Selling More Plant-Based Products Is Not Enough: How Retailers Can Measure Real Substitution Away From Animal Protein

Introduction

Many retailers are expanding their plant-based ranges.

This is a positive development. It shows that supermarkets are responding to changing consumer expectations and sustainability goals.

But there is a measurement problem.

Selling more plant-based products does not automatically mean that animal-protein sales are going down.

A retailer can grow its plant-based category and still sell the same amount of meat, dairy, eggs, or seafood. In that case, the business has achieved plant-based growth, but not necessarily a protein shift.

For ESG teams, this distinction is essential. For category teams, it is commercially important. For leadership, it determines whether sustainability commitments are translating into real changes in sales.

The key question is not only whether plant-based sales are growing. The more important question is whether plant-based products are replacing animal-based protein in the basket.

Growth and Substitution Are Not the Same Thing

Plant-based growth is easy to understand.

If sales of plant-based burgers, dairy alternatives, tofu, legumes, or plant-forward ready meals increase, the category is growing. That is useful information. It shows demand, justifies investment, and can support product innovation.

But it does not tell the whole story.

Substitution is different. It means that plant-based or plant-forward products are replacing animal-based products in consumer purchases. This is what matters if the objective is to rebalance protein sales, reduce food-related emissions, improve animal welfare outcomes, or align with healthier and more sustainable diets.

A simple example makes the distinction clear.

If a customer buys plant-based mince instead of beef mince, that contributes to substitution. If a customer buys plant-based mince in addition to beef mince, plant-based sales increase, but animal-protein sales do not decrease.

Both cases create plant-based sales. Only one changes the protein balance.

For retailers, this distinction is critical. Without measuring the total plant-animal protein split, it is easy to overestimate progress.

Why This Matters for Retailer ESG Strategy

Retailers are increasingly being asked to support a shift toward healthier and more sustainable diets.

ProVeg, WWF, and the Green Protein Alliance have called on retailers to rebalance food sales in line with dietary recommendations such as the Planetary Health Diet. Their recommendation is to move toward a 60:40 split in favour of plant-based foods within protein-source foods, and a broader 70:30 plant-to-animal split across all food groups.

This is not only about launching more plant-based products. It is about changing the balance of what is sold.

That distinction matters because food-related emissions are heavily influenced by product mix. If plant-based sales rise but animal-protein sales remain high, the overall environmental impact may change much less than expected.

It also matters for credibility.

A retailer that only reports plant-based sales growth may tell a positive story. But ESG stakeholders will increasingly ask a more precise question: is the overall sales mix actually shifting?

This is where protein-ratio measurement becomes useful. It moves the conversation from category growth to portfolio change.

The Problem With Tracking Plant-Based Sales Alone

Plant-based category growth is an important metric. Retailers should track it.

But it has three main limitations.

First, it does not show the full denominator. A retailer may grow plant-based sales by 20%, but if animal-protein sales remain much larger, the total protein ratio may barely move.

Second, it can hide incremental consumption. A customer may add plant-based products to their basket without reducing animal-based purchases.

Third, it can lead to misleading internal incentives. Category teams may focus on growing a small plant-based segment without addressing the much larger animal-protein categories that dominate the retailer's footprint.

This is especially important in supermarkets because animal-based protein sales are often concentrated in large, high-volume categories: fresh meat, dairy, cheese, eggs, seafood, prepared meals, and food-to-go.

A small plant-based category can grow quickly in percentage terms while remaining too small to change the overall protein balance.

For example, a 30% increase in a small plant-based meat alternatives category may be commercially encouraging. But if fresh meat sales are stable, the retailer's protein ratio may barely change.

That does not mean the plant-based growth is irrelevant. It means it should be interpreted in context.

What Real Substitution Looks Like

Real substitution means that the retailer's total sales mix moves from animal-based protein toward plant-based protein.

This can happen in several ways. A customer may replace beef mince with lentils or plant-based mince. A household may choose oat milk instead of dairy milk for part of its consumption. A shopper may buy a plant-forward ready meal instead of a meat-based ready meal. A family may replace some meat-heavy meals with meals based on beans, tofu, or vegetables.

At retail level, real substitution should show up in the data.

Over time, the retailer should see a higher share of protein sales coming from plant-based sources, stable or declining animal-protein volumes in relevant categories, category-level shifts from animal-based to plant-based or plant-forward products, and basket changes that suggest replacement rather than addition.

