🕒 This essay is more than 5 years old (Published Jan 19, 2017).

Sustainability has become such a buzzword recently. Sustainable practices, sustainable development, sustainable world, green economy, environmentally-friendly business practices, and so on—we hear them everywhere. Obviously, all these concepts are responses to the rapidly-developing industrial world around us, which has now clearly left us in a precarious state, one that is advanced and innovative but brittle and shortsighted.

Is there actually a solution to this? Is there a path to a more sustainable future for our world? Probably, but our society will have to look beyond the typical pop-culture ideas, such as green economy, to understand that, in order to pull ourselves out of this unsustainable industrial state, we have to think about all areas of sustainable development: economy, environment, and employment.

For me, that means we have to first focus on energy and figure out a way to use it for co-optimizing these three pillars of sustainable development. Energy has tremendous potential to spur innovations and lead to economic growth, but also to hurt the environment, as has been shown throughout history. As a result, we are left with a powerful tool that is a double-edged sword and that has to be used effectively and responsibly.

I also think it’s necessary to create meaningful and rewarding employment opportunities because technological innovations will not have any significant effect if working conditions remain the same—unpredictable, insecure, and largely underpaid.

The reason I think we need to focus on these two solutions is because they tend to be more realistic than what we often hear from scholars and policy-makers. This is not to say these brilliant minds are wrong, but simply that we can still look beyond those proposals and determine what is actually doable.

So, let’s start with what they all have said so far.

Quick summary of what others have said about creating sustainable future

Many of those who advocate for transforming the unsustainable industrial state refer to green economy, a term that has undoubtedly become a buzz word in the realm of efforts devoted to sustainability. While it is true that the mainstream use of the term primarily refers to economic growth with positive environmental effects, scholars like Borel-Saladin and Turok have pointed out that green economy also serves to have a social impact, such as alleviating poverty.

Examples of such policies within the realm of green economy include providing sanitation the poor, or introduction of solar power to replace coal and generate jobs for solar manufacturers and technicians. Recommendations of broader scope for interventions necessary in green economy range from education and innovation to infrastructure and close involvement of government.

Others see green economy as a tool that is closely related to local communities, rather than large-scale systems. For instance, Jackson and Victor argue that we need to “use as little as possible in way of materials and energy,” arguing that local infrastructure and resources are paramount for achieving green economy, and that financing community-based energy is essential for green economy because most renewable sources and materials are local. They see enterprises as central agents of developing green economy through local communities, but that state actors can help this process by serving as catalysts, similarly to Borel-Saladin and Turok’s propositions.

For some, green economy is not an end goal, but rather a stepping stone to a society that sees sustainable development as means for more responsible consumption. Lorek and Spangenberg propose strong sustainable consumption strategy, which would force us to rethink how we perceive mainstream propositions of sustainable consumption, or as they call them, practices of “weak sustainable consumption.”

So, for example, instead of understanding ‘green supply chains’ as supply chains in which firms force their suppliers to disclose environmental standards, global firms should ensure that there exists a “standardized information flow along the product chain about ecological backpacks as well as social standards in the companies.”

Interestingly, the authors also advocate for precautionary principle, which suggests that radical innovations should be implemented with no expectations of them eventually coming to life, so that society can be prepared in case of their non-appearance. Either way, they agree with the previously-mentioned authors in that significant structural changes in the society and people’s way of thinking are necessary for transforming the industrial state.

While green economy implies economic growth, some authors argue that degrowth movement is necessary to achieve such transformation. Kallis, a proponent of such ideas, claims that, even though degrowth is essentially negating the mainstream concept of ‘growth,’ it is necessary to reduce society’s throughput to move toward sustainable development, even if that implies reduced GDP.

Additionally, Kallis shows that significant reformations are necessary; in fact, he argues that movement of degrowth is in accordance with model of revolutionary social change, and that as a society, we need a new political project, rather than new environmental policies in order to avoid a crisis.

Beyond the concept of green economy, some environmentalists are also proponents of more specific policies, such as reducing work hours because they think such policy can secure employment without growth and reduce consumption in the long run (Ashford and Kallis, 2013, p. 53). However, it is also clear that policies like these are not bulletproof and that they need to be accompanied by more systemic changes, such as those in taxation, accompanied by increasing working and poor people’s access to capital.

