I’ve spent the last two decades working on climate impact and waste assessment for companies and governments across the United States, and have watched as local sustainability efforts have flourished while the global environmental picture becomes more and more grim. One of the biggest challenges I’ve seen is that the traditional metrics of sustainability–carbon footprints, waste reduction targets, efficiency gains–are designed to drive localized, regional progress. These measures of ‘success’ overlook a crucial reality: when we cut costs and resource use in one place, consumption often increases somewhere else in the world. As sustainability professionals leading the charge for a more just and regenerative future, our biggest challenge today is not merely advancing existing measures of ‘success.’ Instead, we must fundamentally reimagine our relationship with an economic system that prioritizes growth above all else and shift toward one that values health through balance and harmony with nature. When the planet is healthy, we are healthy.

This reality is pushing sustainability leaders to ask harder questions: How can we create genuine prosperity while respecting Earth’s ecological limits? What would it look like to build a materials economy that serves both people and planet? The answers require us to examine not just how we manage materials, but how we think about growth itself.

The Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy recently showed that the world’s seven largest economies have enshrined “economic growth” as a goal in and of itself, detached from any kind of social or well-being metrics.⁵ But economic growth doesn’t happen in a vacuum: our environment, people, and communities are all impacted by macroeconomic decisions. Considering this, three key issues emerge that challenge our perception of growth’s ‘success’:

• First, there are ecological constraints. The global economy must operate within Earth’s ecological limits – thresholds for resource extraction, land use, and pollution that we are currently exceeding. We simply cannot sustain current levels of ecological demand. 
• Second, there are efficiency limitations. Our current materials economy is deeply interconnected: when one company reduces its material use, the saved resources are typically invested into other parts of the economy, driving further growth and consumption. Time and experience have proven that efficiency gains do not actually reduce resource use, unless they are paired with a commitment to limit demand.⁶
• Finally, there are equity concerns. The benefits and burdens of our materials economy are not shared equally. While ~10% of global society controls 90% of the wealth,⁷ billions still lack access to basic resources for a dignified life.,^8,9 Shifting our economy towards alternative and more efficient technologies alone will not address this fundamental imbalance.

Humans’ fossil-fueled economy has pushed the global climate past its natural limits: recent highly visible weather events related to our changing climate are symptomatic of pushing past ecological constraints. This isn’t unique to climate–all natural systems have boundaries and it is now time for us to work within the boundaries of a healthy, thriving planet. 

The factors that drive ecological change on planet earth are connected to commodity flows that operate across political boundaries, meaning reduced demand in one part of the economy is easily offset by increased consumption in another. For example, the U.S. has reduced its fossil fuel demand over the past two decades, but the global economy has easily reallocated those savings in the planetary push for economic growth. In practice, efficiency gains are often redirected into making more products, feeding a cycle of continuous growth that ultimately leads to more extraction, more waste, and more strain on our planet’s systems. 

Illustration by John Mulrow, PhD

In his book Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World, Jason Hickel presents data showing that while global GDP per capita increased fivefold between 1980-2016, this growth was highly unequal, with only the wealthiest 10% of people seeing their incomes grow at or above this rate. The richest 1% gained disproportionately more, while the vast majority of people experienced minimal economic benefits despite overall growth.¹¹ This pattern repeats even within high-income countries, as Matt Orsagh, a post-growth finance advocate, has pointed out. In the US, it is also the wealthiest 10% of people that have accumulated the majority of economic growth for themselves in recent decades.¹² Clearly, there is a need to rebalance and redefine economic flows so that when and where growth happens it benefits those truly in need. 

The reality is that social foundation metrics are not being met for many across the world and yet we are exceeding planetary boundaries, atmospheric CO2 levels being just one of several ecological emergencies. Raworth’s work has been effective at helping sustainability professionals break from efficiency as a marker of environmental impact reduction, instead pairing planetary-scale impact metrics with socioeconomic ones like equity and access. 

Here are some steps to begin:

1. Foster Dialogue: Sometimes asking questions like “How much is enough?” or “How can we use less?” are enough to spark a conversation that questions the growth paradigm in a constructive way. You can share and build on writings that critique growth–influential works like Doughnut Economics by Kate Raworth, Less is More by Jason Hickel, and Braiding Sweetgrass and The Serviceberry by Robin Wall Kimmerer provide valuable perspectives. The Degrowth Institute’s discussion toolkit also offers practical resources for sparking conversations. 
2. Integrate Global Contexts: Add a global economic perspective to your projects. For example, consider what happens to financial and resource savings enabled by efficiency measures. Can these savings be reinvested in ways that increase equity or protect the environment, instead of prompting more consumption? What are the risks that resource demand resurfaces elsewhere in the economy? Asking such questions can shift the focus toward systemic change.
3. Stay Motivated: Breaking from growth-centric paradigms is crucial for self-regulating our economy within planetary boundaries. Although unprecedented in modern times, this shift promises significant social and environmental benefits and recent summaries in Ecological Economics offer concrete policy proposals.

For those based in the U.S., various organizations—including the Post Growth Institute, CASSE, Arketa Institute, and DegrowNYC—are advancing the movement through discussion, debate, and action. 

About the Author

John Mulrow, PhD

John Mulrow is Executive Director of the Degrowth Institute and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Environmental and Ecological Engineering at Purdue University. His work is focused on improving environmental assessment methodology through perspectives that prioritize social equity and limits to growth. He holds a PhD in Civil Engineering from University of Illinois Chicago and a BS in Earth Systems from Stanford University.