How Mercedes-Benz, Cadillac and BMW are looking past leather

Leather seats epitomize luxury and comfort for many high-end auto enthusiasts. However revered, though, leather is a co-product of the meat industry, which is among the most carbon-polluting on the planet.

That’s one reason high-end automakers with decarbonization ambitions — including Mercedes-Benz, General Motors and BMW — have backed the development of animal-free alternatives for vehicle interiors.

Mercedes is the latest brand to collaborate on a substitute to traditional leather. In June, it announced its co-development, with startup Modern Meadow, on a plant and recycled-tire-based biomaterial for the seats of its Concept AMG GT XX sports car.

The Labfiber materials, including seats mimicking full-grain Nappa leather, is based on Modern Meadow’s Innovera product, “setting new standards in vehicle interiors,” according to Eileen Böhme, Mercedes-Benz’s director of innovations and future technologies. “By combining recycled rubber, plant proteins and biopolymers, it not only offers the same design freedom as conventional leather but also reflects the company’s sustainable strategy. We are driving innovation across the value chain, from materials to mobility.”

Modern Meadow’s early lifecycle analysis calculated Innovera’s equivalent carbon dioxide footprint at about 7 kilograms per square meter, roughly one third of the nonprofit Leather Working Group’s estimate for cow leather.

Innovera offers the durability, flexibility and tear-resistance of leather, according to Modern Meadow. “Auto seating is a bit of a holy grail application,” said the company’s CEO David Williamson. “If you’ve got a material that can work in that space, you’ve got a remarkably high-performing material.”

Market for leather and alt leather

The $37 billion market for bovine automotive leather shows no signs of slowing down, with projections of growth to $68.4 billion by 2033, according to Grand View Research.

Yet in addition to tooting out methane, livestock occupy vast swaths of land, which have wiped out valuable rainforests and grasslands. Farming and slaughtering make up 68 percent of the hides’ global warming potential, according to Leather Working Group. Tanning and finishing pile on additional impacts, leading to livestock’s contribution of 6 percent of overall greenhouse gas pollution in 2023, according to the United Nations.

A $12.5 billion synthetic leather market will reach $20.8 billion by 2033, according to research by DataDynamics.

How Innovera is made

Modern Meadow’s material originates with chemicals giant BASF, which turns old rubber tires into nylon fiber. Modern Meadow then uses the nonwoven material as a “scaffold” on which to add its Bio-Alloy. The Nutley, New Jersey, company’s biobased polyurethane uses waste from corn and rapeseed oil and soy farming. 

The startup produces thousands of square meters per day of “dry white” material, which it sends to tanneries around the world for processing. 

“When people walk into this room they say, ‘It smells like leather,’” Williamson said of Innovera. “That’s because it goes through the same process. It has all the same biological functionality that we attribute to leather, because of the plant protein functionality that we introduce into it. It’s why it dyes like leather, breathes like leather, processes like leather and ages like leather.”

Innovera can be used in aerospace, mass transportation, footwear, furniture, apparel and even electronics accessories, according to Williamson. He believes the company, which has raised $183.6 million, can churn out 500,000 square meters of it per year.

“We feel like we’re at a place, with Mercedes, to deliver that material for some super-demanding applications,” he said.

In addition, Innovera is “ready for circularity,” according to Williamson. “We can strip it back off the car, do some things to it, return it back to BASF, and it’s ready to have a new life. Sustainability is not required to drive adoption, but it certainly helps.”

Other animal-free interiors

Among auto brands, Volvo has been ahead of the curve. Four years ago, the Swedish company announced that its new seating material, Nordico, would serve a goal of recycled or biobased materials in one-quarter of new cars by 2025. By 2030, Nordico is likely to feature prominently in Volvo’s target of 100 percent leather-free and electric vehicles. 

The material features recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, a practice that circular economy watchdogs criticize for taking material from closed-loop, bottle-to-bottle recycling. Nordico also uses recycled wine corks and “bio-attributed” material from Nordic forests. 

General Motors’ Cadillac has pursued leather with neither livestock nor petrochemical origins. GM Ventures in 2022 invested in MycoWorks, a mycelium material then making its debut beyond fashion. The automaker featured the San Francisco startup’s Fine Mycelium technology in the concept Cadillac Sollei EV.

Four years ago, GM had set goals to reduce Scopes 1 and 2 emissions by 72 percent by 2035 compared with 2018, and Scope 3 emissions by 51 percent per kilometer per vehicle. However, the company did not submit those goals in time for validation by the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

For others, the alternative to virgin leather is recycled leather. Alongside Coach parent Tapestry and Dr Martens, Jaguar Land Rover’s venture arm in 2023 invested $18 million in startup Gen Phoenix, which upcycles tannery waste.

