Levi Strauss is teaming up with Schneider Electric to help garment suppliers in India adopt renewable energy. The partnership seeks to engage, educate and assist about 70 suppliers in inking deals over the next three years.
The hope is that those suppliers will later roll out the learnings to their own suppliers, driving emissions reductions deep into the Levi’s supply chain.
That need gnaws at the fashion industry. Upstream activities — from producing raw materials to producing yarns, fabrics and garments — make up 70 percent of its climate emissions, according to the advocacy group Fashion Revolution.
The Schneider-Levi’s LEAP collaboration, announced on Sept. 23, addresses complaints suppliers have expressed about the difficulties of doing away with the dirty coal and gas that is ubiquitous to apparel factories and mills. LEAP, which stands for LS&Co. Energy Accelerator Program, also draws on Levi’s learnings over the past three years from participating in Walmart’s Project Gigaton power purchasing agreement.
The San Francisco brand projects that shifting to renewable energy can deliver as much as 20 percent of the supply-chain emissions cuts needed to meet its 2030 target: a 42 percent reduction over 2022 levels. The new project in India would make up about 3 percent of the near-term Scope 3 emissions, according to Levi’s Senior Director of Global Sustainability Jennifer DuBuisson.
The proof-of-concept LEAP initiative will help companies either broker power purchase agreements or install solar or other sources onsite. The company plans to “meet suppliers where they are,” she said. “We’re a little bit renewable-energy-mechanism agnostic.”
Levi’s and Schneider want to expand LEAP to the European Union or Asia-Pacific nations as soon as 2026.
The Schneider factor
It’s the first time Schneider has formed such a partnership in fashion. Based outside of Paris, the energy management firm’s other collaborations have touched retail (Walmart’s Project Gigaton), real estate (Blackstone portfolio upgrades), food and beverage (PepsiCo supply chain energy cuts), technology (Microsoft’s 100-percent renewable energy goal) and healthcare (Pfizer efficiency and renewables).
Levi’s has already engaged since 2022 with Schneider in Project Gigaton PPA. Through the project, an Orsted wind farm in Kansas is meant to provide most of the electricity needed through 2036 by the U.S. and Canadian plants Levi’s owns and runs.
“By extending that experience to their own suppliers through LEAP, Levi’s is building confidence in what’s possible and creating a practical, partnership-driven model that others across the fashion sector, and beyond, can replicate to accelerate decarbonization,” said John Powers, vice president of global cleantech and renewables at Schneider Electric.
Sampling Levi’s suppliers
A glimpse of more than 90 Levi’s supplier facilities in India. Credit: Levi’s map, Open Supply Hub
Ceres Company Network Senior Director Mary Ann Ormond praised the denim maker’s transparency in both its climate transition plan and the co-launch of LEAP.
Levi’s was an outlier in its industry for creating a Climate Transition Action Plan in 2024 that details near-term steps toward net zero. That process helped to prioritize emissions-slashing priorities, according to DuBuisson.
“This transition plan highlights that it is not about a silver shiny bullet that does not exist,” DuBuisson said. “These are solutions in the market today that we need to be accelerating, and that’s what we’re trying to do with LEAP.”
Schneider’s experience appealed to Levi’s, she added. “There’s a whole team with years of expertise sitting on the ground ready to answer suppliers’ questions and help them develop the business cases they need.”
In Levi’s other supply chain decarbonization work, it is involved with both the Apparel Impact Institute’s (AII) Carbon Leadership Program and AII’s efforts to advance thermal energy including heat pumps. AII works in India to help textile manufacturers electrify and ditch fossil fuels.
India made an ideal launch pad for LEAP in part because it allows for pooled PPAs, according to DuBuisson. “I was just there and continue to be inspired by the amount of innovation and amazing work that’s happening among these suppliers,” she said. Other favorable conditions include incentives for renewable energy purchasing.
Fashion emissions
With LEAP, Levi’s is taking a stand on the fashion industry’s hidden emissions gorilla within Scope 3. It may have ripple effects across the industry, or at least among the suppliers that serve many other brands, too.
“As measures of success, we hope to see a measurable increase in suppliers’ renewable electricity procurement in India and eventual expansion of the program throughout Levi’s supply chain to reduce Scope 3 emissions, increase supply chain resilience and inspire peer companies to take similar actions,” said Ormond of Ceres.
However, some critics want multi-billion-dollar brands like Levi’s to back suppliers financially, too.
“Fashion brands helping their suppliers overcome barriers to access high-quality, additional renewable energy through mechanisms like onsite solar and PPAs is a sure sign of progress in turning climate targets into tangible action,” said Ruth MacGilp, fashion campaign manager of Action Speaks Louder. “However, technical support without financial investment and fair purchasing practices to fill the gap of upfront costs is unlikely to reduce risk for suppliers at a sufficient scale for deep decarbonization.”
“All boats rise. A supplier is producing garments for multiple brands and whether it’s a Levi’s program or another program, this is about decarbonization. That’s what we’re after.”
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-03 16:01:532025-10-03 18:08:54Inside Levi’s and Schneider’s bid to clean up garment supply chains
For companies seeking to improve the accuracy of Scope 3 inventories, corporate carbon footprints can offer an upgrade to more commonly used methods. But a new study from European researchers suggests that “unpredictable variation” in company-level data severely limits the usefulness of the approach.
To total up Scope 3 numbers — emissions from suppliers, use of products by customers and other indirect sources — companies most often base estimates on activity levels or spending. For a purchase of steel, for instance, a company might multiply the quantity purchased by an estimate of the emissions associated with the production of a typical ton of the material. Use of these emissions factors makes the process relatively easy to implement, but such broad estimates disadvantage suppliers selling lower-carbon versions of a product.
