Towards Sustainable Consumption: a Conceptualisation and Evaluation of Measurement Tools

Towards Sustainable Consumption: A Conceptualisation and Evaluation of Measurement Tools

Jessica Pape Department of Geography Trinity College Dublin [email protected]

Barbara Heisserer Department of Political Science and Sociology National University of Ireland, Galway [email protected] The Earth has enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed. Mahatma Gandhi

Introduction

In recent years, the concepts of sustainable development (SD) and sustainable consumption (SC) have gained increasing attention. Overconsumption, particularly in industrialised countries, has been identified as a major challenge in advancing the goals of sustainable development. However, both terms are used excessively by practitioners and researchers alike without providing a clear definition on how to conceptualise and measure the concept. The concept of sustainable consumption needs clarification so that it can serve as a central objective to achieve sustainable development. The aim of this paper is to clarify the concept of sustainable consumption: In the first part of the paper, common definitions of sustainable consumption, as well as the related difficulties are discussed. In the second part, measurement tools of sustainable consumption and assessment criteria for policy frameworks are presented and their benefits and limitations are highlighted. In conclusion it is suggested that despite the heterogeneity of the concept SC as regards definitions, measurement tools and assessment criteria, some of the approaches discussed provide valuable starting points for a more coherent conceptualization of sustainable consumption in the future.

The link between sustainable consumption and sustainable development Overconsumption and unsustainable household consumption patterns dominant especially in industrialised and developed countries have been identified as major drivers of resource depletion and environmental degradation (UNEP 2008) and obstacles to sustainable development (SD). While the international scientific community prioritised the development of less resource intensive production processes first, the focus has moved in recent years to consumption processes. One reason for this shift is that more efficient technologies and production methods proved to be insufficient due to an increasing demand of consumers all over the world. This has led to ‘rebound effects’, which means that the development of more energy efficient appliances has been thwarted by more people using more appliances. The rebound effect is enhanced by an increasing world population and economic growth in transition countries leading to a rising demand for natural resources, energy and goods. Consumption and production are two sides of the same coin – both aspects have to be addressed in order to achieve the overall goal of SD: “The need to reduce the consumption of

1 resources is central to SD. This will require not only the development of less material- and energy intensive production, but also a change in individuals’ consumption behaviour” (McClenaghan 2008: 809). Tackling unsustainable consumption and changing people’s lifestyles play a vital role in SD strategies. Given the importance of sustainable consumption (SC) as a major means to achieving SD, difficulties in defining the later term are reflected in definitions of the former. The so called Brundtland report 1 published in 1987 coined one of the first definitions for SD: "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"(World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). This definition has been criticised for being ambiguous and vague as formulated by the World Bank. Although calling for a need to balance interests of different generations, it fails to clarify the “needs of future generations” are (The World Bank 2003: 14). Currently the most dominant concept that is used across different disciplines is the three pillars approach to SD (Illge and Schwarze 2009). This concept integrates the ecological, societal and economic dimensions of sustainability and allows for ensuring a balance between the three. It describes the need to preserve the worlds (finite) natural resources for future generations while at the same time balancing this aim with social justice and economic growth. It has three objectives: economic stability, social justice and environmental protection. These goals often conflict – for example, the need to consume less is in its nature conflicting with economic growth. The major problem is that this concept does not lay out how these different dimensions relate to each other and how they are linked (Jackson and Michealis 2003). In addition conceptual issues related to the “limitations imposed on individuals’ autonomy by environmental ethics (that informs much of the thinking about SC) remain unaddressed” (Comim et al. 2007: 494). This lack of clarity prevailing in concepts of sustainability is reflected in a variety of definitions, which will be presented before discussing measurements of SC in the second part of this paper.

Emergence of the term sustainable consumption The emergence and history of the term sustainable consumption itself is interesting as it marked a turning point as concerns about excessive consumption were linked to the aim to achieve sustainable development. Problems related to consumption have been recognised since the publication of the ‘Limits to Growth’ report in 1972. Meadows et al. (Meadows 1972) model the consequences of the growing world’s population, economic growth and increase in pollution,

1 This is the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development ‘Our Common Future’ from 1987. More commonly it is referred to as the Brundtland report, named after the Commission’s chair Gro Harlem Brundtland who drew up the final report.

