100,000s of tons of emissions are missing from automakers’ disclosures, think tank says

Major automakers are significantly understating the emissions generated by the vehicles they sell, according to research from Carbon Tracker, a financial think tank.

The discrepancy between manufacturers’ figures and Carbon Tracker’s estimates, researchers said, is the result of “unrealistic” assumptions about lifetime use of vehicles and other modeling parameters.

This creates a “Carbon Gap” between reported emissions from the use of sold products — Category 11 of Scope 3, which typically accounts for around four-fifths of an automaker’s total emissions — and what the think tank said are its more accurate numbers: 

  • The relative gap between reported 2024 emissions and the Carbon Tracker estimates is greatest for Subaru, which the researchers found is responsible for three times more vehicle-use emissions than the company published. 
  • General Motors, which has a higher sales volume than Subaru, has the largest absolute gap between reported and actual emissions — more than 200 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, 85 percent of its published total. 
  • Ford and Toyota have gaps of around 33 percent — average for the 18 companies in the study.

Absolute and relative “Carbon Gaps“

Source: Carbon Tracker.

Assumptions about lifetime miles driven is the primary reason for the gap. In Subaru’s case, Carbon Tracker said the company uses an estimate based on its domestic Japanese market even though around 70 percent of its sales are in the U.S., where lifetime milage is greater.

Real-world use of plug-in hybrids also skews the data. Industry tests assume these vehicles run on battery power more often than is actually the case: The researchers cited a study of 800,000 European vehicles that found five times more emissions than industry numbers suggested.

A Ford spokesperson said the company’s assumptions are consistent with best practices for Scope 3, Category 11 reporting, and are publicly disclosed. Subaru, GM and Toyota declined to comment. 

“For the investor, absolute Scope 3 Category 11 totals cannot be taken at face value,” the researchers wrote. The Carbon Gap is not an accounting nuance, they added. Rather, it represents “material financial risk,” from additional exposure to carbon pricing mechanisms and the mispricing of long-term risks in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The post 100,000s of tons of emissions are missing from automakers’ disclosures, think tank says appeared first on Trellis.

Why CDP faces an uncertain future after 25 years of progress

This April, some of the biggest names in sustainability gathered at the neoclassical Gotham Hall in midtown Manhattan to toast the quarter-century anniversary of environmental disclosure platform CDP, one of the profession’s most notable organizations. 

More than 22,000 respondents shared emissions data with CDP last year, including businesses that together are responsible for nearly two-thirds of global market capitalization. 

Today, though, that relationship is fraying. Companies have long grumbled about CDP’s bureaucracy and fees. More recently, as mandatory disclosure laws proliferate, some have started asking whether voluntary reporting is even needed. The data suggests that at least a few think it isn’t: For the first time, the number of reporting companies fell in 2025. 

CDP asserts that its role remains critical because it ensures that data is not just reported but used — by investors, supply-chain partners and others. Nonetheless, recent developments raise an uncomfortable question: Are companies ready to break up with CDP?

‘Wildly successful’

CDP launched in 2001 and received 235 responses from companies, cities and states to its initial emissions data request. Some recipients had no idea where to start: In a 2022 podcast, CDP co-founder Paul Dickinson recalled a large logistics company that claimed it had no emissions to report. Dickinson asked if it was sure. Well, none except from the trucks and airplanes, the company replied. 

Things are very different now. In addition to emissions, CDP asks about water use, forests, plastics, oceans and biodiversity. The organization has also expanded beyond its original mission of helping investors understand and engage with corporate environmental strategies. Companies that pay to join CDP’s Supply Chain program, for example, can use the platform to send disclosure requests to suppliers. More than 45,000 businesses were asked to share data in this way in 2025. For suppliers, the process allows them to complete a single disclosure that multiple customers can use.

Today, though, some form of the emissions disclosure that CDP has pushed on a voluntary basis is, or will soon be, mandatory in more than 40 jurisdictions worldwide, from California to Qatar.

“It’s much easier to legislate for something if people are already doing it voluntarily,” said Owen Hewlett, chief technical officer at Gold Standard, a leading standards-setter for carbon credits and related projects. “So you’d have to say that it’s been wildly successful.”

Failing grade

Moments of tension between standards bodies and companies are inevitable. The GHG Protocol’s proposal to change how emissions from electricity generation are accounted for sparked an ongoing, sometimes heated, dispute. Frustration has also arisen over a recent rules change at the Science Based Targets initiative.

In CDP’s case, opaque bureaucracy has often been the focus. The 2024 disclosure cycle, for example, was marred by technical glitches. The following year, an unrelated issue caused what CDP describes as “isolated” problems. 

One sustainability team member at a well-known U.S. company, who asked to remain anonymous because she was not authorized to discuss the incident, described receiving a D grade for the firm’s 2024 disclosure. The result was a “complete and utter shock” to a company that had previously scored much higher. 

CDP reluctantly agreed not to publish the score and eventually acknowledged that a technical error had wrongly penalized the company. It was regraded with an A-. 

