Increasing shares of the sustainable consumption literature postulate the need for a focus on limits to consumption as a basis for achieving absolute reductions in resource use. After all, improvements in the sustainability of consumption expected from technological innovation and efficiency gains have been eaten up by rebound effects, to date. The decoupling that proponents of green growth were hoping for is nowhere in sight. However, discussions about limits to consumption immediately meet opposition from political representatives, powerful associations and industry lobby groups alike. Specifically, opponents claim that we simply cannot afford a scaling back of consumption and the economic growth it is supposed to drive due to the growth-dependent nature of our welfare systems. Such claims have become very dominant narratives that influence what societies deem ‘realistic’ and ‘possible’ regarding the politics of sustainable consumption, cementing the current status quo. It also shows that research on strong sustainable consumption governance, that is, governance pursuing a reduction in consumption levels and fundamental shift in consumption patterns (especially in the Global North), needs to target such claims head on, if existing paradigmatic barriers to a sustainability transition are to be overcome. But what counter-narrative(s) can scholars offer? To identify potential elements of such counter-narrative(s) for consumption scholars to draw on, the present article investigates what answers critical sustainability research, in particular the degrowth literature, has in stock regarding the affordability of reductions in consumption-driven growth from the perspective of democratic welfare states.

No abstract

IntroductionTransforming consumption and lifestyles toward sustainability cannot be achieved by individual behavior change alone but requires changes in the structures in which this behavior is embedded. However, “structure” is a blurry concept and scholars use it in a multitude of ways. What often remains implicit in studies on structural phenomena are different types of structures, how they may or may not restrict the agency of individuals in particular ways, and how these restrictions support sustainable consumption patterns at the societal level. To move beyond the current state of research, this article systematizes political, economic, technological, and societal structural factors the literature identifies as impactful regarding the sustainability of consumption and lifestyles compatible with the targets of the Paris Agreement.MethodsWe draw on a systematic review of existing research and use empirical observations to develop conceptual terms that revisit the structure-agency dilemma and offer ways going forward about (un)sustainable consumption.ResultsWe do so based on the material or ideational, as well as shallow or deep nature of these factors. Thereby, the article throws light on the deep and opaque material and ideational structural factors lying underneath and shaping the sustainability impact of the more visible, shallow structural factors typically considered in public debates about sustainability governance.DiscussionThe article, thus, highlights the need to consider and address these deep structural factors for any effective pursuit of transformation.