Sustainable consumption, the social dimension

Ayala

e-ISSN 2477-9148

REVISTA ECUATORIANA DE MEDICINA Y CIENCIAS BIOLOGICAS

Volumen 39. No. 1, Mayo 2018

Sustainable consumption, the social dimension

Consumo sostenible, el ámbito social

Michael Ayala Ayala

1,2

Departamento de Ciencias Agrícolas, Universidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.

University of New Mexico, NM, Albuquerque, USA.

* Corresponding author e-mail: michaelayala@unm.edu

Recibido 19-12-2017 ; Aceptado 7-4-2018

ABSTRACT. - This review contributes to a deeper understanding of what quality of life means from the perspective

of sustainable consumption. It presents the diering motivations of consumers, and the contributions of the rich and

poor to unsustainable patterns of consumption. This paper opens the discussion regarding the complex relationship

between consumption, values, identity and the mechanisms for making purchase choices in a globalized context, and

analyzes this in light of the relevant literature. Smaller, more localized economic models are described as positive stra-

tegies for considering new ways of perceiving a simpler and more local lifestyle as positive for the environment. This

paper emphasizes the importance of cultural and ethical values, which are directly linked to consumption patterns.

KEYWORDS: Sustainability, identity-seeking & consumption, values & consumption, unsustainable consumer be-

havior, wellbeing & consumption.

RESUMEN.- Esta revisión contribuye a un entendimiento más profundo acerca del signicado de calidad de vida

desde la perspectiva del consumo sostenible. Se presentan diferentes motivaciones de consumidores, así como también

la contribución de los ricos y pobres a los patrones no sustentables de consumo. Esta revisión abre la discusión sobre

la compleja relación que existe entre consumo, valores, identidad y los mecanismos para tomar decisiones de compra

en un contexto globalizado y a la luz de la literatura relevante. Los modelos económicos más locales y simples son

descritos como estrategias positivas por considerarlas formas nuevas de percibir un estilo de vida más sencillo y

positivo para el ambiente. Esta revisión enfatiza la importancia de los valores culturales y éticos, los cuales están

directamente ligados a los patrones de consumo.

PALABRAS CLAVES: sostenibilidad, identidad, valor y consumo, comportamiento insostenible, bienestar.

INTRODUCTION

Production and consumption are processes inherent to

human existence, development, and growth. Consump-

tion primary goal is to satisfy the needs of individuals

and communities, and to create the conditions for a

dignied life. This concept is well-known in Ecuador

as “Sumak Kawsay”, or Good Living (Acosta 2013),

which forms part of the current Ecuadorian Constitution

(León 2017). However, there are dierent elements in

the production and consumption process that lead to en-

vironmental, social, economic, and political impacts in

the course of satisfying the need to achieve a dignied

life, for both individuals and communities (Fuchs 2016).

Nevertheless, the dignied life for humans does not of-

ten take into consideration the wellbeing of other living

organisms that contribute to building resilience in the en-

vironment. Sumak Kawsay adds the concept of harmony

with nature to the perception of good life for humans

(Acosta 2013).

Humans tend to have expectations exceeding their ac-

tual needs, leading to a misperception between what are

considered desires and what are needs, and thus creating

a context of environmental unbalance and social injus-

tice that aects both the environment and society. The

Declaration of Oslo (Gerbens-Leenes and Moll 2006)

denes sustainable consumption as the ecient use of

natural resources and services in response to human

needs to achieve the highest quality of life based upon

Artículo de revisión

REMCB 39 (1): 19-27 2018

equitable social development. Needs and desires are va-

guely dened because of their complex interaction with

dierent contexts and circumstances (Fuchs 2016). At

present, this complexity makes consumption patterns

the cause of negative environmental impacts, and if both

global and local initiatives are not implemented soon, it

will undoubtedly place the achievement of a good life

at risk for future generations. The social dimension of

unsustainable consumption patterns is described by

Mortensen (2006) as inuenced and manipulated by

advertisements that interfere in individual choices. On

the other hand, Fuchs (2016) claims that this subject can

be discussed from two points of view: from an ecient

production-consumption approach, or from a complete-

ly distinct approach that explores consumers’ behavioral

patterns. This paper embraces Fuchs’ second option and

presents evidence to support that choice. Wellbeing has

been poorly explored as regards sustainable consump-

tion, since it is more related to personal and cultural per-

ceptions of needs and desires.

