5 corporate actions that will make the most impact by 2030

Sometimes it’s hard to tell what corporate actions are really making a difference. But according to a survey of more than 800 sustainability experts, these actions are the most impactful over the next five years:

  • Tech innovation and R&D (70 percent)
  • Corporate sustainability-linked compensation (65 percent)
  • Commercialization of sustainability via products and services (65 percent)

Actions such as integrating sustainability within companies (64 percent) and adopting circular economy practices (63 percent) also rank in the top 10 in a list of 23 potential ways that business can drive positive sustainability outcomes, according to the survey by Trellis data partner GlobeScan in collaboration with ERM and Volans.

What this means

Experts are shifting focus from compliance and culture-building toward systemic, performance-driven strategies. The emphasis on technology and commercialization as key levers reflects a growing consensus that sustainability must be profitable, scalable and embedded — and not treated as peripheral.

At the same time, experts are calling on businesses to act as systems integrators, aligning across stakeholders and domains. They also want businesses to anticipate the convergence of expectations around innovation, circularity and supply chains, lead with transparency and embed sustainability into core strategy rather than approaching it as a separate or siloed initiative.

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

The post 5 corporate actions that will make the most impact by 2030 appeared first on Trellis.

New tool standardizes comparison of ‘Scope 4’ emissions claims

An increasingly common narrative in corporate environmental reports is the one about “avoided emissions,” a.k.a. Scope 4. Roughly 2,400 companies reporting to disclosure service CDP in 2022 used some variation of the term — more than 10 percent of those that submitted data.

The challenge with such declarations is that the methodologies used to support them are still nascent compared with other carbon accounting frameworks. The latest organization offering guidance is Quantis, through an online tool called the Avoided Emissions Platform.

Avoided emissions quantify the difference between a historical way of doing things and what the reporting company is doing instead. 

Apple, for example, reported avoided emissions of 41 million metric tons for 2024 as a result of production and design changes; 15 percent of the reduction came from using recycled materials. Tesla touts emissions avoided by opting for an electric vehicle versus a gasoline-powered car.

Quantis’ new resource was developed on behalf of a dozen financial institutions and asset managers that were looking for a way to compare claims and 13 others that were seeking to make statements about avoided emissions. 

Goal: create credible models

The platform includes models for the impact of 65 low-carbon technologies and production approaches, ranging from EVs and alternative fuels to residential heat pumps. 

“In order to reach net zero, we’re going to have to accelerate on climate solutions,” said Anne Deserable, managing director of Quantis. “This initiative allows financial institutions to identify where they can guide investments.”

For example, Mirova, one of the asset management firms that contributed to the tool’s development, uses avoided emissions information to assess the positive climate impact of companies and projects that are part of its investment portfolio. 

“When considering only carbon footprints, a company producing batteries for electric vehicles might look worse than a company in the fast fashion industry with similar size in revenues, while obviously the first one is necessary to the low-carbon transition and the second isn’t,” said Manuel Coeslier, lead for climate and environment at Mirova.

The platform will be used by the firm’s ESG research analysts.

Why companies report avoided emissions

Industrial gas company Air Liquide has calculated the positive climate impact of certain products for years, using internal calculations based on publicly available methodologies, said Guillaume de Smedt, Air Liquide’s deputy vice president of sustainability. 

“We compare the emissions of our products against reference-case technology on the market,” de Smedt said. “The goal has always been the same: to show the concrete, difference our solutions make for our customers and for the planet.”

Air Liquide isn’t using the Quantis tool at this time, but it anticipates doing so. “It won’t necessitate a fundamental shift in our methodology, as our existing processes are already compliant with the core principles of avoided emissions calculations.”

The resource is aligned with existing guidance, starting with that from the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, said Deserable. “It’s important to stress the difference between emissions reductions and avoided emissions,” she said. “We are very clear that this cannot be considered as a reduction of Scope 1, 2 or 3.”

There are about 150 participants using the platform; more are currently testing the calculators. The Avoided Emissions Platform requires a subscription, but Quantis didn’t disclose pricing.

The post New tool standardizes comparison of ‘Scope 4’ emissions claims appeared first on Trellis.

Data-center demand sends electricity prices soaring

American consumers and businesses are experiencing sticker shock this summer when they open their electricity bills.

A combination of soaring demand from power-hungry data centers, scorching weather and pass-along costs from utility infrastructure investments is driving electricity prices — which had been relatively stable for a decade or so prior to the pandemic — to alarming highs.

The effects of President Donald Trump’s drastic tariffs could push power prices even higher as the raw materials for transmission lines become more expensive and utilities scramble to keep up with the demand of new generation.

New U.S. manufacturing capacity, aided by federal onshoring policies, will further drive increases.

Energy earthquake

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the average retail price of one kilowatt-hour of electricity in the U.S. rose 6.5 percent, to 17.5 cents from 16.41 cents, between May 2024 and May 2025.

Some states have been hit especially hard: ratepayers in Maine saw prices jump 36.3 percent in that period, followed by Connecticut (18.4 percent) and Utah (15.2 percent).

The effects are being felt by Las Vegas Strip merchants and New Jersey homeowners alike.

