How businesses can turn plastics risks into opportunity

Concerns have never been more acute about pollution and toxicity from plastics. Plastic production and waste could nearly triple by 2060, yet hopes are weak for a global plastics treaty after the last attempt flamed out in August.

But regardless of its outcome, this moment marks a turning point for business risks and opportunities around plastics.

The treaty collapsed after Saudi Arabia, the United States, Russia and other fossil-fuel-friendly nations balked on production caps, which more than 100 other countries demanded. The United Nations treaty requires unanimity, however, and many experts are pessimistic about that possibility.

Treaty stakeholders return to Geneva on Feb. 7 to elect a new chair, who will need to navigate tensions with obstructionist countries.

Risks and opportunities

“Reckless petrochemical capacity expansion isn’t just harmful for the climate; it’s increasingly seen as a financial risk,” said Andres del Castillo, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law.

In July, more than 80 financial institutions managing a collective $7 trillion in assets warned of major liabilities related to plastics.

In addition, the health impacts of plastics will cause businesses to lose customers, according to Judith Enck, author of the 2025 book, “The Problem with Plastic.” Scientists recently tied plastics in the body to heart attacks and Alzheimer’s disease. “Poll after poll shows that the public wants less plastic,” she said.

The good news: Advancing circular and less-toxic plastic systems can create new business streams and 8.6 million jobs, according to the Dec. 3 “Breaking the Plastics Wave” report by Pew Charitable Trust and ICF International.

Where businesses stand

More than 300 companies in the Business Coalition for a Plastics Treaty— including Coca-Cola, Unilever and Walmart — re-affirmed their eagerness on Dec. 9 for new treaty talks.

Another collaboration, the U.S. Plastics Pact, continues working with scores of other corporations (and a handful of the same ones) to address waste. “We see companies refining — not retreating from — their commitments as they align goals with real-world constraints and focus on durable impact,” said Jonathan Quinn, president and CEO of the U.S. Plastics Pact.

Without a global treaty, businesses must navigate a patchwork of new rules governing plastics in the European Union, U.S. states and many other key markets.

Where the European Union goes …

The EU leads on such regulations, including banning single-use foodware. Microplastics controls started in 2025, and members are adapting extended producer responsibility (EPR) rules that force packaging and fashion brands to account for their products’ waste, post-sale.

Next August, the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation sets binding reduction and recycling goals through 2040. The sweeping Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) regulations, although evolving, could require disclosure and supply-chain actions by business.

Other nation states and U.S. states

In the U.S., bipartisan support for plastics regulation, including two recent Senate bills, “should signal to companies that Congress is taking note and prioritizing finding solutions to address our plastic pollution crisis here in the U.S.,” said Erin Simon, vice president of plastic waste and business at WWF.

EPR laws in California, Oregon, Maine, Minnesota and Maryland are attracting copycats. Bans on single-use plastics are rolling ahead in fits and starts in multiple states and nations, too. A dozen states are mulling rules on “forever chemical” plastic additives in kitchenware and food packaging, with rules already in effect in New Mexico.

In addition to regulations, companies face new legal risks regarding plastics. For instance, class action lawsuits are cropping up around microplastics released by water and baby bottles, noted Katie Bond, a partner at the law firm Keller & Heckman in Washington, D.C. 

How businesses can respond

Several themes regarding business responses to these challenged emerged from recent expert conversations and reports:

Make fewer virgin plastics

New plastics production makes up 86 percent of emissions related to plastics. To counter that, the circular economy movement is building steam to popularize redesign, repair and resale.

Consider health impacts

Health problems are tied to about one-quarter of the 16,000 known plastics chemicals. Businesses can get ahead of regulations and substitute suspect materials, especially for products that touch the body, like kitchenware, to-go containers, cosmetics and toys. Cottage industries are rising for “low-toxic” products.

Slow microplastics shedding

Packaging accounts for nearly 40 percent of plastic waste. But farming practices, paints, tires, textiles, healthcare and recycling operations also release significant microplastics. Companies can filter out, monitor and report such releases.

“If a company is concerned about cases over microplastics, a good starting place can be to audit which products might be most likely to leach microplastics,” attorney Bond said.

Drop problematic polymers

Polystyrene (Styrofoam), EPS and PVC are likely targets for bans or restrictions due to toxicity or poor recyclability. Companies can inventory where legacy resins are used and build phase-out timetables.

Sound the alarm

Sustainability executives “need to throw their weight around and tell companies that they have to get ahead of this plastics problem or they’re going to lose sales,” said Enck, president of Beyond Plastics, based in Vermont. “I don’t think that message has gotten through.”

Back plastic policies

Corporations should lobby in line with their climate aspirations, instead of trying to play both sides of an issue. For instance, in October, Beyond Plastics called out 100 companies for advocating against a New York proposal to enhance recycling.

Unlock plastic supply chain transparency

Advocates are calling for a global chemical-disclosure framework around plastic footprints and health risks. As investor and regulatory pressures build, companies can improve supply chain traceability.

