Content uploaded by Jakub Kronenberg
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jakub Kronenberg on Sep 21, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
PROBLEMY EKOROZWOJU – PROBLEMS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
2011, vol. 6, no 2, 67-74
Proste życie i zrównoważona konsumpcja
Simple Living and Sustainable Consumption
Jakub Kronenberg*, Natsuyo Iida**
*Department of International Economics, University of Lodz,
POW 3/5, 90-255 Lodz, Poland, E-mail: kronenbe@uni.lodz.pl
** e’s Inc./Change Agent Inc., Sanko Bldg. 3 Fl., Funabashi 1-11-12,
Setagaya-ku, Tokyo 156-0055 Japan, E-mail: iida@es-inc.jp
Streszczenie
Artykuł rozpoczyna omówienie filozoficznych uwarunkowań idei „prostego życia‟, które następnie umieszczono
w kontekście zrównoważonej konsumpcji. Zwrócono uwagę na ogólne powiązania pomiędzy prostym życiem,
zrównoważoną konsumpcją, a rozwojem zrównoważonym. Wskazano, jak proste życie może wspomóc wpro-
wadzanie rozwoju zrównoważonego (jakie jego elementy należy promować, jakich instrumentów politycznych
użyć i na jakie bariery można napotkać). Artykuł zamyka sugestia, że refleksja filozoficzna jest najważniejszym
elementem prostego życia, który może wzbogacić prowadzoną obecnie debatę prowadzoną wokół zrównoważo-
nej konsumpcji, a sama idea prostego życia warta jest popularyzacji.
Słowa kluczowe: proste życie, zrównoważona konsumpcja, dobrowolna prostota, efekt odbicia, szczęśliwość
Abstract
After a brief reference to the philosophical background of simple living and its basic ideas, we explore how
simple living can aid sustainable consumption. We look at general linkages between the two concepts and sug-
gest how simple living can be used to support sustainable development (what elements to promote, what policy
instruments to use, what barriers may be encountered). We conclude that philosophical reflection is the most
important element of simple living that might enrich the current debate on sustainable consumption and suggest
how to further strengthen the popularity of simple living movement.
Key words: simple living, sustainable consumption, voluntary simplicity, rebound effect, happiness
1. Introduction
Simple and yet thoughtful solutions can solve com-
plex problems. Referring to life-style choices, sim-
ple living involves more thoughtful consumption,
complemented with spiritual development. We
understand the latter as a focus on one‟s feelings
and emotions, and on the intimate relations within
the surrounding world, resulting in greater aware-
ness and control of one‟s impacts on other people
and on the rest of one‟s surroundings. Although
simple living translates into reduced consumption
levels and thus reduced environmental pressures, it
has rarely been referred to in the literature on sus-
tainable consumption. As those who pursue this life
strategy declare themselves happy, research in
simple living contributes to a discussion on the
relationship between well-being and material con-
sumption.
2. Simple living
We start with a brief reference to the philosophical
background of simple living and its basic ideas, and
then review the various categories of simple living
activities in developed countries.
The idea of simple living is often associated with
Henry David Thoreau‟s life at Walden Pond de-
scribed in his 1854 book. It is there that many peo-
ple have found inspiration in quotes such as: Most
of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts
of life, are not only not indispensable, but positive
hindrances to the elevation of mankind. With re-
spect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever
lived a more simple and meagre life than the poor
(Thoreau, 1961).
The term „voluntary simplicity‟ (often used as an
alternative to simple living, along with downshift-
ing) is attributed to Richard Gregg (1974) who
Kronenberg, Iida/Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development 2/2011, 67-74
68
wrote that it involves both inner and outer condi-
tion. It means singleness of purpose, sincerity and
honesty within, as well as avoidance of exterior
clutter, of many possessions irrelevant to the chief
purpose of life. Such ideas are not new to most
philosophical and religious traditions. In ancient
Europe, the best known examples include the Cyn-
ics, the Stoics and Epicurus1. In ancient China, the
philosopher Lao Tzu said To know when you have
enough is to be rich. Similarly in Japan, the idea of
„shoyoku chisoku‟ (less greed leads to contentment)
or „taru wo shiru‟ (to know what is enough), both
derived from Buddhist concepts, have traditionally
been ingrained among people. Schumacher (1973)
attempted to merge some of these simple living
ideas with Western lifestyles.
