With his highly-publicised essay La Sobriété Gagnante [Winning Sobriety] ,researcher Benjamin Brice (E07) offers his solutions to one of the key issues of our times: how to conciliate environmental constraints and socioeconomic imperatives. Interview 

ESSEC Alumni: What led you to write La Sobriété Gagnante?

Benjamin Brice: During my 3rd year at ESSEC, a class I took entitled ‘Philosophy and Business’ inspired me to enrol at Paris IV University and do a degree in Philosophy. After a few years working for a company, I then decided to do a full-time PhD in Political Science at EHESS, specifically on international relations. For the last few years, I’ve been focusing more specifically on France’s political and economic situation. My observations have led me to consider sobriety as a credible solution to improve our situation.

EA: How do you define sobriety? 

B. Brice: In my book, I refer to the definition which has emerged in public debate: sobriety simply consists of using fewer resources, which can be achieved through changes in behaviour, gains in efficiency and the use of new technologies.

EA: You claim that ‘we are living above our means.’ What data do you base this affirmation on?

B. Brice: I have observed this on three levels. Firstly, we consume too many resources. According to the IPCC, the annual carbon footprint of a European is around 8 equivalent tonnes of CO₂, whereas carbon neutrality requires a reduction to around 2 tonnes. Furthermore, our consumption results in an annual extraction of 22 tonnes of biomass, fossil fuels, metals and non-metal minerals. In this regard, it’s quite difficult to define a limit not to be exceeded, but in all probability, if the Africans and Indians, who are at 4 and 5 tonnes of matter respectively according to Material Flows, were to imitate us, the pressure on ecosystems would become unsustainable.

EA: What is the second level?

B. Brice: France also lives above its means from a commercial point of view. The energy cost linked to imported fossil fuels is reaching new heights, amounting to more than €80 billion between August 2021 and July 2022 according to customs figures. At the same time, the manufacturing balance has been declining steadily for 20 years. It fell from +€16 billion in 2003 to -€66 billion in 2021!

EA: And the third level? 

B. Brice: We also live above our means in the sense that we no longer put sufficient resources into essential sectors such as education, research, justice, public hospitals, defence or environmental transition. We often ignore the fact that that between 1980 and 2019, the GDP share of operating expenditure, i.e., public agent salaries and resources, fell by -0.5 points, despite the fact that needs have risen in certain sectors due to factors such as extended studies for education or an ageing population for healthcare. Such choices threaten to cost us dearly in the long term.

EA: In the light of these conclusions, you call for action in production rather than consumption. What do you mean by that?

B. Brice: For several decades, our leaders have been trying to stimulate production and export through competitiveness policies, such as lower labour costs, flexibility, reduced capital taxation or ‘controlled’ public spending. The population, however, and more especially the working classes, are increasingly reluctant to adhere to this approach and its questionable results. That is why I believe it is more reasonable to approach things from the other direction; if we’re living above our means today, it’s because we import and consume too much.

EA: In which areas do you recommend sobriety? 

B. Brice: The main individual levers for a reduction in greenhouse gases are lower consumption of meat, reducing fuel use for transport, especially kerosene for the upper classes, and the reduced use of fossil fuels in housing. There are other aspects to consider, however. For example, slowing down the renewal of computer equipment would be a good thing for the country’s trade balance, while opting for locally produced textiles would boost our tax revenues and lead to job creation.

EA: What would increased sobriety imply in these areas? 

B. Brice: With regard to the examples mentioned, I put forward measures such as promoting vegetarian meals in canteens (schools and hospitals, etc.), modulating taxation according to vehicle weight, creating a carbon tax on kerosene, the development of public aid (which I see more as an investment) to improve the energy efficiency of buildings, the creation of reparability standards for computer goods, greater subsidies for the French textile industry and advertising regulation.

EA: How would these efforts in sobriety help us to ‘win’, as you put it? Can we compare this to Pierre Rabhi’s ‘Happy Sobriety’? 

B. Brice: ‘Happy Sobriety’ is primarily based on an individual and spiritual effort. ‘Winning Sobriety’ implies a political and collective approach. I believe efforts for material sobriety must be undertaken on behalf of the whole community. More specifically, a reduction in our environmental footprint and reliance on supply, the relocation of activities and an easing of the competitive constraint that weighs heavily on the lower classes.

EA: Could you give us some figures on your winning sobriety? 

B. Brice: In 2021, the trade deficit was €18 billion for computers and telephones. Reducing the rate of renewal would lead to a return of several billion euros to the French economy, reducing the digital share of household budgets and generating activity in the repair sector. Another example: when people (who can afford to) buy French-made socks at €15 a pair, rather than three pairs of Chinese socks at €5, they are obviously making a great effort and are also dividing the gas emissions linked to their purchase by six (French textiles emit only half the gases of Chinese textiles). They reduce the trade deficit (€9 billion in 2021 for textiles) and they boost employment, which enables a rise in social contributions and a drop in unemployment-related transfers.