As an alternative, a supplier can estimate its total emissions — its corporate carbon footprint — and allocate a fraction of that total to its customers, depending on how much of its output each purchases. The process, which is used by CDP and other standard-setters, ensures the benefits of any emissions reductions implemented by the supplier will be passed on to customers — but it also means many less relevant factors influence the estimate.
Unstable estimates
Company footprints can fluctuate due to acquisition or divestments, for example. Product lines can be eliminated or expanded, and accounting methodologies change. All would impact a supplier’s footprint — and hence the emissions allocated to customers — but might not change the actual emissions associated with the customer’s purchases.
To examine the problem, crtl+s, a Berlin-based sustainability consultancy, teamed up with researchers at the University of St Gallen in Switzerland. They looked at corporate carbon footprint data disclosed to CDP by 62 European companies, all of which had committed to emissions goals with the Science Based Targets initiative.
“All 62 companies exhibited strong volatility in specific emissions over the five-year period,” the team concluded in a white paper released this week. “Even among climate leaders, emissions data proved unstable.”
Using footprints from 2018 as a starting point, the group plotted percentages changes over the following five years. In the case of tech company Philips, total emissions came close to doubling one year before dropping back below baseline 12 months later.
Tracking emissions
The team will next search for the cause of such sudden changes. “But I know for sure it’s not specific emission reduction activities,” said ctrl+s CEO Moritz Nill. Changes from such causes are more likely to be in the 2 percent-per-year range, he added.
Product footprints are coming
The long-term solution, Nill and others say, is to use carbon footprints tied to specific products. Industry groups are collaborating to streamline the creation and sharing of such footprints, including Catena-X in car manufacturing, Mondra in food retail and sector-agnostic systems such as the Partnership for Carbon Transparency, which is being developed by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
In the meantime, Nill recommends sticking with emissions factors and refining the estimates using information from suppliers about specific emissions-reductions measures they have implemented.
A new report reveals a compelling truth: people connect most deeply with nature when it feels personal and because it helps them feel relaxed and calm.
The report, conducted by Trellis data partner GlobeScan and the World Wildlife Fund, shows 61 percent of Americans say that their personal experiences are most influential in shaping their views on nature, followed by:
Their family (43 percent)
Moral standards (37 percent)
Faith/religion (25 percent)
Education (23 percent)
When asked which feelings they associate most with being in nature, Americans say they feel relaxation and calm (71 percent), joy (49 percent), and gratitude (41 percent).
What this means
Research shows that when nature is portrayed as a personal and emotional experience, individuals relate to it more deeply. This emotional resonance fosters a stronger sense of connection, which can lead to increased environmental awareness and participation.
For NGOs and campaigners, this insight presents a powerful opportunity: to move beyond broad, generic appeals and embrace storytelling that reflects how nature touches everyday life. Whether through memories of childhood hikes, moments of calm in a local park or cherished family traditions, these relatable and emotionally compelling narratives make meaningful engagement and action possible.
Based on an online survey of 2,000 adults in the U.S. conducted in July 2025.
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-03 10:00:002025-10-03 18:10:01Why 71 percent of Americans feel relaxed and calm in nature
The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.
Sustainability consulting is currently a highly competitive career path, despite current ESG headwinds. Firms often receive 1,000 to 5,000 applications for a single role, and most organizations have turned to AI for help with identifying candidates with the greatest potential.
To understand how candidates can stand out in today’s competitive landscape, I spoke with senior leaders at five sustainability consultancies. It quickly became clear that once highly sought-after experience in areas such as disclosure and greenhouse gas accounting has become easier to find. As a result, many technical skills have become table stakes, leading firms to focus more on specific combinations of skills, attributes and cultural fit.
While networking has always been important, it carries a heightened significance in today’s job market. Referrals remain the best way to get your resume seen by a human and conversations with current employees can help you understand the nuances of what each firm values.
Below are summaries of my conversations, edited for length and clarity.
Approximate sustainability advisory team size: 40 consultants
Best known for: Sustainability strategy and management systems; decarbonization and resilience for the built environment; reporting, scoring, ratings and sustainability assurance
Jana Lake, president and owner on what makes 3R unique: 3R stands out for its human touch — we prioritize long-term relationships, a partnership approach with our clients and work–life balance for our consultants. Our consultants are encouraged to listen deeply, ask the right questions and motivate clients who may feel overwhelmed, while also supporting each other with a team-first mentality. We work remotely with our clients so that everyone has the flexibility they need to spend time with family or pursue other passions outside of work.
What 3R Sustainability looks for in candidates: Cultural fit has always come first. We’re looking for candidates with a partnership mentality and a growth mindset who take a coaching approach to their work. It’s also important for candidates to clearly understand the sustainability context and what drives business value, reduces risk and improves management systems.
How candidates can stand out: Candidates with internal sustainability experience have a unique appreciation for how difficult it can be to drive change across an organization and that makes them more empathetic and effective. We also appreciate candidates who have assurance experience and can understand how a sustainability assessment works from the other side of the table.
Approximate sustainability advisory team size: 3,300 consultants
Best known for: Net-zero strategy; regulatory-grade reporting; high-integrity carbon credits; climate risk consulting
Stuart Lemmon, head of the global sustainability practice, on what makes the team unique: We have always differentiated ourselves by the quality of the work that we do. We use processes that are underpinned by rigorous science to develop solutions for our clients that are data-driven and in alignment with international standards.
