10 career tips for early-stage sustainability pros from Trellis 30 Under 30 alumni

As companies pull back on climate commitments (at least publicly) and trim their workforces, it’s a challenging time for sustainability professionals at every career level — but particularly those just starting out. 

The employment rate for recent college graduates aged 22-27 was almost 6 percent as of March, compared with 4.2 percent for the general population. ESG and sustainability teams are not immune to layoffs, and many professionals are reassessing their skill sets to land and keep a job.

To mark the 10th anniversary of Trellis 30 Under 30 list — featuring rising stars in the climate sector — we reached out to the 270 people featured on earlier editions of the list and asked them this question: What one tip do you have for an early-stage sustainability professional? Here are responses from 10 past honorees.

‘Be agile’

Devin Carsdale (2017)

Then: Sustainability compliance auditor for consumer goods purveyor Inter IKEA Group

Now: Associate director of sustainability at pharmaceutical company Bristol Myers Squibb, specializing in sustainable procurement and Scope 3 emissions

Advice: “Be amenable to taking on any number of tasks. As you grow in this space it is critical to be agile and a jack of all trades. This means project management, data analytics, change management, reporting and more!” 

‘Take care of yourself’

Christina Copeland (2016)

Then: Manager of disclosure services at sustainability reporting service CDP  

Now: Assistant vice president for sustainable finance reporting and strategy at insurer Great-West Lifeco 

Advice: “Take care of yourself. Working in sustainability can bring a lot of psychological baggage — the anxiety from knowing how bad it can be, feeling like you need to do more and are complicit just because you’re a human living in society. Find your community, your creative release, get professional support if you think it will be helpful. “

‘Ask what makes you come alive’

Lisa Curtis (2016)

Then: Founder and CEO of Kuli Kuli Foods, which makes organic, superfood snacks from drought-tolerant moringa trees planted to combat deforestation

Now: Curtis still leads the company, which counts Walmart among its retail partners

Advice: “I strongly believe in the Howard Thurman quote of ‘Don’t ask what the world needs, ask what makes you come alive because what the world needs is more people who have come alive.’ Start by understanding the type of work that gives you energy — the work that you could do even if no one paid you to do it — and then figure out how to get paid for it.”

‘Don’t wait for permission’

Phil De Luna (2019)

Then: Program director for the Energy Materials Challenge Program with National Research Council Canada

Now: Chief science and commercial officer for Deep Sky Alpha, a Canadian direct air capture innovation and testing center that has raised more than $90 million

Advice: “As someone who has navigated the intersection of science, entrepreneurship and policy, my advice is: Don’t wait for permission — start building now.​ Sustainability challenges are multifaceted, and addressing them requires proactive engagement. Build your network, seek mentorship and don’t hesitate to pursue innovative ideas.​ Remember: Impactful change doesn’t come from waiting for the perfect moment; it comes from taking the first step and learning along the way.”

‘Stay curious and adaptable’

Franck Gbaguidi (2023)

Then: Director of sustainability at Eurasia Group, a political risk research and advisory group. 

Now: Practice head for global sustainability, biodiversity and water at Eurasia

Advice: “Stay curious and adaptable. Sustainability is constantly evolving — from the early CSR days to the ESG boom to today’s anti-ESG wave. Those who thrive are lifelong learners who anticipate shifts and shape the agenda, not just follow it. That mindset will position you to lead through whatever phase comes next.”

‘Don’t chase trends’

Pedro Alexandre Martins (2024)

Then: Senior sustainability source manager at meal kit company HelloFresh 

Now: Senior engagement manager at Capitals Coalition, which helps companies consider natural capital, social capital and human capital alongside financial metrics as part of decision-making

Advice: “Figure out where you thrive on the transformation spectrum. Change happens in startups, corporations, civil society and advocacy spaces — but the paths and pace differ. Don’t chase trends. Test what energizes you most! Systems change needs diverse builders; find where your purpose and skillset align best.”

‘Ask questions’

Hardik Miyani (2022)

Then: Senior energy and commissioning engineer at building sustainability and efficiency firm Baumann Consulting

Now: Miyani, named Young Energy Professional of the Year in 2024 by the Association of Energy Engineers, is the energy and decarbonization manager at Baumann

Advice: “Build a strong foundation by mastering the basics of energy systems and data analysis, but always stay curious — ask questions, seek mentors, and connect your work to real-world impact. Sustainability is a marathon, not a sprint. Focus on measurable progress, not perfection.”

‘Learn from the past’

Kaity Robbins (2024)

Then: Senior program manager of waste diversion at Whole Foods Market

Now: Same 

Advice: “Approach every situation with curiosity first. It’s essential to acknowledge and learn from our past. Understanding why things are done certain ways provides the knowledge needed to chart better paths forward.”

‘Engage with seasoned professionals’

José Miguel Salazar Hernández (2020)

Then: Senior specialist for corporate sustainability at CSRone, an ESG consulting firm in Taiwan

Now: Manager for ESG, sustainability and climate change services with PwC Spain 

Advice: “Sustainability careers cycle along regulations and investor views, which are currently facing a scale back. This phase is temporary, as fundamentals shall endure. Climate, nature and human rights will remain key financial risks and opportunities. Newcomers should engage with seasoned professionals to get sufficient context and perspective of where to focus priorities.”

‘Be brave and be loud’

Emily Sambuco (2023)

Then: Lead catastrophe analyst and atmospheric scientist with the corporate enterprise risk management team at  Liberty Mutual Insurance

Now: Same

Advice: “Be brave and be loud. Leverage your expertise — whether in climate, sustainability, environmental science, whatever — and advocate for scientific and data-driven decision-making within your organization. Communicate, educate and build relationships. Your experience is unique and valuable; you can integrate sustainability into your teams and organizations.”

[Join more than 5,000 professionals at Trellis Impact 25 — the center of gravity for doers and leaders focused on action and results, Oct. 28-30, San Jose.]

The post 10 career tips for early-stage sustainability pros from Trellis 30 Under 30 alumni appeared first on Trellis.

Colgate CSO: ‘It has to be a better consumer experience’

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

How much circularity can one company squeeze out of a toothpaste tube?

That’s the mouthwatering challenge taken on by Colgate Palmolive, the iconic 220-year-old company whose chief sustainability officer, Ann Tracy, has been leading the charge to make Colgate toothpaste tubes not just recyclable, but potentially turned back into new tubes.

