Authors:
Dr Beata Mäihäniemi (University Researcher, University of Lapland)
Dr Marta Maroni (Assistant Professor, University of Maastricht)
Dr Tuomas Pöysti (Senior Counsel, Geradin Partners)
Dr Corinna Casi (Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Jyväskylä)
Pasi Takkinen (Doctoral Researcher, University of Tampere)
Dr Sanna Taskila (CEO, Carbon Wise)
On the Faculty's LOST Research group, see: https://ulapland.fi/en/faculty-of-law/research-in-law/research-group-lost/
 |
| The authors as panelists in the 2025 Science for Sustainability conference, in Helsinki |
Bursting the Growth Bubble
In an era of accelerating digitalisation and mounting ecological crises, the long-standing economic dogma of perpetual growth faces unprecedented scrutiny. The “growth paradigm”—the belief that economic expansion is inherently desirable and necessary—has shaped policy, law, and societal values for decades (see e.g. Büchs & Koch 2017). Yet, as digital technologies reshape production, consumption, and governance, and as planetary boundaries are increasingly breached, this paradigm appears not only outdated but dangerously unsustainable. Hope alone will not solve the environmental crisis. In fact, hope in sustainability debates often leads to inaction (Lindroth & Sinevaara-Niskanen 2025, p. 5–6) or over-optimism, such as techno-optimism: the belief that technology can solve any problem, including climate change (see Andreessen 2023, Königs 2022).
Digital platforms exert extensive influence within the digital domain and far beyond, shaping other sectors (see de Reuver et al. 2018). As general-purpose technologies, they disrupt business and work models across private and public sectors. Online platforms represent a rapidly expanding segment of the economy: e-commerce accounts for 10–13 % of total household consumption in the EU, with strong growth in clothing (39 % of online buyers), streaming services (18 %), food delivery, and furniture (Eurostat, n.d.). Beyond their direct footprint, platforms exert systemic influence on consumption patterns. Through algorithmic design and data-driven personalisation, they can steer users toward unsustainable choices (Calo 2014, p. 1031). At the same time, platforms hold potential to advance circular economy principles and support the ambition of a single circular market, making them pivotal actors in the twin transition toward a green and digital economy.
Could the ecological-economic perspective of “sustainable degrowth”— “a socially sustainable and equitable reduction (and eventual stabilisation) of society’s throughput” (Kallis 2011, p. 874) —be a viable option for a sustainable platform economy?
Rooting Sustainability Transitions in Ethics and Education
The concept of sustainability in Sustainable Development Goals and sustainable development warrants critique (see e.g. Biermann et al. 2022). It is often overused and reduced to greenwashing: appearing “green” without real change. We should also question the notion of a universal sustainability, which tends to reflect Western dominant perspectives and exclude marginalised voices such as indigenous peoples, the poor, and persons with disabilities for instance. Instead, we should speak of “sustainabilitieS”, in plural understood as diverse sustainabilities, situated in specific places and contexts.
In addition to that, sustainability transitions require more than technology; they need ethics and values to guide them (Horcea-Milcu et al. 2019). These principles should respect animals, plants, ecosystems, and their relations. Concepts such as planetary boundaries and “enoughness”—having enough food, clothing, and resources—should shape our choices (Hartman 2024). Furthermore, Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) offers valuable insights for addressing climate crises and critiques extractive, colonial approaches that underpin endless progress and green growth’s obsession with efficiency (UNDP 2024).
In contrast, digital platforms are designed to encourage consumption through profiling and targeted advertising, making it increasingly difficult for individuals to limit their purchases. Our reliance on big tech solutions, such as AI, digitalisation, and the rise of the platform economy, depends heavily on data and human attention. As a result, the relationship between technology use, overconsumption, and sustainability is becoming ever more blurred.
