The sustainability debate around digital vs print has become deeply polarised, with digital widely perceived as the environmentally responsible approach and print positioned as inherently and inescapably wasteful.

But is it as simple as that? The short answer to that question is no, particularly as organisations scale their use of digital technologies (some exponentially) and the environmental impact of these activities becomes apparent.

Arguably, the most striking and alarming example of this trend is the dramatic growth of AI and its associated digital infrastructure. If predictions about the sector’s resource demands are even remotely accurate, the world faces a significant and sustained increase in consumption.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), for example, driven largely by AI growth, “global electricity consumption for data centres is projected to double to reach around 945 TWh by 2030”. To put this in context, from 2024 to 2030, data centre electricity consumption will grow by around 15% per year, “more than four times faster than the growth of total electricity consumption from all other sectors.”

Increases in water consumption are also raising serious concerns. According to the UK government, “AI is predicted to lead to an increase in global water usage from 1.1bn to 6.6bn cubic metres by 2027. This is equivalent to more than half of the UK’s total water usage.”

As the study goes on to point out, “The water demand of AI technologies is likely to threaten global and national water security, especially in areas of existing water stress, which can in turn threaten the biodiversity of local areas and the needs of human populations.”

Digital good, print bad?

But what does this mean for print? After all, the prevailing assumption is that digital would enable organisations to phase out print and, by definition, improve their environmental performance. But given the enormous sustainability challenges now facing the global digitalisation movement, the comparison between digital and print needs to be reframed, not as a question of substitution, but as a question of relative impact in context.

Indeed, if we go back a couple of decades to the early days of digitalisation, reducing reliance on paper was a central part of the case for change. Many of those arguments were valid, particularly given the inefficiencies in how organisations used print at the time. Something had to change, and it did.

Fast forward to 2026, and the landscape looks very different. Print is no longer defined by the inefficiencies that once characterised it, as advances in production processes and technology have significantly improved its environmental performance.

For example, improved production processes have reduced energy consumption and streamlined workflows by eliminating stages that previously produced excess material, especially for limited print runs. At the same time, the ability to produce on demand enables organisations to align output more closely with actual requirements, helping to reduce overproduction and unnecessary inventory.

More specifically, digital and inkjet-based print processes can significantly reduce water consumption, with studies showing reductions of 50–90% compared to traditional techniques. And, in some industrial applications, such as textile printing, digital methods can reduce water use even further, with estimates of up to 95% savings due to the removal of washing and post-processing stages.

Striking a better balance

The underlying issue is not which format is “better”, but that digital and print have different environmental impact profiles. Print impact is typically more visible and often concentrated at the point of production, whereas digital impact is less visible but continues over time through ongoing energy use.

Moving from print to digital does not eliminate environmental impact; it shifts it to other parts of the value chain. As digital usage scales, particularly with always-on services and data-intensive applications, this ongoing impact becomes more significant. As a result, defaulting to digital-first strategies can lead to environmental costs that are not always fully understood.

Rather than focusing on format alone to determine sustainability strategy and benefits, organisations instead need to consider how different approaches perform in specific use cases.

In some scenarios, for example, the continuous energy demands of digital delivery may outweigh the one-off impact of print, particularly where information is accessed repeatedly or stored over long periods. In others, digital will clearly offer advantages, especially where distribution scale or accessibility is the primary requirement.

Outcomes are shaped by delivery

Whatever situation applies, the key to making good sustainability choices is to recognise that outcomes are shaped by how information is delivered and used over time, not by the medium itself. This shift in thinking also aligns with broader moves towards lifecycle-based assessment, where environmental impact is evaluated across the full span of use rather than at a single point in time.

The approach is already being formalised, with the EU’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) establishing a framework law that sets strict rules on sustainability, durability, and repairability for goods sold in the EU to promote a circular economy. EU rules also require that large companies publish regular reports on the social and environmental risks they face, and on how their activities impact people and the environment.

The underlying point is that the core arguments that form the digital/print debate are now much more nuanced than they were 10 or 20 years ago. Organisations need to strike the right balance based on their operational needs and sustainability obligations, not just to protect the environment but also to identify the most business-efficient processes in which digital and/or print must play a role.

Learn more at epson.co.uk