Grain Ecosystem

Sustainability is no longer something leaders can treat as a side project, a marketing theme, or a compliance box to check. What was once framed as a moral imperative or brand differentiator has become a core operating question: where to act, where not to, and how to make decisions that hold up economically. 

That framing set the stage for a recent Grain Ecosystem webinar moderated by Jason Dodier, Co-Founder and CCO, featuring Maisie Ganzler, former Chief Strategy & Brand Officer at Bon Appétit Management Company and author of You Can’t Market Manure at Lunchtime. Drawing on three decades of experience embedding sustainability into sourcing, supplier engagement, and daily operations, Ganzler offered a grounded, practical lens for leaders navigating climate expectations without overcommitting, fragmenting efforts, or losing credibility. 

Watch the full webinar recording here: 

How do leaders choose sustainability efforts that create both impact and business value? 

Jason opened the conversation with a question that sits at the heart of today’s sustainability debate: many initiatives do real good but don’t create competitive advantage, while others look good but fail to move the needle. How should leaders decide where to focus? 

Maisie answered by grounding the question in lived experience. The title of her book, You Can’t Market Manure at Lunchtime, comes from a moment when Bon Appétit’s founder became deeply invested in improving manure lagoon management in pork production. From a climate and environmental standpoint, the issue mattered enormously. From a customer standpoint, it was nearly impossible to translate into business value. When you’re serving lunch, she explained, it’s hard to build a compelling message around waste handling, even if the sustainability benefits are real. “You can't really, when you sell somebody a BLT, say, ‘Here's your sandwich, and the poop was well handled’”, she joked. 

She contrasted that with another common pitfall: initiatives that appear progressive but don’t deliver real outcomes. Compostable packaging is a prime example. While technically compostable materials proliferated, many municipalities didn’t accept them, and most weren’t compostable at home. The result was higher costs without corresponding environmental benefit. From a business perspective, that combination is unsustainable. 

The challenge, Maisie emphasized, is finding the narrow overlap between meaningful environmental or social change and customer resonance. That “sweet spot” is difficult to identify, but it’s where sustainability stops being a cost and starts functioning as strategy. 

Should companies go deep on one issue or go wide across many? 

Building on that tension, Jason asked how companies —especially those without strong consumer-facing brands— should think about focus. Is it better to go deep on one issue like climate or waste, or to tackle many initiatives at once? 

Maisie was clear that both approaches can work, but neither is easy. Companies like Ben & Jerry’s or Whole Foods have gone wide, addressing environmental, social, and humane treatment issues simultaneously. The upside is a broad sustainability narrative. The downside is exposure: when you claim to be “generally sustainable,” every gap becomes fair game for critique. Wide strategies require consistent execution across many fronts. 

The alternative is depth. Companies like Impossible Foods chose to focus almost exclusively on reducing beef consumption as a climate intervention. That clarity can be powerful, but it comes with high expectations. If you go deep, you must be best-in-class on that issue. 

To decide between the two, Maisie recommended stepping outside internal narratives and looking honestly at the competitive landscape. One exercise she uses with companies is deceptively simple: ask the newest or lowest-ranking team member to map what is publicly available about your sustainability commitments versus your competitors’. Senior leaders often overestimate how much the outside world sees or understands. Comparing public information (“apples-to-apples") reveals whether a company is truly differentiated or simply well intentioned. 

What does “finding the right partner” really mean? 

As the conversation shifted toward scale, Jason raised the issue of partnerships. In complex supply chains, execution depends on finding the right collaborators, whether NGOs, technology providers, or commercial counterparties. What should companies look for, and what mistakes do they make? 

Maisie distinguished between two very different kinds of partners. 

The first are activist and NGO partners, such as Environmental Defense Fund. While many companies instinctively treat activists as threats, she argued they can be some of the most valuable collaborators. These organizations are deeply embedded in the science, often years ahead of mainstream corporate conversations. Through partnerships with groups like Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch or academic institutions such as Johns Hopkins, Bon Appétit gained access to expertise it simply didn’t have internally. 

Just as importantly, activists tend to think in timelines. They know what issues are emerging next, not just which ones dominate headlines today. Asking advocacy groups what they will push for after the current campaign can help companies get ahead of future expectations rather than scrambling to catch up. And “if you want to create business advantage through sustainability, you have to be doing the next, not just the thing that's being asked of you today, but what's going to be asked of you tomorrow.” 

