Attempts by companies to eliminate deforestation from supply chains show huge divergence in success, with leaders already coming close to having eliminated the practice for several key commodities and some laggards demonstrating no effort in the same areas, a new report finds.

Unilever, Danone and Nestlé are among the companies to report having verified that 90 percent or more of their purchases of palm oil, soy, timber, pulp and paper come from sources that do not cause deforestation or the conversion of other natural ecosystems. Nestlé and Marks and Spencer, a U.K. retailer, also achieved 100 percent deforestation-free sourcing for cattle, according to Ceres, a nonprofit that works with investors, companies and policymakers.

“There are challenges to achieving deforestation and conversion-free supply chains, particularly with certain commodities,” said Meryl Richards, program director for food and forests at Ceres. “But we’re seeing here that it’s possible to overcome those challenges.”

At the other end of the scale of the 53 food brands, retailers and other companies assessed by Ceres were BJ’s Wholesale Club, a discount retailer, and Bloomin’ Brands, which owns Outback Steakhouse and other restaurant chains. The Ceres team could not find evidence of either taking action to trace and verify commodities, or implement policies to tackle deforestation. Neither company responded to a request for comment.

Low disclosure of deforestation policies has also been noted in the finance sector: A report issued earlier this year found that only 40 percent of 150 financial institutions surveyed had such a policy in place, down from 45 percent in 2023.

Explaining the divergence

In addition to exposing stark differences between company ambitions, the Ceres report also recommends steps that companies can take to reduce deforestation in their supply chains and hints at factors that explain the differing levels of ambition.

The authors did not break down how action on deforestation varies by type of business, for instance, but it’s notable that many retailers and restaurants scored poorly on tracing and verification of palm oil, the commodity that’s most widely tracked. The difference may be due to challenges in engaging suppliers; retailers will generally have a great number of supply-chain tiers between themselves and producers. 

Food brands achieved higher rates for tracking and verification of commodities, with some exceptions. Kraft Heinz, for example, reported tracing just 5 percent of the palm oil it purchases back to source, and to having verified the same fraction as deforestation and conversion-free. The company, which reported $26 billion in sales in 2024, made no disclosures about soy, cattle, cocoa, timber, pulp or paper. The company did not return a request for comment.

Exposure to European markets is another factor driving company action, added Calli VanderWilde, food and forests manager at Ceres. The EU’s Regulation on Deforestation-free Products, which is due to come into force next month, requires companies to prove that the commodities covered — cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber and soy — are deforestation-free before selling them. 

Positive outlook

Palm oil is most widely tracked because companies and investors started paying attention to the deforestation risks associated with the commodity around 15 years ago, noted Richards. Supply chains for some other commodities, including cattle, are often complex, she added. Indeed, companies often seen as sustainability leaders, including Nestlé and Danone, have been criticized by other nonprofits for doing too little to address livestock emissions. But at least when it comes to deforestation, Richards expects the availability of new tools and technology will allow companies to track and verify at much improved levels in the near future.

In addition to working with individual suppliers, Richards said that companies can ensure tracking and verification is as efficient as possible by joining jurisdictional or regional efforts to eliminate deforestation. Such projects help tackle the root causes of deforestation and reduce the risk that protecting one area simply leads to increased conversion nearby.

The post Unilever, Danone and Nestlé come close to eliminating deforestation from key supply chains appeared first on Trellis.

What’s going on at COP30? You wouldn’t know much by reading the mainstream media, other than the relatively mild protests and the usual infrastructure problems nearly all U.N. climate summits face. But what should companies know about the substance of the event?

In this episode of our Two Steps Forward podcast, my co-host, consultant Solitaire Townsend and I take stock — her from inside the Blue Zone at COP30 in sweltering Belém, Brazil, and me, comfortably, at home.

Despite what global headlines suggest — a swirl of heat, humidity, flooding, bad food, logistical breakdowns and even “violent” (according to media reports) Indigenous protests — Townsend paints a more textured, human and hopeful picture of what’s actually happening on the ground. COPs are always messy, she reminds us. And this one may simply be messier.

Along the way, she asked a number of fellow attendees, “What would two steps forward be for COP30?”

What’s different this year

What distinguishes COP30 from its predecessors, Townsend argues, is the emergence of a formally recognized Action Agenda, Brazil’s plan to integrate hundreds of climate-aligned initiatives directly into the official Paris negotiation process.

