Chapter 1: Introduction

Globally, there are increasingly complicated international conflicts and disputes (e.g., between the USA and China), which are leading to rising nationalism, shifting priorities, and increasing global insecurity (i.e., pricing and access) of food and energy. Differences in recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic also mean that some sectors (e.g., hospitality and airlines) are still struggling with persisting supply chain challenges (e.g., high costs and delays). At the same time, increasing extreme weather events, including droughts in Africa, flooding and fires across Europe and North America, and flooding in South America, are leading to, or in some cases, exacerbating the already challenging food production levels. Many Global South countries are heavily indebted with limited scope for debt reduction in the near future due to the failure of various international debt relief schemes (e.g., the G20’s Common Framework).¹  They also face cuts to their aid budgets while rapidly adapting to the risks posed by climate change to their economies and infrastructure. Rising interest rates and high average inflation are negatively impacting gross domestic product (GDP), economic growth, and the spending power of consumers. Lower spending power means, for example, that average households have higher debt and lower spending power and are buying cheaper options for goods and services.

Altogether, these factors serve to significantly threaten equity and fairness in the levels of global consumption. If the global population reaches the predicted 9.8 billion (bn) people by 2050, it will require nearly three planets to sustain consumption.²  Thus, there is an urgent need to conserve the Earth’s (natural) resources. However, crucially, as noted by Welford,³  given that all products and services have some level of residual effects, the overarching goal is to limit the negative impacts over time to enable recovery from the damage already done, rather than eliminating environmental damage.

Levels of environmental awareness amongst consumers are rising. For example, billions of dollars are being invested in electric vehicles (EVs) and green technologies. However, at the same time, around 930 million (M) tonnes of food are wasted annually, despite high rates of poverty and hunger.²  Increased wastage is leading to increased environmental degradation. The COVID-19 pandemic has, in some cases, led to modifications in consumption, with the adoption of more innovative practices and a realisation of the effects of unsustainable behaviours.^4–6  However, there is the potential for individuals to return to their previous habits before the pandemic, and this is likely to delay the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Agenda 2030.^7,8  Crucially, it is the most vulnerable, the poorest, and the disadvantaged who are most at risk from unsustainable resource consumption practices.⁹ 

Given the complexity and holistic nature of the challenges, the sustainable management of the world’s resources, therefore, requires multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to be effective.^10,11  Various writers contend that it is vital to incorporate elements, for example, from environmental sciences, sociology, biology, economics, engineering, anthropology, philosophy, and politics. Most of the focus on sustainable resource use has been undertaken in Global North countries, with limited work in the Global South.¹²  Sustainable consumption and production refers to the production and use of products and services in such a manner that these activities have limited environmental impact over their lifecycle, are economically viable, and deliver social benefits.¹³  Sustainable consumption and production (SDG 12) is one of the 2030 SDGs. Global South countries should be interpreted as those nations that are ‘economically disadvantaged’ or have been negatively affected by capitalist globalisation (and are often referred to as low-income or developing countries in other contexts).¹⁴ 

This chapter, therefore, aims to highlight key trends in sustainable consumption and the thought leaders who have driven the change as a means of setting the scene for the chapters that follow. While sustainable consumption is complex and multi-faceted, given the limitations in space, the review of the various issues is brief. Indeed, the outline of the trends and initiatives is by no means meant to be exhaustive; rather, it is meant to provoke the thoughts of the reader. The chapter employs a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach by drawing on works and initiatives from several fields. It is set out in six main sections. The introduction has been set out in Section 1.1. Section 1.2 briefly outlines selected natural resources. Section 1.3 outlines a chronological overview of key trends in sustainable consumption and production. Section 1.4 then critically discusses governance, behavioural, and technological strategies, as well as initiatives that have been utilised. Section 1.5 reviews policy, behaviour change, and product innovation strategies. Concluding remarks are provided in Section 1.6.

The book, while providing theoretical underpinnings, is largely practical in nature. Therefore, the chapters that follow provide initiatives and case studies from both Global North and Global South countries. Chapter 2 presents and discusses some of the key international treaties that govern the management of natural resources. Chapter 3 examines socio-economic issues related to significant increases in resource consumption in India, which is one of the fastest-growing global economies. Chapter 4 focuses on regulatory challenges governing the utilisation of coal in Australia, one of the highest producers of coal in the world. It explores two key hazards confronting the Australian coal mining sector: spontaneous combustion and explosions. Chapter 5 explores the use of statistical modelling and technologies to improve efficiencies in the mining industry to facilitate safer and more efficient approaches. Chapter 6 focuses on how the relocation of lithium extraction in the EU, mandated in the European Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), encapsulates socio-economic and environmental trade-offs while contributing to achieving the objectives of the Green Deal and demonstrating what is required at the European Union (EU) policy level to effectively manage the resources in the short and long term. Chapter 7 focuses on the utilisation of applied smouldering technologies to support low-carbon and circular economy principles by recovering value from carbon-rich waste materials and mitigating the risks posed by hazardous substances that could be found in the waste (e.g., per- and polyfluoroalkyls). Using a case study approach, Chapter 8 examines the challenges and innovative strategies used to increase urban recycling in the densely populated multi-family complexes of Denver, Colorado (USA). Chapter 9 also focuses on change management by discussing selected economic/fiscal instruments (e.g., taxes, subsidies, and bonds) required to facilitate the effective management of resources. Using examples from Latin America, the chapter provides perspectives from the Global South, which faces significantly different issues compared to the Global North, where most work has traditionally been focused. Finally, Chapter 10 provides concluding remarks and proposes approaches to enhance resource security, including policy and governance considerations, as well as stakeholder engagement.

There are many existing natural resources. This section will briefly outline some key resources as a context for the case studies that will be presented in the chapters that follow this one.

Biodiversity (i.e., the variety of living organisms present on Earth, from bacteria to ecosystems of corals and forests) is vital for life and livelihoods (e.g., food, medicines, our climate, and development).¹⁵  Much of this biodiversity is found in Global South countries. The oceans and land absorb more than half of the world’s carbon, half of the global GDP is dependent on nature, and more than one billion people rely on forests for their livelihoods. However, around 85% of wetlands (which absorb significant quantities of carbon) have disappeared, large ecosystems (e.g., the Amazon rainforest) are turning from carbon sinks to sources (due to large-scale, indiscriminate deforestation), and within decades, millions of animal and plant species will most likely become extinct. The use of land by humans (e.g., for agriculture) is the key driver of biodiversity loss. Human activities have altered more than 70% of the Earth’s land, increased the mortality of animals and plants, contributed to the spread of diseases, and caused mass migrations of people and animals. It has been predicted that a 1.5 °C temperature increase could result in 4% of mammals losing their habitats, rising to 8% with a 2 °C increase and 41% if the temperature increase is 3 °C.