Fits and starts

It hasn’t been a smooth path for animal- and plastic-free seating within cutting-edge car designs. 

In 2021, BMW iVentures threw its backing behind Natural Fiber Welding, a Peoria, Illinois, startup brewing plastic-free, leather-like Mirum from plants. The undisclosed investment explicitly served the German automaker’s science-based goals for 2030, validated by the SBTi. These include reducing emissions per vehicle for Scopes 1 and 2 by 80 percent and by at least 33 percent across all scopes per vehicle.

Although Natural Fiber Welding has raised $224 million, the decade-old company recently endured its third round of layoffs in three years.

In another failed promise, in 2022 Mercedes-Benz’s Vision EQXX featured mycelium-based Mylo “leather” material. “Working with these innovative, sustainable materials to design the interior of the VISION EQXX was a hugely liberating and exhilarating experience,” chief design officer Gorden Wagener said at the time. But the high was short-lived. Bolt Threads, which produced Mylo, discontinued it one year later to focus on developing vegan “silk.”

That failure reset industry expectations, as did the slow progress from companies such as Ecovative and SQIM, according to Lux Research Analyst Tiffany Hua. “It also points out how hard it is to move from pilot-stage innovation to commercial-scale production,” she said.

“For higher-performance use cases there are additional requirements where extra binders, coatings or backing materials are often needed,” said Hua. Therefore, surface treatments and tanning processes address the shortcomings in strength, flex resistance and durability.

“Most developers I’ve spoken with rely heavily on co-development partnerships with OEMs and brand partners to get anywhere close to meeting performance benchmarks,” Hua noted. 

For now, then, the potential for mycelium-based materials remains in the premium and luxury markets, she added.

The post How Mercedes-Benz, Cadillac and BMW are looking past leather appeared first on Trellis.

Why Interface is betting on carbon-negative materials over offsets

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.

How low-quality carbon credits killed a sustainability buzzword

RIP, carbon-neutral.

Just a decade ago, the term was a byword for climate ambition. Its credibility has since been wrecked by court cases — including a defeat for Apple last week — and negative press coverage. Next year, new European Union regulations threaten to kill it off altogether.

Retiring the language has opened the door for more rigorous approaches to capturing corporate action. But any assessment of the carbon-neutral movement needs to recognize that by ditching the term, companies have also lost a valuable method for communicating sustainability goals.

The rise …

The claim’s appeal lies partly with its simplicity: By measuring and offsetting the emissions associated with a product, or an entire organization, companies can declare one or both to be carbon neutral — a term consumers intuitively understand.

One early user on the product side was the flooring company Interface, which launched a series of carbon-neutral carpet tiles in 2003. A smattering of brands followed, and the concept gained cultural currency as conferences and sporting events made the claim. In 2006, the “New Oxford American Dictionary” named it word of the year. 

Meanwhile, an infrastructure for certifying the claim was emerging. In 2010, the Australian government launched a process for businesses to get certified. The Carbon Trust, an influential standard-setter, did the same two years later for products. 

Another organization that saw the momentum behind the idea was the non-profit Climate Neutral, which in 2019 launched a label designed to help consumers easily identify carbon-neutral products. “We thought here’s an opportunity, a moment, to harness the consumer recognition,” recalled Austin Whitman, the organization’s co-founder and CEO. “It’s the best hope we have to mobilize consumers.”

By the start of this decade, carbon-neutral claims were attached to everything from sneakers and automotive lubricants to tea, beer and consumer electronics. The list included emission-intensive products, such as flights, and even fossil fuels: In 2019, Shell began offering carbon-neutral shipments of liquified natural gas (LNG).

… and the fall

The logic behind carbon-neutral claims might be simple; their execution is not. Offset quality is one weak point. If offsets fail to deliver promised emissions benefits, the carbon-neutral claim that rests on them is voided.

In the early 2000s, media coverage suggested that was happening all too often. Delta and Credit Suisse were among the companies accused by Bloomberg of using “junk credits” to make carbon-neutral schemes. A report from the non-profit Corporate Accountability added Gucci, Volkswagen, ExxonMobil, Disney, easyJet and Nestlé to the list, while the New Yorker weighed in with an exposé that damaged the reputations of South Pole, a leading offsets provider, and Verra, the most prominent carbon credit registry.

