As with many issues, there’s a variety of perspectives on what works best to advance sustainability. In a segmentation analysis, Trellis data partner GlobeScan, in collaboration with ERM and Volans, identifies four distinct mindsets that shape how stakeholders engage with the sustainability agenda.

Based on expert ratings of different actions to drive positive impact, the analysis identifies groups with shared perspectives on what works best to keep sustainability moving forward:

• Traditionalists (42 percent) favor incremental progress through regulatory and compliance-focused approaches
• Radicals (26 percent) advocate for deep, justice-driven change led by activism and social mobilization
• Pathfinders (23 percent) support ambitious sustainability progress grounded in innovation, technology and market-based solutions
• Institutionalists (9 percent) prefer technocratic solutions and maintaining the existing system. 

What this means

The coexistence of these divergent perspectives — split between system-preserving and transformation-driven mindsets — presents a complex challenge for business leaders. While traditionalists value continuity and compliance, radicals push for bold, justice-centered transformation. Pathfinders and institutionalists occupy the middle ground, balancing ambition with pragmatism. 

To succeed in this fragmented landscape, companies must embrace a “yes, and” mindset — one that reconciles system stability with transformation, compliance with innovation and equity with efficiency. As stakeholder expectations rise and scrutiny intensifies, integrated strategies that bridge these divides are essential to maintaining legitimacy, managing reputational risk and demonstrating credible leadership.

Based on a survey of 844 sustainability practitioners across 72 countries who were asked to use a 5-point scale to rate how likely certain actions would lead to positive sustainability outcomes over the next five years. Conducted April-May 2025.

The post 4 types of stakeholder mindsets on sustainability appeared first on Trellis.

Setting a robust internal price on carbon is among the most meaningful climate strategies available to companies. It’s also no small task. To be truly impactful, internal carbon prices (ICPs) require buy-in, from the C-suite on down, to embed the strategy into operations and retain the practice in the years ahead.

If that sounds daunting, the practice is backed up by case studies and peer-reviewed research. Some of the latest thinking was brought together in a report co-authored by BCG, Oxford Net Zero and Patch, a carbon markets platform. Here’s what the report had to say on some key areas of focus, along with additional resources to help start your company on its journey to an ICP.

Choosing the right pricing system

The headline numbers on carbon pricing sound encouraging: More than 1,700 companies from more than 50 countries told CDP that they used an ICP in 2024 — an almost 90 percent increase from 2021. But that figure lumps together many different kinds of ICP, some of which are more impactful than others.

For example, almost two-thirds of those companies used a “shadow ICP.” In this version, a notional cost is assigned to emissions but business units do not pay for the carbon they generate. This can help companies forecast the longer-term costs of emissions but will have a limited impact on short-term spending decisions. 

A “real ICP” involves levying a fee on every ton of carbon dioxide emitted and committing to use the funds on internal or external climate projects. If every part of the company has to factor the fee into its plans, change is likely to follow. Human resources, for example, may shift its thinking on remote working. All parts of the business will reevaluate air travel. And the big emission centers, such as operations and procurement, will have additional motivation to seek out low-carbon energy, goods and services.

Setting the price

It can be frustrating to hear that there’s no single right answer to this. Instead there are different methods for assigning a price, each valid in their own right. The flip side is that this gives companies the flexibility to tailor prices to the stage of their sustainability journey and the degree of control they have over different types of emissions.

Introducing a high price in Year 1 might derail the program, for example. In that case, the program could kick off by aligning prices with the cost of high-quality credits on the voluntary carbon market, which trade in the low tens of dollars. As the program becomes established, companies can graduate to more rigorous pricing mechanisms. These include pegging the price to the cost of credits on the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (currently just under $80 per ton) or what governments judge to be the total economic cost of a ton of carbon (typically $100 to $300).

Prices can also vary by emissions scope. Because companies have less control over the value-chain emissions covered by Scope 3, a lower price might be justified. For Scopes 1 and 2 — direct energy use and electricity-related emissions — a higher price makes sense. The payment platform Klarna, for example, levies a $200 per ton fee on Scopes 1 and 2, alongside $100 for business travel and $10 for other Scope 3 categories.

