There are very few companies today that can be called truly sustainable, and most that use the label fall short of full alignment with long-term social, environmental, and economic goals.
Evidence from research:
- Many firms practice “sustainability management” but fail to deliver results that match the urgency of global challenges. This “big disconnect” exists because companies often focus on reducing harm rather than creating net-positive impacts across society, environment, and economy (Stappmanns, 2018), (Dyllick & Muff, 2016).
- In sectors like food and textiles, truly sustainable strategies require an “outside-in” approach—starting with societal challenges and aligning them with company strengths. This is rare, as most firms still prioritize financial value over societal needs (Bereuther, 2018).
- A study of 86 top Chinese textile and apparel firms found only 19 met the criteria for being “truly sustainable” (clear goals, moral responsibility, and supporting structures). The rest were only “occasionally” or “partially” sustainable (Yang & Ha‐Brookshire, 2018), (Yang & Ha‐Brookshire, 2019).
- Large corporations often delay full sustainability, preferring incremental offsets rather than eliminating harm. Smaller, innovative firms are more likely to achieve it sooner, but innovation capability is critical regardless of size (Shevchenko et al., 2016).
Conclusion: While sustainable branding and partial improvements are widespread, companies that fully integrate societal, environmental, and economic value creation—and demonstrate it in measurable, long-term ways—are still rare. Most are in a “transition phase” rather than at the endpoint of true sustainability.