Scale refill and reuse systems

Circular business models and recycling could nearly eliminate plastic packaging pollution by 2040 in a best-case scenario, according to “Breaking the Plastics Wave.”

Reusable and refillable packaging is creeping forward. Moving faster requires retailer partnerships, redesigned packaging, reverse logistics and investment in cleaning and refilling systems.

Redesign packaging for recyclability

Simplified, single-material designs that ditch excess films, wraps or fillers are more likely to meet future design requirements that address recyclability, safety and microplastic prevention.

Expand waste management

Better collection and sorting systems can improve recycling. However, the alphabet soup of plastic ingredients makes them technically challenging to recycle. That’s partly why plastic recycling has stagnated below 10 percent for decades, and chemical recycling remains unproven at scale.

“Focusing on plastic recycling to solve the plastic pollution crisis is like sweeping leaves on a windy day,” Enck said. “We’re not going to make significant progress until companies reduce their reliance on plastic.”

The post How businesses can turn plastics risks into opportunity appeared first on Trellis.

CVS Health promotes former McDonald’s exec to lead sustainability efforts

Send news about sustainability leadership roles, promotions and departures to [email protected].

CVS Health has promoted Jennifer McColloch, who joined the company in March 2024 after almost 12 years at McDonald’s, as chief sustainability officer and vice president of community impact.

She’s taking over from Sheryl Burke, a long-time CVS executive who retired this fall after some four years as CSO. 

To give you an idea of how CVS thinks about sustainability, Burke was named CSO and senior vice president of corporate social responsibility for CVS after a long string of commercial roles across CVS, including senior vice president of cross-enterprise strategic innovation at health insurance provider Aetna, a CVS subsidiary.

McColloch reports to Heidi Capozzi, executive vice president and chief people officer at CVS — the same reporting structure Burke had. She’s responsible both for the $373 billion company’s climate strategy and its charitable giving.

CVS, which manages more than 9,000 retail locations, is aiming to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 47 percent by 2030, based on a 2019 baseline year. So far, it has reduced its Scope 1 (direct operations) and Scope 2 (purchased electricity) by 29 percent against that mark. It has cut Scope 3 (from upstream and downstream activities across its value chain) by 59 percent cumulatively, although emissions rose 3 percent between 2023 and 2024.

The company views its environmental programs as an important part of improving business resilience and providing opportunities to improve the health of its customers, communities and colleagues, McColloch said in emailed remarks.

“It’s not just about reducing emissions, although we are focused on decarbonization,” McColloch wrote. “It’s also about strengthening supply chain reliability, driving efficiencies and colleague safety, reducing risks, empowering clinicians and patients with weather-related health insights and ensuring proactive, continuous access to care during extreme weather events.”

McColloch’s first priority will be to reinforce CVS’ philosophy that “climate resilience and health are inseparable. Extreme weather isn’t just an environmental issue — it’s a health issue,” she said.

Prior to joining CVS, McColloch was chief sustainability officer and social impact officer at McDonald’s, where she was involved in the development of the company’s quest to develop a more “sustainable beef” supply. She joined the restaurant chain in July 2012 as a sustainable supply chain consultant.

As the sustainability profession morphs, McColloch recommends seeking positions that offer opportunities to learn more about the organization.

“My advice is to focus on impact from whatever seat you hold, to embrace continued learning across your business and to identify opportunities to make connections internally and externally that advance your team, rather than chasing an idea of a perfect career map or promotion timeline,” she said.

The post CVS Health promotes former McDonald’s exec to lead sustainability efforts appeared first on Trellis.

Lessons from a decade of teaching sustainability at b-school

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

Ten years ago, I joined NYU Stern to set up the Center for Sustainable Business, which aims to help current and future business leaders embed sustainability into corporate strategy to drive better financial and societal performance. In that decade, over 300 students have graduated with our specialization in Sustainable Business and more than 1,500 students have taken our hallmark Sustainability for Competitive Advantage course. We’ve published more than 30 in-depth reports on the business case for sustainability and engaged with dozens of leading companies on monetizing their sustainability strategies. 

And, like with many jobs, my teaching role has been a joy and a travail. The joy comes from helping students find a path to a business career tackling the environmental and social challenges that will plague their generation, as well as meeting alumni who have sustainability careers and come back to Stern to mentor and support students.  

The travail? Stern students who don’t take sustainability courses (the majority) because of the persistent perception that it‘s “soft.” The misconception remains that it’s not core to business or to their careers. That mentality needs to change and it will require all of us — teachers, hiring managers and business leaders — to shift the narrative. 