The Transition Towns Network (TTN) is an internatio-

nal movement that promotes local initiatives to streng-

then community resilience and autonomy as a strategy

in tackling climate change, dependence on fossil fuels

and an unsustainable capitalist model. This movement

envisions production, consumption and distribution as

being more local, and emphasizes that re localization

results in a more satisfying lifestyle and engages com-

munity members in a more equitable fashion (Brangwyn

& Hopkins 2008; Feola 2016). TTN’s contribution to

the discussion of sustainable consumption lies in the

enhancement of local production-consumption-distribu-

tion chains, which ultimately supports sustainable con-

sumption behavior. One section of Agenda 21, Chapter

Four (United Nations Conference on Environmental

Development 1992) has been useful in establishing the

value of its objectives and activities to achieve progress

in this eld. We have also investigated some of the in-

conspicuous motivations for unsustainable consumption,

such as identity-seeking and the search for acceptance,

especially among vulnerable groups of consumers like

teenagers. We have found interesting cases to illustrate

oppressive capitalist intrusions into rural communities,

which have aected self-esteem and the self-concept of

locals to the point that community members, who origi-

nally perceived themselves to be living a dignied life,

suddenly see themselves as poor, hopeless and in need of

external charity (Norberg-Hodge 2011).

In the literature we have also found interesting cases

which advocate and implement good practices and stra-

tegies for consumer engagement using authentic values

and tools to challenge unsustainable consumption patter-

ns. These initiatives cover dierent elements of sustaina-

ble consumption, replacing the hegemony of oligopolies

and oppressive capitalist systems with more democratic,

participatory, locally-focused and autonomous econo-

mies. This paper demonstrates the relevance of non-te-

chnological solutions, without denying their importance

in the process of tackling unsustainable consumption.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the social dimen-

sion of sustainable consumption and its relationship to

the perception of wellbeing. Our aim is to contribute to

the debate regarding sustainability, and it is our hope that

this paper will prove useful to academics, students, and

Figure1-2: Farmers’ markets, community supported agriculture (CSA) and Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) developed by agroecological

producers and consumers promote consuming local produce, avoiding unnecessary packaging, transportation, freezing and processing of food.

These initiatives reduce enormous amounts of costs to all actors in the chain and help building community bonding both among producers and

consumers. Photo credits: Michael Ayala Ayala 2017. Taken in La Esperanza, Ecuador.

REVISTA ECUATORIANA DE MEDICINA Y CIENCIAS BIOLOGICAS

Sustainable consumption, the social dimension

Ayala

consumers, as well as to inform policy-makers in their

task of creating more resilient communities.

The Rich, the Poor, and Their Contribution to Un-

sustainable Consumption.- Agenda 21, in Chapter Four

(United Nations Conference on Environmental Develo-

pment 1992) addresses unsustainable production and

consumption patterns, and links poverty to environmen-

tal degradation; however, it also mentions the dierent

elements that drive consumption to unsustainable situa-

tions, in which consumers demand more resources than

their local environment has the capacity to provide and

regenerate (Shiva & Emmott 2000). Agenda 21, Chapter

Four has three main objectives. The rst two objectives

are related to eciency in production and consumption

processes, and make reference to action through public

policy. Only the third objective relates to the reinforce-

ment of values, which is this paper’s focus. This third

objective states the importance of transferring environ-

mental technologies to developing countries. We do not

emphasize the technological aspects of sustainability

here, because it goes beyond the position of transferring

technologies to developing countries, as stated at the end

of the third objective of Agenda 21, Chapter Four. The

Agenda 21 position may sound somewhat arrogant when

not accompanied by a mea culpa from the countries that

create a larger footprint as a result of their unsustainable

consumer behavior. It is dicult to state at what point

consumption becomes unsustainable. One approach

could be to consider the moment at which the resources

needed to produce goods or services reach a point when

they can no longer regenerate. One tool for assessing

the impact caused by a product or service is Life Cycle

Analysis (LCA); (ISO 2018). LCA measures the crad-

le-to-grave impact in terms of outputs and inputs, energy

use, and raw materials. It also examines the impact the

product or process has on the environment and human

health. LCA should be used as a wake-up call and as a

source of information for policy makers, industries and

consumers in general to make informed decisions prior

to determining which product or process to choose.