Spending the funds

Here’s where it gets interesting. With funds amassed, companies can go shopping for projects. An obvious place to start is internal efforts that both reduce emissions and save money, such as energy efficiency upgrades, or tie in with sustainability goals. Autodesk, which levies $33 per ton on Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, has used the money to pay for rooftop solar and renewable energy certificates. At BCG, where fees start at $35 per ton, the company has used the funds to help it become one of the world’s largest buyers of durable carbon removal credits.

Involving employees in the spending decision can also boost buy-in. Microsoft, which set its ICP in 2012, has used the fees to pay for more than 60 employee-driven sustainability projects, from electric bike programs in Finland to energy management systems in Chile.

What to do next 

First movers such as Microsoft learned a lot from their early ICP programs, information that those newer to the idea can build upon. Here’s a reading list for aspiring ICPers:

• Guidelines for setting a net zero-aligned internal carbon price. The full report from Patch, BCG and Oxford Net Zero.
• How Klarna put an internal price on carbon. Trellis director of carbon Margaret Morales provides details on the payment processor’s ICP work.
• Internal carbon pricing: A strategic tool for corporate climate leadership. More case studies, including Maersk, Swiss Re and others.
• Internal Carbon Pricing Disclosures. Useful briefing on disclosure requirements for companies using ICPs.
• Navigating internal carbon pricing to drive decision-making and emissions reduction. Thoughts from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development on how to get buy-in for ICPs.

The post How your company can set an internal carbon price appeared first on Trellis.

There’s a gap between organizations’ net-zero promises and the reality of their building stock. With the construction industry responsible for 39% of global energy-related carbon emissions, many companies and government agencies have set targets to reduce their buildings’ climate impact.

Until recently, the focus was on reducing operational carbon — by upgrading HVAC and lighting with more energy-efficient technologies, for example. But to achieve net-zero goals, many organizations are shifting their attention to embodied carbon — the combined emissions released during raw material extraction, product manufacturing, transportation to construction sites and demolition. 

Chicago-based architecture firm Perkins&Will, which has earned seven Top Ten Awards for sustainable design excellence from the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Committee on the Environment, is helping pioneer such efforts. Since signing the AIA 2030 Commitment to achieving net-zero emissions in the built environment in 2011, the firm has increased the energy efficiency of its built projects by 27 percent on average and reduced overall energy use by 58 percent.

Two of Perkins&Will’s studios are now focusing on interior renovations, a major but often overlooked contributor to a building’s lifecycle carbon emissions.

Targeting embodied carbon

Even before a building opens, embodied carbon can make up as much as 50 percent of its lifetime emissions.

Then, over its lifespan, renovations every 5 to 10 years can add as much embodied carbon as the original build. That leaves it to sustainability directors to work with design firms to waste less, reuse more and make considered decisions on products and materials.

“Commercial building renovations that achieve net-zero performance aren’t just good for the planet — they’re smart business,” said Carrie Szarzynski, senior managing director and head of management services at commercial real estate firm Hiffman National. “Lower energy use reduces long-term operating costs, while reusing materials and selecting low–embodied carbon products further cut environmental impact and can lower construction expenses.”

“There are lots of different paths toward net zero and they can survive on their own in parallel or be combined,” said Jon Penndorf, associate principal and studio director for regenerative design at Perkins&Will’s Washington, D.C., studio. “On some projects, adaptive reuse makes a lot more sense than building everything from scratch and looking at the global warming potential of each product.”

Net-zero interiors

Different context, constraints and opportunities mean developing flexible strategies and staying focused on long-term goals — even when the market isn’t fully ready.

In 2020, Perkins&Will’s London studio made the Net Zero Carbon Pledge for Interiors to drive down embodied and operational carbon on projects for clients throughout Europe. The goal was for half of the studio’s projects to be 100-percent circular by the end of 2021 and the rest by the end of 2025 — with all achieving net-zero embodied carbon by 2030. The Washington, D.C., studio followed with its own pledge soon after.

“I think it was a bit of a moonshot,” said Adam Strudwick, Perkins&Will’s principal for workplace. “I don’t think we ever expected that we’d meet all the targets. We wanted to measure ourselves on making the industry change.”

Three steps to success

Perkins&Will’s process for working with clients to make progress on net zero interiors follows three steps: 

1. Educate and collaborate

All internal and supply chain teams at Perkins&Will must understand that “fundamentally we need to be designing an architecture that has multiple uses and reduces the need for the extraction of virgin materials,” said Strudwick.

