Is killing capitalism the only way to make sustainability affordable?
In response to a suggestion that sustainability and affordability can’t coexist under capitalism, this piece asks: is killing the system the only way forward? Or can designers find creative ways to hack the logic of capitalism, challenge the trade-offs, and create products that are both sustainable and affordable — without having to blow up the entire economy? Is it really an either/or question, or can we have the cake and eat it too?
I read with great interest a piece on Dezeen by Smith Mordak — architect, writer, and former Chief Executive of the UK Green Building Council — who makes a compelling case that it is quite impossible to create and offer products that are sustainable, ethical, and also affordable within our current economic system. Within capitalism, Mordak suggests, you can’t have it all — something has to give.
To illustrate this point, Mordak tells a fictional story that feels entirely real: an idealistic UK-based entrepreneur trying to produce chairs in a sustainable and ethical way — using locally sourced materials, paying fair wages, and focusing on design for durability. But as the entrepreneur tries to scale, reality creeps in and trade-offs become inevitable. To fulfill a large order from a hotel willing to pay only a third of the original price, they entrepreneur is forced to switch to cheaper, more polluting materials and make painful compromises. By the time the product reaches the mass market, little remains of the original vision.
The point Mordak makes through this story is clear: ethical, sustainable products cannot be affordable under capitalism, because the system is built on borrowing from the future — enabling unsustainable consumption not just to happen, but to become the default. Therefore, Mordak argues, this isn’t a problem of better products or greener materials — it’s a societal design failure. The real solutions require not redesigning chairs, but redesigning the economic system itself: “unconditional basic income, complementary currencies, non-monetary exchange, radical co-living, and all that utopian dreaming that is no longer naive, but necessary.”
This article gave me pause, as it brought up a critical question I often think about: Can sustainable and ethical (or, in short, sustainable) products be offered at an affordable price? As Mordak suggests, maybe it’s a circle that can’t be squared — at least not within a system that ignores environmental and societal impacts (also known as externalities), where unsustainable options are always cheaper and sustainable ones always come at a premium.
But do we really need to kill capitalism to enable sustainability and affordability to go hand in hand?
This question is especially critical for designers and creatives. If they accept that radically more sustainable products and services must be more expensive — and that there’s no way around it until the broader system changes — then that becomes the assumption they work with. They integrate this constraint as an axiom in their process and focus on doing the best within its limits. In Mordak’s fictional story, the marketing agency the entrepreneur hires suggests using the chairs’ high price as a signal of their ethical value. In real life, this often translates into competing on quality and experience rather than price — take, for example, Mill, the beautifully designed, delightful-to-use food recycler, which costs $999. Overall, it means following the logic of the Patagonias of the world: you get a better product, and you pay more for it.
Now, it’s not wrong to zoom out to the systems level and focus on designing solutions such as “unconditional basic income, complementary currencies, non-monetary exchange, radical co-living,” as Mordak suggests, to create the conditions in which products that are both sustainable and affordable can exist. In fact, this aligns with my argument that transforming sustainability-as-usual — the dominant mindset in business — requires, first and foremost, a radical shift in the environment in which businesses operate. As I point out in my book (and also teach my students at Parsons), sustainability in business is shaped not just by internal ambition, but even more so by external forces — regulation, policy, market dynamics, and social norms (what can be referred to as dark matter elements).
Having said that, I find the suggestion that sustainable and affordable solutions are impossible within the current capitalistic structure problematic. Why? Because it sends the wrong message to designers who work — or want to work — in corporations or start their own ventures. This narrative offers them only one path forward: sustainable solutions that are better but also more expensive. That’s it. Anything else is framed as above their pay grade — or in this case, their impact grade.
Where can you actually find affordable, sustainable products?
While it’s true that the field of sustainable products and services mostly aligns with the “sustainability requires a premium” model, there are key examples that prove otherwise. Take Veja, for example. The shoe company offers sustainably made sneakers at prices comparable to many mainstream brands — proving that sustainability doesn’t always have to come with a premium.