Simple living tends to be presented as a critique of
mainstream consumption patterns, but to some
extent simple living has already entered the main-
stream. There is a wide array of motivations and
functions behind simple living (Huneke, 2005),
such as social or environmental concerns, question-
ing a growth-centred economy2 and a materialistic
society, and seeking a better quality of life. These
may be individually or socially motivated (personal
interests and values vs. broader resistance to con-
sumptionism). Also, there is a large diversity of
activities falling into this category, ranging from
anti-consumptionist pressure groups3, through eve-
ryday choices of environmentally or socially con-
scious consumers4, to increasingly fashionable acts
of the rich. Simple living is addressed by major
environmental organisations, such as The Sierra
Club and Worldwatch Institute, and by more fo-
cused groups, such as Simple Living Network and
New American Dream. Although diverse, all of
these refer to the ideas of „enough‟ and „spiritual
affluence‟.
1 For a disambiguation of his philosophy from the per-
spective of simple living, see Mills (2002).
2 The research community has responded with a „de-
growth‟ concept that suggests downscaling of production
and consumption complemented with increased human
well-being and improved environmental conditions
(Martínez-Alier et al., 2010; Schneider et al., 2010).
3 Such as Adbusters, the initiators of the Buy Nothing
Day (a yearly event urging ordinary consumers to rethink
their consumption and, for one day, refrain from shop-
ping), or Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, a
group of health care professionals, educators and parents
acting against the marketing pressure exerted on children.
4 These might include cycling or walking instead of
driving, vegetarianism, eating organic food, buying lo-
cally or regionally, refraining from long-distance jour-
neys, cohabitation, refraining from the use of television,
reducing waste and recycling, volunteer work etc. There
are people who choose to work less, so that they have
more time for their families or hobbies, and those who
seek jobs that would match their values or other needs,
rather than just to make money.
To some extent, in their everyday lives, consumers
in developed countries increasingly search for qual-
ity of life, linked to self-esteem and self-actualisa-
tion. It has been observed in the marketing commu-
nity that the traditional, material status symbols are
being replaced by inner values, such as „being satis-
fied with one‟s own life‟ or „being able to afford
what is really important in life‟ (Longhurst, 2003).
This is reflected in the growing interest in simple
living in mainstream, fashionable magazines and
television programmes. On some occasions, the
media supported simple living campaigns, as it was
the case with two Japan-based voluntary move-
ments, gradually spreading to the world: Candle
Night (encouraging people to rethink their life
through turning off lights and enjoying candlelight
on the summer and winter solstice) and the Mot-
tainai (waste-not, want-not in Japanese). The latter
was promoted by one of the major newspapers in
the country and both got support of the Japanese
Ministry of the Environment.
In developed countries, interest keeps increasing in
activities such as yoga or meditation courses, or-
ganic and vegetarian food and slow food move-
ment. Although these used to be an alternative, in
opposition to mainstream consumption habits, they
are becoming popular themselves, with articles and
books on them published by fashionable and fash-
ion-creating publishers. Similarly, artisan or food
products offered by monasteries which might once
be classified as embodiments of simple living,
symbolising rigid conditions, without comfort, but
highly spiritual, might be simply driven by monas-
teries‟ exploiting their potential value added market
opportunity. Presumably, this is how simple living
may enter mainstream and become another product
of a mass culture. This is one way in which simple
living might aid sustainable consumption. How-
ever, as we shall see later, to have a meaningful
effect on consumption patterns, it would have to
lead to a change in people‟s attitudes and not just
constitute one more attractive consumption option.
3. Simple living and sustainable consumption
Consumption patterns are influenced by larger
socio-economic changes. Currently it is sophistica-
tion rather than simplification that occurs in world
consumption habits, with economic liberalisation,
technological progress and the development of
marketing channels, all increasing access to com-
plex goods from far away. Even when new products
are individually more environmentally friendly,
overall environmental pressures related to their
consumption are likely to increase because of in-
creased consumption levels (rebound effect; cf.
EEA, 2005). More generally, increased consump-
tion levels are induced by economic growth.
Meanwhile, to be able to live in a sustainable way
(Redclift, 2009; Laszlo, 2009), humankind needs
Kronenberg, Iida/Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development 2/2011, 67-74
69
alternatives that would go beyond choosing more
environmentally friendly (or simpler) goods only.
To change current unsustainable consumption pat-
terns, there is a need to change mentality – towards
thinking about the Earth as a whole, and about
one‟s surroundings and one‟s influence on those
surroundings (Kras, 2011; Tuziak, 2010; Sanchéz,
2008). These could be aided with more spiritual
practices and more self-development of the people.
Here, simple living could aid sustainable consump-
tion on a more profound level. Promoting simple
living would increase consumers‟ awareness and,
thus, change their behaviour, leading to increased
well-being.
