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

Earlier this year, seven people who bought Apple’s carbon-neutral watches sued the company over the price premium they paid for these products. The lawsuit, which accuses Apple of making false and misleading claims about the watch’s green credentials, has serious issues of its own — including a misunderstanding of how carbon markets work, a disregard for established climate protocols and the implication that all offsetting is inherently ineffective.

The lawsuit also underscores a misconception about the best ways to communicate about corporate climate action. Such lawsuits could discourage companies from making their environmental efforts public, effectively punishing those taking steps forward, while letting those doing nothing off the hook.

What’s been lost amid the ongoing lawsuit is the fact that Apple designed and manufactured a carbon-neutral watch. I worry this case — and others like it — will scare companies into greenhushing their products, or not even attempting to make carbon-neutral products at all. The Environmental Defense Fund raised a similar concern in a legal brief backing Apple’s climate strategy, arguing that credible, transparent action should be supported, not punished, or we risk discouraging companies from staying ambitious in their sustainability efforts.

This need not be the case. Companies should follow Apple’s lead and speak boldly about their sustainability strategies, even amid the current political backlash against corporate climate action. 

A brief history of carbon-neutral claims

Apple isn’t the first manufacturer to experience backlash linked to its carbon-neutral claims. After Germany’s Federal Court of Justice ruled Katjes, a sweets manufacturer, had misled consumers with its carbon-neutral claims, the country banned carbon neutral labels on products unless accompanied by a detailed explanation.

In 2023, Delta Air Lines faced a class-action lawsuit alleging that its marketing of the airline as “carbon neutral” was misleading. Similarly, in 2022 Danone faced legal action over green claims on its Evian water bottles. Although a series of class action claims against Danone were originally allowed to proceed, the court reversed its decision in December. 

Taking companies such as Apple, Delta and Danone to court will disincentivize further action. They will likely review their “carbon-neutral” experiments, conclude they didn’t play well publicly and possibly decide against future climate action. This is already happening: Nestlé dropped its carbon-neutral pledges for KitKat and Nespresso, opting instead to focus on direct emissions cuts. In Germany, supermarket chain Rewe and drugstore chain Rossmann removed “climate neutral” labels from their products following regulatory pressure. EnergyAustralia also pulled its “Go Neutral” offset program after a greenwashing lawsuit, pivoting towards deeper internal decarbonization. These retreats send the wrong signal at a time when ambition and transparency are most needed.

Beyond legal action

We’re emerging from an initial period of experimentation in which many businesses claimed their products to be “carbon neutral” for the first time. And while it’s valuable for media organizations and other watchdogs, activists and even competitors to question the integrity of these claims, in doing so, some have made the term synonymous with greenwashing. Nuance has been lost and misunderstanding has spread.

For example, consumers might not know that, for most sectors, reducing emissions is voluntary. Companies choose to do so because it’s part of their climate strategy or they believe it’s what consumers want. 

We should now be familiar enough with the term “carbon neutral” to know it means a company has cut some emissions and wants to compensate for those it cannot yet prevent. But some critics and commentators seem to think that when a company claims it’s carbon neutral, it’s implying it’s environmentally impactless.

Rather than focusing legal firepower on the relatively few companies making environmental steps, critics might achieve more impact by turning their attention to the 81 percent that haven’t even set climate targets. 

Of course, it makes a better story to shout “hypocrite” than “laggard,” but doing so isn’t productive. We need consumers and media calling on companies to take climate action rather than punishing those that do.

I’m not saying all companies making efforts to reduce their emissions are perfect, nor that they do all in their power. But how much more inspiring would it be if, instead of going on the defensive, sustainability leaders honestly shared lessons learned? 

Corporations, don’t give up

I recognize it’s hard for companies to know what to claim. But to overcome this challenge, the Voluntary Carbon Market Initiative, an independent non-profit launched with support from the U.K. government and leading climate philanthropies, has produced a claims code of practice to help companies accurately convey emissions reduction and compensation. 

