A perspective paper to be published in Frontiers in Horticulture addresses the widespread but inconsistent use of the term “sustainable growing media” in the horticultural and greenhouse sectors. The publication, written by an international team of researchers and industry experts including Dr Alexander Sentinella of Growing Media Europe, examines how the term has been diluted and proposes a more rigorous evidence-based approach.
“The term is used to mean almost anything and everything,” said Dr. Sentinella. “Along with terms like ‘green’ or ‘climate friendly’, they start to lose their helpful meaning.” The authors argue that this lack of precision undermines research comparability and decision-making in commercial production.
Misconceptions and oversimplification
The article highlights the common tendency to equate sustainability with a single characteristic, such as renewable, circular or peat-free. “People conflate sustainability with individual concepts like climate footprint or renewables, but these are not interchangeable,” he explains. Labels such as “non-toxic” are identified as particularly problematic, as they are often interpreted as an indication of environmental benefit without support.
“‘Peat-free’ means there’s no peat in the mix. It doesn’t show a lower environmental impact or better sustainability unless that’s actually measured.” The authors warn that these assumptions risk misleading growers and managers.
A multi-dimensional and system-dependent concept
Central to the article is the recognition that the sustainability of growing media encompasses three interrelated pillars: environmental, economic, and social. Environmental impacts include not only the climate footprint, but also land and water use. Economic sustainability includes cost, availability and consistency, while social sustainability covers working conditions, health and safety.
“A product may work well environmentally, but not economically or socially. These trade-offs are unavoidable and must be accepted.” The paper emphasizes that sustainability cannot be attributed to individual materials in isolation, but must be assessed within the entire production system.
“Growing media are part of a larger horticultural system. A substrate with a smaller product footprint that reduces yield can lead to a worse overall outcome when the impacts on total production are considered.”
© Growing Media Europe
From hypotheses to measurement
To improve clarity, the authors advocate measurable system-based assessments. Life cycle methodologies are identified as critical tools, including environmental Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). The latter follows the framework developed by the United Nations Environment Program and SETAC, which allows for the assessment of impacts between workers, communities and supply chains.
“Most conversations focus on reducing footprints, but we really need to measure them. The results may not match expectations, which is why measurement is necessary.”
The paper also notes that social impact continues to be emphasized in today’s evaluations, despite the availability of methodologies that consider factors such as labor rights, occupational health and community effects along the value chain.
Guidelines for the responsible use of the term
Rather than proposing a universal definition, the authors outline minimum requirements for the responsible use of the term “sustainable growing medium”. These include explicitly defining the scope of claims, identifying which sustainability pillars are addressed and supporting statements with verifiable data. Absolute claims are abandoned in favor of comparative and context-specific language.
“The best step forward is to use more precise terminology,” advises Dr. Sentinella. “If you mean lower environmental impact, say so and measure it.”
Implications for industry and policy
The findings have practical implications for producers, suppliers and policy makers. The paper cautions against relying solely on proxy indicators such as peat reduction as a measure of sustainability. “If policies focus on a single attribute, there is a risk of neglecting wider impacts. We must base decisions on results measured in environmental, economic and social dimensions.”
The authors conclude that progress in sustainable growth media will depend less on redefining the term and more on improving how evidence is generated and communicated. “It is better to say ‘more sustainable’ and explain why. Clear definitions and measurable indicators are essential for progress in the greenhouse sector.”
Be careful last published paper.
For more information:
Growing Media Europe
Dr. Alexander Sentinella, co-author
(email protected)
www.growing-media.eu