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

The post-World War II architecture of international cooperation is eroding. Multilateral institutions have weakened, nationalist sentiment is surging and superpowers are wielding markets as geopolitical weapons. The world has moved from bi/unipolar dominance to a massively splintered multipolar world. For multinational corporations, this creates a fundamental challenge: How do you execute coherent ESG and DEI strategies when the global frameworks that supported them are fragmenting?

The traditional global sustainability playbook assumed relatively stable international norms, such as aligned carbon accounting standards, converging labor protections and coordinated trade rules. That assumption no longer holds. Instead of navigating a coherent global framework, businesses face contradictory requirements across dozens of jurisdictions, diverging stakeholder expectations and the absence of clear international standards to point to as validation.

This fragmentation demands strategic adaptation. The question isn’t whether to maintain ESG and DEI commitments (the business case remains compelling), but how to execute them effectively when the connective tissue of international cooperation has frayed. What worked in a multilateral world won’t work in a fragmented one.

5 strategic shifts for a fragmented world

1. From compliance arbitrage to principled consistency

Fragmentation creates tempting opportunities: comply minimally in each jurisdiction, exploit regulatory gaps and play governments against each other. To be sure, some companies will take this approach, but this short-term opportunism is strategically foolish.

The smarter approach is principled consistency: choosing high standards and applying them globally, even where not legally required. For example, one company we worked with used Principle 10 (anti-corruption) of the United Nations Global Compact to justify why it couldn’t pay “facilitation payments” to local officials, reducing costs and risk without offending those with the power to limit market access.

2. From rule-taker to rule-shaper

Traditionally, businesses were largely rule-takers — complying with standards set by governments and multilateral bodies. While many private entities sought to influence policy, and still do, governments set the rules. However, as many governments increasingly ignore scientific and stakeholder consensus, businesses — the most trusted social actor in much of the world — are becoming de facto standard-setters.

This shift creates responsibility and opportunity. The responsibility: Recognize that your standards shape stakeholder and market expectations, whether you intend them to or not. The opportunity: Participate actively in industry-led standard-setting rather than waiting for governmental guidelines that may never come.

Strategic action means joining or forming industry consortia that maintain common standards even as governments diverge. It means investing in sector-specific standards organizations and recognizing that business has moved from the sidelines to the playing field in global governance.

3. From stakeholder management to stakeholder navigation

The multilateral era offered a simplifying assumption: Stakeholder expectations would gradually converge around international norms. European standards would influence global practice. Labor protections would harmonize upward. ESG frameworks would align.

Fragmentation destroys this assumption. Now firms face stakeholders with fundamentally contradictory expectations: investors demanding ESG commitments versus politicians attacking “woke capitalism”; European customers expecting aggressive climate action versus American jurisdictions penalizing fossil-fuel divestment; human rights advocates demanding supply-chain transparency versus governments restricting data flows.

Strategic navigation requires several capabilities:

• Understand stakeholder expectations geographically and ideologically: “Investors” aren’t a monolithic category — different groups have divergent ESG priorities that may be irreconcilable. Practice principled consistency. 
• Communicate the business case relentlessly: In a politicized environment, framing ESG initiatives as business imperatives rather than social commitments provides insulation from ideological attacks. Lead with the advantages for talent acquisition, risk management, operational efficiency and market access.
• Make strategic choices about which battles to fight: Not every stakeholder expectation can or should be met. Saying no remains one of the most difficult things to do in the ESG space, as it often means saying no to an issue or activity that’s important. Open and honest conversation about decision-making is key.
• Build coalitions of aligned stakeholders: When expectations fragment, assembling employees, investors, customers and suppliers who share priorities creates a counterweight to opposing pressures.

4. From risk mitigation to resilience building

Traditional ESG strategy treated geopolitical fragmentation as a risk to be mitigated — something temporary that would eventually resolve. This was always optimistic. Now it’s strategic malpractice.