EA: You call on a ‘collective effort’ for sobriety. Must all citizens agree to the same level of effort? 

B. Brice: The sharing of effort is a key issue. I believe that the higher and intermediate professional categories in particular should contribute, for four main reasons. The upper classes have a much higher level of material consumption than the lower classes: on a household scale, people in the highest 10% emit 3 times more greenhouse gases for transport than the lowest 10%, and 4 times more for goods. They also have more room for manoeuvre to change their lifestyles. In addition, they have a driving role; they are often at the origin of consumption trends which gradually spread to the rest of society. Lastly, I believe it’s relevant to call on them if we want to calm social anger a little.

EA: The collective effort you describe does not imply citizens alone. What role must businesses play? 

B. Brice: In recent decades, public authorities have primarily demanded increased competitiveness of businesses to address the impact of globalisation. This era is drawing to a close, however. As of now, we are going to have to demand more responsibility on the part of businesses. Profitability remains an important factor, but if its maximisation leads to an acceleration in climate change, a loss of resilience in the event of international conflict, a rise in external deficit or a deterioration in employees’ working conditions, then the general interest is not being served well and public bodies have the right to rectify the situation.

EA: Here again, must all companies agree to the same level of effort? 

B. Brice: I make two differentiations in my book. The first is that major companies must accept more fair play in terms of taxation, because we will need financial resources to tackle international challenges. This is a formidable task, given that French corporate tax evasion rose from €1 billion in the early 2000s to €30 billion in 2015, according to CEPII (the French center for research and expertise on the world economy).

EA: And the second differentiation?

B. Brice: We must stop imposing the same rules on businesses who face international competition head on as for other companies. For example, it is perfectly justifiable to exonerate social contributions for exporting companies. What I find more difficult to understand is why we apply this measure to all protected sectors, when it is very costly for society and gradually accustoms consumers to paying artificially low prices.

EA: What role must the State play? 

B. Brice: In my view, the State plays a key role in coordinating and facilitating the efforts of economic players and citizens. For instance, if the population does not have access to the carbon footprint of a product or the location of its added value, it is difficult to make informed consumption decisions. Likewise, if companies with virtuous practices are not encouraged by the public authorities, they may tire of making such efforts. Furthermore, I believe the State is also responsible for reducing the most harmful forms of consumption, through prohibition if necessary.

EA: Would you ultimately say you are in favour of degrowth? 

B. Brice: I’m reluctant to use that word for two reasons. Firstly, it generates much more public rejection than the word ‘sobriety’, because it appears to directly counter our national interests. It is crucial to gain widespread support if we are to truly change the socioeconomic course. Secondly, I advocate reduction in our consumption as much as relocation and thus the rise in industrial sectors in France, and for me these two aspects are not incompatible. There are a certain number of common factors between sobriety and relocation, such as less transport, stricter environmental standards, low-carbon electricity and a surcharge which encourages us to consume less in terms of volume.

EA: What resources would you recommend to ESSEC alumni looking for more information on sobriety? 

B. Brice: For the environmental aspects of sobriety, I suggest the Negawatt studies by ADEME and the Shift Project. I also recommend the publication L’âge des low tech [The Age of Low Tech] (2014) by Philippe Bihouix which is extremely interesting, even if some of the data is outdated. Jean-Marc Jancovici’s online conferences are also remarkable; you may not agree with all his analyses, but you have to give him credit for tackling issues with conviction. For a more nuanced approach, I highly recommend the YouTube videos by Le Réveilleur. For the social and economic aspects of sobriety, I suggest looking at INSEE and customs figures, and comparing them on an international level with the statistics available from Eurostat, the OECD and the World Bank. Opinion polls are another invaluable source of information. I’d recommend in particular surveys by France Stratégie and the French Council of Economic Analysis, which are perhaps more accessible. Once again, even if we do not necessarily share the same political views, their quality is commendable. To finish, I’d recommend the following books: Où va l’argent des pauvres [Where Does the Money of the Poor Go?] (2020) by Denis Colombi, which is a very helpful approach to the question of consumption and purchasing power, and L’archipel français [The French Archipelago] (2019) by Jérôme Fourquet, which provides plenty of insight into understanding France’s social and electoral situation. Not forgetting, of course, the many other sources referred directly to in my book, La Sobriété Gagnante!

Interview by Louis Armengaud Wurmser (E10), Content Manager at ESSEC Alumni 

Want more content? Join us now so that we can keep bringing you news about the ESSEC network.