The main point is that substitution is not always visible from plant-based sales alone. It requires looking at both sides of the equation.

The Protein Ratio: A Better Metric for Substitution

A protein ratio measures the balance between plant-based and animal-based protein sold by a retailer.

A practical version of the calculation asks: of all the protein sold by the retailer, what share comes from plant-based sources and what share comes from animal-based sources?

This is more useful than tracking plant-based sales alone because it includes the denominator. It shows whether the overall balance is changing.

For example, if plant-based protein increases from 25% to 30% of total protein sold, the retailer can see that the mix is shifting. If plant-based category sales increase but the protein ratio remains flat, the retailer knows that growth is not yet translating into portfolio change.

The Dutch Protein Tracker uses this type of logic. It measures the ratio between plant-based and animal-based proteins sold by retailers, using sales volumes and protein content. In 2025, the latest Dutch assessment found that supermarket protein sales were 42.6% plant-based and 57.4% animal-based, covering 95% of the Dutch retail market.

This kind of metric helps retailers avoid a common trap: celebrating category growth without knowing whether the total protein balance has moved.

It also allows retailers to compare progress year after year, as long as the methodology remains consistent.

Why Category-Level Analysis Matters

A global protein ratio is useful. But it is not enough.

To understand substitution, retailers need category-level results.

The overall ratio tells leadership whether the business is moving in the right direction. The category breakdown tells teams where action is needed.

Different categories behave differently.

In fresh meat, substitution may be difficult but highly impactful. In dairy, alternatives may already have higher consumer acceptance in some subcategories. In ready meals, recipe design and product placement may matter more. In food-to-go, convenience and visibility may drive adoption. In e-commerce, search results and recommendations can influence baskets.

A retailer needs to know where the largest opportunities are.

For example, it needs to understand whether animal-protein sales are concentrated in fresh meat, dairy, or ready meals; whether plant-based alternatives are growing in the same categories where animal-protein volumes are high; whether plant-based products are replacing animal equivalents or growing in separate consumption occasions; whether promotions support substitution or reinforce existing animal-protein demand; and whether plant-based products are visible enough in online and in-store journeys.

These questions are practical. They connect ESG targets with commercial levers.

Without category-level analysis, the protein ratio remains a reporting metric. With category-level analysis, it becomes a management tool.

How Retailers Can Test Whether Substitution Is Happening

Retailers do not need to rely only on annual reporting to understand substitution. They can test it.

A supermarket can run controlled experiments and measure whether specific interventions change the protein balance in a category or store cluster.

For example, a retailer can test placing plant-based alternatives next to animal equivalents, changing promotional mechanics, reducing the price gap between animal and plant-based options, improving plant-based visibility in e-commerce search results, adding plant-forward options to ready meals, reformulating private-label products, or introducing hybrid products where fully plant-based substitution is not yet realistic.

The key is to measure the right outcome.

If the retailer only measures plant-based product sales, it may conclude that the test worked. But to measure substitution, it should also track what happened to animal-based sales in the same category, store, or basket.

A good test should ask whether the intervention increased plant-based sales and whether it reduced or rebalanced animal-protein sales.

This makes the analysis more useful for commercial teams. It also helps avoid symbolic actions. A campaign may generate positive visibility but have little effect on the protein ratio. Another intervention may be less visible but more effective in changing baskets.

The goal is to learn what actually moves sales.

The Role of Basket Analysis

Protein-ratio measurement shows whether the overall balance is shifting. Basket analysis can go one step deeper.

It can help retailers understand whether customers are substituting products within the same shopping occasion.

For example, if a household buys plant-based mince and no longer buys beef mince in the same period, that may suggest substitution. If the household buys both, the result is more ambiguous.

Basket analysis can also show whether plant-based products are being used in the same meal occasions as animal-based products.

This matters because some plant-based categories may grow through new occasions rather than replacement. Plant-based snacks, drinks, or convenience products may perform well commercially, but they may not directly reduce animal-protein consumption. A plant-forward ready meal placed next to a meat-based equivalent may have a stronger substitution effect.

Basket analysis is not always easy. It requires transaction-level data, privacy safeguards, and careful interpretation.

But even simple forms of basket analysis can help retailers understand whether plant-based growth is changing customer behaviour or simply adding another category to the basket.

Why Substitution Should Not Be Framed as a Threat

Some commercial teams may hear "substitution away from animal protein" and worry about lost sales.

