Sustainability In Action: Incremental Progress Matters, But Push For More With Mia Davis
Accepting incremental progress doesn’t mean settling—it means building momentum for bigger change. In this episode, Mia Davis, Chief Impact Officer at Ollie and a longtime sustainability leader, shares how she balances intention with action in her work to create safer, more sustainable products. From her early efforts at Beauty Counter and Credo driving industry standards, to leading waste reduction and packaging innovation at Ollie, Mia highlights the power of collective action, transparency, and collaboration across industries. She unpacks the trade-offs behind packaging choices, the challenges of recycled content, and why pushing suppliers and peers together yields results no single brand could achieve alone. With her signature mix of pragmatism and urgency, Mia offers advice for sustainability professionals: embrace incremental wins, but never stop pushing for more.
----
Watch the episode here
Listen to the podcast here
Sustainability In Action: Incremental Progress Matters, But Push For More With Mia Davis
From Personal Passion To Professional Impact: Introducing Mia Davis
Welcome back to Change Cycle. I'm super excited for this conversation. We have Mia Davis here as our guest. She is the Chief Impact Officer at Ollie. You're an impact leader who sets a high bar for meaningful safety, sustainability, and transparency standards that are both pro-health and pro-business. We met at Circularity in Denver. I could see you as a magnet for incredible impact leaders. Everywhere you went, I felt like you were saying hello to somebody who'd done some incredible stuff in this space.
That, to me, was an example of your ability to make a network and also to lead in this space. You were one of the early hires at Beautycounter and later went on to lead at Credo Beauty, where you created the Credo Clean Standard. That includes sustainable packaging guidelines. This is retail's strongest clean formula and packaging standard.
In 2021, you took this further and co-founded a nonprofit membership organization called Pact Collective to start to make a dent in hard-to-recycle beauty waste and to bring beauty stakeholders together to move towards circularity. Hopefully, this dent that you've made with Pact will go on to be supported by EPR legislation as well. I'm super excited to have you here. Thank you for your time. I'd like to start off every episode that we have an interview with this. I've done your bio, but who really is Mia? Can you tell me how you live with intention?
Thank you so much for having me. I love what you're doing with these conversations. I think it's really important.
Thank you.
In addition to that professional background, I am personally extremely passionate about environmental health, safety, and sustainability. I have been as long as I can remember, honestly, since I could talk. It's really in my blood. It's not just a career choice. It's who I am, how I live with intentions, and how I live my life in my home, in my community, and in my garden. I am a married person with a wonderful partner. I have two children. I have two cats and a dog. I mentioned the garden. I spend a lot of time outside in my little pocket of the world in Massachusetts, North of Boston. I live very close to the coast and spend a lot of time in the ocean as well. That's who I am personally and how it dovetails into my professional work.
How I live with intention is, I suppose you show up differently every day with intention. If you think about mindfulness, it can vary and be very present in the moment with meditation, which I do. I do have a meditation practice. It can just be how you move through the world and how you choose your words or how you choose your actions with regard to sustainability, whether you take the car or you ride your bike. I do aim to live with intention all the time.
It's a daily decision living with intention. It is trying to live that and how you fill your time with the things that matter to you. I love that.
Rest should be intentional, too, and listening.
You have been with Ollie for not very long, but can you share a little bit about what your role is at Ollie, and for those that don't know what Ollie is?
Ollie is a human-grade dog food company. We have been around for several years, but I am relatively new to the company. As Chief Impact Officer, I am overseeing, leading, and strategizing all things related to sustainability, so responsible sourcing, packaging, and other impact work. I am focused on partnerships and meaningful partnerships, especially with nonprofit organizations in the dog rescue ecosystem and other nonprofits that are also working on sustainability and issues, packaging, et cetera. It's a great role.
Ollie's in a really exciting stage of growth. We've been committed to very high-quality human-grade ingredients for dogs since our inception. I have joined the company and am helping us to build out more of that sustainability piece to quality. Quality can be about sourcing intentionally. It can be about clean ingredients and making sure that we're preventing any exposures while we focus on the highest quality nutrition and preventing unnecessary environmental hazard exposures.
Quality means intentional sourcing, cleaning ingredients, and preventing exposures while focusing on the highest quality nutrition.
