Nordic countries, Post-Growth Circularity

Photo on Unsplash by Johny Goerend

The Nordic countries are a group of five countries near the northern pole, consisting of Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, and Iceland, which came together in 1952. These countries have been together for almost 75 years and are now at the top of the UN Happiness Report. They are also known for social equality and high trust in government. These five countries combined rank 11th in terms of global GDP. People living here experience closeness to nature and a sustainable lifestyle. Despite these strengths, high consumption levels expose a tension between prosperity and sustainability.

Seventy-five per cent of the GHG emissions caused by Swedish food consumption occur outside the nation, outsourcing their needs and emissions. On the positive side, Nordic countries take the initiative to correct their mistakes. The Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM) was formed to act on environmental and climate challenges, introducing many initiatives in the fields of sustainability and circularity. It was formed in 1971. They also draw on their cultural code “Jantelagen,” which emphasises that no one is inherently special. This ethos should be embraced to tackle the problem of overconsumption.

Challenges Facing

Most problems stem from the thinking that natural capital, like forests and ecosystems, can be replaced with human capital, such as timber or money. This idea assigns monetary value to ecological diversity, species, water, and even the air we breathe. Nordic countries’ reliance on weak sustainability, substituting nature with human capital, undermines biodiversity and long-term resilience. To conserve nature, the idea of strong sustainability is needed. Ecosystems and biodiversity cannot be replaced. They must be preserved for long-term survival.

Whereas the concept of green growth connects directly to weak sustainability, as it relies on improving technology and efficiency, the rebound effect shows the limits: for example, improved fuel efficiency lowers fuel use and costs, but cheaper driving encourages more driving, causing more damage.

Absolute decoupling is difficult for developed nations due to lock-ins in traditional systems, but it is necessary. If everyone consumed like the Nordics, we would need five planets. Consumerism driven by endless extraction, production, and consumption cannot be sustained. It is high time to consider new metrics for a country’s development. GDP focuses on consumption and production patterns, which have been pulling the whole world, including the Nordics, away from sustainability and failing to achieve absolute decoupling. Moreover, GDP fails to evaluate environmental damage, human well-being, and social inequalities, making the adoption of new metrics urgent.

New Metrics

To move beyond GDP’s narrow focus on economic growth, three complementary metrics are gaining traction: well-being, ecological health, and sufficiency. Together, they provide a framework for measuring societal progress while respecting planetary limits.

Photo on unsplash by Erik

1. Well-being and Prosperity

Rather than focusing on economic output, which fails to capture quality of life, well-being measures health, happiness, education, and other human values. Schools in Finland evaluate students’ happiness and personal development alongside academics for holistic growth. The OECD Better Life Index measures well-being across 11 dimensions, including knowledge and skills, housing, environment, and social connections. Scotland collaborates with Finland, Canada, Wales, and Iceland in the Wellbeing Economy Governments (WEGO). These initiatives demonstrate that societies can prioritise human flourishing rather than mere economic output, encouraging more countries to adopt such frameworks.

2. Ecological Health and Planetary Boundaries

Countries’ environmental impacts are often measured solely by CO₂ emissions, neglecting biodiversity, water stress, and material use. Metrics like consumption-based emissions, material footprint, and ecological footprint highlight the full environmental cost of advanced economies. For example:

• Sweden (2017) per capita emissions = 9 tonnes CO₂ /person

• Denmark (2015) material footprint = 24.2 tonnes/person

• Denmark (2015) ecological footprint = 7.1 gha/person, four times the sustainable limit.

  
  

These figures underscore that even advanced economies struggle with absolute decoupling, highlighting the need for

alternative metrics that go beyond carbon and GDP.

3. Sufficiency

Sufficiency emphasises consuming only what is necessary rather than maximising consumption simply because one is wealthy. This aligns with Doughnut Economics, ensuring everyone’s basic needs are met within planetary boundaries. Achieving sufficiency requires progressive taxation, welfare policies, and limiting unnecessary production. Absolute decoupling—economic growth without increased resource use—is the goal, but the circular economy (CE) offers only partial solutions. CE practices reduce waste, maintain material value, and regenerate nature through repair, reuse, and sharing, which benefits both finances and the environment.

