Sustainability
Sustainability is a social goal for people to co-exist on Earth over a long time. Definitions of this term are disputed and have varied with literature, context, and time.[2][1] Sustainability usually has three dimensions (or pillars): environmental, economic, and social.[1] Many definitions emphasize the environmental dimension.[3][4] This can include addressing key environmental problems, including climate change and biodiversity loss. The idea of sustainability can guide decisions at the global, national, and individual levels.[5] A related concept is that of sustainable development, and the terms are often used to mean the same thing.[6] UNESCO distinguishes the two like this: "Sustainability is often thought of as a long-term goal (i.e. a more sustainable world), while sustainable development refers to the many processes and pathways to achieve it."[7]
"Unsustainable" redirects here. Not to be confused with Unsustainable (song).
Details around the economic dimension of sustainability are controversial.[1] Scholars have discussed this under the concept of weak and strong sustainability. For example, there will always be tension between the ideas of "welfare and prosperity for all" and environmental conservation,[8][1] so trade-offs are necessary. It would be desirable to find ways that separate economic growth from harming the environment.[9] This means using fewer resources per unit of output even while growing the economy.[10] This reduces the environmental impact of economic growth, such as pollution. Doing this is difficult.[11][12] Some experts say there is no evidence that it is happening at the required scale.[13]
It is challenging to measure sustainability on a metric scale.[14] Indicators look at the environment, society, and the economy. But there is no fixed definition of sustainability indicators.[15] The metrics are evolving and include indicators, benchmarks and audits. They include sustainability standards and certification systems like Fairtrade and Organic. They also involve indices and accounting systems such as corporate sustainability reporting and Triple Bottom Line accounting.
It is necessary to address many barriers to sustainability to achieve a sustainability transition.[5]: 34 [16] Some barriers arise from nature and its complexity. Other barriers are extrinsic to the concept of sustainability. For example they can result from the dominant institutional frameworks in countries.
Global issues of sustainability are difficult to tackle as they need global solutions. Existing global organizations such as the UN and WTO are inefficient in enforcing current global regulations. One reason for this is the lack of suitable sanctioning mechanisms.[5]: 135–145 Governments are not the only sources of action for sustainability. For example, business groups have tried to integrate ecological concerns with economic activity.[17][18] Religious leaders have stressed the need for caring for nature and environmental stability. Individuals can also live in a more sustainable way.[5]
People have criticized the idea of sustainability. One point of criticism is that the concept is vague and only a buzzword.[1] Another is that sustainability might be an impossible goal.[19] Some experts have pointed out that "no country is delivering what its citizens need without transgressing the biophysical planetary boundaries".[20]: 11
Definitions[edit]
Current usage[edit]
Sustainability is regarded as a "normative concept".[5][21][22][2] This means it is based on what people value or find desirable: "The quest for sustainability involves connecting what is known through scientific study to applications in pursuit of what people want for the future."[22]
The 1983 UN Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) had a big influence on the use of the term sustainability today. The commission's 1987 Brundtland Report provided a definition of sustainable development. The report, Our Common Future, defines it as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".[23][24] The report helped bring sustainability into the mainstream of policy discussions. It also popularized the concept of sustainable development.[1]
Some other key concepts to illustrate the meaning of sustainability include:[22]
Barriers[edit]
There are many reasons why sustainability is so difficult to achieve. These reasons have the name sustainability barriers.[5][16] Before addressing these barriers it is important to analyze and understand them.[5]: 34 Some barriers arise from nature and its complexity ("everything is related").[22] Others arise from the human condition. One example is the value-action gap. This reflects the fact that people often do not act according to their convictions. Experts describe these barriers as intrinsic to the concept of sustainability.[94]: 81
Other barriers are extrinsic to the concept of sustainability. This means it is possible to overcome them. One way would be to put a price tag on the consumption of public goods.[94]: 84 Some extrinsic barriers relate to the nature of dominant institutional frameworks. Examples would be where market mechanisms fail for public goods. Existing societies, economies, and cultures encourage increased consumption. There is a structural imperative for growth in competitive market economies. This inhibits necessary societal change.[87]
Furthermore, there are several barriers related to the difficulties of implementing sustainability policies. There are trade-offs between the goals of environmental policies and economic development. Environmental goals include nature conservation. Development may focus on poverty reduction.[16][5]: 65 There are also trade-offs between short-term profit and long-term viability.[94]: 65 Political pressures generally favor the short term over the long term. So they form a barrier to actions oriented toward improving sustainability.[94]: 86
