Can Print Ever Be Truly Sustainable?

By FuturePrint Editorial

This article, inspired by a recent webinar, reveals that the print industry faces an uncomfortable truth—but also a rare opportunity.

When it comes to sustainability, print is both misunderstood and, at times, misaligned. To the casual observer—and indeed to many brands and consumers—it is tempting to cast print as a relic of a less environmentally-conscious age, heavy with waste, inefficiency, and obsolescence. But the picture is far more nuanced. As the FuturePrint webinar, “Is Print Truly Sustainable?” made clear, print may, paradoxically, be one of the most naturally sustainable industries—if only it can clarify its message and unify its actions.

Click on the graphic to link to webinar replay

The session brought together voices from across the print value chain, including Mathew Rogerson of The Pack Scout, Jeff Freeman of Cimpress, Carlos Lahoz from HP Industrial Print, Stefan Casey of io.tt, and sustainability guru, Steve Lister. The panel, moderated by FuturePrint’s Elena Knight, aimed to untangle one of the industry’s most persistent dilemmas: not whether print can be sustainable, but whether it can prove it, align on it, and communicate it effectively.

### The Definition Problem

At the heart of the issue is a basic failure to agree on what sustainability even means. Rogerson opened with a foundational reference—the 1987 UN Brundtland Commission definition: “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Elegant, yes. Operable? Less so.

Freeman, representing a sprawling global operation with 11 customer-facing brands and manufacturing plants on multiple continents, was quick to add operational complexity. In some regions, sustainability concerns might centre on water scarcity; in others, deforestation or carbon intensity dominate. Cimpress focuses on three pillars: responsible forestry, plastics reduction, and carbon footprint. But priorities fluctuate depending on local context and regulation. In short, one size does not fit all.

### Data, Alignment, and the Mirage of Clarity

For Stefan Casey, the greatest obstacle isn’t necessarily the absence of intent—it’s the absence of clean, consistent data. “Bad data in, bad data out,” he said with a smile. “We need the same language, but it’s not there yet.” Indeed, a major theme throughout the discussion was *misalignment*—between departments, between supply chains, and most crucially, between intention and execution.

Lister, a seasoned consultant, highlighted the industry’s evolution from self-regulated CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) to broader ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) frameworks. The result? Suppliers who once thought their job was to manage substrates and inks now face questions about DEI metrics and supply chain ethics. “It’s confusing,” he acknowledged, “but that’s why forums like this matter.”

The confusion spills into the public domain. Vague terms such as “eco-friendly” or “carbon neutral” are increasingly under scrutiny. The EU’s Green Claims Directive aims to standardise how sustainability is communicated. It won’t be painless. As Lister noted, some substrates may be technically biodegradable—over a millennium.

### Sustainability Doesn’t Have to Cost More

One of the more comforting revelations was that sustainable choices need not carry a premium. Lister referenced research within point-of-sale sectors showing that 80% of sustainable alternatives are already at price parity or better. Carlos Lahoz supported this, citing examples where HP’s technologies enable more efficient production through shorter runs, faster speeds, and reduced energy consumption. “Sustainability is not just about reduction. It’s about delivering more value with fewer resources,” he noted.

Still, brands often default to cost as the defining metric. But, as Rogerson argued, “That’s treating the symptom, not the disease.” The deeper issue is misalignment. Without shared priorities across functions—procurement, marketing, compliance—projects falter, communication muddles, and opportunities are missed.

### The Misalignment Cascade

Misalignment manifests in small and large ways. Designers cobble together last-minute briefs, unaware of their sustainability impact. Marketers push speed and volume, while compliance teams scramble to meet regulatory demands. Consumers, meanwhile, are bombarded with conflicting messages and greenwashed promises, triggering what Freeman termed a “value-action gap.” People say they want sustainable products, but rarely act on it—because they don’t trust or understand the information presented.

This, in turn, leads to “greenhushing,” a growing trend where companies say nothing for fear of regulatory or reputational risk. It’s a vicious cycle.

Freeman offered a forward-looking solution: artificial intelligence. AI, he suggested, may soon provide consumers with instant, contextual sustainability information at point of purchase—no need to decipher conflicting claims across multiple websites. In such a world, the brands that invest now in consistent, trustworthy data infrastructure may well win.

### Design is Destiny

If there was consensus on anything, it was the foundational role of design. As Lister put it, echoing the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, “80% of environmental impact is determined at the design stage.” Poor design choices—laminated materials, unnecessary coatings, unrecyclable packaging—doom even the most well-meaning product to failure. If sustainability is not embedded from the outset, the rest of the chain is compromised.

But this requires time, a resource in short supply. “Everyone is so short-term focused,” Rogerson lamented. “They don’t invest in upstream alignment, so they pay for it downstream.”

### Measuring What Matters

Here again, the conversation turned to data—not just for reporting, but for learning. Lahoz argued that companies must measure impact before they can improve. But here too, challenges abound. Most businesses lack reliable, comparable data, or the systems to interpret it meaningfully. “It’s not just about collecting information,” Casey warned. “It’s about transparency, ethics, and action.”

That’s where the Sustainable Print Manifesto comes in.

### A North Star for Print

Launched in draft form at a FuturePrint event in April, the Sustainable Print Manifesto is a collaborative attempt to define—clearly and collectively—what a sustainable print product looks like. Lahoz described it as a shared framework: “When I ask for a sustainable print job, I know what I’m asking for. When I offer one, I know what to say.”

It’s not a certification. It’s not a PR exercise. It’s a voluntary, evolving agreement—anchored in principles, not platitudes. Crucially, it aims to accelerate innovation by fostering alignment across the print value chain. The call is open for contributions, and participation is growing.

### Beyond the Blame Game

At several points, the panel wrestled with the question of responsibility. Is it the consumer’s job to choose better? Is it the brand’s job to offer better? Is it government’s job to regulate more strictly?

Most agreed that it’s a shared responsibility—but that the burden of leadership must fall on industry and government. Consumers cannot be expected to decode complex supply chains or measure carbon impacts. As Lahoz pointed out, “We need to make it easy for them.”

And perhaps that’s the greatest challenge of all: simplifying complexity without diluting truth.

### A Fragile Opportunity

The print industry stands at a critical juncture. It has the tools. It has the talent. It even has, arguably, a better track record than other media when it comes to recyclability and material use. What it lacks is cohesion.

The good news? The will is there. The Sustainable Print Manifesto is a step forward. The involvement of major players across the spectrum—OEMs, consultants, converters, and brands—suggests a genuine appetite for change. But time is short. As Casey concluded: “If we don’t get it right this time, it might be the last time.”