From an Aware Consumer to Taken-for-Granted Practices
The sustainability of consumption is not a straightforward matter. Defining sustainable consumption proves challenging both technically (Rimppi et al.
2016) and epistemologically: sustainability means different things to different people, as it provides various motivations to act on environmental or social concerns (Toppinen et al.
2013; McDonald and Oates
2006). The term is often cited to refer to “the use of services and related products which respond to basic needs and bring a better quality of life while minimizing the use of natural resources and toxic materials as well as the emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle of the service or product so as not to jeopardize the needs of further generations”, as formulated by the Oslo Symposium in 1994 (Kovačič Lukman et al.
2016, p. 142). Although the definition of sustainable consumption remains elusive in academic and public debates, the working definition of the Oslo Symposium brings forth some widely shared understanding of the matter. The impact of consumption should be assessed on a life-cycle basis, and the costs of this impact should not be left on the shoulders of future generations. However, this definition puts a clear emphasis on the environmental dimension of sustainability, although sustainability per se is commonly used to cover ecological, social, and economic responsibility. In essence, parallel concepts, such as green consumption, ethical consumption, and political consumption, exist to emphasise the various connotations.
Regardless of the definitional complexities, a plethora of studies exist to address the various aspects of sustainable consumption. In the context of sustainable household consumption, energy is among the most studied commodities (Hafner et al.
2019; Abrahamse et al.
2005). Hafner et al. (
2019) review the literature on psychological barriers to reducing demand for heating energy. They focus on individual decisions about investments in heating systems that reduce the demand for purchased thermal energy at home. The literature also addresses direct electricity usage, including, for instance, the role of information (Ueno et al.
2005) and the role of circumstantial factors in the childhood home (Hansen
2018) in enabling or constraining sustainable energy use.
The sustainability of material household consumption is most commonly studied in relation to food (Verain et al.
2012; Hughner et al.
2007). In particular, organic food consumption and related consumer characteristics, attitudes, and perceptions have attracted academic attention (Pearson et al.
2010; Lee and Hwang
2016; Oroian et al.
2017). However, the environmental sustainability of organic food can be contested (Meier et al.
2015), which renders the actual literature on sustainable food consumption scarcer and perhaps more controversial. Studies on the role of information in encouraging sustainable food purchases reveal the difficulties that consumers face in assessing sustainability (Lazzarini et al.
2018; Grunert et al.
2014). The same difficulty is likely to resonate on the level of empirical research too. For instance, studying the characteristics of a consumer who is most likely to act pro-sustainably becomes complicated in light of the complexity of assessing sustainability per se.
The sustainability of material household consumable goods, other than food, remains a less explored topic, in comparison to topics such as energy demand or the so-called high-involvement products. For example, sustainable consumption of forest products is mainly studied for such items whose purchase requires substantial consideration, such as wooden terrace products (Holopainen et al.
2014) or furniture, flooring, or other value-added wood products (Kozak et al.
2004). However, more mundane forest products such as toilet paper, purchased and used with less effort, have not been widely studied through the sustainability lens. Yet this sort of research could reveal the underlying structures that maintain practices through which daily consumption materialises.
Recent critics, increasing in number, claim that the prevailing paradigm in the proliferating sustainable consumption research often places an individual and their attitudes and preferences at the centre of the analysis (Keller et al.
2016; Halkier
2013; Spaargaren
2013). Despite the undeniable importance of understanding green preferences, this approach risks giving one-sided policy recommendations. According to the critics, many of the policy approaches addressing the problems of the transition to sustainable consumption focus on providing information to consumers (Akenji
2014; Spaargaren
2013).
Knowledge and information can be powerful tools to influence people’s behaviour (Lazzarini et al.
2018; Ueno et al.
2005). However, in initiating behavioural change towards more sustainable consumption, this leaves at least two great questions uncovered. First, policy measures that rely on information provision assume that an individual, fed with the right information, would turn into a responsible consumer (e.g. Akenji
2014; Halkier
2013). Yet there is a well-documented phenomenon called the attitude–behaviour gap among people that do share green values and concern for the state of the environment (Carrington et al.
2014; Barbarossa and Pastore
2015; Chandon et al.
2005). People who self-claim to have pro-sustainability values and attitudes do not necessarily act accordingly. Second, there are people who do not receive this targeted information, or who might not care to act on it even if they were aware of this information content (Pekkanen et al.
2018). The question arises of whether it would ever be possible both to make everyone aware and to make everyone act upon this awareness towards sustainable choices. Would these choices suffice to guarantee overall sustainable development? The strategy towards sustainable consumption needs to acknowledge these issues and find broader avenues to account both for individual agency and, at the same time, for the role and impact of broader societal structures.
In the research on sustainable consumption, the practice theoretical view has grown to challenge the prevailing dichotomy between the so-called structural and individualist paradigms (Keller et al.
2016; Røpke
2009; Warde
2005). While the latter refers to the above-mentioned research on individual agents acting deliberately, the structural paradigm focuses on the impact of social structure on consumption. Practice theory is an emerging integrative approach that acknowledges human behaviour as being partially embedded in societal and cultural structures and partially due to individual agency (Spaargaren
2013). The methodological unit of analysis is the practice, and central research questions include the way people engage in consumption as part of their everyday life practices (Keller et al.
