The Problem With Sustainable Products: Price

Would you pay $35 instead of $20?

Imagine two bags.

One costs $20.

The other costs $35. It uses recycled fabric, less packaging and a more carefully considered design.

Which one would you buy?

When we talk about sustainability, the answer seems obvious:

“I'd choose the sustainable one.”

But put those two bags in front of a customer with a credit card, and things can become very different.

People may care about sustainability.

They still care about price.

And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Why are sustainable products often more expensive?

The easy answer is:

“Because sustainable materials cost more.”

Sometimes that's true.

Recycled and alternative materials may require additional collection, sorting, cleaning and processing. Some materials are also produced in much smaller quantities than conventional materials.

Then there are testing, certification, manufacturing and logistics costs.

So when a customer asks:

“Why is the sustainable version $8 more?”

There may be a surprisingly long story behind that $8.

But here's the interesting part.

Sustainable products are not always more expensive.

If production volumes increase, manufacturing becomes more efficient and supply chains mature, the price difference can become smaller.

Good design can also reduce costs by using less material, reducing packaging or making a product last longer.

So perhaps the better question isn't:

“Is the sustainable product more expensive?”

It's:

“More expensive at which point?”

At the factory?

At the checkout?

Or over five years of use?

Are consumers really willing to pay more?

There is some encouraging evidence.

PwC's 2024 global consumer survey found that 80% of consumers said they were willing to pay more for sustainably produced or sourced goods, with an average stated premium of 9.7%.

But there is an important catch.

Inflation and cost-of-living pressures can change purchasing decisions.

So people can genuinely believe:

“I want more sustainable products.”

And still choose $20 over $35.

That's not necessarily hypocrisy.

People have budgets.

The problem gets bigger for brands

Imagine a brand developing a recycled-fabric bag.

The conventional version costs $8 to manufacture.

The recycled version costs $12.

The difference at the factory is only $4.

But after freight, packaging, import costs, marketing and retail margins, that $4 can become a much bigger difference at the checkout.

Suddenly, the sustainable version isn't simply “$4 more.”

That's when product development becomes a business problem.

So should brands simply absorb the extra cost?

Not necessarily.

There are other ways to approach it.

Could the product use less material?

Could the packaging be simplified?

Could a recycled material be used only where it provides the most value?

Could better construction make the product last longer?

Could another part of the product be redesigned to offset the higher material cost?

This is why I don't think sustainable product development should begin with:

“Let's make it eco-friendly.”

I'd rather start with:

“What are we trying to improve, and what can the customer realistically pay?”

What do I look at as a buyer?

When a supplier tells me:

“This material is more expensive, but it's environmentally friendly.”

That's not enough.

I'd want to know:

What does it replace?

Why does it cost more?

Can the price improve at higher volumes?

Does it make the product better in another way?

Will the customer actually see enough value to pay for it?

That last question is particularly important.

Because a sustainable product that nobody can afford may never reach enough customers to make a meaningful difference.

Maybe “cheaper” isn't always the goal.

A $20 bag that lasts two years isn't necessarily better value than a $30 bag that lasts five.

A $24 product with less packaging and a replaceable component may also make more sense than a $20 product that has to be thrown away when one part fails.

So I don't think sustainability should be sold as a sacrifice.

Make a better product. Then explain why it costs what it costs.

What I believe

After years of working with manufacturers and different materials, I'm less interested in finding the cheapest material.

I'm also less interested in finding the “greenest” material.

I'm more interested in finding the right balance between:

Material.
Product performance.
Manufacturing.
Price.
Durability.
Customer expectations.

Because a sustainable product still has to be a product.

Someone has to want it.

Someone has to afford it.

Someone has to manufacture it.

And ideally, someone should still be using it years later.

The challenge isn't simply to make a product greener. It's to make it better — without making it impossible to buy.

What do you think?

Would you pay 20% more for a product if you knew exactly what the extra money was paying for?

Or does a sustainable product need to be close to the conventional price before you would consider buying it?

I'd be interested to hear where you draw the line.