Relative and Absolute Decoupling: Conceptual Confusions, Policy Consequences, and a Multi-Level Synthesis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this is a highly insightful paper on decoupling in its empirical and theoretical / philosophical context. As such it would be a relevant paper to be published. A couple of suggestions may be helpful for the preparation of the final version of the paper:

• A number of acronyms are used in the paper, e.g. QMRIO,  LARA and FSSD on pages 5-6. It would be important to include explanations for all these acronyms
• Several methods are listed in the document, e.g.  Well-being Turning Point (WTP). It would be relevant to get more information about these methods in the paper
• It may also be relevant to include a few charts showing trends for some of the key indicators linked to absolute and relative decoupling
• Absolute and relative decoupling are defined in the paper. However, it may be useful to make the definitions more explicit
• As part of the discussion / conclusions it may also be useful to make reference to ongoing research in economics such as Happiness economics as well as the green GDP in order to determine how these concepts are linked to the main topic(s) in the paper 

 

Author Response

We are very grateful to Reviewer 1 for the positive and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate the recognition of the paper’s contribution and have carefully addressed all suggestions, as detailed below.

Comment 1: 

A number of acronyms are used in the paper, e.g. QMRIO,  LARA and FSSD on pages 5-6. It would be important to include explanations for all these acronyms.

Response 1:

Thank you for this helpful remark. We have now explicitly defined all acronyms when they first appear in the manuscript.

• In the section “Methodological and Epistemic Issues”, we added a detailed explanation of the Quasi-Multi-Regional Input–Output (QMRIO) model and the Lifestyle and Resource Analysis (LARA) model, clarifying their structure, purpose, and how they are combined in Druckman & Jackson (2009) to assess consumption-based decoupling across socio-economic groups.

• In the same section, we elaborated the Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development (FSSD) as a systems-based sustainability framework that integrates ecological, economic, and social dimensions and is used to evaluate the coherence of policy narratives such as the green economy, circular economy, and bioeconomy (D’Amato & Korhonen, 2021).

• We also clarified the Well-being Turning Point (WTP) in the context of Akizu-Gardoki et al. (2020), describing it as a threshold-based indicator of per-capita energy use beyond which additional throughput no longer increases human well-being.

These additions ensure that readers unfamiliar with these acronyms can follow the methodological and conceptual discussion more easily.

Comment 2: 

Several methods are listed in the document, e.g.  Well-being Turning Point (WTP). It would be relevant to get more information about these methods in the paper.

Response 2: 

We agree that the methodological tools required further clarification. In the revised manuscript we therefore added a short dedicated subsection titled “Clarification of Key Decoupling Methods” in the methodology / theoretical part.

In this paragraph we now briefly describe:

• the Tapio decoupling elasticity index (TDI) and how it classifies different decoupling regimes;

• LMDI (Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index) decomposition and its typical factors (energy intensity, carbon intensity, structural change, overall activity);

• MRIO / QMRIO approaches, emphasizing how they capture embodied emissions in trade and reveal outsourcing;

• the CAPRO ratio (GDP/CO₂) as a macro-level indicator of carbon efficiency; and

• the Well-being Turning Point (WTP) as a threshold in per-capita energy use beyond which further throughput does not enhance well-being.

This subsection acts as a concise “mini-glossary” of the main methods and makes the empirical and conceptual parts of the paper more accessible to a broad readership.

Comment 3: 

It may also be relevant to include a few charts showing trends for some of the key indicators linked to absolute and relative decoupling.

Response 3: 

Thank you for this suggestion. We have now added two schematic figures in the Results section (subsection “Empirical Patterns and Their Limits”):

• Figure 3 illustrates a stylized case of relative decoupling, where GDP grows faster than emissions so that impact intensity declines while total environmental pressures still increase.

• Figure 4 shows a stylized case of absolute decoupling, where GDP continues to grow while total emissions decline in absolute terms.

A short introductory paragraph before these figures explains their purpose and clarifies how they visually distinguish relative from absolute decoupling. These charts complement the textual discussion and help readers grasp the conceptual differences at a glance.

