New research from nearly 400 global sustainability experts show the biggest driver of corporate sustainability is the ability to integrate sustainability the core business strategy and provide proof of sustainability action.

To understand what drives stellar sustainability, Trellis data partner GlobeScan, along ERM, asked sustainability experts to name a company they consider a leader and to explain why. The most influential factor, cited by 26 percent of experts, was making sustainability a core business driver. Close behind, 21 percent emphasized demonstrating evidence of impacts and actions.

Other key elements include:

• Driving sustainability across the supply chain (12 percent)
• Showing unwavering commitment (11 percent)
• Setting ambitious targets (11 percent)
• Aligning purpose and values (9 percent)

What this means

These results show that companies are expected to double down on integration and evidence, not just as best practices, but as levers to activate and demonstrate the business value of sustainability. In today’s era of backlash, greenhushing and regulatory uncertainty, making sustainability a core business driver signals resilience and relevance, while also providing measurable impacts and actions builds trust and counters skepticism.

The post 2 top drivers of corporate sustainability, according to leaders appeared first on Trellis.

A review of recent sustainability reports suggests that real estate owners have entered a more mature phase of decarbonization. Large REITs and institutional landlords are beginning to move beyond portfolio-wide climate targets toward asset-level decarbonization planning, compliance modeling and capital planning.

“Many REITs and large owners have already set high-level goals,” wrote David Maguire, global head of product for sustainability solutions at the commercial real estate services and investments firm CBRE, in an email. “Now they’re moving into implementation, integrating decarbonization targets with capex planning at the asset level.”

New use cases

Investor expectations, occupier goals, disclosure requirements and green financing frameworks are helping push planning down to individual buildings, as metering technologies and building management software (BMS) grow more sophisticated. And owners are finding new ways to manage and analyze these larger and higher-quality data streams to drive action at the building level.

“The business case for each intervention is tied not just to risk management and protecting asset worth, but also to increasing net operating income and exit value,” Maguire said.

GRESB — the sustainability consultancy with a foundation that sets standards for evaluating and benchmarking real-asset performance and a corporation that administers the assessments — has also observed movement toward granularity. 

“Previously, managers drew their targets at the portfolio level and worked on implementing them asset by asset,” said Victor Fonseca, senior associate for real estate at GRESB. “Now we’re seeing demand from investors for this to be done bottom-up.”

The decarbonization plan for each asset should include an emissions-reduction strategy, time-bound milestones and financial grounding, he added. 

In 2020, with investors calling for more granularity, GRESB began collecting data at the asset level, rather than just the portfolio level. And in 2024 it began scoring asset-level data.

Investor demand, then regulation

Although regulation reinforces the push for asset-level data, the demand for deeper detail often starts elsewhere.

“Regulation is typically one step behind industry leaders,” said Fonseca. “Institutional investors drive regulation, and regulation drives the masses.” 

Those industry leaders include REITs looking to differentiate and attract investment — especially from sophisticated global investors with capital tied to long time horizons, who are attentive to long-term carbon risks and the physical threats of climate change.

Hundreds of individual asset plans

Ventas, an S&P 500 REIT with a diversified healthcare portfolio, has drafted individual asset-level decarbonization plans for the more than 900 properties within its operational control, outlining actions across energy efficiency, renewable energy and electrification and refrigerant management. 

Likewise, logistics real estate giant Prologis is developing asset-level decarbonization plans for each property in its operating portfolio. Its net-zero roadmaps coordinate capital upgrades with regulatory timelines, customer needs and projected utility decarbonization.

Vornado Realty Trust, an owner and manager of office and retail properties, finished designing a building decarbonization tool in 2024 for modeling capital energy efficiency projects.  

The company said it has institutionalized annual asset-level sustainability meetings, and its sustainability team is collaborating with each building’s engineering and facilities teams on energy-use reduction.

Asset-level decarbonization remains out of reach for some owners, said Maguire. While some have robust data management systems, many do not — and gaps are common. A portfolio may have superb mechanical asset condition records but little reliable tenant utility data, undermining asset-level modeling aspirations. 

Still, though not every owner is ready for building-by-building planning, the pull toward more fine-grained decarbonization planning and action is evident — and growing.

The post Real estate decarbonization is moving to the building level appeared first on Trellis.

