Why Sustainability Isn’t Black or White — And Why It Matters for India

What makes something sustainable? In popular conversations, the question often expects a simple answer—yes or no. But real-world sustainability rarely works like that. It’s not a binary. It’s a spectrum.

Most products, buildings, and systems fall somewhere between harmful and helpful, depending on how they’re made, how they’re used, and what happens to them when they’re no longer useful. Treating sustainability as a checkbox—either “green” or “not green”—flattens a complex and vital conversation into a label.

This is where quantification becomes essential. If we don’t measure environmental impact, we can’t manage it. And if we don’t manage it, we can’t improve it. Tools like Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) allow us to map a product or process across its entire life, from raw materials to disposal, and tally its impacts: emissions, water use, waste, toxicity, and more.

Case in Point: In India’s construction sector, LCA-enabled assessments have helped companies like GreenJams, a startup making carbon-negative building materials from crop residue, demonstrate quantified climate benefits. Their Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) showed that their blocks store 1.43 kg CO₂e per kg of blocks, shifting their product from being merely “eco-friendly” to measurably regenerative.

LCA isn’t perfect. But it provides transparency. It forces us to confront the whole story, not just the most convenient part of it.

Green Claims, Grey Areas

Sustainability claims are everywhere in India—from product packaging to real estate billboards. Yet many of these claims lack hard numbers or explicit assumptions.

A 2023 analysis of FMCG advertisements by ASCI (Advertising Standards Council of India) found that 79% of green claims in ads were unverifiable, vague, or misleading. From “100% natural” to “eco-safe,” these terms often go unchecked. This assessment led to the publication of “Guidelines for Advertisements Making Environmental/Green Claims” by the organisation. 

Some companies believe they are doing the right thing and want to share that. Others are motivated by the reputational and commercial advantages of being seen as “green.” However, in both cases, greenwashing is an increasingly visible concern.

Greenwashing isn’t always deliberate. However, when companies selectively present data, use vague terms like “eco-friendly,” or rely on unverifiable certifications, they distort the conversation. And they erode trust among consumers, investors, and regulators.

Tools vs. Methodologies: What’s the Difference?

Think of methodology as the thinking framework. It includes what we choose to measure, what boundaries we set, what assumptions we make, and how we interpret results. It is based on science, transparency, and global standards. A methodology might say: to assess a building material, you need to include emissions from raw material extraction, manufacturing, transport, installation, and end-of-life.

On the other hand, you use a tool to apply that methodology. It could be a software platform, a calculator, or a dashboard that helps you run the numbers.

The problem arises when tools don’t clearly show which methodology they’re built on, or when they oversimplify. Some skip data quality checks. Others bake in assumptions that are overly optimistic or out of date. In a 2020 study, Akintayo and Olanrewaju compared four LCA software tools (GaBi, OpenLCA, SimaPro, and Umberto) applied to the same cement production case study. They emphasised that the choice of software—particularly the included databases, methodology, and impact-assessment methods—can significantly affect results, underlining that results often differ meaningfully depending on tool assumptions. 

In the rush to streamline sustainability assessments, we risk building black boxes—tools that produce clean results without making the logic behind them visible. These ‘black boxes’ can lead to a lack of understanding of the actual environmental impact, potentially undermining the goal of sustainability.

This becomes especially risky in ecosystems like India’s, where sustainability regulation is still evolving, and incentives are starting to be tied to these numbers. If different companies use different tools, with different assumptions, to assess similar products, how do we compare them? How do we know what’s real?

The Politics of Standards

Another layer of complexity comes from the overlapping web of sustainability certifications, labels, and standards in India today. International methodologies and regular audits back up some of them. Others are developed in-house by industry bodies or even startups. 

As a result, a building, for example, can be rated “green” by one scheme and fail in another. A 2021 CSE analysis of green-rated commercial buildings in Delhi-NCR found that several projects certified under one scheme had Energy Performance Index (EPI) values that failed BEE’s minimum building code norms, suggesting that the certification had more symbolic than substantive value. 

Often, these labels compete—not on quality—but on market dominance. Behind the scenes, there is lobbying. There are alliances. There are battles over which tools will become the de facto standard in government procurement, private investment, or corporate ESG reporting.

This creates incentives to align with what’s easiest, cheapest, or most lenient, not necessarily what’s most accurate. Sometimes, it also leads to strategic compliance, where companies chase the certificate, not the impact.

So what can India do?

India is at a critical moment in its sustainability journey. Innovation is happening. Climate consciousness is growing. And new regulations are taking shape. For example, the Ministry of Finance’s climate taxonomy, released in 2024, is an early step toward formally defining what qualifies as a green activity in India’s financial and policy systems. But if we want to build credibility—globally and locally—we need to make a clear commitment: methodology before tools, science before branding.

We need transparency around what’s being measured, how, and why. We need to demand data-backed claims, not just green labels. And we need to foster collaboration between tool developers, auditors, policymakers, and companies so that our systems don’t just look good, but actually work.

In sectors like construction and packaging, we’re beginning to see shifts, where some procurement heads are asking for lifecycle data before signing contracts. That’s a step in the right direction. But it must go further.

Sustainability is not a status you earn. It’s a process of continuous accountability. Focusing on numbers, methods, and honest measurement opens the door to genuine improvement. When we reduce sustainability to a stamp or a marketing slogan, we close that door, often without realising it.

We don’t need to “lead the world” in sustainability narratives. We must be honest, rigorous, and deliberate in engaging with them. The rest will follow.

Mili Jain is the founder of Monk Spaces, a consultancy firm focused on environmental sustainability

About The Author

Mili Jain

See author's posts