Advertisement

Dematerialization Through Services: Evaluating the Evidence

  • Blair FixEmail author
Original Paper
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Dematerialization through services is a popular proposal for reducing environmental impact. The idea is that by shifting from the production of goods to the provision of services, a society can reduce its material demands. But do societies with a larger service sector actually dematerialize? I test the ‘dematerialization through services’ hypothesis with a focus on fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions—the primary drivers of climate change. I find no evidence that a service transition leads to carbon dematerialization. Instead, a larger service sector is associated with greater use of fossil fuels and greater carbon emissions per person. This suggests that ‘dematerialization through services’ is not a valid sustainability policy.

Keywords

Dematerialization Service transition Carbon emissions Energy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for comments that have improved this paper. I also thank Charles Hall and Kent Klitgaard for helpful comments on earlier versions of this research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

The author acknowledges no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Alcott B (2005) Jevons’ paradox. Ecol Econ 54(1):9–21Google Scholar
  2. Baumol WJ (1967) Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: the anatomy of urban crisis. Am Econ Rev 57(3):415–426Google Scholar
  3. BLS (1957) Nonproduction workers in factories, 1919–56. Mon Lab Rev 80(4):435–440Google Scholar
  4. Brown JH, Burnside WR, Davidson AD, DeLong JP, Dunn WC, Hamilton MJ, Mercado-Silva N, Nekola JC, Okie JG, Woodruff WH, Zuo W (2011) Energetic limits to economic growth. BioScience 61(1):19–26.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.1.7 Google Scholar
  5. Brown JH, Burger JR, Burnside WR, Chang M, Davidson AD, Fristoe TS, Hamilton MJ, Hammond ST, Kodric-Brown A, Mercado-Silva N, Nekola JC, Okie JG (2014) Macroecology meets macroeconomics: resource scarcity and global sustainability. Ecol Eng 65:24–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.07.071 Google Scholar
  6. Carneiro RL (1967) On the relationship between size of population and complexity of social organization. Southwest J Anthropol 23(3):234–243Google Scholar
  7. Clark C (1940) The conditions of economic progress. Macmillan & Company, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Cleveland C, Costanza R, Hall C, Kaufmann R (1984) Energy and the US economy: a biophysical perspective. Science 225(4665):890–897Google Scholar
  9. Cooper T (1999) Creating an economic infrastructure for sustainable product design. J Sustain Prod Des, pp 7–17Google Scholar
  10. Daly H (2013) A further critique of growth economics. Ecol Econ 88:20–24Google Scholar
  11. Davis SJ, Caldeira K (2010) Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(12):5687–5692Google Scholar
  12. Day JW, Moerschbaecher M, Pimentel D, Hall C, Yáñez-Arancibia A (2014) Sustainability and place: how emerging mega-trends of the 21st century will affect humans and nature at the landscape level. Ecol Eng 65:33–48Google Scholar
  13. Djellal F, Gallouj F (2016) Service innovation for sustainability: paths for greening through service innovation. In: Service innovation, Springer, pp 187–215Google Scholar
  14. Ehrlich PR, Holdren JP (1971) Impact of population growth. Science 171(3977):1212–1217Google Scholar
  15. Ellger C, Scheiner J (1997) After industrial society: service society as clean society? Environmental consequences of increasing service interaction. Serv Ind J 17(4):564–579Google Scholar
  16. Fix B (2015) Rethinking economic growth theory from a biophysical perspective. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Fix B (2017) Energy and institution size. PLoS ONE 12(2):e0171823Google Scholar
  18. Fix B (2019) The aggregation problem: implications for ecological and biophysical economics. BioPhys Econ Resour Qual 4(1):1Google Scholar
  19. Giampietro M, Mayumi K, Sorman A (2012) The metabolic pattern of societies: where economists fall short. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Giampietro M, Mayumi K, Sorman A (2013) Energy analysis for a sustainable future: multi-scale integrated analysis of societal and ecosystem metabolism. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Gierlinger S, Krausmann F (2012) The physical economy of the United States of America. J Ind Ecol 16(3):365–377Google Scholar
  22. Grossman G, Krueger A (1994) Economic growth and the environment. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall C, Klitgaard K (2012) Energy and the wealth of nations: understanding the biophysical economy. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Hall CAS, Cleveland CJ, Kaufmann RK (1986) Energy and resource quality: the ecology of the economic process. Wiley Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Hawken P (2000) Natural capitalism : creating the next industrial revolution. Little, BostonGoogle Scholar
