A venture capital firm devoted exclusively to backing startups working to restore nature and biodiversity has closed its first funding round.

Superorganism has already used some of the $26 million it raised to back startups creating leather from invasive species, rebuilding fungal networks in forests and generating plastic from seaweed.

“You could think of us a lot like a climate tech fund,” said Kevin Webb, an investor and one of the fund’s managing directors. “But instead of looking at business opportunities to draw down CO₂ or emit less of it, we’re doing the same thing for nature loss.”

The fund is premised on three areas of opportunities, explained Webb and conservation technologist Tom Quigley, his co-director: 

• Industries historically tied to nature loss. Superorganism backs startups that can help reinvent these industries, reducing the pollution, habitat loss and other negative impacts they cause.
• Intersection points between nature and climate. This could include technology for nature-based solutions, or using nature as an adaptation to rising sea levels. 
• Enabling technologies. “We’re looking at the next generation of satellites, remote sensing, biotech, AI,” said Webb. “We’re looking for things that can be really useful in the hands of conservationists that allow them to do new things or do more with fewer resources.”

The fund has made 20 investments to date in the $250,000 to $500,000 range, with the focus on startups in the seed and pre-seed stage. The longer-term aim is a portfolio of around 35 companies. Backing for the initial round came from AMB Holdings, Builders Vision, Cisco Foundation and others.

Here are three startups that illustrate the fund’s goals:

Funga

Funga rewilds soil microbiology to accelerate forest regeneration, leading to faster growth and additional carbon sequestration. The startup says it has sequenced DNA in soil samples collected from hundreds of forests and used machine learning to discover which microbes correlate with healthier forests. It uses that data to inoculate seedlings in commercial tree nurseries prior to planting in forest regeneration projects.

The startup generates revenue by selling carbon credits issued for the forest growth made possible by the inoculations. Funga has enrolled 28,000 acres and last year revealed Netflix as the first purchaser of its credits.

Inversa

Interested in a pair of python loafers? How about a silverfish-skin wallet? Inversa has you covered. The startup pays hunting and fishing cooperatives to supply it with invasive species extracted from wild ecosystems, which it then turns into different kinds of leather. Current targets include the iguanas that have invaded coastal habitats in Florida, pythons in the Everglades, silverfin carp in the Mississippi River Basin and lionfish from coral reefs in the Caribbean.

An Inversa partnership with Florida wildlife services “supercharged” the removal of pythons from the Everglades, governor Ron DeSantis said in October: “The new program accomplished more removals in July 2025 alone than in the entire year before.”

Sway

Sway processes sustainably farmed seaweed from partners in Indonesia, Chile, Puerto Rico, Mexico and Madagascar into TPSea, biopolymer pellets that can be integrated into industry-standard plastic production systems. Current end products include films that can be used as wrappers, bags and windows in packaging. 

Fashion brands using Sway’s bioplastics include Burton, Faherty and Florence Marine. The product is also available through Atlantic Packaging, the largest privately held packaging company in North America, and was named a Best Invention of 2025 by Time magazine. 

The post Biodiversity VC fund focuses on seaweed, fungi and invasive species appeared first on Trellis.

As scientists better understand the harms of industrial chemicals to nature and people’s health, lawsuits multiply and policies advance, while businesses face escalating, long-tail risks to bottom lines and reputations.

“We are seeing a lot more discussion of the need for better transparency on what chemicals are in products and the need for public data on their potential harms,” said Richard Wielechowski, a senior analyst at Planet Tracker in London.

The firm warns that 350,000 synthetic chemicals have been produced faster than they can be controlled, potentially triggering trillions of dollars in economic losses. “Forever chemicals” and plastics increasingly pose multiplying risks for businesses using or making them.

Despite federal backsliding on chemicals regulation in the U.S., regulations are advancing in numerous states and the EU. Fears about chemicals may cut across the political divide more than climate concerns do.

One potential tipping point for global action across industries and governments: In November, the United Nations will hold its first International Conference of the Global Framework on Chemicals in Geneva.

“Whether you’re an electronics, apparel or shampoo manufacturer, I see increasing alignment around getting better and more reliable information from your supply chain so you don’t get surprised,” said Bill Walsh, director of the Safer Chemistry Impact Fund in Los Angeles.