The firm has been recognized as the “World’s Most Sustainable Company” by TIME Magazine and Statista for the past two years. We’re part of a larger global team of experts in energy, resilience, strategy and efficiency who really understand this work and walk the talk, which puts us in a very strong position to offer our clients high-quality end-to-end solutions.
What SE Advisory Services looks for in candidates: We’re heavily focused on candidates with strong data science and engineering skills. They must be able to understand and interpret data within the context of the science and then understand how it informs strategy.
We’re also looking for candidates who can engage effectively with clients. Every member of the team is expected to serve as a trusted adviser directly supporting our clients on their sustainability journey. And as a values-driven organization, we’re looking for people who are passionate about creating impact for our clients, are open and transparent, and work well within an empowered environment.
How candidates can stand out: Exceptional candidates are capable of guiding a client’s progress along their journey while also thinking about where the market is going. They understand context and how the evolving regulatory and standards landscapes will impact the client. Strong candidates are also constantly thinking about a business’s operating model and how to improve it. They’ve learned how to use AI tools and can effectively incorporate them into existing tools and processes.
Approximate sustainability advisory team size: 5,000 consultants
Best known for: Sustainability strategy and implementation; sustainability reporting and assurance; climate risk and transition planning
Charlotte Fildes, global ESG head of talent, on what makes KPMG unique: We view ESG as a watermark running throughout the global organization that empowers our consultants to become agents of positive change and provides solutions and services that help our clients overcome the challenges facing our planet and society.
Our consultants are passionate about making a difference and working towards the goals in the KPMG: Our Impact Plan, which includes a validated Science-Based Target (SBT) to decarbonize our business by 50 percent across all scopes by 2030 compared to our FY19 baseline.
What KPMG looks for in candidates: We have always looked for candidates with strong analytical minds and excellence in client service, but as we’ve moved forward with implementing KPMG’s Our Impact Plan, we’ve been increasingly looking for purpose-driven thinking as a core competency. Our consultants are interested in more than just solving problems; they’re also motivated by a meaningful career and want to drive meaningful change that creates and protects value for our clients.
How candidates can stand out: The most competitive candidates combine ESG skills, such as reporting or climate analytics, with value-driven transformation abilities. We’re also looking for candidates who understand the risks and value creation potential across the full ESG project life cycle. They can connect the dots and articulate how a change in one functional area can impact risk mitigation, operational efficiency and competitive positioning across the entire organization.
Approximate sustainability advisory team size: 80 consultants
Best known for: Corporate sustainability; product sustainability; certifications and verification
William Paddock, CEO and managing director on what makes WAP Sustainability unique: We are known for our balance of strategy and execution, as well as our well-rounded cross-functional service offerings. We meet our clients where they are on their sustainability journey and stay grounded in the realities of this work. Our team combines a “get it done” mentality with a culture of camaraderie and respect for each other’s skills.
What WAP Sustainability looks for in candidates: There are two skill sets that we’ve always gravitated towards: a growth mindset and the ability to thrive in ambiguity. Because the sustainability space is constantly changing, we look for self-motivated learners who want to build skills across our service lines while keeping pace with new developments. Every client has a unique set of needs, drivers and level of ambition so every engagement will be different and consultants have to be able to adjust for that.
How candidates can stand out: We’re most interested in candidates who can clearly demonstrate experience with moving the needle and making the right structural differences within an organization. We look for people who have tangible accomplishments in things like strategy or supplier engagement and are looking to join a consulting firm in order to scale their impact.
Approximate sustainability advisory team size: 130 US-based sustainability consultants, hundreds more globally
Best known for: Sustainability strategy and program design; decarbonization and carbon accounting; climate resilience and adaptation planning
Julie Hughes, vice president, sustainability, energy and climate change, on what makes WSP unique: As an advisory team operating within the context of an engineering firm, we’re in a unique position to help our clients develop a vision, build a strategy and implement actionable plans. It’s incredibly rewarding to see an aspirational vision start to manifest in real actions.
Our consultants are big thinkers with big ideas, and they’re also practical people who are technically sound and comfortable digging into the details that drive projects forward. They have a lot of personal agency to identify the skills that they want to develop and pursue projects they want to work on. Our team is a special blend of collaborative, supportive and respectful. We treat each other as fellow human beings first, and as co-workers second.
What WSP looks for in candidates: Consulting is inherently about enabling others to succeed, so it’s important to have humility and a proclivity for helping other people — rather than a desire to have the spotlight or receive all the credit. We look for people with a natural inclination towards helping others who derive real joy and satisfaction from that act.
We’re looking for natural learners who are intellectually curious, appreciate diverse perspectives, believe in what’s possible, and are excited by growth and change.
How candidates can stand out: We’re particularly interested in candidates who are “pragmatic visionaries,” people who are adept at developing ambitious and aspirational ideas, but are also able to break those ideas down into actionable steps. We need team members who can paint a vivid picture for a client that helps them envision a better future, but can quickly pivot to the tactical, creating an action plan that builds towards that tomorrow. While we’ve always looked for candidates with intellectual agility and versatility, adaptability and comfort with change has recently become even more important. There’s a significant feeling of uncertainty in the market right now and we’re looking for people who are able to navigate that uncertainty productively, and with a level of empathy and grace that keeps our clients and our team moving forward.
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-03 10:00:002025-10-03 18:10:05What leading sustainability consultancies are hiring for in 2025
Being a change maker requires more than subject matter expertise; it takes a particular blend of soft skills: empathy, exhortation and creativity, to name just a few. These videos — all under 10 minutes — offer practical insights for honing the unquantifiable qualities that help innovators and other leaders flourish in the workplace, from motivating colleagues to managing time to persuading bouncing back from failure.