“Yesterday’s earthquake wasn’t tectonic,” wrote a member of the Midland Park, NJ Facebook group on August 3. “It was every NJ resident opening their PSE&G bill at the same time.”

NV Energy, which serves southern Nevada including Las Vegas, requested a 9-percent rate increase from state regulators earlier this year. The projected cost of its giant transmission project, Greenlink, has nearly doubled, to $4.2 billion from $2.5 billion, and could balloon even more as a result of the administration’s 25 percent tariffs on many relevant products from Mexico.

Don’t blame renewables

It’s often claimed by clean energy opponents — including U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright — that more renewable generation on the grid drives higher energy prices, but the data shows otherwise (see this deep dive on Sustainability by numbers for the full picture). Solar and wind, being variable resources, do drive volatility in prices, which helps contribute to public perceptions of a power grid out of whack.

And the Trump administration’s assault on federal support for renewable energy projects is bound to lead to higher prices, according to a recent report from think tank Energy Innovation. Some of the biggest increases will likely come in red states.

The primary driver of price increases, though, is still demand. Looking ahead, the data-center boom — and the resulting demand spike — shows no sign of slowing down.

Annual energy use by data centers will nearly triple, reaching between 74 and 132 gigawatts by 2028, according to a recent forecast by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; that represents 6.7-12 percent of total U.S. electricity demand. Many large operators, like Google and Microsoft, are investing heavily in low-carbon generation to meet their needs. Unfortunately, on the public grid, renewables alone cannot meet future demand growth.

Bloomberg NEF’s New Energy Outlook 2025 found that future load growth will help prolong the hydrocarbon era. Sixty-four percent of the increased generation for data centers will come from fossil fuels, and “added data-center demand could help extend the life of existing coal and gas plants.”

The post Data-center demand sends electricity prices soaring appeared first on Trellis.

Paper wrappers and curbside composting: The next 10 years of sustainable packaging

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

Imagine a future where you can set reusable packaging out on your porch for collection, bring bottles back to the store to get a hefty deposit, and where curbside composting pickup is just as widely available as recycling collection. This future doesn’t depend on some new miracle material or technological advancement. It depends on the work of today. 

Right now, headlines about mounting global plastic pollution in our oceans, setbacks to flexible plastic recycling, and off-target sustainability goals are widespread. It’s easy to get overwhelmed by these challenges and the daily, immediate pressures of complying with new packaging policies in the U.S. and Europe. But the sustainable packaging industry can’t afford to lose sight of the future it’s working towards. 

That’s why a new animated video from the Sustainable Packaging Coalition paints a clear picture of what sustainable packaging could look like in 2035. If we can see how our work will pay off in less than a decade’s time, we’re more likely to feel motivated and confident in the work being done today. Getting to this future depends on packaging professionals’ capacity to rethink three of the industry’s most stubborn gaps — and to do the work to close them in 10 years.

1. Focus on better packaging policy

New packaging policies are requiring producers to help cover the costs of recovery infrastructure, raising questions: What will this mean for my business? How much will I need to pay in fees? Am I ready to report my data? These are all incredibly important issues to get right, but it’s also worth asking: Which problems will these policies help solve? 

Packaging policy isn’t a silver bullet and it won’t instantly solve problems such as a lack of end-markets or a package not getting sorted correctly at a material-recovery facility. 

The purpose of policies such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is actually quite simple. It’s to get producers to help create effective collection programs. Seen through that light, two of the most prominent packaging policies — EPR and labeling bills — are the secret sauce behind the future where someone is able to easily and confidently recycle items outside her home, return items at the store for a deposit and recycle plastic film. Policy is going to help us get there. 

2. Aim to use more ‘successful’ materials 

There’s a headline every week, it seems, with new research into the harmful effects of chemicals used in packaging. There’s also a near constant drip of reporting on the scale of the microplastics problem driven by many sources of pollution and plastics, including packaging. And let’s not forget the Global Plastics Treaty that’s intended to tackle the global plastic pollution crisis with a legally binding agreement; negotiations stalled at the end of last year but will resume this month.

Some of the focus on plastic material is reinforced by EPR programs, as they have eco-modulation fees that will incentivize the use of easily recycled materials or those which have a lower environmental footprint. 

Many companies are asking: Do we need to switch materials and is there a more sustainable material? These are good questions to start with, but a better question might be: Which material will be the most successful in my product category? 

Packaging success happens when materials are collected at end-of-life and easy for consumers to sort and dispose of in a safe and low environmental impact way. We need to acknowledge that some materials aren’t viable for certain product categories and to align around which materials can do the job better in those cases.   

If we follow this path, by 2035 we’ll have the right materials doing the right jobs and we won’t have to feel guilty about unrecyclable snack wrappers — we’ll be using recyclable paper ones, instead. We’ll have access to compostable trays for produce to help compost any spoiled items or leftovers and that kombucha bottle, which is highly recyclable, will be made of high levels of recycled content.

3. Use sustainable packaging goals to drive innovation

Sustainable packaging goals — such as getting to 100 percent recyclable, reusable or compostable portfolios — have been hard to reach, and there’s been a fair share of backlash against companies and industry groups for not meeting goals, changing them, changing timelines or eliminating goals. Many companies are wondering: Do we need to rewrite or hide our goals or maybe change our timelines? Delete them and focus on compliance? 

