Developing action capacity for sufficient consumption among Europeans facing unequal conditions

This article investigates the conditions under which action-capacity for changing lifestyle patterns toward sufficient consumption can be developed in Europe. The study departs from the recognition that current volumes and patterns of consumption are unsustainable, and that radical lifestyle changes are needed at individual, community, and societal levels. At the same time, European societies are marked by deepening inequalities, with many people living in poverty and hardship who have limited incentives to reduce their already restricted consumption. Against this backdrop, the article asks how bottom-up action-capacity for sustainability transformations can emerge under conditions of constraint. Drawing on theories of efficiency and sufficiency in sustainable consumption, the improve/shift/avoid framework, and concepts of socially embedded agency and reflexivity, the article examines two key domains of the green transition: food (farm-to-fork) and mobility (sustainable transport). The empirical analysis is based on 220 narrative interviews from ten European countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, and Turkey), encompassing people with diverse life situations, including in relative poverty. The findings show that while many narratives reflect efficiency-oriented approaches, they also reveal a wide range of sufficiency strategies. Across contexts, several features of action-capacity were identified, including imagination, responsibility, reflexivity, adaptive capacity, independence, and the pursuit of quality. The article concludes that fostering action-capacity for sufficient consumption and lifestyle change requires multifaceted strategies that integrate individual, social, and institutional efforts, while directly addressing inequalities.

1 Introduction

In the face of climate change and ecological overshoot, there is a growing recognition that addressing overconsumption is essential for achieving environmental sustainability. Radical changes of lifestyle patterns are required, not only at the individual level but through broader re-organization of societies and communities that enable populations to live well while drastically cutting consumption volumes (Moore, 2015; Jackson, 2017; Akenji et al., 2021; Merz et al., 2022). In their article “Scientists warning on affluence,” (Wiedmann et al., 2020 p. 1) state unequivocally that “consumption of affluent households worldwide is by far the strongest determinant and the strongest accelerator of increases of global environmental and social impacts.” At the same time, societies are torn apart due to escalating inequalities (Oxfam, 2020).

Even in societies with material affluence, many groups of people live in vulnerable and precarious situations and experience poverty and hardship. These groups may have few incentives to abide calls to significantly reduce consumption. Yet, the predominant discourses of sustainability transformation and green consumption tend to fail to acknowledge such structural injustice and heterogeneity (Blythe et al., 2018). Instead, they frequently individualize responsibility, glossing over the unequal distribution of both environmental impacts and capacities to act.

The societal task can thus be described as achieving a “sense of sufficiency” (Princen, 2005; Callmer, 2019) that encompasses both over- and underconsumption, and promoting a fair consumption space for all that aligns ecological imperatives with social justice efforts; that is, not just addressing segments that consume too much but addressing the issue of poverty and vulnerability (Akenji et al., 2021; Fuchs et al., 2021). Lifestyle change is a considerable challenge, as people – in vulnerable situations or not – are locked in existing socio-technical arrangements and in many situations can do little to change circumstances (Rinkinen et al., 2021). However, this paper also challenges the one-sided tendency in some literature to stress structural factors and downplay the possibility of self-efficacy and action-capacity among individuals and bottom-up community mobilization (e.g., Warde, 2014; Rinkinen et al., 2021; Stoner, 2021; Gunderson, 2022).

The article investigates how people from diverse groups in materially affluent European societies negotiate and develop the possibility of lifestyle change toward sufficiency. Drawing on narrative interviews, it explores the conditions under which action-capacity for changing lifestyle patterns toward that of sufficient consumption in Europe emerges or fails to do so. The article makes a novel contribution as its analysis pays particular attention to the different conditions of vulnerability, inequality (economic, health, social, geographical etc.), and intersectionality people face in varying contexts (societies, communities) characterized by material abundance (overconsuming societies). This is a topic which continues to be little studied in the field of sustainable consumption, transformation, and sufficiency (with some important exceptions from Leipämaa-Leskinen et al., 2016; Campus et al., 2024; Jenny et al., 2024; Korsnes and Solbu, 2024 which are discussed later).

In doing so, the article goes beyond confirming the existence of structural, cultural, and social-psychological blockers of lifestyle change, which are to be expected as contemporary societies are wired toward that of unsustainable mass consumption (see Boström, 2023). Rather, the aim is to explore and pay attention to how individuals and communities, despite these constraints, can initiate bottom-up processes that trigger larger, transformative change. Central questions are: How and in what ways can action-capacity take form despite unfavorable circumstances? What can we learn from the very varied experiences people face around Europe? How can societies take into account issues of inequality and vulnerability? The article contributes to the state of the art by empirically grounding sufficiency debates in everyday practices across diverse European contexts, extending theoretical discussions of agency and sustainable consumption to include vulnerable groups, and offering policy-relevant insights into how action-capacity for sufficiency can be fostered under conditions of inequality.

The paper focuses on capacity for change among a heterogeneous set of populations within the European context, which are generally characterized by overconsumption. Specifically, it assesses the (lack of) potential among people to adopt sufficiency-approaches. While consumption spans over a wide number of areas and everyday spheres, this article focuses on two critical domains of the green transition: food (farm-to-fork) and mobility (sustainable transport). These sectors are major sources of ecological damage and overconsumption, while greatly intersecting with issues of inequality and vulnerability. Thus, they crucially shape and reflect how people access sustainable options. The empirical material consists of 220 narrative interviews from eight countries, collected in autumn 2023 as part of a larger European project. The countries include Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, and Turkey.

In the next section we describe the theoretical approach that guides the analysis, in which insights and results from previous research are incorporated. This approach is grounded in (a) the concepts of efficiency and sufficiency and the related framework on improve/shift/avoid, and (b) action capacity for transformation toward sufficiency. The development of the framework was done by using an integrative literature review (Snyder, 2019), with sources selected from different but relatable knowledge fields. Such a review synthesize findings around a research topic to allow new perspectives and frameworks to emerge and fits the fluid and dynamic nature of a phenomenon as the one under investigation. The section thereafter describes the materials and methods. We then turn to the analysis of narrative interviews, followed by a discussion of the findings considering the theoretical framework and previous research. The paper ends with broader conclusions and directions for future research.

2 Analytical framework

2.1 Efficiency and sufficiency: improve/shift/avoid

The literature on sustainable consumption often employs the “improve/shift/avoid”-framework to conceptualize pathways to change toward sustainable lifestyles (Akenji et al., 2021). “Improve” refers to efficiency – substituting existing practices with less harmful ones. Examples include buying organic food or switching to electric cars. “Shift” involves changes in consumption modes; for instance, from driving cars to cycling or walking, or from meat-based to plant-based diets. “Avoid” (or reduce) refers to decreased overall consumption volumes, both goods and services.

Most policy and scientific discourses still prioritize “light green approaches” and efficiency, often framed through the lens of technological innovation, consumer sovereignty, and green growth (Princen 2005; Fuchs et al., 2016; Bertoldi, 2022; Boström and Callmer, 2025). This is not surprising as efficiency is the dominant principle in modern society and industrial life. With mass production and mass consumption, efficiency has become a “pervasive social organizing principle” (Princen 2005, p. 50). The efficiency approach does not criticize consumerist lifestyles as such, but relies on positive framings around growth (green growth), market solutions, consumer sovereignty, technological developments, and net-zero policy strategies. While this approach has strategic appeal, it tends to overlook rebound effects, entrenched inequalities, and the deeper systemic causes of unsustainable lifestyles (Akenji et al., 2021). Rebound effects mean that efficiency improvements fail to achieve intended results (such as lowering climate emissions), because more efficient products have been found to stimulate growth, i.e., increasing demand and consumption for these products (Berkhout et al., 2000). The benefits of energy efficiency measures may be outstripped with more energy consumption if the measures stimulate the use of larger equipment and buildings (Bertoldi, 2022). There can also be an indirect rebound, which occurs when the savings that result from more efficient products are spent on other areas of consumption. In sum, efficiency does not challenge consumption volumes, power structures, or dominant values.

In contrast, sufficiency focuses on limits and the notion that ‘there can be too much’. It foregrounds not just how goods are produced or consumed, but how much is appropriate, and for whom. Moreover, from this perspective, modal shift and avoidance/reduction appear as adequate sustainability strategies, not the least at the individual level. Sharing practices and product longevity are also in line with sufficiency strategies (Jenny et al., 2024; Karimzadeh and Boström, 2024; Sandberg, 2021). Sufficiency appeals to intuitive understandings of “enoughness” (Princen, 2005) and connects with traditions of frugality, moderation, and restraint. It has gained traction through concepts like “consumption corridors” and “fair consumption space,” which emphasize both environmental boundaries and equity (Akenji et al., 2021; Fuchs et al., 2021).

Promoting sufficiency in affluent societies requires more than moral appeal. It demands both institutional change and a new politics of consumption (e.g., Hirth et al., 2023; Mamut et al., 2025). In a study of the Swiss population, which combined quantitative and qualitative approaches (the latter explicitly targeting people with low levels of environmental affinity, low or medium level education, and residing in rural or semi-urban areas), Jenny et al. (2024) found relatively strong support for top-down sufficiency policies (see also, e.g., O'Dell et al., 2025). The support, however, varied depending on the concrete measure - for example, there was strong support for repair cafes, yet low support for banning petrol cars. They further found that woman were more accepting than men (see also Bloodhart and Swim, 2020; Brough et al., 2016 on the eco gender gap), and that education and urban residency positively affected acceptance. People with high incomes, in turn, showed relatively low acceptance of measures such as advertisement restrictions and working hour reduction. Finally, the authors also found that considerations of fairness could help increase acceptance. Based on their results, Jenny and colleagues argue that sufficiency policy needs to more explicitly address equity issues and consider compensatory measures for low-income groups.