Officially, Patagonia doesn’t have a chief sustainability officer. Reducing the environmental impact of the apparel company’s products is everyone’s job. 

But materials scientist Matt Dwyer became the company’s effective sustainability champion five years ago after realizing that his team’s job — picking the raw materials for Patagonia’s garments and gear — contributed 85 percent of the company’s greenhouse gas emissions. 

“For me as an engineer, as somebody who’s data-oriented, that’s when it became personal,” he told me in the latest episode of Climate Pioneers, our interview series with innovators and leaders shaping the corporate climate movement.

Now, as Patagonia’s vice president of global product footprint, Dwyer uses his engineering and innovation background to source lower-carbon alternatives across the company’s product portfolio. 

“One of the things you realize, whether it’s in this work or innovation, is that which lives everywhere actually kind of lives nowhere, and you need a group of focused, talented and capable folks to really push the hard work forward,” he told me.

That team spearheaded the publication of Patagonia’s first comprehensive environmental report in mid-November, which details the company’s struggle to deliver on its commitment to reach net zero by 2040. 

Patagonia prepared the analysis, in part, to prepare for potential mandatory reporting requirements. It’s also an educational tool for employees: “I was like, man, if I’m in my position reading through this and learning something new, then hopefully other people in our organization will pick it up and learn something about the company they work for, too.”

Meet Dwyer’s boss

Because materials represent Patagonia’s biggest chance to move the needle on emissions reductions, Dwyer’s team reports into the product development function, led by President Jenna Johnson, who got her start there in product line management.

“By sitting adjacent to or embedded within the product team, you have a far greater chance of selling the idea, getting designers to pick it up,” he said. “I think I’ve experienced in the past, just by virtue of other people’s experience, that when a sustainability team is buried in legal or HR or somewhere deep down in the supply chain, they’re often frustrated.”

Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard, now 87, remains closely engaged, frequently dropping newspaper clippings on Dwyer’s desk to share ideas: “He always comes back to making sure we’re being really critical of ourselves and our own product, always making it better, always looking out into the world and saying, ‘Who’s doing it best today, and what can we learn from them?’ ”

Beyond its obsession with materials, Dwyer’s team — including environmental scientists, human rights experts and materials science chemists — works with every function to advance other strategies, such as Patagonia’s work on new financing models for funding electrification and other decarbonization initiatives within Patagonia’s supply chain. 

“We’re one unit, but we have our feet in four different buckets at any one time, and that could be business, that could be supply chain, that could be impact work or it could be products,” he said.

AI … not yet

Patagonia’s biggest challenge when pulling together its 130-page report was wrangling data from across the company’s information systems, which was a highly manual process. “I’m always a fan of doing it the hard way, just once, but building it to automate every time after that,” Dwyer said.

Patagonia used artificial intelligence to translate the publication into different languages for employees around the globe, but it hasn’t deeply committed to AI for its work. That innovation is more likely to come from service providers and partners in the form of better traceability and forecasting.    

Be an optimist

In a moment when many sustainability professionals are struggling to keep their work front-of-mind with colleagues and customers, Dwyer looks for the bright spots. His advice: Prioritize the work, even if your company is reluctant to brag about it publicly. 

“It’s always fine to be skeptical, it’s never fine to be cynical,” he said.

The post Why Patagonia picked a materials scientist to lead sustainability appeared first on Trellis.

Approximately 80 percent of companies with climate plans validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) use absolute reduction goals as the guide for shrinking their carbon footprint.

A growing number of businesses, however, are adopting emissions intensity metrics to manage emissions from upstream and downstream activities outside their control — the so-called Scope 3 emissions category. 

Emissions intensity is expressed by measures that contextualize greenhouse gases in relation to other core business metrics such as units of production, employee headcount, square footage of factory space, revenue or profit.  

Enterprise software firm Salesforce, for example, adopted Scope 3 emissions intensity goals when it reset its science-based targets in early 2025. Its calculation will compare emissions with gross profit. Consumer products maker Procter & Gamble uses a Scope 3 metric that examines emissions per unit of production, while media company Netflix measures its Scope 3 emissions in relation to each $1 million of value added. 

Absolute reductions + emission intensity

Absolute emissions reductions are what’s needed to mitigate climate change, but sustainability professionals say emissions intensity is gaining credibility — especially among fast-growing companies or businesses in hard-to-abate sectors — as companies revisit their climate strategies amid shifting tax incentives, carbon accounting rules and geopolitical conditions.

