The ever-present argument between sustainability and growth has me perplexed. The environmental mantra that we cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet is true; the planet is finite. But growth is about economics, not just material. Similarly, the notion that ‘the free market is natural and inevitable’ — often citing the collapse of communism as proof — presents another partial truth. Both positions take a slice of reality and project it over the whole. A more unbiased enquiry is needed.
At the heart of this inquiry is a clearer understanding of economics and its interconnectedness with broader societal and planetary well-being. The United Nations Bruntland Commission, in its 1987 report “Our Common Future”, defined sustainability as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This definition highlights the importance of balancing environmental, economic, and social factors to ensure a sustainable future. This definition wisely emphasizes ‘needs’.
While many people narrowly associate sustainability with environmental protection, it is a much more holistic concept encompassing not only our planet but also our economies, our social interactions, and ultimately, how we treat ourselves. This holistic approach is often captured by the three interconnected pillars of sustainability: environmental, social, and economic (Sustainability Overview, 2025).
Wikipedia defines economics as ‘the social science that studied economic activity to gain an understanding of the processes that govern the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services in an exchange economy.’ This definition, using ‘economic activity’ and ‘exchange economy,’ feels somewhat circular. A more complete definition might be: Economics is the social science that studies trading activity and the means of exchange to gain an understanding of the processes that govern or influence the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services and the consequences that result from such activity and means.
My hope is that this offers a more complete picture of the subject, allowing us to better address the biases that muddy the sustainability/growth question. This re-evaluation aligns with contemporary economic thought from scholars like Kate Raworth, who, in Doughnut Economics, proposes a framework for economic activity that operates within planetary boundaries while meeting social foundations.
I do not think that growth and sustainability are mutually exclusive. It is necessary, however, to look at the viability of our current use of resources and at the same time look at those things that distort the market. Neither of which are adequately satisfied with the polarised debate that occurs at the moment. This perspective echoes Herman Daly’s arguments for a steady-state economy, where qualitative development is prioritised over quantitative growth on a finite planet.
It is my contention that it is not a prerequisite of sustainability that we forgo material goods nor should we always answer the faults of the market with greater government ownership. Nor do I consider that any individuals, intellectuals, politicians, businessmen, activists or economists can present us with the whole answer. At best they can present their ideas to the public arena. And that is my intention here.
Trade in the history of economics was a very simple process when it was a face-to-face transaction between two individuals through barter. The individuals themselves had the knowledge of their own needs and what they sought. The exchange was to the satisfaction of them both: it was reciprocal. Any new development in economics will need to emulate that reciprocity.
There are many who consider that the very fact of monetising the economy is a significant factor, if not the route cause of, its ills. Whether, and to what degree, an economy is monetised is more likely to be the question of how well does it to answer the issue of reciprocity. Does it lend itself to satisfying the needs of all engaged in the exchange?
In the age of bartering an individual knew he was dependent on the natural environment for his well-being. Looking at contemporary so-called ‘primitive societies’ evidences this. The new economics will need to recognise this also. Despite the overwhelming acceptance human activity’s role in global warming and desire to do something about it current policies are having too little impact on affective change.
Arguments rage on the lack of political will or even the very system of politics as underlying the problem. The debate here too has become polarised. But the passion shows the importance it has for them and the level of effort they are willing to expend.