The financial case

Investors are watching how companies handle these risks. Hazardous chemicals disrupt shareholder value and consumer trust, according to the Investor Environmental Health Network, part of the nonprofit advocacy organization Clean Production Action.

The Investor Initiative on Hazardous Chemicals, a consortium of 75 firms with trillions of dollars under management, is urging chemical makers to disclose phase-out plans for persistent pollutants.

Policy snapshot

Global businesses will need to comply with an anticipated update in 2026 or 2027 by the European Commission to its sweeping Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) rules.

Gridlock in the U.S. leaves federal chemical regulations stalled as the Trump administration aggressively seeks to diminish the EPA. Nevertheless, the agency is supposed to tackle a backlog of chemical risk evaluations by 2027 under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which could lead to chemical belt-tightening by business.

As companies continue to pay for remediation and class-action lawsuits from chemicals banned decades ago, the following categories are emerging as the most acute business risks on the horizon:

‘Forever chemicals’

A major flashpoint: “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, popular for stain-proofing and waterproofing clothes, shoes and furniture. Linked to cancer and infertility, they are difficult to destroy.

As chemical giants including 3M and BASF are dropping PFAS, liabilities also loom for companies still using them, which may represent half the global economy.

Out of roughly 10,000 types of PFAS, only dozens are well studied. The compounds pollute more than 9,500 sites across the U.S., and 17,000 more in Europe.

Movement is building to eliminate the substances from consumer products, and the issue has gained traction in rural America and across party lines.

Maine and Minnesota are mulling sweeping PFAS bans. In 2026, Illinois and Vermont, followed by New Hampshire in 2027, will block PFAS in cosmetics, food packaging and cookware. About a dozen states, including California, already restrict PFAS in food packaging and other goods.

Plastics, plastic additives and microfibers

The 16,000 chemicals associated with plastics include hormone-disrupting phthalates and bisphenols, which are already banned in baby bottles and toys in the U.S. and Europe. However, substitutions are proving to have unanticipated consequences.

Lawsuits and tighter policies are expected around single-use plastic packaging and synthetic textiles as consumers learn about health hazards from microplastics.

“We need better ways for brands to test for and understand how packaging and microplastics can enter their products and how to get them out,” said Lindsay Dahl, author of “Cleaning House: The Fight to Rid our Homes of Toxic Chemicals,” and chief impact officer at vitamin maker Ritual.

Flame retardants

Fireproofing chemicals in furniture were supposed to save lives, but they’ve likely sparked countless cancers. From IKEA to Pottery Barn, dozens of brands no longer infuse couches with certain flame retardants. That’s partly the result of activism by safer chemistry pioneer Arlene Blum. The Green Science Policy Institute in Berkeley, California, which she co-founded and directs, is now campaigning for the auto industry to cease using the same chemicals.

Antimicrobials

The watchdog’s latest target is less on the public’s radar, at least for now. Antimicrobial chemicals, which proliferated during the COVID-19 pandemic, appear in everything from hand soaps to cutting boards to pens.

Marketed as hygienic, these substances can cause health problems and weaken the immune system’s germ-fighting powers. The FDA banned antibacterials triclosan and triclocarbon in soaps in 2016, but Blum believes their alternatives remain problematic.

Legacy chemicals persist

Even products off the market for decades can spook insurers and investors. Despite longstanding regulations, asbestos, lead, PCE, methylene chloride, PCBs and DDT circulate in nature.

Epidemiologists are better able to connect substances with disease, and courts are more open to delayed claims of harm.

Failures to test for and disclose contaminants that slip into products can haunt companies later. A California bill is advancing to regulate heavy metals in vitamins.

The “Make America Healthy Again” movement is targeting artificial dyes and colorants in food and cosmetics. Safer alternatives are widely available, unlike with PFAS, where some companies are fighting to preserve existing formulations, according to Walsh.

The post Toxic chemicals risks that companies need to address now appeared first on Trellis.

For much of the past two decades, the chief sustainability officer was a corporate avatar of progress. If a company had one, it signaled seriousness — about climate, social impact, governance, transparency, resilience and more.

That’s changing. In some circles, the CSO is now seen less as a vanguard and more as a vestige, a bureaucrat more than a builder. The question, still largely whispered, is blunt: Is the CSO increasingly irrelevant?

The answer, inconveniently: yes and no.

