Recent headlines paint a gloomy picture for corporate sustainability. Coca-Cola, Walmart, UBS and Microsoft are just some of the companies accused of watering down their climate commitments. But a survey of close to 7,000 company disclosures made to CDP in 2024 suggests that media coverage of individual companies may be missing broader trends.

“I expected to see more companies backing off,” said David Linich, a sustainability partner at PwC, the consultancy behind the survey. “It seemed like there was a mass retreat. But the data showed otherwise.”

PwC used a combination of human analysis and AI to mine the CDP dataset, which Linich said was broadly representative of the larger economy. Here are some highlights:

Not just staying the course, but accelerating

The PwC team found that 84 percent of companies are sticking with climate goals, and 37 percent are increasing them. That includes all 47 companies that saw a change of CEO since setting their target. “None of those companies backed off their commitments,” wrote the report authors.

In fact, companies anticipate more money will be flowing into climate transition projects over the next few years. Capital and operating expenditures on climate are expected to grow by 18 percent and 21 percent, respectively, between 2024 and 2030.

Of the 16 percent of companies who restated targets, half did so for what Linich described as “legitimate” reasons. This group includes companies that set targets without having created a detailed transition plan. Those that have now done so, are still investing but have realized their transition will take longer than anticipated.

One notable question is whether these commitments, which were made in disclosures filed before President Trump took office, will survive a presidency that appears intent on dismantling policies designed to tackle climate change. 

Emission goals are alive

Recent research has delivered worrying prognoses for current emissions targets. An Accenture report published last year, for instance, found that just 16 percent of companies with targets were on track to hit them. The PwC analysis, by contrast, suggests the idea is in good health: Two-thirds of companies are on track to hit their targets for Scope 1 and 2, and  half are on track for Scope 3.

Breaking the numbers down by sector revealed a correlation between ambition and progress. Simply put, sectors that set more ambitious targets are generally exceeding them, while those with more conservative goals are off track. Unsurprisingly, the trend reflects the abatement options open to different industries. Tech companies, for example, can often make a significant dent in their carbon footprints by switching to renewables. Finding a low-carbon energy source for ocean-going tankers is more challenging, as evidenced by that industry’s place in the bottom left of the graph below.

The reason for the difference between the Accenture and PwC findings is not immediately clear, but it’s worth noting that the two used different datasets:. PwC focused on CDP disclosures, while Accenture looked at the largest 2,000 companies by revenue. 

Suppliers step up

One theory of how to spur decarbonization is getting large companies to lead by setting emission targets then encouraging suppliers, many of which are smaller, to follow suit. This appears to be working. In 2020, just under 500 companies set targets, covering around 2.7 billion tons of CO2 equivalent. By 2024, the number of new target setters had surged to almost 1,300. Though the goals covered around 1.1 billion tCO2e, the median annual revenue of target setters fell from $3.8 billion to $1.3 billion.

“The larger companies are encouraging their suppliers, those suppliers are setting targets and creating a ripple effect,“ said Linich. The result was one of the most encouraging highlights of the data, he added. “The reason companies are acting has less to do with factors like regulatory or political reasons and much more to do with business value: My customers are asking for this, and I’m starting to prioritize it more as an organization, because they care.”

The post The state of sustainability? Healthier than the media would have you believe appeared first on Trellis.

More than half of Salesforce’s most strategic suppliers — based on the amount the $38 billion software company spends on goods and services — have agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions as part of binding provisions in their contracts.

Those clauses are part of the Salesforce Sustainability Exhibit, introduced four years ago, in May 2021, as an amendment to the company’s standard contact language.

Among other things, the exhibit requires Salesforce business partners to set science-based emissions reduction targets within two years of signing, figure out the amount attributable to doing business with Salesforce and come up with a plan to deliver those goods or services in a carbon-neutral way. The contract calls upon suppliers to invest in some sort of remedy — such as investing in renewable energy or planting trees — if it can’t deliver emissions cuts.

The initiative is part of Salesforce’s high-level pledge to cut the carbon footprint of its supply chain in half by FY2031. The company has committed to an absolute reduction of 50 percent for all emissions by 2030.