The lawsuits started around the same time, with accusers arguing that unreliable offsets rendered carbon-neutral marketing misleading. One advocacy group — Environmental Action Germany — won cases in its home country against the airline Eurowings, BP, TotalEnergies, meal-kit company HelloFresh, Adidas and, last week, Apple. More recently, class-action suits have been filed in the U.S. against Clif Bar and the tobacco company R.J. Reynolds, which sold carbon-neutral vapes.

Unsurprisingly, many brands have now abandoned carbon-neutral marketing. But reputational issues are not the only reason. What constitutes robust ambition on climate has expanded over the past 10 years to include science-based targets, transition action plans, commitments to invest in decarbonization, supplier engagement and other strategies. Most carbon-neutral certifications required additional steps beyond just purchasing offsets, such as committing to emissions targets. Still, the idea at the heart of the claim — getting to neutral via offsets — can feel flimsy in comparison.

In 2023, Climate Neutral rebranded the organization as the Change Climate Project and its certification as the Climate Label. To earn it, companies commit to creating a fund in proportion to their emissions, and to spending it on climate projects. That could include decarbonizing company operations or those of suppliers, as well as purchasing high-quality credits. Whatever the focus, the emissions benefits that follow are not used as offsets.

What’s been lost

There remain no shortage of carbon-neutral claims out there, from carbon-neutral shipping (UPS) to laptops (Acer), packaging (Tetra Pak) and meetings (Hilton). Need some carbon-neutral LNG? Shell still has you covered.

Yet it’s clear the term is fading. And a year from now it will become even rarer, at least in Europe. That’s when new EU regulations will prohibit offsets from being used in carbon-neutral claims, meaning only products with zero lifecycle emissions will qualify.

The shift reflects a more sophisticated and rigorous approach to corporate sustainability, but it’s not without drawbacks. Apple is phasing out the term, for instance, but has cited EU rules as the reason and said the change will make it harder to communicate climate action to consumers. 

“People started to understand it,” said Whitman. “And we are now faced with a much more difficult challenge. We have had companies come to us and say, ‘We’re not going to do the Climate Label, because we just don’t think it means anything to individuals.’”

The old labels created what Whitman acknowledges as a “blunt, high-level impression that somebody’s climate impacts are just gone, neutralized. And that’s not what’s happening behind the scenes.” But, he added “the other side of that coin is that’s why marketers love it — because it’s like, boom, that’s what we did, right?”

The post How low-quality carbon credits killed a sustainability buzzword appeared first on Trellis.

The end gap: The overlooked space between product usage and disposal

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.

Global policy progress on plastics stalls, despite public concern

Despite growing concerns over plastic pollution and how it’s affecting human health, global policy progress on the matter is faltering.

Research from Trellis data partner GlobeScan, in conjunction with ERM and Volans, shows that sustainability experts ranked a Global Plastics Treaty as highly impactful but among the least feasible actions out of 64 sustainability measures assessed. While the research was conducted prior to the latest treaty negotiations, treaty talks have stalled without meaningful commitments.

The unlikelihood of a treaty is all the more pressing at a time when public concern over plastic pollution is widespread. A Globescan study from last year showed 70 percent of people globally felt directly impacted by single-use plastic waste. The leading concern of single-use plastic waste? Not climate change or ocean pollution, but the presence and effect of microplastics and chemicals in the human body. 

What this means

The gap between the low feasibility of a global treaty and the significant public concern over the health impacts of plastics presents both risk and opportunity for business. Brands that take decisive action to reduce plastics can build consumer trust and credibility, while those that delay may face reputational challenges with increasingly health-conscious audiences.

Based on a survey of 844 sustainability practitioners in 72 countries conducted April-May 2025 and an online survey of more than 30,000 people across 31 markets conducted in 2024.

The post Global policy progress on plastics stalls, despite public concern appeared first on Trellis.

Supply chain leaders are stealth weapons in the drive to net zero

Last week, Chris Callieri became Levi’s first chief supply chain officer, reporting directly to the CEO. He’s one of the latest corporate appointments to reflect the increasingly heavy weight that supply chain leaders bring to the C-suite.

“This move exemplifies that supply chain roles are being significantly elevated in the corporate world, especially in retail and consumer goods companies,” said Nada Sanders, a professor of supply chain management at Northeastern University. “Supply chain leadership is now seen as critical to navigating costs, disruptions, innovation and sustainability, with these roles now reporting directly to the CEO.”

The topsy-turvy, tariff-centric U.S. trade policy of the past eight months provides obvious reasons why businesses need to throw their brightest, most nimble leadership behind procurement. Apple’s Sabih Khan is another recent example. Credited for driving down emissions when he oversaw the company’s supply operations, Khan became the chief operations officer in July.