It’s not just toothpaste, as Tracy told my co-host, sustainability consultant Solitaire Townsend, and me in the latest episode of our Two Steps Forward podcast. If the process works with toothpaste it can work with other Colgate products, from household cleaners to skincare products and more.

Also in this episode, Soli and I assess this moment in the sustainability profession, including the critical need for telling new and better stories.

Consumers come first

“It has to be a better consumer experience, because the consumer has to want to use it,” Tracy, who came to her job after more than two decades working in supply chains at Colgate, said of the recyclable tubes. “We could talk about the consumer intention–action gap and that they want to do right by the planet. They want to lower their impact but they don’t want to compromise on price or quality or convenience. Our role as a consumer goods companies is to try to find the intersection of all three of those.”

After the first recyclable tube was implemented in 2019, Colgate open-sourced its technology. Today, 95 percent of toothpaste tubes in the U.S. and a significant portion in Europe have been converted to recyclable HDPE plastic. But that doesn’t mean they’re being recycled, at least not in large numbers. Tracy emphasized the role of consumer education to ensure that spent toothpaste tubes end up in the recycling bin, noting that bathroom recycling isn’t yet very common. Colgate is only beginning to engage in that type of education.

Systems-level thinking

Tracy highlighted the need for systems-level thinking, strategic roadmaps and value creation in sustainability initiatives. “We would have monthly steering committee meetings, and in those meetings there was not just supply chain but also marketing, engineering, procurement — several different functions. They all played a role along the way in the decision making because one thing impacts another.”

The goal, she said, is to embed sustainability across all business processes, aiming for a circular economy with reduced environmental impact.

She viewed her own sustainability team as playing a key but supporting role. “First and foremost, you have to be able to help the organization envision the transformation. That means building strategic roadmaps with a clear endpoint, a clear goal. And you have to influence everyone along the way. We have a broad-reaching, enterprise-wide sustainability and social impact strategy, and I’m the master of none, keeper of all. My role is to shepherd the thing along, influencing across the enterprise.”

So, she said, returning to the toothpaste tube, “As we rolled out in the supply chain, we needed to work with marketing to make sure we were doing it in a way that benefited the operation. How does it show up on shelf and to the consumer? There had to be an alignment there on how that happened.”

The key to success, she said, is that each new sustainability initiative becomes easier, until it’s simply part of the fabric. “The goal is to build those processes in.”

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

[Sustainability work is hard. Ready for Trellis Network to help? Learn more about our peer network.]

The post Colgate CSO: ‘It has to be a better consumer experience’ appeared first on Trellis.

What you need to know about new circularity business frameworks

The circular economy, once an aspirational concept, is becoming standardized across business, from product labels to international frameworks. And the movement will reach a new level when the Global Circularity Protocol (GCP) debuts in November at the U.N. Climate Change Conference (COP30) in Belém, Brazil.

The new protocol — spearheaded by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and backed by 50 corporations including Philips, Cisco and Apple — offers a common language and data standards to help companies turn away from extractive and polluting practices.

But the metric is far from the only one currently in play in the circular economy. In the past year a variety of organizations, including B Corps and Underwriters Laboratories, have embedded aspects of circularity into their business metrics.

“Circular economy is kind of the new kid on the block” in the rapidly evolving space of sustainability frameworks and standards, said Alasdair Hedger, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s senior expert in performance measurement and reporting.

Business leaders will need to understand and apply these standards to succeed in the emerging circular economy,

New ways to measure what’s circular

According to Hedger, circularity frameworks can be organized into four categories: product, corporate, sector and systemic. The Global Circularity Protocol grew out of a desire to harmonize what amounted to decentralized efforts.

Here’s a sampling of circular-economy considerations being embedded across business at each level:

Product

The Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute in late 2024 added the C2C Certified Circularity pathway to its already rigorous suite of certifications. It encourages companies to develop circular products as varied as sewing thread and window glass. There are scores of other consumer product certifications, such as those in Amazon’s Climate Pledge Friendly program, but most don’t address the full range of circularity attributes. 

Corporate

The coming Global Circularity Protocol fits here. So do the latest B Corps standards, which in April added Environmental Stewardship & Circularity as a core topic to advance non-virgin materials and restrict “unnecessary” single-use products and packaging.

In addition, the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) are pushing companies to set nature-positive and science-based targets, which are often compatible with circularity.

Sector

Efforts include Underwriters Laboratories’ publication in April of new circular standards for EV chargers and other energy equipment. ASTM’s technical standards apply across sectors, too.

Also galvanizing sector-level change: corporate commitments and collaborations, including the U.S. Plastics Pact, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s New Plastics Economy and the Circular Electronics Partnership.

Systemic

In the EU, 2025 has been a milestone year for the first monetary reporting requirements for the circular economy under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Plus, extended consumer responsibility laws for packaging and textiles are spreading in U.S. states, notably California. 

The International Standards Organization (ISO) is developing guidance for adopting circular business models, following the May 2024 release of its ISO 59004:2024 definition of circular economy principles and terminology.

Meanwhile, the International Sustainability Standards Board and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) are collaborating to harmonize reporting standards, including the integration of circular-economy principles in sustainability and ESG reporting standards.

In a world informed by circularity adherence, companies must look beyond a goal of doing no harm. “It’s about creating value,” Hedger said. That is, companies that operationalize and measure circular practices can seize strategic advantages, reduce future risks and appeal to investors.

Similarly, Filipe Camaño Garcia, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s senior manager of the Global Circularity Protocol, positions the new standard’s potential for “unlocking further innovation and financing” across companies and regions.

Defining a circular future

That’s the theory, anyway. In reality, extracting resources from nature, creating products from them and wasting material remains the predominant way of business. In fact, the world is slightly less circular than it was a few years ago, according to the latest Circular Economy Gap report by Circle Economy and KPMG.

This matrix from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation offers seven types of benefits and 50 metrics for deciding how to adopt circular business models.

To change that, circular economy proponents urge companies to consider the benefits of measuring and sharing their material and product flows. Knowing the percentage of revenue generated from circular business models, for example, demonstrates how circular practices feed strategic business goals. And grasping how much revenue depends on raw materials can address future risks should resources become constrained.

