North American firms lag their counterparts around the world in the use of higher-quality Scope 3 data, a survey of more than 1,200 professionals from close to 100 countries shows.
The survey, conducted by the MIT Sustainable Supply Chain Lab, included responses from professionals working in supply chain, procurement, logistics, operations and sustainability.
Half of all respondents in North America reported relying on the most basic kind of data on value-chain emissions — industry averages or spend-based estimates — compared to just over a third in Europe.
Use of data sourced direct from suppliers, which is generally more accurate, also showed regional differences: 28 percent of European businesses reported using supplier data, more than 10 percentage points higher than the rate in North America.
Data sources for Scope 3 measurement
The difference stems from the factors driving sustainability in the two regions, said Sreedevi Rajagopalan, an MIT research scientist and an author of the report.
European firms’ sustainability initiatives are more strongly shaped by regulation, particularly the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, which requires standardized disclosures and greater transparency. These regulatory pressures have pushed European companies to invest in custom tools and supplier-level data collection.
In contrast, North American firms are primarily driven by investors and board priorities, which can be satisfied using spend-based estimates and industry averages.
“These methods are quicker and provide broad comparability—even though they’re less precise,” added Rajagopalan. “The trade-off is that spend-based and industry-average approaches can obscure real supplier-level improvements and sometimes even disincentivize sustainability investments. Companies using more detailed supplier data not only achieve more accurate emissions estimates but also strengthen supplier engagement and uncover new opportunities for emissions reduction.”
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-15 14:38:032025-10-15 18:08:42Survey says: North America lags the rest of the world on value-chain data
The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.
Companies, especially big ones, rarely tell the whole story. Instead, they focus on what makes them look good. Their half-truths not only conceal their harmful impact on the climate, but also create the false impression that they’re helping solve the climate crisis. This illusion of progress makes them directly complicit with Big Oil, trade associations and other groups actively blocking real climate action.
Positive brand perception is vital for companies, so it’s entirely natural that they seek to burnish their reputations. That’s what marketing is for, after all. When it relates to climate action, however, there’s a larger social context at play and other actors seeking to delay progress. This means their marketing can have massive negative consequences for our ability to make progress on climate.
The corporate world is accelerating these climate half-truths under the current administration. Whether they’re failing to disclose working with fossil fuel companies or misleading the public about the scalability of climate tech, many companies contribute to a narrative that’s slowing climate progress at a time when we need it more than ever.
These claims downplay the scale of the climate crisis and of the rapid systemic changes needed, and create the illusion of progress when any meaningful benefit is years or decades away. By celebrating their contracts for direct air capture or nuclear energy, for example, some companies are promoting hypothetical future benefits without adequately acknowledging the present reality — glossing over the long and uncertain time frame until those technologies scale, not to mention the risks and high costs.
Overhyping future benefits
Just look at AI. A recent paper suggested AI climate solutions could reduce global emissions by 3.2 to 5.4 gigatons of CO2-equivalent by 2035, potentially outweighing the energy demands of AI data centers. These benefits are possible, yet highly uncertain in both timing and scale. What’s more, this estimate ignores the fact that tech companies are selling AI tools to oil and gas companies to expand fossil fuel production, causing direct damage happening now. This is a misleading picture, like a CFO touting revenue while ignoring expenses. It downplays the severity of the climate crisis and the need for immediate, large-scale action and omits any mention of massive current harms.
Microsoft is a prime example. Since its 2020 goal to become “carbon negative” by 2030, its reported emissions have grown 29 percent largely due to new AI data centers. Microsoft is relying on large-scale carbon capture, which is unproven at that scale, to bridge the action gap. Worse, the company actively markets AI technology for use by fossil fuel companies such as Chevron and Exxon, enabling massive emissions today that far outweigh the benefits of its operational actions.
But it’s not just the tech industry. Other sectors also promote their achievements and potential benefits, while downplaying or sidestepping harms. For example, many companies with stated climate goals (including Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, and Uber) remain members of trade associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that lobby against climate action. Others, such as law firms and companies operating in consulting, marketing, banking and insurance, tout their work with climate tech companies while also serving fossil fuel clients. By assisting the oil and gas industry with lawsuits, funding and public deception, these companies are complicit in “enabled emissions” generated at everyone’s expense.
Company silence hurts public perception and policy momentum
Many companies are now “greenhushing” — downplaying or staying silent on climate action despite internal progress — in response to environmental rollbacks. A Bloomberg analysis shows climate mentions on S&P 500 earnings calls have dropped 76 percent in three years, and some companies such as Pepsi and Salesforce are weakening their climate goals.
