Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 557e566

www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Making consumption ‘‘reasonable’’

Jakub Kronenberg
Department of International Economics, University of Lodz, POW 3/5, 90-255 Lodz, Poland
Accepted 25 May 2006
Available online 5 September 2006

Abstract

In light of the theoretical implications from ecological economics and industrial ecology, increased efforts should be undertaken by policy
makers to make consumption ‘‘reasonable’’. To remain sustainable, ‘‘reasonable’’ decisions should take into account the long-term survival of
ecosystem and acknowledge the fact that the existence of human species ultimately depends on it. Two additional objectives should complement
‘‘reasonable’’ consumption: (1) changing product systems so that products are properly managed at the end of their useful lives. (2) making
products more environmentally friendly. A case study of the Integrated Product Policy of the European Union reveals that it addresses the above
objectives selectively. The general conclusions are that ‘‘reasonable’’ behaviour is challenged by conflicting interests of various market actors,
that economic reasoning should complement environmentally ‘‘reasonable’’ behaviour, and that ‘‘reasonable’’ consumption should indeed be
discussed in conjunction with ‘‘reasonable’’ production.
Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sustainable consumption; Sustainable production; Industrial ecology; Ecological economics; Integrated Product Policy

1. Introduction thus forces a more detailed description of what we intend to

In this article, I combine the notion of ‘‘reasonable’’ and
‘‘sustainable’’, and I argue that making consumption
‘‘reasonable’’ should also make it sustainable. In this sense,
‘‘reasonable’’ means interested in the long-term survival of
ecosystem and acknowledging the fact that the existence of
human species ultimately depends on it. In practice, this
relates to the need to make consumers aware of the link
between their consumption patterns and the environmental
problems that they hear about in the news.
The notion of ‘‘reasonable’’ consumption conforms with
the extant body of literature on sustainable consumption, ques-
tioning the association between consumption (material
consumption in particular) and welfare (e.g. [1e5]). A seem-
ingly obvious claim that reason should be employed more
often to guide consumer behaviour, puts the current debate
on sustainable consumption and production in a new light.
Firstly, it requires a definition of what is ‘‘reasonable’’ and
E-mail address: j.kronenberg@gmail.com
achieve calling for ‘‘sustainable’’ consumption (discussed in
Section 2 of this article). Secondly, agreeing that such a de-
scription is ‘‘reasonable’’, stakeholders may find denying it
more difficult, than they find denying, else abusing, the notion
of ‘‘sustainability’’. Thus, although the conceptual analysis
performed in this article is based on a wordplay, it brings about
new insights into the epistemological foundations of consumer
decisions. Also, it indicates that using a similar ‘‘trick’’ can
enhance the influence that the proponents of ‘‘sustainability’’
have had so far.
The ideas put forward in this article originate from a detailed
study of the theoretical foundations of ecological economics and
industrial ecology and their policy implications [6]. Following
an interdisciplinary and integrated approach, ecological eco-
nomics and industrial ecology provide the most comprehensive
framework for studying economyeenvironment interactions.
For this reason, they tend to be called the ‘‘science of sustain-
ability’’ which guarantees that grounding the concept of
‘‘reasonable’’ consumption in the analysis of their theoretical
implications is in line with the principle of sustainable develop-
ment. Ecological economics and industrial ecology share three

0959-6526/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.012
558 J. Kronenberg / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 557e566
levels of considerations, an overview of which is presented in
Table 1. To these, industrial ecologists add the metaphor com-
paring industrial systems to ecosystems, emphasising the need
to imitate natural resilience, efficiency, interconnectedness
and sufficiency in industry. Furthermore, both ecological econ-
omists and industrial ecologists acknowledge the fact that
‘‘goods which are ‘consumed’ really only render certain ser-
vices’’ [7], thus supporting the idea of functionality.
The theoretical implications from ecological economics and
industrial ecology can be translated into the following
objectives for a sustainable consumption and production
policy:
Table 1
Three levels of considerations shared by ecological economics and industrial ecology and their implications for sustainable consumption and production
Consideration level Consideration
Primary Economic and natural
(biophysical) systems coevolve
The Earth’s carrying
capacity has to be obeyed
Resources and energy
are not created ex nihilo
Man-made capital cannot
substitute for natural capital
‘‘All production is joint
production’’ [9]
Resources and energy cannot
be completely recycled
Secondary Intertemporal analysis
(economic)
Institutional analysis of
failures
Market failures
Internalisation
Tertiary Systems perspective
(strategic) Epistemological analysis
Precautionary principle
Pollution/waste prevention
1. making consumption ‘‘reasonable’’ (discussed in Section 3),
primarily through:
a. reducing material consumption (Subsection 3.1);
b. shifting to consuming function rather than matter
(Subsection 3.2);
2. changing product systems so that products are properly
managed at the end of their useful lives (Subsection 4.1); and
3. incremental product improvement (making products more
environmentally friendly; Subsection 4.2).
