"Growth or de-growth?" That's the wrong question

Growth or De-growth

Since the publication of the Limits to Growth study, there have been two camps within the sustainability movement: the "Growth" camp and the "De-growth" camp, which disagree on whether the economy should continue to grow or shrink. The growth camp (including figures like Barbara Baarsma and Diederik Samsom) sees economic growth as a necessity for the transition to a sustainable economy. In this view, innovation is often one of the building blocks for a sustainable future. "De-growthists" mainly believe that innovations are not enough to offset the negative effects of economic growth and that we are not moving fast enough towards a sustainable economy. They claim that the changes needed to make society sustainable are incompatible with economic growth. Among them are organisations such as the European Environmental Bureau. In our view, "Growth or De-growth" is the wrong question. It is better to be "a-growth": growth agnostic. This means that economic growth does not influence your choices. Below, we explain why we think this is the case.

Ecology: Up to here and no further

What both 'growers' and 'de-growers' agree on is that the economy needs to become more sustainable. We need to adhere to planetary borders, These are the limits within which the earth can function stably. The current economy undermines our planet's resilience by crossing these boundaries. We have already crossed several boundaries, including the most crucial ones relating to climate change, new entities and biosphere integrity (the other boundaries are linked to these three). This visual representation calls for shrinking, at least if we do not change our system. But, as Johan Rockström, one of the model's founders, says: "Within the boundaries, there is room for growth, but this growth requires a more balanced approach."

Case study: The new economy

The space Johan Rockström refers to could be filled by a circular economy. This circular economy is beautifully visualised by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation in the form of the "butterfly model". In this model, the circular economy is described using two main streams. On the left side of the model are biological resources (renewable energy sources) and on the right side are technical resources (finite resources such as metals). To keep this circular economy within its boundaries, several criteria need to be added to the model:

• Preventing potentially hazardous substances from entering the economy (such as PFAS).
• Waste prevention - leaks and negative externalities completely prevented.
• Transition from the right-hand side (finite materials) to 100% renewable, based on renewable energy.
• The left focuses on optimising the functioning of nature, with a healthy carbon (C), phosphorus (P), nitrogen (N) and water (H2O) cycle, and maintaining sufficient biodiversity to remain resilient. Artificial additions should be limited in this regard.

The economy on the right side of the model is limited by the materials we can extract and the energy available. On the left side, growth can continue as long as natural cycles are balanced and the energy provided by the sun can be harnessed.

Conclusion: Become Growth Agnostic!

Even if we imagine a new economy based on planetary boundaries, we still cannot determine whether we should shrink or keep growing. So if we know that 1) the current economy needs a major overhaul to fit within its limits and 2) we don't know its growth potential, it is much more valuable to become growth agnostic. A good example of this is the farmers on Schiermonnikoog farmers on Schiermonnikoog, a Dutch island. For ecological reasons, one farm had to disappear. Instead of fighting over it, the farmers collectively looked for a suitable sustainable model, which led to the emergence of new branches and business models (such as cheese production). Farmers' viability, ecology and the island community were central to finding a solution. This requires us to set aside the rule that "growth equals good". We must dare to work on the basis of values, not reducing organisations and results to a single KPI, but seeing ourselves as participants in a complex and evolving world. Then, ecological impact and value for the organisational context become embedded in all decisions. Value for society, customers, suppliers and other stakeholders. As a result, we can achieve green growth or meaningful shrinkage.