What can we learn from all these experts on sustainable growth? It boils down to—each of these policies should not be delivered in isolation; they need to be complemented by large-scale changes of the society, from more palpable aspects such as energy, infrastructure, and government, to less palpable ones such as people’s mindsets. The implicit argument in all these publications is that such radical changes are not easy or practical to achieve.

Let’s break down why.

Why policies of sustainable growth are harder than they sound

It’s important to think about the ways these policies will actually affect our society and whether they are necessarily practical.

Starting from the concept of green economy, while it is true that such approach might lead to improved environmental performance and possibly positive employment effects, one needs to consider several drawbacks. For instance, valuing ecosystem goods and services is difficult, market imperfections are serious constraints (e.g. price signals are not credible and predictable), and there are inadequate financing tools for up-front investment in green technology.

Referring again to Borel-Saladin and Turok’s analysis, even though the authors of the paper are aware of some drawbacks in “greening” the economy, it also seems that some of their suggestions lack more in-depth analysis. I mentioned earlier that one of their propositions for greening the economy is to introduce solar power instead of coal, which would generate employment opportunities for solar manufacturers and technicians.

However, this sort of ‘replacement’ innovation will also displace jobs of those who were trained to work in traditional industries, as was suggested by other scholars (Edquist et al., 2001, p. 120). Put differently, even these well-intentioned policies can have serious repercussions if they are not inspected with attention.

Similarly, when Jackson and Victor propose that green economy can be achieved by placing faith on local communities, it is important to understand that this is not always practical or easy to achieve.

They claim, for instance, that “the seeds for this new economy already exist in local, community-based social enterprise: community energy projects, local farmer’s markets, slow food cooperatives, sports clubs, libraries, community health and fitness centres, local repair and maintenance services, craft workshops, writing centres, outdoor pursuits, music and drama, yoga, martial arts, meditation, hairdressing, gardening, the restoration of parks and open spaces”.

Admittedly, the authors are aware that local communities cannot carry the entire burden of green economy, and they support these claims by arguing that governments need to be extensively involved in the process, but we need to discuss what a realistic potential of local communities in developed versus developing countries would look like.

Particularly, the authors argue that people enjoy and harbor greater fulfillment from the previously-mentioned activities than they do by spending time in “materialistic, supermarket economy in which much of [their] lives is spent.” Certainly, this can be true, but I doubt that their ideas would be implemented in developed and developing countries with equal effectiveness.

In most of developing countries, where there is already a stronger sense of community between people, the seeds of “new economy,” as Jackson and Victor call it, will be easier to sow because the mentality of people in developing countries is more likely to be complementary to the authors’ vision of community-centered economy.

Of course, I am not arguing that such transitions will not be possible in developed countries, like the United States, but they will require intensive adjustments of people’s mindsets. Those who are accustomed to supermarket-driven overconsumption and the “more is more” mentality will need to go through more significant adjustments if they are to be convinced that downscaling to community-sized economies is a satisfying outcome. This line of thought circles back to suggestions of authors like Lorek and Spangenberg, who argue that radical disruptions of societal systems are necessary if we want to implement these policies.

If these ideas seem unpractical or hard to implement within a reasonable timeframe, it might be tempting to think that Kallis’ pro-degrowth suggestions are feasible. Certainly, it makes sense to decouple development from growth given that many issues within the current industrial state have been engendered by overconsumption and materialistic desire to always have more. However, even though Kallis doesn’t explicitly state his preference for drastic strategies, such as “exit from the economy,” it does seem that he is calling for a major overhaul of capitalism by strongly arguing for degrowth movement.

Is that even practical? I don’t doubt that his approach of degrowth would mend the currently existing fractures within the society, but I would say it’s more practical to think about the ways that growth—through tools such as energy—can be used to co-optimize the three pillars of sustainable development. This would contradict the idea of radical changes previously mentioned, but I would say it might be more feasible more because overhauling capitalism via degrowth could easily result in a major fiasco.

I also briefly mentioned earlier some of the discussions that have been happening around the reduction of weekly working hours. Instituting a shorter workweek is not guaranteed to have a positive impact on employment and the environment in all contexts. As Ashford and Kallis argue, it is more beneficial to reduce the workweek to four days without changes in weekly wages (thus increasing hourly wages), otherwise the underlying implication would be that workers’ wages are sacrificed for the sake of environment.