The above objectives are in line with the strategies to deal
with sustainable consumption and production put forward by
Implication
The same biophysical laws that govern nature also govern the economy
Neither products nor the economic processes related to them can be analysed without
reference to ecosystems
Product life-cycles should not be perceived as linear but as cyclic, just as
life-cycles in nature
Need to establish the ecological limits of unsustainable scale and to establish policies that
assure that the throughput of the economy stays within these limits [8]
Relative eco-efficiency is not enough
The goal is to decouple economic growth from its environmental impacts
‘‘Policies matter’’
Addressing key areas of concern is more relevant than referring to the overall indicators
It takes time to reproduce resources so they should be used efficiently
Natural (traditional) products that involve less processing should be preferred
Man-made capital and natural capital are complementary
The production of wanted goods always gives rise to additional unwanted
outputs, which may be harmful to the environment
Need to adopt an integrated approach to processes and products to minimise waste
Need to introduce changes in the composition of desired products or their absolute amounts
Need of careful studies of outputs (some by-products do not appear on the market)
Providing consumers with information about the undesired joint products
of products they consume
At some point the amount of exergy required for recycling outweighs the amount of energy
embodied in the recycled output
‘‘Closing the loop’’ e support reuse, recycling and recovery of materials, wherever it is
environmentally and economically viable
Emphasis on intergenerational equity; attention paid to long-term future issues;
invoking an historical perspective
Transaction, empowerment and government failures [10]
Need for a fair and just distribution of resources using systems of property
rights and transfers [8]
Need for direct intervention aiming at correcting the distorted market prices e
‘‘getting the prices right’’
Producers and users should pay for the damage they cause; supporting market based
mechanisms to allocate resources efficiently, such as the ecological fiscal reform
‘‘Everything is connected’’
Our understanding of the economyeenvironment interactions is limited; future is open and
unknowable; apart from risk and uncertainty our analyses are also bounded by ignorance
(see ref [11])
Need for precautionary principle, principally due to our ignorance
Preventing pollution and waste from happening as a first-best strategy
 J. Kronenberg / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 557e566
other authors, in particular Oosterhuis et al. [12] and Reisch
[13]; see Table 2. To some extent, the first objective encom-
passes the latter two. However, for the sake of clarity, I have
decided to differentiate between them on the basis that the
latter two focus on instruments targeted at producers, while
the first one targets both producers and consumers. Taken
together, these objectives are meant to contribute to
sustainable development and should be addressed in this hier-
archically descending order. In Section 5, I test whether they
are used in the practice of sustainable production and con-
sumption policies, using the example of the Integrated Product
Policy of the European Union.
2. Rationale for ‘‘reasonable’’ consumption
Problems with unsustainable production and consumption
result from paradigms on which our socio-economic systems
are based, from insufficient knowledge about economye
environment interactions and from information asymmetries.
These lead to major problems, such as overseeing the environ-
mental impacts of aggregate consumption levels and indirect
environmental impacts of products. The idea of reasonable
consumption responds to these challenges. Employing reason fa-
cilitates paradigm shifts and, in particular, helps to reduce infor-
mation deficits. Indeed, ‘‘reasonable’’ consumption liberates us
from the mainstream thinking regarding economyeenvironment
interactions. While ‘‘sustainable’’ has become a cliché, already
repeated so many times without much impact, ‘‘reasonable’’
requires the use of reason and questions mainstream paradigms.
Current unsustainable consumption patterns result to a large
extent from the fact that preferences expressed in the market
do not necessarily reflect the real perceptions of consumers,
as they are affected by inadequate knowledge. Information
deficits result from the fact that most of the current knowledge
does not even consider the links between the economy and the
environment. Even when it does, our knowledge regarding
these interactions is limited and full of unknowns.
Table 2
Objectives for a sustainable consumption policy put forward in this article compared to other suggestions (with original hierarchy in brackets)
Objectives suggested in this article
Making consumption Reducing material consumption
‘‘reasonable’’
Shifting to consuming function
rather than matter
Changing product systems
so that products are properly
managed at the end of their
useful lives
Incremental product improvement
(making products more
environmentally friendly
559
The approach we adopt even before we start an analysis
clearly influences our future understanding of any issue. These
approaches can be referred to as paradigms (in the sense of
Kuhn), preanalytic visions (Schumpeter’s terminology) or
mental models (systems thinking). In the ecological econom-
ics and industrial ecology debate, the fundamental paradigm
says that the economy is just a subsystem of a larger natural
system and, thus, that both systems mutually influence each
other. So far, this has not been acknowledged in most policies
aimed at consumption and production. Changing this mental
model, like changing most of the mental models we use,
constitutes a leverage point, through which we can achieve
disproportionately high results [14]. Once this is acknowl-
edged, further implications from ecological economics and
industrial ecology become more obvious, such as the fact
that the same biophysical laws that govern nature also govern
the economy. Moreover, it becomes clear that the scale of
economic activity is bounded by the Earth’s carrying capacity
and, consequently, that attempts should be made to limit the
throughput of economic systems.
In spite of many attempts to analyse the interactions
between the economy and the environment (so far undertaken
mostly within ecological economics and industrial ecology),
these are still full of unknowns and we keep being surprised
by some of them. Obviously, we now know more than we
used to know 30 years ago, but still we do not know enough
to make accurate predictions regarding the overall impacts
that the economy might have on the environment. Thus,
‘‘the acceptance of our ignorance is a first step in creating
a more rational approach to environmental policy’’ [15]. If
we do not know something, the reasonable approach is to
take precautions. Otherwise, we run an incalculable risk of
committing a mistake, which, furthermore, might have crucial
consequences for the existence and stability of our system.
