(Photo by Ana Municio via Unsplash)

Sustainability communicators have a language problem. “Sustainable” as a description of their efforts, offerings, or achievements might be doing more harm than good. Thankfully, there are other ways to communicate the same concept that are truer, clearer, and more impactful.

Below, I discuss the problems with “sustainable” as a descriptor and explain why it’s in our best interest to avoid using it. I also discuss the only time it makes sense to use it.

In Part 2, I provide some recommendations for improving your language, ensuring that you’re meeting your communication goals, and making a strong impact on your audience.

So what’s wrong with “sustainable”? Let’s dive in…

Reason 1: Calling something “sustainable” is usually incorrect.

This first reason may come as a surprise, as the words “sustainability” and “sustainable” are so ubiquitous these days. How could so many people — including the most respected sustainability experts and advocates — be wrong?

Hear me out on this one.

Do you know the phrase “think globally, act locally”? This slogan encourages us to consider the larger consequences of our decisions (for example, how commuting by car contributes to climate change) and to make changes within our control that improve negative outcomes (carpooling or riding public transit instead). The phrase captures the idea that our daily decisions are relevant to sustainability on a global scale. Individual actions can add up to big, systemic changes.

This concept also holds true within organizations. All the decisions made across the workforce of a single company — as employees go about designing, manufacturing and selling products — have collective significance. The same goes for decisions made by companies across an industry. And so forth.

So local actions are necessary, but when are they sufficient? In other words, at what point does “local action” reach a critical mass and tip the scale toward solving or reversing the big crises of our time, such as climate change and species loss?

Consider this: How many sustainable products and services do we need to reverse climate change? How many sustainable businesses, or sustainable cities or nations? Certainly, one is not enough.

If that’s true, is it ever accurate to say that one thing is sustainable, to the exclusion of all else around it?

To me, the answers to these questions seem obvious.

But here’s where it gets interesting: “sustainable” is an adjective, and adjectives must — by definition — describe something. “Sustainable” is therefore reductive by nature, the opposite of holistic; it points to and isolates a single something from everything around it. Unsurprisingly, the same applies to many of the buzzwords associated with greenwashing, like “green,” “eco-friendly,” or “recyclable.”

To call something “sustainable” is to lose awareness of the bigger picture, because it stakes claim to our own achievements without seeing that humanity’s future depends on so much more.

In a sense, “sustainable” stands for the very opposite of what sustainability professionals and communicators are trying to achieve: showing that everything is interconnected.

Reason 2: “Sustainable” can mean a million different things.

If anything can be framed within the context of global sustainability, how many meanings can the word “sustainable” realistically contain?

As discussed in this article on the decline and fall of buzzwords, the utility of a word declines the more meanings it tries to hold.

Take “sustainable material.” Off the top of my head, a sustainable material could mean any of these: non-toxic, does not emit VOCs, an organic material, made with recycled material, recyclable, compostable, low-carbon, sourced locally, sourced without testing on or killing animals, sourced from supply chains without slave or child labor or deforestation, fairly traded….

You get the picture. That list doesn’t even include subcategories, such as “compostable at commercial facilities” versus “compostable in your backyard” versus “breaks down in the ocean.”

“Sustainable” is often used when describing one or more beneficial features, but given the near-infinite number of possible features that exist, readers end up having to guess based on context. And context is not very reliable. Just try reading this article on the circular economy in the auto industry and see if you can guess what “sustainable” means every time it’s used. Don’t worry — I was scratching my head too.

Reason 3: Calling something “sustainable” erodes trust.

Imagine a world where everything marketed and sold is described in some way as “good” for people, the environment, or the economy. A world bursting with products and services that promise, in some way or another, a remedy for our societal ills.

Now imagine a world where, despite this bolded, right-in-your-face messaging, global warming persists unabated. Rainforests still burn, and fish stocks still decline. Microplastics are found everywhere, from human blood to the deepest parts of the ocean. Nuclear weapons and slavery still exist.

It’s not hard to imagine this world, because it’s the one we’re living in today. No wonder people are pessimistic about climate solutions and losing trust in institutions.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m not against being hopeful. Every small step taken to be more sustainable is essential and worth celebrating.

But when we do talk about our steps toward sustainability, we should use our language carefully, without exaggeration, and with awareness of what “solutions” are actually necessary.

When to use “sustainable”: To mobilize people around a shared vision.

I believe the expression of sustainability as an adjective runs counter to what we mean when we talk about it.

If anything, “sustainability” is not an adjective, but a verb. It’s not a state we can achieve right now or in the near future. It’s an aspiration, an ideal: a transition from a less to a more desired state. It’s a vision, a value, and a commitment that we must all share and act on, both individually and collectively.

I would even go so far as to say that nothing is sustainable, because sustainability as a realized state doesn’t live in discrete, static elements. It’s a concept realized en masse as a forward motion.

In summary: when you use the word “sustainable,” make sure it’s clear that you’re talking about your vision. And then make sure you explain with specificity and practicality what it means to your audience.

I’m confident that by considering these recommendations, you’ll communicate in ways that truly serve your purpose and build the trust, hope, and momentum for action that we need.

(Written by Stephen Jensen. Copyedited by Jules Luck.)