15SCP Policy Design for Socio-technical System Change:
Envisioning-based Policy Making (EnBPM)
Yasuhiko HOTTA1* Tomohiro TASAKI2, Ryu KOIDE1,2, Satoshi KOJIMA3and Miho KAMEI4
1

Sustainable Consumption and Production Area, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies,
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan
2
Material Cycles Division, National Institute for Environmental Studies,
16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan
3
Kansai Research Centre, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies,
1-5-2 Wakinohama-kaigandori, Chuo-ku, Kobe-shi, Hyogo 651-0073, Japan
4
Integrated Sustainability Centre, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies,
2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa 240-0115, Japan*E-mail: hotta@iges.or.jp

Abstract
The focus of SCP policy has shifted from management of environmental pollution to wider socio-technicalchange including infrastructure, lifestyles and business models that are sustainable over decades. This paper
first examines the expansion of the SCP policy domain through changes in focus of the following two aspects;
product lifecycle policy and policy for changes in provision systems. The authors call for limiting
lifecycle-based policy approaches to those that address a socio-technical transition to sustainability. They argue
that transition-oriented SCP policy design proposed as envisioning-based policymaking (EnBPM) requires a
new approach based on envisioning, social experimentation, a new indicator system to monitor the progress oftransition, and development of a new business model. In doing so, they further develop the case for EnPBM
and the present direction of potential policy research for developing EnBPM as a policy design approach.
Key words: efficiency, envisioning-based policymaking (EnBPM), social experimentation,
sustainable consumption and production (SCP), transition

1. Introduction
Sustainable consumption and production (SCP) is apolicy concept aiming at sustainable development that
focuses on consumption and production systems. The
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) defines
SCP as “a holistic approach to minimizing the negativeenvironmental impacts of consumption and production
systems while promoting quality of life for all” (UNEP,
2015). The focus of SCP policy, however, has shiftedfrom simple management of environmental pollution topromotion of wider socio-technical change including
infrastructure, lifestyles and business models that are
sustainable over the decades.
Conventional environmental policy has aimed atenvironmentally-benign consumption and production suchas pollution prevention, promotion of green products andservices, and inclusion of environmental externalities into
economic activities. Recently, especially since around
Global Environmental Research
25/2021: 015–022
printed in Japan

2015, SCP policies have also come to facilitate more
fundamental changes in consumption and production interms of technology, business models and infrastructurechanges.
Hotta et al. 2021 emphasized that this shift could be
described as the expansion of the SCP-related policy
domain in three phases as shown in Table 1. The 1st phaseof SCP (SCP1.0) mainly addressed pollution prevention
and cleaner production. The 2nd phase of SCP (SCP 2.0)
emphasized increasing efficiency throughout the lifecycleof materials, products and services. Then, in the late
2000s, policy discussions in the SCP-related domain
expanded to include systematic transition ofsocio-technical systems, lifestyles and infrastructure
driving consumption and production (SCP 3.0). They also
determined that this expansion could be observed inrecent international sustainability policy agendas such as
the Paris Agreement, and agreements emerging from theG7 and G20 processes. They further argued that the2021 AIRIES16

Y. HOTTA et al.

Table 1 SCP 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0.
Approaches

SCP 1.0

SCP 2.0

Major concepts

Pollution prevention,
Cleaner production (as an intermediate
between SCP 1.0 and 2.0)

Industrial ecology,
Resource efficiency,
Product lifecycles

Key issues

Industrial pollution

Climate change, Waste,
Environmental issues associated with
consumption

Approaches

Installation of end of pipe technologies,
Technology and management forcleaner production

Increasing material and energy efficiency

Attitude ofpolicies

React and cure

Anticipate and prevent

SCP 3.0
One planet living,
Sufficiency,
Decarbonization,
Transition
Well-being, Lifestyle,Socio-technical system
Consensus building,
Changes in infrastructure,
Changes in lifestyles,
New business models
Long-term goal setting, Investment,
Creating business environments,
Innovating and communicating

Source: modification of Table 1 of Hotta et al., 2021.

