Ecospirituality and sustainability transitions: agency towards degrowth

Abstract

‘Sustainability transitions’ has emerged as one of the most important and influential literatures on understanding the pathways towards a more sustainable future. Yet, most approaches in this literature privilege technological and regime-wide innovations, while people’s agencies, grassroots innovations, and social factors more generally are often underrepresented. This article focuses on the role of ecospirituality as worldview, aiming to understand how spiritual and religious beliefs play an important role in practical, everyday sustainability transitions. In an extensive desk-based study, literature across disciplines is reviewed to explore connections between spirituality, pro-environmental behaviour, climate policy, and sustainability agencies. Showing the importance of ecospiritual practice, the purpose of this article is to make a case for the inclusion of ecospirituality, as worldview, in the study of sustainability transitions. We argue that ecospirituality is a significant dimension to understanding people’s contemporary agencies that shift away from endless economic growth and resource efficiency mantras towards more radical worldviews of degrowth and different ways of achieving happiness and fulfilment in life.

Full text

This is an accapted version of the paper.
To access the final published and citable version please visit:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09637494.2019.1702410
or contact Tamas Lestar via the address below.
Ecospirituality and sustainability transitions: agency towards degrowth
Tamas Lestar (corresponding author)
University of Essex Business School, Colchester, UK.
Email: tomlestar@gmail.com
Steffen Böhm
University of Exeter Business School, Exeter, UK. Email: S.Boehm@exeter.ac.uk
Article history
Received 18 February 2019
Accepted 25 November 2019

Ecospirituality and sustainability transitions: agency towards degrowth
Abstract
‘Sustainability transitions’ has emerged as one of the most important and influential literatures on
understanding the pathways towards a more sustainable future. Yet, most approaches in this literature
privilege technological and regime-wide innovations, while people’s agencies, grassroots innovations,
and social factors more generally are often underrepresented. This article focuses on the role of
ecospirituality as worldview, aiming to understand how spiritual and religious beliefs play an
important role in practical, everyday sustainability transitions. In an extensive desk-based study,
literature across disciplines is reviewed to explore connections between spirituality, pro-environmental
behaviour, climate policy, and sustainability agencies. Showing the importance of ecospiritual
practice, the purpose of this article is to make a case for the inclusion of ecospirituality, as worldview,
in the study of sustainability transitions. We argue that ecospirituality is a significant dimension to
understanding people’s contemporary agencies that shift away from endless economic growth and
resource efficiency mantras towards more radical worldviews of degrowth and different ways of
achieving happiness and fulfilment in life.
Keywords: ecospirituality; human agency; sustainability transitions; degrowth; belief
Introduction
Across the world people are becoming increasingly aware of the immense ecological challenges faced
by this planet. In September 2019 ordinary people – led by school children – gathered in their millions
in the towns and cities of the world to call for urgent climate change action (Singh et al. 2019). In the
UK, many local government authorities, universities, and other institutions have declared ecological
and climate change emergencies (climateemergency.uk 2019). Films and speeches by David
Attenborough and others have raised the awareness of ecological issues to unprecedented levels, and
many polls now suggest that climate change is amongst the top five concerns for people in many

countries (e.g. IPSOS 2019).
In response to these increasingly desperate calls for climate action, governments, corporations but also
many civil society organisations often rely on technological solutions, such as carbon capture and
storage, geo-engineering, electric cars, energy smart meters, public transport systems, biofuels, to
name just a few (e.g. Lomborg 2010). Scholars contributing to the so-called ‘sustainability transitions’
literature, too, are mostly concerned with ‘unlocking’ or ‘opening up’ sociotechnical regimes, often
assuming that contemporary beliefs in endless economic growth can be maintained if low-carbon
technologies can be adopted at the appropriate regime-wide scale (e.g. Grin, Rotmans and Schot 2010,
331; Seyfang et al. 2013, 3; Wittmayer et al. 2016, 10).
However, scholars acknowledge that technology alone cannot bring about the sustainability transition
required to address the ecological challenges of this planet (e.g. Seyfang 2009; 2010). Understanding
human behaviours and everyday practices as well as appreciating how communities and social
movements bring about system change from the bottom-up have become focal points for many
scholars concerned with sustainability (Shove 2003; Seyfang et al. 2013; Ikerd 2016b). These
contributions aim to study the concrete sustainability practices people are engaged with on a daily
basis, understanding their values and belief systems, which are often opposed to the ‘growth’ logic of
dominant economic frames.
What is often missing in these debates on sustainability practices is a consideration of spirituality and
religion, which is curious, given that most people on this planet consider themselves to be connected
to, or influenced by, some form of spiritual or religious belief system (e.g. in the United States: Pew
Research, 2016). Hence, the main purpose of this article is to locate the role of spirituality in the
sustainability transitions framework, which has been one of the most influential sustainability
literatures (Genus and Coles 2008; Grin, Rotmans and Schot 2010; Geels 2011; Markard, Raven and
Truffer 2012). We will focus on ‘ecospiritual’ practices and their philosophical underpinnings, making
a case for the inclusion of ecospiritual agency – as worldview – in the sustainability transition debates.
Discussing ecology from a spiritual perspective is, of course, not new. This has been a theme for
writers, scholars, and philosophers for centuries, and increasingly addressed during the emergence of

the modern environmental movement in the 1960s (Eckersley 1992, 11). Writing in 1967, Lynn White
attempted to uncover the ‘historical roots of our ecologic crises’ with a special focus on western
science and religion, making a call for an ‘alternative Christian view’ (White 1967, 1203–1207).
‘Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious’, White writes, ‘the remedy must also be
essentially religious; whether we call it that or not’ (1967, 1207). White’s thesis influenced a broad
array of theoretical discussions and awareness-making campaigns particularly in the major faith
religions (Koehrsen 2017, 5).
In the past few decades academic and research institutions have been established, especially but not
exclusively in the West, for the interconnected study of ecology and religion. An increasing number of
publications testify to the apparent mobilisation of religious thought and institutions, including the
Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature (Taylor 2005, 2008), which has made an invaluable contribution
with numerous academically detailed entries in two lengthy volumes. What is apparent in these
debates is that ‘religion can be a critical factor for transitions towards more environmentally friendly
societies. In particular, they point to the need for visions and moral attitudes that mobilize people for
rendering societies more sustainable. While science, technology, and politics lack this capacity,
religion appears to be a highly suitable candidate for filling this gap’ (Koehrsen 2017, 5).
At the same time, however, and this is Koehrsen’s (2017) warning, too, one must be careful not to
idealise spirituality and religion by default. Clearly, religious and spiritual talk and walk may serve to
inhibit sustainability transitions. While religious greening, theoretical postulations and institutional
endeavours abound in many contemporary forms, the focus of this article is to show how an
ecospiritual worldview may influence environmental, degrowth, and low-carbon agendas through
practice rather than mere theorising. We argue that ecospirituality is an angle that is invaluable yet
often forgotten in the sustainability transition literature, providing vital insights for understanding
people’s everyday agency in their sustainability practices.
Spirituality and ecology

