Sustainability beyond growth

The English version is available after the Japanese one.

2026年9月14日，JAIST東京サテライトにおいて，「Sustainability Beyond Growth」をテーマとするセミナーを開催しました．

このセミナーの狙いは，人口，資源，市場，経済成長が無限には拡大しない社会において，私たちは何を持続させるべきか，また，より少ない資源で人間らしく豊かに生きるために，何を新たに学び，何をアンラーンすべきかを考えることにありました．サステナビリティを環境技術だけの問題として扱うのではなく，人間の尊厳，ウェルビーイング，消費，企業経営，投資，知識創造まで含めて検討することを目指しました．

登壇者は，スロベニアのUniversity of PrimorskaのDejan Križaj氏，オーストラリアのDeakin UniversityのKaja Antlej氏，スウェーデンのLund UniversityのOksana Mont氏，英国のChrome VenturesのCharles Romito氏です．Križaj氏とAntlej氏は極限・閉鎖環境におけるホスピタリティ，Mont氏は欧州のポスト成長と持続可能な消費，Romito氏はサーキュラーエコノミーを企業や市場に実装する方法を論じました．

閉鎖環境から地球の有限性を考える

Dejan Križaj氏とKaja Antlej氏の講演では，宇宙居住施設，南極基地，病院，災害後の仮設環境など，資源，空間，移動が制約される環境が取り上げられました．こうした環境は特殊な例に見えますが，実際には，有限な資源のなかで生きる地球社会の課題を凝縮して示す「縮尺模型」と捉えることができます．

閉鎖環境では，水，食料，エネルギー，廃棄物を循環させる技術が不可欠です．しかし，それだけで人間が長期間生活できるとは限りません．食事，清潔さ，ケア，プライバシー，日常の習慣といった，一見すると小さな要素が，人間の尊厳，心理的安定，規則への信頼，さらにはシステム全体の持続可能性を左右します．

両氏が提示した「closed-loop hospitality」は，こうした日常的なホスピタリティを，限られた資源のもとでどのように設計し，維持するかを考える枠組みです．特に印象的だったのは，「minimum viable hospitality」という発想でした．資源消費を削減できたとしても，その結果として尊厳やケアが失われれば，システムは人間にとって持続可能ではありません．何をどこまで減らせるかだけでなく，人間らしく生活するために最低限何を守るべきかを問う必要があります．

この発想は，宇宙だけでなく，災害後の避難生活，医療・福祉施設，人口減少地域などにもつながります．能登半島地震後の輪島で見られた生活と仕事の再建も，資源や設備の復旧だけではなく，地域文化，関係性，誇り，日常性をどう回復するかという問題として捉えることができます．

効率性から充足性へ

Oksana Mont氏の講演では，欧州におけるポスト成長研究と持続可能な消費をめぐる議論が紹介されました．

これまでの環境政策では，同じ製品やサービスをより少ない資源とエネルギーで提供する「効率性」が重視されてきました．しかし，製品一単位当たりの環境負荷が下がっても，生産量や消費量が増えれば，社会全体の負荷は十分には減りません．効率化によって生じた余裕が別の消費に使われるリバウンド効果もあります．

そこで重要になるのが，「どれだけあれば十分なのか」を考える充足性の視点です．これは，すべてを縮小するという意味ではありません．環境負荷の大きい活動や過剰な消費を減らす一方で，ケア，教育，健康，地域サービス，社会的関係性など，ウェルビーイングを支える活動は成長させることができます．ポスト成長とは成長の単純な否定ではなく，何を成長させ，何を縮小し，社会の成功を何によって測るかを選び直す議論です．

また，持続可能な商品についての情報を提供すれば消費者が行動を変える，という前提にも限界があります．人々の選択は，所得，時間，インフラ，広告，社会規範，利用可能なサービスによって形成されます．個人の意識だけに責任を求めるのではなく，持続可能な選択を可能にする社会や市場の仕組みを変える必要があります．

