Advertise on podcast: Shaken Not Burned

A summer of extreme heat and drought cut forecast European grain production by 16.7 million tonnes — worth around €3.2 billion at current prices. It is a stark reminder of how quickly climate shocks can expose vulnerabilities in food supply. But when crops fail or farmers struggle, the question often becomes: how can farmers do things differently? The answer from our agriculture series is: they can’t — at least, not alone. In our last three episodes, we focused on agriculture, looking at the tools and technologies transforming the field. We heard from Philipp Lukas (Future Biogas) on how farm economics can change when crop rotations, energy and new revenue streams connect, Richard Zaltzman (EIT Food) on the markets, processing, finance and infrastructure that can make different choices viable, and Ivo Degn (Re:Source) on what a regenerative food system looks like when there is no single model that will work everywhere. In this week’s episode, co-hosts Felicia Jackson and Giulia Bottaro bring those conversations together. Farmers make choices, but those choices are shaped by markets, contracts, finance, processing, infrastructure, policy and demand. So the question is not simply why farming isn’t changing, but what has to be in place for different choices to make sense. The conversation also explores the tension between efficiency and resilience: what capabilities do we want to retain even when they look inefficient in normal times, and who should pay for them? Because transforming agriculture is not simply about changing farming practices but changing the system around it. It means asking who benefits, who pays and who carries the risk — and how we build a food system in which different choices can actually work. If you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?

We know that agriculture needs to change. But what if changing what happens on individual farms doesn’t change the food system around them? This week, Felicia talks to Ivo Degn, co-founder of Climate Farmers and founder of Re:Source, about why agricultural change depends on more than farming practice alone, and what a regenerative food system actually looks like. They discuss measurement, place, markets, infrastructure and the tension between efficiency and resilience. Ivo also makes an unexpected case for the global commodity food system: its ability to move supply around is a major strength. But more resilient regional systems may require local capacity that looks inefficient when everything is working normally. The conversation ends with a practical question: what has to exist in a place for different choices to become possible — and last? This is the third interview in our agriculture arc. We started with Philipp Lukas and the connections between farm economics, energy and crop rotations; then Richard Zaltzman looked at the markets and infrastructure that make different choices viable. Next week, Giulia and Felicia step back and ask what the three conversations add up to — and what transforming agriculture actually requires. If you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?

We often talk about changing farming as though the main question is what farmers should do differently. But a farm sits inside a much bigger system. In this week’s episode, Shaken Not Burned co-host Felicia talks to Richard Zaltzman, chief executive of Europe's food innovation community EIT Food, about the impact of that system. It starts with the idea of a landscape: not just a collection of farms, but the buyers, processors, financiers, insurers and other businesses that shape what farmers can actually do. They discuss the problem of matching future supply with demand, sharing risk, creating markets for crops that are useful in a rotation but hard to sell, and why local processing and other forms of market infrastructure matter. Richard also argues that some of the investment needed for agricultural transition may sit outside the farm gate, in the infrastructure connecting production to markets. And if every place is different, what does it actually mean to scale change? This is the second episode in our agriculture arc. Last week, we spoke to Philipp Lukas at Future Biogas about the economics of farming. Next week, we talk to Ivo Degn at Re:Source to take that question one stage further: if changing individual farms doesn’t add up to changing the food system, where does transformation actually have to happen? If you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?

