What you need to know about nature finance ahead of COP30

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

As the world prepares for COP30 in the heart of the Amazon, the role of nature and forests will be elevated like never before. Brazil is setting the agenda, not just as host, but as a leader in evolving how forest protection and restoration are financed. With the U.S. government largely absent from tropical forest diplomacy, a new generation of Global South-led initiatives is filling the gap, and changing the landscape for corporate action.

For corporate sustainability teams focused on climate and nature, COP30 isn’t a technical debate. It’s a strategic shift with real implications for reporting, procurement and net zero strategies. Two big developments stand out: new financing models for large-scale forest protection and a wave of investable reforestation and restoration initiatives that are gaining traction. Both will shape how companies engage with nature-based solutions over the next decade.

Shift 1: Innovative finance is getting real

Nature-based solutions have often struggled to attract sustained investment due to inconsistent funding flows, the complexity of safeguards designed to ensure environmental and social integrity and uncertainty about long-term returns. These safeguards, which are essential to protect Indigenous rights, ensure equitable benefit-sharing and strengthen climate impact, have sometimes created additional barriers for investors and corporate partners. That’s starting to change. One of the clearest examples is how Brazil is scaling up jurisdictional forest protection through new financing mechanisms that combine public policy alignment, independent monitoring, and performance-based payments.

In Tocantins state, for example, the government is on track to issue what could be Brazil’s first jurisdictional-scale forest carbon credits, covering 27 million hectares across the Amazon and Cerrado. But what’s innovative isn’t just the size; it’s the structure. The program blends upfront private capital with results-based carbon revenue, grounded in state policy and supported by more than 40 consultations with Indigenous peoples, traditional communities and smallholder farmers to date. Importantly, these programs use robust benefit-sharing frameworks and monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems to meet integrity expectations from buyers, regulators and civil society.

Another major development is the Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF), proposed by the Brazilian government. Unlike carbon credit markets, which pay for emissions reductions, the TFFF is designed to provide long-term, predictable payments to countries that maintain low deforestation rates. These payments are based on satellite-verified preservation of forest cover, creating a complementary incentive for keeping forests intact even after deforestation is significantly reduced. While TFFF doesn’t involve the sale of carbon credits, it adds another dimension to jurisdictional forest finance, particularly for countries like Brazil that are actively pursuing both emissions reductions and long-term forest maintenance.

For corporate sustainability leads, this opens up several new options for investing in vital forest ecosystems:

  • Credible jurisdictional credits: Companies can support carbon reductions that minimize the risk of leakage while securing permanence. These jurisdictional efforts are backed by full territorial oversight and represent a meaningful evolution from traditional project-level investments, offering new opportunities for scale and integration without replacing the vital role that well-governed projects continue to play.
  • Blended finance participation: Early-stage investments in enabling conditions (e.g. land titling, satellite monitoring, or community capacity building) can support wider forest outcomes and demonstrate strategic leadership.
  • Integrated supply chain engagement: Jurisdictional programs create the opportunity to link commodity sourcing goals (e.g. deforestation-free soy or beef) with climate mitigation efforts at regional scale.
  • Support for long-term protection: While the TFFF is designed primarily as a government-to-government mechanism, it reflects a growing recognition that forest-rich countries should be financially rewarded for maintaining intact ecosystems. Companies can align with this shift by supporting complementary jurisdictional approaches and engaging in advocacy for more stable, long-term forest finance.

Shift 2: Reforestation and restoration are maturing

Reforestation and restoration in Brazil are moving from fragmented pilots to coordinated, investable portfolios—especially across degraded pastureland.

One of the most ambitious efforts is the Brazil Restoration and Bioeconomy (BRB) Finance Coalition, launched in 2024. The coalition aims to mobilize $10 billion by 2030 to restore over five million hectares of native vegetation, much of it in high-priority biomes like the Atlantic Forest, Cerrado, and Amazon.

Restoration projects under BRB generate returns from multiple sources, including high-quality carbon removal credits, certified timber and agroforestry products and community-led bioeconomy businesses. By blending concessional and commercial finance, BRB members are helping projects access upfront capital for planting and maintenance while attracting long-term investors.

For companies, particularly those with nature targets under frameworks like the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) or the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), this offers a credible way to:

  • Invest in long-term carbon removal in line with net zero commitments
  • Support biodiversity, water security and rural economic development
  • Demonstrate leadership in regenerative sourcing and nature-positive strategy

As restoration pipelines mature, corporate engagement will be expected to move beyond pilot partnerships to meaningful, scalable investment. BRB and similar initiatives show what that transition can look like.

Why these shifts matter

Until now, many corporate nature strategies have been limited to offsetting emissions or supporting small, localized conservation efforts. But that model now sits within a broader landscape of expectations. Companies are increasingly expected to support approaches that align with national strategies, deliver real results that improve business outcomes and scale impact across entire landscapes. As finance for nature becomes more sophisticated, so too do the expectations around quality, transparency, and long-term impact.

