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

Whether companies like to admit it or not, trade rules and sustainability targets are integrated into the same business operations that purchase orders, calendars and factory lines are. They influence the same yarn, fabric, cartons and bookings. So when they’re included in a single operating plan, execution becomes clearer and issues are more easily resolved.

Split them into unrelated sourcing and environmental programs and you pay twice. A tariff change that reroutes a fabric from, say, China to Vietnam, also affects emissions, labor exposure and paperwork. A disclosure rule altering fiber content can trigger origin rules and higher duty rates, as could be the case under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. The levers move together regardless whether you plan for it.

By consolidating operations, sourcing and sustainability into one plan, companies are able to share data, set common milestones and have one bill of materials. If you keep the specifications stable, track changes centrally and document the process as you develop the product, you’ll end up with reduced surprises and lower airfreight costs. 

As you work to devise a streamlined plan, here are five aspects of apparel operations to consider. 

Policy is an operating variable

A tariff isn’t just a footnote; it determines where spinning, knitting, dyeing and sewing take place. Moving production to a different country changes lead times, grid mix, defect risk and vendor reliability. And price is only the beginning of the ripple effect.

When rules change, markets rush toward the same “safe harbor.” Capacity decreases, schedules become unstable and quality declines as overbooked plants spread work across more lines and shifts. In these conditions, emergency freight acts as a pressure valve, but emissions increase in response, as geographic distances could result in a larger carbon footprint.

The lesson: Plan for volatility and don’t just react to it. Double-qualify critical inputs, maintain a second finishing route and keep pre-negotiated terms ready. Clear, predictable rules attract investment and customers; whipsaw policies push those away. Treat policy like weather: always have a Plan B you can execute this quarter, not next year.

Don’t brush off disclosures 

Audits rely on records, not marketing. Indeed, effective business operations mandate lot-level traceability, credible fiber origin and chain-of-custody proof that can withstand sampling. If you can’t provide receipts, process travelers, test results and pack-out records matching the goods, reconstruction will be slow and expensive.

It’s also important to use a single workflow for production, quality and chain of custody. When documentation accompanies the order — from intake to pack-out — the records in the file match the product in the box. If compliance is stored in a separate folder, the trail is already broken.

The lesson: Brands should focus on contracting for evidence rather than marketing claims. Regulators should establish and publish acceptance criteria and identify credible systems across markets. Clear rules and expectations reduce friction and channel capital toward meaningful upgrades, not superficial efforts.

Consider where work happens

Significant supply chain costs lie in energy, process chemistry and logistics, while policy influences all three. Moving the origin alters the grid mix. Tightening origin rules introduces steps that affect transportation and packaging, while changing a dye class affects wastewater and worker exposure.

There’s no “sustainable” country, but there are sustainable networks. The resilient model is a close-knit group of capable partners following standard processes, with automation where it’s effective and measurement that continues nonstop. Documents flow with the shipments. Exceptions are identified early while they’re still inexpensive.

The lesson: Target policies with meaningful outcomes by consistently and digitally verifying renewable energy, wastewater efficiency and worker safety. Reward plants that invest and remain committed to sustainable production. Stop funding constant border-hopping that wastes time, money and credibility.

Be mindful of fibers and the proof gap

Fiber debates — cotton versus polyester, recycled versus virgin, and so forth — stir up controversy when claims exceed reality. Trade rules specify origin, but blends make labeling and duties more complicated. The basic rule is clear: If you can’t prove it, don’t claim it.

That’s why it’s important to reduce variation to make proof repeatable. Standardize blends, dyestuffs and finishes when possible and minimize one-off recipes that require new documentation each season. Fewer, better inputs scale; sprawling menus don’t.

The lesson: Pair traceability tools with a small, trusted group of mills and factories. Complexity is where quality and compliance often break down. Each new variation becomes a failure point and potentially causes a future air shipment delay.

Recognize the cost of chaos 

Late spec changes and last-minute origin flips may seem harmless when planning a new sourcing strategy. In practice, they cause rework, schedule slips and emergency freight. Waste increases, emissions go up and paperwork drifts away from what is actually shipped. The real cost becomes clear weeks later.