The firm’s goal is to help clients align sustainability with their values, budgets and long-term goals. That includes evaluating whether to move or renovate, how to reuse furniture, where to invest for maximum health for people and the planet, and so on.

In the case of Greenpeace, for example, the nonprofit wanted its new Washington, D.C. headquarters to reflect its mission to reverse negative impacts of climate change. “We had to continue the history of being pioneers and innovators,” said Haiba Bakar, national facilities director for Greenpeace.

Greenpeace collaborated with Perkins&Will to make the headquarters a prototype for climate-responsible interior design. That was helped by choosing the space recently vacated by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) in the Franklin Square office building in northwest D.C. Reduced use during and after the pandemic left the millwork, ceilings and interior glass of APTA’s conference center in almost perfect condition. 

2. View spaces as a material bank

Companies may think only of emptying the space they want to refresh, but Strudwick encourages them to view it as a source of materials waiting for another life.

“Waste is just a material without an identity,” said Strudwick. That calls for reimagining materiality — reusing furniture, reupholstering pieces, refurbishing instead of buying new. “Recycling is not the answer,” he added.

Many components have value in terms of reducing embodied carbon, extending the lifespan of existing materials and cutting costs. For the Greenpeace project, onboarding the general contractor and subcontractors early in the design process enabled the team to maximize material reuse on-site, salvage off-site materials and design for disassembly.

“We used components that you would not expect to be reused,” Penndorf said — including metal studs, gypsum board, ceiling tile and grid, and wood doors, blocking and feature walls.  

3. Celebrate achievements

The final step is telling a meaningful story to end users, clients and visitors. That’s a two-pronged tale, emphasizing “the environmental benefit of not throwing everything in the trash as well as the cost benefit of not having to build everything again,” Penndorf said.

Greenpeace achieved a 54-percent reduction in embodied carbon from its baseline lifecycle analysis. The project’s ripple effects continue. Talking to other clients and prospective clients, Bakar said, “What I hear constantly is, we want the same space as Greenpeace.”  

Building the market

Two major challenges arise when reducing embodied carbon during renovation. First, when selecting new products, organizations should choose those with low embodied carbon and global warming potential.

Second, when sourcing reused products, be aware that the market is still evolving. “It’s still easier for us to go to Canada, chop down a tree, have it made into a table and bring it to London than it is for us to find materials that are two miles away,” Strudwick said.

He envisions a matchmaking site for requirements and materials — considering factors like building codes, warranty, cost, transport and, of course, carbon. For now, finding a “donor” building with material that would be valuable in a new project depends on serendipity.

To help design professionals, Perkins&Will has created the free, open-source “Circular Design Primer for Interiors” — which is also intended to help clients buy into the philosophy. 

All of this aims at helping to build a design culture that strives to do better, not just to do less harm. 

To move from sustainable to regenerative design, “We’re going to have to surpass code minimums and even low levels of current certification programs,” Penndorf said. “We probably need a mindset shift as an industry if we’re going to really drive that forward.”

The post A new approach to a surprisingly carbon-intensive part of offices: interior renovations appeared first on Trellis.

The flooring company Interface might not be known to the average consumer, but in sustainability circles its reputation is hard to beat. In 2000, under the leadership of the late Ray Anderson, Interface said it would eliminate its impact on the environment within 20 years. A quarter of a century later, most other large companies have still not committed to anything so ambitious.

Interface met Anderson’s goal a year early. Then, last April, it unveiled a new commitment for 2040. Trellis checked in this week with Liz Minné, the company’s head of global sustainability strategy, for an update.

From Mission Zero to ‘All in’

To hit the emissions component of its 2000 goal, which Interface dubbed “Mission Zero,” the company ratcheted up use of renewables and sourced low-carbon materials. 

It also factored in “ripple effects,” defined as emissions benefits that take place out of its value chain as a result of Interface actions. These included encouraging a supplier to provide nylon made from recycled materials — a product other companies then used — and helping capture methane from a Georgia landfill, which Interface and other companies then purchased. These two projects avoided 1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, which Interface subtracted from its total. The company also purchased offsets to certify some products as carbon-neutral.

Both those tactics have been discontinued under Interface’s “All In” strategy, with the offsets spending being diverted to projects aimed at cutting emissions and storing carbon in materials it uses. By 2040, the company now wants to be carbon negative across its value chain without using offsets. (It’s worth noting that the company has not quantified the extent to which it aims to be carbon negative. In theory, it could make a carbon-negative claim the moment its emissions cross from zero to negative.)