At the same time, it is difficult to imagine that change processes can only happen or be initiated from elite-players in the top, particularly as they may have vested interests in keeping things as they are. Rather, we need to look at a potential dialectic between top-down and bottom-driven processes. Bottom-up pressures for sufficiency can include, for instance, public pressure and legitimacy for change; the spread of new ideas, practices, engagement; and the formation and expansion of social movements, transition groups, community initiatives, and similar (see, e.g., Schor and Thompson, 2014; Schlosberg and Craven, 2019). This makes it relevant to investigate opportunities to develop action capacity among the public.

2.2 Action capacity for transformation toward sufficiency

Transforming lifestyles toward sufficiency requires more than awareness; it requires action-capacity, a concept that encompasses motivation, reflexivity, and the practical ability to enact change in everyday life. This paper foregrounds bottom-up action-capacity while recognizing its interaction with structural and institutional dynamics. Drawing on Archer’s critical realist theory of reflexivity (Archer, 2003), individuals are seen as inherently reflective agents, shaped but not wholly determined by social structures. Archer stresses the role of human reflexivity as mediatory mechanisms between structure and agency. Reflexivity enables individuals to orient strategically to external constraints, pursue goals, envision alternatives (imagination) and reassess routines. Yet, this capacity (which requires knowledge, confidence, and other resources) is socially embedded and unevenly distributed. The individuals have some degree of freedom in determining their course of action. Moreover, their different actions have unintended cumulative effects on the structural and cultural level: reproducing or changing (incrementally or radically) structure and culture. Davidson (2024) elaborates this further, showing how agency in the climate context is filtered through reflexivity as well as with our emotionality. This can either block or open up further engagement for sustainability transformation.

Action-capacity thus involves both cognitive (meaning-making, critical reflection, emotion) and practical (skills, resources, social support) dimensions. It spans both everyday life and public-political/civic engagement, as a key precondition for transformative change is critical reflexivity and the politicization of consumption (Sassatelli, 2007; Boström et al., 2018). This includes the development of roles and subjectivities (“the environmentally conscious consumer”), and the envisioning of alternatives (e.g., visions of quality of life by consuming less). The concept of the “citizen-consumer” (Klintman and Boström, 2015) respectively highlights that action-capacity can both be oriented toward changes in the domestic setting and as participation in various organized efforts to try to change overarching institutional and infrastructural circumstances. The citizen-consumer is a hybrid figure that engages in lifestyle change and collective mobilization.

Lifestyles and consumption are fundamentally shaped by multifaceted social dynamics of consumption. These include a multitude of phenomena, such as social relationships, norms, status competition, practices, and more structured aspects of social life (Boström, 2023). The concept of the “glass floor” (Cherrier et al., 2012) underscores the difficulty of breaking free from entrenched consumerist norms, which are deeply embedded in contemporary society. In a world where overconsumption is not only the norm, but often perceived as the default mode of living, the consumerist pressures apply to all social classes – even if the least privileged groups face material difficulties to live up to the consumerist norms. Likewise, these norms continue to apply (or even rule) despite knowledge of their detrimental effects on the natural environment, society, and individual well-being (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010, 2017).

Still, the consumer is not fully determined by structures or hegemonic cultural frames. We need to recognize they always have some capacity for action. This capacity for action is always socially embedded in closer social relations and interactions (Sassatelli, 2007; Warde, 2022). Action-capacity is always relational and context-dependent, shaped by roles and positions, and related to inequality factors and their interconnections (Archer, 2003; Amorim-Maia et al., 2022). It is both constrained and facilitated by external circumstances (material and discursive). Multiple inequalities - such as class, gender, ethnicity, and age - intersect to both enable and constrain individuals’ capacity to act, influencing their exposure to risks, access to resources, and recognition in social contexts (Fraser, 2009; Kaijser and Kronsell, 2014; Zorell and Strid, 2025). Therefore, the development toward citizen-consumer action-capacity and lifestyle change are never straightforward. Overcoming dominant consumerist norms and institutional lock-ins involves ambivalence and struggle (Boström, 2023). Change may be partial or situated, occurring in one domain (e.g., diet) while remaining blocked in others (e.g., transport).

A few studies have explored the link between sufficiency, poor conditions, and agency, revealing interesting findings. Leipämaa-Leskinen et al. (2016) studied non-voluntary anti-consumption practices that evolved from poor circumstances in Finland. Through narrative studies involving relatively poor citizens, they identify three non-voluntary anti-consumption practices: engaging in simple life, mastering consumerism, and exploiting systems. Together these strategies indicated plenty of individual agency: resistance (to consumer culture), reflexivity around true needs, creativity, and innovation involved in retrieving resources. Similarly, Korsnes and Solbu (2024) studied the relation between sufficiency principles and low-income consumers in Norway. Through qualitative interviews and ‘storytelling workshops’ (focus groups), they identify three characteristics of how people cope with their situation and relate to sufficiency. First, for many, sufficiency appeared as a necessity, which involved them developing a practical understanding of how to make the most of their little money available. Second, some referred to sufficiency as opposition, which involved a conscious distancing of themselves from consumerism and unsustainable overconsumption, and positively accepting a simpler life based on “preserving, repairing, sharing, caring and circulating goods” (p. 244). Third, sufficiency appeared as reframing sustainability. Sufficiency then could serve as means of empowerment and becoming less dependent on material possessions. This was also interpreted as more sustainable than other approaches to consumption.

In sum, action-capacity is not simply a matter of willpower or information, but a dynamic interplay between reflexivity, resources, power, social conditions, and institutional opportunities (Fuchs et al., 2016). Understanding how this capacity emerges or is stifled in different contexts is essential for enabling just and effective transitions toward sufficiency. Key to our argument is that change and action-capacity on the micro/meso levels are a part of the process of larger institutional and infrastructural change. The process is dialectical, because institutional and infrastructural change can open opportunities for bolstered action-capacity and further change processes (Newell et al., 2021; Hirth et al., 2023). Key to our argument is also that this capacity for bottom-up mobilization will be more powerful if the social/collective dimensions of agency can be activated. Therefore, the analysis in this article is structured according to this progression of action-capacity development: from examples of individual action based on efficiency orientations, to individual actions based on sufficiency orientations, toward finally that of social and collective forms of actions with sufficiency orientations.

3 Materials and methods

3.1 Study design and theoretical approach

The paper adopts a theoretically informed, empirical approach based on qualitative narrative interviews (Kim, 2016). The data were analyzed using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2021), guided by the theoretical framework described in the previous section. Narrative interviewing was chosen because it enables participants to articulate their experiences in their own words, thereby providing insights into how past events and circumstances can inform collective planning and policy for the future (Kim, 2019). Unlike structured or semi-structured interviews, narrative interviews do not follow a traditional question–answer format. Instead, participants are treated as narrators with stories to tell, rather than informants with answers to specific questions (Kim, 2019; Chase, 2005). This approach creates space for alternative interpretations, critical reflections on implicit norms, and deeper insights into lived experiences. These types of interviews thereby provide insights into the life and thoughts of the narrators (Lara, 1999). In practice, a balance was struck between narrative flow and interviewer prompting, with follow-up questions used where necessary (Ziebland, 2013; Jovchelovitch and Bauer, 2000).

3.2 Data sources and context

The data derives from four connected sub-studies conducted in autumn 2023 as part of a larger European research program. All sub-studies applied the same methodology for data collection and analysis (see Zorell and Strid, 2025 and Strid et al., 2024 for a detailed description). In total, 220 narrative interviews were conducted across ten European countries. The interviews addressed behavioral change toward sustainability within the domains of food and transport.

• Food: 100 interviews in Austria, Germany, Greece, Portugal, Sweden, and Turkey, conducted in urban, peri-urban, rural, and small-town settings.

• Transport: 120 interviews in Belgium, Greece, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Sweden covering urban, peri-urban, and rural areas.

The study was not designed for country comparison. Instead, the aim was to compile a rich bank of experiences from a variety of contexts, where variations can be found in any region and country context. For reference in the paper, interviews are coded as follows: T or F (transport or food), followed by the country code, and then the interview number (e.g., FSE11 = food interview, Sweden, 11th interview).

3.3 Recruitment and sampling

Recruitment was purposive (Campbell et al., 2020), guided by a mapping of key inequality positions identified in bottom-up initiatives/civil society groups (Carnevale et al., 2023). Key inequality positions included low-income families, single mother/parents, working mothers/parents, LGBTQ, ethnicity, migrant communities, religion, and age. This strategy was designed to address the common sampling bias in sustainability consumption research toward WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic populations (Henrich et al., 2010). Local research teams, drawing on community networks and gatekeepers, facilitated trust-building and access to hard-to-reach groups. Even though this article draws on empirical material from the European context, it can at least make a partial correction to these kinds of biases by its efforts to include a broad variety of social positions in society.

The 220 participants thus represented a variety of situations of vulnerability or marginalization, such as: economic, low salaries or unemployed; retired widow with low pensions who need to continue working some part time due to low pension; single parent, care-taker; problematic marriage with a husband (alcoholic); various forms of disability; health issues, being on sick leave, mental illness, obesity; high age, and combined with illness and/or disability; migrant status and/or ethnic minorities (e.g., Roma) facing issues of discrimination, racialization, and various forms of transport disadvantages. In addition, the social position in society (intersection of ethnicity, immigration status, gender relations) may cause additional difficulties.

3.4 Data collection procedure

Recruitment, interviewing, and reporting followed a coordinated cross-national methodology to ensure consistency and comparability. The process was supported by (a) a shared conceptual and methodological framework (Zorell et al., 2022); (b) internal guidelines and templates (see Zorell and Strid, 2025); and (c) online training sessions on narrative interviewing and its theoretical foundations.

