Sustain Sci (2009) 4:233–242
DOI 10.1007/s11625-009-0088-y
OVERVIEW ARTICLE
Advancing sustainability science: report on the International
Conference on Sustainability Science (ICSS) 2009
Joanne Kauffman
Received: 16 June 2009 / Accepted: 21 August 2009 / Published online: 12 September 2009

Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science, United Nations University, and Springer 2009
Abstract As a new discipline, sustainability science
poses a challenge to researchers focused on issues in sus-
tainable development world wide. Although definitions
vary, three characteristics appear to be fundamental: sus-
tainability science is transdisciplinary, provides integrated
analysis, and is aimed at action. There is clearly a need for
such a science to address complex contemporary issues.
Yet the question remains how to go about advancing this
new integrated approach. The ICSS2009 conference was
organized to address this question. This article, based on
the conference report, provides a summary of the deliber-
ations and highlights recommendations to advance this new
science including creation of a global network of networks
in sustainability science.
Keywords Sustainability science
Structuring
knowledge and action
Interdisciplinary research

Research networks
Introduction
Scholars from leading research institutions around the
world met in Tokyo, 5–7 February 2009 to examine the
role of universities and other research institutions in
meeting the enormous challenges of sustainability that
confront the planet Earth today. The International
Conference on Sustainability Science (ICSS 2009) was
organized by the program on Integrated Research System
for Sustainability Science (IR3S) of the University of
Tokyo, and the IR3S-United Nations University (UNU)
J. Kauffman (&)
Paris, France
e-mail: kauffman@alum.mit.edu
Sustainability Joint Initiative. The impetus for the meeting
was the call emanating from the G8 University Summit, in
which presidents of 27 universities meeting in Sapporo
Japan 29 June–1 July 2008 recognized the urgent need for
rapid and joint evolution in the generation and application
of new knowledge to address the world’s most pressing
sustainability problems, which lie at the intersection of
environmental and economic issues. In their Sapporo
meeting declaration, the university presidents called for the
creation of a network of research networks to promote the
development of a holistic action-oriented science (G8
University Summit 2008).
In his opening remarks, University of Tokyo President,
Hiroshi Komiyama, stressed the need for a new global
academic activity that will accelerate the process of
transmitting knowledge that can be readily applied to
effective action. ‘‘We know that global sustainability is the
central issue that faces humankind in this century’’, he said,
‘‘and universities are the generators of knowledge that is
needed to address this issue.’’ At the same time, he noted,
‘‘our traditional (academic) approach to generate and
transmit knowledge to society may no longer be adequate
to the task at hand.’’ Komiyama’s paradigm for the twenty-
first century is ‘‘the shrinking Earth’’, which is character-
ized by the intricate interdependencies that link nations and
people throughout the globe and by the rapid and dramatic
global spread of effects of events inherent in these link-
ages, such as the current global economic crisis (see
Komiyama and Kraines 2008). Similarly, environmental
impacts cannot be confined to one nation or region. The
same, according to Komiyama, can be said for our cultural
and academic activities. Yet, in order for holistic know-
ledge to be developed and disseminated rapidly, more
robust networks than those that exist now are necessary.
‘‘We know that no single institution or network is capable
123
234
of tackling these issues,’’ Komiyama noted, ‘‘and there
exist today many research networks from which to create
synergies. We need now,’’ he said, ‘‘to go a step further and
create more robust networks in order to achieve a higher
level of integration.’’
The ICSS 2009 was organized to advance four goals for
academia: to link research networks together; provide
society with a new kind of science; educate a new gener-
ation of sustainability stakeholders for the twenty-first
century; and take the lead in social change and innovation
for sustainability’’ (Kinai and Arai 2009). With respect to
the latter point, the conference aimed to identify and pri-
oritize follow-up activities for future collaboration through,
for example, the exchange of students and researchers, and
joint activities focused on outreach to society. Over the
course of two and a half days in plenary, working, and
poster sessions, participants in ICSS 2009 developed a
deeper mutual understanding of what sustainability science
entails, and identified elements of a framework for con-
structing a network of networks (NNs) to enhance the
integration and application of knowledge that is generated
through the practice of this science.
As noted by conference participants, there is increasing
evidence of both the need and the potential for developing
synergies to achieve the duel goals of the proposed NNs. The
recognition of sustainability science as a robust field is
reflected, for example, in the increasing number of sub-
missions to the United States Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (PNAS) section on sustainability
science, in the creation of the academic journal Sustain-
ability Science, and in the growing number of conferences
and Web-based forums world-wide to facilitate the
exchange and dissemination of research aimed at promoting
informed action for sustainable development. The confer-
ence took note of many of these, including, for example, the
Network for Science and Technology for Sustainability,
which is supported by the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS), the United Nations
University (UNU) Institute for Sustainability and Peace, the
IR3S of the University of Tokyo and its Joint Initiative for
Sustainability with UNU, the CHANS-Net (International
Network of Research on Coupled Human and Natural Sys-
tems) sponsored by the US National Science Foundation,
and the UNU Program of Education for Sustainable
Development in Africa (ESDA), which represents one of the
university’s contributions to the United Nations Decade of
Education for Sustainable Development. Conference par-
ticipants recognized the importance of including more rep-
resentation from developing countries and took note of
several processes now underway that could facilitate better
collaboration, for example, the Kyoto Science and Tech-
nology Forum for Society and The Academy of Sciences for
the Developing World (TWAS).
