Think about any constructed environment you have been in…your house, school, a park, a cafe, or even the train or bus you take every morning. Have you ever stopped to think about what these places are made up of? How are those materials made, and how do they impact our health and the health of the natural environment around them? Is the label a promise - or a performance?
In today’s society, with climate health rapidly decreasing, the word “sustainable” has become quite the catchphrase amongst design firms and material manufacturers.
According to the United Nations Brundtland Commission, sustainability is defined ass meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. That essentially means a true sustainable material must also give value back to the natural environment, not just take from it.
We see the words “eco-friendly”, “sustainable design”, or “biodegradable” on packaging, and immediately think it is a good purchase and that these brands are making an impact, a step closer to repairing some of the damage to the environment… or are they simply capitalizing off the rapid decline of the climate?
Manufacturing such materials greatly affects how “sustainable” they truly are. Sustainability goes far beyond just the application, there must be ample proof. The manufacturing of materials includes the collection of supplies required for processing, the machinery needed for production, how much energy it requires, how many fossil fuels it produces, and how that affects the environment. Is it a lengthy and energy-intensive process? Does acquiring the materials needed to manufacture the piece require another layer of damage to an ecosystem? Are there disruptions?
Perhaps the issue in concern here is greenwashing - a “form of advertising that deceptively uses green marketing to persuade the public that an organization’s products are environmentally friendly”. Several brands have put in actual effort and resources to decarbonize operations; however, in a global sweep by the International Consumer Protection Enforcement Network, agents have found that 4 in 10 websites use greenwashing tactics. This presents a large disservice to loyal consumers and start-ups attempting to make a change. Picture this: you are a young interior designer, new to the industry, just trying to gain momentum for your start-up design company. You take on a project that's rather challenging for a new company - designing the entire space using only sustainably sourced materials, cool, right? You do some research and find amazing companies that manufacture products by repurposing harmful materials. You think you’re doing an amazing job trying to do your part in making a change; you trust these companies, invest in their products, and get to building. Fast forward a few years; you see the same companies you’ve been so loyal to on the news… they’re facing a lawsuit? False advertising? You feel betrayed, distraught, and anxious. Now, suddenly, you lose all credibility, and your new business starts to decline. This is just one example of the way hundreds of people are affected by false green claims, not only on an emotional level but also on a business and professional level.
So, where did this all begin? Back in 1864, George Perkins Marsh published a book, Man and Nature, that challenged the belief that human impact on the environment was “benign” and claimed that their abuse of the environment brought about the downfall of ancient Mediterranean civilization. This book warned Americans that we may also experience the same downfall if we repeat the same mistakes and fail to end our destructive waste of natural resources. Later, in 1970, the first Earth Day was celebrated. 17 years later, as mentioned before, the Brundtland Report defines sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." And finally, in 1992, the “Earth Summit”, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, was held in Rio de Janeiro, bringing together about 179 countries to bring focus to the impact of human socio-economic activities on the environment. Following these events, corporate America finally started to take this issue seriously, hence introducing specific certifications such as LEED and Agenda 21 (a program, or rather a plan, of action calling for new strategies to invest in a greener future and achieve sustainable development). These were revolutionary events in the history of “sustainable development” and a turning point in the future of industrial America; these were some of the first steps towards a “greener future”. But these were also the first steps towards the monetary exploitation of environmental issues.. This is when performative sustainability began.
To further understand the true severity of such an issue, we must first analyze the effects of greenwashing. As I illustrated earlier, the effects of greenwashing are not just environmental, they are moral. It is a clear display of the erosion of public trust and an utterly disgusting example of capitalism. As mentioned several times throughout this paper, sustainability is clearly widespread, but what makes it real? Who gets to define it? You may think of certifications like LEED or B Corp; LEED is one of the most widely used and recognized green building rating systems in the world. This is one of the best ways to go if a building is green, but to what extent? Similarly, B Corp is a certification that designates that a business is meeting high standards in performance, verification, and accountability. This certification includes the B Impact Assessment, which evaluates the social and environmental performance of a business. It also requires that possible certificate holders exhibit true transparency and legal commitment. Both of these certifications are extremely helpful in determining the genuineness of a “sustainable” brand, but what about the brands that are more widely recognized, have more resources (money), and already have the trust of the public? What about manufacturers that can’t afford such certifications?