Finally, NGO partnerships can offer unmatched third-party credibility. When a company earns validation from an organization perceived as independent —or even anti-corporate— that endorsement carries far more weight than self-promotion. “When we were able to make an announcement about moving away from plastic straws with a supporting quote in our Press Release from Greenpeace, that holds a lot more weight with the public than just a corporate talking head saying: ‘What I'm doing is great’," she said. 

The second category is commercial supply chain partners. Here, Maisie emphasized cultural fit and risk appetite. Her experience working with both Purdue and Tyson revealed how profoundly governance structures, leadership styles, and time horizons shape collaboration. Public companies face quarterly pressures that privately held firms often don’t. For long-term sustainability investments, those differences matter. 

Her advice was straightforward: if it’s a real partnership, meet in person. Walk facilities. Break bread. Zoom enables communication, but trust and resilience are built on the ground, especially when things go wrong. 

How can companies communicate sustainability without overwhelming or alienating customers? 

Jason then turned to communication, noting that sustainability often becomes over-explained, overly technical, or performative. How can companies create trust and emotional connection without burdening audiences? 

Maisie described an early misstep: her team loved details and produced dense sustainability materials because they felt customers needed full context. In reality, most people —especially at lunch— did not want a catalog of global problems before ordering a meal. 

The breakthrough came with a reframing. Instead of emphasizing what the company was doing, Bon Appétit shifted focus to what customers were already doing right. A campaign called “You’re already doing something good” made sustainability feel personal and positive. By simply choosing to eat there, customers were supporting local farmers, reducing climate risk, and backing fair labor practices. 

That emotional simplicity, however, only worked because the rigor existed behind the scenes. The data, policies, and verification lived elsewhere —on websites and reports— for those who wanted to go deeper. Maisie cited Seafood Watch’s red-yellow-green system as a model: simple signals upfront, detailed evidence available on demand. Trust requires both layers. 

How does sustainability become governance, not guilt? 

One of the most concrete parts of the discussion centered on governance tools that prevent sustainability from fading once enthusiasm wanes. Jason asked Maisie to explain the “Circle of Responsibility Matrix” she developed at Bon Appétit. 

The tool is intentionally simple. Initiatives are categorized as green (public commitments being met), yellow (in progress), red (stalled or unresolved), with an optional “purple” category for ideas that seem impossible but worth tracking.  

The value of this tool was in the discipline: by revisiting the matrix consistently in executive meetings, sustainability becomes part of operating rhythm rather than an occasional discussion. Greens are reassessed for relevance and differentiation. Yellows are examined for obstacles and competitive payoff (“If you pull it off, if you can get that yellow initiative into green, is it going to create competitive advantage? Should you still be working on it?”). Reds stay visible, ensuring hard problems don’t disappear simply because solutions aren’t immediate. 

Maisie stressed that abandoning this process during political or regulatory downturns is a mistake. “In the US in particular, the tide has turned politically and there isn't as much focus at a federal level on sustainability. So, should you abandon your efforts? Well, obviously, you're going to know that I'm going to say no. But one of the many reasons that you shouldn't abandon those efforts is that all of us who are in this work know that those yellows and those reds take a long time. It's years often to get something out of red into yellow, out of yellow into green. And if you abandon those efforts now, if you stop working on those tough questions, the political pendulum is going to swing back. Whether it's the midterms or if it's with our next president or the one after that, if you look at history, the pendulum goes back and forth. It's going to swing back. And if you haven't been actively working on those yellows and reds, you're going to get caught with your pants down. You are not going to have a competitive advantage when regulation comes back around,” she explained.  

Sustainability transitions take years. Companies that stop working on difficult issues when pressure eases will be unprepared when expectations return through regulation, procurement standards, or investor scrutiny. 

How should leaders respond to criticism without becoming defensive? 

Jason returned to a story from Maisie’s book that resonated strongly with the audience: what he called the “big chicken moment.” How should leaders in criticized industries engage critics honestly without triggering defensiveness or accusations of greenwashing? 

Maisie recounted her conversation with Jim Perdue following a New York Times exposé on animal welfare abuses at a supplier farm. Rather than reacting defensively, Perdue asked a simple question internally: did we know this was happening? When the answer was no, his response was: “Well, we should thank them then.” 

That mindset —treating criticism as information rather than attack— defined how Perdue approached engagement. Maisie described personally reviewing every message sent to the company’s general inbox, not to respond to each one, but to identify patterns. Criticism reveals where systems fail. Praise shows where to double down. Both are data. 

What does effective internal activism look like? 

A question from the audience prompted Maisie to reflect on internal activism: how sustainability leaders drive change inside organizations with varying leadership styles. 