Fragmentation isn’t a temporary disruption to be weathered. It’s the operating environment for the foreseeable future. Strategy must shift from hoping governments restore rational policies to building resilience for operating effectively within a fragmented system. Adaptive companies will:

• Diversify supply chains to account for regulatory divergence: The chain should account for both geographic and regulatory diversification — ensuring you can serve markets with contradictory requirements without rebuilding your entire operation.
• Plan scenarios that treat fragmentation as a baseline: Most corporate scenario planning still treats multilateral cooperation as the central case with fragmentation as downside risk. Invert this. Plan for continued fragmentation with occasional coordination as an upside surprise.
• Structure your organization to enable regional adaptation within global frameworks: Fragmentation makes the “think global, act local” challenge more acute. You need global standards (for efficiency and brand consistency) and regional flexibility (for regulatory compliance and stakeholder engagement).
• Invest in knowledge infrastructure: Understanding diverging regulatory requirements, tracking contradictory stakeholder expectations and maintaining situational awareness across fragmented markets requires dedicated intelligence capabilities that many organizations lack.

5. From passive participation to active investment

Many business leaders are reluctant to accept this strategic truth: Global cooperation frameworks are public goods that businesses rely on but are currently underfunded.

Multilateral institutions, international standard-setting bodies, cross-border governance initiatives, trade frameworks — these create the predictability, stability and common language that enable global business. As governments retreat their funding and participation, these mechanisms weaken. And as they weaken, the operating environment for global business becomes more costly, complex and risky.

Strategic response requires active investment — with money, political capital and executive attention — in maintaining and rebuilding international cooperation mechanisms. The payoff isn’t immediate or easily measurable. But neither is investment in R&D, brand building or talent development. All are investments in capabilities that compound over time.

A framework for execution: Fit, commit, manage, connect

These five strategic shifts require systematic execution. IMPACT ROI’s framework, developed over a decade ago and recently updated, offers an effective approach for translating ESG strategy into operational reality.

Fit: Requires an honest assessment of where ESG initiatives align with core business strategy and competitive advantage. In a fragmented world, this becomes more complex, but the discipline remains essential: Not every company should pursue every initiative.

Commit: Embed priorities into performance management, capital allocation, risk frameworks and strategic planning. Without real commitment measured in dollars and executive action, initiatives remain peripheral — and fragmentation makes peripheral initiatives impossible to execute.

Manage: Build systems, metrics and accountability mechanisms with rigor. Fragmentation increases execution complexity, making disciplined management more important, not less.

Connect: Link internal and external stakeholders, break down silos and build partnerships. In a fragmenting world, connection becomes the countervailing force — the deliberate construction of collaboration where structural forces push toward isolation.

The organizations that adapt their ESG strategies for today’s fragmented reality will thrive. Those that cling to strategies designed for a multilateral world will find themselves increasingly unable to compete.

The post Rethinking corporate citizenship in 2026 as globalization wanes appeared first on Trellis.

Schneider Electric has been on a roll, entering into partnerships to help corporations rid supply chains of oil and natural gas. The latest is with Marks & Spencer, the 141-year-old London retailer.

The RE:Spark program, announced Nov. 19, involves aggregated clean-energy purchases paired with advisory services, regional support and tracking software.

Schneider teamed up with Levi’s on the similar LEAP program, announced Sept. 23. Schneider, based in a Paris suburb, has applied the model to other industries, including its Energize program for healthcare, Catalyze for the semiconductor industry and REnew with PepsiCo.

“By acting as a facilitator, we can help our suppliers build networks and resilience for the long term — sparking a movement of change across the industry and beyond,” stated Katharine Beacham, Marks & Spencer’s head of sustainability and materials in fashion, home and beauty.

Marks & Spencer holds a net zero goal for 2040, validated by the Science-Based Targets initiative, which hinges upon its thousands of global suppliers. All but 5 percent of its overall emissions stem from Scope 3, including purchased goods and services. The retailer in May reported 9 percent annual business growth and a 6 percent rise in emissions.

Steve Wilhite, executive vice president of Schneider Electric Advisory Services, in a statement called RE:Spark an example of “how collaboration can drive scalable, impactful change across global supply chains.”

Marks & Spencer has been working since 2023 with the nonprofit Apparel Impact Institute’s Carbon Leadership Program. It offers a toolkit for driving down emissions among 45 of the company’s mills. Last year the retailer sponsored 24 suppliers to engage in the nonprofit’s Carbon Target Monitoring project for additional support.

The RE:Spark initiative with Schneider indicates a deepened commitment by Marks & Spencer to supplier-level decarbonization. It enables companies to pool their demand for Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), giving smaller firms a chance to access renewable electricity that would otherwise be hard to obtain.