日本は，低成長，人口高齢化，国内需要の縮小，地域の人口減少を長く経験してきました．こうした日本の経験は，欧州のポスト成長研究にとっても重要な研究対象となります．ただし，日本をポスト成長の成功例とみなすのではなく，何が維持され，何が失われ，企業，自治体，地域社会がどのように適応してきたのかを丁寧に検討することが必要です．

サーキュラーエコノミーを実装する条件

Charles Romito氏は，ポスト成長やサーキュラーエコノミーの理念を，企業や市場の具体的な行動へどう移すかを論じました．

循環型製品を一つ開発しただけでは，サーキュラーエコノミーは実現しません．企業内部の戦略や組織能力に加えて，製品の回収，物流，修理，再利用，再資源化を担う企業との連携，顧客の利用行動，政策や規制，資金調達の仕組みまで整える必要があります．

講演では，オランダのマットレス産業における循環化の事例が紹介されました．この事例では，リサイクルしやすい製品設計だけでなく，回収・処理設備への長期的な投資，複数企業の協働，政府による支援，短いサプライチェーン，長期志向の企業経営などが組み合わされていました．循環型ビジネスの成否は，技術だけではなく，企業間の知識共有，信頼，制度，投資の時間軸によって決まります．

一方，企業に短期的な成長と高い収益を求める資本市場の論理は，サステナビリティ志向の事業にとって大きな制約になります．企業に変革を求めるだけではなく，投資家が何を価値として評価するのか，資本をどのような事業へ向けるのかまで含めて考えなければなりません．

私たちは何を知り，何をアンラーンすべきか

パネル討議では，二つの共通質問を登壇者に投げかけました．

一つは，資源と成長が制約されるとき，何を持続させるかという意思決定を，どのような知識が導くべきか，そして誰の知識を重視すべきか，という問いです．もう一つは，新しい着想を実行可能なサービスや実践へ転換するために，人と組織は何を学び，何をアンラーンすべきか，という問いです．

議論から明らかになったのは，研究者の専門知だけでは十分ではないということです．企業，行政，地域住民，利用者，当事者，学生など，課題に関わる多様な人々の知識を結び付けなければなりません．知識は大学が一方的に社会へ提供するものではなく，異なる主体が問題を共有し，試行錯誤するなかで共同生成されるものです．

同時に，「成長は望ましい」「多く所有するほど豊かである」「選択肢が多いほど自由である」「技術が問題を解決する」といった，社会に深く埋め込まれた前提を問い直す必要があります．新しい知識を加えるだけでなく，これまで当然だと考えてきたことを手放すアンラーニングが，持続可能な社会への転換には不可欠です．

大学は知識の供給者から共創の場へ

パネルでは，大学の役割についても議論が深まりました．企業一社では，競争関係や短期的利益のために，価値連鎖全体を調整することが難しい場合があります．大学は，企業，行政，地域，市民，研究者，学生を結ぶ，中立的で信頼されるオーケストレーターになり得ます．

また，大学教育の役割も，既存知識を教えることだけではありません．学生が現実の問題に向き合い，異なる立場の人と対話し，自ら問いを立て，必要な知識を探し，小さく試し，失敗から学ぶ環境を設計することが重要です．宇宙アナログ，地域再生，循環型サービス，VRなどは，未来の制約を先取りして考えるリビングラボになり得ます．

JAISTの知識科学が貢献できるのは，知識を増やすことだけではなく，異なる知識を結び付け，前提を問い直し，社会にとって望ましい価値へ転換するプロセスを明らかにすることです．

セミナーを終えて

今回のセミナーを通じて，サステナビリティとは，単に現在の社会や経済を長く維持することではないと改めて感じました．大切なのは，何を持続させるのかを問い，尊厳，ケア，ウェルビーイング，公平性，地域文化を，技術や経営の設計条件として位置付けることです．

