Search

When Texas passed a strict new abortion law in 2021, some business leaders simply passed the buck. They said they'd pay to shuttle their Texas employees off to other states for medical care or permanent relocation, rather than taking any definitive stance for or against the legislation. Three years later, conservatives have tightened their grip on reproductive healthcare policies, potentially impacting women, girls and other pregnancy-capable people in every state, not just the “red” ones. Business leaders who were hoping to stay above the fray will soon have nowhere to go unless they realize that the buck stops right where they are.

Fill that communications gap

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision that ended federal protections for abortion in the U.S., some companies continue to protect equal access to health care through their employee health plans, as indicated by a survey of plan offerings related to abortion services in 2023 conducted by the firm KFF. The survey focused on large firms of 200 or more employees.

However, the survey strongly suggests that some large firms need to do a much better job of communicating about their abortion coverage. Or at least they need to clarify who is responsible for communicating about their abortion coverage. 

KFF’s surveyors requested to speak with a person most familiar with the plans, generally meaning a human resources or benefits manager. Nevertheless, almost 40 percent of the persons who were designated to respond to the firm’s questions reported that they were not familiar with their firm’s abortion coverage.

Presumably, a prospective employee seeking information about abortion coverage would keep digging until they found the answer. Nevertheless, the survey indicates that some companies may be missing an opportunity to communicate about their support for gender equality as it relates to reproductive health care.

Opportunities for leadership on reproductive rights: Size and location

The 40 percent of firms without information represent a knowledge gap in the survey. But the top-line result is still somewhat reassuring to workers seeking plans that cover abortion services.

KFF found that 32 percent of firms with information about their plans reported that they still offer abortion coverage in “most or all circumstances.” Another 18 percent provide coverage but restrict it to cases of rape, incest, danger to health or life, or other limited circumstances. Only 10 percent reported that they provide no coverage at all.

The size of the company makes a difference. Forty-three percent of firms with 5,000 or more employees reported covering abortions in all or most circumstances, beating the average of 32 percent by a wide margin, according to the survey.

That finding suggests an opportunity for larger firms to collaborate with each other on support for reproductive rights and equal access to health care.

Firms headquartered in the Northeast also appear to have a stronger platform for collaboration. In the Northeast, 56 percent of firms reported covering abortions in all or most cases, presenting a sharp contrast with the national average of 32 percent. 

The other region to beat the national average was the West, at 44 percent. In contrast, firms headquartered in the Midwest and South appear to be ignoring the impact that access to abortion services could have on employee attraction and retention. Only 20 percent of respondents in the Midwest and 18 percent in the South reported covering abortion in all or most cases.

“Although where a firm is headquartered is not necessarily where its largest plan is offered, these findings do largely mirror trends related to abortion rights and abortion coverage laws in states in these regions,” according to KFF.

The shrinking windows of opportunity

When Texas moved to dramatically restrict access to abortion in 2021, some businesses relied on other states to fill in the gaps of service for their employees. That window began to shrink just one year later when the conservative-led U.S. Supreme Court decided the Dobbs v. Jackson case. The majority argued that states should be empowered to restrict abortion if they choose. While many states did not take up the offer, others did.

As of last year, 13 states all but banned abortion services, according to information compiled by the nonprofit organization Guttmacher Institute.

“One year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health overturned Roe v. Wade, the status of abortion rights in many states is dismal and complex legal questions continue to create chaos and confusion,” according to the Institute.

Guttmacher also takes note of some “bright spots.” However, other red flags have emerged elsewhere in the reproductive health care field.

For example, in 2023 the Joe Biden administration permitted pharmacies to dispense the widely used abortion medication mifepristone. Last week CVS and Walgreens both announced they would begin dispensing it, though only in states where abortion is still permitted.

Limited as that window is, it may soon slam shut. Last year a federal judge ruled that mifepristone should be pulled from the market. On appeal, the case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 26, and a decision is expected this summer.

Another red flag was raised on February 16 when the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that embryos frozen through the course of in vitro fertilization (IVF) are people under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, a law passed in 1872. 

The ruling created an uproar across the political spectrum. Pregnancy clinics in Alabama almost immediately suspended operations, citing concerns over legal consequences. The Alabama legislature scrambled to control the damage, but legal experts have already raised concerns that the forthcoming legislative fix will not reassure IVF practitioners.

So far, Louisiana is the only other state to restrict the disposal of IVF embryos. Clinics there have continued to operate under a loophole that permits the transportation of embryos to other states, but those opportunities are now at risk. Reproductive rights advocates have raised concerns that “fetal personhood” bills threaten IVF services in 14 other states.

A solid step in the right direction

Against this backdrop, CVS and Walgreens took advantage of a new opportunity to stand up for reproductive rights. Both companies announced they will sell the daily contraceptive medication Opill under its new status as an over-the-counter product approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

CVS will begin stocking Opill in April, and it has already taken steps to ensure customer privacy. The company has posted information about Opill on its website. Customers can assess the contraceptive without the need for an in-store consultation, though CVS advises that its healthcare staff is also available to assist on request.

Out of additional privacy considerations — including the risk of confrontation with judgmental staff or customers — CVS also reportedly plans to implement same-day delivery service for Opill. Customers can also pay online and pick up their orders in person. 

Walgreens’ approach is also notable. The company took an unapologetic, enthusiastic position on birth control. “When used as directed, Opill is 98 percent effective at preventing unplanned pregnancies,” Walgreens states on its website. “The best part? You don't need a doctor's appointment or a prescription before you begin using it, so it's a great option for those without health insurance or frequent access to medical services. No hassle, no worries.” 

That remains to be seen. The sale of a new contraceptive is a matter of routine in many U.S. states, but Opill may kick up a firestorm of controversy in states where fetal personhood advocates have already politicized health and wellness decisions.

In addition, Republicans in Congress are already preparing federal legislation in support of fetal personhood, such as the proposed Life at Conception Act, which will bring down the curtain on access to birth control as well as abortion and IVF.

Business leaders who still think it’s possible to pass the buck on reproductive rights are only deluding themselves and their employees. 

Seaports in the United States are economic powerhouses: They employ 31 million people, account for 26-percent of the nation’s overall economy and generate $5.4 trillion in economic activity. For every billion dollars in exports shipped through U.S. seaports, 15,000 jobs are created.

But they are also part of communities, and they have an opportunity to play a major role in helping improve air quality through emissions reduction, especially at the largest ports in the U.S. 

Understanding the environmental impact of seaports

When compared to aviation and trucking, ocean shipping remains the most environmentally efficient means of cargo transportation. However, on-shore environmental impacts remain a challenge, due to particulate and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from both vessels and related road traffic congestion. The local public health impacts from pollutants generated at seaports and other industrial areas disproportionately affect the typically lower-income communities which neighbor them. These communities suffer from elevated levels of cardiopulmonary and cardiovascular diseases, increased rates of asthma, and too frequently, developmental disorders in children.