123
Sustain Sci (2009) 4:233–242
The statement issued by participants at the conclusion of
the conference calling for the creation of a network of
networks with specific characteristics indicates that the
conference made progress toward attainment of its goals
and laid a foundation for next steps to be taken when the
ICSS is convened at Sapienza University, Rome in 2010.
Looking to the future, participants from the United States
and France, as well as Italy, proposed hosting the ICSS in
their countries as efforts to construct and expand NNs
move forward.
Major challenges for sustainability science
Keynote speakers Govindan Parayil, Vice Rector of the
UNU, and Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, President of the National
Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
(AIST), Japan, pointed to the challenges inherent in
meeting the goal of developing a new integrative science
that can be focused on the most pressing challenges facing
global sustainability.
Vice Rector Govindan Parayil focused his remarks on
the urgent need for more open and expanded sharing of
technological innovations to address the two most pressing
sustainability challenges of our time: climate change and
extreme poverty, and the role that universities can and must
play in speeding such efforts. ‘‘We need to act on these
defining challenges of the twenty-first century without
delay and on an unprecedented scale and scope through
science, technology and sustainable innovation.’’ He called
for a radical departure from the profit first/winner-take-all
market ideology that has served as the driver for innovation
in the past to what he identified as ‘‘sustainable innova-
tion’’—that is, a global compact to develop and use clean
and zero emission technologies and to use appropriate local
knowledge to share and diffuse those innovations in less
developed countries. ‘‘Universities’’, he said, ‘‘should serve
as hubs for structuring actions at various levels to meet the
sustainability challenge.’’ According to Dr. Parayil,
knowledge and innovations taken for granted by the rich
could lift those in materially poor societies out of desperate
poverty but for the barriers to knowledge sharing that stem
from fear of losing profits. ‘‘We are at a unique turning
point in history to change this situation’’, he asserted.
Sustainable innovation means balancing our developmental
needs with our planet’s ecosystems and environmental
limits over the long term. A challenge universities face
according to Dr. Parayil, is to bridge gaps between scien-
tific research and meeting societal needs. Upstream
research discoveries need to be bridged to downstream
applications. In order for this to happen, he said, we must
move beyond price signals for market clearance and allow
more open user–producer interactions. Bold taxation and
Sustain Sci (2009) 4:233–242
regulatory measures will be needed to foster what he calls a
new-eco-innovation dynamic. The private sector, he said,
will not allocate resources under the existing incentives
structures without the visible hand of government and civil
society. But if we are serious about the sustainability
challenge, then we need more equitable globalization of the
fruits of science and technology. And for this to happen,
according to Dr. Parayil, a new way of thinking about
diffusion of knowledge and innovation is necessary. ‘‘We
must do so with an historical understanding of how science
and technology developed’’, he said, and to recognize that
technological progress is part of the world heritage of
human knowledge. ‘‘Intellectual borrowing is a cultural
attribute’’, he said. Dr. Parayil presented a number of
examples in the chain of intellectual development
throughout the world and through the ages that contributed
to advances in science and technology. ‘‘But now,’’ he
observed, ‘‘that world is dichotomized into so-called
developed and developing worlds.’’ The developed nations
used free knowledge to grow; they burnt fossil fuels by
using our atmosphere as sinks for nearly two centuries. It is
only fair to share the new clean technologies and pay for
cleaning up the environment and help solve poverty
through clean production. Dr. Parayil suggests that this
sharing begin with basic technologies and then move on to
more advanced eco-innovations. He provided examples
from smokeless ovens to sanitation, bed nets, LEDs for
lighting and other new energy technologies, innovations in
agriculture, and many other existing technologies that can
improve the lives of millions. The process of sharing, he
suggested, could begin with a global epistemic community
of sustainability science practitioners to harness science
and technology for finding innovative and imaginative
solutions to combating global poverty and global climate
change. Models for such communities exist in the so-called
‘‘green revolution’’ and the epistemic community that
developed and continues to work on the Montreal Protocol
that led to the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (UNEP
2000). ‘‘Science and technology can be the basis for a
sustainable future,’’ according to Dr. Parayil, ‘‘provided we
free knowledge and work together to make sustainability
science a reality.’’
In the discussion that followed the Vice Rector’s talk,
participants explored ways in which the free flow of
knowledge could be enhanced from developing more col-
laborative relations between developed and developing
countries, to modifying the restrictive intellectual regime
that was created by the international system of patents. One
way to address the intellectual property rights issue, he
noted, is through the network of networks that is being
discussed at this symposium. Dr. Parayil proposed that
such a network of networks provide some practical
examples and demonstration projects. It is clear, he noted,
235
that industry should be rewarded. But rewards for inno-
vation are based on an old system and world. As one
participant noted, change often comes as a result of shocks,
and perhaps the present financial crisis is such a shock that
will result in major change.
