More companies that provide rayon, lyocell and modal to fashion brands are sourcing less from ancient and endangered forests, according to the nonprofit Canopy. Although the vast majority of cellulosic fibers are still spun from virgin materials, some of the biggest producers have been quickly adopting forest-friendly and circular materials.

Seventy percent of companies making semi-synthetic, cellulose-based fibers now exhibit green practices that reduce pressures on forests, according to the10th Hot Button report by Canopy, issued Oct. 16. Fifty four percent of fiber producers that the group tracked have reached the nonprofit’s favorable green rating, with 59 percent offering material traceability.

There has been notable progress over the past decade. Canopy has classified 21 companies as green, up from zero in 2016. And in that time, the number of apparel product lines made from next-gen, preferable sources of manmade cellulosic fibers rose to 16 from none.

Canopy uses this annual report in part to help brands make informed sourcing decisions, in line with its mission to save some of the hundreds of millions of trees felled for fashion each year. The Vancouver nonprofit works with 950 companies to protect forests and biodiversity in apparel, packaging and other industries.

A long way to go

And yet there’s a long way to go to advance circularity in rayon and other manmade cellulosic fibers (MMCFs). Although sourced from wood, plants or and waste, semisynthetics involve chemical and mechanical processing.

The use of recycled materials for such fibers is still rare, although it grew to 1.1 percent in 2024 from .7 percent a year earlier, according to the latest Materials Market Report by Textile Exchange.

Such textiles represent only 6 percent of the global fiber market, according to Textile Exchange. It found that fibers approved by Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or other certification made up as much as 70 percent of cellulosic fiber market share.

“When we can pull these levers to build demand for those sorts of fibers, the world is better off,” said Forest Stewardship Council U.S. President Sarah Billig.

Who’s doing what

Tied for the top honors in the Hot Button report are Lenzing of Austria, responsible for nearly 13 percent of the worldwide production of manmade cellulosic fibers, and Tangshan Sanyou of China, which makes 9 percent. They are followed by Aditya Birla of India, which supplies almost 16 percent of global volumes.

Such early adopters are also working toward circularity goals, including using less wood and boosting next-generation production by 2030. For example:

• Yibin Grace, which placed sixth in the report, in April announced it was opening China’s first dissolving pulp mill to turn old textiles into material for new fibers. 
• Tangshan Sanyou in July started working with textile-to-textile recycler Circ on next-generation lyocell.
• The fourth company on the list, Jilin Chemical Fiber, in May began producing Reboocel fiber made from FSC-certified bamboo and bamboo recycled from furniture.
• Xinxiang Chemical (Bailu Group) in the spring launched pilot production for recycled viscose.

Other progress includes the rise of textile-to-textile material Circulose, which rose from startup Renewcell’s ashes in Sweden. More brands, such as Reformation, are working its pulp into their collections.

In addition, in February recycling startup Circ launched Fiber Club, a collaboration with Fashion for Good and Canopy. Birla Cellulose, Arvind Limited and Foshan Chicley have joined the effort to push circular manmade cellulosics, along with brands Bestseller, Eileen Fisher, Everlane and Zalando.

Canopy rates companies according to sourcing, conservation, innovation, traceability and other factors. The new report added chemical management to reflect participation in the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals program.

What needs work

Canopy calls on companies to scale up next-gen materials from crop and textile waste to reduce pressure on forests for virgin pulp.

That said, some smaller fiber companies that employ more advanced circularity practices are struggling. Kelheim Fibres of Germany entered bankruptcy last year. Formosa Chemicals & Fibre of Taiwan is set to fold, and American rayon maker Enka appears to be on the brink of closing.

The post Fiber giants are advancing forest-friendly materials, Hot Button report finds appeared first on Trellis.

New research about how people engage emotionally with environmental, climate and nature-related issues show a large regional difference.

Trellis data partner GlobeScan’s research around what motivates people to act when it comes to climate change shows in Africa and the Middle East, people tend to feel hopeful and empowered, whereas in Europe and North America, reactions are often marked by fear, anxiety and a sense of helplessness. These contrasting emotional landscapes reveal that climate communication cannot take a one-size-fits-all approach. To truly resonate, messaging must be culturally attuned and reflect local emotional realities and values to inspire meaningful action. 