Help for smaller suppliers

Ceres’ Company Network Senior Director Mary Ann Ormond called the effort encouraging. “The most impactful approach to this work combines access to diverse renewable electricity options in key markets — especially for smaller suppliers — with investments in supplier success through favorable pricing and financing terms,” she said.

In addition, the partnership may be a template for other brands or retailers. “Companies are also leveraging collaboration with their sector peers to further accelerate uptake,” Ormond said.

The software for RE:Spark is based on Schneider’s Zeigo Hub, launched in July. Suppliers submit data there, enabling companies to set targets and track suppliers individually.

The involvement by a retailer to help numerous vendors phase out fossil fuels is unique. Some of the earliest efforts in this space are by brands, such as H&M Group’s heat battery initiative. 

Everlane, Reformation and Eileen Fisher are the latest latest brands to join with the Apparel Impact Institute to electrify their supply chains. The nonprofit asks brands to contribute $10 million toward its $250 million Fashion Climate Fund to help suppliers execute their low-carbon transitions.

The post Schneider, Marks & Spencer team up on supply chain decarbonization appeared first on Trellis.

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

Manufacturing is in the headlines, both as a major goal of current U.S. policy and a point of competitive tension with China. It’s a surreal moment, which could be summarized as the world’s biggest consumer picking a fight with the world’s biggest producer. 

In 2024, America exported $140 billion of goods to China, while China exported $440 billion of goods to the U.S. One doesn’t sensibly pick a fight with their biggest customer. Instead of counterpunching, China has worked to address any structural weaknesses it could find to minimize the damage if its relationship to its biggest customer were to change. 

While the current U.S. policy direction suggests that green technologies are a scam that force more expensive and unproven technology into the market, China is demonstrating that green technology is a huge boost to economic growth. This is evidenced by its dominance in solar, battery and EV technology in global markets — a point that became clear during COP30 in Brazil earlier this month. 

Automaker BYD, for example, is building an EV plant larger than the entire city of San Francisco and seven times larger than the biggest Tesla gigafactory. Green manufacturing isn’t a dead end; it’s a huge economic boom. But it’s not happening here.

How we got here

The economic order since the fall of the Berlin wall has been one of ever-expanding international trade and rising prominence of multinational corporations. Military conflicts have been more regional (as opposed to global), and most international competition moved into the economic sphere. While any system has room for critique, the economic efficiencies that came from global production both provided cheaper goods and a reason for ongoing international cooperation. 

This approach was very good for business, and generally good for world peace. What it was less good at was guaranteeing jobs in any specific country, as global trade also meant the ability to offshore labor at lower costs. Some industries and national policies advanced their manufacturing with technology, which drove more productivity and sustained living wages even at the higher cost of living in industrialized nations.

Still, over the past two decades, domestic manufacturers have steadily ceded market share to imports: U.S. producers now supply roughly two-thirds of the home market for manufactured goods, down from more than three-quarters in the early 2000s, a shift worth on the order of $600 billion–$750 billion in annual sales now captured by factories overseas. At the same time, a growing reshoring push and “make it here” industrial policies show just how eager voters, workers and local leaders are to bring more of that production back onto domestic ground.

My venture firm invests in deep tech for productivity improvements to the industrial sector that also bring along massive ecological improvements — so I have a front row seat to the effort to “bring back manufacturing” to America. We’ve set up several new manufacturing facilities in the U.S. in the past five years and for a time, those production lines were humming. But now, thanks to recent policies, the U.S. is one of the worst places to manufacture in the world. 

Tariffs have crippled U.S. manufacturing

Tariffs aren’t categorically a bad thing. When used wisely, along with thoughtful investments in education, infrastructure and cultural incentives, they can bring valuable industries back into domestic production. But there’s a bad way to implement them and the worst way to use tariffs, which is what’s happening now: to have them be unstable, large and arbitrary. 

The instability actively punishes folks setting up manufacturing domestically because they cannot predict input costs, nor the cost of production equipment. If your team was waiting on best-in-class equipment to arrive from Germany or Japan the same week that a 50 percent tariff is imposed broadly on those nations, then you may have just accidentally bankrupted the effort, as capital expenditure costs are huge project budget line items. 

