Rethinking Sustainability: Beyond greenwashing and towards real impact

Sustainability is everywhere. It dominates corporate reports, conference panels, and marketing campaigns. We see it in glossy advertisements, on product packaging, and in job descriptions. 

Yet, despite its ubiquity, environmental crises deepen, emissions continue to rise, and biodiversity plummets. It’s time to ask: What is the real objective of sustainability? And are we actually making progress, or just perfecting the illusion of it?

Origins of modern sustainability

The mainstream concept of sustainability, as we know it today, was formalized in 2004 through the United Nations’  Who Cares Wins  report. Endorsed primarily by financial institutions, this initiative linked sustainability to economic resilience rather than planetary well-being. The report emphasized how companies could increase shareholder value by managing risks, anticipating regulation, and protecting brand reputation. A simple word search of the document shows that ‘climate’ is frequently collocated with ‘financial,’ ‘earnings,’ ‘competitiveness,’ and ‘risk.’ Sustainability, at least in its corporate context, was never about saving the planet—it was about protecting profits from environmental disruptions.

The rise 

The sustainability sector has exploded in recent years, offering career opportunities for those eager to drive positive change. Yet, many entering the field have little or no background in environmental science. Professionals are often recruited from marketing, communications, or human resources teams to craft compelling narratives about corporate responsibility. Sustainability reporting has, in many cases, become an exercise in greenwashing rather than a genuine effort to reduce environmental harm.

Materiality—the principle that dictates what gets included in sustainability reports—is highly subjective. Companies have the freedom to highlight the issues that present them in the best light while downplaying inconvenient truths. Some reports stretch to 100 pages; others condense everything into a polished 12-page summary. The inconsistencies raise an unsettling question: If companies can selectively disclose their sustainability efforts, how do we hold them accountable?

Business of greenwashing

Sustainability is now a lucrative business. Recognition as a ‘sustainability leader’ can be bought through paid features in magazines or sponsorships at high-profile environmental conferences. Many speakers at these events represent companies with questionable environmental track records, yet their narratives are carefully curated to align with sustainability goals. The reality is that corporations invest heavily in public relations to shape their green image, often without making substantive changes to their business practices.

Even widely accepted sustainability practices are riddled with contradictions. Take carbon offsetting—a strategy in which companies compensate for emissions by funding projects like tree planting. While it sounds promising, it often serves as a license to continue polluting rather than a genuine effort to decarbonize. The same applies to recycling initiatives. Many ‘recycled plastic’ products cannot be reliably verified, and in regions lacking recycling infrastructure, they often end up in landfills or the ocean anyway. Yet, these efforts contribute to the appearance of sustainability, providing reassurance without real accountability.

Problem with sustainability reporting

The sheer volume of sustainability reports being produced raises another concern—how much carbon is emitted just to document sustainability efforts? Between printing, data storage, and business travel for emissions assessments, the sustainability industry itself contributes to environmental impact. We spend millions developing frameworks, standards, and certifications, yet we rarely question whether these processes lead to actual improvements or merely add to bureaucratic complexity.

Why are companies investing so heavily in sustainability marketing but not in environmental education for their employees? Why aren’t sustainability professionals required to have a foundational understanding of environmental science, climate change, or resource management? If the goal is to drive meaningful change, shouldn’t we be focusing on science and solutions rather than messaging?

Carbon tunnel vision 

Climate change is often reduced to a myopic discussion about carbon emissions, but sustainability is much broader than that. Biodiversity loss, soil degradation, deforestation, and ocean acidification are equally critical. Yet, corporate sustainability efforts often prioritize carbon accounting and carbon credits while ignoring the complex ecological systems that sustain life on Earth. The emphasis on metrics and a carbon tunnel vision oversimplifies what sustainability should truly mean.

Towards action

If sustainability is to be more than a corporate buzzword, it must shift from optics to action. This means moving away from performative greenwashing and toward genuine efforts that prioritize planetary health over branding:

Embedding science into sustainability roles  – Prioritize hiring experts in environmental science, resource management, and climate policy rather than relying solely on communications professionals to shape their narratives.

Holding companies accountable  – Independent audits, stronger regulations, and transparent reporting mechanisms can help prevent selective disclosures and misleading claims.

Funding real solutions  – Instead of spending millions on sustainability conferences and PR campaigns, businesses should invest in initiatives that restore ecosystems, support conservation efforts, and develop truly circular economies.

Educating the public  – Sustainability should not just be about corporate responsibility. Schools, media, and governments should actively promote environmental literacy to empower individuals to make informed choices.

Re-evaluating our consumption models  – True sustainability is not about ‘greener’ consumerism but about consuming less, reusing more, and designing products with longevity and recyclability in mind.

The future 

We need to move beyond the idea that sustainability is an accessory to capitalism. If we continue to treat it as a marketing tool, we will only delay necessary systemic change. The question is no longer whether sustainability can be profitable but whether profit-driven sustainability can ever be enough.

Sustainability—when done right—still holds the power to drive meaningful change. If we strip away the greenwashing, rethink our priorities, and commit to real action, we can create a future where sustainability is not just a concept but a lived reality.

The challenge is immense, but so is the opportunity. It’s time to redefine what sustainability truly means and ensure that it serves not just corporate interests but the planet and future generations as well.