Scaling Impact Means Getting Over the Consumption Dilemma

There’s a tension I see almost every week — sometimes stated outright, sometimes just visible in the silence.

A sustainability lead is deep into a discussion on product returns, or take-back schemes, or driving recycling behaviour — and then someone says:

“We don’t want to incentivise returns or recycling. That just encourages more consumption.”

They’re trying to do the right thing. But the logic leads to a dead end.

Because they’re also working with brands whose entire success model is based on selling more — and who are never going to scale circular solutions without some consumer incentive to participate.

It’s a moral stand that feels principled, but in practice, it blocks progress.

The Ethical Pull That Got You Here

Let’s be honest: a lot of people enter sustainability roles (including me!) because we care deeply about reducing harm — and often, about reducing consumption itself.

We’re not in it for growth. We’re not in it to fuel sales. We came to resist those forces.

That’s admirable. It’s also where the inner conflict starts.

Because scaling sustainability — whether it's take-back loops, lower-impact ranges, reuse schemes, or recycling systems — requires active participation from customers. And that participation often comes down to incentives: discounts, loyalty, reminders, ease.

But those same tools are the tools of marketing. The very things that drive consumption.

So the result is paralysis. You want impact, but can’t stomach the mechanism.

The Business Reality

Meanwhile, the brands themselves have no such internal conflict.

Their incentive structure is clear: more volume, more revenue, more growth.

They might support sustainability efforts — but only insofar as it aligns with their KPIs. That’s not cynical. That’s just how businesses are wired.

So here’s the contradiction I keep seeing:

• Sustainability teams want to drive behaviour change, but don’t want to use commercial levers.
• Brands want to partner on sustainability, but only if it supports growth.
• Consumers won’t change behaviour at scale without convenience or reward.

Everyone’s staring at each other, waiting for someone else to move first.

We Need to Move Past the Dilemma

This isn’t about selling out. It’s about getting real.

If you want to reduce impact at scale, you have to work with the systems that exist — not just rail against them.

That means:

• Designing incentives that make sustainable choices attractive, easy, and sticky.
• Collaborating with marketing and sales, not avoiding them.
• Recognising that growth and impact will coexist — sometimes uncomfortably — and finding ways to steer growth toward better outcomes.

Sitting on the sidelines because the tools are tainted by consumption doesn’t help anyone — least of all the planet.

The Hard Truth

You can’t scale sustainability without using the engine that drives scale.

That’s not a betrayal of values. It’s a recognition that if we want to change the system, we have to speak its language — at least long enough to build something better.

So if you’ve felt the discomfort, you’re not alone. But discomfort doesn’t have to mean inaction.

It can mean growing up as a discipline. Getting more strategic. Learning to move powerfully inside structures we didn’t design — and slowly reshaping them from within.

That’s the real work. And it’s time.