“We often say that we need to see absolute targets, but for some companies that is absolutely not the right picture,” said Thomas Day, climate policy analyst with NewClimate Institute. 

For example, energy companies may experience increases in absolute greenhouse gas emissions inventories as they generate more electricity because of infrastructure investments. 

But because more low-carbon power is needed for electrifying manufacturing or heating and cooling, a better measure of progress is a metric that monitors an energy company’s ability to cut emissions related to each kilowatt-hour of electricity it adds to the grid, Day suggested.

Recognized metric

SBTi target-setting methodologies require companies to set absolute emissions reductions goals for operations (Scope 1) and electricity purchases (Scope 2) but it recognizes emissions intensity as one way to handle Scope 3 emissions, typically the biggest part of any company’s carbon footprint.

The latest draft of SBTI’s net-zero standard revision, for example, proposes new emissions-intensity options for purchases of commodities that are energy- or land-use-intensive or for transportation-related activities.

Emissions intensity is more relatable for procurement departments, factory managers, finance teams and other business leaders because it is essentially a measure of efficiency that’s more straightforward to manage, said Marc Munier, CEO of researcher DitchCarbon.

“It’s a much easier thing to hit,” he said. “Carbon is a byproduct of a business activity. If you are more efficient, then that is better for the company anyway. It’s a much easier pitch for a sustainability professional.”

Thermo Fisher Scientific has absolute emission reduction targets but often uses an emissions intensity metric when discussing reduction strategies with customers and suppliers, said Matthew Yamatin, sustainability program director for the life sciences company.

“That and product carbon footprint are what you are starting to see procurement teams move towards,” he said.

The emissions intensity measure is a better gauge than spend-based emissions factors and will help Thermo Fisher identify which companies in its supply chain are more carbon-efficient, Yamatin said. 

Ultimately, Thermo Fisher anticipates adding product carbon footprints to gauge performance, he said, but the processes for gathering that data likely won’t be sufficiently mature for five to 10 years in the life sciences industry. 

Reset internal stakeholder conversations 

Manufacturers Terumo Blood and Cell Technologies, a subsidiary of Japanese equipment maker Terumo, and Stanley Black & Decker opted for emissions intensity targets to guide reductions for Scope 3, in part because these are management metrics that resonate with factory managers, business division leads and finance teams.

Both companies had their commitments validated by SBTi.

Terumo’s current goals call for an absolute reduction of 50.4 percent across its operations (Scope 1) and electricity use (Scope 2). It seeks to cut its supply chain footprint (Scope 3) by 60 percent per unit of revenue by 2030, compared with a 2018 baseline.

The intensity metric recognizes operational improvements by suppliers but doesn’t penalize growth in spending with certain suppliers, said Kyle Santos, director of sustainability at Terumo Blood and Cell.

“If you are a growing business, it is easier to manage an intensity target,” he said. “It takes your growth into consideration.”

Tools manufacturer Stanley Black & Decker’s 2030 targets include a 42 percent absolute reduction for Scopes 1 and 2. It set specific emissions intensity targets for its three most significant, controllable Scope 3 areas:

• Category 1 (purchased goods and services): a 52-percent reduction in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilogram of purchased material
• Category 4 (upstream transportation): a 52-percent reduction in kg CO2e per ton shipped
• Category 11 (use of sold products): a 52-percent reduction in kg CO2e per kilowatt of sold product output power

If it achieves these goals and meets its medium-term financial targets, Stanley Black & Decker estimates that it will see a 45-percent reduction in absolute Scope 3 emissions; for transparency, it still reports that number in its disclosures.

“Our intensity metrics are at their most effective when we are also transparent about our overall Scope 3 impact, which means reporting on absolute emissions as well,” said Matthew Boucher, sustainability manager at Stanley Black & Decker.

The company’s emissions intensity levels are less easily influenced by swings in revenue or profits, and they were chosen for that reason, he said.

“When we set the goals, we were extremely deliberate about the metrics we chose,” Boucher said. “We want them to be tied as closely as possible to the core business practice that is responsible for the emissions.”

The change was simpler to communicate and improved decision-making processes throughout the organization, Boucher said. For example, it opened pathways for product managers to more closely consider the impact of materials selections during the design phase.