Asked about the role that universities and, in particular
the UNU could play, Dr. Parayil pointed to the role of
universities as the site of knowledge production and
exchange and their historical role as convener of such
activities, which they are well equipped to play, empha-
sizing the need to include representatives of civil society
and to engage students from all over the world. Out of the
integration of ideas and actions that emerge through such
meetings and networks, he said, universities can take a pro-
active role in proposing bold ideas to policy makers.
Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, President of the AIST, asked
participants to consider what the difference between sus-
tainability science and traditional science is as they move
forward to create a network of networks for sustainability
science. Using a graph comparing the two in terms of aims,
objectives, results, methods, measures and expected
practical results, President Yoshikawa demonstrated how
sustainability science is a method for integrating knowl-
edge gained through traditional science and aimed at
understanding particular and visible problems that plague
mankind: storms, drought, disease, poverty, etc., to address
issues in sustainability that are inherently more complex.
He noted that, as problems have been identified, the sci-
entific community has expanded the number of disciplines
to address them. In each of the disciplines, he noted, huge
amounts of knowledge have been generated. Yet it remains
insufficient to address modern problems that are the result
of human actions such as climate change, worsening of the
global environment, inequities between rich and poor,
terrorism, and social alienation. These problems, President
Yoshikawa asserts, require a science that goes beyond
understanding of what is ‘‘fact’’ or true to one that is aimed
at use in order to address the problem at hand. ‘‘We face
modern evils that are quite different from those we con-
front in traditional disciplines. They cannot be solved by
the results of any single discipline because they are more
complex and, often, they are inter-related.’’ The solution to
this issue of scientific relevance to contemporary sustain-
ability issues is, according to President Yoshikawa, a
sophisticated, high level of integration. His formula would
be fact ? use = meaning, where ‘‘fact’’ is knowledge
generated to understand reality, ‘‘use’’ is operational
knowledge, and ‘‘meaning’’ is the integration of the two for
action. AIST has undertaken analysis of the diversified
disciplines in the organization’s research units. From this
analysis, researchers at AIST are trying to understand how
work in diverse disciplines can be integrated in order to
create ‘‘knowledge for action.’’
123
236 Sustain Sci (2009) 4:233–242

President Yoshikawa pointed to two characteristics of means for future effective collaboration and the develop-
traditional science that could hinder the development of ment and deployment of a network of networks.
sustainability science. One is the lack of consistency in
approaches to problem identification and in the develop-
ment of solution options between different disciplines. More complex networking to meet the sustainability
The other is that, at present, we have no systematic challenge
method or vehicle to ‘‘use’’ knowledge. Sustainability
science should be aimed at bringing disciplines together to In order to examine in depth potential synergies between
achieve greater consistency in approaches between them networks capable of focusing on the challenges addressed
and, at the same time, it should aim to develop a sys- in the keynote speeches, the parallel working sessions were
tematic (coherent) method regarding the use or application organized on four tracks related to sustainability science:
of generated knowledge. This, in turn, requires consistent
• Track 1: climate change and energy
collaboration between science and society, leading to what
he calls ‘‘social technology’’. A parallel may be found in i. Climate change
Karl Popper’s definition of social engineering. Quoting ii. Energy sustainability
Popper’s ‘‘The Poverty of Historicism’’, President Yos-
• Track 2: food, water, and resources
hikawa stressed the need for flexibility and ‘‘piecemeal
experiments’’ in the application of sustainability science i. Food and water
(Popper 1957). As he noted, the traditional scientific ii. Resource circulation and land use
method (hypothesis–experiment–theory–verification–refu-
• Track 3: long-term scenarios for a sustainable society
tation, etc.) is based on deduction. Sustainability science,
on the other hand is based on abduction in which premises i. Resilience for sustainable ecosystem management
and conclusion are only probable thus requiring frequent ii. Integrative scenarios for a sustainable society
interactions between science and society. As Popper
• Track 4: sustainability education
wrote, ‘‘we make progress if, and only if, we are prepared
to learn from our mistakes: to recognize our errors and to i. Development of doctoral programs in sustainability
utilize them critically instead of persevering in them science
dogmatically.’’ What Popper called ‘‘piecemeal social ii. Role of the university in society for sustainability.
engineering’’, and what one might come to think of as
In each of the working groups, scholars presented
sustainability science according to Yoshikawa, is the
ongoing research and recent findings with a view to iden-
introduction of scientific methods into planning and poli-
tifying opportunities for collaboration. Paper abstracts and
tics (Scott and Marshall 1998).
contact information for the scholars who presented papers
The keynote speakers presented the participants with a
in each session are available on the conference Web site
valuable set of ideas and challenges to address in their
at: http://www.adm.u-tokyo.ac.jp/res/res5/ICSS2009.html.