“A small number of scores were affected by a technology error in 2025, where ‘not applicable’ responses were incorrectly marked as ‘unanswered,’ ” said Shannon Joly, CDP’s chief marketing and communications officer. “This was identified and resolved post release, and corrected scores were issued to affected organizations.”

Occasional issues are inevitable when processing submissions from 22,000 companies. Yet the 2025 problems came in the same year that CDP laid off one-fifth of its staff, in part to channel more money into improving its technology.

Many other sustainability professionals have related tales of frustration in off-the-record conversations. A transport-industry professional said his company submits but asks not be scored, pointing out that some oil and gas companies have been awarded relatively high scores. “Who wants to score lower than them?” he asked. Others are no longer submitting at all: One tech-company employee said that after years of disclosing she can no longer justify the time, and investors are not asking her to do so.

Companies disclosing to CDP

Source: CDP

Joly declined to offer reasons behind the recent fall in submissions, but one potential cause is the global growth in mandatory disclosure requirements. After years of fragmented approaches, international standards have coalesced around rulebooks created by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB). The board is overseen by the same organization — the IFRS Foundation — that sets global rules for financial reporting. 

Some companies are starting to point investors and other stakeholders with sustainability questions to these mandatory disclosures, said Pamela Gill-Alabaster, a former sustainability leader at Mattel and healthcare company Kenvue who now teaches at Columbia University. A study released last year by the University of Zurich examined disclosures from more than 3,400 companies in 36 countries and found that the likelihood of a company disclosing to CDP dropped by 5.5 percent since the introduction of a mandatory disclosure requirement.

“CDP played a really essential role in building the market, but regulation has redefined the architecture for reporting,” Gill-Alabaster said.

Alternative futures

This suggests that disclosures to CDP — and the organization’s relevance — may continue to slowly decline. But that’s far from a foregone conclusion, in part because mandatory systems have shortcomings that CDP is well placed to address. 

The organization supports the alignment of reporting standards, said Joly, but a voluntary option remains critical. “CDP is ensuring the data is not simply reported, but being used by a multitude of actors spanning businesses, financial markets, investors and policy makers. This provides more comprehensive insights into risks, dependencies and opportunities, and helps to fill key information gaps across markets and value chains.” 

There’s also the issue of data quality. Disclosures to the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and other systems are published on company websites rather than in a central system, making it challenging to compare sectors and companies. There are startups using AI to extract data from company reports and assemble it in a single platform, but the results often contain errors. CDP’s data, which comes directly from its questionnaires, remains superior for now, said Maximilian Müller, a financial accounting expert at the University of Cologne.

As a nonprofit with a stated agenda — to enable “Earth-positive decisions to protect future generations” — CDP can also pursue broader goals than those enshrined in disclosure regulations, which tend to focus on the risks and opportunities associated with climate change rather than on company impact. (The EU is a notable exception — its rules also address impact.) 

To put it another way: Having had great success with the disclosure challenge, CDP might now set itself new and more ambitious goals. “There is room for an organization to bring together a more holistic reporting across climate and nature and in a more efficient way, and then continue to drive best practice,” said Hewlett. 

Perhaps CDP continues in its traditional role — part facilitator, part motivator, part castigator — but with a broader focus. It might not be loved by all the companies that work with it, but that’s not the point. What matters is that there’s still enough common ground — a desire to make progress on sustainability — to keep the relationship together.

The post Why CDP faces an uncertain future after 25 years of progress appeared first on Trellis.

Mitsubishi, Tencent and WWF unite to kick-start carbon credit buying in Asia

Asked to name a company with an ambitious climate program, even sustainability veterans would likely choose one from North America or Europe. But over the past year or so, a series of private- and public-sector initiatives have moved the center of gravity of corporate sustainability towards Asia.

The most recent nudge is the launch late last month of the Action for a Resilient Climate (ARC) Coalition, which aims to aggregate demand for at least 10 million tons of carbon credits by 2030. The organization brings together potential buyers, including Mitsubishi and Tencent, as well as carbon market service providers and the World Wide Fund for Nature Singapore.

The move comes just over a month after Japan’s own emissions trading scheme, known as the GX-ETS, became mandatory for hundreds of companies. China, South Korea, Indonesia and several other Asian countries are also operating trading schemes and related carbon pricing mechanisms. The spread is driven in part by the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which is motivating exporting countries to restrict domestic carbon in order to limit the bloc’s carbon-based import fees.

Asian countries are also starting to attract notice with splashy climate initiatives. GenZero, a $5 billion climate solutions investment platform owned by Temasek, Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund, has partnered with other notable funds, including Breakthrough Energy. Tencent is investing tens of millions of dollars in innovation competitions for carbon removal and other areas as it seeks to define itself as a sustainability leader. And a host of Asian businesses are setting emissions commitments: More than 1,200 have had theirs validated by the Science Based Target initiative in the 12 months prior to April, making Asia the fastest-growing region for target validation.