“For those that are starting to put in place standards, there’s a bit of a first mover advantage,” said Adrian Vannahme, chief operating officer of Reclay StewardEdge, a Winnipeg, Canada, consultancy that helps clients navigate new packaging and waste regulations in Europe and North America.

Closing the materials gap within emissions counts

Meanwhile, there’s a push to integrate circular economy principles throughout the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol, which informs the frameworks of the Science-Based Targets initiative, the CDP’s data reporting, GRI’s sustainability disclosures and emissions measurements by the investor-focused Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. 

Ellen MacArthur detailed in a January report how legacy sustainability guidance inadvertently “disincentivizes” circular economy activities. For instance, companies can’t see the impact of circular economy activities when they measure emissions. Nor can they easily account for the impacts of reselling, repairing or recirculating products and materials. In turn, it’s hard to unlock the business case for circular economy activities. But a clearer view could bring clarity to reduce Scope 3 emissions across supply chains.

“The circular economy has a key role to play in bringing down emissions,” said Miranda Schnitger, climate lead for foundation. “It’s not just a fuel source question, it’s about how we produce and consume.”

The post What you need to know about new circularity business frameworks appeared first on Trellis.

Industry eyes carbon credit gold in mining waste

A new class of durable carbon removal credit that comes with multiple co-benefits is making its way to market.

Mining companies have been exploring the potential of using waste materials to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide for several years. Recent months have seen a burst of activity, including the release of a standard to guide the process, new deals and the completion of a successful pilot project.

The largest demonstration of the approach to date is currently wrapping up at the Mount Keith open pit nickel mine in Australia, which is run by mining giant BHP. Over roughly 18 months, a rover operated by removal startup Arca crisscrossed heaps of mine waste on the site. The rover churned the surface, exposing magnesium-rich minerals to the air and triggering a reaction that locks away CO2 in carbonate minerals that will remain stable for thousands of years.

The pilot achieved its primary goal by showing that the process could be successfully integrated into the operations of the mine, said Sean Lowrie, Arca’s head of external affairs. It also produced data that affirms the potential of mining waste to sequester CO2. Lowrie estimates that the churning caused the 40-acre site to absorb an additional 60 tons of CO2 per acre per year. The company is working on a technique, based on using microwaves to further break up the waste, which it hopes will increase that rate around a hundred-fold.

Gigaton opportunity

There are billions of tons of waste at mine sites in the U.S. alone, and several types are suitable for carbon removal. Globally, the sequestration potential of mine wastes is estimated to run to billions of tons annually — a huge number for a single drawdown mechanism given that net-zero pathways typically require tens of billions of tons of removal a year.

“Our technology is rooted in this notion that rocks have an almost unlimited capacity for durable carbon storage, at least relative to our rates of emission,” said Laura Lammers, founder and CEO of Travertine, a startup working on a removal application for mining waste.

It’s not only scale that has advocates of mining removal excited. Because mines typically have large footprints and process huge amounts of rock, there may often be limited additional environmental impact to adding infrastructure to the sites. Some removal processes can also address toxicity problems: A startup known as BAIE Minerals, for example, is developing a project in Newfoundland, Canada, that would process waste from a local asbestos mine. 

In other cases, companies are attempting to integrate carbon removal into existing industrial processes to create multiple revenue streams. Travertine’s process uses sulfate mine waste to produce a calcium-rich residue that can capture CO2. But carbon removal is not the company’s sole goal: it’s process also produces sulfuric acid, a widely used chemical. This fall, the company will open a demonstration plant in upstate New York with the capacity to capture 60 tons of CO2 annually. A commercial-scale plant is slated for 2028, said Lammers. 

Winsome, an Australian lithium miner, announced this January that it’s working with Arca and others to explore the potential of removal credits to bolster revenues from a mine in Renard, Canada, that it has acquired an option to operate. Another of Winsome’s partners is Aquarry, a startup that adds alkaline mine waste to pit lakes in old mines, accelerating the uptake of CO2 by the water. Isometric, a carbon removal registry that this year published what it says is the first protocol for durable CDR in the mining industry, is also involved.

Leading buyers

With the work still at pilot phase, removal credits from mining projects are not yet widely available. Lowrie said he anticipated announcing offtake agreements in the “near future.” But leading buyers haven already taken an interest. Frontier, a coalition of removal buyers that includes Google and H&M, has purchased credits from Travertine and Exterra, another partner on the Renard project. And Aquarry is part of the Milkywire Climate Transformation Fund, a vehicle for channeling corporate money into high-impact climate projects. Investors in the fund include Spotify and Ing. 

The Frontier purchases are designed to support development of the technology, so the prices the coalition paid per ton — $480 and $1370 to Exterra and Travertine, respectively — are not a good indication of what the cost will be when mining removal scales up. The startups did not share precise prices with Trellis, but Lammers said credit costs will “certainly be less than $200 per ton.”

Several obstacles will need to be cleared before that can happen. Cara Maesano is the author of a recent report from the non-profit RMI that surveyed opportunities for integrating carbon removal into industrial process, including mining. She said she’s upbeat about the prospects, but noted key areas of uncertainty, including limited data on sequestration rates of mine wastes outside of lab tests. Some approaches also require significant energy inputs, which may need to be reduced to keep costs manageable. 

[Join more than 5,000 professionals at Trellis Impact 25 — the center of gravity for doers and leaders focused on action and results, Oct. 28-30, San Jose.]

The post Industry eyes carbon credit gold in mining waste appeared first on Trellis.

New Texas law threatens viability of battery energy systems

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed House Bill 3809 into law May 29, mandating that all battery energy storage systems (BESS) facilities be decommissioned at the end of their lifecycle. This law, which takes effect Sept. 1, applies to both standalone BESS facilities and those co-located with solar and wind power plants, and requires developers to sign a non-waiver clause forbidding any contractual changes.

(A somewhat similar bill, SB 1150, was sent by the Texas legislator to Abbott’s desk requiring oil and gas companies to plug abandoned wells after 15 years, although that bill provides more opportunities for flexibility and extensions for the fossil fuel companies.)

Fundamentals of HB 3809

HB 3809 is very specific regarding its intended targets. The main provisions of the law are:

  • Mandatory decommissioning of BESS facilities at their end of lifecycle: This process includes the removal of buried cables, transformers and inverters, and all foundations need to be dug at least three feet deeper than the original structure to ensure proper site restoration.
  • Landowners’ right to request additional rehabilitation measures: Landowners can request that the owners of the BESS equipment undertake additional work such as removing internal roads, reseeding land with native plants and rehabilitating the land to agriculture standards.
  • BESS developers must provide financial assurance for decommissioning measures: Projects owners will consult with a third-party engineer to provide a total cost for decommissioning, both before the start of the project and annually until the termination of the lease or the 15th year of the BESS.

