Introduction

This Insight Primer discusses the mechanisms by which the various propositions relating to ISTs and Environmental Sustainability may be tested and operationalised. These ‘sub-propositions’ are as follows:

Environmental sustainability propositions

The concept of sustainable development has at its heart the consideration that many commonly accepted aspects of lifestyles in developed nations, are in fact not sustainable in the long run; constrained natural resources versus apparently unconstrained consumption or spoilage is not a contest that can be sustained for ever. For the purposes of TERRA it is not necessary to define or delineate the extent of the unsustainability with great precision: it is enough to be aware of the risk and to observe that much statistical data exists to evidence its reality . Sustainable lifestyles are those that consume less material resources; consumption in this context includes spoilation, waste and pollution.
Emergent technologies based on information (from ICTs to bioengineering) can help to dematerialise production and distribution of goods and services by reducing associated material inputs and waste outputs.
Both dematerialisation and immaterialisation reduce the opportunity cost (price) of material inputs and environmental sinks and increase the welfare content (and even the levels) of income and wealth. The change in relative prices can induce substitution of material for immaterial inputs. The increase in purchasing power can stimulate consumption of both material and immaterial goods and services. These substitution and income effects can outweigh the benefits of the original changes.
There has been for many years a well-established field of study, and increasingly a real and useable knowledge base, in the area of 'dematerialisation' or 'eco design' or 'eco-efficiency', where ISTs also have a part to play in the progressive reduction in the material content of goods and services. By aiding better design, and by facilitating more efficient use, ISTs have already contributed significantly to Dematerialisation.
Immaterialisation is characterised by a 'switch' in consumption behaviour from more material to less material.
Immaterialisation consists of switching from physically based clusters of satisfiers for human needs and wants, to alternative clusters of satisfiers for those same needs and wants, which vastly reduce the material element of the consumption involved.
Immaterialisation is thus a switch: it is quite distinct from the process of progressive dematerialisation (or increasing eco-efficiency). One specific class of immaterialisation is that in which IST lies at the heart of the substituted cluster of satisfiers.
Rather obviously, IST based clusters of satisfiers will not totally eradicate material consumption, although in general they will reduce it very greatly. Additionally, it will generally be the case that the substituted cluster of satisfiers will itself be subject to progressive dematerialisation (that is after the switch of immaterialisation) and that this subsequent dematerialisation will proceed at a faster rate.
The Rebound Effect does not manifest itself in the same form in the context of immaterialisation (Rebound-I) as in the context of dematerialisation processes (Rebound-D). When the immaterialisation switch takes place, the satisfaction of needs and wants at a reduced material cost will release spending power, which will then become available for the whole totality of all goods and services. This is Rebound-I. This may or may not threaten sustainability, in the same way as does all expenditure generally. It will not necessarily or specifically generate any additional consumption of the same IST cluster of satisfiers. It will, however, contribute to growth, being an instance of the creation of surplus.
Lifestyle change is an example of value-led behaviour change, which is much influenced by the lifestyle, experienced in early, formative, years (particularly the teenage years) and is in consequence a very long term issue. The direct substitution approach is problematic because of the generally indirect and/or complex nature of substitutions observed in practice. A virtual or immaterial substitute may satisfy some of the complex needs satisfied by its material predecessor - but in general it will also fail to satisfy others and will also satisfy some needs not addressed by its predecessor.

