When you hear the word sustainability, what is the first thing that comes to mind?

I have noticed a trend in meetings, at conferences and in policy discussions: sustainability experts increasingly emphasise resilience, social justice and innovation rather than sustainability itself [16].

As a sustainable innovator myself, I understand the appeal. These concepts bring important dimensions into focus that can get lost when sustainability is reduced to environmental compliance, carbon accounting or individual consumption choices.

However, there is more to this trend than redirecting attention: we are actively avoiding the word sustainability itself. Sustainability has become a taboo word [2, 23]. It is associated with consuming less, making sacrifices or paying more—and with the feeling that, in the face of a global crisis, the responsibility to change falls on each of us individually [1–4].

We are at a point where we sustainability experts fear backlash if we so break the taboo and utter the word sustainability. By avoiding it, however, we risk losing sight of its holistic meaning and promise. Sustainability is about creating societies in which people can thrive, businesses can innovate, communities can flourish and the planet can sustain life [5]. Resilience, social justice and innovation are not interchangeable with sustainability. They are integral to what it encompasses: wellbeing, planetary boundaries, just transitions and regeneration.

If we focus on resilience alone, for example, we may build a world where people learn to endure systems that should change. If we focus on innovation without considering planetary boundaries, we can create new environmental problems while solving existing ones [1].

My argument is simple: we should not abandon sustainability. We need to reclaim its full meaning.

In this article, I propose three practical steps to shift the narrative from “less and worse” to “win-win for all”—and help researchers, policymakers, business leaders, innovators and citizens turn sustainability challenges into opportunities for meaningful change.

How sustainability became synonymous with “less” and “worse”

How did we get here?

Sustainability conversations often begin with a problem: we consume too much, emit too much and waste too much.

These are legitimate concerns. Ecological limits are real, and some activities, consumption patterns and business models must change [1].

However, when sustainability is communicated primarily as a list of things we must give up [1–4], we make it harder for people to see what they stand to gain. By framing the path towards sustainability in terms of less, sacrifice and restriction, we risk making the destination itself feel less desirable.

The implicit bargain becomes: Accept something worse today for the greater good tomorrow.

Yet tomorrow can feel distant, uncertain and, at times, dystopian. Why should people enthusiastically embrace sustainability if neither the path towards it nor the future it promises seems desirable?

Sustainability is not just about minimising environmental harm. It is about understanding how environmental limits, human needs, social structures and economic systems interact—and using that understanding to create better futures [5, 6]. It is about what we want: good lives, thriving communities, fair societies and a liveable planet.

Of course, sustainability sometimes requires us to consume less, accept constraints and make difficult choices. The problem is not acknowledging these realities. It is allowing sacrifice to become the defining narrative, even when better alternatives are possible [7–10].

1. Reframe: From sacrifice to possibility

The first step is to change the stories we tell ourselves and the actions we take as a result.

The next time you develop a strategy, shape a policy, design a technology or discuss sustainability in everyday life [9, 12, 13], try a different perspective.

Rather than focusing only on what we must stop doing, ask:

What future do we want to create, despite and in the midst of climate change?

Accepting the reality of climate change does not mean giving up on the possibility of a better future. The work ahead is substantial, and the challenges are real. But we need to keep imagining what is worth working towards—and explore alternatives that meet genuine emotional, social and functional needs.

Consider the difference between communicating what people must give up and showing them what we could create instead.

The sacrifice narrative	The better-futures narrative
Reduce energy consumption. The implied future: cold in winter and hot in summer.	Retrofit homes to become climate-resilient. The desired future: comfortable through heatwaves and cold winters, with lower energy bills.

The point is not to naively replace negative words with positive ones [21]. I am not advocating superficial positivity or greenwashing. I call for realistic, actionable optimism [18–20]: acknowledging climate disruption and planetary boundaries while finding better ways to meet human needs. The goal is not to make sustainability sound nice, but to imagine and build desirable, ecologically viable futures [5].

When we ask, “How can we ensure wellbeing despite volatile markets, escalating conflicts and accelerating climate risks?”, we open ourselves to exploring pathways forward instead of remaining stuck in grief for the world we know or fear of the world to come.