Instead, focus on stable programs backed by disciplined change control. Keep core components, such as raw material tracing, constant and run revisions through a formal gate. Use statistical process control at sewing and finishing to catch variations while they’re still fixable. Predictability isn’t boring; it’s a margin.

The lesson: Fewer, larger programs with clear improvement paths outperform many one-off efforts. Predictable processes allow teams to choose slower, more deliberate modes and maintain balanced capacity. Chaos results in freight in the sky and defects in the cartons.

What apparel executives can do now

To make these five aspects of apparel operations more accessible, consider the following:

Consolidate ownership: Assign trade, sustainability and sourcing to a single operating leader responsible for specifications and schedules. Link incentives to three outcomes: on-time ocean departures, landed cost versus planned costs, and clean audits without heroics. When one person owns the system, finger-pointing decreases and speed improves.

Reduce variation: Minimize the number of fabrics, trims and processes used across programs. Standardization decreases documentation errors, stabilizes quality and allows design to concentrate on silhouette and color instead of re-engineering chemistry each season. The result is fewer surprises and quicker approvals.

Buy evidence once: Replace patchwork spreadsheets with a single workflow that captures production data, quality control checks and custody records at each handoff. When the trail is integrated into the process, “prove it” becomes a matter of searching, not a crisis situation. Your most trustworthy sustainability message is accurate paperwork that withstands sampling.

Pre-wire options: Use dual-source critical yarns, qualify a second dyehouse and map out tariff scenarios so product and paperwork move together when rules change. Keep commercial terms ready to avoid the need for a new legal review under pressure. Optionality is cheapest when implemented early.

Measure what matters: Track on-time ocean rate, rework percentage, airfreight incidents and audit exceptions. Improve these quarter by quarter, and the rest, such as cost, carbon and credibility, will follow. These four metrics show whether integration is real or just for show.

The through-line

Trade and sustainability are the same production reality seen from different desks. Plan them together, and you avoid duplicate spending, cut down on last-minute fixes and build a supply base that keeps its promises.

Perform the unglamorous work diligently. Use stable specifications, dependable partners, clear documentation and ensure the results appear where they matter most. Fewer line stops, fewer delays, steadier profit margins and goods arriving as scheduled.

That’s the standard. If your process can pass a random Tuesday sampling audit and stay on track, the system works. If not, fix the system — not the story.

The post 5 ways to streamline sustainable apparel operations in a time of tariffs appeared first on Trellis.

BioFluff, which makes plant-based “fur” for jackets and stuffed animals, named as interim CEO Luke Henning, chairman of the company’s board since 2023. He comes from Circ, a textile-to-textile recycler making headway among apparel brands.

Henning joins BioFluff, headquartered in Paris and New York City, as it pursues $2.5 million in pre-Series A funding. The small, 3-year-old company has grand ambitions to displace traditional, high-carbon materials for apparel and toys with alternatives made with hemp, nettles and flax.

“Their mission of no animals, no oil, no compromise, I find inspiring,” Henning told Trellis. “BioFluff has the potential to not only reduce the demand for specially farmed fur animals but also the amount of oil we use for fur alternatives.”

BioFluff has raised over $3 million, last in 2023 with a seed round of $2.5 million led by Brussels-based B Corporation Astanor Ventures.

“I couldn’t have asked for a better partner in the journey to revolutionize the textile industry in fashion, interior and toys,” wrote BioFluff Co-founder and Chief Commercial Officer Roni Gamzon on LinkedIn on Oct. 17.

From polycotton to ‘comfort materials’

With Henning as chief business officer of Circ for a dozen years, the Danville, Virginia, company built up partnerships including with H&M, Zara and Birla Cellulose, drawn in part for Circ’s capability to recycle polyester as well as wood- or plant-based materials. As Henning led collaborations with brands and other partners, Circ in January kicked off the Fiber Club partnership with Fashion for Good and Canopy to advance circular materials. Eileen Fisher, Everlane, Bestseller and Arvind are also involved.

“My experience in scaling sustainable hard tech, focused on sustainable textiles, translates well to this next stage of growth at BioFluff,” said Henning. “My network includes many of the parties that BioFluff is already connected to and some beyond.”

Henning succeeds CEO Martin Stübler, a BioFluff co-founder who left in August for an undisclosed startup.