To meet these shifts, sustainability teams will need to adjust in several areas:

  • Target setting: Science-based targets for nature (e.g. under SBTN) require companies to engage across full value chains and landscapes, not just within operational boundaries.
  • Investment strategy: Investors and customers increasingly scrutinize whether nature-related investments are additional, scalable and aligned with Indigenous and local community priorities.
  • Procurement: Forest-risk commodity sourcing must now consider regional governance and deforestation trends, not just supplier-level compliance.
  • Disclosure: Emerging frameworks like TNFD require companies to assess and disclose nature-related dependencies, risks, and impacts. Jurisdictional and restoration initiatives offer credible inputs for these assessments.

COP30 will be a moment of global attention and scrutiny. It will be a political summit hosted in the world’s largest rainforest, shaped by the priorities of forest-rich nations and framed around the global need to protect, manage and restore natural ecosystems. Companies that can clearly articulate how their nature strategies align with high-integrity public programs will be better positioned to lead. 

The post What you need to know about nature finance ahead of COP30 appeared first on Trellis.

Finance sector failing to curb deforestation, new report finds

Financial institutions funneled $8.9 trillion into companies driving deforestation last year, according to the new “Forest 500” report from Global Canopy. Despite a decade of rising ambition, fewer financial institutions now have public deforestation policies than in previous years, the report found, a setback that researchers warn undermines global climate and nature targets.

The report assessed 150 financial institutions funding 500 companies with the largest influence on deforestation through high-risk commodities, including soy, beef, palm oil and timber.

Only 40 percent have a public deforestation policy in place, down from 45 percent in 2023.

“This troubling shift is in contrast to the trend over the previous decade, when financial institutions increasingly set deforestation policies,” said Pei Chi Wong, strategic finance engagement lead at Global Canopy.

Policy failures 

Between 2023 and 2024, three financial institutions eliminated their deforestation policies altogether while another seven “failed to improve in line with best practice,” meaning their policies no longer receive passing grades.  

The former group includes Ameriprise Financial and Fifth Third Bancorp in the U.S., and Germany’s DZ Bank. 

On the other hand, 11 institutions — including Allianz, Lloyds Bank and Bank Rakyat Indonesia — published new deforestation commitments.

The analysis also spotlights financial heavyweights like Vanguard, BlackRock and JPMorgan Chase, which together provided more than $1.6 trillion to companies on the Forest 500 list in 2024. Many of these companies have significant links to deforestation and associated human rights abuses.

Even institutions with strong policies continue financing high-risk clients, the report found. Dutch bank ING, for instance, has comprehensive policies on six commodities and publishes outcomes of its engagement with clients — yet still provided over $6.6 billion to corporate “laggards” that lack any public deforestation commitment. 

In total, the 150 institutions analyzed in the report provided $864 billion to laggards last year. By far the largest amount, $401 billion, came from institutions in China.

Sources of finance for deforestation

Source: “Forest 500 — Finance report: Deforestation is a bad investment,” Global Canopy

‘A solvable crisis’ 

“Deforestation is a solvable crisis,” Wong told Trellis. “It is a good entry point for financial institutions to navigate wider nature-related risks as it has the most advanced guidance, data and metrics in the nature space.”

At the moment, he added, there is no legislation that requires financial institutions to conduct due diligence for deforestation risks.

One potential catalyst is the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which takes effect later this year. The law will require companies trading in the bloc to prove their products are not linked to deforestation.

“The EUDR has put deforestation on the agenda,” Wong said, “but for the legislation to make a significant impact, robust regulations in other jurisdictions are also needed to create a level playing field.”

 Financial institutions have the leverage to drive systemic change across commodity supply chains. With the world’s forests vanishing at alarming rates, the clock is ticking.

The post Finance sector failing to curb deforestation, new report finds appeared first on Trellis.

Louis Dreyfus Company funds major regenerative ag project in India

Louis Dreyfus Company (LDC), one of the world’s largest agricultural processors, is purchasing five years’ worth of carbon removal credits from a regenerative agriculture project in Uttar Pradesh, India. 

In addition to boosting the region’s soil health, the project will draw down some 6,000 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year and result in regeneratively grown wheat that the company can sell to customers looking to reduce their Scope 3 emissions. This is among the first major agricultural projects of its kind announced in the Global South.  

“This initiative aligns with our goal to create more resilient and lower-carbon agricultural supply chains, while meeting demand for sustainably sourced wheat and generating high-quality carbon credits and removals,” said Natalia Gorina, Louis Dreyfus’s global carbon commercial director, and Gangadhara Sriramappa, the company’s head of agricultural research in India, in an email. 

Eliminating burning 

Varaha, a company working with smallholder farmers in Asia, is managing project implementation, soil sampling and ongoing monitoring as well as tracing the lower-carbon wheat from farm to warehouse. Louis Dreyfus’s upfront payment covers the transition costs of the regenerative practices, including machine rentals. 

The company has been active in carbon markets since 2021, with a strong focus on nature-based projects. This new project is located on farms within its own supply chain, a practice known as “insetting.” 