The ARC coalition builds on this momentum, and, added to the other developments, it could affect a change in the global use of voluntary carbon credits. Currently, Asia lags behind Europe, North America and South America in terms of annual retirements of credits, according to data from AlliedOffsets, a carbon markets data firm.

Carbon credit retirements 

Data does not include buyers for which AlliedOffsets does not identify the headquarters location. Source: AlliedOffsets

In addition to aggregating demand for credits, the coalition will create a financing facility for early-stage carbon projects, establish “transparent and robust standards” to guide buyers and curate specific projects to streamline due diligence. It’s also planning to partner with the Symbiosis Coalition, a buyers group focused on high-integrity, nature-based solutions backed by Google, McKinsey, Meta and others.

“If we can scale integrity alongside participation, carbon markets can become a far more effective channel for mobilizing private capital into a just transition,” said Frederick Teo, CEO of ARC member GenZero.

The post Mitsubishi, Tencent and WWF unite to kick-start carbon credit buying in Asia appeared first on Trellis.

This new symbol indicates a bottle, cup or container is reusable

An international coalition of businesses, governments, nonprofits, designers and packaging companies has introduced a universal identification symbol for reusable containers akin to the “chasing arrows” triangle used to flag materials that can be recycled.

The symbol — an arrow that loops back on itself — was one of 236 submissions in a year-long global design competition convened by PR3: The Global Alliance to Advance Reuse. It was designed by Epigrama Studios of Bogota, Colombia, and chosen after a jury review and market tests involving close to 1,300 consumers. The symbol is officially operational as of June 3.

“For reuse to succeed, people need clear, consistent cues that make participation feel intuitive and convenient,” said Marco Cimatti, former design director at PepsiCo and one of the jurors. “The new mark creates a unifying visual language for reuse systems. Designed with bold simplicity in mind, it balances uniqueness with a strong visual signal to reuse.” 

PR3, launched in 2019, is responsible for standards related to reusable packaging and products. It is collaborating with certification company CSA Group on six frameworks that dictate how companies can use reusable packaging; so far, two have been released. 

Difficult to scale

Reusable packages are generally defined as those that can be kept in circulation for 10 to 100 uses before needing to be recycled or re-manufactured for other applications.

Considered an environmentally preferred alternative to single-use options, they could, if widely adopted, reduce packaging-related greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent. Fast-food chains including Burger King, Starbucks and KFC are piloting various approaches, including making it simpler for consumers to use refillable cups.

The systems needed for sorting, cleaning and collection, however, are difficult to scale. TerraCycle’s Loop initiative, for example, has been limited to France and retailers like Carrefour after tests in other markets, including the U.S., largely failed.  

The new symbol introduced by PR3 can be used on packaging and reuse equipment once they’ve been certified under the alliance’s marking and labeling standards, which will be published soon by the American National Standards Institute. It will show up on reusable cups, foodware, bottles and other containers, as well as collection, washing, sorting and transportation equipment.

Some service providers are already using the symbols on containers and infrastructure on every continent except Antarctica, said Amy Larkin, co-founder and director of PR3. Examples include Muuse, which manages Starbucks’ reusable cup program in Hong Kong, and Re-Universe, which is collaborating in the U.K. with MasterCard on systems for managing reusable cup deposits.

Most current reuse systems are proprietary, limited to specific items or markets. That means the reusable cup or container dispensed by a restaurant, retailer or consumer products company probably needs to be returned to the same place, where it is cleaned and redistributed. The intent of the new visual marker is to help consumers figure out where items can be dropped off, regardless of system. 

“The reuse symbol — and reuse at large — will be a true success when it proliferates and is recognizable to the average consumer,” Larkin said.

The post This new symbol indicates a bottle, cup or container is reusable appeared first on Trellis.

TerraCycle’s CEO wants waste other recyclers can’t handle

Entrepreneur Tom Szaky’s fascination with trash began at an early age; as a Hungarian immigrant in Canada, he was astounded to see televisions tossed in with other garbage.

“Isn’t it interesting that everything we possess will one day be legal property of the garbage industry,” Szaky said in the latest episode of our Climate Pioneers interview series. “It’s the only commodity or material in the world that has negative demand. In other words, we are willing to pay to get rid of it.”

Szaky co-founded TerraCycle as a Princeton undergraduate in 2001, originally to sell organic fertilizer made from worm poop. Walmart was among the retailers that signed up to carry it.

The company pivoted to waste collection in 2007, and today it generates more than $47 million in annual revenue as it recycles hard-to-handle items, from snack wrappers to toothpaste tubes to car seats. 

Many consumers are familiar with the free collection programs that TerraCycle manages for companies such as Procter & Gamble, but some have criticized them as greenwashing. Partner brands tout the initiatives in sustainability reports, and TerraCycle audits progress independently to verify claims, but they are difficult to build out.

“TerraCycle offers a get-out-of-jail-free card for materials that aren’t handled by traditional facilities, and that can create the false illusion of scale,” said Calvin Lakhan, research scientist at York University and director of its circular innovation hub. 

