There are several concepts that need to be understood in the discussion:

1. No species can survive in its own waste stream.

2. In order for any technology to be deployed, it must be economically sustainable.

3. Diversity is the key to the survival of all species.

@Edward Calt, structural development is in progress but behaviourial changes in society may significantly push the overall sustainability. We all perform each action for our survival be it is economic or environmental actions. Thus, for our existence sustainable action r required.

Nice [email protected]. Singh

I am following.

Thanks

This attached file may be useful.

I think yes, It is playing great role for each other.

Best regards

@Pankaj, it's we who are hampering our environment for our economic benefits.

Society or we are responsible for sustainability or unsustainable actions.

Yes, that is exactly right

Sustainability has three main pillars: social, environmental, and economic. These three pillars are informally referred to as people, planet, and profits. A sustainable business should have the support and approval of its employees, stakeholders and the community it operates in.

Please refer to the following artilces:

Basiago, A. D. (1998). Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning practice. Environmentalist, 19(2), 145-161.

Partridge, E. (2014). Social sustainability. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, 6178-6186.

I think yes

Yes, society is the key for everything.

Yasser Jaamour, Pankaj Tomar

In general, we explore different environmental strategies etc to develop sustainability practices but behavioural aspect of society is elementary in fostering overall sustainability For ex. Japan.

With all due respect, addressing sustainability as "environmental" or "social" is already a first mistake - because sustainability is about the way people lives within the limits of the environment, so it's the system itself where one can't be more relevant than the other. The economic aspect is a whole different story. Why? because the economy is a human invention or way to define some of the interactions with the environment and with each other - thus, the term economic sustainability is fallacious, as it is only the result of these interactions. If you use more resources than the ones you actually have for the sake of an "economic growth", you know that in the not-so- long term you're shooting to your toes anyway because your costs for getting these resources later will increase so your profit will dicrease and so on...

Back to my initial point: sustainability is a whole where everything matters equally. Yes, there are many examples (three-legged stool, an onion with people in the core surrounded by the environment and having the economy as the outer ring, a doughnut, you name it) yet, the thing to remember is that you can't address a systemic issue by trying to give relevance to only a part of it.

Georgina Guillen-Hanson The term sustainability is a comprehensive exercise where each pillar has its significance.

Generally, environmental innovation, circular economy, reporting, Life cycle analysis, green supply chain etc.. are key environmental practices talked about in research.

But in reality, we started consuming resources (natural) for our satisfaction then profits. Today, when we face flood or drought blame climate change. It's we (society) who are responsible for such action.

Thus, social sustainability need to be focus to overcome climate change issue and achieve economic sustainability.

I get nervous when people start to talk about aspects of Sustainability in isolation of each other. All the pieces are required together. If you want to focus on one piece at a time, because it's easier that way, then you still need an over-arching theory that brings it all together.

As I understand it:

Sustainability = the ability of a community to meet all the needs of all its citizens, using the skills of the population and the ecological services from the biomes it manages, in perpetuity (or at least well past any logical planning horizon).

Economic Sustainability = the ability of a community to meet its needs through internal trade arrangements and co-management relationships with other communities, so that no skills, resources, or ecological services are required to be purchased from outside of the community and its partners, to meet needs, in perpetuity.

Social Sustainability = the ability of a community to ensure that all of the needs of all of its citizens can be met in less than 24 hours per day per capita, in perpetuity.

Ecological Sustainability = the ability of a community to maintain the ecological services being provided by the landmass being managed by the community, including a non-declining portion of each biome that acts as neither a sink for wastes nor a source of resources. 

The can be achieved through a combination of Technological Development (an increase in the efficiency of people to use their time to convert resources into the means to meet their needs) and Human Development (an increase in the freedoms, choices, and capabilities of a population, so that needs are met more effectively), but Technological Development will tend to be produce a smaller effect than Human Development in technologically-rich communities.

So, to answer your question, all are the real drivers. The ones receiving the least attention will produce the most significant results for the least effort, and will shock and surprise the existing power structure the most. But no one part plays a more significant role than the rest.

I strongly agree with the perspective that sustainability should always be considered in unified way. In general, economic sustainability has been highlighted in industry, now environmental sustainability is in air. Considering such priorities, it is necessary to talk about social sustainability in isolation also. It will provide us an overview of social sustainability and its significance under the umbrella of sustainability.

I think your order of operations is off a bit.

I would argue that economic sustainability has not been highlighted in any meaningful way, or else there would be some mantra other than 'infinite growth'. I would also argue that not much has been done about environmental sustainability, which is we are seeing climate change and islands of plastic waste. Social Sustainability doesn't have a lot of buzz, in part because people don't know what it is or how it fits into the greater whole.

Find that place - knit it fully into the fabric of Sustainability, and only then can you talk about it in isolation. What is the definition you are using - what are you including and excluding - that allows it to fit nicely into the continuum?