The issue is that corporate silence (or misleading optimism) distorts public perception, dampens support for regulation and slows political momentum. This mirrors past fossil fuel industry tactics, where massive marketing campaigns fueled climate denial and stalled policy change.
When companies do talk about climate change, they often highlight future technologies and voluntary efforts, seeming to suggest that markets alone can solve the crisis. This approach reinforces the misleading idea that strong regulation isn’t necessary, even though it’s both essential and often beneficial for business. For example, companies proudly promote their wind and solar purchases but fail to acknowledge the government policies — R&D funding, renewable mandates and tax credits — that made those investments possible.
Rather than focusing mainly on unproven innovations, we should prioritize deploying existing solutions — wind, solar, energy storage, EVs, heat pumps and grid upgrades — which can scale quickly with the right policies.
Yet most companies remain silent on supporting the very policies that would help them cut emissions, lower costs and ensure long-term viability. Consider the recent “Big Beautiful Bill,” which threatened many clean energy gains from the Inflation Reduction Act. Despite one analysis showing the act’s energy tax credits would create 13.7 million jobs and drive $1.9 trillion in economic growth, very few companies, including Amazon, Apple, Google and Walmart, publicly advocated to save these programs. In fact, some, including Uber, 3M and Cisco, even endorsed the House version of the bill.
These companies may believe they’re protecting their business, but their actions contradict consumer desires. A September 2024 report found that three-fourths of Americans believe companies have a responsibility to limit their climate impact, and nine in 10 retail investors want companies to reduce emissions and prepare for climate impacts.
How to reverse corporate backslide
So, what should companies do differently? They need to be honest about the scale and systemic nature of the climate crisis. When discussing future technologies, they should clarify uncertainties in timeline, scale and cost, and emphasize that technologies don’t negate the need for rapidly scaling existing solutions. They need to be transparent about how their tech is being (or might be) used to harm the climate. They must also be honest and direct about the necessary government policies and regulations, and lobby hard for them.
Business has the power to move the needle and must step up to match the urgency of the crisis. Fortunately, tools already exist for business leaders, sustainability professionals and employees to steer companies toward meaningful action beyond half-truths and climate complicity:
When you see companies telling half truths, help them tell the whole story. If it’s your own company, work with colleagues to paint a fuller picture. If it’s another company, join their conversation on social media to highlight the parts of the story they’re glossing over.
Check out the Anti-Greenwash Guide for Agency Leaders published by Creatives for Climate and actively be on the lookout for ways to combat greenwashing and climate misinformation at work.
Join the growing LEAD community of over 1,000 sustainability professionals who are committed to speaking up for meaningful climate policy advocacy at work. Recognize that advocacy is a long game, but will scale your impact as a CSO.
Read and share ClimateVoice’s Employee Climate Action Checklist, which provides steps anyone can take to urge stronger corporate climate leadership and action at work.
Silence won’t lead to a brighter future. Moral courage, truth-telling, collaborative problem-solving and advocating for meaningful climate leadership will. We must hold companies and their leadership accountable to ensure they rise to the challenge, and quickly.
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-15 10:00:002025-10-15 18:08:42Half-truths and hidden lies: How large corporations undermine climate action
One of L’Oreal’s most complex environmental goals is a push to replace petrochemicals — widely used in cosmetics for their moisturizing and blending properties — by relying on plants, minerals and recycled materials for 95 percent of its ingredients by 2030.
As of the French conglomerate’s latest progress report, for 2024, the category leader in cosmetics and personal care — with sales of $45 billion — has managed to reach 66 percent. That achievement is linked to its decision to embed “eco-design” principles into its 4,000-person research and innovation team more than eight years ago.
All new products for 2023 and 2024 were evaluated using the company’s proprietary Sustainable Product Optimization Tool, which considers 14 different environmental metrics as part of ingredients sections.
More recently, the ecodesign strategy inspired a new perfume made with fragrance collected from flowers using a water-free extraction system. It also drove the refinement of a vertical farm system that lets L’Oreal cultivate plants for its cosmetics using less land, water and energy. Both innovations address another L’Oreal goal: use recycled water for 100 percent of its industrial processes. So far, the company has achieved 53 percent.
“Our performance as a business cannot be separated from our performance from an environmental and social perspective,” said Marissa McGowan, chief sustainability officer at L’Oreal North America. “I would also say innovation is the mindset of continually striving to do better and continually striving to meet new needs, and sustainability is sort of synonymous with innovation.”