A more future-facing question might be: How can our goals drive innovation? Here’s the reality: The low-hanging sustainability fruit has been picked. What’s left are the most difficult, yet meaningful changes. The opportunities to move to reusable packaging are massive and untapped. It’s the only way companies will meet most of their goals. And, incidentally, gearing yourself up for a system redesign puts you in the best position to tackle those earlier questions about materials and EPR, too. 

By 2035, refillable and returnable packaging will be the best, most sustainable strategy and the one that consumers prefer. Hopefully we, like the character in the video, can receive a cake and candles in a reusable shipper, set empty bottles out on our porches for reuse and — best of all — no longer have to flatten cardboard boxes. 

Staying the course

Taking a moment to get really clear on the future we’re working towards is incredibly valuable. Connecting the dots between what’s on our plate today — materials, EPR and strategic goals — and this future will help teams maintain momentum and remain committed to the work that needs to get done. 

The post Paper wrappers and curbside composting: The next 10 years of sustainable packaging appeared first on Trellis.

‘Nature positive’ is not a slogan – it’s an inspiring ambition and a measurable goal

Embracing change is necessary as the climate and nature crises move toward irreversible tipping points, and the costs for individuals and the economy rise exponentially. In fact, change is inevitable — whether we choose it or wait until it is forced upon us by nature herself. 

But transitions are filled with uncertainty, and natural evolution has forged in us a short-term, risk-averse attitude. In addition, vested interests and privilege holders who benefit from business as usual are resisting change. We are seeing all this play out today. In our conflicted, polarized and confused world, the old is failing and the new is not yet emerging at the scale and pace necessary.

In this environment it’s critical to frame a clear, concrete and inspiring vision that fundamentally drives change. Generic narratives and vague aspirations won’t drive action and may contribute to deeper cynicism and the feeling that change is not possible. The world has adopted relevant and measurable goals for climate, such as maintaining the average global temperature rise well below 2°C and “halting and reversing biodiversity loss” — or becoming “nature positive,” for short.

Against this backdrop of urgency, the article “14 Sustainability clichés to retire in 2025,” published by Trellis on July 30, suggests that we abandon some key terms that represent goals vital to achieving a sustainable future. I argue that this is not what we need. What we need, instead, is to ensure that companies, organizations and governments use them correctly.

The terms in question include “net-zero emissions,” “nature positive” (initially defined in a 2021 paper then adopted the next year in the language of the Mission of the Global Biodiversity Framework of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity), and “circularity” in the context of circular economies, commonly defined as a strategy to “reduce, reuse and recycle” in order to live within the world’s natural resource limits. 

Confusion and cynicism

Dismissing these well-defined and broadly adopted terms means also dismissing the ambition they signify, and the goals, targets and pathways that drive action — that are, in fact, crucial to mobilizing and merging efforts. Listing them alongside generic adjectives like “green” and “ecofriendly” while calling for them to be “retired” or “ditched” is dangerous. It runs the risk of feeding confusion and cynicism — and worse, undermining action — at a time when representatives of the status quo are already actively seeking to derail the momentum on sustainability.  

The specter of a post-truth world is upon us — one in which emotion and personal belief shape public opinion more than objective facts do. But facts matter. The planet is finite, and we need to come to terms with living within its boundaries. So when we witness attempts to undermine ambition or blatantly misuse important terms, our collective response must be to defend both the terms and their ambition, and call out those who intentionally misuse them.

If we believe that decarbonizing our economy, halting and reversing biodiversity loss and reducing overconsumption and waste are key pillars of a sustainable, safer, more prosperous and equitable future, do we really think that erasing language (and the targets they represent) like net-zero emissions, circular economy and net-positive biodiversity will help advance the climate, nature and waste agendas?

We must resist this temptation, because the only alternative is to begin afresh with new terms and new definitions that will themselves have to follow a long and arduous path to political and societal acceptance — a process that humanity simply does not have time for, given the current runaway climate change and collapse of crucial ecosystems and the benefits that nature provides. The real issue is not with the terms themselves, but rather with the way they are used. Unsubstantiated words and claims should be opposed without hesitation. The clearer the definitions, the easier it is to call out their misuse.

Measurable ambition to drive action

That’s why we were so careful in defining the term “nature positive” from the start, and in expanding upon it in the recently published Becoming Nature Positive. It’s also why we are now finalizing metrics and guidance to credibly and practically measure nature-positive outcomes, with the help of a group of global companies from the most relevant sectors and with oversight from a group of leading technical organizations that will ensure credibility. 

At the Nature Positive Initiative we are strong advocates of measuring concrete action and outcomes. Still, I believe that the use of inspirational language like nature positive — not as a slogan, but as a clear vision and a measurable goal — is essential to draw people in. More important, in defining the aspiration to less expert audiences, such language galvanizes action at the scale required to achieving our collective sustainability goals. 

The post ‘Nature positive’ is not a slogan – it’s an inspiring ambition and a measurable goal appeared first on Trellis.

