How ethical is Greggs?
The best known bakery chain in the UK, Greggs is a mainstay of high streets across the country. But do its ethics hold up to scrutiny?
Since 1989 we've been researching and recording the social and environmental records of companies, and making the results available to you in a simple format.
Learn more about our company profiles →Our research highlights several ethical issues with Greggs, including poor animal welfare policies, a lack of support for environmentally friendly farming, and failing to pay all workers minimum wage.
Below we outline some of these issues. To see the full detailed stories, and Greggs’ overall ethical rating, please sign in or subscribe.
Despite using large amounts of meat and dairy, Greggs has few animal welfare policies.
For example, Greggs has banned the use of sow stalls, metal enclosures used to confine pregnant pigs on intensive pork farms. However, as of 2025, less than 15 percent of pigs in its supply chains were free from farrowing crates, cages used for sows from shortly before birth and until their piglets are weaned at three to four weeks old.
Greggs does not have any adequate welfare policies for cows, despite using considerable amounts of milk and other dairy products.
The company scored poorly in Ethical Consumer’s animal welfare rating overall.
Greggs has taken some meaningful steps to tackle its carbon emissions.
In 2024, it quantified all of its supply chain emissions, by far the largest share of its total footprint. It stated that its “Net Zero Steering Group worked directly with suppliers of high-impact products like beef, pork, dairy, cereal and coffee, hosting sessions to share best practice around carbon management and regenerative agriculture”.
The company has set climate targets in line with vital international goals. However, as of 2024, it has not yet given evidence of having reduced its main climate impacts in line with international agreements to reach net zero by 2050.
The company received a middling score in Ethical Consumer’s Climate rating overall.
Greggs has set a target to reduce its overall amount of packaging by 25% by 2025 against a 2019 baseline. It has made some progress towards this: as of 2024, it had achieved a 20.9% reduction.
However, the food manufacturer could be going much further towards reducing packaging waste. For example, no evidence was found that the company is choosing a significant proportion of plastic-free single use packaging, and it did not appear to have taken any action to reduce packaging in its supply chain, for example by working with suppliers.
Greggs has strong workers’ rights policies in place, covering everything from child labour to working hours and payment of a living wage. It also appears to meaningfully work with trade unions, stating, “regular meetings are held [with unions] covering a variety of topics, including trading, strategic initiatives, The Greggs Pledge [its sustainability programme], and annual pay negotiations.”
However, Greggs has faced multiple complaints from workers in recent years.
In 2023, a Greggs worker won compensation in a racial discrimination case. The court heard that three black workers had been told by a manager that they would be in “big trouble” if they continued to pursue allegations of racism against him. The three workers were fired in 2021, without their allegations being investigated. In court, one worker won a claim of race harassment, while all three claims of unfair dismissal were upheld.
In February 2024, the UK government named more than 500 companies for failing to pay their workers minimum wage, leaving over 172,000 workers out of pocket. Greggs was among those named. It failed to pay a total of £219,129.07 to 4,793 workers – the eleventh largest sum.
Greggs therefore scored poorly in Ethical Consumer’s workers rights rating overall.
As a major food manufacturer, Ethical Consumer assessed Greggs’ policies to support more environmentally-friendly farming within its supply chain.
The company had published a statement acknowledging its impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems. It stated that it was focusing on preventing deforestation in its soy and palm oil supply chains, and discussed soil health. Greggs also stated that it did not “use genetically modified ingredients”.
However, on other key topics, Greggs’ policies were weak or non-existent. For example, it did not appear to have an adequate policy on pesticides – chemicals designed to kill pests, which are a leading cause of bird and bee deaths. It also did not discuss ways that it was reducing its agricultural pollution or run-off in its supply chains, for example from fertilisers, which are a major cause of river pollution.
The company therefore received a low score in Ethical Consumer’s agriculture category overall.
The research was conducted in October 2025 and the above was written in April 2026.
We always check the ethics of our advertisers
Sign up to see the full company profile including company ethiscores and all the stories behind the scores.