How low-quality carbon credits killed a sustainability buzzword

RIP, carbon-neutral.

Just a decade ago, the term was a byword for climate ambition. Its credibility has since been wrecked by court cases — including a defeat for Apple last week — and negative press coverage. Next year, new European Union regulations threaten to kill it off altogether.

Retiring the language has opened the door for more rigorous approaches to capturing corporate action. But any assessment of the carbon-neutral movement needs to recognize that by ditching the term, companies have also lost a valuable method for communicating sustainability goals.

The rise …

The claim’s appeal lies partly with its simplicity: By measuring and offsetting the emissions associated with a product, or an entire organization, companies can declare one or both to be carbon neutral — a term consumers intuitively understand.

One early user on the product side was the flooring company Interface, which launched a series of carbon-neutral carpet tiles in 2003. A smattering of brands followed, and the concept gained cultural currency as conferences and sporting events made the claim. In 2006, the “New Oxford American Dictionary” named it word of the year. 

Meanwhile, an infrastructure for certifying the claim was emerging. In 2010, the Australian government launched a process for businesses to get certified. The Carbon Trust, an influential standard-setter, did the same two years later for products. 

Another organization that saw the momentum behind the idea was the non-profit Climate Neutral, which in 2019 launched a label designed to help consumers easily identify carbon-neutral products. “We thought here’s an opportunity, a moment, to harness the consumer recognition,” recalled Austin Whitman, the organization’s co-founder and CEO. “It’s the best hope we have to mobilize consumers.”

By the start of this decade, carbon-neutral claims were attached to everything from sneakers and automotive lubricants to tea, beer and consumer electronics. The list included emission-intensive products, such as flights, and even fossil fuels: In 2019, Shell began offering carbon-neutral shipments of liquified natural gas (LNG).

… and the fall

The logic behind carbon-neutral claims might be simple; their execution is not. Offset quality is one weak point. If offsets fail to deliver promised emissions benefits, the carbon-neutral claim that rests on them is voided.

In the early 2000s, media coverage suggested that was happening all too often. Delta and Credit Suisse were among the companies accused by Bloomberg of using “junk credits” to make carbon-neutral schemes. A report from the non-profit Corporate Accountability added Gucci, Volkswagen, ExxonMobil, Disney, easyJet and Nestlé to the list, while the New Yorker weighed in with an exposé that damaged the reputations of South Pole, a leading offsets provider, and Verra, the most prominent carbon credit registry.

The lawsuits started around the same time, with accusers arguing that unreliable offsets rendered carbon-neutral marketing misleading. One advocacy group — Environmental Action Germany — won cases in its home country against the airline Eurowings, BP, TotalEnergies, meal-kit company HelloFresh, Adidas and, last week, Apple. More recently, class-action suits have been filed in the U.S. against Clif Bar and the tobacco company R.J. Reynolds, which sold carbon-neutral vapes.

Unsurprisingly, many brands have now abandoned carbon-neutral marketing. But reputational issues are not the only reason. What constitutes robust ambition on climate has expanded over the past 10 years to include science-based targets, transition action plans, commitments to invest in decarbonization, supplier engagement and other strategies. Most carbon-neutral certifications required additional steps beyond just purchasing offsets, such as committing to emissions targets. Still, the idea at the heart of the claim — getting to neutral via offsets — can feel flimsy in comparison.

In 2023, Climate Neutral rebranded the organization as the Change Climate Project and its certification as the Climate Label. To earn it, companies commit to creating a fund in proportion to their emissions, and to spending it on climate projects. That could include decarbonizing company operations or those of suppliers, as well as purchasing high-quality credits. Whatever the focus, the emissions benefits that follow are not used as offsets.

What’s been lost

There remain no shortage of carbon-neutral claims out there, from carbon-neutral shipping (UPS) to laptops (Acer), packaging (Tetra Pak) and meetings (Hilton). Need some carbon-neutral LNG? Shell still has you covered.

Yet it’s clear the term is fading. And a year from now it will become even rarer, at least in Europe. That’s when new EU regulations will prohibit offsets from being used in carbon-neutral claims, meaning only products with zero lifecycle emissions will qualify.

The shift reflects a more sophisticated and rigorous approach to corporate sustainability, but it’s not without drawbacks. Apple is phasing out the term, for instance, but has cited EU rules as the reason and said the change will make it harder to communicate climate action to consumers. 

“People started to understand it,” said Whitman. “And we are now faced with a much more difficult challenge. We have had companies come to us and say, ‘We’re not going to do the Climate Label, because we just don’t think it means anything to individuals.’”

The old labels created what Whitman acknowledges as a “blunt, high-level impression that somebody’s climate impacts are just gone, neutralized. And that’s not what’s happening behind the scenes.” But, he added “the other side of that coin is that’s why marketers love it — because it’s like, boom, that’s what we did, right?”

The post How low-quality carbon credits killed a sustainability buzzword appeared first on Trellis.

The end gap: The overlooked space between product usage and disposal

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

Unwrapping a brand-new item is a great feeling. But the thrill of unboxing a beautifully designed product eventually fades as we begin to use it and the next shiny new thing takes its place. Consumers often think their experience is over when the item is disposed of, but there’s an overlooked space between the end of usage and the start of recycling or waste. We’ll call this the end gap.

This uninstructed, often abandoned final step in the consumer experience is where the language and methods for ending a product’s life are complex and unclear. This gap materializes in phenomena such as:

  • Unused clothing: A 2022 study by WRAP, a climate action NGO, found that the average U.K. adult has 118 items of clothing in their wardrobe, of which a quarter (31 items) were unworn for at least a year.
  • Off-site storage: The self-storage market is expected to grow significantly, fueled by decision fatigue of having to reduce items and the anxiety of making a final disposal decision.
  • Digital hoarding: The end gap exists in our digital lives, too. Many of us save everything, deferring the difficult act of deleting. IBM estimates that up to 90 percent of all data is “dark data,” or information that’s stored but never used, revealing our societal unwillingness to let go.

