Sustainability

Specific definit ions of sust ainabilit y are difficult t o agree on and have varied in t he lit erat ure and
over t ime.[2][1] The concept of sust ainabilit y can be used t o guide decisions at t he global,
nat ional, and individual levels (e.g. sust ainable living).[3] Sust ainabilit y is commonly described as
having t hree dimensions (also called pillars): environment al, economic, and social.[1] Many
publicat ions st at e t hat t he environment al dimension (also called "planet ary int egrit y" or
"ecological int egrit y") is t he most import ant ,[4][5] and, in everyday usage, "sust ainabilit y" is oft en
focused on count ering major environment al problems, such as climat e change, loss of
biodiversit y, loss of ecosyst em services, land degradat ion, and air and wat er pollut ion.[6] Humanit y
is now exceeding several "planet ary boundaries".[7]

Visual representations of sustainability and its three dimensions: Left, sustainability as three intersecting circles. Right
top, a nested approach. Right bottom, literal 'pillars'.[1] The schematic with the nested ellipses emphasizes a hierarchy of
the dimensions, putting "environment" as the foundation for the other two.

A closely relat ed concept is t hat of sust ainable development , and t he t erms are oft en used
synonymously.[8] However, UNESCO dist inguishes t he t wo t hus: "Sustainability is oft en t hought of
as a long-t erm goal (i.e. a more sust ainable world), while sustainable development refers t o t he
many processes and pat hways t o achieve it ."[9]

The concept of sust ainabilit y has been crit icized for various reasons. One such crit icism is t hat
t he concept is vague and merely a buzzword.[1] Anot her is t hat sust ainabilit y as a goal might be
impossible t o reach;[10] it has been point ed out t hat "no count ry is delivering what it s cit izens
need wit hout t ransgressing t he biophysical planet ary boundaries".[11]: 11 

How t he economic dimension of sust ainabilit y should be addressed is cont roversial.[1] Scholars
have discussed t his aspect under t he concept of "weak and st rong sust ainabilit y". For example,
t here will always be t ension bet ween t he ideas of "welfare and prosperit y for all" and
environment al conservat ion.[12][1] Therefore, t rade-offs are required. Approaches t hat decouple
economic growt h from environment al det eriorat ion would be desirable but are difficult t o
implement .[13][14]

There are many barriers t o achieving sust ainabilit y[3][15] t hat must be addressed for a
"sust ainabilit y t ransit ion" t o become possible.[3]: 34  Some barriers arise from nat ure and it s
complexit y. Ot her barriers are "ext rinsic" t o t he concept of sust ainabilit y. A number of ext rinsic
sust ainabilit y barriers are relat ed t o t he dominant inst it ut ional frameworks where market
mechanisms oft en fail t o creat e public goods. Some approaches humanit y can t ake t o t ransit ion
t o environment al sust ainabilit y include: maint aining ecosyst em services, reducing food wast e,
promot ing diet ary shift s t owards plant -based foods, reducing fert ilit y rat es and, t hus, populat ion
growt h, promot ing new green t echnologies, and adopt ing renewable energy sources while
phasing out subsidies t o energy product ion t hrough fossil fuels.[16] Global issues are difficult t o
t ackle as t hey require global solut ions, and exist ing global organizat ions (such as t he UN and
WTO) are inefficient in enforcing current global regulat ions, for example due t o t he lack of
suit able sanct ioning mechanisms.[3]: 135–145 
Definitions

Current usage

Sust ainabilit y is regarded as a "normat ive concept ".[3][17][18][2] This can be illust rat ed as follows:
"The quest for sust ainabilit y involves connect ing what is known t hrough scient ific st udy t o
applicat ions in pursuit of what people want for t he fut ure".[18]

Modern use of t he t erm "sust ainabilit y" was st rongly influenced by t he 1983 UN Commission on
Environment and Development , also known as t he Brundt land Commission. In t he commission's
1987 report , t it led Our Common Future (also known as t he Brundt land Report ), sust ainable
development is defined as development t hat "meet s t he needs of t he present wit hout
compromising t he abilit y of fut ure generat ions t o meet t heir own needs."[19][20] The report helped
bring "sust ainabilit y" int o t he mainst ream of policy discourse and popularize t he concept of
"sust ainable development ".[1]

Key concept s t o illust rat e t he meaning of sust ainabilit y include: choices mat t er (in ot her words:
"it is not possible t o sust ain everyt hing, everywhere, forever"); sust ainabilit y is a normat ive
concept (connect ed t o "what we see as desirable"); sust ainabilit y can be posit ively t hought of
as a fuzzy concept (where t he goals are more import ant t han t he approaches or means applied);
scale mat t ers, in bot h space and t ime; place mat t ers; syst ems t hinking is an organizing
concept ;[21] limit s exist (see planet ary boundaries); sust ainabilit y is int erconnect ed wit h ot her
essent ial concept s (namely resilience, adapt ive capacit y, and vulnerabilit y); and change is an
essent ial considerat ion and challenge for sust ainabilit y.[18]

In everyday usage, "sust ainabilit y" is oft en focused most ly on t he environment al aspect s, as can
be seen in publicat ions by t he Unit ed Nat ions Environment Programme (UNEP).[22]

Specific definitions

Scholars have point ed out t hat a single specific definit ion of sust ainabilit y may never be possible
but t hat t he concept is st ill useful.[2][18] At t empt s have been made t o define sust ainabilit y
broadly or in more specific t erms, for example:

"Sust ainabilit y can be defined as t he capacit y t o maint ain or improve t he st at e and availabilit y
of desirable mat erials or condit ions over t he long t erm".[18]
 "Sust ainabilit y [is] t he long-t erm viabilit y of a communit y, set of social inst it ut ions, or societ al
pract ice. In general, sust ainabilit y is underst ood as a form of int ergenerat ional et hics in which
t he environment al and economic act ions t aken by present persons do not diminish t he
opport unit ies of fut ure persons t o enjoy similar levels of wealt h, ut ilit y, or welfare."[8]

"Sust ainabilit y means meet ing our own needs wit hout compromising t he abilit y of fut ure
generat ions t o meet t heir own needs. In addit ion t o nat ural resources, we also need social and
economic resources. Sust ainabilit y is not just environment alism. Embedded in most definit ions
of sust ainabilit y we also find concerns for social equit y and economic development ."[23]

Some definit ions refer mainly t o t he environment al dimension. For example, t he Oxford Dictionary
of English defines sust ainabilit y as: "t he propert y of being environment ally sust ainable; t he
degree t o which a process or ent erprise is able t o be maint ained or cont inued while avoiding t he
long-t erm deplet ion of nat ural resources".[24]

Historical usage

The t erm sust ainabilit y is derived from t he Lat in word sustinere (tenere, t o hold; sub, under). "To
sust ain" can mean t o maint ain, support , uphold, or endure.[25][26] It is t herefore t he abilit y t o
cont inue over a long period of t ime.