There is a large variety of approaches towards con-
sumption, most of which refer to diversified ideas
of „what it means to pursue the good life‟ (Jackson,
2005a). If one follows a definition of sustainable
consumption as the search for consumption pat-
terns that reduce human pressure on the environ-
ment and nature (Bergh, Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 1999)
then simple living falls into this category. Indeed,
simple living leads to reduced resource use, and a
focus on spiritual values (contributing to a more
thoughtful and environmentally aware life). This
has been emphasised by those dealing with simple
living (e.g. Etzioni, 1998) and those who promoted
it as an approach that could help attain sustainable
consumption (Milbrath, 1993; Hunt Badiner, 2002;
Myers, Kent, 2004; McDonald et al., 2006).
One of the most important common issues raised in
the debates on both simple living and sustainable
consumption refers to the problem of scale. If the
scale of the economy is bounded by the Earth‟s
carrying capacity, then consumption cannot grow
into infinity and either current material consump-
tion has to be curbed (at least for the world‟s rich)
or, in some instances, dematerialised (material
consumption substituted with services, e.g. through
product–service systems). Both of these solutions
have been addressed by the advocates of simple
living and sustainable consumption, and they have
become central to the degrowth movement. How-
ever, based on the experience so far, dematerialisa-
tion has not been able to solve the problems of
increased scale of environmental impacts because
of rebound effects and more literal forms of down-
scaling have to be sought.
For a moment, leaving aside the exact philosophy
of simple living, let us focus on simplicity more
generally. Simplicity contrasts with one of the char-
acteristics of modern society – ever greater invest-
ment in problem solving, increasing complexity and
increasing energy use. All of the latter often consti-
tute side effects of consumption-based attempts to
improve the well-being of people. Indeed, these
side effects constitute a trap, a never-ending vicious
circle of technological pursuit of solutions to curb
problems emerging with the development of those
solutions. As Tainter (1996) argued, cumulative
incremental improvements often increase the com-
plexity of a system and the costs of its operation,
eventually reducing the initial gains for which these
improvements were conceived. This reminds us of
the rebound effect mentioned in the first paragraph
of the current section. An additional problem links
to our inability to predict the consequences of our
activity on the environment (Faber et al., 1992).
The more complex the system humanity creates, the
less we know about its widespread impacts. Conse-
quently, changing this system requires complex
interventions which can further complicate the
initial difficulties (lock-in problem).
If side effects of complex solutions can exacerbate
the problems they were supposed to solve, then
what can simple solutions offer?
Firstly, the simpler the measure we adopt, the
less complex should be its outcomes. For ex-
ample, consumers are likely to understand the
functioning and impacts of simple products and
services better than those of their complex sub-
stitutes. Thus, they can understand and mitigate
the impacts of simple products and services
more effectively.
Secondly, the simplest measures should be
sought as early in the decision process as pos-
sible. This means that problems (and environ-
mental impacts in particular) can be prevented
rather than managed at the metaphorical end-
of-pipe. For example, if instead of thinking
about how to reduce the emissions related to
their journeys by switching fuels or vehicles,
consumers think how to optimise or avoid
those journeys, they can reduce their environ-
mental impacts to a larger extent.
Thirdly, in principle, simple solutions should
appeal to most consumers as they would be
easy to understand and follow (and to enforce).
Counter-intuitively, simple living does not neces-
sarily fulfil the third of the above conditions. Even
though it invokes the idea of simplicity, it requires
reflection and as a saying goes, „reflection is the
illness of intelligentsia‟. Thus, in a way simple
living requires complex decisions regarding the
trade offs between consumption and happiness, an
issue to which we shall return later. Meanwhile, as
noted by Jackson (2006), most consumers do not
see themselves as consumers, and in particular, they
do not see themselves as consumers of natural re-
sources. A question remains, what could be done to
make consumers reflect on their consumption pat-
terns. We shall attempt to answer this question in
the following section, after now turning to some
potential benefits that both the environment and
consumers could gain from the consumers‟ choice
of simple living.
It could be argued that simple living, through its
focus on simplicity, simultaneously focuses on
awareness and rationality. Those who pursue it
follow a more thoughtful life and reflect on the
Kronenberg, Iida/Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development 2/2011, 67-74
70
consequences of their decisions. In this way, simple
living links to the notion of „reasonable‟ consump-
tion (Kronenberg, 2007). „Reasonable‟ consump-
tion remains on a par with real needs, which is
motivated by an interest in the long-term survival of
the ecosystem and which acknowledges the fact
that the existence of the human species ultimately
depends on it. If consumers understand the envi-
ronmental impacts of their consumption choices,
they are more likely to take environmental consid-
erations into account while making their decisions.
