Plant-Based Diet-Shift Initiative Case Studies: German Retailer Transitions

Editorial Note

This report was produced by Rethink Priorities between July 2024 and September 2024. The project was commissioned and supported by an anonymous funder, which does not necessarily endorse our conclusions.

The report focuses on six case studies of diet shift initiatives towards a more plant-based food system. These cases were chosen from a long list to create a portfolio of cases that demonstrated variety in terms of geographic reach, causal mechanisms, institutions and actors involved, and novelty of approaches.

We have tried to flag major sources of uncertainty in the report and are open to revising our views as more information becomes available.

Introduction

Consumers might write out their shopping list before heading to the grocery store, but research from marketing and behavioral economics shows that the retail environment plays a role in shaping what the consumer wants (Harbers et al., 2020). If retailers are willing, they can nudge consumer demand towards plant-based foods that are healthy, green, and kind to animals. Most consumers in developed countries shop for food at large grocery stores (USDA, 2016),^[1] so supporting protein diversification at retailers—especially large supermarket chains—is a high-leverage opportunity to encourage plant-based food uptake at scale. Several retailers across Europe are targeting increased plant-based sales, either overall or proportional to animal-based sales (“protein split” goals) within the last five years. For example, all seven major retailers in the Netherlands have committed to achieving at least a 60/40 plant/animal protein split by 2030 (Madre Brava, 2024).

This case study focuses on Lidl, the first European retailer outside the Netherlands to adopt a protein split target. In October 2023, Lidl Germany released its Protein Strategy, including a commitment to achieve a 20/80 plant/animal protein split by 2030. Lidl had already increased their plant-based product range, and placed plant-based items in the meat aisle. With their new Protein Strategy, they also became the first retailer to establish price parity between plant-based and comparable animal-based products.

In the months after introducing their Protein Strategy, Lidl Germany’s plant-based sales increased by over 30% (PlantBasedNews, 2024). Simultaneous or subsequent to Lidl Germany debuting their Protein Strategy, Lidl has committed to a 20/80 protein split by 2030 in at least four other countries of operation, and has introduced price parity in at least five. Following Lidl Germany, price parity has also been adopted by several competitors in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, including Kaufland, Aldi Süd, Penny, BILLA, Jumbo, and Sailing Group (Vegconomist, 2024).

This case study will describe:

• the prerequisites and incentives that needed to be in place before Lidl Germany was positioned to introduce a protein split target;
• the strategies undertaken by advocates to persuade Lidl Germany to introduce its protein split target;
• the ‘best practice’ strategies followed by Lidl Germany to work towards achieving its protein split target.

Throughout this report, “Lidl” will refer to the global entity and we will specify when referencing Lidl Germany or another national unit. Information about Lidl Germany’s Protein Strategy can be found here (n.b.: German language source). This report is informed by interviews with plant-based food advocates working across Europe.

Problem Profile

Large retailers sell hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions, of tonnes of meat each year. The animal welfare and environmental impact of meat consumption facilitated by the retail industry is staggering: in 2021, beef, pork, and chicken sales from four of Europe’s largest retail chains, across all countries of operation, were collectively estimated to result in 19.3 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions, 227,000km³ of land use, and 1.97km³ of blue water use (Kuepper, 2023). These findings—although already concerning—understate the total environmental impact, which also includes harms such as eutrophication and biodiversity loss (Scarborough et al., 2023).

Importantly, the negative externalities of meat consumption are not limited to environmental consequences. Retailers rarely provide estimates of the number of animals in their supply chains, but it is likely that, in each country of operation, large retailers cost the lives of hundreds of millions of chickens, and tens of millions of cows and pigs, each year (e.g. approximately 150 million chickens are farmed for Tesco UK; THL, 2024).

This case study focuses specifically on Lidl Germany. Lidl, a retailer focused on the discount market, operates in 30 countries across Europe, as well as the United States. Lidl’s annual revenue was €114.8 billion in 2022 (Schwarz Gruppe, 2023). Over 20% of the revenue comes from Germany, Lidl’s home country, where the revenue was €25.5 billion in 2021, and where Lidl has 3,270 stores and approximately a 9% market share (Maddren, 2022).

Kuepper (2023) estimated that, across all countries of operation, Lidl sold 538,000 tonnes of chicken, 751,000 tonnes of pork, and 280,000 tonnes of beef in 2021. Following their methodology, with updated data, we estimate that Lidl Germany sold 108,000 tonnes of chicken, 51,500 tonnes of pork, and 35,000 tonnes of beef in 2023.^[2] In 2022, plant-based protein represented 11.1% of Lidl Germany’s protein sales (and plant-based dairy represented 6.1% of dairy sales) (Lidl, n.d.). We expect data about the proportion of animal-based protein to plant-based protein sales in 2023 to be released shortly after publication.

We estimate production associated with Lidl Germany’s chicken, pork, and beef sales to collectively result in 5.2 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent emissions, 14,000km² of land use, 0.21km³ of freshwater withdrawal, and 20,000 tonnes of phosphate-equivalent eutrophying emissions.^[3] Further, Lidl has been under pressure from animal welfare organizations who have been highlighting how Lidl’s suppliers in many countries raise “Frankenchickens”, which grow unnaturally fast and suffer health consequences including unusually high levels of lameness, disease, and mortality (see coverage of Lidl Germany in Der Spiegel, Express, Frankfurter Rundschau, WAZ, and RTL TV). Chickens represent the majority of animals raised for Lidl.

Initiative Overview

Plant-based sales vs protein split targets

Retailers have adopted two types of targets associated with plant-based foods: increased plant-based sales, or higher plant-protein shares (or protein splits). Increased plant-based sales help to normalize less meat-reliant diets (sometimes called reducetarian or flexitarian) and plant-based diets, and financially support plant-based product lines. But studies suggest that higher plant-based sales alone do not necessarily reduce meat consumption: meat and plant-based intake is not zero sum.^[4] Protein split targets frame a tradeoff between animal-based and plant-based protein. Although retailers could achieve protein split goals by increasing both animal-based and (at a faster rate) plant-based protein sales, we expect that more ambitious (e.g. 60/40) protein splits will be achieved by reducing meat sales while increasing plant-based sales.