Second, even though it seems that shorter workweek might decrease consumption as people would spend more time at home, thus performing leisure activities, it is also possible that leisure would lead to other forms of consumption. That is, the effects of a reduced workweek are strictly positive only if we assume that workers will spend their free time in an environmentally-friendly way. A bold assumption, in my opinion.

When all is said and (un)done, then what are we even left with? Is there a way forward?

Ways to transform the unsustainable industrial state

Comparing all the proposed arguments, it seems as if there is no substantial solution for transforming the unsustainable industrial state.

On the one hand, some scholars think that specific policies, such as greening the economy, opting for degrowth, or reducing the workweek, will be sufficient to provide foundations for sustainable development. On the other hand, other scholars argue that isolated policies are not enough and the we need more radical transformations in order to achieve these goals.

Such significant changes, at the same time, require time and unprecedented effort that it seems more practical to rely on a carefully chosen set of specific policies. It certainly seems like a vicious circle, but I think we can achieve a middle ground by:

  • focusing on effective use of energy and
  • creating meaningful and rewarding employment

These two approaches can provide specific suggestions that could introduce significant changes and begin to drive the reformation of the industrial state.

Energy as a tool for co-optimizing the three pillars of sustainable development

Throughout this analysis, I hope it has become clear that, among the commonly mentioned topics such as innovation and government intervention, energy plays a key role in thinking about sustainable development. It has been a central factor in spurring innovations in the past, so it seems more than fitting to re-orient the discussion of sustainable development to energy and its use in the near future.

Most importantly, the paradoxical implications of energy use, which is that it can positively impact economic growth and negatively affect environmental conditions, leads to an important question—how can energy be used to have positive impacts on all three pillars of sustainable development: economy, environment, and employment? The answer will vary slightly between developed and developing countries, but in both cases, innovation, as well as sustainable production and consumption, are essential for effective use of energy.

Innovation of safer products and processes can greatly impact how energy is used, but one must understand that not all innovations will have positive impacts on all three pillars of sustainable development. As scholars have shown previously, even if we assume that product and process innovations will be environmentally safer and beneficial to the economy, they do not always have a positive impact on employment.

Particularly, product innovations generate employment if they do not substitute old products and if they do not become process innovations in the long run, while process innovations generally reduce number of jobs, even if they increase other aspects of employment, such as productivity. If one thinks about the ways these implications affect potential use of energy for co-optimizing all three pillars of sustainable development, it becomes clear that some compromise is necessary.

For instance, Borel-Saladin and Turok have used example of solar power replacing coal, which would not only be an environmentally friendlier use of energy for advancing economy, but would also generate employment for solar manufacturers and technicians. This is a great example for applying the analysis proposed by Edquist et al. because it represents, essentially, both a product and process innovation.

Certainly, by substituting coal with solar power, new employment opportunities will arise for workers such as solar manufacturers and technicians as the markets will require knowledge and skills for new types of products, but as the new technologies will be accompanied by new processes, it is important to think about what will happen to those workers who have been trained to work in industries with coal.

If this substitution happens with no complementary adjustments, the workers who cannot keep up with new products and processes are likely to lose jobs as more traditional industries are displaced. The popularized idea that coal workers will simply “adjust” and learn new skills is a very rosy view of the world—we need to be more empathetic to those who will experience that change.

This means that energy-based innovations should be complemented with education and training of those who are employed by industries that are going to become displaced by rising innovations. Of course, adjustments like these would require a substantial reformation of some societies (e.g. high-quality education should be accessible to everyone), but it is paramount that innovations do not lead to massive creation of jobs that require highly specialized skills, only attainable by those who have the means to acquire them.

Referring again to the analysis of Edquist et al., I doubt that it’s realistic for institutions, such as the government, to encourage only those types of product innovations that do not substitute older products, which is why it is important to make a compromise when less beneficial energy-oriented product and process innovations occur. In that sense, governments should encourage innovations that are complemented by education and training of those workers who have been trained in more traditional industries. This way, innovative use of energy would advance the economy in an environmentally friendly way while ensuring that jobs are not lost in the process.