What this means

GlobeScan’s project, called Societal Shift, shows that emotional responses to climate issues are varied, nuanced and full of potential — if harnessed effectively. In the Global South, where feelings of hope and empowerment are more common, there’s an opportunity to build on this optimism and resilience. These emotional foundations can support locally-driven solutions and leadership that reflect community values and aspirations. In the Global North, where fear, anxiety and helplessness are more frequently expressed, communication strategies can evolve to offer a more constructive path forward. This might include amplifying stories of action and not just intent or doom and gloom, to inspire confidence and a sense of agency. This might also include channeling frustration and anger toward calls for greater justice in the climate fight. Emotional engagement is not a distraction from climate action; it plays a central role in enabling people to move from awareness to meaningful participation.

Based on a survey of more than 31,000 people conducted in July and August 2025.

The post How emotions shape climate action around the world appeared first on Trellis.

JPMorgan Chase, the largest U.S. bank, has backed away from its pledge to cut the carbon footprint of its corporate offices, bank branches and data centers 40 percent by 2030.

JPMorgan said the transition away from “time- and percent-bound targets,” disclosed Oct. 15 in its 2024 Sustainability Report, will allow it to prioritize measures to reduce, avoid or replace greenhouse gas emissions by analyzing which projects have the largest potential impact relative to cost rather than making decisions based on whether an initiative will deliver specific cuts by a short-term timeframe.

“This evolution in our strategy reflects the insights we have gained over the years and enables us to adapt to a changing landscape, including increased power demand, the pace of technological advancement and the overall economics of sustainable solutions,” the company said in the report.

The original goal was set in 2021, along with pledges related to how JPMorgan makes financing decisions to support the development of low-carbon technologies. Its biggest competitors also have emissions reductions targets focused on their operations (Scope 1) and electricity consumption (Scope 2). For example, Citi aims to become net zero for those categories by 2030, and Wells Fargo is working toward a 70 percent reduction.  

As of Dec. 31, 2024, JPMorgan cut emissions related to its operations and overall electricity consumption by 14 percent compared with its 2017 baseline, so it was running behind its original 2030 goal, according to a Trellis analysis of data from its 2023 and 2024 sustainability reports. 

JPMorgan declined to comment officially on this year’s sustainability report, nor did it issue a press release about its publication.

Slow progress on renewable energy 

The new approach applies to projects JPMorgan is considering across more than 6,500 global sites, such as on-site solar projects, power purchase agreements for renewable energy, lighting and energy efficiency measures and heating and cooling retrofits.

For example, JPMorgan in 2024 installed solar panels at 64 retail branches and three commercial offices; it also paired some of those new installations with energy storage, as part of a pilot project. Its goal in 2023 was to deploy 16 megawatt-hours of energy storage in Arizona and Delaware by the end of 2025. The company’s new headquarters in New York is the city’s largest all-electric tower, powered by a hydroelectric project upstate. 

JPMorgan sourced 57,420 megawatt-hours of electricity from its on-site solar panels as of Dec. 31, 2024, up from 47,443 megawatt-hours in 2023. The bank didn’t disclose progress toward its 2030 renewable energy commitment in the latest report; in its 2023 report, the bank said it had reached 23 percent.    

JPMorgan will use the cost of renewable energy and the price for high-quality carbon credits when assessing future investments. For example, the company signed a 13-year contract in May that will purchase credits for carbon captured at pulp and paper mills along the U.S. Gulf Coast. The bank paid less than $200 per metric ton of removal, one of the lowest prices reported for a deal of this nature.  

$309 billion in green finance

JPMorgan is holding firm on its commitment to invest $1 trillion to support renewable energy, electric vehicles, climate adaptation and other initiatives in pursuit of a clean economy transition by 2030. The bank has so far deployed $309 billion toward that goal, including $68 billion in 2024. Much of that financing came in the form of green bonds or funds deployed for renewables and low-carbon energy projects.

JPMorgan deployed $1 billion in financing to climate adaptation and resilience projects in 2024, its first commitments to that category. 

Funding the low-carbon transition

The bank is also sticking to commitments to reduce the emissions intensity of its investments in energy projects and in companies representing eight key economic sectors ranging from aluminum to shipping. Wells Fargo has backed off a similar pledge. 