Influencing Change: Business As A Tool For Positive Impact
It is true that this idea of quality is very multi-layered, thinking through environmental quality, your dog food, and what's going into their bodies. That's great. You've led a lot of change in your career at Ollie, but also a lot prior. I mentioned it a little in your bio about starting a collective. Can you tell us a little bit about, through your journey and experience, what you've learned about how to influence change?
I am still learning. I don't think it's something that you learn, you check the box, and you're done. It's certainly an evolution and a life practice. Like most basic levels of a starting point, things are not working out with late-stage capitalism. You look at the linear take-make-waste model and you look at how externalized true costs are, whether you're talking about animal welfare, the animals in the supply chain, climate sustainability, labor and workers' rights, or community impacts. I know very deeply that all of these things are connected.
I know this, whether I take an economic lens, an ecosystem lens. I have felt like we need to make changes in so many ways in order to have a healthier planet and healthier relationships, but also healthier businesses. If we continue to just think it's someone else's problem and kick the can or not take at least an awareness of true costs, that puts us where we are now. It's not working very well. We're not going to be able to continue to do this take-make-waste and just totally have this more equating capitalism with exploitation at every level. That is my more philosophical or my MO behind change. To me, it's not even, “Let's make a little change over here,” or “Maybe we can change this.” It's how I'm coming to the table to do the work that I do.
After I finished my master's degree, I was doing that work through environmental health nonprofit organizations. I was working with organizations that were either working on state and federal policies or with the market dynamics of maybe shaming companies that weren't doing such a great job, but trying to align with more leadership and purpose-driven companies early on. I loved that part of the work. I liked working on the market side. We need both for sure. The floor is low for state and federal policies around chemical use, packaging, certainly fracking, and a ton of other things that I know less about. We need to raise the floor there, but I am particularly drawn to the market side of things.
After doing that work in the nonprofit space for a bit, I wanted to make a change with business as a tool for positive change. As you mentioned in the intro, I was fortunate to be one of the first hires at Beautycounter when beauty was still pretty new. Beauty also means your personal care. It is not just makeup, but all the stuff that you're putting on your body to improve your looks, appearance, and health. I was really fortunate to be an early leader in that space and establish our ingredient selection process, our sustainability goals, and policies around packaging. We were also doing a lot of advocacy, saying, “Regulate the space. It's incredibly under-regulated, and there's no need for that.” You can have a healthy business and have greater regulation.
You can have a healthy business and greater regulation that's more protective of the industry.
That's going to be more protective overall of the industry because we'll keep our customers safer and have more of a level playing field and more innovation. That was a great experience. I was at Beautycounter for about five years and led a lot of change there. The company continued to do some wonderful work after I left. I went to Credo, as you mentioned, continuing to make a change in the same industry, but in a different avenue, because Credo's a retailer. It was around 100 small and medium-sized beauty companies. A lot of indie brands and a lot of female founders are dealing with a different animal.
They're not always making their materials from scratch or products from scratch, the way that Beautycounter was. They might not have the same amount of resources. I was working on standards to have a pre-competitive approach and drive change in the industry by lifting all boats at Credo. That was a great background. I'm also happy to talk about Pact more. There are a lot of things that we learned at Pact that are relevant to what you talk about on your show.
Raising Standards: Navigating Costs And Collective Action
When you were having all boats rise, for these smaller brands, it can be tough setting a standard that might raise their cost of goods sold. Something that is also in the face of extended producer responsibility is this fee being attached, all in the spirit of driving the circular economy. It can be detrimental to a brand if they don't have the room. What were some of the ways that you addressed that or at least dealt with some of these trade-offs related to sustainability?
It's true that a lot of the time, higher standards, more quality, more sustainable ingredients, or safer ingredients can cost more. That's just an unfortunate fact, but not always. There are a couple of different ways to approach this. There are ingredients or processes that don't have to cost more or may cost more in the beginning, but your ROI is quickly realized. There's that longer-term lens approach to thinking about costs and de-risking. If we're all asking for something, we're going to help increase the supply.
Using the Credo example and these smaller companies, in the policy, the Credo Clean Standard, we're saying we don't want to use ethoxylated chemicals. This is a process by which you introduce a couple of pretty toxic feedstocks, ethylene oxide, et cetera, to ironically make an ingredient more gentle, easier to work with, and highly functional. Sometimes, you can get some contamination, like formaldehyde contamination, in the end ingredient. It costs pennies to strip out the formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen.