On the one hand, sustainability strategy and implementation have been pushed into business units and functions — procurement, finance, legal — leaving less need for a singular department. On the other hand, a dedicated someone at the executive level needs to “own” an organization’s sustainability strategy, goals, commitments and transparency.

That is, it’s subject to debate.

We’ll be holding that debate on stage next month at GreenBiz 26 in a 90-minute plenary session devoted to airing both sides of this existential question. I’ll be co-hosting the debate along with Sophie Lambin, CEO of Kite Insights, who has staged such debates at Davos and Climate Weeks and alongside COP conferences, among other places around the world.

I’ve had the good fortune to participate in two Kite debates on other topics, as a debater (at COP28 in Dubai in 2023, arguing the motion “We can upskill our way out of the climate crisis”) and as co-host (at Climate Week NYC in September — “AI will do nature’s work”). Employing the Oxford debate style — two teams of three, volleying back and forth — they are as entertaining as they are enlightening.

The winner, as determined by the audience, is not which team is “right” but which is more persuasive.

The format encourages thoughtful consideration of both sides. In Dubai, for example, I was tasked with making a case that was counter to my belief. (My team won.)

What are some points likely to be raised at GreenBiz 26? Here’s my take on the arguments you’ll hear, although I’m quite certain that the debaters will each bring their own special sauce to the occasion.

The case for irrelevance

In some companies, sustainability has become everyone’s job or no one’s. Climate risk sits with finance. Supply-chain emissions live in procurement. Product sustainability belongs to R&D. Investor disclosures are owned by legal. Strategy is handled by — well, strategy. The CSO, meanwhile, often floats above it all, coordinating, cajoling and translating, but with little direct authority.

That made sense when sustainability was marginal. It makes less sense now that it is material.

As sustainability has matured, the CSO role has often failed to evolve at the same pace. Too many CSOs still lack direct control over capital allocation, product design or operational decisions. They focus on reporting, frameworks and reputation rather than on value creation. Their power is influence, not imperative.

Add to this the political backlash that is pushing companies to keep their sustainability initiatives sotto voce, plus the regulatory uncertainty and ESG fatigue of the past few years, it’s no wonder the CSO’s role has become a lightning rod — responsible for navigating a culture war with fewer tools, less air cover and smaller budgets than even a couple years ago.

Then there’s the talent paradox. CSOs, deeply knowledgeable about climate science, human rights or stakeholder engagement, may be less fluent in finance, operations or P&L trade-offs. In an era when sustainability must compete head-to-head with growth, resilience and margin pressure, that gap matters.

Seen through this lens, the role can look like a transitional one — useful for a chapter but destined to dissolve as sustainability is absorbed into core functions.

The case for relevance

Writing off the CSO is not only premature, it misunderstands the moment we’re in.

Sustainability has become more complex, more interconnected and more consequential. Climate risk is now systemic. Supply chains are geopolitical. Water scarcity is local and acute. AI and data centers are impacting energy systems, aquifers and land use. Nature loss is impacting food security and insurance markets.

This is not a coordination problem that solves itself.

What the best CSOs do — and what few other executives are positioned to do — is integrate across silos. They link climate science to capital planning, human rights to procurement, regulatory risk to product strategy, and long-term planetary constraints to near-term business decisions. That connective tissue doesn’t form by accident. It requires a systemic role and mandate over a sustained period.

Moreover, a growing number of CSOs do bring deep business experience to their roles, some having already served in supply chain, finance and other mission-critical parts of the company. They can play a critical role in bridging the all-too-common gap between sustainability and more traditional business goals.

Without a senior executive whose job it is to keep asking uncomfortable questions — about tradeoffs, time horizons and externalities, among other things — sustainability tends to lose gravity.

So, what do you think? I can assure you that whatever your current leanings, you’ll come away from this debate with new insights and inspiration. You might even think differently about your job.

The post Is the chief sustainability officer becoming irrelevant? It’s debatable appeared first on Trellis.

Exploring a new frontier for soil carbon credits, San Antonio-based startup Grassroots Carbon said today that it has reached 1.9 million tons in carbon removal and storage, and more than 1.5 million in retired credits.

Founded in 2021, Grassroots Carbon works with ranchers to improve soil health via sampling, regenerative practices that include rotating paddocks with mobile fencing, software tools such as PastureMap and what it calls “the largest privately collected soil carbon dataset in the U.S.”