Such leaders are essential to businesses that are sincere about moving past grand sustainability commitments and tackling the near-term nitty-gritty of net zero transitions. As Sainsbury’s recently named chief retail, logistics and supply officer, for example, Tracey Clements faces a to-do list that likely includes helping to reach net zero in its value chain by 2050.

Hiding in plain sight

Come September 15, when Callieri starts reporting to CEO Michelle Gass, he will not only have to keep the sourcing trains running in a high-stakes, high-tariff trade environment, but also be responsible for driving down 99 percent of the company’s emissions, which originate from sourcing. 

“Supply chain is an essential function of sustainability, and can be connected to the same key issues like sourcing, energy use, and worker’s rights,” said Ellen Weinreb, chief executive officer of Weinreb Group Sustainability Recruiting in Berkeley, California. “So it makes sense for sustainability to ‘live’ in that function.”

Of course, it’s quite possible that White House attacks on “woke” language related to climate and ESG are driving such efforts underground. That is to say, there’s good reason to think that C-suites are quietly hiding their most important sustainability functions within procurement.

In fact, chief supply chain officers do more true sustainability work than even the chief sustainability officer, according to a 2023 survey of 250 professionals in the field by North Carolina State University.

In another survey of 500 chief supply chain officers in 2022, two thirds called sustainability core to business value. That matters, because matching sustainability strategy with business strategy is one of the biggest issues sustainability leaders face. “Shifting sustainability leaders into supply chain roles supports that ambition while also reducing the external appearance of sustainability as an ESG initiative,” said Weinreb.

Weinreb added: “Based on my conversations with sustainability leaders, I am confident that environmental and social impact work continues, but many companies are looking for ways to tone down the external appearance of the work.”

The post Supply chain leaders are stealth weapons in the drive to net zero appeared first on Trellis.

16 fellowships to advance your career in 2025

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

The climate and sustainability fellowships landscape has shifted since I last shared a list of 18 opportunities three years ago. Some programs from my original article are no longer running — such as the Presidential Management Fellows program, terminated in February — while others (especially those funded by AmeriCorps) face major uncertainty due to staffing cuts, grant cancellations and the withholding of appropriated funds.    

But there is plenty of good news, too. Many new programs have emerged and in addition to the fellowships listed below, several colleges and universities are running their own. Both the Colorado State University Impact MBA Corporate Sustainability Fellowship and University of New Hampshire Sustainability Fellowship, for example, enable students to solve sustainability challenges for organizations within their region and beyond. It’s also encouraging to see more fellowships related to a wider scope of sustainability, providing opportunities in impact investing, zero waste, sustainable food systems and climate resilience.  

Below are 16 programs that can help students and working professionals advance their sustainability careers. A handful don’t officially call themselves “fellowships,” but each program on this list offers a fellowship-like combination of training, experience, support and community designed to help participants succeed professionally.  

Opportunities for current students or recent graduates

The Global Warming Mitigation Project’s Constellations Fellowship

The Constellations Fellowship connects students and recent graduates with paid, virtual work experiences at the forefront of climate innovation. Fellows are matched with organizations from the Global Warming Mitigation Project’s international network of Keeling Curve Prize Laureates and Finalists, a community recognized for driving some of the world’s most effective climate solutions. Throughout a 12- to 14-week fellowship, participants contribute meaningful work that supports climate action while gaining real-world professional experience, mentorship and a global perspective.

  • Audience: Undergraduate students and recent graduates
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 120
  • Location: Remote
  • Timing: 12 to 14 weeks, hours vary by host organization
  • Compensation: $1,000 stipend
  • Next application deadline: Sept. 8

The Better Food Foundation DefaultVeg Program

DefaultVeg Ambassadors encourage their campuses to adopt climate-smart, plant-forward food and promote a broader cultural shift toward sustainable and inclusive food services. The program provides students with training and structured support for collaborating with university decision makers to adopt plant-based defaults and nudges. 

  • Audience: Current students of any experience level
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 100
  • Location: Virtual training with on-site engagement at your campus
  • Timing: 9 months, 15 hours per month beginning in September
  • Compensation: $1,000 grant
  • Next application deadline: Sept. 10

The Atlas Zero Waste Fellowship

The Atlas Zero Waste fellowship trains young leaders to usher their campuses through the process of establishing zero waste commitments, action plans and return on investment analyses. Fellows perform holistic qualitative assessments, facilitate stakeholders to create strategies that overcome campus silos and bureaucratic challenges, and develop a long-term proposal for the infrastructure and logistics needed to achieve zero waste.