“These are the things that we need from our suppliers in order for us to be able to make progress against these commitments,” said Louisa McGuirk, sustainable procurement director at Salesforce.

One-on-one interactions overcome reluctance

Salesforce prioritized its biggest contractors during renewals to introduce the Sustainability Exhibit, with procurement managers reaching out personally to explain the rationale behind the change, address potential objections and come up with ways to address them. Common themes:

• Many suppliers needed their legal teams to review the exhibit paperwork because it was novel.
• Some companies had no sustainability strategy in place and the concept of setting emissions reduction goals was completely new.
• Most suppliers needed buy-in at the leadership level.
• Others were concerned about the costs associated with creating, measuring and managing an emissions reduction target.

Along the way, Salesforce adjusted certain requirements; for example, instead of setting a specific year by which all suppliers needed to come up with their strategy, it adjusted the deadlines to accommodate individual business needs. “We do an annual review and make sure things still align,” McGuirk said.

The company also created a net-zero toolkit outlining the process of setting commitments. And it offered coaching to smaller companies to help them come up to speed on core concepts related to emissions reductions and guide them through the process of creating an initial greenhouse gas inventory. Salesforce also helps cover the costs of submitting data to EcoVadis, which tracks disclosures.

Compliance as a business differentiator

Visions Management, a small, woman-owned firm that handles facilities management, knew little about net zero before it was approached by Salesforce. “When the contract was first presented, I was overwhelmed,” said Visions founder and CEO Amy Garber. “I didn’t know what it all meant. I was afraid of failure.”

Positive reaction from Visions’ employees convinced the company to make the push. It received coaching from Salesforce to assist with the transition and used interns from a local high school to gather data and research viable options for purchasing carbon credits. 

Visions had its science-based targets for emission reductions approved by the Science Based Targets initiative in early 2025. It discusses that status with current and prospective customers. “I feel like we have won deals because of this. It’s another piece that adds to the value of our services,” Garber said.   

Procurement as an adoption driver

Adoption of the Sustainability Exhibit as a percentage of the Salesforce’s spending with outside suppliers will slow on an annual basis, McGuirk said, because it started with its biggest contractors.

The reason Salesforce targeted contractors by spending — rather than on their emissions — was because progress was easier to track using existing carbon accounting methods, she said.

“We’ve heard from a handful of suppliers that without Salesforce’s nudge, or the Exhibit, that they wouldn’t have set targets or it would have taken a lot longer to set those targets,” McGuirk said.

Many large companies actively encourage suppliers to reduce emissions through science-based targets — and some even offer educational resources and technical assistance to help — but Salesforce remains unique in codifying those commitments as part of its procurement process, according to sustainability consultants. That said, software maker Zendesk, itself a Salesforce supplier, introduced a similar set of contract clauses in December. 

Salesforce’s adoption numbers are impressive, considering how long it can take to train corporate procurement teams to have these conversations and the reluctance to alienate key suppliers, said Emily Damon, chief growth officer at consulting firm ClimeCo. “If it comes from your sustainability team, it’s cute. If it comes from procurement, it is serious.”

A benefit of these programs is that help large companies gather more specific metrics surrounding the full extent of their Scope 3 emissions, getting more accurate data than the estimates they are typically forced to use, said Cooper Wechkin, founder and CEO at RyeStrategy, which is coaching some of Salesforce’s suppliers.

Best practices

According to the experts consulted for this story, companies interested in shaping programs similar to that of Salesforce should:

• Involve procurement teams. They can help prioritize engagement and signal which suppliers might find new requirements difficult to meet.
• Provide technical support. Many companies, especially smaller ones, will need to be educated on the concept of net zero.
• Offer options. Allow suppliers to choose the emissions reduction path that makes the most sense for their business rather than dictating a one-size-fits all approach. 
• Look for ways to support supplier investments. For example, a corporation could motivate supplier investments in renewable energy or lower-emissions materials through better procurement terms. “This is where you’ll start to see a lot more pull-through with companies that are more slow-moving,” Wechkin said.

The post Salesforce got key suppliers to promise emissions cuts. Here’s how appeared first on Trellis.

