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

There are two days left for CSOs everywhere to provide their from-the-market perspectives on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP) Scope 2 proposed changes.

While all the changes are important to understand, the biggest debate centers on whether the market-based method (MBM) of accounting should require companies to match their clean energy procurements to their energy use on an hourly basis (instead of annually) and within much smaller market boundaries (instead of national boundaries).

I’ve been working on voluntary clean energy procurement for 25 years, and it’s always been clear to me that large energy buyers need to focus their efforts on energy procurement that decarbonizes the whole grid, not just their own buildings.  

The vast majority of market experts and energy users oppose the GHGP’s proposed change that would make hourly and location matching mandatory because it could raise household energy prices by 26 percent, will raise clean energy prices for companies so much that it could kill voluntary clean energy procurement, and could drive greenhouse gas emissions up, not down, and quite substantially. In fact, one study found that removing market boundaries for corporate clean energy procurement could save 1.7 billion tonnes of CO2 over 15 years and drive $85 billion of investment into developing economies. 

Step 1: Advocate for not changing definitions

Your first step is to oppose GHGP’s proposed changes to the definition and purpose of Market Based Method accounting (starts on page 6).  If you’re short on time, questions 18 through 22 can be your only area for comment. 

Today’s definitions of the location-based method (LBM) and MBM are clear and have underpinned clean energy markets for over a decade. The GHGP was thoughtful, intentional and elegant more than a decade ago when it distinguished between the GHG emissions associated with a company’s electricity use (in the LBM) and the emissions associated with a company’s energy procurement (in MBM). 

GHGP was right in creating those two lenses then, and it shouldn’t blur them together now. That’s because organizations are often shackled when trying to change the electricity their facilities consume, yet they have much more regulatory and market freedom to use their purchasing power to drive clean energy projects elsewhere — and often on dirtier grids.  

For a decade, large energy users have been able to aggregate their facilities’ energy use over large geographies on an annual timescale to provide large, credit-worthy contracts to clean energy project developers, resulting in 200 gigawatts of new clean energy capacity added to global grids. Likewise, even “unbundled Renewable Energy Certificate” procurement can induce and incentivize new clean energy projects to get built or existing projects to keep generating. The power of markets is a real thing.

The GHGP now proposes changing the MBM definition to “specify temporal correlation and deliverability requirements for matching the underlying electricity to the reporter’s consumption.” This proposed change that would require hourly and location matching of procurement-to-load would be a fundamental shift in the GHGP’s historic definitional separation between the LBM and MBM. 

There simply is no expert consensus that tighter alignment between the time and location of energy procurement to energy use is the most effective method for incentivizing real-world carbon-reducing decisions and rigorously measuring carbon impact of decisions. If anything, a tighter alignment is expected to decelerate clean energy transition. 

Step 2: Oppose mandatory hourly and locational matching

Proponents of the time and location matching proposal assert that better alignment of procurement to use would increase accuracy of accounting (it doesn’t — grid physics just don’t work that way) and would reduce inaccurate claims about “using” carbon-free power (it might do that, but there are better ways). 

The simplistic argument goes like this: “It’s obviously not credible for a company to use energy at night and buy solar power during the day and then say they’re using clean energy.” However, there’s an even simpler solution: don’t use the market-based method GHG accounting as a basis for clean-energy usage marketing claims. Let’s not fix a marketing claim problem with an accounting “solution.”

The atmosphere doesn’t  care if an energy consumer buys carbon-free power matched to their buildings’ location and time of electricity use — the atmosphere cares that energy consumers are using their buying power to accelerate deployment of carbon-free electricity. 

The detailed proposed changes to MBM are described in pages 19 through 46. It looks like a lot but it really boils down to this: choose a handful of questions in Section 5 and simply request and reiterate that GHGP should not make hourly and locational matching mandatory, and instead should make it optional.  

A simple verb change stating that hourly matching should follow an optional ‘may’ rather than a required ‘shall’ approach will send a strong message.

Simply put, GHGP got it right the first time. When it comes to deploying renewable and carbon-free energy projects, markets matter — and they matter a lot.  

The post 2 steps CSOs can take regarding Scope 2’s greenhouse gas protocol appeared first on Trellis.

Mia Davis built a reputation leading the “clean beauty” movement at Beautycounter and Credo Beauty.  After a two-year detour as chief impact officer at dog food brand Ollie, she’s returning to the beauty industry at the small “climate-curated” skincare label Atmosphera.

As it plans to expand to the U.S., the Alberta-based brand has brought on Davis alongside three new executive leaders from her Rolodex.

Davis said she will be setting the “roadmap to sustainability” foundation for Atmosphera, which tailors products according to its customers’ local weather conditions.

