Canopy calls for $2 billion to advance low-carbon packaging and textiles

Making materials for fashion and packaging from crop and textile waste instead of trees from at-risk forests will require $78 billion globally by 2033, according to Canopy. To step in that direction, the Vancouver nonprofit announced a $2 billion blended-finance model to advance next-gen materials in India.

That nation needs up to $15 billion to shift industries toward adopting waste-based cellulosic materials, according to the initiative. So far the plan has secured $500 million, blending grants and capital. A mix of public and private investors is expected to contribute the rest. Large global brands are involved in the project, which would eventually be replicated internationally.

The Jan. 21 announcement, at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, included the Laudes Foundation of Amsterdam as well as the Singapore-based No.17 Foundation and investment firm Tsao Pao Chee.

Forests can’t supply enough trees to meet the demand across the fashion, packaging and construction industries, a Jan. 15 report by Canopy and Finance Earth warned. A United Nations projection of 14 percent growth in extreme forest fires by 2030 adds to the pressure.

“If companies and investors stay locked into business-as-usual wood sourcing, they are signing up for higher costs, greater supply vulnerability and growing regulatory and reputational risk,” stated Nicole Rycroft, Canopy founder and executive director. “This exposes businesses unnecessarily, given there is a clear exit ramp with next-gen and alternative sources.”

Next-gen materials use 4 metric tons fewer climate emissions than those derived from virgin tree pulp, according to Canopy.

Why India

In India, the initial $2 billion would enable 1.5 megatons of next-gen materials production, reaching $15 billion, to enable 10 million megatons by 2033.

India produces 8 megatons of textile waste each year. “Many agricultural residues are still being burned on the fields, when we know they can be used more sustainably, cutting air pollution and scaling a sustainable supply chain for paper, packaging and textiles,” stated Canopy’s Strategic Lead, Global Investments Zoë Caron. In addition, burning crops, such as the stubble from spring wheat harvests and from rice paddies in the fall, kills an average 150 people every day in India.

The $2 billion would be best used to scale up “somewhat mature technologies with the greatest odds of success and a reasonable decarbonization impact,” according to Lux Research Analyst Marcian Lee.

Focus on Canopy

Canopy strives to “unlock” the investments and infrastructure to make forest-friendly, next-generation materials the norm. The nonprofit works with more than 950 brands to shift wood-material supply chains toward sourcing practices that protect biodiversity.

In November, eight brands including Victoria’s Secret and Marc O’Polo joined Canopy programs to commit to stop using material sourced from threatened forests in their paper packaging and textiles.

In fashion, textiles derived from wood are increasingly being made without hurting such forests. One decade ago, no producers of manmade cellulosic fibers (MMCF) were using such practices. By 2025, however, 70 percent were, according to Canopy’s Hot Button report in October.

“It’s hard to overstate the scale and pace of the transformation we’ve seen in the MMCF supply chain in the past nine years,” Canopy’s Rycroft said. Transparency and circularity are mainstreaming for such materials in fashion, and next-generation textiles are starting to be integrated as well, she added.

The post Canopy calls for $2 billion to advance low-carbon packaging and textiles appeared first on Trellis.

Amazon, eBay and Etsy help put Tesla trucks on the road

Roughly 40 new all-electric trucks will soon be working the route between Houston and Dallas thanks to a pilot program that aggregates demand from companies seeking to decarbonize their shipping emissions.

Amazon, eBay and Etsy are among the companies involved in the initiative, which will enable the San Francisco-based startup Nevoya to begin deploying new Tesla Semi trucks later this year or early next. The fleet of Class 8 vehicles — the largest truck classification — is expected to travel up to 7 million miles annually and avoid an estimated 60,000 metric tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent emissions across the multi-year contracts with participating buyers. All charging will be covered by renewable energy certificates.

Participating companies do not need to actually send shipments on the trucks to benefit from the emissions savings. Under the scheme, which is organized by the nonprofit Center for Green Market Activation (GMA), Nevoya will sell “environmental attribute certificates” (EACs) representing the emissions savings independently of contracts for freight. Buyers then deduct the emission savings represented by the certificates from their Scope 3 emissions, and retire the certificates to prevent further use.

Aviation playbook

Similar “book and claim” schemes are already being used to fund decarbonization of maritime shipping, cement, iron and other sectors. One well-established scheme — the Sustainable Aviation Buyers Alliance, a project co-managed by GMA, Environmental Defense Fund and RMI — has aggregated $550 million in demand for sustainable aviation fuel certificates since 2021. Amazon and Visa are among its members

Like these other areas, road freight is challenging to decarbonize in part because zero-emission options come with a premium. Battery electric trucks usually cost about twice as much as equivalent internal combustion vehicles, according to the GMA. The need to create charging infrastructure and purchase renewable electricity can further increase the price.