As an example, he cites TerraCycle’s marketing of its proprietary cigarette butt collection efforts, which Lakhan believes leads consumers to assume that traditional recycling facilities can handle these materials. “It preys on a lack of understanding,” he said. 

Quest for scale

TerraCycle isn’t the largest commercial recycler in the U.S. — Waste Management and Republic Services are far bigger — but, according to Lakhan, it is one of the most innovative. “The biggest takeaway from what they do is there is value in everything,” he said.

TerraCycle’s revenue has grown 93 percent over the past five years, in part as a result of three strategic acquisitions. It’s expecting to buy more recyclers this year.

“We’re really targeting companies that have been around for a decade, maybe two decades, so a lot of history, and are in the category of difficult-to-handle waste streams that require regulatory permits,” said Szaky.

The acquisitions have increased TerraCycle’s capacity to handle commercial lightbulbs, which aren’t accepted by most recycling facilities, and various electronic waste, such as lamps. The company invests in these facilities so they can handle additional waste streams — turning them into one-stop shops.   

TerraCycle raised $5 million in 2025 to support these deals through a type of crowdfunding known as Regulation CF, which includes small retail investors. It’s seeking another $75 million through a Regulation A offering; an earlier round in 2018 raised $19 million. TerraCycle, which is required to file financial reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission twice a year to keep its investors informed, has been profitable for a decade.

“We want to really accelerate growth, and while we are growing organically, the majority of the capital, say about 80 percent, is dedicated to acquisitions,” he said. 

Among the categories of interest: solar panels, batteries and other forms of e-waste and heavily regulated materials from medical laboratories such as centrifuges tubes, personal protective equipment and pipette tips. 

“The amount of waste that comes out of the medical sector is absolutely tremendous, and it’s higher because there’s a lot of requirements for health and safety,” Szaky said. “Some products may be wrapped in three different wraps to ensure proper health and safety protocols.”

Passion project: expand reuse

TerraCycle also continues to cultivate its burgeoning business focused on reusable packaging, called Loop; to date, it has invested almost $50 million in the operation. “The joke internally is that the profits of recycling pay for reuse,” he said.

Loop is no longer available in the U.S. because the regulations don’t exist to justify the investment by consumer products companies and retailers. But it has found a footing in France, where laws are requiring retailers to dedicate a portion of shelf space to refillable containers by the end of 2027.

“Perhaps our biggest learning there is to really focus on what existing packaging today is conducive to reuse, without supply chain changes,” Szaky said. “One-third of the packaging on your supermarket shelf is like that — your hot sauce container, pickle jar, laundry detergent bottle, plastics, glass, metals. It’s conducive to reuse with basically no changes.”

TerraCycle also anticipates a Loop expansion in the U.K. by the end of 2026; two retailers there (Szaky won’t name them) have already signed on.

Watch the entire Climate Pioneers interview. Details of the acquisition mentioned by Szaky during the conversation will be added to this article when they’re available.

The post TerraCycle’s CEO wants waste other recyclers can’t handle appeared first on Trellis.

When food meets fiber: How companies can boost paper-based packaging recyclability

The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis or its editors.

I’ve got five senses, but somehow none of them feel sufficient for understanding when my peanut butter jar is clean enough to be recycled. And I’m not alone: As long as people have been recycling, they’ve been wondering, “How clean is clean enough?” Can this pizza box get recycled with grease on it? Will my takeout tikka masala container make it to its next life?   

These are valid questions. The municipal collection programs taking our recycling have long communicated that packaging needs to be food-free and close to dry before recycling it. Packaging without food residue helps the people sorting recyclables at material recovery facilities minimize problems with odors, pests, sortation equipment or — worse yet — contamination that prevents sorted materials from being sold to or used by recyclers. 

Right now, there’s no consensus around what percent of recycled paper packaging gets tossed due to contamination. But we know that food residue can be problematic for recycling. Just how problematic is it for paper-based food packaging? And when can we call a package clean enough?  

As consumer preference for paper-based packaging continues to rise, a new study from the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) investigates the issues created by food residue on recyclable paper packaging — and how the industry can minimize residue to keep valuable materials in circulation.  

Grease not bits 

We interviewed dozens of recyclers to determine their tolerance for food residue and found some good news. Most paper recycling facilities only see food residue as a minor issue — hurray for scraping your paper takeout containers! But most recyclers are at capacity: None of the recyclers interviewed in the study are open to receiving any more food residue than they’re already seeing.   

Because food residue can be difficult for paper recyclers to define and quantitatively measure, we have to rely on qualitative indicators and definitions that help illustrate the level at which food residue becomes a disqualifying issue.  

Recyclers and brokers were asked at which point food residue would disqualify a piece of packaging for recycling. The industry converged on the amount of food shown in bowl No. 3. Source: SPC

We asked recyclers and packaging material brokers the point at which food residue would disqualify a piece of packaging for recycling. Respondents concentrated their answers around the third picture, in a threshold that can be described as “We don’t want actual pieces of food entering our operations.” Food material absorbed into the paper itself, such as grease, is less of a concern, but actual food pieces have a higher likelihood of causing pests, odors, or reducing the quality of the final sorted paper. In other words: Greasy paper packaging beats unscraped paper packaging.  