It’s also critical that we’re accurate with terminology. Some sustainability experts and climate communications specialists question whether “carbon neutral” is the most useful term. We need a phrase that shows a company’s progress toward cutting emissions such as “carbon responsible” or “climate positive.” 

Next, charging a premium for a more environmentally positive product is a mistake. Companies should make it easier, not harder, for consumers to make green choices, particularly as politicians increasingly disregard sustainability. If more people could buy greener products at reasonable prices, it would signal to companies there’s strong consumer demand, encouraging them to ramp up these initiatives and kickstarting a virtuous circle of greater investment and innovation. 

While it’s tempting in the current political environment to greenhush, companies that share the tangible actions they’re taking, not just future goals, are more likely to shape environmental dialogue and demonstrate leadership. Transparency about real progress can inspire others and build trust.

Companies have a choice: Either retreat into a world of greenhushing and environmental negligence or boldly advance the sustainability agenda through action and transparency. Companies that act decisively and communicate openly might face backlash now, but will ultimately be on the right side of history.

The post What we can learn about corporate climate action from the Apple watch case  appeared first on Trellis.

If you’re a corporate affairs professional who’s been feeling the ESG backlash, you’re not alone.

New research from Trellis data partner GlobeScan and the University of Oxford found that in Europe and North America, corporate affairs professionals say pushback against ESG has become more pronounced, with approximately half of respondents reporting increased resistance against this agenda in the past 12 months. At the same time, corporate affairs professionals in other parts of the world are much less likely to report experiencing more resistance. This divergence underscores a critical point: although ESG is becoming more contested, growing resistance to it is far from universal.

What this means

Nowhere are the effects of rising political and economic pressures more visible than in the expansive domain of ESG. Often misrepresented as a vehicle for ideological agendas, ESG remains a vital lens through which companies interpret their operating environment and shape strategic behavior. For corporate affairs, ESG remains a central, yet increasingly complex arena. Regional disparities are widening, and political forces are reshaping both strategic priorities and narrative framing. In this shifting landscape, companies may need to adopt more nuanced, regionally attuned approaches to ESG in the years ahead.

Based on the Oxford-GlobeScan Global Corporate Affairs Survey of 245 corporate affairs practitioners conducted February-March 2025.

The post Corporate affairs pros in Europe, North America report increased ESG resistance appeared first on Trellis.

Tricia Carey, the former chief commercial officer for circular fabric innovator Renewcell, could have played it safe when she found herself out of a job in July 2024. With a professional network spanning companies such as Gap, H&M and Under Armor, she might have easily landed a new gig at a well-established fashion brand.

Instead, less than a year after Renewcell’s bankruptcy, she’s taking a risk with another early-stage startup, Avalo, which uses artificial intelligence to breed climate-resilient crops. She’ll be the evangelist: meeting with farmers, mills, spinners and brands to sell them on the approach.

“I’m a relationship builder,” she said on the latest episode of the Climate Pioneers interview series. “I love innovation, and I actually really like starting with things from scratch. You can build versus remodel, which you often have to do in a large global enterprise.”

The 6-year-old company has raised almost $15 million, including $11 million in March, to cultivate seed strains that use less water and fertilizer than conventional plants. Carey was hired to expand Avalo’s focus beyond sugarcane, rice and other commodities into cotton, fashion’s second most used fabric. It drinks 3 percent of the water used for agricultural purposes and is responsible for 10 percent of worldwide pesticide use.

“The industry is going through an incredible transition right now, and it’s never been a more exciting time to be a part of the textile and apparel industry,” she said. “We’ve got policy coming at us. We have now a lot happening within the tariff world. We’ve got the technology coming in. We have disruption from new entrants into the market, and so it really gives us a chance to rebuild and to do it the right way.”

Cotton was also at the center of Carey’s job at Renewcell, which sought to replace the use of virgin cotton with an alternative called Circulose made out of recycled cotton scraps. As chief commercial officer, Carey signed H&M and the parent companies for Tommy Hilfiger and Zara as clients. But longstanding supply chain practices and high production costs forced Renewcell into bankruptcy. Its intellectual property was acquired by a private equity firm and lives on in a renamed company, Circulose.