IBM’s sustainability chief: 3 strategic ways I’m using AI today

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

The role of a modern-day CSO can seem like it has an ever-expanding remit. In addition to traditional work around reporting and compliance, many of us now focus on strategy, innovation and business transformation. Like the chief digital officers of the early aughts, the best CSOs are catalysts. They spearhead efforts to capture cutting-edge data on risk and operations, and embed it into business processes.

So it’s not surprising that the latest to-do on many CSOs list is how we should be thinking about AI.

Of course, one intersection between AI and sustainability stands out: energy costs and emissions. But because a CSO’s success relies so heavily on cross-functional data collection and advocacy, AI can also be a key tool in identifying opportunities, automating efficiencies, making cases for action and helping organizations become resilient against risks so they can deliver value for quarters, years and decades to come.

To help the sustainability community understand this tension, here’s how I’m thinking about it.

Making work more efficient

First, the obvious point: AI can be enormously helpful with core sustainability work, by, for example, reading utility bills globally and categorizing spend data within various reporting frameworks — and automatically handling the currency and unit conversions along the way. This kind of streamlined reporting can accelerate progress on corporate goals that may involve renewable energy, waste and water commitments.

The opportunities to plug AI into businesses for more sustainable operations are nearly limitless. At IBM, for example, new AI-powered maintenance module is helping us monitor, maintain and optimize operations with fewer people hours. It helps us boost energy efficiency, minimize unneeded repairs and replacements and reduce waste. The module is estimated to save us 10,000 people hours per year.

AI has also reduced costs and energy use in our cloud workloads and an AI-driven natural language processing model is helping our emissions reporting platform analyze documents and categorize spend by type of emission. It’s also helping with planning and forecasting. That platform has helped reduce reporting costs by 30 percent.

We’re also using AI to help solve a pain point that comes up so often among CSOs behind closed doors: the dramatically increasing number of client inquiries. Banks, manufacturers and government agencies all have procurement criteria or reporting needs that increasingly cause them to ask: How many and what scope of emissions are attributable to our engagement? What circularity options do we have? How do your goals align with a specific framework? Rather than have a relatively small team handle these queries manually, we now have an AI assistant that pulls information from various sources and offers quick, custom answers on such questions.

Adopting AI intentionally

This moment is custom-built for CSOs to influence their internal peers. Any company’s adoption of AI will come with significant energy needs, which are closely aligned with both costs and emissions. CSOs have the wind at their backs as they tap their cross-functional connections with CIOs, COOs and CFOs to make sure their company is pulling every lever possible to minimize AI’s energy consumption.

Those levers involve everything from how power is sourced, to what chips and infrastructure are used, to the size and architecture of selected AI models, and how these models are tuned and deployed. Without CSO involvement, decision makers may focus only on maximum performance, speed or minimizing fixed costs.

It’s still early days to point to dramatic outcomes in this area, but my office has worked closely with IBM’s research teams — that develop our models—and product teams to explore how we can measure energy use in a robust and comparable way, and then how we can integrate improvements into products and articulate the sustainability and lower costs as a software selling point. The point is for CSOs to be a voice at the table and to bring relevant data into consideration.

A CSO can articulate trade-offs others might not be thinking about with water, energy, ongoing total and variable costs and more. They may raise the idea of sufficient performance or speed and help avoid choices that “lock in” challenging pathways when considering longer-term corporate goals. That influence may help an organization choose a more lightweight implementation of AI without raising downstream challenges on costs or progress toward goals or regulatory requirements. For example, a company could use a smaller AI model that handles 90 percent versus 95 percent of initial customer-support inquiries a millisecond slower, but at significantly lower compute costs, reduced need for storage infrastructure, and correspondingly lower need for energy, cooling and maintenance.

CSOs at companies actually building AI models or infrastructure can take an even more muscular approach, emphasizing the design, development and use of models, chips and more that balance realistic business needs with reasonable costs and environmental impacts. At IBM, the best example of this is an approach that favors smaller, less-energy intensive models designed for specific purposes compared to a more energy-hungry, one-size-fits-all option. Nokia’s Head of Sustainability has also discussed his role in this area, pointing to energy-efficient hardware choices, small models and an end-to-end review of the environmental impact of AI systems.

Driving growth and innovation

As CSOs face increasingly expansive missions, AI can help them drive growth, innovation and revenue.

For example, the AI assistant I mentioned above is much more than just a time-saver for my team. It gives our sales team a competitive edge by providing them bespoke, up-to-date information so they can respond to requests for proposals and supplier questionnaires faster. And, by capturing which sellers are requesting the data and why, the assistant brings hard data and visibility to sustainability’s “book of business” and sheds light on the highest-potential business development opportunities.

AI also frees up teams to work on higher-value initiatives. Our AI-powered “Safer Materials Adviser,” for example, detects PFAS compounds in parts, components or formulations, and is being further developed to help source substitutes. This has applications for our own workflows such as chip design, but also for other companies involved in clean energy and packaging. We’re working with Nestlé to use AI to speed up development of environmentally friendly packaging.