These findings are consistent with other research conducted on food contamination, namely Smurfit WestRock’s seminal 2019 study on corrugated cardboard pizza boxes, which found that typical amounts of residual grease and cheese do not negatively affect the boxes’ recyclability.  

So, food residue isn’t a dealbreaker for paper packaging — but that doesn’t mean we’re off the hook. The real questions now are: Do consumers know what “clean enough” looks like, and will they get there?  

How to keep paper-based food packaging recyclable  

The second portion of our study went to a different source: consumers. In collaboration with Clemson University, the SPC studied the impact of on-pack messaging and education on consumer actions around cleaning food residue off of packaging before recycling. More good news for packaging producers: There’s a needle to move and we know how to move it.  

On-pack messaging, particularly when paired with education, helps consumers correctly prepare packaging for recycling. While most consumers surveyed (80 percent) know implicitly to clean food residue off of packaging before tossing it in the recycling bin, nearly all participants presented with explicit, on–pack instructions knew what to do with their packaging before recycling.  

A little bonus education went a long way. Participants who received packaging with a How2Recycle label and watched an educational video were twice as likely to properly recycle items that required cleaning, removing at least 50 percent of the original food residue.  

What needs to happen next 

You or I scraping food from paper-based packaging won’t solve the problems of contamination or consumer confusion alone. To keep the paper-based food packaging in circulation, the industry can do three things:  

Build paper industry alignment on food residue thresholds: Alignment between players in the paper packaging industry on what is and is not too much food contamination on paper packaging is a critical first step. 

Identify the right on-pack language to limit confusion: Once we reach consensus around acceptable levels of food contamination, we can then translate those thresholds into clear on-pack language to help consumers understand what level of cleaning a package requires for recycling. 

Support on- and off-pack education: Education doesn’t end at the on-pack recycling label and language. Consumer recycling education campaigns can help make sure consumers know how to look for and use recycling instructions when recycling their packaging. 

Paper packaging recyclability doesn’t depend on perfection, but to curb contamination, progress will hinge on clearer guidance that helps consumers keep valuable fiber in circulation. By aligning on “clean enough,” and communicating that threshold, the industry can recover more paper, waste less material and help reduce pressure on virgin resources like trees.

The post When food meets fiber: How companies can boost paper-based packaging recyclability appeared first on Trellis.

How to find a sustainability role you’ll love in 2026

Our latest State of the Sustainability Profession report told a tale of two companies: those staying the course and those in retreat. The good news? More are staying the course: 46 percent of companies have increased budgets and headcount in sustainability over the last two years, 25 percent have cut back and the rest are keeping them roughly unchanged. 

Within these companies, two very different experiences for sustainability professionals are also playing out at once: those who report they are thriving, and those who are disillusioned. Not surprisingly, the most satisfied professionals work at companies that are leaning in on sustainability. 

As part of the survey that underpins the report, we asked the following questions to gauge how sustainability professionals are doing during this turbulent moment:

  • Over the past two years, how has your level of professional fulfillment in your sustainability career changed?
  • Here are some words sustainability professionals have used to describe their feelings about the profession: confident, insecure, optimistic, pessimistic, discouraged, resolved, angry, accepting, happy, sad, confused. Which best describes how you feel?

Of more than 1,000 respondents who answered at least one of these questions, about equal numbers are feeling satisfied and unsatisfied. Slightly more than 40 percent reported high satisfaction, meaning they gave at least one positive signal (more fulfilled or only positive emotions) without contradicting it on the other question. Another 40 percent reported low satisfaction; 20 percent landed in the middle.

When we dug into the data, we found three factors clearly predicted satisfaction – and they’re all things you can test for, whether you’re deciding to stay in your current role, weighing your next move or looking to get into sustainability for the first time. 

Here is what unites the group of professionals who are thriving today:

The strongest predictor? Sustainability communications

How a company communicates about sustainability is the biggest predictor of professional satisfaction. Our study found professionals at companies communicating more about sustainability than two years ago are 3.5x more likely to be highly satisfied (67 percent) than those at companies communicating less (19 percent). 

That’s especially important because professionals told us that even as their companies continue to invest in sustainability, they are communicating about it substantially less: 63 percent have either scaled back their communications about sustainability in the last two years, or rethought how they talk about it.

While companies that pay lip service to sustainability with no real underlying action can be demoralizing to work for, public commitments send a signal about what companies stand for and help to hold them accountable.

“We have tied sustainability to our brand and culture for so long that we weren’t going to back off of it just because political winds shifted,” wrote a sustainability director at a U.S. building supply company. 

When resources come under pressure, companies tend to cut back to deliver on only what they have committed to publicly.

“Due to financial constraints, we have had limited resources to pursue more progressive voluntary projects and ideas,” wrote a head of environmental affairs at a global pharmaceutical company. “We have done what is needed to continue delivering on our public targets and meet compliance standards.”