Nuance required

The most credible emissions intensity metrics are ones closely tied to a meaningful business outcome that employees across the company can actually control, said Lyrica McTiernan, an independent sustainability consultant previously with Facebook and We Company (formerly WeWork).

“Companies should do the most impactful things they can do,” she said. Reporting on emissions intensity will require a more nuanced narrative in ESG reporting and disclosures, she added. 

Emissions-intensity targets are less meaningful when tied to variables such as revenue or gross profits, because these are things over which the sustainability team has very little control, said NewClimate’s Day.

“We advocate for a system of having much more specific targets on the issues that really matter for the business model of the company,” he said.

The post Behind the growing fascination with emissions intensity appeared first on Trellis.

For many years, Intel was an American success story: the most valuable chipmaker in the world and the undisputed leader in the manufacture of microprocessors, the brains inside personal computers and internet servers. 

Its sustainability ambitions led the industry, as well.   

Special Series

Chasing Net Zero

ArcelorMittal: Inside the struggle to reach 2030 climate goals

IKEA: On pace to halve emissions by 2030, while rivals falter

Salesforce: How AI forced a reset of 2030 climate goals

Series Overview & Methodology

For nearly a decade, Intel bought more clean power than any other U.S. company. It was also an early leader in tackling the powerful greenhouse gasses released in the chipmaking process and known for setting ambitious emissions targets. As a percent of revenue, the company’s emissions peaked in 2006 and remain far below other major manufacturers. 

Then Intel’s business faltered, and so did its climate action. 

Over the past 15 years, the semiconductor behemoth has foundered as rivals captured new markets for chips used in smartphones and artificial intelligence data centers. A strategic misstep left its chips a generation behind the state of the art. Intel’s sales and share price plummeted, forcing it to lay off a quarter of its workforce this year. 

This profile — the latest installment in Chasing Net Zero, our company-by-company series that has probed the climate strategies of Nestlé, Salesforce and others — reveals how business storms have eroded Intel’s once-lauded climate strategy. A critical goal on supply-chain emissions was quietly pushed back 20 years under its new CEO, for instance, and the company no longer ties executive compensation to climate performance. 

Intel declined to make executives available for this article, but said in a statement that it is “committed to achieving a more sustainable future by advancing bold, measurable goals.” Analysts, however, say its progress towards those commitments has slowed as it fights for survival.

“I wouldn’t say that Intel has stopped caring about sustainability, but they have more pressing concerns right now,” said Stephen Russell, a senior technical fellow for sustainability at Techinsights, an Ottawa semiconductor consulting firm. “They’ve fallen behind — and they are desperately trying to catch up.”

When Intel led on climate

Intel’s climate efforts began in the late 1990s when, under pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency, the company joined an industry group to scale back its emissions of fluorinated gases. These “F-gases,” used to carve microscopic circuits onto the surface of silicon wafers, have thousands of times the warming power of carbon dioxide when leaked into the atmosphere.

In the following decade, the company also turned its attention to the electricity consumed by the machinery used to squeeze millions of transistors onto chips the size of postage stamps. Using renewable energy certificates (RECs), which allow companies to claim credit for using green energy by funneling money to renewables projects, Intel became the nation’s largest buyer of clean power between 2008 and 2016, according to the EPA.

These initiatives helped Intel’s operational emissions — Scope 1 (mainly F-gases) and Scope 2 (the electricity it buys) — peak at 4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2006. By 2019, emissions had declined to 2.8 million tons, even as the company’s revenue doubled. That same year, it stepped up its ambition with goals to use 100 percent renewables and shave 10 percent more off operational emissions by 2030.

As with most companies, however, these sources are dwarfed by emissions from Intel’s value chain. 

Intel’s emissions in its 2019 baseline year

In 2019, the electricity used to operate chips sold by Intel (downstream Scope 3) accounted for two-thirds of the company’s footprint.

Chipmakers tackle these emissions by designing less power-hungry chips — Intel’s target is a tenfold efficiency improvement by 2030. But making chips more efficient encourages greater use, which drives up emissions. The trend is compounded by demand for chips to power AI applications. And the ultimate solution to Intel’s downstream Scope 3 emissions is the decarbonization of global grids — not something within the company’s control.   