discussions on sustainability science. In summary, they
Each working group chairperson then led discussions on
raised inter alia: the urgent need for more open and
ways in which a network of networks could contribute to
expanded dialogue and sharing of technological innova-
more robust research outcomes for sustainability—that is,
tions between developed and developing countries to
synergies that could be aimed at support of actions within
address both climate change and extreme poverty; the need
each of the four areas, with specific reference to the chal-
for development of a flexible and integrated science that
lenges and ideas put forth by the keynote speakers. The
goes beyond understanding of what is fact or true to one
discussions on ‘‘Climate change and energy’’, for example,
that is aimed at use, application and action at all societal
identified ways in which studies that can be brought
levels and on a global scale; the need for universities to act
together through sustainability science may contribute to
as ‘‘hubs’’ for structuring knowledge (including traditional
improvements in international negotiations and climate
and local sources of knowledge) and actions to meet the
policies generally, as well as in societal perceptions of the
sustainability challenge; and the need to build robust col-
problem and potential solutions. Working group partici-
laborations between scientists and policy makers, societal
pants suggested that embedding climate change in sus-
leaders, and industry to bridge the gap between upstream
tainability science might entail four focus areas:
research and downstream applications. These points would
provide the backdrop to deliberations in working groups • innovation for both science and technology and in
which were held in parallel sessions. In each group, par- socioeconomic systems,
ticipants discussed existing sustainability science research • integration of science and economics including in the
networks with a view to identifying opportunities and study of finance mechanisms, developing incentives for

123
Sustain Sci (2009) 4:233–242
industry, studying employment effects of various
strategies, and understanding limitations of market
mechanisms,
• the provision of indicators and evaluation of options
from the perspective of sustainability,
• providing holistic visions of a ‘‘sustainable future’’
through integrating efforts such as development of a
portfolio of mitigation and adaptation strategies for
climate change, mainstreaming climate change policy
in development strategies, and building collaborations
between energy, material-circulation, and nature-
friendly sciences.
The working group on food and water identified three
areas in need of urgent attention through the lens of sus-
tainability science: ensuring greater recognition that agri-
culture is a major factor in the Earth system dynamic;
increasing studies on changes in land use throughout the
world; and, most importantly, improving understanding of
the consequences of the increasing global disconnection
between places of production and those of consumption. In
anticipating network of networks to address these issues,
participants in track 2 discussions noted that a network of
networks could help to facilitate the study and under-
standing of the inescapable role of conflicts in addressing
issues of water and food given the diverse uses of these
resources. They also noted that linkages of projects such as
two discussed in session 2 (one on biomass towns in Japan,
another on ‘‘ecopolis’’ planning in China) provide exam-
ples of the kind of ‘‘supra networks’’ that could serve as
models for building a network of networks. Participants
also considered ways in which a network of networks could
contribute to development of the concept of a ‘‘new soci-
ety’’ based upon renewable energy use and resources
circulation; eco-energy farming systems; and improved
energy and material flows between urban and rural areas.
Sessions that focused on long-term scenarios for a sus-
tainable society centered on case studies on various eco-
systems. The working group participants considered
indicators to measure the health of ecosystems, identified
some adaptive management techniques, and discussed the
role of traditional land resource management practices in
the quest to reverse adverse trends. Overall, what emerged
from the cases was a sobering overview of resilience in
ecosystem management, where resilience is defined as ‘‘the
capacity of an ecosystem to tolerate disturbance without
collapsing into a qualitatively different state’’ and the
urgency the speakers maintained was essential to address
the problems they identified. Participants agreed that there
is a need to fill gaps in understanding of the social and
economic advantages of supporting sustainable systems. In
this context, they supported the idea of networking of a
more complex nature and discussed attributes that should
237
be included in such networks as well as impediments to the
creation of them. A network of networks could, for
example, be useful in building complex integrated sce-
narios for a future sustainable society that is low-carbon,
resource circulating, and harmonious with nature. Under-
lying the discussions on how sustainability science
networks can help to promote the required transformations
is an understanding that, as the keynote speakers alluded to,
there must be a vision of what that society entails. Long-
term scenarios based on complex modeling and networking
can help to create that vision and bring greater under-
standing to the opportunities and challenges that societies
will face in moving toward attainment of those visions.
In the fourth track, discussions on Sustainability Educa-
tion focused on challenges to creating doctoral programs on
sustainability science, and on the role of the university in
promoting sustainability. The participants focused on the
challenges to establishing doctoral programs in sustainabil-
ity science in three main areas: the creation of an academi-
cally established field; the challenges for institutionalization;
and the challenges for networking with stakeholders.
Participants stressed that in developing a doctoral pro-
gram in this field, there is a need to clarify and elaborate
the key concepts of sustainability science, and to define
how they can actually be implemented in research. Insti-
tutionalization of the new discipline of sustainability sci-
ence has begun through the establishment of academic
programs and through the development of academic jour-
nals and other publishing sources for those engaged in this
science. To advance this, however, the working group
report noted that universities need to provide incentives to
promote cooperation and collaboration among researchers,
and in many cases tenure and promotion structures need to
be adjusted to encourage and facilitate mobility. Finally,
the participants noted that because sustainability science is
‘‘action-oriented’’, as noted by President Yoshikawa, it
must necessarily involve multiple stakeholders, including
non-academics, in the framing and conduct of research.
This, the working group noted, can pose difficulties in
producing traditional academic results. Thus, the process of
collaborating with stakeholders needs to be evaluated
appropriately in order to obtain academic credibility with
respect to both research and education. The working group
made a number of recommendations to advance sustain-
ability science education, many of which were incorporated
in the final statement to be issued by the meeting partici-
pants. These include the development of programs that
facilitate interaction between students, faculty, and indus-
try researchers, a joint workshop or summer school for
young researchers to show their work and research results,
the identification of potential career paths for graduates
through interviews, surveys and continued dialogues with
industry, and a ‘‘proof of concept’’ to demonstrate that
123
238
sustainability science is indeed feasible and useful to
stakeholders.