Figure 17: The Immaterialisation Switch

The figure shows the switch of immaterialisation as a shift from one trajectory of dematerialisation to another trajectory which is both at a much lower base level of material use (being IST based) and is also dematerialising more rapidly (as is characteristic of ISTs). Although purely illustrative, the figure does allow the identification of the key areas of analysis.
Point A on the diagram is the point at which the decision is made to switch to an immaterialised solution (by means of an IST-mediated lifestyle change). Key issues here are perceptions of quality of life enhancement; IST-attractiveness; and generational replacement.
The line A-B is the switch itself. Here the issues are concerned with the modalities - what are the future IST-mediated lifestyles offering the best practical promise of substantial immaterialisation? LCA-I is offered as an analysis tool here.
Finally point B is the situation post switching. Issues arising here are the outcomes of the Rebound Effect (Rebound I); and the subsequent rate of further dematerialisation.
Immaterialisation is a major change, within which a particular want is met by an immaterialised cluster that costs much less than the material alternative. The consumer can buy all he wants and still has money left over to buy other things. Thus the income effect dominates the price effect. In contrast dematerialisation is a marginal change (in eco-efficiency) resulting in a relatively small drop in price, which encourages more expenditure on the dematerialised item. In this case, the price effect dominates.
Together all these factors identify the total contribution to sustainability.
The Total Environmental Stress approach to sustainable development is quite uncompromising in its statement that sustainable development cannot advance unless welfare advances or at least does not decline. Many other approaches to sustainability take the same stance: indeed, it is possible to interpret the word 'development' in precisely this way (i.e. as an advance in total welfare). Some radical activists (e.g. in the anti-globalisation movement) dispute this view and see the equitable balance of welfare (between and within societies) as the essential test. Common to both standpoints is that welfare (rather broadly defined) is, at the least, intimately bound up with sustainable development. Self-interest is also intimately concerned with welfare; that is to say, with issues of perceived quality of life. (This has to be clearly distinguished from standard of living: the deficiencies of GDP as a measure of welfare are commonly accepted, but there is no single strong contender for the measurement of either welfare or quality of life. ISEW and HDI, for example, are strong indicators but have significantly different intentions). The first major factor identified as central to lifestyle change is thus welfare advance, in the sense of enhancement of perceived quality of life. This is a more subjective measure than standard of living: it is clear that perceptions of enhancement will vary very greatly according to the circumstances of the perceiver, particularly where large variations in per capita GDP apply. Quality of Life Enhancement at 250 Euro p.a. is quite different from that at 2500 Euro p.a. which in turn is quite different from that at 25000 Euro p.a.
For ISTs to contribute to the maximum to sustainable development, it is clearly necessary that there should be ubiquitous take-up of ISTs. This self-evident truth invites the question - how will this be achieved? It is rather implausible that people as a whole, across the globe, should be somehow forced or regulated into IST use: clearly the take-up must be voluntary - IST-pull rather than regulatory-push. Regulation may well be needed to enable access, but it cannot force individuals to use that access. Similarly commercial influence seems likely to prove a more substantial influence than individual altruism. Both regulation and the effects of altruism (a genuinely strong potential effect) apply more readily to the narrower focus of Dematerialisation of production (recycling would be a typical example of this). On a wider scale, significant changes in lifestyle generally seem to be beyond the scope of altruism to achieve (for most, but not all, people) and also of regulation (for most, but not all, governments), but in general they do not seem to be beyond the scope of marketing. IST pull must therefore rely on the perception of the consumer that the new, more mature, ISTs advance their perceived self-interest personally or within their immediate surroundings - family, workgroups etc. In addition to the intrinsic merits demanded of ISTs, the making visible/explicit of these perceived benefits is likely to be crucially dependant on marketing and probably (given the high immaterial content of brands) on brand marketing. The second major factor identified as central to lifestyle change is thus IST-attractiveness, mediated by marketing. This may be encouraged by governments through the medium of funded RTD, and facilitated by discriminatory taxation or by regulation (e.g. universal service provision), but ultimately IST-pull and marketing will be the dominant issues.
Consumption patterns arise from the values and preferences of individuals. IST-pull addresses the issue of preferences. There is a well-evidenced case that 'long-term value change results from generational replacement'. It seems reasonable to deduce, therefore, that long-term lifestyle change will exhibit the same characteristic dependence on generational succession.
This goes beyond the commonplace anecdotal perception that the young take more readily to ISTs: there has not previously been the situation that a generation has grown up with ISTs surrounding them, but that situation is now arising. In the case of value change, it is understood that (e.g.) economic values are crucially influenced by economic conditions in an individuals formative years. IST values and the consequent lifestyle influences must surely be crucially influenced by the IST climate and by the consequent lifestyle influences in an individual’s formative years. The third major factor identified as central to lifestyle change is thus generational succession .As a result, immaterialisation’s time scales are long term and its scope global; it is, however, not revolutionary but relies only on ISTs that can already be seen in outline or in prototype form.
Immaterialisation would serve little purpose if it were subsequently to be un-wound or reversed by some inevitable mechanism or rebound.
Despite the apparent (and perhaps spurious) new-ness of the concept of immaterialisation, its rebound effect falls into a class of effects that are well known and which have been widely studied. The increase in electricity consumption observed to follow in the wake of price reductions was important in the early work on rebound effects, and identified the importance of the price mechanism, i.e. of price reductions. In considering Rebound-I, two factors are thus of particular interest. Firstly, does immaterialisation imply cost reduction; and then, to what purpose would the 'saving' likely be put by the consumer?
Immaterialisation challenges the neo-classical economic view of 'homo economicus', making rational consumption decisions, ceteris paribus, on the basis of cost and direct functional preferences alone. The choice to opt for immaterialisation is about lifestyle: such issues as upbringing of children; quality of life (as opposed to standard of living); and place in society weigh more heavily than cost issues. Immaterialisation may produce a cost saving: or it may not. It is the pattern of consumption that is changed, not necessarily or systematically its cost, nor (except very indirectly) its function.
A primary effect of dematerialisation is to reduce the price of the good in question. This increases the demand for that good, thereby wiping out some or all of the eco-efficiency gains. Rebound-D is thus essentially an own-price substitution effect.
In contrast, immaterialisation represents a major discontinuity. People can meet their desires in full at a (generally but not necessarily) lower cost, which in turn may leave them money to spend on other things, which may or may not be immaterial. Hence, rebound-I can be described as a predominantly income effect.