Agenda 21, Chapter Four claims that poverty causes

stress on the environment, but it clearly concludes that

the main global causes of environmental degradation

and unbalance are unsustainable consumption patterns

in developed countries (United Nations Conference on

Environmental Development 1992; SD21 2012). This

unbalance is caused not only by environmental and eco-

nomic factors, such as the depletion of natural resour-

ces, but it is also embedded in the social sphere. It is

perceived that wealthier consumers have more access to

natural resources due to their greater economic capacity,

and consequently place more pressure on resources than

the poor. However, it is important to consider the die-

rent elements that can be used to characterize consumer

behavior, such as age, biases, access to information, at-

titude, gender, local environmental awareness, cultural

and educational background, knowledge, peer inuence,

season, and, of course, the emotive aspects of consumers

and income (OECD 2008; UNEP 2010). One thing that

strongly drives consumer choices, however, is perso-

nal values (Auty & Elliot 2002; UNESCO 2010; Nor-

berg-Hodge 2011). Mirzaei and Ruzdar (2010) state that

consumer behavior is a mental, physical and emotional

process that operates before, during and after the purcha-

se. They establish that purchasing decisions for buying

cars, for example in Iran, are more related to a social

dimension, as well as to income and education. They hi-

ghlight three social factors that inuence car purchases:

reference groups, social status, and family; however, in

their study, social status and family inuence were the

most important factors. Social status is described as the

respect that society pays to the role of an individual or

a group. That respect is associated with the society’s ex-

pectations, which operates as the trigger for acquiring a

particular item or service. The family is also described

by Mirzaei and Ruzdar (2010) as the rst reference group

for a consumer’s decision-making process. The family is

perceived as the primary purchasing unit, which varies

according to the nature of the family.

In a larger context, consumers from developed countries

demand resources beyond the carrying capacity of their

own ecosystems.This demand is consistent with the

tendency of liberalizing global trade, which promotes

exports from poor areas. As a result, cash crops

oriented towards global commerce compete against

the production of staple foods for local consumption,

creating scarcity, lower self-reliance, and more poverty,

especially in developing countries (Shiva and Emmott

2000; Shiva 2002; Norberg-Hodge 2011). The conict

between desires and needs has produced a distortion in

many consumers’ consumption patterns, mainly because

consumption capacity seems to be an indicator of

achievement in contemporary societies, especially in the

so-called Western World. A 2012 report from Sustainable

Development (SD21 2012) notes that North Americans

consume around 90kg of resources per day, compared

to 10 kg for consumers in Africa. This example helps

to illustrate the massive inequality and discomfort that

these extravagant consumption patterns, by becoming

socially accepted in the wealthier countries, can create in

other parts of the world (Burgess 2003; Norberg-Hodge

2011). It is widely acknowledged that consumption

helps economic growth, and hence it is encouraged by

governments and mainstream media as an indicator of a

healthy economy. The assessment of the achievements

of Agenda 21 in terms of sustainable consumption

are embarrassingly poor. The growth of the planet’s

REMCB 39 (1): 19-27 2018

ecological footprint has increased rather than decreased

since Agenda 21. In addition, an increase in consumption

has not contributed to an increase in coverage for basic

needs in the world’s most impoverished areas. A large

part of consumption increase is due to emerging countries

such as Brazil, India and China (SD21 2012). Avenues

for procuring goods and services expand are ever broader

and more inviting for consumers. Trends continue to

evolve in terms of items and purchasing methods. For

example, in recent years, Cyber Monday (dedicated

exclusively to the purchase of technology items) has

become more popular than Black Friday in the United

States. Additionally, online shopping continues to grow,

and sets new sales records yearly (The Balance 2017).

Evidence shown by Mortensen (2006) illustrates how the

increase in GDP in a sample of European countries did

not visibly increase greenhouse gas emissions; however,

the consumption of energy was positively correlated to

the increase in GDP. In the same text, Mortensen (2006)

shows the disproportionate environmental footprint of

high income countries in comparison to low income

countries. It also illustrates a large gap between the

footprint of a country like Poland in comparison to

Finland, which helps to understand the uneven patterns

among countries located in the same continent. It is

illustrative to consider that, in 2010, Ecuador had a

GDP of USD 4 677, Finland USD 46 202, and the US

USD 46 400, compared to their footprint during the

same year which was 2,26; 8,46 and 12,22, respectively.

These numbers conrm the relationship between GDP

and footprint in a very dramatic way (World Integrated

Trade Solution 2018; Go Green 2018). On the other

hand, the literature depicts the link between energy

consumption, GDP, and loss of resilience in ecosystems

(Lozano & Gutiérrez 2008; Zhang & Cheng 2009).

