Scene and Context

Businesses in many sectors are finding that traditional sustainability is no longer enough. Insurance firms are pulling out of high risk regions. Food supplies are exposed to soil decline. Heat and flooding are disrupting infrastructure. These patterns frame Hannah Pathak’s article Beyond Sustainability: Businesses Embrace Regenerative Systems Thinking.

Hannah sets out a clear shift. Sustainability often meant doing less harm. Regeneration means strengthening the systems that companies rely on. She links this to Doughnut Economics and highlights examples in farming, construction and energy that show how restored systems create more stable value.

On the podcast, Zoe put it plainly.

Regeneration requires seeing how “health systems, economic, energy, food, social and planetary systems” are connected.

Formation and Early Influences

Zoe traces her worldview back to an experience at eleven, when she lost her father.

He had been “a serial entrepreneur” who once drew the praise of Bill Gates as “the most dynamic man he’d ever met.”

There was a cost behind that drive. “He was quite addicted to work,” she said, and his early death shaped her sense of limits and purpose.

A health scare later in life led her to pause her career and travel Europe in a campervan. She described learning “how to be more in tune with my body” and understanding that energy is finite.

These experiences influence how she works. They give her a sharp awareness of the tension between ambition and wellbeing, something she now sees across the sustainability field.

Turning Point

Zoe spent nearly eight years at Mott MacDonald in climate, ESG and systems roles. Her LinkedIn profile shows work on net zero coalitions, ESG strategy and digital change before moving into climate risk and industry collaboration.

Her major turning point was leading the second iteration of the Physical Climate Risk Appraisal Methodology.

She said launching PCRAM at London Climate Action Week “gave me the confidence to start my independent practice.”

It showed her the power of shared methods and the value of collaboration across investors, engineers and policymakers.

The Work She Is Doing Now

Zoe now runs her own climate and sustainability advisory practice and is co founder of Overstory Earth, which helps city residents reconnect with nature.

Her focus is regenerative strategy. She stresses that regeneration does not rely on waiting for new technologies.

“We have all of the tools already today.”

Hannah’s article supports this view with concrete examples. Regenerative agriculture restores soil health and improves yields. Energy companies shifting from fossil fuels to renewables are strengthening long term resilience. Construction firms using nature based materials are improving water retention and air quality.

Zoe gave a direct example from farming. Years of monocropping and tilling have caused “mass desertification” in parts of the United States.

When yields fell and the impact hit “the livelihoods” of farmers, many turned to regenerative practices.

The result was healthier soil and more reliable output.

The Tension

The largest challenge is time. Most organisations still operate on short cycles. Quarterly targets, investor expectations and internal promotion systems all pull leaders toward near term decisions.

Zoe captured the tension clearly. Businesses that want to exist “in fifty or a hundred years time” need to think on that scale.

Hannah’s article points to the same pressure. Regeneration depends on soil health, supply chain strength, stable communities and long term assets. These conditions do not fit neatly inside current reporting models.

A further tension sits inside the work culture itself. Zoe said that stepping into independent practice revealed a generous community of founders and freelancers.

“People are so generous with their time,” she said.

This collective mindset aligns more closely with regenerative thinking than the competitive structures found in many large organisations.

Closing Reflection

Asked what she would change about the commercial world, Zoe said she would give decision makers “goggles to really see into the future.”

The image is simple but sharp. Regeneration depends on choices made before systems fail. It requires clear sight of consequences and a willingness to act early.

Pathak’s article argues that regeneration is already within reach. Zoe’s experience shows what it looks like in practice. The question now is whether organisations can adjust their time horizons fast enough to match the pace of change around them.

Decarbonisation at ground level

Across South Asia, many garment factories sit at the centre of the global climate conversation. They produce for well known brands with public targets, yet they face a very different reality. Energy costs move quickly. Margins are tight. Access to capital can be difficult and in some markets the cost of borrowing is high. Many small and mid sized manufacturers do not have the resources or visibility to manage large scale change.

