After reviewing Pacific Foods’ soy milk I said I’d cover Pacific’s parent company, Campbell’s. So here we are!

When it comes to Green Stars scores (ethical ratings), I usually focus on the product itself and its third-party certifications before looking at the parent company. That’s why, in evaluating Pacific Foods’ soy milk, I could arrive at an ethical score without needing a ton of information about Campbell’s.

I say this because it’s not a trivial task to evaluate a large corporation and it’s a lot to ask of consumers. A GSP page provides guidelines on how to evaluate a company, but it could do with some more case studies. So, today we’re going to evaluate Campbell’s, which owns several brands of interest besides Pacific Foods (e.g., Kettle Brand, Late July, and Rao’s). I’m curious to look at it from two perspectives: one is based on Campbell’s public reputation (news headlines and online chatter) and the other is based on a more objective analysis of corporate responsibility.

Campbell Soup Company

The Campbell Soup Company was founded all the way back in 1869 and in late 2024 changed its name to The Campbell’s Company. How exciting to be alive during these times!

Since 2010, it seems that Campbell’s has been trying to expand into more natural/plant-based/organic foods, acquiring several companies in that space, including Pacific Foods in 2017.

Pacific Foods will mark Campbell’s fifth purchase in five years, which include organic baby-food maker Plum Organics, salsa and hummus producer Garden Fresh Gourmet, and smoothie producer Bolthouse Farms.

So, Campbell’s makes many of the items you might pick up in your local supermarket: soups, smoothies and juices, plant milks, hummus, potato chips, wheat snacks, baby food, and pasta sauce. Let’s attempt to evaluate Campbell’s social and environmental impact from two different perspectives. First up – reputation!

The Campbell’s Company: Reputation

The reputation of a company is often built on headlines and online discussions. When I share Ethical Bargains case studies on Reddit, I’ll often receive comments along the lines of… “I’ll never buy products from that company – I hear that the CEO is …” Recent examples include comments on Momofuku noodles and Butler’s chocolates. In some cases (Butler’s chocolates) the allegations seem personal and unsubstantiated. In other cases, such as Momofuku’s David Chang, the allegations are pretty well substbutantiated (and in fact discussed in Chang’s memoir). How much should we weigh these opinions in our purchasing decisions? Well, this post isn’t about David Chang’s reputation so let’s move on to examining Campbell’s.

Campbell’s and the 3D-printed chicken

There’s still a lawsuit going on about this case so I’m just going to quote Wikipedia’s summary:

In November 2025, a lawsuit was filed by Robert Garza, a former cybersecurity analyst for the company. The suit alleges Garza was fired after complaining about racist comments by an executive, Martin Bally, made during a meeting in November 2024. In an alleged recording of the meeting which was released to the media by Garza, an individual Garza claims is Bally states in an expletive-filled rant that Campbell’s makes food for poor people and that they themselves don’t want to eat it because the meat is bio-engineered and “came from a 3-D printer”. Later that same month, Bally was dismissed by the company.

So, that exec was dismissed but his rant about Campbell’s chicken being bioengineered and/or coming from a 3D printer has prompted Campbell’s to address the situation at the top of its FAQ page:

No there are no bioengineered chicken approved for consumption (yet) – just salmon and pigs, so far. Not that the traditionally-bred chickens are having a ball – the lives of fast-growing breeds can be tragic, as you probably know. Instead of spending a lot of time addressing silly comments about 3D-printed chicken, perhaps Campbell’s should have taken more time to address animal welfare beyond this statement:

The comments heard on the recording about our food are not only inaccurate—they are patently absurd. The chicken meat in our soups comes from long-trusted, USDA approved U.S. suppliers and meets our high quality standards.

I’ll return to animal welfare later. Regarding the whole recorded conversation situation, I would not cancel a company on the basis of one executive who worked in the IT department (and was subsequently fired). But let’s see what else is going on as far as Campbell’s reputation goes.

