Introduction:

Topics 5, 6, 7, and 8 all deal with the issue of what it means for humanity to live sustainably and the role of business in achieving this outcome.

In topic 5, we look at some of the social and ecological challenges society is facing. We then explore what it means for humanity to live sustainably and what the world might need to look like to see this outcome achieved.

Topic 6 then takes the concepts covered in topic 5 and applies them to the business setting. We consider what it means for a business to be a sustainable business, and how sustainability principles can be incorporated into organisational strategy.

Topics 7 & 8 then look at some specific approaches to how businesses pursue sustainability agendas and critiques these approaches to consider their merits and weaknesses.

Learning objectives:

1. Gain a general understanding of some of the key ecological and social challenges humanity is facing.
2. Understand the main approaches to what it means for there to be a sustainable world.

Discussion:

Social and ecological challenges

Despite the increased wealth many parts of society enjoy, this wealth comes at an ecological and social cost and is not shared by all. Absolute and persistent poverty continues to affect hundreds of millions of people (Rees 2008; Bell 2009), the resource-use gap between the rich and the poor is increasing (Rees & Westra 2003; Bell 2009), the Earth's ecosystems continue to deteriorate (UN 2005; UNEP 2007; Brown 2008), atmospheric green-house gas loads continue to rise driving increased global warming and ocean acidification (UNEP 2009; IPCC 2010; Science Daily 2010), and humanity's use of the Earth's renewable resource base continues to exceed its rate of regeneration, with this unsustainable rate of use accelerating (Rockström et al. 2009; Footprint Network 2010). What needs to be done to address there problems in order for humanity to be living sustainably – that is, for there to be a sustainable world – is an issue of significant debate, action, and inaction.

But if all of these ecological and social inequity problems exist, why is it that most of us (in the rich industrialised nations and wealthier sectors of nations that are not as far along the industrialisation path) do not experience any real shortage of things we need for a comfortable life? Andersson & Lindroth (2001) propose that the consequences of continued current ecological degradation are born by three main parties:

• the economically and politically weak, as the more powerful are able to better appropriate resources for their own use,
• non-human species, through human appropriation of resources to the detriment of these species, and
• future generations, through the running down of renewable natural resource stocks to support current generation consumption.

This all falls under the ‘externalisation of harms’ issue, something we will look into further later in this course. You will also notice a clear link between this issue of who bears the consequences of current ecological degradation and the discussion in topics 3 & 4 on equity and justice.

A sustainable world

Although the idea of humanity needing to live sustainably is something everyone seems to be aware of and agrees we need, when it comes to explaining exactly what this means, or describing what a sustainable world might look like, things get challenging. Whether talked of as sustainability, a sustainable world, sustainable development, or the various other terminologies we will come across, the concept of what it means for humanity to live sustainably remains pluralistic, contested, and grounded in different value systems and incommensurate world views (Gladwin, Kennelly & Krause 1995; Osorio, Lobato & Castillo 2005; Manderson 2006). Despite this contested ground, two main streams of thought as to what a sustainable world has to do with are evident in the literature, namely a reformist approach and a transformational approach. Clifton & Amran (2010) describe these as follows:

A Reformist approach (or Reformism) takes the view that the current dominant socio-economic system is sound and more than capable of providing what Reformism claims is the key sustainable world goal, namely, continued human development (or, more commonly, sustainable development). Under this model, the challenge humanity faces is to maintain the current dominant socio-economic system but to do so in ways that address the ecological and social harms that are currently being experienced. In short we need to 'green' the current system and make it more socially just. Reformism seeks strong consistent global GDP growth, supported by continuation of the current globalisation and free-trade agenda, to address problems of poverty and promote overall human wellbeing. It focuses on technological advance to improve resource use efficiency and to develop less (or for some, non) polluting production and consumption processes. Reformism sees a key role for business, multinational corporations (MNCs) in particular, in furthering this growth and technology agenda especially in assisting the South to develop sustainably.

A Transformational approach on the other hand claims that the current dominant economic, social, and institutional system is the root cause of current unsustainable behaviours and needs transformational change in order for a sustainable world to come about. This approach sees human wellbeing as best progressed through equitable and ecologically sustainable qualitative development and consumptive sufficiency, achieved through a steady-state economy (that is, one where resource throughput is non growing and contained within ecological limits). It has a preference for internationalisation not globalization, consumption from local production, and businesses that are smaller and locally embedded. Continued consumptive growth is seen as both unsustainable and a primary cause of ecological problems and poverty. Poverty is resolved through resource reallocation not more global-level through-put growth, with a key role for the economically and politically powerful, especially the industrialised North, to cease exploitation of the economically and politically weak (pp. 122-123). 