This is the landscape explored in this episode. Charlie is joined by Jamie Rusby, co founder of Generation 1, a platform that supports decarbonisation in fashion supply chains. The aim is to help factories move from ambition to action through planning tools, local delivery partners and investment that removes the need for upfront capital. Jamie describes it as a practical way to support manufacturers who want to move but face structural barriers.

The conversation builds on a recent World Economic Forum article that calls for new forms of supply chain finance. The idea is that isolated projects are not enough and that companies will need long term, structured investment across a portfolio of suppliers. It is a clear argument, yet the real conditions inside factories and procurement teams show how complex that shift can be.

A career shaped by long supply chains

Jamie’s view of the problem has been shaped by more than twenty years in sustainability roles. He began his career at Forum for the Future, CoreRatings and Context Group before joining the IKEA Group in 2012. At IKEA he worked on policy, strategy and communication during a period of major organisational change.

One moment from that time stands out. IKEA had proposed that all wood used in its products should come from certified or recycled sources. Many believed the company could not reach one hundred percent. Jamie recalls the internal debate. He says,

“If you set a goal that is fifty percent, then you can decide which side of the fifty percent you are on. But if you set a hundred percent goal, then there is no unclarity around where you sit.”

The target was eventually met, and the experience shaped his view that many limits are practical rather than fixed.

Later, as Group Director Sustainability at VELUX, he worked on material decarbonisation and long term science based targets. During that period VELUX removed plastic from its packaging and shifted to a cardboard based solution. The climate impact was small, but the organisational impact was significant. Teams from design, manufacturing and marketing worked together and saw that change at pace was possible.

Jamie describes this shift in perspective as a personal journey too. He says,

“I used to describe myself as frustrated but optimistic, but now I describe myself as determined.”

The change reflects his belief that the core barriers to decarbonising supply chains are real but solvable.

Turning climate ambition into something operational

Generation 1 was founded to help brands and factories act on the ground. The model combines planning, implementation and finance into one service for manufacturers and consumer goods brands.

The planning stage helps factories identify practical options for reducing emissions. It also helps brands build a clearer picture of their supply networks. The delivery stage relies on local partners in Bangladesh and Nepal who install and maintain equipment. Rooftop solar is often the first step because it offers predictable savings and works well with garment production schedules.

The finance stage is designed to remove barriers for manufacturers. Many factories hesitate to invest because orders shift and capital is expensive. Jamie and his co founders partnered with an impact fund to provide affordable investment that does not require upfront cost. This creates the conditions for long term planning while keeping cash flow positive from the start.

Jamie explains why this matters. He says,

“These companies have many priorities. They employ thousands of people and need to meet customer needs. Decarbonising becomes another priority, so it needs structure for it to move.”

This structure allows brands and suppliers to work across multiple projects rather than one at a time.

Finance, power and the reality inside factories

The World Economic Forum article argues for programmatic supply chain finance. It suggests that buyers should form large portfolios of supplier projects in order to attract institutional investors. Jamie agrees with the ambition but questions whether most companies have the leverage or internal capacity to adopt such a model.

He notes that many factories operate under significant pressure. Some employ thousands of people and produce millions of garments each week. They prioritise stability, employment and customer expectations. Adding complex decarbonisation projects without support can feel unrealistic. Jamie says,

“They see the risks of climate change, but for it to be a priority you need a strong customer who can help drive it forward as part of a program.”

Trust is also a recurring theme. Years of cost pressure and short term purchasing have shaped relationships between brands and manufacturers. Jamie’s view is that responsibility begins by understanding this context. Manufacturers want to decarbonise, but the system often gives them few options. Brands carry targets but may lack visibility into lower tier suppliers. Programmatic finance can only work if both sides see value and if the structure feels fair.

A quieter form of determination

As the conversation closes, Charlie asks what gives Jamie confidence that large scale change is possible. Jamie returns to the idea that the barriers are less about technology and more about coordination. He says,

“These are not insurmountable barriers, but they are real barriers because we have got used to a way of working that we need to change.”