Selling the credits to corporate buyers including Nestlé, Microsoft and Chevron, the company shares the revenue with ranchers, providing supplemental income to landowners who are struggling with overseas competition, high debt loads, reduced appetites for beef in developed countries and low prices driven by corporate mega-ranches that use environmentally destructive, carbon-intensive practices to raise and slaughter cattle.

There’s no upfront cost to participate — Grassroots provides soil testing, education in regenerative practices, access to PastureMap and its proprietary dataset, and credit marketing for free — and the company says it has made $40 million in direct payments to ranchers for carbon sequestered in soil.

“We’re not only storing carbon but helping provide cleaner water and money for locals, turning what might be thought of as a compliance checkbox into a positive story and a net benefit for communities,” said Grassroots Vice President of Carbon Solutions Katie Pearson during a panel discussion at Trellis Impact 25. (Grassroots Carbon paid to exhibit at the event.)

The Great Plains carbon sink

Covering more than 650 million acres, America’s Great Plains are one of the greatest carbon sinks on the planet. Much of this land has been degraded by development, drought and overgrazing; nearly 7,000 acres of native grassland are lost in the U.S. every day, according to the National Beef Grasslands Initiative.

These trends are being accelerated by urbanization and the increasing demand for cheap land for giant, water-thirsty data centers. In Texas alone — where open range is abundant and power is cheap — more than 1,000 acres a day are paved over with concrete, said Chad Ellis, CEO of the Texas Agricultural Land Trust, during the TI25 session: “It’s the ‘Oh, shit’ moment.”

Overgrazing and heavy water consumption by industrial-scale ranching, which generated more than $260 billion in revenue in 2024, contributes to the destruction of grasslands. Grassroots’ model incorporates not only state-of-the-art soil core testing down to one meter in depth and sophisticated mapping tools, but also traditional practices followed by herders for millennia — including rotational grazing, in which cattle are moved from one contained paddock to another so native grasses and shrubs, and the soil in which they grow, can recover.

Containing herds on smaller pastures, as opposed to conventional open-range ranching, actually helps soil health; as cows trample organic matter into soil, it increases carbon capture and storage.

The Grassroots Carbon model is “all about moving carbon from the atmosphere to the soil,” said Lars Dryud, CEO of EarthOptics, during the TI25 session. EarthOptics developed the first remote-sensing method for precisely measuring soil carbon and is working with Grassroots, .

Promise and challenges

The promise of soil carbon sequestration is huge — worldwide, the top meter of soil stores more carbon than the atmosphere and total biomass on Earth combined — but questions and uncertainties remain.

One is about additionality — the requirement that credits must be generated from carbon removed or reduced from newly adopted practices. The carbon removal benefits of returning the soil to health are difficult to measure, and there is no universal standard for verifying soil carbon credits.

Another is scale: Simply put, it takes a lot of land to generate sufficient credits to make carbon credit programs profitable for farmers and ranchers. “A 1,000-acre farm would generate around 200 credits/year on average, and if valued at $40/credit, the farmer would earn only about $6,000/year of additional income for conducting a soil carbon project,” according to an analysis from S&P Global.

Grassroots Carbon addresses these challenges by aggregating credits across multiple ranches, adhering to accepted verification frameworks such as The Regenerative Standard from the Applied Ecological Institute, and paying ranchers market rates. While the company declines to give precise pricing numbers, it says its credits sell above the California Carbon Allowance’s 2025 floor price of $25.87 per ton.

The issued credits are verified by multiple third parties, said CEO Brad Tipper in an email: “EarthOptics executes field sampling, PatternAg performs third-party laboratory analysis, Comite Resources verifies project implementation and results, and the Applied Ecological Institute reviews and certifies each credit before issuance.”

The company has also actively supported the development of the Climate Action Reserve’s Soil Enrichment Protocol version 2.0, as a member of the working group that is finalizing the new version.

“Grassroots Carbon was built to prove that regenerative ranching can be the most profitable and productive form of ranching,” said Tipper. “We focus on unlocking financial opportunity for ranchers in ways that were previously inaccessible through soil carbon outcomes.”

The post ‘Regenerative ranching’ startup reaches 1.9M tons of removed carbon appeared first on Trellis.

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

Never let a lull go to waste. That’s the simple message for anyone working on environmental issues in textiles and apparel who feels worn down. The buzz around climate, ESG and sustainable fashion has cooled. In Washington, climate rules are stalled or watered down. And around the industry, some companies are treating the shift as permission to ease off the gas and move sustainability back into the nice-to-have column.