L’Oreal’s 250,000-square-foot scientific research center in Clark, New Jersey, which opened in February and employs 600 scientists and researchers.Source: Trellis Group/Heather ClancySource: L'Oreal
Dedicated space to nurture breakthroughs
Much of the ecodesign work for North American products happens at L’Oreal’s 250,000-square-foot scientific research center in Clark, New Jersey, which opened in February. The facility employs 600 scientists and engineers, who have been challenged to use 12 principles of “green chemistry” on behalf of research intended for the U.S. market. (The lab is responsible for about 20 percent of L’Oreal’s formulations globally.)
McGowan meets with the head of that lab at least monthly to review goals on a brand-by-brand basis. The goal is to prioritize substances that are biodegradable, found in nature and require less energy and water — for both production and consumption.
For example, L’Oreal is leaning into shea butter, which it sources from trees and seeds grown by Burkina Faso communities in West Africa. The substance features prominently in more than 1,700 products, including a new Biolage professional salon line that restores nutrients to damaged or colored hair without using paraben (a known endocrine and hormone disruptor), silicone or mineral oil. L’Oreal scientists developed a way to concentrate the butter, so less of it needs to be used, a process they demonstrated during my September visit to the Clark facility.
Another breakthrough is glycolysine, a patent-pending, bio-based surfactant used in the new CeraVe Air Foaming Cleanser, launched in summer 2025. The substance replaces synthetic substances that can be skin irritants. It’s made from a combination of glycolipids from plants or fungi, and polylysine, an amino acid polymer. The cleanser doesn’t require water to create the foam: a special pump mixes air with the product as it is dispensed, creating bubbles.
Each brand is responsible for its own environmental design priorities, but CeraVe’s growth has exploded over the past five years to more than $2 billion globally, and that’s one reason its work gets special attention. L’Oreal studies the potential ripple effect of an innovation when deciding where to prioritize.
“We do have a brand-by-brand approach, but once that technology comes through in one brand, we look to see how we can scale it across the portfolio and it becomes available for all the brands,” McGowan said.
L’Oreal uses shea butter in more than 1,700 products, including a new salon line that restores nutrients to hair without using paraben (an endocrine and hormone disruptor).Source: Trellis Group/Heather ClancySource: L'Oreal
New cultivation and extraction technologies
L’Oreal’s product-agnostic approach to ecodesign is illustrated by two technologies under development for several years and formally introduced this summer.
Osmobloom, created through a partnership with Cosmo International Fragrances, is an air-capture system for extracting fragrance molecules from flowers while leaving the bloom intact. Traditional approaches use steam, solvents and fats to absorb the fragrance. The equipment uses less energy, water and chemicals. It also enables L’Oreal to harvest flowers that were previously considered “mute,” such as lily of the valley and hyacinth, and those from the iconic orange blossom and tuberose. The first product to result from the innovation: a perfume, Private Talk from Valentino Beauty, made from tuberose plants. L’Oreal has 12 ingredients under development.
At the end of the Osmobloom extraction, the flower is intact and can be used for other applications — such as an ingredient in herbal tea. “We’re adding to the supply chain, not taking away,” said McGowan.
Another technology that will be used across brands is an early-stage, artificial intelligence-powered vertical farm called BioPods developed by Interstellar Lab, a startup that was part of L’Oreal’s innovation accelerator program.
BioPods use 99 percent less water than traditional farming methods, by recycling water, and also capture carbon dioxide. They were initially created for applications in outer space, but L’Oreal sees the technology as important for growing plants in territories impacted by climate change. BioPods will also allow for more cultivation near production facilities.
In recent demonstrations, BioPods were used to grow Centella asiatica, which produces an ingredient called madecassoside, a compound with anti-inflammatory, antioxidant and anti-aging properties.
While sustainable solutions are facing drastic funding cuts and even outright opposition, mass timber as a sustainable construction material is steadily gaining traction across the United States.
Construction using mass timber began in 2015 in the U.S., and since then the number of projects has grown about 20 percent annually. Today, over 2,500 mass timber projects are built or in progress in the U.S., including corporate offices for companies such as Google, Microsoft and Under Armour.
This is a “pivotal year” for mass timber construction, wrote Ricardo Brites, director of engineering and virtual design and construction at Mercer Mass Timber, on Woodworking Network.
Made of structurally engineered timber beams, these buildings are not only climate-friendly, but also beneficial for employees: They offer substantially lower embodied carbon along with noticeable positive impacts on occupants.
“We have lots of tech firms and big companies that say, ‘Hey, we’re battling it out for workers. We want the best space possible,’” said Bill Parsons, chief operating officer at WoodWorks, a non-profit industry organization for timber construction. “A good office has been really important to people, and those tend to be wood offices.”