His hope is that more organisations will adopt collaboration as a practical tool rather than a slogan. He believes progress will come from long term partnerships, clear goals and shared structures. The moral thread is quiet but present. Real responsibility grows from understanding conditions on the ground and designing solutions that fit them.

Closing reflection

Fashion supply chains have become a central arena for climate action. Manufacturers operate under pressure, yet they control many of the levers needed to cut emissions. Brands hold public targets but depend on suppliers for delivery. The path forward will require finance that supports long term action and programs that help teams build trust across the value chain.

This episode suggests that responsibility is not theory. It is a sober understanding of what is possible when teams work with the real conditions in front of them. Decarbonisation becomes more credible when ambition meets structure, and when change is designed to work for the people who must carry it.

Why This Conversation Matters

Tree planting has become a favourite climate habit. It feels simple. It feels hopeful. But this simplicity can hide a harder truth.

Derrick Emsley, co-founder of Tentree and Veritree, sees the gap between planting a sapling and restoring a living forest. He worries that tree planting can distract from deeper climate work when it is not done with care. As he put it,

“Tree planting is an input in pursuit of an outcome.”

That one line sets the tone. A forest is the outcome. Planting is just the start.

How the Story Begins

Derrick grew up in Saskatchewan. His first business began when he was sixteen. He and his brother planted trees on farmland because it felt like a direct way to help.

He remembers that early thinking clearly.

“We thought okay, you know, trees take carbon out of the air. We have a lot of marginal farmland. Why don’t we just plant trees on farmland?”

The idea had energy, but not expertise. They soon learned how complex restoration really is. Land, species, partners and long-term care all matter. Their first venture did not last, but it opened their eyes to the power of restoring nature.

They did not fall in love with carbon markets. They fell in love with reforestation.

The Turning Point

Tentree came next. The model was simple. For every product sold, ten trees would be planted. But the promise brought new pressure.

Derrick recalls the questions that kept coming up.

“Did the tree get planted? Did anybody else claim that same tree? Did it survive and was it even the right tree in the first place?”

The team struggled to find clear answers, so they built their own tools. They mapped planting sites. They checked survival. They built a system to track every project. The tool later became Veritree, a platform for monitoring and verification.

This shift from planting to proving changed how the work was done.

What Real Action Looks Like

Restoration projects now run through a full life cycle inside Veritree. Assessment. Design. Planting. Monitoring. Verification. Reporting. Inventory.

The goal is simple. Evidence. If a company says it supported a forest, there should be clear proof that the forest exists and grows.

Not every partner is accepted. Derrick shared why.

“We have said no to a ton of partnerships where we don’t believe the organisation is interested in doing this for the right reasons.”

Short-term tree planting is not enough. Long-term care matters. Many partners now commit for three to five years or more. A forest cannot be built on one-off gestures.

The Moral Tension

Tree planting sits in a tight moral space. It can help the climate. It can also distract.

Derrick described a pattern he sees across the sector.

“Tree planting as itself, if all we are doing is just putting sticks in the ground, that is performative.”

Performative planting creates numbers. Transformative planting creates forests. The difference is intention, method and time.

Derrick is also clear about the wider climate picture. Cutting emissions still comes first. Tree planting cannot be an excuse. It must be a support.

Why There Is Still Hope

Despite political noise around climate, support for nature is strong. Derrick shared research he heard during Climate Week.

“People were asked, do they feel we need to be restoring nature and restoring natural places. Ninety percent said yes.”

Nature still unites people. It offers a shared starting point when climate conversations feel divided. This gives restoration work a rare chance to grow.

Inside companies, the work is steady even if the public conversation is uneven. Many organisations are building nature strategies quietly and consistently.

The Takeaway

Tree planting became popular because it feels hopeful. The responsibility now is to keep that hope honest.

For Derrick, the future depends on one idea.

“If I could wave a magic wand, it would be to embed nature as infrastructure in every dollar we spend.”

Real restoration needs steady funding, long partnerships and honest reporting. It needs projects that put forests, not numbers, at the centre.

Trees can help the climate. But they only help when we treat them with care, patience and truth.

Responsibility begins with reality.