What is Sustainability?
There is wide public belief that sustainability only refers to the ‘green movement’ (KHO, 2014), however this overlooks the social and economic aspects which must also be incorporated into any definition. One might hypothesise that much of the general public throughout the western and developing world are not privy to the emotive and florid lexicon that scholars use to consider the ‘sustainability’ discussion. From a marketing view it is apparent that sustainability needs to be simplified so the public are aware, supportive and thus influence sustainable measures initiated by governing bodies.
This brief assesses two widely used definitions of sustainable development and discusses the best way to facilitate the daunting task of incorporating the concept of sustainability into future policy. I will show that whilst the definition is indeed broad it may be best to keep it simple in order create effect. In conjunction with the theme of simplicity I will also note the concept to think globally and act locally is an ideal method when to tackling climate policy. Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor from 2002-2013 advocates cities as one of our greatest keys to addressing climate change (BLOOMBERG 2017). As Bloomberg says “Cities, businesses and citizens will continue reducing emissions, because they have concluded just as China has- that doing so in in their own self-interest “(BLOOMBERG 2017, p 35). So perhaps it is best to simplify, or localise, not only the definition of sustainability but also its execution.
1. The Brundtland Report
The first and most common definition when describing sustainable development stems from the United Nations. The UN World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) known now as The Brundtland Commission after the Norwegian Prime Minister who chaired the meeting. In ‘Our Common Future’, released one of the first reports on sustainability in 1987. The definition they came up with stated that sustainable development was ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of further generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987). Jim MacNeil who was part of the commission states "I was astonished at the speed at which international bodies, governments, corporations and academe endorsed our recommendations. And quite overwhelmed a few years later when the two words ’sustainable development' became a part of the common everyday lexicon of humankind” (BOWRY 2014, p. ix). It is this swift and universal decision to take on the report's definitions and simplify them to the definition stated above that creates controversy. Whilst the report was intense, lengthy and convoluted to say the very least the media's representation and subsequent global take on the report is seen as too simplistic to be helpful when assessing what sustainability is. I would argue however that perhaps simplicity is exactly what is needed when analysing this report and had the details not been cut into more palatable bite sized sections the public may never have come to even hear of this commission.
The report derives four primary dimensions when it comes to sustainability. Safeguarding long-term ecological sustainability, satisfying basic human needs, and promoting intragenerational and intergenerational equity (HOLDEN et al, 2014). Along-side these primary dimensions are also a number of secondary dimensions which HOYER (2000) presents as preserving nature's intrinsic value, promoting protection of the environment, promoting public participation, and satisfying aspirations for an improved standard of living (or quality of life) (HOLDEN et al, 2014). Whilst this is a good way of grouping concepts and helps our neurologically confined brains understand large difficult ideas it is never going to be without fault. In assessing the report I have found that a better way to understand the issue of sustainability and what it means is to look at the later summit in Rio 2012 and its document ‘The future we want’ (UN.ORG). This is especially helpful as it actually provides not only definitions but goals to adhere to.
The 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were found as follows -
(1) No Poverty, (2) Zero Hunger, (3) Good Health and Well-being, (4) Quality Education, (5) Gender Equality, (6) Clean Water and Sanitation, (7) Affordable and Clean Energy, (8) Decent Work and Economic Growth, (9) Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, (10) Reducing Inequality, (11) Sustainable Cities and Communities, (12) Responsible Consumption and Production, (13) Climate Action, (14) Life Below Water, (15) Life On Land, (16) Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, (17) Partnerships for the Goals. (UN.ORG, 2012).
It seems across the board that the world is still very far from reaching these goals by 2030 (KROLL et al, 2019). I do believe though that the mere addition to policy has helped the globe recognise the issues to be tackled and sometimes acknowledging the problem is the first step to solving it.
By no means does the Brundtland commission’s definition allow for a complete and wholly inclusive definition. It does however highlight that ensuring our world is liveable for future generations is a hugely essential goal for our global leaders. I will note that the UN definition is anthropocentric. Iris Bergman (2019) refers to this problem when she explains the weakness of this mentality. "Interspecies sustainability urgently needs to be advanced to include wildlife, liminal animals, animals labelled “livestock”, companion animals and animals used in sport and entertainment or in any other form by humans, so they are not left behind in the sustainability transition.” (BERGMAN, 2019).