How mass timber stacks up
Buildings and construction account for 37 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to a 2023 report by the United Nations Environment Program. The production of cement and steel for construction accounts for 11 percent of global emissions.
Mass timber is made of layers of lumber glued together to form a single, strong beam. The two most common varieties are cross-laminated timber, where lumber boards alternate directions as they are stacked, like a Jenga tower, and glue-laminated timber where boards are stacked in parallel.
Cross-laminated timber is built in alternating rows. Source: WoodWorks – Wood Products Council
Replacing conventional building materials with mass timber has the potential to reduce global emissions by 14 percent to 31 percent, according to the U.N. report.
The new Under Armour building in Baltimore saved over 69 percent on embodied carbon by replacing steel and concrete with mass timber, according to Gensler, the architecture firm that designed the building.
“The use of mass timber was a lead contributor in reducing the site’s carbon emissions and supported a quicker, more seamless construction process,” said Kathy Blessington, vice president of real estate at Under Armour, in an email.
While some builders and regulators are wary of supposed fire risk with mass timber buildings, regulations in the U.S., France and elsewhere have gradually shifted to accept multistory wooden buildings, which, in fact, perform comparably to steel and concrete buildings in regard to fire resistance.
Mass timber’s inherent fire-resistant properties have been well-established, said Edward Becker, associate professor of architecture at Virginia Tech. “The evidence of the success of these fire tests and the safety for the general public is evidenced in the international building code changes over the last couple of years.”
It is paramount, though, that mass timber is sourced responsibly. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) provide certification for products that come from responsibly managed forests with safeguards that prevent deforestation.
Designers, architects and construction managers “should check with the supplier,” said Becker. “It’s critical to look for things like FSC sourcing and SFI sourcing. That’s an easy way to make sure that it’s ethically sourced.”
Mass timber’s popularity boom
Legislation that promotes and programs that fund mass timber, such as the Mass Timber Federal Buildings Act and the Wood Innovations Grant Program from the USDA, are still progressing, for now. But wider repercussions from government funding cuts are affecting the industry.
“While we haven’t seen specific cuts to mass timber programs themselves, the broader forestry infrastructure that supports our industry is facing significant reductions,” said Nick Milestone, chief operations officer at Mercer Mass Timber.
Data from the 2024 International Mass Timber Report shows steady increases in production in Canada and the U.S., from 158,000 cubic meters in 2019 to 393,000 in 2023, and a climb in mass timber buildings constructed annually from 151 to 279 in that same period.
While mass timber offers important sustainability attributes, they’re only a secondary reason why builders are increasingly adopting it.
“I think sustainability has been further down as more of a benefit overall,” said Parsons. “The driver in my mind is that people figured out how they can make a very cost-effective, beautiful building.”
Cost comparisons for mass timber versus concrete or steel vary on a case-by-case basis. Mass timber is generally more expensive up front, according to research from Virginia Tech, but cost savings in construction and over the building’s life cycle can level that playing field. Mass timber can also be disassembled and reused at the end of a building’s life.
“When we do a mass timber building, contractors will estimate the cost and you might see a 20-30 percent premium on top of traditional building material,” said JJ Rivers, principal and studio director at Gensler. “But mass timber is incredibly light compared to concrete, so there’s savings on foundations. And when you look at the speed of erection you have lower labor costs and shorter schedule durations.”
The quicker speed of construction, due to mass timber’s lighter weight and pre-fabrication, means getting occupants into buildings quicker and generating rents sooner. Lease rates also tend to be higher in mass timber buildings.
As mass timber demand in North America grows, domestic suppliers are doing their best to keep up. Over the past decade, 13 new production plants have opened in the U.S. But builders still rely on imports from Europe, where the industry has enjoyed a few extra decades of maturation.
The U.S. has substantial forest resources, and even under aggressive logging scenarios, national forest cover is expected to grow 18 percent by 2035, according to research by the University of Washington.
Corporations adopting mass timber
Sustainability attributes and costs tell one part of the story, but the x-factor with mass timber buildings is how their occupants feel.
Studies have shown that living or working in a mass timber building, particularly when the wood is exposed, improves occupants’ mental health and well-being, even lowering their blood pressure and heart rates.
“It takes a little bit of explaining at first, but when people walk inside a mass timber building for the first time, especially when the wood is exposed, you really don’t need to explain anything else,” said Becker. “The building feels better, smells better and looks better.”
It’s a big reason why corporations are turning their attention to mass timber.