There are companies willing to pay these premiums for at least some shipments, but they often struggle to find zero-emissions options because less than 1 percent of new heavy-duty vehicles in the U.S. are electric. The book-and-claim approach solves this problem by aggregating demand across interested companies, regardless of their ability to access electric trucks.

Scaling the project

GMA described the purchase of trucking EACs as a pilot and said it planned on further developing the project. One move that would accelerate progress would involve leading standard setters integrating EACs into their guidelines — something the Science Based Targets initiative is considering. “That will provide stakeholders with confidence in the accountability of these solutions,” said Andre de Fontaine, GMA managing director.

The center also plans on combining book-and-claim agreements with more traditional contracts that involve companies paying directly for zero-emissions shipping.

“Layering book and claim into these efforts can increase asset utilization — trucks and chargers — lowering overall costs for all buyers,” said de Fontaine. “As costs decrease, we expect more shippers to get involved, increasing demand and, in turn, driving greater production and deployment of zero-emission heavy-duty trucks.”

The post Amazon, eBay and Etsy help put Tesla trucks on the road appeared first on Trellis.

L’Oreal invests in 13 startups to speed materials innovation

L’Oreal spends more than $1.5 billion on research and development annually, with the goal of using plants, minerals and recycled materials for 75 percent of its ingredients by 2030. 

It is also investing close to $120 million on outside help through L’Accelerator, a five-year program to recruit entrepreneurs seeking to commercialize technologies that address the cosmetics company’s climate, nature and circular materials goals.  

L’Oreal has selected 13 companies for the first phase of the program, which kicked off in mid-January. It hasn’t disclosed how much funding is dedicated to participants but plans to work with five annual cohorts during the lifetime of the program.

Each entrepreneur participates in a 12-week program at the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, where they’ll learn skills such as how to pitch potential investors, sales plan development, financial and budgeting strategies, negotiating methods and so forth. From there, they’ll team with L’Oreal brands for field tests that last between six and nine months.  

L’Accelerator caters to companies with market-ready solutions that need more resources to reach commercial scale in the form of management coaching, funding and corporate pilots for their solutions, said L’Oreal Chief Corporate Responsibility Officer Ezgi Barcenas.

“We’re really looking for what I would call later-stage companies that are really at an inflection point,” she said. “They’ve created a product and they’re really looking for a customer to come in to design that product or put it into a use case — an application for that customer.”

Approximately 66 percent of L’Oreal’s products meet its 2030 ingredients commitment, and the company is looking outside its own R&D team for a spectrum of other business process and materials innovations that can help close the gap.

‘Test small, learn fast and iterate’

Each L’Accelerator relationship will be managed by an internal sponsor chosen from teams across the company including the supply chain organization, brand managers, R&D and finance, Barcenas said. 

More than 80 L’Oreal employees were involved with selection and will continue to be involved in the relationships. That model mimics one in the 100+ Sustainability Accelerator initiative that Barcenas oversaw at her previous employer, beverage company AB InBev.   

Ten of the 13 companies chosen for the first L’Accelerator cohort are developing sustainable packaging and materials alternatives, including Pulpex, which is working on recyclable paper bottles.  

Pulpex is a venture spun out of adult beverage company Diageo, which has been testing fiber-based alternatives to glass and plastic bottles. The U.K. company has amassed an appreciable sum of financial backing, including more than $83 million from the U.K. and Scottish governments to build a factory in Glasgow, Scotland, scheduled to open in the second quarter. 

The venture is considering a business model in which it will license its technology to packaging companies and manufacturers looking for fiber-based alternatives, said Scott Winston, managing director and chief science and sustainability officer at Pulpex. One thing the company is studying with L’Oreal is whether its packaging is more appropriate for business-to-business or business-to-consumer applications.

“It’s not about the technical functionality, it’s about the execution,” he said.

What makes L’Oreal’s initiative radical is a willingness to sprint at the speed of a startup, Winston said: “There has usually been a mismatch between how fast entrepreneurs work and the usual processes of a large company. This program will test small, learn fast and iterate.”  

Success metrics

Some L’Accelerator participants could eventually see the relationship evolve into a commercial contract after their pilot is complete. L’Oreal may also consider taking an equity stake, but its larger interest is in accelerating commercialization of the technologies to help reduce costs across the cosmetics industry. 

“I would say that we are really being intentional about the partners we’re selecting but also telling the world that this is not only for L’Oreal,” Barcenas said.

The post L’Oreal invests in 13 startups to speed materials innovation appeared first on Trellis.

The danger of putting a price on the planet

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

I have a simple rule of thumb that if a problem lingers for a while even after many smart folks have tried to solve it, then there’s probably something wrong with the framing of the problem.  

We seem to be at that stuck point with the multi-decadal effort to bring economy into balance with ecology – a goal that’s obvious to folks that come from the frame of recognizing that human life will struggle unnecessarily on a planet burdened with degraded air, water and soil resources, and not really on the radar for folks who see economic growth as an unalloyed good that eventually solves all problems.