Looking at recent history we see that people were prepared to put their selves at considerable risk to bring down, or are currently trying to bring down, communist regimes. This, surely, is indicative of their failures. That there is, equally, very similar agitation and protest against capitalism indicates its not working to the satisfaction of countless others either. The new economics will need to understand the source of these grievances. These grievances often arise when one pillar of sustainability is destabilised, causing a domino effect across others. A prime example is the recent global cocoa price spike. Due to bad weather (El Niño) and widespread disease outbreaks (‘Black pod disease’ and ‘Swollen shoot virus’) in West Africa, which produces most of the world’s cocoa, global production has been severely hit. This environmental shock is exacerbated by systemic economic issues: low farmer incomes, often leading to land being sold for mining, and fixed domestic cocoa prices that prevent farmers from benefiting from global price surges. These factors deter investment in resilient crops, perpetuate poverty, and contribute to deforestation, demonstrating how environmental, economic, and social instabilities are deeply intertwined (Ritchie, 2024). Such crises vividly illustrate how systems that fail to integrate environmental and social well-being with economic stability ultimately falter. As Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson argue in Why Nations Fail, the success or failure of nations often hinges on whether their institutions are inclusive, empowering broad participation, or extractive, concentrating power and wealth in the hands of a few.
What may seem ironic is that both communism and capitalism claim, and yet fail, to protect the interest of the individual. The former fought against the tyranny of capital, the latter against the tyranny of the state. Protecting the individual against tyranny has been given by both systems to legitimise their existence.
Since tyranny is defined as ‘the cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others’, fairness is, therefore, to be seen as the goal of any new economics. Fairness echoes the need for reciprocity. The economic victim cannot turn saviour and subsequently be allowed to become the bully.
It is interesting to note how so many of those who were in power under communism slipped almost seamlessly into positions of power in succeeding institutions. The whole nature of power is integral to shaping the discussion of what the new economics should look like. ‘Govern’ and ‘influence’ in the definition of economics are issues of power. They need to be better understood.
Competition versus co-operation is cited as being the conflicting principles that underlie the ideologies of the economic divide. But does this argument blind us to what is actually happening? In our definition of economics there is the question of science. How scientific is our examination? Here we could do with looking at evidence provided by behavioural economics. This looks at what is actually occurring without being hijacked by what we ‘think’ is happening. It is a science based on observation. This field, pioneered by thinkers like Daniel Kahneman in Thinking, Fast and Slow, reveals the cognitive biases that often lead to irrational economic decisions, underscoring the need for policies grounded in actual human behaviour.
Are competition and co-operation mutually exclusive? What is the evidence? Those that use nature and Darwin’s theory of evolution exclaim that competition is just the survival of the fittest. What this leaves out is that ’cooperation arose as a competitive strategy, as groups of cooperating people can gain big advantages in competition with less-cooperative groups’, Stuart West. It is not a matter of either/or, human behaviour is inherently both.
How do all these impact on the question of whether we can have both growth and sustainability? Without a shift in the ideological positions it will be difficult. While activists try to wage a war against capitalism they waste their precious resources fighting the wrong foe. And while corporations see sustainability as the road to their own demise they miss harnessing the means for their long-term survival.
Sustainability rewards investment in processes that eliminate waste. Nature is full of examples of using abundant resources effectively to thrive. Nature is the design showplace of evolution and to quote Dr Susan Blackmore, ‘evolution is inevitable – if you have information that is copied with variation and selection then you must get (as Dan Dennett puts it) ‘Design out of chaos without the aid of mind’. It is this inevitability that I find so delightful – the evolutionary algorithm just must produce design, and once you understand that you have no need to believe or not believe in evolution. You see how it works’.
We need to place some confidence in the evolutionary algorithm that is at work in all of us and in what we do. Without the aid of mind… Governments do not need to try to do it all for us, or direct us, or know all the answers. They need to govern, to implement the structures that ensure fairness.
A very practical measure in pursuit of fairness is the need for a living wage. This ensures that all citizens can adequately service their fundamental needs for food, drink, shelter, and security, allowing them to participate meaningfully in the economy. This aligns with Amartya Sen’s concept of ‘development as freedom,’ where true progress is measured by the expansion of people’s capabilities and their ability to live lives they value. We do not benefit from governments intervening in the market to keep costs down. We benefit from having wages that allow us to service our own needs. We need to lessen the dependence on social welfare by having work that pays. And we need to look no further than behavioural economics to show that such increases do not increase unemployment. In fact much evidence is to the contrary.