Rising populations are leading to overfishing, which is leading to a reduction in (juvenile) marine populations and the degradation of marine environments. Large mother ships enable huge fleets of trawlers (in some cases of up to 17 000 vessels) to remain at sea for years by offloading their catch and replenishing the trawlers with supplies.¹⁶  Local fishermen, plying their trade in small boats, lack the means and capacity to compete against fleets that can catch, in one day, as much as five times the quantity of stock that all of the boats in a community would catch in a year.

Research by the Ghana Fisheries Commission found that in 2019, stocks of mackerel, anchovies, and sardinella were 40% less than those in 1993.¹⁷  In addition, the catch size for sardinella was 10% lower. For millions of households and the communities they live in, this drastic reduction leads to the loss of livelihoods and increased poverty.

A survey in 2023 by the UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) noted that the loss of biodiversity (11%) was the second highest concern, behind only climate change (15%) and just ahead of natural disasters (8.7%).¹⁸  These three risks are closely interlinked and disproportionately impact the most vulnerable in society, including the poor, women, and children. In rural regions and small island developing states (SIDS), biodiversity loss has a devastating effect environmentally, socially, and economically.

Suggested strategies¹⁹  to protect biodiversity include (1) the conservation of coral reefs, fishing stocks and mangroves and (2) reducing the pollution of the marine environment through plastic clean-ups and stopping the international dumping of hazardous waste into the oceans. There are also already several treaties, agreements, and policies in place [e.g., the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the UN Agreement on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction].

Water scarcity is a major risk for many countries. By 2030, the world is predicted to experience a 40% shortfall in water availability vs. forecasted demand.²⁰  An estimated 70% of all deaths due to natural disasters are water related. Around 3.6bn people lack sufficient water, and this is expected to rise to 5bn by 2050.¹⁹  Threats to water supply from extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, coastal flooding, rising sea levels, and droughts, can result in water pollution, public health hazards, intrusion of salt water into freshwater sources, lower levels of potable water, reduced hygiene and sanitation, and the spread of waterborne and foodborne diseases through the consumption/use of unclean water for drinking or farming. Risks from water scarcity and weather events are leading to mass population migrations, starvation, crop failure, epidemics and pandemics, loss of livelihoods, species loss, and geopolitical instability.¹⁹  Over 40% of the world’s population live in water-scarce areas. It is estimated that by 2040, around one in every four children will experience extreme water shortages.

The World Bank¹⁹  notes that countries will need institutional strengthening (e.g., their regulatory, pricing structures, and water conservation incentives), information management (e.g., forecasting and warning systems), and the development of (natural and man-made) infrastructure (e.g., innovative systems to recycle and conserve water). For example, in the Caribbean, the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCC) has installed water storage tanks at various key points across the community (e.g., schools and health centres).²¹ 

Fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and oil, are non-renewable resources made from prehistoric plants and animals that have been compressed over time.²²  Coal is a major source of energy for many countries, including the USA and China. Indeed, it is the largest domestically produced source of energy in the USA.²² 

However, fossil fuels are known to cause pollution [primarily greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions] and negatively impact public health.²³  In addition, for many countries, fossil fuels come from countries and regions that can potentially be politically unstable. The International Renewable Energy Agency’s (IRENA) World Energy Transition 2023 notes that approximately US$44 trillion (tn) in investment will be required over the next seven years if GHG emissions are to be rapidly reduced.²⁴ 

The use of alternative fuels, such as hydrogen, is seen as a mechanism to effect positive change and increase energy security. For example, hydrogen can potentially be a near-zero greenhouse gas emitter, minimise the use of fossil fuels, and reduce public health risks from GHG emissions.²⁵  Hydrogen can also act as an energy store and facilitate grid balancing.²⁶  In the UK, shifts towards a hydrogen economy (e.g., through the utilisation of fuel cell-combined heat and power systems and the use of carbon capture and sequestration) are expected to significantly improve energy security.²⁶  In response to a predicted 60% rise in electricity demand, the UK government has set a goal that, by 2035, all electricity should be generated using clean sources, subject to maintaining the security of supply, phasing out gas-fired power stations in favour of wind, solar and nuclear power. The government has also mandated that by 2030, about 10% of the fuels in the aviation sector should be generated as sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

However, the increased use of hydrogen has its challenges. It is not a primary energy source such as oil but rather has to be extracted from chemical compounds (e.g., water).²⁶  While there is a wide acknowledgement of the need for and benefits of decarbonisation, the necessary funding and clear policy steers are often lacking.

Rare earth elements are a family of critical minerals used in products such as deep water pipelines, smartphones, EVs, laptops, and washing machines.²⁷  Examples include indium, iridium, gold, platinum, and neodymium. They are vital to a range of industries, as well as to everyday life. Smartphones contain around 20 different rare earth elements. The rapid upscaling of technologies to address climate change, such as EVs, electrolysers to produce green hydrogen, and photovoltaic (PV) panels, will require a rapid and exponential use of these materials.

Production of critical minerals of all kinds is expected to rise sharply – in some cases by as much as 500% by 2040.²⁸  Demand for cobalt is expected to quadruple by 2030, for example, due to increased production of EVs. However, the mining of cobalt poses significant environmental and health risks.

The materials are in short supply, their supply chains are complex, their markets are volatile, and most are sourced from a small number of countries.²⁷  Most of these countries face significant geopolitical and economic challenges. For example, iridium is mined only in Haiti, Russia, South Africa, and Myanmar, as a by-product of nickel or copper mining. Only around 7.5 tonnes of iridium is produced annually.²⁷  This quantity compares to around 2.47bn tonnes of iron and 190 tonnes of platinum. Australia produces around half of the world’s lithium, but China accounts for the refinement of approximately 89% of the metal. Lithium is vital for the production of EVs, of which China is the leading producer. China sources significant quantities of iron ore and liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Australia. Incidentally, LNG and iron ore were not part of the US$20bn worth of restrictions and tariffs that were placed on Australian products by China after Australia called for an official inquiry into the origins of COVID-19. The affected products included lobster, barley, beef, wine, coal, and timber. These geopolitical issues, therefore, make the industries, which utilise the metals, and the countries, which need to import them, vulnerable to any upheaval or shocks at source or along the supply chains.