But the frame is broken at a deeper level. Capitalism is the organizing paradigm of the global economy, which means it organizes much of our thinking by default. Even though we’ve tried to protect nature via carbon markets and other mechanisms, those efforts, while valiant, have inherent flaws. Why? Because it puts a price on that landscape because if a more profitable form of exploitation came around, the same calculations could be used to justify further exploitation.

Such unexamined assumptions are at the core of why our systems are breaking down right now. We’ve turned everything into capital to feed into the capitalistic algorithm. 

Defining capital

To set the stage, let’s remember that a simple working definition of capital is “an asset that has been given intentionality.” This is clear when we see how we characterize terms such as “investment capital” versus “operating capital.” The words “investment” and “operating” tell us what the intentionality of the capital is. But we’ve now done this conceptual conversion into capital for nearly everything. So people are now “human capital,” and the natural environment becomes “natural capital.” 

It’s worth noting that we’ve already made a deeply consequential decision in adopting this framing. When something becomes capital, it becomes easier to interface with the capitalistic optimization algorithm. Anything that has been characterized as capital can be traded off against other forms of capital. 

The capitalistic efficiency algorithm doesn’t have any intrinsic values or aesthetics; it moves relentlessly to places where the numbers look better. That’s why it feels obvious in this economic framing that if AI can be more efficient than human capital, then our aesthetics and values around avoiding mass layoffs and economic chaos will have little sway. The capitalistic algorithm will dominate without active effort to the contrary. 

Similarly, even if we value a natural landscape for the value of its natural capital and environmental services, the capitalistic algorithm will absolutely drive the demolishing of that natural system if something of greater economic value can be wrung from the same landscape. In short, one of the important decisions we’ve applied very little direct agency to is the basic decision around which aspects of life we allow to be cast as capital.

Saying no to the algorithm

We can say “no” to this process. We’ve done it before: For example, the sale of human organs is banned worldwide. We decided that the value of the organs that grow inside our bodies is something that should be completely outside any system of capitalist exchange. It’s easy to imagine the horrific chaos that would arise if people’s organs were allowed to be part of capitalist exchange. There are humans valued so little by the economy that their value as exchangeable organs would exceed the value of their economic contribution. 

If you think capitalism is incapable of this cruelty, remember that we’ve literally done it in recent world history in the form of chattel slavery. When people and their bodies become property, or body parts become a form of harvestable and exchangeable capital, then don’t be surprised when slaves’ teeth are pulled to replace one’s own lost teeth (a la George Washington). All of this is facilitated when people and their bodies can be owned by others as just another part of their total “capital.” We’ve similarly been enabling the dismembering of the ecosystem function as we de-dimensionalize the natural environment into capital in the flattest sense.

The viewpoint that nature is just another form of capital is at the heart of the climate crisis. The capitalistic efficiency algorithm doesn’t care about the function of natural systems, only what can be done to improve margins and scale production. In prioritizing, our economic endeavors often sever essential connections that then destabilize the metabolisms of natural systems (biology and hydrology). 

We’re now living in the collective breakdown of these systems from having lived this “nature as capital” viewpoint for several decades. Many of us have lived in the current system our entire lives so we’re not fully aware of other possible system designs. But there are many other possible viewpoints worth exploring.  

Seeing nature differently

Many indigenous cultures around the world are in deep alignment with nature, understanding humans as part of a broader natural system where they hold responsibility to learn from and give to their lands. It’s so widely observed that it’s almost a universal attribute of the longest lasting indigenous cultures — because living on land successfully for hundreds to thousands of years without despoiling it almost always necessitates the deep listening and observation, wisdom-building and care work that we see in so many cultures.

By comparison, in many Western traditions, humans put themselves at the top of a hierarchy of control that helps to justify narratives around the extraction and exploitation of nature. Concepts of “right” hierarchy and “civilized” domination are the go-to narrative justification for exploitation, whether toward natural resources or toward people via hierarchical concepts such as racism, religious superiority and social class superiority. 

In the recent Western system, there are always some humans who are allowed to be exploited more than other humans. This creates tension with ideas such as fundamental human rights. At least when systemic exploitation is happening to other humans, they can work to speak up and politically organize. When this domination worldview is applied to animals, plants, lakes, mountains, the atmosphere and minable ores, they can’t push back or speak up the way humans can. 

The further assumption that everything “below us” in our conceptual hierarchies can be characterized as capital and exploited opens pathways to creating real damage — whether what we see as “below us” is a factory worker or a pine tree. Sometimes the first time we hear the voice of ecological collapse is when the degradation forces us to leave the area or stops us from being able to safely drink the water.