“We recently interviewed some companies in Norway about their use of mass timber buildings, and they all said they would do it again because of how it makes their employees feel,” said Becker. “They’re better able to retain and attract higher-quality employees because of the excellence of their work environments.”
Most mass timber buildings still employ some concrete and steel, but growth is trending in the right direction.
“Hybrid buildings are the next big thing,” said Milestone. “I believe that the symbiotic nature of steel and mass timber represents the future of construction in North America.”
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-14 09:52:002025-10-14 18:09:41Climate-friendly wooden buildings rise across U.S. and Europe
Send news about sustainability leadership roles, promotions and departures to [email protected].
Amy Skoczlas Cole, who previously ran corporate partnerships for Conservation International and pioneered corporate sustainability strategy at eBay, was named director of the NYU Stern Center for Sustainable Business on Oct. 9.
Skoczlas Cole replaces the founding director, Tensie Whelan, who will remain with the university as professor emeritus. Skoczlas Cole’s term is effective January 2026, when she will join NYU as a clinical professor.
The appointment comes after a search kicked off earlier this year when Whelan announced her intention to step down. Whelan, a Trellis columnist, was the president of conservation nonprofit Rainforest Alliance for more than 15 years before joining NYU in 2015.
Skoczlas Cole, whose interest in mainstreaming sustainability and conservation began 20 years ago, said universities have a key role to play in advancing that agenda.
“Recognition of the potential for sustainability to create tangible business value is nascent and fragile, and we’re still experimenting with how to scale it,” said Skoczlas Cole, explaining her decision to join NYU Stern. “Even more, there is a generational opportunity to reimagine the future of work, consumerism, supply chains and capital flows that is both better for people and the planet, fueled by private sector profitability.”
The Center for Sustainable Business, founded in 2016, developed a methodology called Return on Sustainability Investment that is used by thousands of corporate sustainability professionals and investors to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions reduction programs and projects meant to address environmental impact.
The center manages one of the best-known MBA specializations in sustainable business and also offers undergraduate specializations and bootcamps involving the private sector. More than 500 students have earned that specialization, while more than 1,500 have enrolled in Sustainability for Competitive Advantage courses.
Expect Skoczlas Cole to prioritize the deeper use of analytics and artificial intelligence to push participation among the student body much higher.
For the past five years, she was president of intelligence and influence at Farm Journal, a business-to-business media company specializing in journalism and content about the agricultural system. One of her projects, for example, involved using data analysis to predict which farmers and ranchers were most likely to succeed with regenerative agriculture and then delivering resources to help them.
“One area I hope to support the team in is delivering research to have impact at scale,” Skoczlas Cole said. “I don’t have a pre-defined idea of what this looks like, except to say that just about any company should be calculating how it can benefit from embedding sustainability into their core business models.”
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-10 18:42:062025-10-11 18:08:30eBay’s first sustainability lead to head NYU’s sustainable business program
From Nepal to Morocco to Peru, Gen Z is making its voice heard. This year, youth-led protests erupted across continents, driven by a strikingly consistent set of grievances: entrenched corruption, political elites seen as abusive or unresponsive, rising economic insecurity and youth unemployment, and deteriorating public services. These protests aren’t isolated; they reflect a broader generational sentiment that is now backed by global data.
Recent research from GlobeScan reveals concerns voiced by young people in recent protests reflect a broader global trend. Around the world, Gen Z (those born between 1996 and 2010) consistently shows higher levels of concern than older generations about systemic social issues. Nearly two-thirds of Gen Z consider corruption to be a “very serious” problem, compared to only 58 percent of Baby Boomers. This generational gap is even more pronounced on issues such as human rights abuses, unemployment and unfair treatment of workers. Together, these findings highlight a shared sense of urgency among younger generations worldwide.
What this means
Gen Z is navigating a world that feels stuck, where broken systems persist and promises of reform often fall short. Their protests aren’t just expressions of frustration; they’re calls for systemic change. This is a warning signal for governments, employers and institutions everywhere. Ignoring these concerns risks deepening discontent and eroding trust.
Brands and institutions that want to connect with young people must speak to these concerns directly and credibly, and their messaging must match the urgency felt by the younger generation. Listening, co-creating and visibly responding to youth concerns are essential for sustaining trust and relevance, whether you’re a government, brand or other organization.
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-10 10:00:002025-10-10 18:09:21Gen Z calls for systemic change
The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.
There have been great strides made in understanding the onboarding and usage phases of a consumer’s journey. Brands use marketing to create emotional connections and design products that are engaging and delightful to use.