long-term and middle-term sustainability goals in SCP 3.0
require future-oriented policy design going beyond
conventional evidence-based policymaking. Thus, in theera of SCP 3.0, the goals and strategies of SCP policy are
not limited to environmental policy areas but expanding
to socio-technical system design and transition. Thischange in the SCP domain poses the following fourchallenges for policy design: (1) envisioning concrete
images of a society that has successfully met its mid-termand long-term goals, (2) policy support for learning frommodel cases, experimental projects and new businesses toachieve a long-term and mid-term vision, (3) facilitating
creative
processes
amongstakeholders
and(4) examination of the social implications of innovation
towards decarbonization, digitalization and transitioning
to sustainable lifestyles and infrastructure. To addressthese challenges, the authors proposed envisioning-based
policymaking (EnBPM). This new approach is defined asa policy approach for addressing “long-term policy
concerns such as future visions of sustainable society,social experimentation with such societal visions before
full policy implementation based on long-term goals aswell as social sustainability.” It will require “a more
decentralized and collaborative approach for policy
design based on working together to envision and realize
future directions of society among stakeholders because it
puts importance on the social appropriateness ofsustainability,” unlike Evidence-based Policy Making(EBPM) (Koide et al. 2020).
As the focus of SCP policy has changed andexpanded in response to changes in the policy agenda, it isdifficult to implement SCP policy effectively without
understanding such changes and diversity. The way
socio-economic development is understood has changed
from referring only to economic development that can bemeasured by GDP to a form that emphasizes well-being,happiness and sufficiency (European Commission, 2009;
Fleurbaey, 2009; Hák et al., 2012; Shrotryia & Singh,
2020; Stiglitz et al., 2018).
Thus, building on the work done in Hotta et al., 2021,
this paper argues for further consideration of the directionin which SCP and EnBPM have been headed as a policy
design approach for the SCP 3.0 era.

2. Expansion of Policy Domains for SCP
Illustrating the situation through Fig. 1, this section
further develops characterizations of different phases of
SCP from SCP 1.0 to 3.0 as discussed by Hotta et al.,2021. Figure 1 broadly categorizes the focus of different
policy domains in the following two aspects: 1) productlifecycle policy and 2) policy on changes in provisionsystems. Product lifecycle policy is divided further intothat which addresses the upstream part of productlifecycles, i.e., 1-1) production and distribution, and thatwhich addresses the downstream part, i.e., 1-2) wastes
and recycling. Policy on changes in provision systems isdivided into that which focuses on actors on the demandside, i.e., 2-1) lifestyle, and that which focuses on
facilities and such, i.e., 2-2) infrastructure.
SCP 1.0, shown in the first column, aims at
preventing direct environmental pollution while
continuing economic growth. The policy domain for SCP
1.0 includes 1-1) pollution prevention or cleaner
production as an approach for production and distribution,1-2) cleaning-up and sound management of wastes andrecycling, 2-1) awareness-raising campaigns forbehavioral changes in citizens’ lifestyles, and 2-2)
development of basic infrastructure for sanitary, healthy,
and convenient lifestyles, including development of roads,
cities, housing, public transport and so on.
SCP 2.0, shown in the second column, aims byincreasing energy and material efficiency to decouple
environmental impacts caused by economic globalization,such as greenhouse gas emissions, from waste generationand economic development. As will be discussed in
Section 3, SCP 2.0 focuses on a lifecycle approach to
products and services aiming to improve material andenergy efficiency. Thus, the policy domain for SCP 2.0
includes 1-1) improvements in the energy and material
efficiency of products, 1-2) promotion of recycling at thewaste management and recycling stage, 2-1) promotion ofgreen purchasing and information tools such as eco-labels
to influence consumption patterns and lifestyles, and 2-2)
further promotion of smart and compact cities including
public transport infrastructure.
Meanwhile, SCP 3.0, shown in the two right-hand

SCP Policy Design for Socio-technical System Change

columns, emphasizes socio-technical change to achieve
fundamental reductions in unsustainable consumption ofmaterials and energy while maintaining or increasing thewelfare and well-being of society as a whole. The“circular
economy”
conceptemphasizesthetransformation of consumption and production systems
that depend on natural resources in addition toconventional recycling, and emphasizes technologicalinnovation and the fostering of new businesses. The
circular economy, along with decarbonization, has cometo be seen as the gateway to conversion to SCP byeconomies dependent on non-renewable resources.
Therefore, the policy domain for SCP 3.0 as a
circular economy may include 1-1) promotion of designfor the environment, and repair and refurbishment for
production and distribution, 1-2) promotion of reuse andwaste reduction for waste management and recycling,2-1) promotion of sharing and servisizing for lifestylechange, and 2-2) digitalization such as in utilization ofsocial media, IoT, big data and other digital media andinformation as part of infrastructure development tominimize transaction costs in realizing a circular
economy.
Furthermore, the policy domain for SCP 3.0 as“one-planet living” or socio-technical system change is an
emerging area which needs envisioning and social
experimentationfordesigning
newlifestyles,
infrastructure and business models. Potential key concepts
for SCP3.0 may include reconsideration of productownership, dematerialization, attention to local needs,
serviceprovision,sustainable
resourceuse,
decentralization and multi-functional online platforms.
To reflect economic and social conditions, SCP
policy needs to be customized through multi-stakeholder
collaboration to incorporate various SCP menus such as
sound treatment, recycling, sharing and multi-functional
AI-linked online platforms, which are shown in eachcircle in Fig. 1.