If you ask someone, “Do you want a little bit of formaldehyde in your baby shampoo?” The answer's pretty much always no. It doesn't matter where you're buying a product, how much it costs, where you live, or how you vote. If we're all, as brands, saying, “Suppliers, if you need to use this chemical to process and make this other chemical that we want in our end product, could you at least strip out any potential contamination or control for contamination?”, the answer from the supplier is likely to be no.
If we create standards and we come to this together, and this is just one in the weeds example, but I can use this example to say across different industries or different specific examples of materials, we can drive change in the supply chain even if there isn't state or federal policy. That is the stick. We can be a carrot and say, “We all want this. We will buy this when you do it.” Again, all boats will rise.
Do you have from that experience any examples of people that you convinced, that maybe were on the opposite side that you were able to convince towards this collective action together? What are some of the tactics that you found successful?
Fortunately, we have a lot of wins or at least progress under our belt, not just in the beauty industry, but in a few other CPG examples. Years ago, when I started doing environmental health work in the nonprofit space, we were focused on a couple of chemicals or chemical classes that were commonly found in, for example, baby bottles and sippy cups, like bisphenol A or flame retardants, and nonstick chemicals in car seats.
Approaching this together, we were letting state and federal policy makers know that we needed to make a change, but then going on the market side and saying, “Nalgene water bottles, baby bottle companies, and Whole Foods that is selling some of these products, how can we get together and say that we want to drive away from this endocrine disrupting chemical, that bisphenol A, that leaches into baby bottles, sippy cups, water bottles, but also tin cans because it's used in the epoxy resin lining tin cans? How can we move away from this chemical and toward a better substitute?”
We don't want to replace bisphenol A with bisphenol S. That did happen in a lot of cases. That was not the ask. How can we approach this wide open for customer experience, food safety, water safety, and all of that, but not having a regrettable substitution and moving the needle into a safer material? I can say that when I started this work, no one knew what BPA was, and now, it's incredibly common. You even see “BPA-free” on things that would never have had BPA in them. It's like when you see that something is not genetically modified when it has never been. What that goes to show is that when we work together and we say, “This doesn't make any sense,” the thinking that got us into this mess needs to be replaced with other thinking.
When we work together and say this doesn’t make sense, the thinking that got us into this mess must be replaced with one that is pragmatic, good for business, and good for health.
It's very pragmatic, and it's good. It can be good for business. It's good for health and for public health. Let's do it. I used BPA, but we could talk about a bunch of other chemical classes or products, and see a lot of improvement. We also see this with paper. Many years ago, it was still pretty rare to have recycled content in paper or FSC or SFI certified, well-managed forests. I don't want to say table stakes because I don't think we're quite there. The price is still more expensive than virgin in some cases, like for printer paper. The delta has shrunk. Hopefully, we'll continue to move in that direction.
Waste Reduction At Ollie: Audits, Reusables, And The Plastic Film Dilemma
Like Pratt Industries, they own all these MRFs. They don't care about the plastic or the aluminum. They just want the paper out of the MRF, material recycling facility, because they see the value and bringing that back into their packaging. You have paper companies whose value proposition is tied to this idea of recycled material. Even at Coke, it was like, “Paper's not our problem. It's easy for us to get recycled paper.” There are other categories of things where it's harder to get the recycled material back, but to your point, paper was always not a challenge from a supply standpoint and other aspects.
This is great. Thank you. First of all, this is a different category of challenges with the chemicals and everything. Thank you for bringing that perspective, but then just thinking about how to approach it as an industry and how that can be so powerful. Shifting gears a little bit back to Ollie, can you share a little bit about the change in waste reduction work you've led at Ollie? What have you learned along the way?
I'm still learning a lot, but I'm approaching the sustainability and impact work in a couple of different buckets. There's responsible sourcing, which is a big part of the work that I am leading at Ollie. There are better materials, which can be about waste reduction, whether it's your primary packaging, in our fulfillment centers, or in our shipping. That's a big one. There's the other one. We call it pawsitive action. Very cute, right?
I love a good pun myself.
That's more of the community impact work, the social impact work, so working within the rescue ecosystem and with rePurpose Global, which I briefly mentioned that work earlier. To answer your question on waste reduction, the first year that I was at Ollie, we did a full packaging audit and a material audit of every single thing that Ollie is bringing in to our operations and sending out. We were doing a list of all of the vendors and all of the materials.
