Dematerialization Through Services: Evaluating the Evidence

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Notes

  1. 1.

    Why not measure service sector value added using ‘real’ prices? First, this data is not available from the World Bank database used here. Second, there are numerous problems with price deflation. The main problem is that relative prices change over time, meaning the choice of base year will affect the resulting deflation (Fix 2015; Nitzan 1992; Nitzan and Bichler 2009). Kander (2005) highlights how this affects the calculation of the service sector’s share of value added. This same problem also leads to systematic uncertainty in the calculation of real GDP. However, out of convention, I use standard measures of real GDP to test for relative dematerialization. But it is important to recognize that real GDP is not necessarily an objective measure of economic output (Fix 2019).

References

  1. Alcott B (2005) Jevons’ paradox. Ecol Econ 54(1):9–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baumol WJ (1967) Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: the anatomy of urban crisis. Am Econ Rev 57(3):415–426

    Google Scholar 

  3. BLS (1957) Nonproduction workers in factories, 1919–56. Mon Lab Rev 80(4):435–440

  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

    Article  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carneiro RL (1967) On the relationship between size of population and complexity of social organization. Southwest J Anthropol 23(3):234–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Clark C (1940) The conditions of economic progress. Macmillan & Company, London

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cleveland C, Costanza R, Hall C, Kaufmann R (1984) Energy and the US economy: a biophysical perspective. Science 225(4665):890–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cooper T (1999) Creating an economic infrastructure for sustainable product design. J Sustain Prod Des, pp 7–17

  10. Daly H (2013) A further critique of growth economics. Ecol Econ 88:20–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Davis SJ, Caldeira K (2010) Consumption-based accounting of CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(12):5687–5692

    Article  Google 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 65:33–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Djellal F, Gallouj F (2016) Service innovation for sustainability: paths for greening through service innovation. In: Service innovation, Springer, pp 187–215

  14. Ehrlich PR, Holdren JP (1971) Impact of population growth. Science 171(3977):1212–1217

    Article  Google 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):564–579

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fix B (2015) Rethinking economic growth theory from a biophysical perspective. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fix B (2017) Energy and institution size. PLoS ONE 12(2):e0171823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fix B (2019) The aggregation problem: implications for ecological and biophysical economics. BioPhys Econ Resour Qual 4(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Giampietro M, Mayumi K, Sorman A (2012) The metabolic pattern of societies: where economists fall short. Routledge, New York

    Google 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 York

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gierlinger S, Krausmann F (2012) The physical economy of the United States of America. J Ind Ecol 16(3):365–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Grossman G, Krueger A (1994) Economic growth and the environment. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hall C, Klitgaard K (2012) Energy and the wealth of nations: understanding the biophysical economy. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hall CAS, Cleveland CJ, Kaufmann RK (1986) Energy and resource quality: the ecology of the economic process. Wiley Interscience, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hawken P (2000) Natural capitalism : creating the next industrial revolution. Little, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  26. Heiskanen E, Jalas M (2000) Dematerialization through services—a review and evaluation of the debate. Tech. rep, Finnish Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki

  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, Helsinki

  28. Henriques ST, Kander A (2010) The modest environmental relief resulting from the transition to a service economy. Ecol Econ 70(2):271–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Herman R, Ardekani SA, Ausubel JH (1990) Dematerialization. Technol Forecast Social Change 38(4):333–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hinterberger F, Schmidt-Bleek F (1999) Dematerialization, MIPS and Factor 10 physical sustainability indicators as a social device. Ecol Econ 29(1):53–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jackson T (1996) Material concerns: pollution, profit, and quality of life. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jackson T (2009) Prosperity without growth: economics for a finite planet. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  33. Jespersen J (1999) Reconciling environment and employment by switching from goods to services? A review of Danish experience. Eur Environ 9(1):17–23

    Article  Google 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, London

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kahn H (1979) World economic development 1979 and beyond

  36. Kander A (2005) Baumol’s disease and dematerialization of the economy. Ecol Econ 55(1):119–130

    Article  Google 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):3722–3731

    Article  Google 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):363–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lovins AB, Lovins LH, Hawken P (1999) A road map for natural capitalism

  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 York

    Google Scholar 

  41. Naroll R (1956) A preliminary index of social development. Am Anthropol 58(4):687–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Nitzan J (1992) Inflation as restructuring. A theoretical and empirical account of the US experience. PhD thesis, McGill University

  43. Nitzan J, Bichler S (2009) Capital as power: a study of order and creorder. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  44. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, New York