A fashionable career

Carey will try to connect Avalo with the network she built over 25 years with Lenzing, the company behind Tencel, a breakthrough wood-based textile designed to reduce the environmental impacts of fashion. There, she helped convince brands including Gap, Levi’s and Under Armour to source the fabric. Carey’s career began in the New York fashion district, inspired by her childhood wardrobe of handmade clothes.

“I learned how to sew because if I didn’t like [a garment], I was going to fix it,” she said. “That got me interested in textiles at an early age.”

Carey gravitated to startups later because they can be more nimble than companies struggling to transition in step with shifting consumer expectations. Although she sometimes misses Lenzing’s resources, she relishes the chance to share her mistakes and shortcuts with less-established companies.

Avalo’s appeal to cotton farmers centers on answering this question: How can they grow the most profitable crop as soil health deteriorates and water supplies become less predictable? Its AI algorithms scour seed databases to study seed traits and predict how to breed the best cotton seeds for the climate conditions of specific growing regions. “We can work on multiple traits at a time, which is not how traditional breeding is done,” Carey said. Often, changing these characteristics takes twice as long.

The company is seeking large cotton buyers to support its current strain being planted on about 2,000 acres by 15 farmers in an arid region of West Texas. If all goes as expected, the plants will use 95 percent less water than do currently available seeds. 

‘Learn, earn and return’

“I’m kind of looking at it in phases of learn, earn and return,” she said. “I felt I was reaching this point where I could take all of my learnings and return them back to the industry so much of what I had experienced and where I saw that it really needed to evolve.” 

She’ll prioritize three best practices at Avalo:

Execution at a much faster pace. Startup teams don’t have the guardrails or processes typically associated with navigating large organizations. That requires them to be laser-focused on mission. Carey says she learned more in her 18-month Renewcell tenure than she did in five years with a larger organization.

Recruitment of flexible individuals. Camaraderie is crucial. Carey seeks people with “the energy and the resilience to look at things differently, and that are also willing to build systems and have the flexibility to know that not everything’s going to be perfect.”

Diversification of customer segments. One of Renewcell’s downfalls was an over-reliance on small capsule collections with fashion brands that failed to scale their orders. “We do so many pilots, we can get into that stagnation of pilots after pilots after pilots,” she said. “In many cases, it’s back to basics, it’s about communication, it’s back to making sure that we’re running projects properly.”

Watch the full interview on the Trellis YouTube channel.

The post What’s next for the exec who convinced H&M and Gap to rethink textile sourcing appeared first on Trellis.

Across the food industry — from meatpackers to retailers—companies face varying levels of climate risk from methane pollution. Livestock emissions account for 32 percent of human-caused methane emissions, which means retailers that sell more dairy, beef and pork products are particularly prone to methane risks.

But there are steps all companies can take to clean up methane pollution, tackle risk and ultimately boost profits and food system resilience, as highlighted in a new Ceres report that analyzes which sectors in the food industry are most exposed to methane risk. Hershey, Cargill, General Mills and other industry-leading companies are doing that by acting on disclosing methane emissions, setting reduction goals, implementing methane strategies in transition plans and advocating for public policy that supports research and innovation.

To have the greatest impact, food companies can focus on their supply chains to slash methane from agriculture. Companies that work directly with — or at least maintain close relationships with — the farmers and ranchers who produce their food and livestock will have a different menu of options for reducing methane emissions from those that do not.

Whether they have direct ties to farmers or not, every food company can make a difference. Here’s how companies at both ends of the food industry can work with actors in and around their supply chains to cut methane pollution.  

Packaged foods and meats companies face the highest risk

Our analysis found that packaged foods and meats companies that primarily produce dairy, beef and pork products have the highest risk from methane pollution in the industry — up to 90 percent of their total emissions. That means that lowering methane can go a long way in helping packaged foods makers to achieve their goals. 