2016).
Practice theoretical view on how behavioural change can be initiated shifts the focus from convincing individuals ‘to consume in a more sustainable manner’ to understanding how resource-intensive practices come into being, what kinds of societal structures maintain them, and, finally, how they may change or be changed (Shove and Walker
2010; Warde
2005). According to Reckwitz’s (
2002, p. 249) widely cited definition, a practice is “a routinised type of behaviour which consist of several elements, interconnected to one other: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, things and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge”. He further reiterates that any practice as such cannot be disaggregated into one of the aspects mentioned above; a practice is an intertwined web of all of these aspects. Having practice as the unit of analysis therefore enables both contextual factors and individual agency to be accounted for in the analysis.
Several empirical studies address household consumption through the lens of practice theory. Energy consumption, as an inconspicuous commodity, serves as an enlightening example of how consumption can be inseparable from the practices to which it pertains (Butler et al.
2016; Strengers et al.
2014). Mylan and Southerton (
2018) study laundry practices, advancing a framework that culminates on four mechanisms that relate household level variation in practices to broader coordination in society. These mechanisms pertain to gendered division of labour at home, material facilities such as spatial layouts, conventions concerning especially the cleanliness standards and, finally, collective scheduling of practice performances conditioned by, for example, office hours and leisure time. Mylan and Southerton (
2018) argue that these elements link domestic laundry practice performances to broader patterns in society.
Furthermore, studies exist that address the relations of power as potential forces in the social ordering of sustainable consumption practices (Anantharaman
2018; Hargreaves
2011). Although these studies give a clear indication that practices are rooted in the surrounding structural environment, the nature of this linkage remains elusive, as will be further elaborated in the following section.
From Practices to the Broader Societal Context
Understanding practices in their social, historical, cultural, economic, political, and technological environments could offer a fruitful avenue to understand how transition in a society could be encouraged and initiated towards less resource-intensive ordinary, daily human behaviour. However, as Brown et al. (
2013) articulate, the research on understanding practices has not quite expanded to cover the system perspective: how prevailing and evolving technological and other contexts link to the change of practices.
The suggested framework to tackle the link from consumption practices to societal evolution embarks from the literature on socio-technical transitions, and more specifically from the so-called multi-level perspective (Kemp and van Lente
2013; Geels
2002). The multi-level model and approaches building on it (Geels
2014; Frantzeskaki and Loorbach
2010) were initially and are essentially focused on meso-level sustainability transformations. In short, the model separates the macro-level landscape (geography, resources, cultural patterns, and lasting structures of society) from socio-technical regimes characterised by rather stable interlinkage between established technology, knowledge, infrastructures, and policy. Industrial changes are seen to arise from nascent micro-level (technological) innovations that may come to challenge the prevailing socio-technical regime (dominant design) under favourable macro-level pressure. Analogously, when applied to consumption practices in society, the micro-level refers to local practices that are shaped by the prevailing socio-technical regimes and, further, the macro-landscape (Kemp and van Lente
2013). The change drivers work from the bottom up, from the so-called grassroots sustainability innovations, which can emerge as path-breaking alternatives to the existing socio-technical regimes if the pressure from macro-landscapes aligns to favour transitional change (Korjonen-Kuusipuro et al.
2017; Hielscher et al.
2013; Seyfang et al.
2014). The change-favouring macro-environment, on the other hand, may open up due to environmental or political crises that ultimately cast a favourable light on grassroots innovations on a niche level (Hielscher et al.
2013).
Hess (
2013) argues that the socio-technical transition approach to sustainability issues falls short in giving guidelines for fast enough transition pathways: the theory allows for a better understanding of long-term changes in socio-technical systems, and the empirical research has indeed been concerned with such historical case studies. Hence, the theory does not quite address the urgency of many environmental issues. Arguably, there are other shortcomings, too, when applied at the level of practice. The view that sustainability transition originates from various kinds of grassroots innovations emphasises the role of the motivation of individual people to initiate change. Although motivated individuals can and do initiate sustainability start-ups and community projects (Seyfang and Longhurst
2013; Seyfang
2010), which may act as vehicles of change from the bottom up, all the way to wider changes in society, this approach overlooks and simplifies the potential powerful influence of institutions on various levels. Indeed, the multi-level perspective has developed separately from institutional economics and organisational institutionalism (Geels and Schot
2007).
Moreover, the idea of local practices as micro-level change initiatives grants agency to the practices. In the case of high-involvement investments such as solar panel installation initiatives, this may prove sufficient. However, when dealing with more embedded practices, the grassroots innovation approach falls short in accounting for both agency and structure. To elaborate, as defined by literature on practice theory, practices are eventually ways of engaging in things, ways of doing things and thinking about things on a daily basis. Material consumption, for example, occurs as an integral part of various everyday life practices that, in turn, have taken shape as a cultural–historical–institutional outcome over time. The culturally and contextually learned aspects of practices therefore fit poorly with the grassroots innovation approach, which relies on highly motivated individual initiatives. The section that follows introduces an alternative methodology that has the potential to broaden understanding of the interface of agency and institutions.