By looking at the end gap not as a problem but as an opportunity, sustainability professionals can see past the chaos to understand its foundational characteristics. That understanding is key to creating a more meaningful and sustainable business model.

4 signs an end gap is imminent

The relationship breaks: The relationship between a business and a consumer is a two-way street. During the initial stages of a product’s life, a business provides guidance marketing, out-of-box instructions, FAQs and the like. A consumer, meanwhile, provides valuable data — name, demographics and goals. This bonded relationship continues as the consumer benefits from product usage and the business giving service support.

As the product fulfills its promise, it moves past a usage phase and the consumer starts to think about off-boarding. But while the usage has taken place the business has backed away, seeking new customers. The consumer finds themselves abandoned to resolve product disposal alone. 

Identity is anonymized: At the beginning of the consumer lifecycle, the customer’s identity is captured through banking, loyalty systems and marketing schemes. It’s also celebrated through personalized language in communication of the product: “Well done, Joe, for becoming our customer!”

These identity systems fade as the relationship goes on. Marketing noise from purchase has been lost in the following weeks, months or years of ownership as people change shopping habits, email or social media. By the off-boarding experience the identity systems attached to the product are non-existent. 

Further to this, legal ownership is relinquished as the customer places the product into recycling, trash or goodwill. The consumer is no longer accountable for what happens to the product. Their identity is washed from the product’s history, along with the business that made it. Waste stream identity has to be reverse engineered. Impact becomes a “who done it” detective job.

Emotional meaning is lost: At the end of product life its emotional meaning to the consumer decays and its specific definition as an asset — size 10 dress, hiking boots by Columbia, 30-megapixel camera — disappears when it enters a generic waste stream. A phone, for example, begins as carefully defined components. At its end, it becomes “e-waste,” a jumble of unknown materials. The scale of this loss is vast: a European Commission report found over half of EU individuals keep old phones — an estimated 700 million devices. Meanwhile, Apple’s 2024 sales of 231.8 million iPhones dwarf its collection of only 15.9 million devices. E-waste, which totaled 62 million tonnes globally in 2022, is often chipped and smelted, irrevocably losing its product identity.

Disposal routes are blurred: When a customer eats an apple, they can be confident it will naturally decompose without a lasting negative impact. But what about human-made products such as a plastic bag? The process for disposal is far from clear. Instead of straightforward information, consumers are often faced with confusing symbols and technical material jargon.

This lack of clarity is reinforced by symbols that create a false sense of certainty. A product might be labeled “recycled” versus “recyclable,” two very different outcomes for the item’s end-of-life journey. A 2019 report by the Consumer Brands Association, aptly titled “Reduce. Reuse. Confuse.” found a staggering 92 percent of Americans didn’t understand the labels on plastic products.

While initiatives such as the SmartLabel platform attempt to solve this problem, they only scratch the surface of a much deeper issue: the gap between a product’s promise and its ultimate fate in the eyes of the consumer.

How to use the end gap

The four factors of the end gap are a starting point for asking human-scale, emotional questions. Instead of just measuring materials and weight, you can address the consumer’s experience directly:

  • Relationship: How does the relationship with your customers break down? Is it soon after the sale, or do you have contact well into the product’s usage period? Analyze when and how this connection fades.
  • Asset: Does the customer know the product’s material when it’s time to dispose of it? You don’t want to leave them wondering. If your business provides this information, you can maintain an open dialogue, building trust and collaboration.
  • Identity: If you have an open dialogue, you must still have their contact details. By informing consumers of the product’s impact and providing capture or offset options, you can partner with them more directly during this time.
  • Routes: Do the initiatives your company puts in place show a clear path? Or do you abandon the customer to stitch these issues together themselves? Build a straightforward route for them to complete their consumption. 

Our consumption journey begins with human desire, a powerful emotional driver for new beginnings. Yet, our current model often neglects the human experience of endings. Instead, it tries to measure the cold tangibles — material, weight, chemistry. This lack of human meaning leads to societal fear of making the “wrong” disposal decision and drawers full of old phones. To foster a truly circular economy, we must move beyond technical solutions and address this psychological void. 

The post The end gap: The overlooked space between product usage and disposal appeared first on Trellis.

Global policy progress on plastics stalls, despite public concern

Despite growing concerns over plastic pollution and how it’s affecting human health, global policy progress on the matter is faltering.

Research from Trellis data partner GlobeScan, in conjunction with ERM and Volans, shows that sustainability experts ranked a Global Plastics Treaty as highly impactful but among the least feasible actions out of 64 sustainability measures assessed. While the research was conducted prior to the latest treaty negotiations, treaty talks have stalled without meaningful commitments.

The unlikelihood of a treaty is all the more pressing at a time when public concern over plastic pollution is widespread. A Globescan study from last year showed 70 percent of people globally felt directly impacted by single-use plastic waste. The leading concern of single-use plastic waste? Not climate change or ocean pollution, but the presence and effect of microplastics and chemicals in the human body. 

What this means

The gap between the low feasibility of a global treaty and the significant public concern over the health impacts of plastics presents both risk and opportunity for business. Brands that take decisive action to reduce plastics can build consumer trust and credibility, while those that delay may face reputational challenges with increasingly health-conscious audiences.

Based on a survey of 844 sustainability practitioners in 72 countries conducted April-May 2025 and an online survey of more than 30,000 people across 31 markets conducted in 2024.

The post Global policy progress on plastics stalls, despite public concern appeared first on Trellis.

Supply chain leaders are stealth weapons in the drive to net zero

Last week, Chris Callieri became Levi’s first chief supply chain officer, reporting directly to the CEO. He’s one of the latest corporate appointments to reflect the increasingly heavy weight that supply chain leaders bring to the C-suite.

“This move exemplifies that supply chain roles are being significantly elevated in the corporate world, especially in retail and consumer goods companies,” said Nada Sanders, a professor of supply chain management at Northeastern University. “Supply chain leadership is now seen as critical to navigating costs, disruptions, innovation and sustainability, with these roles now reporting directly to the CEO.”