終了後アンケートでも，組織実践におけるサステナビリティとサーキュラーエコノミー，ポスト成長，知識とアンラーニングに高い関心が示されました．回答者全員が今後も何らかの形で関わりたいと回答し，研究または実務面での連携を希望する回答も寄せられました．

今回の議論を一回限りのイベントで終わらせず，閉鎖・制約環境における人間らしい生活，欧州と日本のポスト成長比較，サーキュラーエコノミーの企業・投資実装，地域文化に根差した移行をめぐる研究と対話へつなげていきたいと考えています．

On 14 September 2026, we held a seminar entitled “Sustainability Beyond Growth” at the JAIST Tokyo Satellite.

The purpose of the seminar was to consider what should be sustained in a society where population, resources, markets, and economic growth cannot expand indefinitely. We also asked what we need to learn—and unlearn—in order to live well and with dignity using fewer resources. Rather than treating sustainability solely as an environmental or technological issue, the seminar brought together questions of human dignity, well-being, consumption, corporate management, investment, and knowledge creation.

The speakers were Dejan Križaj of the University of Primorska in Slovenia, Kaja Antlej of Deakin University in Australia, Oksana Mont of Lund University in Sweden, and Charles Romito of Chrome Ventures in the United Kingdom. Križaj and Antlej discussed hospitality in extreme and closed environments. Mont presented European research on post-growth and sustainable consumption. Romito examined how circular-economy principles can be implemented in businesses and markets.

Viewing the Finitude of the Earth through Closed Environments

Dejan Križaj and Kaja Antlej focused on environments in which resources, space, and mobility are severely constrained, including space habitats, Antarctic stations, hospitals, and temporary living environments after disasters. Although these may appear to be exceptional settings, they can also be understood as scaled models that make the challenges of living on a finite planet more visible.

In closed environments, technologies for circulating water, food, energy, and waste are essential. Technology alone, however, does not necessarily enable people to live together over extended periods. Seemingly ordinary matters—food, cleanliness, care, privacy, routines, and rituals—affect human dignity, psychological stability, trust in rules, and ultimately the sustainability of the whole system.

Their concept of “closed-loop hospitality” offers a framework for designing and maintaining these everyday forms of care under conditions of material constraint. One particularly thought-provoking idea was “minimum viable hospitality.” Even if resource consumption can be reduced, a system is not sustainable for human beings if dignity and care are lost in the process. The question is therefore not only how much can be reduced, but also what must be protected for people to continue living with dignity.

This perspective is relevant beyond space exploration. It can be applied to evacuation shelters, healthcare and welfare facilities, isolated communities, and regions affected by population decline. The recovery of life and work in Wajima after the Noto Peninsula earthquake, for example, is not simply a matter of restoring infrastructure. It also involves recovering local culture, relationships, pride, and a sense of everyday life.

From Efficiency to Sufficiency

Oksana Mont introduced European debates on post-growth and sustainable consumption.

Environmental policy has traditionally placed considerable emphasis on efficiency: providing the same product or service using fewer resources and less energy. Yet even if the environmental impact per product declines, the total burden may not fall sufficiently when production and consumption continue to increase. Efficiency gains can also be offset by rebound effects when the money, time, or resources saved are redirected towards other forms of consumption.

This is why sufficiency—the question of how much is enough—is increasingly important. Sufficiency does not mean shrinking everything. Activities associated with high environmental burdens and excessive consumption may need to contract, while care, education, health, community services, social relationships, and other activities that support well-being may need to expand. Post-growth is not simply a rejection of growth. It is a discussion about what should grow, what should contract, and how social success should be measured.

Mont also questioned the assumption that consumers will change their behaviour if they are given sufficient information about sustainable products. People’s choices are shaped by income, time, infrastructure, advertising, social norms, and the services available to them. Responsibility cannot therefore be placed solely on individual awareness. Societies and markets must create conditions in which sustainable choices become realistically possible.