2 production and consumption, and point out the continuous resource depletion and environmental deterioration. One of the first official documents referring explicitly to the term SC was Agenda 21, the main policy document resulting from the 1992 Rio Summit. Sustainable consumption was introduced to the policy agenda as playing a key role in achieving SD. Being recognised as a central issue, a number of respective initiatives and activities arose. In 1994 a Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption took place in Oslo, which brought together different stakeholders from business, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and government representatives. Furthermore international governmental organizations (IGOs) such as the UN Commission of Sustainable Development (CSD), the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) addressed the issue of sustainable consumption and came up with varying definitions as elaborated below. Even though the Rio Summit drew attention to consumption and succeeded in moving the policy debate from a purely production oriented approach to an integrated approach of consumption and production, there was a reluctance to implement national sustainable consumption and production (SCP) policies. In order to speed this development up, at the Johannesburg Summit (2002) it was agreed to develop and promote a 10-year framework of regional and national SCP initiatives (Clark 2007: 494).

Definitions of Sustainable Consumption Since the introduction of the term SC in the 1990s, no agreement has been reached on a precise definition of the concept (Comim et al. 2007; Fuchs and Lorek 2005), which can serve as a guideline and common objective. Rather, different organisations and initiatives work with definitions that highlight only certain aspects of SC or that are based on differing assumptions about the need for consumption and lifestyle changes. Some call for consuming differently, while others stand for consuming less or more responsibly. In the following, we will give an overview of different definitions. The definition of the Oslo Roundtable on Sustainable Production and Consumption, which has also been used by the OECD, is one of the most commonly used definitions. SC is “the use of goods and services that respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimising the use of natural resource, toxic materials and emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle as not to jeopardise the needs of future generations ” (Norwegian Ministry of Environment 1995, emphasis added). This definition is based on the 1987 Brundtland Report definition of SD, and has also been criticised for its lack in clarity. It is not specified if it implies that the well-being of future generations has to meet a certain standard or whether this should be kept at a certain level,

3 although this question is central to the definition. Even though it is made explicit that the use of natural sources has to be reduced, the definition is open to interpretation. On the contrary Fuchs and Lorek (2005) refer to two relevant developments for SC explicitly. The first is an “increase in the efficiency of consumption, which can be reached via technological improvements. Improvements in the eco-efficiency of consumption mean a reduction in resource consumption per consumption unit due to improvements in production processes or an efficiency friendly design“ (Fuchs and Lorek 2005: 262). This is what the authors regard as weak sustainable consumption . The second considers the need to reach a change in consumption patterns and a reduction in consumption volume. This option requires changes in infrastructures and choices as well as questioning the levels and drivers of consumption. Concepts of SC that integrate both developments are referred to as strong sustainable consumption . In a nutshell, concepts and definitions of weak SC emphasise increasing the eco-efficiency of consumption while strong SC highlight the importance of changes in terms of consumption patterns and volume for achieving sustainable development. The 10-year framework of regional and national SCP initiatives developed after the Johannesburg Summit in 2002 prioritises eco-efficiency (Jackson 2006a:4 quoted inBerg 2010). This weak sustainability approach is still commonly applied. The European Commission SCP policies serve as examples for also putting the production side centre stage. In the words of the European Commission, the European and national policies “foster resource efficient and eco-friendly products and raise consumer awareness” 2. For instance, the most recent Sustainable Consumption and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan, which was adopted in December 2008, aims at “improving the environmental performance of products and increase the demand for more sustainable goods and production technologies”(2010) as described by the European Commission. Following a similarly weak logic of sustainability, the OECD as a more business oriented organisation, has proposed a definition of Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP) that revolves around economic growth as a main goal or even as a prerequisite for SD. The organisation states that “Promoting sustainable consumption and production are important aspects of sustainable development, which depends on achieving long-term economic growth that is consistent with environmental and social needs ... promoting sustainable consumption is equally important to limit negative environmental and social externalities as well as to provide markets for sustainable products” (OECD 2008). Other authors focus on individual responsibility. Drawing on the broader academic debate on SD and the role of the individual for consumption patterns, Hobson (2002: 95) recognises

2 Official Website of the European Commission on Sustainable Development and Sustainable Consumption: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/escp_en.htm; accessed: 30/06/2010.

