There are many sustainability myths circulating in society.
Reasons for this are varied, from lobbying efforts by powerful groups aiming to protect their vested interests, to something as simple as the fast pace of modern life, which discourages us from questioning information more deeply and accepting ideas without scrutiny.
These myths are also prevalent in the corporate world, where they coexist with “open secrets” — things that professionals are aware of but often choose to overlook for different reasons. Below is a non-exhaustive list of some of the most common myths and "open secrets" we encounter in our work.
Green growth
is possible.
There is no empirical evidence supporting the concept of true “green growth.” Focusing on green growth as a solution may actually distract from more effective mitigation strategies, such as degrowth — reducing consumption to minimize the scale of the problem while simultaneously transitioning to renewable energy and substituting harmful products with less damaging alternatives.
Despite its popularity, there’s no scientific evidence that true decoupling has happened anywhere in the world. Decoupling refers to the idea of separating economic growth from environmental harm. In practice, decoupling can be either relative or absolute. Relative decoupling occurs when economic growth continues but environmental impacts increase at a slower rate. Absolute decoupling, on the other hand, means that economic growth can occur while environmental impacts, like carbon emissions or resource consumption, actually decrease in absolute terms.
For green growth to exist, we need absolute decoupling of economic activities from all types of environmental impacts — not just carbon emissions but also material use, freshwater consumption, biodiversity loss, air pollution, and more. In addition, this must happen everywhere on Earth, rapidly enough to prevent ecological collapse, and be sustained over time (avoiding “recoupling”). Achieving this kind of absolute, global decoupling at a sufficient pace has never been documented anywhere on Earth.
The European Environmental Bureau has a detailed report on this issue, Decoupling Debunked
hich highlights not only the lack of evidence for green growth but also the unlikelihood of meaningful decoupling occurring in the future.
While some high-income nations have managed to achieve absolute decoupling, they still fall far short of the rates needed to align with the Paris Agreement. At current rates, it would take these countries over 220 years to reduce emissions by 95%, releasing 27 times their remaining fair-share carbon budget for the 1.5°C target in the process
Pledges and roundtables are sufficient and will drive meaningful progress.
They haven’t so far. While there’s no shortage of corporate sustainability pledges, roundtables, and initiatives, these efforts alone are falling short. Reports consistently show that environmental degradation is accelerating and we’re passing planetary boundaries left and right. Although these initiatives are not without merit, they create a dangerous illusion of progress, leading us to believe we are addressing the issues when, in reality, we are far from keeping up with their scale and urgency.
Tackling these issues requires more than commitments; it demands real, transformative action and a commitment to full transparency — not just about successes, but also about negative externalities, trade-offs, and the actual impact of corporate activities. Honest conversations and openness about the limitations of current approaches are essential steps.
ESG is about regulations and reporting.
While regulations and reporting are indeed components of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), the concept extends far beyond mere compliance or reporting obligations. Its true essence lies in its role as a foundational framework for guiding business decisions. Thus, it’s much wider in its scope. Sustainability is about understanding the world around us, and guiding business strategy based on that. This is what is meant by a licence to operate – it’s gained through embedding ethical, responsible, and sustainable strategies into the core of business operations and having sustainability considerations as a normal, natural part of every business decision. The necessity for Chief Sustainability Officers (i.e., hiring someone specifically to stand for ethical, responsible business operations) highlights that we come from an era where profits reign supreme, often at any cost.
New technology / Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) will save us.
Hope is not a strategy. Techno-optimism, a belief that there is no material problem that cannot be solved with more technology, epitomizes our tendency to underestimate the probability of undesirable outcomes and to overestimate favorable ones. We’ve been investing in CCS for decades and it’s still not viable at scale. Hoping CCS will solve climate issue is like dreaming of retirement comfort without a savings strategy.
CCS facilities currently in operation capture only 0.13% of global emissions and the majority of that is ironically enough used for enhanced oil recovery.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has said that the oil and gas industry is relying excessively on carbon capture to reduce emissions and called the approach "an illusion”.
Climate change is the main problem we face.
Focusing solely on climate change reflects "carbon tunnel vision"—a narrow focus on carbon emissions that overlooks other critical environmental challenges. While addressing climate change is crucial, a truly sustainable approach requires us to consider all nine planetary boundaries: climate change, biodiversity loss, biogeochemical flows (nitrogen and phosphorus cycles), ocean acidification, land-system change, freshwater use, stratospheric ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol loading, and novel entities (such as chemical pollution and synthetic materials). Even with a renewable energy-based economy, we could still exceed these boundaries, risking the collapse of the biosphere. A holistic approach is essential to address the complex environmental crises we face. See, for example: Richardson et al.'s 2023 paper.