Some 430 farms operating rice-wheat crop rotations across 2,000 acres in the northern Indian state have enrolled in the project so far. Typically, farmers in the region burn the leftover stalks after the rice harvest to prepare the land for the wheat crop, releasing the carbon stored in the stalks and degrading local air quality. 

Farmers participating in the project will use specialized seeding machines that shred the stalks and return them to the soil, while simultaneously sowing seeds for the next crop with minimal soil disturbance. 

The dual action of reincorporating biomass and reducing tillage increases soil carbon content, resulting in a net carbon reduction in the atmosphere. The resulting climate benefits will be third-party verified under an existing Verra carbon credit methodology. 

Digital tracking 

Varaha’s end-to-end digital tracking solution documents the regeneratively grown wheat from the field, through harvest and to a designated warehouse, where it’s kept separate from wheat grown using conventional practices. The process involves farm-level photos and geostamps that document exactly which farm grew the wheat and which practices were used on that farm.

By segregating the regeneratively grown wheat, Louis Dreyfus can sell the verified lower-carbon wheat to customers willing to pay a premium for the more climate friendly product. 

Five-year commitment

The initial project will support farmers undertaking the regenerative practices through 2030. That timeframe is crucial for success, said Madhur Jain, CEO of Varaha. “For a permanent behavior change in the farmers to happen, you can’t do it for one year. You have to do it for several years to see a benefit in their produce and income.”

Jain anticipates that after four years, farmers will begin to see crop yield increases as well as reduced need for fertilizer and water. If the project succeeds it could be extended beyond the initial five-year period. The carbon storage potential of the soil usually maxes out at around 20 to 25 years, according to Jain. 

“One of the learnings … is the power of carbon finance to drive transformation of farm practices in our value-chains,” said Gorina and Sriramappa. “For LDC, this is a blueprint for embedding climate-positive practices into our sourcing models, while delivering verified carbon removals to the market.” 

In addition to the cost savings from the improved soil health, farmers will receive 60 percent of the project’s carbon revenue.

Proof of concept

“We believe that by demonstrating feasibility through this project, we are laying the groundwork for the supply of carbon credits issued from regeneratively grown and low-carbon wheat,” said Gorina and Sriramappa. Buyers of the regenerative wheat will be able to claim the carbon removals in their greenhouse gas inventories, according to Louis Dreyfus. 

Most agricultural insetting projects to date have been based in the United States, Europe and Australia. “To be able to do it with Indian smallholder farmers opens a new avenue for farmers to be able to benefit from the revenue” said Jain, who will be speaking on a panel about agricultural insetting at Trellis Impact 25. 

The post Louis Dreyfus Company funds major regenerative ag project in India appeared first on Trellis.

Why the global plastics talks collapsed — and what’s next

Government negotiators failed to agree on a global treaty governing plastics after oil-producing countries balked at production limits and chemical phaseout timelines. 

The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee that has shepherded the process through six meetings since March 2022 is promising to try again, but no date was set for future talks. First, it is up to the United Nations to identify a host country.

Given shifting geopolitics and the stalled progress on other major climate treaties — on emissions reductions, fossil fuels phaseouts and biodiversity preservation — the collapse surprised few. 

“We are seeing all of these multilateral processes being stymied by the pinch point of overconsumption and production,” said Matthew Bell, climate change and sustainability services leader at consulting firm EY. “Everyone is willing to make efficiency gains, but when it comes to stopping industries in their tracks, there is pushback.”

No treaty means higher fees for brands

The failure to create a global treaty leaves businesses — both plastics producers and companies heavily dependent on the material — to face an emerging mosaic of national and subnational regulations aimed at addressing the life cycle of the more than 460 million tons of plastic produced annually.

The cumulative cost of the attendant fees is estimated to more than double between 2026 and 2040, surpassing $576 billion. That compares with approximately $279 billion under a global treaty, according to the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty, convened by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and WWF.

“The downstream effects will be felt across the plastics value chain,” said James Kennedy, an analyst with research firm IDTechEx. “Brand owners will face a patchwork of requirements on packaging design, labeling and recyclability, complicating supply chains and increasing costs.”

“I’m extremely disappointed that countries couldn’t come together and at least get a framework that could be built upon in the future,” said H. Fisk Johnson, chairman and CEO of SC Johnson, the consumer products company behind cleanser and laundry brands including Fantastic, Shout and Windex. 

SC Johnson sent a representative to observe the two-week negotiations as a member of the Business Coalition. With future talks uncertain, SC Johnson will continue to advocate for extended producer responsibility regulations that dictate how plastic producers handle the material at the end of life, Fisk Johnson said in a LinkedIn post.  

Sticking point: production limits

The meeting in Geneva drew more than 2,600 participants, including more than 1,400 delegates from 183 countries and 1,000 observers. It was already an extension of the process made necessary when negotiators failed to agree on treaty text at another inconclusive gathering, in South Korea late last year.

The majority of the participating countries were in favor of, among other things, setting schedules for reducing the production of plastic made with petroleum and for phasing out chemicals with known negative health impacts. “It was heading in the right direction,” said Erin Simon, vice president and head of plastic waste and business at WWF.

