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

At the start of 2025, if you asked chief sustainability officers what their primary role was, the answer was to continue to push for change, get their executive leadership onboard and make the business case to integrate sustainability into corporate infrastructure. The Weinreb Group asked this very question and published their perspective, which largely noted that they anticipated staying the course in the years to come. 

On one hand, that prediction was accurate: commitments to corporate sustainability have remained largely unchanged despite considerable financial, political and societal headwinds. In fact, many companies have deepened their commitments. What has changed, however, are two key shifts, both of which directly impact the professional overall. 

The first is a shift in messaging from external communications to internal ones. While the work is still happening, the desire to promote it in the current environment has both waned and changed course dramatically. Instead of touting climate or social impact, today’s communications are more internally-focused and place a much greater emphasis on business benefits. 

The second and related change is that sustainability has shifted towards primarily being a legal and regulatory function within organizations. The result of these two changes is that the role of the CSO and all sustainability professionals have also morphed in terms of messaging and reporting relationships. 

The evolution of messaging 

Long gone are the days when the CEO and CSO would stand on stage for an all-employee meeting and tout the virtues of sustainability while tying commitments to that CEO’s legacy. The shift was chronicled in a report from Deloitte, which noted that “CEOs are focusing on cost management, supply chain resilience and AI to drive sustainable growth.” 

This shift is indicative of a broader industry change we’re seeing: company leaders are prioritizing business value over impact. The emphasis has gone from “show me the impact and money” to “show me the money.”  

Of course, many sustainability professionals have been making the business case for years. But the message often hasn’t made it through, because of: 

• Opponents’ messaging: Sustainability opponents have worked hard to paint sustainability as a profit-killer, with efforts ramping up in recent years to depict sustainability as a lever that dilutes shareholder value.
• Absence from high-profile communications: Financial impacts are often left out of sustainability messages. For example, Cambridge University and BCG found half of the speeches at COPs 27 through 29 didn’t mention economic impacts at all. Tensie Whelan of New York University told Trellis, “ESG reporting metrics neither integrate financial performance nor provide guidance on how to understand and drive better financial performance.” 
• Missing the cost of inaction: The cost of inaction is consistently vastly underestimated. Although it can be quantified, very few companies do so because they don’t know how to do it or how to get the CFO on board. This makes it look like inaction is costless, although nothing could be farther from the truth.

The reality of a regulatory role

When it comes to reporting relationships, CEOs’ prioritizing efficiency over impact has changed things. In general, CSO reporting lines are further from the CEO, and there’s a strong emphasis on CSOs working to mitigate legal risk. The Weinreb Group’s most recent CSO report found the number of CSOs reporting into the legal department has doubled in just the last two years. And the role of ESG controllers rose in 2024 because of their ability to apply financial analysis to non-financial data, such as climate risk. 

In addition, sustainability teams are increasingly being disbanded and distributed across business functions. This year, we’ve seen heads of sustainability depart from Nike, Unilever and Apple while their responsibilities have dispersed elsewhere

Greenwashing, too, has evolved from being a marketing issue to a legal one through the dramatic rise in global legislative initiatives that have cost companies millions. Just this month, for example, the UK banned ads from 3 major clothing brands, citing misleading green claims. 

The sustainability job in 2026

Where does this leave sustainability leaders? We have five suggestions for how to lead in today’s regulatory-driven environment: 

• Take an auditor to lunch. Given the increased expectation for data to be verified and assured, you don’t have to become an auditor, but you should get to know the ones your company uses. Find out what they prioritize and how they think, so you can align your strategy accordingly. The relationship you build will help you both. 
• Track lobbying efforts. Corporate lobbying in opposition to sustainability rules rose this year, and that is likely to continue. It’s important to stay apprised of such efforts, because they could significantly affect regulatory changes that aim to keep climate law and human rights efforts intact. Keeping  an eye on developments specific to your industry will make you smarter and able to ask the right questions. 
• Embrace AI and big data. It’s easy to dismiss AI as a tech issue, or avoid it because of concerns about how it consumes resources. But AI isn’t going anywhere and the professionals who gain an understanding of its benefits and how to apply it to climate strategies will have an advantage going forward. 
• Tell  your stories, but differently. Storytelling is one of the oldest and most enduring formats of societal change. To be heard, you’ll have to evolve the language you use to ensure non-partisan engagement. And you’ll also need to emphasize business benefits to overcome current messaging challenges. This may look difficult, but don’t give up on the power of creating a narrative that communicates progress, value and impact. 
• Don’t lose sight of the human side of sustainability. While the emphasis right now is on policy and efficiency, at the end of the day sustainability is about our ability to ensure a healthy, equitable and thriving planet for all people.