However, education is a focal point where a reflective and sustainable relationship with technology can be cultivated (Andersen et al. 2025). In today’s world of technological ubiquity, technological literacy, “the ability to use, manage, assess, and understand technological products and systems” (International Technology Education Association 2020, p. 114). Yet, digitalisation is advancing faster than educational efforts can adapt (UNESCO 2024). However, it seems that some digital trends might be simply a stronger force than education, as suggested by the recent discussion on smartphones in schools in Finland (Yle 2025). Education must go hand in hand with legislation.
Enforcement Challenges in Sustainability and Digital Regulation
EU law is highly atomistic: separate acts address individual aspects of platform ecosystems. The regulation of platforms, corporate social responsibility, and product sustainability are treated as distinct issues. While some fragmentation is inevitable, excessive inconsistencies create disproportionate implementation challenges due to administrative costs, legal uncertainty, and market fragmentation. For example, sustainability reporting requirements are significant but have clear limits.
We are moving toward platform-centric organisation, where power relations shift and new asymmetries emerge. For example, Temu became one of Europe’s fastest-growing apps shortly after entering the EU market in April 2023, yet it has already faced scrutiny under the Digital Services Act for failing to assess risks related to illegal products (European Commission 2025). Temu has been found in breach of obligations under the Digital Services Act (DSA) to properly assess the risks of illegal products being disseminated on its marketplace. In addition to that, in 2026, the European Commission will propose the Digital Fairness Act (DFA) to strengthen consumer protection against dark patterns, addictive design features, and unfair personalisation. The DFA will focus on protecting children online (European Commission 2025a). However, could digital fairness also incorporate a broader approach, addressing sufficiency and moving away from mass consumerism? We cannot simply legislate “do not overconsume”; systemic linkages between business models, incentives, and regulation must be established.
The EU is currently seeking to establish its digital sovereignty that is its autonomy and independence from U.S. data-driven technologies. To achieve this, it has adopted a data-governance strategy aimed at unlocking the circulation of data to develop its computational capabilities (Maroni 2024). Yet, data centres, essential for digital operations, have massive environmental repercussions. Regulatory frameworks to make them sustainable remain rooted in ecological extractivism and law’s managerial mindset.
Addressing environmental justice under technological capitalism requires a radical shift in legal thinking. Rights-of-nature movements argue that natural entities have their own interests as living beings (Jones 2021). Recognising these rights could help reverse hierarchical dynamics between humans and nature and move toward a legal system that decentres human interests and emphasises obligations to the natural world (Weis and Mullins 2025).
Platforms can and should innovate toward circular economy models rather than linear ones. However, aligning with alternative economic models such as degrowth requires decoupling circular strategies from growth imperatives. Such a transformation demands systematic legal changes and broader societal shifts.
Conclusions
We call for a wide-scale transition to less extractive and exploitative business and societal models to move away from mass consumerism. This transition requires a new regulatory approach that integrates ethics, sufficiency, situated knowledge, political and technological realities, ecological limits, and social justice. Education must underpin this societal change, alongside incentives for innovation and support for SMEs, as highlighted by upcoming updates under the Digital Omnibus Regulation Proposal (European Commission 2025a).
Legislation can only be effective if it ceases to be atomistic. Enforcement currently relies too heavily on individuals initiating legal claims despite power asymmetries. Converging legal fields, such as administrative law, data protection, competition law, and technological regulation, must work together to constrain abuses of power, preserve freedom of choice, protect innovation, and ensure the responsible use of technology.
References
Andersen, L.B., Frydendahl, A.J., Lisborg, S. et al. (2025) ‘Technology education for sustainable development– a scoping review’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-025-10043-w
Andreessen, M. (2023) The Techno-Optimist Manifesto. Available at: https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/ (Accessed: 21 November 2025).
Biermann, F., Hickmann, T., Sénit, C.A., Beisheim, M., Bernstein, S., Chasek, P., … Wicke, B. (2022) ‘Scientific Evidence on the Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals’, Nature Sustainability. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00909-5 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).