Toward the end of the process, though, these items were excluded from a treaty draft, surprising many participants. The clock ran out before negotiators could regroup, Simon said. “You want everyone to agree, but if there is no pressure to actually make a decision, this will continue to happen,” she said.

Plastic production limits and chemical phaseout timelines are opposed by industry groups and oil-producing nations that argue they are too complex and costly to implement. “The talks concluded without an agreement because the plastics treaty is fundamentally a fossil fuel treaty,” said Holly Kaufman, director of the Plastics & Climate Project. “There is a wide chasm between the petrostates and the countries who want to limit production of plastics — petrochemical products that are warming our planet, and poisoning people and the environment.”

Chemical and plastics industry producers would rather focus on managing waste than on decreasing what’s manufactured. An estimated 9 percent of plastic waste is currently recycled. The availability of recycled content for use in packaging and other applications will increase by 77 percent by 2040, according to the Business Coalition for a Global Plastics Treaty.

“America’s plastic makers remain committed to advancing a circular economy for plastics — designing products for reuse and recycling, collecting and sorting them at end of life and remaking them into new products,” said Chris Jahn, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council.

“Governments have been focused on the same core issues since this process began,” said Marco Mensink, council secretary of the International Council of Chemical Associations, which represents Global Partners for Plastics Circularity. “They must move past entrenched positions and work in a spirit of compromise to finalize an agreement that reflects shared priorities.”

With no date set for future United Nations-organized talks, some participants vowed to follow through with their own commitments and subnational agreements. “We are not backing down,” said Thais Carvajal with Allianza Basura Cero Ecuador. “The process and its challenges have made us stronger.”  

The post Why the global plastics talks collapsed — and what’s next appeared first on Trellis.

Google CSO Kate Brandt on adding ‘heart’ to climate communications

Kate Brandt has a history of writing her job descriptions. Before she became the first chief sustainability officer at Google in 2018, she was the first to hold that title for the U.S. government, under former President Barack Obama.

In that role, Brandt wrote an executive order that informed federal procurement priorities, and it’s a blueprint that continues to inform her ideas about efficiency, energy and resilience. There may be no chief sustainability officer in the Trump White House, but her focus hasn’t wavered.

“One thing that I have observed in my work in the public and private sector is there needs to be deep collaboration,” Brandt told me in the August episode of the Climate Pioneers interview series. “I would advise people that it’s really healthy and productive for people to have career experiences in both realms, then to use the unique insights from each to advance the public-private partnership that I think is so critical.”

That perspective has been invaluable for Google’s creation of artificial intelligence resources aimed at helping the public and private sectors reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 1 gigaton annually by 2030. Brandt’s sustainability team doesn’t have a revenue goal, but it is deeply involved in the company’s AI strategy.

Brandt self-describes as simultaneously impatient and optimistic, while acknowledging that the latter requires constant self care. Here’s her advice to other sustainability professionals who are similarly struggling to maintain a semblance of balance among the chaos. (Brandt’s comments have been lightly edited for length and clarity.)

On reframing communications about climate action:

“For me, it’s really been about how we expand the aperture of how we talk about the work — how it’s benefiting people, how it’s benefiting the planet … Something that I’ve sought to do a lot more of is share my personal why, to connect on more of a heart level with people. We can get very heady and scientific and technical.” Brandt’s “why” includes her 4-year-old daughter and the redwood trees that surround her neighborhood.

On getting to ‘yes’:

“I find so often that we can get a strong win when there’s a product solution that meets a customer need and also has a sustainability benefit. So I try to get underneath the ‘no’ and say, ‘Okay, I understand the ‘no’; what would change it to a ‘yes’. How do we get there?”

On reality checks:

“I am a really big fan of heading outside. I have a particular tree that I hike to most mornings, and I literally sit on the ground and meditate with my tree.”

On the one question to ask potential hires:

“What brings you to this work, and what keeps you motivated, particularly on a hard day?”

On being a CSO:

“It really behooves us to embed our work within the business — to be part of the overall strategy and not feel disconnected or off to the side … This is a moment of turbulence, but if the company follows North Stars — long-term visions and how they connect to the missions and function of the business — I think that can create stability even in moments of flux and change.” 

On what she’d tell her 21-year-old self:

“Don’t get discouraged, and always keep learning.”

 
Watch the full Kate Brandt interview and check out past Climate Pioneers episodes.

The post Google CSO Kate Brandt on adding ‘heart’ to climate communications appeared first on Trellis.

It’s time to ditch the ‘move fast and break things’ innovation playbook

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

For over a decade, “move fast and break things” has been the defining ethos of innovation. Popularized by Facebook and widely adopted across the tech sector, this mantra encouraged speed, experimentation and disruption over caution, regulation or long-term impact. 

For many leaders, speed to market was the imperative and negative consequences were just an unfortunate side issue. Of course, learning from failure is critical to any effective innovation.

But what happens when what we break can’t be repaired?