Texas’ energy reality

Texas ranks first in the U.S. in total wind power production, and second nationally for solar capacity. In 2024, wind and solar produced almost 30 percent of the state’s total energy, while coal produced around 11 percent. Gas is the largest source of energy within the state, accounting for more than half of all electricity production in 2024.

Infamous for an unreliable grid that fails in extreme weather, Texas solar energy and battery storage provided grid stability during the peak of summer 2024, generating 25 percent of power needs during mid-day hours between June 1 and Aug. 31, according to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).

To store renewable energy, as of 2024 Texas built 6,500 megawatts of utility-scale battery capacity, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Economic impact on battery storage

What does HB 3809 ultimately mean for the the future of Texas’ battery storage industry?

“Its burden falls heaviest on lithium-based storage,” said J. Goldsbury, VP of strategy and development at Renuvi Energy, adding that HB 3809 “is more than just a regulatory shift – it’s a market signal.”

Goldsbury explained that developers using lithium-based batteries — the most widely available and market-ready type of battery — will face greater upfront costs due to HB 3809. And any money potentially recouped by selling or recycling the decommissioned lithium is far from certain.

“Lithium markets are volatile, and recovery economics are far from predictable,” explained Goldsbury. “Current recycling initiatives are costly and logistically complex with a limited number of companies currently available in the U.S.”

“It could make it harder for companies to keep there projects financially viable,” agreed James Allsopp, CEO of iNet Ventures, a PR agency that works closely with battery storage companies.

But there are some positive ramifications of the law.

“We see this law as a long-overdue recognition of what Renuvi has known from the start: not all battery systems are created equal and infrastructure-based deployments that support the power grid should be designed with typical grid lifecycles in mind,” said Goldsbury.

The law incentivizes continued battery storage innovation that will eventually cut waste from the technology. “It encourages eco-friendly practices and careful disposal,” said Allsopp.

Of course, a large portion of federal funding to pay for this innovation is up in the air as the Senate continues to edit the House’s reconciliation bill.

The post New Texas law threatens viability of battery energy systems appeared first on Trellis.

Meet the Oxford professor who wants to tear down Scope 3 accounting

One day during the Covid winter of 2020, with his travel plans derailed, Karthik Ramanna sat down to read the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. 

Ramanna is an expert in financial accounting systems and corporate leadership at the University of Oxford. On this occasion, he’d been asked to step outside his field and comment on a piece of sustainability research. He expected to find himself on familiar ground: The front of the protocol, he recalled, declared in large type that it was an accounting standard. But it wasn’t accounting in the way he or his peers understood it.

“Imagine you pick up a book that says ‘The Astronomy of Mars’ and then you start looking at it and you think, ‘wait a minute, this is astrology, not astronomy’,” he told Trellis. “It was very, very jarring.”

That moment was the genesis for a research partnership that has produced an alternative to the existing system for emissions accounting. It’s an effort that has won praise from experts and been piloted in multiple countries. It’s also produced plenty of pushback, with critics asserting Ramanna and colleagues fail to appreciate the strengths of the existing system, which their disruptive behavior is now putting at risk.

‘We should work on this’

After reading the protocol and the research he’d been asked to assess, Ramanna joined a Zoom gathering to share his thoughts. He had no major problem with the research, he told those in attendance, but the system that underlay it did not qualify as accounting.

Sitting in the virtual audience was Robert Kaplan, an academic credited with some of the most significant accounting innovations of the past half-century and a former colleague from Ramanna’s time at Harvard. 

“He sends me a note and he says, ‘I couldn’t agree more with you and we should work on this,’” Ramanna said. “Now, Bob Kaplan has worked on some pretty important problems. For him to say that, I was like, oh, maybe I’m onto something here.”

At the heart of Ramanna and Kaplan’s idea, which first appeared in an academic paper in August 2021, is a solution to what the pair have described as the “fatal flaw” of reporting under the GHG Protocol: Scope 3. To a traditional accountant, the idea of a company having to quantify an activity taken by other organizations in a value chain, as the Scope 3 rules require, is nonsensical. Instead, companies should be asked to quantify only emissions associated with what they produce — their Scope 1 emissions, in other words.

E-liabilities

Consider the supply chain behind a steel car part, beginning with a mine that produces iron ore. The mining company is responsible for measuring emissions from its operations. In Ramanna and Kaplan’s system, when it sells the ore to a steel producer, it also transfers an appropriate fraction of those emissions — known, by analogy to financial accounting, as liabilities. 

The steel producer then measures its own emissions from the processing of the ore into steel and adds them to the emissions it inherited from the mining company. When it sells a batch of steel to the next company in the chain, the producer allocates a fraction of the total to each shipment. The process continues down the chain, with each company measuring, adding and allocating emissions. When the auto company purchases the car part, alongside the invoice comes a statement of the emissions liabilities.

One benefit of this “E-liabilities” approach — “E” for “environmental” — is that each company focuses on the emissions it controls. In the existing Scope 3 system, every company in the value chain needs to at least estimate the emissions of every other company. Under E-liability, the measurement happens once, at source, and is passed on.

Academic proposals to overhaul accounting systems don’t necessarily make a splash, but Ramanna credits Kaplan with a gift for framing problems in a way that decision-makers find useful. The pair’s provocative language didn’t hurt, either: Their paper was titled “How to Fix ESG Reporting” and a follow-up, published later the same year in the Harvard Business Review (HBR), was described as “the first rigorous approach to ESG reporting”. 

In the business community, this approach struck a chord: Kaplan and Ramanna won the 2021 HBR McKinsey Award, which goes to the review’s best article of the year. Companies began to offer to test the system. In subsequent HBR articles, Ramanna and colleagues report on E-liabilities pilots carried out in conventional spheres (cement and tires), as well as more unusual ones (security services in Afghanistan). 

Hitting the brakes

Reaction within the sustainability community has been more circumspect — particularly from those who spent years establishing the GHG Protocol as the foundation for how companies report on emissions. 