The table below documents, to the best of our knowledge, each European retailer plant-based target that was introduced before Lidl Germany’s protein split goal.

Lidl Germany’s protein split target

In October 2023, Lidl Germany introduced their Protein Strategy, including commitments to reach a 20/80 plant/animal protein split by 2030 and to transparently report on their progress.

The company’s chief buyer, Christof Graf, said that Lidl Germany intended to reduce animal protein sales to appeal to younger consumers and to protect the environment: “We need a more conscious diet all over the world to feed ourselves within our planetary limits” (Vegconomist, 2023).

This case study will next discuss:

• the prerequisites that needed to be in place before Lidl Germany was in a position to introduce a protein split goal;
• the strategies used by advocates to persuade Lidl Germany to introduce its protein split goal;
• the strategies used by Lidl Germany to action its protein split goal.

In each instance, we also provide a brief overview of what happened in the Netherlands, which we feel offers additional useful context.^[5]

Prerequisites for Lidl Germany to introduce protein split goal

We have identified several conditions that we believe were necessary for Lidl Germany to adopt their protein split goal in 2023. Retailers in other circumstances may need other prerequisites before they are ready to adopt similar goals.

• Lidl Germany already had a strong plant-based offering. In 2019, it launched its plant-based own brand product range, which was branded Vemondo from 2020. Vemondo featured over 50 items within two years, with the goal of providing an alternative for every product category (ProVeg, 2022).
• Success in the Netherlands provided proof of concept. Albert Heijn, the Netherlands’ largest retailer, became Europe’s first to adopt a protein split goal in 2022. The Netherlands’ six other largest retailers, including Lidl Netherlands, quickly followed.
• Less overreliance on meat consumption would contribute to public health targets. Lidl Germany has a “conscious nutrition” strategy, inspired in part by the Lancet Planetary Health Diet’s recommendation to reduce animal-based protein intake. As well as a way to improve their environmental impact and animal welfare, the protein split goal helps to achieve this health strategy (Lidl, 2023; Lidl, n.d.).
• Lidl Germany operates in a context of declining meat intake. Per capita meat consumption has been falling in Germany since the 1990s, although per capita poultry consumption has risen over this period. As well as an exceptional rate of vegetarians, Germany has a large proportion of meat reducers. A survey commissioned by a German trade retail association, which Lidl Germany cited when launching their Protein Strategy, found that 41% identified as flexitarian, 46% “occasionally replace animal-based ingredients with plant-based or vegan alternatives” and 48% “occasionally cook vegan recipes” (BVLH, 2023; translated from German).

Why did Lidl Germany introduce their protein split goal?

We believe the prerequisites were important but not enough to persuade Lidl Germany to introduce their protein split goal. Strategic action from plant-based food advocates, including The Albert Schweitzer Foundation (ASF), ProVeg, and The Green Protein Alliance, was critical. In particular, these groups provided guidance on best practices for achieving protein split targets.

We spoke to ASF to understand what was involved in their work with European retailers.^[6] ASF runs a program called Plant Potential, which provides companies with a toolbox of best practice interventions to increase the proportion of plant-based sales. When launching their protein diversification program, ASF reached out to 30 companies with a 10% success rate (three companies explored a partnership). To facilitate companies’ protein transitions, ASF developed training materials, supported the development of a protein tracking methodology, and works with each partner company to develop a unique meat reduction program, focused on evidence-based interventions.

We believe that protein disclosure industry guidance produced by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was key to persuading Lidl Germany to introduce a protein diversification strategy. This methodology is different to the Eiweet monitor used in the Netherlands (discussed below), but the impact is the same: without a comprehensive way to track protein splits, the retailer would not be able to assess progress towards its goals. Lidl Germany writes that while they use the WWF methodology for now, they are interested in supporting the introduction of a cross-sector methodology in the future (Lidl, n.d.). Further information about the WWF methodology can be found here (n.b.: German language source).

It is important to note that Lidl Germany did not adopt their goal out of nowhere. By March 2023, Lidl Ireland and Northern Ireland’s purchasing policy noted, as part of an “international protein strategy”, commitments to report transparently on the proportion of animal-based to plant-based protein from the 2023 financial year, and to increase the proportion of plant-based protein “by adding new products that support a plant-based diet” from 2024 (Lidl, 2023). We expect that, for all retailers, corporate social responsibility efforts will take some time to move from inception to fruition.

How did Lidl Germany action their protein split target?

Lidl Germany have pursued three key strategies to achieve their protein split target: increasing their plant-based product range; a fully integrated placement strategy, which means putting plant-based items next to their animal-based counterparts; and introducing price parity, which means pricing plant-based products the same as animal-based equivalents.

To assess the effectiveness of these measures, we consider a range of evidence including behavioral experiments (from academic literature and retailers) and consumer surveys. There are limitations to each type of evidence. For example, the academic studies testing increasing plant-based product range were conducted in canteen, rather than retailer, environments; and consumer surveys can suffer from the ‘vote–buy gap’, where expressed intention is a poor proxy for actual behavior. The evidence base is recent but, with 73% of US plant-based meat buyers believing the taste has improved dramatically in recent years (Deloitte, 2024), may already be out-of-date.

Increasing plant-based product range

In their 2023 Protein Strategy, Lidl Germany wrote “to achieve [our 20/80] goal, we rely on a long-term expansion of our plant-based range, which includes, in addition to vegan substitute products, natural plant protein sources such as legumes and nuts” (Lidl, 2023). The assumption behind this expansion is that with more plant-based options, consumers are more likely to find an appealing plant-based purchase.

Since introducing plant-based burgers and mince to all German stores in 2019 and debuting the Vemondo brand in 2020, Lidl Germany’s plant-based range has increased dramatically. By 2021, Lidl Germany was selling around 450 vegan items and by 2022, they were selling over 650 vegan items, including over 50 items in the Vemondo range (Lidl, 2023).