Efforts are underway by companies and governments to lessen the environmental impact of seaports, led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Ports Initiative stated goal for U.S ports to be global leaders in clean, efficient freight and passenger transportation.

A vision for the “port of the future”

Port operators also have a vested interest in modernizing ports for a cleaner future. Crowley, a U.S. maritime, logistics and energy solutions company, is innovating in this space, envisioning a “port of the future” with a focus on decarbonizing its port operations. 

Crowley has committed to achieving net-zero emissions across all areas of its business and operations by 2050, playing a leadership role as stewards of the environment as well as serving customers and communities.

“The reduction of both global greenhouse gas emissions and local community environmental impacts is at the core of our 2050 initiative,” said Matt Jackson, vice president of Crowley’s Advanced Energy division. “To achieve this requires the collaborative working efforts of many stakeholders such as ports, local community, regulators and our customers.”

So, what is Crowley’s vision for ports? Jackson described the broad outline like this: 

The port of the future is an ecosystem of different net-zero solutions that provides and supports all the activities in the port — and works together with all port stakeholders.

To this end, Crowley is forging important industry partnerships at ports across the U.S. to find new ways to reduce carbon emissions.

In 2022, Senesco Marine — a major builder of barges, tugboats and other marine vessels in the U.S. Northeast — selected Crowley to undertake design verification and production packaging for a new hybrid-electric passenger ferry. Due to go into service this year, the new ferry will carry passengers and vehicles to the islands of Casco Bay from Portland, Maine. It will replace an existing diesel-powered ferry and is projected to avoid 800 tons of carbon emissions annually.

And later this year, Crowley will begin testing Class 8 long-haul trucks for Terraline, an autonomous-ready electric truck company. With an expected 500-plus mile range, the zero-emissions trucks are slated to service Crowley’s Florida facilities in Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville and Miami.

Within their port operations, Crowley is making strides to reduce air pollution at the development phase of the Salem Offshore Wind Terminal, which will service offshore wind operations across New England. Through the process of cold ironing, which allows vessels to plug directly into port electricity, rather than idling on diesel while in port, Crowley will enable certain vessels pulling up to the terminal to significantly reduce air pollution and particulate emissions within the port and neighboring areas.

In addition, Crowley recently broke ground on a microgrid-based shoreside charging station at the Port of San Diego which will fast-charge the company’s forthcoming eWolf electric tugboat, the first vessel of its kind in the U.S. The charger’s design allows it to draw energy from solar and the traditional grid via the microgrid, reducing loads on the local energy grid at peak times.


These are just a few of the sustainable enhancements Crowley is making to their shoreside operations. “We are constantly evaluating technology by creating our own research and development team to evaluate and test [hybrid and alternative energy vessels],” Jackson said.

With net-zero goals top-of- mind, “we have established Crowley Advanced Energy to support the development of renewable energy solutions to bring ample power to the grid edge in support of maritime electrification efforts.”

Looking toward existing technology to work toward the port of the future, today

As Crowley works toward the port of the future, it's already taking steps with tried and tested technology that is already available in its existing ports. 

The company’s work at the Port of Jacksonville, Florida (JAXPORT) offers a real-world proving ground. “Our initiatives to modernize JAXPORT are a part of the broader transition to low-emission ports — using the infrastructure we have to get where we need to go, and identifying gaps to meet the challenges of this technology transition,” Jackson said. 

Among those efforts is an initiative dubbed JAXPORT EXPRESS (Exemplifying Potential to Reduce Emissions with Sustainable Solutions). “[The] project will enable us to procure zero-emission cargo handling equipment and install high-power DC fast-charging infrastructure to enable further adoption and utilization of that zero-emission handling equipment,” Jackson explained. And though it’s a stepping stone in the journey to net-zero, “it is a giant leap forward for our own operations and for ports in the South,” he said.


From microgrids to carbon sequestration

Crowley sees microgrids as an important component of its port operations. They can be utilized during peak grid demand hours and help balance the distribution of power between the microgrid and local grid — in effect dovetailing with grid demand-response efforts. Although some energy sources for the microgrid might be fossil fuel-based (such as LNG), for cost effectiveness and reliability reasons, they can also incorporate renewables such as solar, as well as wind and hydrogen. Fuels such as LNG can be transitionary sources while infrastructure, technology and supply chains mature, so later, renewable natural gas (RNG) can be used, such as in Crowley’s JAXPORT terminal.

The microgrids and charging stations can then power electrified port vessels, trucks, yard equipment, and cars while acting as local resilience hubs and even putting energy back into the grid.


Given that fossil fuels remain a necessary part of the vehicle fuel mix in the near term, Crowley is also actively working to capture emissions from vessels at the source.

“We are participating with our partner Carbon Ridge, a leading developer of maritime decarbonization technologies and solutions, in a pilot to test and validate the effectiveness of carbon capture on vessels,” Jackson said. “We hope to pilot carbon capture in 2024 and then determine how to roll it out to our fleet.”

Government support is needed to help port modernization scale up

Important to all these initiatives are not just Crowley’s efforts, but also partnerships, funding and in, large part, government support.

For example, JAXPORT EXPRESS received a grant from the Port Infrastructure Development Program, administered by the U.S. Maritime Administration. This program was established by Congress and former U.S. President Barack Obama in 2010, more recently received funding from the bipartisan infrastructure bill passed in 2022. 

Efforts supported by the grant include the deployment of 160 refrigerated cargo charging stations (so-called reefer plugs), allowing temperature-controlled container cooling to be achieved without the use of diesel power.

Funding for specific projects like this “is incredibly important to continue to grow and scale sustainably,” Jackson said. "Not only will the funding allow Crowley to add zero-emissions equipment, but it also supports America’s zero-emissions manufacturing capabilities generally.”

And while regulations are often blamed for inhibiting industry objectives, in this case, Crowley identified where regulations would help the maritime sector compete with other modes of transportation, such as improving and expanding utilization of the nation’s 25,000-plus miles of inland waterways.

All hands-on deck

As Crowley continues to invest in new technology and updates vessels and operations to reduce emissions, Jackson stressed that "Crowley and our fellow port and maritime stakeholders cannot bear the entirety of the risk in advancing low- and zero-emission technologies. We will continue to look to our government partners to support these efforts and ensure the United States technological, environmental and innovation leadership.”

This article series is sponsored by Crowley and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.

Image courtesy of Crowley

A new report from GlobeScan and the software giant Salesforce pinpoints exactly what's keeping business leaders from reaching their sustainability goals.

Ninety-three percent of sustainability, finance, and technology leaders think sustainability is key to the financial success and longevity of their businesses, but only 37 percent say sustainability is well-integrated into company operations, according to the report based on   a survey of over 200 professionals across North America, Europe and Asia.

While sustainability excellence is often linked with long-term business success, many corporate leaders are not giving sustainability the capital it needs to succeed, the report found. 