Sustainable production and consumption are also necessary if energy is to be used responsibly for transforming the industrial state. In addition to moving to cleaner and safer technologies and processes, it is important that less energy is used in production and provision of products and services that require less energy in their operation and use. Although it might seem unclear how this can co-optimize the three pillars of sustainable development, sustainable production and consumption ensures that economy can advance (as consumption will decrease) in an environmentally friendly way (less energy is used), while increasing long-term security for workers due to a positive feedback loop promoted by advancing economy, resulting from more responsible production and consumption.

These ideas should be implemented in both developed and developing countries, but in countries like China and India, there needs to be a greater compromise when thinking about the repercussions of improper energy use. As Lorek and Spangenberg have noted in their paper, these countries are justifying their growing emissions by claiming that their ever-growing populations cannot be complemented with reduced environmental impact. The authors do not agree with this notion, and instead suggest that the right to growth, and therefore increased emissions, should not be granted to any country, but to groups of people in poverty.

For effective and responsible use of energy, this means that, as a society, we might have to compromise and allow high-poverty areas to temporarily use forms of energy that might lead to negative environmental effects, which would not co-optimize the three pillars of sustainable development. While this might not be the most ideal way of transforming the industrial state, it might be more practical until governments can redistribute wealth from affluent to high-poverty areas, allowing them to also institute energy-oriented innovations.

Meaningful and rewarding work opportunities as tools for ensuring workers’ enduring satisfaction

These innovations will not have a significant impact if the new employment opportunities continue the same trend of unrewarding and underpaid jobs that are harrowing many of today’s workers. Solutions, such as financial compensations above the minimum wage, seem clear and unambiguous, but it can be hard to assess what “meaningful” job opportunities mean.

Meaningful work implies at least some sort of personal fulfillment; that is, while it is unrealistic to expect that all workers will do what they love, it is important that workers can perceive their contribution to the society as significant. One way to achieve this is to offer product services wherever and whenever possible.

Using the example of solar power again, one can imagine a hypothetical future scenario in which solar power systems can be purchased by consumers for delivery and do-it-yourself assembly system, which would help companies cut costs by not employing technicians who would help assemble such power systems.

This line of thought would follow the widespread, profit-maximizing mentality of the today’s world—just think of IKEA—but if we are to transform the industrial state, the companies should orient their business model toward sustainability and employ technicians instead of allowing consumers to assemble these systems on their own. Even if the consumers are capable of doing so.

First, while this approach might increase labor costs for the company, it would generate job opportunities for workers who are trained as technicians. Second, this approach would generate meaningful work for technicians as they would be able to apply their hands-on skills and customize the solar power systems per customers’ desires, which might not be necessarily possible in a simplified, do-it-yourself system. In turn, this would provide the workers with a sense of nontrivial impact, which is, I would argue, the basis of meaningful work.

Bringing it all together

My main argument here is that no policy or suggestion can be a guaranteed solution for transforming the unsustainable industrial state. Even though some propositions might seem effective, if they are implemented in isolation or without in-depth, pre-emptive analysis, they might engender unwanted consequences.

Likewise, calls for radical transformations of society are theoretically more effective, but it is not always clear whether they can be achieved within a reasonable timeframe. Despite this odd conundrum, we can start to transform the industrial state by focusing on two areas: using energy to co-optimize the three pillars of sustainable development and creating meaningful, rewarding work opportunities.

They might not be courageous or radical ideas, but I would think they are at least somewhat more practical.

References

  1. Ashford, N. A., and Hall, R. P. (2011). “Technology, Globalization, and Sustainable Development: Transforming the Industrial State.“ Yale University Press

  1. Ashford, N. A. and Kallis, G. (2013). “A Four-Day Workweek”, European Financial Review

  1. Borel-Saladin, J.M. and Turok, I. N. (2013). “The Green Economy: Incremental Change or Transformation?” Environmental Policy and Governance

  1. Edquist, C., Hommen L., and McKelvey M. (2001), “Innovation and Employment: Process versus Product Innovation” Edward Elgar Publishing

  1. Jackson, T. and Victor, P. (2013). “Green Economy and Community Scale,” Metcalf Foundation November

  1. Kallis, G. (2011) “In Defence of Degrowth” Ecological Economics

  1. Lorek, S. and Spangenberg, J. (2014) “Sustainable Consumption Within a Sustainable Economy: Beyond Green Growth and Green Economics,” Journal of Cleaner Production

Leave a Reply