Sustainable branding has a greenwashing problem. Too many brands have responded to growing consumer demand for environmental responsibility by changing their colour palette to green and adding a leaf to their logo. This is not sustainability. It is the performance of sustainability, and audiences are increasingly sophisticated enough to tell the difference.

Genuine sustainability in design practice operates at three levels, and most brands are only engaging with the first one.

The first level is visual communication. How does the brand signal its environmental commitments visually? This is the most visible and the most commonly addressed. Done with integrity — when the visual language reflects actual practice rather than aspiration — it is valuable. Done as a veneer over business-as-usual, it is harmful to both the brand and the broader conversation about sustainability.

The second level is material and production practice. How are the physical brand touchpoints produced? What are the print materials made from? Who produces the branded merchandise, and under what conditions? What is the carbon footprint of the website — yes, websites have carbon footprints, and they vary enormously based on how they are built and hosted? These questions rarely make it into a brand brief, but they should.

The third level is the hardest and the most important: does the business model itself align with the brand's environmental claims? A fossil fuel company with a green rebrand is not a sustainable brand. A fashion brand that releases a recycled capsule collection while its core business model depends on overproduction is not a sustainable brand. Design cannot make a fundamentally unsustainable business appear credible to audiences who are paying attention.

The studios and brands that are doing this well are starting from the inside out — examining their own practices before making any claims externally. That honesty is, itself, a form of brand building. It turns out that being real is more durable than being green.

Sustainable branding has a greenwashing problem. Too many brands have responded to growing consumer demand for environmental responsibility by changing their colour palette to green and adding a leaf to their logo. This is not sustainability. It is the performance of sustainability, and audiences are increasingly sophisticated enough to tell the difference.

Genuine sustainability in design practice operates at three levels, and most brands are only engaging with the first one.

The first level is visual communication. How does the brand signal its environmental commitments visually? This is the most visible and the most commonly addressed. Done with integrity — when the visual language reflects actual practice rather than aspiration — it is valuable. Done as a veneer over business-as-usual, it is harmful to both the brand and the broader conversation about sustainability.

The second level is material and production practice. How are the physical brand touchpoints produced? What are the print materials made from? Who produces the branded merchandise, and under what conditions? What is the carbon footprint of the website — yes, websites have carbon footprints, and they vary enormously based on how they are built and hosted? These questions rarely make it into a brand brief, but they should.

The third level is the hardest and the most important: does the business model itself align with the brand's environmental claims? A fossil fuel company with a green rebrand is not a sustainable brand. A fashion brand that releases a recycled capsule collection while its core business model depends on overproduction is not a sustainable brand. Design cannot make a fundamentally unsustainable business appear credible to audiences who are paying attention.

The studios and brands that are doing this well are starting from the inside out — examining their own practices before making any claims externally. That honesty is, itself, a form of brand building. It turns out that being real is more durable than being green.

Sustainable branding has a greenwashing problem. Too many brands have responded to growing consumer demand for environmental responsibility by changing their colour palette to green and adding a leaf to their logo. This is not sustainability. It is the performance of sustainability, and audiences are increasingly sophisticated enough to tell the difference.

Genuine sustainability in design practice operates at three levels, and most brands are only engaging with the first one.

The first level is visual communication. How does the brand signal its environmental commitments visually? This is the most visible and the most commonly addressed. Done with integrity — when the visual language reflects actual practice rather than aspiration — it is valuable. Done as a veneer over business-as-usual, it is harmful to both the brand and the broader conversation about sustainability.

The second level is material and production practice. How are the physical brand touchpoints produced? What are the print materials made from? Who produces the branded merchandise, and under what conditions? What is the carbon footprint of the website — yes, websites have carbon footprints, and they vary enormously based on how they are built and hosted? These questions rarely make it into a brand brief, but they should.

The third level is the hardest and the most important: does the business model itself align with the brand's environmental claims? A fossil fuel company with a green rebrand is not a sustainable brand. A fashion brand that releases a recycled capsule collection while its core business model depends on overproduction is not a sustainable brand. Design cannot make a fundamentally unsustainable business appear credible to audiences who are paying attention.

The studios and brands that are doing this well are starting from the inside out — examining their own practices before making any claims externally. That honesty is, itself, a form of brand building. It turns out that being real is more durable than being green.