
==== Front
Ambio
Ambio
Ambio
0044-7447
1654-7209
Springer Netherlands Dordrecht

38653868
2024
10.1007/s13280-024-02024-5
Comment
From the question how to act in a sustainable manner, back to the question why we act unsustainably
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1521-0049
Yttredal Else Ragni else.r.yttredal@ntnu.no

1
Löffler Jörg 2
Tschorn Kenneth M. 2
1 https://ror.org/05xg72x27 grid.5947.f 0000 0001 1516 2393 Department of International Business, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), PO Box 1517, 6025 Ålesund, Norway
2 https://ror.org/041nas322 grid.10388.32 0000 0001 2240 3300 Department of Geography, University of Bonn, Meckenheimer Allee 166, 53115 Bonn, Germany
23 4 2024
23 4 2024
10 2024
53 10 15561558
5 1 2024
6 3 2024
3 4 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100005416 Norges Forskningsråd 320627 Yttredal Else Ragni NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology (incl St. Olavs Hospital - Trondheim University Hospital)Open access funding provided by NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology (incl St. Olavs Hospital - Trondheim University Hospital)

issue-copyright-statement© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2024
==== Body
pmcComment to: O'Brien, K., R. Carmona, I. Gram-Hanssen, G. Hochachka, L. Sygna, and M. Rosenberg. 2023. Fractal approaches to scaling transformations to sustainability. Ambio 52: 1448–1461. 10.1007/s13280-023-01873-w.

In their article, O’Brien et al. (2023) propose a fractal approach to scaling sustainability transformations grounded in "universal values”. This very perspective spurs our eagerness to engage in a discussion about the article. The reason being a critical concern: what if these universal values work against the principles of sustainability? The essence of our commentary revolves around the notion that to comprehensively comprehend the mechanisms underlying sustainability transformations, it is imperative to delve deeper into the foundational factors contributing to the current unsustainable nature of human behaviours.

While there are various approaches and theories in the field of behavioural sciences, some argue that human behaviour can broadly be attributed to four categories: habits, knowledge, opportunities, and values (Brox 1999; Stern 2000). Using this lens, habits are behaviour that is repeated regularly and are formed in a complex interplay of psychological, neurological, and environmental factors (See for instance Graybiel 2008 for their neurological basis). Habits play a pivotal role in shaping human behaviour, and while important for sustainable behaviour, we leave habits aside for now. By now it seems evident that knowledge alone is insufficient to drive sustainable actions, as the accumulation of decades of research and information (such as reports from the IPCC and IPBES) has ensured that not only researchers but also individuals and policymakers should possess a substantial understanding of the consequences of our unsustainable behaviours. Regarding the aspect of opportunity, the global community has so far exhibited reluctance to fundamental transformations of structures that at present facilitate unsustainable behaviour, for example in the field of the economy. Concurrently, our increasing number and advancements in technological and other fields have amplified our capacity to harm the Earth systems (Steffen et al. 2015).

There are, however, many opportunities to act sustainably. It is, therefore, a puzzle why actors simply do not choose sustainable alternatives even when they exist—and actors have the knowledge. This is one of the reasons why we welcome a greater emphasis on diverse aspects of values in the discourse on sustainable development and sustainability transformations in other recent articles (Pascual et al. 2023) as well as in O’Brien et al.’s publication (2023). Still, we question the latter’s understanding of the concept of "universal values" as “intrinsic and shared qualities and characteristics that connect humans and nature in an acausal, coherent manner” (O’Brien et al. 2023, p. 1452). O’Brien et al. continue: “Here, acausal describes a connection that is innate and entangled, and coherent refers to forming a whole. As opposed to culturally determined values, universal values ‘transcend religious tenets, norms, and other social diktats’” (O’Brien et al. 2023, p. 1452). Do “universal values” then resemble a fundamental law of nature? Or does the authors’ understanding of universal values have a normative aspect?