For CSOs, taking steps to mitigate the energy challenges posed by AI are table stakes. This moment calls for much more than that and CSOs can rise to the opportunity to shape their organizations’ AI adoption so that it drives sustainable, long-term outcomes.

The post IBM’s sustainability chief: 3 strategic ways I’m using AI today appeared first on Trellis.

As plastics treaty talks enter the final round, here’s what to expect

The plastics treaty talks that convened on August 5 in Geneva look like the last chance to deliver a meaningful global deal to stem the tide of plastic that is infiltrating our bodies, overwhelming our landfills and devastating our oceans. If successful, it would be the world’s first coordinated legal framework for tackling plastic pollution at scale.

If not? Well, read on. 

The background

Launched in 2022 by the U.N. Environment Assembly, the talks seek a legally binding global treaty to end plastic pollution. The goal is to address plastics across their full life cycle — from design and production to use and disposal.

Negotiators have met five times so far, most recently in Busan, South Korea, in December. That session, meant to finalize the treaty, collapsed without agreement on a single article — including the treaty’s objective.

Where are we now?

The current “Chair’s Text” — the draft agreement guiding negotiations — reflects a deeply divided process. Though it includes measures to improve waste management, on the whole it avoids the most controversial issues: limits on plastic production, regulation of toxic chemicals and how to pay for it all.

“There’s a clear majority of countries that have made statements committing to strong measures on chemicals of concern and limiting the production of plastics,” said Sam Winton, a researcher studying the treaty process who is attending the talks. “But there are a small number of countries that consider those topics completely out of the scope of the Treaty.”

This resistance comes primarily from oil-producing nations — reportedly led by Saudi Arabia and including Russia and Iran — and plastic-exporting economies that want to focus only on downstream solutions, such as recycling. Meanwhile, ambitious countries — including coalitions led by Rwanda and Mexico — are pushing for upstream controls and legally binding global targets on the use of harmful chemicals and products.

Following a July meeting in Nairobi, the Trump administration issued a statement opposing production limits: “We support an agreement that focuses on efforts that will lead to reducing plastic pollution, not on stopping the use of plastics.” 

What’s at stake?

Over 460 million metric tons of plastic are produced annually, of which 20 million end up in the environment. Plastics contaminate virtually every ecosystem on Earth, driving biodiversity and ecosystem loss. Globally, the production, use and waste management of plastics is responsible for 4 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions.

But this treaty is about more than environmental protection. It could reshape markets, supply chains and regulations for years to come.

For businesses, an agreement would mean:

  • Tighter rules for plastic packaging and product design
  • Restrictions on hazardous chemicals in plastic goods
  • A global push toward reuse, refill and alternative material
  • Increased costs through extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws, such as those in California, Colorado and five other states

What will Geneva focus on?

The Geneva session will center on four unresolved issues:

Scope and ambition

Will the treaty cover only waste or the entire plastic life cycle — including how much plastic is made and how? The current draft leans toward a voluntary, national-level approach. Many countries say that’s not good enough, and that a global, enforceable agreement is needed.

Plastic production

Proposals include setting global targets to reduce the production of primary plastic polymers. Petrochemical-producing nations strongly oppose this, seeing plastics as a growing market for fossil fuels in a world in which demand for energy production will fall in the coming years.

Chemicals and products of concern

More than 16,000 chemicals are used in plastics, many with unknown health effects. Some countries want to begin phasing out the worst offenders. Others — including industry groups — oppose these moves, citing cost and supply chain complexity. Specific chemicals of concern won’t be decided at these talks, but negotiators could agree to begin to develop a list ahead of future meetings.

Finance and implementation

Developing countries such as the Philippines, with weak to nonexistent recycling systems, want support to implement the treaty, including technical assistance and a dedicated funding mechanism. Wealthier countries prefer to work through existing platforms such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Who pays — and how much — remains unresolved.

What are the possible outcomes?

There are four broad scenarios for how the Geneva talks could end:

  • Low ambition: A weak treaty focused on voluntary, national-level waste measures. This would be relatively easy to reach but risks being ineffectual.
  • High ambition: A legally binding global treaty covering chemicals, product bans and production limits, along with a roadmap for implementation. This is what many countries want, but it faces stiff opposition in certain quarters.
  • Middle-ground package deal: The most likely scenario: a compromise that trades stronger commitments in one area (such as chemicals) for softer language in another (such as production). Behind-the-scenes negotiations will be key to achieving this.
  • No agreement: If talks fail entirely again, the process could collapse. That could cause some countries to pursue separate high-ambition treaties outside the U.N. Others may fall back on national or regional regulations — creating a patchwork of compliance risks for global businesses.

Why this matters

The treaty’s outcome will set the direction for plastic regulation, innovation and compliance over the next two decades. A robust agreement would accelerate the shift away from single-use plastics, force businesses to rethink packaging and material choices and create new reporting and transparency requirements across supply chains.

Even companies not directly involved in plastic production would face new obligations as part of EPR schemes, product bans or chemical phase-outs.

“It is very likely that an ambitious, successful treaty will impact various parts of your operations, probably some parts that you haven’t already thought of,” said Winton. 

The post As plastics treaty talks enter the final round, here’s what to expect appeared first on Trellis.