However, circularity in Nordic countries remains below the global average of 7.2%, despite advanced infrastructure. Over the past decade, population growth, material extraction, and GDP increases have contributed to more than 90% of global biodiversity loss and 50% of climate impact. Rebound effects, implementation challenges, and consumerism further limit circular economy benefits. These challenges reinforce the urgent need for broader metrics that prioritise ecosystem health, sufficiency, and human well-being.

Plans A & B

Two main strategies have been proposed for Nordic countries in the Climate Economic Handbook to address sustainability challenges: a stricter implementation of the circular economy (Plan A) or a systemic, post-growth approach (Plan B). These challenges are urgent and require immediate attention.

Plan A: Cost-Efficiency and the Dominant Circular Economy

Plan A focuses on incremental reform within the growth paradigm. It emphasises enforcing existing circular economy policies, such as recycling, repair, improved product design, and extended producer responsibility. Fiscal tools could include taxes on less essential items, such as fast fashion and luxury goods, alongside incentives for sharing initiatives like second-hand stores and shared transportation.

Plan A is easier to implement because the necessary policies, technologies, and public familiarity already exist. However, significant short-term results are constrained by high consumption patterns, industrial lock-ins, and rebound effects. It treats environmental problems as market failures to be corrected efficiently, balancing ecological improvements with continued economic growth rather than questioning the growth paradigm itself. Essentially, Plan A prioritises cost-effective solutions without altering the fundamental economic system.

Plan B: Post-Growth, Sufficiency, and Systemic Change

Plan B emphasises systemic transformation beyond economic growth. It requires producing and consuming only what is necessary, prioritising well-being, sufficiency, and fairness. Production of non-essential goods is deliberately reduced, and societal focus shifts from GDP to holistic human and ecological well-being.

Sufficiency is central: it encourages consumption within planetary boundaries, meeting basic needs, and avoiding excess. Policies could include progressive taxation, discouraging overproduction, promoting durable and shared goods, and embedding ecological limits into daily life. Plan B aligns with Nordic cultural principles like Jantelagen and frameworks such as Doughnut Economics, where the economy operates between human needs and planetary boundaries.

Plan B is less feasible in the short term, as it challenges entrenched consumption habits, may reduce government revenue, and requires public acceptance of frugal living. Yet, it offers systemic strength: addressing absolute decoupling, climate debt, and ecological overshoot directly, demonstrating that prosperity and well-being can exist without endless GDP growth. While Plan B offers systemic solutions, its feasibility is constrained by entrenched habits and fiscal structures.

Nordic countries are well-positioned for either plan due to strong financial capacities, high social trust, and long-term vision. Plan A can gradually improve circularity within the existing economic framework, while Plan B represents a bold rethinking of societal priorities, emphasising well-being, sufficiency, and ecological resilience.

Nordic Strengths and Limitations

Nordic countries are well-positioned to implement either Plan A or B due to their financial capacity, high social trust, and long-term governance vision. Shifts toward post-growth or sufficiency-oriented policies may reduce traditional economic growth metrics but need not lower living standards if implemented carefully.

However, this model is not easily transferable to the Global South, where poverty, inequality, and weaker institutions prevail. It could, however, inform other high-income countries, such as Germany, the Netherlands, and similar EU nations, in adopting tailored sustainability approaches.

Conclusion

Nordic countries are uniquely positioned to pilot post-growth, sufficiency-oriented models, offering lessons for other high-income nations, though transferability to the Global South remains limited. Plan B signals a systemic shift toward long-term ecological and social well-being. With the right policies and societal commitment, the Nordics can demonstrate that prosperity and environmental responsibility can coexist, providing a practical blueprint for sustainable futures.