This approach ensured coherence across countries and facilitated the purposeful collection and reporting of results. In practice, the data collection implied two steps in the interview situation. First, each interview started with an open-ended request for an experience to be shared. The researcher listened actively, paraphrased back to ensure understanding, and when needed, asked clarifying questions (Lindsay and Schwind, 2016). Second, specific probing questions were asked. Each interview ran for 30 to 90 min, was recorded when possible (some informants were not comfortable being recorded due to challenging political situations, in these cases the trained interviewer took notes verbatim). Each interview comprised five stages: (1) Preparation (identification of the gender+ intersectional vulnerability factors, the selection and recruitment of interviewees, and formal preparations for the interview); (2) Initialisation, where consent was obtained and measures taken to secure the informant’s personal information and the research data describes, (3) Main narration, where the informant told their story from their own perspective based on a “grand” question such as “Are there different opinions/views in your family about eating habits and environment-friendly and healthier eating?”; (4) Questioning, where additional probing or clarifying questions were asked as needed, e.g., related to understanding the story-schema, such as clarifying who, what, how, and why in relation to events, causes and consequences. (5) Finalisation, where the interviewer reiterated the informant’s rights as a research participant, thanked them for contributing their story, and ended the interview (Jovchelovitch and Bauer, 2000).

3.5 Analysis

The interviews were analyzed thematically (Braun and Clarke, 2021), drawing on the analytical framework of efficiency (improve) and sufficiency (shift/avoid) to structure the findings. The concepts of action-capacity for transformation in sustainable consumption provided the interpretive guidance. Each interview was scanned for these or adjacent themes/concepts. The analysis addressed questions such as:

• What action-potential toward sustainability-oriented lifestyle change is visible in the narratives, if any?

• How do these actions manifest? (Efficiency vs. sufficiency; individual vs. social)

• What instances of knowledge, reflexivity, attribution of responsibility (own, others), imagination of change appear in the narratives?

The analytical process enabled us to engage with broader issues around inequality, vulnerability, and the varied experiences of sustainability transitions across Europe.

4 Results

The results are structured around the two theoretically informed overarching themes: individual action-capacity and social action-capacity for sufficiency. Within each of these two themes, a set of sub-themes are identified in the narratives: (1) individual action-capacity for light green approaches; individual action-capacity toward sufficiency approaches; and individual action-capacity and sufficiency by necessity; and (2) the social situation as both barrier and facilitator; shared living space and social life; sharing ideas and teaching competences; and community practices. The analysis also includes taking notice of instances of expressed helplessness (see Gunderson, 2022) and powerlessness.

Indeed, the dominant picture that develops at reading the narratives is that of the obstacles to engaging in environmentally motivated actions within everyday life. Many narrators live in difficult and precarious situations, which make it hard to have mental space and energy to reflect upon the future and the state of the planet (e.g., in terms of the environment). In many narratives, the responsibility for solving these broad problems is thus shifted to others, such as politicians. This type of narrative thus seems to confirm much of the (un)sustainable consumption literature, which stresses the dominance of structural inhibiting factors. In general, due to a range of socio-psychological, cultural, structural factors, people are locked into high carbon lifestyles, which are very difficult to change (Sahakian, 2017; Stoddard et al., 2021; Akenji et al., 2021), let alone ‘escape’. Yet, the following analysis will focus more on the flipside of it: the instances when people are able to develop individual action-capacity, and challenge/change the status quo.

4.1 Development of individual action capacity

4.1.1 Individual action capacity for light green approaches

Several narrators address individualized responsibility in terms of light green action (efficiency)with activities such as buying ecological, local, seasonal, and high-quality food, supporting local shops, occasionally visiting alternative outlets such as farmers markets, avoiding certain producers/brands, avoiding processed food, and being concerned about packaging: “I do not like things that are packaged in plastic, so I look for unwrapped/unpackaged things or things packaged in biologically degradable wrapping” (FSE1). In the transport narratives, a common topic concerns considering purchase and use of electric cars.

Using light green consumption approaches may not be trivialized. Acceptance of some individual responsibility and worries about the state of the environment go hand in hand with utterances about feeling the need to do something. [“To keep one’s end up, to perform one’s part” - logic”] This something could be to purchase some portion of one’s food basket as organic food. It is expressed in the narratives as: “I do engage in sustainable eating in about 30% of my diet but due to the high prices I cannot support a full diet of sustainable food” (FGR1). With such acceptance of individual responsibility comes a commitment to informing oneself: “I am more concerned about the environmental change because I have two children, and I am worried about their future. Therefore, I try to be informed about environmental issues and healthy food” (FPT5).

Several of the narratives indicate people adopting light green approaches (efficiency) while living in relatively favorable situations, hence they are not among the most vulnerable in the analyzed sample. A concern for one’s own health or other family members’ health is a typical motivation that links well to this approach. While the shift toward more cycling and walking (which are sufficiency-strategies) can be motivated by health, particularly, there are many stories from the farm-to-fork/food theme where the narratives addressed this. Many associate options perceived as sustainable (organic, less processed food, vegetarian, etc.) with health. This is also extended to care for one’s children. For example, there is a story about new ambitions to purchase healthy (and environmentally sustainable) food when becoming a mother. However, the narrative does not allude to a broader kind of responsibility, one that extends wider to circumstances or subjects outside the family context.

Sufficiency aspects can be tied within an overall efficiency-frame: One man who says that the environment weighs only 5% of his decisions and that his car is not so dirty, nonetheless engages in active mobility like cycling and walking for health reasons: “All my displacements and groceries are done by bike. Do not want an electric bike for health; this is my exercise. I bike a lot, I need the exercise for my arthritis” (TBE5). The following man remembered what was possible earlier in life, and new information technology is seen to facilitate own responsibility-taking for the health, with positive sustainability implications:

In the past, in my childhood and in adolescence, even during my student years, I used to walk a lot. Over time, I became lazier, and I started to use taxis and buses more often. But given the whole context of my life, with all the activities I have daily, I am satisfied with my current situation concerning transportation. I also have a target of at least eight thousand steps per day, which I do, so I also walk. (TRO9)

The overall sustainability discourse combined with infrastructural arrangements, including technological devices such as apps, can facilitate individual responsibility-taking. The norm about consumer sovereignty and that you should not interfere with what others are doing with their lives also spurs this type of individualism. For example, there are expressions in the material that it is difficult to converse about personal choices and practices on sustainability issues (e.g., FSE9):

But going down at personal level discussions, I observe that it can be a tough topic to discuss, because many people get triggered. If someone has a certain perspective, when starting to discuss the science around food, people easily get triggered, it is as if it invalidates their lives when one questions their understanding of food and how they live their lives. So, I find it often better not to discuss food related topics. Also, most people nowadays seem to have at least mild eating disorders, so it feels often better not to raise the issues. (FSE9)

The dominant norm of consumer sovereignty, the ‘take care of yourself and leave others alone’-view entails the notion that the purpose of an economy is to serve consumers, and that consumers have roles and rights (Princen 2005; Sassatelli, 2007). Consumer societies are preoccupied with consumption, comfort, luxury, spending, and acquisition. Sovereign consumers are supposed to be entitled to have their desires satisfied, to have more goods for low prices. This norm aligns with the efficiency side of sustainable consumption, seen in many narratives. However, even if items in the socio-material contexts, such as organic food, steps-counting apps, electric cars, etc. can fulfil important roles, they alone will not lead far in the challenge of tackling global overconsumption.

4.1.2 Individual action capacity toward sufficiency approaches

Analyzing the narratives through a sufficiency lens provides interesting findings. The sufficiency approach (modal shift and avoid/reduce) (Akenji et al., 2021) is reflected in strategies such as adopting plant-based diets and shifting to public transportation and active mobility (cycling, walking). Particularly those narratives on food, list items that signal reduced or avoided consumption based on environmental considerations, especially avoiding/reducing meat and dairy products. In addition, fairly many narratives on food recount a range of strategies to reduce food waste, often blended with light green approaches or with other motivations than saving the environment; for instance, saving money. However, the degree and consistency of commitment vary widely. Some say, they “are trying,” whereas others claim they never throw food away. Some, in turn, give away food to others (sharing practices) if they have too much: “I never waste food. I buy only as much as I cook, I do not shop large amounts of food. If I happen to cook too much food I give it away to neighbors, or work colleagues” (FRO4). In reverse, there are also strategies such as using leftover food from others. In the narratives about mobility, the sufficiency theme emerges through the fact of not having a car, minimizing car usage, using car-pools (sharing), engaging in active mobility, and using public transport.

We identify several subthemes connected to this topic, which all have important roles for cultivating individual (and social) action-capacities: (1) imagination; (2) responsibility; (3) knowledge, values and reflexivity; (4) adaptive capacity; (5) independence; and (6) enjoying quality (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Factors contributing to the cultivation of action capacity for sufficiency.

A first subtheme is something that is often constrained due to dominant discourses that seek to maintain state of affairs as they are (Stoddard et al., 2021): imagination. However, imagination is not something totally absent but appears in some narratives. Individual people can foster their agency by not accepting circumstances as they are, but imagining life and circumstances could be different. This alternative does not have to be something very abstract:

In the future, I would like to have the promised public transportation in our locality, to have bike lanes, to have adequate sidewalks (where they are, they are very narrow now), to have pedestrian areas. (TRO4)

In the sphere of food, imagination is often connected to your own gardens and alternative ways of food provisioning.