“If you’re sourcing safe, responsible ingredients from the start, you’re already talking about climate, whether you label it that way or not,” she told Trellis. “I am grateful to be joining a team that is investing in corporate responsibility during this critically important time in the U.S. and for the planet.”

Executive team

Davis became Atmosphera’s chief impact officer Jan. 20, following new co-CEOs Christi Hucks and Katya Johnson, who joined on Jan. 13. On Jan. 27, Chief Operating Officer Steve Raack, former COO of Beautycounter, came onboard.

“We always knew we wanted Mia,” said Atmosphera Founder Katelyn Rousselle. “There was no other candidate.”

One week in, from her Massachusetts office, Davis is engaging with ChemForward, a nonprofit that helps companies find safer alternatives to questionable chemicals. “We will be incorporating ingredients that are safe, science-backed and sourced responsibly,” she said.

She also signed up the company to participate in the Pact Collective, which she was instrumental in launching in 2021. The nonprofit collects otherwise-hard-to-recycle used beauty care containers from bins at Nordstrom Rack and other retail stores. Participants include L’Oréal, Sephora, Ulta Beauty and L’Occitane en Provence.

From advocacy to business

Davis has expressed that business should not shy away from policy advocacy. She spent many years as an advocate for product transparency and safety.

The Clark University graduate holds a master’s degree in international development, community and the environment and a bachelor’s in geography. On campus, Davis engaged in environmental and corporate-reform groups.

Her early professional roles included working on the Detox Nalgene Campaign for Environment America. She continued rallying against bisphenol-A (BPA) and other plastic chemicals at the Workgroup for Safe Markets and then Clean Water Action.

By 2007, Davis narrowed her niche when she became organizing director of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, part of the Breast Cancer Fund.

In 2012, she leaped to the business side, becoming startup Beautycounter’s first employee after founder Gregg Renfrew. For five years as head of mission, health and the environment, Davis attracted attention for a unique chemical policy and for piloting the Chemical Footprint Project there. The pioneering “clean beauty” brand expanded to $100 million in sales by 2016. (After a bankruptcy and several-year hiatus, Beautycounter emerged last year with a new name, Counter.)

Then, in 2017 Davis moved over to retailer Credo Beauty as vice president of sustainability impact. There, she launched the Credo Clean Standard, considered one of the strongest safer-chemistry policies in the industry. She also advanced sustainable packaging guidelines and the Credo for Change mentorship program, as well as auditing emissions to set business climate goals.

As chief impact officer at “human-grade” dog food brand Ollie for less than two years, Davis launched zero-waste programs and clean-ingredient standards, advancing responsible sourcing and environmental-contamination testing.

“When I entered this industry about 15 years ago, through the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, and then Beautycounter, and then Credo, it was a very different space,” Davis said. “Together, these brands and many others, have changed the narrative, and I’m really proud of that.”

The post Ollie’s Chief Impact Officer Mia Davis joins a ‘climate-curated’ skincare label appeared first on Trellis.

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

For a long time, I resisted the accumulating evidence that our institutions for curating trustworthy science were failing. I believed our academic gatekeepers were quietly doing their jobs.

That belief ended when I attempted to replicate an extraordinarily influential article: “The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance,” which appeared in a prestigious journal, Management Science by Robert Eccles, Ioannis Ioannou and George Serafeim. The paper, which posits that sustainable companies have outperformed the stock market by roughly 40 percent each year for 20 years has been cited more than 6,000 times — by Wall Street executives, top government officials, and even a former U.S. Vice President.

When I tried to replicate it, I found serious flaws and misrepresentations:

• A key result labeled as statistically significant was not
• The analytical method didn’t work as described
• Critical statistical tests were omitted
• No matter what I tried, I couldn’t replicate the results

I thought correcting the record would be easy. The authors work at highly reputed institutions and the article appeared in a prestigious journal.

But I was wrong.

Encountering barrier after barrier

Following academic etiquette, I contacted the authors and kept them informed as my replication proceeded. They never responded to more than half a dozen emails.

I submitted a comment (a short paper) to Management Science about the errors, but it was rejected. Reviewers objected to the “tone” of my submission and found it impudent that I was challenging such an important paper. Authors, one wrote to me, are granted “discretion” in conducting their work, and therefore “inclined to turn down any invitation to review a revision” unless it was accompanied by a note from the original authors.

Having no luck with the journal, I turned to the scholarly community for advice, asking colleagues to help encourage the authors to engage. I argued that the best course—for them and for the field—was to correct the mistakes. Doing so would elevate, not diminish, their scholarly standing. Few people responded. Those who did offered excuses. One internationally-respected, chaired professor was refreshingly honest: “I’m too much of a coward.” He articulated what many scholars quietly believe: it’s more harmful to one’s career to try to correct a flawed—or even fraudulent—study than to be the one who published it.

Going beyond normal channels

I decided to go public about some of the article’s errors—a step so unusual that I feared it might end my ability to publish future work.