As simple living requires shifting focus from mate-
rial consumption to non-material values, such as
personal inner development, it might also increase
the well-being of those who pursue this strategy
through improved interpersonal relationships and
increased self-esteem (Kasser, Grow Kasser, 2001
and references quoted therein; Brown, Kasser,
2005). Indeed, these are the principal objectives of
simple living. Besides, more environmentally aware
consumers would behave more responsible and thus
they might improve their living conditions.
Simple living appeals to psychological needs and
traits rather than to the quest for sustainability or
environmental protection. It emphasises moral and
ethical considerations more than traditional sustain-
able consumption. Finally, it is to a much larger
extent spiritual, but at the same time more general –
not based on a threat that if we do not change our
behaviour, the world may suffer. In this sense,
simple living is more objective, or positive – fo-
cused on positive emotions and visions, rather than
associated with what for many consumers might be
an intangible threat of environmental degradation.
Consequently, it is more personal and would appeal
only to some consumers.
4. Discussion
Having briefly presented simple living and its con-
nection with sustainable consumption, we now
move to a discussion of what aspects of simple
living could be promoted in support of sustainable
development, what policy instruments to use for
this purpose, and what barriers might hinder it
(Kras, 2011; Redclift, 2009; Russel, 2010; Tuziak,
2010).
4.1. Elements to promote
Changing people‟s values and convictions (mental
models) has profound consequences for the whole
economy–environment system (Meadows, 1999).
Education for the purpose of bringing about a radi-
cal shift in consumption and production patterns
can change the most important drivers of the cur-
rent problems. In this context, simple living might
offer a vision on how to satisfy needs in a more
environmentally benign way. Information is neces-
sary for consumers to make more informed pur-
chasing decisions, but also, to some extent, to
change their perception of values, needs and the
means of their satisfaction. The sustainability of
consumption requires not only shifting from less to
more environmentally friendly products, but princi-
pally shifting into more environmentally friendly
consumption patterns in general. This involves
decisions on whether to consume and how to con-
sume, rather than what to consume.
The new mental model here – the need for thinking
and reflection, acquiring more information about
products and services, and their impacts – might
lead to the realisation that excessive consumption
may undermine consumers‟ well-being. Although
information on products and services is derived
from complex assessments, it helps consumers to
choose consumption patterns with lighter environ-
mental impacts. Eventually, this leads to broad
thinking about the consequences of consumer deci-
sions and involves more thoughtful use of resources
in everyday life, with examples as simple as print-
ing on both sides of paper or refraining from print-
ing documents at all. Indeed, in the case of simple
living, such thoughtful decisions extend to all
spheres of human life, including everyday life and
work. Research and information on the quality of
life and quality of life campaigns might contribute
to such change in mental models.
If happiness is defined as what has ultimate value
for a person (Brülde, 2007), then a person that
would live happily and sustainably has to see the
value in sustainability or in harmonious economy–
environment interactions. Indeed, well-being and
happiness are influenced by the state of one‟s social
and natural environment. Money and possessions
are not sources of happiness but means – they are
instrumental in letting human beings acquire happi-
ness in the form of status, relationships, happiness
and healthy environment (Daly, 1973; Meadows,
1998). More interest in what leads to happiness and
what are its economic implications would be useful
but this already is growing at an exponential rate
(Clark et al., 2006).
Consumption culture is reinforced by the market
and policies favouring further economic liberalisa-
tion, and by the liberalisation of the media. Al-
though to some extent consumers and their demand
drive supply, and thus production and the related
environmental impacts, consumers are also exposed
to the influence of producers via their marketing
activities. This leaves little space for simple living
which by many might be believed to be against the
idea of development measured by the traditional
indicators, such as GDP. Had demand been lower
or more reasonable, supply would also have to be
reduced in quantitative terms. One more issue that
should be taken into consideration here is the time
spent at work. Had we worked less, we would also
produce fewer unnecessary goods.
Now we refer to what policy instruments might be
used to promote the above ideas.
Kronenberg, Iida/Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development 2/2011, 67-74
71
4.2. Policy instruments
Sustainable consumption policy is a rapidly evolv-
ing area of research and practice, with one of the
primary interests into how to change the behaviour
of consumers (Jackson, 2005a, b). For this purpose,
two kinds of policy instruments have been used
primarily: information, and economic incentives
and disincentives. To promote simple living as a
form of sustainable consumption, policy makers
would need to attempt to change the mental models
or values of consumers, so as to curb certain aspects
of consumptionist society at their source. In addi-
tion to informative and economic instruments, for
the above types of interventions, policy makers
would need to resort to regulatory instruments as
well as political marketing demonstrating consis-
tency with claims made in other places.