For the first time, efforts historically considered “side events” — on forests, culture, mobility, health, the built environment, Indigenous rights and more — have been vetted, validated and added to the COP program itself. As Townsend notes, there are now over 200 PASs (for “Plan to Accelerate the Solution”). Each must set goals, outline implementation plans and report progress.

It may sound procedural, but the implications are significant. Governments still negotiate the “floor” — the minimal outcomes required under the Paris Agreement. But these action agendas represent the “ceiling” — what coalitions of governments, companies, nonprofits and communities are willing to do voluntarily and collaboratively.

This year, for the first time, the ceiling is formally incorporated into the main structure.

On the ground: Heat, color and humanity

It’s impossible to ignore the physical intensity: temperatures in the 90s Fahrenheit, humidity near saturation, long queues and limited shade. So intense, in fact, that COP organizers emailed attendees beforehand encouraging them not to wear business attire in order to avoid heat stress. The result, said Townsend, is the most colorful COP she’s attended, with bright shirts, sundresses, indigenous garments and Amazonian prints replacing the usual sea of gray suits. And with that, the energy between people seems to have shifted.

She also reminds us of the often-invisible labor force: thousands of young, local volunteers who guide, translate, manage crowds, clean facilities and proudly wear their COP30 T-shirts. Their enthusiasm, she says, is its own climate solution.

Violent protests?

While the international press breathlessly reported “violent clashes,” Townsend offered a reality check. A small group of Indigenous activists pushed through a COP entrance, resulting in what she described as “the tiniest of tussles” — hardly the baton-swinging melee portrayed in the media. Another much larger indigenous protest formed a peaceful, symbolic human chain around the perimeter, blocking access for several hours.

In a world where protests were restricted or suppressed at multiple recent COPs, many attendees welcomed the return of visible action from civil society.

Where are the corporations?

Media reports suggest that corporate attendance is sparse. Townsend’s experience? Many companies simply shifted their presence to events the week prior in São Paulo and Rio, where travel logistics were easier. She said she’s seen plenty of business leaders in Belém’s informal spaces.

Still, a notable development: U.S. federal officials are almost entirely absent. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has effectively become the highest-ranking American at COP30, underscoring his state’s outsized role in climate policy — and the vacuum left by federal disengagement.

Attending or not, business leaders should tune into the conversations at COP30 about forests, land-use risk, Indigenous sovereignty and nature-positive supply chains — all areas where companies face rising scrutiny and expectations.

Net-net, Townsend shared, she’s coming away energized. With the action agendas now part of the Paris framework, she believes this COP may mark a turning point—from years of setting goals to a decade focused on implementation.

That word — implementation — is the unofficial theme of COP30. And if that momentum holds, it might just be the two steps forward we’ve all been awaiting.

The Two Steps Forward podcast is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube and other platforms — and, of course, via Trellis. Episodes publish every other Tuesday.

The post It’s hot, chaotic and lacks companies — but COP30 can still be a turning point appeared first on Trellis.

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

Securing an internal promotion within corporate sustainability has always been tough. In the early days, teams were so small you couldn’t get to the next level unless your manager was promoted or left. Later, when demand for sustainability talent was on fire, people could move up one or two levels just by changing organizations.

However, today’s job market is incredibly competitive and hiring managers have a large candidate pool to select from. Economic uncertainty and job market instability are also driving many people to stay longer with their current employer. As a result, investing effort in an internal promotion is likely the best option for growth right now. 

The path to internal promotion begins with understanding the scope and requirements of various levels within your organization, says Ellen Weinreb of Weinreb Group Sustainability Recruiting. In companies with several levels, managers tend to be sole contributors, directors concentrate on strategy within their domain and vice presidents take a more active role managing up and influencing senior leadership.

While managers often require technical skills and subject matter expertise, director and VP roles rely more on leadership competencies such as stakeholder engagement, the ability to balance strategic vision with execution and systems thinking. To find out more, I spoke with several directors and VPs and they consistently shared two key insights: 

• At the director level and above, it’s less about sustainability expertise and more about leadership skills and the ability to navigate internal politics, secure resources and drive transformation. 
• At the time they were promoted, they’d already been performing work of the quality and scope expected at the new level.  

Below is advice on how to secure a promotion to a director or VP of Sustainability role within your current organization.  

Positioning yourself for an internal promotion 

Build a wide network: Teams that award promotions often include senior leaders from multiple areas of the business evaluating a pool of candidates up for a limited number of open roles. That’s why it’s important to build visibility and trust beyond your direct reporting line.  

• Reach out to leaders you admire from outside of your team, function and company to ask them for advice, ideas and feedback. They’ll become informal mentors and advocates who can help you learn and grow. 
• Attend and speak at conferences to build your reputation as a thought leader and representative of your corporate brand.  