A second subtheme is recognition of personal responsibility, which can include attention to the volume of things:

We also are trying as much as possible to reduce or minimize our own footprint on the earth by using either foot or by public transport whenever we can, whenever the state leaves us these options. (TGR2)

Some narratives show a willingness to try out alternative practices, considering environmental destruction such as climate change. At the same time, these narrators tend to express the need for more support from policy and infrastructure. Some recognize their potential roles as frontrunners in responsibility-taking: “I believe that all of us should work toward this change by participating and getting informed, and not just wait for the government to resolve this issue” (TGR5). There are, accordingly, various versions of ‘shared responsibility’ (Mamut et al., 2025), although differentiated: all are responsible, but the more, the more power an actor has.

A third subtheme is knowledge, values and reflexivity. These are key elements in the development of sufficiency-oriented individual action-capacity. Ability to look for alternatives included ability to see current practices as wrong in the first place; which requires knowledge, values, and reflexivity. There are many examples of critical reflexivity in the material, especially in relation to specific tools and practices (labels, marketing, packaging, waste, infrastructures, etc.). There is also a wider critique of modern society, including green consumerism: “In the old days everything was organic. Now, if you want to have something organic you have to grow it or buy it more expensive from the supermarket.” (FPT6). The same person also criticizes the lack of sharing in society: “People have gardens elsewhere and they do not share what they have.”

In several narratives there is also an extensive critique of government and other powerholders for not providing the infrastructure that would be needed to live an alternative lifestyle, e.g., one of more active mobility. A 44-year-old Austrian woman expresses great concern for the environment and speaks in favor of sufficiency strategies in relation to food. Yet, she also acknowledges her personal lack of empowerment when it comes to cooking (i.e., lack of knowledge/ability) and criticizes societal structures:

I do believe that the industrialization of the food industry establishes a strong dependence on a whole system of global players. The market economy and big companies dictate taste and what is at all available to eat in the first place. The real conflict is between big companies and society, not within the society itself. (FAT9)

More knowledge can also facilitate reflexivity in the sense of an integrated understanding of social and ecological aspects. This German woman of Spanish origin comments on the food industry:

From my perspective, eating “differently” is particularly important considering especially also the farmers and those who produce the food more widely. Recently there have been several movies in Spanish media and discussed in society, documenting the problematic conditions of production, the problems which come with low food prices for farmers, the exploitation of workers, the need to consume less from the massive, large-scale production, and more food produced at small-scale and locally. The discussions emphasize the need to have more respect for the products and the work put into it. Hence, I think ecological food is the better choice for all, the producers, for myself, and for the environment. (FDE08)

A fourth subtheme is adapting to infrastructural and contextual circumstances. Several narratives on transport and mobility reflect how individuals manage gradually to cope with the existing infrastructure. The stories illustrate how developing action-capacity is a gradual process in interaction with the physical environment. It requires practicing, finding one’s own approach, practical learning, developing preparedness, and evolving into having a character of and persistence for active mobility regardless of weather conditions. For example, a 55-year-old disabled woman from Lebanon living in Sweden:

Before we moved here, I had to use the car to get to work, now I can take my electric wheelchair, and it is so good. I try to avoid using the car, because it is expensive to fil up gas, and because I think a lot about the environment. I got my commitment to the environment from Swedish for Immigrants (SFI) course, we talked about this then- and it stuck with me. (TSE1)

This woman’s story about developing capacity relates to developing a resilient attitude and relying more on a wheelchair than on the car. Capacity can also be fostered by conscious self-constraint: “I have chosen not to have driver’s license. At first, I considered it, but it cost too much money, and you mess up the nature and environment” (TSE4). Such capacity building also encompasses training her children to develop skills to walk and bike longer distances, further improving their capacity to fulfill their everyday transport needs in a sustainable way. Moreover, the development of capacity and enhancement of self-reflection go hand in hand:

Over time, I realized that if I buy high quality food, I actually need less food because it satiates much better and I don’t have to buy all this “stuffing material” as I call it. So, through eating differently and more consciously, in the end I actually save much money because I need to buy less. It is a process not so much related to eating, but more to the thinking about oneself and what worth one sees in oneself generally. (FDE3)

The narratives on food, likewise, include several ways in which narrators developed practical skills for switching toward more sufficiency-based practices, often linked to some new levels of self-awareness and -concern. Examples include slow cooking and learning to cook from scratch (often also considered healthier); learning to cook with leftovers; learning to eat new things, such as vegan diet or leftovers from others; and producing and harvesting food in the garden.

Examples of training, learning, and widening (self-)awareness can be the result of shifting circumstances, such as moving to another country: “I went to live in the Netherlands and Sweden and for 9 years my life changed completely. I lived in cities where it was possible to choose different forms of sustainable transport, and I gave up using my car” (TIT2). The narrator used sustainable transport habits formed earlier in life while living in another country, experiences that Schwanen et al. (2012) refer to as a “latent force” for change.

A fifth subtheme is development of independence as basis for practicing sufficiency and bolster confidence. Independence (or autonomy) is critical to develop political agency (Halkier and Holm, 2008; Davidson, 2024), and to resist dominant norms, as implicated in the following quotes:

I am a minimalist. Yet, some others see me as a loser because I take the train. Today, I feel I am even more an exception than before. Yet, we all need to cut back on our emissions. I never thought it was possible, to live without car here, but I can manage without a car. (TBE4).

I think my practices are rather opposed to others, colleagues or friends. I notice that they use their personal car daily, even to go short distances. So, my transport behavior I consider to be, rather, counter-normative. /…/. Also, in Romania, it seems to me that this culture determines you have a car, because it is an indicator of status. However, as a personal example, more as a model of conduct, growing up in a family that did not have a personal car and that has always done without, we have seen very easily that we can achieve our mobility without a personal car and that you can live even very well without it. (TRO14)

A last subtheme is enjoying quality. This can relate to when a person experiences personal gains, which in turn is a strong motivator for sufficiency-motivated action (in addition to the possibility of saving and health effects, which was mentioned earlier). This promise around well-being with consuming less has been well documented in previous research (Jackson, 2017; Kasser, 2017; Boström, 2022). There are several such stories in the narratives on both food and transport:

The products coming from my vegetable garden are organic. They taste different. Of course they grow slowly, but the result is entirely different. And it’s not only that, but also the care we put into the things we do. It makes a big difference. (FPT8)

The main motivation for me to use more frequently sustainable transportation is the necessity to have fresh air. (TRO5)

I like to walk to the university or for the different things that I have to do in the city. For me, walking also makes me calm, especially when it is combined with music, and it helps my well-being. (TGR7)

Several of the narrators describe walking as an important part of their everyday mobility and as a form of ‘self-care’ that reduces stress. Walking, as an important transport mode in the transition to more sustainable societies, can be considered an enactment of infrastructure of care – for the self, for others, and for the neighborhood (Joelsson et al., 2025). Commitment toward sufficiency-oriented everyday practices (reducing meat, cars, and other types of consumption) may not be too demanding after some time and can even be experienced as enhancing quality of life. This finding, which is consistent with several previous studies, has huge implications. The critique of individualization of responsibility sometimes goes too far, because it misses such type of individual rooted empowerment, which, indeed, is necessary for bottom-up driven sustainability change (Boström and Callmer, 2025).

4.1.3 Individual action capacity and sufficiency by necessity

Plenty of narratives reflect a very vulnerable situation, in which it would be difficult to overconsume. Some do not have a car because they cannot afford one, but are basically forced to use more environmentally sustainable modes of transport because of the lack of other options. Some can only afford to eat meat once or a couple of times a month. These people may not refer to any green label to describe their situation, identities or ambitions, but they certainly have lower climate and ecological footprints than many of the more “environmentally committed” people interviewed. They express sufficiency strategies out of necessity (see also Korsnes and Solbu, 2024).

There are also several people in vulnerable situations who do not express the most climate-friendly food options, whereas they care meticulously about minimizing food waste. This topic of always taking care of everything to avoid food waste was a very frequently mentioned topic among people living in economically difficult situations. Some of them just eat what they can get. “I eat whether I like it or not” and “We eat more vegetables and buy fish - meat once a month or two.” (FTR08).

Poor circumstances (Leipämaa-Leskinen et al., 2016) or a crisis situation can, almost by necessity, become empowering and facilitate survival skills (Gibson et al., 2015). One must cope with the situation, and this can trigger creativity. The narrative from a 67-year-old woman, representing a minority group (Roma) in Austria and living with her extended family, illustrates this. She lives in relatively poor conditions, but her narrative reflects, in several ways, how she can contribute with her time and sustainability thinking (e.g., relying on seasonal food) without attributing a green label to that thinking.

I cook for the evening; I prepare dinner every day. It depends on the season what we eat, in winter also more meat, that’s for sure. I cook our traditional food as stuffed peppers or any other good meal. During summer I cook more vegetables, that’s logical. (FAT2)

A 38-year-old woman (FAT5) who lives in a precarious situation, says that “I’m not very environmentally friendly,” but her narrative reveals that she is planning rigorously, cooking large meals, and “never throw anything away, I freeze everything.” Moreover, “In my crisis, I learned that I prefer to buy less meat and less often” And she tries to avoid “anything that has been industrially processed.” She also expresses critical reflexivity: “I am ambivalent about organic food. Maybe it’s a matter of trust, for me it’s more organic if you know the farmer, I trust the person.” Looking at her narrative, it contains basically all the ingredients that we associate with green thinking and practices applied by the ‘typical’ environmentally conscious person.

Among the narratives there are also a few other crises mentioned as triggers of the development of sufficiency-based actions, such as a situation of overweight, losing one’s job, and becoming a widow/er. One 73-year-old single women who lived with three children since she was 45 years old, finds herself in a difficult economic situation and she describes how she has been able to survive throughout the years. She has looked for the cheapest food, but the community is also vital with both social and infrastructural support:

But the City Council and the Parish Council saw the importance of this and helped us, and that’s how this project was built, which “we pay almost €80/year”. “I would have died already if I didn't have the vegetable garden”, which provides “a supplement to food /…/. It's not enough for us to support ourselves", because "the land is little /…/ but it gives /…/ green beans, onions, tomatoes, lettuce, peppers, cucumbers, courgettes", and we use everything. /…/ nothing is wasted. (FPT3)

This relatively poor woman has developed survival skills, and we see a clear intersection between her social vulnerability background, green thinking, and the development of that resilience.