In his review of possibilities to promote sustainable
consumption, Jackson (2005b) identified the fol-
lowing as the most important and influential policy
mechanisms available for this purpose:
external situational factors (or facilitating con-
ditions) making sustainable practice easily
available to consumers, such as the provision
of recycling facilities;
institutional context, including regulations on
what is available to consumers, such as product
standards;
social and cultural context, including social
norms, ethical codes and cultural expectations;
and
good examples set and promoted by business,
community and public sector.
Indeed, the most powerful instruments that could be
used to promote simple living as a form of sustain-
able consumption fall into the above categories.
External situational factors, useful for the promo-
tion of simple living, might include ecological tax
reform – changes in the tax system attributing fi-
nancial responsibility for environmental pressures
directly to consumers, and shifting consumption
patterns through the use of economic disincentives.
Of great relevance might be promoting spiritual and
personal self-development, along with health and
healthy life-style. This might be combined with
facilitating the activity of groups that advocate
simple living. Later, we shall also refer to promot-
ing and facilitating good examples.
The institutional context for simple living might
include food and health standards, already in use in
many countries (e.g. restrictions and bans on sales
of „unhealthy food‟ at schools), and regulations on
advertising and more general marketing standards,
including bans on certain types of advertisements.
Just as it has been possible to ban the use of sub-
liminal communications, other excessively intrusive
types of advertising can also be limited.
The social and cultural context seems to be the
most challenging area for policy makers, and here
they might be aided by other influential institutions,
such as churches. At the international level, UNEP
and other UN agencies might join, for example
through the promotion of value-based approach
towards consumption within the UNEP-led Marra-
kech Process. These interventions would need to
demonstrate that consumers‟ habits and routine
behaviour counteract sustainability (Jackson,
2005b). Thus, the aim would be to counteract the
spread of mass-consumption culture and, poten-
tially, also to counteract the influence of the media.
Consumers should be made aware of the psycholo-
gists‟, sociologists‟ and economists‟ findings that,
in developed countries, happiness is primarily re-
lated to non-material factors (Myers, Diener, 1995;
Clark et al., 2006; Pugno, 2007). Apparently, con-
sumers do not know how to best use their income
for their happiness. On the one hand, the above
again calls on consumers for more reflection. On
the other hand, potentially, the means of communi-
cating such messages to consumers might change,
too. For example, Jensen (1999) found that con-
sumers enjoy the story behind free-range hens and
oppose the story of conventional, industrially pro-
duced eggs, and they are willing to engage in buy-
ing a more expensive product, thus following sus-
tainable consumption. Similarly, simple living
might offer other positive stories for consumers to
tell about themselves.
With reference to social and cultural context, the
idea of working less that comes from the degrowth
movement is also highly relevant here. Those who
pursue simple living tend to work less and spend
more time on leisure and reflection. Indeed, the idea
of working less should be appealing to most people
who would prefer to spend more time relaxing with
their family and friends or just by themselves. Ac-
cording to some estimates, removing the institu-
tional constraints to working less (promoting
shorter weekly working hours, longer holidays, and
earlier retirement) could reduce our environmental
impact by about a third by 2050. Thus, apart from
having direct impacts on human happiness, working
less would also improve happiness indirectly,
through improved environmental quality (Huppes,
Ishikawa, 2010).
The social and cultural context might be influenced
by developing and using indicators appropriate to
measure well-being. Much consensus has been
reached that such indicators are necessary in the
relevant policy circles (including the OECD, with
its fora on measuring and fostering the progress of
societies). To choose one indicator that would in-
corporate the environment, society and economy,
seems overly ambitious and such initiatives are
criticised as methodically incorrect. Apart from
bringing together distinct qualities, the aggregation
process requires subjective decisions to be made
regarding attributing indicators to categories and
weighting their importance, which weakens the
final result. Again, following the logic of simplic-
Kronenberg, Iida/Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development 2/2011, 67-74
72
ity, the best sustainability indicators are not the
aggregated ones, but sets of disaggregated indica-
tors depicting various environmental, social and
economic phenomena5. However, to avoid the prob-
lem of improving one dimension at the cost of other
dimensions, the number of independent indicators
has to be psychologically manageable. By promot-
ing the use of well-being indicators alternative to
GDP, governments may indicate to the society what
counts in well-being and what are their priorities.
With increasing popularity of simple living in de-
veloped countries, there are numerous good exam-
ples that could be promoted further. Similar to
external situational factors, good examples make
consumers more comfortable with the new alterna-
tives they might want to adopt. This brings us to the
issue of role-models – people regarded by the me-
dia and by the society as those whose behaviour
should be imitated. Policy makers who support the
ideas of simple living might personally partake in
them, by either joining events such as the Candle
Night or going even further and reducing their offi-
cial or private material consumption. Also, soap
operas have turned out to be an efficient means of
involving significant numbers of consumers into
sustainable behaviours. However, just as it might be
difficult to get TV stations to promote the idea of
simple living, there are various other problems that
need to be raised here.
