In the modern race toward sustainability, nearly every organization, city, and individual wants to wear the green badge of responsibility. Yet not all sustainability is created equal. In fact, some actions done in the name of sustainability can cause more harm than good — a phenomenon increasingly referred to as “bad sustainability.”

What Is Bad Sustainability?

“Bad sustainability” occurs when well-intentioned efforts to protect the environment or promote social good lead to unintended, counterproductive, or inequitable outcomes. It’s sustainability in appearance, not in substance — a set of actions that might check the right boxes but fail to create lasting, positive impact.

While the term is not yet formalized in academic circles, the underlying issues are well-documented. Bad sustainability manifests in several familiar forms: greenwashing, shallow sustainability, maladaptation, and socially unjust sustainability practices.

---

1. Greenwashing: When Image Outweighs Impact

Greenwashing remains one of the most pervasive forms of bad sustainability. Corporations promote eco-friendly campaigns or “carbon-neutral” products while maintaining high-emission supply chains or opaque reporting practices. This not only misleads consumers but also diverts attention from genuine innovation and accountability.

Example: A company promoting recyclable packaging while its production process emits high levels of pollution — the core problem remains untouched.

---

2. Shallow Sustainability: Doing Less Harm Instead of Doing Good

Many initiatives aim to “reduce impact” without changing underlying systems. While incremental improvements have value, shallow sustainability often delays meaningful transformation. It can comfort stakeholders with progress reports that mask stagnation.

True sustainability requires systems-level change — rethinking consumption patterns, redesigning business models, and embedding circular thinking throughout the value chain.

---

3. Maladaptation: Solving One Problem, Creating Another

Some climate adaptation measures, while effective in the short term, produce long-term vulnerabilities. For instance, coastal sea walls may protect certain areas from flooding but exacerbate erosion and displacement elsewhere. This is maladaptation — a form of bad sustainability that shifts risk rather than reducing it.

A sustainable solution should enhance resilience across systems, not simply relocate the damage.

---

4. Sustainability Without Justice

Sustainability efforts that disregard social equity risk reinforcing the very injustices they claim to solve. Conservation projects that displace Indigenous communities or renewable energy projects that exclude local labor are stark reminders that environmental progress cannot come at the expense of people.

Sustainability must always balance the triple bottom line — environmental integrity, social equity, and economic viability.

---

Toward “Good Sustainability”

Avoiding bad sustainability begins with critical reflection. Organizations should move beyond compliance checklists and corporate image management to ask harder questions:

• Who benefits, and who bears the cost?
• Are we solving symptoms or root causes?
• How will our actions perform over time and across systems?

Authentic sustainability is transparent, inclusive, and adaptive. It acknowledges complexity and embraces accountability.

---

Final Thoughts

Bad sustainability is not just a theoretical flaw — it’s a real-world challenge with lasting consequences. As sustainability professionals, our task is not merely to pursue “green” initiatives but to ensure they are effective, equitable, and enduring.

Good intentions are only the beginning; impact is what counts.