If a company claims to use recycled materials in their products to reduce waste but equips unethical and harmful methods of production and transportation, is it still “sustainable”?
Let’s take a look at a popular and globally recognized furniture company, IKEA. In 2020, IKEA launched a “buy-back initiative” on Black Friday to reduce excessive consumption that usually occurs during that event. This scheme allowed customers to sell back old products, which would be graded on a quality basis of “as new”; the customers would then receive a voucher with no expiry date to encourage them to only buy new furniture when needed. According to Euro News, IKEA UK and Ireland's chief sustainability officer, Peter Jelkeby, hopes to create more affordable and easy solutions to help people live more sustainably. He says, “Sustainability is the defining issue of our time, and IKEA is committed to being part of the solution to promote sustainable consumption and combat climate change.” Sounds rather promising, no? Circular fashion and decor are one of the best ways to make something more environmentally friendly, but is that enough? IKEA even decided to build its “most sustainable store” in Greenwich, London - this sounds promising until you learn that a sustainably designed supermarket was torn down after less than just 20 years in business to make space. Does it make sense to call this sustainable if that was the very thing used to justify the destruction of a perfectly well-operated structure? Tearing down a well-working, sustainable building to build an even more sustainable building sounds perfectly environmentally friendly and logical. If a circular business plan is the goal here, what is the point in building more stores and increasing carbon emissions due to extra transportation, and encouraging more consumerism? IKEA did, in fact, also put in true effort to promote circular design. In 2020, the company promised that within the decade, all products would be made out of repurposed, renewable, recycled, and recyclable materials. Additionally, IKEA has also invested €600 million globally in attempts to become fully circular. As of 2020, the company has invested over €3.2 billion in sustainability initiatives within 10 years. The real question is, however, how much of this is performance? Should we measure sustainability by the outcome or by the intent?
On the other hand, a tech company’s contradictions are harder to trace than a furniture store’s. Apple has consistently been a leader in efforts to reduce climate damage, it even claimed that the new Apple Watch released in 2023 was carbon neutral, on track to achieve Apple’s goal of being 100% carbon neutral by 2030. According to a study at UPenn, in March 2023, Apple claimed that “over 250 suppliers making up over 85 percent of Apple’s direct spend for materials, manufacturing, and assembly of our products worldwide have committed to using renewable electricity for their Apple production.” However, in a report done by the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, it was found that 24% of Apple’s 250 producers that have pledged to use renewable energy “are unable to achieve clean energy substitution through onsite renewable electricity or renewable power purchases, etc., and need to purchase renewable energy certificates.” This brings me back to my earlier point of such certifications being inaccessible globally. These certifications, which were initially intended to help fund renewable energy development, often have the opposite effect due to their inaccessibility across the globe.
Let us return to my original question: What are our environments made of, digital and physical? When something is labeled as sustainable or eco-friendly, are we truly indulging in that? Should we trust corporations wholeheartedly, or push for more?
As green certifications continue to be a large part of market credibility, there is more pressure on companies to appear “sustainable” to maintain a strong presence in the current world. Much like IKEA’s buy-back program and Apple’s carbon-neutral claims, several other large retailers are attempting to enter the world of sustainability, but they often get lost in the web of PR, accountability, labels, and certifications. Although the intentions may be there, the line between true sustainability and greenwashing often gets blurred. Across industries, there has always been one question that remains unanswered: Who defines “green” and who is held accountable?
So what now?
Perhaps, we, as consumers, are the problem. We are quick to believe anything that is marketed well enough. We reward those who take advantage of the label of sustainability as a selling point rather than pushing for further proof and holding them accountable. In this age of impatience, stress, and desperation, we often prioritize visibility over verification. Instead of measuring marketing, we must remind ourselves what sustainability really meant before the word was stretched, molded, and manipulated to fit whatever was being sold; we must be slower to buy whatever information they sell us.