This probably won't surprise you, Christine, but it can be really hard to get people to tell you what materials they're using, even when it's your problem. You're sending it to me at my fulfillment center. We have to figure out what to do with it. I don't want to just throw it in the landfill. We want to have a diversion program if we can, but how can I adequately set up any plan to reduce the material and to divert it from landfill if you won't tell me what it is? That's not an acceptable data gap in my opinion, but it's unfortunately common.
That's common for other industries, too. I know that in the electronic space, it's incredibly complicated to determine all of the thousands and thousands of materials that are used to make an iPhone. There are massive teams that are working on that, a lot of disclosure issues, and a lot of black boxes that are verified in a complicated way that isn't my wheelhouse. At Ollie, it's not quite as complicated as the electronic industry, but it is difficult. That's something that we took on because how can you responsibly manage what you're not measuring or auditing? That was just ground zero for us. That's done. Now, it's about the plan to reduce and divert from the landfill.
Wherever possible, I want to return these materials to industry since they are not mostly returnable to nature. They are talking about, for example, plastic film wrap around pallets, but we've made improvements in some of these areas. For example, a lot of our pallets and containers are reusable. We have these reusable heavy-duty plastic crates that our food is coming in from our kitchens. We're sanitizing those, reusing those, and just avoiding a ton of waste by doing that, but they're wrapped in plastic film. It is important for safety. It's important to keep the food intact and fresh because the worst sustainability disaster is when your food is damaged and unsellable after it was wrapped in plastic.
The worst sustainability disaster is when plastic-wrapped food is damaged and unsellable.
Also, to keep drivers safe and workers at the fulfillment center safe, you can't have these things sliding all over the place. How can we do it better? In telling the story to you, I can see how it sounds basic. Just reduce the amount of plastic film, but it's quite complicated when you have several filters and thousands and thousands of pounds of frozen and fresh food moving through a facility, and a lot of different workers that you need to protect.
You need to test everything and test it again to make sure that you're making the right recommendation to scale across the whole operation. That's what we're doing now. It might not be quite as sexy to talk about, or it's not as marketable, but it's really important. I look forward to being able to report on our progress and share that so that others can learn and emulate, or share more information with me, so that we can continue to improve our process.
We talk about a lot of the unsexy stuff here on this show. I'm so glad you brought up this wrapped in plastic. The reality is from an EPR perspective, flexible film has a higher fee because there's not a responsible end market for it. Back to the conversation around trade-offs, if you look at the LCA of paper versus flexible plastic per pound, a lot of times, flexible plastic comes out on top just because of the carbon processing of paper.
I read a research paper about the LCA of your salad. Bagged salad pumped with nitrogen can have more lower carbon footprint at the end of the day, largely due to the waste of the other stuff along the journey. If everything stayed fresh and didn't get thrown away, then yes, the lettuce without being wrapped in plastic would be better. The problem is with the lettuce wrapped in plastic. A lot of the lettuce gets ruined or damaged along the way. That makes the carbon footprint of that particular lettuce that shows up on the shelf much higher.
All of these are not easy trade-offs to solve for. I'm curious about your perspective on this. There's going to have to be a responsible end market for plastic. I don't think we can make it through this journey with an easy alternative. We're going to have to figure something out because there's not a good replacement from a safety perspective, from a strength perspective, and from a minimum amount of material that has to be used perspective, as flexible plastic.
The Packaging Paradox: Trade-Offs And The Quest For Innovation
There are a lot of challenges with flexible plastic. I've always said this, especially when co-founding Pact Collective. There is no silver bullet when it comes to packaging because if there were, we would just be doing that. We wouldn't be talking about it. There are always trade-offs. The important thing for practitioners, whether you're a sustainability expert, a packaging engineer, or an entrepreneur having to make decisions in real time, is that yes, there are always trade-offs, but be as informed as possible, and also be informed in terms of data and real end-of-life realities.
Where is this stuff going to go? Be also pragmatic for keeping the lights on in the business with an evolutionary mindset. You say, “There's no silver bullet. The plastic film that we use to package our fresh frozen dog food at Ollie is the best option because it's really hard to freeze fresh food in anything other than plastic. Plastic can leach toxic chemicals, but a lot of plastics are very safe, inert, and great. We know that plastic foam is the best choice for our food.” I am not a plastic apologist by any stretch of the imagination. Instead of saying, “That's it. That LCA is done. This is the only option,” we say, “This is the option for now. How can we continue to reduce that material while keeping the integrity of the food safety always, and the user experience?”