We found the following evidence about the effect of increasing plant-based product availability. (As indicated above, there are some limitations to the relevance and strength of this evidence.)

• Competitor retailer: in 2023, when Carrefour’s plant-based sales reached €515 million—beating their 2030 target of €500 million, seven years early—their recently expanded plant-based alternatives category, including legumes as well as plant-based meat and dairy, contributed a critical €142 million (Vegconomist, 2024).
• Consumer surveys: A June 2021 survey found that 22% of German consumers either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “The plant-based foods I would need are not available where I shop or eat out”; however, this is smaller than the 46% who disagreed or strongly disagreed, suggesting this is unlikely to be the key barrier for German shoppers (ProVeg, 2021). An August 2023 survey found that 29% of German consumers would buy more plant-based products if retailers increased their range. However, only 19% of non-flexitarian/vegetarian/vegan respondents selected this option, compared to 61% of vegan/vegetarian respondents, suggesting that broadening the plant-based options is more likely to appease already meat-free consumers than displace meat consumption (BLVH, 2023).
• Academic studies: Garnett et al. (2019) found that doubling the proportion of vegetarian meals in English university cafeterias increased vegetarian meal sales, decreased meat meal sales, and did not have detectable rebound effects (i.e. vegetarian meals were not lower at other times). Pechey et al. (2022) and Parkin and Attwood (2021) also found evidence suggesting that consumers were more likely to order vegetarian dishes in conditions with more meat-free options on the menu.

A sufficient number of plant-based items can be assumed to be a necessary condition for a certain number of plant-based sales. Further increasing the plant-based product range is a promising intervention for greater sales, but more research is needed to identify the effect size and the point of marginal diminishing returns in retail environments.

Fully integrated placement strategy

If consumers don’t even see plant-based products, they are less likely to be persuaded to purchase them. Following this logic, several retailers have placed plant-based food alongside animal-based equivalents, rather than maintaining a separate plant-based aisle. Lidl Germany has subscribed to this practice since at least 2021, in all 3,270 stores.

Retailers who experimented with this before Lidl Germany include:

• UK retailers Sainsbury’s and Tesco, in 2019, moved plant-based goods into the meat aisle. At the time, Tesco’s Director of Plant-Based Innovation said: “Plant-based alternatives in general have become so high in quality, that most life-long meat eaters are now including these foods as part of their diet. It makes sense to range them next to each other in the same aisle and bring a wider breadth of options available to choose from” (Vegconomist, 2019).
• US retailer Kroger, between December 2019 and February 2020, tested placing plant-based products in meat aisles in a 20-week trial across 60 locations in collaboration with the Plant-Based Food Association. They found that plant-based sales increased by 32% in the Midwest and 13% in the Denver area (PBFA, 2020).
• Lidl Netherlands, between June and December 2023, ran a six-month experiment in collaboration with Wageningen University and the World Resources Initiative in which they placed their four best-selling plant-based items (“vegan ground beef, vegetarian chicken pieces, vegan schnitzels, and veggie burgers”) in the meat aisle in 70 of 440 stores. They found that plant-based sales increased by 7% (Vegconomist, 2024).

We believe there is reason to be skeptical that this is an effective strategy to reduce meat intake. As discussed above, increasing plant-based sales is not necessarily the same as reducing meat sales, and some evidence (detailed below) suggests that a fully integrated placement strategy does not reduce sales of animal-based products.

In the aforementioned Lidl Netherlands study, meat sales fell slightly but not at the level of statistical significance (Vegconomist, 2024). In a separate peer-reviewed study comparing 20 intervention stores, where plant-based items were moved into the meat aisle, with 88 control stores from the same UK retailer, there was a statistically significant difference between the intervention stores’ and the control stores’ increases in plant-based sales (+31% and +6%, respectively); however, there was not a statistically significant difference between the two set’s decreases in meat sales (-6% and -5%, respectively) (Piernas, 2021). The diagram below, taken from this study, illustrates the larger effect size on meat-free products relative to meat products.

Additionally, we caution that a naive comparison between plant-based sales before and after they are moved into the meat aisle may neglect a background of rising sales. For example, from March to June 2020, the months immediately after their study concluded, Kroger experienced a 50% increase in plant-based meat customer count and 75% increase in plant-based sales (PBFA, 2020).

We see limited drawbacks in an integrated placement strategy but, on the basis of this evidence, do not expect it will prove a highly effective tactic to decrease meat sales.

Introducing price parity

In their 2023 Protein Strategy, Lidl Germany announced that they would price their Vemondo products in line with the basic price per 100g/ml of a comparable animal-based product. This offer excluded plant-based products without an obvious animal-based equivalent, such as falafel and tofu. Since Lidl Germany introduced price parity, the tactic has been widely replicated across six European retailers. We reviewed evidence from consumer surveys and economic studies to assess its effectiveness.

When a survey asked German consumers about 29 potential barriers to eating more plant-based products, “Plant-based food products are too expensive” was the only barrier selected by over half the respondents, with 34% agreeing and 21% strongly agreeing (ProVeg, 2021). This was further borne out by polling from a survey of German consumers commissioned by a retail trade association, which asked about options to increase plant-based purchasing. They found that decreasing the price of plant-based products was the second most popular option overall, and tied for most popular among non-flexitarians / vegetarians / vegans (BVLH, 2023).^[7]

There are reasons to be cautious about interpreting this consumer survey data. Respondents may not have a clear sense how their (or others’) behavior would change in hypothetical situations, or may be registering protest at generally expensive prices.

More robust evidence comes from economic studies which have investigated the own-price elasticity of plant-based meat substitutes. If a good is own-price elastic, a 1% decrease in price results in a greater than 1% increase in demand. We have identified several uncompensated own-price elasticity estimates for plant-based meat. We have indicated where:

• An elasticity estimate is statistically significantly different from 0. This means that we can confidently claim price has some effect on demand
• An elasticity estimate is statistically significantly different from -1, when reported
  • If such an estimate is less than -1 (that is, more negative) then we can confidently claim that a change in price has a greater than proportionate effect on demand. For example, a -1.5 own-price elasticity means a 1% decrease in price causes a 1.5% increase in demand
  • If such an estimate is greater than -1 (e.g. -0.5) then we can confidently claim that consumers are relatively price-insensitive and a change in price has a less than proportionate effect on demand.