Both of the above problems lead to insufficient information
on the environmental impacts of consumption, which is further
exacerbated by the information asymmetries between
Objectives suggested by Objectives suggested by Reisch [13]
Oosterhuis et al. [12]
Lowering the product throughput Motivate consumers to make more
(reducing the overall materials sustainable decisions (2)
throughput of the economic Lay foundations for a structural change
processes and reducing the overall towards sufficiency-based behaviour (3)
amount of products used) (1)
Changing the product use and disposal Design market conditions e institutions,
in an environmentally sound direction instruments and infrastructure e ‘‘so that
(shaping the way in which a product is demand not only supports consumer
used and disposed of, e.g. reuse and interests but also all those of the economy
recycling) (3) and society’’ (1)
Changing the product with regard to its
environmentally harmful features
(all kinds of changes in the product,
such as reduction and substitution of
environmentally harmful substances) (2)
560 J. Kronenberg / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 557e566
consumers and producers. Placing more emphasis on informa-
tion and communication can help to change paradigms, to re-
duce the information failure, and to alleviate information
asymmetries between producers and consumers. To know
what is needed to assure ecosystem and human survival, we
have to refer to ecological economics and the collateral field
of industrial ecology, both of which provide the most compre-
hensive framework available to study economyeenvironment
interactions.
Taking into consideration the above problems, two issues
related to consumption seem not to have been given enough
attention in the sustainable consumption and production debate:
- aggregate consumption levels; and
- indirect environmental effects associated with products.
Perceiving the economy as part of a larger ecosystem makes
it clear that there are limits to aggregate consumption. Mean-
while, efficiency gains in production often provoke consump-
tion growth which has been termed as the rebound effect.
Thus, in industry, just as in nature, efficiency of production
has to be complemented with ‘‘sufficiency’’ in consumption.
It is also in line with the widely declared approach of avoiding
problems at source, rather than mitigating their negative results.
Furthermore, indirect impacts that products exert on hu-
man societies and the environment frequently outweigh those
directly associated with the product’s life-cycle. For instance,
a car constitutes an example of a single product to which our
culture and societies have now almost completely adjusted.
Therefore, the most significant impacts that cars exert on
the environment are not related to cars themselves (their pro-
duction, use and disposal) or their subsystems (heating, en-
gine etc.), but to the system changes they have brought
about in infrastructure and culture. This clearly indicates
a need for a systems approach to studying the impacts of
complex and socially influential products, such as passenger
cars.
Thus, enhancing information flows, communication and
education, can have potentially significant influence on the
sustainability of consumption. If a holistic systems approach
is applied to studying economyeenvironment interactions
and if more emphasis is placed on educating consumers about
the influence that consumption has on the environment,
consumption may become more ‘‘reasonable’’. In this sense,
‘‘reasonable’’ means interested in the long-term survival of
the ecosystem and acknowledging the fact that the existence
of the human species ultimately depends on it. It eventually
takes into consideration the long-term interests of the whole
system within which consumers operate. Thus, it is distant
from the narrow, microeconomic understanding of reasonable
consumer decisions as driven by two-dimensional preferences,
considering only direct costs and outcomes. It is also distant
from Weber’s notion of rationalisation, as applied to consump-
tion by Ritzer [16], which ultimately leads to narrowing the
choices available to consumers in an attempt to make their
decisions as easy and efficient as possible. As the latter two
understandings of reasonability dominate, consumption
patterns are far from sustainable. Instead, I combine the notion
of ‘‘reasonable’’ and ‘‘sustainable’’, and I argue that making
consumption ‘‘reasonable’’ should also make it sustainable.
3. Making consumption reasonable
Based on the tenets outlined in the previous section, scien-
tists are increasingly aware of the complexity of the world
that surrounds us and, in response, seek to undertake interdis-
ciplinary research efforts. Future research into consumption
problems is likely to combine the social science approach
focusing on incremental environmental improvement and the
biophysical perspective pointing at problems such as scale or
irreversibility [17]. Once environmental problems gain even
more attention from the public, information acquired through
such research will become increasingly demanded by govern-
ments and other decision makers. The notion of reasonable
consumption refers to making informed choices in the market.
Ultimately, consumers themselves, given appropriate informa-
tion and education, should be able to assess their consumption
patterns and mitigate them accordingly.
Communication and information sharing constitute essential
issues in industrial ecology, as they enhance interconnectedness
within the system and facilitate all interdisciplinary undertak-
ings and, ultimately, the system’s sustainability. A policy aimed
at sustainable consumption and production should support the
exchange of information among companies, between compa-
nies and consumers, between companies and governments
and among the various government agencies involved. Policy
instruments should shape consumer behaviour by influencing
their beliefs, attitudes and expectations related to eco-designed
products. This should lead to changing the consumers’ percep-
tion of values, needs and the means of their satisfaction.
Information flows constitute an important leverage point for
changing consumption patterns [14]. The sustainability of con-
sumption depends, to a large extent, on information about the
possibility of ‘‘making a difference’’ and how to make it, as
well as on the attitudes of other relevant actors (and their
potential assistance to consumer decision making) [18]. Nev-
ertheless, consumers are not able to deal with excessive
amounts of information and intermediaries are necessary to
pass the information from companies to consumers. Consumer
and business education, complemented with the stimulation
and facilitation of environmentally friendly patterns of behav-
iour, emerges as an appropriate solution.
