Cattle is the most efficient way to produce calories in a dry region in which water rather than land is the binding constraint (Western U.S., middle east, north africa). Crops are the most efficient way to produce calories in regions where land rather than water is the binding constraint (e.g. China, Northwest Europe).
The idea that one is necessarily more efficient than the other as a food is pure B.S. It just depends on where that food is grown.
There is a reason why the societies in the fertile crescent began with cattle culture, and continued to raise cattle in areas where water is more costly than land. Dry areas like that produce scrub and grasses, which is inedible to humans, but edible by cows. That's why we graze the cows in areas where we can't eat the natural crops, and instead we eat the cows. This is the most efficient method, most environmentally friendly method, and is the long standing practice of all societies living in dry regions.
This notion that the peculiar environment constraints that bind in northwest europe bind globally is either ignorance or bigotry.
Really, if they wanted to virtue signal, they should ban cotton, which takes up a lot of water, and is grown in areas that shouldn't be growing cotton. As good a case can be made against grains as against cattle.
This is just bumper sticker virtue signalling and has no place in the business world.
When entertaining clients. Which are also the majority of my T&E reimbursements. If I invite a client to a lunch or dinner meeting, there's absolutely no way I'm going to dictate what they can and can't order. But if they order meat, is my expense report going to get rejected?
I'm not in sales, so I don't have outrageous meal expenses. But I do a fair bit of client servicing and I'd raise hell if my company created a policy that introduces ambiguity and risk around whether or not I'll have to eat the cost every time I'm expected to have a meal with a client.
Some employees may do it, but I doubt it's a significant portion of expensed meals. I'm going to bet that the majority are catered food and team outings, which I've observed at WeWork on many occasions.
They aren't policing employees' eating habits or anyone else's. They've just decided not to spend company funds on meat.
There are valid social, political, and environmental reasons to avoid most or all meat. A company should be able to decide not to spend their money on something both ethical and socially beneficial that won't harm anyone else in the process.
> How will they even know what you ate?
Some restaurants have line items, but most likely this is a marketing tactic more than a rigid policy that will be easily or thoroughly enforced.
> Some cities simply don't cater to the vegan market on a large scale. Sometimes you don't have as much of a choice what restaurant you're going to.
Where did you get vegan? They seem to be allowing expensing of vegetarian food.
And when do people not get to choose where they eat? And when they do, why would it be a place that serves zero vegetarian options?
Also, they seem to be pursuing a pescetarian policy (no mammals or birds, but fish are OK).