Despite their substantial differences, both the reformist and transformational approaches see a sustainable world as being concerned with:

“the flourishing of life on Earth over an indefinite time frame, incorporating human and ecological wellbeing, and with this wellbeing grounded in principles of intra- and inter-generational justice” (Clifton & Amran 2010, p 123).

We can call this summary statement the wellbeing+justice principle of a sustainable world. We can also see here the strong links between how a sustainable world is conceived and the equity and justice issues we discussed in topics 3 & 4.

Reformism is the current dominant sustainable world approach and is consistent with the sustainable development agenda promoted by the business sector, the United Nations and its related bodies, and by most, if not all, governments (Handmer & Dovers 1996; Gould & Lewis 2009; Clifton 2010). This does not mean that the transformational approach doesn’t have a strong and well established basis. To the contrary, various themes evident in the transformational approach are well established in a number of disciplinary areas, both at the academic level and in the general business/social space. For more on these different sustainable world approaches, see as examples:

Reformist:

Transformational:

An important point here is that although there are some common threads through these two main sustainable world approaches that can be applied in the business sector and sustainable business strategy, there are also substantial differences and it’s important to think though exactly what we believe is a credible pathway forward for humanity to be living sustainably, and how this translates into business activity. Which sustainable world approach should humanity be pursuing? This is something you will need to give some thought to and come to your own conclusions. We will present ideas supporting and criticising both approaches, but in the end, you will need to navigate your own way through the maze and find what you believe is a credible and responsible way forward for society.

Sustainability terminologies

One final point we will cover off in this discussion relates to the different sustainability terminologies you will come across in this and other courses, plus what you will hear in the broader public space. We set out what are possibly the most frequently used terminologies and their more common meaning, although a word of caution: these terms get used in many formal and informal contexts and what the person using them might mean (bearing in mind a person using the terms might not have a clear idea of what the term being used means!) could vary from what is set out here.

Sustainability and Sustainable Development.

These terms are often used interchangeably. Two main uses are evident. The first is where sustainability is the goal (as in ‘the goal is to see humans living sustainably’), with sustainable development as the process by which this goal is achieved (examples of this use include Doppelt 2003; Porritt 2005; Voigt 2005). What the goal of ‘humans living sustainably’ means is then open to discussion and debate, but generally fits into either the reformist or transformational categories we discussed earlier.

The second approach is where sustainability is defined as meaning the ‘sustaining of development’ (examples of this use include WCED 1987; Lele 1991; Gladwin, Kennelly & Krause 1995; Gallopin 2003). In other words, what we seek to sustain is continued human development, hence the sustainable development terminology. In this sense, sustainable development is more than a process; it is itself the goal. This of course raises the question as to what human development means. This is often talked of as some form of improvement in the human condition (WCED 1987; Holdren, Daily & Ehrlich 1995; Langhelle 1999; Gallopin 2003; Porritt 2005) – sustainable development is then ‘continued improvement in the human condition’. In practice, sustainable development is strongly linked to the reformist approach to a sustainable world and sees continued human development arising from the flow-on benefits of ‘green and just’ continued economic growth. A contrasting view of human development is proposed by Daly (1990) who differentiates between growth and development. For Daly, economic growth is seen as quantitative resource throughput and is subject to physical limits (as we live in a world of finite resources). He sees human development on the other hand as qualitative improvement (better educated, more personally fulfilled, greater cultural depth and social bonds etc) and here, no real limits exist.

Ecologically sustainable development

This is mostly an Australian term and has its origins from 1990’s in Federal Government discussion on sustainable development (Diesendorf 2000; Harding 2006). In practice, it means the same as sustainable development as used in either or both of the above two senses of the sustainable development term (Dovers & Handmer 1992; Diesendorf 2000; Harding 2006).

Ecological sustainability and environmental sustainability

In practice, there is no real difference in how these two terms are used, and both are used to refer to the sustaining of the Earth's ecosystems and the life supporting services they provide.

Social sustainability

This is an aspect of sustainability that focuses on sustaining the positive functioning of human society both at the individual and collective level with a view of achieving individual and social wellbeing.

Economic sustainability

This is concerned with sustaining the functioning of human economic systems, that is, systems of production and distribution of goods and services to further human wellbeing.

These last three terms (ecological/environmental, social, and economic) show a link to the triple-bottom-line approach we discussed in topic 2. The optional reading by Giddings, Hopwood & O'Brien is worth taking a few moments to browse through to get some greater insight into how these three elements of sustainability are depicted, and the merits of the different models that are often presented of this 3-element view of sustainability.

References

Andersson, JO & Lindroth, M 2001, 'Ecologically Unsustainable Trade', Ecological Economics, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 113-122.