Develop skills outside of the sustainability function: Most senior sustainability leaders bring a strong functional skillset from another area to their roles and understand how the business works. Develop a knowledge of how each functional area contributes to profit, loss and risk and learn how to operate effectively across different domains. 

• Get experience beyond sustainability by taking a role on a different functional team or working on cross-functional projects. 
• Invite people to lunch or to present to your team to learn about their functional area’s priorities, KPIs and incentive structures. 

Get experience engaging with key stakeholders: Stakeholder engagement takes up a larger part of your role as your career advances. Get as much experience as possible with engaging the board, executive team, investors and other key stakeholders. 

• Listen to investor calls and ask your manager to sit in on board meetings or executive conversations to develop a sense for how these audiences operate.  
• Volunteer to help your manager or another leader prepare for key stakeholder conversations. Offer to manage the development schedule, draft slides, collect feedback or manage updates.  

Demonstrate a desire and readiness for more scope and strategic work: One of the most difficult parts of transitioning to director is demonstrating readiness to move from programmatic project delivery to responsibility for longer-term strategy across a portfolio. Do as much strategy work as possible in your current role.  

• Clearly communicate about the kind of work you’d like to take on and the ways in which you’d like to contribute more. Be eager to take on less-glamorous projects. 
• Ask your manager if you can help with strategic work. Offer to write first drafts, do research, collect stakeholder feedback or update documentation. 
• When you learn of new initiatives, reach out to the lead with ideas for how to approach the work and ask if you could contribute to the project. 
• Take on responsibilities for co-workers who go out on leave.  

Get an MBA, maybe? Trellis’s 2024 State of the Sustainability Profession report showed that only 38 percent of directors and 44 percent of VPs had an MBA or other advanced degree, so attending graduate school isn’t a requirement for advancement; however, if you’re having difficulty using the approaches described above at your organization, an MBA can help you to: 

• Gain experience with leading a team of peers by doing practicum projects. 
• Practice pitching and communicating ideas to diverse audiences.
• Learn to speak the language of business by mastering core concepts such as profit and loss drivers, risk-adjusted scenario planning and resource optimization.

What could be preventing your promotion

While it’s important to know what can help you secure a promotion, it’s equally important to understand what could hold you back. Here are the most-cited reasons for why people aren’t promoted to the director or VP level.  

Internal or external competition 

• A “high-potential talent” candidate from another function is given the position as a recognition of their achievements or development opportunity. 
• An external candidate with more experience in leadership, broader business experience, or specific subject matter expertise is hired. 
• Sustainability is moved to report under a different unit and there’s no opening in the new leadership structure. 

Organizational politics and fit

• Your approach to influencing others doesn’t align with the organization’s culture whether through over-reliance or underuse of charisma, assertiveness or data-driven reasoning.
• You’re viewed as having “only” sustainability expertise.
• An influential stakeholder is intentionally impeding your growth. 

Poor performance and attitude 

• You don’t consistently deliver on commitments or respond in a timely manner. 
• You struggle to communicate complex sustainability topics effectively to broad audiences. 
• You push back when offered the opportunity to take on new projects or areas of responsibility. 
• You have unrealistic expectations about the timing and number of promotions you should expect throughout your career and express your impatience in an unproductive way. 

The post How to get promoted to sustainability director or VP in 2026 appeared first on Trellis.

Heineken plans to install a 100-megawatt heat battery at a brewery in Portugal under a service contract with vendor Rondo Energy and energy company EDP. The technology will significantly reduce or eliminate the European brewer’s need for boilers that run on fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas.

“This project not only helps us reduce our reliance on conventional energy, it shows how practical innovation and strong partnerships can deliver meaningful improvements across our supply chain,” said Magne Setnes, chief supply officer at Heineken, in a statement. 

Industrial emissions related to food production, manufacturing and other heat-intensive processes account for close to one-quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions; if you include emissions related to making steel and cement, the number rises close to 40 percent.

Adoption of options for addressing that footprint has been slow, but thermal batteries are making in-roads alongside other options such as industrial heat pumps and renewable natural gas sourced from biomethane. 

Technology manufacturer Siemens, for example, discovered that installing electrified paint drying and curing ovens at its factories in Texas could reduce almost 80 percent of the emissions related to that process, said Stacy Mahler, vice president of vertical markets at Siemens, during a session at Trellis Impact 25.