Your challenge: In your next sustainability project, start with the future you want to make possible—not just the problem you need to reduce. Research suggests that having a clear goal or vision can help strengthen people’s intentions to act [3, 4, 8, 17, 19, 20, 22]. Watch, read, remember or listen to stories where innovations exist within the bounds of nature. The media we consume influences the worlds we want to build.

“In the utopias of today lie the solutions for tomorrow.” — Pierre Rabhi

Explore this free resource for inspiration: MIT Envisioning Cards to imagine alternative sociotechnical futures.

2. Act: From possibility to actionable pathways

Imagining a better future is the first step. Making it happen is another challenge entirely. When faced with a complex, systemic problem like sustainability, it is easy to feel overwhelmed: Where do we start? Which actions will make a difference? And how do we know whether we are making progress?

How can we make it happen?

For researchers, this means questioning reductionist methodologies, embracing holistic and interdisciplinary approaches, and daring to think beyond disciplinary boundaries [15]. Sustainability is a systemic challenge, and our research must reflect that—by bringing science and art together, for example. Just as importantly, we need to communicate our findings in ways that inspire people, policymakers and businesses to act. We do not need yet another expert telling the world that climate change is bad. We need research that shows what we can do about it, gives people hope and visions of futures to strive towards, and is championed by researchers willing to loudly advocate for better futures.

For policymakers, it means creating the conditions for sustainable transitions. Policy can accelerate sustainable innovation, phase out unsustainable systems, and support the workers, industries and communities affected by these changes [24, 25]. It can also coordinate action across interconnected systems, such as energy, buildings and transport, through integrated planning and public participation [26]. Think tanks and researchers have developed frameworks and practical guidance to help policymakers put these principles into practice [REFs].

It also means challenging dominant cultural narratives [26] and familiar ways of thinking (e.g. New Metaphors). And it means avoiding the “why should I if they don’t?” trap: upholding sustainability commitments and values, and pursuing international agreements that provide a shared, long-term direction for systemic change.

For businesses, it means exploring sustainable business models and circular economy strategies. Tools such as 55 Business Model Patterns, 40 Circular Economy Patterns, the Sustainable Business Model Canvas and the Sustainable Innovation Methodology can help translate sustainability ambitions into concrete opportunities for innovation and value creation.

And for citizens? Do not get caught up in perfecting every tiny behaviour. Individual choices matter, but so does collective action. A good place to start is to try the Climate Action Simulation, a role-play game where you test climate policies and see how they play out (or read their free publication [22]). Then vote, educate (without judgement!), get involved in your community, and help shape the systems that shape our lives. Many of us are ready for a sustainable transition; let’s make sure our political decisions and public infrastructure reflect that ambition.

Your challenge: Turn an ambitious sustainability goal into concrete pathways, identify who is responsible for making them possible, and define how you will measure progress. Do not lose sight of your goal. Start human-centred, then think humanity-centred. There is no room for perfectionism; what matters is to act. Keep the optimism, but acknowledge that not every pathway is straightforward. A credible plan should make room for competing priorities, uncertainty, unintended consequences and unequal burdens. The point is not to pretend every sustainability challenge has an easy solution. It is to turn a daunting problem into a set of questions and actions that people can work on together.

3. Synergise: From actionable pathways to collective success

Finally, sustainability cannot be achieved in silos. It is too complex a problem.

Businesses, policymakers, researchers and communities often approach sustainability from different perspectives, with different priorities and incentives. Yet the challenges we face cross organisational, social and environmental boundaries.

How can we make change happen together?

We need to connect people, align interests, bridge divides and develop solutions that work across the system [11]. For every solution you come across, ask yourself: How can sustainability be a win-win for all? [7, 14] How can each stakeholder—government, industry, society, academia, individuals and the environment—contribute and benefit?

This is where sustainability becomes a driver of innovation, a foundation for resilience and an opportunity to rethink how we create value.

Your challenge: Look beyond your own organisation, discipline or area of responsibility. Who needs to be involved to make your desired future possible—and how can you bring them together? Successful collaboration across disciplines and diverse contexts requires community agency, blurred disciplinary boundaries, and the combination of sciences and arts [15].