The topsy-turvy, tariff-centric U.S. trade policy of the past eight months provides obvious reasons why businesses need to throw their brightest, most nimble leadership behind procurement. Apple’s Sabih Khan is another recent example. Credited for driving down emissions when he oversaw the company’s supply operations, Khan became the chief operations officer in July.

Such leaders are essential to businesses that are sincere about moving past grand sustainability commitments and tackling the near-term nitty-gritty of net zero transitions. As Sainsbury’s recently named chief retail, logistics and supply officer, for example, Tracey Clements faces a to-do list that likely includes helping to reach net zero in its value chain by 2050.

Hiding in plain sight

Come September 15, when Callieri starts reporting to CEO Michelle Gass, he will not only have to keep the sourcing trains running in a high-stakes, high-tariff trade environment, but also be responsible for driving down 99 percent of the company’s emissions, which originate from sourcing. 

“Supply chain is an essential function of sustainability, and can be connected to the same key issues like sourcing, energy use, and worker’s rights,” said Ellen Weinreb, chief executive officer of Weinreb Group Sustainability Recruiting in Berkeley, California. “So it makes sense for sustainability to ‘live’ in that function.”

Of course, it’s quite possible that White House attacks on “woke” language related to climate and ESG are driving such efforts underground. That is to say, there’s good reason to think that C-suites are quietly hiding their most important sustainability functions within procurement.

In fact, chief supply chain officers do more true sustainability work than even the chief sustainability officer, according to a 2023 survey of 250 professionals in the field by North Carolina State University.

In another survey of 500 chief supply chain officers in 2022, two thirds called sustainability core to business value. That matters, because matching sustainability strategy with business strategy is one of the biggest issues sustainability leaders face. “Shifting sustainability leaders into supply chain roles supports that ambition while also reducing the external appearance of sustainability as an ESG initiative,” said Weinreb.

Weinreb added: “Based on my conversations with sustainability leaders, I am confident that environmental and social impact work continues, but many companies are looking for ways to tone down the external appearance of the work.”

The post Supply chain leaders are stealth weapons in the drive to net zero appeared first on Trellis.

16 fellowships to advance your career in 2025

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

The climate and sustainability fellowships landscape has shifted since I last shared a list of 18 opportunities three years ago. Some programs from my original article are no longer running — such as the Presidential Management Fellows program, terminated in February — while others (especially those funded by AmeriCorps) face major uncertainty due to staffing cuts, grant cancellations and the withholding of appropriated funds.    

But there is plenty of good news, too. Many new programs have emerged and in addition to the fellowships listed below, several colleges and universities are running their own. Both the Colorado State University Impact MBA Corporate Sustainability Fellowship and University of New Hampshire Sustainability Fellowship, for example, enable students to solve sustainability challenges for organizations within their region and beyond. It’s also encouraging to see more fellowships related to a wider scope of sustainability, providing opportunities in impact investing, zero waste, sustainable food systems and climate resilience.  

Below are 16 programs that can help students and working professionals advance their sustainability careers. A handful don’t officially call themselves “fellowships,” but each program on this list offers a fellowship-like combination of training, experience, support and community designed to help participants succeed professionally.  

Opportunities for current students or recent graduates

The Global Warming Mitigation Project’s Constellations Fellowship

The Constellations Fellowship connects students and recent graduates with paid, virtual work experiences at the forefront of climate innovation. Fellows are matched with organizations from the Global Warming Mitigation Project’s international network of Keeling Curve Prize Laureates and Finalists, a community recognized for driving some of the world’s most effective climate solutions. Throughout a 12- to 14-week fellowship, participants contribute meaningful work that supports climate action while gaining real-world professional experience, mentorship and a global perspective.

  • Audience: Undergraduate students and recent graduates
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 120
  • Location: Remote
  • Timing: 12 to 14 weeks, hours vary by host organization
  • Compensation: $1,000 stipend
  • Next application deadline: Sept. 8

The Better Food Foundation DefaultVeg Program

DefaultVeg Ambassadors encourage their campuses to adopt climate-smart, plant-forward food and promote a broader cultural shift toward sustainable and inclusive food services. The program provides students with training and structured support for collaborating with university decision makers to adopt plant-based defaults and nudges. 

  • Audience: Current students of any experience level
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 100
  • Location: Virtual training with on-site engagement at your campus
  • Timing: 9 months, 15 hours per month beginning in September
  • Compensation: $1,000 grant
  • Next application deadline: Sept. 10

The Atlas Zero Waste Fellowship

The Atlas Zero Waste fellowship trains young leaders to usher their campuses through the process of establishing zero waste commitments, action plans and return on investment analyses. Fellows perform holistic qualitative assessments, facilitate stakeholders to create strategies that overcome campus silos and bureaucratic challenges, and develop a long-term proposal for the infrastructure and logistics needed to achieve zero waste.

  • Audience: Current students
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 35
  • Location: Virtual training with on-site campus engagement
  • Timing: 10 weeks, 5 hours per week
  • Compensation: Varies by school
  • Next application deadline: Rolling

The ClimateCAP Fellowship 

The ClimateCAP Fellowship is a cohort-based experience that empowers MBA students to become the next generation of climate leaders and changemakers. Fellows learn from guest experts and academic advisers, build community with each other and work on an applied climate-related project with publishable results.

  • Audience: MBA students
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 16
  • Location: Virtual, with an in-person event at the ClimateCAP Summit
  • Timing: 11 months beginning in February
  • Compensation: 2026 stipend amount TBD
  • Next application deadline: December

Impact Capital Managers Mosaic Fellowship

The ICM Mosaic Fellowship provides first-year graduate students with the opportunity to be a summer associate at an ICM member fund. Fellows have exposure to all areas of fund management including market research, deal sourcing and due diligence, impact measurement, and management and fundraising.