Another key indicator? Budgets

The next strongest predictor of professional satisfaction is sustainability investment. When the sustainability team’s budget increased in the last two years, 56 percent of professionals were highly satisfied. When the budget was cut, only 23 percent were. If your company has increased spending on sustainability outside of the core team, you are 2.6x more likely to be satisfied. 

When asked about the reasons behind increases in sustainability spending, respondents often cited the financial performance of the company itself. One respondent said: “The company is growing overall.” Another said: “The company is profitable.”

Financial investment in sustainability was a more significant predictor of satisfaction than other types of investment, like headcount.

An engaged CEO matters

At companies where the CEO is openly engaged with sustainability (gets a score of 6 or 7 on a scale of 1-7), 56 percent of professionals are highly satisfied. Where the CEO is dismissive or uninterested, only 22 percent are. Sustainability professionals who report directly to the CEO are about 1.5x more likely to be highly satisfied as those who report elsewhere. 

Recent changes in CEO have been disruptive for sustainability teams.

“Our previous CEO was very engaged, and it was a priority,” wrote a sustainability director at a medium-sized firm. “With the new CEO, the priorities shifted, therefore the team is back to making a business case for sustainability as a function of the business.”

For sustainability professionals, seniority does not predict satisfaction. There are just as many highly satisfied professionals at lower levels as there are at higher levels. Larger companies skew slightly more toward dissatisfaction, but the effect is small.

The ‘job satisfaction’ checklist

If you’re weighing your next move at a new organization or deciding whether to stay in your current role, the data offers some key things to learn more about:

  • Look for companies that communicate publicly about sustainability initiatives, including stating public targets and continuing to update against them. This might include press releases, descriptions on websites, or inclusion in financial filings. 
  • Ask if sustainability budgets and headcount have grown in the past year and by how much. If this data is unavailable, look at overall company growth and profitability.
  • See if the CEO has spoken publicly about sustainability in media interviews or earnings calls. Ask if the CEO meets regularly with sustainability leadership. 

These three signals matter more than what your title is and where the team sits on the org chart.

One highly-satisfied survey respondent, a senior corporate responsibility specialist at a U.S. utility company, described what it feels like to have a role at the right kind of organization, even in 2026:

“I feel that my work now is more important than ever, and every win feels bigger than it ever did,” she wrote. “I am lucky to work in a state and for a company where we are continuing to invest and push forward, and I know that at some point – the national momentum and pendulum will swing forward again, and we will be ready to meet that moment.”

The post How to find a sustainability role you’ll love in 2026 appeared first on Trellis.

Why P&G, maker of Bounty and Charmin, hired a forester

When Procter & Gamble adopted an ambitious new pulp and paper pledge in early 2021, it hired a forester to convince suppliers to get on board.

Officially, Chris Reeves is director of scientific communications for P&G’s family care business, which makes Charmin toilet paper, Bounty paper towels and Puffs facial tissues.

That title downplays his master’s degree in forestry and 12 years of experience managing Kentucky forests, but Reeves spends at least one-third of his time among the trees with land owners or in meetings with the Society of American Foresters and nonprofits with big forestry practices.

“Every day is different,” he said. “It’s making sure policies are adhered to. It’s offering education on the ground.”

P&G tries to make field visits to all pulp suppliers once every two years to offer technical advice and advocate for independent audits of their forest management practices. 

In particular, Reeves is responsible for helping suppliers see value in becoming certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), a nonprofit that promotes strict environmental and social standards for timber and paper. P&G has pledged to buy all of its wood pulp from FSC-recognized sources by 2030; so far, it’s at 86 percent.

Reeves also visits with employees and retail partners and fields questions from investors. One of his biggest challenges is translating sophisticated concepts into messaging that’s more appropriate for consumers and P&G’s vast marketing organization.

Uncommon role

P&G has hired environmental scientists for decades and some paper products companies, such as Domtar, employ foresters and forestry engineers to manage responsible harvesting and replanting practices. 

Reeves’ first corporate job was for IKEA, where he was responsible for wood purchasing processes. P&G rival Kimberly-Clark, which has pledged to be “natural forest free” after 2030, also employs foresters.

Still, it’s uncommon for consumer products companies to hire foresters who can work directly with suppliers and nudge them toward more sustainable forest management practices, sometimes with contract incentives or preferred supplier status. 

“This is a new thing in that world,” said Sarah Billig, president of FSC’s U.S. operation. “P&G is ahead of the curve, but as brands and retailers dive into nature-based goals they have to dive more into their supply chain. We are seeing more companies engage in this sort of expertise. They need to get folks that can get down to the ground level.” 

Foresters understand how to talk to local communities about both the economic and ecological value of forests, said Billig, who previously worked for a lumber company in Northern California. Many spend at least half of their time in community forums and cultivating knowledge of Indigenous forest management practices, she said.

“One of the most important things they do is push the value of better forest management,” Billig said.

The post Why P&G, maker of Bounty and Charmin, hired a forester appeared first on Trellis.

The hyperscalers’ dilemma

The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis or its editors.