Fortunately, these companies are well-positioned to target methane-related risk and leverage strategies for working with their partners within the supply chain. Many either work closely with farmers or, in some cases, manage everything from farming operations to processing and packaging. These close relationships or integrated production models place these businesses more in control over the solutions because they can directly engage farmers in their supply chain to implement methane-reducing practices.

Take, for instance, Danone, a founding member of the Dairy Action Methane Alliance, an initiative working on dairy methane in the food industry. Danone stands out for its commitment to drive down methane across its operations and supply chain using a broad sweep of strategies. 

The dairy giant works directly with nearly 60,000 farmers, including many smallholders, and supports on-farm projects for piloting methane-inhibiting feed additives, improving cattle genetics and optimizing milk production and efficiency. In the U.S., Danone North America has funded projects on dairies of diverse sizes around the country to improve manure management, which the company claims not only contributes to reducing methane, but also nitrous oxide, another gas with a powerful warming effect.  

Food retailers also face challenges 

At times overlooked, food retailers including grocery and convenience stores are at considerable climate risk from livestock pollution due to their meat and dairy sales. Like packaged foods and meats companies, these retailers will have to remove methane from their supply chains to reduce their overall climate impact and the risks that creates for their businesses. 

Since they’re further removed from farms, retailers of beef, pork and dairy products will need to use more indirect forms of supporting farmers and ranchers in managing methane risks and advancing cutting-edge solutions throughout the industry. Partnering with their suppliers (co-ops and meat processors) is a good option for retailers to help farmers and ranchers reduce the amount of methane their farms emit. Retailers can work to show their suppliers there’s demand for low-methane products and develop programs to share the costs to farmers for methane projects.

One retailer making strides on methane is Ahold Delhaize subsidiary the Giant Company, a regional U.S. supermarket chain intent on building a sustainable supply chain for its fresh milk and dairy products. To help reach that goal, Giant partners with organizations including the Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Cooperative Association (Turkey Hill and Starbucks are also members) and the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay. These partnerships assist in funding and supporting projects that promote best practices, such as proper animal waste storage to prevent leakage into the surrounding soil and waterways, and regenerative agriculture such as using cover crops to lower the emissions intensity of milk production and improve water quality on the region’s 400-plus dairy farms.

Without a doubt, meaningfully methane pollution reduction from livestock cannot be accomplished alone. An all-in mindset is required for food companies to reap the most benefits from action. The examples set by Danone and Giant illustrate how actors can do their part to fast-track the adoption of lower-methane practices, enhance risk management and ensure future profitability and supply chain resilience. 

Companies across the entire food industry, regardless of where they sit, can implement methane strategies to engage their supply chain, accelerate innovation and advocate for public policy that helps them achieve their goals. 

[Join a vibrant community of leaders and innovators driving cutting-edge tools, business strategies, and partnerships to protect and regenerate nature at Bloom, Oct. 28-30, San Jose.]

The post How food companies like Danone and Giant are tackling methane pollution  appeared first on Trellis.

Animal, vegetable or mineral. Most materials derive from one of those categories of nature. But a Chicago startup is cultivating a new class of materials from the fungus kingdom.

Hydefy, in fact, is developing alternatives both leather and fossil fuel-based plastics.

The company just emerged from stealth mode after spending five years quietly formulating its vegan “leather.” In March, it took the wraps off its first branded product, a $1,500 silvery purse by Stella McCartney.

“Our vision is that we will introduce a new option for consumers that they can feel good about,” said Hydefy General Manager Rachel Lee.

Among dozens of startups playing with mycelium, found in the roots of mushrooms, Hydefy has evaded the spotlight. That’s even as its sister startup, Nature’s Fynd, raked in more than $500 million of investments, including from Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy Ventures. Nature’s Fynd formulates fungus-based, protein-rich “yogurt” and breakfast patties that sell at Whole Foods and Mariano’s markets. 