It seems there has been some attempt by the UN to reference greater impact of sustainability, spanning to not merely humans and our interests in the “Harmony With Nature” resolution (2009). Since 2009, the aim of the General Assembly, in adopting its nine resolutions on Harmony with Nature, has been to define this newly found relationship based on a non-anthropocentric relationship with Nature (harmonywithnatureun.org). So essentially as the concept of sustainability has evolved the UN has added to and morphed their definitions to be less anthropocentric and more inclusive when it comes to protecting a planet for ALL nature to exist. Whilst we can’t be sure as to what degree this has been adhered to when it comes to policy there is some merit in their attempt.
2. The Three Pillars of Sustainability
This is an attempt to show three aspects of our life- social, environment and economy- all intertwined to effect sustainability. There is implication that one cannot be sustainable without influencing each of the three elements and we need to bring them all together in a balanced fashion to create sustainability. To be sustainable we must consider our environment, our people and our economy. Gidding et al (2002) mention the major weakness in this definition is that it leads to assumptions that trade-offs can be made between the three sectors. It is also very difficult to use this definition universally as each country has such different social, economic and environmental factors to consider. It can be a good way of beginning the lexicon however and showing the definition in a format that is simplified yet malleable.
The problem of trade-offs brings us to the notion of weak and strong sustainability. Weak Sustainability is seen as substituting human made products for natural products in order to be sustainable. Strong sustainability prefers the conservation of natural capital and does not see substitution as a sustainable way to function. However even the notion here of ‘capital' comes into discussion. ANG (2012) suggests "Nature is only regarded as natural capital if it serves human needs, whereas the difference between natural and human-made capital is difficult to determine in many cases".
When we assess weak and strong sustainability it is important to appreciate the developing nations requirements and their right to enjoy the same living standards as we in the developed world have now come to realise in 2021. It is possible for countries relying on production and manufacturing to be labelled as weak in sustainability but without the infrastructure and technology that the developed world have they are already fighting a losing battle to become ‘stronger ‘. The distribution of wealth is one of the major issues we face when trying to implement policy globally and even in fact locally.
As we can see there are many variables at play when we attempt to define sustainable development.
Another option is one that relies on an analytic and typological approach (Dobson, 1996). Dobson argues that a survey of all research and asking the question ‘what are the implicit or explicit questions being asked in these texts?’ should be made to come up with a rounded definition of sustainability. If we apply his framework to our two definition’s we can see that the Brundtland definition falls into Dobson’s concept A if we use only the small snippet of what has been taken from the report.
The Three Pillars approach falls into B and more loosely C. The difficulty in grouping this definition is discrepancies in the weight each pillar is given. It could be assumed that the environmental pillar is more akin to ‘ecological process’ and not ‘natural capital’, hence finding the definition aligns with Dobson’s concept B.
Finding a framework that each definition or theory can be seen through is certainly beneficial to scholars and policy makers. Dobson’s framework is complicated and not faultless. There will always be an element of subjectivity when one answers the questions set to each piece of research.
After analysing some of the vast array of research on sustainability I have devised a definition that is simplistic and also allows for variations in context and time. Sustainable development is the act of maintaining the Earth in a Holocene state in order to ensure all humanity and nature, present and future, can coexist without fear of catastrophe. The ‘catastrophe’ refers to what would be the result of a major shift in the Earth's fragile equilibrium that would in turn create destructive events (ROCKTROM, 2009). This definition incorporates future generations needs and also accounts for importance of Nature in all its variations.
No matter how convoluted or how simple the definition there is always benefit in discussion. We may we have reached a point where many of our policies are merely drops in an irreversible cycle of climate change. We are losing species at an alarming rate, our water and air is contaminated and the earth is already moving from its preferred state. The question for any new government is whether we can implement policies to prevent further damage or do we attempt to make a plan to adapt to the inevitable new state the planet is heading to? As Johan Rockstrom et al. (2009, p. 474) comment, “For the first time we are trying to quantify the safe limits outside of which the Earth system cannot continue to function in a stable, Holocene-like state.” So, even with our attempts to ensure only 1.5 degree rise in temperature by 2030 it is impossible for science to be sure of how and what will be the way to achieve this and even if this will be enough.