  • Audience: First-year graduate students
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 25
  • Location: New York City
  • Timing: 10 weeks from mid-June to mid-August
  • Compensation: $20,000 stipend
  • Next application deadline: Dec. 2

The Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corps Fellowship

EDF Climate Corps Fellows help their host organizations accomplish their climate and emission reduction goals. Fellows work over the summer to design tools and recommendations for reducing energy consumption, procuring renewable energy, electrifying fleets, road-mapping emission targets, advancing climate justice and managing climate risk.  

  • Audience: Graduate students
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 100
  • Location: Remote or at host organizations across the U.S.
  • Timing: Full-time for 10 to 12 weeks over the summer
  • Compensation: Stipend of at least $1,400 per week
  • Next application deadline: Dec. 22

United Nations Academic Impact Millennium Fellowship

This semester-long, on-campus leadership development program enables students to lead projects that advance the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals within their communities.

  • Audience: Undergraduate students
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 3,000-plus globally in cohorts of eight to 20 students per school
  • Location: On campuses worldwide
  • Timing: Fall semester
  • Compensation: None
  • Next application deadline: Early 2026

Women of Renewable Industries and Sustainable Energy (WRISE) Wind Power Fellowships

Wind Power Fellows receive free access to the American Clean Power Association’s CLEANPOWER conference, specialized program content, and mentoring and networking opportunities in the wind energy industry.

  • Audience: Undergraduates, graduate students or recent graduates identifying as a woman or other marginalized gender
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 10
  • Location: Virtual meetings and in-person attendance of the CLEANPOWER conference
  • Timing: Two months centered around the CLEANPOWER conference in May
  • Compensation: Free access to the conference including tickets, travel, meals and lodging expenses, and a free year of WRISE membership
  • Next application deadline: Early 2026

Rachel Carson Council Fellowship

The Rachel Carson Council Fellowship Program provides students with a passion for environmental education, organizing and advocacy with training, mentorship and financial support for projects that address sustainability and justice issues on their campus. 

  • Audience: Graduate and undergraduate students
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 30
  • Location: Training in Washington, D.C., remote work on U.S. campuses
  • Timing: Training in the summer, fellowship work throughout the academic year
  • Compensation: $2,000 stipend
  • Next application deadline: Spring 2026

The Rising Solar Power Fellowship

The Rising Solar fellowship program is a partnership between GRID Alternatives and WRISE to give aspiring solar professionals from diverse backgrounds the opportunity to pursue a career in renewable energy. Fellows receive free access to the RE+ conference, exclusive program content, mentoring and networking opportunities and the chance to collaborate with fellowship peers and alumni.  

  • Audience: Current or recent graduates of a college, university or technical certificate program
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 8
  • Location: Attend the RE+ conference in person, virtual meetings before and after
  • Timing: One month, Aug. 13-Sept. 18
  • Compensation: Free registration, travel and lodging for the conference
  • Next application deadline: Summer 2026

Part-time opportunities for working professionals

U.S. Green Building Council California Green Building Corps Program

The Green Building Corps is a professional development program from USGBC California that provides project-based work experience, training and certifications, mentorship, career support and networking opportunities to people interested in a career in sustainability and buildings. Participants support California’s transformation into a more sustainable, resilient and equitable region for all.  

  • Audience: Students and working professionals
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 30
  • Location: California-based remote and hybrid
  • Timing: 6 months, 10 hours per week beginning in October or May
  • Compensation: Training and certification reimbursement, USGBC-CA membership
  • Next application deadline: Fall cohort: Sept. 19, spring cohort: April 17, 2026

Morgridge Family Foundation Morgridge Acceleration Program Fellowship

MAP Fellows are paired with influential nonprofit executives to help them solve social impact challenges currently facing their organizations.  

  • Audience: Working professionals
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 12
  • Location: Virtual with a few trips for training and site visits
  • Timing: 6 months, 15 hours per month
  • Compensation: All travel expenses paid, host organization receives up to $5,000 for projects
  • Next application deadline: Sept. 29

E2 (Environmental Entrepreneurs) 1 Hotels Fellowship

1 Hotels Fellows work on projects that amplify the business and economic case for smart policies in clean economy, clean energy, food and agriculture, building electrification and performance, transportation electrification and clean water. 

  • Audience: Early to mid-career professionals with a project proposal
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 6
  • Location: Various locations across the U.S.
  • Timing: One-year commitment beginning in December
  • Compensation: $20,000 stipend
  • Next application deadline: Summer 2026

Full-time opportunities for professionals

The SEI Climate Corps Fellowship

The SEI Climate Corps provides emerging leaders with professional opportunities at government organizations, nonprofits and for-profit businesses. Fellows work on projects that span all facets of sustainability including environmental justice, corporate sustainability, resiliency, renewable energy, transportation, facilities, education, waste reduction and conservation. Fellows on the Strategic Energy Management track receive specialized professional training such as Building Operator or University of California Climate Stewards certification to enable them to better support energy managers and facilities teams at their host organizations. 

  • Audience: Early-career professionals
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 65
  • Location: Various locations throughout the U.S. 
  • Timing: Full-time for 10 to 12 months starting in September, January, March or June
  • Compensation: $3,450-plus/month plus benefits
  • Next application deadline: Rolling, most openings posted in the spring and summer

GRID Alternatives SolarCorps Fellowship 

The SolarCorps Fellowship connects underrepresented talent with hands-on experiences in the clean energy industry to advance economic and environmental justice. Projects span multiple areas including solar, battery and EV charger installation; solar design, operations and maintenance; project management and development; clean mobility; solar workforce development and training; and community outreach. 

  • Audience: Adults 18-plus, no experience necessary
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 35
  • Location: California, Washington D.C, New Mexico, remote
  • Timing: Full-time for 11 months starting in September
  • Compensation: $40,800/year plus benefits
  • Next application deadline: Rolling applications open in May, submit an interest form

FUSE Executive Fellowship

FUSE embeds private-sector executives in city and county agencies to lead projects that improve public services and accelerate systems change. Projects support solutions in climate resilience, justice, affordable housing, economic mobility, public safety, infrastructure, technology and more.