However, companies haven’t dedicated enough time to thinking about the tailend of those consumer experiences. Once the consumer stops using a product — and before that product is recycled, upcycled or resold — people enter the “end gap”: a phase often devoid of emotion or meaning.
That end gap can be more than just a cold transition of materials and resources. It can be a place of emotional experience that becomes critical to successful circular business models. That’s because if brands design products with an understanding of how they will end emotionally, they can inspire a change in consumer behavior and add value and purpose to the offboarding experience.
To do this, we must first recognize the eight types of endings that consumers commonly experience.
8 types of consumer endings
Time Out: This is an ending defined by a fixed period. Examples include a 12-month magazine subscription, a two-week holiday or a product warranty that expires. This type of ending gives consumers clear expectations about longevity because there’s an agreed moment that provides a call to action and a reminder to return a product for recycling or trade-in.
Exhaustion / Credit Out: This occurs when a product or service is depleted of a specific numeric value or resource, such as a battery running out of power or a box of cereal becoming empty. This ending can be highly visible, encouraging the consumer to prepare for the next phase of a circular system. Product experiences can play on this visibility to encourage action at the end of product life.
Task / Event Completion: This ending takes place once a single, predefined task is complete. A disposable coffee cup has a simple task — to hold a beverage — but its single-use nature has a significant environmental impact. The simplicity of this ending has made disposability a scourge of consumerism. For circular businesses, this ending is a chance to add friction and responsibility to a previously frictionless, thoughtless act, encouraging proper disposal or reuse.
Broken / Withdrawal: This is an unplanned and often uncomfortable separation from a product or service, such as a product breaking due to poor manufacturing or a company going out of business. This type of ending is a moment of disappointment, but it’s also an opportunity for a brand to transform a negative situation into a positive one. Darn Tough socks, for example, call their warranty period “Unconditionally Guaranteed for Life,” giving them a reputation of honesty, extending a toughness challenge to the consumer and understanding that breakage happens. Although they honor around 30 of these claims a day — a small fraction of the roughly 13,500 pairs sold each day — their promise of quality holds true.
Lingering: A lingering ending is a relationship that has technically concluded due to a lack of use, but the product or service still exists in the consumer’s environment. Think of old phones in a drawer or certain clothes at the back of your closet. The problem for circular businesses here is the visibility of these items caught in product purgatory. Encouraging the consumer to bring back their old items is an important nudge to get them moving through the circular economy again. H&M’s Garment Collecting Program, for example, allows consumers to bring back items from any brand. In 2024, customers dropped off 17,000 tonnes of textiles, helping the business grow another phase in the circle of circularity.
Proximity: This ending results from a consumer moving out of a physical or service proximity. This could be as simple as changing from an Apple to an Android phone or as complex as a trade agreement that makes certain goods difficult to access. This type of ending creates a sense of exclusion and highlights the need for a circular economy to be platform-agnostic. For example, waste processing varies greatly across states. Making sure a product has enough contextual information is critical for maximizing collection. How2Recyle information has helped many consumers across the US with this type of ending, regardless of their location.
Cultural: A cultural ending happens when a consumer decides to leave a product or service because it’s perceived as being out of fashion or culturally unacceptable. An infamous example is Starbucks “straw-less lid,” where a new lid design promised to eliminate plastic straws. But later assessments found the new molded plastic lid contained more plastic than an old lid and a straw combined. Although Starbucks might’ve been trying to capture the cultural sustainability zeitgeist, it failed at both the product and persuasion, damaging the brand on all counts.
Competition: This ending occurs when a consumer leaves to start a new relationship with a competitor. This is the most talked-about ending in business and also the most common type of ending for consumers pursuing desirable products. This merry-go round is the essence of accelerating mass consumption. We need circular products that have stories that compete beyond — faster, better, bigger stories of normal consumption. For example, FairPhone tells a longevity and ethics story in their marketing alongside a technically competitive product story. This allows consumers to bond over issues of off-boarding at the start — a rarity in tech stories.
Using these categories to create better endings
Breaking down these ending types helps us better understand user experiences and emotions. Instead of letting a product’s end be a passive event, businesses can use the eight ending types as a framework to design a more meaningful offboarding experience. As their vocabulary and confidence builds, they will see what one works for them, even creating their own. A proactive approach to ending a product can help a company achieve several goals, including improving customer satisfaction, enhancing brand value and meeting ESG targets.
For instance, consider a company that sells reusable water bottles. The traditional primary ending for such a product might be Broken / Withdrawal (the bottle breaks and is discarded) or Lingering (it ends up at the back of a cupboard, unused). However, by proactively designing the end, the company could introduce a new primary ending. The company might offer a Task / Event Completion ending by creating a subscription service that provides a new bottle annually. As part of this service, the old bottle is returned to the company, where it’s refurbished or recycled. This reframes the ending from a negative, single-use event to a seamless and purposeful transaction for the consumer.