Let’s make sustainability synonymous with “win-win”

Let us return to the opening question: When you hear the word sustainability, what is the first thing that comes to mind?

I would love for the answer to include wellbeing, fairness, security, belonging, care, opportunity, innovation, planetary health and a good life.

This is what my approach to sustainable innovation aims to make possible through:

1. Reframe: Move from sacrifice to possibility. What future do we want to create?
2. Act: Move from possibility to actionable pathways. How can we make it happen?
3. Synergise: Move from individual pathways to collective action. How can we make change happen together?

The aim is to inspire better questions, develop better solutions and make meaningful change possible. We do not need to find new words because sustainability has lost some of its appeal, or simply persuade people to care more. We need to connect environmental necessity with human aspirations, make sustainable choices accessible and desirable, and address the structural barriers and unequal burdens that stand in the way [3, 10].

I want us to build a sustainability movement centred on imagining and working towards better futures. Whether you are a researcher, policymaker, business owner, innovator or citizen: challenge familiar narratives, imagine a future worth building, and bring people together to make it happen.

Challenge my ideas, share what works—and what does not. And most importantly, do not lose hope: giving up is not an option if we want a better world. Optimism alone will not create better futures [21], but we will struggle to create them if we cannot imagine them in the first place [18].

Sustainability should not mean a worse life today for a greater good tomorrow. It should mean rethinking what a good life can look like—and building the products, services, communities, policies and systems that make it possible.

Let’s stop defining sustainability by what we need to give up. Let’s start building the world we want to live in.

---

Follow along, challenge my ideas, and introduce me to the people building better futures.

Want to put this approach into practice? Explore my approach to sustainable innovation.

#Sustainability #FuturesWorthBuilding #SustainableInnovation #SustainableDesign #ClimateAction

References

[1] Vishal Sharma and Neha Kumar. 2025. Sustainability, Development, and Human–Computer Interaction. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25), April 26–May 1, 2025, Yokohama, Japan. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 21 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713663

[2] Hrönn Brynjarsdóttir, Maria Håkansson, James Pierce, Eric Baumer, Carl DiSalvo, and Phoebe Sengers. 2012. Sustainably unpersuaded: How persuasion narrows our vision of sustainability. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 947–956. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208539

[3] Carolynne Lord, Katherine Ellsworth-Krebs, and Torik Holmes. 2023. ‘Telling tales’: Communicating UK energy research through fairy tale characters. Energy Research & Social Science 101 (2023), Article 103100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2023.103100

[4] Tong Yu, Gözel Shakeri, and Marion Koelle. 2024. “If you don’t feel guilty, you won’t take responsibility”—Co-speculating on digital technologies that encourage sustainable consumption. In Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 39, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3679318.3685374

[5] Oksana Mont, Matthias Lehner, and Carl Dalhammar. 2022. Sustainable consumption through policy intervention—A review of research themes. Frontiers in Sustainability 3 (2022), Article 921477. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2022.921477

[6] Qian Yang, Richmond Y. Wong, Steven J. Jackson, Sabine Junginger, Margaret Hagan, Thomas Krendl Gilbert, and John Zimmerman. 2024. The Future of HCI-Policy Collaboration. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24), May 11–16, 2024, Honolulu, HI, USA. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 820, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642771

[7] Dominic McAfee, Zoë A. Doubleday, Nathaniel Geiger, and Sean D. Connell. 2019. Everyone loves a success story: Optimism inspires conservation engagement. BioScience 69, 4 (2019), 274–281. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz019

[8] Lucia Bosone, Sarah Thiriot, Marie Chevrier, Anaïs Rocci, and Franck Zenasni. 2024. Visioning sustainable futures: Exposure to positive visions increases individual and collective intention to act for a decarbonated world. Global Environmental Psychology 2 (2024), Article e11105. https://doi.org/10.5964/gep.11105

[9] Terry Irwin. 2015. Transition Design: A proposal for a new area of design practice, study, and research. Design and Culture 7, 2 (2015), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2015.1051829