  • Audience: Professionals with 15-plus years of private-sector experience
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 15
  • Location: Various locations throughout the U.S.
  • Timing: Full-time for one or two years, starting in spring or fall
  • Compensation: $80,000/year plus benefits
  • Next application deadline: Rolling

The post 16 fellowships to advance your career in 2025 appeared first on Trellis.

Apple loses court case over ‘CO2 neutral’ watch claim

Ads that describe the Apple Watch as “CO2 neutral” are misleading and violate competition law, a German court has ruled. The decision comes as Apple is battling a class-action suit in the U.S. on a similar issue.

The company has said it will phase out use of the language ahead of incoming European rules on such claims.

The ruling, issued Tuesday by a Frankfurt court that handles commercial cases, centers on offsets that Apple purchased from a forestry project in Paraguay to make its CO2-neutral claim.

Consumer perceptions of such claims, the judge found, are shaped by the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increases to no more 1.5 degrees Celsius by mid-century. “Consumers would therefore assume that the advertised Apple Watch would ensure CO2 compensation until around 2050,” the court noted in a statement on its decision.

But the offsets purchased by Apple are for eucalyptus plantations on land leased only until 2029. “Therefore, carbon offsetting was only guaranteed until 2029,” according to the court statement. “Apple was unable to prove that all leases would be extended. There is no secure prospect for the continuation of the forestry project.”

Buffer pools not enough

To address the lease issue, Apple had pointed toward the “buffer” carbon credit account required by Verra, the standard-setter that established the methodology followed by the forestry project. Project developers often place a fraction of the credits they generate in buffer accounts, which act as insurance should stored carbon be released back to the atmosphere by fire or other causes. But the court found that if the leases are not extended, the buffer alone could not ensure the “continued existence” of the forest.

“With our climate lawsuits against greenwashing by industrial and commercial companies, we are ensuring that even multi-billion dollar corporations like Apple must provide consumers with honest and comprehensible information about the actual environmental impacts of their products,” said Jürgen Resch, federal director of Environmental Action Germany, the group that brought the case, in a statement.

In the U.S., Apple was sued in February by consumers who said they paid a premium for the carbon neutrality claim associated with the Apple Watch. The offsets at the heart of the U.S. case came from forestry projects in China and Kenya that the consumers’ lawyers described as worthless because they “fail to provide genuine, additional carbon reductions.” The next hearing in the case is scheduled for November.

Apple is already phasing out carbon-neutral claims on its products ahead of stricter European Union rules around the use of such language that will come into force in September 2026.

“Importantly, the court has broadly upheld our rigorous approach to carbon neutrality,” an Apple spokesperson said. “We remain laser-focused on further reducing emissions by industry-leading innovation in clean energy, low-carbon design and more — work that has put us on track to achieve carbon neutrality throughout our entire supply chain by 2030.”

Leadership position

Apple has been supported in the U.S. lawsuit by the Environmental Defense Fund, which filed an amicus brief in May describing the company’s practices as “eminently reasonable and consistent with industry practice.”

“What I don’t want to be lost in all the news around the carbon-neutral claim is Apple’s approach to decarbonization, where they work to reduce emissions in their operations as much as they can, engage with their supply chain to do the same and then invest in high quality, verified carbon credits to support nature globally,” said Elizabeth Sturcken, EDF’s vice president of net-zero ambition and action. “That approach is a leadership approach and one that we want every company to take.”

The post Apple loses court case over ‘CO<sub>2</sub> neutral’ watch claim appeared first on Trellis.

How Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’  is affecting climate tech investment

Based on results from the first half of 2025, climate tech investment is in wait-and-see mode. 

Grappling with shifting macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and domestic policy changes, investors have shored up cash, waiting for markets to find some semblance of certainty to start re-allocating capital with confidence.

“We found a real slowdown in the first half of the year … people are just not investing in the face of uncertainty,” said Yi Jean, a partner at Clean Energy Ventures, which invests in early stage companies scaling decarbonization solutions. 

First half funding is down 19 percent compared to 2024, according to CTVC. And while “mega deals” (greater than $100 million) are up 31 percent, early-stage climate tech investment has decreased, with seed and Series A investment totals dropping by 26 percent and 12 percent, respectively, 

This deceleration has forced startups to get back to fundamentals. It’s important for founders and investors to recognize the moment we’re in, said Gabriel Kra, co-founder at Prelude Ventures, who’s been investing in climate technologies since 2009: “In today’s climate tech new normal, cash and unit profitability is more important than growth.” In essence, he continued, “you can’t sell an investor on a vision, you have to prove unit economics and profitability, and how you’re not dependent on tax incentives to reach profitability.” 

While uncertainty weighs on both startups and investors, how have the specifics of the Trump administration’s budget and policy bill, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” affected investor sentiment? Does it provide additional certainty or muddy the waters further? 

Less than disastrous

While the bill changes the policy outlook for climate tech, tailwinds from the IRA aren’t fully gone. 

“The sense of disaster has been overhyped,” said Leonardo Banchik, investment director at early-stage venture firm Voyager. “While the IRA could have been stronger, several important provisions remain intact, which makes a real difference for the sector.”

The table below shows which sectors the new law is positive, neutral or negative for. For a comprehensive breakdown of the bill, I recommend exploring reports, including one from Columbia and another from Rhodium Group. 

Startups respond

It’s a mixed bag for startups, dependent on their tech and business models.

The strategy of Ateios Systems, an early-stage battery startup that designs electrodes without toxic chemicals, is focused on unit economics, operating towards profitability without help from policy, said founder and CEO Rajan Kumar. The bill “is helping our business [from the domestic manufacturing perspective] but it’s not the only thing,” he added.  With tax credits for battery manufacturing still in place, Ateios should be able to lower its prices and increase its margins. 

For Harvest Thermal, an early-stage smart HVAC startup, the bill is both boost and drag. With home energy credits expiring at the end of this year, homeowners will no longer be able to claim a 30-percent tax credit on technologies like Harvest Thermal’s. “While the loss of 25D creates headwinds, it has also encouraged us to deepen our partnerships with state and local programs, where we see much of the momentum shifting anyway,” said Jane Melia, the company’s co-founder and CFO.

