Sustainability

Commonly used schematics of the tripartite description of sustainability: Left, typical representation of sustainability as three intersecting circles. Right, alternative depictions: literal ‘pillars’ and a concentric circles approach.[1]

Sustainability is a broad policy concept in the global public discourse that consists of three main "dimensions" or "pillars": environmental, economic and social.[1] The original semantic meaning of “sustainability” (a noun) and “to sustain” (a transitive verb) refers to the ability to continue over a long period of time. A closely related and overlapping concept is that of "sustainable development". UNESCO formulated a distinction as follows: "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."[2] According to the "Brundtland Report" Our Common Future (1987), sustainable development is defined as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."[3][4]

The terms "sustainability" and "sustainable development" are increasingly popular in publications and on the internet, however, the issues to consider are complex.[5] The discussion of the environmental dimension of sustainability is often centered around prevailing issues. For example, the dominant issues since the early 2000s are climate change, loss of biodiversity, environmental degradation, the biogeochemical fluxes of nitrogen and phosphorus, and pollution, especially plastic pollution.[6]: 21 

Sustainability has also been described as an “exhausted roadmap” due to the view that our consumer societies are socially and ecologically self-destructive.[7] Moving towards sustainability can involve social challenges such as individual lifestyles and ethical consumerism. Sustainable living approaches can reduce environmental impacts by altering the built environment to create more sustainable cities. That would include sustainable transport and zero emission housing as well as sustainable architecture and circular flow land use management.

Definitions and common use

Sustainability Venn diagram where "sustainability" is simplistically thought of as the area where the three dimensions overlap.

Previous use of the term

Originally, "sustainability" meant making only such use of natural, renewable resources that people could continue to rely on their yields in the long term.[8][9] The concept of sustainability, or Nachhaltigkeit in German, can be traced back to Hans Carl von Carlowitz (1645–1714), and was applied to forestry.[10] However, the idea itself goes back to times immemorial, as communities have always worried about the capacity of their environment to sustain them in the long term. Many ancient cultures had traditions restricting the use of natural resources, e.g. the Māori of New Zealand,[11] the Amerindians of coastal British Columbia and peoples of Indonesia, Oceania, India and Mali.[12]

The pastoral constitution Gaudium et spes, published at the end of the Second Vatican Council in 1965, contains the first reference ever to the concept of sustainability.[13]

The term sustainability is derived from the Latin sustinere (tenere, to hold; sub, under). Sustain can mean "maintain", "support", "uphold" or "endure."[14][15]

Modern use as a policy concept

Modern use of the term "sustainability" began with the 1983 UN Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Commission. In the commission's 1987 report titled Our Common Future (also known as the Brundtland Report), sustainable development is defined as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."[3][4] The report helped bring "sustainability" into the mainstream policy discourse and popularize the concept of "sustainable development".[1]

The report states that environment and development are inseparable, when working for sustainability. Further, sustainable development is a global concept that links environmental and social issues and is equally important for developing countries and industrialized countries.

"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."[3]: Foreword [...] 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."[3]: Section I.1.10 

Relationship with the concept of sustainable development

The terms "sustainability" and "sustainable development" are closely related and do overlap. For example, they are both now intrinsically linked with the "three dimensions of sustainability" concept.[16][1] One distinction that could be made is that sustainability is a general concept, whereas sustainable development is a policy.

Sustainable development was first institutionalized with the "Rio Process" initiated at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. Then in the year 2000, the SDGs fully embraced sustainable development.[1] UNESCO formulated it as follows: "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."[2]

Dimensions of sustainability

Development of three dimensions (or pillars) concept

A diagram indicating the relationship between the "three pillars of sustainability", in which both economy and society are constrained by environmental limits[17]

Three different dimensions (also called "pillars" or “aspects”) of sustainability are normally distinguished: the environmental, the social, and the economic. Most concepts of sustainability share this understanding, even though they might differ in the details. Several terms are in use for this concept in the literature: authors speak of three interconnected pillars, dimensions, components, stool legs, aspects, perspectives, factors or goals.[1] They are used interchangeably.[1] For example, the 2005 World Summit Outcome document used the term "aspects".[18] Nevertheless, the distinction itself is rarely being questioned. The emergence of the three-pillar paradigm has little theoretical foundation nor a theoretically rigorous description: It gradually emerged without a single point of origin.[1][19]

The Brundtland report from 1987 emphasized that environment and development should be regarded inseparable. Furthermore, the Agenda 21 from 1992 explicitly talks about “economic, social and environmental dimensions” as follows:[20]: 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.”

The "2030 Agenda" conceived the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with their 169 targets as balancing “the three dimensions of sustainable development, the economic, social and environmental.”[21]

The three dimensions are sometimes also referred to as “people, planet, and prosperity” as the preamble of the Agenda 2030 refers to it, adding peace and partnership in its preamble.[21]: 2 

Environmental dimension

The increasing environmental pollution in the 1960s and 1970s led to growing environmental concern, e.g. Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring in 1962;[22] establishment of the Club of Rome in 1968; establishment of Greenpeace in 1971 and provided the basis for what was later discussed as sustainable development. This has been summarized as follows: “The concern for the well-being of the earth itself emerged in the 1970s, initially focused on natural resources and the human environment, and later extended to the complex systems that support life on Earth.”[6]: 31 

While environmental pollution is not a new phenomenon it had remained on a local or regional level for most of human history. This changed in the 20th century, when the awareness of the global character of environmental issues increased.[6]: 5  The harmful effect and global spread of pesticides like DDT was already discussed in the 1960s.[22] In the 1970s it was detected that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) deplete the Earth's ozone layer, which led to their de facto-ban by the Montreal Protocol in 1987.[16]: 146  The effect of greenhouse gases on the global climate had already been discussed by Arrhenius in the early 20th century (see also history of climate change science).[23] However, climate change became a hot topic in the academic and political discourse only after the establishment of the IPCC in 1988 and the UN FCCC in 1992.