This doesn’t even take into consideration the cost to the taxpayer of existing social welfare that would be reduced. Nor does it consider the dignity that is restored to the individual. And, more importantly, that these individuals are able to be active participants in building the new economy.
Instead of demonising the poor we need to address policies and power structures that have excluded them from participating in meaningful economic activity; where the pro-active actions they can take to improve their lot are so limited that many look to options outside the law.
Reminiscent of the days of barter, if the deal does not adequately satisfy the needs of both parties say ‘No’. Use your numbers to pressure government to raise the minimum wage and lift people out of poverty. Give them the means to be engaged in the market place rather than priced out.
Governments have been criticised for monetising things like water. They have, however, been too slow at monetising costs. Pollution costs us all. These costs need to be met by the polluter. By introducing measures that put addressing pollution into the market place entrepreneurs and businesses will have the incentive to solve the problem, aligning environmental sustainability with economic innovation.
Businesses want to remain in business. Working with them to show that sustainability is in their own interest as well is more effective than a solely combative stance. Seeking a win-win is necessary if we are to see significant gains in sustainable business.
Governments have a role to play in creating the new economy by ensuring fairness, not just in wages and addressing pollution, but also by taxation. This not by means of raising their levels; instead by ensuring that tax avoidance is eradicated. No system is fair that allows some to play outside the rules. The efficiency of the market is also compromised if some of the participants are being let off costs that are born by others.
Another issue of fairness is that of how visible the realities of trade are and who is benefiting. Here governments need to be instrumental in promoting transparency and fighting corruption. Not just within their own borders but across the globe. The benchmark of transparency will need to be implemented in law and in cross boundary trade agreements. Elinor Ostrom’s work on Governing the Commons demonstrates how communities can successfully manage shared resources and prevent corruption through transparent, participatory governance structures.
Domestically reforms need to be given teeth by measures that strengthen the citizens’ ability to act upon any available information. Only then could we see positive effects on eliminating corruption. Equally government needs to tackle the feathered nests of their own. The subject of accountability is not something that is going to go away. Pushing for transparency will help expose the wrong-doing of individuals and institutions.
The heightened awareness of transparency and accountability are serving to enable the ordinary citizen to know where to focus their efforts. Fairness should be improved by tackling what is wrong with the system rather than dissipated action trying to dismantle it. There are countless economic and political systems around the globe. Changing them has little benefit for the citizen if corruption remains.
A more open form of corruption exists through the guise of subsidies. Some argue that subsidies can serve to redistribute resources to the needy, fund investment, or to help correct market failures. All serve to disturb the market. Inefficiencies are masked. Innovation is curtailed. Higher taxation is required. Subsidy dependency frequently increases. Worldwide, far less than 20% of fossil-fuel subsidies benefit the poorest 20% of the population.
Subsidies are rarely fair. They move all too quickly from being assistance to that of entitlement. Once embedded removal requires significant reform. Development is channelled and not responsive to innovation or changes in the market. Ultimately resources gravitate to those already in the best position to maximise their use.
Tax structures need to exist that foster a healthy investment in Research and Development across the entire economy. Infrastructure should be based on maximising access to inclusive engagement in economic activity. Redistribution needs to be based on allowing prices to rise within market pressures and wages to rise to a level where all citizens can adequately service their needs.
I will not go in to the realm of Military expenditure here other than to say it is an extravagant waste of resources and a sign of failure to address genuine grievances. No attempt to create an economy that has sustainable growth can do so without its reform. The scope of this will need an article of its own at a latter date.
Eliminating tax avoidance, routing out corruption and dismantling subsidies can meet the costs of reducing taxation.
With this sort of shift the people in work in government can transfer to those companies that are innovating through R&D. They in turn can provide goods and services that focus on resource reduction and reuse. Lastly, the citizen – through a living wage – will be able to invest in their home and transport’s sustainability.
