Sustainability also implies an interrogation of existing modes of social organization to determine the extent to which they encourage destructive practices as well as a conscious effort to transform the status quo so as to promote the development of more-sustainable activities

The current sustainability research agenda may exhibit academic tunneling by presenting established concepts as new, thereby perpetuating "business as usual." This approach risks overlooking the historical context needed for genuine paradigm shifts in sustainability, as described by Thomas Kuhn.

Suad, thank you for writing. I asked the question because I keep seeing new publications on sustainability, on green markets, on the circular economy as if the WCED 1987 Our common future did not exist, as if UNCSD 2012 rio + 20 did not take place, as if a theory of sustainability and perfect sustainability markets do not exist, as if the theory of win-win eco-economic development or fully environmentally friendly economies and the perfect green market does not exist, as if the theory of win-win socio-economic development or full socially friendly economies and the perfect red market does not exist...As if defining or assuming a problem away solves the problem at hand....As for example, assuming that pollution circularity is the solution of pollution linearity,,,,The writers do not do a basic literature review, neither in researchgate, and when there is a literature review collection on the topic, the theories that exist contradicting or undermining their thinking do not appear or are missing. That is why I asked the question.

I appreciate your comment

Abdelhack, thank you for taking the time to write.

You can always expect differences for example as when the writer is a scientist or a think tank. A scientist, if he wants to justify business as usual, he or she needs to look for academic facts to do that as if they use alternative academic facts, NON-SCIENCE BASED FACTS, they stop being scientists. As scientists, they can not ignored the academic facts and academic theories already out there, and if they want to move the domain of knowledge growth forward they need to show existing theories or facts wrong....Academic tunneling allows you to bypass valid past knowledge to the detriment of the problem you are supposely trying to solve. Think tanks tend to think that science facts can be bended or ignore all together if that is needed to promote their agenda.

I appreciate your comment

Lucio

The current sustainability research agenda can sometimes be seen as supportive of "business as usual" due to a phenomenon known as academic tunneling, where researchers focus on incremental changes rather than transformative solutions. This focus may perpetuate existing practices instead of challenging underlying systems that contribute to unsustainable behaviors.

While some research emphasizes innovation and systemic change, a significant portion tends to align with corporate interests, making it easier for businesses to maintain their current operations without fundamentally altering their impact on the environment​. Critics argue that this can lead to a superficial approach to sustainability, where companies adopt greenwashing strategies instead of making meaningful changes

The current sustainability research agenda may be critiqued for supporting "business as usual" due to a focus on incremental changes rather than transformative solutions. This academic tunneling can limit the exploration of radical innovations necessary for addressing pressing environmental challenges. To foster genuine sustainability, research should challenge established paradigms, integrate diverse perspectives, and prioritize systemic change rather than merely optimizing existing practices. By expanding the scope of inquiry, sustainability research can drive more impactful business practices and societal transformations.

Chuck, thank you for taking time to comment. I see you agree with me that academic tunneling is being used to support the drive to keep the old traditional economy running for as long as they can keep it running, but keep in mind, academic tunneling implies willful academic blindness, which allows you to act or write as if the past did not exist, even the current past...

Thank you for writing

Lucio

The current sustainability research agenda in support of business as usual is based on the observation that getting people to make fundamental changes to their lifestyle in order to advance sustainability has not been a successful strategy. Since climate change mitigation efforts have been a failure, perhaps adaptation to the changes in climate will be a more potent force for change.

Neil, do you want to solve the sustainability problem, or do you want to manage the problem until system collapse?

Have you seen these publications?

Sustainability thoughts 106: Can we solve an environmental sustainability problem by managing the consequences of that problem? If not, why not?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340442676_Sustainability_thoughts_106_Can_we_solve_an_environmental_sustainability_problem_by_managing_the_consequences_of_that_problem_If_not_why_not

Sustainability thoughts 130: Can green economies and green growth exist without green markets? If not, why not? What is the current main development implication of this?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346438700_Sustainability_thoughts_130_Can_green_economies_and_green_growth_exist_without_green_markets_If_not_why_not_What_is_the_current_main_development_implication_of_this

Unfortunately, it seems that the system will have to be much nearer collapse than it is now before we will be able to do more than chip away at the edges. I will take a look at the articles you recommended and see what that brings up.

The current sustainability research agenda often faces criticism for being too aligned with "business as usual" approaches, which some argue is a result of academic tunneling. Academic tunneling refers to a narrow focus or bias in research, often driven by prevailing economic and business models. This can lead to sustainability initiatives that prioritize incremental changes rather than transformative shifts in business practices.

Critics argue that sustainability research sometimes supports existing business frameworks, focusing on efficiency and corporate responsibility without challenging the underlying systems that contribute to environmental degradation. Instead of fostering radical innovation, such research may encourage businesses to adopt green practices that maintain profitability and growth, while failing to address deeper issues like overconsumption or unequal resource distribution.

Chuck, thank you for taking the time to write.

This is a Yes, and why or No, and why not question? This is not criticizing just for criticizing.

Do you have a view on the answer to the question here:

Is the current sustainability research agenda in support of business as usual based on academic tunneling?

What do you think? If you reply, I will reply.

Remember we are here, at least I am, to share ideas not to impose my ideas.

Respectfully yours;

The current sustainability research agenda does face criticism for being somewhat supportive of “business as usual,” with some arguing that it is influenced by "academic tunneling." This term implies a narrow focus within academia that may overlook systemic or transformative approaches needed for meaningful sustainability. Critics suggest that sustainability research often aligns with established business interests, focusing on incremental changes—like reducing emissions within existing frameworks—rather than questioning or altering the broader economic and social systems that drive unsustainable practices​.

Chuck, thank you for taking the time to write.

This is a Yes, and why or No, and why not question? This is not criticizing just for criticizing.

Do you have a view on the answer to the question here:

Is the current sustainability research agenda in support of business as usual based on academic tunneling?

What do you think? If you reply, I will reply.

Remember we are here, at least I am, to share ideas not to impose my ideas.

Respectfully yours;