To find own-price elastic goods, we are looking for estimates that are statistically significantly different from, and less than, -1. The estimates we identified are:

What can we conclude from these estimates? In sum, studies suggest that a decrease in price leads to an increase in sales for plant-based alternatives in the United States. It is unclear whether this effect is more or less than unitary elasticity (wherein a fall in price leads to a proportional fall in demand). Either way, the finding would be consistent with survey evidence that lower prices would stimulate sales, but a greater than proportionate effect would mean a bigger boost in demand for the same drop in price. Evidence from the Netherlands may be more relevant to the German context for reasons including greater market penetration of plant-based alternatives than the US. Liu and Ansink (2024) found evidence from Dutch retail data that a 1% increase in price would lead to a 1.5% increase in demand. The authors acknowledge that this result is counterintuitive and speculate it may result from quirks of an emerging market. We think this finding is important to consider, but find it so counterintuitive that we would need more research to be persuaded.

Evidence is mixed about whether a decrease in the price of plant-based alternatives leads to a decrease in demand for meat. If this is the case, plant-based alternatives and meat would be substitute goods; if this were false, they would be complementary goods. The table below gestures at the inconsistent state of the evidence, although we stress that this is simplified: the cross-price elasticity estimates draw from different data sets, have different magnitudes, and reach different levels of statistical significance.^[11]

The evidence base is highly uncertain, with price changes in plant-based products producing different effects on different animal-based products and in different contexts.^[12] We caution that, as with placement strategy, decreasing the price of plant-based products risks increasing plant-based sales without meaningfully decreasing meat consumption, but we recognise that consumers widely support the measure and that the effects could be highly positive for meat reduction efforts.

Challenges and solutions in adopting protein split target

Retailers may have limited interest in actualising their sustainability goals, and in protein split targets in particular. The Albert Schweitzer Foundation noted that they have sometimes faced delays in hearing back from companies; that, even when they’ve received positive engagement from an employee, that employee may not have ultimate decision-making authority; and that businesses are sometimes uninterested in free programs because they assume there is negligible value-add.

ASF has overcome issues of limited retailer interest by writing contracts, non-disclosure agreements, and letters of intent to commit businesses to the protein diversification strategy, and by running ‘quick win’ pilot programs focused on low-hanging fruit (e.g. removing milk and eggs from baked goods) to demonstrate value. In the future, they are exploring public campaigning, including public rankings, to increase the pressure on retailers to engage with the necessary protein shift.

Additionally, companies in the retail and food service industries can be reluctant to engage with campaigners who have previously run critical campaigns on animal welfare issues. ASF has received some pushback from retailers who may have been interested in protein diversification support, but were concerned by ASF’s history of critical welfare campaigning. To mitigate this risk, ASF has a strict personnel split between its corporate engagement and pressure campaign staffing.

A contrast with the Netherlands provides a useful insight into when a wider ecosystem of actors can help move things forward. The largest Dutch retailer, Albert Heijn, was the first to commit to a 60/40 plant/animal protein split by 2030, in large part due to the business’s highly motivated sustainability team. Albert Heijn’s decision opened the door to a two-pronged approach from NGOs. Some took a more adversarial approach—like Wakker Dier, a Dutch animal advocacy group who used critical radio and newspaper advertisements to publicly campaign for other retailers to make similarly ambitious commitments. Others took a more collaborative approach—like the Green Protein Alliance, who cooperated with industry to facilitate effective implementation of protein diversification goals.

When companies are willing to engage, they may set targets which advocates feel are under-ambitious. We estimate that a successful implementation of Lidl Germany’s 20/80 plant/animal protein split could reduce carbon emissions by 8.7% but that if Lidl Germany instead adopted a 60/40 plant/animal split, they could achieve carbon reductions of 48%.^[13] Having said this, while some sources were confident that NGO campaigns will push Dutch retailers to achieve their 2030 goals, other sources were more skeptical (source: private conversations), raising questions about the appropriate balance between ambition and achievability.

There can be challenges implementing specific protein diversification tactics. For example, ASF have observed that retailers interested in adopting a fully integrated placement strategy often struggle to close separate vegan aisles, in part due to protest from vegan customers. In such cases, ASF pushed for integrated shelving, or sometimes maintaining a vegan aisle alongside integrated placement, although this has its own challenges (e.g. cost of extra shelf space and risk of confusing customers).

Other challenges faced by campaigners include difficult prioritization and unexpected tasks. Advocacy organizations working on both animal welfare and encouraging meat reduction may leave staff with limited time to work on both issues, and constraints in running two simultaneous campaigns targeting one retailer. Unexpected tasks have included providing support on HR, communications, and kitchen staff training. These have been solved through practice: as campaigners become more experienced, institutional knowledge on prioritization develops and fewer problems are novel (source: private conversation).

Results and Impact

Lidl Germany has already been successful in stimulating plant-based sales. Several months after launching their Protein Strategy, in Spring 2024, Lidl Germany announced that they had achieved a greater than 30% sales increase “in the last six months” in plant-based products (PlantBasedNews, 2024). However, a risk of retailer-focused meat reduction strategies is that they are incentivized to increase plant-based sales without cutting meat sales; Lidl Germany’s 2023 protein split report, which we expect to be published in the coming months, will provide clarity about the extent to which their success in the plant-based market represents a transition away from meat.

Lidl Germany appears to have inspired other national Lidl branches to adopt protein split targets, and may have inspired other Lidl branches and competitor European retailers to introduce price parity. The causality is uncertain but we think it is likely that Lidl Germany played an important role. The table below documents, to the best of our knowledge, the Lidl branches which have introduced protein split targets or price parity.