West Point graduate and Gulf War veteran Lori Tompos — one of the first women in combat arms — has been developing leaders and teams for decades, and in this TED Talk, she sets the bar — projects need to be managed; people need to be led — then sets the tone: Her definition of leadership is heavy on purpose and empowerment, light on micromanagement and control.
This video, inspired by the research of Renee Lertzman, who studies the psychosocial aspects of climate change communications, offers ways to gently yet effectively broach the subject with the less green-minded people in your life, from organizational stakeholders still not sold on the importance of reducing emissions to your in-denial uncle. TL;DW: It’s as much about listening as talking.
Team projects: love ’em or hate ’em, they’re an inescapable part of professional life. So too are the miscommunications and missed deadlines that often accompany them. Except now you can escape them! Give this clip two minutes and it will put you on the path to more positive group experiences, ones that manifest lots of synergy while generating minimal stress.
Sustainability professionals face demanding mandates and constantly changing regulations. How can you stay on top of it all? This popular TED Talk draws on computer science to suggest practical and achievable solutions. Spoiler: There’s much to be learned from the way computers organize tasks and manage time.
As oceans rise — and funding falls — so might your stress levels. In this video, Aditi Nerurkar, a physician and health communicator with expertise in burnout and mental health, explains the differences between adaptive and maladaptive stress, as well as mechanisms for rewiring your brain to boost resilience. The impact that has may well stretch beyond work and into other corners of your life.
You’ve found your dream sustainability role and proofread your résumé; next up: the interview. Whether you’re gunning for climate analyst or CSO, this video will help you answer questions both industry-agnostic (Tell me about yourself) and sustainability-specific (What climate technology trends are you following?) with clarity and confidence.
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-02 13:00:002025-10-02 18:08:386 (short) videos to help sustainability pros take their careers to the next level
Send news about sustainability leadership roles, promotions and departures to [email protected].
Robert Metzke, who shepherded Dutch medical equipment company Philips’ push to integrate environmental considerations into new product design, is leaving to lead sustainability at German telecommunications company Deutsche Telekom.
He will take over from Melanie Kubin-Hardewig, currently responsible for Group Corporate Responsibility at Deutsche Telekom, who is leaving the company to pursue other opportunities effective June 30, 2026. Metzke will report to Michael Hagspihl, who’s responsible for global strategic projects and marketing partnerships. In a statement, Deutsche Telekom said Metzke will focus on the further development of its global impact strategy and performance management for its sustainability initiatives.
Metzke, a 17-year veteran at Philips, led sustainability for the past nine years. He most recently was senior vice president and global head of sustainability.
During Metzke’s tenure, Philips became the first health technology company to have the emissions reduction targets across its entire greenhouse gas footprint approved by the Science Based Targets initiative.
The company also met its promise to include “EcoDesign” metrics — including reduced energy consumption, the elimination of hazardous substances and the use of lightweight or recycled materials — in all of its new product design roadmaps.
Philips is one of the few companies that calculates an environmental profit and loss statement that puts a monetary value on its environmental impact. The company uses that to prioritize emissions reduction investments. For example, it inspired a feature that uses artificial intelligence to reduce energy consumption in MRI machines.
Metzke cites more milestones in the Sept. 30 LinkedIn post about his job switch, with a shoutout to Philips employees: “Real change happens where human hearts meet, beyond roles and ratio. The late-night brainstorms, the courageous conversations, the shared belief that business can — and must — be a force for good.”
Simon Braaksma, head of non-financial reporting at Philips, will replace Metzke on an interim basis. “Our strong teams and foundations will ensure our ESG commitments continue without interruption,” the company said.
Deutsche Telekom, a much larger company than Philips with close to $134 billion in revenue in 2024, was not immediately available for comment. Its emissions reduction plan calls for a 55 percent cut across its entire carbon footprint by 2030, compared with 2020.
Like Philips, Deutsche Telekom cites circular business models that reimagine how products are sold and repaired as integral to its sustainability plan. The telecom’s goal is to make all of its technologies and devices “compatible” with a circular economy — prioritizing longer use cycles supported by repair services and materials reuse. Philips generates close to 25 percent of its revenue from circular models for upgrading or replacing its products.
Editor’s note: This article was updated Oct. 2 to add more details from Deutsche Telekom.
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-01 20:04:302025-10-02 18:08:39Philips’ sustainability chief switches to Deutsche Telekom
NVIDIA, the world’s most valuable company with a $4.3 trillion market capitalization, adopted its first corporate social responsibility strategy almost 20 years ago. From the start, its agenda centered largely on human rights, supply chain management and philanthropic issues.
Its priorities shifted in August 2023, when the company hired the assistant general counsel from hard drive maker Western Digital, Josh Parker, to revamp its sustainability strategy. Two years later, the company has stepped up its emissions reduction initiatives with two new commitments, validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and disclosed in June 2025.
But the biggest priority for NVIDIA’s sustainability team is advocating and steering continuous improvements in the energy efficiency of its graphics processors, a crucial component of the construction boom in data centers meant to power artificial intelligence.
“We cannot unlock the next level of performance for AI if we don’t deliver really dramatic improvements in energy efficiency,” Parker said. “It becomes a practical necessity to help us advance AI. It also is exactly what our customers want, because it lowers their total cost of ownership, of course, and also makes it easier just to build data centers in an energy supply-constrained environment.”
