Formerly known as Sustainability Science Days, the event has evolved into Science for Sustainability, reflecting changes not only in its name but also in its scope and content. The new concept broadens the focus beyond sustainability sciences to bring research closer to other societal changemakers, including businesses, cities, and communities, and to accelerate sustainability transformation across sectors.
Jointly organised by the University of Helsinki and Aalto University, the conference gathered experts from diverse fields to burst sustainability bubbles: to challenge prevailing sustainability myths and explore fresh perspectives on sustainability transformations.
The programme opened with welcoming remarks and an introduction to the Solutions Circle (Ratkaisuryhmä) by Jussi Impiö (Aalto University). Designed as a practical spin-off of the Science for Sustainability conference, the Solutions Circle pilot brought together some forty participants from universities, companies, cities, ministries, and funding organisations. Its aim was to identify cross-sectoral challenges in the green transition, pinpoint underlying bottlenecks, and co-develop an actionable plan to overcome them.
The Solutions Circle held meetings since the first half of the year, culminating in a full day of workshops on 30th of September. The group identified four shared challenges: (1) limited demand for sustainable solutions, (2) issues of public acceptability, (3) the absence of a long-term vision and (4) narrow innovation policies, and has been developing a collaborative action plan to address them.
You can read more about the Solutions Circle
Next on the programme was a video greeting from Minister of Climate and the Environment, Sari Multala. In her message, she envisioned a hopeful “world of cooperation” in 2045, where societies produce and consume sustainably, environmental recovery is underway, and trust in science and open data guide decision-making. She cautioned, however, that Finland and the world are far from this path, with several planetary boundaries already exceeded. To move closer to that vision, Multala highlighted three priorities: strengthening international cooperation, aligning policies with planetary limits through just transitions, and boosting investment in science and innovation, supported by the goal of raising R&D funding to 4% of GDP by 2030.
The panellists welcomed Multala’s hopeful outlook but questioned whether current political and economic policies are bold enough to make such a future real. Järvensivu thought that the constructive vision should be matched concrete governmental programs, while Pihlajamaa pointed out that only repeating existing strategies will not lead to change. Nygård added that global agreements mean little if governments keep echoing trendy catchphrases about sustainability without following through with real action.
Next, each panellist presented a short, bold statement that captured their perspective on how sustainability transformations should move forward:
• Emilia Nygård: Step up or step aside. Leaders should act decisively or make room for those who will. Young people are willing to lead but rarely given real power.
• Matti Pihlajamaa: Our view of innovation is too narrow. Societies rely too heavily on technology while overlooking social and institutional change.
• Paavo Järvensivu: Sustainability transformation requires a well-planned industrial policy. Public policy should not only regulate markets but set clear social and ecological directions.
From these statements, a shared theme around power and responsibility emerged. The panellists agreed that cross-sector collaboration is vital but warned that it often reinforces existing hierarchies when dominated by large companies or senior decision makers. Nygård spoke about “youth washing”, where young representatives are invited for appearance rather than influence. The audience raised questions about urgency, noting that the rapid measures taken during the pandemic showed what societies can do when crisis feels immediate. Järvensivu added that Europe’s energy response after the war in Ukraine could have accelerated decarbonisation, but political will and preparation were lacking. Nygård also argued that distance from nature weakens our awareness of the crisis, and that communities living closest to environmental change already experience the consequences first-hand.
Throughout the discussion, one of recurring themes was the idea of reducing consumption. Paavo Järvensivu argued that sustainability cannot rely on growth alone and that real transformation requires an industrial policy which directs society toward social and ecological wellbeing rather than expanding production. Emilia Nygård added that a good life should not depend on endless resource use but, for example, on empathy, fairness and connection to nature. Later, Matti Pihlajamaa echoed these thoughts, suggesting that many Finns already might long for a smaller, simpler future; one closer to nature and the people they care about. Together, their comments drew a picture of post growth not as deprivation but as a rich way of living without excess consumption.
The dialogue discussion opened with a question about who has the power to define sustainability and whose interests dominate global conversations. Bonn Juego argued that mainstream understanding of sustainability remain shaped by capitalism, colonialism and corporate globalisation. These frameworks, he said, prioritise short-term profit over long-term visions of justice. He proposed three pillars of what he termed “just sustainability”: diversification, decolonisation, and deglobalisation.