Accordingly, some of the sufficiency-based actions result from deliberate coping with vulnerable situations: minimizing food waste, preparing food so that it sustains longer, using community gardens, saving energy, exercising active mobility. The fact that recognition of a crisis and the experiencing of scarcity can be a source of creativity is reflected in many narratives. People in such situations can demonstrate strong agency, both practical and cognitive, to cope with the situation, often in creative and innovative ways, including making use of social networks (Leipämaa-Leskinen et al., 2016; Korsnes and Solbu, 2024). Hence, people facing poor circumstances cannot be solely defined by their vulnerability. On the other hand, a great dose of caution is needed when making implicatory interpretations from the fostering of such survival skills. The risk is that green (neoliberal) policy discourse celebrates such heroic everyday acts without offering any material support or any approach to correct injustices and deepening inequalities. Lack of hope is reflected in several narratives: “We have come into this world poor; we are still poor, and we will die poor.” (FTR8) and “I will probably only see decent food after I die” (FTR9). Blythe et al. (2018) touches on topics like these when they address several risks associated with the discourse on sustainability transformation. A couple of these risks is that the transformation discourse pays insufficient attention to social differentiation (under the veil of consensus, win-win rhetoric), and shift the burden of response onto vulnerable parties. Citizens and communities are made responsible for building their own resilience.

Also, just because a person adopted survival skills, this does not mean that they would be content with the situation if material conditions improved. Some narratives express the desire to own a car if their economic situation changed for the better. A refugee from Somalia in Belgium says: “I finally got my license and for 3 months I have a car. It was very hard to get the license. Especially the exam. I finally can go where I want” (TBE3), and a narrator from Portugal says: “If I could afford it, I would use a car because I would get to all the places quicker” (TPT1). These narratives need to be viewed in the context of transport-related difficulties that low-income groups may face in carrying out their everyday obligations due to lack of transport resources (e.g., being dependent on poorly functioning public transport, not having access to a car, or driver’s license), or because low-wage occupations are more often performed at fixed time and place rather than being flexible in terms of location and time (Henriksson et al., 2024; Lucas, 2018). Moreover, it has been noticed in research that deep experiences of relative poverty and material injustices can trigger a longing for materialist and consumerist values (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2010, 2017; Boström, 2023). A dominant culture that celebrates materialism and consumerism makes it harder also for relatively poor and vulnerable populations to be led by sufficiency principles (Korsnes and Solbu, 2024). Non-voluntary sufficiency is accordingly associated with social stigma, stress, and marginalization (Leipämaa-Leskinen et al., 2016).

In sum, people living in difficult or even harsh conditions reveal action-capacity. The big challenge is how to learn from such experiences of “survival skills” at a larger scale without justifying existing inequalities and injustices as in neoliberal discourse. Also, many narratives reveal that even if they now cannot afford to be very environmentally unfriendly, they would certainly expand their climate and ecological footprints if they would get the economic opportunities to do so. This is further supported by values from the overall green growth (efficiency) paradigm. Thus, for several reasons, even if there are good lessons and practices to be learned from inhabitants exercising sufficiency by necessity, relying on survival skills among the poor cannot really be the answer from the policy side. There is a need to strike the balance: infrastructural support that allows people to live good lives, without passivating them into a dependency on resource-demanding conveniences. Moreover, it requires infrastructural support that facilitates going beyond individual empowerment toward that of bolstering social action-capacity: it is only in this way the sufficiency approach can be scaled up.

4.2 Development of social action capacity for sufficiency

To begin with, social action-capacity and environmentally committed everyday action is not to be expected in the material. Due to the dominant norm of consumer sovereignty, we are told by the cultural code that we ought to take care of ourselves and our self-interest when we act as consumers. This means, it is easier to translate a commitment to the environment as individualized responsibility, something which is quite extensively reflected in the narratives. Nevertheless, by looking deeper into the material there are certainly indications of a more powerful social action-capacity, including such directed toward sufficiency.

4.2.1 The social situation as both barrier and facilitator

In everyday life, social situations can be both a barrier and a facilitator to switch to more sufficiency-based actions. For example, the family may consist of people that both support and prevent change toward more sustainable/sufficiency options. Several narrators spoke of the differentiated impact from close people, like the existence of a supporting mother/sister while at the same time a non-supporting father/brother when it comes to switching to veganism/vegetarianism. We use one narrator below as an illustration of the mixed social surroundings many people experience. The following excerpt indicates the importance of the immediate social context, also as a buffer vis-à-vis the larger social context. A 31-year-old woman comments on the support from her husband, who stopped eating meat 1.5 years before her:

I think it was mainly my social environment that strongly influenced my dietary changes. The circle of friends and social environment where we live was generally very important in fostering my decision towards a more environmentally friendly diet. However, looking at the wider family (who live in the countryside, ca. 1,5 hours away), eating organic food, less meat or vegetarian is not a thing. In fact, in the family we continue meeting much resistance and unbelieve that we eat vegetarian. At family gatherings, they continue ignoring or not accepting that we eat vegetarian, and if we would not bring food for ourselves, we would often end up without any food. Also, they frequently comment on our food in negative ways, which I find quite disrespectful and difficult to endure, since after all we also don’t comment on their choices or go about as moral apologists or so, telling everyone what the right diet is. (FDE2)

Such heterogeneity, which causes tensions in social life, appears typical. However, many narratives express a general social situation in which there are many like-minded people who support consideration of sustainability issues. These findings resonate with previous studies of lifestyle change toward reduced consumption (Boström, 2021; Callmer and Boström, 2024). These demonstrate the crucial role of social support (social capital), because it is a basis from which you get emotional support, recognition and legitimacy for aspirations (feeling that you are not alone in the struggle), cognitive support (knowledge, tips, inspiration) as well as material support (e.g., possibilities to share things). Previous studies have shown how norms around reducing meat consumption spread within families, and among friends and other contacts (Halkier and Boeker Lund, 2023; Ginn and Lickel, 2023; Wendler and Halkier, 2023).

4.2.2 Shared living space and social life

A second subtheme is that social action capacity is developed because a person shares living space and a social life, such as the family context. This means, one engages in conversations and negotiations about options, plans collectively to reduce for instance car dependence, to purchase more environmentally sustainable food, to add vegetarian food, or how to reduce waste. These negotiations need to take place in a setting in which people share time (e.g., households, school kitchens) and need to coordinate with each other (Callmer and Boström, 2024). The following quote illustrates how a family life that integrates elements of sufficiency-thinking can look like:

We try to live as sustainably as possible, but we are not fanatic about it. We pay attention to what we buy and try to save energy, especially now with the high prices. We carpool; we’ll take the bike when we can. We have implemented this in our day-to-day living and look for a balance between what is necessary, feasible and affordable. We have been living like that for quite a while now. Over 14 years since that is how old my son is and I remember already being aware of certain sustainability aspects at that time. So we limit our trips with the car, we don’t use our heating too much – we have a pellet stove – and we plan to put solar panels (especially if we get to drive an electric car – discussions on that are ongoing at my husband’s work – he has a company car). We don’t use that much water. We still use the shower, but the children have a 3-minute maximum shower time. We don’t wash our car or have a swimming pool, so I think we are doing ok. We decided not to take the plane to go on holiday, so it means we are home more often during holidays and make trips in the region – it is a beautiful region after all. (TBE8)

Note the frequent use of “we” rather than “I” in the quote.

Within the context of family and intimate relations, a sufficiency focus can be connected to responsibility-taking in the form of care for others, such as children (Callmer and Boström, 2024). It can also be that two vulnerable friends take care of each other. For example, a 79-year-old man with malign cancer and mobility disability spoke of several barriers to engage in green practices but also about social agency to cope with each vulnerable situation, highlighting joint efforts with another disabled friend to plan, buy and cook food. Even though the price is a barrier to purchasing the most sustainable options, he cares about sustainability and can address it from a waste reduction perspective and practice - and by shopping and cooking together with his friend. “I never waste any food,” he maintains (FSE8).