One approach to overcoming the challenges is to recover value from existing devices (e.g., the silver in the first-generation solar panels or gold from waste electrical and electronic equipment) and to design and manufacture devices that do not require the utilisation of the elements (i.e., green technologies). In the UK, the government has committed to collaborate internationally [e.g., with a range of multilateral forums, including the Minerals Security Partnership (MSP), the International Energy Agency (IEA), IRENA, the G7 and the G20]. In 2023, the UK government launched the Circular Critical Materials Supply Chains (CLIMATES) programme to support research and development on rare earth materials, enhance future skill needs, and enable engagement between UK and international partners.²⁹  The programme also aims to unlock additional funding from the private sector.

The conservation of the Earth’s resources has undergone numerous shifts over time. This section briefly describes some of the key events and trends, as well as the thought leaders and agencies that have engineered the shifts.

From as far back as the late 1800s, attempts have been made to link human activities with their impacts on natural resources.³⁰  Key areas of focus included links to a rising global population and how best to measure and monitor trends. In the mid-1800s, the economist John Stuart Mill outlined a popular notionthat humans would limit their consumption in line with planetary boundaries.³¹  Early work examining human behaviours viewed them solely from the perspective of ‘economic optimisation’, leading to the creation of ‘economic rationality’ and ‘Homo economicus’, based on the ‘marginalist revolution’ of the late 19th century.³²  These studies were grounded in the works of economic geographers such as Christaller, Losch and Thuren. However, in 1898, the noted American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen³³  became one of the first to query the use of economics as an effective means of understanding consumption. Instead, Veblen proposed that using biological principles provided a more accurate lens for examining trends in and influences on consumption.

The late 19th and early 20th centuries ushered in the advent of mass production, which was largely driven by decisions made at the time.³⁴  For example, in the USA, rapid expansion towards the west of the country, without the availability of skilled labour, necessitated the increasing use of automation, which led, for example, to the development of steam-powered and battery-electric vehicles and electric machines.³⁵ 

However, during this period, there was also a growing sense in the Global South that development was a Western concept, which was based on the exploitation of the natural resources of the Global South countries by the Global North, which had resulted in significant environmental damage.³⁶  Some authors contended that development should focus on empowering the most vulnerable in society, rather than on increasing consumption, which leads to increased inequality.^37–39  In his 1949 inaugural speech, USA President Harry Truman contended that development should be based on the principle of ‘fair dealing’ in a democratic manner.³⁶  At the heart of the path to ‘prosperity and peace’ was increased production. Thus, economic and scientific factors (e.g., infrastructure development and growth indices) were central to enabling development, particularly in the so-called ‘developing’ countries.

The establishment of the United Nations in 1946 led to the formation of several agencies and policies focused on development, as well as many strategic alliances [e.g., with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) – later renamed the World Bank], throughout the 1940s and 1950s.⁴⁰ 

However, one of the most tragic environmental incidents also took place in the 1950s. In Minamata Bay, Japan, in the late 1950s, mercury from a nearby factory manufacturing the chemical acetaldehyde was discovered.⁴¹  Around 27 tonnes of mercury had been dumped into the bay, poisoning the fish and, by extension, the people who had eaten the fish. The pollution event led to around 900 deaths and an estimated two million people with health impacts, including thousands who were left permanently disabled. The public health effects of this incident are still being felt today.

The early 1960s witnessed rising ‘anti-growth’ sentiment due to a growing sense that development, economic growth, and environmental protection could not co-exist. Most well known amongst these were Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring,⁴²  which criticised the indiscriminate use of pesticides (particularly DDT) in the USA, and Vance Packard’s the Waste Makers,⁴³  which, for example, criticised the use of planned obsolescence in the design of electronic equipment. A major oil spillage in 1967 from the oil tanker the Torrey Cannon, off the coast of Cornwall in the UK, but which later spread across Europe, also served to fuel public unease and anger.

In part due to the desire to build greater resilience amongst Global South countries, in the 1960s and 70s, there was a growing shift towards the democratisation of funding and the utilisation of small-scale, more community-based approaches. Much of this work was led by stakeholders in Global South countries. Practitioners from Latin America, especially Brazil, served as early drivers for this shift, with, for example, the introduction of the concept of microenterprise. Key among these figures included Maria Otero, who later worked in the Barack Obama administration, Michael Chu, a Professor at Harvard Business School, John Hatch, who established FINCA, and Ela Bhatt, who started SEWA.⁴⁴  For example, FINCA utilised ‘village-banking’, which as the name suggests consists of micro, community-based funding schemes. FINCA can now be found in around 16 countries worldwide and has over 8000 employees.⁴⁵  SEWA was founded in 1972 in India to facilitate improved social benefits for poor women in the northern state of Gujarat, working especially in the informal sector.⁴⁶  SEWA was established as a trade union based on the principles of Mahatma Gandhi. The provision of microfinance was used as a strategy to enable social mobility for women in Gujarat, India.

The 1970s and 1980s saw a period of transition and paradox in thinking about sustainability.³²  Many major environmental disasters occurred, including (1) a chemical explosion at Love Canal in 1978 (where a landfill had been built over years prior); (2) cyanide poisoning of the water supply of around 7000 households in Glen Avon, California, in the 1970s and 1980s (due to leaks from a hazardous waste landfill site that had been used decades before);⁴⁷  and (3) the Chernobyl chemical plant disaster in Ukraine in 1986. The frequency and scale of these incidents fuelled a realisation of the need to address challenges such as global warming, deforestation, ozone depletion, and species extinction.³²  In June 1972, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was established, following the UN Conference on the Human Environment.

The concept of sustainable development came to fruition during this period. The Blueprint for a Green Economy⁴⁸  was one of the first books to demonstrate the compatibility of economic growth and environmentalism. Companies that had previously eschewed notions of environmentalism embraced the concept as a means of competitive advantage.^49,50  For example, Mercedes Benz was able to gain market share in Europe by utilising its USA emission standards. Many organisations also sought to implement ISO designations (e.g., ISO 14001) into their business models. There was also a shift away from ‘command and control’ measures to, for example, ‘market-based instruments’ (e.g., carbon taxes) and voluntary agreements (e.g., ecolabelling and eco-management schemes).⁵  Several policies were implemented in Europe, including directives on waste management and incineration and the designation of 1987 as the European Year of the Environment.