“We had to go and look at paint chemistries that would work with the new electric ovens, which were lower temperature,” she said. “So there was a lot of work that went into it. The good news is once you do that work, once the learnings can scale, you can share that with suppliers.” 

PepsiCo’s biomethane investment

Projects for reducing factory emissions have been slow to take shape in part because an approach that works in one location isn’t appropriate everywhere, said another Trellis Impact 25 panelist, Nora Singh, senior director of global sustainability at PepsiCo.

“Some of them are very expensive and the solutions are also not one size fits all, and they’re very local, depending on where in the world you’re looking at,” Singh said.

One way that PepsiCo is reducing emissions is by turning organic waste at its food processing facilities into biomethane gas.

Its facility in Manisa, Turkey, for example, uses cogeneration equipment to convert potatoes, other starches and oils into enough biogas to meet 35 percent of the electricity needs, avoiding 1,370 tons of carbon dioxide in 2024. The rest of the electricity needed for the operation is sourced from solar panel and renewable energy companies. “Obviously it doesn’t work everywhere,” Singh said. 

Nike: Borrow from other industries

The transition related to footwear and apparel maker Nike’s industrial emissions is happening in multiple phases. 

Some factories in its supply chain are moving away from coal but choosing short-term alternatives such as biomass, said Nike’s Courtenay McHugh, director of climate and environment, during the panel discussion.

That creates new obstacles, including the need to ensure that the biomass is sourced from waste and not from deforestation. 

“You have to have really good certification processes for that,” said McHugh. “Biomass is, for us, considered to be a transition option, but it’s not the last stop on the road.” 

Nike uses the levelized cost of heating — the average cost to produce a unit of heat over the lifetime of a piece of equipment — to evaluate alternatives for parts of its manufacturing process that are difficult to electrify, such as fabric dying.

One of the best options it has found are steam heat pumps, used widely by the pulp and paper industry in the drying process. The downside is that this technology hasn’t been used for textile applications and carries a high upfront cost. Nike is collaborating with the Apparel Impact Institute to perform feasibility studies — largely in China, India and Vietnam, where renewable electricity is available — that are also supported by other brands.

“We’re prepared that it’s not necessarily the way that we need to go in all cases,” said McHugh, “but we might get some really great learnings about where it is most optimal, so that we can share that information with our suppliers, give them a little bit more confidence in this technology as a path forward.”

Heineken’s battery project

Those studies will also evaluate what sorts of financing models might be effective at accelerating adoption, including leases rather than outright purchases.

Heineken is exercising that option: Its battery is being procured under a service agreement, so it won’t represent a capital expenditure for the company. It will charge using an on-site solar installation and provide up to 7 megawatts of steam for its brewing processes without requiring a massive equipment retrofit. 

Heineken’s installation, the largest of its kind in the beverage industry, will begin operation in April 2027. 

Rondo is a well-funded supplier, with backers including apparel company H&M. Its technology stores heat in refractory bricks then releases it at temperatures of up to 100 bar, or about 340 degrees Fahrenheit, to power industrial processes. The startup signed another deal Nov. 13 that will support a cement factory in Thailand.

The post 3 ways PepsiCo, Nike and Heineken reduce industrial emissions appeared first on Trellis.

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

When a recent study asked, “Are carbon markets fixable?” it did more than assess the performance of carbon markets. It reflected a deeper debate about how the world should decarbonize versus how it actually does.

While there’s certainly an important discussion to be had around the integrity of decarbonization solutions, it’s equally important to understand that what’s really playing out here is often a question of ideology: Should climate action be pure or should it be pragmatic? Meaning, should we wait for perfect systems before acting or make the best use of imperfect ones to drive impact now?

The “purist” theory of change rests on the premise that all government and corporate emission targets will be fully achieved, making offsets an act of displacement rather than contribution. Therefore, if we simply take credits off the table, these actors will take more aggressive, and costly, action to cut their emissions — in many cases voluntarily. 

The premise might rest on solid moral ground, but it’s a comforting fiction. That’s because such a notion implies that credits necessarily displace action that would otherwise happen. In other words, critics of markets often assume that every tonne promised in a net‑zero plan will be achieved internally, but in a world where targets are often aspirational, under-financed or politically constrained, that logic collapses.

A false premise

The fact is that despite three decades of pledges — and some notable areas of progress — global emissions continue to rise. Many companies set ambitious goals only to postpone or quietly abandon them once the real costs become clear. And more still don’t even do that. 