It has long been debated what religion and spirituality exactly stand for and how they relate to each
other. Pargament et al. (2013, 14) define spirituality as ‘the search for the sacred’ while religion is ‘the
search for significance that occurs within the context of established institutions that are designed to
facilitate spirituality’ (15). In the introductory entry of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature,
Taylor (2005) provides a detailed description of the perceptions and connections of religion and
spirituality by referencing seminal theoretical works as well as survey studies (Roof 1993, 76–77;
Helminiak 1996, 33; Zinnbauer et al. 1997, 563). Summarised by Taylor, the basic claim of this
literature is that, while religiosity conveys institutional connotations, spirituality is more subjective
and empowering. ‘But there are additional idea clusters that often are more closely associated with
spirituality than religion’, the author adds, ‘and these ideas tend to be closely connected with nature
and a sense of its value and sacredness’ (Taylor 2005, ix). This tendency to appreciate and reverence
nature is a key attribute of the spirituality – institutional or not – addressed in this article.
While narrowing the term ‘spirituality’ to ‘ecospirituality’ is helpful, it does not define a homogeneous
community which could be exclusively called ecospiritual. On the contrary, ecospirituality is a very
broad phrase used to address a wide variety of ecological theory and practice, including witchcraft and
sexuality (e.g. Taylor 2005, 2008, 2019). In his book, Dark Green Religion: Nature Spirituality and
the Planetary Future, Taylor (2010) identifies several diverse and at times eccentric communities that
endeavour to save the planet on grounds of their spiritual beliefs. At the opposite end, of course, we
may find spiritualties like the ‘prosperity gospel’ that manifest little or no interest in environmental
attitudes or behaviours.
While philosophically rooted in ‘deep ecology’, discussed below, it is important to note that
ecospirituality puts first and foremost emphasis on practical achievements, such as pro-environmental
and climate change mitigation actions. Various bodies of literature also refer to this ecospirituality as
biospirituality, stressing the practical, lifestyle-related qualities represented by specific spiritualties
and communities of practice that fall into the pro-environmental category (e.g. Nath 2010). Research
in the field often focuses on institutional religiosity, studying the life of religious organisations within
(but not exclusively) the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, or Muslim faiths (e.g. Mohamad, Idris

and Mamat 2012; Cherry 2013; Vinkhuyzen and Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen 2014; Lestar 2018). Apart
from formal religiosity, however, there is a significant movement of a non-religious ecospirituality,
also referred to as contemporary spirituality (Witt 2011; 2012), which some scholars claim is growing
(Houtman and Mascini 2002; Inglehart and Welzel 2005; Houtman and Aupers 2007).
Following Witt (2011; 2012), we discuss ecospirituality as a pro-environmental worldview. Koltko-
Rivera (2004, 5) defines worldviews as foundational assumptions ‘regarding the underlying nature of
reality, […] social relations or guidelines for living’. Worldviews, in short, ‘are sets of beliefs and
assumptions that describe reality’. Koltko-Rivera relates worldview to ‘personality traits, motivation,
affect, cognition, behavior, and culture’ (2004, 3), all of which are key factors in studying worldviews
and their relation to social phenomena. In their study Witt, Boer and Boersema (2014) categorise
worldviews as intrinsically or extrinsically oriented. They find that, while spiritual worldviews tend to
be more intrinsically oriented (e.g. ‘inner growth’) and correlate with pro-environmental behaviours,
materialistic worldviews are more extrinsically centred (e.g. ‘focus on money’) and less pro-
environmental. While further worldview categorisations are possible (e.g. modern, postmodern;
religious, non-religious; human-centred, Earth-centred), the point to stress is that the ‘foundational
assumptions’ and ‘beliefs’ they relate to may correspond to lifestyle practices pro and contra
sustainability (see also Koltko-Rivera 2004, 24).
An ecospiritual worldview, then, is nurtured by beliefs and ethical views which lead to pro-
environmental attitudes and behaviours. As noted earlier, naturally, the ecospirituality of specific
religious or spiritual groups may starkly oppose each other in terms of ecological commitment.
Despite differences, however, common in a dispersed body of literature focusing on ecospirituality is a
recognition of environmentally significant behaviours. Often captured by research in specific
community settings, ecospiritual practice is described by the following major lifestyle attributes:
1. Vegetarianism (Carroll 2004, 95; Nath 2010; Lestar 2017)
2. Close connectivity with nature and all other beings (Carroll 2004, 50; Witt 2011, 1059;
Jackson 2009, 150)
3. Simplicity and frugality (Jackson 2009, 151; Lestar 2018)

4. Sharing and serving (of property, finances, land, food, etc.) (Carroll 2004, 54)
5. Creativity and meaningful manual labour (Carroll 2004)
While these practices are not exclusive to spiritual eco-communities, they are manifested differently in
their midst in that the spiritual beliefs and teachings serve as additional lifestyle motivators for
sustainability (Wenell 2016, 34), an argument that alone provides significant reasons for explaining
the potential role of ecospiritual groups in transitions towards sustainability.
In what comes next, we use examples from the social scientific literature to briefly illustrate how pro-
environmental attitudes are manifested by ecospirituality through the central concept of
interconnectedness in nature. The purpose here is not to homogenise a broad range of philosophies and
blur their distinct features, but rather, to identify some commonalities that make spirituality a
significant subject for sustainability transitions research. Apart from non-religious spirituality, a wide
array of ecospiritualties is foregrounded in supporting bodies of literature, representing various forms
of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, and religions like the Parsee or the Bahá’í (e.g.
Carroll 2004; Zsolnay 2015; Wenell 2016). Instead of focusing on the differences and particularities of
each of these cases, we locate some of the distinctive philosophies that motivate spiritual adherents to
cultivate environmentally significant behaviours.
Ecospirituality and environmentally significant behaviours
First and foremost, in many variants of ecospirituality there is an explicitly held view of the Earth as a
space designed for the happiness of every living being, humans and nonhumans alike. Also referred to
as ‘creation spirituality’ in a Christian context (Carroll 2004, 95), this affectionate view of nature and
the Earth promotes a compassionate attitude often reflected in dietary preferences and an intimate,
caring relation to nature (Carroll’s work is focused on North American Catholic communities such as
Sisters of Earth). A cognate view of ‘nature sacredness’ is also reflected in the practices of some
Eastern beliefs and practices which build upon the notion of interconnectedness among all living
elements of the world. Again, in the context of Christianity, the concepts of intimacy often go beyond
general veneration and even stewardship (Carroll 2004, 50), this caring relation is at times echoed in