In her case, she worked closely with Bon Appétit’s founder, who did not set out to build a sustainability-driven company but was open to change. One pivotal moment came when she told him that if sustainability was truly central, the company’s founding “dream” would need to be rewritten. It was a risky conversation, but trust made it possible. 

In organizations without that trust, Maisie advised starting with education rather than confrontation. Bringing leaders into the field, introducing them to unexpected voices, or finding personal connection points can shift perspectives more effectively than lectures. Numbers still matter, but human context often opens the door. 

If leaders take away one lesson, what should it be? 

As the conversation closed, Jason asked Maisie for a single takeaway for leaders squeezed between climate pressure and economic reality. 

Her answer was clear: reframe sustainability from a cost to a business driver. Instead of asking what sustainability costs, ask how it can increase frequency and loyalty. How often customers buy, and how embedded your company becomes in their systems. 

Sustainability doesn’t justify price premiums, she cautioned. But it can drive trust, predictability, and deeper relationships. In one example, a large agricultural supplier earned larger purchase orders from Costco —not higher prices— by aligning with the retailer’s sustainability priorities. The value came from stability and scale, not margin. 

In uncertain markets, predictability is power. When sustainability is built into the system, not bolted on, it can help create exactly that. 

A conversation with Maisie Ganzler on turning sustainability into operating advantage. 