The state of California, for example, is offering up to $25,000 in combined incentives for systems like Harvest Thermal’s. So while Washington retreats on certain tax credits, some regional players are filling the gap. 

At the same time, other tax credits, such as 48E, provide a 30-50 percent credit for advanced HVAC systems through 2033. 

At the end of the day, said Melia, “policy shifts like this remind us that incentives come and go, but customer value must remain permanent.” 

The case for optimism

Even under the current administration, tailwinds remain for a number of climate technologies. The current environment requires startups to get creative with regional incentives and focus on creating superior products.

Voyager’s Banchik expects the bill to inject certainty into the market and fuel more investment in the rest of the year. “While we invest in companies with strong fundamentals that don’t depend on policy incentives, having these provisions enshrined in law reduces risk and eliminates countless hours of discussions to build confidence,” he said. “We’re already seeing this certainty in the investments we’re making. It’s as simple as: Credits are extended, so let’s move forward.”

Kra of Prelude Ventures referenced James Taylor: He’s seen fire and he’s seen rain. At some point, “markets will come roaring back,“ Kra said, and “companies that meet that moment with unit economics will be poised for growth and tremendous financial success.”

The post How Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’  is affecting climate tech investment appeared first on Trellis.

Chris Callieri becomes Levi’s chief supply chain officer

Levi Strauss & Co. has appointed Chris Callieri its first chief supply chain officer, a title he held at Victoria’s Secret and Tory Burch. He offers two decades of strategic experience related to sourcing and logistics, and a record of advocating for more than “check-the-box” corporate sustainability.

Callieri reports directly to Levi’s President and CEO Michelle Gass. “Chris is an industry veteran with an exceptional track record of delivering results at scale who will help us strengthen supply chain agility, drive innovation and advance our sustainability goals,” Gass wrote on LinkedIn.

“I’m thrilled to join LS&Co. at such an exciting time for the iconic Levi’s brand, a true category leader that thrives at the center of culture,” Callieri said in a statement.

It’s possible that Callieri will assume some of the work previously handled by Chief Operating Officer Liz O’Neill, who retired in March. Responsibilities and titles shifted for at least six C-suite roles at the time, including chief product officer and chief commercial officer.

Gass, who has emphasized a direct-to-consumer focus for the blue jeans producer, also praised Callieri’s “focus on driving operational excellence” to make the “supply chain become more tech-savvy, more agile and better able to deliver best-in-class service to our fans and customers worldwide.”

Sourcing drives Levi’s emissions

The denim giant’s sourcing and logistics are central to its net zero aims for 2050. Ninety-nine percent of Levi’s total emissions derive from a supply chain that extends across 30 countries, largely in Asia.

The Science-Based Targets initiative validated the company’s decarbonization goals back in 2018, early for the sector. Levi’s 2024 climate transition plan, issued in October, offered a snapshot, rare in the apparel industry, of its near-term steps toward net zero. Beyond emissions, water and biodiversity strategies are focus areas in Levi’s supply chain.

Brand leadership

Callieri is closing out two years as chief supply chain officer for Victoria’s Secret in New York City, where he oversaw the sourcing of raw materials as well as product development, manufacturing and logistics.

“Transparency is good business — it builds trust, highlights the intentional decisions we make in our product development and demonstrates our suppliers’ commitments to sustainability,” he told Green Retail World in February, referring to the brand’s rollout of Digital Product Passports (DPPs). A QR code on bras allows consumers to open details on a smartphone about the product’s sourcing origins, such as family farms in Alabama.

Before that, Callieri spent four years in the same role at Tory Burch in New York, which included setting and executing sustainability strategy.

He joined the women’s high-end brand after two years as an Adidas senior vice president of product operations. “It’s certainly one of my favorite brands, and a company that takes sustainability very, very seriously,” he said on the Road to Champagne podcast in 2021. Part of the appeal, he said, was the company’s partnership with Parley for the Oceans to use waste plastic for sneaker textiles.

Callieri has spoken of listening to junior members of the team. “Some of us are very results-oriented and you tend to focus on the problem, you tend to focus on what needs to be done,” said Callieri, then at Tory Burch, on the podcast. “If you ignore that human dimension to really understand how everybody’s thinking about it, you will lose some of your effectiveness.”

Sustainability as ‘competitive advantage’

Callieri holds an MBA from Cornell University and a master’s of philosophy in environmental management from University of Cambridge. He was president of the biological society as an undergrad at the University of St. Andrews.

His consulting stints include a gig at sustainability-focused firm ERM in Chile, where he’s from. Later, after moving to Washington, D.C., he held an environmental and social due diligence role at the Inter-American Development Bank before becoming senior vice president at Accenture’s HRC North America. As principal with an apparel and retail focus, he had a chance to build A.T. Kearney’s sustainability practice.

The post Chris Callieri becomes Levi’s chief supply chain officer appeared first on Trellis.

The trials of making ‘dirt to shirt’ tees in the U.S.

Mass market T-shirts travel more than most Americans do. The materials in them commonly journey tens of thousands of miles from their cotton field roots to retail racks.

Less than 5 percent of clothes bought in the United States are made here, as 1.5 million jobs in apparel and textiles disappeared between 1979 and 2019.

Those who dream of renewed, home-grown supply chains have grasped for bright spots in the Trump administration’s chaotic storm of tariffs that have made it impossible for companies to conduct business as usual. Some advocates of slow fashion have found hope in the White House’s closure of a duty-free customs loophole that had favored fly-by-night fast fashions like Shein’s.

The secondhand clothing market may be an early beneficiary of such policies, but what about the few companies already making clothes from scratch domestically?

If anyone can answer that question, it’s T-shirt maker Eric Henry. His purpose-driven mission to source close to home has kept his Burlington, North Carolina, business afloat since the late 1970s. In 1994, however, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) almost broke his wholesale screen-printing outfit TS Designs, as customers like Nike bailed for cheaper suppliers overseas.