This activity falls into the category of “financed emissions,” and it typically represents the largest portion of any financial institution’s carbon footprint. It’s an area that members of the now-defunct Net Zero Banking Alliance had sought to address collaboratively. JPMorgan pulled out of the group in January.

Despite that defection, the bank still calculates and reports on its energy financing activities. It scrutinizes the amount of money it commits to high-carbon supply compared with its investments toward projects or technologies that support the transition to low-carbon energy. The overall ratio for 2024 was 1.13, meaning that for every $1 committed to high-carbon energy, JPMorgan put $1.13 toward low-carbon projects.

Aside from how it reviews energy financing, JPMorgan also uses 2030 intensity goals to assess investments related to auto manufacturing, aviation, shipping, iron and steel, cement and aluminum. “Our targets are designed to help us track our clients’ decarbonization progress and inform how we can best support our clients’ low-carbon transition objectives,” the bank said in its 2024 report.

For example, the carbon intensity of JPMorgan’s aviation investments has decreased about 20 percent since 2021, primarily because many of its clients in that sector have prioritized fleet modernization initiatives and other projects that have reduced their emissions.

Conversely, the carbon intensity for JPMorgan’s aluminum clients has increased 10.4 percent compared with the 2021 baseline, largely because of its support for companies in emerging markets, where production emissions tend to be higher.  

The post Why JPMorgan dropped its ‘time-bound’ 2030 emissions reduction goal  appeared first on Trellis.

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

The closure of the Net Zero Banking Alliance in early October wasn’t a surprise to anyone paying attention.

What started four years ago as a bold alliance of nearly 150 banks — together managing over $75 trillion in assets and pledging to align their lending with net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 — ended with an almost embarrassing dissolution as final members voted to cease operations after months of high-profile defections, political pressure and a steady erosion of commitments that had been watered down to the point of meaninglessness.

This failure demands our attention because it forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about the nature of voluntary cooperation, the power of political backlash and the gap between stated intentions and measurable outcomes. If we’re serious about addressing climate change through financial systems, we need to understand why the alliance failed — and we need to be honest about what actually works.

The illusion of voluntary commitment

Let’s begin with first principles. The alliance rested on a foundational assumption that major financial institutions, facing the physical and transition risks of climate change, would voluntarily constrain their most profitable activities in service of a collective good.

Consider the incentive structure. A bank’s fiduciary duty runs to its shareholders, not to the atmosphere. Oil and gas financing remains extraordinarily lucrative. Between 2016 and 2024, the world’s largest banks channeled $7.9 trillion to fossil fuel companies — despite the banks touting their own climate commitments. The banking alliance did nothing to change this fundamental calculus. It provided cover, not constraint.

From an impact investing perspective, this represents a category error that should have been obvious from the outset. Real capital allocation decisions — the kind that move markets and reshape industries — are driven by three forces: regulatory requirements, fiduciary obligations and demonstrable financial returns. Voluntary pledges might influence behavior at the margins, but they cannot override core economic incentives. The alliance tried to substitute moral persuasion for structural change and the result was entirely predictable.

The neuroscience of belief offers insight here. When we commit to an abstract principle such as “net zero by 2050,” our brains encode this as a virtuous intention — we receive a small dopaminergic reward for identifying with the moral position. But this reward is disconnected from the behavioral mechanisms that would actually produce the outcome. The banks experienced the psychological benefits of membership while continuing to finance fossil fuels at scale.

This isn’t hypocrisy in the traditional sense; it’s the predictable result of misaligned incentives meeting human cognitive architecture. To take a more cynical view, it may reflect less on human weakness and more on a deliberate calculation by bank decision makers concerned with the optics of commitment and participation.

The collapse: Political reality meets corporate resolve

The exodus began in December 2024 when Goldman Sachs withdrew, followed rapidly by other Wall Street giants including JPMorgan, Citi, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo. By summer, major international institutions HSBC, UBS and Barclays had also departed. The alliance’s assets under management plummeted from $75.5 trillion in November 2024 to $42.2 trillion by August.

While many alliance watchers would say the proximate cause was political, I’d argue that political pressure only accelerated failures that were already inevitable. The banks didn’t leave because they were forced to; they left because the costs of staying had begun to outweigh the benefits, and those benefits had always been largely reputational.

This reveals something crucial about the architecture of collective action on climate. When the political winds shift — and they will shift, repeatedly, across the decades required for the energy transition — voluntary commitments evaporate. This isn’t a moral failing; it’s a structural feature of systems governed by quarterly earnings reports and electoral cycles.