“sustainable consumption ... [as] a key concept in the sustainable development paradigm, which calls for individuals in high-incomes countries to consider, and take action on, the environmental impact of their household consumption practices”. She also criticises that within recent international policy framings, SC is usually part of an efficiency-focused rationalisation discourse. Even though Hobson does not propose explicitly a decrease of consumption volume, her approach goes a step further than the weak sustainable consumption concept. The current de-growth debate exemplifies attempts to deal with this ambiguous relationship between addressing overconsumption in industrialized countries and the current paradigm of capitalist societies which regard ‘economic growth’ as the basic fundament for social stability and wellbeing. Recognizing this ambiguity, attempts have been made by scholars (Hinton and Goodman 2010; Jackson 2009; Schor 2010) to develop solution for ‘prosperity without growth’, e.g. by suggesting work models with reduced time, implying the possibility to create more jobs with creating necessarily constant economic growth, and by focusing on new ways to conceptualize wellbeing and quality of life independent of consumption and material goods alone. There is a large research body investigating the connection between quality of life and GDP growth, which finds that there is no correlation between quality of life and economic growth after a certain level of development (see Jackson 2009; Speth 2008 for an overview).

Methods to assess Sustainable Consumption As has been indicated in the sections above, there is no clear definition of SD or SC. This makes it difficult to measure its progress: “...the measurement of sustainability is fraught with difficulty, as might be expected for a concept that is so polysemous” (Parris and Kates 2003 quoted in Rosa et al. 2010: 93). The concepts of Sustainable Development and Sustainable Consumption overlap with regard to their threefold aim of economic, social and environmental sustainability. Sustainable Consumption can be regarded as one way to operationalise sustainable development (Comim et al. 2007), as overconsumption in industrialized countries has been identified as one major obstacle to achieve sustainable development. Due to the common ground between SC and SD, it makes sense to look at evaluation tools for SC and SD in order to assess progress in national strategies for SC. In the following, an overview is given of different tools to assess sustainable consumption and development, and their benefits and limitations are discussed.

Measurement Tools: Strengths and limits of different approaches

Ecological Footprinting (EF) and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) have been central to many attempts to consider the impact of consumption patterns on resource depletion. Further tools include the use of indicators, best practice assessment and visioning, which aims to develop solutions starting from desired future scenarios of sustainable living instead of focusing on how to solve current unsustainable situations alone. One way to distinguish these different tools is the level of aggregation of assessing environmental impacts of human behaviour. While some indicators focus on certain aspects alone (e.g. the level of recycling or the usage of public transport in a given national context), other measures like EF aim to aggregate many indicators into one measurement tool. The underlying logic of EF is to estimate how much productive sea and land would be required to support a particular pattern of consumption (Dietz et al. 2010: 9). In order to do this, this measurement tool attempts to aggregate all major indicators into a single measure. It takes into account GHG emissions, consumption of forest products, products of grazing, agriculture, fish and other seafood; and the amount of land used for living space and infrastructure 3. Thereby, EF can be applied at any unit of analysis – it can be calculated for individuals, households, communities, organizations, nations or the entire plant (Dietz et al. 2010: 92). This approach has both benefits and limitations: it has been questioned for example if it is possible to objectively know and quantify what makes consumption unsustainable, which is an implicit assumption of EF. The numeric values which are the result of EF conceal important questions about what should be measured, how it is measured, and even if it is measurable (Haberl et al. 2001). For example, EF has been criticized for neglecting important stressors like toxic substances or water shortages. Besides, the effects of international trade are not reflected sufficiently as the environmental impacts of production in one country can arise in other countries due to the transfer of production to low-cost countries (Dietz et al. 2010: 120). Another problem is that there is not one uniform approach to EF, which can lead to different footprint sizes for the same units of analysis, making comparability of the results impossible (Wiedmann and Minx 2008). LCA techniques and carbon calculators reveal similar problems (Padgett et al. 2008). Further tools to assess SC/SD include Visioning , which describes the development of long- term wide-ranging visions of alternative scenarios. This serves to enable public and policy-makers to recognise that there are numerous choices to achieve sustainable development. The outcomes of visioning workshops can inform stakeholders about different possible SD strategies, encourage planning reforms, and help to achieve sustainability goals. A crucial challenge for visioning however

3 The aggregation occurs across types of consumption by translating each into the land area required to sustain that consumption, assuming global average levels of productivity (Dietz et al 2010: 9).