Biodiversity loss is at least as urgent as climate change, and the two are inseparably linked. Biodiversity—the diversity of life on Earth from genes to ecosystems—underpins our societies, economies, and well-being. The global economy is not separate from nature but embedded within it, entirely dependent on the ecosystems that sustain life. For example, clean air, fertile soil, and freshwater are ecosystem services provided by nature, sustaining both human life and the systems we rely on. Companies rely on people, and people rely on air, water, and the biological networks that make them possible. More fundamentally, we are not separate from nature, we are part of it. If we lose nature, we lose ourselves.
We can offset carbon emissions and continue business as usual.
Carbon offsets are a way for businesses and individuals to compensate for their greenhouse gas emissions by investing in projects that reduce or remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, such as reforestation or renewable energy initiatives. While this concept has theoretical merits, the reality of the carbon offset market makes it quite clear that offsets have so far failed to deliver their desired outcomes and are frequently used as mere marketing tools or delaying tactics—at a time when we have no time to waste. In essence, market mechanisms that contributed to the current environmental crisis are now being relied upon to solve the very problems they helped create. For us, this seems unrealistic. Markets solve some things, but not all things.
In addition, the carbon offsets market is rife with risks of misuse and misrepresentation. Many offset projects lack proper monitoring, resulting in actual emissions reductions that may be significantly lower than advertised. In some cases, offsets can even exacerbate the problem; a report highlighted that more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets from the largest certifier were found to be ineffective, raising serious concerns about the integrity of these schemes. To effectively combat climate change, we must prioritize real emissions reductions over mere accounting tricks.
Earning high scores on public ESG ratings means that the company is “more sustainable” than others.
The way to boost ESG ratings often hinges on disclosing more information rather than genuinely doing more. Many large consumer brands receive top scores from rating agencies, raising an important question: Are they truly committed to sustainable practices, or are they simply proficient at reporting?
Behind the high scores lies a troubling reality – corporations can quite easily increase their public ESG ratings through enhanced transparency without making any meaningful changes to their operations or business strategy. As a result, the emphasis on disclosure can overshadow the need for meaningful action, leading to a situation where ratings reflect the quantity of reported information rather than the quality of a company’s sustainability efforts. For ESG ratings to drive true progress, they must reflect meaningful impact, not just the amount of information disclosed.
Buying refurbished devices has no negative environmental consequences.
Rebound effect is real. The environmental benefits of buying refurbished devices can be undermined by the rebound effect, particularly in the B2C market.
Circular business models often lead to unintended behavioral shifts, resulting in increased consumption rather than reduction. For example, in 2024, Foxway participated in a study on circular business models in the tech sector, focusing on the German market. The findings revealed that in the second-hand market, consumers tend to buy more frequently and own more devices, even among those who consider themselves sustainability-conscious—42% reported buying more often, and 23% said they own more devices due to the availability of second-hand options. Additionally, rental models have contributed to this trend; 41% of respondents noted that renting allows them to upgrade devices more frequently, while 39% admitted they are now renting devices they wouldn't have otherwise used. This increased access can inadvertently fuel unnecessary consumerism, highlighting the need for circularity to be paired with sufficiency—buying only what is genuinely needed.
Moreover, extending the life of a used device doesn’t always directly reduce the demand for new products on a 1:1 basis, a phenomenon known as imperfect substitution. Additionally, the re-spending effect—where consumers save money by buying used devices and then spend the extra income on other goods and services—can also contribute to further environmental impact. For instance, cheaper second-hand devices can leave consumers with more disposable income, which they might use on other products or services, each with its own environmental footprint.
While refurbished devices offer a better alternative to buying new, their true impact depends on responsible consumer behavior and an emphasis on sufficiency. Without this balance, the rebound effects of circular business models risk undermining the environmental benefits they seek to provide.
Customers can deduct “emissions avoidance” from their carbon footprint by purchasing refurbished products from us.
While it’s true that choosing refurbished devices over new ones reduces environmental impact, it’s important to clarify what “emissions avoidance” means in this context. A carbon footprint reflects the environmental impact of a product over its life cycle, whereas a handprint represents its positive impact. At Foxway, we use this handprint approach to highlight the climate benefits of our products and services by calculating the hypothetical carbon emissions avoided when a customer selects a refurbished device instead of a new one.
However, this carbon avoidance is hypothetical, not an actual reduction in physical emissions. The calculation assumes that without the refurbished option, a customer would have purchased a new device. We recognize that many customers specifically seek out refurbished products and might choose another provider if Foxway were not available.
It’s also important for clients to understand that this emissions avoidance figure cannot be used to reduce their formal carbon footprint in official reports (such as those aligned with CSRD or other international standards). Instead, it serves as a valuable “fun fact” or insight for internal and external communications, demonstrating the environmental benefits of choosing refurbished devices.
Our calculations are conducted by a third party in line with ISO standards, ensuring transparency. You can find more details in our reports . As always, feel free to contact us if you are interested in more detailed information about the calculations.