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

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

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

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

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

The Great Plains carbon sink

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

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

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

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

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

Promise and challenges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Streamline a confusing array of standards 

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

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

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

Turn environmentalism into an operations strategy

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

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

Include more voices in conversations 

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

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

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

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

Dow has expanded the job description for its chief sustainability officer, Andre Argenton, to include the chemicals and materials science company’s growth and innovation strategy.

His title now includes chief technology officer, filling the position vacated by A.N. Sreeram, who retired effective Jan 1. In his new role, Argenton is responsible for Dow’s global research and development organization and for its environment, health, safety and sustainability strategy. His team also leads Dow’s ESG reporting and governance.

Scientist by training

The expanded role marks a homecoming for Argenton, who was vice president of Dow’s core research and development before being named as Dow’s chief sustainability officer in April 2022. 

He replaced Mary Draver, who joined Dow in 1989 and rose to leadership roles in manufacturing and EH&S before her retirement in 2022.

Dow has built environmental metrics into its innovation agenda over the past decade, and more than 90 percent of its portfolio is aligned with some sort of sustainability outcome, as of Dow’s latest ESG report in June 2025.

A key growth opportunity for Dow is advanced recycling technology for plastics. The company aims to recycle 3 million tons annually by 2030 and is using artificial intelligence in collaboration with Google parent Alphabet to speed things up. 

The company’s top-line climate goal is to cut emissions for operations and electricity consumption (Scope 1 and 2) by 15 percent by 2030, compared with a 2020 baseline, and to be carbon neutral by 2050. Dow hasn’t disclosed its progress against those targets, but plans to do so with its 2025 progress report, due in mid-2026.

Argenton was educated as a physical chemist. He joined Dow Brazil in 1999 and moved to the U.S. in 2007.

His new role was revealed in a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Dow did not respond to a request for comment.

The post Dow’s sustainability chief adds responsibility for R&D appeared first on Trellis.

When Trellis assessed food industry leaders and laggards in 2021, Post Holdings featured in the second category. Back then, the maker of food service products (Michael Foods), breakfast cereals (Grape-Nuts, Weetabix) and pet foods (Rachael Ray Nutrish) hadn’t set emission targets and wasn’t fully disclosing emissions. 

A lot has changed since at the St. Louis, Missouri-based company, which employs 13,000 people and reported sales of $8.2 billion in 2025. Trellis checked in with Nick Martin, Post’s vice president of corporate sustainability, to learn more.

Why Post set emission targets

Multiple factors combined around 2021 to motivate the company to publicly commit to reductions. Investors were asking questions, for one. So, too, were big retailers such as Tesco and Walmart, many of which have targets and count a portion of Post’s emissions in their Scope 3 inventory.

“We jumped out as one of the few large food and beverage companies that didn’t have a target,” said Martin. “We didn’t show very well in the ratings and rankings, so we were automatically perceived as not doing anything.”

Now, the company is committed to a 30 percent cut in combined emissions from company operations (Scope 1) and purchased electricity (Scope 2) by 2030, measured against a 2020 baseline. It’s roughly halfway to that target, thanks in large part to a 26 percent drop in Scope 2 emissions. One key factor has been the addition of low-carbon sources to the grid in Missouri, which is home to many of the company’s facilities.

The bulk of Post’s emissions — 90 percent of the 2024 total — come from indirect (Scope 3) sources, principally the ingredients it sources. Like a growing number of companies, Post bases its target for this scope on an intensity measure: emissions scaled by either net sales or mass of product. Although the company aims to cut emission intensity by 30 percent by 2030, it hasn’t decided on which of the two metrics it will use to assess progress. 

What it decides will matter: Sales-based intensity is down 29 percent, but the mass-based alternative is up 7 percent, according to Post’s most recent data.

How structure shapes strategy

The current arrangement allows subsidiaries a relatively high degree of flexibility. Each is committed to working toward the top-level targets and aware of emissions from specific sites, which leaders from the subsidiaries discuss at monthly meetings of the company’s Operations Council. Individual brands, however, are not explicitly required to achieve the same reductions.

Post is unusual among large food brands in that it is structured as a holding company with those multiple subsidiaries. The challenge of figuring out how best to craft sustainability strategy within this structure was what attracted Martin in 2022. “There weren’t a lot of role models to try to mirror,” he said.