Until further data emerges, we cannot accurately assess the animal welfare and environmental benefits of Lidl Germany’s Protein Strategy. However, we have estimated that—if Lidl Germany achieved their 20/80 plant/animal protein split target, but did not increase overall protein sales—they would reduce their chicken use by 19,000 tonnes, their pork use by 8,300 tonnes, and their beef use by 7,000 tonnes. If Lidl Germany did increase their overall protein sales, it is possible that their environmental footprint would worsen overall but protein diversification would have counterfactually reduced the severity.

Moving from a plant/animal protein ratio of 11.1/88.9 in 2023 to 20/80 in 2030 without increasing overall protein sales would mean a 10% reduction in animal-based protein sales. We estimate, not unsurprisingly, that this would yield across-the-board environmental improvements of between 9% and 10%. The table below details our findings. We recommend interpreting these figures, which are presented to two significant digits, as coarse-grained estimates, as they are calculated from a set of uncertain assumptions.^[14]

If Lidl achieved 10% environmental savings across its entire international operations, such as by Lidl Germany’s commitment inspiring others, that could mean 1.4 million tonnes fewer CO₂ equivalent greenhouse gas emissions and 4,700km² less land use. And were Lidl Germany to adopt a more ambitious protein split target, such as mirroring Lidl Netherlands 60/40 plant/animal commitment, they could achieve extremely impressive net savings of 48% of greenhouse gas emissions, 52% of land use, 48% of water use, and 53% of eutrophying emissions.

There are challenges in assessing Lidl Germany’s results. In particular, the background of declining meat consumption makes it more difficult to confidently claim that Lidl’s protein split target has counterfactually reduced animal product consumption. It may be the case that consumers were already moving towards diets with a greater proportion of plant-based protein, and that protein split targets place goals where things are already heading.

Nevertheless, something appears to be working: Lidl’s plant-based sales look to be increasing at a faster rate than consumers are moving away from animal-based products, and some credit will belong to both the NGOs who pushed for protein diversification goals, and the retailer who adopted them.

Lessons Learned

Targeting meat reduction isn’t the same as targeting increased plant-based sales, and vice-versa. Retailers should adopt protein split targets, which more precisely address the mission of shifting from meat to plants, and pursue tactics which are likely to reduce meat sales, not just increase plant-based sales.

Appeal to reducetarian consumers looking to lower their meat intake. The vegan and vegetarian market segment remains small, but a large and increasing consumer base is keen to reduce their consumption of animal products. Promoting a wide range of plant-based food to these consumers, rather than to committed vegans and vegetarians, widens the scope for a shift from meat to plant-based consumption patterns.

Draw on national and international health and environmental targets to draw up protein split goals for businesses. Retailers have been inspired by the Dutch National Protein Strategy and the Lancet Planetary Health Diet in setting their goals.

Strike the right balance between challenge and cooperation. In the Netherlands, animal advocates like Wakker Dier relied on critical campaigning to encourage retailers to adopt protein split goals. But groups like the Green Protein Alliance and the Albert Schweitzer Foundation have found success acting as allies to businesses and supporting their meat reduction implementation strategy. The right approach will likely vary in different contexts. A reputation as an adversarial player, even on topics other than plant-based foods, may compromise an organization’s capacity to collaborate productively with retailers. There may be a hard ceiling imposed by retailers’ maximum amount of engagement. The most effective protein transition campaigning may be that which focuses on retailers which have demonstrated willingness to engage (for example, Wakker Dier campaigned against Ekoplaza, a supermarket chain with an environmentalist focus).

Support retailers by establishing a protein tracking methodology. Without a scientific way of measuring plant-based and animal-based sales which is adopted across the industry, businesses won’t have a way to accurately track their progress towards protein diversification goals.

Encourage a domino effect. After Lidl Germany adopted a protein split and price parity strategy, other Lidl branches and other German retailers were inspired to follow suit. Similarly, after the leading Dutch retailer adopted a 60/40 protein split goal, the other leading retailers were motivated to match them within two years. One big player can have a huge knock-on effect. Advocates should push on retailers strategically, and encourage them to ‘race to the top’.

Conclusion

Protein diversification initiatives aimed at retailers, especially large supermarket chains, provide a high-scale, potentially tractable meat reduction opportunity. A large portion of meat purchasing occurs at retailers and many businesses are already seeing increasing consumer demand for plant-based foods, and seeking to align themselves with sustainability and health policy goals.

Lidl Germany provides an inspiring case study for advocates and retailers. They set a goal which was achievable and which, by targeting a protein split, recognised the important point that greater plant-based consumption is not the same as reduced meat consumption. By increasing their plant-based product range, adopting a fully integrated placement strategy, and introducing price parity, they took concrete measures to achieve their goal and, by pledging to publish their protein split annually, they committed to a mechanism for transparently reporting on progress.

Those looking to replicate this success in other geographies should track emerging evidence about the effectiveness of Lidl Germany’s protein diversification tactics, while also recognizing unique factors of the German market.

Methodology

This collection of case studies was developed through a rigorous, evidence-based approach, ensuring a balanced and objective analysis of dietary transitions across various sectors. The methodology utilized existing literature on plant-based food initiatives, reviewing public-facing materials from organizations working on encouraging plant-based foods, conducting online searches, and key informant interviews. This process involved a comprehensive review of initiatives spanning government policies, retail and food service transitions, and alternative protein companies, farmer transitions, and animal protein company transitions, with examples drawn from both high-income and middle-income countries.

Case study selection

An initial list of 38 potential case studies was identified based on the initiative’s ability to drive significant dietary change and potential for scalability and was evaluated based on a set of predefined success criteria. The primary criteria was that the initiative was designed and intended to increase the share of plant-foods chosen.

