.png)
2026-08-31
On August 28th, at the BŪTENT! discussion festival, Cleantech Lithuania brought together representatives from business, energy, and finance to talk about one of the key paradoxes of sustainability: why do our stated intentions to live and consume more sustainably so often fail to align with our daily choices?
The discussion featured Karolis Mirinavičius (Ignitis Group), Zita Markevičiūtė (Pack'n GREEN), Darius Verseckas (Sigvi), and Marius Dubnikovas (Orion Securities), with the conversation moderated by Laima Balčiūnė, head of Sunrise Tech Park and founder of Cleantech Lithuania.
Who is responsible for change—the consumer, the business, or the state? Does a sustainable choice always mean consuming less? The nearly hour-long discussion showed that there are no simple answers. However, one point was repeated with particular clarity: the sustainability argument alone is usually not enough.
Wanting to live more sustainably is one thing, but making choices based on that every day is quite another. Price, convenience, quality, and habits often carry more weight than an abstract desire to reduce one's environmental impact. Therefore, the discussion examined sustainability not as a moral choice between "good" and "bad," but as a very practical issue. If a more sustainable product is more expensive, less convenient, or fails to meet the user's needs, the "green" argument alone may not be enough.
For businesses, this means a clear task: to create solutions where sustainability is more than just an extra label. They must compete on price, quality, convenience, technology, and real value for the individual. A sustainable choice must become one that a person chooses not out of duty, but because it is simply the better option.
The conversation also touched on the energy transition. At first glance, there is a contradiction here: on one hand, we talk about saving energy, while on the other, we are electrifying more and more sectors.
However, the electrification of transport, heating, or industry can mean higher electricity consumption while simultaneously reducing dependence on fossil fuels and increasing energy efficiency.
Therefore, the question of sustainability in the discussion naturally shifted from "how to consume less?" to another: How can we consume more wisely?
The same applies to everyday products. When evaluating their impact, looking at a single feature is not always enough. It is important to consider how long we use an item, how many resources were required to produce it, how efficiently it functions, and whether a new solution is truly better than what we already have.
The discussion inevitably shifted to the business side. Examples from the Lithuanian technology and cleantech ecosystem were discussed, including Vinted, InSoil, Fivrec, and Sigvi. They are united by an important idea: sustainable innovation must solve a real problem. It must save resources, offer a more efficient process, a new business model, or some other tangible value.
A somewhat more uncomfortable question about funding also arose here. Can a solution be called sustainable if it only exists as long as it receives subsidies or project funding? Economic viability, efficient use of capital, and the ability to survive in the market are also part of sustainability. This is especially relevant for the cleantech sector, where technologies must not only reduce environmental impact but also operate under real market conditions.
One of the most interesting directions of the discussion was sustainability reporting.
Measuring impact is necessary for companies. Without data, it is difficult to understand one's situation, set goals, or evaluate progress. However, a question also arose as to when measurement begins to overshadow the action itself. Complex reports and a multitude of indicators can be useful for a company internally, but they do not always help the end consumer make a clearer decision. A single emissions figure without context says very little.
Therefore, a question relevant to many organizations emerged in the discussion: how many resources do we allocate to reducing real impact, and how many to showing and justifying that we are reducing it? Accountability is necessary, but it must remain a means, not become an end in itself.
Who, ultimately, should ensure that sustainable solutions become the norm? This responsibility cannot be left to the consumer alone. They choose from what is available on the market. Businesses create products and services, while the state shapes the rules, infrastructure, and economic incentives that can make some choices easier than others.
Therefore, real change happens when these parts start working together. A consumer should not have to constantly choose between sustainability and price, sustainability and convenience, or sustainability and quality. A sustainable choice must become accessible, convenient, and economically rational.
This is precisely where the answer to the question posed in the title of the discussion lies. The gap between what we declare and how we live will not shrink when we tell people once again how they should behave, but when more sustainable solutions become a natural and attractive part of everyday life.
