Degrowth is a concept proposing that instead of pursuing perpetual economic growth on a finite planet, we actually embrace a degree of controlled economic shrinkage to bring our consumption in line with our planetary boundaries. If we were to pursue this, resources would need to be reserved for the things that society needs most and not consumed on frivolous, unnecessary activities.
It's an interesting concept and from a pure environmental perspective, it's hard to deny that we do need to drastically reduce our consumption. So let’s imagine that our society decided to embrace the concept of degrowth. How would we decide what's important and what isn't?
Perhaps we could look toward a framework like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation", Maslow proposed that humans have a variety of physical and psychological needs but that they are not all equally important. His hierarchy of needs is often illustrated as a pyramid, with the most important things forming the base. So what’s in the base?
The base layer consists of our basic physical needs of food, water, warmth and rest. This seems like a good place to start prioritising resources, but in our modern world, nothing is so clear cut.
Let’s take food. Are organically grown vegetables equal in importance to chocolate mousse? Take water. Is clean tap water equally important to sparkling mineral water from the other side of the world? Take warmth. Are warm winter clothes equal in importance to patio heaters? And take rest. Is a simple mattress equal in importance to a luxury spa resort?
The next layer of the pyramid is physical security and safety, which again feels quite rational, but are door locks and local police equal in importance to nuclear submarines and cruise missiles?
We’re still only looking at the base of the pyramid and things are already getting messy. If we look up to the top of the pyramid, we see aesthetic needs, self actualization and transcendence. We could easily draw a line that says that these things are not essential, but if we sacrifice the top of the pyramid we would create a purely utilitarian society that I don’t believe would serve our best interests. The covid pandemic gave us a preview of such a world, as vast numbers of “non-essential“ businesses were shut down by governments deciding what was important and what wasn’t. This is surely not the future we want.
It seems that we've created a society in which there is no clear line between need and want. Now that we’ve tasted the upper slopes of the pyramid, a more fulfilling life filled with love and beauty is considered essential by many (including me). In such a world, how can we make any meaningful or fair prioritisation of resources in order to reduce our consumption? Who is to say that one business, product or service is more important than any other? Who is to say that their opinion matters more than others.
My business operates in the digital sector, which leads me to ask, “is the internet really necessary?” Looking back at how humans managed without it even within my own lifetime, I think the answer is a clear no, yet we have now built a society in which it is necessary. I actually once had an employee who had never experienced life without the Internet and genuinely believed that it was a basic human right. Even if he was right, it would still surely be true that some websites and digital services are more essential than others. We can imagine what a degrowth Internet might look like, prioritising data usage for public services over entertainment. But how many people would accept a web without social media, online gaming, music streaming and video on demand? The growth in digital consumption is primarily coming from things higher up Maslow’s hierarchy, yet if push came to shove, I bet many people would choose them over more utilitarian services like gov.uk.
As businesses looking to contribute to a more sustainable world, I think its important that we ask ourselves where our products and services fit on the hierarchy of needs. Every business consumes natural resources and we need to look beyond simply measuring and offsetting our carbon emissions, to challenge ourselves as to whether or not our products and services really need to exist. I think it’s important that we can look people in the eye and tell them that our products and services deliver genuine value to society and are worth the resources consumed in delivering them. This doesn’t seem like a lot to ask, but how many businesses could genuinely do that?
I don’t have the answers as to how businesses could contribute to a form of degrowth that is both viable and positive for society, but I think there are a opportunities to consider. First, by considering the necessity of the things that we create, we can limit our contribution to creating yet more new things that people don’t need. Secondly, we can look for ways that our offerings can not just be utilitarian, but also contribute value higher up the pyramid. Thirdly, we can explore opportunities to contribute to people’s non-material needs without consuming physical resources, even if these contributions are non-commercial. After all, beyond our basic physical needs, most of the things that really matter in life are free.
Somewhere down the line, if we are ever going to reduce human consumption of resources, we’re going to have to give up on some things that we currently don’t want to give up. That’s the reality that the degrowth movement is trying to tell us, but it’s not as simple as it sounds. For those of us thinking long term about both the environmental and commercial sustainability of our businesses, the question of what’s really necessary is certainly one to ponder.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on whether degrowth is viable and if so, how businesses might support a healthy transition. Share your thoughts in the comments below.
P.S. If you’ve found this post interesting, you may also enjoy my recent article asking “Do people really want to buy sustainable products?“
I think that some of the cultural resistance Glyn talks about comes from the idea that Degrowth means that everyone loses out, or that you can't aspire to a better quality of life in a shrinking economy.
The idea of degrowth should go hand in hand with more equitable distribution of time and resource. In a world where there are 2688 billionaires with a combined wealth of $12.7 trillion, I think there is plenty of scope for degrowth in parallel with transforming the lives of a huge proportion of the population. It doesn't have to mean a lack of innovation or aspiration. It just means an improved standard of living for everyone that needs it.
Thanks for another great article Tom!
Thinking on this topic, one possible step we could make that really appeals to me is George Monbiot's suggestion of 'private sufficiency and public luxury' (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/31/private-wealth-labour-common-space) i.e. while cutting down on private ownership, we move to very high quality community owned facilities that are free for all to use, and that all can be proud of. This also takes care of a good chunk of the community aspect of our needs.
I can see there being so much resistance to this kind of transition though, in no small part because it goes against what so many of us are deriving status from now. I've been reading a great new book by WIll Storr called 'The Status Game' and it's become a lens I look at everything through now. In one section it goes into the ownership of things as symbols of status, with the whole booking being about how recognising, and seeking to attain status is hardwired in us. A simple, positive real world example of this is how, in a neighbourhood if one house gets solar panels, give it a few months and suddenly, in a domino effect, its gone from no renewables to multiple houses on the street, all because 1 person made a change that became a standard for everyone else on the street to compare themselves to.
I feel like I'm waffling, trying to summarize an excellent book in a single comment so I'll stop there. Needless to say, I'd highly recommend giving it, and another book, 'How Minds Change' a read!
The Status Game - https://uk.bookshop.org/a/2395/9780008354671
How Minds Change - https://uk.bookshop.org/a/2395/9781786071644