Introduction – On the Definition and Measure of Sustainability

Abstract

It all started from an emergent concept known to most researchers as “the pillars of sustainability” which appeared on the discussion table in and around the late 1990s. A normalized way to apprehend the objective of such a concept is achieved through three realms of considerations, that is, economics, society and environment. For some, the three pillars are better known as “the triple bottom line” which represents the baseline approach in order to measure the status of sustainable development. Both definitions draw reference to the ultimate goal of sustainable development, or sustainability. For those of us who are in pursuit of the idealism of sustainability would not forget the toils and doubts those who called themselves green advocates encountered on their pilgrimage to sustainability! Yes, suspicion that persistently devours both the mind and will of the pursuer appeared out of nowhere but to occupy the mind like a never-ending oxymoron conflict caused by these pillars acting on one another, if not oneself. Among them, it is argued that economics is the first and ethically sinful pillar of all. For instance, how much would it cost extra to change the production plant in the name of environmental sustainability? How many years would it take in order for a new sustainable technology to yield fiscal benefits (speaking of renewable solar energy, for instance)? Queries such as these fill the brain until there is no space left for an answer with good cause. The second pillar, which is the social one, is even harder to explain because it is at its core all about divergences such as idiosyncrasy, preference, culture, habit, and, more so, individual like and dislike. How could one change lifestyles instantaneously? Similarly, how difficult is it to change or modify various habits of the building user, such as convincing office workers to climb four stories in both directions at their workplaces instead of traveling by elevators? The final one is the seemingly smallest and weakest third pillar, that of environmental consideration. Better known as environmental sustainability, it is deemed an achievable goal by effecting specific interventions to prevailing building design norms and practices, in order to produce not a “negative” but “positive” energy building, for instance. Allegedly, buildings are referred to as negative buildings because their existence impels a ceaseless consumption of multitude forms of resources of which energy is but one (material, water, land, daylight, environmental qualities, and numerous indicators for health are others). Unfortunately, the embrace of mainstream green by academia and practicum is far from satisfactory, partly because of the above struggles. At this juncture, it becomes clear for readers to realize how interwinding and contradictory conflicts of the three pillars have indeed hampered the path to triumph (where it literally meant arriving at the apex of the three pillars that marks the state of equilibrium for sustainable development). Some researchers have distinguished “the pillars of reality” from “the pillars of idealism” by “the fallacy of the three pillars” (Ciegis et al., 2009; Kohon, 2018; Purvis et al., 2019) in order to remind everyone of a collective and an individual responsibility to overcoming such complexes of difficulties and contradictory challenges in the way of sustainable development. As explained by others, Fig. 1.1, the fallacy of the three pillars is the first step in the pursuit of sustainable development, i.e. to realize the state of chaos and struggles because of the three considerations. The second step as it were is represented by those who prefer to stick with the baseline approach – by upholding each of the baselines as corresponding threshold (the bottom line) for measuring economic, social and environmental attainments at the national, institutional or corporate level. Known as TBL or 3BL, it is a kind of accounting system for checking or boosting performance in the respective realm of concerns. For most policymakers or investors, the 3BL approach is synonymous with the concept of “equilibrium,” achievable by the “appropriate interactions” (sustainable development) of “planet” (environment), “people” (social) and “profit” (economics). Arguably, the third and important step is proposed by the author and others to be the conscientious revelation, or more commonly known as corporate social responsibility (CSR). The call for an expression of the willingness or undertaking of social responsibilities has come about in relative recent times as above debates and discussions continued. In no time, the debates initiated a revisit of the caring awareness – the need to care for others as a rider over other concerns. In fact, such topic could be dated back to the 1930s by the Berle and Dodd debate. In today’s sharing context, much of the discussions could be referred to business ethics, or business sustainability. In essence, it introduces good practice such as “beyond compliance,” “philanthropic responsibility” and “self-regulation of the private business enterprises,” and “supply chain management.”