Proposed new guidelines from the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) include a significant overhaul of the system for setting and hitting Scope 3 emissions targets, one of the thorniest challenges faced by sustainability teams. 

The SBTi’s current net-zero standard requires Scope 3 to be treated in much the same way as Scopes 1 and 2: Companies must measure the emissions associated with each and begin to reduce them at a rate that puts them in line with the global goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. The approach has frustrated many companies, partly because they often have limited visibility into supply chains and, as a result, struggle to measure — let alone mitigate —the emissions generated within them.

The updated standard, released earlier this week, outlined a different way of doing things. Rather than treat Scope 3 emissions as a single entity, the SBTi proposed that companies set separate targets for the value-chain activities — procurement of concrete or business travel, for example — that generate the most emissions. 

Flexible mechanisms

Crucially, the SBTi also offered a tentative blessing to an emerging emission-reducing mechanism: indirect mitigation, also known as value-chain intervention or insetting. With this method, companies help fund decarbonization projects of suppliers, such as paying farmers to use regenerative agriculture methods, and earn credits that count against Scope 3 totals. Because confirming a link with a specific supplier in a complex chain is often challenging, companies can also earn credit for interventions that take place within a “supply shed” — a group of suppliers, usually in the same region, that provides similar goods.

Take the example of a company trying to reduce emissions from steel procurement. It may have funds available for the purpose, but can’t identify the facilities that produce the steel it uses because they are too far back in the supply chain. “Many companies have Scope 3 in their accounts but don’t know who the emitter is,” said an experienced sustainability consultant who asked not to be named because he works with clients on Scope 3 matters. “If I give you an instrument to invest in mitigation, I’m expanding your options.”

Domino effect

Allowing supply-shed methods is a “very positive” step, added Patrick Flynn, founder of Switchboard, a climate consultancy. Flynn is a former global head of sustainability at Salesforce, where he helped introduce the Sustainability Exhibit, contract language that included a requirement that direct suppliers set science-based targets. While impactful, Flynn noted that this “domino” strategy, in which your supplier is supposed to pressure their suppliers to decarbonize, takes time and is less effective as you travel further back in the supply chain. Indirect mitigation, said Flynn, allows companies to move quicker.

The SBTi is now soliciting feedback through an online survey, until June 1. One issue to look for in future drafts is additional detail on the accounting rules for indirect mitigation. These rules will need to strike a balance between giving companies the flexibility to invest across a supply shed with the need to keep funding targeted to a specific Scope 3 emission. Without such a restriction, investments may end up flowing to cheaper projects that don’t help decarbonize the target activity.

The SBTi won’t have to start from scratch to craft these rules. Earlier this year, the Advanced and Indirect Mitigation Platform, which is being tested by Amazon and others, began a pilot of cross-sector guidelines for accounting for value-chain interventions. SustainCERT, a company that verifies carbon projects, now has over 30 interventions listed on its registry. 

These advances, together with feedback from companies that are struggling with Scope 3, likely motivated the SBTi’s proposed changes, suggested Sarah Leugers, chief growth officer at Gold Standard, a standards body for climate and development projects. “They’re seeing those tools emerge while also seeing how difficult it is to influence suppliers,” she said. “So they are creating flexibility.”

The post Target-setting overhaul offers more options for reducing Scope 3 emissions appeared first on Trellis.

The White House’s tariff seesaw is disrupting global supply chains and planning for many businesses. However, it’s also benefiting companies that don’t manufacture overseas, or at all. Tariffs are poised to boost the market for secondhand apparel, which is booming for the second year in a row, according to ThredUp’s annual Resale Report.

Amid the uncertainty over tariffs, most apparel executives are navigating procurement disruptions and eyeing resale as a steady source of goods, while a majority of consumers plan to increase their secondhand shopping, the March 18 report found in recent surveys. In addition, the secondhand fashion market is seeing the strongest growth since 2021.

“You compare it to how retail is struggling to grow, and then you add on the tariffs and the uncertainty of these supply chains that all these retailers are dealing with, and it’s almost flipping that story on its head,” said ThredUp’s Chief Strategy Officer and General Counsel Alon Rotem. “Resale is actually in the strongest position it’s ever been in right now.”