What actually works: Moving beyond performance

If voluntary alliances are insufficient, what will drive meaningful capital reallocation toward climate solutions? The evidence points to three mechanisms, none of which the alliance meaningfully advanced:

• • Regulatory requirements with enforcement mechanisms. The European Union’s sustainable finance regulations, however imperfect, create legal obligations that cannot be abandoned when political winds shift. They embed climate considerations into the operational fabric of financial institutions rather than relying on discretionary commitments. This isn’t ideological preference — it’s recognition that durable change requires changing the rules of the game, not asking players to voluntarily play differently.

• • Demonstrable financial returns in climate solutions. The renewable energy sector regularly delivers competitive returns with decreasing technological risk. Battery storage, green hydrogen and electric vehicles represent genuine investment opportunities. Capital flows toward these sectors not because of moral commitments but because the risk-adjusted returns increasingly justify the allocation. Impact investors and enterprises should lead with the “magnitude of the opportunity” rather than appeals to altruism, or even measurable impacts. Drop those in the appendix.

• • Transparency and accountability mechanisms that create reputational and legal consequences for material misrepresentation. This is distinct from voluntary pledges. When banks must disclose financed emissions with the same rigor they disclose credit risk, when greenwashing carries genuine legal liability, behavior changes. Not because hearts change, but because the cost-benefit analysis shifts. (The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals paused the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s litigation about its climate-risk disclosure rule last month.)

Honest assessment and action steps

The demise of the net zero banking alliance should prompt uncomfortable but necessary questions. How many other climate initiatives in the financial sector rest on similarly fragile foundations? How much of what passes for climate action is actually performance designed to forestall regulation? And most importantly: what would genuinely effective climate finance look like?

For business leaders, those committed to climate action through finance can:

• • Use the Science Based Targets initiative, which launched its Financial Institutions Net-Zero Standard in July, to help set goals.

• • Engage banks on specific projects by focusing on concrete, low-carbon transactions (clean power, green steel, renewable fuel) rather than abstract commitments.

• • • Work with values-based banks, which you can find via the Global Alliance for Banking on Values, with more than 70 values-based banks with $265 billion in assets. There’s also Equator Principles Banks composed of 128 financial institutions using environmental/social risk frameworks for project finance and B Corp Certified Banks including Amalgamated Bank, Beneficial State Bank and Sunrise Banks.

The demise of the banking alliance is clarifying rather than demoralizing because it forces attention toward interventions that might actually work. And it reveals which institutions are genuinely committed to transition (largely smaller, mission-driven banks and credit unions) and which are mostly engaged in reputation management.

The post A reckoning with reality: Lessons from the demise of the Net Zero Banking Alliance appeared first on Trellis.

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

The closure of the Net Zero Banking Alliance in early October wasn’t a surprise to anyone paying attention.

What started four years ago as a bold alliance of nearly 150 banks — together managing over $75 trillion in assets and pledging to align their lending with net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 — ended with an almost embarrassing dissolution as final members voted to cease operations after months of high-profile defections, political pressure and a steady erosion of commitments that had been watered down to the point of meaninglessness.

This failure demands our attention because it forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about the nature of voluntary cooperation, the power of political backlash and the gap between stated intentions and measurable outcomes. If we’re serious about addressing climate change through financial systems, we need to understand why the alliance failed — and we need to be honest about what actually works.

The illusion of voluntary commitment

Let’s begin with first principles. The alliance rested on a foundational assumption that major financial institutions, facing the physical and transition risks of climate change, would voluntarily constrain their most profitable activities in service of a collective good.

Consider the incentive structure. A bank’s fiduciary duty runs to its shareholders, not to the atmosphere. Oil and gas financing remains extraordinarily lucrative. Between 2016 and 2024, the world’s largest banks channeled $7.9 trillion to fossil fuel companies — despite the banks touting their own climate commitments. The banking alliance did nothing to change this fundamental calculus. It provided cover, not constraint.

From an impact investing perspective, this represents a category error that should have been obvious from the outset. Real capital allocation decisions — the kind that move markets and reshape industries — are driven by three forces: regulatory requirements, fiduciary obligations and demonstrable financial returns. Voluntary pledges might influence behavior at the margins, but they cannot override core economic incentives. The alliance tried to substitute moral persuasion for structural change and the result was entirely predictable.