5 impactful lessons

As I wrap up my time at Stern, here are the most impactful lessons I’ve learned: 

  • Students tend to start with a limited understanding of what sustainable business is and how it manifests across industries and functions. They may be personally concerned about climate change or human rights issues in supply chains, but have no language or understanding of the significant role sustainability plays in business operations and financial performance. This is true for many of my executive students as well. When I have my class interview family members and friends, respondents also have a very narrow understanding about what constitutes sustainable business, thinking in a very limited fashion about, say, recycling.
  • Students, including executives, have very little exposure to the role sustainability plays in innovation, operational efficiency, employee retention and risk reduction. Core classes in operations, brand management, accounting, finance and strategy generally don’t incorporate sustainability themes or linkages, which siloes sustainability in a way that’s counterproductive to effective management. I remember one student who came to my class in her senior year and said that she wished she’d taken the course earlier because until she took it, she hadn’t been able to see a way to align her personal goals and values with her studies and career goals.
  • Students tend to be skeptical of business’ claims of sustainability. These are students who’ve seen many business scandals and are subject to marketing messages 24/7. They are clear-eyed about the lack of authenticity — in other words the gap between what companies do and what they say. The lack of trust creates challenges for engaging students in sustainability themselves, even though they’d like to find a way to do good while doing well at a company that has sustainability values. That skepticism, however, encourages students to learn more about “real” sustainability and how they can bring that to their future employers.
  • Students have an “aha” moment when they realize there are various career pathways in sustainability — many of which don’t have sustainability in the title. They learn that sustainability execution often lies with supply chain managers, procurement officers, operations leaders or controllers. Broadening the scope helps make the journey appear more attainable and inclusive. One former student, for example, started an online sustainable products platform in India. Another found his way into sustainable agriculture consulting after an experiential learning project he worked on at Stern with an Indonesian palm oil company. Another student works on electric vehicles at Con-Edison and one former student pivoted from traditional finance into impact investing.
  • Sustainability, at its core, is about change management and transformation. One can understand the fundamentals of corporate sustainability, but actually executing against them is difficult and a skill in itself. Thus, students need to learn how to be intrapreneurs and adept at change management — critical skills that will stand them in good stead beyond sustainability, given these volatile times. They also need to learn more than the theory by hearing from sustainability practitioners how they’re managing the challenge in practice. One of my students went to work for a private equity firm, where she promptly brought us in to train her colleagues in sustainability-linked value creation, to help them make the leap she had made in class.

The big takeaway

I think the biggest change we need is to shift the narrative of sustainability. Schools aren’t teaching sustainability as part of good management, nor are sustainability leaders talking about it as part of effective change management strategy in the business, policy or consumer arenas.

As a consequence, people of all ages don’t understand that sustainability is fundamental to good management and performance. That social and environmental factors can be financially material to their corporate future. That every procurement manager today must understand and manage the ESG risks and opportunities in their supply chain. That no company buying electricity can avoid growing costs and volatility of energy availability and pricing. That no consumer-facing company can ignore the growing demand for sustainable, healthy products. That business and societal transformation isn’t impossible and, in fact, is already happening. That driving corporate and investment sustainability at the speed and scale we need in this time of backlash requires the discipline of focusing on the business case for sustainability investments. And that while investing in sustainability is the ethical thing to do, it’s incumbent upon us to also demonstrate through research, practice and education that it’s the financially smart thing to do. 

I’m excited for CSB’s next 10 years. Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics had an outsized influence on business school education over the past few decades through a maniacal focus on shareholder primacy and short-termism.  I like to think that NYU Stern and CSB will have a similar (although less maniacal) impact over the next few decades on facilitating the transition to capitalism that creates value for all stakeholders and protects our planet.

The post Lessons from a decade of teaching sustainability at b-school appeared first on Trellis.

Goodbye in 2025: What and whom we lost this year

In the wake of Jane Goodall’s death Oct. 1 at 91, Kelly Fisher, HSBC’s head of corporate sustainability for the Americas, observed that one of the best ways to honor the legendary British conservationist is to mimic the positivity and hope with which she approached her work.

“She said that hope wasn’t a passive thing, that hope was active, but had to be actionable,” Fisher told me at Trellis Impact 25. “I think what she was telling us is that without hope, there is no progress.”

That’s difficult to remember when considering all the ways the corporate climate movement was undermined in 2025, some summarized with brief memorials below. But sustainability teams have always faced headwinds. Our losses in 2025 leave openings for new creativity and innovation in 2026.

The Inflation Reduction Act

Most people thought President Joe Biden’s signature climate policy — which dedicated $391 billion to clean energy — was safe under a second Trump presidency. But the administration has dismantled the solar and wind incentives and climate-tech investments that the IRA provided, through executive orders and the Republican budget bill that became law in July.    

The term ‘carbon neutral’

Successful legal challenges against climate claims — including a German court ruling in August against Apple and a still pending case against Delta Air Lines — have made it riskier for companies to describe themselves as “carbon neutral.” Roughly one-third of the world’s largest companies still have a carbon neutrality target, but more, including Google and Gucci, have moved away from the term or use it more sparingly in their marketing.

The SEC’s climate disclosure rule

The Securities and Exchange Commission in March 2024 voted to require public companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions and material risks related to climate change, a move meant to standardize disclosures and allow for investor comparison. The rule was challenged immediately by Republican states, companies and environmental groups. Trump’s SEC said it won’t fight to save the rule, and its status remains in limbo.

The strictest EU reporting regulations

Legislators for the European Union in early December agreed to a rewrite of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, letting all but the largest multinational companies off the hook. The change also eliminates the requirement to publish climate transition plans.  