That freed him to aim higher. Last year, Weetabix, a UK subsidiary, had its near and long-term emission goals validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). These include a 39 percent cut in land-based emissions by 2033 and reaching net zero across its value chain by 2050. 

One reason why Weetabix is able to commit to larger cuts is an unusually close relationship with its wheat suppliers. Wheat is sourced from a “Growers Group” of 120 farmers that operate within 50 miles of a central England factory. That reduces the barriers to trying out low-carbon farming methods, such as reduced use of nitrogen fertilizer.

“I would argue it’s a leading model for how you build a sustainable approach to engaging your supply chain,” said Martin.

SBTi: not a good fit

Weetabix’s adoption of an SBTi target was designed as a pilot exercise for Post. In the end, though, the experience didn’t prompt Martin to ask other subsidiaries to try it.

One frustration was that Weetabix was forced to restart the validation process a couple of times after making acquisitions. Perhaps more importantly, Martin felt the subsidiary already had a strong sustainability strategy, and achieving SBTi validation distracted the team from implementing it. 

The SBTi listing does help meet requests from retailers for such an approval, Martin offered. Still, he concluded, “at the end of the day, I don’t know that we would say it was a good return on the time and investment.”

A counter-argument — which Martin also acknowledged — is that the SBTi pushed Weetabix to adopt more ambitious goals. Post Holdings’ commitments, while meaningful, would likely not be approved by the SBTi as being in line with limiting global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius. General Mills and Kraft Heinz, rival companies with SBTi-approved targets, have, for example, committed to absolute Scope 3 cuts and to reaching net zero by 2050.

“For companies that are going to reduce their Scope 3 absolute emissions by 50-plus percent — how are you going to do that and grow your company?” asked Martin. “That’s really, really difficult.”

The post How the maker of Grape-Nuts and Weetabix upped its sustainability game appeared first on Trellis.

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

As an impact investor and educator, I’ve learned to distinguish between the noise that dominates headlines and the signals that actually move capital. As we begin 2026, this discernment has never been more essential.

The jarring political landscape is enough to make you think impact investing is retreating. But here’s what the headlines miss: Markets are moving on their own momentum. Capital hasn’t slowed. It’s just getting smarter about where it flows.

I see 10 trends that will shape impact investing this year. What unites them is a central theme: the transition from aspirational ideals to financial materiality. Impact investing in 2026 isn’t about virtue — it’s about value.

1. Financial materiality becomes the organizing principle

The shift I wrote about last year — from moral imperatives to financial materiality — is in full swing. Asset managers approach climate and biodiversity with a focus on measurable impact to cash flows, valuations and cost of capital. This isn’t a retreat from impact; it’s an evolution. Some studies show that companies reporting clearer sustainability data are being rewarded with lower financing costs and higher equity valuations. The market is speaking and it’s saying, “Show me the numbers.”

2. Technology and AI multiply impact

AI isn’t just transforming how we invest; it’s transforming how we measure impact. The KPIs that demonstrate how a business addresses environmental or social challenges can be tracked with unprecedented precision. AI-driven geospatial analytics are making physical risk assessments more robust and comparable across markets. For investors, the ability to see a fuller picture of financially material issues has never been greater. The challenge now isn’t gathering data — it’s converting raw material into reliable, actionable insights.

3. The energy transition is driven by economics, not policy

Consider a statistic that should fundamentally alter the investment narrative: During the first nine months of 2024, renewables captured 90 percent of new U.S. generating capacity, with solar alone representing over 70 percent. Mandates aren’t driving this transformation — mathematics is. The cost curves have crossed.

Markets have noticed. Businesses monetizing mature, commercially viable clean technologies have delivered stronger performance than peers betting on nascent innovations. New-energy equities more than doubled the gains of broader indices through the latter half of 2025. Washington’s priorities will rotate, but for solutions that have achieved genuine unit-economic advantage, each production cycle compounds its competitive position independent of whoever occupies the White House.

The key analytical task ahead: separating enterprises that can thrive on pure economics from those whose fortunes remain hostage to legislative tailwinds.