practices that are salient for ecological and sustainability literatures. The long-held traditional
understanding of human ‘dominion’ in controlling animals is challenged and reversed (Scully 2003),
which in some cases contributes to and/or calls for dietary change (Barclay 2010; Nath 2014).
Obviously, the level and character of intimacy and stewardship will differ from faith to faith, and for
non-God-centred views the Earth may be conceptualised differently. However, a practical compassion
towards all beings appears to be a common characteristic of most ecospiritual groups. The dietary
consequence of this philosophy cannot be overemphasised at a time when food is claimed to be one of
the most important factors in potential transitional trajectories, while also highly under-researched in
the sustainability transitions literature (Markard, Raven and Truffer 2012, 961).
Yet, vegetarianism is not the only fruit of ecospiritual thinking. Ecospirituality as lived experience is
claimed to improve ecological and food literacy (Carroll 2004, 81), to create conducive environments
for creative, versatile and fulfilling labour (Carroll 2004, 63, 101, 110, 150), and to encourage sharing
activities and serving (Carroll 2004, 54) – to name but a few alternatives to the widely problematised
value systems and behaviours of our day (e.g. materialism, instrumentalism, consumerism, capitalism,
etc.).
At the same time, spirituality – and its religious forms in particular – is often critiqued for its potential
tendencies for counter-cultural attitudes which may make it indigestible for wider segments of society
(Lasch 1978, 4; Taylor 1999, 508). One major point of criticism lies in the perception of most if not all
major religions as profoundly patriarchal in attitude and practice, leaving little room for self-
expression and participation of women in decision-making. Eastern religions provide prime targets for
emphasising gender imbalance (e.g. Rochford 1982; 1985; 2007; Palmer 2004).
Yet, in the face of potentially inhibiting factors, it is still possible to outline traits of pro-environmental
significance which are distinctly spiritual in character. In what follows, we turn to the tenets of deep
ecology and cognate teachings to exemplify how a ‘meta-economics’ (Schumacher 1973, 42) as an
alternative option to growth-based development is viewed and brought to the fore in a variety of
disciplines and spiritual discourses.

Deep ecology and degrowth
A spiritually imbued connectivity with nature is reflected by the philosophical concepts of deep
ecology, some of which are commonly shared by some modern forms of Eastern religions (e.g. Hare
Krishna), the contemporary spirituality of the New Age movements, and a few minority groups and
eco-communities within Christianity (e.g. Sisters of Earth movement). Deep ecology teaches the need
for a deep consciousness concerning the self and all other natural beings. This proposed consciousness
and the basic tenet that all beings in nature are connected and interconnected to form a cohort of equal
beings, carry high spiritual connotations, and so does the overall character of this philosophy, even if
its religiosity is not made explicit. The term deep ecology derives from the work of Norwegian
philosopher Arne Næss (1995) who used the metaphor of a deep ecological tree to express by it ‘a tree
with long and strong roots and different branches consisting of ideas from Hinduism, Confucius and
Buddha on the one hand, and Aristotle, Heidegger and Spinoza on the other’ (Ims 2015, 48).
As Ims (2015) explains, deep ecology is opposed to shallow ecology, which is focused on treating
symptoms and inventing technological fixes to environmental problems. In contrast, the ‘deep’ in deep
ecology radically questions the anthropocentric worldview and requires a non-reductionist approach
that gets to the roots of problems. A realisation of these roots, according to Næss’ philosophy, is made
possible through an understanding of the self. An entire transformation is needed in viewing what self
means and how it can be turned into an eco-Self (Ims 2015, 49). Such an eco-Self is then able to
question the ability of dominant values and sociocultural institutions to adequately address ecological
concerns. This calling into question of systems of provision and infrastructure is of special interest for
the sustainability transitions literature, which often claims a so-called ‘second-order learning’ to be a
recognisable characteristic of successful niche formations (e.g. Seyfang 2008, 71). Second-order
learning reaches beyond conventional learning in that it problematises set values that are taken for
granted in mainstream practice.
In deep ecology, through a new experience or recognition, a network of relationships (gestalt) is
perceived, which leads to ‘a strong sense of wide identification, an increased sense of empathy and a
natural inclination to protect non-human life’ (Ims 2015, 52). This identification with the rest of nature

results in a happiness that cannot originate from a thoughtless consumption of material goods (see also
Jackson 2009, 151). Instead, deep ecology advocates for a Buddhist economics, representing a ‘middle
way’ (Ims 2015, 52) in terms of avoiding both the extremes of self-indulgence and sensuality on the
one hand, and asceticism on the other.
The tenets of deep ecology aptly exemplify how a variety of ecospiritualties regard nature and all
existent beings. Yet, it is not the only philosophy that calls for an entire shift in worldviews. In the
1970s Christian and Buddhist ethics were foregrounded by Schumacher (1973, 44–51) to challenge
the economic system built upon the notion of continuous growth. His approach, put forward in the
book Small is Beautiful; Economics as if People Mattered (1973), may be regarded as one of the
forerunners of today’s ‘degrowth’ movements (D’Alisa, Demaria and Kallis 2014; Heikkurinen 2016),
‘New Economics’ (Seyfang 2009) or ‘deep sustainability management’ (Ikerd, Gamble and Cox 2014;
Ikerd 2016a).
Though not necessarily or explicitly on spiritual grounds, these social and academic initiatives –
together with Jackson’s Prosperity Without Growth (2009) – call into question the entire economic
system presently regulating the world. What is proposed is a radical shift from big to small, from
technical to natural, from greed to need, from complicated to simple, and so forth. The dominant view
of resource efficiency and management is replaced by notions of prosperity through consuming less by
simplifying life, sharing, local initiatives, and more. To Schumacher, in line with the tenets of deep
ecology, this proposed systemic change can only happen through a preceding shift from materialist to
spiritual worldviews. In his proposal to ‘scrap economics and start afresh’ (1974, 62) he writes:
Since there is now increasing evidence of environmental deterioration, particularly in living
nature, the entire outlook and methodology of economics is being called into question. The study
of economics is too narrow and too fragmentary to lead to valid insights, unless complemented
and completed by a study of meta-economics. (Schumacher 1974, 42)
By meta-economics Schumacher means a social and economic system which is ‘philosophically’ and
‘religiously’ changed (1974, 96). The representatives of deep sustainability management (e.g. Ikerd
2016a; 2016b) occupy the same position today as Schumacher (and Lynn White) half a century ago,
proposing that a spiritual turn is necessary to solve society’s problems including climate change. Not