America’s offshore wind industry

President Donald Trump launched an assault on U.S. offshore wind projects immediately after his Jan. 20 inauguration, issuing an executive order halting all wind projects on federal lands or waters. The administration later stripped $679 million in funding and canceled permits for an industry once expected to attract $65 billion in investment by 2030. Developers have litigated successfully against the “capricious” policy, but many new projects have been shelved.

The ‘NREL’

The Department of Energy renamed the National Renewable Energy Laboratory on Dec. 1 to reflect the administration’s “broader applied energy mission” — and its bias against solar and wind. It’s now called the National Laboratory of the Rockies, with a focus on technologies that will “restore American manufacturing” and help the U.S. meet soaring energy demand.

Prospects for a plastics treaty

Talks aimed at finalizing a global agreement that would govern the life-cycle management of plastics broke down in August after oil-producing countries refused to accept proposed production limits. That leaves companies responsible for monitoring and complying with dozens of extended producer responsibility regulations around the world and across the U.S. 

Thousands of federal climate experts

The Trump administration’s purge of environmental scientists and renewable energy specialists decimated the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Department of the Interior. The EPA alone cut at least one-quarter of its workforce by July, more than 3,700 people, between layoffs and buyouts. Bright side: many of these individuals are starting to become changemakers in the private sector.

The post Goodbye in 2025: What and whom we lost this year appeared first on Trellis.

The top sustainability developments of 2025, according to practitioners

While this year brought plenty of setbacks for sustainability, new research shows what developments nearly 400 global sustainability experts thought had the most positive impact on the sustainability agenda in 2025.

According to a survey from Trellis data partner GlobeScan and ERM, legislation remains the most significant driver of progress, cited by 18 percent of experts, although its perceived importance has declined compared to 2024, when it was cited by 33 percent of experts. Regulatory action continues to set the pace for change, creating frameworks that drive accountability and progress.

Experts also point to renewables and low-carbon technologies (14 percent) and climate and nature-based solutions (13 percent) as critical forces accelerating momentum. Sustainability disclosure standards, in contrast, have seen a notable decline in influence compared to last year (down to 12 percent compared to 19 percent in 2024), signaling a shift toward implementation and tangible outcomes. 

What this means

The sustainability transition is still underway, even amid backlash. While it’s slowed somewhat, legislative momentum continues to shape priorities, making it critical for organizations to integrate policy trends into strategy. Renewable energy and low-carbon technologies are creating cost advantages and accelerating decarbonization, while nature-based solutions are no longer peripheral but now essential for climate resilience and carbon removal. These are key levers of progress as companies strive to make sustainability a core driver of business and focus on tangible actions and impact.

Based on a survey of 391 sustainability experts across 57 countries conducted between August-October 2025.

The post The top sustainability developments of 2025, according to practitioners appeared first on Trellis.

Circularity is stuck in a cycle of shame. Let’s get to guilt, instead

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

The modern consumer journey begins with emotional sophistication. Every day, people encounter powerful messages promising not just products, but personal transformation: You’ll feel better, become more capable and move closer to self-actualization if you buy this. These polished messages make consumers feel empowered and supported.

In contrast to many marketing schemes, the sustainability movement has drifted from clarity and moral conviction toward science-heavy explanations, legal framing and, ultimately, fearful global statements consumers find hard to influence or relate to. These complicated framings risk pushing consumers away. And what should be motivating, when it comes to the end of a consumer journey, instead ends up feeling like shaming.

Shame vs. guilt: A crucial distinction

Circularity demands behaviour change. Yet to change behaviour, we must adjust our approach — even if the first step is merely shifting from shame to guilt. 

Shame is paralyzing because it accuses in generalist terms and lacks actionable specifics: “I am bad because I can’t stop climate change.” It grows in ambiguity: “What did I do? When did it happen? How am I the problem?” By contrast, guilt can be productive because it focuses on an event or action: “I should offset that flight.” And it provides specifics: “I did this and it had this impact. I can correct it next time.” It locates the error in the action — not the error in the person. As Professor Brené Brown states, “Shame is a focus on self. Guilt is a focus on behaviour.”

For many customers, the emotional turning point with a product arrives at the end of the consumer lifecycle. A once-cherished item becomes redundant. It shifts from being something that improved life to something that must now be disposed of. The partnership between consumer and provider ends and a new relationship between consumer and the waste management process begins. 

What began as celebratory, encouraging messaging at the time of purchase (“You look great in that new dress!”) becomes impersonal, statistical and isolating in the waste management process: “This item is 75 percent polyester” or ”602 million tonnes of plastic may enter the ocean by 2030.” This language is ambiguous to many people because it references specialist chemistry and distant places. The narrative voice changes, too, from branded coherent company ethos to one of cold and lonely governmental instruction.

Many brands promote the 5Rs — Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose, Recycle — as a sustainability strategy. At first glance, they appear empowering and actionable. In practice, they’re often a polite form of abandonment. The responsibility is transferred entirely to the consumer with no collaboration, no structure and no shared accountability. Without clear support and shared ownership, the 5Rs become just one more burden — an additional layer of shame that the individual must manage alone.