So what can we do instead? First, don’t fall into the unconscious assumption that everything needs to be capital. Second, we’re at a point in history where we scientifically understand how many natural systems support healthy air, water, soil, biodiversity and people. We can use that knowledge to decide that some subsets of this function are so essential that they’re categorized as our core life support system and shouldn’t be haphazardly exposed to capitalistic exploitation.  

While that may sound overly protectionist, the need is obvious if we bring the example closer to home. What if literally every breath your lungs take could be monetized and access to the service could be shut off upon delinquent payment? This business would, of course, have incredible annual return rates and is obviously morally bankrupt. The life support system that the planet provides us is just as essential as breathing, and if we can get to this level of scientific and moral clarity, then we can start putting nature into a framework that will allow us to be here for the long haul.

The post The danger of putting a price on the planet appeared first on Trellis.

Why the parent company of Coach and Kate Spade is investing in community solar in Illinois

What is a New York City handbag giant doing in central Illinois, where it lacks boutiques, offices and factories? Tapestry, which runs the Coach, Kate Spade and Stuart Weitzman brands, together with Pivot Energy, completed three community solar projects on Jan. 8. They total 13.5 megawatts, enough to power about 2,500 homes.

Two more installations will follow those just established in Peoria, Ottawa and tiny Dover, Illinois, in a 15-year partnership, announced in 2023.

The five community solar projects will add up to a modest 33 megawatts. However, those clean electrons are instrumental to Tapestry’s goal for 2025, which it reached, to count 100 percent renewables across its own operations, according to Logan Duran, global head of ESG and sustainability at Tapestry.

“Getting our own house in order from a renewables perspective was the first step,” Duran said, “simultaneously continuing to engage with our long-term and strategic partners in the supply chain, on the facility and factory level.”

In pursuit of its science-based net zero deadline of 2050, Tapestry is stretching toward a new target, announced Dec. 22. By 2030, it seeks to power 40 percent of its supply chain with renewables. Today that’s at 12 percent.

Ninety-nine percent of the corporation’s climate emissions are in Scope 3. By 2030, Tapestry aims for 42 percent cuts over 2022 levels.

In 2025, the business noted a 14 percent rise in Scope 3 emissions since 2021, which it is seeking to reset to 2022 to account for the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Emissions intensity dropped by 10 percent in the same period.

Land of Lincoln

The corporation took a portfolio approach toward its achieved goal of 100 percent renewables for its own offices, stores and fulfillment centers.

“What we found was, we have a lot of stores but they all have small roofs,” Duran said. The company, which has more than a dozen stores in the Chicago area, liked Denver-based Pivot Energy’s proposition for a long-term Renewable Energy Credit (REC) offtake agreement in Illinois.

The project-based REC allows Tapestry to take credit for the clean electricity and its associated emissions reductions. 

“We can’t necessarily track direct electrons to our individual stores but if we’re able to stay within the same grid or within the same region, we felt like it was meaningful from a commitment perspective,” Duran said.

The bulk of Tapestry’s 2025 emissions

Tapestry’s Scope 3 emissions make up most of its climate footprint. Credit: Tapestry 2025 sustainability report

“Illinois has become a favorable market for renewable energy development, with the enactment of the Clean and Equitable Jobs Act,” noted Pivot Energy Senior Director of Project Development Buzz Becker. The law, enacted in 2021, offers incentives for RECs and requires social equity support for new energy installations.

Supporting the local community also appealed to Duran. Illinois consumers who opt for the solar power can enjoy discounted utility bills. Meanwhile, Illinois Central College and HIRE360 receive $65,000 contributions from Pivot Energy, a certified B Corporation based in Denver.

“This project announcement makes state policy tangible,” said Matthew Popkin, U.S. program manager at RMI. “Illinois encouraged the market to use community solar to not only meet today’s energy needs but also increase consumer access to fixed-cost energy and support longer-term workforce development goals.”

The energy portfolio

In other markets, Tapestry uses a mix of unbundled and bundled RECs as well as Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs).

In Europe, Tapestry is among 12 brands joining the Fashion Pact in a Collective Virtual Power Purchase agreement, announced in 2023. The solar project they’re supporting in Spain would generate an estimated 100 MW under peak sunlight.

Tapestry is also directly helping suppliers to adopt renewable energy and ditch coal by 2026, part of risk mitigation within its sustainability work. 

“If there are random brownouts or blackouts or disruptions, it obviously impacts our ability to manufacture and move product,” Duran said.

The company’s decarbonization program last year engaged with 40 suppliers across Tiers 1 and 2, addressing about 70 percent of its suppliers’ emissions. For instance, Tapestry paid for onsite assessments and feasibility studies for Tier 1 contract supplier Pungkook Ben Tre to install solar panels in Vietnam.

In addition, Tapestry engages with the Apparel Impact Institute to help tanneries slash emissions.