In short, the concept of ‘‘reasonable’’ consumption is based
on the assumption that if consumers are provided with reliable
and comprehensive information about the environmental con-
sequences of their choices, they will be likely to change them
in a more sustainable direction. However, such informative
incentives should be complemented with economic measures
directed also at appealing to the consumers’ economic reason-
ing. Two most important changes in consumption patterns,
crucial in the light of ecological economics and industrial
ecology, include reducing material consumption and shifting
to consuming function rather than matter, as argued in the
following two subsections.
 J. Kronenberg / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 557e566
3.1. Reducing material consumption
In an attempt to make consumption ‘‘reasonable’’, it appears
necessary to reduce material consumption. Ecological econom-
ics and industrial ecology clearly indicate the need to limit the
individual consumption of products and thus reduce economic
throughput. Reducing material consumption should help to
achieve the decoupling of economic growth from resource con-
sumption and pollution generation.
Although sustainable consumption has been widely
discussed since 1992, consumption levels have continued to
increase. Among the most obvious examples of areas where
material consumption has become particularly exuberant,
and which, at the same time, can be relatively easily pre-
vented, is that of disposable products. With cultural changes
preferring convenience life-styles, and with lower production
costs gained through economies of scale, an increasing range
of products have acquired disposable substitutes. Meanwhile,
‘‘reasonable’’ consumption remains on a par with real needs.
Although humans are not machines and their decisions are
influenced by factors other than pure reason (emotions,
symbolism, participation in society etc.), ‘‘reasonable’’ con-
sumption indicates a direction in which consumption would
have to evolve to become sustainable.
As consumers are not likely to change their consumption
habits in response to information about their environmental
impacts only, their choices can be aided by a government
policy. Obviously, reducing consumption should not be
performed in the form of production or consumption bans
(with certain exceptions, just as governments are entitled to
ban, or at least make illegal, the consumption of drugs).
Rather, economic instruments should be sought that can effec-
tively contribute to lowering consumption through increasing
prices, especially of products that are judged particularly
harmful to the environment. As major environmental impacts
of many products arise during the use phase, users should be
made responsible for the damage they cause.
Educational and informative activities should be carried out
on the reasons for undertaking such a policy, on its benefits for
consumers and on the alternative means of satisfying con-
sumption needs. Consumers should also be educated on health
issues related to excessive consumption, especially those
following the adoption of the convenience life-style (such as
convenience foods). Finally, indicators such as GDP, or the
number of cars per 1000 inhabitants, should no longer be
used to describe well-being. They ultimately have to be
replaced by indicators representing sustainability, addressing
the issue of the scale of the economy in relation to the environ-
ment. Inputeoutput analysis and industrial metabolism
methods (such as material flow accounting or substance flow
analysis) should be used to complement any statistical infor-
mation referring to well-being. After all, any sustainable
consumption and production policy ultimately refers to man-
aging material flows within the economy.
In summary, reducing material consumption emerges as an
elementary implication for sustainable consumption. It would
not translate into lowering the well-being of modern societies,
561
but it would require changes in their mental models. Among
the most important of those is the realisation that products
only provide certain services and that what is consumed is
their function (or utility) and not their physical properties.
3.2. Shifting to consuming function rather than matter
Reducing material consumption does not lead to a decrease
in well-being, as long as matter is replaced by non-material
consumption. A sustainable consumption and production
policy should support the economy based on functionality.
The issue of reducing consumption is closely related to seek-
ing alternative ways to satisfy needs, sometimes also referred
to as ‘‘servicisation’’ e shifting towards a service-based econ-
omy. However, ‘‘servicisation’’ may also reflect the rising
share of services in the GDP, that may appear in parallel to
an increasing material production and consumption. There-
fore, the economy based on functionality constitutes a more
appropriate objective, as it refers to putting the emphasis on
obtaining the function that a product or service delivers instead
of a product in its material form.
Following the arguments of Max-Neef [1,2], Mont [5] reiter-
ated that consumer needs can be satisfied by non-material satis-
fiers as well as by material products. Max-Neef’s ‘‘threshold
hypothesis’’ suggested that economic growth (and material con-
sumption in particular) can only increase human welfare to a cer-
tain level, beyond which they often diverge. This links to the
microeconomic notion of diminishing marginal utility of con-
sumption. Mont [5] also raised further issues contradicting the
positive correlation between material consumption and well-
being. Their list can be extended, for example with negative health
effects often associated with excessive material consumption.
It will be the policy makers’ task to provide incentives for
producers, so that they provide further incentives to con-
sumers. Involving industry is crucial for the success of this
objective. Once business is convinced, it will take over and,
as it is very keen on selling goods and services, it should be
very effective in so doing. Meanwhile, the idea of selling ser-
vices instead of products has first to be sold to business which,
should be carried out principally with the use of economic
instruments, such as those altering the prices of resources.
Both reducing material consumption and shifting to con-
suming function rather than matter contribute to more
‘‘reasonable’’ consumption. However, a policy also has to
take into consideration that not all material consumption can
be avoided or replaced by services. In those cases, focus
should be placed on the complementary objectives of proper
end-of-life management of products and their incremental im-
provement through eco-design, discussed in the next section.
Furthermore, production can be made more sustainable in at
least two other ways. Firstly, appealing to producers’ eco-
nomic rationalisation, internalisation of externalities has to
be made beneficial through economic incentives or disincen-
tives introduced by policy makers. Secondly, environmentally
‘‘reasonable’’ behaviour of companies can be influenced by
‘‘reasonable’’ consumption e the pressure from consumers
wanting to behave in a environmentally ‘‘reasonable’’ way.