Comparing approaches

Corrective campaigns often fail when they rely on abstract, large-scale threats and expect individuals to translate them into personal action.

We see this with managing consumer technology waste, one of the most complex types of waste for consumers to navigate. Products are made up from intricate materials, heavy metals and plastics — and often hold personal data. The consumer needs support and direction at this point. Yet, in the EU as part of its Waste From Electrical and Electronic Equipment directive, they’re presented with a simple symbol of a wheelie bin with a cross through it. The symbol says to the consumer: “Don’t throw it in the bin.” 

This isn’t actionable because you can’t do a don’t. So what does the consumer do? They hoard, instead of resolve. One UK study found that in London, people hoard 13 old gadgets on average – including two mobile phones, two tablets and two laptops. 

Yet, a more engaging and simple message can be seen in a consumer behavior classic. 

The iconic Crying Indian in a 1971 advertisement for Keep America Beautiful delivered a powerful message focused on littering. Litter is actionable for the audience because it’s visible right outside their door and is light enough to pick up. The campaign spoke directly to an everyday behavior everyone recognized as a witness or culprit, connecting the problem to the immediate surroundings. 

This approach fostered personal accountability and promoted a simple, action-oriented response. The message was clear: simple terminology that regular people understood. It was relevant: directly connected to local, visible behavior. And actionable: providing manageable steps the individual could execute (picking up litter). This model of clarity and visibility is what circularity efforts must replicate to move beyond shame and into guilt.

A more recent example, the Norwegian Deposit Return System, provides a near-perfect model for driving sustainable consumer behavior. The system achieved impressive return rates of nearly 93 percent for cans and 92 percent for plastic bottles in 2023. The key to this success lies in designing a compelling consumer experience that supports accountability without relying on abstract moral judgment. Instead of using shame, the system empowers the consumer with clear financial agency.

The Norwegian system is built on seamless integration and transparency. While complex industry components, such as tax incentives for participating companies and penalties for failure, underpin it, visible mechanisms work directly for the consumer. Deposits are placed on almost all beverages and are clearly itemized at checkout. And it’s convenient, with bottles and cans reclaimed via reverse vending machines (often located in stores), making the final action seamless.

Guilt, please

If we want guilt to be useful, we need clear causality — who did what — and a relatable sense of place and impact. That means circularity communication needs to be:

  • Clear: Use terminology that regular people understand. Avoid jargon and acronyms.
  • Relevant: Connect directly to the individual about their own impact. For example, say, “Your carbon footprint for this flight is …” not “Average emissions per passenger are …”
  • Located: Point to real, familiar places, such as “This item will be recycled in-state at our facility in Stockholm …”
  • Actionable: Provide manageable actions and ensure the business remains present as a partner, not an observer. Example: “We’re here with you to move through these steps; call us at any time.”
  • Bonded: As much as possible, continue the relationship between your customer and your brand. 

People genuinely want to do the right thing. But achieving widespread behavior change requires moving from shame-driven abandonment to guilt-supported collaboration — helping individuals feel that they can act, improve and succeed.

The post Circularity is stuck in a cycle of shame. Let’s get to guilt, instead appeared first on Trellis.

Why 2025 was the Year of Greenhushing

I spoke this summer with a communications professional at a large U.S. company. The company operates a substantial fleet of electric vehicles and I wanted to profile its work. No chance, the employee said: “Trump hates EVs. We don’t want a target on our backs.”

This was the year of greenhushing. Yes, the phenomenon dates back to the beginning of the decade. But thanks to the new U.S. administration, courtroom defeats and new legal attacks, the silence is now broader and deeper. “The wider atmosphere is very chilly,” said Alison Taylor, a business school professor at New York University.

A few years ago, evidence for greenhushing was largely anecdotal. Now the data is growing. This September, for instance, a survey of 75 firms found that while 85 percent maintained or expanded sustainability programs, only 16 percent publicly reaffirmed doing so. The practice is so pronounced, the authors said, that observers have confused it for a lowering of ambitions. “What looks like retreat is widespread greenhushing taking root,” they concluded.

Legal defeats and threats 

Greenhushing’s spread — call it “strategic silence” if you prefer fancier language — has been powered in part by the same playbook used to brand diversity initiatives as woke or anti-capitalist. Legal action by Republican attorneys general is one tactic. This July, the Florida AG subpoenaed the Science Based Targets initiative and CDP, claiming the two nonprofits were part of a “climate cartel.” Two months later, 16 Republican states banded together to attack the use of renewable energy certificates by Google and other tech giants. (Ironically a criticism also made, but with very different motivations, by some environmental organizations.)

The AGs’ attacks may not result in court cases; intimidating the nonprofits and the companies that follow their guidelines could be the main goal. But a series of actual court cases, led by environmental groups and class action lawyers, has also deepened caution around sustainability communications. Ads describing the Apple Watch as “CO2 neutral” were this summer ruled as misleading and in violation of German competition law. And last month, the world’s two largest meat companies — Tyson and JBS — settled complaints by agreeing to tone down or eliminate “net zero” claims.