TriplePundit spoke to Robert G. Eccles, founding chairman of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and co-author of the report, about how companies can address the gaps that are stalling their progress. 

“Our results sadly show that, despite all the happy talk about the importance of sustainability, senior management teams aren’t giving it the attention and resources it needs to really contribute to value creation,” Eccles said. “Companies either need to dial back their claims about the benefits of their sustainability initiatives, or face this challenge head-on with more senior management commitment and capital.”

How companies can close the gaps that stand in the way of their sustainability goals

While companies face significant barriers to implementing sustainability programs and realizing the value created by those programs, some solutions and strategies can close the gaps. 

Access to high-quality sustainability performance data, for example, is critical to measure progress and achieve sustainability goals. Yet only 27 percent of companies have access to such data, even in the face of new regulatory frameworks like the European Union's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, according to the report. Upcoming reporting requirements may leave companies that have not yet invested in data collection and management resources exposed to risk.

“Data builds resilience,” said Sunya Norman, senior vice president of environmental, social and governance (ESG) strategy and engagement at Salesforce. “There is so much coming at business executives all the time. We are in unprecedented times and the world is moving fast. Sustainability is a piece of the information puzzle that executives need in order to react to the big picture. It feeds into how we navigate multiple geopolitical crises, the talent wars, the polarization of issues. The CEOs of tomorrow need to have their head on a swivel and take in data from all parts of their business and society.” 

Investing in data management tools and resources is imperative for sustainability progress, regulatory compliance and value creation. However, the data must be accessible and understandable to everyone within the organization. Finance and technology are widely recognized by company leaders as critical for advancing sustainability goals, but surveyed professionals reported insufficient collaboration between these teams and the sustainability teams at their companies. 

“With [new reporting frameworks], companies need to upgrade their internal control and measurement systems,” Eccles said. ”This is a great opportunity for a CFO to also learn sustainability because the CSO and CFO will have joint responsibility for reports.” 

Norman agreed, adding: “A huge part of the role of a CSO or sustainability leader is helping different parts of a business connect. Integration is the only path forward, and companies need someone who can see across the business, take the horizontal view and help connect the dots.” 

Both Norman and Eccles emphasize the need for cross-functional collaboration, including comprehensive strategic planning processes that fully integrate sustainability. 

“Whenever a company talks about their sustainability strategy, we should wonder how it is connected to their corporate strategy,” Eccles said. “Companies should not just have a sustainability strategy. They should have a sustainable corporate strategy. We should ask if sustainability is a part of their strategic planning process and if it is tied to capital allocation.”  

Ultimately, no sustainability program can succeed without access to capital. Yet it is consistently underfunded. Only about a quarter of corporate leaders are allocating the necessary levels of capital to sustainability, according to the report.

“Companies say that they care about sustainability, but when push comes to shove, they have to invest the money,” Eccles said. “If the CSO sees that sustainability is not sufficiently resourced, they have to own it and go to their boss, even if their boss is the CEO. The company must understand themselves, find the gaps, accept those gaps, and stop greenwashing themselves … It’s a language problem. Until you can get a conversation on sustainability’s value creation over a period of time, companies won’t put capital into it.” 

The future of sustainability reporting

For companies to reach their sustainability goals, they need to be proactive about establishing their narrative and ensuring that it is consistent with their existing strategy, Eccles said. 

“Sustainability shouldn’t be a moral imperative,” he said. “If companies present themselves as though they are solving systemic problems when they are not, that is problematic. Don't make claims about sustainability unless you've attached that to your strategy.”

Companies should also do their best to ignore the political headwinds. 

“There are ESG culture wars. The general response has been to lie low and keep doing what we are doing and hope it blows over. That is a fundamental mistake," Eccles said. "The goal isn’t to make critics happy. The goal is to say who we are, what we stand for, what we can and cannot do, and flip it around so the company is proactive and controlling their narrative rather than reacting to outside forces. The good news for sustainability professionals is that they are in the bullseye now. There is money to step up and shine, but they have to find the courage to do so.”

India has an agriculture economy, with more than 54 percent of the country's land classified as arable. The sector provides livelihoods to over 151 million people, and about 60 percent of the Indian population works in the industry, contributing to 18 percent of India's GDP.

Despite the significance of the sector in India, farmers have a low household income of INR10,000 a month on average, or about $120. Farmers with less than two hectares of land are referred to as small and marginal farmers, and they comprise about 86 percent of India’s total farmers. A recent study reveals that nearly 70 percent of marginal farmers in 20 Indian states engage in non-farm activities to supplement their agricultural income.

Farmers, especially in rural India, face many challenges to sell their produce. These include difficulty in accessing financing, insufficient storage facilities for their produce, and underdeveloped roads that hinder transportation of their yield to market. 

These gaps, alongside inflation, add to the cost of production and limit farmers’ ability to fetch fair prices for their produce. Around 28 percent of farmers earned less than the expenditure they incurred to grow the crop, according to research conducted by the agri-tech social enterprise Gramhal.

“Small and marginal farmers, who form the majority of farmers in India, are not part of the country’s formal credit system,” said Simeen Kaleem, co-founder of Gramhal. "They take loans from middlemen, or what we call ‘aggregators,' who buy produce from multiple farmers and take it to market." 

Gramhal has an underlying mission to increase the income of Indian farmers and has worked with a quarter of a million farmers over the past three years.

“These aggregators are ‘all-weather’ friends of farmers. If there is a family wedding or an emergency hospitalization and the farmer needs money, they are the ones giving the loan," Kaleem said. "This feeds into the problem where when a farmer is selling to these aggregators, their ability to negotiate doesn't exist. So, it is a complicated relationship of power and dependence between the farmer and aggregator.” In addition, farmers do not have access to market information, so they have no idea how to properly price their goods.

“Most farmers usually get information from the aggregators who have sold the crop, or directly from the buyers," Kaleem said. "Any other data sources accessible, like from the government or from small local shops (called mandis), are unreliable with incomplete information. So, there is no way for most farmers in India to get real-time market pricing information to be able to make a selling price decision for their produce."

The lack of access to market price information and reliance on intermediaries to sell on their behalf leaves farmers vulnerable to price exploitation and uncertain returns on their investments.

To solve this, Gramhal is building a data cooperative in India where farmers contribute their information to a data ecosystem, which all farmers can leverage for better informed decision-making.

“We are trying to bridge the information divide,” Kaleem said. “If you're a farmer who has the ability to go to market, you should have market price information from all markets around you so that you can decide which one is giving you a better price, and which one you want to sell at. That way, when a wholesale buyer or aggregator comes to your home, you know that, for example, the market price for maize is INR2200 per quintal, so you are in a position to negotiate the selling price of your product to the buyer.”

Gramhal has a five-year vision to empower at least 10 million farmers with full control over their data, granting them collective agency to make better decisions and achieve a 100 percent increase in income, all while transitioning to sustainable farming practices.