This goal intention was the dominant selection criteria. Firstly, rather than attempt to select successful initiatives a priori, as determining whether a given initiative caused changes in food type usage is generally difficult, and reductions/increases are often incorrectly assumed to occur. Experience shows that, in the majority of cases, conclusive evidence is likely to be lacking, and even basic data on actual food type usage before and after the initiative may be altogether unavailable

Secondly, the reliance on this criterion was due to a rather uniform state of the data on many other proposed criteria (Stakeholder engagement, Environmental and economic impacts, Policy and health impacts). The list was systematically narrowed down to six case studies based on an assessment of data reliability and the strength of evidence to support the criteria above, making them critical considerations in the selection process. While many case studies offered generic evidence of success across sectors, efforts were made to prioritise those with concrete, tailored data.

In assembling the final collection, the focus was on creating a diverse portfolio of interventions across geographic and sectoral lines. Examples from both high- and middle-income economies, such as the United States, Germany, Brazil, and India, were included to reflect a broad range of contexts. Additionally, case studies were selected to illustrate both inspiration, practical challenges and enablers of success, ensuring a holistic representation of the state of dietary transitions with transferable insights into other contexts and regions.

Interviewees were selected for each case study on the basis of having been personally involved in the key organisations driving the change in question. In many cases these people were already known to the research team and in others were suggested to us through known relevant contacts. Each case study had one key interviewee to draw information from, in addition to desk research.

Limitations

While this methodology focused on ensuring data reliability and strength of evidence, it inherently limited the scope of the case studies selected. Newer initiatives, which may not yet have comprehensive data or only applied at tiny scale, were not included, resulting in a portfolio composed primarily of well-established cases rather than primarily emerging examples. This approach also led to the exclusion of transitions among livestock and meat companies, and farmer transition case studies, where current evidence remains limited or impacts small in scale. Additionally, the analysis reflects data available at the time of the case studies’ completion, meaning any subsequent reports or new findings were not captured. These gaps highlight areas for future research and expansion as more data becomes available and emerging initiatives mature.

Given the limited interview sample, there are likely aspects of the case studies that are somewhat biased and were not corrected for adequately through desk research to validate claims.

Inherent to the case study methodology, these limitations underscore the importance of continual monitoring and data collection to provide a more comprehensive view of the evolving landscape of dietary transitions.

Bibliography

Anay Mridul. 2024. ‘Lidl Netherlands Dives Into Blended Meat, With Plant-Based Proteins Now Costing the Same As Meat & Dairy’, 24 August 2024. https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/lidl-netherlands-blended-meat-plant-based-dairy-cost-gehaktmix-met-erwteneiwit/.

Barbara Kuepper. 2023. ‘Impacts of a Shift to Plant Proteins: Effects of Reduced Meat Production on GHG Emissions, Land and Water Use’. Profundo. https://profundo.nl/download/impacts-of-reduced-meat-consumption-2311.

Caroline Christen and Courtney Dillard. 2023. ‘Research Position Paper: Why Further Study of the German Context Could Be Fruitful’. Mercy for Animals. https://go.mercyforanimals.org/l/939853/2023-08-23/3x3rk/939853/1692827437scWnRpKy/Research_position_paper_Why_further_study_of_the_German_context_could_.pdf.

Carrefour. 2023. ‘Carrefour Teams up with Seven Industrial Partners to Launch an International Coalition to Boost Sales of Alternative Plant-Based Products’. https://www.carrefour.com/sites/default/files/2023-09/alternative%20plant-based%20products.pdf.

Dagevos, Hans, and Wim Verbeke. 2022. ‘Meat Consumption and Flexitarianism in the Low Countries’. Meat Science 192 (October):108894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108894.

Deloitte. 2024. ‘Amid Setbacks, Signs of Stability Emerge around Plant-Based Meat’. 24 April 2024. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/retail-distribution/plant-based-meat-consumer-perceptions.html.

Erin Maddren. 2022. ‘The Grocery Retail Market in Germany’. Europe Market Research. https://assets.ctfassets.net/pn8wbiqtnzw9/eeyTMpaRI0dHLXem5f4rN/420522bb353b0ba16a37388e02419a7c/The_German_grocery_retail_market.pdf.

Eva Gneisinger. 2024. ‘Nächster Skandal Bei Deutschem DiscounterLabor Meldet Gefährliche Keime Auf Hühnerfleisch’, 23 June 2024. https://www.express.de/ratgeber/verbraucher/einkaufen/lidl-gefaehrliche-keime-auf-huehnerfleisch-gefunden-812375.

Forsa. 2023. ‘Pflanzenbetonte Ernährung’. https://www.bvlh.net/fileadmin/redaktion/downloads/pdf/2023/forsa-Umfrage_Pflanzenbetonte_Ern%C3%A4hrung.pdf.

Garnett, Emma E., Andrew Balmford, Chris Sandbrook, Mark A. Pilling, and Theresa M. Marteau. 2019. ‘Impact of Increasing Vegetarian Availability on Meal Selection and Sales in Cafeterias’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, September, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907207116.

Harbers, Marjolein C., Joline W. J. Beulens, Femke Rutters, Femke De Boer, Marleen Gillebaart, Ivonne Sluijs, and Yvonne T. Van Der Schouw. 2020. ‘The Effects of Nudges on Purchases, Food Choice, and Energy Intake or Content of Purchases in Real-Life Food Purchasing Environments: A Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis’. Nutrition Journal 19 (1): 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12937-020-00623-y.

Holly Spindler. 2024. ‘Tesco Commits to Improved Chicken Welfare’. The Humane League. 18 June 2024. https://thehumaneleague.org.uk/article/tesco-commits-to-improved-chicken-welfare.

Jordi Casamatijana. 2024. ‘Lidl Belgium Drops Prices of Plant-Based Protein Products’. Vegan FTA, 6 June 2024. https://veganfta.com/2024/06/06/lidl-belgium-drops-prices-of-plant-based-protein-products/.

Lidl Germany. 2023a. ‘Lidl Fördert Nachhaltige Und Gesunde Ernährung’. 10 January 2023. https://unternehmen.lidl.de/pressreleases/2023/230110_bewusste-ernaehrung.

Lidl Germany. 2023b. ‘Pflanzenbasiertes Sortiment’. 2023. https://unternehmen.lidl.de/verantwortung/gut-fuer-die-menschen/gesundheit-foerdern/handlungsfelder/bewusste-ernaehrung/pflanzenbasiertes-sortiment.

