Valentin Stuhlfauth
Author
At the 2025 ISEE & Degrowth Conference (external link)in Oslo, sufficiency made a visible appearance; with 7 out of 253 sessions and 1 out of 7 plenaries devoted to the concept. Yet for all the attention, one thing became clear: sufficiency remains dramatically underdeveloped as a theory of justice and a political strategy for systemic transformation.
One encouraging trend is the broadening of sufficiency beyond its familiar energy-centric framing. Unlike much of the sustainability science literature that treats "energy sufficiency" as a companion to efficiency, discussions in Oslo signalled a growing recognition: sufficiency means avoiding unnecessary resource demand of all kinds from the outset. (external link) It's not just about how we use energy, but how we relate to materials, time, and space. And ultimately, to one another.
Moreover, the link between sufficiency, needs, and well-being was acknowledged in several sessions; both in conceptual work and in some modelling efforts. But this thread was not consistently picked up, nor translated into actionable frameworks. Sufficiency remained, largely, a discourse about consumption.
Rooted in consumption research, many sessions approached sufficiency through critiques of consumerism or concepts like consumption corridors (external link). While this lens is valuable, it often defaults to a narrative of individual restraint, sidelining structural conditions and collective agency. Yet sufficiency, at its core, asks us to reimagine the social and economic systems that generate excessive demand in the first place.
Where were the policy proposals? The business models? The legal pathways? Few sessions ventured beyond analysis to discuss sufficiency as a basis for regulation or redistribution. There were scattered references to reducing meat and air travel, and a welcome reflection on housing provision. But overall, the conference missed the chance to position sufficiency as a governance principle (external link), not just a lifestyle choice.
Macroeconomic modelling communities similarly struggled to integrate sufficiency and address how it could meet needs or reduce poverty. Many relied on exogenous reductions in economic activity or optimal carbon pricing, despite robust critiques of their regressive distributional effects. These tools are grounded in neoclassical assumptions.
All of this points to a deeper distinction between degrowth and sufficiency. While degrowth is an economic critique aimed at reducing material throughput, sufficiency is rooted in philosophical traditions of fairness, moderation, and ecological ethics. (external link)It offers not just a critique of excess, but a proactive blueprint for enough. But for sufficiency to fulfil that promise, it must move from the margins to the core, from scattered sessions to a strategic anchor. It must be viewed not merely as a behavioural strategy, but as a framework for governance, planning, and justice.
The door is open. Let's not just talk about sufficiency. Let's start designing with it.