The social enterprise started the project to democratize data first by using the Indian government’s collected data sets from markets and crops across the country. It then built a chatbot (called Bolbhav) and plugged in that data. Soon about 300,000 farmers were accessing this data set via the chatbot on their mobile phones. 

“We spent no money on marketing — this was all just from word of mouth!” Kaleem said. 

However, Gramhal started getting feedback from farmers that the chatbot was giving them prices three days old and what they wanted was real-time, reliable data. “That is when we realized that we need to work with the power of community and think about a societal network framework where every farmer who is selling can contribute to the data and have access to it," Kaleem explained. "We needed to find a way where the farmer can send price information about what they are selling by uploading their receipts, and we can aggregate that data across markets and share it with them."

The solution was an upgraded version of the chatbot called Bolbhav Plus, which Gramhal launched in April 2023. 

“In the last few months, we have had 16,000 people across eight markets log into our data via the app," Kaleem said. "Over 800 farmers have contributed to the platform with their own data, and 2,600 have paid a subscription fee to access this data.”

The platform is agnostic to the type of crop, fruit or vegetable. To incentivize farmers to contribute their data, Gramhal introduced a reward system where farmers can earn redeemable tokens if they upload their receipts, and then use the app at no cost.

“What we're trying to do is build this strong societal network where every farmer who has a data set contributes it into a data ecosystem that other farmers can leverage,” Kaleem said. 

So far, over 120,000 receipts have been uploaded to the app, over 600,000 tokens have been earned, and about 500,000 tokens redeemed. 
“If you're a farmer, for the first time now you have the same data from the market that the buyer has," Kaleem explained. "Symmetry and information between buyer and seller, and power to negotiate, ... has increased a lot. And farmers are making more money because they're able to negotiate better.”

User feedback from the app shows that farmers were able to earn an 81 percent higher income on average — about INR13,800 or $166 more. Gramhal estimates that the chatbot solution delivers INR10 in value to farmers against the INR1 they spend on running the chatbot.

“Doing this for the market price of crops is just one use case," Kaleem said. "Our app has the potential to become a one-stop platform where farmers receive all the information they need. In the coming months, we hope to add more information layers that will help the farmers further enhance their practices and income."

The organization is also working on a new solution that incorporates voice recognition powered by artificial intelligence (AI) so that farmers can ask their queries by speaking into the app. The prototype for this solution, called Matar, is currently being piloted by mushroom farmers in the Indian state of Bihar.        

(Images courtesy of Gramhal) 

The term waste audit may conjure up images of people sifting through garbage, elbow-deep in a trash can. While that’s sometimes the case with large audits for cities or businesses, an at-home audit can bring you the same benefits without digging through week-old waste. 

It’s easy to throw something in the bin and forget about it, so a waste audit is a great way to stop and think about what you’re really sending to the landfill each time you tie up a garbage bag. By tracking what’s thrown away, you can identify ways to decrease your waste. Maybe you’ll start switching disposable items for reusables, take up composting, or shop at a refill store more often afterward. 

We’ve done a few personal waste audits over the years, and inspired by our Sustainable Living Challenge, we decided it was time to reassess. So, over the past week, we tracked our trash. 

How to do a simple waste audit 

Digging through a week’s worth of your own trash by hand leaves a powerful, lasting impression. TriplePundit's editorial assistant Taylor Haelterman did it for her first-ever waste audit and vowed to find a better way.

The new favorite method: Keep a piece of paper and a pencil near the garbage can to list items as they're thrown out, using tally marks to count duplicates. This offers an easy, visual reminder, but you can also keep track virtually on your phone’s notes app or in a spreadsheet.

Once you’ve documented everything you’ve thrown out over a period of time — we recommend one or two weeks — you can move on to sorting the items on your list into categories like food scraps, packaging and personal hygiene, for example. The number of items in these categories will help you determine where making the effort to divert your waste will have the biggest impact. 

The great big waste audit: Our results

Taylor Haelterman, TriplePundit editorial assistant. I’m shocked that I used almost 50 tissues in one week when I wasn’t even sick. I was reminded how quickly the small things we throw away add up the day that I marked down 13 tallies next to the word “tissues” on my garbage list. Switching out disposable tissues for handkerchiefs is something I’ve yet to make the leap to try, but after this week I might be convinced to give it a go. 

My personal hygiene category gave me the most pause overall. Tracking the floss I threw away twice a day kept me pondering potential alternatives for my dental products, too — something that hadn’t occurred to me until recently. 

The other most common thing I threw away was food scraps, which was less of a surprise. There’s no composting program where I live, and researching my composting options has been lurking at the back of my mind for months.

Though they are small, an apple core here and a bell pepper stem there add up to a pile of waste that could be put to use creating nutrient-rich soil instead of emitting greenhouse gases in the landfill. Keeping track of the tiny pieces of food I was tossing throughout the week was the push I needed to begin my search for a composting method. And I’ve started freezing vegetable scraps to make stock at home. 

Mary Mazzoni, TriplePundit executive editor. Considering I cook at home almost every day, I expected most of my waste audit to happen in the kitchen. But some of the things I'd been throwing away without noticing did surprise me. 

It started to irk me to see how frequently a half-plate or so of leftovers were ending up trashed after going off in storage containers in the fridge. Once I became more aware of it, it seemed easier to remember to toss that last bit of roasted veggies into today's stir-fry or add that half cup of rice to a fresh pot of soup. If left up to chance that someone will microwave it later, it'll probably end up in the bin, but making use of ingenuity and the online recipe libraries devoted to leftovers seems a straightforward way to cut it off at the source.  

Another thing I noticed was the tortillas. So many tortillas. My Mexican partner eats them at almost every meal, and I can't believe I didn't realize how often we were trashing them — some toasted for meals and not eaten, others the remnants of paper-wrapped packs from the Mexican grocer that went stale too soon in the fridge. The sad thing is that reusing them is so easy. Stale ones are perfect for tostadas or tortilla chips — just pop them in the oven or some oil in a frying pan until crispy. My personal favorite way to use them is in chilaquiles, a dish of tortilla chips cooked in a spicy salsa and topped with beans that is typically enjoyed for breakfast, though I love it any time. 

Beyond these (yes, very specific) examples, eating more seasonally seems a good strategy to keep my kitchen bins empty for longer overall. Cans of my beloved San Marzano tomatoes, for example, do start to pile up, and while steel cans are readily recyclable, choosing seasonal ingredients more often — or maybe even canning some freshies myself in the summer season — could certainly reduce waste. I also tend to use frozen vegetables more often in the winter months, and those plastic packs are not recyclable. 

Tossing an empty tube of sunscreen also made me think about my skincare addiction and its effect on the planet. While most of my moisturizer jars and serum vials end up washed out and reused for other things, I haven't figured a way to reuse tube packaging yet, and most of it is not recyclable. I generally choose plastic or glass jar packaging where possible for this reason, but I've yet to find an option like this for sunscreen. While I'd never stop wearing it just because I'm tossing a tube a few times a year — seriously guys, wear sunscreen, skin cancer is a thing — I'm curious to learn more about this. If anyone has any ideas for a lower-waste sunscreen option or a reuse solution, I'm all ears. 