Lidl Germany. n.d.-a. ‘Bewusste Ernährung’. https://unternehmen.lidl.de/verantwortung/gut-fuer-die-menschen/gesundheit-foerdern/handlungsfelder/bewusste-ernaehrung.

Lidl Germany. n.d.-b. ‘Pflanzenbasierte Proteinquellen’. https://unternehmen.lidl.de/verantwortung/gut-fuer-die-menschen/gesundheit-foerdern/handlungsfelder/bewusste-ernaehrung/pflanzenbasiertes-sortiment.

Lidl Germany. n.d.-c. ‘Proteinstrategie’. https://unternehmen.lidl.de/verantwortung/gut-fuer-die-menschen/gesundheit-foerdern/handlungsfelder/bewusste-ernaehrung/proteinstrategie.

Lidl Ireland and Northern Ireland. 2023. ‘Purchasing Policy: Conscious Nutrition’. https://www.abettertomorrow-lidl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IE_NI_CSR-EKI_EKP-Conscious-Nutrition.pdf.

Madre Brava. 2019. ‘Europe’s Top Supermarkets Race towards Plant-Rich Diets – but the Finish Line Is Far’.

Maria Marquart. 2024. ‘Tierschützer Melden Keimfunde Auf Lidl-Geflügelfleisch’. Der Spiegel, 17 June 2024. https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/service/lidl-tierschuetzer-entdecken-multiresistente-keime-auf-gefluegelfleisch-a-6dcd4d06-be5a-40a3-8de3-dd0f62fe43c1.

Mariella Meyer. 2022. ‘Sustainable Diets: Neugewichtung von Tierischen & Pflanzlichen Schlüsselprodukten’. WWF. https://www.wwf.ch/sites/default/files/doc-2023-09/2023_Neugewichtung_von_tierischen_und_pflanzlichen_Schl%C3%BCsselprodukten.pdf.

Mendez, Samara, and Jacob Peacock. 2021. ‘Milking It: Exploring the Impact of Plant-Based Milk in the US’. Report E019R02. The Humane League Labs. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/j89qm.

Mendez, Samara, Jacob Peacock, and Ben Stevenson. 2023. ‘Inconsistent Evidence for Price Substitution between Butter and Margarine: A Shallow Review’. Rethink Priorities. 13 April 2023. https://rethinkpriorities.org/publications/inconsistent-evidence-for-price-substitution.

PBFA. 2020. ‘Plant-Based Meat Sales Increase an Average of 23% When Sold in the Meat Department’. 9 July 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20230427115636/https://www.plantbasedfoods.org/plant-based-meat-sales-increase-an-average-of-23-when-sold-in-the-meat-department/.

Piernas, Carmen, Brian Cook, Richard Stevens, Cristina Stewart, Jennifer Hollowell, Peter Scarborough, and Susan A. Jebb. 2021. ‘Estimating the Effect of Moving Meat-Free Products to the Meat Aisle on Sales of Meat and Meat-Free Products: A Non-Randomised Controlled Intervention Study in a Large UK Supermarket Chain’. PLOS Medicine 18 (7): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003715.

Plant Based News. 2024. ‘Lidl Announces Huge Increase In Plant-Based Food Sales’. Plant Based News, 15 April 2024. https://plantbasednews.org/news/lidl-increase-plant-based-food-sales/.

Poore, J., and T. Nemecek. 2018. ‘Reducing Food’s Environmental Impacts through Producers and Consumers’. Science 360 (6392): 987–92. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216.

ProVeg. 2022. ‘How Lidl Became a One-Stop-Shop for Mainstream Consumers Buying Plant-Based Products’. 23 May 2022. https://proveg.org/article/how-lidl-became-a-one-stop-shop/.

Questionmark. 2024. ‘The Netherlands: Price Differences between Animal and Plant-Based Products in the Supermarket’. https://www.thequestionmark.org/project/price-differences-meat-and-meat-substitutes.

Rebecca Smithers. 2020. ‘Tesco Sets 300% Sales Target for Plant-Based Alternatives to Meat’. The Guardian, 29 September 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/sep/29/tesco-sets-300-per-cent-sales-target-for-plant-based-alternatives-to-meat.

Reducetarian Foundation. n.d. ‘FAQs’. https://www.reducetarian.org/faq.

Romina Kunze. 2024. ‘Erschütternde Testergebnisse: Hähnchen Bei Lidl Oft Mit Resistenten Keimen Belastet’. Frankfurter Rundschau, 21 June 2024.

RTL. 2024. ‘Erschreckend! Jedes Zweite Hühnerfleisch von Lidl Mit Krankheitserregern Belastet’. RTL, 20 June 2024. https://www.rtl.de/leben/essen-trinken/jedes-zweite-huehnerfleisch-von-lidl-mit-krankheitserregern-belastet-id1670221.html.

Scarborough, Peter, Michael Clark, Linda Cobiac, Keren Papier, Anika Knuppel, John Lynch, Richard Harrington, Tim Key, and Marco Springmann. 2023. ‘Vegans, Vegetarians, Fish-Eaters and Meat-Eaters in the UK Show Discrepant Environmental Impacts’. Nature Food 4 (7): 565–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00795-w.

Schwarz Gruppe. 2023. ‘Die Unternehmen Der Schwarz Gruppe Wachsen Auf Stabilem Niveau’. 2023. https://gruppe.schwarz/presse/archiv/2023/die-unternehmen-der-schwarz-gruppe-wachsen-auf-stabilem-niveau.

Smart Protein Project. 2021. ‘What Consumers Want: A Survey on European Consumer Attitudes towards Plant-Based Foods’. https://proveg.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/FINAL_Pan-EU-consumer-survey_Country-Specific-Insights-2.pdf.

Stefan Schulte. 2024. ‘Fäkalkeime Auf Hähnchen Auch in Duisburg – so Reagiert Lidl’. WAZ, 19 June 2024. https://www.waz.de/wirtschaft/article406602530/faekalkeime-auf-haehnchen-von-lidl-gefunden-auch-in-duisburg.html.