17

The combination of policy menus for achieving a
specific policy goal does not have to be uniform, and theeffect of SCP policy can be achieved by flexibly andstrategically combining them according to each country’s
industrial, consumption, urban and other structures.
Developed countries have generally responded to thegradual shift from pollution control to efficiency andsufficiency approaches, but in rapidly growing developing
countries, simultaneous implementation of SCP1.0, 2.0
and 3.0 will be required.

3. Life-cycle Approach in the SCP 2.0 Era
As discussed in the introduction, since the 1990s, themost influential SCP policy approach can be said to be alife-cycle-based efficiency approach (SCP 2.0). Policy
design for SCP 2.0 requires comprehending SCP from theperspective of a product’s life cycle, focusing on material
destiny from upstream to downstream.
Life-cycle thinking for policy intervention usuallyfocuses on the different stages of the life cycle of products
and materials in addition to preventing pollution causedby dumping, leakages and emissions from industrial
production. Basically, it looks to divide the life cycle ofproducts and materials into resource extraction,
production/manufacturing, distribution, consumption,
recycling and waste management.
Life-cycle thinking for policy intervention usuallyplaces policies regulating environmental impacts in eachlifecycle
stage,
orincorporates
environmental
externalities in each lifecycle stage or in combinations ofdifferent lifecycle stages (Aoki-Suzuki, 2015; Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies, 2010). For example,
some well-discussed policy instruments at the resource
extraction stage are the pricing of excessive material
extraction, including material resource extraction charges,
taxes on raw materials, and aggregate levies (Aoki-Suzuki,2015). For the production stage, policy instruments

Fig. 1 Shift in policy tools and approaches for SCP.

18

Y. HOTTA et al.

include environmental management systems (EMS), andpromotion of cleaner production and standards forresource efficient products, as well as criteria andstandards for eco-design. For the consumption stage, they
include eco-labels, awareness-raising campaigns, green
procurement, incentive schemes such as deposits andrefunds, differentiated VAT and charges for single-use
items. The waste management and recycling stage
includes instruments such as extended producer
responsibility(EPR),
pay-as-you-throw(PAYT),
municipal waste charges, awareness campaigns, landfill
taxes and incineration charges for companies. Although
the policy instruments mentioned here do not constitutean exhaustive list, they make up a very common
framework for comprehending resource efficiency andmaterial circulation policy areas and perceiving any
potential intervention points.
Figure 2 presents an image of the lifecycle-based
SCP policy interventions described above.
The lifecycle approach, however, tends to be more
effective in considering policy interventions for individual
products, services or material streams such as packaging,automobiles, electric and electronic products, food and soon. In addition, since it focuses on product life cycles, it
tends to play down the role of consumption as a driving
force for product and service systems as opposed toconsumption as representing one stage of a whole system.
In this context, the growing popularity of circular
economy policies is both an advanced version and a close
relative of concepts focusing on product and material life
cycles, particularly those focusing on environmentallysound management and the 3Rs (reduce, reuse andrecycle) of end-of-life products. This emerging policy
concept puts more emphasis on less dependency on
primary material consumption, wider use of secondary
material cycles and development of new circular businessmodels. In this concept, the specific instruments towards
sustainability are not limited to increasing material
efficiency of products. Rather, the concept focuses on thetransition to much broader systems including businessmodels and infrastructure. The utilization of informationand communication technology (ICT), entrepreneurshipand innovation to enable the transition is also part of thisconcept.