Following plenary session reports by the working
groups, panels were organized to provide opportunity for
all participants to discuss jointly two major themes of the
conference: building university/industry interactions for
sustainability science and developing a network of
networks.
Building university/industry interactions
for sustainability
In the first panel ‘‘Sustainability Science for Industry’’,
representatives of the Toyota Motor Company, Japan
Airlines, and Showa Shell Sekiyu KK joined academics
Professors Keisuke Hanaki of the University of Tokyo
(panel chairman), Gregg Morrison of Chalmers University,
Sweden, representing the Alliance for Global Sustainabil-
ity, and Fabio Orecchini of Sapienza University, Rome, in
an open and frank exchange of views on creating effective
partnerships between industry and research universities
aimed specifically at creating a sustainable society.
The industry representatives started off the panel dis-
cussion by describing their activities related to sustainable
development and their experience in collaborations with
universities. The company representatives all expressed
familiarity with the three pillars of sustainable develop-
ment with regard to corporate social and business respon-
sibility, and described how their companies have taken
steps to integrate it into their business models. One hurdle
to building collaborations in sustainability science is to
work with industry both to define what it is, and to couple it
with product development, i.e., to business activity, rather
than linking it to policy or risk management sectors of the
corporation. As Masayuki Sasanouchi of Toyota Motor
Corp. said, ‘‘we still have difficulty understanding exactly
what it (sustainable development) means and even more so
with the concept of sustainability science.’’ Mr. Sasanouchi
went on to discuss the positive collaborations the company
has had with universities. ‘‘We have achieved many good
outcomes from these collaborations’’, he said, ‘‘especially
with respect to basic science in materials and information
technologies. But these collaborations are part of our
product development, and we are willing to pursue them
because our company will make a profit. If ‘‘sustainability
science’’ can help us in the same way, he noted, we would
be very happy to have such support. In defining sustain-
ability science for industry, he suggested that it is impor-
tant for industry to understand and articulate not only what
they can do to contribute, but also what they cannot do.
Academics working on sustainability science can help to
understand and articulate both the opportunities and the
123
Sustain Sci (2009) 4:233–242
limitations for industry in working with universities on
sustainability science. He also made the suggestion that
perhaps what was needed now to move sustainability sci-
ence further was to have a symbolic work similar to that of
the 1982 report of the Bruntland Commission, ‘‘Our
Common Future’’, to go beyond sustainable development.
‘‘We believe globalization is a good philosophy and we
need to understand it in its full meaning, for example, to
answer the question: What is global governance of human
and natural and technological resources’’? Perhaps, he
challenged, you (universities) can give us a new answer.
Mr. Abe of Japan Airlines said the company is in a very
early stage of understanding sustainability science.
Although not a manufacturer, the company is aware of
resource limitations and in particular of the potential for
dwindling resources of fossil fuels. An important issue for
the sustainability of the airline industry, then, is alternative
fuels, e.g. bio fuels, which the company recently tested on a
2-h flight over Tokyo. Such fuels may be promising
alternatives to fossil fuels. But the issue is complex and the
company realizes the need to move forward very carefully
with alternative fuels. ‘‘Second generation bio fuels are
good for sustainability and for greenhouse gas reduction’’,
he said, ‘‘but we must carefully determine which feedstock
is sustainable.’’ A challenge for the airline industry will be
to develop sustainable alternative fuels, noting that first
generation bio fuels at present are not compatible with
deforestation and food issues. The industry would look to
sustainability science to help it move forward with these
complex issues.
The third industry representative, Katsumi Yoshida of
Showa Shell, noted that the company has long recognized
its responsibility to sustainable development, and recently
(2 years ago) established a new organization within the
firm to work on future fuels including bio fuels and
hydrogen, and to deal with CO2 management. Within the
firm, Mr. Yoshida is responsible for the hydrogen unit and,
in that context, he is particularly interested in deployment
of new technologies. Focused on the issue of collaboration
with universities, Mr. Yoshida indicated that the deploy-
ment issue is one that would make sense for such collab-
orations. ‘‘My expectation for sustainability science in this
context’’, he said, ‘‘would be to address how we can
facilitate and accelerate deployment. Within this broad
issue, he proposed three specific research questions: (1)
how should we educate and learn from policy makers at all
levels, (2) what kind of financial and social incentive
schemes should be in place to facilitate deployment, and
(3) are there specific ways to facilitate deployment of new
technologies in developing countries.
Professor Morrison reminded participants of the
Yoshikawa keynote address earlier in the symposium, and
how he illustrated how sustainability science can help to
Sustain Sci (2009) 4:233–242
bridge the gaps between the roles of pure academic research
and research for action through sustainability science. ‘‘This is
where we want to go’’, he said. He described ongoing work
within the context of the AGS with two major Swedish
companies: one on short-term CO2 management issues, and
the other, working with the AGS to understand what the
long-range issues are that the company, which is family
owned, will face in the future. Morrison outlined the way
AGS works with companies that provide funding for the
research. Though not significant in the total research bud-
gets of the universities, such financing provides support for
research that might not otherwise be undertaken. In order
to consolidate work and improve the funding mass for
sustainability focused research, AGS went from a small
projects model to a ‘‘flagship’’ project approach. The
consortium now has three such initiatives in place: on
energy, water and food, and on urban futures. One of the
challenges to the universities, according to Prof. Morrison,
is how to communicate findings and to make these findings
useful to industry. What is needed, he said, is a model for
working together. AGS has met with the World Business
Council on Sustainable Development to study their path-
ways and scenarios. ‘‘What they are missing,’’ he noted, ‘‘is
validity.’’ Academia, he noted, can determine the validity
of the scenarios that are being used by business. Another
area for industry/academic cooperation may be in the area
of the large and complex issue of ‘‘urban futures’’. The
complexity of the issue—which necessitates bringing
together a huge amount of information from myriad sour-
ces—is something that can be of interest to industry both
for the near-term and in planning for the future, but is
research that industry would not tackle itself.
Professor Orecchini emphasized the importance of uni-
versities and industry working together to define sustain-
ability science from the beginning. ‘‘As noted by the
industry representatives,’’ he said, ‘‘they have been work-
ing on sustainable development in the business context for
a decade. Now it is time to go forward together on sus-
tainability science.’’ This, he said requires not just dia-
logue, but working together. Drawing on comments from
the industry representatives, Professor Orecchini noted that
fruitful coordination between industry and universities
might be found in the university role to analyze what
specific energy options, such as bio fuels, industry is
considering would, in fact, be sustainable. ‘‘We cannot
forget’’, he noted, ‘‘that we have just entered a global crisis
that is at once environmental, economic, and political.
Taken together, these will require the development of new
technologies and revisiting old ones, to study what the
market is and should be. We need to work with industry to
address these issues and at the same time it is important to
re-enforce the interface with government as well. For
example, as governments decide how to design stimulus
239
packages for the economy as assistance or investments, we
feel the emphasis should be on investment.’’
In the discussion that followed the panel presentations,
a number of constraints to industry/university collabora-
tions in sustainability science were raised. One is the
problem of the short-term perspective of industry
(12–18 months) for research outcomes, versus the longer
term research interests of universities (1–3 years). An
industry representative suggested that one way to address
the long-term issues would be to begin work on a specific
project or issue. Another participant raised the issue of the
changing role of universities to act not only as custodians
of new knowledge, but also to take responsibility for its
dissemination. Right now, universities in general are not
structured to take on this role. A suggestion was made to
create a forum at which questions of relevance of research
can regularly be exchanged between academic and
industry scientists.
Given the centrality of interactions between academic
scientists and industry in sustainability science, the par-
ticipants discussed means to work toward more robust
collaborations. The following is a summary of the points
made during the plenary discussion.
• Industry and academia should work together from the
beginning to define sustainability science
• It is necessary to define what industry both can and
cannot do
• A symbolic work that defines sustainability science in
the context of contemporary challenges is needed to
galvanize all actors
• This work should be similar in scope to the
Bruntland Commission Report on sustainable devel-
opment ‘‘Our Common Future’’ (Bruntland 1987)
• Industry/university collaborations should focus on
specific sustainability targets, e.g.,
• Alternative fuels (options analysis, feasibility and
effectiveness analyses)
• University studies to validate scenarios developed
and used by industry
• Deployment of new technologies (identification of
opportunities and constraints in both developed and
developing countries)
• Complex issues (e.g., global urban futures) may be of
interest to and important to the future of industries, but
is not necessarily research that industry would under-
take itself
• University outreach to industry and government is
necessary to ensure relevance and effectiveness of
results of sustainability science
123
240
• The cooperative interface should include universi-
ties, government, and industry in both developed
and developing countries
• Universities need to consider structures in place to
improve their ability to be more effective in
outreach
• As new knowledge is developed through sustain-
ability science, universities must go beyond their
role of serving as custodians of that knowledge to
become proactive in its dissemination
• There is a need to develop concrete cases on moving
knowledge to action.
Creating a network of networks for sustainability
science
In this panel, participants turned their attention to key
elements in network of networks to achieve the dual goals
of sustainability science: knowledge innovation and action.
Panelists were Chongrak Polpraser, Asian Institute of
Technology; Peter Edwards, Swiss Federal Institutes of
Technology-Zurich; Jean Louis Armand, Counselor for
Science and Technology of the French Embassy in Japan;
Nancy Dickson, Co-Director of Harvard University’s
Sustainability Science Program; Kazuhiko Takeuchi,
University of Tokyo and UNU; James L. Buizer, Science
Policy Advisor to the President, Arizona State University;
and Vincenzo Naso, Director of the Interuniversity
Research Centre for Sustainable Development (CIRPS).
Panelists provided perspectives on what should be the
purpose and elements of a network of networks for sus-
tainability science. Professor Polprasert, for example,
quoted the keynote address by Hiroyuki Yoshikawa, in
which he defined sustainability science as a science for
action. Bearing this in mind, Polprasert said, the network of
networks should be aimed at action. In the case of water he
noted this could include integrating food and water con-
cerns and focusing on economic as well as technological
issues. He proposed that the creation of network of net-
works begin small, focused on a specific issue perhaps, and
then grows larger to encompass issues such as ‘‘food and
water for all’’.