NVIDIA’s biggest buyers — including cloud companies Amazon Web Services, Google and Microsoft — desperately need to speed up AI processing times to have any hope of reaching their emissions reduction pledges. A single “AI factory” can use 100 to 200 megawatts of power annually — that’s on par with a traditional manufacturing facility, as NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang notes in the company’s 2025 sustainability report.
“We work very closely with our customers on decarbonization,” Parker said.
NVIDIA’s latest technology architecture, called Blackwell, is 25 times more energy-efficient than its predecessor and 50 times more efficient than competitive offerings, according to the company. Translation: 40 trillion watt-hours of electricity can be saved annually by using technology accelerated with its graphics processors, NVIDIA estimates.
The company will use a new SBTI-validated emissions intensity pledge to measure ongoing progress: the goal is to reduce the emissions intensity from use of its products by 75 percent per PetaFLOP, or one quadrillion floating-point operations per second.
“It’s the operation of our products that is, by far, the biggest impact from an emissions perspective,” Parker said. “So whatever we can do to make our products more energy efficient is the most impactful thing we can do.”
Deeper focus: supplier emissions
The emissions associated with NVIDIA’s production activities, however, are also skyrocketing. The company’s greenhouse gas inventory doubled from 2023 to 2025, to 6.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, according to its 2025 sustainability report.
NVIDIA’s reduction targets call for a 50 percent cut for operations (Scope 1) and electricity consumption (Scope 2) by 2030, which account for less than 1 percent of the total. The company is “fabless,” meaning it relies on partners to manufacture its chips. The biggest single portion of NVIDIA’s reported footprint is purchased goods and services at about 6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equipment in FY25.
Two years ago, NVIDIA adopted a pledge to encourage two-thirds of its suppliers to adopt validated emissions reduction targets by 2026. It beat that goal by a year with 80 percent for the fiscal year ended Jan. 26. It has required reporting on water, energy and emissions since the 2014 timeframe.
“Setting our own science-based target was actually one of the things we thought was important to do before becoming more ambitious with our supply chain decarbonization, because we want to make sure our suppliers know that we’re doing the same things we’re expecting of them,” Parker said.
NVIDIA is stepping up the push, although it will stop short of mandating them. “What we’re doing is asking them to set science-aligned targets — so, targets that are consistent with the Paris Agreement,” he said. “We’re not requiring that they be validated by SBTi.”
The bulk of NVIDIA’s supply chain lies outside the U.S. — the single biggest facility being built on its behalf is in Guadalajara, Mexico. But the company has said it will spend $500 billion to ramp up domestic manufacturing, with facilities planned in Texas.
Parker’s corporate sustainability team of six people reports to a steering committee that includes members of NVIDIA’s executive leadership; it also updates a board-level governance committee semiannually. The next phase of NVIDIA’s strategy is a work in progress.
“What we’re doing now is tactically trying to find what’s the best path,” he said. “Does it involve more domestic manufacturing in the United States? Does it involve more advocacy for regulatory reform? Does it involve investment in local renewable energy projects? We’re trying to figure out where the bottlenecks are, and then working both upstream and downstream to try to tackle these together.”
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-01 14:54:472025-10-01 18:08:44NVIDIA’s top ESG priority: Slash the power gobbled by its AI chips
Jaycee Pribulsky, a longtime Nike leader who only 19 months ago became its chief sustainability officer, has joined Apollo Global Management as partner and chief sustainability officer effective Oct. 1.
She succeeds Dave Stangis, who four years ago became the firm’s first CSO. He will remain a partner, then serve as senior advisor starting in 2026 before he retires.
“Jaycee brings deep experience in sustainability, and her leadership will be critical in continuing to advance and scale our platforms,” stated Stangis, who also served as the first top sustainability executive at both The Campbell’s Company and Intel.
As Pribulsky rose from senior director to vice president supply chain roles to the CSO seat, her focus included thinning emissions from 500 factories employing a million people across 41 countries. She replaced CSO Noel Kinder in February 2024 when he left for Lululemon.
Nike, which had cut its sustainability team by 30 percent at the end of 2023, has not named a new CSO.
About Apollo
Heading up strategy, reporting, climate and employee engagement at Apollo Global Management is a marked shift from working at Nike, with its more than 77,000 employees. Apollo, which is public, employs 5,100 people in 37 global offices and manages $840 billion of assets, including a $70 billion private equity portfolio. She leads a team of roughly 30 people dedicated to sustainability across the company.
“Apollo is known for its scale, capabilities and focus on delivering performance and resilience for clients and portfolio companies,” Pribulsky said in a press statement. “I am excited to build on that foundation working closely with colleagues and partners, using Apollo’s sustainability strategy as a practical tool for long-term value creation.”
Now that Stangis has cemented a foundation for sustainability reporting and risk management at Apollo, Pribulsky’s task includes continuing to use sustainability to create business value.
“Private capital is essential to bridging the gap where traditional funding falls short, and we see opportunities to deploy long-term capital in ways that drive both strong returns and meaningful value creation,” Stangis noted in Apollo’s 112-page sustainability report for 2024. “One of the biggest areas is in advancing the energy transition where we are investing in scalable, resilient solutions that will power industries for decades.”
Apollo helped to move some $59 billion within its funds toward climate-transition related investments. The goal is $100 billion by 2030. A sample investment: SunPower received $300 million in support for its home solar and storage offerings through Apollo’s funds and affiliates last year.
Nonetheless, Pribulsky joins the firm at a turbulent time for asset managers. Facing an ESG backlash from the White House, they are also under regulatory pressure to make sustainability reporting more transparent and defend their impact claims. “Alternative” managers such as Apollo also face the tensions of delivering returns from distressed or high-risk investments, including those related to fossil fuels, that don’t align tidily with sustainability goals.