6 is to implement them, i.e. to transfer visions into practicable policy or design solutions (Wheeler 2004). Environmental Impact Assessment can be used to assess threats to the environment and is often used in the context of environmental management policies (Deakin et al. 2002). Chapter 40 of Agenda 21 called for the development of indicators for sustainable development . Since then, this tool has become prominent for assessing sustainability (Bell and Morse 1999; Gahin 2003; Hoernig and Seasons 2005; Wheeler 2004). The use of indicators has been considered to be a central element in operationalising sustainability(Bell and Morse 1999). A sustainability indicator “captures and measures a particular aspect of sustainability policy in an easily communicable form, allowing monitoring and subsequent ‘steering’ of policy, whether by internal management or external political pressure” (Rydin et al 2003: 581). Benefits of indicators include that they can provide important information about trends in key environmental areas and assist in tracking progress towards SD goals. Indicators can also be regarded as a method to engage the community in working towards shared aims and objectives (Gahin 2003) and can therefore be used as tools for planning, learning, communication and collaboration (Hoernig and Seasons 2005). However, some authors have also pointed out the limitations of indicators for sustainability. First of all, it has been criticized that indicators try to encapsulate diverse and complicated processes in a small number of measures: “for all their attempt at holism and a desire to incorporate the richness of humankinds complex relationships with nature, indicators are still a classic reductionist set of tools based on quantification” (Bell and Morse 1999: 31). It seems difficult to find clear links between the development of indicator programmes and actual changes in decision-making and policy outcomes: Analysing the effects of five sustainability indicator programmes, Gahin et al find that “actual change as measured by the indicators was not found in any of the case studies” (Gahin 2003: 663; see also Rydin et al. 2003). However, indicators can steer change in a desired direction by helping to produce certain tangible and concrete outcomes, e.g.: • Intangible outcomes : indicators can provide a forum for discussion; facilitate conversation and value shifts; and increase awareness. • Concrete outcomes : these include the introduction of new agendas or programmes by influencing (policy) decisions which can then be incorporated into planning process. Further concrete outcomes can be changed individual behaviour and more appropriate resource allocations. • Measurable outcomes: indicators can steer change in a desired direction by helping to measure progress toward sustainability as defined by the respective indicators.

In conclusion, one could argue that indicators are no substitute for action; however, they can help to create social knowledge and connections that are necessary for “meaningful action” (Gahin 2003: 666; Rydin et al. 2003). Even though the measurement problems discussed above seem substantive, some authors have pointed to another important role of these tools, which is to raise awareness of the environmental impacts of consumption behaviour (Stoeglehner and Narodoslawsky 2008). The use of graphic language and examples helps to communicate and resonate with the personal experiences of many people (Wackernagel and Rees 2004). The application of these tools can help to engage people with the topic of sustainable consumption and show them what impact their personal behaviour can have on the environment. One could argue therefore that measurement tools such as EF, LCA and indicators can be useful both in monitoring and triggering attempts to change patterns of consumption. However, they are less useful in identifying the underlying reasons why patterns both emerge and evolve (Davies et al. 2010). In order to assess these underlying reasons, it is necessary to look at the social practices which shape consumption patterns. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss this further, as the focus here is on an overview on conceptualization and measurement of sustainable consumption. After this overview of different measurement tools to assess progress towards sustainable development, in the following, some broader conceptual frameworks to assess SD and SC policy programmes are presented, which provide a more comprehensive way to evaluate SC/SD policy programmes in different national contexts.

Conceptual Frameworks to Assess SC/SD Programmes In the following, frameworks to assess SC and SD programmes developed by Lafferty and Meadwocroft (2000), Gill Seyfang (2009) and Annika Berg (2010) are presented, which provide good starting points to evaluate national and sub-national initiatives to achieve sustainable development and consumption. In their book “Implementing Sustainable Development”, Lafferty and Meadowcroft (2000) present case studies of the implementation of Sustainable Development policies in ‘high consumption societies’ (NL, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Japan, Australia, Canada). Although not proposing a measurement for SD or SC per se, they apply certain criteria by which the implementation of SD policies can be evaluated and by which the case studies are structured. These criteria can be a useful starting point when the evaluation of Sustainable consumption policy implementation is evaluated. The focus is here on specific governing mechanisms which include the following assessment criteria (see Lafferty and Meadowcroft 2000: 6):

