In design, sustainability means creating with the long-term effects of a product or service in mind: resources, lifecycle, ecological and social impact—far beyond the moment of purchase or use.

This awareness is not new. As early as 1971, Victor Papanek (Design for the Real World) accused design of complicity in wastefulness and called for ecological and social responsibility. McDonough and Braungart (Cradle to Cradle, 2002) flipped the logic: not simply "doing less harm," but designing cycles where materials regenerate—planting the seeds of the circular economy.

Yet, design lives with a structural contradiction. A large part of its energy goes into making things desirable—thus driving consumption, and sometimes even programming obsolescence. Sustainability pulls in the opposite direction: making things last, repairing, and aiming for simplicity. Designing an object to be kept for ten years stands in direct opposition to a business model that thrives on replacement. Designers find themselves right at the heart of this tension between today's desires and tomorrow's planet.

Hence the trap of greenwashing: displaying virtue without changing the system. And the rebound effect: a more efficient product can actually increase overall consumption. Genuine sustainability isn't solved with a green logo; it is defined by the business model, the materials, the lifecycle analysis, and sometimes, the sheer courage to design less.

Our perspective is systemic: sustainability is not a late-stage project option, it is a key design criterion on par with desirability, to be integrated from the very start. Designing for real use means designing for the long term, and for the footprint it leaves behind.

What's happening elsewhere: lifecycle analysis, transition design, materiality, systemic design, and desirability (and the tension with it).

References: V. Papanek, Design for the Real World (1971); W. McDonough & M. Braungart, Cradle to Cradle (2002); circular economy.