Abstract

Sustainable development (SustD) – meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs – has become a major issue of focus for business, government, and society generally, at local, national, and international levels. Evidence abounds of the increasing extent to which the business sector is embracing the SustD concept – the UN Global Compact (http://www.unglobalcompact.org/), the work of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (http://www.wbcsd.org/), the Equator Principles for the banking sector (http://www.equator-principles.com/), and the increasing uptake of sustainability reporting (http://www.globalreporting.org/) are just a few examples. But the current mainstream SustD narrative, as it is formulated in business and political circles, is only one approach to how humanity might go about living sustainably. But is it the one most likely to see a sustainable world come about? Are we really heading in the right direction? This paper critiques the current dominant SustD approach using socio-ecological resilience theory, and the Ecological Footprint measure in conjunction with the I=PAT identity. It considers current and future Ecological Footprint trends, and how key SustD strategies directed towards human population numbers, economic growth, and technology solutions, interact to progress or retard the achievement of a sustainable world. Socio-ecological resilience theory is used to explore the extent to which mainstream SustD either builds resilient societies and ecosystems, or undermines resilience leaving society vulnerable to broad-scale social and ecosystem collapse. The paper argues that mainstream SustD is challenging to believe as credible. Rather than helping society achieve needed change, this approach instead creates a false sense of progress that acts as a barrier to the more decisive action that is necessary to address the underlying drivers of humanity\'s unsustainable behaviours. Further, some of the core technology strategies advocated by this approach, and on which the business sector focuses its sustainability efforts, are shown to have flow-on effects that can work against the very objectives they seek to achieve. The paper concludes that the business sector has the power and influence to drive needed change, and can do so by embracing a more transformational sustainable world approach in both its internal activities and in its advocacy in the broader public and political space. Although focusing on the business sector, the findings of this critique are equally relevant to other social actors in their pursuit of sustainable world outcomes including governments, religious organisations, educational institutions, NGOs, communities, and individuals. What is needed is for business, political, and community leaders to take a stand and rally together to drive needed change.

Highlights

  • The need for humanity to live sustainably, that is, for there to be a sustainable world, has roots that date back thousands of years in concerns expressed at the environmental damage humans cause [1].Contemporary sustainable world discourse is often dated from the 1880s and the response to environmental damage that paralleled the emergence of the industrial revolution, and subsequentSustainability 2012, 4 progression of environmental thought through to the advent of the modern day environmental movement in the 1960s [2,3,4]

  • The Reformist approach is far removed from the behaviour we would accept in how our own businesses are managed and, in addition, it is based on an economic growth premise that has been shown to fail to deliver the continued gains in human wellbeing that it otherwise professes to do

  • The critique presented in this paper, only covering only a few themes by which mainstream Reformist-based sustainable development can be assessed, suggests that despite its dominance, it is challenging to believe as a viable pathway forward for humanity

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The need for humanity to live sustainably, that is, for there to be a sustainable world, has roots that date back thousands of years in concerns expressed at the environmental damage humans cause [1]. Absolute and persistent poverty continues to affect hundreds of millions of people [9,10], the resource-use gap between the rich and the poor is increasing [9,11], the Earth’s ecosystems continue to deteriorate [12,13], atmospheric greenhouse gas loads continue to rise driving increased global warming and ocean acidification [14,15], 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 [16,17]. The very act of pursuing the Reformist approach can make the sustainable world goal harder to achieve

Sustainable Development and a Sustainable World
Business and a Sustainable World
Reformist or Transformational Approach?
T’s Component Parts
Improving Renewable Natural Resource Productivity
Improving Resource Use Efficiency in the Production Process
Less Harmful Behaviours in the Production and Consumption Process
Discussion and Conclusion
Findings
63. Europe 2007
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.