  45. OECD (2000) The service economy. Tech. rep, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris

  46. Panayotou T (1993) Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development. ILO, Technology and Employment Programme, Geneva

    Google 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 80

  48. Polimeni J, Mayumi K, Giampietro M, Alcott B (2012) The Jevons paradox and the myth of resource efficiency improvements. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  49. Romm J (2002) The internet and the new energy economy. Resour Conserv Recycl 36(3):197–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Romm J, Rosenfeld A, Herrmann S (1999) The internet economy and global warming. Tech. rep, The Center for Energy and Climate Solutions

  51. Shafik N, Bandyopadhyay S (1992) Economic growth and environmental quality: time series and cross-country evidence. Policy Research Working Paper Series

  52. Smil V (2008) Energy in nature and society: general energetics of complex systems. MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  53. Stahel WR (1997) The service economy: ‘wealth without resource consumption’? Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser A 355(1728):1309–1319

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Victor P (2010) Questioning economic growth. Nature 468(7322):370–371. https://doi.org/10.1038/468370a

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. White AL, Stoughton M, Feng L (1999) Servicizing: the quiet transition to extended product responsibility. Tellus Institute, Boston, p 97

    Google Scholar 

  57. Zipf GK (1941) National unity and disunity. Principia Press, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  58. Zipf GK (1949) Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Addison-Wesley, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Blair Fix.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

The author acknowledges no conflicts of interest.

Appendices

Appendix

This paper has a supplementary website containing raw and final data as well as code for all analysis: https://osf.io/93fpn/.

A Sources and Methods

US Energy Intensity by Sector (Fig. 1)

Sources and methods for calculating US sectoral energy use, employment, and value added are shown in Table 7. Except for energy consumption in the US service sector, all data is taken as given from the official data. The US Energy Information Agency (EIA) uses energy consumption categories that differ from the standard national income and product accounts categories used by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The EIA energy data uses four categories: Industrial use, Commercial use, Transport use, and Residential use.

To allocate transport energy to the service sector, I apply the method developed by Giampietro, Mayumi, and Sorman (2012; 2013). I define service sector energy use (\(E_{\text {Service}}\)) as commercial energy (\(E_{\text {Commercial}}\)) plus work-related transport energy (\(E_{\text {Work-Related~Transport}}\)).

$$\begin{aligned} E_{\text {Service}}= E_{\text {Commercial}} + E_{\text {Work-Related~Transport}} \end{aligned}$$
(4)

work-related transport energy is calculated by subtracting non-work-related energy from transport energy. Non-work-related transport energy is defined as all transport energy minus light-duty vehicle energy consumed for non-work-related trips.

$$\begin{aligned} E_{\text {Work-Related~Transport}} = E_{\text {Transport}} - E_{\text {Light-Duty}} \cdot \frac{VMT_{\text {Non-Work}}}{VMT_{\text {Total}}} \end{aligned}$$
(5)

Here VMT stands for vehicle-miles-traveled. Data for US light-duty vehicle energy use comes from various EIA Annual Energy Outlooks from 2000 to 2018. Vehicle-miles-traveled data comes from the National Household Travel Survey 2009 and 2017.

Table 7 Sources and methods for US sectoral energy use, employment, and value added

US Sectoral Composition and Historical Energy Use (Figs. 7b, d, 8a, 9d)

US sectoral labor composition sources are shown in Table 8. Because the series are not mutually consistent, there is inherent ambiguity in the historical data. To quantify this ambiguity, I use a Monte Carlo technique to randomly splice together the series in different ways. I then use the median of this spliced data.

US historical energy and fossil fuel use data (1800–1945) comes from EIA Annual Review 2009, Table E1. Fossil fuel energy use data begins in 1850. I use an exponential regression to extrapolate trends back to 1800. US energy data from 1949 onward comes from the EIA Annual Energy Review, Table 1.3.

Table 8 Sources for US sectoral labor composition

US industry energy use and non-production employment (Fig. 9e)

US industry energy data comes from EIA Annual Energy Review Table 2.1. Industry employment comes from BEA Tables 6.8A-D (persons engaged in production). I calculate employment of non-production workers in industry is using Bureau of Labor Statistics series CES0600000006 (Production and non-supervisory employees, goods-producing) and series CES0600000001 (All employees, goods-producing). I define non-production workers as the difference between total employment and production employment.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fix, B. Dematerialization Through Services: Evaluating the Evidence. Biophys Econ Resour Qual 4, 6 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41247-019-0054-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Dematerialization
  • Service transition
  • Carbon emissions
  • Energy