Professor Armand emphasized the importance of
ensuring quality in work that stems from network of net-
works and called for an evaluation process to be built into a
network of networks structure. He also urged the sympo-
sium to be more inclusive of developing countries and to
ensure research exchanges that move from developing to
developed countries, and between developing countries, as
well as the more common ‘‘north to south’’ knowledge
flow. In his third point, Prof. Armand suggested that
123
Sustain Sci (2009) 4:233–242
network of networks should not be limited to networks of
academics but should involve representatives of both
national and international government agencies, non-gov-
ernmental organizations, and industry.
Professor Edwards focused on ways in which the creation
of network of networks could help address the urgent need
for answers to complex issues now. ‘‘Politicians around the
world’’, he said, ‘‘are looking for guidance, and universities
have failed to meet this challenge in part because academic
disciplines are so strong. All universities say that they want
to tackle these big problems, he said, but their structures
fight against this. The network of networks may well be one
way to help universities get out of the stranglehold of their
traditional structures.’’ In addition to helping universities
break out of the disciplinary mold, Edwards argues, a net-
work of networks could also provide a mechanism for
bringing in broader knowledge that is necessary to fully
address sustainability issues, that is knowledge from cul-
tural, local, and regional sources. And, finally, he noted that
the broader network would also provide opportunities to
train students in how to break out of their disciplines and
provide them with extraordinary experience in dealing with
complexity and cultural diversity that is necessary to
understanding and addressing these problems. Edwards
sited some of the lessons learned in the context of the AGS
networks on specific projects and how the projects demon-
strated that working with multiple stakeholders in framing
and carrying out research can result in immediate action. He
noted that many examples are available in the publications
of the AGS book series, ‘‘Science and Technology: Tools for
Sustainable Development’’ (Springer 2009).
For his part, Dr. Buizer reminded participants of the
need to ensure that any network that is created needs to
have a good organizational foundation and function. In this
context, he noted the importance of working jointly with
industry and other stakeholders both to frame research
questions and to conduct the research itself, which in turn
will help keep the research focused on action. The network
of networks itself, he suggested could result in the
exchange of faculty and corporate people between member
institutions, it could ensure the exchange of students, and
also result in an ongoing Web-based dialogue to continue
the efforts begun here.
Professor Naso emphasized too the importance of a
strong organizational structure for the network of networks
that would help to keep the network focused on concrete
goals and avoid repetition of ongoing activities. In this
context, he suggested that it would be useful to formalize
the network of networks, beginning with a statement issued
from the Congress to be delivered to the next G8 Univer-
sity Summit and requesting it to be disseminated to uni-
versities worldwide asking them to join in the network of
networks effort.
Sustain Sci (2009) 4:233–242
Nancy Dickson raised three questions that lie at the core
of constructing a new network of networks: Do we need
one? What should be its goals? How can we do this? The
conference itself provided answers to the first question.
Sustainability science is about coupling research on human
and natural systems and therefore must bring together
research communities that are not usually accustomed to
working jointly. The goals of a network of networks might
therefore appropriately be to promote collaboration and
communication, i.e., working together to disseminate syn-
thetic results. She too emphasized the crucial need to
maintain the highest academic standards in the evolution of
sustainability science and noted the importance to the field
of recognition by academic and professional societies. She
cited in particular the recognition sustainability science has
gained with a section devoted to it in PNAS, and the
publication of the academic journal Sustainability Science.
In this context, she proposed that, as the network of net-
works evolves, one might consider the development of a
journal of sustainability science literature along the lines of
the Journal of Economic Literature. Fostering collaboration
will mean identification of existing networks, she said,
noting for example the Network on Science and Technol-
ogy for Sustainable Development that exists through the
AAAS.
Professor Kazuhiko Takeuchi noted that most discus-
sions on the role of universities in advancing sustain-
ability focus on their role in technological and social
innovation, less on structuring knowledge. He welcomed
the offer by Sapienza University, Rome, to continue the
ICSS forum by hosting it in 2010. Prof. Takeuchi
added that, as the network of networks is developed,
organizers should bear in mind the need to preserve
cultural diversity, and to preserve diversity between the
networks, rendering them complementary rather than
competitive.
The ideas put forth by the panelists provided context to a
stimulating floor discussion that added many points to be
considered in the development of network of networks.
These are summarized (without attribution) below.
• Challenges
• Need to bridge different styles of collaboration
between scientists (focused on processes and mech-
anisms) and stakeholders (focused on concrete
actions/solutions)
• Focus for network of networks should begin with
one or several issues relevant to social sustainabil-
ity. There is also great need for coherence and
synthesis
• Proponents of network of networks should find
ways to incorporate global sustainability issues into
challenges at local levels.
241
• Criteria
• Issues taken up by network of networks must meet
three criteria: saliency (relevance); legitimacy (sup-
ported by stakeholders); and credibility (meet
rigorous scientific standards)
• What is meant by credibility must be clearly defined
as well as measures to determine when knowledge
links to action
• Recognize that sustainability science is ‘‘evolution-
ary’’ and that while aimed at action, it is not focused
on ‘‘one solution’’ (which can lead to other prob-
lems) but, rather, to improving systems.