necessarily or explicitly on a spiritual basis, several other authors are critical of the idea that systemic
change can occur through technological innovations and market-based solutions (e.g. Grin, Rotmans
and Schot 2010, 331; Seyfang et al. 2013, 3). Scholars questioning economic growth as a measure for
development emphasise the importance of simplifying lifestyle related practice rather than improving
resource management at the regime level (Seyfang 2009; Jackson 2009; Ikerd 2016a). They exclude
the possibility of transition through incremental adjustments made to the current system. What they
advocate is a completely new economics, the ‘economics of tomorrow’ (Jackson 2016), which is not
based on the unlimited growth of production and the insatiable desires of consumers.
While sustainability transitions scholars also tend to posit the necessity of dislodging and disrupting
systems of provision, what they corporately imply is a ‘clean-tech’ infrastructure, where the regimes
of provision become carbon-neutral as far as possible. This difference in viewpoint reflects disparities
in ontological understanding, as ontological assumptions on agency-related concepts influence the
occurrence of subject matters (e.g. energy, transport, food, lifestyle) within the sustainability
transitions field. To understand how spirituality is presently treated in the literature, we need to
examine how the social aspects of systemic transitions are conceptualised in sustainability transitions
studies.
The social aspects of sustainability transitions
Most authors writing in the sustainability transitions literature frame change as mainly sociotechnical
co-evolutions of numerous interrelated and interdependent factors. As a central concept, niches of
innovation – initially often simply referred to as technological niches – are experimental places (of
communities), inherently striving to overthrow the wider regimes of provisions. Although the
multiplicity of causes is emphasised, the topic of human agency is less considered (for an early
example: Smith, Stirling and Berkhout 2005), while – according to frequent critiques – the mediatory
role of technological innovations is given central stage (e.g. Grin, Rotmans and Schot 2010, 331;
Seyfang et al. 2013, 3).
Another line of criticism has directly targeted the issue of missing agency within the literature. Smith,

Stirling, and Berkhout (2005, 1492) find it ‘too descriptive and structural, leaving room for greater
analysis of agency’. Genus and Coles (2008, 1441) raise similar points and propose that sustainability
transition frameworks should incorporate constructivist approaches (e.g. actor-network theory) to
‘show concern for actors and alternative representations that could otherwise remain silent’. This is in
accordance with Seyfang’s suggestions about the social extension of a heavily market- and
technology-based framework. Others, during the development of the framework, have argued for ‘the
potential to carve out the “social” in socio-technical transitions’ (e.g. Wittmayer et al. 2016, 10).
In recognition of the perceived inefficiency of resource management and provision-side improvements
to combat climate change, scholars of sustainability transitions have hence begun to focus their
enquiries on the social world. As an early example of ‘social extension’, Seyfang and Haxeltine (2008,
2) evaluate the upscaling potential of the Transition Towns movement in the UK. Their empirical
findings – in line with other studies (Shove 2004; Ropke 1999; Jackson 2007; 2009; Seyfang and
Haxeltine 2008) – suggest that involving people is more effective in terms of working towards change
than linear cognitive models (e.g. persuasion-based communication). This is because involvement
offers both psychological solutions (e.g. belonging and recognition) and immediate benefits (e.g.
savings, community, pleasure). Their interviewees suggest that participatory activities like community
gardening will do more to ‘percolate the word out’ through doing rather than ‘focusing on awareness-
raising’ (Seyfang and Haxeltine 2008, 393; see also Bharucha et al. 2019).
Elsewhere, Seyfang et al. (2013, 4) call for the recognition of grassroots innovations as an important
social aspect of how sustainability transitions come about in communities. They stress the importance
of collective consumption-side aspects over production and provisioning in singular regimes (e.g. the
energy sector). Drawing on new social movement theories, Seyfang et al. (2013) explain the ongoing
crisis of modernity and capitalist societies by a set of societal factors where the ‘environmental crisis
is just one symptom of many that affect processes of identity formation […] and social cohesion’ (10).
Thus, instead of merely treating environmental sustainability as a solitary issue, the authors suggest
that a wider range of social factors are brought into analyses of sustainability transitions. Central to
this argument is a shift in focus not only from technology to the social, but also from systems of

distribution to end-user behaviour and lifestyle. Here, what is of particular importance are
experimental innovations based on simplicity and sharing, which for Seyfang (2009; 2010), point to
entirely ‘new economics’.
Other transitions theorists have also expanded their interest towards the inclusion of less visible social
agents into their analyses (Markard, Raven and Truffer 2012; Avelino and Wittmayer 2015). Despite
ongoing processes of additions and modifications, however, the full spectrum of social analyses is still
missing in the sustainability transitions framework. For example, questions of beliefs and worldview
have – apart from the work of Koehrsen (2017) and a few case studies – hardly been addressed. In the
following section we demonstrate how spirituality has been treated so far, and argue for more space
for it in the sustainability transitions literature.
Spirituality in the sustainability transitions literature
Sustainability transitions frameworks conceptualise communities as experimental niches to test out
innovative practices which, analysed and evaluated, can provide insights for policymakers and other
stakeholders. Although the theme of spirituality and spiritual/religious communities is not expressly
considered, initial endeavours have been made to explore connections between religious groups and
environmentally significant behaviour (Mohamad, Idris and Mamat 2012; Vinkhuyzen and Karlsson-
Vinkhuyzen 2014; Cherry 2013). Often, these explorations lack empirical depth as they are mostly
grounded on small-scale case studies or desk-based theorising. This is most surprising, as the broader
literature on sustainability has amply documented the significance of spirituality for climate change
mitigation and adaptation. For example, a recent collection of case studies, edited by Böhm, Bharucha,
and Pretty (2014), presents intentional and organic eco-communities (‘ecocultures’) from across the
globe to showcase resilience in the face of extreme and changing weather patterns, human greed and
exploitation, and natural disasters. Interestingly, almost every single case study references spirituality
as one of the major factors in uniting communities and prompting them to action, often due to a deep-
seated reverence toward nature (e.g. Böhm, Bharucha and Pretty 2014, 56, 131, 242-244).
Apart from small-scale initiatives, spiritual eco-communities of significant impact spring up all over