There’s no question sustainability is an enduring profession. It’s been through many pendulum swings over the past decades, and we can guarantee we’ll see many more. Your job isn’t to become everything to everyone, but to double down on your resilience and meet the needs of today. 

The post How sustainability leaders can get ahead in 2026 appeared first on Trellis.

In a year of political and economic turbulence, it was reassuring to hear many companies say they were sticking with their sustainability commitments. But the “staying the course” narrative omits something critical: Commitments are table stakes. What really matters is progress toward those goals, and the story there is much less comforting.

The past 12 months saw a wave of companies report slower-than-expected emissions reductions. Others are almost certain to do the same in 2026. At the heart of the issue is a fundamental gap between the emissions cuts that companies say are possible and the scale of the change they are being asked to deliver.

The rest of this article could be filled with examples. To state just a few from 2025: HSBC said it would achieve net-zero operations by 2050, two decades later than originally planned; PepsiCo watered down interim 2030 goals and pushed its net-zero date from 2040 to 2050; Salesforce set a new 2030 that requires little more progress than it has already made; and Intel quietly dropped a key commitment to reduce supply-chain emissions, its second-largest source.

Hard truths 

There are notable exceptions, such as Ingka Group. The retail behemoth operates most IKEA stores and was one of the first companies we profiled in Chasing Net Zero, our company-by-company look at progress toward emission goals. Leaders there place sustainability at the heart of business decisions and are on track to halve emissions by 2030. But there are also many businesses that aren’t even at the starting line, like the 56 percent of large U.S. companies that by 2023 had still not set interim emissions targets — or the 12 percent that did not even report direct emissions.

One factor behind the troubled targets is maturity: The sustainability profession is growing up and discovering some painful truths. Talk to people who were in the room when the first round of net-zero targets were set — many between five and 10 years ago — and you hear tales from a different era. 

The prevailing advice, said Alison Taylor, a business-school professor at New York University, was to set over-ambitious targets to signal ambition and galvanize change — even if the path to execution wasn’t clear. With companies in court over net-zero marketing and emissions reporting mandatory in some regions, legal and compliance departments are also now at the table. 

Another sustainability leader, who requested anonymity while discussing their former employer, recalled sending the company’s first net-zero commitment to in-house lawyers around five years ago. They quickly said all looked good — a speedy turnaround unthinkable today. “I can’t believe we got those climate commitments out the door,” the leader said.

Out of reach

Still, this evolution on its own doesn’t explain why so many goals now seem out of reach. A bigger factor is the slow pace of global decarbonization. Under current policies, the world is on track to warm 2.6 degrees Celsius by 2100, according to the nonprofit Climate Action Tracker. Most large companies are exposed to a slice of the global economy through their suppliers and customers, which often make up 70 percent or more of a company’s footprint. Yet net-zero frameworks typically require companies to decarbonize in line with a 1.5C future, far faster than current policies enable. It’s no wonder many are saying they can’t.

A challenge of this magnitude can seem unsurmountable, especially as the current U.S. administration has another three years to run. But that doesn’t mean sustainability professionals can’t work to change the dynamics that are causing companies to miss targets.

One area to explore is the widening array of tools that allow companies to decarbonize supply chains and deduct the benefits against emission inventories. These include industry-specific coalitions in aviation, concrete and other areas that aggregate demand for emerging low-carbon technologies, as well as carbon accounting rules with the potential to unlock “vast new climate finance.” Government support for these schemes would be welcome, but it’s not essential — the tools are ready now and available to use.

How not to be undermined by lobbying

Then there’s the long-standing and decidedly thorny issue of company lobbying. One reason global policies are off track is that companies lobby against legislation that would cut emissions, either directly or through membership of trade organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The ambitions of sustainability teams, in other words, are being undermined from within. (Check your company’s position on the Climate Policy Obstruction Scorecard from advocacy group Climate Voice.)

Going head-to-head with company lobbyists is a daunting ask at the best of times, and even more so when sustainability professionals are feeling marginalized. But advocating for lobbying reform need not require career-imperilling tactics, as Climate Voice’s advice shows. Many companies now routinely review trade association membership, and those reviews are an opportunity for sustainability teams to highlight the conflicts that membership brings. Or focus on strength in numbers: pressure from employee groups has been cited by executives as a key force in changing sustainability strategies.

These two interventions feel very different. But both change how the game is played. And change of that nature is what’s required right now, because the existing rules are not delivering the decarbonization that a habitable planet requires.

The post It’s time we all come to grips with today’s emissions-reduction reality appeared first on Trellis.