Comment 4: 

Absolute and relative decoupling are defined in the paper. However, it may be useful to make the definitions more explicit.

Response 4: 

We appreciate this comment and have clarified the definitions in a dedicated paragraph in the section “Theoretical Foundations: Relative and Absolute Decoupling.” Immediately after introducing the distinction, we now explicitly define:

• Relative decoupling as a situation where environmental pressures (emissions, energy use, material throughput) continue to increase in absolute terms, but at a slower rate than GDP, so that impact intensity per unit of output declines;

• Absolute decoupling as a situation where total environmental pressures decrease in absolute terms while GDP continues to grow, implying a genuine separation between economic activity and biophysical impacts.

We also emphasize that relative decoupling corresponds to efficiency gains within an overall growth trajectory, whereas absolute decoupling sets a stricter condition by demanding an outright reduction of aggregate environmental burdens. References to Andreoni & Galmarini (2012), OECD (2002) and Lange et al. (2020) are included. We hope this explicit paragraph fully addresses the reviewer’s request.

Comment 5: 

As part of the discussion / conclusions it may also be useful to make reference to ongoing research in economics such as Happiness economics as well as the green GDP in order to determine how these concepts are linked to the main topic(s) in the paper .

Response 5: 

Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We have now added a new paragraph in the Discussion section that explicitly links the decoupling debate to happiness economics and green GDP / beyond-GDP indicators.

In this paragraph we:

• discuss empirical findings from happiness economics showing that, beyond a certain income threshold, additional GDP growth yields diminishing or negligible gains in subjective well-being, consistent with the idea of a well-being turning point;

• summarize proposals for green GDP and related “beyond GDP” dashboards that internalize environmental degradation and resource depletion into national accounts; and

• argue that these literatures imply that even where relative or absolute decoupling between GDP and environmental pressures appears to occur, this does not automatically guarantee improvements in well-being or ecological legitimacy.

We then conclude that decoupling indicators should be evaluated against broader welfare metrics and adjusted income measures that explicitly account for ecological costs and distributive justice. This addition directly responds to the reviewer’s comment and strengthens the normative and policy relevance of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article critically examines the conceptual and empirical debates around relative and absolute decoupling between economic growth and environmental pressures. It argues that claims of sufficient absolute decoupling are largely ideological constructs sustaining the green growth paradigm. Through a systematic synthesis of empirical methodologies (Tapio, LMDI, MRIO, CAPRO) and normative frameworks (planetary boundaries, climate justice), it proposes a “multi-level decoupling synthesis” linking technical indicators with ethical and ecological thresholds.

The manuscript is a valuable contribution to the debate on green growth and decoupling, yet it exhibits several conceptual and structural weaknesses. First, the paper’s main innovation—the “multi-level decoupling synthesis”—is underdeveloped in methodological rigor. While the idea of integrating empirical indicators with normative thresholds is theoretically appealing, the framework remains largely conceptual and lacks clear operationalization or illustrative application. Readers are left uncertain about how the synthesis would concretely guide empirical research or policy assessment.

Second, the manuscript tends to reiterate the critiques advanced by Hickel and Kallis (2020), Haberl et al. (2020), and Ward et al. (2016), rather than extending the debate with original empirical findings or new analytical dimensions. As a result, the text sometimes reads as an eloquent synthesis rather than a novel theoretical advancement. The extensive literature review—while comprehensive—dominates the paper to the point of overshadowing the author’s own contribution.

Third, the argument is weakened by repetition and excessive abstraction. The normative discussion of “justice,” “legitimacy,” and “sufficiency thresholds” is intellectually stimulating but insufficiently grounded in established theories of justice or sustainability ethics. The framework’s philosophical claims would be more convincing if linked to specific policy cases or measurable criteria within ecological economics.

The introduction could be also strengthen from a better engagement with relevant literature on mltiletevl governance, see for example: Da Silva et al. (2019). Production of scale in regional hydropolitics: an analysis of La Plata River Basin and the Guarani Aquifer System in South America. Geoforum, 99, 42-53.