In 1972, the UN held its first conference on environmental issues, the UN Conference on the Human Environment. The conference declared that the “protection and improvement of the human environment is a major issue which affects the well-being of peoples and economic development throughout the world”[24]: chapter I, I.2, page 3  The importance of the environmental dimension is evident by the various functions the ecosphere provides: the “natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna and … natural ecosystems” which “must be safeguarded for the benefit of present and future generations”.[24]: p.4., Principle 2  Furthermore, the report also stated that "the Earth’s capacity to produce renewable resources must be maintained, the heritage of wildlife be protected, the discharge of toxic substances must be halted, pollution prevented etc".[24]: p.4., Principle 3 

The discussion of the environmental dimension of sustainability in public is often centered around prevailing issues. Since around the year 2000, the most dominant issues in that respect are climate change, loss of biodiversity, the biogeochemical fluxes of nitrogen and phosphorus, and pollution, especially plastic pollution. The public is concerned about human impacts on the atmosphere, land and water resources, the bioaccumulation of toxic substances, species loss and the degradation of ecosystems.[6]: 21 

The overall impact of humans’ activities not only on the biosphere but even on the geological formation of the Earth led Paul Crutzen to speak of the current geological epoch as the Anthropocene.

There are two major ways of reducing negative human impact and enhancing ecosystem services and the first of these is environmental management. This direct approach is based largely on information gained from earth science, environmental science and conservation biology. However, this is management at the end of a long series of indirect causal factors that are initiated by human consumption, so a second approach is through demand management of human resource use.

Measuring human impacts on the environment

Different ways have been suggested to measure humans' impact, e.g. ecological footprint, ecological debt, carrying capacity, sustainable yield, I = PAT. The impact of human activity on the global ecosystems can reach tripping points beyond which irreversible harmful developments will be triggered. This is the idea behind the concept of planetary boundaries. Therefore, it is important to avoid exceeding the planetary boundaries and strengthen ecological resilience - the capacity of an ecosystem to absorb disturbance and still retain its basic structure and viability.

In 2009 a group of scientists led by Johan Rockström from the Stockholm Resilience Centre described nine planetary boundaries. Transgressing even one of them can be dangerous to sustainability. Those boundaries are climate change, biodiversity loss (changed in 2015 to "change in biosphere integrity"), biogeochemical (nitrogen and phosphorus), ocean acidification, land use, freshwater, ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosols, chemical pollution (changed in 2015 to "Introduction of novel entities").[25][26]

Similarly, in 2005, twelve main problems were described that can be dangerous to environmental sustainability: Deforestation and habitat destruction, soil problems (erosion, salinization, and soil fertility losses), water management problems, overhunting, overfishing, effects of introduced species on native species, overpopulation, increased per-capita impact of people, climate change, buildup of toxins in the environment, energy shortages, full human use of the Earth's photosynthetic capacity.[27]

Three broad criteria for ecological sustainability were described in 1990: renewable resources should provide a sustainable yield (the rate of harvest should not exceed the rate of regeneration); for non-renewable resources there should be equivalent development of renewable substitutes; waste generation should not exceed the assimilative capacity of the environment.[28]

Healthy ecosystems provide vital goods and services to humans and other organisms. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment from 2005 measured 24 ecosystem services and concludes that only four have shown improvement over the last 50 years, 15 are in serious decline, and five are in a precarious condition.[29]: 6–19 

Economic dimension

The economic dimension of sustainability is closely related to the controversial character of the concept of sustainability itself.[1] If the term "development" in sustainable development is understood in economic terms ("economic development") or even identified with economic growth, the notion of a sustainable development can become a way of whitewashing an ecologically destructive economic system.[30][31][32] This is because of the inherent contradictions between "welfare for all" and environmental conservation.[33]

On the other hand, especially the least developed countries will need to see considerable economic development, as Target 1 of Sustainable Development Goal 8 demands, since economic growth has often been driving societal progress and well-being (Target 8.1 is: "Sustain per capita economic growth in accordance with national circumstances and, in particular, at least 7 per cent gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed countries").[34] Regardless of any differences in the understanding of the concept of sustainability, it is clear that humanity will have to resolve the issue of how societal progress (potentially by economic development) can be reached without additional strain on the environment. Accordingly, UNEP stated in 2011 that it is a big challenge to society to "expand economic activities" while at the same time reducing the use of natural resources and the environmental impacts of these economic activities.[35]: 8 

High life expectancy can be achieved with low CO2 emissions, for example in Costa Rica, a country which also ranks high on the Happy Planet Index.

In order to resolve this dilemma, the concept of eco-economic decoupling comes into play. This means “using less resources per unit of economic output and reducing the environmental impact of any resources that are used or economic activities that are undertaken“ [35]: 8  Environmental pressure is often measured by using emissions of pollutants, and accordingly decoupling is often measured by the emission intensity of economic output.[35] Examples of absolute long-term decoupling are rare, but recently some industrialized countries have decoupled GDP growth from both production and, to a lesser extent, consumption-based CO2 emissions.[36] But even in this example decoupling alone is not sufficient but needs to be complemented by "sufficiency-oriented strategies and strict enforcement of absolute reduction targets”.[37] : 1 

The decoupling of economic growth from environmental deterioration is particularly difficult because environmental and social costs are not generally borne by the entity that causes them, and are therefore not expressed in the market price.[38] In economics this is known as externalities, in this case negative externalities.[39] They need to be addressed by government intervention: either by taxing the activity (the polluter pays), by subsidizing activities that have a positive environmental or social effect (rewarding stewardship), or by outlawing the practice (legal limits on pollution, for instance).[38] This approach is underlined in the following quote from a popular textbook on environmental economics: “Nobody who has seriously studied the issues believes that the economy’s relationship to the natural environment can be left entirely to market forces”.[40]: 15 

Environmental economics

Different methods for calculating an appropriate price for public natural goods are being applied in environmental economics. For example, the damage of ecosystems and the loss of biodiversity has huge economic implications as has been calculated in the project "The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity" (TEEB) from 2007 to 2011.[41]

Sustainability economics means taking a long-term view of human welfare. One way of doing this is by considering the social discount rate, i.e. the rate by which future costs and benefits should be discounted when making decisions about the future. The more one is concerned about future generations, the lower the social discount rate should be.[42] Another method is to quantify the services that ecosystems provide to humankind and put an economic value on them, so that environmental damage may be assessed against perceived short-term welfare benefits. For instance, according to the World Economic Forum, half of the global GDP is strongly or moderately dependent on nature. Also, for every dollar spent on nature restoration there is a profit of at least 9 dollars.[43]

UNEP and UNDP launched the Poverty-Environment Initiative in 2005, which aims at the triple vision of “zero extreme poverty, zero net greenhouse gas emissions, zero net natural asset loss” which is proposed to guide the structural reform that will enable poor groups and countries to achieve the SDGs at scale.[44][45]: 11  Such initiatives might be seen as a measure to mitigate the trade-off between high ecological footprint and high status of economic development.[16]: 82 

The doughnut economics template used for Planet Earth as a whole, indicating errors in red.