The next steps

In the coming months, we'll start implementing changes to reduce the waste we've observed in our waste audit, moving slowly and steadily to avoid disengagement by swapping or replacing one or two things per month.

We'll keep track of how it goes — such as if we grew to love our replacement items or if we went back to the old — and report on our progress in July for the next Home Month in TriplePundit's Sustainable Living Challenge. If you decide to trade out something in your own home to reduce waste, we'd love to hear about it! Get in touch with us here. 

The workaday world of concrete is getting a long-overdue makeover, as new lower-carbon mixes enter the market. But with millions of possible mixes already available, choosing the most sustainable concrete for a project is all the more complicated. If that sounds like a job for artificial intelligence (AI), it is. 

The U.S.-based startup Concrete.ai has developed an AI-powered platform that helps project managers sort through the options and find the optimal mix for the job, with both sustainability and performance as key factors.

Building our way into catastrophic climate change

Concrete accounts for about 9 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions. All else being equal, that figure is all but certain to expand in the coming years, fueled by urbanization, industrialization and population growth.

The technological obstacles to decarbonizing concrete have been formidable. Over the past 10 years, other sectors of the global economy made significant strides in adopting renewable energy, electric vehicles, and other pathways to a low-carbon economy. In contrast, new processes for making concrete were slow to emerge.

The main obstacle is cement, which is the binder that mixes with water, sand, gravel and other fillers to form solid concrete. Cement only accounts for about 10 percent of the total mix, but it’s the main source of greenhouse gas emissions from concrete production. Making cement involves both fossil energy and a chemical reaction that releases carbon dioxide.

Cement is made of a material called clinker, which is processed from clay and limestone. “Limestone … is baked at up to 1,450 degrees Celsius (2,640 degrees Fahrenheit) in enormous kilns that are fired almost exclusively with fossil fuels,” Scientific American reports. “The chemical reactions involved produce even more carbon dioxide as a by-product.”

Those chemical reactions have not changed since cement was first invented more than 200 years ago, as Isabel Malsang wrote for Phys.org. “If concrete were a country, it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases on Earth, behind only China and the United States,” Malsang notes.

Building our way out of catastrophic climate change

Fortunately, new approaches are emerging. One avenue is the “buildings as material banks” concept, which supports a circular economy model that can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions through recycling and reuse. New building materials like cross-laminated timber can also help reduce the use of concrete.

New technologies that directly reduce carbon emissions from cement and concrete making are also appearing. In January, the U.S. Department of Energy selected five firms to share a total of $20 million in funding for new cement and concrete technologies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

One of the awardees, the Massachusetts startup Sublime Systems, received a $6.7 million grant to develop a process that deploys renewable energy and electrification to replace combustible fuels. The company also uses non-limestone feedstocks to produce its low-carbon cement.

AI helps to choose the right concrete mix for the job

Another approach is illustrated by the California firm CalPortland, which received a $4 million grant to develop a method for reusing the cementitious materials in waste concrete. The company also recovers stone and other aggregate materials for reuse.

As these new materials come on the market, either as drop-in replacements or feedstocks for blending, building project managers will be faced with an even more complicated array of choices to make.

TriplePundit spoke with Alex Hall, CEO of the U.S. startup Concrete.ai, to learn more about the scope of the challenges involved in selecting the most optimal concrete mix for columns, floors, pavements and other infrastructure.

“Concrete … is the second most consumed product after water,” Hall said. “Just in the U.S., we produce 15 million cubic yards per year. We pour enough concrete every 3.5 days to build another Hoover Dam.”

There are 6,000 ready-mix concrete plants in the U.S. alone, Hall told us. As a group, they deploy 10 to 25 different materials to offer a range of mixes covering over 2,000 different designs. All together, the number of possible concrete mixes reaches into the millions.

New, lower-carbon cement provides the opportunity to introduce sustainability as an optimizing factor, without impacting performance. However, introducing new mix designs is typically a long, slow process of trial and error. That is the obstacle tackled by Concrete.ai’s signature product, Concrete Copilot.

“Historically the way we’ve built these designs is through experimentation, looking at end results, validating the process. This is slow and iterative,” Hall said. “Now we apply our patented models to these elements. Ultimately it’s about data. The more data we have about the performance, then we can start the validation process.”

How it works: The benefits of data

Concrete Copilot uses an AI platform created over a 10-year period at the Institute for Carbon Management at the University of California, Los Angeles. Based on criteria submitted by concrete producers, the platform can generate millions of possible mix designs in a matter of seconds and present the most optimal design. The producer can accept the mix as-is or modify it according to their needs.

In addition to evaluating their current formulas, producers can use Concrete Copilot to evaluate new products and respond quickly to shifts in their supply chains.

Concrete.ai launched the platform commercially in January following a period of extensive field testing among concrete producers across the U.S. last year, covering more than 2 million cubic yards of concrete.

“The average material savings were $5.04 per cubic yard, and the average carbon reduction was 30 percent,” the company reported. “For most producers, these results were seen within just one month of activating the platform.”

The potential for rapid transformation

The leading U.S. concrete firm VCNA Prairie Material provides a good example of the potential for a rapid transformation of the concrete industry.

Chris Rapp, vice president and general manager of VCNA, told 3p that the last “revolutionary” change in the concrete industry happened about 15 years ago when paperless, electronic delivery ticketing began.

“Innovation happens very slowly in our industry,” he said. “Ready-mix is still very archaic.”

Nevertheless, VCNA is on the alert for new opportunities to innovate. The company participated in the field tests for the AI solution last year, providing VCNA's team with about five months of experience using mixes generated by Concrete Copilot by the time it launched commercially.

“From a client perspective, there is little difference in what they’ve seen in the past,” Rapp said. “They get a mix design with a lower carbon footprint but the performance is the same.”

Rapp also anticipates that new alternatives to cement will be widely accepted, though the sheer volume of the industry presents a hurdle to scale up. “Anything that can replace cement that doesn’t sacrifice performance is the way this market will trend eventually,” he said.

In the meantime, cement stakeholders that seek to gain an edge on decarbonization can take steps now, as illustrated by the leading firm Holcim. The company has introduced a lower-carbon concrete that incorporates alternative materials, including recovered demolition debris. 

Last October, Holcim announced a $100 million upgrade for its cement plant in Ste. Genevieve, Missouri. When it’s completed in 2025, the upgrade will increase the capacity of the facility — which is already the largest facility of its kind in North America — by 600,000 metric tons while reducing net carbon dioxide emissions by more than 400,000 tons. 

This story on an approach to covering difficult topics without invoking avoidance is part of The Solutions Effect, a monthly newsletter covering the best of solutions journalism in the sustainability and social impact space. If you aren't already getting this newsletter, you can sign up here. 