Tuija Veintie highlighted the gap between visibility and genuine influence in global arenas. Indigenous representatives may be invited to prominent international gatherings, like the UN’s COP climate meetings, yet their voices seldom have a real impact on the final outcomes. The panellists and the dialogue moderator, Susanna Lehvävirta (HELSUS, University of Helsinki), reflected on this as a form of so-called “indigenous washing”, where symbolic participation replaces agency.
Juego reflected also on the insularity of Western societies, noting a tendency to focus on one’s own community while ignoring wider global connections and responsibilities. He suggested reframing communication around raising awareness rather than accusation, pointing out that even universities often reproduce human capital logic that serves market needs instead of fostering critical thought. Additionally, he argued that sustainability cannot be reduced to technical fixes while market-based capitalism itself remains unquestioned.
Veintie also cautioned that so-called green transitions can repeat old harms. For example, she noted that hydropower projects in Amazonia and wind farms in Finland often affect the same territories and peoples who have long borne the costs of extraction. These projects may promise sustainability, yet they can frequently proceed without genuine prior informed consent from local or Indigenous communities.
Both speakers agreed that global principles can inspire, but meaningful action must take root locally. Juego mentioned the idea of cosmolocalism, sharing knowledge globally while keeping production and decision-making local. Later, Veintie offered an example from the Andes and Amazon: minga, or communal work, where entire communities come together to build, repair or solve problems collectively. The purpose is not abundance or productivity for its own sake but ensuring that everyone has enough through collective effort.
The conversation closed on what can be learned from Indigenous worldviews without romanticising them. Juego underlined their alternative concepts of value and time, where life is not treated as a commodity and justice is intergenerational, extending from ancestors to future generations. Sustainability, the speakers concluded, is inherently political, relational and long term, a matter not only of survival but of justice.
Pauliina Damdimopoulou’s keynote highlighted that pollution, together with climate change and biodiversity loss, forms the third part of what the United Nations calls the Triple Planetary Crisis. The global production of plastics and chemicals has risen sharply since the 1950s, and these substances do not simply disappear. They accumulate in nature and in people.
Damdimopoulou reminded the audience that pollution from man-made chemicals has already caused visible harm in wildlife. Baltic grey seals, for example, suffered severe reproductive problems in the 1960s and 1970s due to the accumulation of persistent organic pollutants such as PCBs and the pesticide DDT in their bodies. As the use of these chemicals was restricted, their concentrations in the environment, and the populations began to recover.
The same types of chemicals are now found inside human bodies, even in women’s ovaries and in foetuses before birth. Damdimopoulou’s work at the Chemicals and female fertility research group at Karolinska Institutet has shown that women with higher levels of chemicals in their ovaries have fewer eggs, poorer embryo quality and take longer to conceive. Just as pollution once caused infertility in wildlife, it may now be undermining human fertility and the health of future generations.
Despite this, the exact number of chemicals currently on the market is unknown, and most safety testing continues to focus on male fertility. Research on the female reproductive system has been limited, not because women’s reproductive systems are less sensitive, but because of a lack of sufficient data.
Human fertility rates are declining globally, and the use of assisted reproductive technologies is rising. Finland has one of the highest proportions of assisted reproduction births in the world, and in 2023, 7% of all babies were born with the help of these technologies. Still, up to one third of couples entering infertility treatments remain childless.
Damdimopoulou also explained that lifestyle choices alone cannot solve the problem. Even everyday habits such as using perfumes can increase exposure to phthalates, while eating fish and eggs could raise PFAS levels. Many exposures are difficult to avoid entirely, and individual actions have limited effect. Meaningful change, Damdimopoulou argued, must come through stronger regulation, international cooperation and public pressure.
As Damdimopoulou concluded, people should not get scared, but they should get upset, and demand a chemically safe environment for future generations.
A heartfelt thank you to everyone who joined this year’s conference and contributed to all the inspiring conversations!
If you missed the event or want to relive some of the highlights, the keynote and panel talks are available on YouTube:
You can browse pictures from the conference