Whereas general GDP is still the conventional indicator

of a society’s progress and development, evidence exists

that it is not the best tool for measuring people’s equity,

wellbeing or happiness, as stated by Schumacher (1974)

in his classic, “Small is Beautiful”. Gazi et al. (2016)

also link economic growth with ecological footprint,

and recommend looking for trade-os, deep changes in

consumption patterns, more ecient use of resources,

and cleaner technologies. As a result, consumption

patterns are the key to a more sustainable existence for

both humans and the environment.

Consumption and Values. - Some governments have

begun initiatives to inform and educate citizens on how

to reduce energy, water, gas and fuel consumption; they

are, however, more focused on reduction of carbon emis-

sions than on addressing the root cause of the problem,

Figure 3: Overconsumption is mainly motivated by perceptions of fulllment, wellbeing, pertinence, and status. Photo credits: Angelo Bonavita.

Taken in Manchester UK. 2017.

REVISTA ECUATORIANA DE MEDICINA Y CIENCIAS BIOLOGICAS

Sustainable consumption, the social dimension

Ayala

which at present is perceived as more related to cultural

values (Mortensen 2006; OECD 2008; Queensland Go-

vernment 2009; Australian Government 2010). It is evi-

dent that a large proportion of industrial processes have

reached high eciency standards in terms of resource

use and waste production in the recent years; neverthe-

less, the behavior of consumers with high purchasing

capacity has led our planet to a more unsustainable situa-

tion than ever (SD21 2012).

Massive consumption events such as Black Friday,

Christmas, Santos Reyes, Cyber Monday, and Boxing Day

are examples of the extravagance of that problematized

herein. The Black Friday (2011) website shows

persuasive deals, including easy access by shoppers

to stores, on-line malls, and smart phone applications

designed to invite consumers to spend their money.

One thing that draws attention is the expected increase

in number of shoppers each year, and the trend towards

spending more money than ever, despite the economic

crisis at a global scale (Black Friday 2011). This paper

does not wish to problematize only the irrational money

expenditure, but also the loss in family and community

values. The tradition of spending time with the family

for Thanksgiving Day in the United States and Canada

is shifting towards the new tradition of going out to

shop, aecting previously existing cultural values and

perceptions of quality of life. Shopping becomes more

appealing to young people than sharing quality time with

the family and friends. Similarly, in Australia, Boxing

Day sales are a phenomenon that prevents families from

spending holidays together, and pushes them to join the

crowd of shoppers instead (McCoy & Meyer 2017).

Even in countries such as Ecuador, Black Friday is

becoming a trend in advertising campaigns, especially in

malls and large retailers (Black Friday y Cyber Monday:

entre descuentos, bomba y un plan de compras 2017).

Ecuadorian shoppers may not know the origin of Black

Friday, but retailers take advantage of the novelty value

to increase sales. There is even a growing tendency

towards reshaping spaces for religious practice by

designing and tting convenient spaces for spirituality

consumption within commercial areas such as malls.

Shopping malls are sarcastically called “commerce

cathedrals in a market religion” (Nynäs & Pessi 2012),

which depicts both the nature of faith and its alternative

modes of consumption, and the co-existence of religious

practices within commercial secular spaces. Problematic

enough is a chapel embedded in a shopping mall; what

we see in urban contexts nowadays in Ecuador is that a

growing number of families visit to the shopping mall on

a Sunday or a pay day to window shop, eat at the food

courts, practice their faith, spend time with family, and

also to purchase goods and services (author’s personal

observation in Quito, Ecuador, December 2017). There

are values such as the perception of beauty and appearance

that are big sellers; however, we will not focus on them

because of their direct connection with deep cultural

values that can be very localized and context-based.

They require a more careful and comprehensive analysis.

Sumac Kawsay values such as the encounter with nature,

in opposition to dominance over nature, ethical behavior,

and a spiritual relationship with the environment, are

missing in most of the examples presented above (Acosta

2013).

Identity-seeking Behavior.- Compulsive buying is ad-

dressed by Dittmar (2005) as a symptom of a psychia-

tric disorder, directly derived from materialistic values

and as the result of a morbid identity-seeking behavior.