One area of Scope 3 where the company has more influence is emissions generated by its suppliers, which represent a quarter of Intel’s footprint. In a target announced in 2022, the company said it would reduce supplier emissions by 30 percent by 2030 “from what they would be in the absence of action.” 

The upgraded near-term commitments were capped off with a long-term goal to reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions to zero in 2040. A few years later, after activist shareholders asked for more, Intel published a detailed climate transition action plan and committed to a net-zero upstream supply chain by 2050.

These are meaningful goals, particularly as the semiconductor industry has become a major contributor to climate change. Each new generation of chips requires more electricity and F-gases to manufacture, and by 2030 chipmaking is expected to account for 0.5 percent of global emissions.

These goals compare favorably to Intel’s two main competitors in processor manufacturing, fast-growing Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) and the semiconductor division of consumer electronics giant Samsung. Both target net-zero value chains by 2050, a decade later than Intel’s operational emissions goal. Samsung lacks a near-term target, and TSMC only added one this year: a commitment to return its Scope 1 and 2 emissions to 2020 levels by 2030. 

Most other semiconductor companies, such as Nvidia, the high-flying AI chip maker, are “fabless,” meaning they outsource manufacturing and can claim relatively low Scope 1 and 2 emissions as a result.

How Intel stalled on emissions

With operational emissions falling and its commitments gaining in ambition, the Intel of five years ago had one of the most ambitious climate programs in the semiconductor industry. But the company was also grappling with the consequences of a bad bet made the previous decade.

As they considered how to etch ever-smaller circuits onto the next generation of chips, Intel’s engineers had deemed one new technology — using extreme ultraviolet light to draw finer lines on silicon — too difficult to work with. They opted instead to adapt existing methods, an approach that proved even more challenging to implement. Intel’s next-gen chips, due in 2015, were delayed for years. Meanwhile, TSMC successfully brought its next-gen chip to market using ultraviolet technology.

Intel’s delay meant it didn’t build new fabs with the latest approaches to capturing F-gases as rapidly as its rivals. Eventually, Intel bought its own ultraviolet machines, but other problems at its fabs caused a relatively high number of its chips to fail, raising its emissions per chip.  

“If you are throwing away 50 percent of your chips, you still have all the emissions but you are throwing away half of your profits,” said Techinsights’ Russell.

These factors help explain why rivals, which have been building new fabs, have seen their Scope 1 intensity — tons of emissions per dollar of revenue — fall: Samsung’s has dropped by a third since 2019, and TSMC’s by two-thirds. Intel’s intensity, by contrast, is up 56 percent.

Chipmakers’ Scope 1 emissions intensities

An Intel spokesman said that due to the complexities of semiconductor manufacturing technology, emissions intensity by revenue doesn’t accurately represent its performance.

On close examination, Intel’s most recent Scope 1 intensity may be even worse because it does not manufacture all the chips it sells. Two years ago, the company realized it couldn’t manufacture its most advanced designs and outsourced some fabrication to TSMC. Intel reports the emissions associated with making those chips the same way fabless companies do, as purchased goods and services in Scope 3. 

Intel has shared limited details about the deal, but has said it outsources the fabrication of about 30 percent of its chips. If what Intel reported for Scope 1 in 2024 then represents only 70 percent of its sales, the company’s emissions intensity has more than doubled over five years. Intel declined to comment on this figure.

Intel’s renewables strategy hasn’t evolved

Intel’s business struggles haven’t obviously impacted its Scope 2 intensity numbers, which remain far superior to its immediate rivals. Five years into its 10-year commitment, Intel has exceeded its operational emissions target, largely by buying enough RECs to claim that 98 percent of its electricity comes from renewable sources. TSMC and Samsung operate in countries with grids dominated by fossil fuels —Taiwan and South Korea, respectively — and report significantly higher Scope 2 intensities.

Chipmakers’ Scope 2 emissions intensities

Still, Intel’s strategy hasn’t evolved in line with those of more forward-looking tech companies. RECs give buyers credit for clean energy projects that could be thousands of miles away, while the buyers’ own facilities may run on electricity generated by fossil fuels. That’s why Google and some others have developed more direct methods for linking renewable purchases with power use, which they say do more to decarbonize grids.

An Intel spokesman said that the approaches these other companies are using are not feasible in all of its locations. 