4. Envisioning-based Policymaking as a Policy
Approach in the SCP3.0 Era
To achieve ambitious medium- to long-term goals
such as the Paris Agreement (United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, 2015), SDGs (United
Nations General Assembly, 2015), and Osaka Blue Ocean
Vision (G20, 2019) related to SCP, fundamental changes
in socio-economic structure, including business models
and lifestyles, are required. In other words, the policy goal
is to realize transitions in socio-technical systems,
including technological innovation and lifestyleinnovation. In this way, to achieve the medium- tolong-term goals, it is important to share a vision ofembodying the society we should aim for and toaccumulate evidence.
The life-cycle approach of policy intervention does
not explicitly involve policy design for socio-technicalsystem changes, even those related to institutional reform,
infrastructure transformation, innovation, new businessmodels and lifestyle change. It also underplays the role ofconsumption as a driving force of consumption andproduction systems.
Thus, it is vital to consider ways 1) to envision future
directions based on ambitious middle- and long-termgoals for socio-technical change, 2) to conduct social
experimentation on new SCP patterns to examine theirpros and cons, 3) to monitor the progress of sustainability
transition, including development of indicators, and 4) toprovide incentives to new business and service models tosustain such socio-technical infrastructure. These areintervention points of an updated SCP approach in a SCP
value-creation model.

Fig. 2 SCP policy design based on a life-cycle perspective.

SCP Policy Design for Socio-technical System Change

4.1 Envisioning and Developing Scenario-based
Narratives
One of the most important pillars for EnBPM is“envisioning” as a creative process in social-technicalsystem design for sustainability. For example, thedirection of long-term changes in urban infrastructure andlifestyles is often difficult to imagine from the form ofworkshops among stakeholders alone. Thus, envisioning
is crucial as a process for developing a concrete image
and road-map, and for generating evidence of thesocial/economic and technological impacts of achieving
these long-term goals in specific local/national contexts.
This envisioning process can be supported and facilitatedby multi-stakeholder dialogues involving science andpolicy interactions such as scenario development,
modeling analysis and stakeholders’ dialogues. It is vitalto have a process for co-designing sustainable lifestyles
through consensus on changes for infrastructure andbusiness for maintaining or increasing the well-being of asociety as a whole.
Application of “envisioning” can be seen in theattempt by Kamei et al. (2021a) to analyze thesocio-economic impact of rapid urbanization and possible
pathways of sustainable urban development for the
long-term future of Bhutan. This approach was originallyapplied to envisioning future urban development
scenarios for Tokyo (Kamei et al., 2021b). Kamei et al.
applied a qualitative analysis based on sharedsocioeconomic pathways (SSPs) for climate change
scenario analysis in urban settings. For that purpose, they
tried to incorporate the urban context, such as urban
planning, spatial analysis, historical/cultural backgroundand detailed urban infrastructure engineering elements,
including urban form, buildings and transportation modes.
In addition, a stakeholder consultation process was
implemented to gain a deeper understanding of the local
context. The socio-economic scenario analysis in theirstudy in Bhutan (SSPs Bhutan) proposes decentralized
development, conservation of local resources and cultural
assets in contrast to the business-as-usual case, where thepopulation influx into the city continues. By utilizing thenine indicators of Bhutan’s gross national happiness(GNH) as well as urban planning factors related to qualityof life, such as differences in access to infrastructure,energy systems and services between urban and rural
areas, the study compared different implications for future
development patterns in the different scenarios.
The study showed that urbanization will drive theconstruction of new urban infrastructure by increasing
demand due to the influence of social factors such as
education and employment. The study suggests that recent
trends in urbanization may exacerbate the social
disparities between urban and rural areas. Future
projections based on some empirical analyses using
existing literature and local experiences can support
local-specific strategies for sustainable transition, thereby