Perhaps the most notable critique came from Janet Ranganathan, a managing director at the World Resources Institute and a lead author of the GHG Protocol. Her 2024 commentary on E-liabilities opens with a warning, in bold, that “E-liability is not a replacement for the GHG Protocol.” 

Like other critics, Ranganathan noted that double-counting in Scope 3 is a feature, not a bug: Companies that take responsibility for value-chain emissions are incentivized to collaborate with suppliers and customers on decarbonization solutions. “While it is important to remain open to new ideas,” she concluded, “we shouldn’t be too quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

Others have questioned the practicality of Ramanna and Kaplan’s ideas. “The e-liability system is brittle, as each company depends on every other company operating upstream of it in a value chain to also estimate emissions and engage with the E-liability registry,” wrote Michael Gillenwater, co-founder of the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute and an advisor to the GHG Protocol.

Objections like that from establishment figures have likely slowed attempts to evaluate E-liabilities, but the idea continues to pick up adherents. Other academics have weighed in with supportive commentary, ranging from proposals for incorporating use of carbon removals to suggestions that E-liabilities could drive investments in supply-chain decarbonization. And pilots are ongoing: Ramanna’s most recent HBR article, from February of this year, describes a test by BMW that outlined how large companies can help smaller suppliers to develop emissions measurement capabilities.

Ramanna and colleagues have also extended their proposal. After opponents pointed out that individual consumers at the end of value chains cannot in practice be held responsible for emissions embedded in products they purchase, Ramanna and Kaplan responded by specifying when and how companies selling to consumers should disclose downstream emissions. 

Pull factor

One question now is whether the E-liabilities approach will spread piecemeal, colonizing parts of value chains until it emerges as a de facto standard, or move more quickly by winning top-down support from a government willing to mandate the approach. A third outcome, of course, is that the challenges associated with the idea will cause the pilots to dry up and the approach to fizzle.

Ramanna told Trellis that he doesn’t anticipate a government imposing the system wholesale in the next couple of years, but the political and economic realignments being driven by President Trump and other forces favor his system. “One of the strongest pull factors we have today, geopolitically, is economic nationalism,” he said.

One example is the E.U.’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). European companies in high-emission sectors, including steel and cement, will next year have to start paying tariffs on the carbon generated by the production of the goods they import. The system will incentivize suppliers outside Europe to compete to reduce the emissions associated with their products — exactly the kind of competitive force that E-liabilities is designed to harness.

“Carbon border accounting, if done right, can be a powerful tool against climate change,” Ramanna wrote last year. “It can raise the rules of the game so that companies and countries compete on low-emissions goods and services, just as they currently compete on factors such as costs, quality, and timeliness.”

With Trump intent on protecting select domestic industries and punishing imports, the moment might be right for a U.S. version of CBAM. Last month, a bipartisan pair of representatives introduced a bill to replace the federal gas tax with a carbon border tax. A related bill was introduced in the Senate a month earlier.

“I’m not saying this is all hunky-dory and it’ll happen tomorrow,” said Ramanna. “But there are enough tailwinds to engage with this process in the United States and around the world as a win-win. It’s a win on trade, it’s a win on climate, it’s a win on economic competitiveness.”

The post Meet the Oxford professor who wants to tear down Scope 3 accounting appeared first on Trellis.

7 companies helping Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft go nuclear

Amazon has added to its portfolio of carbon-free energy purchases with a deal to buy 1.9 gigawatts through 2042 from Talen Energy’s nuclear plant in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania. The goal: to energize new and existing data centers in the region.

The power purchase agreement announced on June 11 builds on an existing relationship, and it supports Amazon’s plan to invest $20 billion on Amazon Web Services facilities in Pennsylvania. The Talen arrangement hints at another expansion, using small modular reactors, building on investments Amazon disclosed last October. Terms weren’t disclosed.   

Amazon’s new contract is the third high-profile nuclear deal announced since early May, alongside ones by Google and Meta. Microsoft is also looking for ways to go nuclear: Its biggest move so far was an agreement last fall that will reopen a shuttered reactor at Three Mile Island. 

All four companies view nuclear energy baseloads as an important addition to their carbon-free energy portfolios alongside solar, wind and geothermal. 

“There is this really untapped resource of nuclear energy that is existing or that has exited the grid recently because the economics have pushed them off as more renewables come online,” Bobby Hollis, vice president of energy at Microsoft, told Trellis last September. Microsoft’s first publicly announced nuclear deal was in May 2023, with fusion company Helion Energy.

Favorable conditions

The political climate is conducive to keeping existing plants online or restarting retired ones: President Trump has signed executive orders propping up nuclear, including ones to encourage advanced technologies and expand U.S. nuclear capacity to 400 gigawatts by 2050, compared with 100 gigawatts currently. He even supported the restart of a reactor in Michigan, which received a $1.5 billion rescue loan from President Biden.

Nuclear energy could meet up to 10 percent of data center electricity demand by 2035, according to an April 2025 Deloitte analysis. A single reactor using legacy technologies generates about 800 megawatts; AI data centers can require up to 5 gigawatts.

Interest has also sparked a surge in demand for small modular reactors, which offer about one-third the generating capacity of larger units. The global pipeline of projects was 47 gigawatts at the end of the first quarter, with more than half of the capacity in the U.S., according to projections by research firm Wood Mackenzie. 

“The surge in data center demand has propelled nuclear small modular reactors to a major player in the future energy mix,” said David Brown, director of energy transition research at Wood Mackenzie. “[They] remain a top priority for the Trump administration and with policy tailwinds, development should accelerate and expand to be a significant source of clean energy.” 

There is still plenty of uncertainty over whether the projects will actually be built: It will take $300 billion to build the current pipeline of small modular reactors. 

“Nuclear has had many false starts,” said David Wilson, CEO of Energy Exemplar, which develops energy modeling software. New builds will take years to come online, he noted. “I’m optimistic for the technology, but I’m very pragmatic,” he said.

Power producers to watch

Well-established utilities and little-known developers are at the center of the nuclear deals announced by Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft over the past 18 months. Here are ones making headlines:

Constellation Energy

The Baltimore-based producer, which operates the largest U.S. nuclear fleet with 21 reactors, is Microsoft’s partner for the Three Mile Island restart. It’s also the supplier for Meta’s 20-year-long power purchase agreement, announced June 3, to buy 1.1 gigawatts of nuclear energy from the Clinton Clean Energy Center in Illinois. 