In recent years, the concept of doughnut economics has been developed by the British economist Kate Raworth to integrate social and environmental sustainability into economic thinking. The social dimension is here portrayed as a minimum standard to which a society should aspire, whereas an outer limit is imposed by the carrying capacity of the planet.[46]

Social dimension

The social dimension of sustainability is the least defined and least understood dimension (also called "pillar" or "aspect") of the three dimensions commonly used to characterize sustainability.[47] Its meaning and application continues to lead to confusion.[47] A quite generic definition is “maintaining or improving the well-being of people in this and future generations”.[48]: 224–225  Others have pointed out that a “common agreement on the definition and operationalization of this concept is still missing”.[49]

According to the Brundtland report, "poverty is a major cause and effect of global environmental problems. It is therefore futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality."[3]: Section I.1.8  The report demands a new development path for sustained human progress and highlights that this is a goal for both the developing and the industrialized nations.[3]: Section I.1.10  Despite this anchoring of the social dimension (of sustainability) in the Brundtland report, “social sustainability" can be addressed in different ways. Some scholars place social issues at the very center of sustainability discussions.[50]

Some scholars suggest that all of the domains of sustainability are social: including ecological, economic, political and cultural sustainability. These domains of social sustainability are all dependent upon the relationship between the social and the natural, with the "ecological domain" defined as human embeddedness in the environment. In these terms, social sustainability encompasses all human activities.[51] It is not just relevant to the focused intersection of economics, the environment and the social.[52]

Broad-based strategies for more sustainable social systems include: improved education and the political empowerment of women, especially in developing countries; greater regard for social justice, notably equity between rich and poor both within and between countries; and, perhaps most of all, intergenerational equity.[53]

According to the Western Australia Council of Social Services (WACOSS): "Social sustainability occurs when the formal and informal processes; systems; structures; and relationships actively support the capacity of current and future generations to create healthy and liveable communities. Socially sustainable communities are equitable, diverse, connected and democratic and provide a good quality of life."[54][55]

Relationship between the three dimensions

It has long been discussed what the relation between these three dimensions should be: Proponents of a concept of “weak” sustainability assume that "natural capital" (or environmental resources) can be replaced or substituted with "man-made capital”.[56] This is because technological progress can in certain cases solve environmental problems. This applies for example to capturing emissions from combustion of fossil fuels, recycling minerals, reforresting forests and filtering polluted air.[57] The concept of “strong sustainability” on the other hand states that nature (or “natural capital") provides some functions that are not replaceable by technology or "man-made capital”.[58] Strong sustainability refers to resources that once lost cannot be recovered or repaired within a reasonable timescale, such as biodiversity or loss of certain species, pollination, fertile soils, assimilation capacity, clean air, clean water, climate regulation.

However, the concept of planetary boundaries which was first proposed in 2009, identifies limits and emphasizes that there are absolute thresholds of the carrying capacity of the planet which must not be exceeded in order to prevent irreversible harmful developments of the Earth system.[25]

Also, with regards to the economic dimension of sustainability, this can be understood by making a distinction between weak versus strong sustainability.[59] In the former, loss of natural resources is compensated by an increase in human capital. Strong sustainability applies where human and natural capital are complementary, but not interchangeable. Thus, the problem of deforestation in England due to demand for wood in shipbuilding and for charcoal in iron-making was solved when ships came to be built of steel and coke replaced charcoal in iron-making – an example of weak sustainability. Prevention of biodiversity loss, which is an existential threat, is an example of the strong type. What is weak and what is strong depends partially on technology and partially on one's convictions.[59] Different policies and strategies are needed for the two types.

Critique

The concept of sustainable development has been criticized from different angles. While some see it as paradoxical and regard development as inherently unsustainable, others are sobered by the lack of progress which has been achieved so far.[60][61][62]

According to Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of the first report to the Club of Rome, called "The Limits to Growth", many people deceive themselves by using the Brundtland definition of sustainability.[30] This is because the needs of the present generation are actually not met today, and the economic activities to meet present needs will substantially diminish the options of future generations.[63][16]: 27  Sustainability has also been described as an “exhausted roadmap” due to the fact that our consumer societies are socially and ecologically self-destructive.[64]

Some scholars have even proclaimed the end of the concept of sustainability due to the realities of the Anthropocene: These realities include "unprecedented and irreversible rates of human induced biodiversity loss, exponential increases in per-capita resource consumption, and global climate change".[65] Therefore, it might become impossible to pursue a goal of sustainability when faced with these complex, radical and dynamic issues.[65]

The Rio Process was a huge leap forward: for the first time, the world agreed on a sustainability agenda. However, global consensus was facilitated by neglecting concrete goals and operational details.“[16]: 136  The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) now have concrete targets (unlike the results from the Rio Process) but no methods for sanctions.[16]: 137 

Variations

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.[66]

Additional dimensions

Some sustainability experts and practitioners have proposed additional dimensions of sustainability. A common one is culture, resulting in a quadruple bottom line.[67] There is also an opinion that considers resource use and financial sustainability as two additional pillars of sustainability.[68] In infrastructure projects, for instance, one must ask whether sufficient financing capability for maintenance exists.[68]

Another model suggests humans' attempt to achieve all of their needs and aspirations via seven modalities: economy, community, occupational groups, government, environment, culture, and physiology.[69] From the global to the individual human scale, each of the seven modalities can be viewed across seven hierarchical levels. Human sustainability can be achieved by attaining sustainability in all levels of the seven modalities.