Bell, MM 2009, An Invitation to Environmental Sociology, Pine Forage Press, California, USA.

Brown, L 2008, Plan B 3.0, W. W. Norton & Company Inc., New York.

Clifton, D 2010, 'Representing a Sustainable World - A Typology Approach', Journal of Sustainable Development, vol. 3, no. 2, June 2010, pp. 40-57.

Clifton, D & Amran, A 2010, 'The Stakeholder Approach: A Sustainability Perspective', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 121-136.

Daly, HE 1990, 'Toward Some Operational Principles of Sustainable Development', Ecological Economics, vol. 2, no. 1, 1990/4, pp. 1-6.

Diesendorf, M 2000, 'Sustainability and Sustainable Development', in Sustainability: The Corporate Challenge of the 21st Century, eds. DC Dunphy, J Benveniste, A Griffiths & P Sutton, Allen & Unwin, pp. 19-37.

Doppelt, B 2003, Leading Change Toward Sustainability, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, UK.

Dovers, SR & Handmer, JW 1992, 'Uncertainty, Sustainability and Change', Global Environmental Change, vol. 2, no. 4, 1992/12, pp. 262-276.

Footprint Network 2010, Ecological Footprint, Footprint Network web site at http://www.footprintnetwork.org/.

Gallopin, G 2003, A Systems Approach to Sustainability and Sustainable Development, United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean: Sustainability Assessment in Latin America and the Caribbean project.

Gladwin, TN, Kennelly, JJ & Krause, T-S 1995, 'Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research.', Academy of Management Review, vol. 20, no. 4, 1995/10//, pp. 874-907.

Gould, KA & Lewis, TL 2009, 'The Paradoxes of Sustainable Development', in Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology, eds. KA Gould & TL Lewis, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 269-289.

Handmer, JW & Dovers, SR 1996, 'A Typology of Resilience: Rethinking Institutions for Sustainable Development', Industrial and Environmental Crisis Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 482-511.

Harding 2006, 'Ecologically Sustainable Development: Origins, Implementation and Challenges', Desalination, vol. 187, pp. 229-230.

Holdren, JP, Daily, GC & Ehrlich, PR 1995, The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects, United Nations University and The World Bank, Washington DC.

IPCC 2010, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at http://www.ipcc.ch/.

Langhelle, O 1999, 'Sustainable Development: Exploring the Ethics of Our Common Future', International Political Science Review, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 129-149.

Lele, SM 1991, 'Sustainable Development: A Critical Review', World Development, vol. 19, no. 6, 1991/6, pp. 607-621.

Manderson, AK 2006, 'A Systems Based Framework to Examine The Multi-Contextual Application of the Sustainability Concept', Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 8, pp. 85-97.

Osorio, LA, Lobato, MO & Castillo, X 2005, 'Debates on Sustainable Development: Towards a Holistic View of Reality', Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 7, pp. 501-518.

Porritt, J 2005, Capitalism As If The World Matters, Earthscan, London.

Rees, WE 2008, 'Human Nature, Eco-footprints and Environmental Injustice', Local Environment, vol. 13, no. 8, December, pp. 685-701.

Rees, WE & Westra, L 2003, 'When Consumption Does Violence: Can There be Sustainability and Environmental Justice in a Resource-limited World?', in Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World, eds. J Agyeman, RD Bullard & B Evans, Earthscan, London.

Rockström, J, Steffen, W, Noone, K, Persson, A, Chapin, FS, Lambin, EF, Lenton, TM, Scheffer, M, Folke, C, Schellnhuber, HJ, Nykvist, B, de Wit, CA, Hughes, T, van der Leeuw, S, Rodhe, H, Sörlin, S, Snyder, PK, Costanza, R, Svedin, U, Falkenmark, M, Karlberg, L, Corell, RW, Fabry, VJ, Hansen, J, Walker, B, Liverman, D, Richardson, K, Crutzen, P & Foley, JA 2009, 'A Safe Operating Space for Humanity', Nature, vol. Vol 461, no. 24, September 2009, pp. 472-475.

Science Daily 2010, Ocean Acidification: 'Evil Twin' Threatens World's Oceans, Scientists Warn., Science Daily electronic news service, at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100330092821.htm.

UN 2005, Living Beyond Our Means - Millennium Ecosystems Report, United Nations.

UNEP 2009, Climate Change Science Compendium, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

UNEP 2007, Global Environmental Outlook 4, United Nations Environmental Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

Voigt, C 2005, 'From Climate Change to Sustainability: An Essay on Sustainable Development, Legal and Ethical Choices.', Worldviews: Environment Culture Religion, vol. 9, no. 1, 2005, pp. 112-137.

WCED 1987, Our Common Future: World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford.