Sustainability has become one of the biggest business buzzwords of the last decade. From recyclable packaging and carbon-neutral claims to sustainable events and environmentally friendly products, businesses are working harder than ever to showcase their green credentials.
Consumers, meanwhile, are becoming increasingly conscious of the environmental impact of the brands they support. Sustainability now plays a role in everything from purchasing decisions and brand loyalty to investment choices and employer preferences.
However, while awareness of sustainability has never been higher, new research from instantprint suggests understanding may not have kept pace.
A survey of 2,000 UK consumers has revealed that 76% hold at least one major sustainability misconception, raising concerns that confusion around environmental issues could be making it easier for businesses to unintentionally – or deliberately – mislead consumers.
The findings paint a picture of a public that wants to make more sustainable choices but often lacks the information needed to separate fact from fiction. From misconceptions about paper and deforestation to misunderstandings surrounding packaging and recycling, many consumers are relying on assumptions rather than evidence when judging a company's environmental impact.
At a time when sustainability claims are everywhere, this knowledge gap presents a challenge for both businesses and consumers. While organisations are under increasing pressure to communicate their environmental credentials, customers are finding it harder than ever to identify what genuinely makes a product, service or company sustainable.
Sustainability Matters More Than Ever – But Understanding Hasn't Kept Pace
The research found that sustainability remains a significant consideration for UK consumers, with more than four in five respondents saying environmental responsibility influences their purchasing decisions.
Yet despite this growing interest, only 28% said they felt confident identifying greenwashing when they encountered it.
This disconnect between awareness and understanding creates fertile ground for confusion.
Many respondents admitted they rely on visual cues such as green packaging, nature-inspired branding and environmental buzzwords when assessing a company's sustainability credentials. However, the findings suggest consumers are becoming increasingly sceptical of these types of claims.
When asked which sustainability indicators they trusted most, respondents overwhelmingly favoured independently verified certifications over generic environmental messaging.
More than 81% said they were more likely to trust sustainability claims backed by recognised certifications, while FSC® certification emerged as one of the most trusted indicators overall.
Carbon Neutral certification, ISO environmental accreditations such as ISO 14001 and independently verified carbon reporting programmes also ranked highly among consumers looking for reassurance that environmental claims were legitimate.
By contrast, broad phrases such as "eco-friendly", "green" and "planet-conscious" generated significantly lower levels of trust when presented without supporting evidence.
The findings suggest consumers are increasingly looking for proof rather than promises. Businesses that can demonstrate environmental responsibility through recognised standards and transparent reporting may therefore be better positioned to build trust than those relying solely on sustainability-focused marketing.
The UK's Biggest Sustainability Misconceptions
One of the most revealing aspects of the research involved testing common sustainability assumptions.
Respondents were presented with a series of statements relating to print, packaging and environmental responsibility and asked whether they believed them to be true or false.
The results revealed widespread misunderstandings across all three categories.
Nearly two thirds of consumers (64%) believed all paper products contribute directly to deforestation.
A further 61% believed digital marketing is always more sustainable than print.
More than seven in ten respondents (72%) believed paper packaging is automatically better for the environment than plastic regardless of sourcing, transportation requirements or recyclability.
Meanwhile, 69% incorrectly assumed recyclable packaging always gets recycled, despite recycling outcomes depending heavily on local infrastructure, waste management systems and consumer behaviour.
The research also revealed that 57% of consumers believe sustainable events should eliminate print entirely.
Taken together, these findings suggest sustainability conversations are often being shaped by perception rather than evidence. While many consumers are attempting to make environmentally responsible choices, misconceptions about how sustainability works in practice may be influencing decision-making just as much as genuine knowledge.
To better understand why these myths persist, we asked instantprint's Sustainability Manager, Jack Pearson, to tackle the five biggest misconceptions uncovered by the research.
Sustainability Myth-Busting with Jack Pearson
Myth #1: All Paper Products Contribute to Deforestation
With 64% of consumers believing all paper products contribute directly to deforestation, this was one of the most common misconceptions identified by the research.
According to Pearson, this assumption overlooks how modern forestry and paper supply chains operate.
"Many people assume paper products automatically contribute to deforestation, but responsibly managed forestry works very differently. Certification schemes such as FSC® help ensure forests are managed sustainably, balancing environmental protection with long-term resource management. Trees harvested for paper production are often replanted and managed as part of carefully maintained forestry programmes."
The key, Pearson explains, is understanding where materials come from rather than making assumptions based on the material itself.
Myth #2: Digital Marketing Is Always More Sustainable Than Print
More than six in ten consumers believe digital communications are automatically more environmentally friendly than print.
While digital channels are often perceived as the greener option, Pearson says the reality is far more nuanced.
"Every communication channel has an environmental footprint. Digital activity relies on data centres, servers, energy consumption and electronic infrastructure, while print relies on physical materials and production processes. The most sustainable solution depends on how a campaign is planned, produced and used. It's rarely a simple print-versus-digital decision."
The findings suggest many consumers continue to view sustainability through a binary lens when environmental impact is often influenced by multiple factors.
Myth #3: Paper Packaging Is Always Better Than Plastic
Packaging remains one of the most visible sustainability touchpoints for consumers, making it particularly vulnerable to misconceptions.
With 72% believing paper packaging is automatically the greener choice, Pearson believes there is a need for more education around lifecycle impacts.
"There isn't a universal answer when it comes to packaging sustainability. Material sourcing, transportation, durability, recyclability and disposal all influence environmental impact. In some situations, a lightweight recyclable plastic solution may actually have a lower environmental footprint than a heavier alternative. Looking at the entire lifecycle is essential."
Myth #4: Recyclable Packaging Always Gets Recycled
Almost seven in ten consumers incorrectly assumed recyclable packaging inevitably gets recycled.
According to Pearson, this is one of the biggest misunderstandings within sustainability discussions.
"Recyclability and actual recycling are two very different things. Whether a material gets recycled depends on local infrastructure, collection systems, sorting facilities and consumer behaviour. That's why clear labelling and public education remain so important."
The misconception highlights the growing need for businesses to communicate not only what materials are used, but how consumers should dispose of them.
Myth #5: Sustainable Events Should Eliminate Print Entirely
More than half of consumers believed removing print entirely is essential for a sustainable event.
Pearson argues that this assumption oversimplifies a much more complex issue.
"Sustainability isn't about eliminating materials at all costs. It's about using resources responsibly. Printed materials that are well-designed, genuinely useful and responsibly sourced can play an important role within sustainable events. The goal should be reducing waste and maximising value rather than removing print for the sake of it."
The findings suggest many consumers associate sustainability with digital-only solutions, despite environmental impact often depending on how resources are managed rather than whether they are physical or digital.
Why Print Continues to Be One of the Most Misunderstood Industries
The survey findings reinforce just how many misconceptions continue to exist around print and sustainability.
For years, the narrative surrounding environmental responsibility has positioned digital communications as the default sustainable choice. While digital channels undoubtedly offer advantages, this simplified view often overlooks the significant progress made throughout the print industry.
Advances in technology, production efficiency and responsible sourcing have transformed how many print businesses operate. Environmental management systems, waste reduction programmes and independently verified certifications now play an increasingly important role in helping businesses demonstrate accountability.
At instantprint, sustainability is supported through FSC® certification, ISO 14001 accreditation, Carbon Neutral certification and participation in the Achilles Carbon Reduce programme, with emissions reporting aligned to ISO 14064-1 standards.
These independently verified standards provide measurable evidence of environmental performance and help ensure sustainability remains embedded throughout operations rather than existing solely as a marketing message.
As consumers become more aware of greenwashing, these types of credentials are likely to become increasingly important indicators of trust.
The Future of Sustainability Is Education, Not Just Marketing
The findings from instantprint's research reveal an important challenge facing businesses today.
Consumers clearly care about sustainability. However, many remain uncertain about how environmental claims should be interpreted, what sustainability credentials actually mean and how to identify genuine environmental action.
This knowledge gap creates opportunities for confusion and greenwashing, but it also creates an opportunity for businesses to lead through education.
Organisations that explain their sustainability strategies clearly, communicate progress transparently and support claims with recognised certifications are likely to be better positioned than those relying on broad environmental statements alone.
As sustainability becomes an increasingly important factor in purchasing decisions, the businesses that stand out will not necessarily be those making the loudest environmental claims. Instead, they are likely to be the organisations that can demonstrate measurable action, provide evidence to support their messaging and help consumers navigate a sustainability landscape that remains more complex than many people realise.
In a world where three quarters of consumers hold at least one major sustainability misconception, helping people separate fact from fiction may ultimately become one of the most valuable sustainability initiatives a business can undertake.
