Abstract
The three-pillar conception of (social, economic and environmental) sustainability, commonly represented by three intersecting circles with overall sustainability at the centre, has become ubiquitous. With a view of identifying the genesis and theoretical foundations of this conception, this paper reviews and discusses relevant historical sustainability literature. From this we find that there is no single point of origin of this three-pillar conception, but rather a gradual emergence from various critiques in the early academic literature of the economic status quo from both social and ecological perspectives on the one hand, and the quest to reconcile economic growth as a solution to social and ecological problems on the part of the United Nations on the other. The popular three circles diagram appears to have been first presented by Barbier (Environ Conserv 14:101, doi: 10.1017/s0376892900011449, 1987), albeit purposed towards developing nations with foci which differ from modern interpretations. The conceptualisation of three pillars seems to predate this, however. Nowhere have we found a theoretically rigorous description of the three pillars. This is thought to be in part due to the nature of the sustainability discourse arising from broadly different schools of thought historically. The absence of such a theoretically solid conception frustrates approaches towards a theoretically rigorous operationalisation of ‘sustainability’.
Highlights
The last 20 years have witnessed a surge in publications on ‘sustainability’, to the extent where ‘sustainability science’ is often seen as a distinct field (Kates et al 2001; Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006; Schoolman et al 2012; Kajikawa et al 2014)
Whilst a diagram with explicit economic, social, and biological system goals is presented as a model of sustainable development by Barbier in 1987, the goals elaborated differ from those of the UN and the meaning is limited to developing nations
We have argued that the early literature considering the pillars may be split broadly between those who view the three as distinct perspectives, and those who take a systems approach
Summary
The last 20 years have witnessed a surge in publications on ‘sustainability’, to the extent where ‘sustainability science’ is often seen as a distinct field (Kates et al 2001; Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006; Schoolman et al 2012; Kajikawa et al 2014). It should be noted here that these competing terms are primarily used interchangeably, and our preference for ‘pillars’ is largely arbitrary Alternative manifestations include the three depicted visually as nested concentric circles or literal ‘pillars’, or independent of visual aids as distinct categories for sustainability goals or indicators. Whilst attractive for their simplicity, the meaning conveyed by these diagrams
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