Büchs, M., Koch, M. (2017). Critiques of Growth. In: Postgrowth and Wellbeing. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59903-8_4
Calo, R. (2014) ‘Digital Market Manipulation’, George Washington Law Review, 82, pp. 995–1051.
de Reuver, M., Sørensen, C. and Basole, R.C. (2018) ‘The Digital Platform: A Research Agenda’, Journal of Information Technology, 33(2), pp.124–135. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).
European Commission (2025) ‘Commission preliminarily finds Temu in breach of the Digital Services Act in relation to illegal products on its platform’, Press release, 28 July. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_1913 (Accessed: 23 November 2025).
European Commission (2025a) ‘Digital Omnibus Regulation Proposal’, Shaping Europe’s Digital Future, 19 November. Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/digital-omnibus-regulation-proposal (Accessed: 23 November 2025).
Hartmann, E. (2024) ‘Sufficiency as relations of enoughness’, Sustainable Development, 32(6), pp.7201–7214. Available at https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3090 (Accessed: 23 November 2025).
Horcea-Milcu, A.I., Abson, D.J., Apetrei, C.I. et al. (2019) ‘Values in transformational sustainability science: four perspectives for change’, Sustainability Science, 14, pp.1425–1437. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00656-1 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).
International Technology Education Association (2007) Standards for Technological Literacy: Content for the Study of Technology. 3rd edn. Reston, VA: ITEA. Available at: https://wwwcp.umes.edu/tech/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2021/09/xstnd.pdf (Accessed: 23 November 2025).
Jones, E. (2021) ‘Posthuman international law and the rights of nature’, in Grear, A., Boulot, E., Vargas-Roncancio, I.D. and Sterlin, J. (eds.) Posthuman Legalities: New Materialism and Law Beyond the Human. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 82–101. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802203349.00008.
Kallis, G. (2011) ‘In defence of degrowth’, Ecological Economics, 70(5), pp.873–880. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.007 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).
Königs, P. (2022) ‘What is Techno-Optimism?’, Philosophy & Technology, 35, 63. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00555-x (Accessed: 21 November 2025).
Lindroth, M. and Sinevaara-Niskanen, H. (2025) ‘(Counter)productive hope: Scrutinising the role of hope in sustainability’, Futures, 174, 103706. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2025.103706 (Accessed: 21 November 2025).
Maroni, M. (2024) ‘The Idea of Data and European Constitutional Imaginaries: An Immanent Critique of the Data Governance Act’, Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia del Diritto, 5(2/2024), pp. 285–315.
UNDP (2024) ‘Indigenous knowledge crucial in fight against climate change – here’s why’. Available at: https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/indigenous-knowledge-crucial-fight-against-climate-change-heres-why (Accessed: 21 November 2025).
UNESCO (2024) ‘Bridging the digital and green transitions through education’. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/bridging-digital-and-green-transitions-through-education (Accessed: 23 November 2025).
Weis, L.K. and Mullins, R. (2025) ‘Does Nature Need Rights?’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaf021 (Accessed 27 November 2025).
Yle (2025) ‘Finland bans smartphones in schools’, Yle News. Available at: https://yle.fi/a/74-20158886 (Accessed: 23 November 2025).
***
The analysis above draws on the discussion and script of the panel “Degrowth and Digitalisation: Laying Foundations for a New Regulatory Approach to the Platform Economy,” held on 2 October 2025 from 15:30 to 16:45 during the Science for Sustainability conference, in Helsinki, Finland.
Panel organiser and moderator: Dr Beata Mäihäniemi, LOST, University of Lapland
Panelists:
- Dr Corinna Casi, University of Jyväskylä
- Asst Prof Marta Maroni, Maastricht University
- Dr Tuomas Pöysti, Geradin Partners
- Pasi Takkinen, Tampere University
- Dr Sanna Taskila, Macon Oy
Maroni would like to acknowledge that this work is part of the project Ecologies of Data: A Conceptual and Regulatory Framework for Data Centres (ECODATA), funded by the University Fund Limburg (SWOL).