Meta’s commitment will support an expansion of the facility’s output and deliver $13.5 million in annual tax revenue, according to the announcement. The site had been slated for retirement.

Dominion Energy

The Virginia utility operates seven nuclear plants in Connecticut, Virginia and South Carolina. It received approval to extend the operating licenses in Virginia — a data center hotbed — for two decades and is conducting feasibility studies on small modular reactors that could add 300 megawatts of power in the state.

Elementl Power

This stealthy nuclear development company, located in Greer, South Carolina, and founded in 2022, has been contracted by Google to prepare at least three sites (locations undisclosed) for advanced nuclear installations. Each installation would have a generation capacity of at least 600 gigawatts, and Google would have the option to buy that power, under the agreement disclosed May 7. 

Elementl’s mission is to bring 10 gigawatts of advanced nuclear online in the U.S. by 2035. It has won favor with the Department of Energy, through the agency’s Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear program. Elementl is backed by infrastructure investment firm Breakwater North and Energy Impact Partners, the investment firm created by a who’s-who in the energy industry.

Energy Northwest

Amazon’s investments in small modular reactors include an October 2024 agreement with this group of utilities, located predominantly in Washington state, that have committed to construct small modular reactors. The Amazon contract will support four projects, with a combined generation capacity of 320 megawatts in the first phase and an option to scale up to 960 megawatts.

Kairos Power

Google’s first nuclear partnership, announced in October 2024, was with this developer of small modular reactors based in Alameda, California. The plan is to build installations in regions where they can supply electricity to Google data centers, via corporate power purchase agreements. 

The total pipeline called for under the deal is 500 megawatts — which translates into a half-dozen reactors — with the first site to be built by 2030. Financial terms weren’t disclosed. Kairos is also working closely with Elementl, Google’s other nuclear ally.

Oklo

Data center developer Switch, which counts big companies including eBay and FedEx among its customers, signed a contract to buy 12 gigawatts of electricity from nuclear projects being built by this Santa Clara, California, nuclear company.

Oklo is run by a management team that includes alumni from Apple, Google and Tesla.  Its fission technology can use nuclear waste as fuel, and the company on June 11 announced a U.S. Air Force contract to build a reactor in Alaska.

Talen Energy

Based in Houston, Talen is the majority owner of the Susquehanna nuclear plant in Pennsylvania. Amazon moved to buy a data center campus powered by the site in March 2024. The grid interconnection permit needed to support that deal was twice rejected by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

The expanded relationship will keep Susquehanna’s power on the PJM grid. It adds PPL Electric Utilities as transmission and delivery partner. “Connecting large load customers like data centers to our transmission system helps lower the transmission components of energy bills for all customers, as large load customers pay significant transmission charges on our network,” said PPL President Christine Martin.    

Talen and Amazon are also planning small modular reactors in Pennsylvania.

The post 7 companies helping Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft go nuclear appeared first on Trellis.

4 trajectories and 5 shifts to help sharpen your company’s sustainability path 

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

There’s a sentiment I keep hearing over and over these days: “It can be hard to make sense of what’s happening around us.”

This notion isn’t new — we’re always looking for ways to interact with an unpredictable world. To help sustainability professionals navigate volatility and turbulence, my colleagues and I at Forum for the Future, a sustainability nonprofit, use what are called applied futures to help create concrete, practical ways forward. 

Applied futures 101 

The central premise of applied futures is that the future doesn’t simply happen to us. It’s based on the decisions and actions we take today. By understanding how the world is changing, we can work out what needs to happen to create the future we want.

One of the most common tools we use at Forum for the Future is trajectories. These are pathways we see emerging at any moment in time in the operating context for an organization. The trajectories we use the most were created in 2023 by drawing on insights from our Futures Centre and interviews with business leaders, activists and entrepreneurs. Each trajectory was underpinned by a particular mindset or approach of what could happen.

Profit supreme

This is a mindset that resists or opts out of change, with a focus on maximizing shareholder value and profits. In many ways Profit Supreme has intensified and become more widespread in recent years. The anti-ESG rhetoric of two years ago has evolved into lawsuits and investor motions. In some parts of the world, the energy transition has been deliberately halted in order to squeeze short-term profits from oil and gas.

Response: If Profit Supreme is dominant, contextualize everything through the business case lens. Dip into the vast bank of data points that demonstrate the business case, such as data showing that products featuring sustainable attributes increase revenues by up to 25 percent over other products. Use the framing of resilience and value creation.

Shallow gestures 

This trajectory is characterized by incremental measures that fail to deliver change at scale and pace. As with Profit Supreme, Shallow Gestures has also become more widespread across multiple geographies. This is in part due to the crowding out of sustainability issues by a whole host of short-term pressures, from economic uncertainty, supply chain disruption and legislative uncertainty. For many organizations, bandwidth and resources are diverted away from sustainability (which is to miss the point that sustainability can help deal with these pressures). In some cases, this diversion is simply a function of a real commitment to transformation not actually being there in the first place. 

Response: Identify actions that don’t fundamentally impact the underlying business model, but shift it by, for example, adopting targets around sustainable products that can be delivered to market with the same, slightly-tweaked business model.

Tech optimism

This trajectory, in which technology is viewed as a solution to all problems, but an over-reliance on it neglects the need for shifts in social norms, acceptance and behavior change, continues to flourish.

In the U.K., for example, scientists are experimenting with outdoor geoengineering as part of a £50m ($67 million) government-funded program. If successful, it has the potential to temporarily reduce the Earth’s surface temperatures.

In the UAE, cloud seeding is being used to increase the amount of rain produced by clouds and help mitigate droughts. 

And in Brazil, the city of Pindamonhangaba has deployed a wide-reaching network of smart sensors that automatically trigger alerts when detecting rising water levels or dangerous temperature spikes. The sensors have already helped save countless lives as well as over a million reais ($174,000) in disaster-related costs. 

Response: Start with the innovation of a new digital tool, for example, that happens to be less carbon intensive. Or explore how AI could help make operations more energy efficient.

Courage to transform

Where businesses adopt a transformative mindset, working in partnership with governments, civil society, investors, experimenting with new models and practices, delivering lasting change. Despite a well-funded and sophisticated counter narrative, Courage to Transform is still visible, too. 