Last year, Wall Street’s consensus for 2026 capital expenditure by the major tech companies averaged $365 billion. Today, it’s $725 – $805 billion. Roughly three-quarters is for direct AI infrastructure: GPUs, racks, campuses, substations. Capex estimates for the 2025-2030 buildout have risen about a quarter since October alone. Big Tech capex in 2026 will approach 3 percent of U.S. GDP — comparable, as a share of output, to the peak of railroad construction in the 19th century or the run-up to Y2K. 

What’s different from those prior episodes is the financing. Through most of the post-ChatGPT cycle, hyperscalers funded the buildout out of retained earnings, sustaining what bond investors had come to regard as an unspoken contract: AI speculation would be borne by equity, not credit. 

That contract is now broken. In 2025 the five hyperscalers —Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Meta and Apple — issued $121 billion of bonds, against a five-year average closer to $28 billion. Estimates for 2026 investment-grade bond issuance run $300 to $400 billion in a market where AI-related debt is already the largest single segment of Investment Grade bonds. The Dallas Fed now treats this as a duration-supply phenomenon material to U.S. interest rates. 

Layer that against a U.S. balance sheet past any defensible capacity to absorb stress, and the picture is novel: the largest private capital cycle in modern history, debt-financed at the margin, in a fiscal regime with no remaining shock absorbers. It is happening at a scale no domestic grid was built for and no electorate has been asked to ratify. 

For sustainability professionals, this brings a range of new challenges and opportunities not seen since the oil shocks of the 1970s — and once again this upheaval is being accompanied by energy price spikes. 

AI as the dominant marginal load 

The International Energy Agency projects that data centers will account for nearly half of U.S. electricity demand growth through 2030. By the end of that period, the American economy will burn more power processing data than it does smelting steel, refining aluminum, making cement, and producing chemicals —  combined. After two decades of flat domestic power demand, one buyer —  AI data centers — has put the grid on a growth footing. 

There is a counterintuitive consequence. Even as Washington has retreated from a coherent climate posture, large investors who do not care about the politics are pouring money into geothermal, advanced nuclear and grid-scale storage. Big data centers need 24/7 clean firm power faster than gas turbines, interconnect queues and litigation can deliver. 

Google is signing enhanced geothermal offtakes in Nevada. Microsoft has restarted reactors. Amazon is anchoring pre-orders for small modular reactors. The bipartisan support for geothermal moving through Colorado, the Mountain West and federal energy and water appropriation isn’t climate policy. It’s industrial policy refracted through computing power —  and it has moved faster in the past 18 months than the climate movement managed in 30 years. 

That is the optimistic reading. There is a less generous one. 

The consent deficit 

From Virginia farmland to Pennsylvania exurbs to Georgia counties to Cascade Locks, Oregon, this buildout is colliding with the consent of the governed. In Q1 2026 alone, at least 20 proposed data centers were cancelled in the face of organized local opposition —  roughly $42 billion of capex and 3.5 gigawatts of demand erased before the first concrete pour. A three-year tally of cancelled or stalled projects exceeds $85 billion. Baird counts 188 active local opposition groups across 40 states. A Colorado poll found that 91 percent of Coloradans support tighter rules on datacenter growth. 

This opposition is neither anti-technology nor partisan; the groups skew rural, cross-ideological and taxpayer-focused. They have noticed what the financial press has been slow to recognize: Utilities are planning roughly $1.4 trillion of capex through 2030, and a meaningful share will be borne by residential ratepayers —  $700 billion in higher household bills, according to the Energy Information Administration. 

Don’t be surprised when citizens start recalling local officials and voting out town councils.    

Navigating the ripple effects 

Sustainability practitioners need to watch states and public utility commissions that are now the operational front line in negotiations for hyperscalers’ needs for clean firm power and permitting cover. The price being extracted has four components: 

Additionality. A proposed law in Colorado would have required large-load data centers to source 100 percent of their power from new renewable resources by 2031, not existing ones. The bill faltered in the final days of the 2026 session, but it won’t be the last. Virginia is moving along a similar path. The implication for procurement: Contracting against existing renewable supply is increasingly insufficient. New generation built because of the load is becoming the regulatory floor, not a sustainability aspiration. 

Sealed cost recovery. The Colorado framework would have required operators to pre-pay or sign 15-year contracts covering the incremental generation, transmission and distribution costs that their load imposes. That is, the load pays for its own infrastructure, not the household down the street. Expect this to be mainstreamed. 

Community benefit and protections for vulnerable communities. In disproportionately impacted communities, the Colorado bill required cumulative-impact reviews, public hearings and binding community-benefit agreements. Texas, Georgia and Oregon are weighing similar measures. This is the language of environmental justice, and it will likely be required in utility-scale procurement contracts regardless of what administration is in Washington. 

Load-following clean firm generation. A separate bipartisan bill in Colorado, which also failed this year, would require investor-owned utilities to solicit geothermal projects while clearing permitting friction for thermal energy. While some logistics remain to be worked out, legislators agreed that the megawatts those loads will need should come from beneath Colorado, and the upside should accrue to Coloradans. 