When the COVID-19 pandemic started, I found myself in a moral dilemma. I was a journalist who avoided the news at all costs because it was overwhelming and upsetting. Did that mean my work was also negatively affecting some of those who read it? Probably. 

Hoping to end my contribution, I changed the way I wrote stories. But the industry-wide problem hasn’t gone away. As of 2023, the number of people who avoid the news, either all the time or periodically, was near a historic high at 36 percent, according to the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report. 

“Certain news stories that are repeated excessively or are felt to be ‘emotionally draining’ are often passed over in favor of something more uplifting,” according to the report, which is based on a survey of over 93,000 online news consumers around the world. 

Repeating grim statistics and headlines over and over again dampens curiosity, action and constructive conversations. It’s critical to cover problems, but we must find ways to do so without invoking hopelessness and avoidance — especially when it comes to the most pressing societal issues that are often the most difficult to read about.  

That’s where solutions journalism comes in. Focusing on how people are working to solve problems and what we can learn from them can encourage agency, hope and productive public discourse. 

I’m not the only one who turned to solutions: 55 percent of news avoiders are interested in more positive news stories, and 46 percent are interested in stories about solutions, according to the Reuters report. 

Would you rather read a story that recites statistics about the ever-intensifying wildfires in California, or a piece about small businesses using herds of goats to graze down overgrowth across Sacramento as a fire mitigation method? 

I’d choose the goats. This Sacramento Bee article does a great job explaining the benefits of the method and why it’s needed without glossing over the drawbacks. It also includes photos of the goats. What more could you want?  

Not all solution-focused pieces on difficult-to-read topics can be as lighthearted as talking about goats, nor should they be. This piece from Reasons to be Cheerful, for example, covers the lack of access to safe drinking water in India through the stories of entrepreneurs who are running “water ATMs.” Trained and supported by the nonprofit Safe Water Network, the entrepreneurs are improving access at a significantly cheaper price than other suppliers. 

TriplePundit’s ongoing solutions journalism series approaches another challenging topic — the hidden human rights costs of the low-carbon transition — by looking at how local stakeholders, governments, and the mining sector are responding to long-scrutinized environmental and social harms caused by mining. Each of these stories focuses on responses that already exist to emphasize that immediate action can be taken, like empowering Indigenous voices and ensuring company due diligence assessments are conducted properly. 

Along with global challenges, solutions journalism can also be useful in covering issues that hit closer to home. This article from The Trace focuses on a city-funded violence intervention program in Philadelphia that was launched in response to a sharp increase in gun violence. A coalition of community members reaches out to people who are considered at risk of participating in violent crime and offers them access to social services, help toward getting a job, or any other support they need. The emphasis on data and personal anecdotes as evidence that the program is working makes for a powerful, but not disheartening, read. 

Each of these stories tackles a serious, often overwhelming, societal problem in a way that shows solving it is possible. They still explain the scope of the issue and make clear that the solution is not a panacea, but none of the articles left me with the sense of dread that led me to turn away from the news in the past. 

That’s the power of talking about solutions. 

The world’s biggest problems will always be difficult to digest, but it is journalists’ job to find the best ways to share important information with the public. The endless stream of negative news is not effective. Revamping the way we report is an easy way to bring back readers who are avoiding the news, prevent others from giving up on it, and encourage more constructive conversations. 

If you’re not a journalist but are avoiding the news, try reading a few solutions journalism stories. It might be the fix you’re looking for.  

Most of the examples listed above were found via the Solutions Journalism Network’s online database of solution-focused stories. If you want to find more stories like these, I recommend checking it out. 

We find ourselves amidst an intensifying climate crisis, aggravated by the sluggish impact of government legislation. At the same time, media sensationalism surrounding ‘woke’ corporate environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices is making many businesses nervous about investing time and money into ESF programming.  

This presents a pivotal moment for businesses. Embracing sustainability isn't just a moral imperative. It's a pragmatic necessity. Those businesses that continue to invest stand to reap a plethora of rewards, from improved employee engagement to enhanced consumer loyalty. And this isn't an either-or scenario that pits product against purpose; it's about harnessing ESG efforts to drive performance, creating a win-win situation where companies can make a positive impact while seizing lucrative commercial opportunities.

The Size Of Prize report, released this week by the research-tech firm Glow in partnership with TriplePundit and 3BL, underscores this point emphatically. It reveals a staggering $44 billion potential windfall awaiting brands that are perceived as more sustainable — and that’s just from 12 U.S. industries. 

Capturing a share of the sustainability bounty demands more than mere lip service to eco-friendly practices. It requires a concerted effort to do better and to communicate those efforts effectively.

While consumers express a desire to support environmentally conscious brands, myriad obstacles often stand in their way. Price is consistently a barrier,  but surprisingly, it isn't always the primary deterrent that limits people from shopping more sustainably. In fact, in 5 out of the 12 industries covered by the SOP report, factors like familiarity, availability, or a lack of education were found to exert significant influence on consumer decisions. For example, more than a quarter of consumers say they don’t choose more sustainable energy options because they aren’t available to them. Across industries, around a quarter of consumers said they "don’t know enough" about brands' sustainability credentials to make an informed decision, while nearly 20 percent said they don't see a "significant difference" between brands when it comes to sustainability. 

For brands operating in sectors as diverse as automotive, financial services, food and grocery, retail, and pension funds, addressing these predominantly communication-driven barriers is the key to attracting more conscious consumers.

The food and grocery sector leads, but barriers remain

Let's dig into some industries to illustrate the point. A key industry seen to be leading the way in sustainability is food and grocery — which ranks in the top three most sustainable industries, according to consumers. However, this position of leadership does not mean all brands are doing brilliantly, or all consumers are purchasing sustainably.

Four in 10 consumers say that sustainability considerations had a “significant” influence on their choice of products within their last grocery shop, according to the Size of Prize report. Price was the key barrier amongst those for whom sustainability wasn’t a serious consideration while grocery shopping. This is not surprising given the current cost of living crisis and the huge impact grocery bills have on overall household budgets. 

Two other barriers to more sustainable choices stand out within this industry. Information is the second largest choice barrier — people say they don’t know enough about the sustainability credentials of brands to judge them. This is clearly a communication issue, highlighting the importance of promoting your positive actions if you want people to choose you over other brands.  

Quality concerns are the other interesting area that is disproportionately higher in this sector than in others (bar automotive and fashion). People worry whether sustainable products will functionally deliver to the level they expect. For example, will plant-based meats taste as good, or eco-friendly cleaning products clean as effectively? Quality concerns can be mitigated by experience, requiring brands to stimulate trial and demonstrate social proof, tasks underpinned by strong communication. 