Cultural dimension as a fourth dimension

Working with a different emphasis, some researchers and institutions have pointed out that a fourth dimension should be added to the dimensions of sustainable development, since the triple-bottom-line dimensions of economic, environmental and social do not seem to be enough to reflect the complexity of contemporary society. An example of this four-dimensional view is the Circles of Sustainability approach, which includes cultural sustainability.[70] In this context, the Agenda 21 for culture and the United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) published the policy statement "Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development", at the 2010 World Congress of UCLG. This document argues for a new perspective and points to the relation between culture and sustainable development through developing a solid cultural policy and advocating a cultural dimension in all public policies. The Circles of Sustainability approach distinguishes the four domains of economic, ecological, political and cultural sustainability.[71][72][73] This is in accord with the United Nations, Unesco, Agenda 21, and in particular the Agenda 21 for culture which specifies culture as the fourth domain of sustainable development.[67] The model is now being used by organizations such as the United Nations Cities Program[74] and Metropolis.[75]

In the case of Metropolis, this approach does not mean adding a fourth domain of culture to the dominant triple bottom line figure of the economy, environment and the social. Rather, it involves treating all four domains—economy, ecology, politics, and culture—as social (including economics) and distinguishing between ecology (as the intersection of the human and natural worlds) and the environment as that which goes far beyond what we as humans can ever know.[76]

Other organizations have also supported the idea of a fourth domain of sustainable development. The Network of Excellence "Sustainable Development in a Diverse World",[77] sponsored by the European Union, integrates multidisciplinary capacities and interprets cultural diversity as a key element of a new strategy for sustainable development.

Health and wellbeing

The World Health Organization recognizes that achieving sustainability is impossible without addressing health issues.[78] There is a rise in some interconnected health and sustainability problems, for example, in food production. Measures for achieving environmental sustainability can in many cases also improve health.[79]

For better measuring the well-being, the New Economics Foundation's has launched the Happy Planet Index.[80] In the beginning of the 21st century, more than 100 organizations created the Wellbeing Economy Alliance with the aim to create an economy that will guarantee well-being and heal nature at the same time.[81]

Measurement

This section is an excerpt from Sustainability measurement.[edit]
Sustainability measurement is the quantitative basis for the informed management of sustainability.[82] The metrics used for the measurement of sustainability (involving the sustainability of environmental, social and economic domains, both individually and in various combinations) are still evolving: they include indicators, benchmarks, audits, sustainability standards and certification systems like Fairtrade and Organic, indexes and accounting, as well as assessment, appraisal[83] and other reporting systems. They are applied over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales.[84][85] Some of the widely used sustainability measures include corporate sustainability reporting, Triple Bottom Line accounting, World Sustainability Society, and estimates of the quality of sustainability governance for individual countries using the Environmental Sustainability Index and Environmental Performance Index. An alternative approach, used by the United Nations Global Compact Cities Programme and explicitly critical of the triple-bottom-line approach is Circles of Sustainability.[86][87]

Barriers

Barriers working against sustainability can be rooted in nature, in the human condition, in society, in the institutions or in Zeitgeist.[16]: 205  Some barriers are inevitably tied to the concept of sustainability due to trade-offs, complexity and conflicting interests. These barriers are intrinsic to the concept of sustainability as such. Other barriers are extrinsic to the concept of sustainability which means they could in principle be overcome, e.g. by putting a price tag on the consumption of public goods.[16]: 35 

Pathways to achieving more sustainability

Scales

Sustainability is studied and managed over many scales (levels or frames of reference) of time and space and in many contexts of environmental, social, and economic organizations. The focus ranges from the total carrying capacity (sustainability) of planet Earth to the sustainability of economic sectors, ecosystems, countries, municipalities, neighborhoods, home gardens, individual lives, individual goods and services, occupations, lifestyles, and behavior patterns. Sustainability can entail the full compass of biological and human activity or any part of it.[88]

Modifying affluence, population and technology

One attempt to express human impact mathematically was developed in the 1970s and is called the I = PAT formula.[89] This formulation attempts to explain human consumption in terms of three components: population numbers, levels of consumption (which it terms "affluence", although the usage is different), and impact per unit of resource use (which is termed "technology", because this impact depends on the technology used). The equation is expressed:

I = P × A × T
Where: I = Environmental impact, P = Population, A = Affluence, T = Technology[89]

Strategies for reaching sustainability can generally be divided into three categories. Most governments and international organizations that aim to achieve sustainability employ all three approaches, though they may disagree on which deserves priority.

Affluence: Many believe that sustainability cannot be achieved without reducing consumption. This theory is represented most clearly in the idea of a steady-state economy, meaning an economy without growth. Methods in this category include, among others, the phase-out of lightweight plastic bags, promoting biking, and increasing energy efficiency. For example, according to the report "Plastic and Climate", plastic-production greenhouse gas emissions can be as much as 15% of earth's remaining carbon budget by 2050 and over 50% by 2100, except the impacts on phytoplankton.[90][91] The report says that for solving the problem, reduction in consumption will be essential.[92] In 2020, scientific research published by the World Economic Forum determined that affluence is the biggest threat to sustainability.[93]

Population: Others think that the most effective means of achieving sustainability is population control, for example by improving access to birth control and education (particularly education for girls).[94] Fertility rates are known to decline with increased prosperity, and have been declining globally since 1980.

Technology: Still others hold that the most promising path to sustainability is new technology. This theory may be seen as a form of technological optimism. One popular tactic in this category is transitioning to renewable energy.[95][96] Others methods to achieve sustainability, associated with this theory are climate engineering (geo – engineering), genetic engineering (GMO, Genetically modified organism), decoupling.

Responses by different stakeholders

Businesses

The three dimensions of sustainability have served as a common ground for numerous sustainability standards and certification systems, in particular in the food industry.[97][98] Standards which today explicitly refer to the triple bottom line include Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade, UTZ Certified, and GLOBALG.A.P.[99][100] Sustainability standards are used in global supply chains in various sectors and industries such as agriculture, mining, forestry, and fisheries. Based on the ITC Standards, the most frequently covered products are agricultural products, followed by processed food.[101][102]

Sustainable business practices integrate ecological concerns with social and economic ones (i.e., the triple bottom line).[103][104] The idea of sustainability as a business opportunity has led to the formation of organizations such as the Sustainability Consortium of the Society for Organizational Learning,[105] the Sustainable Business Institute,[106] and the World Council for Sustainable Development.[107] The expansion of sustainable business opportunities can contribute to job creation through the introduction of green-collar workers.[108]

The concept of "embedded sustainability" is defined as "incorporation of environmental, health, and social value into the core business with no trade-off in price or quality—in other words, with no social or green premium."[109] Embedded sustainability offers at least seven distinct opportunities for business value creation: better risk-management, increased efficiency through reduced waste and resource use, better product differentiation, new market entrances, enhanced brand and reputation, greater opportunity to influence industry standards, and greater opportunity for radical innovation.[110]

