The world, obsessed with growth, has outgrown its resources, and in the pursuit of greater efficiency, we will always experience greater consumption, perpetuating issues

“When we stop thinking about what is around us, we become complicit in what is happening to us. We have to come to terms with our place in the world and do something about it.” – Simone Weill We live in a world obsessed with the ideology of growth. Tim Jackson calls it, “The myth of our time, the myth that gives meaning to our existence”. We create brands to grow and as long as they grow, we are secure. In this framework, the opposite of growth is collapse and obscurity. But growth can also become an untenable weight to bear. Timothée Parrique compares growth to the absurd myth of Sisyphus, a heavy stone that we are condemned to drag up the mountain again and again, and which inexorably falls, causing crisis after crisis. For many years, branding just ignored this state of affairs. Purpose orientation for the benefit of the world is a relatively recent development. When I started working in the branding world more than 20 years ago, almost all strategies were formulated more or less as follows: “In a hyper-competitive and supply-saturated world, only (my brand) offers (unique benefit) to (my brand’s consumer)”. This framework assumes that the world (i.e. the market) is full of permanently dissatisfied consumers who have to be seduced and that there is a fierce competition for their attention. It does not question the logic of the system. It pursues the growth of the most profitable projects and excels in zero-sum competition, in other words, in being chosen. We are living the consequences of a system dependent on the logic of relentless growth and dissatisfaction. There are figures that speak volumes. Since Steve Jobs launched the iPhone in 2007, Apple has sold more than a billion mobile phones and never seems to have enough. The growth of the brand is chasing an addiction to technology that is already known as the second pandemic of the century. The sector is also notorious for unfair labour practices and for causing a huge amount of electronic waste. The role of branding has been to hide all the nasties by offering a luxurious front end in all means of brand expression: the famous Apple shops, the communication, the customer service and the user and shopping experience, not to mention the psychological dependence on their own products that gets us hooked for life. Fortunately, we are waking up. It is time to develop new myths, better stories and a sharper vision. This is as essential as understanding the dynamics of collapse. To live well, within the limits of a finite planet, we need a vision of social progress that is better than the one implicit in the growth myth. Degrowth proposes a voluntary transition to a just, participatory and ecologically sustainable society and implies a profound economic transformation. It means breaking with the logic that more is always better. We know that we have exceeded the limits of what the earth is capable of regenerating and that it is impossible to “decouple” what is good for the environment from what is good for the economy. If we were to take seriously the IPCC’s warnings that we must halve emissions by 2030 if we are not to unleash Armageddon, we must see the environment and economy as inherently connected. Either we produce more or we pollute less. It is possible to achieve greater efficiency in the use of resources but there is always a rebound effect of greater consumption (Jevons paradox). Green growth is a utopia that distracts and delays the real actions that need to be taken. Degrowth implies a change of values, a new meaning of success. Instead of accumulating more money, the aim is to create healthier social bonds in order to reach a post-growth society in which the economy remains stable. In a post-growth society there will be income limits, universal basic services, reduced working time and democratic ownership of enterprises. Degrowth means moving away from unsustainable activities and aiming for sufficiency rather than just efficiency. What is enough for our needs? If we consume fewer brands, reduce demand and production, can we stop saturating the market with brands or products and services we don’t need? Will we be able to do deep debranding work, an honest branding contribution to an economic vision that pursues a good life for all within planetary boundaries? Will companies hire us to help them deactivate brands so that less work is done in companies, people get time back, stress is reduced and our health improves?