Defining Sustainable Consumption – Three Cautionary Points

It is idealistic

The definition assumes a simplistic relationship between supply and demand and does not allow for the effects of globalisation and the cultural and economic driving forces towards over-consumption. Consumers may not purchase socially and ethically sound products simply because they are available – and companies may not supply such products simply because consumers demand them. Many other factors are involved, including the manufacture of demand for less sustainable, but more profitable, products through advertising, and the short-term strategic advantage to companies of producing goods made from raw materials from non-sustainable sources, in low-wage countries and/or from subsidiary companies.

It does not emphasise social justice issues sufficiently

The definition privileges ecological sustainability through the wise use of resources and minimisation of waste at the expense of the equity and cultural dimensions of sustainable development. The references to ‘basic needs’, ‘quality of life’ and ‘needs of future generations’ are important aspects of the Oslo Symposium definition but they are not necessarily referring to the basic needs, quality of life and future generations of people from the South. There is a need for definitions of sustainable consumption to take account of the responsibility of all to consider the impacts of one’s consumption choices on the human rights, life chances and environmental quality of all people, especially those on the periphery of the global economy.

It over-emphasises personal lifestyle choice

The definition appears to see sustainable consumption as a matter of individual choice and does not provide for the important role of government in establishing policies that encourage and support appropriate consumer choices by individuals, and also by households, corporations and governments, themselves.