The Illusion of Sustainable Procurement: Breaking Through the Theatre of Virtue

When Tanya W. boldly proclaimed on LinkedIn that "Sustainable Procurement is Bullshit," she threw open the doors to a heated, essential debate about authenticity and integrity in corporate sustainability. Her provocative statement wasn't an indictment of sustainability itself, but rather a critical examination of how the concept has been co-opted into a superficial performance. This assertion resonated with hundreds of professionals, prompting a vibrant discussion rich with examples, criticisms, and insights.

The Theatre of Sustainability

At the heart of Tanya’s argument lies the troubling truth that sustainable procurement often degenerates into mere "virtue signaling." Slick PowerPoint decks, catchy slogans, and glossy sustainability badges—these are the props of a grand theatrical production. But what lies behind the curtain?

As procurement specialist Joseph Perry remarked, many companies proudly display their sustainability badges alongside picturesque forests, implying they are "saving the planet." Yet, behind these facades, practices remain largely unchanged. The sustainability narrative has become commoditized, a mere PR exercise devoid of genuine transformation.

Eugeniusz Teslenko underscores this by highlighting the stark gap between rhetoric and reality: “Too often, sustainable procurement is more performance than progress.” Real sustainability demands incremental, consistent actions rather than grand declarations.

Greenwashing: Profitability Over Authenticity

Several professionals pointed out how sustainability has become entwined with corporate profitability—often in ways that compromise true environmental impact. Marcel Koole succinctly encapsulated this irony, noting, "Sustainability has become the new EBITDA!"

Meanwhile, procurement consultant Frédéric Mesples asked bluntly, "What can we do to make sustainable procurement less bullshit?" The solution isn’t straightforward, but it undoubtedly involves dismantling practices that reward appearances rather than actual outcomes.

Francesca Squizzato, a global procurement manager, eloquently highlighted the crux of the dilemma: "The only real way to sustainability is consuming less, producing less, reusing, and repairing. But this approach directly conflicts with profitability."

A System Built on Illusions

An unsettling realization from the discussion was how deep-seated this illusion has become. Anthony O. shared his experience of how straightforward truth-telling about sustainability practices and their shortcomings is often discouraged, diluted, or entirely silenced within corporate environments. Genuine attempts to highlight uncomfortable truths become "awkward" or "too controversial" to address openly.

This issue isn’t limited to the corporate world; it infects even well-intentioned certifications. As Tanya pointed out, many sustainability certificates are obtained through superficial processes—short online quizzes, downloaded templates, and minimal actual oversight. The sustainability badge becomes a decorative emblem rather than a signifier of rigorous ethical practice.

Real Change Requires Hard Choices

Despite widespread agreement with Tanya's criticisms, several commentators insisted genuine sustainable procurement is indeed possible. For example, Mark Morrissey described how McCain Foods has integrated sustainability across multiple departments, highlighting a model of intentionality and integration rather than mere compliance.

Likewise, Obre P. provided tangible examples from Australia, such as roads built from recycled tires and medical suppliers offering product recycling. These practices demonstrate that sustainable procurement is achievable—but only through meticulous questioning, authentic engagement, and rigorous scrutiny.

Yet, as Tim Meester cautioned, the danger of Tanya’s provocative stance is that it might encourage a wholesale dismissal of sustainability initiatives, rather than prompting deeper, more nuanced inquiries. Sustainable procurement, when executed correctly, is about balancing cost, performance, environmental, and social factors, requiring disciplined and transparent auditing of outcomes.

Why is Sustainable Procurement Failing?

The LinkedIn thread raised critical questions about the root causes of this systemic failure. Commentators like Amin Saleem and Will Dennis pointed to structural issues: corporate governance and shareholder expectations often prioritize immediate profitability over long-term sustainability. Amin highlighted how even well-intentioned CFOs face pressure to deliver immediate profits, leading sustainability to fall by the wayside.

Eduardo Lozano offered a nuanced perspective, observing that sustainability, though genuinely important, can easily become distorted when it becomes mandated by superficial "agendas" rather than genuine strategic intent. Meanwhile, procurement veteran A Andrew Arul Rose emphasized that until companies align their incentives with genuine impact rather than optics, true sustainability remains elusive.

Accountability: Moving Beyond Buzzwords

Several contributors insisted the solution begins with accountability. Tanya herself advocated for uncomfortable yet necessary questioning. Companies must rigorously interrogate suppliers, demanding transparency and verifiable evidence rather than settling for empty claims or greenwashing tactics.

Dhanesh Deoda captured this sentiment succinctly: "Until we start valuing action over appearance, nothing really changes." Accountability demands deeper audits, tougher standards, and genuinely impactful certifications like B Corp, which, as Antoine Sauvageot noted, impose stringent requirements and clear, demonstrable sustainability standards.

Challenging the Status Quo

The LinkedIn dialogue revealed a paradox: sustainable procurement is both vital and flawed. Sustainability demands complex, often costly decisions that challenge conventional profitability metrics. Yet many organizations prefer the comfort of superficial appearances, afraid of facing difficult truths that demand significant systemic changes.

Jessica Hankins summarized this tension compellingly: "We celebrate carbon-neutral supply chains on slides while sourcing from vendors who ignore basic labor standards. Real sustainability often costs more in the short term, but until we align incentives with genuine impact rather than image, this theatre will persist."

Conclusion: Beyond Performance to True Progress

Tanya’s provocative assertion and the diverse reactions it sparked underscore the urgent need for a paradigm shift. Sustainability, at its core, is not performative but transformative. It must transcend slick marketing campaigns, shallow certifications, and easy virtue signaling. True sustainability requires difficult decisions, long-term thinking, rigorous accountability, and genuine transparency.

So, how do we break this cycle? How do we ensure sustainable procurement lives up to its potential? Perhaps the answer lies not in more certifications or elaborate slide decks, but in our willingness to demand genuine transparency, ask uncomfortable questions, and rigorously scrutinize claims.

It's time to dismantle the theatre, peel back the veneer of virtue, and commit authentically to sustainability—not as a marketing strategy, but as an uncompromising ethical imperative.

What do you think? Are we ready to abandon the comfort of superficial sustainability and embrace the messy, challenging path toward true sustainability? Share your thoughts and experiences below.