The Fetish of Sustainability: A Critical Perspective

Would it be wrong to say that the concept of sustainability has been hollowed out and turned into a fetish?

From a perspective that blends Baudrillard’s notion of simulation with Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism, it’s not only possible—it’s necessary.

What we call the “fetishism of sustainability” is essentially nothing more than the capitalist logic reproducing itself. It does this by transforming ecological crises into a new commodity form.

The core issue: This fetish doesn’t tackle the root causes of the ecological crisis. Instead, it substitutes genuine ecological struggle with a hyper-curated green fantasy. This fantasy is propped up by new consumption habits and catchy slogans. As a result, the structural contradictions of the system become increasingly invisible.

Ecological Simulation

French philosopher and sociologist Jean Baudrillard’s concept of simulation suggests a condition. In this condition, distinguishing between the real and the constructed becomes nearly impossible.

According to Baudrillard, the constant mediation of experience through media and technology creates a “hyperreality.” This is a simulated version of reality. It replaces the original. Not “perception is reality” but “perception is hyperreality.”

The discourse of sustainability, in many cases today, functions precisely on this level of hyperreality. We are offered a steady stream of eco-labeled branding. Hollow carbon-neutral promises substitute for protecting actual ecological balance or triggering concrete climate action. This curated green status quo begins to shape public awareness and policy. It substitutes for genuine ecological engagement. It manufactures the feeling of caring in place of actual change.

This is why the capitalist use of sustainability has become a form of “ecological simulation.” The system continues to depend on limitless growth and endless consumption. At the same time, it promotes sustainability as a marketing aesthetic. This approach masks the very damage it perpetuates.

Sustainability as a Tool of Commodification

Marx’s concept of commodity fetishism echoes clearly in the current sustainability discourse. In the capitalist marketplace, sustainability is often reduced to products carrying a “green” or “eco-friendly” label. This label grants them an aura of moral superiority.

These products—wrapped in biodegradable packaging and marketed as “planet-conscious”—are fetishized as if they have inherent virtue. Meanwhile, the social and ecological cost of their production is conveniently hidden backstage. The green label becomes just another lever of capitalist attraction—another excuse to sell more things.

Thus, the fetishism of sustainability cloaks ecological concerns in sanitized commercial language. It also diverts attention from the urgent need for structural, political, and economic transformation.

Radical overhaul is needed. It is being rebranded as a lifestyle. This creates the illusion of ecological sensitivity. It preserves the very system that caused the crisis.

A New Habitus: The Ecological Bourgeoisie

Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of habitus refers to the lasting patterns of thought, perception, and behavior. Individuals acquire these patterns through their social environment. It reveals how structural realities shape the everyday lives of individuals.

In this context, sustainable consumption practices become a new mechanism of class distinction. What we might call the “ecological bourgeoisie” uses environmental concern as cultural capital—a way to set themselves apart.

Driving a Tesla, shopping for organic produce, and embracing a zero-waste lifestyle are badges of distinction. They define a new green elite.

This habitus reduces the ecological crisis to a matter of individual lifestyle choices. It strips the crisis of its collective political urgency. “Sustainable” consumption becomes a luxury—and in doing so, obscures the class-based dimensions of the climate crisis.

By reducing systemic transformation to boutique consumer choices, it preserves itself—stalling any real path toward change.

Conclusion: The Need for a Radical Choice

Sustainability fetishism is a stark example of how capitalism absorbs and manages the ecological crisis.

And it has become one of the biggest obstacles to real ecological transformation.

Breaking out of the system’s simulation requires pursuing a radical alternative. This approach sees the ecological crisis through the lens of class. It prioritizes collective action. It also challenges the foundational assumptions of the current order.

Sustainability must be liberated from its commodified form. It should be redefined as a collective project. It shouldn’t be viewed as a marketing strategy.

That requires more than green branding.
It requires a deep, structural rethinking of how we live, consume, and organize our world.

Ultimately, we must remember this: Sustainability, if it is to mean anything at all, can’t stay a hollow label. It must become a demand for radical, systemic transformation.