Basic governmental understanding concerns the question how SD is conceptualized in a country and how it is supposed to be achieved given a nation’s specific ecological, economic, social, political and cultural circumstances. The pattern of institutional engagement relates to the question whether SD has a constitutional or legal base (e.g. in national SD strategies), and if new special-purpose institutions have been created in a country to undertake SD related initiatives. Institutional engagement can also express itself in the level of commitment to SD by certain ministries and agencies which are already in place. The underlying assumption is that structures and resources play a crucial role in achieving sustainable development goals. Measurement and monitoring: Even though measurement of SD is difficult as has been discussed above, it is important to define benchmarks and indicators to assess implementation: Countries have to define indicators to evaluate existing practices and to monitor policy innovation. According to Lafferty and Meadowcroft (2000), it is important to analyse how measures of environmental condition, economic activity and quality of life are interrelated in national attempts to measure and monitor progress towards SD implementation. Involvement of other domestic actors relates to the question whether government take the principle of cooperation , which is enshrined in the SD paradigm, seriously: how do central governments incorporate sub-national and non-governmental actors in the policy formation and implementation process of SD? What approach has been adopted toward the mobilization of ‘major stakeholders’? Internationally oriented initiatives : SD is inherently targeted towards national as well as international cooperation to achieve sustainable development: the UNCED agreements call upon national actors to aim for strong initiatives to achieve SD at a global level, in cooperation with international state and non-state actors. Which initiatives exist in countries to address these goals? Sustainable production and consumption (SCP): Lafferty and Meadowcroft (2000: 6) define SCP as “one of the more innovative themes emerging from the UNCED process – the challenge of modifying existing patterns of production and consumption so that they become compatible with environmentally sustainable development”. In order to assess progress in this area, it is important to see if issues and programmes are taken up in countries explicitly under this heading (Lafferty and Meadowcroft 2000: 6). While there is “no single method by which national SCP programmes can or should be instituted” (UNEP 2008: 3), there seems to be agreement over several key principles to achieve the objectives of SCP, which reflect the criteria developed by Lafferty and Meadowcroft discussed

above. These include: A high-level national commitment and leadership; a multi-stakeholder approach; the definition of clear objectives, actions, targets and indicators as well as monitoring progress to achieve this progress (Lafferty and Meadowcroft 2000; UNEP 2008). Furthermore, it has been recommended to integrate SCP programmes with existing national strategies and develop sector or issue specific action plans (UNEP 2008: 3). A useful theoretical framework specifically for the evaluation of sustainable consumption policies has been developed by Seyfang (2009). Building on key elements of the New Economics Approach4, she suggests five indicators to evaluate SC strategies: 1. Localisation 2. Reducing ecological footprints 3. Community-building 4. Collective action, and 5. Building new infrastructures of provision (see table 1 below).

According to Seyfang, the New Economics Approach “proposes nothing less than a paradigm shift for the economy … rather than making incremental changes, this model entails a widespread regime change for the economy and society, altering the rules of the game and the objective of economic development” (Seyfang 2009: 23). While the current dominant approach to address SC calls for “green consumers” to “do their part in the marketplace”, the New Economics Approach instead calls for ‘Ecological Citizens’ who act ethically in public and in private to reconfigure the patterns of their lives to reduce environmental and social impacts on others (Kennedy 2009). This links in to the current de-growth debate, in which variables like sufficiency (Princen 2005; Princen 2003) are used to discuss the need for a paradigm shift in current capitalist societies which are built around economic growth as necessary condition for social, economic and environmental stability (Jackson and Michealis 2003; Speth 2008; Urry 2010). Table 1 below gives a description on the indicators of sustainable consumption based on the New Economics Approach proposed by Seyfang as well as examples on how these indicators can be implemented.

Table 1: Indicators of Sustainable Consumption

4 The New Economics is a philosophical and political school of thought founded on a belief that economics cannot be divorced from its foundations in environmental and social contexts (Seyfang 2009: 46). Although its roots go back to twin traditions of environmentalism and social economics (see Pepper 1996 and Lutz 1999 for reviews), it has emerged in recent years from the environmental movement and built upon the work of writers such as E.F. Schumacher (1993) to develop a body of theory about how a ‘humanistic’ economics concerned with justice and social wellbeing could be envisioned and practised” (Seyfang 2009: 46).