I posted on LinkedIn that a key finding labeled as statistically significant was, in fact, not. Within days, Management Science published a correction from the authors acknowledging the error and attributing it to a “typo.” They claimed they had meant to write “not significant” but had omitted the word “not”.

Convinced that the paper’s reported method was fraudulent, I also submitted complaints to two research-integrity offices. Soon after they received my complaint, the authors admitted they had indeed misreported their analysis. Again, they blamed poor editing. There had been two studies, they said, and the false description belonged to an “exploratory” study that was later removed to satisfy length requirements — except that the sentences describing its matching process were inadvertently left behind.

They didn’t explain that this rendered their results uninterpretable. Nor did they submit a correction to Management Science.

That is where things stand today.  Their paper continues to mislead thousands of people a year.

Social science needs reform

I now believe our systems for curating trustworthy science are broken. Both individual- and system-level changes are necessary.

As individuals, we can:

• Stop citing single studies as definitive. They aren’t. Check whether studies you read and cite have been replicated
• Tell colleagues to stop when they behave unethically
• Support replication and encourage others to do it, too

Most of all, we need to exercise critical thinking. A close reading of this study should’ve raised red flags: key tests are missing, variables were unusual and the headline claim was implausible. We were told that sustainable companies outperformed the stock market by roughly 40 percent per year for 20 years. Such an extraordinary finding requires careful, credible evidence. That evidence was missing.

But the result was highly desirable, so our hopes overcame our judgment. It’s a reminder that, in the words of Nobel laureate Richard Feynman: “The first principal [of science] is not to fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”

The post A landmark sustainability study was wrong. Correcting it took two years appeared first on Trellis.

Corporations, trade groups and other stakeholders have until Jan. 31 to comment on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s controversial proposed changes to the methodology for calculating emissions related to electricity.

The deadline was originally Dec. 19, but the organization extended the public consultation period to accommodate more feedback.

The revisions, which would take effect in 2027, suggest major changes to how companies will be able to claim emissions reductions related to virtual power purchase agreements and other contracts they use to match their electricity consumption with renewable electricity sources.

This is the first major refresh since the methodology was adopted in 2014.

New math

Under the proposed update, corporations will be required to match those loads on an hourly basis using renewable resources on the same grid as their original power consumption. These calculations fall under the Scope 2 category for greenhouse gas emissions. 

“This is intended to reduce double counting and ensure reported clean energy purchases more accurately reflect the physical realities of the power grid,” Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol said in October, when it opened the public consultation. 

The organization may include exemptions for smaller organizations. It is also considering a clause that would exempt legacy contracts signed before the new rules take effect. It’s particularly interested in comments related to those items.

GHG Protocol is also soliciting comments about a methodology that covers “consequential” accounting methods that guide how companies can report on projects that add renewable power to electric grids that are fossil fuel-heavy but aren’t in the same location as their operations.

Some companies with active renewable energy goals invest in projects of this nature, such as Salesforce and Microsoft, mainly for their social benefits and community goodwill.

More complexity

Corporate energy buyers expect the proposed modifications to complicate the process of making Scope 2 reduction claims.

“From my perspective, everything needs to be evaluated through one specific lens, and that is, Are the rules successfully encouraging more clean energy on the grid to most effectively tackle climate change?” said Bob Redlinger, director of energy and global sustainability at Apple, during a recent webinar discussing the changes. “And from that lens, the current rules have been very successful. I think that’s the lens from which any new rules or proposed changes also need to be examined.”   

Contracts by companies with emissions reduction commitments have added (or will add when complete) close to 128 gigawatts of renewable or clean energy to the U.S. electric grid from 2014 through November 2025, according to data collected by the Clean Energy Buyers Association, which takes issue with the hourly matching proposal.

While some regions of the U.S. grid have abundant clean energy resources, many other places do not.

The new rules could have the unintended impact of making it not economical and overly complex for some companies to continue making voluntary renewable energy purchases, Redlinger said: “I worry that with the GHG Protocol’s proposal to seek hourly matching for individual organizations and with very narrow geographic boundaries, it could actually slow the progress of decarbonization.”

What’s next

After the public consultation closes, GHG Protocol will analyze the comments and produce a summary. The organization’s governance rules suggest that this analysis may be published on its website, along with specific feedback — although some companies requested a chance to comment anonymously.

After the review period, the technical working group and independent standards board responsible for the methodology will consider modifications. 

Another draft of the updated rules will be published in 2026, followed by another 60-day public consultation period. A final version of the revised methodology is due in 2027.

Catch the conversation about Scope 2 rules changes during GreenBiz 26 in Phoenix, from Feb. 17 to 19.

The post What’s next for new rules on power supply emissions appeared first on Trellis.