19

also increasing the local quality of the living environment
and mitigating the emerging social risks associated withongoing rapid urbanization and socio-technical transition.
4.2 Social Experimentation
Another important pillar of EnBPM is social
experimentation. It is not yet clear how society will lookafter achieving those goals. Thus, social experimentation
can be instrumental in examining the effectiveness ofdifferent policy options in different social contexts. Social
experimentation can also generate evidence of benefits
and challenges to achieving these goals in a real setting. It
can also generate a narrative for encouraging different
stakeholders to contribute their actions and support for asustainable transition as a way to transform
socio-technical systems. Social experiments can motivate
citizens and improve their implementation capacity. They
open a window for discussing co-creation of a newlifestyle transcending the boundaries of citizens,companies and governments.
For example, the Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies （IGES）conducted a study including social
experimentation on how macro-level goal-setting for
decarbonization (1.5 degree target) could be achieved at
the urban and consumer levels by indexing lifecycle
environmental impacts (IGES et al., 2019). The 1.5 degree
lifestyle agenda has a systematic nature based oninterdependence among consumer habits, markets,
services, technologies and social rules. Bringing aboutchanges in consumer behavior requires three elements:
motivation/intention, ability and opportunity. For
consumers to overcome obstacles and smoothly transition
to a 1.5-degree lifestyle, it is essential that different
stakeholders, such as national and local governments,
producers and companies, citizens and civil society
organizations (CSOs), play their respective roles andco-create societal visions and lifestyle changes. In
particular, the government needs to review existing
regulations, indicators for monitoring progress towards
goals and transition management to avoid lock-ins.
Governments also need to provide infrastructure forsustainable choices, motivate citizens and the businesssector to take action, and provide feedback. The businesssector must offer innovative products and services andrelated new business models. Citizens may makesustainable choices, work with governments andbusinesses to develop products and services and engage in
grassroots efforts and dissemination activities incommunities, workplaces and schools.
The study aimed at identifying challenges andopportunities for realizing macro policy goals at the microlevel. Based on the current footprint of the city andconsumer segment and the calculated effectiveness of
reducing environmental impacts through lifestyle changes,
the study tried to extract options at the living level toward
the 1.5 degree target (Koide et al., 2021). It also engaged

20

Y. HOTTA et al.

with individual households in social experimentation to
try to identify options for 1.5 degree lifestyles.
4.3 Monitoring Progress towards Sustainability
Transition
Another emerging important pillar involves
long-term goal setting and planetary boundaries. This isrelated to measurement of progress towards long-term andmiddle-term goals, with more emphasis on social issues,
well-being and lifestyles, as observed in the policy
discourse on sustainability. The framework for planetary
boundaries was introduced in research by Rockström(2009) to define the safe operating space for humanitywith respect to the planet’s biophysical subsystems orprocesses (Rockström, 2009). This framework was
updated in 2015, concluding that climate change, genetic
biodiversity, land-system change and biogeochemical
flows are already beyond the boundaries of the earth’s
safe operating zone (Steffen et al., 2015). This concept,
emerging from the research community, gradually
surfaced into policy discourse in the 2010s. In this
discourse, sustainability issues were framed as ways ofliving as well as systems which enabled and determinedthose ways of living. This emerging discourse calls for atransition of lifestyles, production systems andinfrastructure based on long-term goals that take planetary
boundaries including climate change into consideration.
At the same time, a certain level of well-being andinclusion of social considerations are also importantconcerns in this discourse.
Beyond GDP is one such example in this emerging
policy discourse (European Commission, 2009). Morethan 15 national governments and internationalorganizations are conducting initiatives to design social
progress, wellbeing and happiness indicators (Cabinet
Office of Japan, 2011). The discourse on “beyond GDP”
tends to include discussion on how to achieve ways ofliving that provide sufficiency. This cannot be measured
by GDP as the sole indicator. The recent global
sustainability goals encourage a fundamental shift insocio-technical systems for realizing high levels ofwell-being within planetary boundaries. These goals
should not only aim to reduce consumption of
non-renewable resources but also to change evaluation
methods from those associated with monetary value tomore comprehensive ways of measuring the well-being ofsociety as a whole. Various types of "Beyond GDP"
indicators have been proposed, including subjective
well-being, quality of life, environmental indicators,
sustainable development indicators, overall progressapproaches or the combination of social andenvironmental aspects, adjusted-GDP approaches andcommunity indicators (Hák et al., 2012).
One alternative approach for capturing various
elements of progress in society is to calculate wealth as astock, rather than capturing it as a flow. Different types ofintangible capital, such as infrastructure, human resources
and the natural environment are to be taken into account,with a view towards promoting intergenerational
well-being. Managi and Kumar (2018) define this type of
integrated indicator as inclusive wealth.
This reframing of issues inevitably leads us toreconsider our vision and goals as well as potentially thevalue system associated with consumption and production
practices of the society. Setting new goals or a new visionalso requires creation of new indicators to monitor the
progress of socio-technical changes. For example, if thecircular economy concept is something distinct fromconventional waste management and the 3Rs (reduce,reuse, and recycle), it requires a new set of indicators tocheck the progress of policies promoting the circular
economy. These could be progress on the expansion of
new business models in line with the circular economy
concept, contributing to dematerialization or ensuring lessdependence on virgin materials, and assessing any
positive social and environmental benefits.
4.4 New Business Model and Service Model
Development
Social and technical infrastructure changes driven by
long-term goal setting should be mainstreamed by market
forces and by new business models and service provisionmodels. As discussed above, if there are no supplies ofservices or products to satisfy trends towards suchlong-term goals, consumers will be locked into
conventional practices.
The OECD Meeting of the Environment Policy
Committee at Ministerial Level held in Paris, from 28 to
29 September 2016 discussed the circular economy
concept, with policy makers emphasizing “the importanceof new business models and the barriers to increasing
their take-up in the circular economy (…) Circularbusiness models, where firms generate economic value by
undertaking business activities which close material loops,
will become increasingly attractive” (OECD, 2016).
Bocken et al. (2014) also discusses the necessity ofrecognizing business model innovation as a key todelivering social and environmental sustainability. By
reviewing innovative business model examples, Bocken
et al. categorized sustainable new business models into
the following eight archetypes, 1) maximizing material
and energy efficiency, 2) creating value from ‘waste’,3) substituting with renewables and natural processes,
4) delivering functionality, rather than ownership,5) adopting a stewardship (in terms of long-term healthandwell-being),
6)
encouraging
sufficiency,
7) re-purposing business for society/environment, and
8) developing scale-up solutions (Bocken et al. 2014).
Since then, more recent discussions on circular
economy business models have emphasized increasing
expectations towards roles played by ICT in new businessfor sustainability by decreasing the costs of transactions