It is all we have though. Whether our definition is analysed and found to be A, B or C on the Dobson Conceptions, without trying to define and implement sustainable development there is no hope. Popular author Jonathan Franzen (2021, p. 32) writes “Indeed if our collective action resulted in just one fewer devastating hurricane, just a few extra years of relative stability, it would be goal worth pursuing.”.
With the change in Presidency comes hope for sustainable development. The notion of sustainability is making major inroads into the current great power rivalry between China and America. China is constrained by the Malacca Dilemma and sees sustainability as an answer to resource constraints. This is an example where we find policy may not overtly be ‘green’ but in fact sustainable legislation may be based more on economic gain. From a climate scientist perspective whatever the motivation becoming more sustainable is the end goal.
In conclusion there are many varied definitions of sustainability. Whether we focus on strategy from the bottom down with UN driven goals or instead from local city initiatives, the one thing we can agree on is that climate change cannot be ignored. The more we market sustainable development and the hundreds of differing facets it can come in, the more achievable it will be for politicians and big corporations that influence the governing bodies to change their policy and in turn at the very least attempt to change our ways and the path to catastrophe. The problem we have is not which definition of sustainability is best but which one is heard.
References
Ang, F; Van Passel,S 2012, Beyond the Environmentalist's Paradox and the Debate on Weak versus Strong Sustainability, BioScience, Volume 62, Issue 3, March 2012, Pages 251–259.
Bergmann, I. M 2019, Interspecies sustainability to ensure animal protection: Lessons from the thoroughbred racing industry, Sustainability, 11(19), 5539.
Bonnedahl K. J. & Caramujo M. J 2019, Beyond an absolving role for sustainable development: Assessing consumption as a basis for sustainable societies, Sustainable Development, 27, 61–68.
Borowy, I 2014, Defining Sustainable Development for Our Common Future: A History of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission), Earthscan/Routledge, London.
Brundtland, G 1987, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, United Nations General Assembly documentA/42/427.
Gidding, B; Hopwood, B; O’Brien, G 2002, Environment, economy and society: fitting them together into sustainable development.
Greenberg, M 2013, What on earth is sustainable? Towards critical sustainability studies, Boom: The Journal of California. 3(4). 54-66.
Harmony With Nature United Nations n.d., viewed 30 March 2021, http://www.harmonywithnatureun.org.
Holden, E; Kristin, L; Banister, D 2014, Sustainable development: Our Common Future revisited, Global Environmental Change, Volume 26,2014, Pages 130-139.
Høyer, K.G 2000, Sustainable Mobility – The Concept and Its Implications Western Norway Research Institute, Sogndal.
Kerenyi, A & McIntosh, R.W 2020, Sustainable Development in Changing Complex Earth Systems. Cham: Springer International/Publishing Springer e books.
Kho, J 2014, The Guardian, Open Thread: What does Sustainable mean to you?, 4 February, 2014. Viewed 25 March 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainable-green-meaning-consumer-open-thread
Kroll, C., Warchold, A. & Pradhan, P 2019 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies?. Palgrave Commun 5, 140.
Mensah, J; Casadevall, S (Reviewing editor) 2019, Sustainable development: Meaning, history, principles, pillars, and implications for human action: Literature review, Cogent Social Sciences, 5:1.
Malekpour, S., Brown, R. R. and de Haan, F. J 2017, Disruptions in strategic infrastructure planning – What do they mean for sustainable development? Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(7), 1285-1303.
McManus, P. and Haughton, G 2020, Sustainability or sustainable infrastructure? Using sustainability discourse to construct a motorway. Local Environment 25 (11-12), 985-999.
Purvis, B, Mao, Y. and Robinson, D 2019 Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science 14. 681-695.
Raby, G. 2020, China’s Grand Strategy and Australia’s Future in the New Global Order, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
Rose, J. and Cachelin, A 2018, Critical sustainability: incorporating critical theories into contested sustainabilities. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. 8. 518-525.
WCED, 1987, Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Sustainable Development n.d., The Future We Want Outcome Document ,viewed 24 March 2021,
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1298