It’s not exactly breaking news that companies are increasingly resorting to greenhushing for fear of political retaliation in an increasingly anti-climate U.S.

On the flipside, the petrochemical industry, in particular, has perfected greenwashing by downplaying its role in the climate crisis, most recently by blocking global action on a plastics treaty, frustrating corporate leaders in other sectors.

But sustainability professionals also risk being laughed at by left-leaning influencers and activists.

In the viral videos below, comedians and satirists of all stripe take aim at industry doublespeak and denial.

The takeaway for communicators?

“You need clear proof of action before putting out communications about it,” said Luke Purdy, the Amsterdam-based director of sustainability at Wieden + Kennedy. “Put simply: a little less PR spin, a little more action.”

‘Deny Hard’

A meteorologist delivers a Dec. 12 “Extreme Weather Report.” Backed by footage of a “series of isolated and unrelated storms” in Southeast Asia, he offers a word from the fictional sponsor: “Exxon Mobil thanks people everywhere who have adapted to these turbulent times by losing their homes, bank accounts and lives so that Exxon Mobil could continue protecting all of us from the free, clean energy of the sun.”

This latest fake-weather-series video comes from Yellow Dot Studios, which was founded by Hollywood director Adam MacKay in 2023 after striking climate-comedy gold with the film “Don’t Look Up.” The studio’s other highlights: A Sept. 30 trailer for a spoof blockbuster, “Deny Hard,” parodies how “big polluters” would make action movies.

‘Scrub, scrub, scrub’

A giant green sponge soaps away negative headlines, soaks in a hot tub with executives and twerks with the Wall Street bull statue. The character, Scrubby Greenwash, targets luxury cruise lines including Royal Caribbean for releasing methane from liquefied natural gas. “If the industry doesn’t act fast, this information could hurt their bottom line,” a narrator says. Scrubby bursts through a wall. “Scrub, scrub, scrub sad facts away.”

The spoof, which debuted in December 2024, comes from the Yes Men collective. Some people found the video through a QR code in a fake ad for an advertising firm in Maritime Executive magazine. Since the 1990s, the Yes Men have staged hoaxes to stress-test the sincerity of Dow Chemical and others. Pranksters Jacques Servin and Igor Vamos have spent the past five years mocking empty climate pledges.

‘Green Enough’

A marketing intern at bank Société Générale tells Parisians on the street about a new campaign, “Green Enough”: “We’re burning the planet, yes, but we’re doing it in a responsible way,” he says. However, that fake character is actually satirist Oli Frost’s latest attack, via YouTube, on a financial institution.

The Dec. 6 clip calls out the bank for funding Adani Group of India: “The good and the bad cancels out: burn a tree, hug a bunny, underwrite a $409 million bond to the world’s largest private coal company,” he says. “For every coal mine we fund, we plant one tree.”

Frost, a singer-songwriter, produces a parade of short videos, suiting up to ping ludicrous questions at executives. In May he launched a fake “meditation” app, Edelman Oilwell, poking the PR giant for its oil and gas client roster. Frost has also created a fake ad agency and a video game “to annoy fossil fuel financiers.”

The post No laughing matter: Viral videos skewer corporate greenwashing appeared first on Trellis.

Concerns have never been more acute about pollution and toxicity from plastics. Plastic production and waste could nearly triple by 2060, yet hopes are weak for a global plastics treaty after the last attempt flamed out in August.

But regardless of its outcome, this moment marks a turning point for business risks and opportunities around plastics.

The treaty collapsed after Saudi Arabia, the United States, Russia and other fossil-fuel-friendly nations balked on production caps, which more than 100 other countries demanded. The United Nations treaty requires unanimity, however, and many experts are pessimistic about that possibility.

Treaty stakeholders return to Geneva on Feb. 7 to elect a new chair, who will need to navigate tensions with obstructionist countries.

Risks and opportunities

“Reckless petrochemical capacity expansion isn’t just harmful for the climate; it’s increasingly seen as a financial risk,” said Andres del Castillo, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law.

In July, more than 80 financial institutions managing a collective $7 trillion in assets warned of major liabilities related to plastics.

In addition, the health impacts of plastics will cause businesses to lose customers, according to Judith Enck, author of the 2025 book, “The Problem with Plastic.” Scientists recently tied plastics in the body to heart attacks and Alzheimer’s disease. “Poll after poll shows that the public wants less plastic,” she said.

The good news: Advancing circular and less-toxic plastic systems can create new business streams and 8.6 million jobs, according to the Dec. 3 “Breaking the Plastics Wave” report by Pew Charitable Trust and ICF International.