In many businesses, sustainability budgets are under review and projects are being pushed. People who once invited long presentations on climate risk now ask for shorter decks focused on margin and inventory. Suppose you have spent years working on cleaner production, better farming practices or traceability. In that case, your work has been downgraded to a side note. The temptation is to wait for a friendlier policy climate and hope the wind changes.

That would be a mistake. A policy lull doesn’t change the fundamental facts facing this industry: stressed water basins, volatile energy prices, fragile raw material supply, growing waste streams and rising expectations from buyers and younger consumers. Mills are still fighting wastewater costs, brands are still drowning in excess inventory and farmers are still dealing with unstable weather. The underlying pressures remain in place. The question is whether we use this quiet period to regroup or complain.

We should view this lull as an opportunity to act and make headway on important issues complicating progress on sustainability. Here are three ways to do that. 

Streamline a confusing array of standards 

One problem we can tackle without any new law is the mess we created with standards. The sector is overcrowded with indexes, scores, badges and certifications. Each one promises clarity; together they deliver confusion. Factory managers face overlapping questionnaires from different brands, each tied to a slightly different framework. The same polyester T-shirt can be rated three ways, depending on whose template you use.

From a distance, it looks like progress. Up close, it seems like bureaucracy. Instead of a short list of core metrics that everyone understands — water use, energy, chemistry, land, waste, overproduction — we’ve assembled a patchwork of tools that rarely match up. Assumptions are buried in methodology notes. Data is locked behind memberships. People on the production floor are left wondering which version of “sustainable” they are supposed to hit this season.

The lull is a chance to clean this up. Rather than inventing yet another scorecard, we can work on aligning what already exists, pushing for shared baselines and open methods. That means fewer vanity projects and more work on comparability and interoperability. It also means being honest about which tools help reduce discharge, cut waste or improve yields — and which mainly help marketing departments fill sustainability pages. Suppose we want to be taken seriously the next time governments or investors look for credible industry standards. In that case, this is the housekeeping we must do now.

Turn environmentalism into an operations strategy

Another gap sits inside the business case. Environmental initiatives have generated plenty of concepts, such as preferred fibers, circularity, regenerative this and that, but too often the pitch stops at values and reputation. That plays well on stage, but it doesn’t always survive a budget meeting. And yet, much of what we call environmental improvement is just better industrial management. Tighter dye recipes mean fewer reruns and less effluent. Smarter pattern-making and cutting reduces fabric waste. More efficient boilers and motors cut both emissions and electricity bills. Better planning reduces rush air freight and the write-offs that follow poor forecasting. These are familiar operational problems that happen to carry environmental benefits, not the other way around.

The lull gives us time to put complex numbers on these links. Instead of leading with carbon alone, start with yield, scrap rates, energy per unit, and payback periods. Show how a wastewater fix reduces chemical spend and downtime. Show how cutting fabric waste improves margin and reduces landfill pressure. When environmental work is presented to stabilize costs and strengthen supply, it stops looking like politics and becomes common sense. That is the argument that will endure, no matter who wins the next election.

Include more voices in conversations 

There’s also room to rethink who is in the room. Too many discussions about sustainability still take place among the same circle of brands, NGOs and consultants. Meanwhile, people who run spinning frames, dye jets, cutting tables, knitting machines or trucks are often brought in at the end, if at all. The best ideas usually appear when those voices are involved from the start.

This lull is a good time to bring the value chain together around specific problems instead of abstract goals. Farmers, ginners, spinners, weavers, knitters, dyers, finishers, cut-and-sew operators, logistics firms, recyclers and brands all see different parts of the same system. Sit them down with a simple process map and ask where the most significant waste, cost, and risk points really sit. Then test practical changes in real facilities, not just in pilot reports or glossy case studies.

For people working on environmental issues, this means a shift in role. Less time acting as the conscience in the corner, more time serving as a translator between technical, commercial, and policy worlds. Less focus on adding new commitments, more emphasis on helping teams execute a smaller number of changes that matter. When the policy cycle swings back, and governments look for industries with serious, workable plans, those who used the lull well will be ready. Never let a lull go to waste.

The post Why a policy lull is the perfect time to accelerate sustainability appeared first on Trellis.