Pribulsky’s career
For more than two decades, Pribulsky focused on sustainability and operations, particularly in sourcing. She also has a deep and varied set of experiences in public relations and governance, including at Bloomberg, Waggener Edstrom, Citigroup and United Technologies.
Before completing an MBA at Columbia University, Pribulsky worked in President Bill Clinton’s White House, including stints as his special assistant and a scheduler for first lady Hillary Clinton.
“Jaycee’s cross-sector experience and track record of building durable, business-aligned sustainability programs will continue to advance Apollo’s differentiated approach and competitive leadership,” Apollo Asset Management Co-President Scott Kleinman stated.
The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.
Corporate sustainability reports, in their current form, started to appear in the late 1980s and early 1990s. A variety of factors led to this: high-profile environmental disasters (the Bhopal gas disaster and the Exxon Valdez oil spill, for example); the release of the Brundtland Report on sustainable development; and the development of the Ceres Principles, which “called on companies to acknowledge their environmental impacts and act more responsibly to help protect our communities and economies.”
However, as the manifestations of a changing climate become clearer, investors and customers started asking companies to provide specific information about their exposure to risks related to climate change. That’s how climate risk assessments emerged in the 2000s, with the launch of the Carbon Disclosure Project and the Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures, as a way to provide the investor community with credible projections of how climate change could financially affect companies.
Recently, climate risk assessments have become mandatory under some state regulations such as in California and under Europe’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Yet many sustainability teams and CSOs face challenges navigating the complex models and future scenarios these assessments require. That’s because they often lack expertise in the areas of risk assessment and financial quantification of risks and are unable to find consistent, uniform guidance in how to do so.
The art and science of climate risk assessments
These assessments identify, prioritize and ultimately mitigate the risks that companies face directly and through their value chains. Specifically they:
Determine the boundaries of the assessment regarding the company, its value chain and different geographies
Identify the types of risks considered such as physical or transitional risks and acute vs. chronic risks
Select future scenarios ranging from unabated warming to various policy scenarios implemented to address climate change
Evaluate the sensitivity or vulnerability of each entity within the assessment boundaries
Prioritize risks and details of risk mitigation efforts
Describe the company’s risk management and governance processes and climate change-related opportunities
In our work supporting global corporations with their assessments, we’ve witnessed several challenges that can limit the depth and breadth of these assessments.
Large global climate risk models have low spatial resolution. As a result, significant differences in localized facility physical risk exposures are lost. A facility on the shore of a river subject to flooding, for example, has a very different exposure profile from a facility on a knoll or hill — important differences lost in a low-resolution model.
Similarly, large companies with hundreds — if not thousands — of assets will often group proximate locations to reduce the number of locations under consideration. While this approach can make the analysis simpler, faster and cheaper, it risks obscuring important differences in exposure.
Solution: Two main approaches can help solve this challenge. First, measuring stations managed by federal agencies have been tracking data related to climate change (heat event days, frequency of floods, and buildings and populations exposed to extreme weather) for decades. This real-time, location-specific data enables precise risk estimations that can be applied directly to a company’s facilities across all physical risks for a baseline assessment. For those locations where this far more granular and site-specific data is available, this critical information can help climate risk assessors understand the challenges relevant to a specific site.
The second approach is for those companies with hundreds or even thousands of locations. In those cases, we recommend that companies triage their facilities by grouping them within specific regions — such as ZIP codes — and screening for features such as proximity to riverbanks or low elevation. In 2017, the city of Boston took this approach by releasing a Climate Vulnerability Assessment that identified specific locations needing attention due to the unique characteristics of their siting. The assessment grouped sites by neighborhood, showing how this level of analysis could effectively highlight the key risks to each community. This helped flag sites needing special consideration in the assessment.
Challenge No. 2: Assessments fail to account for health-related impacts of climate change
State-of-the-art assessments tend to focus on physical building risks. Yet rising temperatures and heat-related health problems present a significant and growing risk to a company’s employees. For example, some studies show that productivity can plummet by 50 percent once temperatures exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit, affecting operations and revenue, while also increasing costs related to cooling. This has led some companies such as VF and Nike to adapt their supplier codes of conduct to outline standards their suppliers must maintain with respect to heat-related working conditions.
But most climate risk assessments offer anecdotal connections between these factors and not substantive or empirical evidence. For those looking to quantify in financial terms the impacts of climate change, better methodologies are important.
Challenge No. 3: There’s no uniform standard for financial projections
Unlike accounting practices which have a slew of standards, there’s no “GAAP” version for climate risk assessments. Today, climate change financial estimations range from vague to overly precise, which can call into question accuracy and precision of the proffered data. Compounding the problem, most companies limit their financial forecasts to five years at the most, which is much shorter than the time frames used in most climate-related projections.
Solution: Financial assessments based on climate risks can be in the form of an expected value calculation:
EV=∑[Probability of outcome(i) × Value of outcome (i)]
In other words, the expected financial value is the product of the probability of the outcome and the value of that particular outcome summed over all possible outcomes. This is similar to how insurance companies project financial risk.
By using data and approaches consistent with how actuarial companies approach such calculations, we can arrive at a place where climate-related financial disclosures are credible projections of the actual risks that companies face due to climate change. Some organizations such as S&P Global and FAIRR have integrated these calculations, or similar approaches, into their risk assessments.
