For future generations to meet their needs, and to close the global inequality gap, we need to degrow. That is we need to reduce resource and energy consumption to bring the economy back into balance with the living world in a way that reduces inequality and improves human well-being (Hickel, 2020a,b). This transition has consequences for business, because instead of boosting sales companies need to encourage consumers to make do with less, avoiding build in obsolescence, extending product lives to slow disposal and replacement, focusing on satisfying ‘needs’ rather than ‘wants’ and reducing overall resource consumption through conscious changes in sales and marketing techniques, new revenue models and innovative technology solutions (Bocken & Short, 2016). Overall, we can say that companies have to rethink their business models, therefore I specifically aim to answer the following research question: what could a degrowth business model framework look like? Degrowth business models (DGMs) are supposed to serve the dual aim of (1) obeying planetary boundaries whilst simultaneously (2) contributing to reducing inequality and increasing well-being. That is companies need to develop value propositions that, on the one hand contribute to absolutely reducing resource and energy consumption, and on the other are aimed at production of protected needs (Di Giulio & Defila, 2021). Since degrowth is considered an authentic and legitimate interpretation of sustainable development, SDGs 12-16 can serve as proxies for obeying planetary boundaries, whilst the remaining SDGs (minus SDG8.1 -economic growth) can be regarded as proxies for well-being and reducing inequality.
LINK
Despite continuous improvement, lifelong learning, and plan-do-check-act cycles, every new day the planet is a little worse off than the day before! In the first 10 months of this year alone, an area the size of the Netherlands has been deforested and twice that area has been added to desert! Technology development, continuous improvement and quality approaches are (at most) aimed at doing the best possible. That's not the same as doing the right things. Implementing wrong (disastrous) practices as efficiently as possible is actually accelerating the ever-growing problems we face. In this article it is argued through 8 suggestions how to evolve from prosperity to well-being, to economic degrowth in favour of ecological growth and increasing connectedness.
MULTIFILE
LINK
Building on the Millennium Development Goals, Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and Education for Sustainable Development Goals (ESDG) were established. Despite the willingness of many educational institutions worldwide to embrace the SDGs, given escalating sustainability challenges, this article questions whether ESDG is desirable as “an education for the future”. Many challenges outlined by the SDGs are supposed to be solved by “inclusive” or “sustainable” economic growth, assuming that economic growth can be conveniently decoupled from resource consumption. Yet, the current hegemony of the sustainability-through-growth paradigm has actually increased inequalities and pressure on natural resources, exacerbating biodiversity loss, climate change and resulting social tensions. With unreflective support for growth, far from challenging the status quo, the SDGs and consequently, the ESDGs, condone continuing environmental exploitation, depriving millions of species of their right to flourish, and impoverishing future generations. This article creates greater awareness of the paradoxes of sustainable development and encourages teaching for sustainability through various examples of alternative education that emphasizes planetary ethic and degrowth. The alternatives include Indigenous learning, ecopedagogy, ecocentric education, education for steady-state and circular economy, empowerment and liberation. “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in 'Journal of Environmental Education' on 01/20/20, available online: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00958964.2019.1710444 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
Despite the willingness of many educational institutions worldwide to embrace Education for Sustainable Development and Education for Sustainable Development Goals, critical scholars have pointed out that the very enterprise of sustainable development is not without its contradictions. Therefore, any education that engages with sustainable development needs to be carefully reviewed, rather than supported, in its ambition to promote the supposedly universally desirable aims. The rhetoric of sustainable development as meeting the needs of present and future generations is largely anthropocentric in failing to take nonhuman species into account when setting up pragmatic and ethical objectives. Similarly to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that have helped to raise living standards across the world, but have largely failed to address environmental sustainability challenges, the Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) tend to prioritize “inclusive economic growth” at the expense of ecological integrity, which is very likely to negatively affect not only nonhuman species but also future generations and their quality of life. Thus, as this chapter will argue, universally applicable Education for Sustainable Development Goals (ESDGs) is problematic in the context of addressing the long-term sustainability for both human and nonhuman inhabitants of the planet. Given escalating climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution, and depletion of natural resources, this chapter questions whether ESDGs can qualify as a desirable “quality education”. The paradoxes of sustainable development and ways forward that seem a better alternative for ESDG include indigenous/traditional learning, ecopedagogy, ecocentric education, and education for degrowth, steady-state, and Cradle-to-Cradle and circular economy. Advantages of universal education are also highlighted, as any education that supports basic literacy, numeracy, and values attributed to the intrinsic rights of humans and nonhumans can help students to be equipped to deal with social and environmental challenges. https://doi.org/10.3390/books978-3-03897-893-0-1 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
At present, leading international agencies, such as the United Nations Environmental Programme, are largely focused on what they claim to be ‘win-win’ scenarios of ‘sustainable development’ rhetoric. These combine social, economic and environmental objectives. However, as noted by the ‘Scientists’ Warning to Humanity’, environmental integrity is the essential precondition for the healthy functioning of social and economic systems, and thus environmental protection needs to be prioritized in policy and practice. Ecological sustainability cannot be reached without realizing that population growth and economic growth, with attendant increased rates of depletion of natural resources, pollution, and general environmental degradation, are the root causes of unsustainability. This article argues that to strategically address ecological unsustainability, the social, economic and political barriers to addressing the current economic model and population growth need to be overcome. Strategic solutions proposed to the current neoliberal economy are generic – namely, degrowth, a steady-state economy, and a ‘circular economy’. Solutions to demographic issues must be sensitive to the countries' cultural, social, political and economic factors to be effective as fertility differs from country to country, and culture to culture. As discussed here, Mediterranean countries have the lowest fertility in the world, while many countries in Africa, and some in Asia, South America have stable but consistently high birthrates. This is discussed using three case studies - Tanzania, Italy, and Cambodia, focusing on the "best case" policy practice that offers more realistic hope for successful sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41207-019-0139-4 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
In order to be able to do paid work, it is a condition that people also do reproductive work. Raising children, taking care of the house, running errands, taking care of the community (family, neighbours), etc. all this is also necessary work. No paid work without this so-called reproductive work. There is a lot to be said about quiet quitting, about people doing their 9 to 5 (office) job as minimally as possible, because it is so far from their "purpose". Since Corona, people are often allowed to work from home. Contrary to expectations, it appears that people can often do their work in solitude with (considerably) fewer hours at home than before in the office. Quietly dropping out, doing less paid work (Degrowth) may have more impact than contributing to even more production, material and energy consumption in an economy of infinite growth from finite resources. By increasing our reproductive work - well-being - we may be able to shape degrowth. Tilting towards a sustainable planet must be done bottom up, from our own Inner Development Goals! Something that seems terrifying, quiet quitting, may be a starting signal of something very beautiful!
MULTIFILE
Klimaatbeleid is urgent en overstijgt het denken in politiek ‘links’ of ‘rechts’, waarschuwt de Groninger lector Egbert Dommerholt. ‘Oneindige groei is op een eindige planeet niet mogelijk. Wie daar anders over denkt is ofwel gek of econoom.’
LINK