Objects have dierent meanings for dierent people and

cultures, and people tend to purchase objects or servi-

ces to feel associated with those meanings (Auty and

Elliot 2001). In fact, a large proportion of purchases in

some groups are not oriented towards the satisfaction

of basic needs, but rather, a desire for adherence to and

acceptance in a social group. The impact of fashion in

the construction of identity is specically described by

Auty and Elliot (2001). Moreover, they problematize

self-construction and the need for acceptance from a

community. Social acceptance is a result of social inte-

raction, and becomes an important element in identity

construction, which is both individual and collective.

Consumption prompted by identity-seeking behavior is

discussed in-depth by Norberg-Hodge (2011), the au-

thor of The Economics of Happiness, a lm released in

2011 which addresses self-perception of poverty. The

lm depicts a case study in Ladakk, a small village in

Tibet, where harmony with nature and the community

used to preserve centralized tradition prior to the inva-

sion of western culture and tourism. Ladakk locals used

to have few material possessions, but a genuine feeling

of the good life and fulllment. However, with the arri-

val of tourism and people from other cultures, a shift in

the locals’ self-perception occurred and began to create

disappointment with their own culture. A similar case is

described by Norberg-Hodge (2011) in the Peruvian An-

des, where teachers inculcate children that their own tra-

ditional lifestyle and customs are humiliating practices

of the past, and not something to be proud of.

The previous examples help to illustrate the link between

the identity and self-perception of individuals and groups

who are predisposed to abandon their own perception of

wellbeing in pursuit of foreign values and beliefs. The

easy adoption of foreign beliefs speaks to the fragile

appropriation of their own elements of identity, and the

expectation of patterns, habits, and customs from outside

as an attitude of acceptance of the external oppression

from societies that feel entitled to rule over the needs and

REMCB 39 (1): 19-27 2018

wants of other groups. In contrast to the cases described

above, Sumac Kawsay enhances the reconnection with

ancestral values (Acosta 2013); although in some cases,

its discourse may be too romantic.

New Horizons.- Stutz (2006) states that overconsump-

tion is mainly motivated by perceptions of wellbeing, but

policies are not focused on challenging the real causes of

the problem. The Sustainable Development 21st century

report (SD21 2012) is clear in arming that Agenda 21,

Chapter Four does not propose real solutions to causes

of unsustainable consumption. What is more, Agenda

21 does not open the discussion about the role of large

corporations and international economic governance, es-

pecially the World Trade Organization (WTO) policies

which are not supportive of such initiatives. Vulnerable

consumers are sometimes victims of astute advertising

campaigns which take advantage of previously described

elements, such as the search for acceptance by young

consumers or the oer of a false perception of fulllment

and pertinence (Auty & Elliot 2001).

However, not all consumers accept a vulnerable position

in this game. There are new tendencies to directly

tackle the problem of unsustainable consumption

through the creation of networks that take advantage

of the local potential of communities to increase their

resilience through the creation of dierent initiatives.

One example is the TTN, as described by Feola

(2016), who adds robust scholarship to the area of

sustainability from a grassroots perspective, rather than

focusing only on complicated technological solutions.

TTN initiatives promote a shift to new paradigms and

understandings which clearly challenges conventional

neoliberal and capitalistic approaches. It seeks

reduction of communities’ dependence on external

resources, especially fossil fuels, by teaching people

how to grow their own food, how to obtain their own

source of energy, and how build their houses with local

materials (Brangwyn & Hopkins 2008). In terms of

food chains, there are interesting initiatives in Ecuador

such as agroecology, which functions with Sumak

Kawsay as motivation, with a clear focus on fostering

food sovereignty whilst challenging agro-industrial

hegemony (Gortaire 2016). Agroecology connects

producers and consumers to create supportive networks

that give urban communities access to good food from

rural, peri urban and urban producers. Initiatives such

as farmers’ markets, Community Supported Agriculture

(CSA) and Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS),

developed by agroecological producers and consumers,

promote the consumption of local farmers’ produce and

avoid unnecessary packaging, transportation, freezing

and processing of food. Short food chains, such the

latter, result in an enormous reduction of costs for all

actors in the chain and help to build community, among

both producers and consumers. Autonomy, sovereignty,

and fair trade are just a few of the positive points of these

types of food chains, but perhaps the most important

contribution is the change in the perception of food,

which is viewed not as a merchandise, but as an element

of development for the stakeholders (ALAI 2016).