4. Physical climate risk repricing across asset classes

Owners of operating companies and tangible assets can no longer relegate physical climate exposure to the appendix. Surface-level projections can mislead: Aggregate extreme weather damages may increase just 2 percent through mid-century under a 3 degrees Celsius pathway. Yet averages mask the distribution that matters. Morgan Stanley’s analysis suggests the proportion of holdings facing ruinous impairment — losses beyond 20 percent of value — could multiply fivefold.

Underwriters are already adjusting. Natural catastrophe protection premiums are projected to rise around 50 percent through decade’s end. Allocators thinking beyond the current cycle may find that positioning for durability in 2026 represents not merely prudent defense, but a pathway to outperformance.

5. Regional, small and mid-cap companies gain competitive advantage

The globalization trend of the past 25 years is reversing. Smaller, more nimble private companies that maintain emphasis on domestic supply chains are gaining relative advantage over those at the mega end of the market.

Their ability to move quickly, navigate local environments and maintain regional supply chains is becoming a distinct edge against global market shocks, presenting a “picks and shovels” approach for investing in infrastructure. 

6. A graying America sells privately held companies to employees

The long-anticipated “silver tsunami” — the wave of Baby Boomer business owners reaching retirement age — is cresting, with an estimated 2.9 million privately held businesses expected to change hands over the next decade. 

For investors, the question of who acquires these companies carries profound implications for wealth distribution. While private equity and strategic acquirers remain the default exit paths, Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) are emerging as a vehicle for converting retiring owners’ equity into broad-based employee wealth. The mechanics are elegant: Sellers receive favorable tax treatment, employees acquire ownership stakes at no out-of-pocket cost, and communities retain locally rooted businesses that might otherwise be consolidated, stripped or relocated.

Research from the National Center for Employee Ownership shows that ESOP participants accumulate retirement assets three to five times greater than comparable workers at non-ESOP firms — a differential that compounds dramatically for lower-wage and historically marginalized employees who rarely access ownership economics through conventional channels. 

 7. Impact investment infrastructure grows up

Impact investing is moving from a cottage industry to institutional scale. Governments, including Brazil and Turkey, are expanding impact capital and using it as a key driver of sustainable growth.

Perhaps more significantly, impact wholesalers — vehicles that invest in intermediaries — are increasing the pool of domestic capital. The Japan Network for Public Interest Activities, for example, channels dormant bank assets into social enterprises. Germany is exploring similar legislation. 

8. Outcome-based financing moves from pilot to policy

Outcome-based financing mechanisms, such as social impact bonds and outcomes funds, have crossed the threshold from experimentation to institutionalization. In Canada, for example, outcome-based transactions have mobilized over $14.5 million since 2023, reaching more than 10,000 beneficiaries.

Pay-for-results is becoming an embedded government procurement strategy. For impact investors, this shift fundamentally changes the risk profile: governments now serve as creditworthy outcome payers while private capital assumes the risk that social programs fail to produce outcomes that trigger payment — a structure that offers both downside protection and scalable deal flow.

9. Sustainability disclosure standards consolidate

Here’s the irony of the current moment: As some policymakers ease back on reporting requirements, investors are using market mechanisms to protect their access to information. 

Despite the retreat in the U.S., the number of companies disclosing decarbonization targets continues to grow. Brazil’s Securities Commission announced that by 2026 all listed companies must publish reports aligned with ISSB standards. The EU’s Omnibus package proposes simplifications to CSRD requirements. The direction is clear: Focus on a narrower set of reported metrics that are financially material. For markets, value lies in the decision-useful, not the exhaustive.

10. Geopolitical realignment redefines ‘responsible’

Military escalation and energy security concerns have prompted many asset managers to rescind broad exclusions in defense and energy sectors. At the same time, governments are taking more direct roles in strategically important industries — from critical minerals to AI — sometimes taking equity stakes to secure supply chains and national capabilities.

This industrial policy shift matters for portfolio construction. One analysis shows that state-owned enterprises have underperformed over the past decade and the greater the government’s stake, the worse the underperformance. Yet for bondholders, the calculus flips: Government backing narrows spreads and reduces default risk.

The implication for impact investors is clear: As governments reassert their role in capital formation, knowing where public involvement supports stability and where it erodes profitability will be key to positioning portfolios for the next phase of industrial policy.

The post 10 impact investing trends that will define 2026 appeared first on Trellis.