SCP Policy Design for Socio-technical System Change

and commutations (Lüdeke-Freund et al., 2018).
Digitalization may be able to revitalize reuse or sharing
by increasing connectivity among users, products andservices.
With growing interest in the utilization of ICT,
innovation and dematerialization expressed in the circular
economy concept, the emerging attention on a sharing
economy is also closely related to policy emphasis on
innovation and new business models. A sharing economy
or collaborative consumption, which entails “peer-to-peer
based activity of obtaining, giving or sharing access togoods and services” enabled by information andcommunications technologies, has the potential to addresssocial issues such as climate change, pollution, localness
and community, and under- and over-consumption(Hamari et al., 2016). The sharing economy is framed inseveral ways, including as an opportunity for improving
the economy, introducing sustainable ways of
consumption and promoting decentralized and equitableeconomy, neoliberalism and deregulation (Martin, 2016).
The most important point is that there is a shift in the
discourse represented in this concept and that “the term
goes beyond the mechanics of production andconsumption of goods and services in the areas that it
seeks to redefine (examples include rebuilding capital,
including social and natural, and shifting from consumer
to user)” (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). It isessential to develop a social business model and promoteprivate investment.

5. Conclusion
In this paper, we have discussed various policy
domains and menus under different versions of SCP byfocusing on 1) product lifecycle policy, and 2) policy forchanges in provision systems. We have also compared
how policy approaches may differ between those in the
SCP 2.0 era, which focus on a lifecycle approach, andthose under SCP 2.0, which require future envisioning forsocio-technical system change. In doing so, we mentionedthat SCP 3.0 requires a new policy-making approach
suitable for a socio-technical system transition. We
therefore have further promoted the concept of EnBPM.
In particular, evidence for realization of the visions mustbe accumulated through social experiments. We haveidentified four important pillars for EnBPM:
1) formulation of a vision for a future society
through scenario analysis and narratives leading up toit, 2) evidence from social experiments in whichstakeholders participate, 3) an increased role for capitalindicators to measure development of social wellbeing,
and 4) social entrepreneurs to foster new business models
for advancing SCP.
In particular, in future international cooperation onsustainability, the perspectives of investing in social
experiments and social innovation will become