How do they do it? There are two key ingredients in their recipe: zero advertising and slow growth. The former helps offset the fact that producing a pair of Veja sneakers costs five times more due to the company’s commitment to raw materials that respect fair-trade principles, the environment, and workers’ rights. The latter allows the company to find a better balance — developing economies of scale without exposing itself to the unhealthy pressures on cash flow and profitability that rapid growth often creates.
The zero advertising strategy is a good example of what I believe Mordak’s argument misses. Rather than hiring a marketing agency, as the entrepreneur in Mordak’s story does, Veja questioned the need for a traditional marketing strategy in the first place. It took the fact that “70% of the cost of a normal big sneaker brand is related to advertising” and turned it into an advantage — a kind of business jiujitsu move. By reallocating those funds to its supply chain and adopting a zero-advertising model, Veja developed a unique marketing approach — rooted in innovative tactics and deeper customer engagement — while freeing up funds to support its ethical sourcing and production.
This is how companies should approach design for sustainability: Adopting a mindset that sees sustainability not as a limitation, but as a source of endless creativity — what von Busch and Palmas describe as a “system hacker” mindset. As von Busch and Palmas explain, hacking “is modifying something beyond the predefined design field of original intentions and customization. It is about scratching one’s own itch, but using unexpected methods.” This is exactly the kind of approach needed to confront the many systemic faults of capitalism while still operating within its constraints.
Veja is not the only example. Pandora, the largest jewelry maker in the world, announced last year that it had shifted to sourcing 100% recycled silver and gold for its jewelry — a change that, according to the company, “will result in $10 million in additional costs to Pandora.” However, the company chose not to raise prices, opting instead to find other ways to offset the cost, such as introducing more efficient equipment and reducing employee travel.
Other notable examples can be found in refillable packaging. For instance, both Ocado and M&S in the UK offer small discounts to customers who use refillable packages for certain products — demonstrating that the shift away from disposable packaging can also be financially beneficial for customers, something research shows they value.
Efforts to offer products and services that are both sustainable and affordable are not limited to large companies like Ocado and M&S or smaller, established ones like Veja. Too Good to Go, for example, helps divert food waste from landfills while providing people with affordable food options. This kind of innovation shows how technology and smart design can create experiences that benefit both the environment and consumers’ wallets.
Another example is digital wardrobe apps that help people “shop” in their own closets. These apps use AI to catalog wardrobes and suggest ways to wear what people already own more effectively. Most of these wardrobe apps offer free versions and can help users get more out of their clothes — reducing the need to buy new outfits and supporting both sustainability and affordability in everyday life.
The example of wardrobe apps also connects to another point Mordak makes — about the need to slow down, which I fully agree with. These apps show how a for-profit startup can offer services that help people consume more intentionally and purchase less. The same goes for Beni, a free browser extension that helps people shop secondhand more easily, or peer to peer clothing rental services that increase the use of items people already own. All of these are examples that support the idea of slowing down — while still delivering great experiences through the power of innovation and design.
Lessons for designers
What these examples (and many others I haven’t mentioned) show is that while creating products that are both sustainable and affordable is certainly difficult in the current landscape, it’s not impossible. Designers should absolutely look for ways to redesign the broader system — but that doesn’t mean they can’t also hack it in the meantime. The key, in my view, is to focus design attention at the business model level, taking a more holistic view of how value is created and delivered.
As I noted in another piece, strategic designers learn the importance of changing the scale at which problems are examined in order to understand their context and determine which questions are relevant. It’s a bit like adjusting your zoom level: zooming out reveals the big picture, while zooming in brings specific details into focus. When it comes to ensuring that affordability becomes an integral part of (strong) sustainability, designers can — and should — work on redesigning existing business models while acknowledging the systemic barriers and drivers shaping them.
All in all, we should encourage designers at all levels to treat constraints not as barriers to action, but as catalysts for creativity and innovation.
Raz Godelnik is an Associate Professor of Strategic Design and Management at Parsons School of Design — The New School. He is the author of Rethinking Corporate Sustainability in the Era of Climate Crisis. You can follow me on LinkedIn.