Materials and nature

Circularity and biodiversity protection are other core focuses for the accessory brands’ sustainability work.

Almost all of Tapestry’s leather tanneries are rated Gold or Silver by the Leather Working Group. Environmentally preferred materials include “wet blue” leather scrap from startup Gen Phoenix. That only appears in the experimental Coachtopia brand, but products are being developed for the main line, too, Duran said.

“When we look at the longevity, the durability and the intrinsic quality of the material, it ultimately really lends itself well to things like the circular economy,” he said of leather, its main material.

The post Why the parent company of Coach and Kate Spade is investing in community solar in Illinois appeared first on Trellis.

What Meta’s big nuclear deals say about corporate clean energy strategy

Meta’s three new deals for up to 6.6 gigawatts in nuclear energy aren’t just record-breaking; they underscore growing corporate interest in clean power that’s available at night.

Contracts orchestrated by companies with emissions reduction commitments added (or will add when the projects are complete) close to 128 gigawatts of renewable or clean energy to the U.S. electric grid from 2014 through November 2025, according to data collected by the Clean Energy Buyers Alliance (CEBA).

Wind farms and solar installations represent the vast majority of that new power, but deals from generation resources that can run around the clock, such as fusion, geothermal, hydro and nuclear, are growing. They accounted for 17 percent, or 3.4 gigawatts, of new capacity in the first three quarters of 2025. 

There are 21 related contracts since 2021 in 10 states: Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia. 

“No matter how you slice the data, it is a fast-emerging trend. This is taking off fast,” said CEBA CEO Rich Powell. “I have every reason to expect you will see significant deals through 2026.”

Nuclear energy has been undervalued for some time, but corporations interested in sourcing low-carbon electricity are reevaluating this resource because it can provide power when solar panels cannot, said Gavin McCormick, co-founder and executive director of nonprofit WattTime, which tracks grid emission data. 

“Why it’s valuable is because it works at night,” he said.

Several announced deals — and the corporate funding behind them — have had the effect of adding nuclear power plants back to the grid or keeping them operating. “Preventing a nuclear plant from closing is excellent additionality, even if it’s not new,” McCormick said.

Big Tech loves nuclear power

Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft are behind the biggest corporate nuclear deals, but big industrial manufacturers, including steel maker Nucor and chemical company Dow are also signing contracts. 

The publicly announced nuclear deals for Big Tech alone will support close to 13 gigawatts. Nuclear plants account for close to 20 percent of the power on the U.S. electric grid, and almost half of the resources that are considered “zero emissions” (which includes solar, wind, hydro and geothermal).

With its latest deals, Meta has now committed to buying more nuclear power to address its emissions goals than any other U.S. company, with approximately 7.7 gigawatts of contracted electricity.

The company signed a power purchase agreement in June 2025 with Constellation that covers 1.1 gigawatts from an Illinois power plant over the next 20 years. 

Meta’s three new contracts support a mix of legacy and advanced nuclear. They include 20-year deals with Vistra to extend the life of two plants in Ohio and one in Pennsylvania, as well as to expand their capacity. Meta is also funding advanced reactors to come online early next decade from startup TerraPower, well funded by investors including Microsoft founder Bill Gates; and Oklo, heavily backed by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

The post What Meta’s big nuclear deals say about corporate clean energy strategy appeared first on Trellis.

4 sustainable construction trends to watch for in 2026

Throughout their lifecycle, buildings are among the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and waste. Erecting and operating structures accounts for one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, while construction and demolition waste amounted to 30-40 percent of the total global solid waste stream in 2022.

And that is unlikely to change until governments and owners demand it.

“What’s built depends on what jurisdictions mandate and clients specify,” said Eamonn Connolly, director of engineering at Chicago-based McHugh Construction. Low carbon is currently not an emphasis — and even if it were, diffusion of best practices across the industry is sluggish. 

The construction industry has historically been a slow adopter of almost everything, including sustainability. But there is progress. “As companies, individuals, entities, and suppliers gain experience, they become more capable and open to advocating for low-carbon strategies,” Connolly added.

Architecture, engineering and construction (AEC) firms must embrace approaches that support fundamental change, because incremental improvements are no longer enough. Here are four trends to watch for in 2026 — none completely new, but all coming into their own.

Adapt, don’t build

Architects know that the most sustainable building is the one never built. Not building cuts the embodied carbon energy required to extract natural resources, manufacture and transport materials, and build structures. And that means reusing existing structures.

Detroit’s redevelopment offers a lauded example. Many projects feature buildings on local, state or national historic registers. Often, the materials and craftsmanship aren’t cheap — or can’t be had today at any price. Retrofitting with energy-saving components delivers significant efficiencies, and renovations that preserve the building envelope typically take far less time and money.