Campbell’s and Pacific Foods

When I reviewed Pacific Foods soy milk on Ethical Bargains, I scored it 4.5 out of 5 Green Stars for social and environmental impact. The milk is made from organic soybeans and Pacific Foods has generally supported ethical supply chains (e.g., Regenerative Organic Certified tomatoes and fair trade certified cashews). But how is it faring since Campbell’s acquired the company?

Pacific Foods was founded in 1987 in Tualatin, Oregon and Campbell’s bought it in 2017 with the promise that “Campbell will continue to operate Pacific Foods out of Tualatin.” Then in 2024 it was announced that:

The Pacific Foods plant in Tualatin will shut down operations within the next two years, the Campbell Soup Company announced. As a result, a total of 330 employees will be laid off. It will also turn plant-based beverage production over to its co-manufacturing partners. – KGW8

So, long story short, Pacific Foods was in operation for 30 years before Campbell’s acquired it with a promise to keep it operational. Then, seven years later, Campbell’s announced that it’ll be closing the Pacific Foods plant. Campbell’s own press release on the closure was titled, “Campbell Announces Supply Chain Optimization Plan to Fuel Growth”.

Note that Pacific Foods isn’t being shut down – just the manufacturing plant (!). Production is being outsourced to “co-manufacturing partners”. I’m sure times are tough but closing the plant to outsource production doesn’t even sound like a good business strategy. Loyalty to brands like Pacific Foods is due to the company’s standards and values. What does the brand even mean at this point and does Campbell’s expect good karma out of all of this?

Campbell’s and the soup whore

In a 2025 Reddit post titled “Campbell’s has lost the plot,” AtomicPlaygirl opens with:

I am a soup whore (can I say that?),

She goes on to say,

Campbell’s just recently discontinued Cream of Asparagus and Chicken Vegetable after over 60 years (!!!)

So it seems that Campbell’s is also upsetting loyal fans of its famous soups. This isn’t as upsetting as the closure of Pacific Foods (except to AtomicPlaygirl) but the lack of loyalty to both employees and customers isn’t a good look.

Is all of the above just due to poor management? Let’s move on to a more objective analysis of Campbell’s and see how it compares to the company’s reputation.

Corporate responsibility at Campbell’s

This post is running long so I’m going to condense this to a summary of my main findings after looking for objective information on Campbell’s corporate responsibility. Ping me in the comments section if you’d like to know more about any of these topics.

Campbell’s and cage-free eggs

To get an idea of Campbell’s commitment to animal welfare, I tracked the company’s position on using cage-free eggs.

In 2016, we committed to transition to the exclusive use of eggs from cage-free hens by the end of calendar year 2025. At the end of fiscal year 2023, we had reached 24%. – Campbell’s 2024 Corporate Responsibility Report

So the commitment was initiated in 2016, giving themselves 9 years to transition to using cage-free eggs. In the 2026 corporate responsibility report, Campbell’s has this update:

Eggs – Goal achieved. As of the end of FY2025, 52% of the eggs used in our products came from cage-free sources, and we are now exclusively sourcing cage-free across shell, liquid, and ingredient eggs as of the end of calendar year 2025.

So it seems that 52% of eggs were cage-free by Sept 30, 2025 (end of FY2025) and then all of a sudden, 100% of eggs are cage-free by Dec 31, 2025 (end of calendar year).

This is better than the track record of some corporations (e.g., moving the goalposts on slavery-free chocolate) but it does seem cold and calculated to wait until the last moment to achieve the goal.

Campbell’s and Lake Erie

Besides looking at the company’s own corporate responsibility reports, it’s often helpful to check Wikipedia to see what’s going on with the company. There’s this:

In September 2025, Campbell’s admitted to multiple violations of the Clean Water Act. Campbell’s Napoleon, Ohio canning plant dumped millions of gallons of waste into the Maumee River, which feeds Lake Erie, over a six and a half year period.

