Common Concerns

Concern/myth: "Sustainable consumption is greener products."

It is also not enough to simply make products greener and more efficient. Improvements in resource productivity have been historically offset by increases in demand or by a growth in the total number of products. Efficiency gains also can lead to the ‘rebound effect’ and other adverse environmental impacts (see, for example, this study of sustainable lifestyles).[1]

An approach entirely focused on purchasing can also miss many opportunities. It is too late to ask a person who is shopping for a green product if they can instead fix the item they are trying to replace, re-purpose something that could act in the place of a new product, purchase second-hand/reused goods, or borrow/rent/share the item.

Concern/myth: "Consumers are driving demand."

Consumers carry out the actual purchasing, use and disposal of products but influential decisions on the product itself are made at earlier stages. Supply and demand are inextricably linked with consumer needs and wants driving production decisions. On the supply side, producers use marketing techniques to create demand for their products.

Both consumer demand and producer supply need to be addressed. Local governments can play a leadership role in reducing impacts embedded in the supply chain as well as shaping consumers choice. 

Concern/myth: "Consumers are going to make the right choice with the right information."

Studies show consistently that providing people with information has little effect on their behaviors, actions and practices in everyday life. A “knowledge-action gap” is widely observed in societies where a majority of the citizens are aware of the consequences of their decisions, but still act to the contrary. Behavior is shaped by a range of factors including ideologies, social norms, lock-in to past decisions, mistrust, and their perception of whether actions make a difference. Significantly, marketing and advertising play a key role in driving consumer demand and emotionally manipulating people towards unsustainable consumerism (See this report).[2]

Concern/myth: "We can depend on consumers taking small actions that lead to big changes."

Big changes in consumption patterns do not come from individual consumers alone – they come from actions by a range of actors including governments, communities, and the private sector. Policy, infrastructure and program design are all necessary to meet the scale of the problems we face. 

With activities like recycling, individuals can feel like they’ve ‘done their bit’ and avoid more costly and difficult behavior change (see this WWF study for more). [3] The solutions lie in shaping the context within which individuals make their choices. 

Concern/myth: "Sustainable consumption does not support economic development."

Sustainable consumption supports a broader view of economic development, focusing on how it delivers not just jobs and income but also quality of life and wellbeing. See the USDN Sustainable Economic Development toolkit for more detail. It also opens up new economic opportunities. Sustainable consumption studies by the World Economic Forum [4] and the World Business Council on Sustainable Development [5] note how sustainable consumption stimulates businesses to become more innovative and competitive. Other studies, like this from WRI, [6] suggest that businesses can no longer rely on consumption-driven business models in a resource-constrained future.

Concern/myth: “‘Gross Domestic Product per capita’ is an effective measure of welfare and development.”

Economic growth is not consistently delivering wellbeing and happiness, and, in recent years, has served to primarily benefit top earners [7], yet that is what we measure. The Genuine Progress Indicator and other social and ecological indicators are more holistic measures of general well-being than per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This fits with a sustainable consumption approach - instead of focusing exclusively on the monetary value of goods produced and consumed, other environmental and social costs and benefits are included (e.g, resource depletion, pollution, health, life satisfaction).

Concern/myth: "Sustainable consumption means less jobs."

Sustainable consumption practices can open up new areas of increased employment such as in the reuse and remanufacturing sectors as well as in the production of high-quality tailored goods. As the World Business Council on Sustainable Development report [8] outlines, there are great payoffs and job creation potential in advancing sustainable consumption especially in redesigning our economy to be less wasteful and more circular including in green buildings, food, transportation and education. 

As in other historical economic transitions, certain jobs and businesses will decline while others grow. It’s important to note that responses to changes in consumption are only part of the story. Labour markets are shifting for a broader set of reasons including changes in information and robotics technology, reduced job security and increases in intermittent and flex-work, shifting motivations of employees and needed skills, and the globalization of the labour supply.

Concern/myth: "Sustainable consumption contradicts anti-poverty strategies and the capacity of developing countries to meet primary needs."

Sustainable consumption is about reducing the extremes of both poverty and wealth and ensuring an equitable distribution of resources. A local government’s sustainable consumption initiatives can address both sides of the equity gap: those that need to increase their consumption and those that are engaging in wasteful consumption. Different solutions are needed for different demographics in order to encourage more sustainable patterns of consumption – including increasing consumption as necessary. Local governments can encourage inclusive economic development by focusing on social and ecological wellbeing, and moving away from incentives toward over-consumerism.

Concern/myth: "Local governments should not be advocating for any behavior change or play a role in shaping the market."

Governments at all levels are already involved in activities that shape consumer choices; in fact, part of the role of government is to support consumption options for the public interest including regulating food and health and safety. Rather than encouraging ‘hands-off’ government, local governments can support consumer protection, enable access to sustainable choices, develop systems of incentives and rules that favor sustainable behavior, and engage in ‘choice editing’ to remove harmful options. Local governments also exemplify and encourage sustainable consumption through their own internal purchasing choices. 

Concern/myth: "Sustainable consumption is the same as the Circular Economy."

There are critical elements missing from the Circular Economy discussion that sustainable consumption raises. To date, the Circular Economy discussion focuses primarily on resource productivity, quality improvements, efficiency gains, capturing material value, reuse and recycling, rather than on reducing absolute levels of global production and on transforming consumer behavior. There is limited exploration of changing the continuous economic growth paradigm.

Sustainable consumption and circular economy concepts do share an interest in moving from a ‘take-make-waste’ model of consumption to one that is circular by design. Both provide a lens on the wastefulness of the existing economic approach and the opportunities for reuse, regeneration and innovation in adopting a circular model. 

Concern/myth: "Sustainable consumption is the same as Waste Prevention."

Waste prevention is an aligned concept to sustainable consumption because it asks us to consider where waste can be prevented or avoided in the first place. However, the focus on waste elevates solid waste reduction or reduction in material throughput as the ultimate goal. In some cases, using more material (e.g., double-wall framing of exterior walls) can be environmentally preferable when viewed from the big picture. 

When the challenge is defined as a problem of “waste” then recycling or even waste incineration can be viewed as equally effective or important and opportunities are missed. Sustainable consumption shifts the lens to ask which products and services should be created in the first place and how we can produce and develop these with lower life-cycle environmental impacts. This white paper [9] from Oregon Department of Environmental Quality provides a fuller discussion.