562 J. Kronenberg / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 557e566
This further confirms the need to make consumption ‘‘reason-
able’’, meaning guided by reason rather than emotions.
4. Complementary objectives
4.1. Organising end-of-life management of products
‘‘Reasonable’’ consumption constitutes the first-best objec-
tive. In the case of products the consumption of which cannot
be avoided or substituted with services, proper take-back and
end-of-life management should be ensured. Indeed, if taken
back and managed properly, it can be argued that products
have fulfilled their function, and the resources of which they
have been composed can be used for a different purpose. Here,
I refer to strategies directed at preventing waste from being dis-
persed in the environment and, thus, from becoming pollution.
The main advantage of reuse, remanufacturing, recycling
and even the incineration of products with energy recovery
is that they prevent waste from becoming pollution, as they
provide a use for it. If, following the logic of industrial eco-
logy, one assumes that wastes can be reused, reducing
consumption becomes less necessary, as long as consumption
can be based on the continuous use of resources quasi-
constantly circulating within the economy. Nevertheless, these
strategies only appear as a second-best solution, as they
destroy the functionality embedded in products. Moreover,
recycling is not always environmentally and economically
viable and is affected by the problem of ‘‘downcycling’’, as
continuously recycled materials gradually loose their func-
tional features. The problem of environmental and economic
viability also affects other strategies for the end-of-life man-
agement of products.
The efficient use of resources (which can be achieved
through various types of product standards) is another strategy
advocated on the basis of ecological economics. Furthermore,
the industrial ecological metaphor particularly strongly
emphasises the issue of closing material cycles (hence the
organisation of product take-back schemes, minimum recycled
content standards etc.). Extended producer responsibility and
sustainable product chain management are among the most
important strategies to satisfy this objective. They allow for
arranging the proper end-of-life management of products. As
part of sustainable product chain management, companies
should use LCA of product’s environmental impacts and, on
that basis, perform eco-design, as discussed in the following
subsection. Altogether, these activities should contribute to
increasing the efficiency of industrial processes and decreasing
their pressure on the environment.
4.2. Incremental improvement through eco-design
Making consumption ‘‘reasonable’’ and organising proper
end-of-life management of products have to be complemented
with relevant product innovation and improvement. This
focuses on reducing the environmental impacts throughout
product life-cycles and, in particular, on facilitating their
end-of-life management. More environmentally friendly
(durable and functional) products satisfy consumer needs
more efficiently and, thus, less of them are necessary. With
regard to product improvement, LCA and eco-design are the
most important strategies. They should be as participatory as
possible, thus enhancing mutual trust between producers, con-
sumers, society and policy makers. Again, information and
communication about the products’ characteristics have to
constitute important elements of this objective (thus, appealing
to consumers’ reason).
To facilitate take-back and appropriate end-of-life manage-
ment, products should be designed in an appropriate way.
Often, changing the properties of a product (e.g. increasing
its durability), even though it may stimulate new demand,
will not necessarily contribute to increasing the throughput.
Rather, when combined with proper use that can also be
shaped by relevant policy instruments, it will lead to more
‘‘reasonable’’ and thus sustainable consumption.
Better quality products, although their unit price is higher,
often prove to be cheaper because of their longevity and better
performance (batteries provide a good example). Educating
consumers about the advantages of using better quality prod-
ucts, that are more expensive but of which the performance
and durability are higher, should also be addressed in sustain-
able consumption and production policies.
Thus, governments also need to influence producers so that
they change what is available to consume e principally in
terms of providing consumers with alternative consumption
options, but also in terms of marketing eco-designed products.
5. A case study of the IPP
As a case study, I discuss whether the Integrated Product
Policy of the European Union satisfies the objectives sug-
gested in the preceding sections.
In the European Union, a new policy framework emerges to
promote sustainable consumption and production e the Inte-
grated Product Policy (IPP). The IPP will primarily focus on
the life-cycle approach as an innovative foundation for policy
making. This further requires adopting an integrated and
interdisciplinary approach (thus also cooperation and commu-
nication within product chains) and fostering innovation. Alto-
gether, these will be supplemented by adopting a market
orientation, as represented by the selection of policy instru-
ments and a focus on cooperation between industry, policy
makers, consumers and other stakeholders. Because of its
scope (25 countries of the EU) and ambitious objectives
(‘‘to support sustainable development by reducing the negative
environmental impacts of products throughout their life-cycle’’
[19]), the IPP can potentially have a large impact on how prod-
ucts are manufactured, consumed and disposed of on a world-
wide basis. Its impacts will not finish at the EU borders, as
currently products are manufactured and consumed globally.
If the IPP (and, by extension, any other product-oriented
environmental policy) is to follow the implications from eco-
logical economics and industrial ecology, it should conform to
three elementary objectives discussed in the previous sections.