The neuroscience of belief offers insight here. When we commit to an abstract principle such as “net zero by 2050,” our brains encode this as a virtuous intention — we receive a small dopaminergic reward for identifying with the moral position. But this reward is disconnected from the behavioral mechanisms that would actually produce the outcome. The banks experienced the psychological benefits of membership while continuing to finance fossil fuels at scale.

This isn’t hypocrisy in the traditional sense; it’s the predictable result of misaligned incentives meeting human cognitive architecture. To take a more cynical view, it may reflect less on human weakness and more on a deliberate calculation by bank decision makers concerned with the optics of commitment and participation.

The collapse: Political reality meets corporate resolve

The exodus began in December 2024 when Goldman Sachs withdrew, followed rapidly by other Wall Street giants including JPMorgan, Citi, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo. By summer, major international institutions HSBC, UBS and Barclays had also departed. The alliance’s assets under management plummeted from $75.5 trillion in November 2024 to $42.2 trillion by August.

While many alliance watchers would say the proximate cause was political, I’d argue that political pressure only accelerated failures that were already inevitable. The banks didn’t leave because they were forced to; they left because the costs of staying had begun to outweigh the benefits, and those benefits had always been largely reputational.

This reveals something crucial about the architecture of collective action on climate. When the political winds shift — and they will shift, repeatedly, across the decades required for the energy transition — voluntary commitments evaporate. This isn’t a moral failing; it’s a structural feature of systems governed by quarterly earnings reports and electoral cycles.

What actually works: Moving beyond performance

If voluntary alliances are insufficient, what will drive meaningful capital reallocation toward climate solutions? The evidence points to three mechanisms, none of which the alliance meaningfully advanced:

• • Regulatory requirements with enforcement mechanisms. The European Union’s sustainable finance regulations, however imperfect, create legal obligations that cannot be abandoned when political winds shift. They embed climate considerations into the operational fabric of financial institutions rather than relying on discretionary commitments. This isn’t ideological preference — it’s recognition that durable change requires changing the rules of the game, not asking players to voluntarily play differently.

• • Demonstrable financial returns in climate solutions. The renewable energy sector regularly delivers competitive returns with decreasing technological risk. Battery storage, green hydrogen and electric vehicles represent genuine investment opportunities. Capital flows toward these sectors not because of moral commitments but because the risk-adjusted returns increasingly justify the allocation. Impact investors and enterprises should lead with the “magnitude of the opportunity” rather than appeals to altruism, or even measurable impacts. Drop those in the appendix.

• • Transparency and accountability mechanisms that create reputational and legal consequences for material misrepresentation. This is distinct from voluntary pledges. When banks must disclose financed emissions with the same rigor they disclose credit risk, when greenwashing carries genuine legal liability, behavior changes. Not because hearts change, but because the cost-benefit analysis shifts. (The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals paused the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s litigation about its climate-risk disclosure rule last month.)

Honest assessment and action steps

The demise of the net zero banking alliance should prompt uncomfortable but necessary questions. How many other climate initiatives in the financial sector rest on similarly fragile foundations? How much of what passes for climate action is actually performance designed to forestall regulation? And most importantly: what would genuinely effective climate finance look like?

For business leaders, those committed to climate action through finance can:

• • Use the Science Based Targets initiative, which launched its Financial Institutions Net-Zero Standard in July, to help set goals.

• • Engage banks on specific projects by focusing on concrete, low-carbon transactions (clean power, green steel, renewable fuel) rather than abstract commitments.

• • • Work with values-based banks, which you can find via the Global Alliance for Banking on Values, with more than 70 values-based banks with $265 billion in assets. There’s also Equator Principles Banks composed of 128 financial institutions using environmental/social risk frameworks for project finance and B Corp Certified Banks including Amalgamated Bank, Beneficial State Bank and Sunrise Banks.

The demise of the banking alliance is clarifying rather than demoralizing because it forces attention toward interventions that might actually work. And it reveals which institutions are genuinely committed to transition (largely smaller, mission-driven banks and credit unions) and which are mostly engaged in reputation management.

The post A reckoning with reality: Lessons from the demise of the Net Zero Banking Alliance appeared first on Trellis.