Hist orically, sust ainabilit y referred t o environment al sust ainabilit y and simply meant using nat ural
resources in a way so t hat people in t he fut ure ("fut ure generat ions") could cont inue t o rely on
t heir yields in t he long t erm.[27][28] The concept of sust ainabilit y, or Nachhaltigkeit in German, can
be t raced back t o Hans Carl von Carlowit z (1645–1714), and was applied t o forest ry (now
sust ainable forest management ).[29] He used t his t erm in t he sense of long-t erm responsible use
of a nat ural resource in 1713 in his work Silvicultura oeconomica.[30]

The idea it self goes back t o t imes immemorial, as communit ies have always worried about t he
capacit y of t heir environment t o sust ain t hem in t he long t erm. Many ancient cult ures, t radit ional
societ ies, and indigenous peoples had or st ill have pract ices rest rict ing t he use of nat ural
resources by human groups.[31]

Comparison to sustainable development

The t erms "sust ainabilit y" and "sust ainable development " are closely relat ed and are oft en used
synonymously.[8] Bot h t erms are int rinsically linked wit h t he "t hree dimensions of sust ainabilit y"
concept .[1] One dist inct ion t hat can be made is t hat sust ainabilit y is a general concept , whereas
sust ainable development is a policy. Sust ainabilit y can be considered a broader concept t han
sust ainable development because t he lat t er focuses mainly on human well-being.[18]

Sust ainable development is an organizing principle for meet ing human development goals while
also sust aining t he abilit y of nat ural syst ems t o provide t he nat ural resources and ecosyst em
services on which t he economy and societ y depend. The desired result is a st at e of societ y
where living condit ions and resources are used t o cont inue t o meet human needs wit hout
undermining t he int egrit y and st abilit y of t he nat ural syst em. Sust ainable development was
defined in t he 1987 Brundt land Report as "Development t hat meet s t he needs of t he present
generat ion wit hout compromising t he abilit y of fut ure generat ions t o meet t heir own
needs".[32][33] As t he concept of sust ainable development developed, it has shift ed it s focus
more t owards t he economic development , social development and environment al prot ect ion for
fut ure generat ions.

Dimensions of sustainability

Sustainability Venn diagram, where sustainability is thought of as the area where the three dimensions overlap
A nested circles diagram indicating a hierarchy between the three dimensions of sustainability: both economy and society
are constrained by environmental limits [34]

Development of three dimensions

A "Wedding cake" model for the sustainable development goals, which is similar to the nested circle diagram, where the
environmental dimension or system is the basis for the other two dimensions [35]

Three different areas of sust ainabilit y are normally dist inguished: t he environment al, t he social,
and t he economic. Several t erms are in use for t his concept in t he lit erat ure: aut hors may speak
of t hree "pillars", "dimensions", "component s", "aspect s",[36] "perspect ives", "fact ors", or "goals",
but all mean t he same t hing in t his cont ext .[1] The emergence of t he t hree dimensions paradigm
has few t heoret ical foundat ions but gradually emerged wit hout a single point of origin.[1][37]
Nevert heless, t he dist inct ion it self is rarely quest ioned, and t he "t hree dimension" concept ion of
sust ainabilit y is a dominant int erpret at ion wit hin t he lit erat ure.[1]
The Brundt land Report from 1987 st at ed t hat t he environment and development are inseparable
when t rying t o achieve sust ainabilit y. It also st at ed t hat sust ainable development is a global
concept t hat links environment al and social issues and is equally import ant for developing
count ries and indust rialized count ries:

The 'environment' is where we all live; and 'development' is what

we all do in attempting to improve our lot within that abode. The
two are inseparable. [...] We came to see that a new development
path was required, one that sustained human progress not just in a
few pieces for a few years, but for the entire planet into the distant
future. Thus 'sustainable development' becomes a goal not just for
the 'developing' nations, but for industrial ones as well.

— Our Common Future (also known as the Brundtland Report),

[19]: Foreword and Section I.1.10 

Furt hermore, Agenda 21 from 1992 explicit ly t alks about economic, social, and environment al
dimensions as follows:[38]: 8.6 

Countries could develop systems for monitoring and evaluation of

progress towards achieving sustainable development by adopting
indicators that measure changes across economic, social and
environmental dimensions.

— United Nations Conference on Environment & Development -

[38]: 8.6 
Earth Summit (1992),

Agenda 2030 conceived t he 17 Sust ainable Development Goals (SDGs) wit h t heir 169 t arget s as
balancing "t he t hree dimensions of sust ainable development , t he economic, social and
environment al".[39]

Discussion about hierarchy

There are scholarly discussions regarding a possible hierarchy of t he t hree dimensions of

sust ainabilit y: Many publicat ions st at e t hat t he environment al dimension (also referred t o as
planet ary int egrit y or ecological int egrit y) should be viewed as t he most import ant .[4][5] For
example, an assessment of t he polit ical impact s of t he Sust ainable Development Goals in 2022
st at ed t hat t he int egrit y of t he eart h's life-support syst ems must be maint ained for long-t erm
sust ainabilit y.[4]: 140  The aut hors crit icized t hat t he SDGs "fail t o recognize t hat planet ary, people
and prosperit y concerns are all part of one eart h syst em, and t hat t he prot ect ion of planet ary
int egrit y should not be a means t o an end, but an end in it self".[4]: 147  The fact t hat t he SDGs do
not priorit ize environment al prot ect ion is problemat ic as t his could incent ivize count ries t o
furt her subordinat e environment al priorit ies in t heir development al plans.[4]: 144  The aut hors st at e
t hat "sust ainabilit y on a planet ary scale is only achievable under an overarching Planet ary
Int egrit y Goal t hat recognizes t he biophysical limit s of t he planet ".[4]: 161 