  • Audience: Current students
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 35
  • Location: Virtual training with on-site campus engagement
  • Timing: 10 weeks, 5 hours per week
  • Compensation: Varies by school
  • Next application deadline: Rolling

The ClimateCAP Fellowship 

The ClimateCAP Fellowship is a cohort-based experience that empowers MBA students to become the next generation of climate leaders and changemakers. Fellows learn from guest experts and academic advisers, build community with each other and work on an applied climate-related project with publishable results.

  • Audience: MBA students
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 16
  • Location: Virtual, with an in-person event at the ClimateCAP Summit
  • Timing: 11 months beginning in February
  • Compensation: 2026 stipend amount TBD
  • Next application deadline: December

Impact Capital Managers Mosaic Fellowship

The ICM Mosaic Fellowship provides first-year graduate students with the opportunity to be a summer associate at an ICM member fund. Fellows have exposure to all areas of fund management including market research, deal sourcing and due diligence, impact measurement, and management and fundraising.

  • Audience: First-year graduate students
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 25
  • Location: New York City
  • Timing: 10 weeks from mid-June to mid-August
  • Compensation: $20,000 stipend
  • Next application deadline: Dec. 2

The Environmental Defense Fund Climate Corps Fellowship

EDF Climate Corps Fellows help their host organizations accomplish their climate and emission reduction goals. Fellows work over the summer to design tools and recommendations for reducing energy consumption, procuring renewable energy, electrifying fleets, road-mapping emission targets, advancing climate justice and managing climate risk.  

  • Audience: Graduate students
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 100
  • Location: Remote or at host organizations across the U.S.
  • Timing: Full-time for 10 to 12 weeks over the summer
  • Compensation: Stipend of at least $1,400 per week
  • Next application deadline: Dec. 22

United Nations Academic Impact Millennium Fellowship

This semester-long, on-campus leadership development program enables students to lead projects that advance the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals within their communities.

  • Audience: Undergraduate students
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 3,000-plus globally in cohorts of eight to 20 students per school
  • Location: On campuses worldwide
  • Timing: Fall semester
  • Compensation: None
  • Next application deadline: Early 2026

Women of Renewable Industries and Sustainable Energy (WRISE) Wind Power Fellowships

Wind Power Fellows receive free access to the American Clean Power Association’s CLEANPOWER conference, specialized program content, and mentoring and networking opportunities in the wind energy industry.

  • Audience: Undergraduates, graduate students or recent graduates identifying as a woman or other marginalized gender
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 10
  • Location: Virtual meetings and in-person attendance of the CLEANPOWER conference
  • Timing: Two months centered around the CLEANPOWER conference in May
  • Compensation: Free access to the conference including tickets, travel, meals and lodging expenses, and a free year of WRISE membership
  • Next application deadline: Early 2026

Rachel Carson Council Fellowship

The Rachel Carson Council Fellowship Program provides students with a passion for environmental education, organizing and advocacy with training, mentorship and financial support for projects that address sustainability and justice issues on their campus. 

  • Audience: Graduate and undergraduate students
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 30
  • Location: Training in Washington, D.C., remote work on U.S. campuses
  • Timing: Training in the summer, fellowship work throughout the academic year
  • Compensation: $2,000 stipend
  • Next application deadline: Spring 2026

The Rising Solar Power Fellowship

The Rising Solar fellowship program is a partnership between GRID Alternatives and WRISE to give aspiring solar professionals from diverse backgrounds the opportunity to pursue a career in renewable energy. Fellows receive free access to the RE+ conference, exclusive program content, mentoring and networking opportunities and the chance to collaborate with fellowship peers and alumni.  

  • Audience: Current or recent graduates of a college, university or technical certificate program
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 8
  • Location: Attend the RE+ conference in person, virtual meetings before and after
  • Timing: One month, Aug. 13-Sept. 18
  • Compensation: Free registration, travel and lodging for the conference
  • Next application deadline: Summer 2026

Part-time opportunities for working professionals

U.S. Green Building Council California Green Building Corps Program

The Green Building Corps is a professional development program from USGBC California that provides project-based work experience, training and certifications, mentorship, career support and networking opportunities to people interested in a career in sustainability and buildings. Participants support California’s transformation into a more sustainable, resilient and equitable region for all.  

  • Audience: Students and working professionals
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 30
  • Location: California-based remote and hybrid
  • Timing: 6 months, 10 hours per week beginning in October or May
  • Compensation: Training and certification reimbursement, USGBC-CA membership
  • Next application deadline: Fall cohort: Sept. 19, spring cohort: April 17, 2026

Morgridge Family Foundation Morgridge Acceleration Program Fellowship

MAP Fellows are paired with influential nonprofit executives to help them solve social impact challenges currently facing their organizations.  