Barriers to sustainability may also reflect current trends. These could include consumerism and short-termism.[94]: 86
Transitions[edit]
Components and characteristics[edit]
The European Environment Agency defines a sustainability transition as "a fundamental and wide-ranging transformation of a socio-technical system towards a more sustainable configuration that helps alleviate persistent problems such as climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss or resource scarcities."[95]: 152 The concept of sustainability transitions is like the concept of energy transitions.[96]
One expert argues a sustainability transition must be "supported by a new kind of culture, a new kind of collaboration, [and] a new kind of leadership".[97] It requires a large investment in "new and greener capital goods, while simultaneously shifting capital away from unsustainable systems".[20]: 107 It prefers these to unsustainable options.[20]: 101
In 2024 an interdisciplinary group of experts including Chip Fletcher, William J. Ripple, Phoebe Barnard, Kamanamaikalani Beamer, Christopher Field, David Karl, David King, Michael E. Mann and Naomi Oreskes published the academic paper "Earth at Risk". They made an extensive review of existing scientific literature, placing the blame for the ecological crisis on "imperialism, extractive capitalism, and a surging population" and proposed a paradigm shift that replaces it with a socio-economic model prioritizing sustainability, resilience, justice, kinship with nature, and communal well-being. They described many ways in which the transition to a sustainabile future can be achieved.[98]
A sustainability transition requires major change in societies. They must change their fundamental values and organizing principles.[43]: 15 These new values would emphasize "the quality of life and material sufficiency, human solidarity and global equity, and affinity with nature and environmental sustainability".[43]: 15 A transition may only work if far-reaching lifestyle changes accompany technological advances.[87]
Scientists have pointed out that: "Sustainability transitions come about in diverse ways, and all require civil-society pressure and evidence-based advocacy, political leadership, and a solid understanding of policy instruments, markets, and other drivers."[50]
There are four possible overlapping processes of transformation. They each have different political dynamics. Technology, markets, government, or citizens can lead these processes.[21]
Assessments and reactions[edit]
Impossible to reach[edit]
Scholars have criticized the concepts of sustainability and sustainable development from different angles. One was Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of the first report to the Club of Rome, called "The Limits to Growth". He argued many people deceive themselves by using the Brundtland definition of sustainability.[52] This is because the needs of the present generation are actually not met today. Instead, economic activities to meet present needs will shrink the options of future generations.[115][5]: 27 Another criticism is that the paradigm of sustainability is no longer suitable as a guide for transformation. This is because societies are "socially and ecologically self-destructive consumer societies".[116]
Some scholars have even proclaimed the end of the concept of sustainability. This is because humans now have a significant impact on Earth's climate system and ecosystems.[19] It might become impossible to pursue sustainability because of these complex, radical, and dynamic issues.[19] Others have called sustainability a utopian ideal: "We need to keep sustainability as an ideal; an ideal which we might never reach, which might be utopian, but still a necessary one."[5]: 5
Vagueness[edit]
The term is often hijacked and thus can lose its meaning. People use it for all sorts of things, such as saving the planet to recycling your rubbish.[26] A specific definition may never be possible. This is because sustainability is a concept that provides a normative structure. That describes what human society regards as good or desirable.[2]
But some argue that while sustainability is vague and contested it is not meaningless.[2] Although lacking in a singular definition, this concept is still useful. Scholars have argued that its fuzziness can actually be liberating. This is because it means that "the basic goal of sustainability (maintaining or improving desirable conditions [...]) can be pursued with more flexibility".[22]
Confusion and greenwashing[edit]
Sustainability has a reputation as a buzzword.[1] People may use the terms sustainability and sustainable development in ways that are different to how they are usually understood. This can result in confusion and mistrust. So a clear explanation of how the terms are being used in a particular situation is important.[22]
Greenwashing is a practice of deceptive marketing. It is when a company or organization provides misleading information about the sustainability of a product, policy, or other activity.[66]: 26 [117] Investors are wary of this issue as it exposes them to risk.[118] The reliability of eco-labels is also doubtful in some cases.[119] Ecolabelling is a voluntary method of environmental performance certification and labelling for food and consumer products. The most credible eco-labels are those developed with close participation from all relevant stakeholders.[120]