‹ Back

The Sustainable Brands Türkiye 2026 conference, held on September 29, 2026, once again demonstrated that sustainability should not be addressed merely as a matter of environmental targets and corporate communications, but together with business models, innovation, consumer behavior, technology, and management decisions.

The company experiences shared by participants from different sectors showed that sustainability is increasingly being brought onto a more concrete ground in the business world, while one of the key topics that stood out was how to build a business case for sustainability, how to mobilize resources, and how to relate sustainability targets to real business outcomes.

However, when it comes to sustainability, the real issue is not simply knowing.

Because;

Knowing ≠ feeling responsible.

Knowing ≠ taking action.

A company’s knowledge of its environmental impacts, its monitoring of regulations, implementation of relevant standards, or possession of the necessary certifications are all important. Yet none of these, on their own, demonstrate that a genuine transformation in sustainability has taken place.

For knowledge to translate into behavior, a sense of responsibility, resource allocation, and determination also need to come into play.

Therefore, rather than considering sustainability in business solely through knowledge + compliance, it is necessary to evaluate it as an integrity of responsibility + knowledge + resources + action.

Moving Beyond the Document

For companies operating within the international supply chain of the construction materials and building sector, this distinction is becoming even more evident. Today, the necessary documentation, certification, and regulatory compliance required for a product to access the market are important requirements. However, particularly as sustainability expectations in the European market spread across different stages of the supply chain, simply “having the required document” is becoming increasingly limited in meaning.

The question is gradually shifting toward:

What kind of production, product, and management approach lies behind the document?

Rather than evaluating the sustainability of a product solely through its certification, questions such as which raw materials it is produced from, how many resources are consumed during production, how energy use is managed, how long the product lasts, whether it can be repaired or reused, how its packaging and logistics are designed, and what happens after use are becoming increasingly important. Therefore, sustainability is becoming less about a document or communication message added to a product and more about how the product itself is designed.

Compliance Is One Thing, Responsibility Another

When we look at the environmental impacts of industrial production, which have been the subject of many studies, the fact that environmental sustainability often remains limited to regulatory compliance is one of the fundamental gaps facing the sector. Complying with environmental regulations is, of course, an undeniable requirement. However, doing what regulations require and rethinking the way a business operates in order to create a lower environmental impact are not the same thing.

A business can obtain the necessary document. It can pass inspections. It can implement waste management procedures. It can report.

But beyond these, does it ask:

“How can we create the same value with fewer resources?”

“How can we design our product to last longer?”

“How can we reduce the impact of our product after use?”

“Which points in our supply chain do we need to change?”

If these questions are not being asked, the distance between compliance and sustainability still remains.

Therefore, the critical distinction in sustainability emerges precisely in the gap between intention and action.

Business – People – Innovation

The different examples highlighted at Sustainable Brands Türkiye 2026 also showed that sustainability is not merely a matter of technology or environmental management.

At this point, three concepts cannot be considered separately:

Business – People – Innovation.

Innovation can develop new technologies.

But people decide which problems should be solved.

A business model determines resource allocation.

But which resources are used for which purposes is ultimately the result of management decisions.

Therefore, in sustainability, the way decisions are made is as important as technology.

Rethinking the Product: The BMW Example

BMW’s new iX3 approach is one of the examples showing that sustainability is not addressed solely through energy consumption at the production facility. For the new iX3, considering different stages of the product life cycle together—from the supply chain to production, from the use of secondary materials to battery technology—offers a notable example of how sustainability can be integrated into product development decisions.

The fundamental approach here is not merely to produce a more sustainable automobile;

it is to rethink the automobile itself through sustainability criteria.

From this perspective, the question for the construction materials sector begins right here:

Is it about producing existing products more sustainably, or rethinking the product itself?

There is an important difference between the two.

Ferrero and ETİ: An Approach Extending Across the Value Chain

The sustainability initiatives carried out by companies such as Ferrero and ETİ also demonstrate that sustainability cannot be addressed solely at the company headquarters or production facility.

Ferrero’s work on good agricultural practices and social initiatives within the hazelnut value chain demonstrates that sustainability is a value-chain issue extending all the way to producers, while ETİ’s work in agricultural production, resource efficiency, and various social/environmental projects provides examples of how sustainability can be addressed together with different stakeholders.

The important point here is not to position any particular company as “more sustainable.”