The prot ect ion of ecological int egrit y (or environment al sust ainabilit y) can be seen as t he core
of sust ainabilit y.[5] In pursuing t he prot ect ion of ecological int egrit y, sust ainabilit y reflect s t he
most basic concern of human exist ence, namely t he desire t o live, survive, and reproduce.
Consequent ly, if t he preservat ion of t he Eart h's ecological int egrit y is t he prerequisit e for
development , it set s limit s t o bot h economic and social development .[5]

The nest ed ellipses diagram of t he t hree dimensions of sust ainabilit y also gives t he
environment al dimension a special st at us: it implies a sit uat ion where societ y is embedded in t he
environment , and economic condit ions are embedded in societ y. It t herefore st resses a hierarchy.
A similar depict ion of t he t hree dimensions or syst ems is t he "SDG wedding cake" model by t he
St ockholm Environment Inst it ut e where t he economy is a smaller subset of t he societ al syst em
t hat in t urn is a smaller subset of t he biosphere syst em which all life depends on.[35]

Environmental sustainability

Increasing environment al pollut ion in t he 1960s and 1970s led t o growing environment al
concerns, evidenced by Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring in 1962,[40] est ablishment of t he Club
of Rome in 1968, and est ablishment of Greenpeace in 1971. Awareness of pollut ion provided t he
basis for what was lat er discussed as sust ainabilit y and sust ainable development . This process
began wit h concern for environment al issues (nat ural ecosyst ems or nat ural resources and human
environment ) in t he 1970s, and was lat er ext ended t o all t he syst ems t hat support life on Eart h
(including human societ y).[41]: 31  Reducing t hese negat ive impact s on t he environment would
improve environment al sust ainabilit y.[41]: 34 

While environment al pollut ion is not a new phenomenon, it remained a local or regional concern
for most of human hist ory. This changed in t he 20t h cent ury, when awareness of global
environment al issues increased.[41]: 5 [42] The harmful effect s and global spread of pest icides like
DDT were first discussed in t he 1960s.[40] In t he 1970s it was shown t hat chlorofluorocarbons
(CFCs) were deplet ing t he ozone layer. This led t o t he de fact o ban of CFCs wit h t he Mont real
Prot ocol in 1987.[3]: 146 

The effect of greenhouse gases on t he global climat e was discussed by Arrhenius in t he early
20t h cent ury (see also hist ory of climat e change science).[43] Climat e change as affect ed by
human act ivit ies became an import ant t opic in academic and polit ical discourse several decades
lat er, leading t o t he est ablishment of t he IPCC in 1988 and t he UNFCCC in 1992.

In 1972, t he UN held it s first conference on environment al issues. The UN Conference on t he

Human Environment st at ed t he import ance of t he prot ect ion and improvement of t he human
environment ,[44]: 3 and emphasized t he need t o prot ect wildlife and nat ural habit at s:[44]: 4 

The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land,
flora and fauna and [...] natural ecosystems must be safeguarded for
the benefit of present and future generations through careful
planning or management, as appropriate.

[44]: p .4., Principle 2 
— UN Conference on the Human Environment,

In 2000, t he UN launched eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), t o be achieved by t he

global communit y by 2015. Goal 7 was t o "ensure environment al sust ainabilit y", but did not
ment ion t he concept s of social or economic sust ainabilit y.[1]

Public discussion of t he environment al dimension of sust ainabilit y oft en revolves around

prevailing issues of t he t ime. The most dominant environment al issues since about t he year 2000
have been climat e change, loss of biodiversit y, loss of ecosyst em services, land degradat ion, and
air and wat er pollut ion (including marine plast ic pollut ion and ocean acidificat ion).[6] The public is
concerned about human impact s on t he environment , such as impact s on t he at mosphere, land,
and wat er resources.[41]: 21 

Of all t he environment al challenges t hat humanit y is current ly facing and failing t o solve, many
scient ist s have singled out t he following as t he most t roubling: "pot ent ially cat ast rophic climat e
change due t o rising greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels, deforest at ion, and
agricult ural product ion—part icularly from farming ruminant s for meat consumpt ion."[16]

The overall impact of humans' act ivit ies not only on t he biosphere but even on t he geological
format ion of t he Eart h led Paul Crut zen t o speak of t he current geological epoch as t he
Ant hropocene.[45] The impact of human act ivit y on local t o global ecosyst ems can reach t ipping
point s beyond which irreversible harmful development s will be t riggered, such as t o t he climat e.

Economic sustainability

To some, t he economic dimension of sust ainabilit y is as cont roversial as t he concept of

sust ainabilit y it self.[1] If t he t erm "development " in sust ainable development is underst ood in
economic t erms ("economic development ") or even ident ified wit h economic growt h, t he not ion
of a sust ainable development can become a way of whit ewashing an ecologically dest ruct ive
economic syst em.[46][47][48] This is because of t he inherent t rade-offs bet ween "welfare and
prosperit y for all" (in t erms of mat erial needs such as food, wat er, healt h, and shelt er) and
environment al conservat ion.[12]

On t he ot her hand, especially for people in t he least developed count ries, a cert ain amount of
economic development (e.g. t o reduce hunger or energy povert y) is required. For t hat reason, t he
first t arget of Sust ainable Development Goal 8 calls for economic growt h, which is a driving
force for societ al progress and well-being. This t arget is t o: "Sust ain per capit a economic growt h
in accordance wit h nat ional circumst ances and, in part icular, at least 7 per cent gross domest ic
product growt h per annum in t he least developed count ries".[49] Regardless of differences in t he
underst anding of t he concept of sust ainabilit y and sust ainable development , it is clear t hat
humanit y will have t o resolve t he issue of how societ al progress (pot ent ially by economic
development ) can be reached wit hout excess st rain on t he environment . Accordingly, in 2011
UNEP cit ed t he big challenge t o societ y t o "expand economic act ivit ies" while at t he same t ime
reducing t he use of nat ural resources and reducing t he environment al impact s of economic
act ivit ies.[50]: 8 