Although both datacenter bills stumbled this year, they will return in 2027, and they are already being studied by every public utilities commission (PUC) and statehouse with a material datacenter pipeline. 

How corporate sustainability leaders can respond 

Treat AI power demand as a Scope 3 emissions vector with first-order materiality. The carbon intensity of AI training and inference varies by an order of magnitude across regions and utility mixes. Procurement choices for AI services are now functionally energy-mix choices. 

Update power purchase agreements and cloud commitments to the rising bar. Additionality, 24/7 carbon-free energy matching and load-following firm clean supply are no longer leading edge; they’re the floor that a credible policy environment should codify. The reputational gap between “100 percent renewable” claims sourced from existing supply and what states will require is about to widen. 

Engage seriously at the state and PUC level. Federal climate policy is in retreat; state energy policy is accelerating. Most corporate sustainability functions are still organized around a federal-policy reflex that no longer fits the terrain. 

Treat community license as procurement risk. A datacenter contract, direct or indirect, with no community-benefit floor and no ratepayer firewall is a stranded-asset event waiting to happen. Every Virginia subdivision watching its bills rise to subsidize a data center campus it never agreed to is a future “no” vote on the grid investments that the energy transition requires. 

The AI buildout is the most powerful demand signal for clean firm electricity that has ever existed in the U.S. — doing more to commercialize enhanced geothermal and re-rated nuclear plants than three decades of climate policy. But data centers built without consent and underwritten silently by households, would be the most efficient machine in operation for destroying the social license of the energy transition itself. 

The post The hyperscalers’ dilemma appeared first on Trellis.

Danone and Starbucks shine in rankings of methane-reduction progress

The dearth of corporate action on methane has been highlighted by a survey of 23 leading coffee and dairy companies. 

The report finds that while nine out of 10 companies recognize the link between livestock and climate change, just three of those surveyed — Danone, FrieslandCampina and General Mills — have set a target to reduce emissions of the gas by 2030.

The findings come amid a period of heightened interest in methane and other superpollutants. The gases are collectively responsible for around one-half of global warming to date and are heating the planet more rapidly than carbon dioxide. 

The nonprofit Changing Market Foundation, which launched its methane tracker last year, assessed the dairy and coffee companies on methane reporting, target setting, action plans and progress toward reduction goals. 

The leaders …

Highlights from the highest-scoring companies include:

  • Danone is the only company in the group aligned with the Global Methane Pledge, an initiative backed by 150 countries that targets a 30 percent reduction in global levels of the gas by 2030. The French multinational also leads the pack in progress toward its target, having come close to hitting it five years ahead of schedule.
  • General Mills and FrieslandCampina, a Dutch dairy cooperative, have set broader targets for dairy emissions that do not include a specific one for methane.
  • Coffee chains are beginning to take action on methane, but progress is uneven. Starbucks stands out: The world’s largest coffee chain is the only one to disclose methane emissions and publish an action plan for reductions. Achieving cuts is proving challenging, however: Emissions from its dairy purchases haven’t budged since 2019.

… and the laggards

Farther down the rankings is a clutch of companies that the foundation said have not disclosed methane emissions, set targets or published action plans.

“Methane from agriculture, including from livestock production and feed, is addressed through our Sustainable Agriculture Principles,” a Unilever spokesperson said. “These principles set our standards and expectations with our suppliers, including guidance on methane capture and feed interventions targeting enteric methane.”

Risks and opportunities

Power generators, steel manufacturers and other heavy emitters are required by law to limit carbon dioxide emissions in a growing number of jurisdictions. But the same isn’t true for food companies and methane. That’s due to “agricultural exceptionalism,” said Nusa Urbancic, CEO at the Changing Markets Foundation. “Policymakers concede to influential farm lobbyists, providing exemptions and only focusing on incentives, rather than mandatory emissions regulations.”

That doesn’t change the science, of course. “Methane cuts are one of the fastest ways to slow near-term warming and are increasingly seen as a key test of credible climate action,” said Urbancic. “Companies acting can strengthen investor confidence and get ahead of growing regulatory and disclosure pressures.”

She cites the example of Norges Bank Investment Management, the Norwegian government’s pension fund, which is known for scrutinizing the climate bona fides of its portfolio companies. The bank includes agricultural methane in its climate policy and expects companies to commit to targets aligned with the Global Methane Pledge.

On the risk side, companies that fail to act face growing reputational and greenwashing risks, added Urbancic: “Delayed action increases the risk of more abrupt and costly transition pressures later, including from regulators and investors.”

Companies interested in tackling methane emissions can consider joining the Dairy Methane Action Alliance, an industry collaboration convened by the Environmental Defense Fund and Ceres, two climate non-profits. Alliance members commit to disclose methane emissions as a step toward creating an action plan for reducing them.

Updated on May 29, 2026, to include comment from Unilever.

The post Danone and Starbucks shine in rankings of methane-reduction progress appeared first on Trellis.