These factors have combined to drive levels of some sustainability comms to new lows. Earlier this year, Bloomberg Green looked for mentions of sustainability terms in earning calls for S&P 500 companies and found that the use of such language had fallen 76 percent in three years.

The costs of staying silent

Where does this leave sustainability professionals? There is no sign that the attacks from Republican leaders will lessen. But staying quiet limits their influence, even if sustainability programs continue. “If you’re not setting an ambition and communicating ambition, it’s very, very hard to get internal momentum,” said Taylor. The decision, then, is whether the costs of greenhushing outweigh the risks of going public.

There are certainly costs at the collective level. For better and worse, peer pressure is an important driver of climate action. If a company’s competitors have a science-based target, for instance, it’s easier to convince the CEO to follow suit. And the converse is true: When one company retreats, or even stays silent, the pressure on rivals lessens. The dynamic is one reason why two significant climate initiatives — the U.S. Plastics Pact and the Net Zero Banking Alliance — suffered waves of departures this year.

Risks to a collective or even the climate itself are unlikely to sway executive opinion at this moment, but there are also potential costs of greenhushing at the business level. Investors haven’t stopped considering the potential impact of emissions, particularly as carbon pricing schemes proliferate internationally. Consumers care, too, and so do employees. Staying quiet means ceding status, lowering short-term risk at the potential expense of long-term gains. “For investors, customers and potential partners,” wrote the authors of the 75-firm study, “silence erodes the very trust that fuels long-term value creation.”

The post Why 2025 was the Year of Greenhushing appeared first on Trellis.

Advice from 7 leaders on thriving during sustainability’s ‘reckoning point’

Understand your company’s business as well as its best salesperson. Position sustainability as an “enabling function.” Plan for the long haul.

If corporate sustainability leaders want to thrive as business priorities shift and geopolitics downplay the urgency of greenhouse gas emissions reductions, these are among the best ways not just to remain relevant but to create new corporate value, according to seven leaders interviewed as part of a special Climate Pioneers project during Trellis Impact 25.

The executives represent companies from a range of industries — Apollo Global Management, Bristol Myers Squibb, HSBC, LA28, Mars, Visa and Workday.

They’re confident. “I firmly believe we are smarter than the problems we’re trying to solve,” said Kevin Rabinovitch, global vice president of sustainability and chief climate officer for food and candy company Mars, which is on track to meet its 2030 emissions reduction targets. Rabinovitch’s latest innovation is a procurement strategy that will triple its renewable electricity purchases.

They’re also realistic. “I don’t think it’s a luxury anymore that you can’t understand your business as well as your colleagues in sales, in the business, on the front line,” said Kelly Fisher, head of corporate sustainability for the Americas at financial services firm HSBC. She continues to see opportunity, for example, in financing technologies that will contribute to a low-carbon economy.

Their words of wisdom are featured in the video compilation below.

Other takeaways from the session:

‘Demonstrate business value’

“I think we’re at a reckoning point for all sustainability professionals that we need to demonstrate business value, and if we can’t do that, I don’t think we’re going to survive.” — Fisher, HSBC

‘Pace yourself’

“We’re all quite young intellectually, compared to a lot of problems that we’ve worked on as humanity, so there’s still lots of room for new and better ideas.” — Rabinovitch, Mars

‘Chase progress relentlessly’

“We know what good looks like. Let’s chase that. Don’t get paralyzed by trying to do the perfect commitment.” — Erik Hansen, chief sustainability officer and enterprise software developer at software purveyor Workday

‘Make sure you’re connected’

“If you are being seen as a pillar or a function that is outside of the organization and as a bolt-on, then you’re not going to be really able to effect the change and create the impact that you want.” — Jennifer Evans, executive director for sustainability and social impact at pharmaceutical giant Bristol Myers Squibb

‘Train everybody you touch’

“Literally learn as much as you can about every business lever in your company.” — Dave Stangis, partner at the investment firm Apollo Global Management

‘Find your champions’

“That gives you proof points that you can then take to a more general audience, maybe even your skeptics.” — Becky Dale, vice president of sustainability for the LA28 Olympics

‘Lean on your peers’

“They’re still doing the work, and they’re convincing me that I can still get the work done.” — Rob Whittier, head of climate and sustainability for payments processor Visa

The post Advice from 7 leaders on thriving during sustainability’s ‘reckoning point’ appeared first on Trellis.

Hiking boot brand Keen enlists climate scientist Ann Radil

Hiking boot maker Keen has snagged a former NASA climate scientist to head up sustainability, philanthropy and advocacy. Ann Radil is the new senior director of the Keen Effect, the company’s impact program, where she is leading climate action, circular economy programs and attempts to ramp up green chemistry.

The Portland, Oregon-based footwear company was an early mover in phasing out “forever chemicals” such as poly- and per-fluoroalkyls (PFAS), used in water- and stain-resistance. Radil quietly started on Sept. 27 as the brand debuted during Paris Fashion Week. She reports to CEO and President Rory Fuerst.