An example of a good product marketed effectively is Dove — a brand consistently ranked by consumers as a top 10 sustainability leader, as measured by Glow’s Social Responsibility Score (SRS).  Dove is not the cheapest brand available, nor is it priced significantly above the category average. Dove offers a great product at a good price while also having a differentiated social positioning by championing body positivity, mental well-being, and inclusion, which has helped the brand succeed in highly competitive categories.

Banks need to educate consumers

In contrast, banks are generally not well respected in terms of their sustainability credentials. This is backed up by SRS data which shows the large U.S. banks tracked scoring 20 percent or more below the average score for all brands, with little differentiation in score between the major banks (bar one performing significantly worse). Given all banks are spending many millions in ESG areas, this highlights their failure to effectively communicate their efforts. 

Nearly 8 in 10 consumers say it is important for banks to act responsibly when it comes to society and the environment, but only 1 in 3 say their last choice of bank was significantly influenced by sustainability considerations. Why the gap? The key barriers are educational: a lack of information about banks’ sustainability credentials and a view that all banks are the same.

This represents a massive opportunity for banks with good ESG credentials to activate consumers by telling their story with conviction. There is evidence of this success in other markets where SRS data shows banks with a strong community or purpose focus score better than average perception scores. 

Trust is important for auto brands 

For the car and automotive industry, price is the top barrier getting in the way of more sustainable choices of vehicle, but trust is the second most important barrier and disproportionately important for this industry. This reflects the impact of multiple safety, environmental, and managerial controversies in recent years which have eroded consumer trust in what auto brands say about their ESG impact. 

Transparency is key to building trust, and the brands that are doing this well, such as Toyota, are starting to establish a differentiated position in the eyes of consumers.

The barriers are coming down 

What is clear across all industries is that the impact of sustainability on purchase behavior is and will continue to increase. Over half of consumers said sustainability concerns were more important in their purchase decisions than a year ago (with only 15 percent saying they were less important), while similar numbers anticipate these considerations being even more influential on decisions a year from now. 

It's time to take action. As we navigate the challenges and opportunities of sustainability in business, it's crucial for each of us to evaluate our own programs. Are we truly maximizing our potential to drive positive change? Are we effectively communicating our efforts to consumers?

I urge you to take a moment to assess your company's sustainability initiatives and how you are communicating them. Identify areas where you can break down barriers and enhance consumer engagement. Whether it's improving product availability, educating your audience, or refining your messaging, there are steps you can take to position your brand as a leader in sustainability.

By evaluating and enhancing your sustainability programs, you not only contribute to a better future for our planet but also unlock significant commercial opportunities for your business. Let's seize this moment to make a meaningful impact.

Access the Size of Prize report here

Access sample brand sustainability reports here

(This article series is sponsored by Glow and produced by the TriplePundit editorial team.)

We often hear that consumers are looking for sustainable products and brands, and that many are even willing to pay more for them. But it’s often difficult for brand leaders to pin down just how much of an impact sustainability really has on consumer purchasing, making it harder to tie investments in sustainability to the bottom line. A new piece of research out this week puts a dollar figure on consumer affinity for sustainable brands for the first time — and it's big enough to make leaders take notice. 

A $44 billion prize is up for grabs as consumers switch from brands they perceive as less sustainable to brands they perceive as more sustainable, according to the analysis from the research technology firm Glow, in partnership with TriplePundit, our parent company 3BL and panel partner Cint. 

"We wanted to really understand: If it's important, can we see it in the data? Can we show a link between business performance and the investment in sustainability from a consumer perspective?" Glow CEO Tim Clover said during an on-demand webcast we hosted about the research. "The key point here is that the opportunity is quantifiable."

Consumers are voting with their wallets, and now we know how much that's worth for sustainable brands 

The notion that businesses acting responsibly is somehow controversial has crept into the fringes of the U.S. cultural zeitgeist over the past few years. But there's little evidence the public is on board, and our research is the latest to prove this out. 

More than 85 percent of U.S. consumers consider it important for businesses to act responsibly with regards to society and the environment, compared to only 3 percent who don’t, according to our survey of more than 3,000 U.S. adults conducted in November 2023. 

"In this study we show, as has been shown previously, that this issue is almost universally important to consumers," Mike Johnston, data product leader at Glow, said during our webcast interview. "We also show there's an expectation for businesses to act on these issues." 

That expectation increasingly translates into how people spend their money. As part of the report, we asked consumers about the level of influence sustainability has on their choice of products and brands across 12 industries. About a quarter of respondents said they stopped doing business with a brand in 2023 because of its social or environmental behavior.

The rate of sustainability-driven brand switching is even higher in some sectors. In the food and grocery sector, 33 percent of consumers said they switched from one brand to another because of sustainability last year, while 31 percent said the same about pension fund providers and airlines. 

“In a sector like food and grocery, this might be expected," observed TriplePundit contributor Andrew Kaminsky, lead author of the report. "Think about how often consumers make food and grocery purchases, and how easy it is to try a different product. Pension funds, on the other hand, are much less transitory, and consumers need to go through considerable efforts to make sustainable changes." 

Still, 22 percent of consumers say social and environmental issues are "the single most important factor" in choosing a pension fund provider, according to the report. A finding like this is significant "not just for pension fund managers, but for all companies nationwide," Kaminsky noted. "As pension funds invest in a wide range of companies across sectors, the high priority placed on sustainability means that companies that want to attract investors will have to improve their sustainability credentials.”

Brand switching and preference for sustainable brands is only increasing

Even as the rising cost of living reaches crisis proportions across the U.S., people are still interested in sustainable brands and products. Of course price is an important factor for consumers, but it's far from the only thing they're looking for in a company they patronize — and most told us that sustainability will only play a bigger role in their buying patterns over time. 

More than half (58 percent) of consumers say social and environmental considerations are more influential today than they were a year ago, and half expect this influence to continue growing in 2024.

"We hear a lot of talk about, 'People say sustainability is important, but they won't act.' Well, that's not what the data says," Clover told us. "What it says is that there are cohorts of people in the population who are very well-educated around key issues for particular categories and industries, and that they will often act. And that cohort of people is growing."

The fact that sustainability plays such an important role alongside other purchase drivers like price and product quality — enough to put it in a top-three rank or higher for many industries we analyzed — may be surprising to some. But Johnston cautions brand leaders to pay close attention to findings like these and not fall into the trap of prioritizing price above all else. 

"This kind of report does two things. One, it really gives the rationale and the economic viability to act now because there is payoff, but it also shows that there's a future imperative," Johnston said. "As cost of living starts to reduce for certain cohorts of the population — and it will — those that have ignored sustainability while it's been growing in importance in the background will be playing catch-up. And you don't want to be in that position with something that is going to continue to be of increasing importance to how customers make their decisions."

The communication opportunity for sustainable brands

Consumers have to know what sustainable brands are doing in order to reward them for it. Our research shows many are actively seeking more information about what brands do when it comes to society and the environment, presenting a golden opportunity for sustainable brands to reach consumers with effective messaging and score new sales. 

