Why sustainability belongs in career conversations: practitioner’s response to common objections

Exploring Green Guidance: Hi Elin, could you tell us more about yourself and why the topic of sustainability resonates with you?

Elin Holgersson: Both my education and my professional context have been strongly focused on the individual. Supporting the person in front of you, their choices, wellbeing, and goals. That focus is deeply rooted in how guidance is practiced in Sweden, and in how our society tends to think more broadly. We are shaped by an individualistic worldview. For a long time, I did not question that. It felt natural, and in many ways it still does. The individual matters. They are who I meet, listen to, and care about in my daily work.

What began to shift my perspective was a summer course on social justice. It was the first time I encountered career guidance framed not only as support for individuals, but as something deeply connected to groups, systems, structures, and the wider world. Through that, I came across Green Guidance, and it immediately resonated with me.

What captured me was not the idea of replacing individual guidance, but of expanding it. I began to see more clearly how things like educational systems, labour markets, organisational cultures, political decisions, and ecological limits shape the individual’s opportunities and choices. These are not abstract background factors. They show up in the counselling room every day, whether we name them or not.

At the same time, individuals are not powerless. They also shape these systems, sometimes in small ways, sometimes in more significant ones. Realising this made my work feel both more complex and more meaningful. Caring about the bigger picture no longer felt like something outside my role as a career practitioner, but part of my responsibility.

This topic also resonates with me on a personal level. Like many others, I have been shaped by an individualistic way of thinking, focusing on my own small sphere and sometimes distancing myself from politics and large societal issues. At times, the state of the world has felt so discouraging that withdrawal seemed easier. But I have come to realise that if everyone who cares and who wants something different chooses distance instead of engagement, nothing will change. That realisation has been uncomfortable but clarifying. It has made me see engagement not as naive optimism, but as a conscious choice to not give up on collective responsibility.

I also belong to a younger generation of practitioners for whom the state of the world is very visible, through digital technology and social media. Crises are no longer distant or abstract. That can be overwhelming, but it has also created a strong drive in me to question things and imagine alternatives. There is something deeply energising in allowing myself to be critical, in not automatically accepting existing ideas of success, growth, and normality as neutral or inevitable.

For a long time, I tried to keep that critical impulse separate from my professional identity, as if strong emotions or frustration about injustice had no place in guidance. Over time, I have come to understand that this energy is not about wanting to tear things down. It comes from a deep discomfort with exploitation, inequality, and systems that concentrate wealth, power, and opportunity in the hands of very few while presenting that outcome as natural or deserved. Questioning these systems feels not only necessary, but alive and meaningful to me.

What has been important is finding a responsible and constructive outlet for that energy. Green Guidance offers me a professional framework where critique does not become cynicism, and where frustration can be transformed into reflection, dialogue, and possibility. It allows me to engage critically with the world while remaining grounded, ethical, and focused on care for the individual. I no longer feel the need to separate a private self that questions from a professional self that stays silent. Green Guidance allows those parts to coexist.

“Green Guidance offers me a professional framework where critique does not become cynicism, and where frustration can be transformed into reflection, dialogue, and possibility. It allows me to engage critically with the world while remaining grounded, ethical, and focused on care for the individual.”

I think sustainability confronts us with a dual reality. On one level, you could say that we have no real choice. If sustainability is not taken seriously, the world as we know it will not continue. At the same time, we do have a choice. Many of us, especially those living in relatively privileged parts of the world, can still choose to look away and live fairly comfortable lives, at least for now, while conditions worsen elsewhere. This tension is precisely why I find this work so meaningful. Choosing to care, when I could choose not to, says something fundamental about what kind of professional and what kind of human I want to be. For me, Green Guidance is not only about careers or sustainability. It is about responsibility, solidarity, and recognising how deeply interconnected our lives are.

Exploring Green Guidance: How has sustainability shaped your career?

Elin Holgersson: Although Green Guidance is still relatively new to me professionally, it has already influenced how I understand my role and my responsibility. At the core of my work, I still deeply value the individual. That has not changed. What has changed is Green Guidance has helped me expand what caring for the individual can mean. Supporting someone’s career development is not only about helping them adapt to the world as it is, but also about helping them understand the world they are moving into and how they can change it.

Even on a personal level, this has led me to question ideas of constant productivity, growth, and success, and to reflect on who ultimately benefits from the systems we participate in. And equally important, how might I and the clients I guide find meaning both within and beyond these systems and boundaries.

