Course Notes: Sociotechnical Regimes and Planetary Boundaries
Session Logistics and Group Work Overview
The session began with an apology for the previous week's online format, acknowledging the challenges it posed for students and the instructor. For those working on individual papers related to the last session, arrangements were proposed for the assignment due to a lack of interactive discussion. Students with questions regarding assignments were advised to send an email, as the instructor had to leave promptly at PM for a train to Brussels and would not be available for post-class conversations. Urgent questions were encouraged during the session, or via email.
The session's agenda included three main points: finalizing group assignments, revisiting the previous week's session, and discussing two key academic literature streams: planetary boundaries and sociotechnical regimes.
Group Finalization
The primary goal for group formation was to ensure manageable group sizes for coordination and to have at least two groups per sector type to facilitate discussion of commonalities. The instructor reviewed the proposed groups, offering feedback and advice.
Agri-Food Sector
Four groups emerged in the Agri-Food sector:
Vertical Agriculture: Students were advised to clarify their focus within the business sector (e.g., primary producers, startups, or downstream players commercializing vertical produce). It was suggested to look at larger-scale companies rather than single farms to make the study more tangible.
Alternative Proteins: This is a growing market, likened to electric vehicles for its hype cycle. Students were encouraged to identify a specific company, type of protein, or segment of the supply chain to concretize sustainability challenges.
Lactalis / Vegetable Milk: Focusing on Lactalis, a key player in France's milk sector, and its engagement with vegetable milk alternatives. The discussion could explore sustainability aspects, noting the distinction between cooperatives and standard shareholder companies and their impact on farmers.
Nestlé: A large-scale food producer known for diverse products (coffee, water, mashed potatoes) and recent governance issues. This group would examine the sustainability challenges of a major global food conglomerate.
For Agri-Food in general, it was recommended to focus on segments downstream from the farmer to the consumer, avoiding upstream sectors like fertilizers due to their oligopolistic nature and lack of transparency.
Consumption Goods Sector
Fashion/Textile Industry: This group had members interested in luxury fashion and others in broader fashion. Students needed to define their common ground, contrasting fast fashion (e.g., H&M, Zara) with niche luxury brands, and considering their different sustainability dilemmas (e.g., affordability, responsibility).
Tech (Alternative Energy): A group identified to look at innovations in technology and their sustainability. For comparability with other sectors, Apple or Fairphone were suggested over Microsoft, focusing on recyclability, luxury status, and potential for renting models. Microsoft, while interesting for its global carbon impact discussions, might have made the group's case too disparate from the rest.
Mobility Sector
Two groups were identified:
Uber: This group would explore Uber's responsibility beyond its direct operations, particularly its impact on user behavior.
SNCF (French National Railways): As a public company, this group would explore how public investments, debt, and governance influence sustainability within the mobility sector.
Housing Sector
Two groups were identified:
Modular and Circular Construction: Focusing on the design of the housing sector with sustainability in mind.
EMAAR (Emirates construction company) / Self-Sufficiency: This group would study a large construction company from the UAE, referencing themes of adaptation and self-sufficiency, contrasting with housing models in other Gulf States (e.g., Qatar Foundation's Earthna think tank).
An unassigned student, Blaise Pascal, with expertise in alternative energy, was advised to join the Housing group. The rationale was to link energy use in buildings with clean/alternative energy supply, and the potential for decentralized energy production in sustainable city design, offering the best fit for their expertise within the existing groups.
Fact Sheet Requirements for October 15th Session
The upcoming session on October (Session 5, Week 6) will involve a collective discussion based on preliminary fact sheets. These fact sheets should introduce the sufficiency thinking into the sustainability discussion for each chosen company or sector. The purpose is not to provide a final, perfectly correct report but to initiate an exploratory conversation.
Fact Sheet Structure
Students should deliver a report containing three main parts:
Main Sustainability Challenges: Identify significant environmental and social challenges relevant to the sector or company. This can be broad for the sector if company-specific data is limited. Quantify challenges where possible, using metrics such as greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, and 3), biodiversity impacts, and pollution. For instance, emissions could be expressed as or a percentage of total emissions.
Current Efforts by the Company: Detail what the company is currently doing to address these sustainability challenges.
Qualitative Mentions on Sufficiency Gap: Offer an initial qualitative assessment of the gap between the company's current efforts (often incremental sustainability) and what would be required for genuine sufficiency, aligning with planetary boundaries. This part can be more oral or exploratory, highlighting areas for deeper investigation later in the semester.
Key Considerations
Quantification: Emphasize quantifying challenges and, if possible, the gap between current efforts and sufficiency goals. For example, comparing the company's stated emissions reduction targets with actual reductions, and then comparing those reductions with what would be needed to stay within planetary boundaries.
Scope 1, 2, and 3 Emissions: Account for not just direct emissions (Scope 1) but also indirect emissions from supply chains (Scope 2) and user behavior (Scope 3) to grasp the overall environmental impact.
Beyond Implementation Gap: While understanding the gap between what a company says it will do and what it does is useful, the core of this course is to evaluate if even the company's stated goals are sufficient to address environmental and social challenges adequately. This involves considering more radical changes that might challenge existing business models.
Interconnections: Students are encouraged to explore connections between environmental and social sustainability, including the affordability of products or services.
Open Dialogue: The fact sheets are a starting point for dialogue, allowing instructors to provide feedback and guide further research.
Review of Last Week's Session: Sufficiency in Policy and Business
The previous session, led by Yves, focused on the distinction between efficiency and sufficiency in policy and business, particularly in the context of resource scarcity.
Key Concepts from Last Session
Efficiency vs. Sufficiency: While policy often focuses on making systems more efficient (e.g., more renewable energy supply), the energy crisis of the 1970s and 1980s, and food examples, highlight that efficiency alone is often insufficient. Sufficiency necessitates scaling down demand.
Demand-Side Solutions: Policies focusing on managing demand (e.g., for energy or housing) offer broader benefits, including social and health improvements, beyond just emissions reduction. This forms a