In the near term, Interface is working towards 1.5-degree-aligned science-based targets, which call for a 50 percent drop in absolute Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030 from a 2019 base year, alongside a cut of the same size in Scope 3 emissions from purchased goods and services and a 30 percent reduction in emissions from business travel and employee commuting.

Quitting offsets didn’t impact Interface’s emissions accounting, Minné noted. Interface used the offsets to market specific products as carbon neutral, but under the rules of the Science Based Targets initiative, which has validated Interface’s 2030 goal, they could not be counted against near-term emissions.

Carbon negative materials

It’s too early to evaluate progress toward the 2040 goal, but Interface remains comfortably on track for its 2030 targets. The Atlanta-based company is more than halfway to its goals for Scopes 1 and 2, for instance. Combined these account for just 3 percent of the nearly 400,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent Interface emitted in 2024 and, like many other companies, Scope 3 remains a much bigger challenge. But emissions from purchased goods and services, one of the hardest Scope 3 categories to tackle, have fallen by 43 percent.

Incorporating low carbon materials is one tactic behind the Scope 3 cuts. Interface has worked with a partner — Minné would not say more beyond describing it as a major chemical supplier — to source a material containing carbon captured during manufacture. Interface said last year that the unnamed ingredient is used in all carpet piles it produces in Europe and the U.S.

That helps cut the tiles’ carbon footprint. To tip products into carbon-negative territory, Interface sources bio-based ingredients, which contain CO2 captured during growth. Minné was similarly reluctant to reveal details of these materials, citing commercial considerations, but noted that Interface targets sources such as agricultural waste or other “rapidly renewable” environment products. The carbon-negative material is used in the backing for carpet tiles and is now standard in Europe, with production growing in the U.S.

The path to 2040

In addition to eschewing offsets, Interface has raised its ambition by expanding the scope of the emissions covered by its 2040 target. This raises some thorny challenges. Downstream emissions associated with use of its floors are included, which means Interface needs to estimate the carbon released when its floors are vacuumed or washed — and somehow persuade the organizations doing so to adopt lower-carbon methods. 

As a first step, Interface is gathering data on how customers clean its floors. Then it will look at issues such as use of renewables. “If they aren’t doing that, are there ways we can help them make the connection so that they can look for RECs or other mechanisms to do renewable energy?” said Minné. “And then in the cleaning space there are some interesting things happening with carbon captured materials that can be used for cleaning.”

The expanded scope for 2040 also includes end-of-life product emissions, something Interface has been working on for some time. Since 2016, the company has collected more than 80 million pounds of post-consumer carpet, close to 70 percent of which has been reused or recycled into its production processes. As a fraction of total production, Minné said this was “relatively low,” adding “we need it to get higher — this is one of our critical strategies.”

Tracking the fate of flooring is not easy. “The reverse logistics are incredibly challenging because most often we don’t know where that product is 10 years after we send it out,” said Minné. New regulations, including tougher carpet recycling requirements passed last year in California, will provide an assist, she added. The forthcoming Circular Economy Act, currently open for consultation in the European Union, may further accelerate progress.

Companywide buy-in will be needed to deliver on all these goals, but Interface does not tie compensation to sustainability targets, an oft-touted means of ensuring support. Interface’s reputation as a sustainability pioneer removes the need for that, Minné said: “Our leadership at the highest level — our CEO, our board — understand and support our targets. That trickles down.”

The post Why Interface is betting on carbon-negative materials over offsets appeared first on Trellis.

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

Unwrapping a brand-new item is a great feeling. But the thrill of unboxing a beautifully designed product eventually fades as we begin to use it and the next shiny new thing takes its place. Consumers often think their experience is over when the item is disposed of, but there’s an overlooked space between the end of usage and the start of recycling or waste. We’ll call this the end gap.

This uninstructed, often abandoned final step in the consumer experience is where the language and methods for ending a product’s life are complex and unclear. This gap materializes in phenomena such as:

• Unused clothing: A 2022 study by WRAP, a climate action NGO, found that the average U.K. adult has 118 items of clothing in their wardrobe, of which a quarter (31 items) were unworn for at least a year.
• Off-site storage: The self-storage market is expected to grow significantly, fueled by decision fatigue of having to reduce items and the anxiety of making a final disposal decision.
• Digital hoarding: The end gap exists in our digital lives, too. Many of us save everything, deferring the difficult act of deleting. IBM estimates that up to 90 percent of all data is “dark data,” or information that’s stored but never used, revealing our societal unwillingness to let go.