In 1982, building on the work of Veblen who called for greater incorporation of biological sciences in economic thinking, the environmental economists Richard R. Nelson and Sidney G. Winter proposed the Evolutionary Theory of the Firm.⁵¹  Essentially, the theory contended that even without operating at their maximum levels, organisations could still survive and even thrive, because as with natural systems, resilience is favoured over efficiency. While the theory led to the development of evolutionary economics, its impact on mainstream economics was ‘marginal’.³⁵ 

There was a shift towards the use of small-scale financing for development. One of the most well-known proponents of the concept was Professor Muhammad Yunus.⁵²  Professor Yunus, a Nobel Peace Prize winner and economist from Bangladesh, was one of the pioneers of utilising microfinance to enable social entrepreneurship and social development. He is the CEO and Chairman of the social investment company, the Emerald Group. Professor Yunus is credited with implementing the concept of microfinance and microcredit as a means of facilitating poorer segments of society in Bangladesh and India (who usually primarily consist of females), with access to funding and banking services.⁵³  For example, his Grameen Bank, which started in 1983, provided people with the opportunity to have a bank account, access funds at low interest rates, and gain creditworthiness, improved their livelihoods and those of their families and communities, increased job opportunities and reduced poverty. In part due to the foundation laid by the work of Professor Yunus, at the end of the 2022/2023 financial year, the gross loan portfolio (GLP) of small finance banks, microfinance institutions and non-bank institutions in India was $420bn with 65M borrowers.⁵⁴  This represented an increase of 22% on the previous financial year. Through Yunus Social Business (a social impact fund), he has expanded the utilisation of the microfinance and microcredit concepts on a more global scale.

Agenda 21,⁵⁵  the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which was published in 1992, set out mechanisms for the inclusion of social and economic dimensions into sustainability decision-making, as well as for the conservation of natural resources.

Following the pivotal Rio Earth Summit in 1992, numerous international and pan-national policies came into force aiming to encourage companies and stakeholders to take responsibility for their actions. These policies included ‘polluter pays’, the Basel Agreement on the transboundary movement of waste, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 to reduce greenhouse gases, and many European directives (e.g., the Landfill Directive and the Integrated Pollution and Prevention Control Directive).³ 

A key concern raised by many stakeholders was the links between increased consumption and economic development.^56,57  Demographic changes, increased packaging, and urbanisation were viewed as being vital factors.⁵⁸  For example, there was a growing reliance on processed foods, which had more packaging, and when coupled with lifestyle changes, led to higher wastage.

Vandana Shiva, an environmental activist, writer, and founder of the Navdanya Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology in India, campaigned for greater attention to be paid to issues such as biodiversity, greater knowledge of indigenous causes, and the negative impacts of globalisation. She wrote texts such as Monocultures of the mind: Biodiversity, biotechnology, and agriculture (1993), Stolen harvest: The hijacking of the global food supply (2000), Water wars: Privatization, pollution, and profit (2002), and Making peace with the Earth (2013).

The 1990s saw the introduction of the concept of social entrepreneurship. A key early proponent was Ashok Khosla.⁵⁹  He is credited with establishing one of the first organisations in the developing world dedicated to coordinating environmental planning and management, the Office of Environmental Planning and Coordination in India. He was also a past President of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and a board member of several environmental organisations, including the World Conservation Union, the International Institute for Sustainable Development, and the Club of Rome. In 2002, he was awarded the Sasakawa Prize, which is akin to receiving the Nobel Prize for the environment.

During the early 2000s, several intertwined events and issues arose that served to stimulate calls for action and change, namely (1) in 2002, some 10 years after the Rio Earth Summit, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) was held in Johannesburg. The summit agreed on a development plan that took account of the environment, including the need for renewable energy sources, a global solidarity fund to reduce poverty, a plan for the equitable and fair sharing of the benefits of biodiversity resources, and 10 year programmes to support the transition to sustainable consumption and production at the regional and national levels;⁶⁰  (2) following the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Development Decades during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and the publication of the Human Development reports in the 1990s, in 2000, the UN published the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).⁹  The eight MDGs included ‘ensure environmental sustainability’ and ‘global partnership for development’. In 2016, the MDGs became the SDGs and gained traction globally; (3) in response to changing consumer trends and markets, production systems changed. For example, the mass-produced Ford–Budd models of the early 21st century have given way to the need to manufacture vehicles with shorter production cycles, greater differentiation, and more diverse product ranges.³⁵  At the same time, the need to maintain economies of scale means that finding new markets and cheaper production sites (e.g., in China, Brazil and India) remains a constant driver; (4) in September 2015, Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which included the 17 SDGs, was adopted at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in New York;⁶¹  (5) in December 2015, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change was signed. The agreement set the 1.5 °C threshold that underpins global climate change policy and action; (6) while the UN has predicted that the global population will peak at around 11bn by the middle of the century, some researchers have contended that the peak will be lower at around 8–9bn people.⁶²  Indeed, they note that the rate of growth has already slowed for many regions, including Africa, where rates have been falling since the 1970s. This trend is important because, for some decades, there has been a realisation that a reduction in poverty and an increase in educational opportunities (especially for women) lead to reduced population growth. More importantly, there are often arguments for overpopulation being at the heart of increased consumption. However, some writers³⁵  contend that such beliefs, which emerged in the late 18th, early 19th, and 20th centuries (e.g., by Garrett Hardin, Madison Grant, Henry David Thoreau, and John Muir), represent ‘an ideological grounding in eugenics with all the racist, classist and ableist prejudices that accompany it’; and (7) there has been the development of numerous key international agencies aiming to drive (more) sustainable practices. These include the various United Nations agencies, such as UNEP, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Other notable entities include the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), an international organisation committed to making sustainability reporting a standard practice, the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on the Role of Business, the international advisory board of the ETHOS Institute of Brazil, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), and the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB).

Agitation for change was led by a range of noted political and societal leaders. In 2012, Paul Gilding, a former Executive Director of Greenpeace International, contended that one of the outcomes of exponential economic growth is excess consumption, resulting in increased waste. Around this time, various economists (e.g., David G. Pearce⁶³  and Herman Daly)⁶⁴  also called for ecological principles to be utilised within the discipline of economics. Similar to Veblen in the late 19th century, these economists were of the view that economics adopted too rational an approach, which did not take into account any inherent nuances.

Concurrent with calls for the delinking of consumption and economic development were calls for reform of the global fiscal and monetary system to enable greater equity and fairness. For example, Philippe Van Parijs, the libertarian political economist and Hoover Professor of Economics and Social Ethics at the University of Louvain in Belgium, called for the introduction of a basic income, as well as a system of universal social security and sustainable living.⁶⁵  He argued that it is only through such mechanisms that individuals can make life decisions based on equitable options. Professor Van Parijs is the co-founder of the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) and was chair of the Poverty and Social Justice programme of the King Baudouin Foundation. He has authored various texts, including Real freedom for all: What (if anything) can justify capitalism? (1995) and Just democracy: The Rawls and Machiavelli programme and linguistic justice for Europe and for the world, both published in 2011.