Another example could be running shoes. These usually have a Cultural Ending as a fashion item. But pairs could be sold as an Exhaustion / Credit Out ending. Many running shoes experience a performance drop-off over a certain distance as the midsole part – where the spongy foam is supporting and springing the runner along — fails. This type of ending discussion would appeal more to runners, who on average spend $354 on running shoes. If you sell running shoes and don’t do a Exhaustion / Credit Out ending for your customers, you are not aligning your product ending with your customer experience.
These intentional shifts benefit both the consumer and the business by creating a clear, actionable offboarding experience that aligns with circularity goals. It transforms the end from a point of loss into a moment of purpose, reinforcing the brand’s commitment to sustainability and strengthening the customer relationship.
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-10 10:00:002025-10-10 18:09:22How brands can use 8 types of consumer endings to boost circularity
When it comes to action on climate, there are companies that swing for the fences. And there are those who seem to hope this whole climate change thing will go away.
The flooring manufacturer Interface, for example, introduced a carbon-neutral product in 2003, before many had even heard of the concept. Now, the company aims to be carbon negative by 2040 — without using offsets.
Contrast that with Publix Supermarkets, which operates more than 1,400 stores in the U.S. The company has no emissions targets and recently published a 51-page impact report that doesn’t contain a single use of the word “climate.”
What explains this divergence? It’s a question the Trellis team has been grappling with as we publish installments of Chasing Net Zero, our company-by-company look at progress toward net-zero targets.
One answer lies in the set of goals and strategies a company might realistically employ — the window, you might say, that frames its opportunities and constraints.
Size up what’s possible for companies
It’s an idea adapted from politics. The Overton Window describes the policy ideas that the voting public considers acceptable. Politicians might be drawn to ideas outside the window — doubling income tax, say, or abolishing all forms of public healthcare. But they tend to keep quiet about those yearnings, because ideas outside the window are likely to get you voted out of office.
Something similar operates in corporate climate action. Let’s call it the Climate Strategy Window. Here, it’s not voters but stakeholder groups — investors, customers, regulators, the media and more — that shape the window. These groups have different ideas about what makes for an acceptable climate strategy, and this range of opinion defines the boundaries of what’s possible for companies.
The window helps explain the wildly different approaches to climate in the private sector. Our Chasing Net Zero profile of ArcelorMittal noted that the steel giant set ambitious climate goals in 2021 — then largely failed to deliver on them. That’s partly because Arcelor and its peers have been buffeted by window-narrowing forces, including the high price of renewable energy, over-supply from China and a dearth of buyers willing to pay a premium for low-carbon steel.
Compare that with the tech sector, where the window for ambitious climate strategies is dramatically wider. It’s been stretched by demands from a workforce that skews progressive, competition between companies to present a climate-friendly image to consumers and profit margins that give companies the flexibility to fund climate action. In fact, the current window for tech companies is so wide that some experts argue that Microsoft and peers should invest more.
How to apply the ‘Climate Strategy Window’
Thinking about the Climate Strategy Window that companies operate within helps me resist the temptation for knee-jerk condemnation and praise. It also illuminates leadership — and the lack of it.
As a food retailer, Publix answers to some stakeholder groups that tend to be supportive of action on climate, including the food companies it buys from and shoppers in the more progressive areas it operates in. What’s more, many rivals in food retail, perhaps most notably Walmart, are known for ambitious climate strategies. Publix’s window is relatively broad, in other words. If so, it’s fair to ask why its leaders are not doing more.
Then there’s Interface. The company would have been just fine had it waited a decade or more before doing anything about climate. But the late Ray Anderson, the Interface CEO who originated the company’s sustainability strategy, realized that opportunities for radical action lay within the boundaries of what was possible. That’s why Anderson is revered: he sized up the window, and aimed for the edge.
Leaders like Anderson do more than decarbonize their own companies when they take risks — they also mainstream once radical ideas and move the window for other businesses. The tumultuous politics of recent years show just how quickly the Overton Window can shift, and the same could happen to the Climate Strategy Window.
So what’s your out-of-reach strategy for corporate climate action? Make some noise about it now, and the window may stretch toward it.
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-09 18:11:212025-10-10 18:09:23Climate leader or laggard? This new tool helps spot the difference
The anti-ESG crusade by Republican state attorneys general is spilling over into the tech industry, with Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft in the crosshairs. At issue: the way the four companies make claims about emissions reductions related to their electricity consumption.