I am not suggesting that everyone should reach the same conclusions. That is not the role of guidance. But I do believe people should have the opportunity to reflect and make informed choices based on their own values. Because of this, I place great importance on transparency and access to information. My role is not to direct people towards a specific path, but to help create the conditions for informed choice.

“Supporting someone’s career is not only about helping them adapt to the world as it is, but also about helping them understand the world they are moving into and how they can change it.“

Climate change and social injustice are facts. Ignoring them does not make them disappear. I have therefore made a conscious decision not to turn a blind eye to these realities in my work. Instead, I support students who want to question taken for granted norms, explore alternatives, and reflect on what a meaningful career might look like for them.

Exploring Green Guidance: What do you do to try to integrate sustainability into practice?

Elin Holgersson: I want to be clear that I am not working in a specialised sustainability role. I am a “regular” study and careers counsellor, and sustainability is not explicitly written into my job description. Still, I find it very possible to integrate these perspectives in small and realistic ways within everyday guidance practice. For me, it has been less about adding something new and more about slightly shifting how I listen and what questions I allow space for. I think many career practitioners already work with sustainability related issues without naming them as such.

In guidance sessions, I always start from the individual. When clients express interest in the world, in other people, or in social or environmental issues, it is often natural to explore sustainability. In other cases, I might gently ask a question to see whether this is something they want to reflect on. If not, we leave it there. If they are interested, we can explore how to connect these broader concerns to their individual interests and values. Sustainability in guidance, for me, is about invitation, not persuasion.

I also try to signal openness through small cues, such as the questions I ask or visual elements in my workspace. I keep the Sustainable Development Goals on my office wall. These small signals can make it easier for clients to bring up topics they may otherwise think are inappropriate for career guidance.

At the same time, I do not see sustainability as a separate topic. A lot of the topics we already talk about in guidance, such as mental health, digital development, economic insecurity, and the search for meaningful work are all closely connected to sustainability. When students talk about stress, uncertainty, or disconnected from what they are working towards, these are often sustainability questions as well.

Different practitioners focus on different aspects of guidance, and that is a strength. What strikes me is that many of these focus areas are deeply interconnected through sustainability. Caring for the environment cannot be separated from caring for people’s wellbeing. If individuals are exhausted or unwell, it becomes much harder to engage with broader concerns. Digitalisation can both increase efficiency and free up time, while also raising sustainability challenges related to energy use and electronic waste. Migration and globalisation can contribute to emissions and uncertainty, but also enable knowledge sharing, collaboration, and cultural exchange. All these dynamics involve job creation and job loss, which lies at the core of career guidance.

Because of this, I find it difficult to see how we can do our work well without engaging with sustainability in some way. In that sense, claiming not to work with sustainability at all is a strong statement, because I do not see how it is possible.

Exploring Green Guidance: What do you see as “off” with the current approach to guidance? What kind of objections do you hear from other practitioners?

Elin Holgersson: I think much of what feels off comes from the strong emphasis on individual choice and neutrality. We often work within an idea that individuals are presented with endless opportunities and that success is mainly a matter of choosing well and trying hard enough. Careers have become something that the individual is responsible for managing, almost like a product to optimise.

At the same time, wellbeing is declining, ecological limits are being reached, and inequality is growing. We celebrate growth and innovation, while many people experience stress, insecurity, and exhaustion. For me, something does not add up.

I think one key issue is the idea of neutrality. When we avoid questioning existing systems, labour markets, and definitions of success, we are not neutral. We are passive. And passivity is also a form of action. By accepting things as they are, we implicitly accept existing power structures, whether or not they benefit our clients.

Ove time, career guidance has shifted from labour market matching towards strong individual choice, which has been important. But we are also seeing its limits, and we might have to adjust. There are growing shortages of critical competencies, including those needed for a sustainable transition. I believe our role is to make visible not only individual needs and opportunities, but also the needs of the planet and society. These perspectives do not have to be in conflict.

I hear many objections to Green Guidance, such as concerns or fears of steering or controlling clients, being political, upsetting clients, or not feeling competent enough or having the time to learn more. I understand these concerns and recognise myself in them, not only in relation to sustainability but to guidance in general. But difficulty is not a reason for avoidance. Given the state of the world, excluding sustainability from guidance is becoming increasingly difficult to justify.