There were also numerous stakeholders advocating for greater incorporation of corporate sustainability principles. John Elkington⁶⁶  is considered to be one of the key thought leaders in corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship. He created the Environmental Data Services (ENDS). He coined the term ‘Triple Bottom Line’. For his work, he was inducted into the Sustainability Hall of Fame in 2013. Elkington is the author of key texts such as Cannibals with forks: the Triple bottom line of 21st century business and the green consumer guide. Eric Lowitt,⁶⁷  an environmental consultant and writer, developed various corporate sustainability programmes, including for Deloitte Consulting, as well as Accenture’s first sustainability research programme. Lowitt is the author of various texts including The future of value: How sustainability creates value through competitive differentiation in 2011 and the Collaboration economy: How to meet business, social, and environmental needs and gain competitive advantage, which was published in 2013. Another pioneering thought leader in corporate social responsibility is Mindy Lubber.⁶⁸  Lubber is one of the founders and the President of Ceres, a nonprofit organisation, which advocates for corporate sustainability leadership. She directs Ceres’ Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR) and helps coordinate Ceres’ Business for Innovative Climate & Energy Policy (BICEP).

Other related factors such as social justice and climate change also assumed greater prominence. Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland between 1990 and 1997, has advocated for greater climate justice.⁶⁹  She served as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights from 1997 to 2002. Between 2002 and 2010, Robinson led the organisation Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, which aims to place human rights standards at the heart of global governance and policymaking. It also works to represent the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable globally. Robinson is the President of the Mary Robinson Foundation. Anders Wijkman, the Vice President of the Club of Rome and Councillor for the World Future Council, advocated for attention to be paid to climate change, global cooperation to enable just an equitable development, and humanitarian issues.⁷⁰  Wijkman is the former President of Globe EU and a former UN Assistant Secretary-General.

The early 2000s also saw greater attention being paid to the concepts of the ‘sharing economy’ and the ‘circular economy’. The sharing economy relates to the consumption or use of products, without ownership,^71–73  while the circular economy is concerned with the use of a product or service, in such a manner that it minimises wastage and any negative impacts on the environment.^74–76  Another key area of focus in the early 2000s was the development of sustainable business models.^77–79  A sustainable business model includes six key elements, namely the:⁸⁰  (1) value proposition (i.e., the benefits of adopting the model); (2) market segment; (3) value chain structure (i.e., from design, through production, use, and the recovery of value); (4) streams of cost and revenues; (5) value-network position (i.e., what are the existing and future business opportunities?); and (6) competitive strategy. Yet another concept that began to take prominence during this period was ‘industrial ecology’. Building on various writers (e.g., Veblen, Nelson and Winter), industrial ecology emphasises the need to think of industrial resource flows from an ecological perspective as ecosystems (rather than the neo-classical economic linear perspective), with their inherent complexity and dynamic, continuous flow of materials. Linked to industrial ecology were other concepts such as ‘innovation ecosystems’⁸¹  and ‘ecology of competition’.⁸²  Out of these concepts has arisen the field of ecological economics, which encompasses a range of disciplines and perspectives, as a means of best understanding the complexity of human–environmental interactions.³⁵ 

While publications on sustainable consumption and production have been evident since the mid-1970s, it was around 2015 that there was a significant rise in publications on the topic.⁸³  Most of the publications have focused on one of four main areas, namely (1) value-based consumption (e.g., based on Stern’s value-belief-norm theories);⁸⁴  (2) consumption approaches that are based on rational decision-making (e.g., based on Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour);⁸⁵  (3) the sociology of consumption and the social practice structures (e.g., the impact of ethics, social norms, structural enablers such as technology, and social-organisational entities – e.g., communities and groups – on consumption);^86,87  and (4) the effect of governance and policies on consumption (i.e., the use of top–down strategies to facilitate more sustainable consumption). A review found that most of the works have been published by researchers in China, Spain, the UK, and Germany.¹⁰  The Global South countries in the list of top producers were India, Brazil, Vietnam, Chile, Malaysia, and Thailand.

Thus, there have been notable shifts in views on sustainable consumption and production over the centuries. These shifts have been driven in part by significant events that have been calling for action, as well as noted stakeholders from both the Global South and Global North who have agitated for change. The 1800s and early 1900s saw calls for more sustainable consumption. The 1900s were characterised by various shifts, from reactive in the 1960s, to proactive in the 1980s, to precautionary in the 1990s. There were also shifts from more rigid regulations and policies in 1960s and 1970s to market-based approaches and education, as well as international measures in 1980s and 1990s.³²  There were also many significant environmental tragedies. During the 21st century, the UN was established, numerous sustainability concepts and policies (including the SDGs) were developed, and there was a general shift towards more sustainable consumption and production.

This chapter now turns to an examination of consumption and production trends, from the perspectives of consumers, policymakers, and industry.

The global middle class is expected to reach around 4.8M people by 2030.⁸⁸  This is up from around 1.3M in 2023. Thus, within seven years, this population segment is predicted to more than triple. Most of this growth will be in emerging economies, which makes a focus on these countries especially important.

For some time, in many Global South countries, increased consumption and materialism have resulted from a desire for higher social status and a growing middle class.⁸⁹  However, (similar to Global North countries), this growing materialism is also increasingly juxtaposed against a rising number of consumers who want to be more sustainable, for example, in the Middle East,^90,91  the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)^92–95  and Africa.^96–98  This juxtaposition is due, for example, to increasing health consciousness amongst different population segments.⁹⁹ 

China is one of the leading consumers globally.¹⁰⁰  It is expected that China will account for around a quarter of all global consumption within the next decade. This shift is being driven by various factors including (1) an expanding middle and upper class, with an additional 1.2bn people expected to join by 2030. However, this growth is patchy and is geared towards items such as luxury consumer goods, electric vehicles, high-end beauty and personal care products, consumer electronics, and fashion accessories; (2) growth in its cities. Around 90% of the growth is predicted to occur in China’s cities. About 25% of the nation’s population lives in 30 large cities, which are responsible for 45% of the consumption amongst households. Domestic travel between and within these large cities is vibrant. However, shortages of housing are leading to an increase in home rentals and difficulty in (younger) people being able to afford to own their own homes; (3) rising support for the ‘made in China’ brand. More local companies are, in some cases, outcompeting foreign brands, with around 85% of Chinese indicating that they buy local compared to approximately 15% in 2011; (4) increased use of digital technologies. A rise in the use of technologies has led, for example, to increased online shopping at a rate that is faster than in other countries; and (5) innovations in business models, coupled with the utilisation of technologies. For example, while car ownership in China is lower than that in other countries, technologies have enabled ridesharing and the use of taxis to conversely be higher in China compared to those in other countries.