Google’s Kate Brandt plays a central role in its AI strategy

Google’s chief sustainability officer, Kate Brandt, isn’t just responsible for the company’s emissions reduction and environmental conservation agenda — a mission complicated by a planned $85 billion investment in artificial intelligence infrastructure in 2025 alone.

Her team is tasked with dreaming up ways to use AI in applications that help other companies, cities and individuals cut emissions at least 1 gigaton annually by 2030.

Brandt recently celebrated her 10th anniversary with Google, which she joined after leaving her position as chief sustainability officer for the federal government. She reports to Ben Gomes, chief technologist for learning and sustainability, a direct reflection of the growing importance of Google’s sustainability team to innovation. Her team doesn’t have explicit revenue goals, but money-making potential is considered in the design review process.

“We have been an AI-first company since 2017, and we’re really in a moment now where we need to figure out how to develop AI in a bold and responsible way,” Brandt told me in the latest episode of the Climate Pioneers interview series. “I really see the work we do on sustainability as being squarely within that mission.”

One example of that boldness: A company policy, since May 2020, to not use AI for oil and gas applications — in contrast to its primary rivals in cloud computing services, Amazon and Microsoft. 

“But really, a lot of the work is more oriented around not the negative screen, but the positive application,” Brandt said. “Having things like our gigaton aspiration enables us to align product areas across the company — from Google research to Google Deep Mind cloud and other teams — around the opportunity space of using this technology as a climate solution.”

Forerunner: Google Earth

Many applications championed by Google’s sustainability team build on decades of work on such widely used services as Google Maps and Google Earth, the latter of which was overhauled at the end of July with a major AI capability called AlphaEarth Foundations. The new “virtual satellite” tracks crop health, deforestation, water resources, new construction and other environmental changes, by accessing dozens of public data sources including optical satellite images, radar and climate simulations.

Other apps the sustainability team has had a hand in developing or revising are one that helps pilots minimize condensation trails; a fuel-efficient router in Google Maps; the Green Light city traffic optimization resource; and a solar planning tool that helps developers pick better sites and contributed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6 million metric tons in 2024.

“We’re seeing huge opportunities to drive that kind of positive change, and we need to keep going,” Brandt said. “Furthermore, we see AI as a very powerful tool when it comes to climate resilience and adaptation.” Two high-profile examples are FireSat for wildfire detection and the Google Flood Hub for local riverine flooding. 

Dilemma: How to tame AI infrastructure

Brandt is also regularly included in high-level discussions about decreasing the energy and water appetites of Google’s data center infrastructure and investing in lower-carbon energy resources such as geothermal and advanced nuclear technologies.

“I really orient the discussion toward the idea that the work is squarely within the company’s mission, within our objective to be bold and responsible in how we deploy AI,” she said. “I think that really resonates.”

Her advocacy has paid off in new training methods for AI models that speed the process by 39 percent and in big improvements in AI chip efficiency. Google’s latest custom-built AI processor, Ironwood, which launched in April, offers double the performance per watt of technology announced in 2024.

Despite these efforts and Google’s big investments in solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear power — 60 deals in 2024 alone — the company’s greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 51 percent since its 2019 baseline year. Still Google remains committed to its “moonshoot” pledge to cut its carbon footprint 50 percent by 2030.

“These really big challenges that we’ve taken on that have a societal benefit to them — the point isn’t necessarily a check-the-box or a 100 percent achievement,” Brandt said. “It’s sort of inherently meant to be hard, to drive us to try new things, to find unusual partnerships, to innovate.”

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

The post Google’s Kate Brandt plays a central role in its AI strategy appeared first on Trellis.

Amazon’s secret weapon for countering higher emissions: fellow Climate Pledge signatories

Like its closest rivals in artificial intelligence and cloud computing, Amazon’s greenhouse gas emissions rose in its latest ESG reporting update. And like Microsoft and Google, the company is committed to its existing goal, which commits it to becoming net zero by 2040 through the Climate Pledge framework it co-created in 2019.

Amazon’s sustainability chief, Kara Hurst, points to investments in climate technologies such as Rivian’s electric delivery vans, Amazon’s expansive purchases of clean energy and the joint action it is mobilizing with the 549 other signatories (as of December 31, 2024) in the Climate Pledge as reasons to remain “firm” even when progress is less than linear.

“No matter what we’re faced with in the future, we’ll remain steadfast in our commitment to sustainability and continue to invest, innovate and obsess over our progress each year, with the same intensity and focus that has defined Amazon from Day One,” she said in Amazon’s 2024 sustainability report.

Watch this metric: carbon intensity

Amazon’s emissions have grown 34.4 percent since its 2019 baseline year, to 68.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent for 2024. For comparison, in their most recent environmental update from earlier this summer, Google disclosed a cumulative emissions increase of 51 percent, to 15.2 million metric tons since its 2019 baseline, while Microsoft recorded a 24.3 percent increase since 2020, to 14.9 million metric tons.

As its emissions totals illustrate, the magnitude of Amazon’s e-commerce operations — more than 10 billion items delivered within 48 hours in 2024 — add a complexity to the Seattle company’s net-zero pledge that neither Microsoft nor Google faces. Scope 3 emissions from the company’s supply chain are about 74 percent of the total. 