According t o t he Brundt land report , "povert y is a major cause and also effect of global
environment al problems. It is t herefore fut ile t o at t empt t o deal wit h environment al problems
wit hout a broader perspect ive t hat encompasses t he fact ors underlying world povert y and
int ernat ional inequalit y."[19]: Section I.1.8  The report demands a new development pat h for sust ained
human progress and highlight s t hat t his is a goal for bot h t he developing and t he indust rialized
nat ions.[19]: Section I.1.10 

UNEP and UNDP launched t he Povert y-Environment Init iat ive in 2005, which aims at t he t riple
vision of having neit her any ext reme povert y, nor greenhouse gas emissions nor net nat ural asset
loss, which is proposed t o guide t he st ruct ural reform t hat will enable poor groups and count ries
t o achieve t he SDGs at scale.[51][52]: 11  Such init iat ives might be seen as a measure t o mit igat e
t he t rade-off bet ween a large ecological foot print and high st at us of economic
development .[3]: 82 

Social sustainability

The social dimension of sust ainabilit y is t he least well defined and least underst ood dimension of
sust ainabilit y.[53][54][55] A possible definit ion is t hat a socially sust ainable societ y should ensure
t hat people are not hindered by st ruct ural obst acles in t he areas of healt h, influence,
compet ence, impart ialit y, and meaning-making.[56] Despit e t his anchoring of t he social dimension
of sust ainabilit y in t he Brundt land report , social sust ainabilit y can be addressed in different ways.

Some scholars place social issues at t he very cent er of sust ainabilit y discussions.[57] They
suggest t hat all of t he domains of sust ainabilit y are social: including ecological, economic,
polit ical, and cult ural sust ainabilit y. These domains of social sust ainabilit y all depend on t he
relat ionship bet ween t he social and t he nat ural, wit h t he ecological domain defined as human
embeddedness in t he environment . In t hese t erms, social sust ainabilit y encompasses all human
act ivit ies.[58] It is not just relevant t o t he focused int ersect ion of economics, t he environment ,
and t he social.[59]

Broad st rat egies for more sust ainable social syst ems include improved educat ion and t he
polit ical empowerment of women, especially in developing count ries; great er regard for social
just ice, not ably equit y bet ween rich and poor bot h wit hin and bet ween count ries; and, perhaps
most of all, int ergenerat ional equit y.[60] One example t o achieve social sust ainabilit y more
effect ively would be by providing more social safet y net s t o vulnerable populat ions
globally.[61]: 11 

Social sust ainabilit y is t hought t o lead t o livable communit ies which would be "equit able, diverse,
connect ed and democrat ic and provide a good qualit y of life".[62]

Proposed additional dimensions

Some sust ainabilit y expert s and pract it ioners have proposed more dimensions of sust ainabilit y,
such as inst it ut ional, cult ural, and t echnical dimensions.[1] Some consider resource use and
financial sust ainabilit y as t wo addit ional dimensions of sust ainabilit y.[63] In infrast ruct ure project s,
for inst ance, one must ask whet her sufficient financing capabilit y for maint enance exist s.[63]

Ot her frameworks bypass t he compart ment alizat ion of sust ainabilit y complet ely.[1]
Cultural sustainability

Some academics and inst it ut ions (such as Agenda 21 for cult ure and t he Unit ed Cit ies and Local
Government s) have point ed out t hat a fourt h dimension should be added t o t he dimensions of
sust ainabilit y since t he t riple-bot t om-line dimensions of economic, environment al and social do
not seem t o be enough t o reflect t he complexit y of cont emporary societ y.[64] This discussion
point s t o t he relat ion bet ween cult ure and sust ainable development t hrough developing a solid
cult ural policy and advocat ing a cult ural dimension in all public policies. Anot her example of t his
four-dimensional view was t he Circles of Sust ainabilit y approach, which included cult ural
sust ainabilit y.[65]

Interactions between dimensions

Environmental and economic dimensions

The relat ionship bet ween t he environment al and economic dimensions of sust ainabilit y is a
debat ed t opic. The concept of weak sust ainabilit y assumes t hat nat ural capit al (or
environment al resources) can be subst it ut ed wit h "capit al made by humans".[66][67] An example is
t he t echnological progress t hat has solved many environment al problems, such as using
environment al t echnologies t o reduce pollut ion.[68] The concept of st rong sust ainabilit y, on t he
ot her hand, st at es t hat nat ure (or nat ural capit al) provides funct ions t hat cannot be replaced by
t echnology.[69] Thus, st rong sust ainabilit y acknowledges t he need t o preserve ecological
int egrit y.[3]: 19  It emphasizes t hat many resources and ecosyst em services cannot be recovered
or repaired wit hin a reasonable t imescale once lost . Examples include loss of biodiversit y,
pollinat ion, fert ile soils, assimilat ion capacit y, clean air, clean wat er, and climat e regulat ion.