origination

carbon_partner_plus

internal

member

free

<p></p><p>Sustainability is no longer something leaders can treat as a side project, a marketing theme, or a compliance box to check. What was once framed as a moral imperative or brand differentiator has become a core operating question: where to act, where not to, and how to make decisions that hold up economically. </p><p>That framing set the stage for a recent Grain Ecosystem webinar moderated by Jason Dodier, Co-Founder and CCO, featuring Maisie Ganzler, former Chief Strategy & Brand Officer at Bon Appétit Management Company and author of You Can’t Market Manure at Lunchtime. Drawing on three decades of experience embedding sustainability into sourcing, supplier engagement, and daily operations, Ganzler offered a grounded, practical lens for leaders navigating climate expectations without overcommitting, fragmenting efforts, or losing credibility. </p><p><strong>Watch the full webinar recording here: </strong></p><p><iframe width="1265" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/n3dInAOpOrU" title="Sustainability as a System, Not a Slogan | Webinar with Maisie Ganzler" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p><p><a href="https://youtu.be/n3dInAOpOrU" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>(If the player isn’t visible, click to watch it directly on YouTube.)</em></a>   </p><h2>How do leaders choose sustainability efforts that create both impact and business value? </h2><p>Jason opened the conversation with a question that sits at the heart of today’s sustainability debate: many initiatives do real good but don’t create competitive advantage, while others look good but fail to move the needle. How should leaders decide where to focus? </p><p>Maisie answered by grounding the question in lived experience. The title of her book, You Can’t Market Manure at Lunchtime, comes from a moment when Bon Appétit’s founder became deeply invested in improving manure lagoon management in pork production. From a climate and environmental standpoint, the issue mattered enormously. From a customer standpoint, it was nearly impossible to translate into business value. When you’re serving lunch, she explained, it’s hard to build a compelling message around waste handling, even if the sustainability benefits are real. “You can't really, when you sell somebody a BLT, say, ‘Here's your sandwich, and the poop was well handled’”, she joked. </p><p>She contrasted that with another common pitfall: initiatives that appear progressive but don’t deliver real outcomes. Compostable packaging is a prime example. While technically compostable materials proliferated, many municipalities didn’t accept them, and most weren’t compostable at home. The result was higher costs without corresponding environmental benefit. From a business perspective, that combination is unsustainable. </p><p>The challenge, Maisie emphasized, is finding the narrow overlap between meaningful environmental or social change and customer resonance. That “sweet spot” is difficult to identify, but it’s where sustainability stops being a cost and starts functioning as strategy. </p><h2>Should companies go deep on one issue or go wide across many? </h2><p>Building on that tension, Jason asked how companies —especially those without strong consumer-facing brands— should think about focus. Is it better to go deep on one issue like climate or waste, or to tackle many initiatives at once? </p><p>Maisie was clear that both approaches can work, but neither is easy. Companies like Ben & Jerry’s or Whole Foods have gone wide, addressing environmental, social, and humane treatment issues simultaneously. The upside is a broad sustainability narrative. The downside is exposure: when you claim to be “generally sustainable,” every gap becomes fair game for critique. Wide strategies require consistent execution across many fronts. </p><p>The alternative is depth. Companies like Impossible Foods chose to focus almost exclusively on reducing beef consumption as a climate intervention. That clarity can be powerful, but it comes with high expectations. If you go deep, you must be best-in-class on that issue. </p><p>To decide between the two, Maisie recommended stepping outside internal narratives and looking honestly at the competitive landscape. One exercise she uses with companies is deceptively simple: ask the newest or lowest-ranking team member to map what is publicly available about your sustainability commitments versus your competitors’. Senior leaders often overestimate how much the outside world sees or understands. Comparing public information (“apples-to-apples") reveals whether a company is truly differentiated or simply well intentioned. </p><h2>What does “finding the right partner” really mean? </h2><p>As the conversation shifted toward scale, Jason raised the issue of partnerships. In complex supply chains, execution depends on finding the right collaborators, whether NGOs, technology providers, or commercial counterparties. What should companies look for, and what mistakes do they make? </p><p>Maisie distinguished between two very different kinds of partners. </p><p>The first are activist and NGO partners, such as Environmental Defense Fund. While many companies instinctively treat activists as threats, she argued they can be some of the most valuable collaborators. These organizations are deeply embedded in the science, often years ahead of mainstream corporate conversations. Through partnerships with groups like Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch or academic institutions such as Johns Hopkins, Bon Appétit gained access to expertise it simply didn’t have internally. </p><p>Just as importantly, activists tend to think in timelines. They know what issues are emerging next, not just which ones dominate headlines today. Asking advocacy groups what they will push for after the current campaign can help companies get ahead of future expectations rather than scrambling to catch up. And “if you want to create business advantage through sustainability, you have to be doing the next, not just the thing that's being asked of you today, but what's going to be asked of you tomorrow.” </p><p>Finally, NGO partnerships can offer unmatched third-party credibility. When a company earns validation from an organization perceived as independent —or even anti-corporate— that endorsement carries far more weight than self-promotion. “When we were able to make an announcement about moving away from plastic straws with a supporting quote in our Press Release from Greenpeace, that holds a lot more weight with the public than just a corporate talking head saying: ‘What I'm doing is great’," she said. </p><p>The second category is commercial supply chain partners. Here, Maisie emphasized cultural fit and risk appetite. Her experience working with both Purdue and Tyson revealed how profoundly governance structures, leadership styles, and time horizons shape collaboration. Public companies face quarterly pressures that privately held firms often don’t. For long-term sustainability investments, those differences matter. </p><p>Her advice was straightforward: if it’s a real partnership, meet in person. Walk facilities. Break bread. Zoom enables communication, but trust and resilience are built on the ground, especially when things go wrong. </p><h2>How can companies communicate sustainability without overwhelming or alienating customers? </h2><p>Jason then turned to communication, noting that sustainability often becomes over-explained, overly technical, or performative. How can companies create trust and emotional connection without burdening audiences? </p><p>Maisie described an early misstep: her team loved details and produced dense sustainability materials because they felt customers needed full context. In reality, most people —especially at lunch— did not want a catalog of global problems before ordering a meal. </p><p>The breakthrough came with a reframing. Instead of emphasizing what the company was doing, Bon Appétit shifted focus to what customers were already doing right. A campaign called “You’re already doing something good” made sustainability feel personal and positive. By simply choosing to eat there, customers were supporting local farmers, reducing climate risk, and backing fair labor practices. </p><p>That emotional simplicity, however, only worked because the rigor existed behind the scenes. The data, policies, and verification lived elsewhere —on websites and reports— for those who wanted to go deeper. Maisie cited Seafood Watch’s red-yellow-green system as a model: simple signals upfront, detailed evidence available on demand. Trust requires both layers. </p><h2>How does sustainability become governance, not guilt? </h2><p>One of the most concrete parts of the discussion centered on governance tools that prevent sustainability from fading once enthusiasm wanes. Jason asked Maisie to explain the “Circle of Responsibility Matrix” she developed at Bon Appétit. </p><p>The tool is intentionally simple. Initiatives are categorized as green (public commitments being met), yellow (in progress), red (stalled or unresolved), with an optional “purple” category for ideas that seem impossible but worth tracking.  </p><p>The value of this tool was in the discipline: by revisiting the matrix consistently in executive meetings, sustainability becomes part of operating rhythm rather than an occasional discussion. Greens are reassessed for relevance and differentiation. Yellows are examined for obstacles and competitive payoff (“If you pull it off, if you can get that yellow initiative into green, is it going to create competitive advantage? Should you still be working on it?”). Reds stay visible, ensuring hard problems don’t disappear simply because solutions aren’t immediate. </p><p>Maisie stressed that abandoning this process during political or regulatory downturns is a mistake. “In the US in particular, the tide has turned politically and there isn't as much focus at a federal level on sustainability. So, should you abandon your efforts? Well, obviously, you're going to know that I'm going to say no. But one of the many reasons that you shouldn't abandon those efforts is that all of us who are in this work know that those yellows and those reds take a long time. It's years often to get something out of red into yellow, out of yellow into green. And if you abandon those efforts now, if you stop working on those tough questions, the political pendulum is going to swing back. Whether it's the midterms or if it's with our next president or the one after that, if you look at history, the pendulum goes back and forth. It's going to swing back. And if you haven't been actively working on those yellows and reds, you're going to get caught with your pants down. You are not going to have a competitive advantage when regulation comes back around,” she explained.  </p><p>Sustainability transitions take years. Companies that stop working on difficult issues when pressure eases will be unprepared when expectations return through regulation, procurement standards, or investor scrutiny. </p><h2>How should leaders respond to criticism without becoming defensive? </h2><p>Jason returned to a story from Maisie’s book that resonated strongly with the audience: what he called the “big chicken moment.” How should leaders in criticized industries engage critics honestly without triggering defensiveness or accusations of greenwashing? </p><p>Maisie recounted her conversation with Jim Perdue following a New York Times exposé on animal welfare abuses at a supplier farm. Rather than reacting defensively, Perdue asked a simple question internally: did we know this was happening? When the answer was no, his response was: “Well, we should thank them then.” </p><p>That mindset —treating criticism as information rather than attack— defined how Perdue approached engagement. Maisie described personally reviewing every message sent to the company’s general inbox, not to respond to each one, but to identify patterns. Criticism reveals where systems fail. Praise shows where to double down. Both are data. </p><h2>What does effective internal activism look like? </h2><p>A question from the audience prompted Maisie to reflect on internal activism: how sustainability leaders drive change inside organizations with varying leadership styles. </p><p>In her case, she worked closely with Bon Appétit’s founder, who did not set out to build a sustainability-driven company but was open to change. One pivotal moment came when she told him that if sustainability was truly central, the company’s founding “dream” would need to be rewritten. It was a risky conversation, but trust made it possible. </p><p>In organizations without that trust, Maisie advised starting with education rather than confrontation. Bringing leaders into the field, introducing them to unexpected voices, or finding personal connection points can shift perspectives more effectively than lectures. Numbers still matter, but human context often opens the door. </p><h2>If leaders take away one lesson, what should it be? </h2><p>As the conversation closed, Jason asked Maisie for a single takeaway for leaders squeezed between climate pressure and economic reality. </p><p>Her answer was clear: reframe sustainability from a cost to a business driver. Instead of asking what sustainability costs, ask how it can increase frequency and loyalty. How often customers buy, and how embedded your company becomes in their systems. </p><p>Sustainability doesn’t justify price premiums, she cautioned. But it can drive trust, predictability, and deeper relationships. In one example, a large agricultural supplier earned larger purchase orders from Costco —not higher prices— by aligning with the retailer’s sustainability priorities. The value came from stability and scale, not margin. </p><p>In uncertain markets, predictability is power. When sustainability is built into the system, not bolted on, it can help create exactly that. </p><h2>Watch all Grain Webinars  </h2><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/691f75802e09739125056ef9" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">From Shutdown to Scale-Up: What Federal and State Policy Means for Biochar in 2026</a> with Maureen Walsh. </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/691204e28d0fcf646bb45360" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carbon Removal Meets Compliance: Navigating the Legal Landscape for Biochar Projects</a> with Peter Mayer. </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/68e6a74f3933aa4c973a0716" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Biochar in Bloom: Lessons from Okaw Valley Orchard</a> with Mike Mitchell.  </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6883a7802492b585355e77ee" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Green Bridge: Non-Traditional Finance for Biochar</a> with Adam Fraser.  </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67b75ae223e6759660f119ad" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Advancing CDR: From Start-Up to Scale-Up</a> with Robert Höglund.  </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/6751f73e593a512d338ee036" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Building Biochar Markets for Value & Scale: Webinar Recap</a> with Myles Grey and Bernardo Del Campo.  </li></ul><ul class="bullet"><li value=1><a href="https://grainecosystem.com/knowledge-hub/articles/67092f5e79685344119a953f" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Dirt to Dollars. Unearthing the Science of Sustainable Investment</a> with Ryan Letourneau, Alicia Klepfer and Jason Dodier. </li></ul>