Our own empirically based research shows that actors tend to prioritise social issues compared to the economic and biophysical aspects related to sustainability (Yttredal 2023). This is maybe not surprising given humans’ predominantly anthropocentric viewpoint, but because of the sustainability context of our research, we ask ourselves if this prioritization of social issues and values may, in a complex manner, be a posteriorly located cause of our unsustainable development. Earlier empirical studies on human values, universal or not, seem to substantiate the social nature of values (Schwartz 1994; Hofstede 2011; Kenter et al. 2019). Schwartz (1994), for instance, identifies ten basic motivational values whom which all seem integral to ourselves and our sociality. Examples are power, achievement, hedonism and universalism—the latter encompassing considerations for both people and nature. Schwartz (1996, p. 121) also states that “values may play little role in behavior except when there is value conflict—when a behavior has consequences promotive of one (or more) value but opposed to others that are also cherished by the person”. In this way, he points exactly to the importance of values when a person needs to prioritize. Though acknowledging the cultural factors influencing the relationship between humans and nature (Archer 2009 [1996]; Burke et al. 2021), we find it interesting that Schwartz and Bardi (2001) also point to the fact that value hierarchies are strikingly similar across cultures. The potentially fundamental significance of our own research is also strengthened by new insights from neuroscience. Matthew Lieberman (2015), for instance, foreground the sociality of humankind by popularly calling it a super-power and challenges the psychologist Maslow's (1943) long-living and impactful hierarchy of needs, contending that our very existence hinges upon our social abilities and needs, nurtured from the inception of life.

O’Brien et al. (2023) commendably explore the understanding of human values within a broader context of sustainability transformations. The points made above, however, show that there is a potential oversight both on their part and within the wider research community. This oversight involves not fully considering the apparent connection of unsustainability with the evolution of our social priorities. Specifically, the prioritization of social values and issues across individual, group, political, and economic actions may have been insufficiently addressed. Drawing on insights from evolutionary theory, emerging neuroscience, and human value theories, we propose that the intricate workings of humans' social brains may be a root cause of unsustainable development. It could then also be suggested that the evolution of human sociality and social priorities over time align with what O’Brien et al. (2023) refer to as "universal values". Consequently, the structures and systems in the political sphere, as well as responses and behaviours in the practical sphere, would be significantly shaped by this social force. Therefore, integrating the inherent social preferences of humans into the foundational assumptions of the fractal approach to scaling sustainability transformations is crucial as it advances.

It is important to note that we do not claim to possess a definitive answer to the "why" question of unsustainable development. The term "social" might even seem simplistic in this context, and we acknowledge this limitation. In reality, the relationship between individuals' social priorities, unsustainable behaviour, and subsequent sustainability transformations is highly complex, extending beyond the boundaries of any single disciplinary domain or skill set. This complexity underscores the necessity for authentic interdisciplinary research, especially at the intersection of natural sciences such as neuroscience and evolutionary biology, in addition to psychology and social sciences. By delving into the nuanced connections among the functioning of our social brain, individual priorities and values, our comprehensive knowledge about unsustainable development, and the structural elements influencing opportunities, we advocate for an interdisciplinary approach to understand even more deeply why we act unsustainably. Consequently, enhancing our interdisciplinary understanding of the reasons behind unsustainable behaviour may contribute to further refine our understanding of how to approach sustainability transformation through the emergence of new fractal patterns.

Funding

Open access funding provided by NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology (incl St. Olavs Hospital - Trondheim University Hospital). Open access funding provided by NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology (incl St. Olavs Hospital - Trondheim University Hospital). Funding was provided by the Norges Forskningsråd (Grant No. 320627).