the world, maintaining pro-environmental values and practices more successfully than where
spirituality is absent (Jackson 2009, 151). In a Christian context, eco-communalists tend to regard
monastic communities as the early Christian model for ecospiritual formations (Dryzek 1997). Though
not explicitly and primarily ecological in orthodoxy, the ‘Benedictine order managed to create some
remarkable sustainable agro-ecosystems in the vicinity of their monasteries. Later, the Franciscans
would follow some of the environmental teachings of their founder, St Francis of Assisi’ (Dryzek
1997, 163). Following the teachings of these and other Catholic orders about simplicity and frugality
of life, the works of the Sisters of Earth as well as other monastic and non-monastic Catholic and
ecumenical communities are described in John Carroll’s book Sustainability and Spirituality (2004).
Carroll gives a systematic appraisal of these communities, introducing some of them as outstanding
exemplars of current North American sustainability endeavours. The basic tenet of these convents
derives from a so-called creation ecology that regards nature as a representative of the Creator and one
that is not independent of Him.
Outside Christianity, one of the most prominent spiritual-ecological networks is maintained by the
Hare Krishnas who manage eco-farms and educational schemes all over the world. In Watford alone
(United Kingdom), the community entertains 250,000 young and old people annually who visit to
learn about nature-based alternatives to the growth-based and consumerist lifestyle practices of the
outside world (Lestar 2018, 53). In an East European setting, the community runs an entire ecovillage
in Hungary where disconnecting from technology and more sustainable land cultivation prove to serve
the happiness of community members and visitors alike (Lestar 2018, 48). These are significant
achievements, which, together with minor enterprises across the globe, offer multiple aspects of
learning to students of system-wide sustainability transitions.
To date, the most significant attempt to frame religion within the sustainability transitions model has
been presented by Koehrsen (2017). He discusses Western Christianity from the perspective of broad-
scale institutional roles and public influences (e.g. historical revolutions and uprisings; penetration
into the UN and the World Bank; the ecological encyclical of Pope Francis). Koehrsen (2017, 4)
presents religious institutions as ‘moral watchdogs’ in the ecological debate, hence focusing on the

mezzo-level (regime) dynamics of the transitional model. Yet, as noted by Koehrsen (2017, 9)
himself, such an approach involves the risk of homogenising religion. As various religions and their
branches embrace diverse, and at times conflicting, logics and rhetoric in environmental discourse, we
cannot expect them to assume a united role in combating ecological decay.
Although involving ‘materialisation’ in making transitions happen on the ground, the majority of
Koehrsen’s (2017) framework is concerned with regime-level activities, such as education,
campaigning, and dissemination. Religious communication and eloquence are no doubt important for
sustainability transitions. As Koehrsen argues, religious rhetoric has already entered the realm of
secular politics and policymaking, thus expanding religiosity into the wider social sphere (2017, 14).
Yet, there is undoubtedly a need to study the grassroots practices of religious and spiritual
communities in more detail so that we can understand the often messy and non-linear dynamics in
sustainability practices on the ground. Indeed, Koehrsen identifies the ‘need for more qualitative in-
depth approaches’ as ‘there are hardly any encompassing in-depth studies based on qualitative and/or
mixed methods exploring’ the relationship between religion and ecology (2017, 6).
One of the merits of Koehrsen’s (2017) work is that he critically questions the understanding of
religiosity being, by default, an enabling influence for pro-environmental attitude. The general claims
concerning positive impacts need to be tested empirically, as Koehrsen repeatedly states. This
involves, from our perspective, an empirical approach that engages with religious and spiritual
communities. That is, rather than studying regime-level change attempts, it is important to understand
the dynamics of spiritual practices in the ecological domain from the bottom-up, analysing their in-situ
specificity. Let us now turn to an example of such empirical analysis.
Spirituality and waste management: an example
In a classic example of a sustainability transitions approach, Mohamad, Idris and Mamat – henceforth,
Mohamad et al. – (2012) examine the role of religious communities in enhancing transition
experiments. This study aims at revealing insights through the comparison of four religious cases
opting into solid waste management programmes in Malaysia. The scheme offered recycling options

for the wider community at worship centres. In their awareness of the complexity and uncertainties of
transitional processes, the authors set out to investigate the socioreligious layers of the programme.
The study focused on why some spiritual initiatives were more successful than others, asking what
attributes made members of one religious group achieve more results in waste management.
The charitable businesses built around the cases are considered to be crucial, in terms of persistence
and success of the initiatives. As Mohamad et al. (2012) report, the most successful of these cases, the
Tzu Chi Buddhist community, went further by integrating recycling into the spiritual lifestyle itself.
That is, recycling became part of everyday life, being promoted by the Tzu Chi Grand Master, ‘who
not only preaches recycling but who is also an exemplary recycling practitioner herself’:
Recycling work benefits society and oneself. After participating in collecting and sorting
recyclables, many volunteers realize how arduous this work can be. As a result, they discipline
themselves to adopt a thrifty lifestyle and do their best to appreciate the resources that they use.
Through participating in recycling, many people at Tzu Chi recycling stations even rediscover
lost happiness and health. We have seen numerous examples of people who were originally
afflicted with depression or drug addiction cleansing away the garbage in their minds through
the act of sorting through physical garbage. They find joy and strength to start life anew and
bring happiness back to their families. (Cited in Mohamad, Idris and Mamat 2012, 245)
From the perspective of Mohamad et al. (2012), it is evident that it was the depth of the vision and the
leader’s attitude towards recycling as part of spiritual growth that led to the steadfast spread of the
Buddhist project at a pace and scale unknown in all other recycling initiatives in the country.
Mohamad et al. (2012) argue that religious communities can be optimal niches for transition
experiments, given their heterogeneity on the one hand (in terms of their age, education, and
profession), and their shared belief on the other. All four religious recycling projects enjoyed the
support of the mezzo-level regime as well as foreign aid and local NGOs. Interestingly, connections to
these institutions were often secured through congregation members who worked for – or in some
other way were related to – these external sponsors. The religious affiliation strengthened relations
outside the established routines of the spiritual bond, which again made these niches especially
effective for scaling up through networking activities.
In contrast to the popular conception of religious rigidity, Mohamad et al.’s (2012) research also
reveals a readiness and flexibility in improving the scheme through learning how to advance the

project technologically but also how the programme could be adapted to the particular needs of the
wider community. In concluding, the authors call for more empirical research that goes
beyond general idealism on the positive influence of religious ethics in inducing environmental
practices, as emphasised in local literatures. [...] Indeed, both ethical and sociological
explanations have to be combined to provide more concrete explanations on why religious ideals
can be translated into effective practices on the ground. These sociological aspects could include
their organizational and institutional structure, religious routines, leadership, membership,
position in the broader community, etc. This is clearly apparent when the most successful case
of the Tzu Chi Association is compared to the other cases. (Mohamad, Idris and Mamat 2012,
249; our emphasis)
The above-discussed article by Mohamad et al. (2012) gives us some insight into the uniqueness of
how spiritual communities approach environmental behaviour change. To further make sense of these
dynamics, one can draw on Latour (2005, 235), who has asked religious people why they do what they
do, and Wenell (2016), a theorist of ethical consumption, who has inquired into why religious
adherents might have more stimuli to act ethically than others. Wenell aims to understand why certain
ethical consumers are using ‘supra-moral alternatives’ when making their shopping choices (2016,
34). The term ‘supra-moral’ refers to an attitude that goes beyond the limits of what is traditionally
and conventionally expected, imposed, or recognised by society. Considering Latour’s concept of
‘plug-ins’ (Latour 2005, 209), which allow actors to make competent consumer choices, Wenell
suggests that supra-moral alternatives of consumption may be more readily attainable to adherents of
religion (2016, 34). In Latour’s theory, plug-ins serve as knowhow for making consumer choices
(competence), resulting from prior learning or experience (e.g. if we buy this, we support a small farm,
or this food contains something which is not good for my health). Within this frame, we can say that
these plug-ins can be embedded spiritual teachings/beliefs that have resonance with followers,
resulting in supra-moral and pro-environmental behaviour. For example, Hare Krishna believers will
not consume animal flesh as a direct consequence of their ethical and spiritual standpoint on eating.
Because of the broad versatility of plug-ins to draw upon (e.g. teachings, beliefs, emotions,
experiences), religious practitioners may become special objects of research when consumer ethics is
the aim of inquiry. Wenell (2016) draws attention to some of these plug-in effects, one of which is the
spiritual teachings of Christianity or Buddhism. The story of the good Samaritan is one such example.