Local farm-to-fashion

Instead of collapsing, Henry drove harder into a sustainability niche, launching a Cotton of the Carolinas project that fosters “mini supply chains.” During the COVID-19 pandemic, he expanded that work into a retail brand, Solid State Clothing, to promote natural fibers and dyes derived from walnuts and marigolds. Scanning a QR code on the garment label opens a website of the faces, locations and contact details for each cotton farmer, fiber spinner and sewing operation. 

“I want to know the farmer,” said Henry (who has separately launched a collective of small farmers), of his new Where Your Clothing website. “I want to know the gin. I want to know specifics, because our industry is so good at greenwashing. It’s a way that we we check ourselves, and the consumer checks us.”

Eric Henry. Credit: TS Designs
Source: Where Your Clothing / Eric Henry

But decades into his labors to advance “dirt to shirt” production in the Southeast, Henry said hyper-fast fashion has brought the toughest challenges since NAFTA. And the powers-that-be in Washington are stripping away the supports that would help companies to revive U.S. manufacturing, and especially sustainable practices, according to Henry.

“At the end of the day, profits are important,” Henry said. “Making money is important. But I don’t want to do that if I’m hurting people or the planet.”

He has spent the better part of 2025 attempting to make sense of seesawing tariffs in order to afford the Spanish equipment he needs to build “the garment dye house of the future.” Meanwhile, federal funding for farmers’ sustainability and climate-related efforts is highly uncertain, with many programs delayed, canceled or at risk, impacting both Henry’s business and the broader supply chain. 

“It just causes further chaos in the marketplace,” he said. In addition, Henry fears that farmers who already sell cotton abroad at a loss will struggle to attract buyers, due to the tariff “sledgehammer.”

Doubling down

Nonetheless, Henry is doubling down on his purpose. He wants to disrupt apparel brands’ sourcing by growing a manufacturing cluster in the Southeast. He insists that efficient, localized production will justify the price premium of his $60 tees for corporate buyers. 

“Let’s talk about the apparel that you make that you never sell,” he said he will tell brands. “Let’s talk about the apparel that you make that you mark down. Let’s talk about how when something happens in the marketplace it takes you six months to respond. I can respond in a week.”

Local challenges

Henry offers an unusually granular level of transparency, but he isn’t the only maker pushing a U.S. farm-to-fashion model. American Giant of San Francisco sells its “Greatest American T-shirt,” spun from North Carolina cotton, for $65.

Imogene + Willie spent four years bringing to life T-shirts sourced and crafted within 400 miles of Nashville. The $56 white or black shirts are the fruits of its Cotton Project, which involved a seventh-generation farmer in Alabama, a third-generation spinner in North Carolina and a social enterprise garment shop in Tennessee.

And this fall, Renaissance Fiber of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, will start shipping its first-edition $55 hemp shirt, which is farmed in Montana and refined and knitted in the Carolinas.

“Each shirt is a wearable piece of history, a testament to American innovation, and a blueprint for a more resilient, sustainable and American-made future,” the company’s website states. The vision is romantic. In reality, local producers face numerous disadvantages relative to a corporate operation with in-house functions and shock-absorption capacity at scale.

A model in a $50 white T-shirt from Solid State Clothing. Credit: Solid State Clothing
Source: Where Your Clothing / Eric Henry

Consider Henry’s latest year-long cycle to produce a batch of shirts from 1,000 pounds of cotton within 800 miles from home. It begins in spring, with seedlings planted by a farm in the Texas Organic Cotton Cooperative — among the last organic cotton producers in the nation. A nearby ginning operation then removed the seeds. 

Ordinarily, Henry may have turned to the largest cotton spinner in the U.S., but the North Carolina company’s last domestic facility closed in 2024. Fortunately, North Carolina Spinning Mills was able to spin the fiber.

“Then the big fabric finisher, Carolina Cotton Works, in a 30-day notice went out of business last year and knocked a big hole in what we’re trying to do,” Henry said. Conveniently, the nearby knitter Henry chose, Beverly Knits of Gastonia, North Carolina, had snapped up textile finisher Hemingway Apparel in South Carolina.

“Ultimately, we need the brands; they have the retail channels,” said Henry, who is crowdfunding to buy enough Texas organic cotton for a later run of 15,000 shirts. “But we can make apparel manufacturing viable in this country, doing it this different way.”

Can more tight-knit, localized supply chains succeed in the United States? Or are these dirt-to-shirt efforts destined to be boutique brands that will only serve consumers who can afford 10 times the price of a mall or Amazon tee?

A threadbare industry

Margaret Bishop, a professor at the Parsons School of Design, is pessimistic about prospects for a meaningful revival of textile manufacturing in this country.

“Fifteen years ago, I said we could still successfully manufacture in the United States,” she said. “I no longer believe that we can on any significant scale.”

Americans generally don’t want to work in humid dye shops or mills, she said. And in addition to tariffs, the White House’s crackdown on undocumented workers is making even legal immigrants fearful to come to work in apparel jobs, she added. 

Credit: Solid State Clothing
Source: Where Your Clothing / Eric Henry

Moreover, providing the variety of yarns and fabrics necessary to keep up with seasonal fashions requires the kind of specialization that no longer exists in the U.S.

“We don’t have the large fiber producers, the large weaving mills, the large knitting mills,” Bishop said. “We’ve outsourced it overseas.”

However, Bishop said, there may be domestic opportunities to produce specific goods such T-shirts, denim and specialized uniforms. 

Regional manufacturing sites

Grey Matter Concepts, for example, is eyeing the Southeastern U.S. to build an AI-enabled factory to churn out socks and eventually T-shirts. The New York-based company sells its basics, including undershirts and boxers, to brands like Wrangler and DKNY.

The plant would offer roles for engineers and technicians with apparel and manufacturing degrees – a far cry from a sweatshop stereotype, according to Robert Antoshak, vice president of global sourcing. “I have this marketing image of people walking around in white lab coats: ‘Look at our socks, look at our underwear, our T-shirts.’”