Some of the narratives indicate the type of micro-influencing that takes place among people close to each other, as described in the following quote:

A key person who “woke me up” when it comes to food was my daughter, about a year ago. She ate vegan for some time and now continues eating vegetarian and she cares very much about what she eats and its environmental and ethical impacts. She influenced me through her thoughts a lot and made me aware of the exploitation and other problems related to the food I was consuming. (FDE5)

4.2.3 Conversations, sharing ideas and teaching capacities

Connecting to the previous theme a third subtheme is engagement of conversations, sharing of ideas and teaching capacities; that is, people gain knowledge, tips, and inspiration from people in their surrounding (colleagues, relatives, friends; see Zorell and Denk, 2021). A woman from Syria encourages other people from Syria to “eat better” (FSE10). Another person spoke of being triggered: “I started having the bug in my head because I thought: If many people do it, why cannot I cycle to work too?” (TIT1). There are many examples of sharing ideas and teaching capacities, often expressed as interviewees finding themselves inspiring others:

The change is not easy. Many people say I'm crazy, riding a bike at this age, but on the other hand, there are many people who look at me and say I think I'm going to follow his example, it’s about time I lost my belly and started doing something, and save a bit on petrol. (TPT06)

By eating vegetarian, eating organic food, etcetera I can act as a positive example, which can make others think about it, get me into conversations with others about food and needs to change what we eat. (FDE8)

One environmentally committed woman reflects on the level of caution needed when one is conversing with others, because it is easy to create resistance. Note the last word “mildly” in the following excerpt:

I think that this [becoming vegan or vegetarian] is something everyone has to decide for themselves. I rather try to make other people aware of what meat they are eating, educate about the implications of cheap meat and why one may consider buying meat from ‘better’ sources. In general, in my life I try to make the people around me aware of the food they eat, inform them, educate them mildly. (FDE3)

Communicating about reducing consumption for environmental reasons in an ideological context that celebrates the sovereign consumer accordingly makes it hard to use tough talk to others about their choices. The following interviewee reflects on the threshold of communicating the choice to become vegetarian:

In the beginning I didn’t want to communicate it. It wasn’t exactly that I was ashamed, I wasn’t and I’m not at all ashamed of it. It was more rather in the context of making it my own within myself first, so that then I would have the freedom and comfort to -whatever the other person tells me, not take it personally and let it affect me. (FGR5)

The following excerpt illustrates nicely the nuances involved within a relatively supportive social environment. It touches upon the importance of micro-influencing and conversations. It is the experiences of a 22-year-old student becoming the first committing to vegetarianism in the social circle:

I was also very lucky that my family supported my choice. From the first moment, my mother started making two separate meals, one for me and one for the rest of my family. However, as time went by she started making vegetarian meals for all the family, and this helped us limit the overall consumption of meat in our house. My friends were also very supportive and sometimes they try for me to be comfortable and to stick to my diet more than I do. Nevertheless, there are also some people that make fun of my choice. They are people of mostly my age that would ask silly questions and that even sometimes would make me feel uncomfortable. And some of them do respect my choice but are completely against it, as they cannot accept that not eating meat is something normal. I am very glad however that, due to the fact that I am the first person in my close circle that has turned vegetarian, many of my friends are thinking of following the same path, as they see how good I feel about my body. It is very important that I grew up in an environment where I felt safe to discuss my concerns and that there was healthy discussion around matters of importance to me. I knew that my opinion would matter to my parents and that gave me the motive to feel free to explore and learn about vegetarianism and a healthier lifestyle in general. (FGR20)

An important way of influencing within micro-setting is to teach capacities to change into more sufficiency-oriented practices. For instance, the social practice theory often stresses the importance of practical skills (in relation to material entities given in everyday life; Warde, 2014). A recurrent theme in the material was that many parents are trying to educate their children on environmentally sustainable mobility practices:

Although walking is not a habit to us, we are trying to teach the older child to walk home from school. He enjoys this, because he becomes independent. I started with small steps, following him without a car, accompanying him and explaining to him the path from school to home, what to pay attention to. (TRO7)

I have also been very concerned about ecology from a very young age. I have environmental concerns, and I always wanted to give my children a new vision of how to get around. It is very different going to school by car, instead of walking, for example. If they walk or cycle, they see things differently /…/ My daughter, who is now 8 years old, goes to school on her bicycle, and because we offer alternatives to the car, she is already looking at mobility in a different way. (TPT16)

To teach children how to use sustainable forms of mobilities goes against what Freudendahl-Pedersen (2015) refers to as a ‘structural story’ of modern parenthood, i.e., that you need a car if you have children. This form of capacity building potentially makes the family less car dependent, it is also a way to support children’s independence as mobile subjects (Rutberg et al., 2024). This kind of training does not need to be restricted to mobility practices, but it can be important in the area of food, as well. For example, a 33-year-old woman growing up in a slum region, while now working at a clothing store, has learned the craft of frugality: “I always try to make the exact amount of food, so we do not waste it” (FPT4). And she is transmitting her opinions and skills across the generations:

I am concerned with the future of my daughters. That is why I try to tell them that we have to ration water and not waste food to protect the environment. Otherwise, the impacts of climate change will be more and extreme and the droughts will harm the crops that we need to feed ourselves. /…/ In my case, these values were passed on from what I experienced, and my mother and my father taught me. (FPT4)

Values can be transmitted by older generations. Several narratives mention older generations, often specific persons like grandparents, who were better at minimizing waste and living frugally. Hence, there are plenty of examples of how teaching sufficiency practices and values, develops and spreads within the (extended) family context. This type of socialization can be a crucial antidote toward the dominant norm of consumerism.

4.2.4 Community practices

A final subtheme, more challenging – and potentially impactful – would be to foster the development of sufficiency practices and values in the larger community and societal context (see also Schor and Thompson, 2014; Schlosberg and Craven, 2019; Carnevale et al., 2023; Campus et al., 2024; Nixon and Schwanen, 2024); for example, stimulating that practices of sharing (Boström and Lidskog, 2024) become a communal norm rather than the current insistence on individual possessions and endless consumerism (including individualized motor-driven mobility). Even if this is not common in the material, several narratives reveal at least some experiences of efforts at the community level. Examples include volunteering in a community initiative that produces food; expanding the practice of baking ‘organic’ to a larger social network; working in social cooperatives focused on organic vegetables as a way to deal with (rehabilitation of) previous criminal, drug and health problems; volunteering in a group that cooks healthy meals for homeless people; being engaged in community gardens; being involved in local protest movements tied to the issue of food; being involved in informal carpools between friends and relatives, and being involved in cycle communities and activism. Linking sufficiency aspirations to other movements brings a unity and coherence to one’s personal and social identity, as for this person:

For me, feminist and LGBTI+ struggles complement one another. Being a part of these movements, I become whole. I do not consider myself outside of either one. With veganism, a new layer has been added. I do not experience myself as someone who is suffering from all these identities – feminist, queer, vegan. I do not feel restricted by these movements. To the contrary, they all help me take the next step forward. I see them as part of a whole – and I experience them as such. (FTR17)

The material does not suggest that these examples of development of social action-capacity for sufficiency-oriented action are very common within the European context. They rather emphasize efficiency and a focus on individuals who are responsible for dealing with the large collective problems. Nevertheless, the material does reveal in many ways, what is possible.

5 Concluding discussion

In the face of the double problem of environmentally unsustainable overconsumption and escalating inequalities, the article has presented an extensive analysis of European cases to learn from people’s diverse experiences, how they could develop action-capacity for transformation. In what follows, the discussion reflects on the multifaceted process of social mobilization, scaling up action capacity, and creating conditions necessary for achieving sustainable lifestyles.

To begin with, the dominant picture from the narratives was not one of engaging with the future. Faced with immediate everyday concerns and struggles, the standard response is that of powerlessness and that it is someone else’s responsibility to solve the big problems of our planet. When people express action-capacity and some level of commitment to those larger problems, their narratives can be interpreted as largely adapted to the efficiency side of sustainable consumption. This is little surprising, as in Europe there is a wide infrastructure with markets, technologies, information, labels, apps, and discourses that are suited to serve individualized responsibility-taking. Nonetheless, this approach resonates mainly with relatively well-off citizens who have enough resources for such actions. While efficiency actions play a role in the sustainability transformation, they are not enough to tackle the global problem of overconsumption (and production); not the least due to the rebound effects. The structural and cultural drivers of mass consumption are too forceful (Boström, 2023).

However, the narratives reveal also plenty of sufficiency strategies, both at the individual and social levels. We identified several features in such action-capacity building, including from people living with tight limits: imagination; responsibility; knowledge, values and reflexivity; adaptive capacity; independence; and enjoying quality. Measures to further strengthen such action-capacity facilitators –individually and collectively – can be deliberately developed at community and societal levels. Particularly interesting is how such commitment toward sufficiency-oriented everyday practices (reducing meat consumption, use of cars, etc.) are often experienced as something that enhances the quality of life. The connection between sufficiency and well-being is accordingly a critically important lesson for policy. Moreover, it can be a key ingredient to stimulate bottom-up driven sustainability change.

Another key policy lesson revolves around the adaptive potential expressed in many narratives. Many narrators describe how they changed practices due to the external changes/constraints. And many express a willingness to change their behaviors, such as switching to active mobility or using public transportation, if the external conditions were more favorable. These insights suggest that, while individuals may be ready for change, the prevailing circumstances often inhibit their ability to act on this willingness. Therefore, fostering a broader social and political environment that supports sustainable lifestyles and offers viable alternatives is crucial for unlocking this adaptive potential.

We also noted among people living in difficult socio-economic situations how sufficiency practices are often developed out of necessity. They express adaptive capacities, knowledge, reflexivity, and creativity at both the individual and social levels; something akin to what other have expressed as “survival skills” (Gibson et al., 2015). Hence, people in very vulnerable situations can demonstrate strong agency (see also Leipämaa-Leskinen et al., 2016; Korsnes and Solbu, 2024). Even if this situation is unwanted, lessons can be learned from their creativity, innovation, and sometimes opposition to consumerism and unsustainable overconsumption. The normative challenge is to learn from such experiences on a larger scale, without justifying existing inequalities and injustices, nor romanticizing hardship. Nonetheless, these people know too well how to stay within limits, and such kind of knowledge can be essential to spread to larger segments of the population (learning how to be satisfied with less) and inform policy-portfolios that consider consumption reductions and restrictions. Such policy can build on frameworks such as consumption corridors (Fuchs et al., 2021) or fair consumption space (Akenji et al., 2021) with their explicit incorporation of a justice dimension. It has been shown that support for sufficiency policy could increase if it is accompanied with considerations of equity (Jenny et al., 2024). It is essential that policies based on such frameworks are co-created with vulnerable groups and not just applied on them. Guided by a social justice perspective, a central question is how policy can support consumption reduction among more affluent groups while simultaneously empowering disadvantaged communities and placing social sustainability at the forefront. Concrete measures may include but are not limited to: exchange taxes (increasing tax on fossil-based transport and meat, and reducing on fruit/vegetables/legumes), bans on marketing/advertisement, campaigns and laws about food waste, progressive quotas (e.g., personal carbon allowances with a universal baseline and higher restrictions for high-income groups), guaranteed access to affordable public transport, healthy and affordable local food, public investment in repair cafés, tool libraries, community kitchens, non-commercial public spaces, affordable housing retrofits, etc.