Certifications

The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights include a reporting framework,[111] which teaches companies how to report their interaction with human rights issues. In addition resources like the Global Reporting Initiative, and Business and Human Rights Resource Centre all provide information on organizational disclosures and performance in social sustainability.[112] Certifications from internationally recognized and accredited organizations are available to aid in verifying the social sustainability of products and services. The Forest Stewardship Council (paper and forest products),[113] and Kimberly Process (diamonds) are examples of such organizations and initiatives.[114]

Application of social sustainability requires stakeholders to look at human and labor rights, prevention of human trafficking, and other human rights risks.[115] These issues should be considered in production and procurement of various worldwide commodities. Many industries have organizations in place that aid in verifying the social sustainability of products and services.[116] The Equator Principles (financial industry), Fair Wear Foundation (garments), and Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition are examples of such organizations and initiatives. Resources are also available for verifying the life-cycle of products and the producer or vendor level.[115]

Investments

The different aspects of social sustainability are often considered in socially responsible investing (SRI). Social sustainability criteria that are commonly used by SRI funds and indexes to rate publicly traded companies include: community, diversity, employee relations, human rights, product safety, reporting, and governance structure.[117][118]

Scientific community

There are at least three main warning publications or letters from the scientific community about the growing threat to sustainability, in particular with regards to the environmental dimension of sustainability.

  • In 1992, scientists wrote the first World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, which begins: "Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course." About 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including most Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences, signed it. The letter mentions severe damage to atmosphere, oceans, ecosystems, soil productivity, and more. It warns humanity that life on earth as we know it can become impossible, and if humanity wants to prevent the damage, some steps need to be taken: better use of resources, abandon of fossil fuels, stabilization of human population, elimination of poverty and more.[119]
  • In 2017, the scientists wrote a second warning to humanity. In this warning, the scientists mention some positive trends like slowing deforestation, but despite this, they claim that except ozone depletion, none of the problems mentioned in the first warning received an adequate response. The scientists called to reduce the use of fossil fuels, meat, and other resources and to stabilize the population. It was signed by 15,364 scientists from 184 countries, making it the letter with the most scientist signatures in history.[120]
  • In November 2019, more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries published a letter in which they warn about serious threats to sustainability from climate change unless big changes in policies happen. The scientists declared "climate emergency" and called to stop overconsumption, move away from fossil fuels, eat less meat, stabilize the population, and more.[121]

In 2021 the United Nations Environment Programme issued a report describing three major environmental threats to sustainability: climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. The report states that as of the year 2021 humanity fails to properly address the main environmental challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic is also linked to environmental issues, including climate change, deforestation and wildlife trade.[122]

Religious communities

Within the context of Christianity, in the encyclical "Laudato si'", Pope Francis called to fight climate change and ecological degradation as a whole.[123][124] He claimed that humanity is facing a severe ecological crisis and blamed consumerism and irresponsible development. The encyclical is addressed to "every person living on this planet."[125]

Buddhism includes many principles linked to sustainability.[126] The Dalai Lama has consistently called for strong climate action, reforestation, preserving ecosystems, a reduction in meat consumption. He declared that if he will ever join a political party it will be the green party and if Buddha returned to our world now: “Buddha would be green.”[127][128] The leaders of Buddhism issued a special declaration calling on all believers to fight climate change and environmental destruction as a whole.[129]

See also

  • List of sustainability topics
  • Outline of sustainability

By sector

Energy:
Sustainable energy
Agriculture:
Sustainable agriculture
Sustainable gardening
Land use planning:
Ecosystem management
Ecosystem-based management
Ecosystem services
Nature conservation
Human activities and transportation:
Cultural sustainability
Sustainable living
Sustainable population
Sustainable sanitation
Sustainable tourism
Sustainable transport
Water footprint
Water scarcity
Economy:
Steady-state economy
Sustainable development
Degrowth
Anti-consumerism
Circular economy
Urban planning, buildings:
Sustainable urban planning
Sustainable cities
Greening
Other
Sustainability (journal)
Sustainability science

