The sustainability paradox

I was privileged to attend an excellent lunchtime workshop hosted by Great South last Friday, sharing strategies for businesses to reduce their carbon emissions and begin their sustainability journey. And it got me thinking—what is true sustainability?

We often feel good about taking tangible actions—we recycle our coffee cups, switch to LED bulbs, bring reusable totes to the supermarket, and invest in insulation for our homes and businesses. But what if those well-meaning choices have ripple effects that do more harm than good?

Did you know that you need to reuse an organic cotton tote bag at least 20,000 times before its environmental impact offsets that of a single-use plastic bag (Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2018)? Let that sink in. The energy required and environmental impact of producing one organic cotton bag is the equivalent of 20,000 plastic bag uses.

This isn’t to say we shouldn’t aim for more sustainable choices. But it does beg the question—are we focusing on the wrong things?

The hidden cost of ‘sustainable’ choices

Have you ever considered the net impact and the unintended consequences of your sustainability efforts? Take recycling, for instance. Some forms of recycling actually use more energy than they save (Mayers et al., 2021). Or consider LED lighting—while it reduces energy consumption, widespread adoption has led to increased light pollution, which raises concerns about its social impact (Mohamed, 2022). And what happens to all the old bulbs we replace?

Another example is business insulation. While it reduces long-term energy usage, what about the production and transport emissions, the supply chain effects, and the packaging waste? In other words—what’s the net contribution to sustainability?

Too often, sustainability is viewed through a short-term lens focused on individual or isolated improvements. But if we really want to make a difference, we need to understand how every action interacts with the wider system.

Why surface-level sustainability falls short

Surface-level sustainability actions may look good on paper, but they can lack depth and genuine impact. In the past, many corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts have been performative or motivated by reputation rather than true transformation, leading to impact that looks great in the short term, but lacks meaningful change.

This is where frameworks like Elkington’s Triple Bottom Line (TBL) (2004) and Rezaee’s ESGEE model (2016) come in. These frameworks advocate for evaluating business impact holistically across economic, social, environmental, ethical, and governance dimensions. However, to be effective, these efforts must be strategic, integrated, and deeply rooted in systems thinking.

What is systems thinking, really?

Systems thinking asks us to zoom out and look at the big picture—the web of relationships, feedback loops, and ripple effects that define how our actions influence our society and the world. It’s not about ticking boxes. It’s about understanding that everything is interconnected.

When looking at sustainability, businesses must consider more than just direct savings or short-term wins. For instance, when evaluating insulation, a direct cost-benefit analysis isn’t enough. What about the workers involved in manufacturing it? The emissions from global transport? The packaging waste?

Systems thinking encourages us to examine not just what we do, but how those actions fit into a broader network of environmental, economic, and social consequences.

Rethinking business responsibility

Over the past decades, the role of businesses in society has evolved from a profit-first mindset to one that must prioritise social wellbeing and systemic sustainability. Dixon (2017) puts it best: “Economic growth is not the ultimate goal. It is a means to an end. The ultimate goal is maximizing the long-term well-being of society.”

Strategic sustainability initiatives can enhance long-term business performance, investor trust, and industry resilience. But more importantly, they influence social norms, policy development, and public expectations. They shift the system.

Businesses must take on the responsibility of contributing to systemic change, not just isolated improvements. A well-meaning recycling program won’t matter much if your supply chain relies on harmful extraction practices.

The root problem: Overconsumption and fast systems

Here’s the truth that no amount of LED lighting or tote bag reuses can fix—we live in a system designed for overconsumption.

Fast fashion. Fast tech. Fast food. Our economy relies on a model where value is driven by buying more, upgrading constantly, and throwing things away. Even when we try to be more ‘sustainable,’ society still rewards speed, convenience, and disposability.

The sustainability movement often focuses on mitigating harm within this system—but rarely questions the system itself.

Until we tackle the core issue of consumerism and redefine success beyond economic growth, our sustainability efforts will always be limited (Systems Change Lab, 2023).

Final reflection: Start thinking in systems

So, what now?

We don’t need to throw out our reusable bags or stop recycling. But we do need to think deeper. Ask bigger questions. Understand where and how our actions fit within the broader societal system.

True sustainability isn’t just about doing less harm. It’s about designing better systems that stop creating harm in the first place.

And that starts by thinking critically, reflecting deeply, and being willing to zoom out before we zoom in.

Danish Environmental Protection Agency. (2018, February). Life cycle assessment of grocery carrier bags. https://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2018/02/978-87-93614-73-4.pdf 

Dixon, F. (2017). High-level system change: Protecting business and society. Cadmus, 3(3), 98–112. https://www.cadmusjournal.org/node/651 

Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson (Eds.), The triple bottom line: Does it all add up? (pp. 1–16). Routledge.

Mayers, K., Davis, T., Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2021). Circular economy: A slippery step on the path to sustainability? Seven lessons to address resource consumption. (INSEAD Working Paper No. 2021/65/TOM). INSEAD. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3960908  

Mohamed, W. (2022, September 14). Increase in LED lighting ‘risks harming human and animal health.’ The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/14/increase-in-led-lighting-risks-harming-human-and-animal-health 

Rezaee, Z. (2016). Business sustainability research: A theoretical and integrated perspective. Journal of Accounting Literature, 36, 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2016.05.003

Systems Change Lab. (2023). Circular economy system: Decrease overconsumption. https://systemschangelab.org/circular-economy/decrease-overconsumption