They are summarised in Table 3, along with more detailed
 J. Kronenberg / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 557e566 563

Table 3
Policy implications for the IPP
Objective Strategy Examples of instruments
Make Reduce material Appeal to reason, instead of emotions Educate consumers
consumption consumption
Influence beliefs, attitudes and expectation of Support the development of LCA and eco-design, as
‘‘reasonable’’ Consume function not consumers related to sustainable consumption carriers of information
matter
Enhance information flows among Differentiated product charges
stakeholders involved in product chains
Tax consumption as part of ecological
Reduce consumption of disposable products fiscal (tax) reform
Make users pay for the environmental Set targets, e.g. regarding maximum
damage they cause through consumption resource use or recovery
Support the economy based on functionality Use consumption bans, where justified
Support dematerialisation To measure well-being, use indicators alternative to
GDP and material consumption
Promote producteservice systems (PSS)
Support the development of more
comprehensive eco-labelling programmes
(using a functional unit as a basis for comparisons,
instead of narrow product groups)
Restrict certain marketing practices

Provide for efficient systems of product
take-back and end-of-life management
Create favourable regulatory climate
for the use of wastes (end-of-life products)
Change existing systems so that products
are returned, reused, remanufactured,
recycled or incinerated with energy recovery
(in this descending order of preferability,
where economically and environmentally justified)
Support extended producer responsibility (EPR)
Support sustainable product chain management
Organise product take-back schemes
Support the development of deposit-refund
schemes
Support industrial ecological initiatives
regarding waste management
Set minimum recycled content standards
Set recovery and recycling targets
Support the development of LCA and eco-design,
as facilitators of end-of-life product management
Support the development of product-oriented
environmental management systems (POEMS)
Discourage/prohibit exporting hazardous end-of-life
products to countries which do not have facilities
to manage them properly

Improve products through eco-design Increase the durability and functionality Support the development of LCA and eco-design,
of products as tools for product improvement
Make products easier to disassemble and recycle Green public procurement
Producer and consumer education

strategies on how to reach them and policy instruments that
can be used for this purpose. These objectives should be com-
plied with in a descending hierarchical order; however, the
simultaneous application of all of them would bring the
most successful results. Together, they refer to extending
the environmental responsibility of consumers (objective 1)
and producers (objectives 1, 2 and 3).
Adopting an integrated, interdisciplinary and holistic
approach to analysing and shaping economyeenvironment
interactions emerges as the most important issue. Primarily,
one has always to analyse products and the economic processes
related to them with reference to the ecosystem in which the
economy is embedded. Thus, as all phenomena should be
related to the broader systems within which they occur, the
IPP should also be explicitly tied to the forthcoming EU the-
matic strategy on the sustainable use of resources, to provide
decision makers with a complete picture of the environmental
impacts of consumption choices made by consumers. Seeking
to understand as much as possible can, to some extent, reduce
our ignorance. Thus, studying economyeenvironment interac-
tions, following the holistic and interdisciplinary approach as
described above with the use of tools such as material flow
accounting (MFA) and inputeoutput analysis in particular,
can help to put the IPP in a perspective of those interactions.
The main problem with the IPP is that it fails to adopt
a fully integrated, systems perspective. As such, the IPP risks
564 J. Kronenberg / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 557e566
not being able to satisfy the overarching criterion of any envi-
ronmental policy e environmental effectiveness. This clearly
indicates the need for system innovation rather than incremen-
tal product improvements, which was already argued for, e.g.
by Jackson [20] and Nuij [21]. Because of its failure to address
products from an holistic, systems perspective, the IPP
addresses the objective of making consumption ‘‘reasonable’’
in only a very limited way. Indeed, as the European Commis-
sion [22] clarified, the IPP ‘‘is not attempting to reduce con-
sumption; rather, it is seeking to reduce the environmental
impact of increased consumption’’. Some authors (e.g. [5,20])
have already noted that the main disadvantage of the IPP is
that it fails to curb consumption. Instead, it transfers the policy
makers’ attention, from limiting consumption to more envi-
ronmentally friendly consumption that is probably going to
increase when markets are created for more environmentally
friendly products. This certainly fails to meet the ecological
economics and industrial ecology recommendations related
to the scale of the economic activity versus the scale of the
surrounding ecosystem, and thus obeying the Earth’s carrying
capacity. However trivial this conclusion may seem, it is a prin-
cipal drawback of the IPP, negating its claim to be integrated.
If we were to restrict material consumption, people would
have to be offered a substitute way of satisfying their needs re-
lated to social life and self-esteem that are currently associated
with the ownership of products. Even though reducing demand
seems unlikely, indicating to companies alternative ways of
achieving profits should be part of the IPP, which so far it
has failed to provide. Restricting certain marketing practices,
especially advertising appealing to emotions, might be partic-
ularly important in the case of shaping consumer attitudes. In
a similar vein, attempts to make consumption ‘‘reasonable’’
have been made in terms of restricting advertising directed
at children, restricting advertising of certain products and re-
stricting advertising using subliminal communications. Direct
restrictions should be imposed on misleading advertising re-
ferring to the environmental characteristics of products, as
has already been noted in the IPP.
Learning and information sharing can lead to ‘‘reasonable’’
consumption. Our dependence on the well-being of ecosys-
tems has to be factored into consumer decisions. Once con-
sumers become aware of the link between their consumption
patterns (including issues such as consuming energy and ser-
vices) and the environmental problems about which they hear
in the news, their consumption is likely to become more
‘‘reasonable’’. Thus, reducing the ignorance of consumers
emerges as a particularly important component of the IPP,
and LCA can potentially best serve to satisfy this objective.
Among other things, consumers have to be aware that long-
lived products appearing in the market only constitute 6 per
cent of resources extracted from the environment, but they
require the other 94 per cent which are not reflected in the
system of market transactions [23]. Information should also
be used wherever possible to justify the use of other instru-
ments, such as ecological fiscal reform.