Robert Ayres, a physicist and economist , has point ed out t hat , in pract ice, economic decisions
are t aken at very narrow social scales, such as for t he int erest s of individuals, family groups, or
firms, and not wit h regards t o fut ure generat ions and planet ary welfare.[67]

The economic dimension relies on t he environment al dimension in many aspect s. Accordingly,

weak sust ainabilit y has been crit icized as "popular among government s, and business, but
profoundly wrong and not even weak, as t here is no alt ernat ive t o preserving t he eart h's
ecological int egrit y".[70] This st at ement underlines t he cent ral import ance of t he environment al
dimension of sust ainabilit y.[5]

For example, in 2020 t he World Economic Forum st at ed t hat : "Our research shows t hat $44
t rillion of economic value generat ion – more t han half of t he world's t ot al GDP – is moderat ely or
highly dependent on nat ure and it s services and is t herefore exposed t o nat ure loss."[71]: 8  Three
large economic sect ors are highly dependent on nat ure: const ruct ion, agricult ure, and food and
beverages. Drivers of nat ure loss include: land use change, sea use change, climat e change,
nat ural resource use and exploit at ion, pollut ion, and invasive alien species.[71]: 11 

Trade-offs

The not ion of t rade-offs bet ween different dimensions, for example bet ween environment al
management and economic growt h, is frequent ly discussed.[1] Balancing t he environment al,
social, and economic dimensions of sust ainabilit y is difficult ; environment al and social cost s are
not generally paid by t he ent it y t hat creat es t hem, and are not expressed in t he market price.
Usually, t hese cost s are eit her not addressed or are left t o be resolved by government policy.[72]
Trade-offs bet ween environment al management and economic growt h lead t o disagreement
about t he relat ive import ance of each.[1] This may include discussions of t he relat ive import ance
of t he t hree dimensions or object ives. The language involved frequent ly invokes t he need t o
int egrat e, balance, and reconcile t he dimensions wit hout necessarily art iculat ing what t his means
in pract ice.[1]

The physical limit s of Eart h and it s ecosyst ems mean t hat t he "aspirat ions for universal human
well-being embedded in t he Sust ainable Development Goals" cannot be support ed under current
t rends.[11]: 41 

How t he preservat ion of ecological int egrit y (i.e. environment al sust ainabilit y) relat es t o ot her
(social, economic) demands creat es a moral dilemma. This dilemma is inevit able and can only be
resolved by priorit izing or compromising ecological int egrit y.[5]
Measurement tools

Urban sustainability analysis of the greater urban area of the city of São Paulo using the 'Circles of Sustainability' method
of the UN and Metropolis Association.[73]

Sust ainabilit y measurement are t ools and met hods t hat at t empt t o measure t he degree of
sust ainabilit y of processes, product s, services, businesses and so fort h. Sust ainabilit y is difficult
t o quant ify, perhaps even immeasurable.[74] The met rics used t o t ry and measure sust ainabilit y
involve t he sust ainabilit y of environment al, social and economic domains, (bot h individually and in
various combinat ions) and are st ill evolving. They include indicat ors, benchmarks, audit s,
sust ainabilit y st andards and cert ificat ion syst ems like Fairt rade and Organic, indexes and
account ing, as well as assessment , appraisal[75] and ot her report ing syst ems. They are applied
over a wide range of spat ial and t emporal scales.[76][74] Some of t he widely used sust ainabilit y
measures include corporat e sust ainabilit y report ing, Triple Bot t om Line account ing, World
Sust ainabilit y Societ y, and est imat es of t he qualit y of sust ainabilit y governance for individual
count ries using t he Environment al Sust ainabilit y Index and Environment al Performance Index.
The UN Human Development Index and t he ecological foot print s are met hods t o monit or
sust ainable development over t ime.[77][78]

Environmental impacts of humans

Met hods t o measure or describe humans' impact s on t he Eart h include t he ecological foot print ,
ecological debt , carrying capacit y, and sust ainable yield.
The concept of planet ary boundaries emphasizes t hat t here are absolut e t hresholds of t he
carrying capacit y of t he planet which must not be crossed in order t o prevent irreversible harmful
changes t o t he Eart h syst em.[7][79] Component s wit h expect ed planet ary boundaries include:
climat e change, biodiversit y loss (changed in 2015 t o "change in biosphere int egrit y"),
biogeochemical (nit rogen and phosphorus), ocean acidificat ion, land use, freshwat er, ozone
deplet ion, at mospheric aerosols, chemical pollut ion (changed in 2015 t o "int roduct ion of novel
ent it ies").[7][80]

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment from 2005 measured 24 ecosyst em services and
concluded t hat only four have shown improvement over t he last 50 years, while 15 are in serious
decline and five are in a precarious condit ion.[81]: 6–19 

Economic costs

The doughnut model, with indicators to what extent the ecological ceilings are overshot and social foundations are not
met yet

The field of environment al economics has proposed different met hods for calculat ing t he cost
(or price) associat ed wit h t he use of public nat ural resources. The damage t o ecosyst ems and
t he loss of biodiversit y were calculat ed in The Economics of Ecosyst ems and Biodiversit y
(TEEB) project from 2007 t o 2011.[82]

Sust ainabilit y economics means t aking a long-t erm view of human welfare. One way of doing t his
is by considering t he social discount rat e. This is t he rat e by which fut ure cost s and benefit s
should be discount ed when making decisions. The more one is concerned about fut ure
generat ions, t he lower t he social discount rat e should be.[83] Anot her met hod is t o quant ify t he
services t hat ecosyst ems provide t o humankind and put an economic value on t hem, so t hat
environment al damage may be assessed against perceived short -t erm welfare benefit s. For
example, it has been calculat ed t hat "for every dollar spent on ecosyst em rest orat ion, bet ween
t hree and 75 dollars of economic benefit s from ecosyst em goods and services can be
expect ed".[84]

In recent years, t he concept of doughnut economics has been developed by t he Brit ish
economist Kat e Rawort h t o int egrat e social and environment al sust ainabilit y int o economic
t hinking. The social dimension is here port rayed as a minimum st andard t o which a societ y should
aspire, whereas an out er limit is imposed by t he carrying capacit y of t he planet .[85]

Barriers

The polit ical goal of sust ainabilit y, as formulat ed in t he "2030 Agenda for Sust ainable
Development " (t he 17 Sust ainable Development Goals), is very comprehensive and ambit ious.
The declarat ion st at ed t hat "In t hese Goals and t arget s, we are set t ing out a supremely
ambit ious and t ransformat ional vision" and have called t he SDGs t o be "of unprecedent ed scope
and significance".[39]: 3/35  Due t o t he high complexit y of t his goal, t here are many reasons why
sust ainabilit y is so difficult t o achieve.[3][15] Such reasons are also called sust ainabilit y barriers.
These barriers need t o be analyzed and underst ood. Only t hen can t hey be addressed
effect ively so t hat a sust ainabilit y t ransit ion becomes possible.[3]: 34 