In that parable a Samaritan man, culturally regarded as an enemy to the Jews, helps a sick Jew lying
on the roadside, thus disregarding the law of defilement (not to touch a potentially dead body). In this
situated context, dominant cultural norms are overridden by spiritual conviction and motivation. This
supra-moral act exemplifies how ethical consumption may overwrite dominant ways of praxis.
Although not explicated by Wenell, embracing the collective spirituality of a group through
conversion is key towards an understanding of how supra-moral attitudes come to existence. That is, if
the aim is to broaden the appeal, fellowship and involvement of an ecospiritual practice, then supra-
moral plug-ins are a crucial aspect of how a collective identity is created, maintained, and extended.
Conceptualising identity is an important factor in the literature of new social movements (Johnston,
Laraña and Gusfield 1994). Johnston argues that new social movements rise ‘in defence of identity’,
especially for youth alienated from the ‘impoverishment of interaction in modern society’. Inasmuch
as collective identities ‘have subcultural orientations that challenge the dominant system’ (Johnston
1994, 10), the detailed investigations of how they are obtained and maintained symbolically and
organisationally promise to yield significant lessons for sustainability transitions scholars. Hence,
from an ecological perspective, it is possible to perceive the conversion experience and its repeated
narration (Rambo 1993, 137) as an additional motivator (plug-in) for practice which is not available to
non-converts.
Conclusions
In this article, we have problematised the conception of agency in the sustainability transitions
literature. We have pointed out that it is treated rather statically by privileging technology without
allowing enough room to locate social, and sometimes less visible, agential factors. In other words, as
technology is often taking a prime position in sustainability transitions debates – which are generically
studied from the perspective of structural global domains, such as energy, transport, agrifood, etc. –
less space is dedicated to more detailed and ‘flat’, horizontal investigations (Geels 2011, 502).
Methodology is an important point to raise here. As sustainability transitions frameworks often focus
on regimes, asking how niches can influence them, researchers’ attention is steered away from

questioning and exploring the nuanced and dynamic processes of practice. Here, we should
particularly highlight the practices of communities, social movements, and other grassroots actors who
play an important role in challenging orthodox regimes, creating niche innovations and resistance
practices from below (Misoczky, Dornelas Camara and Böhm 2017). These grassroots movements are
often not visible, as dominant discourses and media representations forget, ignore, or wilfully screen
out practices that do not fit into the logic of dominant, technology-driven regimes and their
representations, including dominant approaches to sustainability transitions.
In this article, we have argued that chief among the social factors that are of great importance when it
comes to understanding ecological behaviour and transition towards a more sustainable world are
spirituality and worldview in more general terms. Focusing on ecospirituality, we have discussed how
people, often within spiritual communities and social movements, seek simplicity and frugality to
transition towards a more sustainable future (e.g. Carroll 2004, 17, 95, 101, 109). Scholars of
approaches such as new economics, stationary economics, degrowth and deep sustainability
management increasingly recognise the value of such simplicity, coupled with intrinsic values such as
a sense of belonging and affiliation, which are regarded are beneficial both to people and nature
(Jackson 2009, 148).
We presented Koehrsen’s (2017) nascent and initial theory in framing the role of religion (especially
institutional actions and eloquence) within the sustainability transitions framework. We argued that,
while religious greening, coalitions of awareness-raising and a ‘proactive stance on climate change’
(Koehrsen 2017, 2) are salient issues to address in the ecology and religion debate, their suitability to
understanding sustainability transitions is debatable if they remain at the level of regime-centred
rhetoric and communication. Thus, if the aim is to make transitions happen on the ground, they will
need to be complemented by foregrounding empirical work and practice-based details.
The general claims concerning positive impacts need to be tested empirically, and hence we call for
future sustainability transitions research to study ecospirituality from the perspective of the lived
experience rather than at the regime level. That is, religious communities can be optimal niches for
transition practices, given their heterogeneity on the one hand and their shared belief on the other

(Mohamad, Idris and Mamat 2012). As we have argued, what makes ecospiritual communities unique
is their ability to unify and solidify ecological action, giving people what Latour (2005, 209) calls a
‘plug-in’ for making environmentally positive choices.
From this perspective, future research questions could be: How does change take place in ecospiritual
communities, how is it maintained, and for how long? How are sustainable practices held together in
their midst, and what difference does ecospirituality make in the process? What insights can be drawn
from studying ecospiritual conversions? How do ecospiritual groups succeed to survive? How are they
funded financially? What social and environmental benefits can be reached by cooperating with them,
and what are the potential harms to be aware of? What are the transitional implications of studying
simplicity, conviviality, sharing, and related themes from an ecospiritual perspective? As demand-side
and other social factors are becoming increasingly important for the transitional field, these questions
may provide a starting point for specifically studying the role of spirituality in transitioning towards a
more sustainable world.
We argue that a shift of attention to social factors, such as spirituality, involves an increased
recognition that incremental changes to business-as-usual will no longer do in the era of climate
emergency.
By proposing that societal systems of provision be examined, redesigned and reconfigured in line
with sustainable consumption goals, the New Economics proposes nothing less than a paradigm
shift for the economy, or a wholesale transition in the presiding ‘regime’. This implies that rather
than making incremental changes, the model entails a widespread regime change for the economy
and society, altering the rules of the game and the objective of economic development. (Seyfang
2009, 23)
In his influential book, Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, Schumacher (1973, 96)
calls for a ‘religious change’ by which he proposes a ‘new economics’ that matters to people and
ecology. He explicitly argues for a radical system change through what he elsewhere refers to as
‘spirituality’ in outlining his notion of meta-economics. Whether one is religiously or spiritually
inclined or not, the call for simplicity and a new relation between nature and society is of more
relevance today than ever before. As the success of the worldwide degrowth movement shows (e.g.
D’Alisa, Demaria and Kallis 2014), communities, organisations, corporations, and public institutions