That’s the situation we face as climate change, declining public trust and widening inequality are no longer edge scenarios, but existential business risks. In this context, the innovation playbook forged in the last two decades looks increasingly anachronistic. Fast and broken is no longer acceptable. Speed alone, detached from purpose and consequence, is unsustainable innovation. And breaking things without accountability is not inventive — it’s negligent.

The innovation-ethics gap

Too often, innovation teams at large companies operate in deliberate isolation in an effort to replicate startups that are quick, creative and agile. Ethics, compliance and sustainability teams are often perceived as obstacles and compliance checkers: slow, cautious and adversarial. These siloes are toxic, ensuring harm only becomes visible when it’s too late.

Consider what’s happening now with AI development. Companies are racing to release increasingly powerful tools, often trained on biased datasets, without sufficient consideration as to how these tools could affect marginalized communities or democratic institutions. 

Predictions that AI ethicists will be in huge demand haven’t materialized so far — instead, there’s widespread concern about “over-regulation.” Similarly, green tech startups, hawking e-scooters to solar products, have emerged with revolutionary ideas, such as batteries relying on minerals mined under ethically questionable conditions, only to face backlash when their supply chains reveal human rights violations or environmental degradation. Such firms have tended to assume that their environmental license to operate is sufficient, which means they may have overlooked their community and social impacts from the beginning.

This disconnect isn’t malicious, it’s systemic: Ethical questions only surface after prototypes launch. In most corporate innovation processes, there’s simply no forum or capability to consider them. As societal trust in business continues to disintegrate, the move-quickly-and-break-things model is becoming more obsolete. Instead, innovation and ethics must collaborate from the outset, not treat each other as afterthoughts. In a world of cascading risks and eroding trust, that is not just a moral imperative; it’s a competitive advantage.

Rethinking innovation 

So what does this look like in practice?

First, ditch hero-driven innovation led by one superstar. Research shows individual outperformance at one company often doesn’t translate to a new firm, because teams and creative processes are the real competitive advantage. Innovation needs to be cross-functional, systemic and open to debate. Success shouldn’t be framed only in speed or adoption, but should account for societal outcomes and unintended consequences.

LEGO’s “System in Play” approach is a compelling model to demonstrate this. Its innovation success is built on collaborative, cross-functional teams that include diverse stakeholders from R&D, marketing, customer experience and external partners such as community representatives and end users. These teams co-create solutions through iterative workshops and design sprints, continuously integrating feedback from the communities they serve to ensure relevance and impact. Rather than relying on isolated “star” innovators, this model fosters shared ownership and collective problem-solving, harnessing creativity from multiple perspectives to drive sustainable innovation.

Second, choose a relevant metric beyond speed. In enterprise innovation environments, we’ve seen speed-to-market prioritized above all else. But what if the most innovative ideas are those that balance agility with anticipation? That optimized not just for adoption, but for sustainable impact? IKEA’s innovation labs, such as Space10, explicitly prioritize and value long-term design thinking and regenerative principles over short-term delivery, proving that meaningful innovation can still move with intention.

Third, consider unintended consequences. Progressive organizations embed foresight into their agile cycles: mapping second- and third-order effects on the environment and society, inviting ethicists early in design sprints and stress-testing ideas against potential regulatory and social backlash. This isn’t about perfection or paralysis. It’s about expanding the innovation lens beyond feasibility and desirability to include responsibility. For example, Paula Goldman, chief ethical and human use officer at Salesforce, oversees “consequence scanning,” where the social impact of new products is evaluated before a launch.

Fourth, include new approaches. We need to equip teams not only with canvases and user journeys, but with impact assessments, ecosystem mapping, life cycle assessments and frameworks that view future generations as stakeholders. These tools don’t slow innovation; they strengthen its foundations. Interface, the modular flooring company, pioneered life cycle assessments as a core innovation tool, using environmental impact data to guide product design, material selection and circularity efforts from the outset. L’Oreal also uses a product environmental analysis to ensure new formulations have lower impact than previous ones.

Finally, empower ethical and sustainability teams. Instead of acting as compliance gatekeepers or powerless messengers, they have an opportunity to engage as collaborators and facilitators helping to shape the conditions for innovation. This may require new skills, new alliances and, more critically, executive understanding that responsibility and innovation are not antithetical.

A new innovation ethos

Disruption is inherently reactive; it thrives on tearing down. But stewardship is generative and requires vision, accountability and care. In this new paradigm, innovation isn’t about simply outpacing competitors. It’s about creating value that lasts economically, socially and environmentally. 

Therefore, we must rewrite innovation’s vocabulary:

  • From “fail fast” to “learn fast and reflect often.”
  • From “build, measure, sell” to “anticipate, co-create, test, progress.”
  • From “MVPs” to “minimum responsible products (MRPs)” designed for sustainability, inclusion and long-term impact.

Already, we’re seeing early signals of this shift. Patagonia has shown how product innovation aligns with environmental stewardship by being one of the first retailers to use recycled polyester and organic cotton in its products and establishing a secondhand program that encourages repairing, reusing and recycling clothing. 