Not only is the resale market insulated from global supply chain shocks, it may benefit from them, Rotem noted. And if retailers pass costs onto consumers, secondhand offers a less expensive entry into premium brands, such as Vuori, Lululemon and Reformation, which sell well secondhand.

‘Stable and predictable’ secondhand

Since returning to office Jan. 20, President Donald Trump has layered 20 percent tariffs onto goods from China, the world’s largest fashion exporter. That came atop existing tariffs of up to 25 percent.

Fast fashion giants, such as Shein and Temu, have been bracing for Washington to act on its promise close the de minimis loophole on imports under $800. Although that exemption remains for now, tariffs are already reshaping the apparel market, according to ThredUp’s surveys in January and February of 3,034 American consumers and 50 retailers and brands.

Among retail and brand executives in apparel, ThredUp found:

• Eighty percent expect the trade wars to disrupt their supply chains.
• Fifty-four percent saw resale as a “stable and predictable source of clothing” as tariffs potentially change.
• Forty-four percent of execs reported seeking ways to user fewer imports.
• Seventy-six percent of those not involved in branded resale already are looking to get involved.

The overall retail market offers clues that the recent tariffs may be dampening longer-term growth. Tariffs pushed U.S. retail spending to drop from January to February, according to the National Retail Federation. However, sales overall rose by 4.4 percent overall in the year’s first two months, compared with the same period in 2024.

Steve Preston, president and CEO of Goodwill Industries International in Rockville, Maryland, in February said he is closely eyeing the trade policies before determining benefits or drawbacks for the nonprofit. “It’s very hard to call right now, because we don’t know where it’s going to end up,” he told Trellis. “Now there is no doubt that if clothing or other goods go up, if prices go up, our value proposition will be greater. There’s no doubt about that.”

Apparel shoppers are highly motivated to find pre-worn bargains if prices soar, according to ThredUp:

• Sixty-two percent of Americans worry that tariffs will drive up prices for fashion.
• Fifty-nine percent of consumers said they will seek secondhand items and other less-expensive options if apparel prices rise.
• That was even more true for millennials, at 69 percent.
• Among younger adults, 48 percent reported that they already shop for resale before new apparel. That’s up by 7 percent from 2022.

Secondhand growth was already aggressive during the administration of President Joe Biden, ThredUp’s resale report found:

• The value of sales of used apparel grew 14 percent in 2024, which is five times faster than retail overall. The market will grow by 9 percent each year to reach $74 billion in 2029.
• Online sales of preworn clothes and shoes made up 88 percent of resale spending and grew eight times faster than apparel retail overall.
• Globally, secondhand rose by 15 percent in 2024, and it will rise by 10 percent annually to reach $367 billion by 2029.

Ups and downs for resellers

ThredUp, based in Oakland, California, sells thousands of women’s and children’s apparel brands on its platform. The public company has struggled with profitability in its 16 years. On March 3 it reported revenues of $260 million, with growth of 1 percent for 2024 over 2023. Its stock was trading at $2.22 on March 18, a fraction of its peak of $27.27 in June 2021.

Nevertheless, the business insists on a bright future for resale. “It’s as profitable as it’s ever been, and it has a credible growth path as well,” Rotem said. “And so we’re really bullish on the future.” He noted, for example, that resale startup Vinted, based in Vilnius, Lithuania, is turning profits. And San Francisco’s The RealReal has reported strong earnings in recent quarters.

Eighty-six percent of retail executives told ThredUp that customer desire for used apparel has either grown or stayed steady in the past three years, according to ThredUp’s report.

Retailers and brands should seize the moment to take a fresh look at resale beyond clothes and shoes, according to Rotem. For instance, marketplaces are thriving, formally and otherwise, for used furniture, baby gear, electronics and sporting goods.

Even as the volatile policy environment leaves many short-term questions unanswered for apparel businesses, Rotem advised other corporate sustainability executives to hold tight to their long-term goals.

An era is ending of broader federal support for corporate sustainability to be baked into rules, regulations and policies. However, the pendulum is likely to swing in another direction at some point, according to Rotem. “Just because it doesn’t matter so much to the government doesn’t mean those things still don’t matter to consumers,” he said of corporate adherence to sustainability and human rights principles. “It’s just more incumbent on the brands to make sure that consumers are aware of these things and can differentiate their choices.”

