In the early 2000s, California-based Guayakí popularized the caffeinated drink, yerba mate, among young people and creative types. With revenues of $100 million, Guayakí dominates the U.S. market where it is synonymous with yerba mate. This essay explores how Guayakí transformed a foreign product with deep local meaning, widespread popularity, and a long history in southern South America from a shared beverage and social practice into a healthy energy drink. Typically, localization entails multinational companies and local consumers adapting and giving new meanings to an exotic foreign product or brand. In contrast, local entrepreneurs radically changed yerba mate while preserving part of its narrative. Guayakí promotes product authenticity based on a narrative of South American Indigenous origins, stimulating qualities, and health benefits that fits with superfoods, while a narrative of green capitalism promotes brand authenticity. But that was not enough to popularize yerba mate. The product had to be adapted to consumer taste preferences and values that challenge the foundational ideas of superfoods and green capitalism. As a result of consumer input acquired through grassroots marketing, Guayakí transformed a shared infusion into something closer to a soft drink—a pre-prepared, individual-sized beverage served in a single-use bottle or can with flavoring and sugar levels tailored to U.S. consumers. The essay exposes the role of local entrepreneurs and consumers in shaping product development and localization. It complicates our understanding of product authenticity and brand authenticity while exposing the limitations of green capitalism, ethical consumerism, and activist entrepreneurship.

Global conservation policy and global capitalism have become increasingly intertwined over the last decade. The move towards ‘green capitalism’ has manifested itself in diverse ways, most notably in the expansion of payments for environmental services and attempts to commodify nature. However, there are concerns that prioritizing the financial value of nature could undermine efforts to conserve biodiversity. One particularly strong set of critiques has emerged from political economy. While providing rich theoretical and empirical insights into the potential downsides of green capitalism, the literature is often dense and difficult for non-specialists to navigate. Here I review and translate its main concepts and critiques for a conservation audience. I begin by exploring the basic process of commodity exchange. I then consider nature as a reluctant and uncooperative commodity that often requires new institutions and technologies to be commodified. This means conservation organizations play a key role in green capitalism's political economy. These developments are likely to have considerable social and environmental impacts, with a highly uneven distribution of costs and benefits.