Almost no country except China has the luxury of sourcing its entire supply chain within their borders. So when tariffs are imposed on inputs, the cost of domestic production can go up to the point where it is no longer workable. 

When tariffs are unstable, they don’t encourage investment, because bold moves that set up new production could accidentally kill your business. 

When tariffs are large, they create expensive discoordination arising from having to halt production or re-route sourcing to new vendors in other geographies to get you back to gross margin positive while you incur costs from supply chain delays and production uncertainty. 

When tariffs are arbitrary, one cannot predict whether your government is wanting to support your industry or abandon it. This makes life harder for investors, business leaders and entrepreneurs that are the main personnel that establish domestic production.

Getting back on track

If you live in a higher-income nation, the operating band for labor costs will be higher than labor costs in lower-income ones. Given this, the labor cost disadvantage either needs to be made up for via higher individual productivity, which lowers labor cost fraction per unit, or you need to make higher-quality goods that command enough margin to justify the higher labor costs. 

In either case, you need a highly skilled workforce appropriately trained for better productivity or exceptional craft that improves product quality. 

To get here, a thoughtful approach for governments would be to lower the cost and improve the quality of educational options — from advanced degrees and four-year universities to trade schools and support of regional craft guilds and maker communities. The people, places and tools that enable mass-upskilling need to be well-resourced and respected. 

In other words, you’ll need to pay teachers more. (Which, if you’re counting, would be another source of meaningful work.) While these adjustments may sound expensive and time-consuming, in countries where they have been applied, the efforts have shown fantastic ROI. Beyond education and re-skilling, infrastructure investments in roads, bridges and ports, lower-cost energy, and clear labor laws that simplify bringing the best talent are all huge boosts to establishing robust industry.

Tariffs can positively contribute to this effort if they are stable, low and principled. 

A 5 to 10 percent tariff that is stable for 10 years provides enough time for new manufacturing to be established. It also signals to the workforce that those industries will likely be growing and that engaging in re-skilling into that industry is a worthwhile career investment. 

When tariffs are low, it also means that when they eventually expire, the country maintains an industrial base that can still produce near the globally competitive costs. This greatly strengthens the likelihood of strong export markets making use of that newly developed production capacity.

The good news is that we know where to put our attention and investment, if the intent is more manufacturing skill: education, infrastructure, social respect and low-intensity, time-stable tariffs (if needed). The countries that do this well will pull ahead in the coming decades and become net drivers and suppliers of the waves of economic transformation to come.

The post The green manufacturing boom is happening. Just not here appeared first on Trellis.

Fears that activewear sheds plastics that penetrate the skin are giving people new reason to sweat over working out. Responsive entrepreneurs now advertise leggings, tanks and sports bras as “nontoxic,” “clean” and “safe.” They tout gym- and trail-ready garments made of merino wool, cotton, mulberry silk, bamboo and hemp.

However, these materials alone can’t smooth curves or hug muscles through squats and sun salutations; only synthetics achieve that coveted stretch factor. So companies quietly blend natural fibers with elastane (also known as spandex), nylon or polyester.

Activewear brands find themselves in a paradox: touting images of fresh-air lifestyles while they produce clothes from petrochemicals that feed the climate crisis and pollute the planet.

Changing that requires formulating stretchy materials with proven performance, sustainable origins and lower end-of-life impacts. It’s a big challenge, said Marcian Lee, an analyst with Lux Research: “I don’t think we have a perfect solution that satisfies all three of these considerations,” he said.

Enter Äktiiv

One Nike veteran is determined to clean up athletic wear with his Äktiiv brand. Tim Gobet spends about $27 to make a pair of $100 leggings — not a high enough margin for larger brands, he said. The materials are certified nontoxic, mixing plant fibers and fewer oil-based inputs than standard fare.

Portland-based Äktiiv is in a pre-profit growth phase. It has raised under a million dollars, with a chunk from former Nike co-worker Jeffrey Jordan — son of NBA legend Michael.

Gobet manages suppliers, designs garments and juggles ads on Meta while his wife, Paulina, handles fulfillment. And their kids help move inventory through their Beaverton, Oregon, garage. In the past 90 days, customers spent an average of $152, and two-thirds returned to buy more. Gross revenues are at six figures each month.