Food security is back on the agenda. In recent years, disrupted supply chains, war, extreme weather and volatile energy and fertiliser prices have all shown how quickly problems elsewhere can affect what food is available, where it comes from and what it costs. At the same time, there are growing concerns about the condition of the system producing that food: climate risk, declining soil health, water stress, emissions and biodiversity loss. Unfortunately, that’s where the conversation often narrows: we identify problems with the food system and then very quickly arrive at a list of things that farmers should do differently. It’s almost as though the main challenge is persuading farmers to do something different. But wanting to change and being able to change are not the same thing. Farmers need to cut emissions, improve soils, use fewer inputs, protect biodiversity and become more resilient to a changing climate. Depending on who you ask, they may also need to grow different crops, adopt new technologies or change the way they manage their land. How much can a farmer actually change if everything around the farm – markets, infrastructure, finance, supply chains and policy – continues to reward the existing system?  In this week’s episode, the first one in our arc focused on agriculture, Felicia talks to Philipp Lukas, founder and chief executive of Future Biogas, which currently operates 11 large biogas plants across eastern England. It recently opened what it describes as the UK's first unsubsidised biomethane plant, where its agreement with AstraZeneca gives that gas a commercial buyer, while the crops feeding the plant are grown as part of local farm rotations and the nutrients are returned to the land.   The company sits in an unusual place between farming and energy. Its anaerobic digestion plants take crops grown as part of farm rotations and turn them into biomethane for the gas grid, while returning nutrients to the land. What makes Future Biogas interesting is not simply the technology, but the connections it creates between things we usually treat separately.  Biomethane isn't an answer to all of farming's problems. But it is an example of what can happen when something that is good for the soil also has a customer, when waste becomes an input, and when a farm can earn money from its connection to another part of the economy. That matters because many of the things we now want from farming – healthier soils, lower emissions and greater resilience – involve cost or risk somewhere along the way. The discussion covers how anaerobic digestion can give farmers a new market for crops grown in rotation, return nutrients to the land and produce biomethane for the gas grid — and what this tells us about a bigger question: if we want farmers to make different choices, do we also need to change the economics around those choices? If you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?

Insurance is supposed to protect us from risk. But what happens when the risks themselves are changing? Risk doesn't disappear because we fail to recognise or price it. Decisions that make sense individually — pumping more groundwater during a drought, building another housing development, keeping water prices low — can accumulate until environmental change becomes economic loss. Insurance is one of the places where that loss becomes visible. Insurers pay some of the bill; the rest falls on households, businesses and governments. As risks increase, premiums can rise, terms can tighten and some things can become difficult to insure at all. But the outcome isn't fixed: insurers look not only at the physical event, but at what's exposed to it and how vulnerable it is. We may not be able to stop a flood or an earthquake, but building standards, flood protection, healthier ecosystems and other forms of resilience can change how much damage they cause. That matters because insurance can be more than a way of paying for damage afterwards. It can signal where risk is building, encourage measures that reduce vulnerability and, through insurers' role as investors, help finance some of the resilience that makes future economic activity possible. In the final episode of our insurance arc, Felicia and Giulia bring together conversations we had in the previous three episodes with Robert Johnston of Clark University, Regula Hess of WWF, and Rachel Delhaise of Convex to explore what insurance can tell us about the changing relationship between environmental and economic risk. From water and the insurance protection gap to rising premiums, resilience and the limits of insurability, they ask a deceptively simple question: do we invest in reducing risk now, or pay for the damage later? If you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?

What makes something insurable — and what happens when the risks change?This week on Shaken Not Burned, Felicia talks to Rachel Delhaise, group head of sustainability at Convex Insurance, about how insurers deal with a changing and uncertain climate. As climate risks grow, insurance can become more expensive or harder to find. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the risk has simply become uninsurable. Better climate science and modelling can change how risk is understood and priced; resilience can reduce potential losses; and new financial structures can change how risk and cost are shared. Rachel explains why insurers want to insure, how insurance can act as a signal that underlying risks need to be addressed, and how insurers can use their investment capital to help build resilience, creating what she calls a cycle of insurability. Climate change is altering the hazards we face, but it doesn't determine everything that happens when they hit. Where and how we build, what we protect and where we invest can change the outcome. And underwriting and investment aren't the only ways insurers can contribute.  They can also support the science that helps us understand what is changing and what we might do about it.  Convex, for example, funds the Convex Seascape Survey, a five-year global research programme investigating the huge but poorly understood store of carbon in seabed sediments — including what happens when those sediments are disturbed and whether protecting them could help keep that carbon locked away.  We previously spoke to the programme's lead scientist Callum Roberts about what they're discovering and why it matters. Listen to that conversation here  This is the third episode in our arc on the changing economics of risk. In the first, our conversation with Dr Robert Johnston explored how risk can build through decisions that make sense individually but add up to something much more damaging — and why failing to recognise the full cost doesn't make it disappear. Last week, Regula Hess of WWF joined us to look at what happens when that risk becomes loss, the insurance protection gap, and who pays when insurance covers only part of the bill. Next, Felicia and Giulia bring the conversations together to ask what they tell us about where risk comes from, who ultimately pays for it, and what we can do to change the outcome. If you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?