Japan has experienced low growth, population ageing, declining domestic demand, and regional shrinkage over an extended period. These experiences are highly relevant to European post-growth research. Japan should not automatically be treated as a successful model of post-growth, however. Careful research is needed to understand what has been sustained, what has been lost, and how businesses, municipalities, welfare systems, and communities have adapted.

Conditions for Implementing the Circular Economy

Charles Romito addressed the practical question of how post-growth and circular-economy principles can be translated into corporate and market action.

The development of a single circular product does not create a circular economy. Implementation also requires changes in corporate strategy and organisational capabilities, as well as systems for collection, logistics, repair, reuse, and material recovery. Collaboration with suppliers and other businesses, customer behaviour, regulation, policy, and financing arrangements must all be aligned.

Romito presented the circular transformation of the Dutch mattress industry as an illustrative case. Its development depended not only on designing mattresses for recycling, but also on long-term investment in recycling facilities, collaboration among firms, public support, relatively short supply chains, and companies with a long-term orientation. The success of a circular business model depends on more than technology. It also depends on knowledge sharing, trust, institutions, and the time horizon of investment.

At the same time, capital markets can create a major barrier. Investors often expect continuous growth and high short-term returns, while sustainability-oriented business models may require long periods of experimentation and system building. It is therefore insufficient simply to ask companies to change. We must also reconsider what investors recognise as value and where capital is directed.

What Must We Know and Unlearn?

During the panel discussion, we posed two common questions to the speakers.

The first was: when resources and growth are constrained, what knowledge should guide decisions about what to sustain, and whose knowledge should count? The second was: what must people and organisations learn and unlearn in order to translate new ideas into viable services and practices?

One clear conclusion was that academic expertise alone is insufficient. Knowledge held by businesses, public authorities, local residents, users, affected communities, practitioners, and students must also be included. Knowledge is not simply produced by a university and then transferred to society. It is co-created when actors with different experiences define problems together and learn through experimentation.

We must also question assumptions deeply embedded in contemporary society: that growth is inherently desirable, that owning more makes life richer, that more choice necessarily means greater freedom, and that technology will eventually solve our problems. A sustainable transition requires not only the addition of new knowledge but also the unlearning of ideas that have long been treated as self-evident.

Universities as Spaces for Co-creation

The panel discussion also highlighted the changing role of universities. A single company may find it difficult to coordinate an entire value chain because of competition, commercial interests, and pressure for short-term results. Universities can potentially act as neutral and trusted orchestrators, connecting businesses, governments, communities, citizens, researchers, and students.

The role of university education is also broader than transmitting established knowledge. Universities should create environments in which students confront real problems, listen to different perspectives, formulate their own questions, search for relevant knowledge, conduct small experiments, and learn from failure. Space analogues, regional regeneration projects, circular services, and virtual-reality environments can function as living laboratories in which future constraints are explored in advance.

The contribution of knowledge science at JAIST is therefore not simply to increase the amount of knowledge available. It is also to understand how different forms of knowledge can be connected, how established assumptions can be questioned, and how knowledge can be transformed into socially desirable value.

Reflections after the Seminar

The seminar reaffirmed that sustainability does not mean simply maintaining the current economy and society for as long as possible. We must first ask what should be sustained. Human dignity, care, well-being, equity, and local culture need to be treated as design requirements for technology, management, and institutions—not as secondary outcomes.

The post-event survey also indicated strong interest in sustainability and the circular economy in organisational practice, post-growth, and knowledge and unlearning. All respondents expressed an interest in remaining involved in some form, and several indicated an interest in exploring research or practical collaboration.

I hope to develop the seminar’s discussions into continuing research and dialogue on dignified living in closed and constrained environments, comparisons between European post-growth thinking and Japanese experience, the organisational and investment conditions required to implement the circular economy, and sustainability transitions grounded in regional cultures and institutions.