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Purvis, Ben; Mao, Yong; Robinson, Darren (2019). "Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins". Sustainability Science. 14 (3): 681–695. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5. ISSN 1862-4065. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  2. 1 2 "Sustainable Development". UNESCO. 3 August 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 United Nations General Assembly (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment.
  4. 1 2 United Nations General Assembly (20 March 1987). "Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future; Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment; Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development; Paragraph 1". United Nations General Assembly. Retrieved 1 March 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  5. ↑ "Google Books Ngram Viewer". books.google.com.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. 1 2 3 4 Great transition : the promise and lure of the times ahead. Paul Raskin, Global Scenario Group. Boston: Stockholm Environment Institute. 2002. ISBN 0-9712418-1-3. OCLC 49987854.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  7. ↑ Blühdorn (2017). "Post-capitalism, post-growth, post-consumerism? Eco-political hopes beyond sustainability". Global Discourse. 7 (1): 42–61. doi:10.1080/23269995.2017.1300415. ISSN 2043-7897.
  8. ↑ "Sustainability Theories". World Ocean Review. Retrieved 20 June 2019. The concept of 'sustainability' comes from forestry and originally meant something like: using natural resources mindfully so that the supply never runs out.
  9. ↑ Compare: "sustainability". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) The English-language word had a legal technical sense from 1835 and a resource-management connotation from 1953.
  10. ↑ "Hans Carl von Carlowitz and Sustainability". Environment and Society Portal. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
  11. ↑ UNEP (26 April 2017). "Indigenous people and nature: a tradition of conservation". Retrieved 30 August 2021.
  12. ↑ Gadgil, M.; Berkes, F. (1991). "Traditional Resource Management Systems". Resource Management and Optimization. 8: 127–141.
  13. ↑ Bucciarelli, Edgardo (2011). "The Christian ethics of socio-economic development". The Journal of Philosophical Economics. 5: 90–119.
  14. ↑ Harper, Douglas. "sustain". Online Etymology Dictionary.
  15. ↑ Onions, Charles, T. (ed) (1964). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 2095.
  16. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Berg, Christian (2020). Sustainable action : overcoming the barriers. Abingdon, Oxon. ISBN 978-0-429-57873-1. OCLC 1124780147.
  17. ↑ Scott Cato, M. (2009). Green Economics. London: Earthscan, pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-1-84407-571-3.
  18. ↑ "Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 16 September 2005, 60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome" (PDF). United Nations General Assembly. 2005. Retrieved 17 January 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  19. ↑ Aachener Stiftung Kathy Beys, 2005-2022 (13 November 2015). "Lexikon der Nachhaltigkeit | Definitionen | Nachhaltigkeit Definition". Lexikon der Nachhaltigkeit (in German). Retrieved 19 January 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  20. ↑ "Agenda 21" (PDF). United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. 1992. Retrieved 17 January 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  21. 1 2 United Nations (2015) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1 Archived 28 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine)
  22. 1 2 Carson, Rachel (2002) [1st. Pub. Houghton Mifflin, 1962]. Silent Spring. Mariner Books. ISBN 978-0-618-24906-0.
  23. ↑ Arrhenius, Svante (1896). "XXXI. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground". The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. 41 (251): 237–276. doi:10.1080/14786449608620846. ISSN 1941-5982.
  24. 1 2 3 UN (1973) Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1, Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972
  25. 1 2 Steffen, Will; Rockström, Johan; Cornell, Sarah; Fetzer, Ingo; Biggs, Oonsie; Folke, Carl; Reyers, Belinda. "Planetary Boundaries - an update". Stockholm Resilience Centre. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
  26. ↑ "Ten years of nine planetary boundaries". Stockholm Resilience Centre. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
  27. ↑ Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, Penguin Books, 2005 and 2011 (ISBN 978-0-241-95868-1).
  28. ↑ Daly, H.E. (1990). "Toward some operational principles of sustainable development". Ecological Economics. 2 (1): 1–6. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(90)90010-r.
  29. ↑ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis (PDF). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
  30. 1 2 Zukunftsstreit (in German). Wilhelm Krull, Volkswagenstiftung (1st ed.). Weilerwist: Velbrück Wissenschaft. 2000. ISBN 3-934730-17-5. OCLC 52639118.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  31. ↑ Redclift, Michael (2005). "Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes of age". Sustainable Development. 13 (4): 212–227. doi:10.1002/sd.281. ISSN 0968-0802.
  32. ↑ Daly, Herman E. (1996). Beyond growth : the economics of sustainable development (PDF). Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-4708-2. OCLC 33946953.
  33. ↑ Kuhlman, Tom; Farrington, John (2010). "What is Sustainability?". Sustainability. 2 (11): 3436–3448. doi:10.3390/su2113436. ISSN 2071-1050.
  34. ↑ United Nations (2017) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017, Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/71/313)
  35. 1 2 3 Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. Fischer-Kowalski, M., Swilling, M., von Weizsäcker, E.U., Ren, Y., Moriguchi, Y., Crane, W., Krausmann, F., Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., Hennicke, P., Romero Lankao, P., Siriban Manalang, A., Sewerin, S.
  36. ↑ Haberl, Helmut; Wiedenhofer, Dominik; Virág, Doris; Kalt, Gerald; Plank, Barbara; Brockway, Paul; Fishman, Tomer; Hausknost, Daniel; Krausmann, Fridolin; Leon-Gruchalski, Bartholomäus; Mayer, Andreas (2020). "A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights". Environmental Research Letters. 15 (6): 065003. Bibcode:2020ERL....15f5003H. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a. ISSN 1748-9326. S2CID 216453887.
  37. ↑ Haberl, Helmut; Wiedenhofer, Dominik; Virág, Doris; Kalt, Gerald; Plank, Barbara; Brockway, Paul; Fishman, Tomer; Hausknost, Daniel; Krausmann, Fridolin; Leon-Gruchalski, Bartholomäus; Mayer, Andreas (2020). "A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights". Environmental Research Letters. 15 (6): 065003. Bibcode:2020ERL....15f5003H. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a. ISSN 1748-9326. S2CID 216453887.
  38. 1 2 Jaeger, William K. (2005). Environmental economics for tree huggers and other skeptics. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 978-1-4416-0111-7. OCLC 232157655.
  39. ↑ Arthur Cecil Pigou (1932) The Economics of Welfare (4th ed.) London: Macmillan
  40. ↑ Natural resource and environmental economics. Roger Perman, Roger Perman (4th ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Addison Wesley. 2011. ISBN 978-0-321-41753-4. OCLC 704557307.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  41. ↑ TEEB (2010), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB
  42. ↑ Groth, Christian (2014). Lecture notes in Economic Growth, (mimeo), Chapter 8: Choice of social discount rate. Copenhagen University.
  43. ↑ UNEP, FAO (2020). UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. 48p. https://wedocs.unep.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/31813/ERDStrat.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  44. ↑ "UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative". UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  45. ↑ PEP (2016) Poverty-Environment Partnership Joint Paper | June 2016 Getting to Zero - A Poverty, Environment and Climate Call to Action for the Sustainable Development Goals
  46. ↑ Raworth, Kate (2017). Doughnut economics : seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. London. ISBN 978-1-84794-138-1. OCLC 974194745.
  47. 1 2 Boyer, Robert H. W.; Peterson, Nicole D.; Arora, Poonam; Caldwell, Kevin (2016). "Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward". Sustainability. 8 (9): 878. doi:10.3390/su8090878.
  48. ↑ Chiu, R.L. Chapter 12 Social Sustainability, Sustainable Development and Housing Development. In: Housing and social change. East-West perspective. Ray Forrest, James Lee. London: Routledge. 2003. ISBN 0-203-40263-4. OCLC 56741461.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  49. ↑ Davidson, Mark (2010). "Social Sustainability and the City: Social sustainability and city". Geography Compass. 4 (7): 872–880. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00339.x.
  50. ↑ Boyer, Robert; Peterson, Nicole; Arora, Poonam; Caldwell, Kevin (2016). "Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward". Sustainability. 8 (9): 878. doi:10.3390/su8090878. ISSN 2071-1050.
  51. ↑ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
  52. ↑ Liam Magee; Andy Scerri; Paul James; James A. Thom; Lin Padgham; Sarah Hickmott; Hepu Deng; Felicity Cahill (2013). "Reframing social sustainability reporting: Towards an engaged approach". Environment, Development and Sustainability. 15 (1): 225–243. doi:10.1007/s10668-012-9384-2. S2CID 153452740.
  53. ↑ Cohen, J.E. (2006). "Human Population: The Next Half Century." In Kennedy D. (Ed.) Science Magazine's State of the Planet 2006-7. London: Island Press, pp. 13–21. ISBN 9781597266246.
  54. ↑ Doğu, Feriha Urfalı; Aras, Lerzan (2019). "Measuring Social Sustainability with the Developed MCSA Model: Güzelyurt Case". Sustainability. 11 (9): 2503. doi:10.3390/su11092503. ISSN 2071-1050.
  55. ↑ "The Regional Institute - WACOSS Housing and Sustainable Communities Indicators Project". www.regional.org.au. 2012. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
  56. ↑ Pearce, David W.; Atkinson, Giles D. (1993). "Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of "weak" sustainability". Ecological Economics. 8 (2): 103–108. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(93)90039-9.
  57. ↑ Ayres, Robert; van den Berrgh, Jeroen; Gowdy, John (2001). "Strong versus Weak Sustainability". Environmental Ethics. 23 (2): 155–168. doi:10.5840/enviroethics200123225. ISSN 0163-4275.
  58. ↑ Cabeza Gutés, Maite (1996). "The concept of weak sustainability". Ecological Economics. 17 (3): 147–156. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(96)80003-6.
  59. 1 2 Robert U. Ayres & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & John M. Gowdy, 1998. "Viewpoint: Weak versus Strong Sustainability," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 98-103/3, Tinbergen Institute.
  60. ↑ Brown, James H. (1 October 2015). "The Oxymoron of Sustainable Development". BioScience. 65 (10): 1027–1029. doi:10.1093/biosci/biv117.
  61. ↑ "Sustainability and Sustainable Development". Circular Ecology. Retrieved 17 July 2018.
  62. ↑ Williams, Colin C; Millington, Andrew C (June 2004). "The diverse and contested meanings of sustainable development". The Geographical Journal. 170 (2): 99–104. doi:10.1111/j.0016-7398.2004.00111.x. S2CID 143181802.
  63. ↑ Gambino, Megan (15 March 2012). "Is it Too Late for Sustainable Development?". Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 12 January 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  64. ↑ Blühdorn (2017). "Post-capitalism, post-growth, post-consumerism? Eco-political hopes beyond sustainability". Global Discourse. 7 (1): 42–61. doi:10.1080/23269995.2017.1300415. ISSN 2043-7897.
  65. 1 2 Benson, Melinda Harm; Craig, Robin Kundis (2014). "The End of Sustainability". Society & Natural Resources. 27 (7): 777–782. doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.901467. ISSN 0894-1920. S2CID 67783261.
  66. ↑ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
  67. 1 2 United Cities and Local Governments, "Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development".
  68. 1 2 Dhakal, Krishna P.; Oh, Jun S. (2011). "Integrating Sustainability into Highway Projects: Sustainability Indicators and Assessment Tool for Michigan Roads". T&DI Congress 2011. American Society of Civil Engineers. pp. 987–996. doi:10.1061/41167(398)94. ISBN 9780784411674.
  69. ↑ Thomas, Steve A. (2016). The Nature of Sustainability. Chapbook Press. Grand Rapids, Michigan. ISBN 9781943359394.
  70. ↑ James, Paul; Magee, Liam (2016). "Domains of Sustainability". In A. Farazmand (ed.). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer.
  71. ↑ United Cities and Local Governments, "Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development" Archived 10 August 2015 at the Wayback Machine.
  72. ↑ "Principles for a Positive Urban Future".
  73. ↑ James, Paul. "Assessing Cultural Sustainability: Agenda 21 for Culture". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  74. ↑ Circles of Sustainability. citiesprogramme.com
  75. ↑ World Association of the Major Metropolises, Metropolis. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  76. ↑ Metropolis Action Plan 2018–2020, at www.metropolis.org James, Paul; Magee, Liam (2016). "Domains of Sustainability". In A. Farazmand (ed.). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer.
  77. ↑ "Sus.Div". Sus.Div. Retrieved 28 September 2011.
  78. ↑ Borowy, Iris (2014). "Sustainable health: the need for new developmental models". Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 92 (10): 699. doi:10.2471/BLT.14.145219. PMC 4208489. PMID 25378720. Archived from the original on 19 October 2014. Retrieved 31 July 2019.
  79. ↑ Kjӕrgård, Bente; Land, Birgit; Bransholm Pedersen, Kirsten (8 January 2013). "Health and sustainability". Health Promotion International. 29 (3): 558–568. doi:10.1093/heapro/das071. PMID 23300191.
  80. ↑ Belton, Teresa. "Why becoming a 'happily modest consumer' could help save the planet". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 24 May 2020.
  81. ↑ Hough-Stewart, Lisa; Trebeck, Katherine; Sommer, Claire; Wallis, Stewart (3 December 2019). What is a wellbeing economy? (PDF). pp. 1, 5–6. Retrieved 16 October 2020.
  82. ↑ "Sustainability Accounting in UK Local Government". The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. Archived from the original on 11 April 2008. Retrieved 18 June 2008.
  83. ↑ Dalal-Clayton, Barry and Sadler, Barry 2009. Sustainability Appraisal: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience. London: Earthscan. ISBN 978-1-84407-357-3.
  84. ↑ Hak, T. et al. 2007. Sustainability Indicators, SCOPE 67. Island Press, London. Archived 2011-12-18 at the Wayback Machine
  85. ↑ Bell, Simon and Morse, Stephen 2008. Sustainability Indicators. Measuring the Immeasurable? 2nd edn. London: Earthscan. ISBN 978-1-84407-299-6.https://books.google.com/books/about/Sustainability_Indicators.html?id=6DOC13cd9c0C