Intel did install solar panels at a dozen facilities, but these produce well under 1 percent of its power. Meanwhile, other tech companies are also investing directly in clean energy. TSMC will buy the entire 960 megawatt output from 64 wind turbines Orsted is installing off the coast of Taiwan. And the need to power data centers for AI has prompted U.S. tech giants to contract for nuclear power. 

Intel also appears to have less money set aside to pay for energy conservation. The company has committed to 4 billion cumulative kilowatt-hours of energy savings over the current decade, and says it has achieved 60 percent of that goal. But a 2022 promise to spend $300 million by 2030 on energy conservation has vanished from its public documents. In the first four years of the decade, it has spent $104 million on electricity-saving projects. 

A Scope 3 target disappears

Intel’s commitment to tackling the roughly one-quarter of its emissions that stem from its supply chain has also waned amid its business troubles. Electricity use is the largest component, and many of the company’s vendors are in countries with limited renewables. Intel was a founding member of an industry group, coordinated by Schneider Electric, that is trying to arrange clean power for suppliers, but the group hasn’t announced its first deal yet. 

Even harder is finding replacements for the greenhouse gases used to refine raw silicon into ultrapure wafers. For now, experts say semiconductor makers are pressuring suppliers to keep prices low rather than innovate on sustainability. 

“I’ve talked to a lot of chemical suppliers,” said Julia Hess, a senior policy researcher at Interface, a German think tank. “They say we could put in more effort finding alternative gases, but we won’t do it until the large manufacturers ask for it because otherwise it’s not economically viable.”

It’s difficult to assess the effectiveness of Intel’s efforts to reduce supply-chain emissions. The company’s upstream Scope 3 total has doubled since 2019, but much of the increase comes from outsourcing production to TSMC.

What is clear is the company has eliminated any mention of its short-term supply-chain target — a 30 percent emissions cut by 2030 relative to business as usual — from its most recent corporate responsibility report. This year’s report, the first under Lip-Bu Tan, hired in March as CEO, omits this, referring obliquely to a “mid-decade refresh” of its targets. 

“We’re sharpening our focus to drive deeper impact in the areas where Intel’s leadership can be most transformational,” wrote Head of Sustainability Madison West in the same report. “This streamlined framework allows us to act with greater clarity, agility, and accountability—while staying true to our core values.”

Giovanna Eichner, a shareholder advocate with Green Century Capital Management, said she was disappointed the supply chain goal went missing: “If they are having difficulty meeting their climate goals, that’s material information they should detail to investors.”

An Intel spokesman said that the company isn’t abandoning its efforts to reduce supply chain emissions, but the effort is now incorporated into its broader net-zero goal for upstream Scope 3, which has a target date of 2050.

The path forward: Business first

Climate change was hardly at the top of Tan’s to-do list when he was hired earlier this year. To staunch the company’s losses, he quickly announced plans to slash its workforce by a fifth. He also had to consider Intel’s relationship with President Donald Trump. The U.S. government now owns 10 percent of Intel, a deal Tan forged this summer after the president demanded he resign because of past ties to China. The man running one of Intel’s largest stockholders, in other words, is the world’s most prominent climate denier.

It’s not surprising then that Tan has said little about sustainability. But in addition to the dropped 2030 supply-chain goal, another clue about his priorities may be that Intel’s 2025 bonus plan, the first he has overseen, is not tied to reductions in Scope 1 and 2 emissions, as it had been in previous years. 

Tan’s primary challenge, of course, is overcoming nearly 10 years of lost momentum in a fast-moving industry. Can Intel design AI chips as powerful as Nvidia’s? Can it operate fabs as precise as TSMC’s? And can it keep its unique position as a company that both designs and manufactures processors?

If Tan succeeds in revving Intel’s business, it will naturally help its climate efforts. New chips will be more energy efficient. New plants will capture more F-gases. The question then will be whether Intel will try to retake its position in the vanguard of companies addressing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Intel’s struggles underline what can seem like a law of business: Combatting climate change is a laudable goal, supported by executives, employees and shareholders alike — but often only until times get tough. 

“Sustainability, unfortunately, is an afterthought in most companies,” Russell said. “If things are going well, everybody is all for it. But profits come first.”

The post How Intel’s sales tailspin sidelined its 2030 sustainability ambitions  appeared first on Trellis.