  • Audience: Working professionals
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 12
  • Location: Virtual with a few trips for training and site visits
  • Timing: 6 months, 15 hours per month
  • Compensation: All travel expenses paid, host organization receives up to $5,000 for projects
  • Next application deadline: Sept. 29

E2 (Environmental Entrepreneurs) 1 Hotels Fellowship

1 Hotels Fellows work on projects that amplify the business and economic case for smart policies in clean economy, clean energy, food and agriculture, building electrification and performance, transportation electrification and clean water. 

  • Audience: Early to mid-career professionals with a project proposal
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 6
  • Location: Various locations across the U.S.
  • Timing: One-year commitment beginning in December
  • Compensation: $20,000 stipend
  • Next application deadline: Summer 2026

Full-time opportunities for professionals

The SEI Climate Corps Fellowship

The SEI Climate Corps provides emerging leaders with professional opportunities at government organizations, nonprofits and for-profit businesses. Fellows work on projects that span all facets of sustainability including environmental justice, corporate sustainability, resiliency, renewable energy, transportation, facilities, education, waste reduction and conservation. Fellows on the Strategic Energy Management track receive specialized professional training such as Building Operator or University of California Climate Stewards certification to enable them to better support energy managers and facilities teams at their host organizations. 

  • Audience: Early-career professionals
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 65
  • Location: Various locations throughout the U.S. 
  • Timing: Full-time for 10 to 12 months starting in September, January, March or June
  • Compensation: $3,450-plus/month plus benefits
  • Next application deadline: Rolling, most openings posted in the spring and summer

GRID Alternatives SolarCorps Fellowship 

The SolarCorps Fellowship connects underrepresented talent with hands-on experiences in the clean energy industry to advance economic and environmental justice. Projects span multiple areas including solar, battery and EV charger installation; solar design, operations and maintenance; project management and development; clean mobility; solar workforce development and training; and community outreach. 

  • Audience: Adults 18-plus, no experience necessary
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 35
  • Location: California, Washington D.C, New Mexico, remote
  • Timing: Full-time for 11 months starting in September
  • Compensation: $40,800/year plus benefits
  • Next application deadline: Rolling applications open in May, submit an interest form

FUSE Executive Fellowship

FUSE embeds private-sector executives in city and county agencies to lead projects that improve public services and accelerate systems change. Projects support solutions in climate resilience, justice, affordable housing, economic mobility, public safety, infrastructure, technology and more.

  • Audience: Professionals with 15-plus years of private-sector experience
  • Approximate number of fellows per year: 15
  • Location: Various locations throughout the U.S.
  • Timing: Full-time for one or two years, starting in spring or fall
  • Compensation: $80,000/year plus benefits
  • Next application deadline: Rolling

The post 16 fellowships to advance your career in 2025 appeared first on Trellis.

Apple loses court case over ‘CO2 neutral’ watch claim

Ads that describe the Apple Watch as “CO2 neutral” are misleading and violate competition law, a German court has ruled. The decision comes as Apple is battling a class-action suit in the U.S. on a similar issue.

The company has said it will phase out use of the language ahead of incoming European rules on such claims.

The ruling, issued Tuesday by a Frankfurt court that handles commercial cases, centers on offsets that Apple purchased from a forestry project in Paraguay to make its CO2-neutral claim.

Consumer perceptions of such claims, the judge found, are shaped by the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increases to no more 1.5 degrees Celsius by mid-century. “Consumers would therefore assume that the advertised Apple Watch would ensure CO2 compensation until around 2050,” the court noted in a statement on its decision.

But the offsets purchased by Apple are for eucalyptus plantations on land leased only until 2029. “Therefore, carbon offsetting was only guaranteed until 2029,” according to the court statement. “Apple was unable to prove that all leases would be extended. There is no secure prospect for the continuation of the forestry project.”

Buffer pools not enough

To address the lease issue, Apple had pointed toward the “buffer” carbon credit account required by Verra, the standard-setter that established the methodology followed by the forestry project. Project developers often place a fraction of the credits they generate in buffer accounts, which act as insurance should stored carbon be released back to the atmosphere by fire or other causes. But the court found that if the leases are not extended, the buffer alone could not ensure the “continued existence” of the forest.

“With our climate lawsuits against greenwashing by industrial and commercial companies, we are ensuring that even multi-billion dollar corporations like Apple must provide consumers with honest and comprehensible information about the actual environmental impacts of their products,” said Jürgen Resch, federal director of Environmental Action Germany, the group that brought the case, in a statement.