Indicator Description Example Localisation Making progress towards more Supporting local businesses; eating more local, self-reliant local economies; seasonal food to cut food miles; encouraging import-substitution; reducing money to circulate locally; ‘buy-local’ supply chains campaigns; DIY; growing food on allotments Reducing Shifting consumption to cut its Downshifting; voluntary simplicity (accepting ecological social and environmental impact cuts in income in return for higher quality of life footprints on others, to reduce the inequity and lower consumption); energy and other of current consumption patterns; resource conservation, e.g. water-saving cutting resource use; demand- devices, energy efficiency and insulation, reduction; carbon-reduction and buying local to reduce transport costs; choosing low-carbon lifestyles ethical and fair trade where possible; sharing goods instead of owning them; cutting consumption; choosing less carbon-intensive goods and services; avoiding flying. Community- Nurturing inclusive, cohesive Developing social networks around green building communities where everyone’s building, local food, community volunteering; skills and work are valued; overcoming social exclusion barriers to growing networks of support and participation; fostering shared experiences social capital; encouraging through group activities; growing friendships participation to share experience and ideas. Collective action Enabling people to collaborate Boosting self-efficacy and empowerment; and make effective decisions encouraging participation in local about things which affect their organisations; engaging with local government lives; changing wider social and public policy; generating critical mass so contexts by institutionalisation of that new sustainable behaviours become the new norms; active citizenship norm. Building new Establishing new institutions and Alternative food systems which avoid infrastructures of socio-technical infrastructure on supermarkets; autonomous housing which provision the basis of New Economics doesn’t rely on mains services; new systems of values of wealth, work, progress exchange which value abundance and reward and ecological citizenship sustainable consumption. Source: adapted from Seyfang (2009: 62)

The approach developed by Seyfang is an important theoretical contribution to evaluate SC programmes as it does not only focus on ecological factors like the EF (‘Reducing ecological footprints’ is just one of 5 indicators to assess sustainable consumption), but also incorporates social and economic aspects, which are central dimensions in the SC and SD paradigms. It goes beyond purely individualistic approaches by emphasizing the role of collective action and community- building. Besides, calls for sufficiency are integrated by promoting downshifting and consuming less . e.g. by promoting the sharing of devices. Finally, the approach considers the importance of context and infrastructure for behaviour change by suggesting the building of new infrastructures of provision (see also Southerton et al. 2004): „The focus on systems of provision is vital: if one can choose between different models of hybrid car, but does not have access to reliable, affordable public transport, one’s ability to act in an environmentally responsible manner is constrained” (Kennedy 2009: 533). By also incorporating calls for localisation, Seyfang clearly includes the most prominent arguments from the current academic debate on sustainable consumption solutions.

Localisation aims to promote social and economic sustainability at the local level while also

addressing environmental problems which arise from the transportation of goods in terms of CO 2 emissions in a globalized world. However, Seyfang’s approach also has its limitations: The emphasis on localisation, which is a central element in many approaches to conceptualize sustainable consumption, can have detrimental effects for developing countries which depend on the revenue from international trade for their survival. In this regard, Kennedy argues that “the issue of localization is perhaps more complex than Seyfang suggests. The potential for decreases in demand for imports from developing nations reduces these countries’ ability to generate revenue. Before the wealthy adopt broad policies to buy local, it might be prudent to promote such policies in the global South” (Kennedy 2009: 533). This is an important issue which deserves more attention in the current debate on localisation as a solution to address unsustainable consumption patterns. Another problem is that the successful case studies which Seyfang describes in her book are all small-scale, local initiatives which cannot easily be transferred to a broader level. This proves to be a fundamental challenge, which Seyfang acknowledges: “as techniques are appropriated by the mainstream, devoid of their social contexts and unique processes, the factors which made them sustainable - and function - are removed, resulting in low take-up of the new technologies” (Seyfang 2009: 179). Kennedy (2009: 534) argues that this is a crucial problem: “if “sustainable” is always associated with small-scale ventures, there is little likelihood that sustainable approaches will be adopted broadly”. Even though Seyfang offers no solutions in that regard, her framework to assess sustainable initiatives provides a valuable theoretical contribution to assess current grass-root and civil society level initiatives to address SC. In order to make sure that these promising local level initiatives are adopted at a broader level, the need for governance becomes evident. To assess progress which has been made in this regard, in the following frameworks to assess national level initiatives to trigger SC are presented.