But innovation transformation isn’t just about products. It’s about systems, mindsets and culture. It demands humility, openness to critique and an ability to ask “Should we?” before “Can we?”

Evolve or be left behind

Let’s be clear: This is not a call for less innovation. It’s a call for better innovation that’s deliberate, systemic and socially accountable.

Bold thinking remains essential. But the architecture of innovation must shift from singular heroism to collective creativity and stewardship. From short-term wins to long-term resilience. From speed-to-market as a goal to speed-to-impact as a principle.

This isn’t a philosophical shift. It’s a business one. Markets are demanding accountability. Regulators are catching up. Employees and customers are watching. Leaders who continue to view innovation as a siloed, ungoverned playground will soon find themselves outpaced by those who build for durability, trust and legitimacy.

If you lead innovation today, your job is to anticipate systems impact, integrate ethical perspectives and build outcomes that won’t collapse under scrutiny. That means new tools, new metrics and new collaborations — with people who are trained to challenge your assumptions, not validate them.

So ask yourself and your team this:

  • What are we incentivizing and what are we ignoring?
  • What harm might our solution create and who bears it?
  • Are we designing for resilience or just reaction time?

Sustainable innovation isn’t slower. It’s smarter. And in an era defined by compounding risk, complexity and public scrutiny, it’s the only kind of innovation that will survive.

The post It’s time to ditch the ‘move fast and break things’ innovation playbook appeared first on Trellis.

11,000 and counting: SBTi touts uptick in corporate emissions-cutting plans

The number of companies with validated, science-based plans for cutting greenhouse gas emissions represents 41 percent of global market capitalization (as of the end of June), up 2 percent from the end of 2023, according to a new analysis.

The report, released by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) on Aug. 14, found that close to 11,000 companies had validated near-term reduction plans or full-fledged corporate net-zero commitments by the end of the second quarter. That’s an increase of 227 percent over the past 18 months.

SBTi manages frameworks that shape corporate greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies. Almost 40 percent of the companies with current SBTI commitments are working toward both near-term goals and long-term net-zero pledges, compared with 17 percent at the end of 2023.  

The findings run counter to the narrative that businesses are abandoning their strategies to address climate change, said SBTI CEO David Kennedy. 

“Smart companies continue to see a strong business case for managing transition risk,” Kennedy said. “Building climate action into commercial strategy helps maintain competitiveness now and in the future, and allows companies to capitalize on opportunities in the low-carbon economy.”

Some high-profile companies that announced plans to set net-zero targets earlier this decade have pushed pause while the nonprofit overhauls its rules guiding corporate net-zero commitments. (A finalized version isn’t anticipated until late 2026.) In the meantime, corporations can continue to adopt targets for 2030 or earlier using SBTi’s existing guidance.

More than 1,400 companies set net-zero targets by mid-2025. Source: SBTi

Industrial manufacturers account for one-third of companies with SBTi-validated targets; more than half of them had their targets approved in the 18-month period assessed by consulting firm Oliver Wyman, which conducted the analysis for SBTi. 

Asia’s big move

Businesses from China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand accounted for much of the growth. The number of Chinese companies with validated targets reached 450, compared with 137 at the end of 2023. 

Many of the Asia-Pacific companies are encouraging their suppliers and business partners to set targets, too. As a result, “Asia is becoming a powerful amplifier of climate ambition, catalyzing a broader wave of science-based target-setting,” SBTi said.

The post 11,000 and counting: SBTi touts uptick in corporate emissions-cutting plans appeared first on Trellis.

Will AI improve sustainability? Experts are divided

In many industries, artificial intelligence is being hailed at a game changer. But a recent survey of sustainability professionals shows enthusiasm for the potential of AI to aid in positive sustainable outcomes isn’t exactly winning.

Trellis data partner GlobeScan, in conjunction with ERM and Volans, found sharp regional divides in attitudes toward AI and sustainability. While 60 percent of experts in the Asia-Pacific region and 58 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean believe AI can positively impact sustainability over the next five years, only 48 percent in Africa and the Middle East, 41 percent in Europe and 38 percent in North America share that optimism.

In a similar pattern, sustainability experts in the Asia-Pacific region (80 percent) and Latin America and the Caribbean (72 percent) also express stronger enthusiasm for R&D and technology innovation in general as a lever for sustainability. North American (68 percent) and European experts (68 percent), while also very optimistic, feel more cautious about its potential to drive sustainability progress in the short term. Experts based in Africa and the Middle East are even less enthusiastic (64 percent).

What this means

While AI is increasingly recognized as a transformative enabler for sustainability, these findings suggest that its adoption and perceived value are strongly shaped by regional context and societal attitudes. 

The Asia-Pacific region’s strong optimism may reflect a combination of factors, such as a demonstrated appetite for digital transformation in many fast-growing economies, national strategies focused on AI development (such as those in China, Singapore and South Korea) and a high level of public and private investment in tech-driven solutions. 

The skepticism in North America (followed by Europe) is especially notable given the region’s role as a global hub for AI development. Despite leading in innovation, many North American experts remain wary of AI’s sustainability impact, reflecting concerns around governance, privacy and environmental costs. This underscores the need for leading AI and tech companies to help build a social contract that fosters trust, ensures accountability and aligns AI advances with broader societal expectations.