Campbell’s did not contest accusations that it violated the Clean Water Act more than 5,400 times over this period.

Pollution flowing into western Lake Erie from the Maumee River, containing Campbell’s phosphorus discharges, contributes to the lake’s toxic algal blooms,” said Sandy Bihn, a Lake Erie Waterkeeper. – NELC

Phosphorus and nitrogen pollution is actually one of the most serious environmental threats (see this post on the planetary boundaries) because it causes dead zones in rivers, lakes, and coastal waters due to the algal blooms consuming most of the available oxygen. The pollution also included ammonia, chlorine, oil and grease.

To pollute the river once or twice could be regarded as an accident, but 5,400 times looks like carelessness. 

Campbell’s and responsibility reporting

Here are some takeaways from Campbell’s 2026 Corporate Responsibility report (the summary is here and detailed data tables are here):

• Campbell’s failed to meet goals on reducing food waste and waste sent to landfill
• Failed to meet goals on reducing water usage. Water usage per ton of food produced rose significantly from 2021 to 2023.
• 95% of packaging is recyclable or industrially compostable. Campbell’s includes plastics such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) in the definition of recyclable (dubious). About 15% of PET used by Campbell’s is post-consumer recycled.
• The reports claim “100% responsible sourcing” for sensitive ingredients like chocolate but don’t provide any detail on certifications. Considering how difficult it is to source chocolate responsibly, this is dubious.
• Women are represented in 39% of the workforce, 42% of management and 31% of directors.
• Percentage of renewable electricity used increased from 8% in 2023 to 72% in 2025. On the other hand, Campbell’s use of fuels (which is four times larger than electricity use) has increased slightly.
• Energy intensity per ton of food produced has not changed from 2023 to 2025.
• 75% of gross revenue comes from products labeled as containing GMOs.
• 0% of ingredients are certified fair trade, 7% are certified organic.

In its 2026 corporate responsibility report, Campbell’s highlights suppliers for its famous chicken noodle soup. I looked up the chicken supplier Amick Farms, and a top search result was an article from the ASPCA on unsavory conditions when Amick Farms’s switched to new “dangerously fast” high-speed chicken slaughter lines.

Overall, how does Campbell’s rate for ethics?

We started by looking at Campbell’s public reputation and then moved on to a more objective look at corporate responsibility. “The case of the 3D-printed chicken” attracted the most attention but I guess the former VP’s rant could be dismissed as nonsense from one bad egg. It’s harder for Campbell’s to wriggle out of its lack of loyalty to Pacific Foods and repeated pollution of the Maumee River and Lake Erie.

It’s always good to zoom out and look at the big picture of what Campbell’s makes. Its products are largely plant-based and unlike other multinationals (Nestlé, Danone, Coca-Cola, etc.) there’s no dreaded bottled water division.

The funny thing is that when it comes to the product that stared this for me – Pacific Foods soy milk – it still meets most of my criteria, factoring in the following:

1. The product itself – in this case soy milk.
2. Third-party certifications – in this case, certified organic.
3. The packaging – in this case, a Tetra Pak shelf-stable carton.

However, based on the research summarized above, I’ve no love for Campbell’s. Furthermore, its closure of the Pacific Foods plant also puts my loyalty towards that brand at risk.

I do believe it’s worth supporting ethical brands owned by mediocre corporations as this encourages a shift in the right direction. But if standards drop for that brand (e.g., If Pacific Foods soybeans are no longer organic) then I’ll drop it like a hot bowl of potato soup.

Thanks for sticking with me, dear readers. How would you rate Campbell’s based on all the above?

---

Join the Green Stars Project!

Join the movement to hold corporations accountable (and recognize those with more positive impacts) by including a Green Stars rating when you review a product or business. Also, check out my sister site, Ethical Bargains, for more ethical case studies.