A recent PwC report found that 37 percent of companies are increasing their sustainability ambitions, compared to only 16 percent decelerating their efforts. Despite pessimistic news stories, the report suggests there’s hope, with 80 percent of companies on track to meet their climate goals.

There’s also encouraging transformation happening in multilateral settings, with Malaysia supporting Brazil’s BRICS chairmanship priorities, China investing 6.8 trillion yuan ($940 billion) in clean energy last year and Brazil chairing the G20 in 2024 and hosting COP30 in 2025.

Response: Identify opportunities to move faster. This could be through innovation, new collaborations and accessing new forms of capital through sustainable finance solutions.

All trajectories are in play — so what?

The four trajectories can help companies identify the dominant path that is defining their operating context and the dominant mindset driving it. In turn, this can inform what approach and what language companies can use to keep moving ahead.

Wherever you are, there are five shifts you can make, no matter the trajectory:

Shift the narrative. From complex jargon to simple, relatable words that remind people why sustainability matters. Focus on nature, health benefits, community well being.

Shift the words. From “either/or” to “and.” Polarization creates fragmentation and makes it hard to unify movements. Where massive divides exist, either across political lines, generational lines or within communities, it’s hard to see how solutions will scale unless we stop saying net zero is an either/or. It’s a pathway to a thriving and prosperous future — and great for business.  

Shift the solutions. It’s easy to criticize solutions, particularly when they may not be making progress at the pace we envision. But incremental steps towards a goal can spur change so don’t be afraid to start small. 

Shift the place. Instead of touting abstract solutions, provide ones that can be applied in cities and that can work at a local level. This is where sustainability gets real. 

Shift the engagement. From collaborating with people we already know and who share our point of view to engaging with those who perhaps don’t. It’s time to force ourselves out of our echo chambers. 

All of this translates into four questions. Are you:

Using language that people understand? 

Engaging with new people? 

Offering large and incremental solutions?

Being generous with assumptions, time and humanity? 

If the answer to each of these questions isn’t yes, then maybe it’s time to rethink your strategy and your execution. 

The post 4 trajectories and 5 shifts to help sharpen your company’s sustainability path  appeared first on Trellis.

Growing in use, plastic credits face rising criticism

Trading in plastic credits has emerged as an option to offset businesses’ plastic footprints, but experts say that companies should focus on reducing production of the material before using credit purchases to deal with the plastic pollution crisis.

One plastic credit represents one metric ton of waste collected, recycled or upcycled, and can be bought by companies to offset their plastic footprints. India’s plastic credit market is expected to grow 70 percent to $1.7 billion from 2024 to 2030, and Global Market Estimates predicts 48 percent global growth in the credits by 2029.

As with carbon credit markets, however, critics are skeptical of this tool’s efficacy to bring systemic, permanent reductions to plastic waste.

“I would never argue that plastic credits are the solution to the crisis on their own,” said Sebastian DiGrande, CEO of PCX Markets, which launched in 2021 and has become one of the world’s largest plastic credits marketplaces. “But we do think that credits are an important financing mechanism that will accelerate action downstream and incentivize action upstream.”

What is a plastic credit?

In 2022, the world generated 268 million metric tons of plastic waste. Eleven percent of that, or about 718,000 jumbo jets by weight, were discarded into the environment.

The financing gap to create a circular plastics economy by 2040 is between $426 billion and $1.2 trillion, according to the World Bank. Proponents of credits argue that they address plastic waste today while mobilizing financing for waste infrastructure.

Projects that collect plastic waste and meet quality standards can sell credits for each ton they collect. Companies, or individuals, can purchase those credits, funding waste management projects.

Online marketplaces like PCX Markets connect projects with buyers. To date, PCX says, it has facilitated the collection and processing of over 136,000 metric tons of plastic.

Projects are usually based in developing nations that have little or no municipal waste collection services and therefore generate more plastic waste pollution.

After plastic is collected, what happens to it varies. It might be disposed of in a managed landfill, recycled, upcycled or burned as an energy source.

Plastic credit prices are set by project organizers. At PCX, credits sell for an average price of around $200. Cheaper options are generally collection and disposal or burning, while more expensive projects involve upcycling or ocean clean-ups.

Other prominent names in the plastic credits market include Verra — a leader in standards-setting in the voluntary carbon market whose methods have attracted scrutiny — and BVRio.

“Plastic credits can align financial flows from a range of sources towards high quality plastic waste management projects, particularly in regions that are disproportionately impacted by plastic pollution,” said Komal Sinha, senior director of government and policy engagement at Verra.

No cure for plastics pollution

Critics dismiss the whole concept.

“Plastic credits treat the symptom, waste, rather than the disease, unsustainable production and consumption of single-use plastics,” said Alex Blum, CEO of Applied Bioplastics.

“I doubt whether the plastic credit mechanism can contribute meaningfully,” said Sangcheol Moon, plastics researcher at UC Berkeley. “It is not a stable funding mechanism and it can further fragment the governance landscape.”

Concerns also emerge at the individual project level.

A recent paper by Moon and Neil Tangri, science and policy director at the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, raises concerns about plastic credits, specifying additionality and permanence issues.

The paper argues that some credits “include ongoing waste collection activities that would have occurred regardless of plastic credit incentives,” failing to meet additionality standards.

Permanence is another challenge.

“Plastic credits are not permanently removing plastic from the environment,” said Tangri. “If plastics go to recycling, which we think is the best possible destination for plastic waste, it gets recycled and within a short time it becomes waste again.”

Standards setters like Verra and PCX try to reconcile these issues by requiring projects to meet additionality requirements, environmental standards and improved worker conditions.

“Unless we provide the highest possible level of transparency and trust in what we’re doing, this market will never scale,” said DiGrande.

Lack of standards 

A lack of universal definitions and guidelines, however, remains an obstacle for the industry.

“We don’t believe in the effectiveness of plastic credits without a credible, solid, and harmonized global standard,” says a statement on Nestlé’s website.

“We believe further research is needed to test the effectiveness of plastic credits,” said a Danone spokesperson. “We also believe that there is a need for standardized methodologies to measure the impact of voluntary initiatives.”

Danone’s subsidiary, Danone-AQUA Indonesia, withdrew from a plastic credit partnership last year after community members complained that its alternative fuel plant was releasing toxic smoke.

