Defining Sustainability

The concept of sustainability has its origins in silviculture. In 1713, von Carlowitz advocated a moderated exploitation of the woods since intensified mining activities had led to an increased demand for wooden boards (Hamberger 2013). He demanded that the amount of wood taken out of a forest should be geared to the forest’s ability to regrow. At the beginning of the 20^th century, the idea of sustaining the stock of scarce and slowly growing natural resources (through observing the “maximum sustainable yield”) was transferred to fishery (Brown et al. 1987, p. 714; Clement et al. 2014, p. 21). Thus, following contemporary terminology, the first discussions about sustainability focused on environmental aspects.

Today’s three-dimensional notion of sustainability arose in the context of society’s growing awareness of global problems like poverty and environmental pollution during the second half of the 20^th century (Mulligan 2015, p. 12 f.). In 1972, the think tank “Club of Rome”

published its simulation study on the coactions of population growth, industrialization, environmental pollution, food production, and resource depletion (Meadows et al. 1972).

They predicted that an unlimited growth of these factors would lead to a global collapse within the next 100 years (Meadows et al. 1972, p. 23) and thus advocated to strive for a state of equilibrium between economy and environment. A second milestone for raising awareness for sustainability issues on the macro level is the report “Our common future”

that got published by the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987. Four years earlier, the WCED (the so-called Brundtland Commission) had been set up under the lead of the Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. It aimed at

deriving recommendations for a “sustainable development” of the world to prevent a collapse as predicted by Meadows et al. (1972, p. 23). In its report, sustainable development was defined as

“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED 1987, p. 43).

This definition builds on the two key concepts “needs” and “limitations”. Needs are understood as the “essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given” whereas limitations are “imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs” (WCED 1987, p. 43). Later, the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent 1996 Habitat II Conference in Istanbul further refined this definition by stating that sustainable development should incorporate the economic, social, environmental, cultural, and ethical development of the world (UN Habitat 1996). Since then, research has discussed these definitions intensively and – depending on the field of research and cultural background – specified it multiple times (see e.g. Dyllick

& Hockerts 2002, p. 131; Belz & Peattie 2009, p. 12). However, some constituent characteristics for global sustainable development emerged over time: equitable access to resources for all people coexisting on the planet (intergenerational justice) as well as for today’s and tomorrow’s generations (intragenerational justice), satisfaction of human needs (anthropocentric focus), and gearing to the global society as a whole (Hort 2008, p. 33 f.;

Belz & Peattie 2009, p. 11; Mulligan 2015, p. 21). The last and probably most discussed characteristic of the concept of sustainable development is the simultaneous, harmonious, and coequal consideration of the economic, environmental, and social dimensions. Thus, the cultural and ethical aspects of global sustainable development are seldom covered in the contemporary sustainability discourse (Flämig 2014a, p. 32).

The economic, environmental, and social dimensions represent public interests deserving protection through adequate political measures. Economic sustainability on the macro level is achieved through organizing the economy in a way that it serves as a stable basis for enduring prosperity and employment. From the supply side, this means using the production factors in an efficient way for providing goods and services. From the demand side, this means providing an income high enough to finance an adequate standard of living (Clement et al. 2014, p. 25; Kollig 2014, p. 11). Environmental sustainability is accomplished through preserving nature and environment for future generations. This incorporates conserving biodiversity and the countryside as well as the thoughtful use of natural resources (Clement et al. 2014, p. 25; Kollig 2014, p. 8 f.). Finally, social sustainability means meeting basic needs, poverty reduction, and equality of opportunities. Also, human rights and the right of

Sustainability 15

co-determination have to be ensured to achieve social sustainability (Clement et al. 2014, p. 25; Kollig 2014, p. 14 f.). Only if all three dimensions are equally addressed, global development can be considered sustainable. However, most sustainability aspects are at odds with each other and bear areas of severe conflicts.

Sustainable development as put forward by the Brundtland Commission is defined as a relative concept. Through simultaneously improving the three dimensions, a subject can be made more or less sustainable over time. Thus, sustainable development can be considered the process of making subjects less unsustainable. This perspective is embraced by authors endorsing the reformist approach aiming at maintaining the current economic system (i.e. common ways of production and consumption) while reducing the harms it entails (Belz & Peattie 2009, p. 13; Clifton & Amran 2011, p. 122).

A relative definition of sustainability evokes severe criticism from authors following the transformational approach as they assume the current economic system to be the cause of lacking sustainability. Thus, they strive for far more radical solutions that would transform extant societies and economies (Belz & Peattie 2009, p. 13; Clifton & Amran 2011, p. 122).

Ehrenfeld, as one prominent example, argues that considering sustainability as a relative concept inevitably leads to “quick fixes” which he describes as myopic measures that try to make a subject less unsustainable. However, while these measures might indeed aim into the right direction, they ultimately treat the symptoms of the current unsustainable economic system instead of helping to solve the underlying problems (2008, pp. 17–21). Thus, he defines sustainability as

“the possibility that human and other life will flourish on the earth forever” (Ehrenfeld 2008, p. 49).

From his point of view, “sustainability means nothing without an end in sight” (Ehrenfeld &

Hoffman 2013, p. 15). Therefore, it should be considered as the absolute state of a system.

Hence, a subject can either be sustainable or not sustainable, but it cannot be more or less sustainable compared to another subject. The absolute and the relative understanding of sustainability are illustrated in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Absolute and Relative Understanding of Sustainability (adapted from Brockhaus 2013, p. 33)

Both approaches towards sustainability are eligible, and both groups of supporters produce compelling arguments for their respective approach. However, since the absolute approach lacks implementable concepts (Brockhaus 2013, p. 34), the relative take on sustainability is chosen as the theoretical foundation for the current dissertation. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that in pursuit of more sustainable solutions, incremental improvements and

“quick fixes” should only be among the first steps. The relative concept of sustainability will be specified to the business context in the next section.