The concerns of 16 states, led by Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, are described in a Sept. 24 letter sent to the chief legal officers of all four companies, citing consumer protection responsibilities related to electricity prices and grid reliability.
The 15-page, liberally footnoted missive contains 21 questions about the companies’ “use of environmental accounting gimmicks” to report progress toward 100 percent renewable energy targets. Responses to the questions are requested by Oct. 27.
The attorneys general are focused primarily on the companies’ use of “unbundled” renewable energy certificates (RECs), issued by a variety of generation sources. These are a type of environmental credit purchased solely for the purpose of making an emissions reduction claim; the organization using them doesn’t typically source electricity directly from the project nor did it help get the project onto the electric grid.
“Tech companies may argue that they have purchased the supposed right to claim the renewable attributes of the energy, but even if a contract purports to give them that right, the representations still mislead consumers,” the attorneys general wrote.
Grid reliability concerns cited
This behavior, along with “skyrocketing” demand from artificial intelligence data centers, contributes to grid instability because utilities are abandoning investments in important baseload power sources, the attorneys general allege in the letter.
“As a result of big tech’s misleading energy use claims, coal and natural gas plants are being shut down, putting communities across the country at an increased risk of blackouts over the next few years,” said Knudsen, in a press release announcing the investigation.
The other states signed onto the letter are Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Florida, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Amazon and Microsoft declined to comment on the letter. Google and Meta did not immediately respond to inquiries.
Current guidance from the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, which published carbon accounting rules used by 97 percent of companies making environmental claims, allows for companies to use unbundled RECs to make emissions claims for electricity, which falls under Scope 2. Revisions under consideration, and available shortly for public comment, are likely to be much stricter about how they can be used.
Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft all used unbundled RECs in the past to make Scope 2 claims. For the past five years, however, they have prioritized long-term power purchase agreements that facilitate the addition of more solar and wind power to the electric grid.
Those sorts of contracts are routinely used by large corporations to advance renewable electricity commitments: In 2024, corporate energy buyers added almost 22 gigawatts of clean energy to the U.S. grid, bringing the total since 2014 to 100 gigawatts.
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-09 18:02:042025-10-09 18:08:25Renewable energy claims by Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft challenged by state AGs chal
As much as anything, sustainability is a story. And like any good tale, it’s full of conflict, tension, consequences — and the possibility of change. These documentaries share chapters from that vast, interconnected narrative, offering perspectives on the stakes we face and the paths ahead. If you’re in this business, you want to have watched these compelling film explorations of it.
Sir David Attenborough, renowned naturalist and longtime narrator of BBC nature series, brings a lifetime of observation to bear in this personal cri de coeur. Part memoir, part cautionary tale, the film traces the loss of biodiversity over the course of Attenborough’s decades-long career and makes a clear-eyed case for a robust course reversal. Its truly breathtaking visuals and quiet authority serve as both stark warning and cause for hope.
Filmed deep in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest and produced by National Geographic Documentary Films, The Territory follows the Uru-eu-wau-wau people as they defend their land from encroaching settlers and deforestation. Co-produced with members of the Indigenous community — who filmed a portion of the footage themselves — the documentary is immersive and emotionally taut, raising questions about the climate crisis and sovereignty. Oh, yeah: The Territory won top honors at the Sundance Film Festival.
This short, animated doc pulls back the curtain on the lifecycle of consumer goods — from extraction and production to distribution, consumption and disposal. Created by activist Annie Leonard, The Story of Stuff shows how our consumerist culture fuels environmental and social harm, not least through “planned obsolescence”: products designed for short lifespans to drive constant replacement. Just 20 minutes long and delivered in a straightforward style, the film is an accessible first step in rethinking what we buy and why.
This heartening film makes the case that the climate crisis isn’t just about what we emit, but how we treat our soil. It spotlights the degradation caused by industrial agriculture — from tillage to synthetic fertilizers — and the cascading impacts on carbon, water and biodiversity. But all is not lost: Kiss the Ground introduces regenerative practices like crop rotation and composting that restore soil health and draw carbon out of the atmosphere. The New York Times called it “frenetic but ultimately persuasive and optimistic” — and when climate despair sinks in, it may be just the thing.
Last but not least: This Oscar-winning documentary follows former vice president Al Gore as he delivers an urgent and methodical presentation on climate change. Through clear visuals and data, the film strives to make global warming feel immediate and real. And it seems to have succeeded: An Inconvenient Truth is credited with propelling climate change from a niche concern to a global priority.