Declarations

Conflict of interest

All the authors have no conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

Archer, M. S. (2009 [1996]). Culture and agency. The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brox O Practical social science 1999 Oslo Universitetsforlaget
Brox, O. 1999. Practical social science. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget (in Norwegian).
Burke A Peros MC Wren CD Pausata FSR Riel-Salvatore J Moine O de Vernal A Kageyama M Boisard S The archaeology of climate change: The case for cultural diversity PNAS 2021 118 1 10 10.1073/pnas.2108537118
Burke, A., M.C. Peros, C.D. Wren, F.S.R. Pausata, J. Riel-Salvatore, O. Moine, A. de Vernal, M. Kageyama, and S. Boisard. 2021. The archaeology of climate change: The case for cultural diversity. PNAS 118: 1–10. 10.1073/pnas.2108537118.10.1073/pnas.2108537118
Graybiel AM Habits, rituals, and the evaluative brain Annual Review of Neuroscience 2008 31 359 387 10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.112851
Graybiel, A.M. 2008. Habits, rituals, and the evaluative brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience 31: 359–387. 10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.112851.10.1146/annurev.neuro.29.051605.112851
Hofstede G Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2011 10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Hofstede, G. 2011. Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. 10.9707/2307-0919.1014.10.9707/2307-0919.1014
Kenter JO Raymond CM van Riper CJ Azzopardi E Brear MR Calcagni F Christie I Christie M Loving the mess: Navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability Sustainability Science 2019 14 1439 1461 10.1007/s11625-019-00726-4
Kenter, J.O., C.M. Raymond, C.J. van Riper, E. Azzopardi, M.R. Brear, F. Calcagni, I. Christie, M. Christie, et al. 2019. Loving the mess: Navigating diversity and conflict in social values for sustainability. Sustainability Science 14: 1439–1461. 10.1007/s11625-019-00726-4.10.1007/s11625-019-00726-4
Lieberman MD Social. Why our brains are wired to connect 2015 New York Oxford University Press
Lieberman, M.D. 2015. Social. Why our brains are wired to connect. New York: Oxford University Press.
Maslow A A theory of human motivation Psychological Review 1943 50 370 396 10.1037/h0054346
Maslow, A. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50: 370–396. 10.1037/h0054346.10.1037/h0054346
O’Brien K Carmona R Gram-Hanssen I Hochachka G Sygna L Rosenberg M Fractal approaches to scaling transformations to sustainability Ambio 2023 52 1448 1461 10.1007/s13280-023-01873-w 37204667
O’Brien, K., R. Carmona, I. Gram-Hanssen, G. Hochachka, L. Sygna, and M. Rosenberg. 2023. Fractal approaches to scaling transformations to sustainability. Ambio 52: 1448–1461. 10.1007/s13280-023-01873-w.37204667 10.1007/s13280-023-01873-w
Pascual U Balvanera P Anderson CB Chaplin-Cramer R Christie M González-Jiménez D Martin A Raymond CM Diverse values of nature for sustainability Nature 2023 620 813 824 10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9 37558877
Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, C.B. Anderson, R. Chaplin-Cramer, M. Christie, D. González-Jiménez, A. Martin, C.M. Raymond, et al. 2023. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620: 813–824. 10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9.37558877 10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9
Schwartz S Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues 1994 50 19 45 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x
Schwartz, S. 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues 50: 19–45.10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x
Schwartz SH Seligman C Olson JM Zanna MP Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium 1996 Mahwah Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc 1 24
Schwartz, S.H. 1996. Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium, vol. 8, ed. C. Seligman, J.M. Olson, and M.P. Zanna, 1–24. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Schwartz SH Bardi A Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 2001 32 268 290 10.1177/0022022101032003002
Schwartz, S.H., and A. Bardi. 2001. Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 32: 268–290. 10.1177/0022022101032003002.10.1177/0022022101032003002
Steffen W Broadgate W Deutsch L Gaffney O Ludwig C The trajectory of the anthropocene: The great acceleration The Anthropocene Review 2015 2 81 98 10.1177/2053019614564785
Steffen, W., W. Broadgate, L. Deutsch, O. Gaffney, and C. Ludwig. 2015. The trajectory of the anthropocene: The great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review 2: 81–98. 10.1177/2053019614564785.10.1177/2053019614564785
Stern PC Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior Journal of Social Issues 2000 56 407 424 10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Stern, P.C. 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues 56: 407–424. 10.1111/0022-4537.00175.10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Yttredal, E. R. 2023. The social priorities in unsustainable development. An empirical approach. Ph.D. Cumulative doctoral thesis. University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11811/10610 and https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hbz:5-69626