Based on a survey of 844 sustainability practitioners across 72 countries conducted April-May 2025.

The post Will AI improve sustainability? Experts are divided appeared first on Trellis.

Absolut’s paper bottle now comes with a paper cap, too

When Absolut sold a special edition vodka in paper bottles in the U.K. in the summer of 2023, the cap was aluminum because it is a difficult piece to reconfigure. Two years later, the spirit maker has successfully tested a paper lid.

The cap was introduced in real-world settings — bars — to make sure neither leaks nor degradation resulted from frequent screwing and unscrewing. Absolut also wanted to confirm that bartenders could grip the bottles easily.

“If it doesn’t work, you will hear about it,” said Eric Nat, director of packaging development at Absolut. “If it does, no one will comment.” That’s not quite true. The participating bartenders voiced approval for how quiet the bottles were when tossed into recycling bins, no small issue in busy establishments. 

Absolut is one of several consumer products companies — along with Carlsberg, Cola-Cola, L’Oreal and Procter & Gamble — that is collaborating with Paboco (the Paper Bottle Company) on paper-based alternatives to glass, aluminum and plastic containers. Paboco, which was created through a joint venture of European packaging companies, Sweden’s Billerud and Austria’s Alpla, is aiming to launch paper bottles at scale by the end of 2025.

Absolut’s interest in paper bottles is spurred by a desire to transition to lower-emissions materials and reduce plastic waste, according to Nat and another company executive involved with the project, Louise Palmstierna, director of future packaging. “We saw fiber technology as promising, because we knew that recycling needed to be part of the equation,” Palmstierna said. 

The concepts that Absolut is currently evaluating will eventually be shared with other brands of parent company, Pernod Ricard, seller of Glenlivet Scotch and Beefeater gin.

Absolut’s packaging team meets regularly with other brands that are experimenting with paper bottles. “We have different takes, but the same ambition,” Nat said. “The faster we can get to market, the faster we can get acceptance.”

Putting a lid on it

Absolut partnered with a Swedish startup, Blue Ocean Closures, to produce its paper cap. Blue Ocean and Paboco had released a paper bottle and cap in October 2024 that weighs less than 16 grams. (They didn’t disclose the capacity.) Both bottle and lid, which include a thin layer of plastic to protect against leaks, were designed to be suitable for paper recycling systems. The plastic weighs about 2 grams.

Wine bottles on a store shelf
The Collective Good wine collection at Target. Credit: Frugalpac

Pros and cons

Shifting entirely to biobased barriers for the bottle and cap is a priority, but it presents unique challenges. “Working with a spirit is tough,” Nat said. 

Here are four reasons why:

  • Alcohol content: Over time, alcohol stains paper — a significant branding consideration.
  • Shelf life: Bigger bottles can sit for a year or more, so packaging that outlasts such a timeframe is critical. For now, Absolut plans to use paper only for smaller quantities. 
  • Carbonation: The relevant brands in Pernod Richard’s portfolio will steer clear of paper bottles until there is more data on how barriers stand up to bubbles.
  • Flavor: Absolut is studying how the new packaging affects the taste of its flavored versions. 

Tradeoffs to consider

Sector interest in paper bottles mirrors a more global one, said David Linich, a PwC partner focused on decarbonization and sustainable operations. In the U.S., paper is recycled at a rate than glass — roughly 60 percent versus 31 percent. That said, the bottles could potentially introduce substances of concern, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (aka PFAS), in their leak-prevention barriers. “It’s not a clear and easy decision,” Linich said.

Most paper bottles remain available only in limited quantities. One notable exception is Target’s Collective Good wine collection, launched in April 2025. The initial release of four varietals arrived in 256,000 bottles provided by British company Frugalpac, which also makes them for Monterey Wine Co. Frugalpac’s bottles require consumers to separate a plastic pouch from the paper bottle; both are recyclable, in different bins.

Though the unique format of paper bottles offers important shelf differentiation, brands need to be “cognizant of greenwashing claims,” said Brad Kurzynowski, manager of fiber for the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. 

“The bottles are produced from a renewable resource and have an interesting recovery pathway,” Kurzynowski said. “But they are also replacing materials with relatively good recycling rates. There also needs to be consideration of something like lifecycle carbon footprint and how a heavier bottle might perform against something like a lightweight plastic bottle.”

Absolut has said little publicly about its ultimate commercialization plans. Still, it believe that paper bottles “introduce a new way for consumers to think differently,” said Palmstierna. 

“It’s about the right package for the right occasion,” she said. “You might buy a glass bottle for consumption over time, but if you’re hosting a party, paper is perfect,” “We want to change consumer behavior, and we can’t be alone to do that.” 

The post Absolut’s paper bottle now comes with a paper cap, too appeared first on Trellis.