“Though I’m just getting started, it’s clear that Keen is doing something unique,” Radil wrote in a post on LinkedIn, garnering more than 50 positive comments. “For over 20 years, the company has given away millions of dollars to important causes, pioneered solutions to daunting challenges like plastic pollution and built meaningful partnerships across the industry that amplify their mission.”

Radil brings to Keen, a private company of 800 employees, learnings from the decarbonization strategies she helped execute at larger corporations.

“There’s a lot of opportunity when it comes to the work around decarbonization that we’re really excited about,” Radil said. “There’s this steady drumbeat that you will hear at Keen, which is that we want to be the most trusted footwear brand in the world. In order to do that, we recognize that there are places where we want to continue to really lead, and there are also all these steps on that path that are just table stakes.”

Among the latter: Radil anticipates validation for its 2033 emissions goals with the Science-Based Targets initiative. The aim is to slash climate emissions by 55 percent for Scopes 1 and 2 against the 2021 base year, and by 62 percent per 1,000 pairs for Scope 3.

Keen’s Kentucky plant produces a third of its footwear. With that level of supply-chain control, the brand could theoretically install onsite solar power or explore other decarbonization tactics that would be harder to achieve with a contracted site, she said. Keen already uses renewable energy certificates (RECs).

Radil’s path

Radil’s two decades in sustainability includes consulting with Nike, JP Morgan Chase and Yeti through firms including Watershed, Slalom Consulting, Parametrix and Ecova. 

Last year, the World Resources Institute picked her to join the technical working group updating the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Standard.

In October, Radil left a senior sustainability advisor role at Watershed, where she had spent two years assisting such clients as Walmart and General Mills. “At Watershed, I had the privilege of working alongside exceptionally talented people to break down the toughest barriers to corporate decarbonization,” wrote Radil, who led regulatory and compliance strategy, counseled executives and helped to develop partnerships.

Prior to Watershed, the self-described “change agent” served as a strategic advisor at Neutral, a “climate-neutral” milk maker advancing low-methane dairy farming.

For four years Radil oversaw Nike’s global circular economy programs, leaving in 2017. While she was director of program management, the sneaker brand eliminated 16,000 megatons of CO2 equivalent, according to Radil.

At Ecova, she helped Coca-Cola and IBM with climate disclosures and led the Oregon wine industry in a carbon neutrality challenge. Through Slalom Consulting, Radil helped to lead decarbonization for Portland General Electric. At Parametrix, she made climate policy frameworks and emissions models for the U.S. Departments of Energy and Transportation.

Radil earned her master’s degree in climate science at the University of Montana, where she worked for several years on projects including on NASA’s Earth Observing System Project. Her advisor was Steven Running, who won a Nobel Prize with Al Gore for his work on the board of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

Radil also holds a bachelor’s in environmental geography and geology from Colgate University.

“What feels really unique and excites me about this role at Keen is there’s just a different conversation that’s happening at privately held companies that have a clear value of sustainability,” she said.

The post Hiking boot brand Keen enlists climate scientist Ann Radil appeared first on Trellis.

Rethinking corporate citizenship in 2026 as globalization wanes

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

The post-World War II architecture of international cooperation is eroding. Multilateral institutions have weakened, nationalist sentiment is surging and superpowers are wielding markets as geopolitical weapons. The world has moved from bi/unipolar dominance to a massively splintered multipolar world. For multinational corporations, this creates a fundamental challenge: How do you execute coherent ESG and DEI strategies when the global frameworks that supported them are fragmenting?

The traditional global sustainability playbook assumed relatively stable international norms, such as aligned carbon accounting standards, converging labor protections and coordinated trade rules. That assumption no longer holds. Instead of navigating a coherent global framework, businesses face contradictory requirements across dozens of jurisdictions, diverging stakeholder expectations and the absence of clear international standards to point to as validation.

This fragmentation demands strategic adaptation. The question isn’t whether to maintain ESG and DEI commitments (the business case remains compelling), but how to execute them effectively when the connective tissue of international cooperation has frayed. What worked in a multilateral world won’t work in a fragmented one.

5 strategic shifts for a fragmented world

1. From compliance arbitrage to principled consistency

Fragmentation creates tempting opportunities: comply minimally in each jurisdiction, exploit regulatory gaps and play governments against each other. To be sure, some companies will take this approach, but this short-term opportunism is strategically foolish.

The smarter approach is principled consistency: choosing high standards and applying them globally, even where not legally required. For example, one company we worked with used Principle 10 (anti-corruption) of the United Nations Global Compact to justify why it couldn’t pay “facilitation payments” to local officials, reducing costs and risk without offending those with the power to limit market access.

2. From rule-taker to rule-shaper

Traditionally, businesses were largely rule-takers — complying with standards set by governments and multilateral bodies. While many private entities sought to influence policy, and still do, governments set the rules. However, as many governments increasingly ignore scientific and stakeholder consensus, businesses — the most trusted social actor in much of the world — are becoming de facto standard-setters.