Movements like Occupy Together and Adbusters

(Adbusters 2011; Occupy Together 2011) confront

the assumed predominance and oligopoly of power

that corporations have over governments’ policies and

decisions. These movements have a broad range of

claims, including food security and sovereignty, which

is an issue that the Economics of Happiness (Norberg-

Hodge 2011) and Shiva (2000) address as well. They

reveal that big corporations decide what consumers

should eat, and the ways in which globalization

weakens the social and economic infrastructure of the

poor world through the deregulation of global actions

(Shiva 2002). The negative part of globalization aects

not only producers, but consumers as well, because

it prevents them from making informed choices—for

example, when corporations lobby the government

against the labeling of food containing genetically

modied ingredients. These concerns about the lack of

public participation inspired current social movements

to start initiatives for small scale economic systems, in

which citizens (consumers) develop decision-making

mechanisms to envision, design and build resilience

in their communities. Good examples are the TTN

and Occupy movements (Brangwyn & Hopkins 2008;

Occupy Together 2011) Pino (2017) presents an

illustrative case study from Ecuador as an example of the

development of local participatory guarantee systems in

many Ecuadorian communities, which are in the process

of building trust between producers and consumers. They

have found alternative ways of engaging participation

by stakeholders in the production and consumption

processes. This alternative way of facilitating consumer

access to good food and incentivizing food production

in rural communities is a clear challenge to conventional

food chains that had been monopolized by a few large

retailers in Ecuador. (Figure 1-2, 3) Pino (2017) also

describes the relevance of participatory guarantee

initiatives, as they are more localized and inclusive in

comparison to organic certication by third parties. This

Ecuadorian case study also provides cohesion among the

initiatives of provincial governments, local governments,

non-governmental agencies, organizations of consumers

and producers; and hence it has a political element that

helps to build intercommunal resilience.

Community initiatives are important, but they need to

nd a way to work together in the construction and im-

REVISTA ECUATORIANA DE MEDICINA Y CIENCIAS BIOLOGICAS

Sustainable consumption, the social dimension

Ayala

plementation of local and central government agendas,

to have long lasting results, and also to avoid contradic-

tions and ambiguities. UNESCO (2010) suggests that

we should think critically prior to making the decision

to buy something, by asking ourselves if we really need

it and if we ourselves could produce the item, or if it

could be produced by local hands. However, the ques-

tion goes even further when it draws attention to the pro-

duct life cycle, which assesses the dierent stages of the

process, including the extraction of raw material, waste

management, transport, production, packaging, wholesa-

ling, retailing, use and disposal when the goods cease to

be used, or when their life span is over (Mitchell 1997;

UNESCO 2010; ISO 2018).

CONCLUSION

Consumption has dierent implications in terms of ful-

lling consumer needs and wants, because it is uniquely

linked to personal perceptions that are both complex and

problematic. These perceptions have their origin in va-

lues and beliefs, and therefore consumer choices depend

upon those perceptions. As a result, environmental and

social impacts directly depend on consumers’ choices.

This paper presents the contributions of the rich and the

poor to the problem, and it is evident that the demand

for resources, energy, goods and services is higher when

consumers have more income, and hence more poten-

tial to consume. The role of international regulations

and initiatives, such as Agenda 21 Chapter Four, have

not helped towards making progress in this regard. The-

se initiatives have left out the importance of regulating

large consumers (polluters), such as transnational corpo-

rations, and their inuence in the international regulatory

sphere. It can also be seen that vulnerable consumers are

defenseless at both the local and international level, be-

cause large corporations have the resources to lobby and

manage regulations to benet themselves, rather than

consumers. However, it is very important that attention

be given to the new initiatives that have originated with

consumers, and which are directly challenging the he-

gemony of oligopolies. These include valid initiatives

that promote participation by stakeholders, including lo-

cal and provincial governments; the promotion of short

food chains with their own guarantee systems; and the

recovery of community values through the rearmation

of their own priorities and goals. This paper is focused

on non-technological contributions to responsible con-

sumption; however, this is not to subtract value from

other strategies —such as more ecient technologies

for resource management, production and consumption,

legal and market-based instruments, taxes, taris, subsi-

dies, visualization of hidden costs to reduce market dis-

tortion and fraud, etc., — which have not been discussed

or cited in this paper.