increasingly realise that today’s technology-driven economic growth mantra will not lead us out of the
sustainability challenges faced on this planet.
We call on sustainability transitions scholars to take social dynamics, including ecospirituality, much
more seriously. Studying social practices through the lived experience of practitioners will enrich the
transitions agenda in more than one way. Not only may it help to understand how different worldviews
relate to sustainable practices, but it may also uncover how and why specific beliefs and organisations
support the ongoing maintenance of these practices. The social world is said to be a belief system
(Žižek 2001, 15). It seems self-evident that to change this belief system requires us to understand and
scrutinise it.
Notes on contributors
Tamas Lestar holds a PhD in Management and Organization studies from the University of Essex.
Working together with Professor Steffen Böhm for several years, Tamas has been investigating
spiritual communities and practices in the context of dietary change and sustainability transitions. His
main research focus remains on how food and dietary practices relate to postgrowth prosperity,
wellbeing and change on individual, community and societal level. Tamas teaches qualitative research
methods and management modules internationally, including China. He brings colour to the classroom
by building on his experiences in ethnography, social enterprising and travelling in Africa, Asia and
Europe.
Steffen Böhm is professor of organisation and sustainability at the University of Exeter Business
School, UK. His research focuses on governance and political economy, exploring the interactions
between corporations, state institutions and civil society organisations within a context of
environmental sustainability and climate change. His recent focus has been on the circular economy
approach in peripheral regions, where large sections of the population have experienced degrowth and
ecosystems have been degrading for a long time. Regional circularity promises a new way to recreate
restorative and regenerative ecosystems, economies and societies.

REFERENCES
Avelino, F. and Wittmayer J. M., 2015, Shifting Power Relations in Sustainability Transitions: A
Multi-Actor Perspective, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, Volume 18, Issue 5: The
Politics of Transition
Barclay, J. M. G., 2010, Food, Christian Identity and Global Warming: A Pauline Call for a Christian
Food Taboo. The Expository Times, 121(12), 585–593.
Bergmann, Sigurd. 2009. Climate Change Changes Religion. Studia Theologica – Nordic Journal of
Theology 63 (2): 98–118.
Bharucha, Z. P., Weinstein, N., Watson, D., & Böhm, S., 2019, Participation in local food projects is
associated with better psychological well-being: evidence from the East of England. Journal of
Public Health.
Böhm, S., Bharucha, Z. P., and Pretty, J., (eds) 2014, Ecocultures: Blueprints for Sustainable
Communities, Routledge
Carroll, J. E., 2004, Sustainability and Spirituality. Albany, US: SUNY Press
Cherry, B., 2013, Viewing Disaster through the Eyes of Religion, Hazard Risk Resilience, Vol 1, No
2, Spring
Climateemergency.uk, 2019, [online] Available at:
<https://www.climateemergency.uk/blog/category/declarations> [Accessed on 10th October
2019].
Dryzek, J. S., 1997, The Politics of the Earth. Environmental Discourses. Oxford University Press
D’Alisa, G., Demaria, F. and Kallis, G., 2014, Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era, Routledge
Eckersley, R., 1992, Environmentalism and Political Theory: Toward an Ecocentric Approach.
Albany: SUNY Press
Escobar, A., 2009, Other Worlds Are (Already) Possible: Self-Organisation, Complexity, And Post-
Capitalist Cultures. In: J. Sen and P. Waterman, (eds.), World Social Forum – Challenging
Empires. London: Black Rose, pp. 393-404.
Gardner, Gary T., 2002, Invoking the Spirit: Religion and Spirituality in the Quest for a Sustainable
World. Worldwatch paper 164. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.
Geels, F. W., 2011, The multi-level perspective on Sustainability Transitions: Responses to seven
criticisms, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1 (2011), pp. 24–40
Genus, A., Coles, A.-M., 2008, Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions.
Research Policy, 37, pp. 1436–1445
Giddens, A., 2002, Runaway world. How globalisation is reshaping our lives, Profile Books
Gottlieb, Roger S., (ed.), 2006, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology: Oxford University
Press.
Grin, J., Rotmans, J. and Schot, J., 2010, Transitions to Sustainable Development, Routledge, London
Heikkurinen, P., 2016, Degrowth by means of technology? A treatise for an ethos of releasement,
Journal of Cleaner Production, ISSN 0959-6526
Helminiak, D. A., 1996, The Human Core of Spirituality. Albany: State University of New York Press
Houtman, D. and Aupers, S., 2007, The Spiritual Turn and the Decline of Tradition: The Spread of
Post-Christian Spirituality in 14 Western Countries, 1981–2000. Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion, 46, pp. 305–320.
Houtman, D. and Mascini, P., 2002, Why Do Churches Become Empty, While New Age Grows?
Secularization and Religious Change in the Netherlands. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 41, pp. 455–473.
Ikerd, J., 2016a, The Spiritual Roots of Economic Sustainability, in (eds.) Dhiman, S. and Marques, J.,
2016, Spirituality and Sustainability, Springer Publishing Company, New York, pp. 105-120.
Ikerd, J., 2016b, Spiritual and Ethic Values: The Missing Link in Sustainable Capitalism, in
Philosophy of Management and Applied Ethics, Volume II of The Compendium on Integrating
Spirituality & Organizational Leadership, Editor, Sunita Singh Sengupta, Isol Publications, Near
Scope Minar, Delhi, India, pp. 65 – 71.