In 2019, Europe set a target of achieving sustainable economic growth, green employment, and being the most climate-neutral continent by 2050. The EU’s Green Deal aimed to serve as a roadmap towards achieving this target by enabling the more efficient use of resources by reducing pollution, facilitating a more circular economy, mitigating the impacts of climate change, and reducing biodiversity loss. The Green Deal outlined the financial tools and investments that were required to facilitate a just and inclusive transition (e.g., by providing reskilling, employment and investment opportunities for less developed regions and countries). It covered a range of sectors including transport, agriculture, and energy, as well as industries such as chemicals, cement, and textiles. The Green Deal led to the development of several legislative measures such as the European Climate Law, a Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, a Circular Economy Action Plan, a Green Financing Strategy by 2020, a new Industrial Strategy, and the Farm to Fork Strategy. Implementation would be through various mechanisms such as (1) through diplomatic channels (e.g., the G7 and G20); (2) involving stakeholders in co-design (e.g., through a Climate Pact, which was meant to enable citizens to have a say); (3) incorporation of the principles into the EU’s trade mechanisms; and (4) working with strategic partners (e.g., in Africa) to enable them also to achieve.

Within the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries, an increasing quantity of trade is accounted for in local currencies.¹⁰¹  For example, around US$170bn in trade is conducted between Brazil and China in their own currencies and Russia and China use their currencies for 80% of their US$190bn of trade. India and China are increasingly using their currencies (the Rupee and Yuan, respectively) to trade with their partners.¹⁰¹ The BRICS countries are also seeking to establish a common bank platform that facilitates connectivity across the countries and bypasses the internationally utilised SWIFT system. Similarly, the African Export–Import Bank (Afrexim Bank) operates the Pan African Payments and Settlement System (PAPSS) that enables transactions to be made between African countries in their local currencies. It is aimed that PAPSS will shortly be extended to countries in the Caribbean. Thus, SWIFT and PAPSS enable increased opportunities for trade between the countries that utilise SWIFT, those that use PAPSS, and those with whom SWIFT and PAPSS members trade.

The G20 comprises Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the UK, and the USA.¹⁰²  The forum was started in 1999 in response to the banking crisis in Asia and serves to facilitate discussion and collaboration amongst world leaders and finance ministers to enable global economic security. However, in recent times, the focus has shifted to include issues such as sustainable development and the climate agenda. The grouping accounts for 2/3 of the global population.¹⁰²  It is responsible for around 75% of global trade and 85% of the global economic output. At the 2023 G20 Summit, India (the host nation) focused on issues such as sustainable development, debt forgiveness for Global South countries from multilateral agencies (e.g., the World Bank and IMF), as well as the G20 countries themselves, and just and equitable growth and development. In accepting the Presidency of the 2024 summit, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva noted that the transition to renewables, social inclusion, the greater incorporation of sustainable development principles, and the fight against hunger would be Brazil’s G20 priorities.¹⁰²  He also called for greater representation of Global South countries at the UN Security Council and the World Bank. The summit demonstrated a shift in the power dynamics (primarily due to economics) with emerging giants (especially from Asia) assuming a more dominant role. Southeastern Asian countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia, and Singapore are becoming viable alternatives as global supply chains shift away from China. According to the IMF,¹⁰³  India and China will be responsible for around half of the economic growth globally. For example, India’s young, aspiring population is both a large consumer of international products and a global producer. The G20 Summit also led to the formal introduction of the African Union as a full member, making it the G21, which should serve to further democratise decision-making.

Within the last two decades, sustainable consumption in China has increased significantly, particularly in urban regions.¹⁰⁴  This shift has been largely a result of central government policies. For example, in 2009, the then Prime Minister Wen Jiabao stated that the country had to develop an economic model that utilised a low-carbon approach.¹⁰⁵  The Circular Economy Promotion Law from 2008 was based on the 3Rs and later the 4Rs.¹⁰⁶ 

During the 20th century, there was an exponential growth in socio-economic development, with an accompanying rise in mass production and consumption, particularly across the USA and Europe.^2,35  However, there has also been a growing general recognition by most industries of the need to protect the environment. For example, by 2025, the international technology company Apple has pledged to (1) eliminate the use of virgin cobalt from its batteries; (2) only use recycled rare earth materials in its magnets; and (3) use 100% recycled tin soldering and gold plating.¹⁰⁷ 

Industries have utilised the principles of concepts such as the circular economy, industrial ecology, and the sharing economy, as well as sustainable business models to promote efficiency, innovation, and business growth. For example, the field of industrial ecology has led to practical examples utilising ecological principles within industries such as ant colony optimisation, which has led to increased optimisation of supply chains,¹⁰⁸  and biomimicry, which enables innovation in product design.

Social innovation is concerned with the innovations put in place by organisations to enable outcomes that are environmentally, socially, and economically integrated business practices.¹⁰⁹  Sustainable consumption within businesses has, for some time, started to shift away from simply focusing on organic and ethical products¹¹⁰  to developing products and services that align with more sustainable consumer values.¹¹¹  Companies have increasingly sought to utilise sustainable business models [e.g., Product-as-a-Service (PaaS), reverse logistics, and product use extension] to respond to consumer needs and to gain competitive advantage.¹¹²  Sustainable business models generally fall into either the traditional market-based approach, which links consumption and production to market forces, or the absolute reduction approach, which is concerned with reducing consumption and delinking economic benefits and environmental degradation (e.g., the companies Patagonia).¹¹²  The utilisation of the principles of the sharing economy (e.g., fashion libraries, book clubs, vehicle sharing or rental, and the hiring of DIY equipment), as well as of sustainable business models, has resulted in a general trend towards the development of innovative services over products that are owned by the consumer. As noted in Section 1.4.1, the development of services based on digital platforms has enabled companies to rapidly expand their market share.¹⁰⁰  There has also been a general shift towards designing and manufacturing materials and components that can be recycled or refurbished or which have reduced negative impacts on the environment (e.g., the hazardous potential of the chemical components is lower). However, despite a slowdown in consumption due to COVID-19, the use of, for example, innovative business models (e.g., sharing rather than ownership models) is leading to increased resource consumption.⁸⁸ 

Increasingly, consumers’ values are aligning with their consumption patterns. Hence, the products and services they buy and utilise are aligned with societal challenges such as climate change.⁷  Companies are, therefore, increasingly aligning their brands to appeal to the emotions and perceptions of consumers to deliver experiential shopping experiences (i.e., the experience goes beyond the actual shopping to make consumers feel good), as a means of increasing uptake.