As our climate continues to change and extreme weather becomes more unpredictable, it’s important that corporations understand the risk and opportunity landscape they’re exposed to and disclose that information publicly. Anything they can do to improve on the depth and breadth of their analysis will help them be more resilient and sustainable long into the future.
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-01 10:00:002025-10-01 18:08:473 common climate risk assessment mistakes — and how to fix them
Like many fast-growing companies betting on artificial intelligence, Salesforce is pacing far behind its climate action plan.
The $38 billion enterprise software business said in 2021 that it would halve absolute emissions by 2030. Four years later, the company can point to solid progress on cutting emissions from electricity use. But those gains have been entirely canceled out by emissions growth elsewhere, including in the data centers that power its AI products.
Against that backdrop, the company has dramatically shifted how it intends to cut the biggest part of its carbon footprint. In the latest installment of Chasing Net Zero, our in-depth series that includes profiles of emissions progress at ArcelorMittal, Nestlé and GSK, we unpack the forces behind the move and explain why some observers are asking whether the switch has weakened Salesforce’s ambition on climate action.
Salesforce is now basing its Scope 3 target — which includes data centers and other sources outside its immediate control, such as goods from suppliers — on improvements to emissions intensity rather than absolute reductions. Using this measure (Scope 3 emissions divided by the company’s gross profit) leaves open the possibility that the company’s absolute emissions could increase even if it meets its goal.
What’s more, an analysis by Trellis of the company’s new intensity commitment suggests it will likely hit its goal just a year after setting it, raising questions about the depth of its ambition.
Salesforce describes its decision to lean into emissions intensity, outlined in its most recent stakeholder impact report, as a “more actionable and pragmatic” route to net zero. “For a high-growth company like Salesforce, this approach is more practical given that growth may outpace the global rate of decarbonization,” said Sunya Norman, senior vice president of impact.
Leadership legacy
Salesforce became one of the earliest companies from any industry to embrace net zero when co-founder and CEO Marc Benioff signed a splashy 2015 pledge organized by fellow billionaire Richard Branson.
Its initial plan, validated by Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) four years later, called for halving emissions from operations and electricity use (Scopes 1 and 2) by 2030 — a commitment Salesforce achieved several years early thanks to investments in renewables. Subsequently, it has upgraded to a more ambitious 2030 target for Scope 1 and 2.
Source: Salesforce annual impact reports. Note: Salesforce discloses emissions by the company’s fiscal year, which ends in January. We have used the previous calendar years here, as most emissions were generated in that time period.
The 2019 plan also targeted a 50 percent cut to emissions from use of fuel and energy elsewhere in the company’s value chain. In a 2021 climate action plan, Salesforce expanded that commitment to all upstream and downstream Scope 3 emissions, including electricity consumed by data centers that run its software, but which the company doesn’t own. (The company did not have that broader pledge validated by the SBTi.)
To shrink its biggest emissions source — purchased goods and services, including the cloud capacity it sources from Amazon Web Services and Google — and meet a 2019 goal of having 60 percent of Scope 3 emissions come from suppliers with science-based targets, the company uses contracts that require strategic suppliers to cut emissions. Salesforce also turned its climate strategy into a source of business, packaging the system it built to track its emissions into a product called Net Zero Cloud, priced at $210,000 annually.
Yet progress on overall emissions has been a victim of financial success. Since setting its first science-based targets, Salesforce has acquired data analytics software provider Tableau and messaging software firm Slack. It’s also merged with AI management player Informatica. The moves helped triple revenues — and contributed to absolute emissions staying stubbornly flat.
In 2024, the company’s emissions were just 1 percent below its 2018 baseline inventory of roughly 1 million metric tons. While the company reached its 2030 reduction goals for Scope 1 and 2 two years ago, overall emissions from Scope 3 activities — which made up more than 90 percent of its 2024 emissions — swelled 10 percent between 2019 and 2025. The company also fell short of its Scope 3 fuel and energy use goals, as well as its supply chain coverage goal.
Reboot required
Salesforce undertook a cross-company review in 2024 to reconsider its science-based targets as part of SBTi’s five-year review requirements. It dedicated a data scientist to analyzing progress and forecasting future scenarios, using internal metrics such as headcount adjustments, expansion plans and revenue projections alongside third-party data including grid decarbonization forecasts.
The company’s market-based reduction targets for Scope 1 and 2 are now more ambitious: A 67 percent drop by 2030, compared with the 50 percent reduction previously sought and already delivered, followed by a 90 percent cut by 2041.
But it’s in Scope 3, which contributes the large majority of Salesforce’s total emissions, where things get more complicated. Instead of another absolute goal, the company is targeting emissions intensity cuts of 68 percent by 2031 and 97 percent by 2041.
Around 80 percent of companies with SBTi-approved plans have absolute reduction goals — and this method is what many investors and stakeholders expect. Still, the initiative’s Corporate Net Zero standard allows Scope 3 intensity goals in high-emitting sectors where growth is projected to be sector-wide and significant.
Salesforce is not the first tech company to make the switch: Design software firm Adobe opted for a Scope 3 emissions-intensity target when it updated its commitments in August 2024. Other well-known software developers are considering this option as part of the near-term target reviews that the SBTi requires every five years, according to insiders.
The megatrend underlying this thinking: Predictions of soaring energy use in AI data centers, which could consume 12 percent of all U.S. electricity by 2028. That’s driving an uptick in natural gas plant construction and is one reason why the three biggest software companies racing to claim AI leadership — Amazon Web Services, Google and Microsoft — have all seen recent increases in emissions.