In the U.S., Apple was sued in February by consumers who said they paid a premium for the carbon neutrality claim associated with the Apple Watch. The offsets at the heart of the U.S. case came from forestry projects in China and Kenya that the consumers’ lawyers described as worthless because they “fail to provide genuine, additional carbon reductions.” The next hearing in the case is scheduled for November.

Apple is already phasing out carbon-neutral claims on its products ahead of stricter European Union rules around the use of such language that will come into force in September 2026.

“Importantly, the court has broadly upheld our rigorous approach to carbon neutrality,” an Apple spokesperson said. “We remain laser-focused on further reducing emissions by industry-leading innovation in clean energy, low-carbon design and more — work that has put us on track to achieve carbon neutrality throughout our entire supply chain by 2030.”

Leadership position

Apple has been supported in the U.S. lawsuit by the Environmental Defense Fund, which filed an amicus brief in May describing the company’s practices as “eminently reasonable and consistent with industry practice.”

“What I don’t want to be lost in all the news around the carbon-neutral claim is Apple’s approach to decarbonization, where they work to reduce emissions in their operations as much as they can, engage with their supply chain to do the same and then invest in high quality, verified carbon credits to support nature globally,” said Elizabeth Sturcken, EDF’s vice president of net-zero ambition and action. “That approach is a leadership approach and one that we want every company to take.”

The post Apple loses court case over ‘CO<sub>2</sub> neutral’ watch claim appeared first on Trellis.

How Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’  is affecting climate tech investment

Based on results from the first half of 2025, climate tech investment is in wait-and-see mode. 

Grappling with shifting macroeconomic factors, geopolitical tensions and domestic policy changes, investors have shored up cash, waiting for markets to find some semblance of certainty to start re-allocating capital with confidence.

“We found a real slowdown in the first half of the year … people are just not investing in the face of uncertainty,” said Yi Jean, a partner at Clean Energy Ventures, which invests in early stage companies scaling decarbonization solutions. 

First half funding is down 19 percent compared to 2024, according to CTVC. And while “mega deals” (greater than $100 million) are up 31 percent, early-stage climate tech investment has decreased, with seed and Series A investment totals dropping by 26 percent and 12 percent, respectively, 

This deceleration has forced startups to get back to fundamentals. It’s important for founders and investors to recognize the moment we’re in, said Gabriel Kra, co-founder at Prelude Ventures, who’s been investing in climate technologies since 2009: “In today’s climate tech new normal, cash and unit profitability is more important than growth.” In essence, he continued, “you can’t sell an investor on a vision, you have to prove unit economics and profitability, and how you’re not dependent on tax incentives to reach profitability.” 

While uncertainty weighs on both startups and investors, how have the specifics of the Trump administration’s budget and policy bill, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” affected investor sentiment? Does it provide additional certainty or muddy the waters further? 

Less than disastrous

While the bill changes the policy outlook for climate tech, tailwinds from the IRA aren’t fully gone. 

“The sense of disaster has been overhyped,” said Leonardo Banchik, investment director at early-stage venture firm Voyager. “While the IRA could have been stronger, several important provisions remain intact, which makes a real difference for the sector.”

The table below shows which sectors the new law is positive, neutral or negative for. For a comprehensive breakdown of the bill, I recommend exploring reports, including one from Columbia and another from Rhodium Group. 

Startups respond

It’s a mixed bag for startups, dependent on their tech and business models.

The strategy of Ateios Systems, an early-stage battery startup that designs electrodes without toxic chemicals, is focused on unit economics, operating towards profitability without help from policy, said founder and CEO Rajan Kumar. The bill “is helping our business [from the domestic manufacturing perspective] but it’s not the only thing,” he added.  With tax credits for battery manufacturing still in place, Ateios should be able to lower its prices and increase its margins. 

For Harvest Thermal, an early-stage smart HVAC startup, the bill is both boost and drag. With home energy credits expiring at the end of this year, homeowners will no longer be able to claim a 30-percent tax credit on technologies like Harvest Thermal’s. “While the loss of 25D creates headwinds, it has also encouraged us to deepen our partnerships with state and local programs, where we see much of the momentum shifting anyway,” said Jane Melia, the company’s co-founder and CFO.

The state of California, for example, is offering up to $25,000 in combined incentives for systems like Harvest Thermal’s. So while Washington retreats on certain tax credits, some regional players are filling the gap. 

At the same time, other tax credits, such as 48E, provide a 30-50 percent credit for advanced HVAC systems through 2033. 