Ikerd, J., Gamble, L., Cox, T., 2014, Deep sustainability; the essentials. [online] Available at:
<https://sites.google.com/site/sustainabilitydeep/> [Accessed 28th August 2016].
Ims, K. J., 2015, Deep Ecology and Personal Responsibility, in Zsolnai, L. (ed.), 2015, The Spiritual
Dimension of Business Ethics and Sustainability Management, Springer International Publishing
Inglehart, R., Welzel, C., 2005, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy. The Human
Development Sequence. Cambridge University Press, New York.
IPSOS, 2019, Concern about climate change reaches record levels with half now 'very concerned',
[online], Available at: <https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/concern-about-climate-
change-reaches-record-levels-half-now-very-concerned > [Accessed on 10th October 2019].
Jackson, T., 2009, Prosperity without growth: Economics for a Finite Planet, Earthscan
Jackson, T., 2016, Prosperity without growth – Foundations for the economy of tomorrow, Routledge
Jamieson, D., 1998, Sustainability and Beyond. Ecological Economics, 24, pp. 183-192.
Johnston, H., Laraña, E. and Gusfield, J. R., 1994, Identities, Grievances and New Social Movements,
in Laraña, E., Johnston, H., and Gusfield (eds.) New social movements: from ideology to
identity, Temple University Press
Koehrsen, J., 2017, Conceptualizing Roles of Religion in Sustainability Transitions, CIRRuS Working
Papers, No.9
Koltko-Rivera, M. E., 2004, The Psychology of Worldviews, Review of General Psychology, Vol 8(1),
Mar 2004, pp. 3-58
Lakoff, G., 2010, Why it Matters How We Frame the Environment. Environmental Communication: A
Journal of Nature and Culture, 4(1), pp. 70-81.
Lasch, C., 1978, The Culture of Narcissism. American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations.
Norton & Company, New York.
Latour, B., 2005, Reassembling the Social. An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford
University Press
Lestar, T., 2017, Spiritual Conversion and Dietary Change: Empirical Investigations in Two Eco-
Spiritual Communities. Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 7 (3): 23-34.
Lestar, T., 2018, Disconnecting from Technology on Hare Krishna Farms, Human Geography 11 (3)
Lomborg, B., (ed.), 2010, Smart Solutions to Climate Change. Comparing Costs and Benefits.
Cambridge University Press
Markard, J., Raven, R. and Truffer, B., 2012, Sustainability Transitions: An emerging field of research
and its prospects. Research Policy, Volume 41, Issue 6, July 2012, pp. 955–967.
Misoczky, M. C., Dornelas Camara, G., & Böhm, S. (2017). Organizational practices of social
movements and popular struggles: understanding the power of organizing from below.
Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 12(4), 250-
261
Mohamad, Z. F., Idris, N. and Mamat, Z., 2012, Role of religious communities in enhancing transition
experiments: a localised strategy for sustainable solid waste management in Malaysia,
Sustainability Science, 7(2), pp. 237-251.
Næss, A., 1995, The Apron Diagram, In The deep ecology movement: An introductory anthology, ed.
Drengson, E. and Inoue, Y., 10-12. Berkeley: North Atlantic Books
Nath, J., 2010, ‘God is a vegetarian’: The food, health and bio-spirituality of Hare Krishna, Buddhist
and Seventh-Day Adventist devotees, Health Sociology Review, 19 (3), pp. 356–368.
Palmer, S., 2004, Women in New Religious Movements, in Lewis, R. J. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook
of New Religious Movements, pp. 378-385.
Pargament, K. I., Mahoney, A., Exline, J. J., Jones, J. W., and Shafranske, E. P., 2013, Envisioning an
integrative paradigm for the psychology of religion and spirituality. In K. I. Pargament, J. J.
Exline, & J. W. Jones (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol 1):
Context, theory, and research (pp. 3–19). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Pew Research, Masci, D. and Lipka, M., 2016, Americans may be getting less religious, but feelings of
spirituality are on the rise, [online], Available at: <https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2016/01/21/americans-spirituality/ > [Accessed on 10th October 2019].

Rambo, L. R., 1993, Understanding religious conversion, Yale University Press
Raskin, P., Banuri, P., Gallopin, G., Gutman, P., Hammond, A., Kates, R. and Swart, R., 2002, Great
Transition – The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead. Boston: Stockholm Environment
Institue.
Rochford, E. B., 1985, Hare Krishna in America, Rutgers University Press
Rochford, E. B., 2007, Hare Krishna. Transformed. New York University Press
Rochford, E. B., Jr., 1982, Recruitment Strategies, Ideology, and Organization in the Hare Krishna
Movement. Social Problems, 29(4)
Roof, W. C., 1993, A Generation of Seekers. San Francisco: Harper
Ropke, I., 1999, The Dynamics of Willingness to Consume, Ecological Economics, 28, pp. 399-420.
Schumacher, E. F., 1973, Small is Beautiful; Economics as if People Mattered, New York, Harper &
Row
Scully, M., 2003, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy, St.
Martin's Griffin.
Seyfang, G., 2009. The New Economics of Sustainable Consumption – Seeds of Change. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Seyfang, G., 2010, Low carbon communities and the currencies of change, in Peters, M., Fudge, S.,
Jackson, T. (Eds.), 2010, Low Carbon Communities. Imaginative Approaches to Combating
Climate Change Locally, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 108-122
Seyfang, G., Haxeltine, A., 2008, Growing grassroots innovations: Exploring the role of community-
based social movements for sustainable energy transitions. CSERGE Working Paper, 10(8).
Seyfang, G., Haxeltine, A., Hargreaves, T. and Longhurst, N., 2013, Energy and communities in
transition – towards a new research agenda on agency and civil society in Sustainability
Transitions, CSERGE Working Paper 10(13)
Shove, E., 2003, Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience. The Social Organization of Normality, Breg
Publishers
Shove, E., 2004, Changing human behaviour and lifestyle: a challenge for sustainable consumption. In
Reisch, L. and Røpke, I. (Eds.) The Ecological Economics of Consumption. Cheltenham,
Edward Elgar.
Singh, M., Oliver, M., Siddique, H. and Zhou, N., 2019, Global climate strike: Greta Thunberg and
school students lead climate crisis protest – as it happened, The Guardian, Available at:
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2019/sep/20/climate-strike-global-change-
protest-sydney-melbourne-london-new-york-nyc-school-student-protest-greta-thunberg- rally-
live-news-latest-updates > [Accessed on 10th October 2019].
Smith, A., Stirling, A., Berkhout, F., 2005, The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions.
Research Policy, 34, 1491–1510
Taylor, B., 2009, Dark Green Religion. Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future, University of
California Press
Taylor, B. (ed.), 2005, 2008, Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, Continuum
Taylor, E., 1999. Shadow Culture. Psychology and Spirituality in America. Counterpoint, Washington
D.C.
Tucker, Mary E., 2006, Religion and Ecology: Survey of the Field. In Gottlieb 2006, 398–418.
van der Leeuw, S. E., 2008, Climate and Society: Lessons from the Past 10 000 Years. Ambio, Special
Report,14, pp. 476-482.
Vinkhuyzen, O., M. and Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., 2014, The role of moral leadership for sustainable
production and consumption, Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, pp.102-113
Wenell, K., 2016, Religion and ethical consumption. Supramorality and space. In Shaw, D.,
Chatzidakis, A., Carrington, M. (eds.) Ethics and Morality in Consumption: Interdisciplinary
Perspectives, Routledge
Witt, A. H, 2012, Exploring Worldviews and Their Relationships to Sustainable Lifestyles: Towards a
New Conceptual and Methodological Approach, Ecological Economics, 84, pp. 74-83
Witt, A. H., 2011, The rising culture and worldview of contemporary spirituality: A sociological study
of potentials and pitfalls for sustainable development, Ecological Economics, 70, pp. 1057-1065

Witt, A. H., Boer, J., Boersema, J. J., 2014, Exploring inner and outer worlds: A quantitative study of
worldviews, environmental attitudes, and sustainable lifestyles, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, pp. 40-54
Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., Stenbergen, F. and Loorbach, D., 2016, Actor roles in transition:
Insights from sociological perspectives, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24,
pp. 45-56
Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., et al., Religion and Spirituality: Unfuzzying the Fuzzy. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion 36:4 (1997), 549–64.
Žižek, S., 2001, On Belief, Routledge