It’s time for Apple to wield its influence on climate policy

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

Last week, Apple CEO Tim Cook presented President Donald Trump with a gold plaque and a promise to invest $100 billion in the United States. The move was good for his business and shareholders, to be sure. But given that Cook, and Apple, have historically professed to care about more than just business success (like climate change), now would be the perfect time for them to use their newly manufactured goodwill to tackle climate for the sake of business and society.

In its 2024 Environmental Progress Report Apple noted, “We owe it to our global community to rise to the challenge of climate change with all the innovation, empathy and commitment we can muster.”  

The company has made admirable steps toward greening its own operations by investing vast sums and leading the industry on those measures. It also left the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 16 years ago because of that trade group’s opposition to climate policy. 

But noble as these operational efforts are, they’re a category error — like turning the stove off as a way to stop a house fire.

In simple terms, Apple and Cook have followed the playbook of the rest of the giant, massively profitable and therefore highly influential tech industry — which is to do everything they can to appear to lead on climate, without actually doing the things required to solve the problem. Their work, viewed in isolation, seems worthy. But given the reality of the problem and the speed and scale of action required, it’s far from sufficient. 

Instead of driving change at a societal level, Apple has almost exclusively focused on its own impacts, calling for vague action on climate such as corporate or federal emissions targets, but almost never asking for federal regulation. The company has been virtually silent on specific policies, including during the Senate battle over the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which eventually passed — and during the recent legislative action to dismantle much of the IRA. 

Even in its much-lauded television ad that spoofed an “audit” by Mother Nature, the company never once mentioned public policy, focusing solely on operations. And yet, Cook hasn’t been entirely silent: He donated a million dollars to Trump’s inauguration, tacitly supporting the administration’s anti-climate-action policies.

Apple could really lead by deploying a different playbook: the one business has always used to drive change in society. That approach uses power, voice, lobbying force, political influence, money, marketing machinery and customers to create the right social, economic and legal incentives to drive desired outcomes. 

A different playbook

This successful corporate influence playbook has been in place since 1972. At that time, big businesses, offended by stringent legislation such as the Clean Air and Water Acts, National Environmental Policy Act, the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Civil and Voting Rights Acts, created the Business Roundtable specifically to wield political influence against regulation. It worked. Together with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, they stopped labor law reform, lowered taxes and turned public opinion against government intervention. (Who serves on the board of directors of the Business Roundtable now? Why, Tim Cook does.)

This history leads to a syllogism: business knows it can move the needle on issues it cares about; it says it cares about climate change; therefore it ought to act in ways that will help match the urgency of the crisis. 

But broadly, and specifically in the tech world, that hasn’t happened. Instead, companies have focused on reducing their own carbon footprints through actions such as energy efficiency, clean power purchases, funding for technology innovation and helping suppliers clean up their operations. They market products that help users and customers reduce emissions. But voluntary, small-scale actions can’t provide the speed and scale of market transformation needed. That requires far-sighted policy and regulation to steer the economy rapidly to a zero-carbon future. 

Yet when it comes to political pressure, an analysis by the nonprofit research firm InfluenceMap shows that big tech companies focused just 4 percent of their federal lobbying activities on climate. Like Apple, they rarely support specific policies — instead choosing to heavily market their own operational greening, leaving many with the (misleading) impression that what we need is simply for more companies to follow their lead. These actions give the government a pass; after all, if business is solving the problem, why bother with regulation?

Breaking a taboo

If Cook were to publish an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal pointing out that climate has become a business risk and that federal regulation (not just incentive-based legislation) is essential, it would change the corporate game. 

Because Apple is so admired, the move would galvanize other business leaders and silence elected officials tipping back into climate denial. Cook could single-handedly break the taboo against business advocating for regulation. Next, he could charge his company with reaching out to customers, asking for their help to pressure elected officials. (Most consumers care about climate change.) 

Cook could also:

  • Make public Apple’s climate lobbying (or lack thereof) now occurring behind closed doors and commit to allocating substantial lobbying dollars specifically to climate. 
  • Speak up to defend key EPA regulations under attack. (Ironically, while Cook met the President at the White House, Trump’s EPA was actively dismantling the foundation of American climate law, a rule called “the endangerment finding.”) At the state level, Apple could push for stronger climate policies and use its freshly announced investments as leverage. 
  • Use the company’s considerable global influence in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere it operates to help enact stronger climate regulations.

The Trump administration has flipped the calendar back more than 20 years, to an era when people didn’t even believe the planet was warming. With climate deniers running all federal divisions, and agencies either gutted or weaponized in support of fossil fuel expansion, we have limited tools in the climate fight. In the absence of government, corporations are one of the most powerful agents of change. And one of the most effective tools they have is their influence.

The ability to solve — or significantly move the needle on — a problem that condemns hundreds of millions of people to suffering carries with it the moral obligation to act. As one of the most successful and powerful corporations in the world, Apple has the leverage to change the state of play on climate in the U.S. At this particular moment in history, it could do even more by taking a stand for democracy itself, which would solve multiple problems at once — including ensuring the stable governance needed for successful business. How could it not? 

The post It’s time for Apple to wield its influence on climate policy appeared first on Trellis.