Organisations operating in the bioeconomy (i.e., the ecosystem, which produces and utilises biological resources) have sought to shift away from a fossil-fuel-based economy to a bio-based economy.¹¹³  This has been realised, for example, through approaches such as the use of alternatives to fossil-fuel-based energy and the utilisation of synthetic biology and bioengineering to produce bio-based building block materials for products (e.g., biopesticides). In turn, these strategies have the potential to contribute positively to the attainment of the SDGs [e.g., to promote human well-being (SDG 3), to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (SDG 13), and to ensure access to affordable and sustainable energy (SDG 7)]. However, given that how the bioeconomy functions is not inherently cyclic, the focus should be on optimising the levels of circularity.¹¹⁴  Optimisation could, for example, be enhanced by¹¹⁵  (1) providing incentives for technological innovation; (2) internalising any externalities through regulation or innovation; or (3) incentivising the development of sustainable business models.

While there have evidently been significant shifts in the thinking and practices of industry, the rationale for these shifts (i.e., whether out of a sense of environmentalism to conserve the Earth’s resources or rather to gain competitive advantage and financial profitability) is debatable.

Despite the existence of several policies and initiatives, unsustainable consumption and production practices persist and indeed are increasing. However, differences exist between countries and socio-demographic segments. This persistence of unsustainable practices is partly due to an over-reliance on neo-classical thinking that individuals are rational and that natural resources can be commodified. Other factors include limitations in enforcing policies and regulations and market forces (e.g., limitations in awareness or higher production costs).^116–118 

Policymakers, through their facilitation of engagement of stakeholders with the sustainable consumption and production agenda, play a vital role in enabling more sustainable practices. For example, through policies and legislative measures (e.g., subsidies, regulations, and taxes), as well as enhancing awareness levels, policymakers can incentivise the uptake of more circular approaches.^10,119–121  There is an argument though that policy measures work best in less egalitarian and individualistic societies or where the resources to facilitate effective enforcement of regulations are limited.

Building on theories that draw on structuralism and agency (e.g., dependency theory, world systems, and cultural political economy theory), various writers have called for a more structural political economy approach.^122–126  Such an approach would enable the co-creation of systems that focus on (1) global environmental governance (i.e., the effective negotiation and management of environmental resources between regions and countries through downward harmonisation strategies such as financialisation¹²⁷  and authoritarian liberalism);¹²⁸  (2) justice (i.e., a focus not solely on injustice but also the causes for this injustice);^129,130  and (3) co-produced knowledge and actions, as opposed to simple translation of research into policy and practice.^131,132 

Some writers³⁵  note that it is the supply side of the equation, rather than the consumer, who is most to ‘blame’ for unsustainable consumption. The authors note that through their innovations (e.g., autonomous vehicles), tech companies such as Amazon, Google, and Facebook are increasingly seeking to ‘take control’ away from consumers. In such a context, the enactment of governance measures plays a vital role, as it is only through policy and legislation that supply-side factors can adequately be addressed.

Behaviour change has long been seen as vital to enabling the effective implementation of more sustainable approaches. For example, change has been realised through the notion of frugality of consumption.¹³³  The use of nudges has become an integral component of the policies and initiatives of many countries. Similarly, ‘pressure’ from peers/family/neighbours has also been used. However, there is much debate as to whether unidimensional^134,135  or multidimensional^136,137  behavioural constructs are more effective.

Consumption behaviour is influenced by a range of individual, social, and institutional factors.¹³⁸  For example, it is governed by attitudes, social norms, and intentions,^139–144  as well as external factors such as the cost of living and the use of behaviour change incentives.¹⁴⁵  Younger people are influenced by various issues including social factors, their values, knowledge, and product pricing.¹⁴⁶  Consumption is often linked to a desire for higher social status^147,148  and the values and lifestyles of the consumers.^149–153  However, there can often be a gap between what people say and what they do.^154,155  Socio-organisational constructs such as communities and collaborative systems have been shown to strongly influence individual behaviours. Indeed, individuals generally tend to adopt a group approach, rather than individually led actions.¹⁵⁶ 

Some writers note the need to use non-capitalist measures to encourage dematerialisation^35,157  or ‘voluntary simplification’^156,158  to reduce consumption. Examples of such measures might include encouraging individuals to grow their own food, buy less, keep items for longer, or enable local, community-based initiatives that utilise the sharing or giving of surpluses. However, the efficacy of such measures, particularly in the long term, is subject to debate.

Nudges have been successfully used as a complementary tool to policy measures to effect sustainable consumption. Nudges are deliberate changes in the ‘choice architecture’ (i.e., the physical environment, in which an individual is in or the information that is available to them) to facilitate a desired behaviour change.¹⁵⁹  With the use of nudges, no option is forbidden; rather, the desired behaviour is made more favourable. Thus, they can be used for both routine behaviours and more complex behaviours.¹⁶⁰  However, their effectiveness varies depending on the context and intervention due to the complexity of human behaviour. For example, while feedback on energy consumption in small-scale trials has been shown to lead to reductions ranging from 1% to 20%, rolling the nudge out on a larger scale led to a reduction of only around 1%–2%.¹⁶¹  Nudges tend to fall into four main types of tools, namely¹⁶²  (1) changes to the physical environment (e.g., product placement, using smaller plates in restaurants, and sustainable urban planning to encourage practices such as cycling); (2) simplification and framing of information (e.g., by reducing the quantity of information, aligning it to the individual’s values and attitudes, or using feedback); (3) changes to the default option (e.g., use of opt-out, rather than opt-in); and (4) the use of social norms (i.e., the use of salient messaging that plays to the social nature of people). Given the nature of nudges and how they work, they are often deployed using social marketing. Social marketing focuses on encouraging consumers to actively practice behaviours that deliver on the triple-bottom-line impacts.¹⁶³ 

Gender has long been realised as a key influencing factor in consumption patterns.^164,165  Generally, females are more inclined to engage in sustainable consumption behaviours than males, due, for example, to greater social responsibility, as well as higher concern for the environment, and ecological consciousness.^166–168  However, others¹⁶⁹  note that the effects of gender are impacted by the constructs of social identity and personal identity. If personal identity is more salient, females will exhibit greater sustainable consumption practices. However, when social identity is more salient, gender differences are minimised. This assertion is based on the Identity-based Motivational Theory, which notes that personal identity results in individuals who view themselves as individuals, while salient identity causes individuals to view themselves as part of a group.¹⁷⁰  Therefore, messaging from both policymakers and businesses to encourage sustainable consumption should use less ‘assertive’ wording and also incorporate an appeal to social actors such as family and friends (e.g., ‘We must not forget to recycle our plastic bottles’ – p. 545).