[Gain insights to move beyond incremental action and accelerate the shift to a circular economy at Circularity, April 29-May 1, Denver, CO.]

The post A silver lining of tariffs: Soaring secondhand apparel sales appeared first on Trellis.

The profession of sustainability is changing. It always has been, though this moment feels more fraught than any before it.

Sustainability professionals are being buffeted by countervailing forces: On the one hand, to accelerate progress in reducing emissions and in restoring or regenerating despoiled resources and ecosystems; on the other, to stand down, or at least communicate less, mindful that the political winds are blowing fiercely against corporate climate action and other sustainability initiatives. All this while delivering tangible benefits — financial and otherwise — to their companies.

This is hardly the first challenging moment in sustainable business. I’ve been watching the profession evolve for more than 35 years, the last quarter-century with Trellis Group and its predecessor, GreenBiz. (For the preceding decade, I’d written and published “The Green Business Letter,” a monthly print subscription newsletter.) Indeed, this June marks 25 years since the website GreenBiz.com went live, a moment for us to reflect on all that’s been — and all that’s yet to come.

The 25-year roller coaster

During that time all of us have weathered three recessions, multiple political swings, countless technological breakthroughs, various global conflicts, fickle consumers, impatient investors and a global pandemic. Not to mention continually evolving language we use to describe who we are and what we do, from environmental responsibility and ESG to regeneration and resilience.

It’s been a rollercoaster ride: lots of ups — and more than a few frightening downs.

At Trellis, the runup to our 25th anniversary has been a time to recalibrate our products and services to meet this moment, with all its promise and peril. Last year, for example, we rebranded the company as Trellis Group and launched a vastly improved website. We transformed our seven weekly newsletters into a single daily offering: Trellis Briefing. We also recast our 17-year-old membership group for sustainability executives into Trellis Network, opening its various communities to anyone in a member company who wants to participate.

Now we’re reimagining our events, too.

Starting this fall, three of our events — GreenFin, Bloom and VERGE — will come together as a single, multifaceted event: Trellis Impact, in San Jose, Calif., Oct. 28-30. Starting next year, Trellis Impact will add Circularity to the mix and the event will relocate to San Francisco’s Moscone Center in early summer — June 23-25, 2026. GreenBiz, our flagship event, remains as is, back in Phoenix on Feb. 17-19, 2026.

It’s a big change for us — and for you — and reflects a number of trends.

First and foremost is the realization that the focus of these four event brands — decarbonization, the circular economy, biodiversity, and the finance to pay for it all — can no longer be seen as discrete topics but as inextricably linked. Addressing them in a single, integrated event will enable our community to increase both individual and collective impact.

Moreover, we’ve heard from our community that sustainability professionals need fewer events, not more, given the vicissitudes of travel budgets and time away from home — and, of course, one’s carbon footprint. And that by bringing four events under one roof we will enable their teams to more easily learn and share together about topics, trends and technologies that cut across multiple departments and remits.

We believe that Trellis Impact will be fit for purpose for the years ahead, a more holistic view of the sustainability solutions we all need to go further, faster during this decisive decade to cut carbon emissions.

Make it bigger: Addressing sustainability challenges in concert

It all brings to mind something called the Eisenhower Principle.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th U.S. president, decorated five-star general and World War II hero, considered himself an expert problem solver. He once explained, “Whenever I run into a problem I can’t solve, I always make it bigger. I can never solve it by trying to make it smaller, but if I make it big enough, I can begin to see the outlines of a solution.”

That’s a fitting prescription for today’s world, which has been variously described as a “polycrisis” (crises that interact so that the whole is more overwhelming than the sum of its parts) or “permacrisis” (a world lurching from one unprecedented event to another) — or, most likely, both. Rather than tackle each sustainability challenge individually, we believe it can be more impactful to “make it bigger,” addressing them in concert.

And that by doing so we can help unlock newfound synergies and new business opportunities for companies and their customers, accelerating the positive impacts we all seek.

The post Introducing Trellis Impact 25 to usher in the next phase of sustainability appeared first on Trellis.