Finally, while the manuscript effectively exposes the epistemological biases of decoupling metrics, it could benefit from a more structured comparative evaluation of methodologies—perhaps tabulating differences in assumptions and outputs. The writing style, though scholarly and cohesive, is dense and at times circuitous, limiting accessibility.

The abstract should not be divided in parts (intro, etc.) but should be one paragraph only. 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript is a valuable contribution to the debate on green growth and decoupling, yet it exhibits several conceptual and structural weaknesses. First, the paper’s main innovation—the “multi-level decoupling synthesis”—is underdeveloped in methodological rigor. While the idea of integrating empirical indicators with normative thresholds is theoretically appealing, the framework remains largely conceptual and lacks clear operationalization or illustrative application. Readers are left uncertain about how the synthesis would concretely guide empirical research or policy assessment.

Response 1: 

We agree that the original version did not sufficiently operationalize the framework. In the revised manuscript we have:

Clarified the structure of the framework as a rule-based evaluation scheme with three components—inputs, filters, and outputs—in Section 4. Discussion (paragraph beginning “The framework consists of three interrelated components.”).

Added an “operational” step-wise description of how the Multi-Level Decoupling Synthesis can be used in practice. In Section 4. Discussion, under “Towards New Framework”, we now explicitly present four numbered steps:

indicator selection,

specification of thresholds,

comparison and classification, and

decision support.
This turns the synthesis into a transparent procedure rather than a purely abstract schema.

Included an illustrative application table. New Table 2 (“Example application of the Multi-Level Decoupling Synthesis”) shows how the four steps are applied to three concrete cases: Nordic countries (CAPRO trends), Romania (Well-being Turning Point), and global projections (Schandl et al., Lenaerts et al.). For each case we report: indicators used, normative thresholds, resulting classification, and narrative implications.

Together, these additions respond directly to the request for methodological rigor and concrete application, and show how the framework can guide both empirical research design and policy assessment.

 

Comment 2: Second, the manuscript tends to reiterate the critiques advanced by Hickel and Kallis (2020), Haberl et al. (2020), and Ward et al. (2016), rather than extending the debate with original empirical findings or new analytical dimensions. As a result, the text sometimes reads as an eloquent synthesis rather than a novel theoretical advancement. The extensive literature review—while comprehensive—dominates the paper to the point of overshadowing the author’s own contribution.

Response 2: 

We appreciate this observation and have revised the text to state our original contribution more clearly and to connect it better to the existing critiques.

In the Introduction (last two paragraphs of Section 1), we now explicitly formulate the threefold contribution of the paper. The revised text explains that the article:
(i) systematizes the main quantitative approaches to decoupling and their implicit assumptions;
(ii) introduces the Multi-Level Decoupling Synthesis as a normative-evaluative framework that treats indicators as empirical inputs filtered through sufficiency and justice thresholds; and
(iii) uses this synthesis to reinterpret existing empirical cases and projections in terms of legitimacy, not only technical performance.

In Section 2. Methodology, we clarify that the paper uses a critical-synthetic approach (structured review + conceptual synthesis), and explain how empirical results from the literature are re-classified within our framework rather than merely summarized.

In Section 4. Discussion, especially the paragraphs starting “The debate can be synthesized around three central elements…” and “This synthesis makes three main contributions…”, we now clearly distinguish between:
– the claim of green-growth advocates,
– the counter-claim of degrowth critics, and
– the alternative framework proposed by this article.

These changes are intended to highlight that the manuscript goes beyond restating existing critiques by offering a structured, multi-level evaluation framework that can be used to assess decoupling claims across methods and scenarios.

 

Comment 3: Third, the argument is weakened by repetition and excessive abstraction. The normative discussion of “justice,” “legitimacy,” and “sufficiency thresholds” is intellectually stimulating but insufficiently grounded in established theories of justice or sustainability ethics. The framework’s philosophical claims would be more convincing if linked to specific policy cases or measurable criteria within ecological economics.