21

increasingly important. It is also important to evaluate
international collaborative projects in terms of whether
they encourage social innovation towards transition tosustainability.
References
Aoki-Suzuki, C. (2015) Examining Future Implementation of Waste
Prevention and Resource Reduction Policies in Asia and thePacifi c – Referring Practices in European Countries. IGES,
Hayama, Japan. Retrieved from https://www.iges.or.jp/jp/pub/examining-future-implementation-prevention-and/en (accssesed
6 September 2021)
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P. and Evans, S. (2014) A
literature and practice review to develop sustainable businessmodel archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65: 42–56.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039
Cabinet Office of Japan (2011) Measuring National Well-BeingProposed Well-being Indicators. Cabinet Office of Japan, Tokyo.
Retrieved from https://www5.cao.go.jp/keizai2/koufukudo/pdf/
koufukudosian_english.pdf (accessed 6 September 2021)
Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) Towards the Circular
Economy Vol.1 Ecnomic and Business Rationale for an
Accelarated Transition. (Vol. 1). Ellen MacAurthur Foundation,
Cowes, UK. https://doi.org/10.1162/108819806775545321
European Commission (2009) GDP and Beyond-Measuring
Progress in a Changing World. European Commission, Brussels.
Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/system/files/
06_GDP%20and%20beyond.pdf (accessed 6 September 2021)
Fleurbaey, M. (2009) Beyond GDP: The quest for a measure ofsocial welfare. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(4), 1029–
1075. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.4.1029
G20 (2019) G20 Osaka Leaders’ Declaration, G20 Osaka Summit
2019. Retrieved from https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/
g20_summit/osaka19/en/documents/final_g20_osaka_leaders_declaration.html (accessed 31 August 2021)
Hák, T., Janoušková, S., Abdallah, S., Seaford, C. and Mahony, C.
(2012) Review Report on Beyond GDP Indicators:
Categorisation, Intensions and Impacts: Final Version of
BRAINPOoL Deliverable 1.1, A Collaborative Project Funded by
the European Commission under the FP7 Programme (Contract
no. 283024). CUEC, Prague. Retrieved from https://www.
socioeco.org/bdf_fiche-document-2817_en.html (accessed 6
September 2021)
Hamari, J., Sjoklint, M. and Ukkonen, A. (2016) The sharing
economy: Why people participate in collaborative consumption.
Journal of the Association for Information Science andTechnology, 67(9): 2047–2059. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi
Hotta, Y., Tasaki, T. and Koide, R. (2021) Expansion of policy
domain of sustainable consumption and production (SCP):
Challenges and opportunities for policy design. Sustainability,
13(12): 6763. https://doi.org/10.3390/ SU13126763
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (2010) Policy Tools
for Sustainable Materials Management : Applications in Asia,.
IGES, Hayama, Japan. Retrieved from https://www.iges.or.jp/jp/
pub/policy-tools-sustainable-materials-management/en (accessed
6 September 2021)
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Aalto
University,and D-mat ltd. (2019). 1.5-Degree Lifestyles: Targets
and Options for Reducing Lifestyle Carbon Footprints. Technical
Report. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama,
Japan. Retrieved from https://www.iges.or.jp/jp/pub/15-degreeslifestyles-2019/en (accessed 6 September 2021)
Kamei, M., Mastrucci, A., van Ruijven, B.J. (2021b) A Future
Outlook of Narratives for the Built Environment in Japan.
Sustainability 2021, 13, 1653. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1
3041653
Kamei, M., Wangmo, T., Leibowicz, B.D., Nishioka, S. (2021)
Urbanization, carbon neutrality, and Gross National Happiness:
Sustainable development pathways for Bhutan. Cities, Volume111,102972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102972
Koide, R., Hotta, Y. and Watabe, A. (2020) EBPM towards lifestyleinnovation. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy

22

Y. HOTTA et al.

Studies, 13(1): 70–73. https://doi.org/10.14927/reeps.13.1_70 (inJapanese)
Koide, R., Kojima, S., Nansai, K., Lettenmeier, M., Asakawa, K.,
Liu, C. and Murakami, S. (2021) Exploring carbon footprint
reduction pathways through urban lifestyle changes: a practical
approach applied to Japanese cities. Environmental Research
Letters, 16(8): 084001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/
AC0E64
Lüdeke-Freund, F., Gold, S. and Bocken, N.M.P. (2018) A review
and typology of circular economy business model patterns.
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1): 36–41. https://doi.org/
10.1111/jiec.12763
Managi S, Kumar P, (eds.) (2018) Inclusive Wealth Report 2018:
Measuring Progress Towards Sustainability, 1st Edition. Routledge.
Martin, C.J. (2016) The sharing economy: A pathway tosustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism?
Ecological Economics, 121: 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecolecon.2015.11.027
OECD (2016) Chair’s Summary Meeting of the Environment Policy
Committee (EPOC) at Ministerial Level, 28-29 September 2016.
OECD, Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/environment/
ministerial/2016-ENV-Ministerial-Chair-summary.pdf (accessed
6 September 2021)
Rockstrom, J. (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature,
461: 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/461472a
Shrotryia, V.K., and Singh, S.V.P. (2020) Measuring progressbeyond GDP: A theoretical perspective. Emerging Economy
Studies, 6(2): 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/2394901520983
784
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I.,
Bennett, E. M. and Sorlin, S. (2015) Planetary boundaries:
Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science,
347(6223): 1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
Stiglitz, J.E., Fitoussi, J.-P. and Durand, M. (2018) Beyond GDP
Measuring What Counts for Economic and Social Performance.
OECD, Paris. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/
docserver/9789264307292-en.pdf?expires=1543400987&id=id&
accname=ocid195399&checksum=4214BC364A196D419AD9D
7046833D166 (accsessed 6 September 2021)
UNEP (2015) Sustainable Consumption and Production : A
Handbook for Policy Makers (Global Edi). United Nations
Environment Programme. Nairobi. Retrieved from https://wedocs.
unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/9660 (accessed 6 September 2021)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (2015)
Paris Agreement. 21st Conference of the Parties. https://doi.org/
FCCC/CP/2015/L.9
United Nations General Assembly (2015) Transforming our World:
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved fromhttps://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/212520
30%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.
pdf. (accessed 6 September 2021)