When disaster strikes, insurance may pay some of the bill. But who pays the rest? This week on Shaken Not Burned, Felicia Jackson talks to Regula Hess, deputy head of WWF Switzerland, about the growing insurance protection gap — and why it matters far beyond the insurance industry. When losses aren't insured, they don't disappear. They fall on households, businesses and governments, affecting everything from mortgages and investment to public finances and the speed at which communities recover.  But WWF argues that simply expanding insurance isn't enough. Insurance can spread the cost of disasters; it can't stop the underlying risk from growing. That means reducing risk too — including protecting the forests, wetlands and other natural systems that can reduce damage before it happens.  Regula describes insurance as an early warning system: when risks become unaffordable or increasingly difficult to insure, perhaps we should pay attention to what that is telling us.  There is, of course, an obvious question. If preventing damage makes so much sense, why aren't we doing more of it? Part of the answer is that prevention is difficult to see. Yet research cited by Regula found that every dollar invested in climate resilience and preparedness can save communities up to $13 in damages, clean-up and wider economic costs. Which is why her description of insurance as an early warning system stayed with us. When insurance becomes unaffordable, or risks become too large or unpredictable to insure, it is telling us something. Not simply that there's a problem with insurance, but that the underlying risk is getting out of hand. Perhaps the real protection gap isn't just between what we lose and what insurance pays — it's between the risks we're creating and what we're doing to prevent them. This episode is the second in our latest Shaken Not Burned arc on the changing economics of risk.  Last week, our conversation with Dr Robert Johnston explored how water risk can build through decisions that might make sense individually, but can add up to something much more damaging. And why failing to recognise the full cost of those decisions doesn't make the cost disappear. As part of the series, we will also speak to Rachel Delhaise from Convex about the insurance market itself and what happens when a changing climate makes the past a less reliable guide to the future. Finally, co-hosts Felicia and Giulia will put the conversations together and ask what they tell us about where risk comes from, where the costs eventually end up, and what choices we still have before they do.  If you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?

We rely on water for pretty much everything: growing food, manufacturing goods, building cities and sustaining everyday life. But what happens when the systems we've built around it start to reach their limits? Felicia Jackson talks to economist Dr Robert Johnston, director of the George Perkins Marsh Institute at Clark University, about why he sees today's water challenge as a systems failure — and how individually sensible decisions can combine into what he calls a catastrophic harmony. We explore why the price of water often fails to reflect its real value, how natural and economic systems are connected, and whether better ways of measuring how nature benefits us can lead to better decisions. Where risk is insurable, we can transfer some of the financial cost to insurers. But insurance doesn't create the risks it prices and alone it doesn’t mitigate them. By the time premiums rise, cover becomes unaffordable or insurers pull back, years of decisions may already have increased exposure, depleted water resources or weakened the natural systems that once provided some protection.  That's what this conversation with Robert helps us see: how risk is built long before it becomes visible on a financial balance sheet. This episode is the starting point for our latest Shaken Not Burned arc on the changing economics of risk.  As part of the series, Regula Hess from WWF joins us to explore the insurance protection gap and who pays when insurance covers only part of a loss. Then Rachel Delhaise from Convex takes us inside the insurance market itself to ask what happens when a changing climate makes the past a less reliable guide to the future. Finally, co-hosts Felicia and Giulia will put the conversations together and ask what they tell us about where risk comes from, where the costs eventually end up, and what choices we still have before they do.  If you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?