Amazon doesn’t break out the carbon footprint associated with data centers that power Amazon Web Services. It does, however, closely monitor another metric, carbon intensity, which measures grams of CO2 equivalent per dollar of merchandise sales. For 2024, that number was 72.6 grams, off 40.9 percent — from 122.8 grams — in 2019. During that timeframe, Amazon’s total revenue more than doubled to $638 billion.

Targeted Climate Pledge recruitment  

Amazon studies carbon intensity so it can gauge the effectiveness of investments and efficiency measures across its supply chain. As 2040 draws closer, the company’s sustainability team is looking to collaborations between Amazon and other signatories to the Climate Pledge, especially big suppliers, to scale that work.

“We are heavily encouraging our suppliers, especially our top-emitting suppliers to join us in the Climate Pledge,” said Sally Fouts, Amazon’s director of the Climate Pledge. “And if they can’t commit to the pledge, we still work with these companies in other ways.”

In 2024, 76 companies joined the pledge — an average year for new signatories, said Fouts. Two of them were Amazon’s high-emitting suppliers, Crane Worldwide Logistics and Shorr Packaging. There was also a specific push to recruit businesses from Asia Pacific and the high-emitting fashion industry; among those to take the leap: jeans maker DL1961 and fashion designer Stella McCartney. 

“Our decision to join the Climate Pledge reflects our deep commitment to bold, science-based targets,” said DL1961 CEO Sarah Ahmed. The company already closely tracks the carbon footprint of its jeans, and it uses waterless processes and recycled fabrics or those harvested from organic and regenerative sources to drive down emissions. Its goal is to cut its footprint in half by 2030.

Growing priority: collective action

Amazon is recruiting in specific supplier categories with the aim of creating working groups that can share best practices or collaborate on specific projects. Six projects were launched in 2024, involving 16 signatories, making a total of 19 initiatives now up and running, Fouts said, including a few focused on one of Amazon’s biggest emissions categories, transportation and logistics.

One example is Laneshift, created to accelerate the installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in cities throughout Brazil, India and Mexico. Several Climate Pledge companies are supporting a 370-kilometer EV freight corridor in India between Bengaluru and Chennai. Another is Joule, which is building a charging network across Bengaluru and matching the electricity consumption with renewables.

“If we can get those companies that have a vested interest and may play a different role in that ecosystem of getting that network off the ground, then we can hopefully move faster,” said Fouts.  

Amazon has deployed more than 10,000 EVs in India, on the way to realizing a larger aspiration of putting at least 100,000 electric delivery vans on the road worldwide by 2030. It had deployed 31,400 as of Dec. 31, and delivered more than 1.5 billion packages in 2024 using electric vehicles.

Brooks Running, among the first 40 companies to become a Climate Pledge signatory in 2020, benefits from these collaborations, said Dave Kemp, director of corporate responsibility for the footwear maker. 

Brooks’ involvement with the Climate Pledge has enabled it to participate in contracts that reduced emissions related to aviation and maritime shipping and that enabled renewable energy investments in its supply chain. “It helped unlock partnerships and collaboration we wouldn’t have thought about or had access to,” Kemp said.

Branding blitz

Amazon is also counting on its Climate Pledge Friendly labeling program — which sellers can use to market products covered by more than 60 eco-certifications — to make a dent in its Scope 3 emissions. Amazon carried more than 2.2 million Climate Pledge Friendly products in 2024, compared with 250,000 in 2021, when the program began.

In 2024, Amazon customers purchased more than 1.7 billion products carrying the label, an increase of 48 percent from 2023. That includes 75,200 businesses that use Amazon for procurement, up from 18,000 in 2022. 

Another data point Amazon touts in its 2024 report: 38.8 million customers switched to Climate Pledge Friendly brands in 2024 after buying other options in the same category in the previous two years.

Looking forward, Amazon is encouraging more sellers to qualify products under the labeling program. It’s also stepping up its support of those selling preowned or refurbished products, said Cameron Westfall, head of product and engineering for the Climate Pledge Friendly program. 

“One of the things that we’re super excited about is that getting Climate Pledge Friendly is more impactful for those brands that are less discoverable on their own,” Westfall said. “So small businesses end up being some of the biggest beneficiaries of investing in sustainability.”

The Climate Pledge Friendly concept can also be applied to delivery and packaging options that surface during the checkout process. “We are starting to embed that more, and you’ll start seeing it more on the site,” Westfall said.

The post Amazon’s secret weapon for countering higher emissions: fellow Climate Pledge signatories appeared first on Trellis.

Is corporate sustainability dying? 100 executives respond

My recent column, “No, corporate sustainability is not dying,” prompted a wave of thoughtful responses on LinkedIn from sustainability professionals across sectors and borders. And, while most agreed on the general diagnosis about the profession, there was debate over the causes and prognosis.

Of course, this was hardly a representative sampling. Trellis readers — and my LinkedIn followers — trend heavily toward sustainability professionals in the trenches. They live the confusing and confounding moment I wrote about, every day.

