Why B-schools must teach degrowth

‘The future of the people depends on the future of our planet’, said Audrey Azoulay, Director-General of UNESCO, in the report Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. The inter-generational injustice has brought us to the shores of a planet at risk. Yet, most educational institutions continue to teach around the old paradigms of infinite growth and consumption.

The Carbon Majors Report 2017 said that just 100 companies have been responsible for 71 per cent of the industrial greenhouse gas emissions since 1988. Given the growing global energy demand at 2 per cent annually, even 100 per cent renewable energy by 2050 would still require resources equivalent to an additional planet (Energy Policy, 2019). For universities and colleges, this is serious because we aim to prepare students for industries that vary widely in sustainability practices.

The electronics industry, for example, loses $62.5 billion annually in material value due to planned obsolescence and inadequate recycling infrastructure (WEF, 2019). Almost 73 per cent of the textile manufactured goes to a landfill or is incinerated (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017). Many luxury clothing brands burn unsold stock valued at 600 million to maintain exclusivity (Napier & Sanguineti, 2018).

Ignoring blindspots

The current industry-education linkages ignore some glaring industry blind spots. Corporate self-regulation might not suffice for sustainability initiatives, given the urgency of the climate crisis. Growth, however green we claim it to be, has its material limits. Productivity-driven growth leads to gig work and underemployment, even in high-profit industries (ILO Global Wage Report, 2019).

Our universities and colleges must also teach that stability cannot come from a system focusing on profit over people and sustainability. For example, focusing on wealth creation overlooks wealth inequality that undermines sustainability. The richest 1% emit more carbon than the bottom 50% combined (Oxfam Report, 2020). Sustainability education must address the unequal wealth distribution and environmental impact distribution.

If we still teach students to admire corporate leaders chasing short-term profits, remember the long-term costs. Amazon, for instance, saw record profits during the pandemic but faced counterattacks for poor labour practices and high emissions. This led to huge reputational damage and regulatory scrutiny. Fossil fuel companies spent $200 million lobbying against climate legislation in 2019 alone (Influence Map, 2019). Ignoring long-term consequences is a guaranteed path to corporate and environmental failure. This is something that no college can ignore soon.

To pass the buck, education can blame it on consumerist culture. But are consumers listening?

Yes. Consumerism is shifting. Most global consumers prefer companies aligned with environmental responsibility and their values (Globe Scan, 2021). Institutions ignoring this shift risk obsolescence.

In 1965, University of Michigan professor Marshall Sahlins started a protest against the Vietnam War that evolved into "teach-ins" across the US. It turned out that the movement spread to many countries later. This model inspired Senator Gaylord Nelson to create Earth Day in 1970, a massive national teach-in that became instrumental in many environmental legislations. Earth Day has since become a global movement. While the long-term impact of teach-ins is debated, they show the power of campuses to mobilise collective action in matters of ecology.

Opportunities for post-growth studies

Can we harness the teach-in spirit to redefine growth on our campuses? Should we continue teaching the same economics of growth in universities or explore innovative models of sustainable and equitable progress? Here are some pointers that we usually miss.

Slow product cycles: Teach degrowth principles for longer product lifecycles and repairability, opening doors to profitable, slow business models. For instance, many courses can explore sustainable slow fashion as an alternative to wasteful fast fashion.

Spotting pseudo-green practices: Train students to identify organisations pushing pseudo-green solutions without systemic production cuts. Companies lacking authenticity will face backlash as consumers demand transparency.

Post-growth resilience: Post-growth models emphasise equitable distribution, stable employment, reduced working hours, and improved job quality. Let our students identify, encourage and create such a model beyond the traditional growth narrative.

Uncovering new approaches: Teach students to address blind spots and inefficiencies in every sector. From electronics to textiles to IT, every field has untapped opportunities for innovation within planetary limits.

Colleges and universities can channel this spirit to redefine education. On the verge of a climate crisis, maintaining the status quo is not smart—it is foolish. It risks stranded investments, limits innovation, and fails our students.

The core objective of education must be to prepare students for a world where humanity operates within planetary limits. That is real. That is smart.