As extreme heat and wildfires sweep across Europe, the gap between recognising climate risk and responding to it is becoming harder to ignore. The good news is that the evidence, expertise and many of the solutions we need already exist. Why, then, is meaningful action still so difficult? That was the question at the centre of this special live edition of Shaken Not Burned, recorded at SOAS during London Climate Action Week. Felicia was joined by Julia Davies (We Have The Power and Patriotic Millionaires UK), Gosbert Chagula MBE (Future Impact Ventures), and Dr Harald Heubaum (Centre for Sustainable Finance, SOAS). Their different perspectives point towards a common problem: coordination. Knowledge, authority, finance, incentives and public action remain fragmented — and they operate within systems shaped by unequal power and competing interests. The conversation explores why governments struggle to use the expertise they already possess; why investment continues to favour short-term returns; how wealth shapes politics and public narratives; and what community ownership, trust and individual agency can make possible. It also exposes a problem hidden inside the growing focus on resilience: people use the same word to describe very different futures. What we choose to protect, what we are prepared to change and who gets to decide will shape how societies respond to the disruption already underway. The solutions may exist. The harder task is aligning the power, money, institutions and public support needed to put them into practice. If you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?

Describing infrastructure as boring was a compliment. A building used to have a relatively straightforward job: keep the weather out and the people inside reasonably comfortable. Roads moved traffic, power systems supplied electricity and factories made things. Once infrastructure had been built, the task was largely to maintain it until it needed replacing. Sure, politicians like to throw themselves behind a flashy, expensive project that raises the profile of their country (example: the HS2 railway in the UK), but what ordinary people need is reliable systems that are ticking along in the background, making everyday life efficient and manageable for the entire population.  Still, the reality is that today we need more from our buildings and infrastructure. Buildings are now expected to cut emissions, manage energy demand, protect people from heat and pollution, support health and even help balance the electricity grid. Transport, water and energy networks must withstand conditions they weren’t designed for. Industrial systems are expected to become cleaner, more efficient and more resilient– often all at the same time. Considering that half the buildings that will be standing by 2050 already exist, retrofitting them is the only way to get us to net zero. Meanwhile, cities must manage the relationships among all these systems while remaining liveable, competitive and capable of adapting to a changing climate. In the final episode of our latest arc, hosts Felicia and Giulia explore one of the great challenges of our time: adapting decades-old infrastructure to the requirements of the contemporary era. More often than not, this requires investment in invisible tools, such as sensors and insulation, that most people won’t notice, but will benefit massively from. Rodrigo Fernandes of Bentley Systems introduced us to digital twins and the possibility of understanding cities as interconnected systems. Katie McGinty of Johnson Controls described buildings evolving from inert brick and mortar into active participants in energy, resilience and business performance. Sophie Graham of IFS explored how AI and operational intelligence are changing the way industrial assets are managed. And, it turns out, sensors, insulation, and waste heat recovery aren’t boring after all.  We explore what happens when infrastructure stops being passive and starts operating as part of a dynamic system. Can intelligence help ageing assets become more adaptable and resilient? Should we invest less in building new things and more in making existing systems work better? And as buildings and industrial systems begin to sense, learn and optimise, who decides what they should optimise for? The real transformation may not be in the concrete and steel, but in what we enable them to do. This episode explores: The shift from static assets to dynamic, adaptable systemsThe role of operational intelligence and digital twins in infrastructureThe importance of retrofitting and upgrading existing buildingsCircularity and reuse of materials in constructionThe economic and environmental benefits of smarter infrastructureThe systemic interconnectedness of urban systemsThe impact of climate change on infrastructure designThe role of AI and data in optimising asset performanceIf you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?

For years, sustainability has been associated with targets, reporting and disclosure. While those remain essential, they're starting to take a smaller part of the picture. As organisations operate under growing pressure from ageing infrastructure, volatile energy systems, climate disruption and more complex supply chains, sustainability is becoming part of day-to-day operational decision-making. In this week’s episode of Shaken Not Burned, Felicia speaks to Sophie Graham, chief sustainability officer at IFS, about how AI, data and operational intelligence are helping heavy industry move beyond measuring performance to improving it. Rather than treating sustainability as a separate function, many companies’ engineering, operations and sustainability teams are beginning to work together to make industrial systems more efficient, more resilient and more competitive. From what Sophie describes as "blue collar AI" to grid capacity, ageing infrastructure and the growing importance of operational resilience, the real economy is beginning to change. The conversation doesn't shy away from the fact that AI has its own energy, water and infrastructure demands, raising difficult questions about trade-offs and governance. How do organisations judge whether technological progress creates a genuine net benefit? This episode explores: Why operational decision-making is central to sustainabilityWhat "blue collar AI" looks like in practiceHow operational intelligence is changing the way industrial systems respond to disruptionWhy making better use of existing assets may matter as much as building new onesThe changing relationship between sustainability, engineering and technology teamsWhy competitiveness, resilience and sustainability are becoming increasingly difficult to separateThis is the third episode in our latest Shaken Not Burned arc, exploring how the infrastructure that underpins modern life is being redesigned, managed and increasingly operated as an intelligent system. Together with our conversations on digital twins and intelligent buildings, this arc analyses how operational intelligence is reshaping the systems that underpin modern economies. Whether the challenge is designing infrastructure, managing buildings or operating industrial assets, the common thread is that resilience increasingly depends on making better decisions in real time. If you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?

For decades we've largely thought about buildings as fixed assets: we build them, maintain them, and expect them to provide the spaces where everyday life happens. But what if that's only part of the story?  The built environment accounts for around 40% of global emissions; much of it was designed for a different climate, and replacing it simply isn't an option. As cities become hotter, energy systems more complex and organisations more dependent on resilient infrastructure, the challenge is no longer just building better buildings – it's helping the ones we already have perform better. In this week's episode, Felicia speaks to Katie McGinty, vice president and chief sustainability and external relations officer at Johnson Controls, about why today's buildings are becoming far more than places we occupy. Increasingly, they are capable of improving resilience, strengthening energy systems, supporting health and productivity, reducing operating costs and creating long-term value for the organisations and communities they serve. The technology to do much of this already exists. The bigger challenge is recognising that buildings are assets capable of creating value. Rather than simply consuming resources, today's buildings can increasingly help manage them, becoming active participants in the wider systems that keep cities and economies functioning.  It's a reminder that some of the biggest opportunities in the energy transition may be standing around us. If most of the buildings we'll rely on over the coming decades have already been built, perhaps the next phase of the transition may be about unlocking far more value from the infrastructure we already have. This episode covers:  Why buildings are becoming strategic assets rather than simply places we occupy  How operational performance is becoming a board-level priority  Why resilience, sustainability and business performance are becoming increasingly connected  The untapped opportunity in the buildings we already own  How digital technologies are changing the way buildings operate  Why the next phase of the energy transition may be about improving the performance of existing infrastructure rather than simply building moreIf you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?

Modern cities appear to function effortlessly. We switch on the lights, turn on the tap, catch a train, connect to the internet or walk into a hospital without giving much thought to the systems that make it all possible. Beneath that apparent simplicity sits a network of interconnected infrastructure that keeps everyday life moving. In this episode of Shaken Not Burned, Felicia speaks to Rodrigo Fernandes, global sustainability director at infrastructure engineering software firm Bentley Systems, about why understanding those hidden connections is becoming increasingly important as cities face climate change, ageing infrastructure and growing demands on energy and public services. From transport networks and energy systems to water, buildings and public infrastructure, cities rely on thousands of interconnected assets that have to work together every day. Yet these systems are often planned, managed and invested in separately, making it difficult to understand how decisions made in one part of the system can have consequences across many others Their conversation explores how digital twins and better information can help planners, engineers and decision-makers understand interdependencies, explore different scenarios and make better long-term decisions. Along the way, Rodrigo explains why figuring out how infrastructure systems interact is becoming increasingly important for building cities that are more resilient, sustainable and adaptable over time. In this episode: Why cities are systems, not just placesHow infrastructure decisions shape cities for decadesWhat digital twins really are — and why they matterWhy resilience depends on understanding interconnectionsHow better information can lead to better decisionsThis is a conversation about far more than infrastructure. It's about how cities actually function, why changing them is so difficult, and why understanding the hidden systems around us may be one of the most important foundations for building more resilient communities. If you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?