Tesco. 2024. ‘Factsheet: Healthy, Sustainable Diets’. 2024. https://www.tescoplc.com/healthy-sustainable-diets-factsheet-2024.

Todd, Jessica E, and Benjamin Scharadin. n.d. ‘Where Households Get Food in a Typical Week: Findings From USDA’s FoodAPS’.

Tonsor, Glynn T, and Justin D Bina. 2023. ‘Assessing Cross-Price Effects of Meat Alternatives on Beef, Pork, and Chicken Retail Demand in 2022’. https://perma.cc/E82N-4PDX.

Vegconomist. 2019. ‘Leading British Supermarkets Move Vegan Options to the Meat Aisles’, 9 April 2019. https://vegconomist.com/company-news/leading-british-supermarkets-move-vegan-options-to-the-meat-aisles/.

Vegconomist. 2023. ‘Lidl Announces New Strategy, Expanding Plant-Based and Reducing Animal Products’, 6 February 2023. https://vegconomist.com/company-news/lidl-new-strategy-more-plant-based-less-animal-products/.

Vegconomist. 2024a. ‘Carrefour Exceeds Target for Sales of Plant-Based Alternatives With €514M Turnover’, 7 February 2024. https://vegconomist.com/retail-e-commerce/carrefour-sales-of-plant-based-alternatives-exceed-target/.

Vegconomist. 2024b. ‘Lidl Austria Joins Price-Parity Movement, Slashes Prices for Over 30 Vemondo Products’, 29 January 2024. https://vegconomist.com/retail-e-commerce/lidl-austria-price-parity-movement-slashes-prices-30-vemondo-products/.

Vegconomist. 2024c. ‘Lidl Study: Placing Meat Alternatives Next to Conventional Meat Significantly Increases Sales’, 29 May 2024. https://vegconomist.com/retail-e-commerce/lidl-netherlands-study-placing-meat-alternatives-conventional-meat/.

Vegconomist. 2024d. ‘Price Parity Trend Continues in Europe: Salling Group and Lidl Hungary & Denmark Announce Drop in Plant-Based Food Prices’, 11 January 2024. https://vegconomist.com/retail-e-commerce/price-parity-trend-europe-lidl-hungary-denmarks-salling-group-drop-plant-based-food-prices/.

Vegconomist. 2024e. ‘Price Parity Trend Continues in Europe: Salling Group and Lidl Hungary & Denmark Announce Drop in Plant-Based Food Prices’, 11 January 2024. https://vegconomist.com/retail-e-commerce/price-parity-trend-europe-lidl-hungary-denmarks-salling-group-drop-plant-based-food-prices/.

Vegconomist. 2024f. ‘Sales of Animal Meat in Dutch Supermarkets Have Decreased by 16.4% Since 2020’, 14 May 2024. https://vegconomist.com/market-and-trends/sales-animal-meat-dutch-supermarkets-decreased-16-4-since-2020/.

Veltmeijer, Johannes Hendrik. 2022. ‘A Cross-Country Experiment into the Labelling Effects of Meat-Alternatives’. Thesis, Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br:80/dspace/handle/10438/32354.

Zhao, Shuoli, Lingxiao Wang, Wuyang Hu, and Yuqing Zheng. 2022. ‘Meet the Meatless: Demand for New Generation Plant‐based Meat Alternatives’. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, February, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13232.

Zhaoxin Liu. 2024. ‘Price Elasticities of Meat, Fish and Plant-Based Meat Substitutes: Evidence from Store-Level Dutch Supermarket Scanner Data’. Tinbergen Institute. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/300328/1/1895437938.pdf.

1. This study finds that 87% of both rural and urban Americans shop at a ‘large grocery store’ at least once per week. We expect this figure to vary country to country, and to be lower in developing countries. ↑
2. We multiplied the per capita meat consumption of Germany by the population, assumed 50% of sales were in the retail channel, and multiplied by Lidl’s market share. Note that our data on Lidl Germany’s market share is from 2021. ↑
3. See our calculations in this spreadsheet. ↑
4. For example, Zhao et al. (2022) and Tonsor and Bina (2023) examined cross-price elasticities of plant-based meat in US grocery stores, and found that it may act as a complementary good for traditional meat. ↑
5. This overview is informed by an interview with Dutch meat reduction campaigners. ↑
6. We understand that other NGOs played important roles and our focus on one actor should not be taken as a claim that they necessarily deserve most of the credit. Additionally, we expect that the responsibilities are similar, but non-identical, at similar organizations. ↑
7. Figures can sum to more than 100% because respondents could select multiple options. ↑
8. For Tonsor and Bina (2023), claims of statistical significance are at the 5% level. For Zhao et al. (2023) and Liu and Ansink (2024), claims of statistical significance are at the 1% level. ↑
9. We are uncertain but, because they draw on similar data to Zhao et al. (2023), we suspect this category includes approximately 700 products with sales dominated by Beyond Meat and Impossible Meat. ↑
10. Consumers were asked to select, or not select, a Plant-Based Patty at various price points. ↑
11. The Tonsor and Bina (2023) evidence draws from their analysis of real US retail data. We have excluded evidence from their analysis of choice experiment data because no finding was statistically significant. ↑
12. Cross-price elasticities are similarly inconsistent for dairy and plant-based milk (Peacock & Mendez, 2021), and butter and margarine (Peacock, Mendez, and Stevenson, 2022). ↑
13. See our calculations in this spreadsheet, and discussion in Conclusion. ↑
14. See our calculations in this spreadsheet. We used Poore and Nemecek (2018)’s environmental impact measures, although these are global aggregates rather than specific to Germany, as well as a life cycle assessment of the Impossible Burger (Khan et al., 2019). We assumed no productivity advances, which could reduce the environmental impact of animal- and plant-based protein. For substitute plant-based protein, we assumed a 50/50 mix of Impossible Meat and tofu. ↑