“When we avoid questioning existing systems, we are not neutral. We are passive. And passivity is also a form of action.“

As a relatively young practitioner, it can be frustrating to encounter scepticism or dismissal of Green Guidance, especially when I experience its relevance as both professionally and personally necessary. This is the world I will grow old in. Many of the objections I hear seem to rest on misconceptions, and I often find that there are thoughtful and reasonable responses to them.

Exploring Green Guidance: In your opinion, what are the factors behind this resistance?

Elin Holgersson: In my experience, much of the resistance comes from misunderstanding, fear, and uncertainty, as well as from professional traditions that no longer fully align with today’s realities. Many practitioners believe Green Guidance requires deep expertise in climate science or green labour markets. I do not think it does.

One important factor is the belief that Green Guidance requires deep expertise in climate science, emissions, or green labour markets. I think this creates unnecessary insecurity. I am not an expert in these areas. What I do have is guidance competence: the ability to support reflection, explore values, and help people navigate complexity. That is enough to begin. Green Guidance does not have to look like lecturing about climate change or directing people towards very specific green occupations. It can be about questioning narrow ideas of success and constant upward progression, exploring ways of work and life that leave space to care for oneself, others and nature, finding ways to live slower. It can also be about recognising that careers are connected to systemic change. Fear of not knowing enough is understandable, but lifelong learning is something we already promote to our clients. We need to apply that principle to ourselves as well. It is okay to not know everything from the start and to build our practice over time.

Time and resources are of course also real constraints in many guidance contexts. It is often easier to focus only on what feels strictly necessary. But I do not believe that difficulty is a good argument for avoidance. If guidance is to remain relevant, we need to keep creating space for the questions that shape people’s lives, even when it requires extra effort.

I also think resistance is closely linked to how we understand the purpose of career guidance. If our role is to help individuals broaden their horizons, question taken for granted assumptions, and consider alternative paths, then opening conversations about sustainability follows naturally. Not to tell people what to think, but to make more perspectives visible. Sustainability is not an additional agenda imposed from the outside. It is part of helping individuals see a wider landscape of possibilities, responsibilities, and ways of making sense of their choices.

Sometimes there is a concern that Green Guidance risks becoming unethical or controlling. I do not share that fear. I trust our profession more than that. We are competent enough to judge when a topic is relevant, when it benefits the client, and when it does not. Guidance becomes unethical only when it is practised unreflectively or coercively. That applies to all guidance, not only to Green Guidance. If you see controlling guidance, then it is not guidance that you see, it is something else.

Related to this is the idea of being political. I think it is important to acknowledge that everything is political, whether we choose to recognise it or not. One cannot opt out of politics entirely. One can only choose whether to be active or passive. For me, providing clients with relevant information so that they can make informed decisions is not an unethical political act. It is part of my professional responsibility. If we see it as our professional responsibility to help clients make informed decisions, and we acknowledge the fact that the green transition is happening, I can only see it as unethical to consciously not help our clients stay informed about what this means for them.

There is also concern about upsetting clients by talking about the climate crisis or the state of the world. I understand that worry very well. These topics can evoke strong emotions. Handling difficult emotions is already part of our work. We support people through things like exam failures, changed plans, and uncertainty. We do not avoid those conversations because they are uncomfortable. We support people through them. The state of the world is also a real context shaping our clients’ lives, and they deserve support in navigating it. That does not mean we have to focus on crisis alone. We can focus on possibilities, on hope, on what brings meaning and joy, and on ways of coping that align with the individual.

Another common belief is that clients are not interested in sustainability because they do not bring it up themselves. I am not convinced that silence equals disinterest. I do not think many clients realise that these are topics they are allowed to talk about with a career counsellor. That is partly on us. We shape expectations through the questions we ask, the language we use, and the signals we send. Not everyone will want to engage with these topics, and that is fine. But those who do should feel that it is allowed.

I also sometimes hear colleagues say that they work with clients for whom sustainability is simply not relevant because there are other, more pressing issues. I understand this to a certain extent. Many clients are dealing with very concrete concerns: finding a job, choosing an education, finishing their studies, or securing an income. These needs are real and deserve full attention. At the same time, I struggle with the idea that sustainability and social justice would be secondary to these issues. For me, they are deeply connected. What is the point of choosing a career if it offers no sense of meaning or alignment with one’s values? What is the point of getting a job if it leads to burnout, ill health, and eventual exclusion from the labour market? And what does it mean to guide people to adapt unquestioningly to systems that exhaust them and contribute to a society that is neither sustainable nor fair?