Expanding some domestic production would bring sustainability benefits, according to Antoshak. For example, domestic cotton is easier to trace. “We can really tell a dirt-to-shirt story that’s U.S.-manufactured and -grown,” he said.

In addition to the momentum behind homegrown, natural fiber shirts, efforts are taking root to create circular manufacturing hubs for polyester. Goodwill Industries International of Rockville, Maryland, is partnering with polyester recycling venture Reju to supply secondhand fashion waste to transform into new textiles.

Said Goodwill CEO Steve Preston: “To the extent that we have these recycling facilities built here, it may not be that big of a step then to develop in that same region people who can spin that into yarn, rather than selling it and sending it to the other side of the world.”

The post The trials of making ‘dirt to shirt’ tees in the U.S. appeared first on Trellis.

This obscure UN rule will help shape the future of carbon markets

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

When I joined the nature and climate movement nearly 15 years ago, I never imagined how much time I’d spend decoding international carbon rules. But here we are: buried deep in a United Nations negotiation that will help determine how companies access carbon credits — and how the broader market evolves.

That negotiation is on Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement — a new, centralized crediting mechanism known as the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism — that will establish a UN-supervised carbon market system to enable countries and private entities to trade high-integrity emissions reductions and removals. 

While it might seem arcane, this mechanism will directly impact the integrity, availability and financial viability of nature-based carbon credits — not just under the Paris Agreement, but across other voluntary and compliance carbon markets, which currently mobilize more than $100 billion in carbon revenue annually. 

The stakes

Article 6.4 is often described as the successor to the Clean Development Mechanism, which was developed under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and established rules for how carbon credits within the program should be calculated. But unlike its predecessor, Article 6.4 is being designed in a world where sophisticated carbon markets already exist and where expectations around quality and integrity are rapidly rising. For example, global initiatives like the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market and the Voluntary Carbon Market Integrity initiative are working to establish a consistent integrity framework around the quality and use of credits. 

The supervisory body tasked with “operationalizing” Article 6.4 is now developing key standards that will define which types of methodologies and projects qualify and how risks are managed. In an effort to ensure that Paris mechanism credits are high integrity, this body is currently writing rules that could either enable or disable natural climate solutions — which protect, restore and sustainably manage ecosystems — at the very moment when we most need them. The decisions that are cemented in the final text will have long-term implications for our ability to meet the Paris Agreement.

Moreover, these decisions won’t just apply to 6.4. The ripple effect is already underway because these crediting rules (which should be finalized by October) are already setting expectations for what counts as “high-integrity” in the voluntary carbon market and other compliance markets. 

France, for example, recently released a charter to scale corporate carbon credit investment, supporting credits aligned with Article 6.4, before actually knowing where the rules will end up. India has also signaled it will use Article 6.4 eligible methodologies for its domestic compliance market. And the EU’s Task Force for International Carbon Pricing and Markets Diplomacy is working to promote integrity in the voluntary carbon market aligned with Article 6.4 standards. 

Why businesses should pay attention

If Article 6.4 rules limit carbon credits from natural solutions, like restoring mangroves or reducing fertilizer use to increase soil carbon, these decisions could filter into other markets, further cutting off investment in nature-based projects and programs because they don’t have a UN stamp of approval. With potentially billions of dollars of investment at stake, we risk losing out on high impact opportunities for climate mitigation, biodiversity benefits and sustainable economic development. 

This would be a very bad outcome because there is absolutely no reason that natural climate solutions can’t meet the highest integrity standards. In fact, the science is clear: the bigger risk to our global climate goals is the risk of failing to invest in these efforts.

To explain what I mean, here are a few areas are of particular concern from a nature-based point of view:

Durability and reversal risk: The risk of reversal — that carbon stored in the natural ecosystem will be re-released into the atmosphere — is a key issue for credits from natural solutions. But current Article 6.4 proposals to require indefinite post-crediting monitoring are unrealistic, and risk excluding nature from the system altogether. While this signals the need to address the risk that reversals may take place after the project’s lifespan, it is an extreme and impractical measure that would divert urgently needed climate finance away from land use solutions during this critical period for keeping our global goal of limiting warming to well below two degrees in reach.  

More practical and efficient approaches already exist and could be developed in the future — such as buffer pools that absorb the impact of unintentional reversals, insurance mechanisms that transfer financial risk and trust funds that can provide long-term resources for monitoring and remediation — to effectively manage non-permanence risk while keeping high-quality nature-based credits in the market.

Baselines: Article 6.4’s proposal to automatically adjust crediting baselines downward – which determines the amount of carbon removal achieved by a project – starts with a 10 percent cut below business-as-usual emissions and then ratchets down annually. This is intended to ensure conservativeness to avoid overcrediting. 

This proposal is well-intentioned, but the actual implementation is arbitrary and not based upon real-world observation. It could unnecessarily constrain supply from forests and land-use projects, regardless of actual performance or context. A better approach is to guide baseline adjustments with transparent, empirical methods that evolve with the science and reflect real-world dynamics.

Leakage: Emissions reductions in one area that cause increases elsewhere are a critical topic that warrants deeper exploration and better modeling. Article 6.4’s current approach, which expects developers to quantify and mitigate all potential leakage, is unrealistic because it places too much onus on individual project developers to undertake highly complex modelling that they are likely ill-equipped to perform . 

A more constructive path is to encourage continued scientific work on models that can estimate standardized global, default leakage deductions across project types and locations.

Implications for carbon markets

All of this matters to corporate sustainability professionals because as carbon markets mature, they’re also converging. Companies using voluntary credits today may soon find themselves operating under regulated disclosure regimes, national offset programs or hybrid markets that borrow heavily from UN frameworks.

Article 6.4 is likely to heavily influence expectations as to what counts as “high-integrity.” If its decisions have the effect of excluding natural climate solutions, it would push corporate actors toward a narrower, less diverse set of options. That would undermine efforts to build credible net-zero strategies and stall progress on climate, biodiversity and equity goals alike.

The post This obscure UN rule will help shape the future of carbon markets appeared first on Trellis.