  26. Heiskanen E, Jalas M (2000) Dematerialization through services—a review and evaluation of the debate. Tech. rep, Finnish Ministry of the Environment, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  27. Heiskanen E, Halme M, Jalas M, Kärnä A, Lovio R (2001) Dematerialization: the potential of ICT and services. Tech. rep, Finnish Ministry of the Environment, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  28. Henriques ST, Kander A (2010) The modest environmental relief resulting from the transition to a service economy. Ecol Econ 70(2):271–282Google Scholar
  29. Herman R, Ardekani SA, Ausubel JH (1990) Dematerialization. Technol Forecast Social Change 38(4):333–347Google Scholar
  30. Hinterberger F, Schmidt-Bleek F (1999) Dematerialization, MIPS and Factor 10 physical sustainability indicators as a social device. Ecol Econ 29(1):53–56Google Scholar
  31. Jackson T (1996) Material concerns: pollution, profit, and quality of life. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Jackson T (2009) Prosperity without growth: economics for a finite planet. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Jespersen J (1999) Reconciling environment and employment by switching from goods to services? A review of Danish experience. Eur Environ 9(1):17–23Google Scholar
  34. Jevons WS (1906) The coal question: an inquiry concerning the progress of the nation, and the probable exhaustion of our coal-mines. The Macmillan Company, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Kahn H (1979) World economic development 1979 and beyondGoogle Scholar
  36. Kander A (2005) Baumol’s disease and dematerialization of the economy. Ecol Econ 55(1):119–130Google Scholar
  37. Knight KW, Schor JB (2014) Economic growth and climate change: a cross-national analysis of territorial and consumption-based carbon emissions in high-income countries. Sustainability 6(6):3722–3731Google Scholar
  38. Lawn PA (2001) Goods and services and the dematerialisation fallacy: implications for sustainable development indicators and policy. Int J Serv Technol Manag 2(3–4):363–376Google Scholar
  39. Lovins AB, Lovins LH, Hawken P (1999) A road map for natural capitalismGoogle Scholar
  40. Meadows DH (1972) The limits to growth : a report for the Club of Rome’s project on the predicament of mankind. New American Library, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Naroll R (1956) A preliminary index of social development. Am Anthropol 58(4):687–715Google Scholar
  42. Nitzan J (1992) Inflation as restructuring. A theoretical and empirical account of the US experience. PhD thesis, McGill UniversityGoogle Scholar
  43. Nitzan J, Bichler S (2009) Capital as power: a study of order and creorder. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. OECD (2000) The service economy. Tech. rep, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Panayotou T (1993) Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. ILO, Technology and Employment Programme, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  47. Panayotou T, Peterson A, Sachs JD (2000) Is the environmental Kuznets curve driven by structural change?. What extended time series may imply for developing countries, CAER II Discussion Paper No, p 80Google Scholar
  48. Polimeni J, Mayumi K, Giampietro M, Alcott B (2012) The Jevons paradox and the myth of resource efficiency improvements. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Romm J (2002) The internet and the new energy economy. Resour Conserv Recycl 36(3):197–210Google Scholar
  50. Romm J, Rosenfeld A, Herrmann S (1999) The internet economy and global warming. Tech. rep, The Center for Energy and Climate SolutionsGoogle Scholar
  51. Shafik N, Bandyopadhyay S (1992) Economic growth and environmental quality: time series and cross-country evidence. Policy Research Working Paper SeriesGoogle Scholar
  52. Smil V (2008) Energy in nature and society: general energetics of complex systems. MIT press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Stahel WR (1997) The service economy: ‘wealth without resource consumption’? Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A 355(1728):1309–1319Google Scholar
  54. Stern DI, Common MS, Barbier EB (1996) Economic growth and environmental degradation: the environmental Kuznets curve and sustainable development. World Devel 24(7):1151–1160.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00032-0 Google Scholar
  55. Victor P (2010) Questioning economic growth. Nature 468(7322):370–371.  https://doi.org/10.1038/468370a Google Scholar
  56. White AL, Stoughton M, Feng L (1999) Servicizing: the quiet transition to extended product responsibility. Tellus Institute, Boston, p 97Google Scholar
  57. Zipf GK (1941) National unity and disunity. Principia Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  58. Zipf GK (1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.York UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations