Defining sustainability

Getting a better understanding of what sustainability means can help you develop more effective sustainability programs 

By Elze van Hamelen

Definitions can obscure or clarify things. Based on the questions I get as a sustainability practitioner, I find that many are grappling with what this multi-headed beast of sustainability means. So much so, that the Society for Environmental Professionals (VVM) is organizing a debate to discuss the meaning of the term. It’s a good time to take a closer look at the meaning of ‘sustainability’.

Many definitions go around, but the most commonly cited is the one coined by the Brundtland Commission in 1987: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

To me, this is a pretty convoluted definition. After reading it a couple of times, and pondering it, you realize that it is open to multiple interpretations. What exactly are the needs? Whose needs? What is the yardstick of these needs? What are the rights of future generations? If there are different sets of needs, what measure do we use to choose between colliding goals? For instance, between economic growth and environmental degradation? Whatever conclusion we come to, there is leeway to bend the interpretation to the needs of the interpreter.

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary gives us a clear-cut definition of sustainability: it is “capable of being sustained” or “relating to using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.” So, it means to be able to keep doing what we are doing indefinitely.

It is becoming more and more clear that our modus vivendi is running into ecological limits (we are running into economic and social limits too, but that is a topic for another blog). Central in the discussion about sustainable development is the “carrying capacity,” or the limits of natural systems and the way humans can survive within those systems, though this is often not immediately clear from the definitions used.

What follows from this is that the environment, or ecosystem, is more important than the economic and social dimensions of sustainability. This is a fact that is often overlooked in politically correct discussions about striking a balance between economic, social and environmental impacts. Without an environment that provides us with the water, food, clean air and other resources to sustain ourselves, society or the economy are in a dire situation.

The dictionary definition is also instrumental in guiding sustainability goals and programs. It is more productive to set goals within the context of limits than in the context of needs. Goals set in the context of needs have a tendency to slide. For example, if I realize that eventually we will run into a limit for fossil fuel use, I may set my goals in such a way as to phase out its use eventually. Setting a goal in the context of needs, in the face of uncertainty about future resources and technical ability, is like throwing a dart with your eyes closed. Although the Brundtland report discusses limits, they are not part of the ubiquitously quoted definition of sustainability. A needs-based approach might be an easier political sell, but any successful approach to sustainability will incorporate the idea of natural limits.

Clouded by convoluted definitions and swamped by a multitude of sustainability indicators, it is easy to meander when developing a sustainability program and lose sight of the straightforwardness of the implications of non-sustainability. The simple question for a company seeking to develop its sustainability program is: ‘is what we are currently doing sustainable?’ The answer will provide a great starting point.