Proponents argue that plastic credits provide communities and workers with steady sources of income, but studies of forest management and soil carbon credit projects “show that worker benefits often don’t materialize,” said Moon.

How sustainability leaders approach them

“Reduction obviously sits as that first step for us, but we still produced 1.9 million pounds of plastic in 2024,” said Kaley Warner, sustainability manager of Grove Collaborative, a company that produces sustainable household products. “We’re trying to take responsibility for the plastic that doesn’t have a viable alternative yet.”

Grove considers itself “plastic neutral” because it recovers an equal amount of plastic through credits as it produces. Meanwhile, upstream efforts led to a 23 percent reduction in Grove’s plastic production from 2023 to 2024.

In most countries, plastic waste management programs are voluntary for large companies. However, extended producer responsibility (EPR) regulations are emerging across the world, with governments in Canada, the E.U. and the U.K. mandating that companies take responsibility for their products after consumer use.

In the Philippines — the leading source of ocean plastic pollution in the world — plastic credits are permitted to satisfy EPR requirements. The pros and cons of this approach are being debated in global plastics treaty talks.

In the Philippines, new producer responsibility regulations have resulted in more capital being funneled to plastic recycling infrastructure, and the unit costs of using virgin plastic are increasing due to credit purchases, incentivizing investment in upstream solutions.

“We’re not perfect,” said DiGrande. “But we also don’t want perfect to be the enemy of good along the way.”

The post Growing in use, plastic credits face rising criticism appeared first on Trellis.

Lululemon signs 10-year deal for recycled fiber shift

Lululemon plans to source nearly one-fifth of its fiber mix from material recycled from used clothing and scraps by 2035. The athleisure giant announced a decade-long agreement June 11 to purchase content from the Australian startup Samsara Eco, which specializes in AI-powered enzymatic recycling.

It’s the type of vote of confidence that young textile recycling companies hope for as they navigate the commercialization “valley of death” that has slayed so many, such as Renewcell.

The news comes as Samsara Eco brings a new factory online and moves its headquarters from Sydney to Jerrabomberra in the next few months.

“Scaling circular materials requires bold partnerships and a shared commitment to rethinking how our industry operates,” said Ted Dagnese, Lululemon’s chief supply chain officer, in a statement.

The agreement serves Lululemon’s 2030 goal to use only “preferred materials” that are either recycled or meet sustainable and ethical sourcing standards. Between 2020 and 2023, that has grown from 27 percent to 47 percent of overall fibers. In 2025, the brand is betting that it can reach 75 percent preferred materials, including 75 percent recycled polyester.

Last year, Lululemon and Samsara Eco developed the first garment, a peach shirt, from recycled nylon 6,6.

Lululemon’s ‘preferred’ materials pursuits

Lululemon is engaged in multiple efforts to mass produce non-virgin synthetics. That includes participating in a $100 million series A round of funding for Samsara Eco one year ago.

Lululemon has backed other startups, too, including plant-based nylon venture Geno in 2021, and ZymoChem, a synthetic biology firm making biobased materials for nylon 6,6. The company has also used chemicals from LanzaTech, created from captured carbon dioxide emissions, to produce yarn.

Its diversified approach to circularity includes a popular branded resale channel enabled by Tersus Solutions’ reverse logistics operation in Colorado.

Partnering with Lululemon earlier in 2024, Samsara Eco recycled textiles to make the peach Swiftly top of nylon 6,6 and the purple Anorak polyester jacket. The startup has since recycled a different strain of nylon.
Partnering with Lululemon earlier in 2024, Samsara Eco recycled textiles to make the peach Swiftly top of nylon 6,6 and the purple Anorak polyester jacket. Credit: Lululemon/Samsara Eco
Source: Samsara Eco

Lululemon’s challenges

Sustainability activists have criticized Lululemon for doubling its climate emissions between 2019 to 2023, during which period its revenues nearly tripled.

Lululemon also uses virgin synthetics in 67 percent of its materials, according to the Changing Markets Foundation. Whether virgin or synthetic, such textiles leach toxic chemicals into people’s bloodstreams, according to research published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology. As more research on the health impacts of plastic fabrics unfolds, fashion brands such as Lululemon will face new supply chain risks.

Synthetic fibers are also a major culprit when it comes to microplastics pollution, although Lululemon participates in The Microfibre Consortium, an industry effort to mitigate the problem.

To its credit, the Vancouver-based company did score a C grade, up from a C-minus a year earlier, on Stand.earth’s most recent Fossil Fuel Fashion scorecard. The nonprofit gave the company credit for investing in next-generation and recycled fibers.

Meanwhile, the executives tasked with achieving Lululemon’s science-based, validated net zero targets for 2050 have recently changed. Former Nike executive Noel Kinder joined as senior vice president of sustainability earlier this month, about a week after longtime leader Esther Speck left.

How Samsara Eco works

Founded in 2021, Samsara Eco customizes enzymes to break down mixed polymers into monomer building blocks within 20 minutes. The processes to recycle polyester and nylon are similar, and the startup can manage blends. “We can deal with polyester cotton,” CEO Paul Riley told Trellis in December. “We don’t have an issue with the mixed nature of those garments; we can separate those quite comfortably.”

The company advertises a liquid process using low heat and pressure, resulting in a low energy footprint. It has three layers of intellectual property for the enzymes, the process and the machine learning.

Across the fabric lifecycle, Samsara Eco’s output has a substantially lower climate footprint than virgin material, and it delivers “true circularity,” Riley said. The end product is meant to be indistinguishable from and “cost-comparable” to traditional materials.

Samsara Eco is planning a commercial plant to recycle nylon 6,6 by 2028. It’s also working with Israel-based nylon maker Nilit to spin its recycled polymer pellets into yarn in Southeast Asia.

The company has set “a ridiculously ambitious target” to process 1.5 million tons of plastics each year by 2030, Riley noted. “But when you look at the numbers,” he said, “that’s .37 percent of the world’s annual plastics production. It is tiny. So so we need to get there, and we need to get bigger than that if we’re going to resolve the problems that are out there across plastics and across carbon.”

Offtake agreements with other brands are in the works, according to Samsara Eco. Meanwhile, rival biorecycling startup Carbios announced offtake agreements of its own, with L’Oréal and L’Occitane en Provence — but for recycled polyester packaging rather than textiles.

The post Lululemon signs 10-year deal for recycled fiber shift appeared first on Trellis.