“Luke Henning has gained the admiration of clients, investors and supply chain in his previous roles,” said Paul Foulkes-Arellano, founder of Circuthon Consulting in London and an original investor in BioFluff. “He knows exactly how to charm investors, build supply chain contracts and bring the world’s biggest brands on board.”

A plush market

BioFluff is among the early players seeking to scale sustainable “comfort materials,” which it sources and makes in Europe without toxic chemicals or genetic modifications.

The company’s Savian “fur” has appeared in a handbag by Ganni of Denmark and a fuzzy coat by Stella McCartney. The $543 billion market for non-animal fur will rise to $1,831 billion by 2032, according to Maximize Market Research.

BioFluff’s BioPlush material would enter a stuffed toys market set to expand from $11.8 billion in 2023 to $20 billion in 2030, according to Grand View Research. The company is also eyeing the home interiors market.

Dual master’s degrees

For eight years, Henning was a senior manager at KPMG Financial Risk Management in Cape Town.

While finishing an MBA at the University of Oxford, he helped to found a seed fund for student and alumni startups. Henning also holds a master’s in financial management from the University of Cape Town, after completing his undergraduate work at the University of Pretoria.

“While I never say never, my focus is closing the funding and seeking the best candidate for the role of full time CEO,” Henning said.

The post Circ’s Luke Henning to lead plush-material startup BioFluff appeared first on Trellis.

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

AI’s energy use and carbon emissions are a red-hot topic in the climate space these days. The collision between AI and climate goals will be one of the defining corporate challenges of the next decade. And Salesforce — one of tech’s most visible sustainability champions — sits squarely at the center of that tension. 

Salesforce has been outspoken about its ESG commitments for years. But as the business capitalizes on the AI revolution, its sustainability program will continue to contend with the environmental side effects of AI. The evolving strategy, highlighted recently in the Chasing Net Zero series, captures a broader question facing every company today: Can climate progress keep pace with technological disruption? 

Just three years ago, Salesforce made headlines for entering the carbon credit business, with Christiana Figueres, former UN climate chief, leading the crowd in chants of “Climate neutral now!” at the launch event. In those days, corporate climate goals were borne out of the enthusiasm that companies’ actions and investments could contribute significantly toward reaching the Paris Agreement goal to reduce global emissions by half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050.

Today, corporate targets and reality are diverging from those goals, not converging. The cracks in the model show up in every sector, from industrials to cosmetics. But the massive impact of energy demand from AI on the tech sectors’ emissions may be the most visible stress test of Paris-aligned reduction frameworks.

Moving the goalposts

As companies reengineer their net zero commitments, a fundamental question emerges: should advocates demand that business adapt to the targets, or accept targets that adapt to the business?

At issue in the case of Salesforce is what might be called the “intensity loophole.” For years, standard-setters have grappled with how to create a framework that leaves room for fast-growing companies whose emissions keep rising in absolute terms. Small, disruptive businesses should be afforded room to grow their emissions, the logic goes, so they have the chance to improve on the status quo — and to unseat high-emitting legacy companies?

In the early days of target-setting, most companies set absolute reduction goals, because intensity targets were seen as lower ambition. But as companies miss their targets, Salesforce and many others have moved the goalposts — either by dropping net zero altogether or by reshaping their targets to fit the business.

Just look at Salesforce’s annual impact synopses. Like most sustainability reports, they offer a blend of high level principles, long range targets and numeric ESG disclosures. The narrative describes a range of activities, but offers concrete numbers on the amount of investment and expected GHG benefits of their initiatives in only a few cases.

This makes it hard to tell if today’s actions will deliver on tomorrow’s promises. Broad concepts such as “business resilience” would carry more weight if paired with concrete data showing how specific mitigation projects are expected to yield emission reductions.

Standard setters have enabled this imprecision. Businesses undertake significant changes such as mergers and product launches much faster than the standards can adapt. Growth and governance operate on different clocks.

Intensity data isn’t a climate metric

To stabilize the climate, total global emissions must decrease. Only by reducing overall emissions can Salesforce and other companies contribute meaningfully to net zero progress. And intensity metrics make it hard to tell whether this is happening.

By adopting an intensity-based approach, Salesforce is using gross profit to normalize its emissions data. Other companies that track GHG intensity use metrics such as revenues, employees, units sold or the number of SKUs. Changes in non-climate metrics can easily create noise in the data. An intensity metric based on gross profit, for example, can improve if a company raises its prices – an action that has no bearing on global greenhouse gas emissions.