"If we don't communicate, we can't educate people about where we are and why we're investing and taking the pathway we're taking," Clover said. 

Around a quarter of consumers said the reason sustainability didn't factor more into their purchase decisions is because they "don't know enough" about brands' sustainability credentials to make an informed purchase. 

"Price and lack of information are the leading reasons why consumers don’t consider sustainability more in their purchases," Kaminsky noted in the report. "While the need to pay more for products that are responsibly managed might be unavoidable, lack of information is certainly within a brand’s control." 

The report explores in detail how to best reach various audiences with effective messaging on the platforms where they gather to learn more about sustainability, but the top-line message is: A growing segment of people want to learn more, and if brands don't tell their own sustainability stories in a way that reaches and resonates with these consumers, others will tell that story for them.

"There are ways to discuss sustainability in an accurate and informative way, without falling prey to 'greenhushing' or retreating to the sidelines," Kaminsky wrote in the report. "It’s fairly straightforward, but it’s something that brands and their marketing teams struggle to do effectively."

The type of messaging that stands out is keenly focused on the issues consumers care about, backed up by evidence and, ideally, confirmed by third parties like media partners, researchers and influencers who consumers look to and trust. 

Learn how to better tailor your sustainability communications to reach consumers and discover more insights about consumer perception of sustainable brands in the new report, titled "The $44 Billion Sustainability Opportunity for Brands," available now. 

Local tree-planting projects have engaged community volunteers in neighborhood conservation efforts since the environmental movement of the 1960s. Such efforts pale beside the massive forest projects underway today. Still, brands that seek carbon offsets in the reforestation field should continue paying attention to the human factor, particularly when prioritizing biodiversity and ecosystem restoration.

Forests are carbon sinks …

The role of forests in carbon management is, at heart, a simple one. Trees are important carbon sinks. If left undisturbed, they can lock carbon dioxide away for decades, at the very least. Many species of trees live for centuries or longer.

Because human activity has whittled away at forests on a global scale, the opportunity exists to reverse the decline and restore these natural carbon sinks. About 30 percent of all global carbon dioxide emissions since 1850 are the result of deforestation, according to the MIT Climate Portal.

Leading brands have already taken up the large-scale tree-planting mantle in support of the World Economic Forum’s “Trillion Trees” pledge of 2020, although concerns over reputational risk were already arising. Establishing a new tree plantation can cause community displacement, for example. 

Still, there are many opportunities to engage in tree projects without such risks. Existing forests are a more effective pathway to restoring the global carbon sink potential of trees, according to a new study. 

“So far, humans have removed almost half of Earth’s natural forests,” the study reads. “At present, global forest carbon storage is markedly under the natural potential.”

The researchers estimate that 61 percent of restored carbon sink potential could come from protecting existing forests, enabling trees to mature and biodiversity to flourish. Another 39 percent could come from planting new forests on available land, meaning land that is not already populated, farmed, or otherwise unavailable for large-scale tree planting.

“Although forests cannot be a substitute for emissions reductions, our results support the idea that the conservation, restoration and sustainable management of diverse forests offer valuable contributions to meeting global climate and biodiversity targets,” the researchers wrote.

… but it’s complicated when it comes to carbon offsets

In terms of carbon offsets, the cautionary note about reducing emissions should be taken under advisement. The overwhelming consensus is that forests are significant carbon sinks. The U.S. Department of Energy, for example, included large-scale forest projects in its 2023 decarbonization roadmap.

Nevertheless, new research indicates that forest-based carbon offsets are no substitute for reducing emissions at the source.

In May of 2023, for example, the journal Science published a study that explored the unlikely scenario of eliminating all forest management activities in favor of all-natural forest restoration. 

“This work provides further evidence that changing forest management is not an alternative to cutting carbon emissions,” Bianca Lopez, an associate editor at Science, wrote.

The U.S. Forest Service took note of another complicating factor last April when it published a study indicating that climate change has already caused some forests to deteriorate, potentially leading them to act as carbon emitters instead of carbon sinks. The issue of forest deterioration was also studied in China, where researchers advise that aging forests are less efficient at trapping carbon.

In a similar study in Japan, researchers advocate for a more rigorous approach to calculating the impact of forest projects, with an emphasis on taking tree age into consideration. The research team also advocated for a stronger relationship between local communities and carbon markets, enabling underserved populations to realize the economic benefits of forest conservation. 

A recent study from MIT and Imperial College London provides additional insights on the ways brands can ensure that their carbon offset projects are effective, including biodiversity and social goals.

Trees and other natural climate solution projects have “enormous potential to deliver ‘win-win-win’ outcomes for climate, nature and society,” according to the study.“Yet the supply of high-quality [natural climate solutions] projects does not meet market demand, and projects already underway often fail to deliver their promised benefits, due to a complex set of interacting ecological, social and financial constraints.”

Challenges to overcome 

One challenge identified by the researchers is the project funder’s preference to focus on risk avoidance rather than project effectiveness.They found that many carbon offset projects focus on improvements at commercial tree plantations because data and transparency are relatively established, helping to mitigate risk. In contrast, projects that emphasize biodiversity are challenged by a lack of established metrics.

The overwhelming majority — 96 percent — of U.S. forestry carbon offset credits were related to improvements in forest management, rather than biodiversity-oriented projects like forest ecosystem conservation or tree planting, according to research from the University of Colorado Boulder.

The expectations for a social benefit from forest projects can also lead to disappointment.

“Socioecological co-benefits of [natural climate solutions] are unlikely to be realized unless the local communities engaged with these projects are granted ownership over implementation and outcomes,” according to the MIT and Imperial College study.

Next steps for effective forest projects

Despite the challenges, government-funded forest projects tend to focus on a holistic approach that emphasizes biodiversity, which brands can support through new public-private financing models, according to the MIT and Imperial College study. The public funding element also “nests” a project within established national frameworks for monitoring and data collection, helping to mitigate reputational risk.

The researchers also point out that the development of new “green taxonomies” for sustainable investment in carbon offsets can help alert brands to projects that could involve human rights violations and other risks.

In addition, a substantial body of knowledge has developed around the social criteria for a successful forest project.

Successful projects “have robust internal governance, as well as support from regional and national governments; they operate in environments where land tenure is secure; they provide material benefits for local communities; and they allow for the full participation of women and those across a spectrum of socioeconomic groups,” according to the study.

The development of platforms for calculating the value of natural ecosystems is yet another factor aiding forest biodiversity projects.

In support of the nature valuation movement, for example, the Joe Biden administration issued a first-of-its-kind proposal requiring federal agencies to account for ecosystem services in their cost-benefit analyses for new infrastructure projects last fall.

All in all, the field of forest management, conservation and replenishment is a complex one. Nevertheless, as new science-based evidence emerges about the role of trees in carbon management, brands that engage in forest projects for carbon offsets have new opportunities to highlight their support for global sustainability — going far beyond a simple matter of planting trees to embrace habitat conservation, biodiversity and social equity.