  86. ↑ Singh, Rajesh Kumar; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K. (2012). "An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies". Ecological Indicators. 15: 281–299. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.01.007.
  87. ↑ Moldan, Bedřich; Janoušková, Svatava; Hák, Tomáš (2012). "How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets". Ecological Indicators. 17: 4–13. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.04.033.
  88. ↑ Conceptual Framework Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2003). "Ecosystems and Human Well-being." London: Island Press. Chapter 5. "Dealing with Scale". pp. 107–124. ISBN 9781559634038.
  89. 1 2 Ehrlich, P.R.; Holden, J.P. (1974). "Human Population and the global environment". American Scientist. Vol. 62, no. 3. pp. 282–292.
  90. ↑ Plastic & Climate The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet (PDF). Center for International Environmental Law, Environmental Integrity Project, FracTracker Alliance, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, 5 Gyres, and Break Free From Plastic. May 2019. pp. 4–5. Retrieved 20 May 2019.
  91. ↑ "Sweeping New Report on Global Environmental Impact of Plastics Reveals Severe Damage to Climate". Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). Retrieved 16 May 2019.
  92. ↑ Plastic & Climate The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet (PDF). Center for International Environmental Law, Environmental Integrity Project, FracTracker Alliance, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives, 5 Gyres, and Break Free From Plastic. May 2019. pp. 82–85. Retrieved 20 May 2019.
  93. ↑ Fleming, Sean. "This is now the world's greatest threat – and it's not coronavirus". World Economic Forum. World Economic forum. Retrieved 5 August 2020.
  94. ↑ Perkins, Sid. "The best way to reduce your carbon footprint is one the government isn't telling you about". Science. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
  95. ↑ M. Parris, Thomas; W. Kates, Robert (8 July 2003). "Characterizing a sustainability transition: Goals, targets, trends, and driving forces". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 100 (14): 8068–8073. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231336100. PMC 166183. PMID 12819346.
  96. ↑ "The IPAT Equation". The Sustainable Scale Project. Retrieved 13 May 2019.
  97. ↑ Manning, S., Boons, F., Von Hagen, O., Reinecke, J. (2011). "National Contexts Matter: The Co-Evolution of Sustainability Standards in Global Value Chains." Ecological Economics, Forthcoming.
  98. ↑ Reinecke, J., Manning, S., Von Hagen, O. (2012). "The Emergence of a Standards Market: Multiplicity of Sustainability Standards in the Global Coffee Industry" Organization Studies, Forthcoming.
  99. ↑ SAI Platform 2010. Sustainability Indicators Archived 31 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine. Sustainable Agricultural Initiative. Retrieved 4 September 2011.
  100. ↑ Alvarez, G. Sustainable Agriculture and Value networks. Lausanne, Switzerland: Latitude. Retrieved 4 October 2011.
  101. ↑ "The Trade Impact of Voluntary Sustainability Standards: A review of empirical evidence" (PDF).
  102. ↑ "Sustainability Map". www.standardsmap.org. Retrieved 3 March 2021.
  103. ↑ Kinsley, M. and Lovins, L.H. (September 1997). "Paying for Growth, Prospering from Development." Archived 17 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved 15 June 2009.
  104. ↑ Sustainable Shrinkage: Envisioning a Smaller, Stronger Economy. Thesolutionsjournal.com. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  105. ↑ Zhexembayeva, N. (May 2007). "Becoming Sustainable: Tools and Resources for Successful Organizational Transformation". Center for Business as an Agent of World Benefit. Case Western University. Archived from the original on 13 June 2010.
  106. ↑ "About Us". Sustainable Business Institute. Archived from the original on 17 May 2009.
  107. ↑ "About the WBCSD". World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Archived from the original on 9 September 2007. Retrieved 1 April 2009.
  108. ↑ Hickman, Leo (12 February 2009). "The future of work is green". The Guardian.
  109. ↑ Laszlo, Chris; Zhexembayeva, Nadya (25 April 2011). "Embedded Sustainability: A strategy for market leaders". The European Financial Review.
  110. ↑ Laszlo, C. & Zhexembayeva, N. (2011). Embedded Sustainability: The Next Big Competitive Advantage. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-804-77554-0
  111. ↑ "UN Guiding Principles Reporting Framework". www.ungpreporting.org. Retrieved 10 March 2016.
  112. ↑ "Social Sustainability - GSA Sustainable Facilities Tool". sftool.gov. Retrieved 10 March 2016.
  113. ↑ "In Ivory Coast, the school as a bulwark against child labour". ICI Cocoa Initiative. Retrieved 19 June 2019.
  114. ↑ "Social Sustainability Initiatives, Guidelines, and Standards - GSA Sustainable Facilities Tool". sftool.gov. Retrieved 10 March 2016.
  115. 1 2 "Resources for Verifying Sustainable Products – GSA Sustainable Facilities Tool". sftool.gov. Retrieved 10 March 2016.
  116. ↑ "Social Sustainability Initiatives, Guidelines, and Standards – GSA Sustainable Facilities Tool". sftool.gov. Retrieved 10 March 2016.
  117. ↑ KLD Research. Environmental, Social and Governance Rating Criteria. 2007
  118. ↑ The Combined Code on Corporate Governance, June 2008
  119. ↑ "World Scientist's Warning to Humanity" (PDF). Union of Concerned Scientists. Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
  120. ↑ Ripple, William J.; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M.; Galetti, Mauro; Alamgir, Mohammed; Crist, Eileen; Mahmoud, Mahmoud I.; Laurance, William F. (December 2017). "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice". BioScience. 67 (12): 1026–1028. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125.
  121. ↑ J Ripple, William; Wolf, Christopher; M Newsome, Thomas; Barnard, Phoebe; R Moomaw, William (5 November 2019). "World Scientists' Warning of a Climate Emergency". BioScience. biz088. doi:10.1093/biosci/biz088.
  122. ↑ Making Peace with Nature: a scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies (PDF). Nairobi: United Nations Environmental Programm. 2021. pp. 13–17, 26. ISBN 978-92-807-3837-7. Retrieved 25 March 2021.
  123. ↑ "Encyclical Letter Laudato Si' Of The Holy Father Francis On Care For Our Common Home (official English-language text of encyclical)". Retrieved 18 June 2015.
  124. ↑ "Laudato Si': On Care for Our Common Home". SDG Academy. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Retrieved 30 July 2020.
  125. ↑ Yardley, Jim; Goodstein, Laurie (18 June 2015). "Pope Francis, in Sweeping Encyclical, Calls for Swift Action on Climate Change". The New York Times.
  126. ↑ "What does Buddhism teach about the environment?". BBC. Retrieved 25 January 2021.
  127. ↑ "Dalai Lama says strong action on climate change is a human responsibility". Associated Press. The Guardian. 20 October 2020. Retrieved 25 January 2021.
  128. ↑ Guru-Murthy, Krishnan (11 November 2020). "'Buddha would be green': Dalai Lama calls for urgent climate action". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 January 2021.
  129. ↑ "The Time to Act is Now A Buddhist Declaration on Climate Change". One Earth Sangha. 20 September 2015. Retrieved 9 May 2021.
This article is issued from Offline. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.