Simply telling individuals to consume less is unlikely to succeed due, for example, to their inherent materialistic nature.¹⁷¹  Calls for sacrifice are also not well received by stakeholders from Global South countries, who generally view such comments as attempts to prevent them from aspiring and progressing. Such comments are viewed as akin to being lectured to by a small percentage of the global society who already possess luxuries and whose actions are perceived to be primarily responsible for the risks that are posed by overconsumption.¹⁵⁶  Instead, others³⁵  contend that a more effective approach is to encourage consumers to be more reflective and self-aware. The use of mindfulness to encourage reduced materialism has been proposed as a key approach.^172,173  Through the use of marketing, consumers would be prompted to reflect on why they are consuming and how their needs (e.g., self-identity or social status) could be otherwise met. This transitional approach would facilitate more ‘mindful consumption’, where people buy only what they really need. The approach could be realised through various options including (1) the use of regulation¹⁷⁴  However,³⁵  note that this is only effective in certain socio-political contexts; (2) a radical transition, which aims to limit or reduce access.^175,176  However, this would unfairly and unjustly penalise some segments of the population;³⁵  and (3) based on¹⁷⁷  a more gradual transition, which involves consumption of fewer products and services, which are of a higher quality.³⁵  At the same time, culture change is also introduced to transition values, attitudes, and behaviours. A similar transitional approach is the Simpler Way,¹⁷⁶  which is concerned with the creation of niche initiatives in society (e.g., transition towns) that would eventually become the dominant forces once the more ‘capitalist’ approaches fall. Proponents of this approach, however, do not indicate how long it would take for the ‘dominant’ approaches to fall or how best to facilitate these niches to grow and scale.

If consumers are to utilise more sustainable goods and services, then these products and services have to be accessible and visible to them.^178,179  Thus, simply making consumers aware of these products and services is enough to trigger changes in practice.¹⁸⁰ 

Based on the ecological-based concept of intergradation (which incorporates biodiversity and heterogeneity),^181,182  some³⁵  contend that for corporate ecosystems to enable sustainable consumption, there is a need for these ecosystems to support a diverse range of initiatives. Just as biodiversity in a natural ecosystem supports increased resilience and productivity, so does such a range enable similar benefits within organisations. For example, organisations might employ a range of initiatives (e.g., utilising a product-as-a-service model, rather than promoting ownership, as well as using incentives) to facilitate sustainable consumption.¹⁸³  Resilience is gained, for example, through a business having a network of suppliers, and which is itself one of multiple suppliers to another organisation.¹⁸⁴  An example would be the use of eco-industrial parks, which are built on the biological principles of industrial symbiosis, whereby the outputs of different co-located organisations serve as useful inputs for others.¹⁸⁵  The initiatives are generally more effective when utilised in a collaborative manner with other organisations (e.g., Patagonia working with eBay) and are further strengthened when regulations are in place.¹¹²  There are, however, limits to the utilisation of the concept, as, for example, there is the need for a degree of redundancy (e.g., spare capacity) and ‘apparent inefficiency’ (i.e., overproduction in the knowledge that there will be wastage) for systems to achieve resilience.³⁵ 

Sustainable consumption behaviours should be seen through a socio-cultural lens, which is based on groups and communities rather than individual, rational behaviours. If viewed in this context, then environmental education can serve as a powerful means of effecting change.^186,187  Crucially, environmental education not only serves to facilitate ‘green’ behaviours amongst children but can also serve to enable wider sustainable consumption through ‘reverse socialisation’ (i.e., where parents learn from children).^188–191 

Evidently, by modifying the right levers, behaviour change amongst consumers can serve to effect meaningful levels of sustainability during the use and post-usage of products and services. Changes in uptake can also be powerful mechanisms for driving change within product markets and geographies. However, given the complexity of human behaviours, fully understanding these factors, and responding accordingly is a significant challenge.

The closed-loop concept has been mooted by many¹⁹²  as an effective way to build sustainability into product design and use. The concept hinges on expanding the lifecycle of components and materials, for example, through reuse and recycling. A broader concept is that of cradle to cradle, where the design of products takes account of their post-use life.¹⁹³  However, there are various inherent challenges with both concepts, including limited attempts at reducing material consumption or encouraging innovation in the system and difficulties in completely closing loops (e.g., due to energy losses).³⁵ 

To encourage sustainability during product use, products should be of high quality, which aligns with the customer’s values and needs^65,194,195  and ideally be designed for remanufacture and disassembly.¹⁹⁶  As noted in Section 1.4.3, the use of sustainable business models such as PaaS has served to incentivise the longevity of product usage, as the producer retains ownership, with responsibility for maintenance and repair and their associated costs.

Many countries are seeking to encourage the uptake of green technologies, such as solar, as a means of becoming more environmentally friendly.^197,198  The uptake of these technologies is being facilitated through various means, including the use of incentives such as subsidies, as well as changes in how they are regulated.¹⁹⁹ 

Extended producer responsibility schemes have been successfully used as a way of building environmental externalities into product use, particularly at the end of its life. The concept places responsibility on the stakeholder who is producing, selling, or distributing a product and retains responsibility for the management of that product at its end of life. An example of this concept is the European Union’s extended producer responsibility on textiles, which is meant to reduce waste by increasing the circularity of the textiles, save money, and increase jobs.²⁰⁰  However, while the concept has merit, its effective implementation can be extremely difficult, especially in jurisdictions where legislative enforcement is limited.

An important point to consider is that the pace of technological innovation has slowed.²⁰¹  For example,³⁵  in the automotive industry, the key innovation is from internal combustion engines to EVs. However, EV technology and rechargeable batteries were invented in the mid-19th century. Essentially, therefore, innovations are generally enhancements of existing applications, which, in some cases, lead to similar or even more damaging environmental and socio-demographic impacts (e.g., mining for critical earth materials). Therefore, while product changes can bring about benefits, they can also lead to other challenges that will have to be addressed.

Evidently, in recent decades, there have been positive shifts in the manner in which natural resources are consumed and managed. Sustainability principles have become embedded within the business models of many companies, there is a general realisation of the finiteness of the Earth’s natural resources, and several sustainable consumption policies and concepts exist at the international, national, regional, and local levels. However, despite these positive developments, limitations exist. Discrepancies exist between Global South and Global North countries. There is debate about whether industries have truly embedded sustainability principles or are merely greenwashing for economic gain. It is the most vulnerable in society who are most negatively impacted. These issues are exacerbated by global challenges such as climate change, geopolitical conflicts, and economic uncertainty. Resource flows are complex. Thus, moving towards a more sustainable context requires interdisciplinary, holistic, and collaborative governance approaches, incorporating all stakeholders working together in a participatory and equitable manner.