4.3. Barriers
Problems related to the promotion of simple living
can be divided into three broad groups: social, eco-
nomic and environmental. On one hand, the prob-
lems stem from the fact that simple living prescrip-
tions may be accused of being utopian or puritan,
and such a risk is higher in their case than in the
case of „traditional‟ sustainable consumption. On
the other hand, simple living as practiced in the
developed countries may still not be sustainable
enough in the sense of bringing the ecological foot-
print of consumers to the sustainable level.
On the social side, the most important barriers
might be classified as problems with imposing life-
styles and the general passiveness of consumers.
Changing consumption patterns is difficult because
it is often questioned why a given life-style would
be preferable or who would be in the position to
make such decisions. In the case of simple living,
some social groups might be more inclined to fol-
low it (e.g. depending on life stage or family status)
and, had they been properly identified, policy
5 Disaggregated indicators are simpler and more tangible,
because they are more obvious. Meanwhile, constructing
an aggregate indicator is in most cases criticised on
methodological or theoretical grounds, because its propo-
nents attempt to reflect too much complexity with one
number only. Discussion on ecological footprint as a
measure of sustainability provides a useful example
(Fiala, 2008).
measures directed at them might be effective. How-
ever, even if individuals decide to follow such ideas
in personal life, often this may be more than offset
by their professional activities (imagine a marketing
specialist in a company manufacturing consumables
adopting the ideas of simple living personally).
Consumers‟ reluctance to question mainstream
ideas is related to their fundamental social needs,
such as that of being accepted by one‟s peers. Most
consumers do not want to stand out, except for
being able to impress others with what everyone
else desires. Environmentally friendly consumption
patterns or spiritual values are not that high on the
agenda of average consumers, and neither is a „rea-
sonable‟ approach to consumption side effects.
Moreover, as noted by Claxton (1994), to have an
effect on consumer choices, values need to be in-
grained in consumers and not just known to them.
In the latter case, they could be perversely used by
the consumer‟s subconsciousness to resist certain
activities. This is further complicated by the fact
that simple living may be too simple (too radical)
for most consumers to accept.
Economists might fear that wide adoption of simple
living might lead to economic stagnation, as it hap-
pened in the late 15th century China, when the
economy closed for both spiritual and political
reasons. China provides a good case study these
days, too, as some critics argue that increased focus
on material consumption is used by the authorities
as a means for discouraging the middle class from
potentially „dangerous‟ social or spiritual consid-
erations (Epoch Group, 2005). Indeed, similar atti-
tudes may appeal to the business and political elites
in other countries, including in the developed
world. Furthermore, economists might argue that
even happiness is easier to express in monetary
terms, based on consumption of selected goods,
which actually is the main reason for using con-
sumption indicators as a proxy of happiness indica-
tors. These barriers are particularly important from
the perspective of the degrowth concept.
The environmental problem related to simple living
is that even though those who follow this idea in the
United States do pose lower environmental pressure
than average consumers in developed countries,
their ecological footprint still exceeds the presumed
sustainable level (Brown, Kasser, 2005). This dem-
onstrates that „mainstream‟ simple living, reflected
in fashionable acts of the rich, does not necessarily
involve a genuine transformation of consumption
habits. Rather, with increased consumption of sur-
rounding goods and services, it may evoke a re-
bound effect. As Shaw and Newholm (2002) found,
simple living tends to be contrasted with dominant
consumption patterns and thus remains relative
only. Clearly, this does not suffice for sustainabil-
ity. Yet another problem is that there has not been
much research on the linkages between simple
living and sustainable consumption thus far. Indeed,
Kronenberg, Iida/Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development 2/2011, 67-74
73
most often there is not enough communication
between the proponents of the two ideas, as for
example, the advocates of simple living do not
usually attend scientific conferences in the West.
The degrowth movement that is rapidly gaining
ground provides a platform where these concepts
meet.
5. Conclusions
We cannot impose simple living on anybody as it
would contradict the basic idea, that it is a volun-
tary and deliberate act of renunciation of some
material needs and opting for spiritual experience
rather than material wealth. What we can do is to
promote some universal elements of simple living,
applicable to anybody whether pursuing a conven-
tional or an alternative life-style. The most impor-
tant of these is reflection – or „thinking more and
buying less‟, as it could be rephrased in the lan-
guage of activists, or just „thinking more‟ which
would result in consuming less anyway. Reflection
is necessary to appreciate the difference between
means and ends (Wealth is evidently not the good
we are seeking, for it is merely useful for the sake of
something else, as Aristotle put it). Meanwhile, life
without reflection contradicts the idea of simple
living and it often involves unsustainable patterns
of consumption. Increased popularity of simple
living in developed countries does not necessarily
lead to reflection – simple living is often adopted as
yet another attractive consumption option. Mean-
while, devoid of reflection, simple living will not
lead to sustainability.