Adaptive reuse goes a step further by finding new uses for old structures. Detroit-based architecture firm McIntosh Poris has led in stopping the wrecking ball and giving structures new life. The firm transformed a 1925 bank building into a techno nightclub called Panacea, the former Detroit Fire Department Headquarters into the boutique Detroit Foundation Hotel and Fischer Body Plant 21 (below) — opened in 1919 and abandoned in 1993 — into multi-use apartments with retail and co-working space. 

Adaptive reuse produced approximately 25,000 new apartments across the country in 2024, a 50-percent increase year-over-year. Nationwide, projects are on the upswing, with a record-breaking 181,000 apartments in development, mostly from office spaces never reclaimed after the pandemic. A driving factor is the boost in affordable housing from reusing structures, which cuts construction expenses and timelines for units in desirable locations. For example, at least 20 percent of the units at the Fisher 21 Lofts will be designated for residents earning at or below 80 percent of the area median income. Tax credits and government incentives can make these developments more economical with mixed-income properties and help revitalize older neighborhoods.

Design around climate

Instead of one-size-fits-all architecture, climate-responsive design focuses on energy efficiency that arises from the site and environment. Designers orient structures to block or capture sun and wind, and select materials that naturally reduce energy use and embodied carbon. The result: reducing the use of mechanical systems for heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting. 

For instance, natural airflow decreases the need for electric cooling. So, architecture firm Foster + Partners designed the Bloomberg European HQ in London to feature a unique “breathable” façade. Automated bronze louvers open and close to provide natural ventilation and, combined with a central atrium, reduce energy use by about 35 percent compared to a typical office.

Climate-responsive design has evolved into holistic architecture driven by data and technology. Google’s Bay View campus in Silicon Valley, opened in 2022, features a massive geothermal system, solar roofs, 100 percent outside air ventilation, natural light, native landscapes and net-zero water use.

Still, the vast majority of the world’s building stock needs to be transformed for true climate responsiveness.

Reenvision glass

The appeal of sleek glass curtain walls, combined with light and open interiors, explains why glass is the material used for more than half the exterior surface of modern skyscrapers. That typically leads to poor energy efficiency given glass’s low insulating value. But several innovations can dramatically reduce energy loss from glass facades: 

  • Low-emissivity coatings to control heat flow 
  • Insulated glass units that seal two or three panes inside, cutting heat loss
  • Using denser argon and krypton to replace air between panes, slowing heat transfer even more 

The logical progression is windows that can generate energy by capturing light and converting it into electricity — as NEXT Energy Technologies’ windows do at Patagonia’s corporate headquarters in Ventura, Calif.

Also crucial is increasing the sustainability of manufacturing, which requires mining of sand, soda ash and limestone, and running furnaces fed by fossil fuels at 1500 degrees Celsius. To address these issues, manufacturers are increasing recycled glass content, using cleaner oxy-fuel technology, improving furnace efficiency and capturing carbon. Given glass’s infinite recyclability, it has the potential to become a true circular material.

Optimize with AI

The consensus from a survey of 235 contractors by Dodge Construction Network is that AI will transform the industry once construction adopts technologies that use it. But that may take time; in Yooz’s 2023 Technology in the Workplace survey, workers in construction viewed their own industry as the least technologically advanced. 

Still, construction is seeing the value of AI. Autodesk’s 2025 State of Design & Make: Spotlight on Construction report highlights some of the top use cases for AI in sustainability, including supporting data-driven decision-making, analyzing and improving supply chains, enhancing reporting, optimizing energy use and efficiency, and reducing material waste. 

Questions about data privacy and security remain. Still, architects and engineers are using generative AI to explore alternatives for structural design that use the least material while maintaining integrity. AI programs can be trained to predict the exact material quantities a project requires, eliminating over-ordering and cutting cost and waste. By quantifying embodied carbon in materials, AI can also help reduce a project’s carbon footprint.

Digital twins — virtual replicas of real-world entities such as buildings — also use AI to predict behavior from design to end of life. Continually updating digital twins with data from sources like embedded sensors enables managers to test new ideas and make changes. For instance, a digital twin of Heathrow Terminal 5 simulates energy use, airflow and thermal comfort for greater efficiency and post-occupancy performance.

Double down

By 2050, the global building stock is expected to double. The practices and tools to lower future buildings’ carbon footprints are out there, awaiting demand and adoption. “We’re just an industry waiting for the signal to do more,” said Connolly.  

The post 4 sustainable construction trends to watch for in 2026 appeared first on Trellis.

Why DHL, FedEx and UPS are central to eBay’s climate transition plan

eBay, the world’s biggest resale company, has joined the growing cohort of companies that have published a climate transition plan outlining specific steps needed to meet corporate emissions reduction targets. 

Delivering the goods sold by the 134 million sellers on its marketplace to their customers is eBay’s biggest greenhouse gas liability: it accounts for almost 84 percent of total emissions. 