When analysing a product, it is always necessary to view
the whole system within which it is used, and also to attempt
to analyse all of the potential indirect impacts. The examples
of complex products (such as cars, refrigerators, telephones
and computers) clearly indicate the need for further policy in-
tegration and for the inclusion of product-oriented environ-
mental issues into other types of policies, seemingly
irrelevant to products. The latter, e.g. spatial planning or edu-
cational policies, should address the issues of social structure
that emerged with the rising popularity of complex products.
Using a functional unit as a point of reference during product
comparisons, may also lead to the conclusion that the very
same need can be satisfied more effectively with another,
more environmentally friendly product or service.
As the IPP sets out to change consumption patterns, its task
should include not only shifting from less to more environ-
mentally friendly products, but also principally shifting into
more environmentally friendly consumption patterns in gen-
eral. Instead of focusing on creating markets for environ-
mentally friendly products, the IPP should rather promote
functional thinking and consequently, again, the idea of ‘‘rea-
sonable’’ consumption. Eventually, this would lead to the
transformation of the economy towards being service- (or
functionality-) based, rather than being product-based (already
argued also by other EU institutions [24,25]). In this regard,
the IPP should link to concepts such as producteservice
systems (PSS), which permit consumers to benefit from the
services delivered by products, while their ownership is re-
tained by producers or other specialised agents.
If markets for green products are to be promoted, they
should serve as a replacement for traditional markets, rather
than exist alongside them. Altogether, indirect manipulation
of products with prices may prove an efficient strategy to
reduce throughput. In the case when consumers’ ignorance of
economyeenvironment interactions persists, economic reason-
ing has to be addressed through increasing prices on ‘‘environ-
mentally unfriendly’’ consumption options and thus making
people seek alternative means of satisfying their needs.
Supporting the development of LCA also plays an important
role from the point of view of satisfying all three objectives.
In the case of products the consumption of which cannot be
avoided or substituted with services, proper take-back and
end-of-life management should be ensured, so that their
wastes are managed in an environmentally sound way. This
requires increasing the diversity of industrial organisms and,
especially, creating niches to deal with waste materials that
so far have been left out of the economic process, and as
such constituted a source of pollution. To support such a devel-
opment, another paradigm shift needs to take place e product
life-cycles should not be perceived as unidirectional but as
cyclic, as are life-cycles in nature.
Finally, the above strategies should be complemented with
relevant product innovation and improvement. More environ-
mentally friendly (durable and functional) products will satisfy
consumer needs more efficiently and, thus, less of them will be
necessary. Also, the IPP should require that products are
designed in such a way that they could better be used by a com-
munity, a rental (or leasing) company or another PSS-type of
organisation, and not only by an individual user.
 J. Kronenberg / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 557e566
To sum up, out of the three objectives for the IPP formu-
lated on the basis of theoretical implications from ecological
economics and industrial ecology, the IPP in its current form
explicitly addresses only the least significant one, that of incre-
mental product improvement. The second most important
issue, organising proper end-of-life management of products
is addressed in the IPP only to a limited extent; and the most
crucial one e making consumption ‘‘reasonable’’ e has
been left out of this policy framework.
6. Conclusions
Sustainable consumption and production have become im-
portant, as they concretise the overall principle of sustainable
development. Dealing with consumption is more ambitious, as
it has been less emphasised in policy making so far. Moreover,
sustainable consumption means not only consuming more en-
vironmentally friendly products, but also changing consump-
tion patterns. The latter tends to be overlooked in most
policy documents, but a strong case has been made for it in
this article. If consumption patterns were guided by reason,
taking into consideration long-term interests of the economy,
less material products would be consumed and to a larger ex-
tent function would become the subject of market transactions.
This would have to be complemented by ‘‘reasonable’’ pro-
duction strategies, such as organising proper end-of-life man-
agement of products and eco-design.
However, not all of the above objectives are incorporated
into the major policy initiatives supposed to promote sustain-
able consumption and production, such as the IPP. This con-
firms what van der Straaten and Ugelow [26] remarked:
‘‘environmental policy is the prisoner of all other policies of
social and economic affairs, to which higher priority is given’’.
The best example of this problem is related to the potential re-
duction of production that ‘‘is not even considered as a possible
variable for achieving environmental policy, for most would
consider increased production as potentially increased in-
come’’. This happens despite the attempts for integration
and despite an increase in the declaratory support for sustain-
able development. Fundamental neglect of the biophysical
considerations common to ecological economics and industrial
ecology (limits to growth, resources are not created ex nihilo,
man-made capital cannot substitute for natural capital, ‘‘all
production is joint production’’), are so widely spread and so
deeply rooted in the tradition of policy making that policy
makers remain deaf to them, even when words referring to
these issues come out of their own mouths.
Similarly, environmental policies are affected by the con-
flicting interests of the various stakeholders who participate
in their development. Both of these problems are particularly
important from the point of view of product-oriented environ-
mental policies, as they strive to influence the relationships
between market actors. Differing influences of various stake-
holders, affected by their short- to medium-term economic
or political orientation prevent compliance with the theoretical
implications from ecological economics and industrial ecol-
ogy. Indeed, it should be easier to convince various
565
stakeholders to behave in a ‘‘reasonable’’, rather than in
a more abstract ‘‘sustainable’’, way.