Welcome to the final episode in our arc on the fashion industry, where we ask an uncomfortable question: are we trying to make fashion more sustainable, or are we mostly trying to manage the side effects of a system that produces more clothing than the world actually needs? Over the past few weeks we've explored the industry from several different angles. We interviewed Kristina Elinder Liljas at the Apparel Impact Institute about climate risk and why sustainability is increasingly becoming a competitiveness issue.  We sat down with Áine Clarke at the Business and Human Rights Centre to discuss  to discuss labour and human rights and the social realities embedded within global supply chains.  We also spoke to two industry specialists, discussing the potential for fashion circularity with Niccolò Cipriani from Rifò and the world of deadstock and recommerce with Kanchan Bharwani from Empire Apparel. At first glance, there is no obvious reason why those conversations should belong together except that they’re all aspects of the fashion industry. The further we got into the series though, the  more we realised that sustainable fashion is not really a story about clothes. It's a story about how an industrial system optimised for speed, volume and cost interacts with water, energy, labour, materials and waste. Once you see that, many of the industry's sustainability challenges stop looking like isolated problems and start looking like the consequences of the system doing exactly what it was designed to do.  The choice is not between cheap clothing and expensive clothing. The real question is which costs are currently included in the price and which costs are not.  A garment can be inexpensive because the system producing it has become genuinely more efficient, but it can also be inexpensive because part of the cost has been transferred elsewhere — to workers, communities, ecosystems and future generations.  Fashion sustainability is often presented as a question of products but our conversations suggest it may be a question of systems and processes. And if that is true, building a more sustainable fashion industry may require far more than making better clothes.    It may require asking whether many of the industry's environmental and social challenges are not accidental side effects, but the consequences of a system that has become exceptionally good at delivering exactly what it was designed to deliver.  If you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?

Fashion is often described as one of the world's most polluting industries. The scale can be difficult to grasp as it feels so personal, but every year, billions of garments are produced, sold, worn briefly and discarded, with consequences that reach far beyond our wardrobes. The industry is worth around $2.4 trillion and is estimated to account for up to 8% of global carbon emissions. It consumes around 15 trillion litres of water each year and is responsible for roughly 11% of plastic waste. Yet many of these impacts are not accidental by-products of the system. They are linked to the way the industry is organised, from production planning and purchasing practices to inventory management and sales. Changing that system is not straightforward. But across the industry, some businesses are trying to reduce waste by keeping materials, products and resources in use for longer This week’s episode, the third one in the fashion arc, is a little different than usual:  We've brought together two conversations that explore what "reduce, reuse and recycle" actually looks like in practice.  Firstly, Giulia spoke to Niccolò Cipriani,  founder and CEO of the Italian circular fashion company Rifò, about what it means to set up a sustainable fashion company. They discuss the realities of building a business around recycled materials, the challenges of fibre recycling, and why suppliers initially viewed discarded textiles as low-value inputs rather than useful resources.  Giulia then sat down with Kenchen Arjandas Bharwani, fashion consultant at Empire Apparel, who walked us through the ins and outs of the fashion supply chain – including how perfectly good garments can be discarded for very minor reasons, how deadstock accumulates, and how the off-price market helps find a home for products that might otherwise go to waste.  Together, these interviews provide a window into a part of the sustainability conversation that often receives less attention.  Instead of talking about 'sustainable fashion', much of the discussion focuses on what happens before a garment reaches a shop, and what happens to it when it doesn't sell.  That raises a larger question. If waste is being created at multiple points throughout the system, can fashion become more sustainable simply through better consumer choices, or does it require changes to the way the industry itself operates? Because while individual choices aren’t irrelevant, some of the most important decisions in fashion are being made long before we ever see a price tag. If you'd like to support our work, you can make a small donation at https://buymeacoffee.com/shakennotburned. And if you haven't already, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn, TikTok and Instagram – and why not spread the word with your friends and colleagues?