Yasuhiko HOTTA
Yasuhiko Hotta is director of the Sustainable
Consumption and Production Area, Institute for
Global Environmental Strategies. Dr. Hottaobtained his Ph.D. in International Relations fromthe University of Sussex in 2004. He has been
involved in both policy initiatives and research
projects in relation to sustainable resource
circulation such as the G8’s 3R Initiative, the Working Group for 3R
Policies for Southeast and East Asia at the Economic Research Institute for
ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA) and OECD’s Working Party for Resource
Productivity and Waste. From 2016 to 2021, Dr. Hotta served as theme
leader for Theme 3 of the PECoP-Asia research project for SCP in Asia.
He is also a part-time lecturer at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. From
2021, Hotta has been appointed vice-president of the Asia PacificRoundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production (APRSCP).

Tomohiro TASAKI
Tomohiro Tasaki is head researcher of theMaterial Cycles and Social Systems Research
Section of the Material Cycles Division, and a
researcher in the Social Systems Division,
National Institute for Environmental Studies(NIES), Japan. He is theme leader for Theme 2of the PECoP-Asia research project for SCP in
Asia (see http://www.susdesign.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/s-16/). His academic
background includes both systems engineering and policy science. His
current work is mainly focused on the following three themes:
establishing a regime inclusive of future generations and sustainability
indicators, transition to sustainable consumption and production patterns
and sustainable lifestyles, and evaluation and analysis of 3R (reduce,reuse, and recycle)/circular economy policies and waste treatment systems
in this era of population decline and aging. He holds a Ph.D. from the
Graduate School of Yokohama National University, Japan.

Ryu KOIDERyu Koide is a researcher with NIES and afellow with the Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies (IGES). With abackground in resources and environmental
engineering, public policy and data science, his
research focuses on quantitative research on
decarbonization andcirculareconomy,emphasizing an interdisciplinary approach using the methodologies ofindustrial ecology and behavior sciences. His recent research includes
environmental footprint analysis and simulation of behavior in consumer
lifestyles and product-service systems, aiming for facilitation ofsustainable consumption and production, considering life cycle impacts
and planetary boundaries.

Satoshi KOJIMA
Satoshi Kojima graduated from The Universityof Tokyo with a Master’s in Engineering. After
engaging in water- and environment-related
official development assistance (ODA) projects
in several countries including Indonesia andHungary, he studied environmental economics at
the University of York in the United Kingdom.
After receiving his Ph.D. in Environmental
Economics, he joined IGES in 2005 where he has engaged mainly inquantitative policy analysis of sustainable development policy in East
Asia. He published a book Sustainable Development in Water-stressed
Developing Countries: A Quantitative Policy Analysis through Edward
Elgar Publishing in 2007.

Miho KAMEI
Miho Kamei joined the IGES in July 2017. Dr.
Kamei’s main research focus is the developmentof long-term sustainable transition pathways at
the city scale. She has contributed to a variety ofsustainable built environment projects, including
climate mitigation, adaptation strategies andscientific-based future projections. Prior to IGES,
she worked for NIES, where she was involved in low-carbon society
research projects. She earned her Ph.D. in Engineering (Environmental
System Analysis) from the Department of Urban Engineering, The
University of Tokyo, and her Master’s of Science in Sustainable Urbanism
from the Bartlett School of Planning at the University College London.
She additionally holds a Bachelor of Science degree in ArchitecturalEngineering and a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration(Marketing Strategies & Economic Theory). Dr. Kamei is also anexperienced architect and urban planning practitioner. She previously
worked for a private architectural firm and architectural studios, where
she was involved in a number of international large-scale master planningand architectural planning projects.

(Received 4 August 2021, Accepted 10 September 2021)