Some sust ainabilit y barriers have t heir origins in nat ure and it s complexit y ("everyt hing is
relat ed").[18] Ot hers are root ed in t he human condit ion: t he value-act ion gap, for inst ance, relat es
t o t he fact t hat we oft en do not act according t o our convict ions. These barriers have been
called int rinsic t o t he concept of sust ainabilit y as such.[86]: 81 

Ot her barriers are ext rinsic t o t he concept of sust ainabilit y. This means t hey could in principle be
overcome, for example by put t ing a price t ag on t he consumpt ion of public goods.[86]: 84  A
number of ext rinsic sust ainabilit y barriers are relat ed t o t he dominant inst it ut ional frameworks
where market mechanisms oft en fail for public goods. Also, legal frameworks rarely consider
issues of int ergenerat ional just ice and fut ure generat ions. Exist ing societ ies, economies, and
cult ures incit e consumpt ion expansion. Therefore, t he st ruct ural imperat ive for growt h in
compet it ive market economies inhibit s necessary societ al change.[87]

Furt hermore, t here are several barriers relat ed t o t he difficult ies of implement ing sust ainabilit y
policies. There are t rade-offs t o be made bet ween object ives of environment al policies (such as
nat ure conservat ion) and economic development (such as povert y reduct ion).[15][3]: 65  There are
also t rade-offs bet ween short -t erm profit and long-t erm viabilit y. Polit ical pressures generally
favor t he short t erm over t he long t erm and t hus const it ut e a barrier t o act ions orient ed t oward
improving sust ainabilit y.[86]: 86 

Barriers working against sust ainabilit y can also be due t o t he Zeit geist , such as consumerism and
short -t ermism.[86]: 86 

Transitions

Components and characteristics

A sust ainabilit y t ransit ion is a st ruct ural and pot ent ially radical t ransformat ion t o a more
sust ainable societ y. The European Environment Agency defines a "sust ainabilit y t ransit ion" as, "a
fundament al and wide-ranging t ransformat ion of a socio-t echnical syst em t owards a t ransit ion
more sust ainable configurat ion t hat helps alleviat e persist ent problems such as climat e change,
pollut ion, biodiversit y loss or resource scarcit ies."[88] The concept of sust ainabilit y t ransit ions is a
similar t o t he concept of energy t ransit ions.[89]

A sust ainabilit y t ransit ion must be "support ed by a new kind of cult ure, a new kind of
collaborat ion, a new kind of leadership".[90] It requires subst ant ial invest ment in "new and greener
capit al goods, while simult aneously shift ing capit al away from unsust ainable syst ems".[11]: 107  It
also requires act ively demot ing unsust ainable opt ions.[11]: 101 

To achieve a sust ainabilit y t ransit ion, societ ies would have t o change t heir fundament al values
and organizing principles.[41]: 15  These new values would emphasize "t he qualit y of life and
mat erial sufficiency, human solidarit y and global equit y, and affinit y wit h nat ure and environment al
sust ainabilit y".[41]: 15  Any t ransit ion t owards sust ainabilit y can only be effect ive if far-reaching
lifest yle changes complement t echnological advancement s.[87]

Scient ist s have point ed out t hat : "Sust ainabilit y t ransit ions come about in diverse ways, and all
require civil-societ y pressure and evidence-based advocacy, polit ical leadership, and a solid
underst anding of policy inst rument s, market s, and ot her drivers."[16]

Four overlapping processes of t ransformat ion have been ident ified: t hey are eit her led by
t echnology, market s, government , or cit izens.[17] They each have different polit ical dynamics.

The IPAT formula, which was developed in t he 1970s, st at es t hat t he environment al impact of
humans is proport ional t o human populat ion, affluence and t echnology.[91] Therefore, t o decrease
environment al impact and t o increase sust ainabilit y, rout es such as human populat ion cont rol,
reducing consumpt ion and affluence [87] (e.g. reducing energy consumpt ion), and developing
innovat ive or green t echnologies (e.g. renewable energy) would all be beneficial. In ot her words,
t he broad aim would be t o have fewer consumers and less environment al foot print per consumer
or person.

Action principles

There are four t ypes of act ion principles t hat people and decision-makers can follow t o
facilit at e more sust ainable societ ies:[3]: 206 

Nat ure-relat ed principles: Decarbonize; reduce human environment al impact by efficiency,

sufficiency and consist ency; be net -posit ive – build up environment al and societ al capit al;
prefer local, seasonal, plant -based and labor-int ensive; pollut er-pays principle; precaut ionary
principle; and appreciat e and celebrat e t he beaut y of nat ure

Personal principles: pract ice cont emplat ion, apply policies caut iously, celebrat e frugalit y

Societ y-relat ed principles: Grant t he least privileged t he great est support ; seek mut ual
underst anding, t rust and mult iple wins; st rengt hen social cohesion and collaborat ion; engage
t he st akeholders; fost er educat ion – share knowledge and collaborat e.

Syst ems-relat ed principles: Apply syst ems t hinking, fost er diversit y, increase t he t ransparency
of t he publicly relevant , maint ain or increase opt ion diversit y.

Example steps

Some example st eps humanit y can t ake in t hree areas t o t ransit ion t o (environment al)
sust ainabilit y include (as per t he updat e t o t he 1992 World Scient ist s' Warning t o Humanit y):[16]
In t he area of reduced consumpt ion: reducing food wast e, promot ing diet ary shift s t owards
most ly plant -based foods. In t he area of reducing t he number of consumers: furt her reducing
fert ilit y rat es and t hus populat ion growt h; and in t he area of t echnology and nat ure conservat ion:
maint aining nat ure's ecosyst em services, promot ing new green t echnologies and adopt ing
renewable energy sources while phasing out subsidies t o energy product ion t hrough fossil fuels.