Although we cannot expect consumers to shift to
simple living en masse, we can curb the excessive
pressure on consumers exerted by the media, which
could leave consumers with more opportunities for
independent reflection on their lives. Creating con-
ditions that would facilitate the uptake of simple
living, along with improving the society‟s health
and education, is also important. The number and
diversity of the followers of simple living suggests
that, being more general and objective, many of its
features are appealing to various members of the
society and they could potentially get greater appeal
than sustainable consumption. Voluntary reflection
may lead consumers to discovering on their own the
need for sustainable consumption. Using sets of
indicators describing well-being and making ex-
plicit the interdependence between society, econ-
omy and the environment might further broaden the
perspective of the general audience. If the idea of
simplicity was followed in all of the above areas,
our interactions with the environment might even-
tually become less complex and easier to study and
shape in a sustainable direction. At the same time,
in light of research conducted on the income–
happiness relationship, this would at least not re-
duce happiness in developed countries.
Finally, there is a need for further research in this
area, in particular with reference to simple living in
developing countries. Without any doubt, in gen-
eral, people in developing countries live simply.
Whether they pursue simple living though, is doubt-
ful. The idea of simple living assumes that down-
shifting is voluntary while what occurs in most of
the developing world is involuntary poverty. Fur-
thermore, poverty in which people live in poor
countries would not be acceptable to most of the
proponents of simple living. Thus, simplicity is not
equivalent to poverty, just as it should not be asso-
ciated with „denying progress‟. Surprisingly how-
ever, often low consumption levels in developing
countries correlate with relatively high happiness
measured by happiness perception indices (NEF,
2006). Indeed, fascination with happiness of simple
lives of primitive societies has long been present in
ethnographical literature (Turnbull, 1961) and there
is much evidence that people in developing coun-
tries created simple and yet sustainable systems of
resource use (either based on the traditional solu-
tions followed in those areas for ages, or in the light
of necessity). Potentially, studying less materially
affluent and yet happy societies might also help to
understand how simple living and sustainable con-
sumption interrelate.
References
1. BROWN K.W., KASSER T., 2005, Are
psychological and ecological well-being
compatible? The role of values, mindfulness,
and lifestyle, in: Social Indicators Research,
vol. 74 no 2, p. 349-368.
2. BRÜLDE B., 2007, Happiness and the good
life, in: Journal of Happiness Studies, vol. 8
no 1, p. 1-14.
3. CLARK A.E., FRIJTERS P., SHIELDS
M.A., Income and happiness: Evidence, ex-
planations and economic implications, Paris-
Jourdan Sciences Economiques, Paris 2006.
4. CLAXTON G., 1994, Involuntary simplicity:
Changing dysfunctional habits of consump-
tion, in: Environmental Values, vol. 3 no 1,
p. 71078.
5. DALY H.E., Toward a steady-state economy,
W.H. Freeman, San Francisco 1973.
6. EEA, Household consumption and the envi-
ronment, EEA, Copenhagen 2005.
7. EPOCH GROUP, Nine commentaries on the
Communist Party, Broad Press, Flushing NY
2005.
8. ETZIONI A., 1998, Voluntary simplicity:
Characterization, select psychological impli-
cations, and societal consequences, in: Jour-
nal of Economic Psychology, vol. 19 no 5, p.
619-643.
9. FABER M., MANSTETTEN R., PROOPS
J.L.R., 1992, Humankind and the environ-
Kronenberg, Iida/Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Development 2/2011, 67-74
74
ment, in: Environmental Values, vol. 1 no 3,
p. 217-241.
10. FIALA N., 2008, Measuring sustainability:
Why the ecological footprint is bad econom-
ics and bad environmental science, in: Eco-
logical Economics, vol. 67 no 4, p. 519-525.
11. GREGG R., 1974, Voluntary simplicity, in:
MANAS Reprint, vol. XXVII no. 36, p. 1-5.
12. HUNEKE M.E., 2005, The face of the un-
consumer: An empirical examination of the
practice of voluntary simplicity in the United
States, in: Psychology and Marketing, vol. 22
no 7, p. 527-550.
13. HUNT BADINER A. (ed.), Mindfulness in
the Marketplace: Compassionate Responses
to Consumerism, Parallax Pr., Berkley 2002.