The real value of intensity metrics is as a management tool to push teams to deliver more output with less carbon. They can drive efficiency and creativity, but they fall short as a measure of global climate progress.

Risks in the ‘spheres of influence’ era

As the Salesforce profile notes, the company intends to tackle its AI emissions growth by achieving efficiencies in data center contracting and by setting standards and targets for suppliers. This is part of a broader trend across large, complex multinationals. Five years ago, companies were laying out targets to reduce Scope 3 emissions. But today’s supply chains are optimized for costs, not carbon — making Scope 3 emissions a wicked problem. Now, companies are replacing hard targets with intentions to influence their suppliers.

The rise of the “influence era” is evident in Oxford’s new Spheres of Influence framework, which seeks to systematically credit companies for their sway over others. It credits the effects of companies’ products, investments and policy advocacy, which are overlooked by traditional GHG accounting frameworks. The Spheres model is not meant to replace action, but to acknowledge that companies shape climate outcomes well beyond their Scopes 1, 2 and 3.

This shift broadens the definition of corporate climate leadership, but it also tempts companies such as Salesforce to highlight influence over impact — and to narrate progress without funding it. And in the worst cases, when companies exert influence rather than investment, the emissions reductions can be pushed down the supply chain, where the costs land on the world’s most vulnerable workers, who are least able to absorb them.

An unsteady bargain

Pressure from investors, employees and advocates has made companies aware that they are expected to pick up some of the responsibility for achieving net zero by mid-century. The groundswell of target-setting suggested that companies had accepted this responsibility.

The case of Salesforce shows that the bargain with companies is an unsteady one. And the lesson for advocates is clear: Climate targets offer a false sense of security. Far from being firm commitments on the path to net zero, more and more targets seem quaint aspirations. And if they are replaced by intensity-based alternatives, it could mask the uncomfortable truth that absolute emissions are still rising — and net zero is still far away.

The post The problem with Salesforce’s new climate math appeared first on Trellis.

The global effort to decarbonize maritime shipping and reduce value-chain emissions stalled this week after intense lobbying from the U.S. forced negotiators to delay a decision on a net-zero plan for the industry.

Proponents of the plan had gone into a meeting of the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) with cautious optimism. Earlier this year, nations agreed to set steadily increasing emissions-intensity limits on vessels under the IMO’s Net Zero Framework. Owners of large vessels would have been required to cut emissions by as much as 43 percent by 2035, compared to a 2008 baseline. The framework was hailed as the first time an industry would be so regulated at a global level.

The IMO meeting was expected to adopt the plan then move to implementation, but support drained away after the U.S. threatened to impose tariffs, visa restrictions and port levies on countries that backed the plan. On Friday, the nations voted to postpone a decision for a year.

‘Unprecedented effort’

“During the past three days, an unprecedented U.S.-led effort to block a global agreement has culminated in multiple spontaneous proposals, and intense pressure both on and out of the floor,” said Alison Shaw, IMO manager at Transport & Environment, a nonprofit with offices in multiple European countries. “It is a clear effort to enact climate denialism, undo years of constructive negotiation and abandon the very targets the IMO has set for itself.” 

The decision will slow efforts by companies to reduce shipping emissions, which form a significant part of Scope 3 inventories, particularly for retailers and consumer packaged goods businesses. Maritime shipping accounted for around 2.5 percent of IKEA’s value-chain emissions in 2024, for instance. The company is aiming to purchase only zero-emissions ocean transport services by 2040.

“This is a loss of momentum for the shipping industry’s efforts to decarbonize,” said a spokesperson for Maersk, which operates more than 700 container vessels on routes between 130 countries.

Currently, companies intent on tackling these emissions rely on a patchwork of initiatives including Katalist, a “book and claim” platform that allows them to support and take credit for purchases of low-carbon maritime fuels, such as ammonia and methanol. Members include Amazon, IKEA, Levi Strauss, Mondelez International and Patagonia.

That project and others continue, but spread of the new technologies will be far slower in the absence of the rules the framework would have imposed. 