That concern is understandable. Meat, dairy, eggs, and seafood are large categories. They drive traffic, revenue, and supplier relationships. No retailer wants to damage category performance or alienate customers.

This is why the protein shift needs to be framed carefully.

The objective is not to remove choice. It is to rebalance the offer over time, in a way that is commercially realistic and aligned with consumer demand.

For many retailers, the opportunity is not simply to sell less of one thing. It is to build a more resilient protein portfolio.

That can include stronger plant-based ranges, better legumes, nuts, and seeds merchandising, improved dairy alternatives, plant-forward ready meals, hybrid products, private-label innovation, better value-for-money propositions, and healthier, more sustainable meal solutions.

This framing matters internally.

If substitution is presented as an attack on existing categories, it will face resistance. If it is presented as portfolio diversification, risk management, and future category growth, it becomes easier to discuss.

The data can help. A protein ratio does not tell category teams what to do. But it shows where the business currently stands and where opportunities may exist.

What Retailers Should Report

Retailers should continue to report plant-based category growth where relevant. But this should not be the only metric.

A more credible reporting approach would include three layers.

First, retailers should report the overall plant-animal protein ratio, with a clear methodology and reference year.

Second, they should report category-level progress, at least internally. This helps teams understand which departments drive the result.

Third, they should explain what actions are being tested to shift the ratio.

This last point is important. Stakeholders do not only want a number. They want to know whether the retailer has a plan.

A strong report might say that the retailer has calculated its baseline, identified the categories with the highest impact, started testing specific levers in assortment, pricing, promotions, placement, and e-commerce, and will update the calculation annually using the same methodology.

That is more credible than simply saying that plant-based sales increased. It shows that the retailer understands the difference between growth and substitution.

Recommendation for Retailers

Retailers should stop treating plant-based sales growth as the main indicator of protein transition progress.

It is an important metric, but it is not sufficient.

The better approach is to measure the total protein balance, then analyse whether plant-based growth is changing that balance over time.

A practical sequence would be:

1. Calculate the current plant-animal protein ratio.

2. Break the result down by category.

3. Identify where animal-protein sales are most concentrated.

4. Compare plant-based growth with animal-protein movement in the same categories.

5. Test interventions that could create substitution.

6. Measure both plant-based sales and animal-protein sales after each test.

7. Scale what improves the ratio without harming commercial performance.

This approach is more demanding than tracking plant-based category growth alone. It is also more useful.

It gives ESG teams a credible measure of transition. It gives category teams actionable insight. It gives leadership a clearer picture of whether the business is moving toward its stated goals.

Conclusion

Plant-based sales growth is good news.

It shows that consumers are open to new options. It supports innovation. It creates space for better products, better pricing, and better merchandising.

But it is not enough.

If retailers want to understand whether they are contributing to the protein transition, they need to measure substitution.

That means looking at both sides of the equation: plant-based growth and animal-protein movement.

A credible protein-ratio methodology helps retailers do this. It shows whether the overall sales mix is changing. It identifies where action is needed. It helps teams test what works. And it prevents the business from mistaking category growth for real portfolio change.

The protein transition will not be measured by the number of plant-based products on shelf. It will be measured by whether retailers can shift the balance of what people actually buy.

Sources

ProVeg International, Retailers urged to shift to 60% plant / 40% animal protein https://proveg.org/press-release/retailers-urged-to-shift-to-60-plant-40-animal-protein/

ProVeg International, Dutch supermarkets lead Europe, but must collaborate to reach 2030 plant-protein targets https://proveg.org/press-release/dutch-supermarkets-lead-europe-but-must-collaborate-to-reach-2030-plant-protein-targets/

Green Protein Alliance & ProVeg Netherlands, The Protein Tracker methodology update https://theproteintracker.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/2025_The-Protein-Tracker-Update-Oct-2025-Green-Protein-Alliance-Proveg.pdf

WWF, WWF launches new methodology to support retailers in achieving 60% of protein food sales from plant-based sources https://wwfcee.org/news/wwf-launches-new-methodology-to-support-retailers-in-achieving-60-of-protein-food-sales-from-plant-based-sources

WWF, Planet-Based Diets: Business Solutions for Retailers https://planetbaseddiets.panda.org/retailers

ProVeg International, Rebalancing protein sales https://proveg.org/article/rebalancing-protein-sales/

ProVeg International, Why protein diversification belongs on every retailer's agenda https://proveg.org/article/why-protein-diversification-belongs-on-every-retailers-agenda/