We want it to be easy for people, but can we make it thinner? Does it need to be five layers? Can it be three? You always have to reduce wherever you can, keep your eye on innovation, and continue to push and call for innovation. If you don't have these flexible films, whether it's the primary packaging around our food or in the warehouses, as we were saying, like around pallets, can we ask our partners in the supply chain to create a better way? I know that there has to be a better way. For now, this is our choice. Yes, there's no silver bullet. Yes, you have to make a decision and move ahead with your choice, but it doesn't have to be the choice forever. I don't think that we should continue to accept the status quo. We have to keep pushing.
Breaking The Mold: Advice For Sustainability Professionals
I could ask a million more questions, but I'm just going to anchor it on. You have given a lot of examples of pushing through tough realities, bringing a different perspective on changing the mindset about a chemical that was widely used. You're tackling something as tough as flexible plastics with this evolutionary mindset. What advice do you have for sustainability professionals trying to break the mold in the way that you have in your career?
There could be specific advice or a conversation. I would be happy to brainstorm with people depending on the challenge in front of them. General advice to echo the last part of our conversation is to keep making progress and keep going, but not accept that incremental or little changes are enough because they're not. We are in an ecological crisis. We are over-consuming like crazy. It's not sustainable in any way that you think of the term.
We'll use the LED light bulb example, “One at a time.” It's like, “Sure. One at a time is the only way to do anything, one foot in front of the other.” We think that's going to be enough. In packaged goods, we're seeing so many packages as recycle-ready. The implication is it's as good as a curbside pack. We can buy this pouch. It can be mono material, and we'll say that it's eligible for store drop-off for specialty collection. I am purchasing those bags for the food that we sell at Ollie. I'm a part of this system. We're doing it, too. We have to be very clear that this is a tiny step in the right direction. Most customers are not going to go recycle it at a store.
Even when the store is collecting it, there's a lot of opacity about what's happening with those materials. If you have to have a plastic pouch for your gently baked dog food, is that better than having it not be recyclable? Sure, especially if you're able to incorporate recycled content and have it be recycle-ready, then let's do that while we continue to beat the drum for more scalable solutions. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking like we're done. We checked that box. We don't have to revisit that. That's the advice that I would encourage other sustainability experts, practitioners, or just people passionate, even if it's just from the consumer, but it's a different lens. As people who buy stuff, we need to have that mindset as well.
It is this idea of evolution, but what I'm also hearing is having a little bit of grace and celebrating the steps along the way. There's one of my first coworkers in my career. She used to say, “Inch by inch, it's a cinch. Yard by yard, it's really hard.” There is some value in taking those steps and celebrating them, but knowing that that's not going to get you all the way across the finish line. That's great advice.
That is a nice summary of what I am saying. It can be hard to continue to push for more and to be the squeaky wheel. It's one of the most challenging pieces of being in the role that I am in and that I have always occupied. You get a little bit tired of being the police of things or being the thorn in the side. “We'll take that win, but just so you know, it's not enough.” It's a tough balance, not only because it's tiring, but also, people want to feel good. They don't want to feel bad. Shame will never work. You don't want to constantly be like, “That's great, but.” It's a balance. You got to celebrate, and you've got to enjoy it. I like how you use the word grace. You have a little bit of grace with these things, and then also get up another day and be ready to go again.
My friends are always like, “Can I recycle this?” They're always looking for my approval. I'm like, “You got to do what you got to do. Here are a couple of guardrails for a sustainable life.” At the end of the day, it's about what's realistic and how you push the collective forward because what you need is scale.
I know that we both share a passion and a belief in recycling as a tool in the toolbox. That's what it is to me. It's a very important tool. It's something that we need to invest in and educate all stakeholders, not just customers. I feel like there's too much emphasis and pressure on the consumer. I honestly think it's a bit of a diversion tactic or a scapegoat. “The consumer is so confused.” I wonder why most people are hovering over the recycling bin, wondering if they can put something in there. That's by design. Consumers aren't stupid. It isn't the consumer's fault. There's a lot more at play there that the people who are in the know on that need to continue to push and daylight that.
Embracing The Unpredictable: Adapting To Constant Change
Final question. How do you embrace change?
It's the only thing that we know is going to happen besides death. They feel static or constant, but they're not. I have learned, the older I get, how little control I have over so much in life. When you're younger and maybe you're feeling both idealistic, but a lot of fire in your belly for these topics, you think where there's a will, there's a way. That can be true, but also, talk about grace. You should embrace change. You're embracing the change that you know is coming, but you've also got to be ready for the change that you don't know is coming.