Following is a synthesis of the 100 or so LinkedIn comments, including some of the more striking and pithy insights.

Not dead — but definitely ailing

“100% agree, Joel,” wrote Jim Hartzfeld, longtime sustainability strategist and protégé of the legendary founder of Interface, Ray Anderson, about my hypothesis. “Not dead but evolving out of ‘the end of the beginning’ phase of this inevitable transformation.”

Others echoed this sense of a maturing field. Catherine McKalip-Thompson, sustainability manager at Bechtel, who formerly ran the a White House environmental task force under Bill Clinton, offered a memorable metaphor: “Figuratively, sustainability is in its late twenties. The total optimism and drive are maturing into a more pragmatic stage.”

RepRisk’s Jonny Hardaker added: “I often think of the contrast between tech, where the mantra ‘fail fast, fail often’ is celebrated in the pursuit of disruption, and sustainability, which seems to be ‘fail once and face the executioner!’ There’s always going to be a learning curve when trying something new and complex that’s never been done before.”

But the maturity of the field also brings a more sobering reflection on the slow pace of progress. Auden Schendler, former senior vice president for sustainability at Aspen One and author of “Terrible Beauty: Reckoning with Climate Complicity and Rediscovering Our Soul,” was characteristically blunt: “The problem: most consultants in this field, most journalists and almost every practitioner is making their paycheck doing the same thing we were all doing 20-plus years ago,” he wrote. “Voluntary operational greening, targets, reports, efficiency — was never going to achieve sustainability in any form. So, time for something new.”

Hype, hope and headwinds

“Unfortunately, ‘not dead’ does not mean ‘fully vibrant,’” warned BSR CEO Aron Cramer. “Many companies are reining in ambition, communicating less and some are withdrawing resources.” He noted that the corporate greenhushing trend has contributed to policy backsliding: “That silence contributes to policy retreats that increase costs, delays and uncertainties.”

Cramer sounded simultaneously optimistic and ominous: “The companies that stay the course will be rewarded. And those that don’t will regret it.”

Several commenters noted that the profession’s early enthusiasm has largely given way to box-checking. “Progress has been diverted to reporting and calculations without adequate budget, courage or support for genuine innovation and solutions,” noted Catherine Greener, a decades-long veteran in the field.

Microsoft’s Matthew Sekol agreed. “There are definitely companies that are pivoting to integration, but there are those that are lost in the metrics and those using the push[back] as a convenient excuse to halt efforts.”

Mark Coleman, of engineering consultancy TRC Companies, provided a somewhat more encouraging view: “A ‘pendulum of extremism’ has taken over politics and the airwaves, leaving many business and society leaders uncertain on how best to weigh their options. There is a zone of pragmatism where progress is measured and can effectively be made.”

And Sara McKinstry, senior sustainability advisor at the corporate reporting service Labrador, offered a historical reminder of the profession’s ups and downs: “It wasn’t dead during the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II years and it’s not dead now … Certain political voices, louder than ever, may try to push everyone’s heads into the sand, but the global challenges we face are only getting worse. As the great Kelly Clarkson sings, ‘What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.’ So too for corporate sustainability. We are tired but we never give up.”

Performative sustainability is dead — and that’s OK

There was a shared recognition that the era of performative sustainability — the kind built around slogans, slide decks and press releases — may be over.

That includes the language we use, as my colleague Elsa Wenzel recently noted. “The word ‘sustainability’ has become stretched so thin and contorted it no longer holds the weight of this moment,” said Justin Adams, formerly of BP and The Nature Conservancy. “Perhaps it’s time to let it go — or at least reframe it.”

Sustainability communications expert Catherine Cruveillier agreed: “What has started to die is the jargon and the abstraction. And that’s a good thing. More jargon needs to die so we can get where we want to be.”

Strategic integration is the new frontier

While the headlines may focus on setbacks, many professionals pointed to promising developments, notably the quiet embedding of sustainability into business strategy, operations and governance.

“Quiet, steady — and often — ambitious work is being done every day,” wrote Alexis Fuge, director of sustainability strategy at Sandisk. “While folks aren’t shouting their goals from the rooftops, we are expending energy to embed targets, metrics and working norms into the everyday operations of businesses worldwide.”

Madrid-based Iñigo Jodra, another sustainability veteran, noted a shift from lofty goals to real strategies: “Companies now face a logical calibration of their sustainability targets: from the initial, top-down and aspirational ones to those supported by tangible, profitable, sustainability-driven strategies and operating models that leverage factors such as circularity and climate risk management.”

As always, money talks. “If we see climate and equity performance moved from corporate impact reports into executive comp … we can say sustainability efforts are evolving,” said Dune Ives, an independent board director and former CEO.

Rob Shelton, who penned some of the earliest articles on what was then called “green business,” offered perspective via U.S. Admiral Hyman Rickover: “Good ideas are not adopted automatically. They must be driven into practice with courageous impatience … so a continuous effort is required.”

Or, as consultancy CEO Simon Mainwaring put it: “There is not a slight chance it is dead with this amazing cohort of practitioners in this chain. We’re not that easy to kill.”

The post Is corporate sustainability dying? 100 executives respond appeared first on Trellis.