A strategy for understanding unsustainable behavior which

aects both social and environmental matters should, in

the least, provide a good understanding of the dierent

perceptions of needs and desires, and understanding

of quality of life, progress, growth and development

in society. Solidarity with the poor, awareness about

the environmental impact of daily decisions, and an

individual commitment to educate ourselves, should also

be elements to consider when proposing public policy

and when designing a strategy to tackle unsustainability.

The construction of social infrastructure to support local

initiatives that provide communities with resilience

to boost a relative self-suciency of food, energy and

housing is an essential factor, as stated by the Transition

Towns. Public participation and less inuence by

corporations would help to push forward policies to

enforce more sustainable productive processes and

consumption behaviors. Last but not least, it is important

to consider an intergenerational approach, in order to

consider the needs and wants of future generations in

terms of availability and access to resources, the right to

enjoy a healthy environment and a robust social structure

which would guarantee that communities achieve their

goals.

REFERENCES

Acosta A. [on line]. 2013. Construir el Buen Vivir -Sumak

Kawsay. La Línea de Fuego. Enero 8, 2013. Available at:

https://lalineadefuego.info/2013/01/08/construir-el-buen-vi-

vir-sumak-kawsay-por-alberto-acosta/ Accessed in December

2017.

Adbusters .2011. About Adbusters, [on line] Available from:

http://www.adbusters.org/about/adbusters

[ALAI] Agencia Latinoamericana de Información. 2016. Los

alimentos no son mercancía. Quito. Fundación Agencia Lati-

noamericana de Información.

Australian Government. 2010. Living greener. Department of

Climate Change and Energy Eciency. Available from: https://

sustainability.ceres.org.au/resource/livinggreener-gov-au/

Auty S and Elliot R. 2001. Being like or being liked: Identity

Vs. Approval in a Social Context. Advances in Consumer

Research. 28. Available from: http://www.acrwebsite.org/

search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=8475 Accessed

on Dec 2017.

Black Friday y Cyber Monday: entre descuentos, bomba y

un plan de compras. 2017 November 07. El Universo; sec-

tion Economía. Available at: https://www.eluniverso.com/

noticias/2017/11/07/nota/6468829/black-friday-cyber-mo-

day-ecuador-descuentos-bomba-plan-compras

REMCB 39 (1): 19-27 2018

Black Friday. 2011. Available from: http://www.

blackfriday2011.com/

Brangwyn B and Hopkins R. 2008. Transition Initiatives Pri-

mer – becoming a Transition Town, City, District, Village,

Community or even Island, Transition Network (on line) Avai-

lable from: http://www.bankodeas.com.au/Downloads/Tran-

sitionInitiativesPrimer.pdf

Burgess J. 2003. Sustainable consumption: Is it really achieva-

ble? Consumer Policy Review 13(3): 78-84.

Dittmar H. 2005. A new look at compulsive buying; self-dis-

crepancies and materialistic values as predictors of a compulsi-

ve buying tendency. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology

24 (6): 832- 859.

Feola G. 2016. Trans local grassroots movements and the

geography of sustainability transitions: the case of Transition

Towns Network. Conference proceedings. 7th International

sustainability transitions (IST) Conference 2016. Exploring

Transition Research as Transformative Science, 6th-9th Sep-

tember 2016, Wuppertal, Germany.

Fuchs D. 2016. Sustainable consumption. In: Falkner R, editor.

The Handbook of Global and Environmental Policy. John Wi-

ley & Sons. Hoboken, New Jersey. 215-230 p.

Gazi U, Khorshed A, Gow J. 2016. Does Ecological Footprint

Impede Economic Growth? An Empirical Analysis Based on

the Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis. Australian Eco-

nomic Papers 55(3): 301-316.

Gerbens-Leenes W and Moll H.C. 2006. Pathways toward Sus-

tainable Food Consumption Patterns. In: Charter M, Tukker

A, editors. Proceedings of the referred sessions I. Sustainable

consumption and production: opportunities and challenges.

Launch Conference of the Sustainable Consumption Research

Exchange (SCORE!) Network. Wuppertal, Germany. Availa-

ble from: http://www.score-network.org/les/1222_SCORE-

Launch-Conf_Proceedings-Refereed-Papers-Icorr.pdf

Go Green 2018. Available From: http://www.go-green.ae/foo-

tprint/countries.php (accessed April 2018).

Gortaire R. 2016. Agroecología en el Ecuador. Proceso históri-

co, logros y desafíos. Antropología Cuadernos de Investigación

17: 39-55.