A key feature of the process of behavior change toward reduced consumption is its cumulative nature. What we learn from the varied European narrators is that one action can trigger a cascade of subsequent behaviors, gradually crossing barriers and fostering deeper commitments to sustainable practices, and going from individual to social action. This stepwise process of environmental change aligns with previous studies documenting the incremental and learning-oriented nature of lifestyle transformation (Boström, 2022; Callmer and Boström, 2024). The gradual adoption of sustainable behaviors highlights the importance of small, initial steps, which can collectively lead to significant long-term shifts and then spread in social networks.

The potential for large-scale change can be understood through the concept of social tipping points, which refers to the moments when social norms, attitudes, and behaviors reach a critical mass, triggering broader societal change (Otto et al., 2020). These tipping points are driven by the spread of new ideas, practices, and values across social networks, highlighting the importance of interpersonal relationships and communication in fostering the diffusion of sustainable practices. By identifying and leveraging these tipping points, it is possible to shift societal norms toward greater sufficiency and reduced consumption. A risk with this theory, however, is that it underestimates the many multi-layered blockers and resistance to change (see, e.g., Cherrier et al., 2012). When overconsumption appears as default mode of living, mobilizing social/collective action capacity across segments of society is crucial. Early-stage niche actions can be key at initiating such developments. Examples for such early-stage actions that we find in our analysis include communications and negotiations in shared social space and life, micro-influencing through conversations, sharing ideas and teaching competences, and participation in community practices and local social movements.

Looking at larger public discourses in society, for bottom-up action to gain momentum, it is essential to strike the balance between overly pessimistic, fatalistic narratives and overly optimistic, technological utopianism. While there is a need for urgency in addressing the climate crisis, fatalistic discourse often stifles action, leaving individuals and communities feeling powerless. On the other hand, exaggerated technological optimism, where individuals are led to believe that innovation alone will resolve environmental challenges, can also encourage passivity. Moreover, a perceived mismatch between structural conditions and individual action can easily lead to a situation of “responsibility ping-pong”; that is, actors are pointing at others for solving problems (Mamut et al., 2025). Therefore, a more grounded, nuanced approach that acknowledges the complexity of the challenge while empowering individuals within their social and community contexts to take action is necessary for sustaining bottom-up pressures for change.

Although bottom-up efforts to foster behavioral change are crucial, they must eventually be complemented by top-down interventions that steer societies toward transformative change (Hirth et al., 2023). Top-down intervention is also needed to combat escalating inequalities, not only for moral reasons to achieve fairness, but also because large inequalities block the required sustainability transformation (Boström and Lidskog, 2024). The research material indicates that while there is potential for increasing social action-capacity, the current institutional and infrastructural context remains a significant barrier. The forces driving unsustainable mass consumption, including powerful corporate interests and entrenched economic systems and social norms of consumerism, continue to inhibit meaningful change. As Jenny et al. (2024, p. 2) show, societal changes toward sufficiency require both supportive infrastructures and “shifts in societal values and narratives that challenge consumerism and the growth paradigm.” Nonetheless, the activation of social action-capacity remains a necessary precondition for taking up and further societal transformation. The development of bottom-up movements, supported by conducive policy frameworks and institutional structures, can create the momentum which is needed to drive large-scale changes toward sustainable lifestyles.

This article accordingly advances the state of the art in research on sustainable consumption and sufficiency in several ways. Empirically, it provides one of the few cross-national qualitative analyses of everyday practices, drawing on 220 narrative interviews from ten European countries and including people in vulnerable socio-economic situations often overlooked in sustainability studies. Theoretically, it bridges the prevalent focus on efficiency with the underexplored potential of sufficiency, showing how both strategies coexist in people’s accounts, and develops the concept of action-capacity as a way to understand how agency and reflexivity are exercised even under tight constraints. By identifying features such as imagination, responsibility, adaptive capacity, and enjoyment of quality as central to sufficiency-oriented action-capacity, the article challenges assumptions that vulnerable groups lack transformative potential. Finally, it contributes to policy and societal debates by addressing the inequality–sustainability dilemma and by showing that fostering sufficiency requires multi-level interventions that recognize and integrate individual, social, and institutional conditions.

Future research should explore how action-capacity for sufficiency can be fostered and sustained across diverse social contexts, particularly under conditions of inequality. Comparative and longitudinal studies could reveal how sufficiency strategies evolve and diffuse, while intersectional perspectives would shed light on differences across gender, age, or migration background. A key task ahead is to examine how institutions and policies can amplify these bottom-up capacities and link them to systemic transformations.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are publicly available. This data can be found here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10522048. The Turkish narratives presented in this article are not readily available due to their containing information that could compromise the privacy of research participants. Requests to access these latter data should be directed to c29maWEuc3RyaWRAZ3Uuc2U=.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Approval number: Dnr 2023-07713-02). The studies were conducted in accordance with the national legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

MB: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SS: Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CZ: Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DB: Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. The project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101036504, project ACCTING.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Akenji, L., Bengtsson, M., Toivio, V., Lettenmeir, M., Fawkett, T., Parag, Y., et al. (2021) 1.5-Degree Lifestyles: Towards A Fair Consumption Space for All. Berlin: Hot or Cool Institute.

Google Scholar

Amorim-Maia, A. T., Anguelovski, I., Chu, E., and Connelly, J. (2022). Intersectional climate justice: a conceptual pathway for bridging adaptation planning, transformative action, and social equity. Urban Clim. 41:101053. doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2021.101053

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Archer, M. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Berkhout, P. H. G., Muskens, J. C., and Velthuijsen, J. W. (2000). Defining the rebound effect. Energy Policy 28, 425–432. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00022-7

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bertoldi, P. (2022). Policies for energy conservation and sufficiency: review of existing policies and recommendations for new and effective policies in OECD. Energ. Buildings 264:112075. doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112075

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bloodhart, B., and Swim, J. (2020). Sustainability and consumption: what’s gender got to do with it? J. Soc. Issues 76, 101–113. doi: 10.1111/josi.12370

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Blythe, J., Silver, J., Evans, L., Armitage, D., Bennett, N. J., Moore, M.-L., et al. (2018). The dark side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary sustainability discourse. Antipode 50, 1206–1223. doi: 10.1111/anti.12405

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boström, M. (2021). Social relations and challenges to consuming less in a mass consumption society. Sociol. Forsk. 58, 383–406. doi: 10.37062/sf.58.22818

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boström, M. (2022). Lifestyle transformation and reduced consumption: a transformative learning process. Sozialpolitik.ch 1:1.2. doi: 10.18753/2297-8224-186

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boström, M. (2023). The social life of unsustainable mass consumption. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Google Scholar

Boström, M., and Callmer, Å. (2025). Why and how lifestyle change to reduced consumption is an active part of the emerging sustainability transformation. Curr. Sociol. doi: 10.1177/00113921251381810

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boström, M., and Lidskog, R. (2024). Environmental Sociology and Social Transformation: Key Issues. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Boström, M., Micheletti, M., and Oosterveer, P. (2018). The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2021). Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Couns. Psychother. Res. 21, 37–47. doi: 10.1002/capr.12360

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brough, A. R., Wilkie, J. E. B., Ma, J., Isaac, M. S., and Gal, D. (2016). Is eco-friendly unmanly? The green-feminine stereotype and its effect on sustainable consumption. J. Consum. Res. 43, 567–582. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucw044

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Callmer, Å. (2019) Making sense of sufficiency: entries, practices and politics. (doctoral dissertation). KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm: KTH.

Google Scholar

Callmer, Å., and Boström, M. (2024). Caring and striving: toward a new consumer identity in the process of consumption reduction. Front. Sustain. 5, 1–13. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2024.1416567

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., et al. (2020). Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples. J. Res. Nurs. 25, 652–661. doi: 10.1177/1744987120927206

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Campus, I., Korsnes, M., Labanca, N., and Bertoldi, P. (2024). Can renewable energy prosumerism cater for sufficiency and inclusion? Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 197:114410.

Google Scholar

Carnevale, A., Pellegrini-Masini, G., Klöckner, C. A., Altınay, A. G., Düzel, E., Türeli, B. B., et al., (2023). ACCTING D2.2-report on inspiring practice cases. Zenodo.

Google Scholar

Chase, S. (2005). “Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices” in The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. eds. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. 3rd ed. (London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi: SAGE), 651–680.

Google Scholar

Cherrier, H., Szuba, M., and Özçağlar-Toulouse, N. (2012). Barriers to downward carbon emission: exploring sustainable consumption in the face of the glass floor. J. Mark. Manag. 28, 397–419. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2012.658835

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Davidson, D. (2024). Feeling climate change: How emotions govern our responses to the climate emergency. New York, NY and London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Fraser, N. (2009). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Google Scholar

Freudendahl-Pedersen, M. (2015). Cyclists as part of the city's organism: structural stories on cycling in Copenhagen. City Soc. 27, 30–50. doi: 10.1111/ciso.12051

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fuchs, D., Di Giulio, A., Glaab, K., Lorek, S., Maniates, M., Princen, T., et al. (2016). Power: the missing element in sustainable consumption and absolute reductions research and action. J. Clean. Prod. 132, 298–307. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.006

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fuchs, D., Sahakian, M., Gumbert, T., di Giulio, A., Maniates, M., Lorek, S., et al. (2021). Consumption Corridors: Living a Good Life Within Sustainable Limits. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Gibson, C., Head, L., and Carr, C. (2015). From incremental change to radical disjuncture: rethinking everyday household sustainability practices as survival skills. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 105, 416–424. doi: 10.1080/00045608.2014.973008

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ginn, J., and Lickel, B. (2023). Getting the message across: flexitarians as messengers for meat reduction. J. Soc. Psychol. 163, 335–353. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2022.2136059

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gunderson, R. (2022). Powerless, stupefied, and repressed actors cannot challenge climate change: real helplessness as a barrier between environmental concern and action. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 53, 271–295. doi: 10.1111/jtsb.12366

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Halkier, B., and Holm, L. (2008). Food consumption and political agency: on concerns and practices among Danish consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies. 32, 667–674.