There is nothing to suggest that carbon credits are to blame for this. In fact, evidence suggests that high‑quality credits don’t displace inevitable abatement — they finance additional action that wouldn’t otherwise occur, particularly in regions that receive little climate investment. Research from Forest Trends shows that companies using carbon credits are also decarbonizing internally at nearly twice the rate of those that don’t, underscoring that credits can complement, rather than replace, internal action. 

The real flaw isn’t in the arithmetic, but in the assumption that ambition equals delivery. Recognizing that gap helps explain why carbon credits exist: not to replace internal reductions, but to fill the space between aspiration and reality with verifiable impact.

Economic and climate mitigation models — the kinds used to simulate net-zero pathways and estimate marginal abatement costs — often assume perfect compliance and unlimited investment. These models can underestimate real-world limitations of political will, financing capacity and the pace at which new technologies can scale.

In reality, decarbonization costs vary dramatically. In developed economies, cutting emissions in major industrial sectors can cost up to $500 per tonne of CO₂ and higher. By comparison, high‑integrity nature‑based credits typically cost $25 to $50 per tonne. Even if these credits deliver only half their claimed reductions, the effective cost would still be $50 to $100 per tonne — a fraction of the cost of deep industrial abatement.

The resources available for decarbonization are finite and in many regions, contracting. Of course, buying credits can’t and shouldn’t replace industrial decarbonization. These mechanisms are designed to complement, not substitute for, deep emissions cuts in core operations. The right question isn’t whether one approach is morally superior, but which delivers the greatest total climate impact per dollar spent. 

In that context, high‑quality credits can direct scarce funds toward the most cost‑effective climate impact while providing benefits that internal abatement cannot — biodiversity conservation, watershed protection, and support for Indigenous and local communities who steward vast carbon‑rich ecosystems. At the end of the day, we need to deploy the full suite of solutions available to us. 

Ideology vs. implementation

Much of the decarbonization debate comes down to ideology. Purists believe that rejecting markets will force faster, deeper internal cuts. Pragmatists argue that we need every credible lever available to reduce emissions today while continuing to reform the system.

The purist defines integrity as abstinence — focus only on the most ambitious levels of action and dismiss other solutions as a distraction or delay. The pragmatist defines integrity as continuous improvement — act now with credible tools, strengthen standards and build better mechanisms over time in an effort to deliver progress in a messy, incremental world.

That divide plays out daily in policy and boardroom decisions. Some governments and companies have paused credit purchases entirely, fearing criticism for imperfection. Others are engaging in reformed, transparent markets and reporting openly on how credits complement internal progress. The latter group is helping build the very integrity mechanisms that critics claim don’t exist. This shift raises a practical question for corporate leaders: how can they engage credibly and effectively in these evolving markets?

From integrity to impact

The real question isn’t whether markets are perfect; they’re far from it and face well-founded criticism when it comes to methodologies being too lenient and verification being inconsistent. What matters more is whether abandoning them accelerates or delays global progress. But serious reform is underway and every tonne avoided or removed counts. The atmosphere doesn’t care where the reduction occurs, only that it happens. 

A credible portfolio approach combines internal decarbonization with high‑quality, independently verified credits that channel finance to where it’s needed most. Companies navigating between “purist” and “pragmatist” approaches can bridge the gap by focusing on credibility, transparency and alignment:

• Integrate credit purchases into transparent, science‑based strategies that disclose both internal and external mitigation.
• Support jurisdictional or program‑level initiatives that align with national climate goals.
• Co‑invest in systems that improve market integrity — from monitoring infrastructure to community readiness.
• Understand the landscape of today’s voluntary carbon market: smaller, more conservative and more transparent, with the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market and other reforms setting higher standards and fewer loopholes.
• Communicate clearly by explaining how credits complement, not replace, internal decarbonization and share methodologies, volumes and impacts openly.

Reform, not rejection

True integrity lies not in purity, but in progress — in building systems that get stronger with use. The climate challenge demands such pragmatism. The responsible path forward is to keep improving standards, transparency and fairness while scaling credible finance for climate and nature. It’s about leveraging every tool in our toolkit. 

Markets aren’t a silver bullet. But without them, we risk cutting off one of the few scalable mechanisms that can mobilize private finance at the speed and volume the science demands. The fact that we haven’t done it yet does not mean that we can’t. In fact, it’s one of the most viable paths forward if we can end this circle firing squad among dedicated climate champions.

Reform is already happening. The choice now is whether we continue that progress or stall it by turning our back on a real solution in favor of a laudable but ultimately unattainable one. 

The post Decarbonization demands pragmatism, not purity appeared first on Trellis.