The 30-year-old company vows to cut that footprint by 27.5 percent by 2030 — it has already achieved a 21 percent reduction — and to reach a 90 percent cut across all emissions categories by 2045. The baseline year for reduction goals is 2019.

Those commitments were validated in 2025 by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), and the 37-page roadmap published Jan. 14 is a “natural follow-on” to the many cross-function conversations and data-modeling exercises required to come up with the goals, said eBay Chief Sustainability Officer Renee Morin. 

“This is not a report that came out of the blue,” she said.

Approximately one-quarter of companies that report greenhouse gas emissions to research firm CDP have published a climate transition plan, but that number is growing rapidly because of anticipated regulatory changes in Europe and potential requirements as part of the forthcoming overhaul of SBTi’s Corporate Net Zero Standard.

eBay’s climate transition plan provides an inside-out view of the company’s impact on climate change and an outside-in perspective on physical and financial risks that could impact eBay’s business as weather patterns change and the world warms. It is meant to motivate eBay partners, sellers and employees by linking climate goals more explicitly to the company’s long-term business and financial growth strategy, Morin said. 

Certain sections of the plan are likely to be updated on an annual basis, but eBay hasn’t finalized a schedule.  

“At the end of the day, when you can show the value of sustainability, the value of decarbonizing, the value of derisking systems, then businesses are going to lean into those outputs,” she said.

For example, eBay acknowledges in the report that shipping partners may be adversely affected by flooding, extreme heat or natural disasters exacerbated by climate change. It’s in their interest to collaborate with eBay on potential solutions, the report suggests. 

Prioritizing carriers

eBay doesn’t own fleets or warehouses. But it is prioritizing relationships with carriers including DHL, UPS and FedEx that have explicit goals to decarbonize their operations through investments in electric delivery vehicles and procurement of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). FedEx, for example, has committed to shifting all of its new vehicle purchases to electric models by 2030. UPS and DHL have similar EV buying plans, and both aim to use SAF for 30 percent of their air operations before 2035.

Other strategies eBay is expanding: local delivery options and the use of ground shipping versus air freight, which generates higher emissions. 

eBay published a “carrier engagement guide” in 2024 that outlines its minimum expectations of shipping and logistics partners. It requires all to set short- and long-term emissions reductions goals that are certified by an independent organization and to report annually on strategies for renewable energy, sustainable packaging and operational efficiencies.

In order to reach net zero by 2045, eBay estimates it will need to work with carriers to cut emissions from those activities by 46 percent.

The post Why DHL, FedEx and UPS are central to eBay’s climate transition plan appeared first on Trellis.

Greenhushing is eroding consumer trust, survey shows

There’s truth to the adage, “Out of sight, out of mind.”

At least, that’s what research from Trellis data partner GlobeScan shows when it comes to the sharp decline in the public visibility of sustainability messaging by brands. Across more than 30 global markets surveyed, the reach and credibility of sustainability communications diminished in the last year. In 2025, only 36 percent of consumers reported seeing at least “some” sustainability messaging from brands, down from 49 percent in 2023.

Trust in these messages has also fallen: 65 percent of people reached by sustainability communications say they have at least “some” trust in them, compared to 79 percent in 2022. These trends were consistent across eight major product categories:

  • Cars
  • Cleaning products
  • Clothing
  • Electronics
  • Financial services
  • Home furnishings
  • Packaged food
  • Personal care products

What this means

For brands, pulling back on sustainability communications risks losing consumer trust and relevance. As fewer people see and believe these messages, brands have less influence on purchase decisions and sustainable behaviors — even if the same work is continuing under the radar. To stay impactful, organizations must rethink how they engage consumers and make sustainability messaging more visible, credible and personally meaningful.

Based on a survey of more than 30,000 consumers across 31 countries conducted July — August 2025

The post Greenhushing is eroding consumer trust, survey shows appeared first on Trellis.

How apparel companies handle the post-holiday return surge

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

Holiday returns look clean from the customer side: Click a button, scan a code, drop off a box. The refund lands like magic, usually within a week or so.

But behind that drop-off counter is a second supply chain that’s uglier, faster and far less forgiving than the simple consumer return process. Apparel isn’t a toaster; it doesn’t sit on a shelf politely while you decide what to do with it. The minute the calendar turns, the value starts leaking out.

The National Retail Federation projects U.S. consumers returned about $850 billion in merchandise in 2025, about 15.8 percent of total retail sales. Online shopping is worse, with returns estimated at 19.3 percent of all online sales. And then the holidays hit the gas: retailers expect roughly 17 percent of all holiday sales to come back.

So where do all those returns go? Not straight to the landfill, but not straight back to the rack, either. It goes through a triage system designed around one brutal reality: Every extra touch costs money and every extra day kills resale value. Here’s a breakdown of how those returns play out. 

Backroom triage

Store returns start with one question: Can we sell it again today? The key here isn’t “should we,” but can we?