On Jan. 14, investors rescued Natural Fiber Welding from the edge of bankruptcy. The startup’s narrowed focus — from a stable of offerings to a single product that’s ready to sell — reflects both the promise and tough economics of building sustainable materials.

Natural Fiber Welding had grown since 2015 to become a darling in the congested space of next-generation materials innovators. The company raised $224 million from Peoria, Illinois, far from the venture capital in-crowd.

Brand insiders and materials science nerds praised its alternatives to fossil-fuel materials used in fashion, cars and furniture. NFW’s Mirum plant “leather” appeared in Stella McCartney bags, Allbirds sneakers and watch straps for IWC Schaffhausen.

In its first eight years, Natural Fiber Welding ballooned from 12 employees to 320, running a 175,000 square-foot plant.

“Our recipes work inside everybody’s factories, and that means we can have an impact at the biggest scale, at the scale of billions of people,” founder Luke Haverhals said in a video in September 2024 that announced NFW as an Earthshot Prize finalist. The previous March, the startup had raised $23.7 million, a hopeful sign after two layoffs in 2023.

Last-hour rescue

By the end of 2024, however, the company let go of another 91 workers.

After a decade of building new materials and brand partnerships, NFW hit a wall.

“We had put a lot of eggs in a basket for BMW and for a consumer electronics company, and those did not come to fruition in a timely way,” NFW Chief Scientist Aaron Amstutz said of attempts to deliver Mirum at scale. In 2022, NFW’s biggest chunk of funding, $85 million, involved BMW iVentures and Ralph Lauren.

Amstutz continued. “You’re a startup, you have burn, you have lots of employees, and so you look at the books and you say, ‘Okay, it’s not working. We can’t raise money against continuing to push the timeline out.’”

In early September 2025, CEO Steve Zika announced a plan for an “orderly wind down of operations.”

“NFW’s story reflects a broader pattern we see across sustainable materials,” noted Katrin Ley, managing director at Fashion for Good of Amsterdam, “leading technology with genuine potential, but navigating the gap between proof-of-concept and commercial scale, and facing cost-premiums along the way.”

“We all kind of expected it,” said Amstutz. “We were literally three hours away — we were planning on filing bankruptcy on Friday afternoon.”

But Zika asked the team to wait for the weekend. “‘I think there’s a few people sniffing around that might be interested,’” Amstutz recounted Zika saying.

That Saturday, investors called.

Months later, on Jan. 14 Provest Equity Partners with CTW Venture Partners announced an undisclosed investment NFW.

Suhas Uppalapati, managing partner of Provest Equity Partners, praised the startup’s “breakthrough science paired with real industrial relevance.” He became NFW’s new chairman, a role formerly held by Zika.

Meanwhile, escaping bankruptcy allowed NFW to keep its equipment and intellectual property. “That continuity is helpful,” Amstutz said. “We’ve got these other materials, other technologies, but we’re figuring out how we can do it lean, mean and profitable along the way. We need to bring a whole bunch of people back.”

Biobased soles

New focus

Moving forward, Natural Fiber Welding is focusing on its most profitable offering, Pliant. The outsole material grew out of a request in 2020 from Eric Liedtke, CEO and co-founder of Unless Collective, to help make an all-natural lifestyle shoe.

Losing Pliant would have been a “huge step backwards” for Bared Footwear, according to its Founder and CEO Anna Baird. Pliant “aligns perfectly with our mission to create shoes that will one day break down without leaving behind microplastics,” she said, praising its performance and durability.

Pliant is made with the same “natural fiber welding” process behind the company’s first creation, Clarus, a natural-fiber alternative to polyester or nylon. The technology fuses natural fibers or polymers — tree rubber, in the case of Pliant — using heat and pressure, without fossil-fuel-based binders or glues.

“We have figured out how to vulcanize rubber without using those nasty petrochemical accelerators,” Amstutz said. “My shelves are full of health supplements and vitamins and plant extracts, and we’ve limited ourselves to those ingredients.”

From lifestyle to performance shoes?

Overseas partners in Vietnam will mold the Pliant compound later this year to be used for outsoles in shoes that will sell in 2027.

Amstutz is also developing a compound for the performance-shoe market..

“Right before this, I was molding in our lab,” he said in a video call.

With hundreds of millions of shoes made and discarded every year, soles are a focus of brands and retailers who are trying to reduce their materials emissions. The nonprofit Fashion for Good is leading the Next Stride collaboration with Adidas, Target and Zalando to understand the impacts of sole biomaterials and close pricing gaps with conventional options.

The $26 billion market for shoe sole materials in 2024 could reach $40 billion by 2032, according to Data Bridge research. Global Growth Insights projects 11 percent annual growth in “sustainable” footwear sales from 2024 to 2033.

The post How Natural Fiber Welding will use its second chance appeared first on Trellis.