ISO 2018. ISO 14040: 2006- Environmental management- Life

Cycle Assessment. Principles and framework.

León X. 2017. El Buen Vivir como alternativa al desarrollo y

su relación con la Soberanía Alimentaria. El caso ecuatoriano.

Antropología Cuadernos de Investigación 17: 39-55.

Lozano S and Gutiérrez E. 2008. Non-parametric frontier

approach to modeling the relationships among population,

GDP, energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Ecological

Economics 66(4): 678-699.

McCoy K and Meyer Z. 2017, Dec. 26. U.S. Retail holiday

sales jump 4.9%, biggest increase since 2011. USA Today, on

line edition. Available from: https://www.usatoday.com/story/

money/2017/12/26/u-s-retail-holiday-sales-jump-4-9-biggest-

increase-since-2011/981464001/

Mirzaei H and Ruzdar M. 2010. The impact of social factors

aecting consumer behavior on selecting characteristics of

purchased cars. Journal of Payame Noor University. JEL Co-

des: D18, L62 and M31. p. 1-11.

Mitchell B. 1997. Resource and Environmental Management,

Longman limited, Essex, UK.

Mortensen L.F. 2006. Sustainable household consumption in

Europe. Consumer Policy Review 16(4): 141-148.

Norberg-Hodge H, Page J, director. 2011. The Economics of

Happiness (Motion Picture), International Society for Ecology

and Culture, Berkeley, California. 1 video: 90 minutes.

Nynäs P and Pessi A. 2012. Relocating and Negotiating

the Sacred: The Reception of a Chapel in a Shopping Mall.

In: Gómez L, Van Herck W, editors. The sacred in the city.

Religious Studies Monograph. Continuum International

Publishing Group. London. 161-190 p.

Occupy Together, 2011, LIVE: Intro to Direct Democracy &

Facilitation Training, (on line) Available from: http://www.oc-

cupytogether.org/

[OECD] Organization for Economic Co-Operation and De-

velopment. 2008. Promoting Sustainable Consumption Good

Practices in OECD countries. Available at: https://www.oecd.

org/greengrowth/40317373.pdf. Accessed December 2017.

Pino M. P. 2017. Los Sistemas Participativos de Garantía en

el Ecuador. Aproximaciones a su desarrollo. Letras Verdes.

Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Socioambientales 22:

120–145. https://doi.org/10.17141/letrasverdes.22.2017.2679.

Stutz J. 2006. The Role of Well-being in a Great Transition.

The Great Transition Initiative paper series 10.

Queensland Government. 2009. Low carbon lifestyle tips,

DERM, Brisbane.

Schumacher E.F. 1974. Small is Beautiful. Sphere Books Ltd,

London.

REVISTA ECUATORIANA DE MEDICINA Y CIENCIAS BIOLOGICAS

Sustainable consumption, the social dimension

Ayala

[SD21] Sustainable Development in the 21st century. 2012.

Review of implementation of Agenda 21 and the Rio Princi-

ples, Synthesis. Study prepared by the Stakeholder Forum for

a Sustainable Future.

Shiva V and Emmott B. 2000. Is ‘development’ good for the

third world? The Ecologist 30(2): 22.

Shiva V. 2002. Ecological balance in an era of globalization.

In: Low N, editor. Global Ethics and Environment. Taylor &

Francis Group. London. p. 47-69.

The Balance. 2017. What it is, when it starts and current trends,

‘Cyber Monday’. Available from: https://www.thebalance.

com/cyber-monday-what-it-is-when-it-starts-and-current-

trends-3305715

[UNEP] United Nations Environmental Program. 2010. Sustai-

nable Consumption Production and Development, Background

Papers, Division for Technology, Industry and Economics. Pa-

ris 2010.

UNESCO. 2010. Teaching and learning for a sustainable fu-

ture. Available from: http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/

mods/theme_b/mod09.html

United Nations Conference on Environmental Development.

1992. Agenda 21-Chapter 4 Changing Consumption Patterns,

Earth Summit 1992. Available from: http://www.un-docu-

ments.net/a21-04.htm .

World Integrated Trade Solution-World Bank. 2010. Availa-

ble from: https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProle/en/Coun-

try/ECU/StartYear/2006/EndYear/2010/Indicator/NY-GDP-

PCAP-KD

Zhang XP & Cheng XM. 2009. Energy consumption, carbon

emissions, and economic growth in China. Ecological Econo-

mics. 68(10): 2706-2712.