If it’s clean, tagged, the current season and still moving, it gets scanned and put right back out. That’s the golden path of returns: no shipping, no processing center, no extra handling, no delay. One touch, and it’s back to revenues.

Most apparel doesn’t get that easy outcome. A little deodorant smell, makeup on the neckline, a missing hangtag or a stretched waistband can make a return take another route. A “looks worn” vibe you can’t prove but you can’t ignore. Once it fails that quick test, it drops out of the full-price stream.

Then it’s a routing decision. Companies can ship it to a returns center, transfer it to another store or mark it down. None of these choices are made with feelings. They’re made with a spreadsheet and a clock.

The returns center

Online returns usually skip the store and go straight to a processing site. Many brands and retailers try to reduce chaos by consolidating shipments, reducing packages and minimizing touches. Happy Returns, for example, sells the “box-free” drop-off model that aggregates returns and sends them together to regional hubs.

Once the garment hits a processing table, it gets graded: sellable as new, sellable with light cleanup, sellable only through discount channels or not sellable.

“Cleanup” sounds minor until you watch the labor stack up: rebagging, relabeling, steaming, lint removal and tag replacement. Rebuilding sets that came back incomplete or repacking accessories. It’s a lot of hands-on work for a low-margin item.

This is why “free returns” quietly rewires product strategy. An $18 top can become a loser for apparel companies after two shipping legs and a few minutes of paid handling. At that point, the retailer isn’t asking whether it’s a nice top. They’re asking whether it’s worth touching one more time.

Fraud and return abuse

Returns now also come with a policing job for companies. NRF’s research estimates 9 percent of all returns are fraudulent, which are defined as anything from customers claiming items didn’t arrive to returning a defective item you already owned. What’s more, nearly half of shoppers say it’s acceptable to bend the rules when returning items.

Apparel has its own brand of abuse. “Wardrobing” is the most rampant: wear it once, return it and leave just enough ambiguity as to whether you did or didn’t use the product that nobody wants to fight. The result is predictable: The garment becomes markdown merchandise (or outlet) or a write-off. 

While companies are trying new ways to combat wardrobing, the reality is that the system is spending more money just to decide whether it’s being cheated. During the 2025 holiday season, for example, Happy Returns tested tools aimed at spotting fakes and suspicious patterns by using sophisticated barcode and database recognition software. 

Where the clothes actually go

Once things are sorted, returned apparel usually ends up in one of five places: 

  • Back on the shelf: Either in the same store, another store or back into the “new” online flow. That’s a clean loop and what retailers ideally want.
  • Markdown: Still sold, but discounted to reflect the clock, handling efforts and weaker demand.
  • Off-price and liquidation: Bulk movement where the brand recovers pennies on the dollar. Sure, it’s better than zero, but not a win.
  • Re-commerce or donation: Heavily dependent on condition, category and what the brand is willing to operationalize.
  • Disposal: The dead end.

To be fair, disposal doesn’t always mean “tossed immediately,” but it’s far more common than customers assume, especially for low-value goods, intimate categories and damaged items where the labor cost of sorting exceeds the resale value. Reverse logistics company Optoro estimates returned inventory generates 5.8 billion pounds of waste annually and some goods end up in the landfill just because reprocessing costs exceed resale value. That’s the ugly truth: sometimes the cheapest move is to stop moving it.

Even when a returned garment isn’t tossed in the trash, recycling isn’t a reliable safety net. The National Institute of Standards and Technology notes that only about 15 percent of used clothing and textiles in the U.S. are reused or recycled, with the rest going to landfills or incineration. That’s because many parts of clothing, such as trims or blended materials (a shirt made of cotton and spandex), make it difficult and costly to separate materials for actual recycling. 

So the post-holiday return surge doesn’t just stress customer service and warehouse labor. It exposes how thin the whole “after” system really is.

What can change the outcome

While all this can seem overwhelming, consumers and companies do have options to make the system better. First, speed matters. The faster a return is inspected, graded and routed, the better the resale odds. That’s why retailers extend return windows for shoppers, then sprint internally to process the wave with seasonal labor, third-party logistics providers and overflow capacity. 

But reducing returns matters even more. Better sizing, better specs, clearer product information, fewer mystery fits — especially online and during gifting season — cuts the problem off at the source. Returns prevention is still the highest-ROI “sustainability” program in most closets.

Consolidation matters, too, because it reduces wasteful motion. If you can reduce redundant shipping and handling, more garments stay economically sellable instead of sliding into the loss pile.

Holiday returns aren’t a character flaw. They’re baked into modern retail. But once a garment crosses the return desk, it stops being a product and becomes a routing problem. If the system finds a second buyer fast, it lives. If it doesn’t, that refund gets attached to a quiet pile of waste.

The post How apparel companies handle the post-holiday return surge appeared first on Trellis.