Where businesses stand

More than 300 companies in the Business Coalition for a Plastics Treaty— including Coca-Cola, Unilever and Walmart — re-affirmed their eagerness on Dec. 9 for new treaty talks.

Another collaboration, the U.S. Plastics Pact, continues working with scores of other corporations (and a handful of the same ones) to address waste. “We see companies refining — not retreating from — their commitments as they align goals with real-world constraints and focus on durable impact,” said Jonathan Quinn, president and CEO of the U.S. Plastics Pact.

Without a global treaty, businesses must navigate a patchwork of new rules governing plastics in the European Union, U.S. states and many other key markets.

Where the European Union goes …

The EU leads on such regulations, including banning single-use foodware. Microplastics controls started in 2025, and members are adapting extended producer responsibility (EPR) rules that force packaging and fashion brands to account for their products’ waste, post-sale.

Next August, the EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation sets binding reduction and recycling goals through 2040. The sweeping Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) regulations, although evolving, could require disclosure and supply-chain actions by business.

Other nation states and U.S. states

In the U.S., bipartisan support for plastics regulation, including two recent Senate bills, “should signal to companies that Congress is taking note and prioritizing finding solutions to address our plastic pollution crisis here in the U.S.,” said Erin Simon, vice president of plastic waste and business at WWF.

EPR laws in California, Oregon, Maine, Minnesota and Maryland are attracting copycats. Bans on single-use plastics are rolling ahead in fits and starts in multiple states and nations, too. A dozen states are mulling rules on “forever chemical” plastic additives in kitchenware and food packaging, with rules already in effect in New Mexico.

In addition to regulations, companies face new legal risks regarding plastics. For instance, class action lawsuits are cropping up around microplastics released by water and baby bottles, noted Katie Bond, a partner at the law firm Keller & Heckman in Washington, D.C. 

How businesses can respond

Several themes regarding business responses to these challenged emerged from recent expert conversations and reports:

Make fewer virgin plastics

New plastics production makes up 86 percent of emissions related to plastics. To counter that, the circular economy movement is building steam to popularize redesign, repair and resale.

Consider health impacts

Health problems are tied to about one-quarter of the 16,000 known plastics chemicals. Businesses can get ahead of regulations and substitute suspect materials, especially for products that touch the body, like kitchenware, to-go containers, cosmetics and toys. Cottage industries are rising for “low-toxic” products.

Slow microplastics shedding

Packaging accounts for nearly 40 percent of plastic waste. But farming practices, paints, tires, textiles, healthcare and recycling operations also release significant microplastics. Companies can filter out, monitor and report such releases.

“If a company is concerned about cases over microplastics, a good starting place can be to audit which products might be most likely to leach microplastics,” attorney Bond said.

Drop problematic polymers

Polystyrene (Styrofoam), EPS and PVC are likely targets for bans or restrictions due to toxicity or poor recyclability. Companies can inventory where legacy resins are used and build phase-out timetables.

Sound the alarm

Sustainability executives “need to throw their weight around and tell companies that they have to get ahead of this plastics problem or they’re going to lose sales,” said Enck, president of Beyond Plastics, based in Vermont. “I don’t think that message has gotten through.”

Back plastic policies

Corporations should lobby in line with their climate aspirations, instead of trying to play both sides of an issue. For instance, in October, Beyond Plastics called out 100 companies for advocating against a New York proposal to enhance recycling.

Unlock plastic supply chain transparency

Advocates are calling for a global chemical-disclosure framework around plastic footprints and health risks. As investor and regulatory pressures build, companies can improve supply chain traceability.

Scale refill and reuse systems

Circular business models and recycling could nearly eliminate plastic packaging pollution by 2040 in a best-case scenario, according to “Breaking the Plastics Wave.”

Reusable and refillable packaging is creeping forward. Moving faster requires retailer partnerships, redesigned packaging, reverse logistics and investment in cleaning and refilling systems.

Redesign packaging for recyclability

Simplified, single-material designs that ditch excess films, wraps or fillers are more likely to meet future design requirements that address recyclability, safety and microplastic prevention.

Expand waste management

Better collection and sorting systems can improve recycling. However, the alphabet soup of plastic ingredients makes them technically challenging to recycle. That’s partly why plastic recycling has stagnated below 10 percent for decades, and chemical recycling remains unproven at scale.

“Focusing on plastic recycling to solve the plastic pollution crisis is like sweeping leaves on a windy day,” Enck said. “We’re not going to make significant progress until companies reduce their reliance on plastic.”

The post How businesses can turn plastics risks into opportunity appeared first on Trellis.