The important question is:

How far along the value chain can sustainability be extended?

To the supplier?

To production?

To the product?

To the consumer?

Or all the way to post-use?

Real impact becomes stronger to the extent that sustainability can extend beyond the company’s own boundaries.

“If You Don’t Need It Anymore, Don’t Buy It”

One of the notable approaches to sustainability was the “If you don’t need it anymore, don’t buy it” approach discussed in the Philips example.

This statement requires us to rethink the traditional logic of consumption.

Because sustainability does not always mean more sales.

Sometimes it means a longer product life.

Sometimes being able to repair.

Sometimes being able to replace a part.

Sometimes being able to reuse.

And sometimes simply not buying a new product when it is genuinely not needed.

The growing interest among new generations of consumers in behaviors such as repair, refurbishment, and reuse suggests that companies may not be able to assess the consumption patterns of the future solely through today’s sales models.

Here, rather than making a simple “right–wrong” distinction between generations, the focus should be on how changing consumption behaviors will affect companies’ product and business model designs.

The Question Is Even More Difficult for the Construction Materials Sector

In the construction materials sector, the sustainability debate is often conducted around energy, raw materials, production, and emissions.

Yet there are also more fundamental questions concerning the product itself:

Can it last longer?

Can it be repaired?

Can its parts be replaced?

Can it be produced with less raw material?

Can it consume less energy?

Can its packaging be reduced?

Can logistics be made more efficient?

Can it be recovered or reused at the end of its life?

And perhaps most importantly:

Instead of simply telling the customer that it is sustainable, can we demonstrate sustainability through the product itself?

These questions can help transform sustainability in the construction materials sector from a matter of documentation and compliance into a matter of product innovation and value creation.

Artificial Intelligence: Making Decisions or Delegating Decisions?

At a time when the relationship between sustainability and technology is becoming increasingly important, artificial intelligence creates another area of questioning.

Artificial intelligence can;

analyze data,

compare alternatives,

optimize energy consumption,

evaluate supply chains,

predict risks.

However, the fact that a decision can be technically optimized does not mean that the decision is ethically right.

The approach to the relationship between people and technology discussed at the conference points to an important question:

Does delegating decision-making authority to an algorithm also mean delegating responsibility for the decision?

An algorithm may identify the “most efficient” option.

But;

Who does this decision affect?

Who benefits from it?

Who is harmed by it?

What does it create in the long term?

The answers to these questions cannot be found solely through the efficiency calculated by an algorithm.

Because sustainability must question not only measurable impact, but also the meaning of a decision for people and society.

When Skill and Wisdom Do Not Come Together

At precisely this point, the sustainability debate moves beyond the issue of knowledge and technology.

In today’s world, producing marifet—capability and expertise—is becoming increasingly easy.

More data.

More technology.

More expertise.

More artificial intelligence.

More analysis.

More certifications.

The intellectual stance between high marifet and hikmet emphasized by Arda Öztaşkın at the conference points to another issue: questioning what all of these serve.

Marifet is the ability or competence to do something.

Hikmet is the wisdom and disposition that questions where that competence should be directed.

A business can produce more efficiently.

But what is the result of this efficiency?

It can consume fewer resources.

But what is being done with the resources saved?

It can sell more products.

But are more products really needed?

It can make decisions faster with artificial intelligence.

But who are the people affected by that decision?

This is where the real issue of sustainability emerges.

Being able to make a decision does not mean that the decision is right.

Being able to use a technology does not mean that it should be used in every situation.

Being able to produce a product does not mean that we need to produce more of it.

Wisdom asks the following question before considering the outcome of a decision:

“Who does this decision affect, and what does it serve?”

While addressing this idea, a verse presented by our founder expresses this thought simply:

“Side by side they come;
Wisdom and skill.
Otherwise, wisdom,
What purpose does it serve
This skill?”

In terms of sustainability, what is needed today is not simply more knowledge, more technology, or more marifet.

It is the ability to bring marifet together with hikmet.

Because high levels of skill can produce many things without reason and disposition.

But without wisdom, what what is produced serves and what impacts it creates will always remain a question mark.

Perhaps the real test of sustainability begins precisely here:

Not in knowing.

But in transforming knowledge into responsibility,

responsibility into action,

and action into real impact.

#Allrise #SustainableBrandsTürkiye26