Assessing SC Policy Frameworks: ‘Weak’ versus ‘Strong’ Sustainability

Keeping in mind the goals of economic, social and environmental sustainability which are enshrined in the concepts of SD and SC, the distinction between ‘weak’ versus ‘strong’ sustainability strategies, as discussed above, is one way to assess different national approaches to address SC (Berg 2010; Fuchs and Lorek 2005). A useful way to conceptualise weak and strong sustainability strategies is to apply principles of strategic planning, i.e., the level of comprehensiveness , commitment and clarity to the assessment of SC policy programmes (Berg 2010; Cherp et al. 2004). While ‘strong’ applications of sustainability strategies promote structural changes with commitment and coordination, targeting, resourcing and monitoring, weak applications lack several of these qualities, resulting in fragmented policy actions (Berg 2010). Another useful approach to assess SC policy programmes is to consider the degree to which the principles of efficiency, cooperation and sufficiency are incorporated in SCP frameworks (Princen 2003). In an assessment of national programmes for SCP in Finland, Sweden and the UK, Berg (2010) comes to the conclusion that while the efficiency principle dominates, principles of cooperation and especially sufficiency are developed to a much lesser degree in the respective SCP frameworks. Sufficiency relates to the current ‘de-growth’ debate as discussed above which questions the dominant paradigm of economic growth in industrialized countries. The fact that economic growth requires increasing consumption is seen as one of the fundamental problems or contradictions of sustainable consumption. As sustainable consumption implies consuming less if current patterns of overconsumption are to be addressed, simply consuming differently or promoting ‘green consumerism’ might not be sufficient. This debate has triggered research on how to tackle the delicate balance between a stable economy (which is ultimately linked to social stability) and the limits to growth and can be regarded as one of the biggest challenges of our time (Jackson 2009).

Conclusion

Even though the vast number of published definitions of sustainable development has been coined by different world views and sometimes opposing interests, the majority has three core elements:

• fight environmental degradation and ecological imbalance; • prevent the impoverishment of future generations • ensure equal quality of life of people living today.

However, there is a need for specifying which objectives reflect these three basic principles and how these be achieved. Developing and agreeing on clear SC objectives and respective strategies to realise them are crucial for advancing sustainable development of our global community. At the same time, this does not imply that all nations will implement the exact same strategies. On the contrary, these objectives have to be treated as deliverables and the agreed strategies as broad guidelines, which need to be transformed into strategies applicable to the specifics of individual nation states. Our discussion paper has highlighted useful theoretical frameworks to assess SCP initiatives at all levels of society which can be used as starting points to come to more coherent assessment criteria at an international level in order to progress the challenging goal of sustainable consumption and development.

References

Bell, S. and S Morse. 1999. Sustainability Indicators. London: Earthscan.

Berg, Annukka. 2010. "Not Roadmaps but Toolboxes: Analysing Pioneering National Programmes for Sustainable Consumption and Production." Journal of Consumer Policy.

Cherp, A. , C. George and C.. Kirkpatrick. 2004. "A methodology for assessing national sustainable development strategies." Environmental Planning C: Government and Policy 22:913-926.

Clark, Garrette. 2007. "Evolution of the global sustainable consumption and production policy and the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) supporting activities." Journal of Cleander Production 15:492-498.

Comim, Flavio, Rie Tsutsumi and Angels Varea. 2007. "Choosing sustainable consumption: A capability perspective on indicators." Journal of International Development 19:493–509.

Davies, Anna, France Fahy, Henrike Rau and Jessica Pape. 2010. "Sustainable consumption: practices and governance." Irish Geography 43(1).

Deakin, M., S. Curwell and P. Lombardi. 2002. "Sustainable Urban Development: The Framework and Directory of Assessment Methods." Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 4(2):171-197.

Dietz, T., E. A. Rosa and R. York. 2010. "Human Driving Forces of Global Change: Dominant Perspectives." In Human Footprints on the Global Environment: Threats to Sustainability, eds. A. Rosa, A. Diekmann, T. Dietz and C. C. Jaeger. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

European Commission. 2010. "Official Website of the European Commission on Sustainable Development and Sustainable Consumption". http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/escp_en.htm . 30/06/2010.

Fuchs, Doris A. and Sylvia Lorek. 2005. "Sustainable consumption governance: A history of promises and failures." Journal of Consumer Policy 28:261-288.