14. HUPPES G., ISHIKAWA M., 2010, Eco-
efficiency for sustainability, in: Problemy
Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Devel-
opment, vol. 5 no 2, p. 155-156.
15. JACKSON T., 2005a, Live better by consum-
ing less?, in: Journal of Industrial Ecology,
vol. 9 no 1-2, p. 19-36.
16. JACKSON T., Motivating sustainable con-
sumption, University of Surrey, Guildford
2005b.
17. JACKSON T., How to change consumer
behaviour, Presentation at the Expert Confer-
ence on the Marrakech Process, Wuppertal,
22 November 2006.
18. JENSEN R., The dream society, McGraw-
Hill, New York 1999.
19. KASSER T., GROW KASSER V., 2001, The
dreams of people high and low in material-
ism, in: Journal of Economic Psychology,
vol. 22 no 6, p. 693-719.
20. KRAS E., 2011, The Deep Roots of Sustai-
nability, in: Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems
of Sustainable Development, vol. 6 no 1, p.
11-30.
21. KRONENBERG J., 2007, Making consump-
tion “reasonable”, in: Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 15 no 6, p. 557-566.
22. LASZLO C., 2008, Sustainable Value, in:
Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustaina-
ble Development, vol. 3 no 2, p. 25-29.
23. LONGHURST M., 2003, Advertising and
sustainability: a new paradigm, in: Admap
July/August, p. 44-46.
24. MARTÍNEZ-ALIER J., PASCUAL U.,
VIVIEN F.-D., ZACCAI E., 2010, Sustain-
able de-growth: Mapping the context, criti-
cisms and future prospects of an emergent
paradigm, in: Ecological Economics, vol. 69
no 9, p. 1741-1747.
25. MCDONALD S., OATES C., YOUNG W.,
HWANG K., 2006, Towards sustainable con-
sumption: researching beginner voluntary
simplifiers, in: Psychology and Marketing,
vol. 23 no 6, p. 515-534.
26. MEADOWS D., Indicators and information
systems for sustainable development, Sus-
tainability Institute, Hartland VT, 1998.
27. MEADOWS D., Leverage points: Places to
intervene in a system, Sustainability Institute,
Hartland VT, 1999.
28. MILBRATH L.W., 1993, Redefining the
good life in a sustainable society, in: Envi-
ronmental Values, vol. 2 no 3, p. 261-269.
29. MILLS S., Epicurean simplicity, Island
Press, Washington DC, 2002.
30. MYERS D., DIENER E., 1995, Who is
happy?, in: Psychological Science, vol. 6 no
1, p. 10-19.
31. MYERS N., KENT J., The new consumers:
The influence of affluence on the environ-
ment, Island Press, Washington DC, 2004.
32. NEF, The Happy Planet Index, New Eco-
nomics Foundation, London 2006.
33. PUGNO M., 2007, Ricchezza e ben-essere:
l‟importanza delle relazioni sociali e person-
ali, in: Studi e Note di Economia, vol. 12 no
1, p. 23-58.
34. REDCLIFT M.R., 2009, Sustainable Devel-
opment – an Oxymoron Comes of Age, in:
Problemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustaina-
ble Development, vol. 4 no 1, p. 33-50.
35. SANCHÈZ A., 2008, Perspectives and Prob-
lems in Sustainable Development, in: Prob-
lemy Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable
Development, vol. 3 no 2, p. 21-23.
36. SCHNEIDER F., KALLIS G., MARTINEZ-
ALIER J., 2010, Crisis or opportunity? Eco-
nomic degrowth for social equity and eco-
logical sustainability, in: Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 18 no 6, p. 511-518.
37. SCHUMACHER E.F., Small is Beautiful,
Blond and Briggs, London 1973.
38. SHAW D., NEWHOLM T., 2002, Voluntary
simplicity and the ethics of consumption, in:
Psychology & Marketing, vol. 19 no 2, p.
167-185.
39. TAINTER J.A., Complexity, problem solv-
ing, and sustainable societies, in: Getting
down to Earth: Practical applications of eco-
logical economics, eds. Costanza R., Segura
O., Martinez-Alier J., Island Press, Washing-
ton DC 1996, p. 61-76.
40. THOREAU H.D., Walden, Harper & Row,
New York 1961 (originally 1854).
41. TURNBULL C.M., The forest people, Jona-
than Cape, London 1961.
42. TUZIAK A., 2010, Socio-Economic Aspects
of Sustainable Development, in: Problemy
Ekorozwoju/Problems of Sustainable Devel-
opment, vol. 5 no 2, p. 39-49.
43. VAN DEN BERGH J., FERRER-I-
CARBONELL A., Economic theories of sus-
tainable consumption, Free University, Am-
sterdam 1999.