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

Ten years ago, I joined NYU Stern to set up the Center for Sustainable Business, which aims to help current and future business leaders embed sustainability into corporate strategy to drive better financial and societal performance. In that decade, over 300 students have graduated with our specialization in Sustainable Business and more than 1,500 students have taken our hallmark Sustainability for Competitive Advantage course. We’ve published more than 30 in-depth reports on the business case for sustainability and engaged with dozens of leading companies on monetizing their sustainability strategies. 

And, like with many jobs, my teaching role has been a joy and a travail. The joy comes from helping students find a path to a business career tackling the environmental and social challenges that will plague their generation, as well as meeting alumni who have sustainability careers and come back to Stern to mentor and support students.  

The travail? Stern students who don’t take sustainability courses (the majority) because of the persistent perception that it‘s “soft.” The misconception remains that it’s not core to business or to their careers. That mentality needs to change and it will require all of us — teachers, hiring managers and business leaders — to shift the narrative. 

5 impactful lessons

As I wrap up my time at Stern, here are the most impactful lessons I’ve learned: 

• Students tend to start with a limited understanding of what sustainable business is and how it manifests across industries and functions. They may be personally concerned about climate change or human rights issues in supply chains, but have no language or understanding of the significant role sustainability plays in business operations and financial performance. This is true for many of my executive students as well. When I have my class interview family members and friends, respondents also have a very narrow understanding about what constitutes sustainable business, thinking in a very limited fashion about, say, recycling.
• Students, including executives, have very little exposure to the role sustainability plays in innovation, operational efficiency, employee retention and risk reduction. Core classes in operations, brand management, accounting, finance and strategy generally don’t incorporate sustainability themes or linkages, which siloes sustainability in a way that’s counterproductive to effective management. I remember one student who came to my class in her senior year and said that she wished she’d taken the course earlier because until she took it, she hadn’t been able to see a way to align her personal goals and values with her studies and career goals.
• Students tend to be skeptical of business’ claims of sustainability. These are students who’ve seen many business scandals and are subject to marketing messages 24/7. They are clear-eyed about the lack of authenticity — in other words the gap between what companies do and what they say. The lack of trust creates challenges for engaging students in sustainability themselves, even though they’d like to find a way to do good while doing well at a company that has sustainability values. That skepticism, however, encourages students to learn more about “real” sustainability and how they can bring that to their future employers.
• Students have an “aha” moment when they realize there are various career pathways in sustainability — many of which don’t have sustainability in the title. They learn that sustainability execution often lies with supply chain managers, procurement officers, operations leaders or controllers. Broadening the scope helps make the journey appear more attainable and inclusive. One former student, for example, started an online sustainable products platform in India. Another found his way into sustainable agriculture consulting after an experiential learning project he worked on at Stern with an Indonesian palm oil company. Another student works on electric vehicles at Con-Edison and one former student pivoted from traditional finance into impact investing.
• Sustainability, at its core, is about change management and transformation. One can understand the fundamentals of corporate sustainability, but actually executing against them is difficult and a skill in itself. Thus, students need to learn how to be intrapreneurs and adept at change management — critical skills that will stand them in good stead beyond sustainability, given these volatile times. They also need to learn more than the theory by hearing from sustainability practitioners how they’re managing the challenge in practice. One of my students went to work for a private equity firm, where she promptly brought us in to train her colleagues in sustainability-linked value creation, to help them make the leap she had made in class.

The big takeaway

I think the biggest change we need is to shift the narrative of sustainability. Schools aren’t teaching sustainability as part of good management, nor are sustainability leaders talking about it as part of effective change management strategy in the business, policy or consumer arenas.

As a consequence, people of all ages don’t understand that sustainability is fundamental to good management and performance. That social and environmental factors can be financially material to their corporate future. That every procurement manager today must understand and manage the ESG risks and opportunities in their supply chain. That no company buying electricity can avoid growing costs and volatility of energy availability and pricing. That no consumer-facing company can ignore the growing demand for sustainable, healthy products. That business and societal transformation isn’t impossible and, in fact, is already happening. That driving corporate and investment sustainability at the speed and scale we need in this time of backlash requires the discipline of focusing on the business case for sustainability investments. And that while investing in sustainability is the ethical thing to do, it’s incumbent upon us to also demonstrate through research, practice and education that it’s the financially smart thing to do. 

I’m excited for CSB’s next 10 years. Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics had an outsized influence on business school education over the past few decades through a maniacal focus on shareholder primacy and short-termism.  I like to think that NYU Stern and CSB will have a similar (although less maniacal) impact over the next few decades on facilitating the transition to capitalism that creates value for all stakeholders and protects our planet.

The post Lessons from a decade of teaching sustainability at b-school appeared first on Trellis.