• Future meetings on network of networks should
consider the following:
• Invite greater representation from developing world
networks and universities
• Move education component forward; have a session
on education in the plenary and ensure greater
student participation
• Invite greater representation from stakeholders; that
is, industry and NGOs.
Conclusion
The ICSS 2009 opened a discussion and provided the
foundation for concrete steps to advance sustainability
science while building a network of scholars to address the
most pressing challenges. At the conclusion of the ICSS,
Professor Akimasa Sumi, University of Tokyo, proposed
that work be done to develop a structure for a network of
networks. Since the meeting, the University of Tokyo has
established the network of networks Website and has begun
to collect information on actions to promote ‘‘green cam-
puses’’. Information is available at the Network of
Networks Web site: http://nns-u.org. Participants noted that
funds were needed in order to provide means to bring in
more representation from developing countries and to
include lesser known universities from these countries. In
addition to including more developing countries, partici-
pants also noted the importance of including students from
all over the world in discussions surrounding the devel-
opment of the network of networks. The statement that the
meeting participants agreed upon, and which they for-
warded to the G8 University Summit in Torino Italy May
17–19, 2009 took account of these concerns and should
provide the basis for future actions in developing sustain-
ability science in general, and a network of networks to
promote collective action on a global scale for sustainable
development (see text of statement below). The Final
Declaration of the 2009 G8 University Summit calls the
123
242
implementation of the network of networks ‘‘essential to
the development of sustainability science’’ and recom-
mends the creation of a Virtual Centre on Education and
Research for Sustainable Development (G8 University
Summit 2009). That effort has already begun, with the G8
universities participating in the collection and sharing of
data on ‘‘green campuses’’ on the network of networks
Web site and with plans to build on the ICSS effort by
holding a second International Conference on Sustainabil-
ity Science in Italy in 2010. The statement issued by par-
ticipants at the conclusion of the ICSS 2009 provides the
proponents of such a network of networks with guidance on
the way forward. What follows is the final statement as
forwarded to the 2009 G8 University Summit.
Statement of participants in the ICSS2009 on the need
for a network of networks
Effective action is urgently needed to address the serious
challenges the world faces today at all levels: global,
regional, national, and local. Sustainability science is
necessarily aimed at action and requires innovations in
knowledge generation and dissemination sustainability on
a global scale. In order to ensure that sustainability science
results in meaningful action, networks that transcend dis-
ciplinary, cultural, geographical, and societal barriers are
crucial. Interactions between scientists across many disci-
plines as well as between scientists and all sectors of
society are essential. While such networks exist at regional
and global levels, they tend to be centered in developed
countries, to be limited in both scope and participation, and
to lack communication and coordination between them.
We believe a network of sustainability networks can help
to overcome these barriers to effectiveness and speed the
translation of the newly generated knowledge to appro-
priate action. To this end we recommend the creation of a
network of networks focusing on sustainability science to
facilitate effectiveness through the promotion of:
• The identification of complementarities so as to reduce
duplication of effort and to enhance synergies
• Cultural and geographical diversity in network
participation
123
Sustain Sci (2009) 4:233–242
• Greater participation of developing countries
• The engagement of industry and other stakeholders
from both developed and developing countries in the
framing and execution of research agendas
• Education and training of students and increased
participation of students, particularly from developing
countries through student exchanges as well as modern
technologies.
We urgently request representatives at the G8 University
Summit to endorse and facilitate the creation of this net-
work of networks to address complex sustainability issues,
and to encourage their faculties and students, as well as
other universities, to join in this endeavor.
Acknowledgments I am grateful to the anonymous referee for
constructive comments in the preparation of this report for public
consumption and to the editor-in-chief of the journal for his com-
mitment to advancing sustainability science. Partial support for the
preparation of this report came from the IR3S program of the Uni-
versity of Tokyo.
References
Bruntland G (ed) (1987) Our common future: the world commission
on environment and development. Oxford University Press,
Oxford
G8 University Summit (2008) Sapporo sustainability declaration
(SSD). http://g8u-summit.jp. Accessed 15 Aug 2009
G8 University Summit (2009) 2009 G8 University Summit Torino
Declaration on Education and Research for Sustainable Devel-
opment (Turin Declaration). http://www.g8university.com.
Accessed 15 Aug 2009
Kinai M, Arai S (2009) The G8 University Summit and University
efforts toward global sustainability. In: Program and abstracts
international conference on sustainability science, The Univer-
sity of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan, pp3–8
Komiyama H, Kraines S (2008) Vision 2050: roadmap for a
sustainable Earth. Springer, Tokyo
Popper KR (1957) The poverty of historicism. Routledge and Kegan
Paul, London
Scott J, Marshall G (eds) (1998) Oxford dictionary of sociology,
2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
UNEP (2000) United Nations Environment Program, Ozone Secre-
tariat. The montreal protocol on substances that deplete the
ozone layer. UNON, Nairobi. www.unep.org/ozone. Accessed
10 Aug 2009