GEMExpert - Sobriety, Precarity: What Impact on Individual Carbon Footprint?

Interview with Joachim Schleich, Senior Professor at Grenoble Ecole de Management (GEM)

What was your goal in conducting this study, carried out in Germany with over 1,600 adults?

Joachim Schleich: We wanted to verify the assumption that carbon footprint levels are closely linked to material wealth and therefore decrease when precariousness forces people to cut back. We also aimed to see if lifestyles based on sobriety had an impact on carbon footprints.

For each individual, we estimated their total carbon footprint as well as that of four key areas: home heating and hot water, electricity consumption, transportation, and food. Households account for at least 60% of global greenhouse gas emissions; to understand the influence of their behavior, segmentation is necessary.

How did you determine whether participants were practicing sobriety or experiencing precarity?

JS: To assess their commitment to the concept of sobriety, we asked participants if they agreed with statements like, “I want my lifestyle to use as few resources as possible.” Similarly, precarity was identified based on responses to questions such as, “How often have you feared being unable to pay your energy bill?” Finally, we calculated individual carbon footprints using data on housing, transportation, diet, and more.

What conclusions did you reach?

JS: Individuals inclined towards sobriety have a lower overall carbon footprint, as their electricity consumption, transportation, and food emissions are lower. However, we found no impact on home heating and hot water. This is difficult to explain—our method establishes correlations, not causalities. One possibility is that those who choose sobriety have limited options for moving or upgrading their heating systems.

For respondents experiencing precarity, deprivation does not have a “virtuous” effect on their carbon footprint, except in the transportation category. This was the second surprising finding of the study. When financial resources are scarce, people travel less, but the rest of their lifestyle remains unchanged.

What policy implications can be drawn from these results?

JS: Sobriety-driven behaviors should be encouraged. These ideas should be included in school curricula, promoted through awareness campaigns, and supported by businesses producing durable and repairable goods. In housing, simple actions can be promoted: heating less, for shorter periods, and in fewer rooms. Progressive electricity pricing could also be introduced, where the price per kWh increases with higher consumption.

Public transport, car-sharing, and ride-sharing should be strongly supported, particularly in rural areas where the carbon footprint from transportation is higher than in cities. On the other hand, precarity does not offer any environmental benefits—yet another reason to combat it.
 

Academic Publication
Abigail Alexander-Haw, Joachim Schleich, “Low carbon footprint - A consequence of free will or of poverty? The impact of sufficiency orientation and deprivation on individual carbon footprints”.

About Joachim Schleich
Joachim Schleich is a professor and researcher in the "Energy and Environmental Management" team at Grenoble Ecole de Management. His research focuses on energy, climate policy, and innovation. He is also a member of the Energy for Society Chair, which studies the energy transition and social acceptance of renewable energy.

GEM’s Energy Programs

▶MSc in Energy Business & Climate Strategy

▶MSc in Management for Sustainability Transitions

▶Advanced Master in Energy Transition Marketing and Management