Patterns of personal consumption do need to adapt. Phasing out subsidies will result in rising food prices, particularly meat. Having to pay the real price for food would focus more attention on waste and what to choose to buy. Meat consumption would reduce, but not disappear. There are many places in the world where livestock is the most cost-efficient use of the land.
The space hungry bucolic ideal of some sustainability sympathisers simply will not scale up to the 7 billion inhabitants on the planet. The focus has to be harnessing the growth in cities to create greater sustainability being built-in. Solar panels incorporated into the fabric of buildings. Retrofitting needs to include providing outdoor spaces with balconies and courtyards. Homes will need to reduce in size in some cases. A lot can be learned from the tiny home movement.
Zoning policies will need to be adapted so that cities can be more walk-able. Technology needs to be harnessed to allow for changes in work structure. Many city centres have vast dead spaces full of empty offices. They occupy space twenty-four seven yet are used for a fraction of that time. Many could be retrofitted as new homes within the city.
Having to pay for the real cost of irrigation and fertilisers would focus producers’ attention on eco-viable crops and livestock. More of the lessons learned in permaculture and indigenous peoples need to be adapted. Scaling up most of the ventures that exist around the globe is not feasible. Lessons may be learned from the past but we can’t go back there. Those who a drawn to these would be of greater service to their fellow citizens in engaging in school and urban renewal projects centred around growing food. Here their skills and enthusiasm can benefit those in need who don’t have the resources to buy a parcel of land.
There are those that consider globalisation is a major ill for sustainability. There are two valid arguments in regard to this but globalisation itself is not. These two are that worker conditions and environmental controls are removed. Joseph Stiglitz, in Globalization and Its Discontents, provides a critical examination of how globalisation, when poorly managed, can exacerbate inequality and undermine environmental and labour standards, emphasising the need for more equitable and transparent global governance.
GROWTH BEYOND EXPLOITATION is not a utopian fantasy but a pragmatic necessity. It is a future where economic activity is not measured by the depletion of resources or the exploitation of labour, but by the genuine flourishing of both people and planet, integrating the environmental, social, and economic pillars of sustainability at every level. It means creating systems where fairness and reciprocity are embedded, from the living wage that ensures basic human needs are met, to transparent global trade that benefits all participants. It is a world where innovation is incentivised to solve environmental challenges, where cities are designed for sustainable living, and where resources are valued for their long-term potential rather than short-term gain. This growth is driven by ingenuity, collaboration, and a deep understanding of our interconnectedness with the natural world, ensuring that prosperity is shared and enduring for generations to come.
Where next? Use the links below:
Snippets: Curated collection of short, impactful articles and inspiring ideas.
Forward Futures: Actionable essays delving into contemporary issues.
Grasp the Nettle. Table of Contents: A book in progress charting paths toward a more empowering future, for a global audience.
About: Our mission – From Awareness to Action.
Bibliography
Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James A. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Business, 2012.
Blackmore, Susan. The Meme Machine. Oxford University Press, 1999.
Daly, Herman E. Steady-State Economics. Island Press, 1991.
Dennett, Daniel C. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Simon & Schuster, 1995.
Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.
Klein, Naomi. This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate. Simon & Schuster, 2014.
Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Raworth, Kate. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2017.
Ritchie, Hannah. (2024, April 1). The chocolate price spike: what’s happening to global cocoa production?. Sustainability by numbers. Retrieved from https://substack.com/profile/13813955-hannah-ritchie/note/c-57270381
Stiglitz, Joseph E. Globalization and Its Discontents. W. W. Norton & Company, 2002.
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYbWQ_MhloU (2025, May 26). Overview of Sustainability [Unpublished lecture transcript by a regenerative energy engineer with an M.Sc.].
West, Stuart A., Diggle, Stephen P., Griffin, Ashleigh S., & Gardner, Andy. “Altruism and Cooperation From a Kin Selection Perspective.” Nature Education Knowledge 1(10):14, 2010.