I do not believe that integrating a sustainability perspective means ignoring immediate needs. Rather, it provides a broader frame for understanding them. It allows us to ask not only how someone can enter the labour market, but under what conditions, at what cost, and towards what kind of life. In this sense, sustainability is not a luxury concern, but a question of long-term wellbeing for both individuals and society.

This may sound ambitious or idealistic, but I am increasingly tired of a worldview where success is defined by constant productivity and competition and where people are treated as resources to be optimised. As a careers practitioner, I do not want my role to be limited to helping people fit into systems that leave many exhausted, insecure, or excluded. I believe we can do better, and that our profession has a responsibility to at least open space for that conversation.

“Another common belief is that clients are not interested in sustainability because they do not bring it up themselves. I am not convinced that silence equals disinterest. I do not think many clients realise that these are topics they are allowed to talk about with a career counsellor. That is partly on us. We shape expectations through the questions we ask, the language we use, and the signals we send.”

I understand that change can feel challenging and overwhelming. I feel that too. But I think it is a shame when that becomes a reason to stand still. We do not all have to work with sustainability on a large scale. I certainly do not. But I believe there is always something small that each of us can do, and for me, doing my part feels both meaningful and necessary.

Exploring Green Guidance: What can be done about it? What could be the way forward?

Elin Holgersson: We need accessible and practical information about how sustainability and Green Guidance can be integrated into everyday practice. Misconceptions that it is difficult or risky need to be challenged through concrete examples. We also need a wide range of concrete and inspiring examples that help practitioners see that this is doable in their own contexts. Building such examples takes time, but I hope to be part of that process by sharing what I try, what works, and what does not. Normalisation happens through visibility.

What has helped me the most has been to simply try. Rather than waiting to feel fully prepared, I have stayed within my existing guidance competence and experimented carefully with small changes in how I frame questions, introduce perspectives, and open conversations. My experience so far is that Green Guidance is very doable within regular guidance practice, and that confidence and clarity grow through practice and experience rather than beforehand

I also think it is important to recognise that this development will happen regardless of whether we engage with it or not. Sustainability and meaningful careers are already central concerns, especially for younger generations. This is not a trend that might come one day. It is already here, and it is accelerating. Personally, I would much rather be part of that movement now than have to rush to catch up later. I believe Green Guidance will eventually be seen as a natural part of guidance practice.

Support from leadership is also crucial for this development to be feasible. Practitioners need time, resources, and recognition to be able to keep up with the changes that are happening. The importance of Green Guidance, and frankly of guidance in general, needs to be taken seriously at an organisational level. At my university, sustainability is highly prioritised and has recently received significant international recognition. Yet, sustainability is rarely connected explicitly to career guidance in these discussions. It is understandable that some colleagues question whether this is really part of our role, when that connection is not made visible from above.

Personally, I will continue learning, experimenting, and sharing what I do. In a Swedish context, I would also like to see Green Guidance included in guidance education programmes, so it becomes a natural part of professional identity from the beginning.

Exploring Green Guidance: What would good guidance look like in your ideal world?

Elin Holgersson: I recently attended a lecture where Green Guidance was discussed critically, questioning the idea that guidance should save the world, and with concerns about how the demands placed on career guidance have grown significantly, often without corresponding increases in resources or support. It was suggested that perhaps we need to allow ourselves to sometimes “just” do regular guidance and not carry the weight of the world on our shoulders.

I agree that guidance alone cannot save the world. Neither I as an individual, nor a single client I meet, will do that. Change must be collective, and we cannot expect ourselves to be heroes every day. For me, sustainability is therefore one perspective among many. A pair of glasses I can put on when it feels meaningful or relevant. The same is true for other aspects of guidance.

Even if career guidance cannot save the world, I would like career guidance to be recognised as the important tool it already is, with the potential to do more than it is perhaps currently allowed to. Career guidance can contribute not only to individual careers, but also to healthier organisations, communities, and societies. I think that potential exists today, but it is not always recognised or fully realised.

In my ideal world, good guidance does not place the entire responsibility for global problems on the individual practitioner or the individual client. Instead, it creates space for reflection, meaning, and agency within the realities we live in. It acknowledges complexity, offers multiple perspectives, and supports people in making choices that are sustainable not only for their careers, but for their lives as a whole.

Good guidance serves the individual, while also recognising that individuals are part of a larger world. A world that we depend on, and that we are responsible for, together.