Gahin, R., Veleva, V., & Hart, M. (2003). . , 8 (6), . 2003. "Do indicators help create sustainable communities." Local Environment 8(6):661-666.

Haberl, H., K-H. Erb and F. Krausmann. 2001. "How to calculate and interpret ecological footprints for long periods of time: the case of Austria 1926_1995." Ecological Economics 38(1):25-45.

Hinton, E. D. and M. K. Goodman. 2010. "Sustainable Consumption: Developments, Considerations and New Directions." In International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, eds. M. Redclift and G. Woodgate. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Hobson, Kersty. 2002. "Competing Discourses of Sustainable Consumption: Does the 'Rationalisation of Lifestyles' Make Sense? ." Environmental Politics 11(2):95-120.

Hoernig, H. and M. Seasons. 2005. "Understanding Indicators." In Community Indicators Measuring Systems, ed. Rhonda Phillips. London: Ashgate.

Illge, Lydia and Reimund Schwarze. 2009. "A matter of opinion—How ecological and neoclassical environmental economists and think about sustainability and economics." Ecological Economics 68:594-604.

Jackson, Tim. 2009. Prosperity without Growth - Economics for a finite Planet. London: Earthscan.

Jackson, Tim and Laurie Michealis. 2003. "Policies for Sustainable Consumption." UK Sustainable Development Commission. http://www.sd- commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/030917%20Policies%20for%20sustainable%20consump tion%20_SDC%20report_.pdf .

Kennedy, Emily H. 2009. "Book Review: The New Economics of Sustainable Consumption:The Seeds of Change (Gill Seyfang 2009)." Canadian Journal of Sociology 34(2):2009.

Lafferty, W. and J. Meadowcroft. 2000. Implementing sustainable development.Strategies and initiatives in high consumption societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McClenaghan, Andy. 2008. "Ecological modernisation in the UK: Northern Ireland's sustainable development strategy in context." Environmental Politics 17(5):804-814.

Norwegian Ministry of Environment. 1995. "Oslo Rountable on Sustainable Production and Consumption." http://www.iisd.ca/consume/oslo000.html .

OECD. 2008. "Promoting Sustainable Consumption. GOOD PRACTICES IN OECD COUNTRIES." OECD.

Padgett, J., A. Steinemann, J. Clarke and M. Vandenbergh. 2008. "A comparison of carbon calculators." Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28:106-115.

Princen, T. 2005. The Logic of Sufficiency. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Princen, T. . 2003. "Principles for sustainability: from cooperation and efficency to sufficiency." Global Environmental Politics 3(1):33-50.

Rosa, E. A., A. Diekmann, T. Dietz and C. C. Jaeger eds. 2010. Human Footprints on the Global Environment: Threats to Sustainability. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Rydin, Y., N. Holman and E. Wolff. 2003. "Local Sustainability Indicators." Local Environment 8(6):581-590.

Schor, J. 2010. Plentitude: The New Economics of True Wealth: Penguin Press.

Seyfang, Gill. 2009. The New Economics of Sustainable Consumption: Seeds of Change. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Southerton, D., H. Chappells and B. Van Vliet. 2004. Sustainable Consumption - The Implicaitons of Changing Infrastructures of Provision. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Speth, J. G. 2008. The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Stoeglehner, G. and M. Narodoslawsky. 2008. "Implementing ecological footprinting in decision making processes." Land Use Policy 25(3):421-431.

The World Bank. 2003. "World Development Report 2003: Sustainable Development in a Dynamic Wolrd." The World Bank.

UNEP. 2008. "Planning for change: Guidelines for national programmes on sustainable consumption and production." United Nations Environment Programme.

Urry, John. 2010. "Consuming the planet to excess." Theory, Culture, and Society 27(2-3):191-212.

Wackernagel, M. and W. Rees. 2004. "What is an Ecological Footprint?" In The Sustainable Urban Development Reader eds. S. Wheeler and T. Beatley. London: Routledge.

Wheeler, S. 2004. Planning for sustainability. London: Routledge.

Wiedmann, T. and J. Minx. 2008. "A definition of ‘carbon footprint." In Ecological economics research trends, ed. C. C. Pertsova. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. "Our Common Future." World Commission on Environment and Development. http://www.un-documents.net/wced-ocf.htm . 13/07/2010.