In practice, relying on information alone seems unlikely to
change consumer behaviour, just as it is unlikely that referring
to moral or ethical considerations would change it. Thus, it has
to be complemented by referring to economic reasoning
through the use of economic instruments, similar to those en-
forced in an attempt to make production more sustainable.
Eventually, ‘‘reasonable’’ consumption cannot be viewed in
separation from ‘‘reasonable’’ production. Efforts should be
made to involve business in promoting ‘‘reasonable’’ con-
sumption, and to encourage consumers to demand ‘‘reason-
able’’ production.
Acknowledgements
I am deeply indebted to Professor John Proops and Dr
Ralph Winkler, the discussions with whom have largely con-
tributed to the writing of this article. Also, I would like to
thank the referees for their valuable comments.
References
[1] Max-Neef M. Human scale development: conception, application and
further reflections. New York, NY: Apex Press; 1991.
[2] Max-Neef M. Economic growth and quality of life: a threshold hypoth-
esis. Ecological Economics 1995;15(2):115e8.
[3] Lintott J. Beyond the economics of more: the place of consumption in
ecological economics. Ecological Economics 1998;25(3):239e48.
[4] Jackson T, Marks N. Consumption, sustainable welfare and human
needs e with reference to UK expenditure patterns between 1954 and
1994. Ecological Economics 1999;28(3):421e41.
[5] Mont O. Institutionalisation of sustainable consumption patterns based
on shared use. Ecological Economics 2004;50(1e2):135e53.
[6] Kronenberg J. Ecological economics and industrial ecology e a case
study of the integrated product policy of the European Union. PhD thesis.
Lodz, Poland: University of Lodz; 2005.
[7] Ayres RU, Kneese AV. Production, consumption, and externalities.
American Economic Review 1969;59(3):282e97.
[8] Costanza R, Cumberland J, Daly H, Goodland R, Norgaard R. An intro-
duction to ecological economics. Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press; 1997.
[9] Faber M, Proops JLR, Baumgärtner S. All production is joint production e
a thermodynamic analysis. In: Faucheux S, Gowdy S, Nicola€ı I, editors.
Sustainability and firms. Cheltenham, UK and Lyme, US: Edward Elgar;
1998. p. 131e58.
[10] Opschoor JB. Institutional change and development towards sustainabil-
ity. In: Costanza R, Segura O, Martinez-Alier J, editors. Getting down to
earth: practical applications of ecological economics. Washington, DC:
Island Press; 1996. p. 327e50.
[11] Faber M, Manstetten R, Proops JLR. Humankind and the environment:
an anatomy of surprise and ignorance. Environmental Values 1992;
1(3):217e41.
[12] Oosterhuis F, Rubik F, Scholl G. Product policy in Europe: new environ-
mental perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1996.
[13] Reisch LA. Sustainable consumption as a consumer policy issue. In:
Reisch LA, Røpke I, editors. The ecological economics of consump-
tion. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, US: Edward Elgar;
2004. p. 175e89.
[14] Meadows DH. Leverage points: places to intervene in a system. Hartland,
VT: The Sustainability Institute; 1999.
[15] Faber M, Manstetten R, Proops JLR. Toward an open future: ignorance,
novelty and evolution. In: Costanza R, Norton BG, Haskell BD, editors.
Ecosystem health: new goals for environmental management. Washing-
ton, DC: Island Press; 1992. p. 72e96.
566 J. Kronenberg / Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 557e566
[16] Ritzer G. Enchanting a disenchanted world. Revolutionizing the means
of consumption. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press; 1999.
[17] Princen T. Consumption and its externalities: where economy meets ecol-
ogy. Global Environmental Politics 2001;1(3):11e30.
[18] Lorek S. Indicators for environmentally sound household consumption.
In: Hertwich E, editor. Life-cycle approaches to sustainable consump-
tion. Laxenburg: IIASA; 2002. p. 139e52 [IIASA Interim Report
IR-02-073].
[19] European Commission. Questions and answers on integrated product
policy (IPP) [MEMO/03/136]. Brussels: Commission of the European
Communities; 2003.
[20] Jackson T. Book review. Journal of Industrial Ecology 1999;3
(2e3):181e3.
[21] Nuij R. Eco-innovation: helped or hindered by Integrated Product Policy.
Journal of Sustainable Product Design 2001;1(1):49e51.
[22] European Commission. Integrated product policy: commission
outlines its strategy to stimulate greener products [Press release
IP/03/858]. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities;
2003.
[23] Ayres RU, Kneese AV. Externalities: economics and thermodynamics.
In: Archibugi F, Nijkamp P, editors. Economy and ecology: towards
sustainable development. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers;
1989. p. 89e118.
[24] European Parliament. Report on the communication from the commis-
sion to the council and the European Parliament on integrated product
policy [FINAL A5e0261/2004]. Brussels: Committee on the Environ-
ment, Public Health and Consumer Policy; 2004.
[25] Council of the European Union. Integrated product policy e council
conclusions [Document no. 14405/03]. Brussels: General Secretariat of
the Council; 2003.
[26] van der Straaten J, Ugelow J. Environmental policy in the Netherlands:
change and effectiveness. In: Wintle M, Reeve R, editors. Rhetoric and
reality in environmental policy. Aldershot, UK and Brookfield, US:
Ashgate; 1994.