In 2015, t he Unit ed Nat ions General Assembly announced in t he Agenda 2030 for t he Sust ainable
Development Goals: "We are det ermined t o t ake t he bold and t ransformat ive st eps which are
urgent ly needed t o shift t he world on t o a sust ainable and resilient pat h."[39] The 17 goals and
t arget s lay out some of t he t ransformat ive st eps. For example, wit h regard t o t he fut ure of t he
planet Eart h, t he UN's pledge is t o "prot ect t he planet from degradat ion, including t hrough
sust ainable consumpt ion and product ion, sust ainably managing it s nat ural resources and t aking
urgent act ion on climat e change, so t hat it can support t he needs of t he present and fut ure
generat ions."[39]

Options for overcoming barriers

Issues around economic growth

In order t o resolve t he dilemma of economic growt h versus environment al conservat ion, t he

concept of eco-economic decoupling has been proposed. The idea would be t o decouple
environment al bads from economic goods as a pat h t owards sust ainabilit y.[13] This would mean
"using less resources per unit of economic out put and reducing t he environment al impact of any
resources t hat are used or economic act ivit ies t hat are undert aken" [50]: 8  Pressure on t he
environment can be measured by t he int ensit y of pollut ant s emit t ed. Decoupling can t hen be
measured by following changes in t he emission int ensit y associat ed wit h economic out put .[50]
Examples of absolut e long-t erm decoupling are rare, but some indust rialized count ries have
decoupled GDP growt h from bot h product ion and, t o a lesser ext ent , consumpt ion-based CO2
emissions.[92] But even in t his example decoupling alone is not sufficient and needs t o be
complement ed by "sufficiency-orient ed st rat egies and st rict enforcement of absolut e reduct ion
t arget s".[92] : 1 

A 2020 met a-analysis of 180 scient ific st udies found t hat t here is "no evidence of t he kind of
decoupling needed for ecological sust ainabilit y" and t hat "in t he absence of robust evidence, t he
goal of decoupling rest s part ly on fait h".[13] The possibilit ies for decoupling and t hus t he
feasibilit y of green growt h have been quest ioned.[14] Decoupling on it s own will not sufficient ly
reduce environment al pressures, but needs t o go wit h addressing t he issue of economic
growt h.[14] Adequat e decoupling is current ly not t aking place due t o rising energy expendit ure,
rebound effect s, problem shift ing, t he underest imat ed impact of services, t he limit ed pot ent ial
of recycling, insufficient and inappropriat e t echnological change, and cost -shift ing.[14]

The decoupling of economic growt h from environment al det eriorat ion is difficult because
environment al and social cost s are not generally paid by t he ent it y t hat causes t hem, and are
t herefore not expressed in t he market price.[72] In ot her words, t he causal ent it ies (businesses,
et c.) t end t o be free riders regarding environment al goods. For example, t he cost of packaging is
fact ored int o t he price of a product , but t he cost of disposing of t hat packaging is not . In
economics, such fact ors are considered ext ernalit ies, in t his case a negat ive ext ernalit y.[93]
Companies do not have an incent ive t o reduce packaging or t o choose recyclable mat erials
because t hey are not required t o pay for disposal. Usually, ext ernalit ies are eit her not covered at
all or left t o be addressed by government act ion or by local governance.

The Sust ainable Development Goals adopt ed some conservat ive and unambit ious perspect ives
on t he t ensions bet ween economic growt h and environment al sust ainabilit y. This is evident , for
example, in t heir emphasis on longst anding but dubious claims about decoupling and resource
efficiency as t echnological solut ions t o t he environment al crisis.[4]: 145 

Some examples of pot ent ial incorporat ion of environment al and social cost s and benefit s int o
economic act ivit ies include: t axing t he act ivit y (t he pollut er pays); subsidizing act ivit ies t hat have
a posit ive environment al or social effect (rewarding st ewardship); and out lawing part icular levels
of damaging pract ices (legal limit s on pollut ion).[72]

Government action and local governance

Wit hout government act ion, nat ural resources are oft en over-exploit ed and dest royed in t he
long-t erm. A t ext book on nat ural resources and environment al economics st at ed in 2011:
"Nobody who has seriously st udied t he issues believes t hat t he economy's relat ionship t o t he
nat ural environment can be left ent irely t o market forces."[94]: 15 

Relat ed t o t his aspect , Elinor Ost rom (winner of t he 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic
Sciences) st at ed t hat t he choice should not be limit ed t o eit her t he market or t he nat ional
government , and t hat local governance (or self-governance) can in fact be a suit able t hird
opt ion.[95] Her empirical work involved field st udies on how people in small, local communit ies
manage shared nat ural resources.[96] She showed t hat , over t ime, communit ies using nat ural
resources such as past ures, fishing wat ers, and forest s can est ablish rules for use and
maint enance t hat can lead t o bot h economic and ecological sust ainabilit y.[95] An import ant
requirement for t he success of self-governance is t o have groups in which part icipant s are
frequent ly communicat ing. In t his case, groups can manage t he usage of common goods wit hout
overexploit at ion.[3]: 117  Based on Ost rom's work, it has been point ed out t hat : "Common-pool
resources t oday are overcult ivat ed because t he different agent s do not know each ot her and
cannot direct ly communicat e wit h one anot her."[3]: 117 

Global governance

Quest ions of global concern are difficult t o t ackle because global issues would require global
solut ions. But t he exist ing global organizat ions (UN, WTO and ot hers) are not sufficient ly
equipped. They have hardly any sanct ioning mechanisms t o enforce exist ing global regulat ion.
Furt hermore, t hey are not always accept ed by all nat ions (an example is t he Int ernat ional Criminal
Court ), t heir agendas are not aligned (for example UNEP, UNDP and WTO), or t hey are being
accused of nepot ism and mismanagement .[3]: 135–145  There are also challenges t hat mult ilat eral
int ernat ional agreement s, t reat ies and int ergovernment al organizat ions (IGOs) face and which
result in barriers t o sust ainabilit y: There is a dependence on volunt ary commit ment s (for example
Nat ionally Det ermined Cont ribut ions for climat e act ion), exist ing nat ional or int ernat ional
regulat ion not being effect ively enforced, and t here are regulat ory whit e spaces and cont rol
deficit s for int ernat ional act ors (including mult i-nat ional ent erprises). Last ly, many int ernat ional
public organizat ions (such as WTO, IMF, World Bank, UNFCCC, G7, G8, OECD) are lacking perceived
legit imacy and democracy.[3]: 135 

Responses by non-government stakeholders

Businesses

Today, the public primarily associates sustainable production with special seals of quality (here the Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC) seal for wood products in a forest in Germany).

