.png)
If you feel like sustainability messaging is getting harder to land, you’re not imagining it.
Across the AEC and design industry, audiences are tired of vague claims, broad promises, and aspirational language that never quite connects to real decisions.
That tension became obvious during a recent edition of The Circle panel. At one point, Cradle to Cradle Product Innovation Institute’s Ren DeCherney summed up what many in the industry have been feeling: “The vibes in sustainability are off right now.”
It was said half-jokingly, but no one pushed back.
Sustainability hasn’t lost relevance, but what it has lost, in many cases, is clarity.
For marketers and the C-suite, this matters. Sustainability marketing is no longer about visibility or good intentions. It’s about accountability. It’s about showing, not telling. It’s about giving your audience, clients, and customers information they can actually use.
The problem isn’t a lack of commitment. Designers, manufacturers, and end-users are still deeply invested in performance, health, and long-term value. What’s changed is tolerance for fluff.
Over the last few years, the AEC industry has produced an enormous amount of sustainability data, certifications have expanded, and reporting has become more sophisticated. In theory, this should make decision-making easier; but, in practice, it often does the opposite.
As DeCherney explained during the panel, “What we heard from the market was, ‘That’s too much data. We don’t want that. What we need is to understand what it means.’”
When sustainability information is dense, fragmented, or difficult to interpret, it creates friction. Designers hesitate and end-users disengage. Marketing messages blur together. At that point, sustainability stops feeling like a strategic advantage and starts feeling like noise.
What’s changing now isn’t the goal, but the standard.
When everything is labeled “sustainable,” nothing stands out. Claims that aren’t tied to action, erode trust.
Sustainability stories now need three things to resonate.
This is the new baseline for how to market sustainability in the AEC industry.
One of the most important developments discussed during the panel was the growing alignment around shared frameworks for evaluating materials and performance. The Common Materials Framework, in particular, was cited as a way to bring clarity and consistency to an otherwise fragmented landscape.
By creating a common language across architects, designers, manufacturers, and certification bodies, frameworks make sustainability easier to evaluate. They help architects and designers compare products faster; they assist manufacturers in explaining investments more clearly; and they help firms align sustainability goals early, when cost and impact are most flexible.
Anthony Guerrero, Executive Director at mindfulMaterials, emphasized that this kind of standardization is critical to scaling adoption because it allows teams to prioritize materials in a consistent, repeatable way.
From a marketing perspective, referencing recognized frameworks signals credibility. It shows that your sustainability story aligns with how decisions are actually made, not just how projects are described after the fact.
Another recurring theme was timing. Many of the frustrations associated with sustainability stem from trying to introduce goals too late in the process.
ZGF Architects Principal of Data Strategy and Research Flavia Grey spoke to the hesitation teams feel when sustainability is perceived as added work or added cost. When goals are unclear or introduced late, sustainability feels expensive, disruptive, and risky.
When priorities are established early, the opposite is true, often reducing cost, complexity, and that perceived risk. It allows teams to think holistically, align systems, and avoid costly downstream changes.
Another recurring theme was timing. Many of the frustrations associated with sustainability stem from trying to introduce goals too late in the process.
ZGF Architects Principal of Data Strategy and Research Flavia Grey spoke to the hesitation teams feel when sustainability is perceived as added work or added cost. When goals are unclear or introduced late, sustainability feels expensive, disruptive, and risky.
When priorities are established early, the opposite is true, often reducing cost, complexity, and that perceived risk. It allows teams to think holistically, align systems, and avoid costly downstream changes.
Another recurring theme was timing. Many of the frustrations associated with sustainability stem from trying to introduce goals too late in the process.
ZGF Architects Principal of Data Strategy and Research Flavia Grey spoke to the hesitation teams feel when sustainability is perceived as added work or added cost. When goals are unclear or introduced late, sustainability feels expensive, disruptive, and risky.
When priorities are established early, the opposite is true, often reducing cost, complexity, and that perceived risk. It allows teams to think holistically, align systems, and avoid costly downstream changes.
For AEC marketing teams, this is an important narrative shift. Your messaging should reinforce early engagement. Case studies should show how upfront decisions impact downstream outcomes. Thought leadership should emphasize process, not just results. Content, too, should help clients understand why early alignment is a value multiplier, influencing performance, cost, and long-term value.
From the manufacturing perspective, the panel highlighted another important shift. Architects and designers aren’t asking products to do everything, but they are asking them to do specific things well.
Brice Aarstead of H Window described manufacturers as largely responsive to evolving design and regulatory demands.“Having a product story that communicates the problems it’s solving helps yield better adoption,” he said.
Marketing that tries to cover every sustainability attribute at once often dilutes its own message. But by narrowing the story, explaining the problem you’re solving, and showing how that solution connects to energy codes, health outcomes, lifecycle cost, or system-level efficiencies, and then backing it up with proof, the message resonates more strongly.
Accountability, in this context, becomes clarifying, not restrictive.
One of the most important reframes from the discussion was this: clients rarely buy sustainability for its own sake. They buy better buildings, healthier spaces, stronger performance, and long-term return on investment.
Grey reinforced this point by emphasizing that sustainability should be communicated through the lens of client goals, not moral obligation. When performance, wellbeing, and value are clearly connected, sustainability stops feeling like a burden and starts feeling like common sense.
Effective sustainability marketing translates environmental goals into business outcomes. It avoids vague language and focuses on what actually changes as a result of better decisions and what your audience already cares about. You don’t always need to lead with the word “sustainability,” but you do need to lead with relevance.
If you’re a firm leader, manufacturer, or marketing team navigating sustainability fatigue, the path forward is clear.
Be specific.
Be transparent.
Be useful.
The industry is asking for more precision, more honesty, and more accountability. Brands that respond by sharpening their stories, grounding claims in proof, and respecting their audience’s decision-making process will stand out. It builds trust, shortens sales cycles, and positions your brand as highly credible in a crowded market.
As an AEC marketing agency working closely with architecture, design, and manufacturing clients, we see this shift accelerating. The brands that adapt will not only cut through the noise but shape what sustainability leadership actually looks like next.
And that is a story people still want to hear.
Want to hear what’s shaping the future of AEC and design? Visit our on-demand gallery of past panel discussions.
.avif){kind=logo}