At the end of the day, said Melia, “policy shifts like this remind us that incentives come and go, but customer value must remain permanent.” 

The case for optimism

Even under the current administration, tailwinds remain for a number of climate technologies. The current environment requires startups to get creative with regional incentives and focus on creating superior products.

Voyager’s Banchik expects the bill to inject certainty into the market and fuel more investment in the rest of the year. “While we invest in companies with strong fundamentals that don’t depend on policy incentives, having these provisions enshrined in law reduces risk and eliminates countless hours of discussions to build confidence,” he said. “We’re already seeing this certainty in the investments we’re making. It’s as simple as: Credits are extended, so let’s move forward.”

Kra of Prelude Ventures referenced James Taylor: He’s seen fire and he’s seen rain. At some point, “markets will come roaring back,“ Kra said, and “companies that meet that moment with unit economics will be poised for growth and tremendous financial success.”

The post How Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’  is affecting climate tech investment appeared first on Trellis.

Chris Callieri becomes Levi’s chief supply chain officer

Levi Strauss & Co. has appointed Chris Callieri its first chief supply chain officer, a title he held at Victoria’s Secret and Tory Burch. He offers two decades of strategic experience related to sourcing and logistics, and a record of advocating for more than “check-the-box” corporate sustainability.

Callieri reports directly to Levi’s President and CEO Michelle Gass. “Chris is an industry veteran with an exceptional track record of delivering results at scale who will help us strengthen supply chain agility, drive innovation and advance our sustainability goals,” Gass wrote on LinkedIn.

“I’m thrilled to join LS&Co. at such an exciting time for the iconic Levi’s brand, a true category leader that thrives at the center of culture,” Callieri said in a statement.

It’s possible that Callieri will assume some of the work previously handled by Chief Operating Officer Liz O’Neill, who retired in March. Responsibilities and titles shifted for at least six C-suite roles at the time, including chief product officer and chief commercial officer.

Gass, who has emphasized a direct-to-consumer focus for the blue jeans producer, also praised Callieri’s “focus on driving operational excellence” to make the “supply chain become more tech-savvy, more agile and better able to deliver best-in-class service to our fans and customers worldwide.”

Sourcing drives Levi’s emissions

The denim giant’s sourcing and logistics are central to its net zero aims for 2050. Ninety-nine percent of Levi’s total emissions derive from a supply chain that extends across 30 countries, largely in Asia.

The Science-Based Targets initiative validated the company’s decarbonization goals back in 2018, early for the sector. Levi’s 2024 climate transition plan, issued in October, offered a snapshot, rare in the apparel industry, of its near-term steps toward net zero. Beyond emissions, water and biodiversity strategies are focus areas in Levi’s supply chain.

Brand leadership

Callieri is closing out two years as chief supply chain officer for Victoria’s Secret in New York City, where he oversaw the sourcing of raw materials as well as product development, manufacturing and logistics.

“Transparency is good business — it builds trust, highlights the intentional decisions we make in our product development and demonstrates our suppliers’ commitments to sustainability,” he told Green Retail World in February, referring to the brand’s rollout of Digital Product Passports (DPPs). A QR code on bras allows consumers to open details on a smartphone about the product’s sourcing origins, such as family farms in Alabama.

Before that, Callieri spent four years in the same role at Tory Burch in New York, which included setting and executing sustainability strategy.

He joined the women’s high-end brand after two years as an Adidas senior vice president of product operations. “It’s certainly one of my favorite brands, and a company that takes sustainability very, very seriously,” he said on the Road to Champagne podcast in 2021. Part of the appeal, he said, was the company’s partnership with Parley for the Oceans to use waste plastic for sneaker textiles.

Callieri has spoken of listening to junior members of the team. “Some of us are very results-oriented and you tend to focus on the problem, you tend to focus on what needs to be done,” said Callieri, then at Tory Burch, on the podcast. “If you ignore that human dimension to really understand how everybody’s thinking about it, you will lose some of your effectiveness.”

Sustainability as ‘competitive advantage’

Callieri holds an MBA from Cornell University and a master’s of philosophy in environmental management from University of Cambridge. He was president of the biological society as an undergrad at the University of St. Andrews.

His consulting stints include a gig at sustainability-focused firm ERM in Chile, where he’s from. Later, after moving to Washington, D.C., he held an environmental and social due diligence role at the Inter-American Development Bank before becoming senior vice president at Accenture’s HRC North America. As principal with an apparel and retail focus, he had a chance to build A.T. Kearney’s sustainability practice.

The post Chris Callieri becomes Levi’s chief supply chain officer appeared first on Trellis.