[10] Vishal Sharma, Anupriya Tuli, Asra Sakeen Wani, Anjali Karol Mohan, Bonnie Nardi, Marc Hassenzahl, Morgan Vigil-Hayes, Rikke Hagensby Jensen, Shaowen Bardzell, and Neha Kumar. 2024. Post-growth HCI: Co-envisioning HCI beyond economic growth. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 486, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613905.3636292

[11] Denise M. Rousseau and Steven ten Have. 2022. Evidence-based change management. Organizational Dynamics 51, 3 (2022), Article 100899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2022.100899

[12] Martin Deron. 2025. Sprouting technology otherwise, hospicing negative commons: Rethinking technology in the transition to sustainability-oriented futures. Computing within Limits 2025. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.05860 (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.05860 and https://computingwithinlimits.org/2025/papers/limits2025-deron-sprouting.pdf

[13] Sohail Inayatullah. 2008. Six pillars: Futures thinking for transforming. Foresight 10, 1 (2008), 4–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680810855991

[14] Kelly Goldsmith, Caroline Roux, Ali Tezer, and Christopher Cannon. 2022. De-stigmatizing the “win–win”: Making sustainable consumption sustainable. Current Opinion in Psychology 46 (2022), Article 101336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101336

[15] G. Mauricio Mejía, Danah Henriksen, Yumeng Xie, Alex García-Topete, Roger F. Malina, and Kendon Jung. 2023. From researching to making futures: A design mindset for transdisciplinary collaboration. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 48, 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2022.2131086

[16] Peter Ferguson and Linda Wollersheim. 2023. From sustainable development to resilience? (Dis)continuities in climate and development policy governance discourse. Sustainable Development 31, 1 (2023), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2374

[17] Richard A. Slaughter. 2004. Futures Beyond Dystopia: Creating Social Foresight. Routledge. https://foresightinternational.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Slaughter_Futures-beyond-dystopia_1998.pdf

[18] Maria Ojala. 2023. Hope and climate-change engagement from a psychological perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology 49 (2023), Article 101514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101514

[19] Femke Coops, Kristina Bogner, Dan Lockton, Timo von Wirth, Jonas Torrens, Barbara Kump, Julia Wittmayer, Caroline Hummels, and Flor Avelino. 2026. ‘Living-with’ transformative change: Exploring affective entanglements when working towards more just and sustainable futures. Futures Reframed 1, 1 (2026). https://doi.org/10.63934/ewp5w569

[20] Angela J. Dean and Kerrie A. Wilson. 2023. Relationships between hope, optimism, and conservation engagement. Conservation Biology 37, 2 (2023), Article e14009. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14020

[21] Hanna Bergeå, Therese Åhlvik, and Lars Hallgren. 2025. The flipside of hope discourse: Avoiding accountability and assigning responsibility in sustainability transitions. Frontiers in Communication 10 (2025), Article 1562492. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1562492

[22] Rooney-Varga, J. N., Kapmeier, F., Sterman, J. D., Jones, A. P., Putko, M., & Rath, K. (2020). The Climate Action Simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 51(2), 114-140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878119890643

[23] Diletta Acuti, Marta Pizzetti, and Sara Dolnicar. 2022. When sustainability backfires: A review on the unintended negative side-effects of product and service sustainability on consumer behavior. Psychology & Marketing 39, 10 (2022), 1933–1945. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21709

[24] Paula Kivimaa and Florian Kern. 2016. Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy 45, 1 (2016), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008

[25] Thomas Spencer, Michel Colombier, Oliver Sartor, Anmol Garg, Venkatachalam Tiwari, Jesse Burton, T. Caetano, Fergus Green, Fei Teng, and James Wiseman. 2018. The 1.5°C target and coal sector transition: At the limits of societal feasibility. Climate Policy 18, 3 (2018), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1386540

[26] Laur Kanger, Benjamin K. Sovacool, and Martin Noorkõiv. 2020. Six policy intervention points for sustainability transitions: A conceptual framework and a systematic literature review. Research Policy 49, 7 (2020), Article 104072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104072