This shift creates responsibility and opportunity. The responsibility: Recognize that your standards shape stakeholder and market expectations, whether you intend them to or not. The opportunity: Participate actively in industry-led standard-setting rather than waiting for governmental guidelines that may never come.

Strategic action means joining or forming industry consortia that maintain common standards even as governments diverge. It means investing in sector-specific standards organizations and recognizing that business has moved from the sidelines to the playing field in global governance.

3. From stakeholder management to stakeholder navigation

The multilateral era offered a simplifying assumption: Stakeholder expectations would gradually converge around international norms. European standards would influence global practice. Labor protections would harmonize upward. ESG frameworks would align.

Fragmentation destroys this assumption. Now firms face stakeholders with fundamentally contradictory expectations: investors demanding ESG commitments versus politicians attacking “woke capitalism”; European customers expecting aggressive climate action versus American jurisdictions penalizing fossil-fuel divestment; human rights advocates demanding supply-chain transparency versus governments restricting data flows.

Strategic navigation requires several capabilities:

  • Understand stakeholder expectations geographically and ideologically: “Investors” aren’t a monolithic category — different groups have divergent ESG priorities that may be irreconcilable. Practice principled consistency. 
  • Communicate the business case relentlessly: In a politicized environment, framing ESG initiatives as business imperatives rather than social commitments provides insulation from ideological attacks. Lead with the advantages for talent acquisition, risk management, operational efficiency and market access.
  • Make strategic choices about which battles to fight: Not every stakeholder expectation can or should be met. Saying no remains one of the most difficult things to do in the ESG space, as it often means saying no to an issue or activity that’s important. Open and honest conversation about decision-making is key.
  • Build coalitions of aligned stakeholders: When expectations fragment, assembling employees, investors, customers and suppliers who share priorities creates a counterweight to opposing pressures.

4. From risk mitigation to resilience building

Traditional ESG strategy treated geopolitical fragmentation as a risk to be mitigated — something temporary that would eventually resolve. This was always optimistic. Now it’s strategic malpractice.

Fragmentation isn’t a temporary disruption to be weathered. It’s the operating environment for the foreseeable future. Strategy must shift from hoping governments restore rational policies to building resilience for operating effectively within a fragmented system. Adaptive companies will:

  • Diversify supply chains to account for regulatory divergence: The chain should account for both geographic and regulatory diversification — ensuring you can serve markets with contradictory requirements without rebuilding your entire operation.
  • Plan scenarios that treat fragmentation as a baseline: Most corporate scenario planning still treats multilateral cooperation as the central case with fragmentation as downside risk. Invert this. Plan for continued fragmentation with occasional coordination as an upside surprise.
  • Structure your organization to enable regional adaptation within global frameworks: Fragmentation makes the “think global, act local” challenge more acute. You need global standards (for efficiency and brand consistency) and regional flexibility (for regulatory compliance and stakeholder engagement).
  • Invest in knowledge infrastructure: Understanding diverging regulatory requirements, tracking contradictory stakeholder expectations and maintaining situational awareness across fragmented markets requires dedicated intelligence capabilities that many organizations lack.

5. From passive participation to active investment

Many business leaders are reluctant to accept this strategic truth: Global cooperation frameworks are public goods that businesses rely on but are currently underfunded.

Multilateral institutions, international standard-setting bodies, cross-border governance initiatives, trade frameworks — these create the predictability, stability and common language that enable global business. As governments retreat their funding and participation, these mechanisms weaken. And as they weaken, the operating environment for global business becomes more costly, complex and risky.

Strategic response requires active investment — with money, political capital and executive attention — in maintaining and rebuilding international cooperation mechanisms. The payoff isn’t immediate or easily measurable. But neither is investment in R&D, brand building or talent development. All are investments in capabilities that compound over time.

A framework for execution: Fit, commit, manage, connect

These five strategic shifts require systematic execution. IMPACT ROI’s framework, developed over a decade ago and recently updated, offers an effective approach for translating ESG strategy into operational reality.

Fit: Requires an honest assessment of where ESG initiatives align with core business strategy and competitive advantage. In a fragmented world, this becomes more complex, but the discipline remains essential: Not every company should pursue every initiative.

Commit: Embed priorities into performance management, capital allocation, risk frameworks and strategic planning. Without real commitment measured in dollars and executive action, initiatives remain peripheral — and fragmentation makes peripheral initiatives impossible to execute.

Manage: Build systems, metrics and accountability mechanisms with rigor. Fragmentation increases execution complexity, making disciplined management more important, not less.

Connect: Link internal and external stakeholders, break down silos and build partnerships. In a fragmenting world, connection becomes the countervailing force — the deliberate construction of collaboration where structural forces push toward isolation.

The organizations that adapt their ESG strategies for today’s fragmented reality will thrive. Those that cling to strategies designed for a multilateral world will find themselves increasingly unable to compete.

The post Rethinking corporate citizenship in 2026 as globalization wanes appeared first on Trellis.