“We are in a very early part of a transition, and more than 99% of maritime transport is still powered by fossil fuels,” said Jesse Fahnestock, director of decarbonization at the Global Maritime Forum, a non-profit that partners with shipping companies. “So to get alternative fuels and the vessels that can use them out there, the regulatory framework is a hugely important lever.”

Talks continue

Despite the pressure from the U.S. and others, nations agreed to delay rather than scrap the framework altogether. Fahnestock noted that because the proposal is still live, discussions about the details of implementation scheduled over the next 12 months may continue as planned.

“Our impression is that the how of the framework is going to continue,” he said. Talks will focus on which fuels qualify as lower-carbon, rules for life-cycle analysis of the fuels and how proceeds credits, which vessel owners can use to meet missed targets, will be distributed.

Still, standing in the way of an agreement is the world’s largest economy. In a joint statement issued last week, U.S. secretaries for state, energy and transportation said they were considering sanctions against officials from countries that support the IMO framework and blocking vessels registered in those countries from U.S. ports.

The post U.S. lobbying stalls plan to transition maritime shipping to net zero appeared first on Trellis.

Of the 917 bills that reached California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk over the past month, 794 were signed into law.

His decisions related to energy and environmental impacts reflect contrasts. For instance, he continued the state’s cap-and-trade program while green-lighting new oil drilling and rejecting virtual power plant advancement.

As for supply chains, the passage of a requirement for companies to disclose heavy metals in prenatal vitamins contrasts with rejected proposals to ban forever chemicals in cookware and plastic glitter in personal care products. 

Here are the key new laws, as well as legislation that perished by Newsom’s pen.

Signed into law

Heavy metals disclosure: In 2027, prenatal vitamin purveyors will have to detail how much lead, cadmium, mercury or arsenic appear in their supplements under Senate Bill 646, which passed without opposition. A similar metals disclosure law for baby food went into effect in January.

“Cap and invest”: Newsom refreshed California’s existing cap-and-trade program through 2045. Funds enabled by Assembly Bill 1207 and Senate Bill 840 are meant to help efforts that include high-speed rail and wildfire prevention.

Drill, baby drill? Many environmentalists decried Senate Bill 237, which eases the approval of up to 2,000 oil wells in Kern County in the south of the state, purportedly to stabilize gasoline supplies.

Carbon capture win: Senate Bill 614 creates a regulatory structure for developing underground storage and pipelines for captured carbon dioxide, ending a moratorium. It’s seen as a boost for the growing carbon capture and storage industry.

Regional power: As the federal government decimates previous support for renewable energy projects, California is expanding its role within a regional power market. Assembly Bill 825 enables the state to trade more clean energy with other Western states.

Small solar boon: Under Assembly Bill 1104, small and midsize solar developers will no longer be considered “public works” organizations, sparing them red tape around labor rules. 

Electrification plans: Assembly Bill 39 requires towns above 75,000 people to detail how they will electrify buildings and EV charging systems, especially in underserved communities. 

Breakthrough for in-state glass: In a challenged market for recycled glass, Assembly Bill 899 updates California’s Beverage Container Recycling law to let CalRecycle pay higher incentives to in-state manufacturers that use recycled glass. 

Vetoed

Forever chemicals stay: Senate Bill 682 sought to restrict harmful perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in pots and pans as well as dental floss and food packaging. Newsom said the bill would harm low-income shoppers. Concerns about toxic cookware became a flashpoint last year after a scare over fireproofing chemicals in black plastic spatulas.

No-go on glitter ban: Assembly Bill 823 would have expanded the 2015 Plastic Microbeads Nuisance Law to block the sale of personal care and cleaning products containing glitter, which pollute waterways. Newsom nixed it, stating that “it may incidentally result in a prohibition on biodegradable or natural alternatives.”

RIP to VPPs: Three separate bills would have advanced virtual power plants (VPPs)— which combine distributed sources of energy, such as electric car batteries and solar panels — to shore up the state’s electrical grid. Newsom said no to all of them, citing complications with existing state rules and programs.

Thirsty data centers spared: Assembly Bill 93 would have required California to check water consumption by fast-growing data centers. But Newsom said he was “reluctant to impose rigid reporting requirements about operational details on this sector without understanding the full impact on business and the consumers of their technology.”

The post California’s new laws include climate and consumer wins — and setbacks appeared first on Trellis.