Äktiiv ads

Source: Aktiiv / Trellis

How it started

Gobet’s 15-year career at Nike included leading the Jordan Brand, which topped $3 billion in sales when he left in 2017. He helped the corporation launch its first recycled polyester-spandex base layers for pro athletes for the 2016 Rio Olympics.

Yet Gobet was troubled by the industry’s hunger for virgin petroleum fabrics. “My materials developers started bringing alternatives: ‘Hey, this is made from recycled plastic.’ ‘Hey, this is made from corn input,’” he said. “My mind was like, ‘Why aren’t we using this anyway?’”

He soon caught entrepreneurial fever. “I quickly realized, we need to zig while everyone else is zagging,” Gobet said. “My goal was to create truly high performance, buttery-soft fabric that feels and looks like what is toxic but is good for the planet and good for health.”

First, he co-launched Zenkai Apparel with former NHL player Doug Lynch. Then Gobet moved on to start Äktiiv in 2020, hitting early snags with COVID-19 shutdowns and technical challenges.

“For two years, not a single supplier could get it right,” Gobet said. Then a former Nike materials developer quickly figured out how to blend Äktiiv’s proprietary Proterra fabric from three types of yarn.

Gobet found a partner in Sabrina Fashion Industrial. The Taipei company, which also serves major brands, knits and dyes Äktiiv’s material, then cuts and sews styles in Cambodia.

A Kickstarter campaign in 2022 raised $27,026 for Äktiiv, which made its first sale in 2023.

Other anti-plastic activewear

Source: Aktiiv / Trellis

What’s in the fabric

Äktiiv’s Proterra fabric combines 42 percent petroleum-free nylon from castor beans or corn. Forty percent comes from a nylon 6,6 strain that biodegrades faster than traditional nylon. The final 18 percent is Roica V550 yarn, the only Cradle to Cradle Gold elastane.

All of Äktiiv’s yarns are OEKO-TEX 100 certified for “baby-safe” toxicity limits. Äktiiv tests the finished fabric, a step that other brands skip, according to Gobet. The company advertises clothes free of bisphenol A, per- and polyfluoroalkyl “forever chemicals,” azo dyes, phthalates or formaldehyde.

The tradeoffs

Äktiiv’s solution isn’t perfect: One yarn is fossil-fuel-free but doesn’t biodegrade. The other two may degrade quickly in landfills or oceans but are petroleum-based.

Gobet still dreams of finding a “holy grail” of biodegradable, plant-based activewear. “Both halves of the equation already exist,” he said. 

Meanwhile, he is thinking about how to help the industry complete that calculation, possibly by sharing learnings or launching an industry collaboration.

Every alternative to regular elastane comes with trade-offs on performance, price, scalability and recyclability, according to Bonie Shupe, founder of Rewildist, a sustainable apparel consultancy in Colorado. “Transparency is essential as the industry transitions.”

Äktiiv faces a circularity dilemma, too: As yet, mainstream technologies can’t recycle textile blends such as Proterra, even as startups compete to change that.

Toxic matters

Äktiiv is seizing on increasingly popular consumer suspicions, based on recent science, that tight, plastic-fiber clothes hurt their health.

Studies show that skin can absorb certain plastics, but it’s unclear if that’s even harmful or if clothing is a culprit. Plastic in arteries is associated with a higher heart attack risk, but does plastic easily migrate into the bloodstream from the skin?

For Gobet, Äktiiv’s chemical-safety certifications provide a competitive advantage and peace of mind. “I’m still not comfortable putting untested synthetic fabrics on people’s skin for hours a day, during workouts when pores are open and sweat glands are active,” he said.

Gobet worries that mainstream brands selling synthetics will face new risks if future research confirms consumers’ fears. “If it turns out we were overly cautious? Great.”

The post Former Nike insider challenges activewear’s plastic playbook appeared first on Trellis.

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

With financial accountability for net-zero targets in the spotlight, the time has come for carbon pricing to reach its full catalytic potential. Done well, carbon pricing has the potential to rewrite incentives and motivate governments, corporations and individuals to be more responsible for their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The elegance of carbon pricing is that it provides a common denominator for GHG liabilities and investments. Carbon pricing enjoys broad, active promotion from decarbonization advocates across the political spectrum — more than some climate policies such as clean-energy or electric vehicle tax credits — and widespread use in the oil and gas sector. With fairly steady support over the years, carbon pricing has grown steadily since 2005, according to the World Bank’s annual roundup. Almost one-third of all global emissions are covered by a carbon price.