Response 3: 

We agree that the original version could be more firmly anchored in established theories of justice and in empirical criteria. We have made three sets of changes:

Link to sustainability-ethics frameworks.
In Section 4. Discussion, we added a new paragraph situating the Multi-Level Decoupling Synthesis within broader debates in sustainability ethics, explicitly referencing Raworth’s “doughnut economics” and O’Neill et al.’s “safe and just space”. We explain how these approaches combine planetary boundaries with minimum social thresholds and how our framework follows a similar logic by translating justice and sufficiency into empirical benchmarks.

Connection to happiness economics and the Well-being Turning Point.
Earlier in the Discussion, we now relate decoupling to subjective well-being research and to the Well-being Turning Point (WTP), emphasizing that beyond a certain income or energy threshold additional throughput does not increase well-being. This provides concrete measurable criteria (HDI, TPEF, etc.) for assessing sufficiency.

Concrete classifications through Table 2.
As noted in response to Comment 1, Table 2 now operationalizes these normative notions by classifying real-world cases (Nordic countries, Romania, global projections) as “insufficient relative decoupling” or “closer to a sufficient and more just pathway”, based on explicit thresholds (Paris-compatible CAPRO growth, WTP energy levels, global carbon budgets).

Through these additions, the philosophical claims about justice and sufficiency are grounded more clearly in recognized ethical frameworks and operationalized using measurable criteria from ecological economics.

 

Comment 4: The introduction could be also strengthen from a better engagement with relevant literature on mltiletevl governance, see for example: Da Silva et al. (2019). Production of scale in regional hydropolitics: an analysis of La Plata River Basin and the Guarani Aquifer System in South America. Geoforum, 99, 42-53.

Response 4:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have now:

Cited Da Silva et al. (2019) in the Introduction and in the early part of Section 3, in the paragraph that discusses sustainability governance and the “production of scale”.

Added 2–3 sentences explaining how their analysis of overlapping local, national, and transnational institutions in the La Plata River Basin and Guarani Aquifer illustrates the importance of multi-level governance in structuring who gains and who loses from resource use and environmental pressures.

Linked this directly to decoupling by emphasizing that patterns of relative and absolute decoupling are always embedded in multi-level governance configurations and cross-border supply chains, which our Multi-Level Decoupling Synthesis is designed to evaluate.

This strengthens the bridge between our framework and the multi-level governance literature, as requested.

Comment 5: Finally, while the manuscript effectively exposes the epistemological biases of decoupling metrics, it could benefit from a more structured comparative evaluation of methodologies—perhaps tabulating differences in assumptions and outputs. The writing style, though scholarly and cohesive, is dense and at times circuitous, limiting accessibility.

Response 5: 

We have addressed this in two ways:

New comparative table of methods.
In Section 2. Methodology, immediately after the subsection “Clarification of Key Decoupling Methods”, we now include Table 1: “Comparative overview of key decoupling methodologies.”
The table contrasts four central tools—Tapio decoupling elasticity index (TDI), LMDI decomposition, MRIO/QMRIO models, and the CAPRO ratio—across four dimensions:

what each method measures,

accounting perspective / data requirements,

main strengths, and

key limitations for the decoupling debate.
This directly implements the reviewer’s suggestion for a structured comparative evaluation.

Improving clarity and reducing density.

We have created explicit sub-headings (“Clarification of Key Decoupling Methods”, “Methodological and Epistemic Issues”, etc.) to guide the reader.

We introduced a short, stand-alone paragraph in the Discussion that clearly defines relative and absolute decoupling to avoid repetition and confusion.

Several sentences in the Introduction, Methodology, and Discussion have been shortened or split to improve readability.

We hope these changes make the methodological discussion more accessible and transparent.

Comment 6:The abstract should not be divided in parts (intro, etc.) but should be one paragraph only. 

Response 6: 

We have revised the Abstract to conform to the journal’s preferred format. The previous structured version (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusions) has been replaced by a single paragraph that:

briefly states the background and aim,

summarizes the methodological approach (critical synthesis of Tapio, LMDI, MRIO, CAPRO within a normative framework),

highlights the main findings on the scarcity and limitations of absolute decoupling, and

presents the contribution of the Multi-Level Decoupling Synthesis.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It looks stronger now.