular detail regarding the Nigerian project has fueled skepticism among experts. There are growing concerns that the industrialization of beef production in the region could exacerbate existing vulnerabilities.
“There’s a lot of food insecurity across the nation, across the continent, so there’s concern. What are the terms of this investment? What analysis have they done? What information have they released into the public domain? What kind of impact will that have on landscapes, deforestation?”
Alex Wijeratna, Mighty EarthThe Dutch “Duty of Care” Legal Strategy
Greenpeace is not merely protesting; it is executing a calculated legal maneuver centered in the Netherlands. This strategy is made possible by JBS’s decision to reincorporate in the Netherlands, a move often utilized by corporations to access certain tax exemptions under Dutch law. However, this reincorporation has inadvertently opened the company to stringent regulatory oversight.
Under Dutch law, corporations are subject to a duty of care that aligns with international human rights standards. This includes accountability for harms caused by planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. In April, Greenpeace International sent a formal letter to JBS alleging that the company’s planned expansion into Nigeria and other territories could lead to significant environmental and human rights damage.
The letter serves as a precursor to a potential lawsuit. By utilizing newly passed Dutch legislation, Greenpeace is demanding specific, granular details about the Nigerian expansion. This legal mechanism allows entities to compel Dutch-registered companies to release information that might otherwise remain proprietary, specifically when those companies intend to face litigation.
Political Friction and US Market Access
The company’s ability to fund this massive expansion is closely tied to its recent success in the United States. After a decade-long campaign, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) granted JBS permission to list on the New York Stock Exchange. This listing provides the beef giant with direct access to U.S. capital markets, providing the liquidity necessary to fuel its international ambitions.
The SEC’s decision was not without controversy. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle expressed opposition to the listing. This political friction was intensified by campaign filings revealed shortly before the approval, which showed that a major JBS subsidiary had contributed $5 million to President Donald Trump’s election campaign. This donation was noted as the largest from any single company during the cycle.
Greenpeace’s High-Stakes Legal Balancing Act
As Greenpeace takes the offensive against JBS, it does so while navigating a precarious legal reality of its own. The organization, which relies on the Greenpeace Fund to support its global research and communications, is currently managing the fallout from a devastating legal defeat in the United States.
On March 19, 2025, Greenpeace was found liable in a massive civil suit in North Dakota. The case, filed by the Dallas-based oil and gas company Energy Transfer Partners, centered on the 2016–17 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline. The jury awarded Energy Transfer Partners more than $660 million in damages, far exceeding the original $300 million sought. The company had alleged that Greenpeace engaged in a calculated misinformation campaign to encourage criminal behavior among protesters.
The implications of that verdict are existential for the organization’s American presence. If the ruling is not overturned on appeal, it could effectively end the operations of Greenpeace USA. This creates a high-stakes environment for the group’s current international litigation; the movement must balance its tradition of direct action with a need for surgical legal precision to avoid further financial catastrophe.
The next several months will be critical. As Greenpeace seeks the documents it has requested under Dutch law, the world will watch to see if the beef industry’s expansion into Africa will be met with the same environmental and legal resistance that has defined its history in the Amazon.