Moreover, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) recently released its next discussion draft for the Corporate Net Zero Standard that included its first carbon pricing mechanism. Optional until 2035 and mandatory thereafter, the carbon price would mobilize more climate finance to address “ongoing” carbon emissions. 

Carbon pricing has had durable appeal, but could create a bigger impact in the years ahead. Here are three ways to unlock that potential and mobilize significant climate transition funding.

Tackle the terminology

Most of the World Bank’s report focuses on government policies for carbon pricing. In contrast, a report from the University of Oxford proposes that companies can use internal carbon pricing as a tool “for managing climate risk, incentivizing low-carbon investment, and preparing for emerging regulatory requirements.”

The difference and overlap between these two spheres are complex. One key to scaling outcomes from carbon pricing will be to resolve persistent confusion in the terminology, to disentangle the policy tools from voluntary measures and distinguish strong initiatives from weaker ones.

In practice, the term “carbon pricing” is used as a catch-all, because all carbon pricing initiatives share the goal of internalizing the external costs of GHG emissions. But a regional emissions trading scheme is vastly different from a corporate carbon price. In the simplest applications, carbon pricing is a symbolic and optional guidepost for budgeting decisions. In the strongest cases, it generates measurable financial flows from GHG emitters into decarbonization projects.

Words do matter and carbon pricing needs labels that distinguish one structure from the others. In the case of corporate carbon pricing, the persistent ambiguity lets companies blur the line between promises and progress. It risks letting businesses sound ambitious — claiming they are climate champions because they use carbon pricing — even if they have yet to invest a single dollar in solutions.

Apply it in value chains

Internal carbon pricing makes companies four times more likely to have climate transition plans in place, according to research from non-profit organization CDP. Big name brands and major buyers can use carbon pricing to underpin transition plans for their direct emissions as well as for their value chain climate initiatives, which are key to cracking the Scope 3 puzzle. 

Carbon pricing can create better understanding and alignment of goals up and down the value chain. Large buyers, for example, can establish a pathway for suppliers to slowly phase in carbon pricing, and offer pooled resources and practical implementation guidance. Retailers can use carbon pricing to create both carrots and sticks to accelerate investment in climate projects well up the value chain.

It’s important to make sure that value chain carbon pricing initiatives don’t simply tax and weaken supplier partners. To do this, buyers can use internal carbon pricing as a means to generate funding that, through procurement decisions and direct investment, flows into value chain partners’ decarbonization projects. Many exciting examples of net zero partnership between buyers and suppliers leave suppliers financially stronger and better positioned to serve all of their customers with low-carbon alternatives. 

Solve the interoperability puzzle

To scale up the adoption and success of both policy and corporate carbon pricing schemes, it will be necessary to get clearer on how they overlap. Frameworks such as the GHG Protocol, SBTi, the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism trade policy, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive disclosure law and others will need a common yardstick to measure and value companies’ commitments to internal carbon pricing.

As University of Oxford professor Robert Eccles argued recently in Forbes, the next evolution of carbon pricing depends on prioritizing consistency and collaboration over competition. This applies equally to both policy carbon pricing and corporate carbon pricing schemes. “[The tool] can only function if built on reliable, comprehensive carbon accounting that assigns accountability appropriately while enabling market mechanisms to operate efficiently.”

Companies and governments have long used carbon pricing to create incentives for credible climate action, albeit inconsistently. Today’s renewed attention to net zero accountability offers an opportunity to make good on the full potential of carbon pricing. 

We should expect financial commitments to take center stage in corporate climate initiatives in coming years. To raise the accountability bar, advocates can coalesce around an expectation that companies disclose not just future net-zero intentions, but present day financial follow through.

That will require clearer alignment around the technical uncertainties of carbon pricing. Initiatives to sort out the terminology around carbon pricing, syndicate it across value chains and improve interoperability across corporate and policy schemes will help mobilize hundreds of billions of dollars in additional climate funding. With the right level of attention, carbon pricing may just be the highly practical—not flashy—tool needed to accelerate climate finance in the crucial years ahead.

The post 3 ways to unlock the full potential of carbon pricing  appeared first on Trellis.