There are known unknowns and a lot of unknowns. I embrace it because to fight against it is a waste of time. I try to create positive change and be ready. I'm not saying that I'm always able to do this. I'm not at that place, but I try very hard to say, “What do I have control over in this situation?” Most of the time, it comes down to your reaction to it and your presence. What will you do now with the change and the information that you have?
That's great advice. I'm just going to do a little recap. Thank you. This was a wonderful conversation. I feel like people can walk away with a couple of tactical things to consider, as well as some things to embrace around owning your reaction. I'll start with one thing that you hit home in a couple of examples with Pact Collective and with Credo Beauty, and then you started to talk about it a little bit with Ollie. It is this idea of building a collective from the industry perspective and using that collective power to change, with the underlying value of how all of these boats are rising together. How are we doing this in a way that's going to drive value for the industry and make the change that we need to see?
That's a mindset that people can start to get behind, especially in the face of all this regulation, when it can feel overwhelming to comply. You can shift your mindset to how we do this together in a way that drives real change and ultimately benefits the industry. That's a really powerful theme that you brought forth. Also, transparency and the lack of transparency. You can't manage what you aren't measuring or auditing. It is true that sometimes, these suppliers have a lot of power over the smaller brands or different-sized brands, even larger brands, if it's not their full main bread and butter.
Pushing on, getting that level of transparency through the supply chain, measuring, and then showing the progress is very important. I know that there's a lot of commentary out there about too much reporting. To your point, what are the things you're trying to track, audit, change, and focus on there? I loved the conversation about plastic film because I have this view that this is a big nut that the industry needs to crack.
Like your point about being as pragmatic as possible, evolutionary, and mindset, even with the example of this being recyclable-ready, it's as sustainable as it can be in this current climate and still setting the bar for how to move forward and change, and pushing for innovation. Finally, it is owning your reaction to the changes that need to happen. If you're overwhelmed and tired and it's exhausting to push that heavy boulder up that steep hill, give yourself some grace, accept what you can control, and try to focus there. Thank you so much. This was a great conversation. Any final words?
Beyond Competition: Collaboration For Greater Impact
I think we hit on it, but I guess one final word. We talked a lot about collaboration and transparency. We need to stop seeing sustainability or materiality as either a market differentiator or as risk. I get that what I just said isn't going to fly for a lot of people, depending on their role in the company. They're just like, “No, that's what it is for me.” If, as practitioners and experts, we can start to use different language and plant seeds so that we can take a more pre-competitive approach to some of these challenges, it's not only going to help movement in an organization. It's going to have a much greater impact because, as we've indicated in this conversation, none of this can happen alone.
We need to stop seeing sustainability or materiality as merely a market differentiator or a risk.
It can't happen in silos because siloed thinking is really a large part of what got us into the messes that we're in anyway. It's all connected. We're a medium-sized company. We're growing, and that's all very exciting, but no matter how big we are, we're not going to solve any of these problems. We need to be working with our partners in our industry and outside of our industry. A more collaborative approach is a real win-win. We can look at Pact Collective as one successful example that continues to grow and evolve.
I hope people will check out PactCollective.org to get some inspiration and maybe think about how they can do similar work in their industry. Also, the apparel industry and the footwear industry have been doing some amazing work to reduce the use of hazardous and very toxic chemicals in their supply chain and have greater disclosures and set goals around chemical use, the use of dead stock, and sustainability issues regarding how materials are grown, and just how much stuff we already have. How do we use what we have instead of creating more? That's an industry that is a great example of pre-competitive collaboration, too.
Thank you so much.
Thanks for having me.
Important Links
About Mia Davis
Mia is an impact leader who sets the high bar for meaningful safety, sustainability and transparency standards that are pro-health and pro-business. She is currently Chief Impact Officer of Ollie, a science-backed, human-grade dog food company.
She was one of the first hires at Beautycounter, and later went on to lead at Credo Beauty where she created The Credo Clean Standard (TM), including the Sustainable Packaging Guidelines-- retail's strongest "clean" formula and packaging standards. In 2021, Mia co-founded the nonprofit membership organization Pact Collective to start to make a dent in hard-to-recycle beauty waste, and to bring beauty stakeholders together to move toward circularity.