The sibling companies share a nearly 50,000 square-foot R&D and production plant in Chicago’s former Union Stock Yards. The irony of being situated in America’s former meatpacking “jungle” is not lost on Lee, who is also a senior director at Nature’s Fynd.

“We started with cream cheese and breakfast patties in 2021, on Valentine’s Day, as our love letter to Earth,” she said. “We were replacing the inside of a cow. Now we can say we’re replacing all the parts.”

The quest to bring climate-friendly fungi to the industrial production of fashion and food sprang from NASA research into “extremophile” organisms that could survive in alien conditions. The fungus has traveled to the International Space Station to test its potential for feeding astronauts. Fynder Group, the umbrella company, emerged from research by Mark Kozubal, who in 2009 noticed fungi sprouting from algae sampled from a hot spring at Yellowstone National Park. The Latin name for the fungus strain, by the way, is Fusarium strain flavolapis (flavo means yellow and lapis means stone).

The company was founded in a Bozeman, Montana, garage but eventually relocated to the Windy City.

Hydefy recently invited Trellis to tour its Chicago plant, where it and Nature’s Fynd draw their fungi from the same cooler. The organism is rare — it may not even grow beyond its geothermal origin point in Yellowstone — so backup copies are kept alive in undisclosed locations.

From cold storage the microorganisms’ paths diverge, either to a Nature’s Fynd lab-like kitchen or a Hydefy fabrication room. (Sometimes Hydefy recycles scrap fungi from Nature’s Fynd.)

Whatever works

Hydefy takes an “all of the above” approach to fermentation technology. With liquid air surface fermentation, the fungi forms a mat as it grows, Kombucha-like, in trays. Another method is submerged fermentation. In equipment typically found in breweries, fungi grow vertically inside large metal tanks.

“This process allows us to re-fit existing equipment and grow our network, whether national or global,” Lee said.

The living output, called Fy, comes out wet. Once washed, diced and dried, it resembles potato chips, but with an earthy aroma.

The company crushes those chips into powder, mixing in sugarcane polymers. It forms that powder into pellets, which are fed into an extruder, at which point heat and pressure are added to churn out sheets that are similar in size to fabric rolls.

The machines, which generally produce vinyl flooring and mats, have been customized by Hydefy engineers. (Early on, the company experimented with a panini press.)

There’s a light burning smell as staff tinkers with the equipment. They swap out attachments to produce different sizes and composites of the material. 

The base material comes out a buttery yellow. The company can add colors. 

At a nearby table, team members add texture to the rolls, a process similar to embossing. A finishing layer includes silicone and a bio-based polyurethane from either corn or sugarcane. Hydefy has about 50 different finishing formulations. Notably, when an attache case brought to a trade show in London became unpackaged during shipping, the wear and tear resembled the scuffing typical of animal leather.

The material can have various hand feels, including pebbled leather, crushed velvet and suede effect. In addition, the company can produce non-leather textures that have, say, a metallic sheen or other patterns, such as the topography of Yellowstone Park. Some of the material smells nearly like leather, although whether Hydefy should mimic that aroma is a point of discussion. So too a perfumed purse: A Nature’s Fynd team member helped give Fy a rose scent.

“Some of our favorite inventions have come from controversial, love-or-hate decisions,” Lee said.

A diversified team

Hydefy employees come from a swath of backgrounds. They include a scientist who used to make fighter jets, a former banker and a fermentation scientist. The team also includes Senior R&D Director Jeremy Gantz, who spent more than seven years in materials innovation at Nike. He is one reason that Hydefy is comfortable eyeing the footwear market. At least three staffers are wearing test shoes made from Fy.

“As an industry, we’re not going to find people who used to work in this because it’s a new category,” Lee said. “That’s why it was more important to look for scientists who have the material science background, or who have the chemistry background, or even who have textile background.”

[Connect with more than 3,500 professionals decarbonizing and future-proofing their organizations and supply chains through climate technologies at VERGE, Oct. 28-30, San Jose.]

The post An inside look at a fungi-forward, faux-leather material maker appeared first on Trellis.