“You could view these economic intensity targets as a way of managing emissions in the short term as we are waiting for mitigation technologies to scale,” said Emma Armstrong, executive director for North America at consulting firm Anthesis. “They can be challenging to achieve and, for most companies, will require a very meaningful decoupling of emissions from growth.”
Both of Salesforce’s new goals for emissions intensity are above the minimum required by SBTI, Norman said. “The way to think about our [old] targets versus our new targets is these Scope 3 targets are much more comprehensive, and they’re completely aligned to science-based target methodology that didn’t exist five years ago,” she said.
The idea of emissions intensity often resonates with business leaders outside the sustainability function, said Armstrong. “Ten years ago, companies could set a target, it could be very ambitious, but there was less high-level scrutiny,” she said. “Those days are 100 percent gone. You cannot take a target to senior management unless you can tell them exactly what you’re going to do to deliver.”
Easily achievable goal
How likely is it that Salesforce will reach its new near-term pledges?
The company won’t start officially publishing its new metric until next year’s impact report. Trellis analyzed Salesforce’s emissions intensity since its baseline year using historical emissions and gross profit data.
Source: Trellis estimates based on data from Salesforce financial and sustainability reports.
Those calculations show that the company reduced its intensity by 62 percent since 2019, suggesting Salesforce is already close to its near-term goal. Indeed, if it maintains the pace of reductions seen in recent years, the company could hit the goal in 2026. What’s more, if its cumulative gross profit grows more than 50 percent over the next five years, Salesforce could meet its intensity goal and still report an absolute increase in Scope 3 emissions.
When asked to comment on the level of ambition for the emissions-intensity goal, Norman noted that the new, near-term SBTi-validated target is more comprehensive than the one it replaces, which covered just one category of Scope 3. “We are aligning to this metric in line with SBTi guidance and above their minimum requirements,” she said.
Emissions intensity targets focused on metrics, such as the energy used in production, are valuable for specific commodities, as they can serve as industry benchmarks, but ones pegged to profit are less meaningful, said Thomas Day, a climate policy analyst at the NewClimate Institute, which analyzes company emission commitments in its Corporate Climate Responsibility Monitor.
“The only stakeholder group that I can see benefiting from such an approach is investors that are not actually interested in the company decarbonizing, but rather just want to know that the company has the profit margin to absorb any potential regulation related to carbon pricing that may come along in the future,” he said.
How Salesforce plans to make progress
AI has swelled Salesforce’s addressable market from billions to trillions of dollars as it enters its 26th year. Its technology, Agentforce, uses autonomous agents to automate tasks such as nurturing sales leads, and to offer tips on how to close a deal.
“This is not just a technology shift, this is a shift in how work gets done,” noted Salesforce CEO Benioff this year. The company has publicly committed at least $1.5 billion to fund AI innovations.
Salesforce is also at the forefront of industry-wide efforts to define priorities for “sustainable AI” and evaluates its own AI investments with sustainability in mind, beginning with this question: Is the application really warranted?
“The first part of the strategy starts with acknowledging that not every business activity needs to be replaced with or augmented by AI,” said Norman. From there, the company cuts power use by prioritizing the efficiency of its AI code and reducing the size of data sets used to train its algorithms.
But it’s the company’s approach to technology infrastructure that will be the most crucial factor in mitigating AI-related emissions. In recent years, data centers represented an average of 19 percent of Salesforce’s total market-based emissions. To reach its new targets, Salesforce needs to cut the absolute emissions from suppliers and data centers by 13 percent and 10 percent, respectively, alongside measures to tame business travel and the footprint from its offices.
Unlike two big competitors, SAP and ServiceNow, Salesforce doesn’t host applications in its own data centers. Rather, it runs them on a combination of equipment co-located in bigger data centers owned by partners, such as Digital Realty, and on cloud computing services managed by Google and Amazon Web Services.
That hybrid approach could be a big advantage, because Salesforce leaders estimate that economies of scale make cloud data centers 40 percent more efficient than co-located infrastructure. Studies by big cloud providers offer a similar narrative: Microsoft, for instance, claims its Azure platform is 98 percent more efficient than a bespoke approach.
Salesforce also plans on leveraging its status among the top five enterprise software companies to motivate emissions cuts by its big cloud and infrastructure partners. More than half of Salesforce’s strategic suppliers have agreed to emissions cuts in their contracts. These are “super strategic relationships that need to have sustainability as part of the broader conversation,” Norman said.
Salesforce’s contract structure — still unusual in any industry — is a real advantage as the company tackles its “massive” Scope 3 target for 2040, said Jennifer Vieno, ESG research director for technology, media and telecommunications with Morningstar Sustainalytics. In particular, it makes it easier to see what strategies actually have an impact, she said.
Executives hope these efforts will help Salesforce navigate the transition every software company with net-zero commitments is confronting. While three of the biggest players in AI infrastructure — Amazon, Google and Microsoft — are sticking by original commitments, their emissions have skyrocketed, forcing all to rethink sustainability strategies. Microsoft, for instance, has said it will retire millions of carbon credits annually to meet its goal. Against this backdrop, Salesforce’s decision to revise its approach can be viewed as a pragmatic way to manage emissions amid a period of growth.
“We believe that intensity-based targets can be a useful tool,” said Kelly Poole, energy and climate coordinator with nonprofit As You Sow. “In general, they are trying to take accountability for Scope 3 emissions. I do see them as playing an active role.”
https://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/cropped-trellis_favicon_180x180.png3232sustainablefuturehttps://sustainable-future.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Untitled-design-117-300x94.pngsustainablefuture2025-10-01 05:00:002025-10-01 18:09:39How Salesforce shifted its 2030 climate goals while going all in on AI