By looking at the end gap not as a problem but as an opportunity, sustainability professionals can see past the chaos to understand its foundational characteristics. That understanding is key to creating a more meaningful and sustainable business model.

4 signs an end gap is imminent

The relationship breaks: The relationship between a business and a consumer is a two-way street. During the initial stages of a product’s life, a business provides guidance marketing, out-of-box instructions, FAQs and the like. A consumer, meanwhile, provides valuable data — name, demographics and goals. This bonded relationship continues as the consumer benefits from product usage and the business giving service support.

As the product fulfills its promise, it moves past a usage phase and the consumer starts to think about off-boarding. But while the usage has taken place the business has backed away, seeking new customers. The consumer finds themselves abandoned to resolve product disposal alone. 

Identity is anonymized: At the beginning of the consumer lifecycle, the customer’s identity is captured through banking, loyalty systems and marketing schemes. It’s also celebrated through personalized language in communication of the product: “Well done, Joe, for becoming our customer!”

These identity systems fade as the relationship goes on. Marketing noise from purchase has been lost in the following weeks, months or years of ownership as people change shopping habits, email or social media. By the off-boarding experience the identity systems attached to the product are non-existent. 

Further to this, legal ownership is relinquished as the customer places the product into recycling, trash or goodwill. The consumer is no longer accountable for what happens to the product. Their identity is washed from the product’s history, along with the business that made it. Waste stream identity has to be reverse engineered. Impact becomes a “who done it” detective job.

Emotional meaning is lost: At the end of product life its emotional meaning to the consumer decays and its specific definition as an asset — size 10 dress, hiking boots by Columbia, 30-megapixel camera — disappears when it enters a generic waste stream. A phone, for example, begins as carefully defined components. At its end, it becomes “e-waste,” a jumble of unknown materials. The scale of this loss is vast: a European Commission report found over half of EU individuals keep old phones — an estimated 700 million devices. Meanwhile, Apple’s 2024 sales of 231.8 million iPhones dwarf its collection of only 15.9 million devices. E-waste, which totaled 62 million tonnes globally in 2022, is often chipped and smelted, irrevocably losing its product identity.

Disposal routes are blurred: When a customer eats an apple, they can be confident it will naturally decompose without a lasting negative impact. But what about human-made products such as a plastic bag? The process for disposal is far from clear. Instead of straightforward information, consumers are often faced with confusing symbols and technical material jargon.

This lack of clarity is reinforced by symbols that create a false sense of certainty. A product might be labeled “recycled” versus “recyclable,” two very different outcomes for the item’s end-of-life journey. A 2019 report by the Consumer Brands Association, aptly titled “Reduce. Reuse. Confuse.” found a staggering 92 percent of Americans didn’t understand the labels on plastic products.

While initiatives such as the SmartLabel platform attempt to solve this problem, they only scratch the surface of a much deeper issue: the gap between a product’s promise and its ultimate fate in the eyes of the consumer.

How to use the end gap

The four factors of the end gap are a starting point for asking human-scale, emotional questions. Instead of just measuring materials and weight, you can address the consumer’s experience directly:

• Relationship: How does the relationship with your customers break down? Is it soon after the sale, or do you have contact well into the product’s usage period? Analyze when and how this connection fades.

• Asset: Does the customer know the product’s material when it’s time to dispose of it? You don’t want to leave them wondering. If your business provides this information, you can maintain an open dialogue, building trust and collaboration.

• Identity: If you have an open dialogue, you must still have their contact details. By informing consumers of the product’s impact and providing capture or offset options, you can partner with them more directly during this time.

• Routes: Do the initiatives your company puts in place show a clear path? Or do you abandon the customer to stitch these issues together themselves? Build a straightforward route for them to complete their consumption. 

Our consumption journey begins with human desire, a powerful emotional driver for new beginnings. Yet, our current model often neglects the human experience of endings. Instead, it tries to measure the cold tangibles — material, weight, chemistry. This lack of human meaning leads to societal fear of making the “wrong” disposal decision and drawers full of old phones. To foster a truly circular economy, we must move beyond technical solutions and address this psychological void. 

The post The end gap: The overlooked space between product usage and disposal appeared first on Trellis.