Google Scholar

Halkier, B., and Boeker Lund, T. (2023). Exploring everyday life dynamics in meat reduction: a cluster analysis of flexitarians in Denmark. Appetite 183, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2023.106487

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behav. Brain Sci. 33, 61–83. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Henriksson, M., Joelsson, T., and Balkmar, D. (2024). Familjers vardagsmobilitet i “socialt utsatta områden”: Konsekvenser för välfärd, rättvisa och hållbarhet. Retrieved from VTI, Statens väg- och transportforskningsinstitut. Available online at: https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-110693

Google Scholar

Hirth, S., Kreinin, H., Fuchs, D., Blossey, M., Mamut, P., Philipp, J., et al. (2023). Barriers and enablers of 1.5 lifestyles: shallow and deep structural factors shaping the potential for sustainable consumption. Front. Sustain. 4:1014662. doi: 10.3389/frsus.2023.1014662

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jackson, T. (2017). Prosperity Without Growth: Foundations for the Economy of Tomorrow. 2nd Edn. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Jenny, A., Muller, U., Skelton, R., and Mastai, N. (2024). Policies for sufficiency: factors influencing acceptance in the Swiss population. Sustainability Sci. Pract. Policy 20:2420415. doi: 10.1080/15487733.2024.2420415

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Joelsson, T., Balkmar, D., and Henriksson, M. (2025). Mobile caringscapes: walking as an infrastructure of care in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Sweden. Mobilities 20, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/17450101.2024.2371598

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jovchelovitch, S., and Bauer, M. W. (2000). Narrative interviewing. LSE research online. Available online at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/2633

Google Scholar

Kaijser, A., and Kronsell, A. (2014). Climate change through the lens of intersectionality. Environ. Polit. 23, 417–433. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2013.835203

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Karimzadeh, S., and Boström, M. (2024). Ethical consumption in three stages: a focus on sufficiency and care. Environ. Sociol. 10, 1–11. doi: 10.1080/23251042.2023.2277971

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kasser, T. (2017). Living both well and sustainably: a review of the literature, with some reflections on future research, interventions and policy. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 375:20160369. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0369

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kim, J. (2019). “Narrative data collection methods,” in Understanding Narrative Inquiry. (London, Thousand Oaks, CA, and New Delhi: SAGE Publications), 154–183.

Google Scholar

Kim, J. (2016). Understanding narrative inquiry. SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: 10.4135/9781071802861

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Klintman, M., and Boström, M. (2015). “Citizen-consumers” in Research handbook on climate governance. eds. K. Bäckstrand and E. Löfbrand (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar), 309–319.

Google Scholar

Korsnes, M., and Solbu, G. (2024). Can sufficiency become the new normal? Exploring consumption patterns of low-income groups in Norway. Consumption and Society 3, 235–253. doi: 10.1332/27528499Y2024D000000009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lara, M. P. (1999). Moral textures: Feminist narratives in the public sphere. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Google Scholar

Leipämaa-Leskinen, H., Syrjälä, H., and Laaksonen, P. (2016). Conceptualizing non-voluntary anti-consumption: a practice based study on market resistance in poor circumstances. J. Consum. Cult. 16, 255–278. doi: 10.1177/1469540514521082

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lindsay, G. M., and Schwind, J. K. (2016). Narrative inquiry: experience matters. Canadian J. Nurs. Res. 48, 14–20. doi: 10.1177/0844562116652230

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lucas, K. (2018). Editorial for special issue of European transport research review: transport poverty and inequalities. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev.. 10:17. doi: 10.1007/s12544-018-0288-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mamut, P., Fuchs, D., Becker, L., Laksevics, K., Kreinin, H., and Brizga, J. (2025). From responsibility ping-pong to shared responsibility for 1.5 lifestyles? Examining European stakeholder perspectives. Consumption Soc. 4, 33–54. doi: 10.1332/27528499Y2024D000000039

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Merz, J. J., Barnard, P., Rees, W. E., Smith, D., Maroni, M., Rhodes, C. J., et al. (2022). World scientists’ warning: the behavioural crisis driving ecological overshoot. Sci. Prog. 106, 1–22.

Google Scholar

Moore, J. (2015). Ecological footprints and lifestyle archetypes: exploring dimensions of consumption and the transformation needed to achieve urban sustainability. Sustainability 7, 4747–4763. doi: 10.3390/su7044747

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Newell, P., Tweena, M., and Daley, F. (2021). Scaling behaviour change for a 1.5 degree world: challenges and opportunities. Global Sustainability. 4, 1–13.

Google Scholar

Nixon, D. V., and Schwanen, T. (2024). Community smarts in grassroots initiatives to support cycling and walking in urban areas. J. Urban Technol. 31, 9–28. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2024.2324851

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

O'Dell, D., Contu, D., and Shreedhar, G. (2025). Public support for degrowth policies and sufficiency behaviours in the United States: a discrete choice experiment. Ecol. Econ. 228:108446. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108446

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Otto, I. M., Donges, J. F., Cremades, R., Bhowmik, A., Hewitt, R. J., Lucht, W., et al. (2020). Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. Sustainability Science. 117, 2354–65. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1900577117

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Oxfam. Confronting Carbon Inequality. Oxfam media briefing. (2020).

Google Scholar

Princen, T. (2005). The Logic of Sufficiency. Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.

Google Scholar

Rinkinen, J., Shove, E., and Marsden, G. (2021). Conceptualizing Demand: A Distinctive Approach to Consumption and Practice. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar

Rutberg, S., Henriksson, M., Andersson, M., Palstam, A., and Lindqvist, A. K. (2024). My way to school through a camera lens: involving children to inform a policy recommendation on active school travel. Health Promot. Pract. 26, 437–445. doi: 10.1177/15248399241255376

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sahakian, M. (2017). “Constructing normality through material and social lock-on: the dynamics of energy consumption among Geneva’s more affluent households,” in Demanding Energy, eds. A. Hui, R. Day, and G. Walker (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan), 51–71.

Google Scholar

Sandberg, M. (2021). Sufficiency transitions. A review of consumption changes for environmental sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 293:126097. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126097

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sassatelli, R. (2007). Consumer Culture: History, Theory and Politics. London: SAGE.

Google Scholar

Schlosberg, D., and Craven, L. (2019). Sustainable materialism: Environmental movements and the politics of everyday life : Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Schor, J., and Thompson, C. (2014). Sustainable lifestyles and the quest for plenitude: Case studies of the new economy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Google Scholar

Schwanen, T., Banister, D., and Anable, J. (2012). Rethinking habits and their role in behaviour change: the case of low-carbon mobility. J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 522–532. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.06.003

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 104, 333–339. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stoddard, I., Anderson, K., Capstick, S., Carton, W., Depledge, J., Facer, K., et al. (2021). Three decades of climate mitigation: why haven’t we bent the global emission curve? Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 653–689.

Google Scholar

Stoner, A. M. (2021). Things are getting worse on our way to catastrophe: neoliberal environmentalism, repressive desublimation, and the autonomous ecoconsumer. Crit. Sociol. 47, 491–506. doi: 10.1177/0896920520958099

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Strid, S., Balkmar, D., Zorell, C., White, J., and Boström, M. (2024). Narratives on inequalities in enablers and hindrances for advancing behavioural change through an inclusive green Deal in Europe (ACCTING dataset, 726 pages). Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.10522048

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Warde, A. (2014). After taste: culture, consumption and theories of practice. J. Consum. Cult. 14, 279–303. doi: 10.1177/1469540514547828

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Warde, A. (2022). Society and consumption. Consumption and Society 1, 11–30. doi: 10.1332/GTYE7193

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T., and Steinberger, J. K. (2020). Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nature communications. 11:3107. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wendler, M., and Halkier, B. (2023). Dietary transition requires work: exploring the practice-transition processes of young Danish meat reducers. Food Cult. Soc. 27, 1358–1376. doi: 10.1080/15528014.2023.2193501

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wilkinson, R., and Pickett, K. (2010). The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.

Google Scholar

Wilkinson, R., and Pickett, K. (2017). The Inner Level: How More Equal Societies Reduce Stress, Restore Sanity and Improve Everyone’s Well-Being. New York: Pengui.

Google Scholar

Ziebland, S. (2013). “Narrative interviewing,” in Understanding Personal Health Experiences, eds. S. Ziebland, A. Coulter, J. D. Calabrese, and L. Locock (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 38–48.

Google Scholar

Zorell, C., and Denk, T. (2021). Political consumerism and interpersonal discussion patterns. Scand. Polit. Stud. 44, 392–415. doi: 10.1111/1467-9477.12204

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zorell, C., and Strid, S. (2025). Overall report on results of the eight thematic research lines: Intersectional and qualitative comparative analyses. Zenodo. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15532836

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zorell, C., White, J., Strid, S., Standring, A., Balkmar, D., and Boström, M. (2022) Advancing behavioural change through an inclusive green Deal: Theoretical framework for ACCTING. ACCTING deliverable D3.1, submitted to the European Commission 3 May 2022

Google Scholar