Sust ainable business pract ices int egrat e ecological concerns wit h social and economic
ones.[97][98] One account ing framework for t his approach is called t he t riple bot t om line which
uses t he phrase "people, planet , and profit ". The circular economy is a relat ed concept in
sust ainabilit y wit h t he ult imat e goal of decoupling environment al pressure from economic
growt h.[99][100]

Growing at t ent ion t owards sust ainabilit y has led t o t he format ion of many organizat ions such as
t he Sust ainabilit y Consort ium of t he Societ y for Organizat ional Learning,[101] t he Sust ainable
Business Inst it ut e,[102] and t he World Business Council for Sust ainable Development .[103] Supply
chain sust ainabilit y refers t o companies' effort s t o consider t he environment al and human
impact s of t heir product s' journey t hrough t he supply chain, from raw mat erials sourcing t o
product ion, st orage, and delivery and every t ransport at ion link in bet ween.[104]

Religious communities

Religious leaders have st ressed t he import ance of caring for nat ure and environment al
sust ainabilit y. In 2015 over 150 leaders from various fait hs issued a joint st at ement t o t he UN
Climat e Summit in Paris 2015.[105] They reit erat ed a st at ement made in t he Int erfait h Summit in
New York in 2014: "As represent at ives from different fait h and religious t radit ions, we st and
t oget her t o express deep concern for t he consequences of climat e change on t he eart h and it s
people, all ent rust ed, as our fait hs reveal, t o our common care. Climat e change is indeed a t hreat
t o life, a precious gift we have received and t hat we need t o care for."[106]

Individuals

Individuals can change t heir lifest yles and pract ice et hical consumerism and embrace frugalit y t o
live more sust ainably.[3]: 236  Sust ainable living approaches can reduce environment al impact s by
alt ering t he built environment t o make cit ies more sust ainable.[107] Such approaches can include
sust ainable t ransport , sust ainable archit ect ure and zero emission housing. Research can ident ify
t he main issues t o focus on (e.g., flying, meat and dairy product s, car driving, and household
sufficiency) and how cult ures of sufficiency, care, solidarit y, and simplicit y can be creat ed.[87]

Young people are using a combinat ion of act ivism, lit igat ion, and on-t he-ground effort s t o
advancing sust ainabilit y, part icularly in t he area of climat e act ion.[61]: 60 

Critique

Impossible to reach

The concept s of sust ainabilit y and sust ainable development have been crit icized from different
angles. According t o Dennis Meadows, one of t he aut hors of t he first report t o t he Club of
Rome, called "The Limit s t o Growt h", many people deceive t hemselves by using t he Brundt land
definit ion of sust ainabilit y.[46] This is because t he needs of t he present generat ion are act ually
not met t oday, and t he economic act ivit ies t o meet present needs will subst ant ially diminish t he
opt ions of fut ure generat ions.[108][3]: 27  Anot her crit icism is t hat t he paradigm of sust ainabilit y is
no longer suit able as a guide for t ransformat ion due t o t he fact t hat our societ ies are "socially
and ecologically self-dest ruct ive consumer societ ies".[109]

Some scholars have even proclaimed t he end of t he concept of sust ainabilit y due t o "t he
realit ies of t he Ant hropocene";[10] humans now have a significant impact on Eart h's geology and
ecosyst ems (for example causing unprecedent ed rat es of biodiversit y loss and climat e change).
It might become impossible t o pursue a goal of sust ainabilit y when faced wit h t hese complex,
radical, and dynamic issues.[10] Ot hers have called sust ainabilit y a ut opian ideal: "we need t o keep
sust ainabilit y as an ideal; an ideal which we might never reach, which might be ut opian, but st ill a
necessary one".[3]: 5 

Vague and unclear

The t erm has been hijacked and lost it s meaning: "Ask anyone what it means and t hey will give
you a wide range of answers from saving t he planet t o recycling".[24] As sust ainabilit y is a
concept t hat provides a normat ive st ruct ure (describing what human societ y regards as good or
desirable), a specific definit ion may never be possible.[2]

On t he ot her hand, while "sust ainabilit y" is vague and cont est ed it is not meaningless.[2] Alt hough
lacking in a singular definit ion, a concept such as sust ainabilit y is st ill useful. Scholars have
point ed out t hat it s fuzziness can act ually be liberat ing, since it means t hat "t he basic goal of
sust ainabilit y (maint aining or improving desirable condit ions, and more broadly st rengt hening t he
capacit y t o do so) can be pursued wit h more flexibilit y".[18]

Confusion and greenwashing

Sust ainabilit y has a reput at ion as a buzzword.[1][110] Confusion and mist rust can result when
special int erest groups at t empt t o apply t he t erms "sust ainabilit y" and "sust ainable
development " in ways t hat are cont radict ory t o more widely accept ed concept ualizat ions.[18]
Ambiguous use of t he t erm is problemat ic. Therefore, clear ident ificat ion of how t he t erm is
being used in a part icular sit uat ion is beneficial.[18]

Greenwashing is t he pract ice of decept ive market ing by a company or organizat ion by providing
misleading informat ion about t he sust ainabilit y of a product , policy, or ot her environment -harming
act ivit y.[61]: 26  This makes product s appear more sust ainable (more environment ally friendly,
nat ural, healt hier, free of chemicals, recyclable, less wast eful of nat ural resources) t han t hey
act ually are.[111] Invest ors are wary of t his issue as it exposes t hem t o risk.[112] The reliabilit y of
eco-labels is also doubt ful in some cases.[113] Ecolabelling is a volunt ary met hod of
environment al performance cert ificat ion and labelling t hat is at t ached t o food and consumer
product s. The most credible eco-labels are t hose t hat are developed wit h close part icipat ion
from all relevant st akeholders.[114]

See also

References

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Sustainability&oldid=1129121554"

Last edited 3 days ago by Profzed