Indeed, the term ‘sustainable’ is being (mis-)used increasingly basically to suggest that it’s less damaging than current practices. But does that make it sustainable? I don’t think so. For instance, the term ‘sustainable agriculture’ presents a ‘contradictio in terminis’. Current food production systems have some inherent unsustainability dimensions, which calls for a transformation in the way we produce food. Let me elaborate a bit along this example (but applicable to many other sectors) to state my case. Why food production systems need to transform on the longer term becomes clear when you look at the impacts. Current global food production (agriculture, bio-industry and fisheries):

- Occupies 25% of all habitable land,

- Is responsible for about 70% of global fresh water consumption (i.e. almost 3000 Km3/y),

- for 80% of deforestation,

- for some 30% of greenhouse gas emissions,

- it is a strong contributor to biodiversity loss,

- has expanded global anthropogenic nitrogen fixation, needed to sustain agriculture, to levels that exceed those of natural N-fixation (this presents a dangerous biogeochemical experiment; ref. Gijzen HJ, Mulder A (2001) The nitrogen cycle out of balance. Water 21, August 2001,38-40)

- causes the exhaustion of phosphorous (at current consumption rate, reserves could be depleted before the end of this century),

- reduces marine fish stocks, and damages marine ecosystems, and

-represents the single largest non-point source pollution globally (pesticides, fertilizer), affecting both human and ecosystem health

This calls for a transition towards ‘New Food’. While our food production systems have essentially remained the same since the domestication of plants and animals some 10-12,000 years ago, I predict that the 21st century will see a transformational shift towards ‘new food’ production methods that are efficient, upscalable and have low environmental and ecosystem impacts.

The upcoming transition from the MDG era to a new agenda beyond 2015 (Post-2015) presents a unique opportunity to look again at the concept of sustainable development. What we need is a global long term vision of a sustainable world in which, by mid century, 9 billion people can live thriving, peaceful and healthy lives and livelihoods, while safeguarding the Earth’s life support system, on which the welfare of current and future generations depends (a slight adaptation of the Brundtland definition). This vision for a sustainable future needs to recognize and balance basic needs for people and planet, for example:

People’s needs: Planet needs:

Eradicate poverty and hunger balance nutrient and hydrological cycles

Universal quality education pollution abatement

Gender equality biodiversity

Clean air, water, soil ecosystem services

Energy climate stability

Peace and security deforestation

The function of a long term vision would be to ensure that approaches and solutions proposed for the medium term (Post-2015) will seek transformational, rather than incremental change and outcomes.

It may be two ways. One, the people really care about the nature. Or business are using this word just as a marketing tool to increase their profit.

Sustainability is to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; is improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of the Earth’s supporting eco-systems; is about stabilizing the currently disruptive relationship between earth’s two most complex systems—human culture and the living world.

Sustainability may be defined as a concept in utilizing products in our daily life in such a way that they reduce the environmental impact to that of the self-recovery capability of the Earth could deal with while also trying to maximize resource efficiency. The products that we use integrate product and process design issues with issues of manufacturing, planning and control in such a manner as to identify, quantify, assess, and manage the flow of environmental waste with the goal of ultimately reducing the environmental impact.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259648777_SUSTAINABLE_MANUFACTURING__PRINCIPLES_APPLICATIONS_AND_DIRECTIONS

http://worldcsd.com/sustainable_issues/

Conference Paper SUSTAINABLE MANUFACTURING – PRINCIPLES, APPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS

This is an interesting question/debate. I recently organised a workshop on “Sustainable Agriculture and Soils Innovation” in London (http://www.rsc.org/ConferencesAndEvents/conference/alldetails.cfm?evid=116496) with partner from academia (from soil science), industry, primary producer and policy makers. During the workshop, “Sustainability” did not have the same meaning between academics, industry or primary producer. When academics gave a definition close to the one from Jorge Morales Pedraza, the industry partner (even if they were working in agriculture) meant clearly by sustainability is to make money. If you do not make money, your company will not survive and subsequently, it is not sustainable, which is fear enough (I am not going into how much money you need, that’s another debate).

Hence, we could consider that the definition depends of the system you try to make sustainable. However, this would consider that nothing is interconnected. My definition would be: “sustainability is the ability to keep any system alive and healthy (and productive, for present and future generation)”. My definition is for the environment with an addition for human being between brackets, because you can’t remove human being from the equation. So, I do think even if the aim of sustainability can differ between people, you can have a similar meaning and you can’t (or should not) separate nature, productivity, money, from the meaning of “sustainability”. If a company working with soil or a farmer wants to make money in longer term, he will need to take into consideration his environment. We can see now that our agriculture system in Northern hemisphere is not sustainable and we will only be able to keep agriculture productive (to meet the future needs), money-making and healthy for us, if we try in the same time to protect the environment, everything is linked.

“Sustainability” is a great and powerful word. It can be misused, but I think often the intentions of the person using it are fairly clear (as mentioned by Kumar Dookhitram). Some people start to twist a bit the meaning and use of “sustainable”. For example “sustainable intensification” is used quite a lot by company working with agriculture or providing fertiliser/herbicides etc. But intensification is by definition not sustainable and nothing less than another way of saying “growth”, and “constant growth” is not sustainable because not taking into consideration the fact that natural resources are finite. So, we have to be careful with the use of this word, but at the end, what is needed is to change the mentality, probably by a better use and understanding of this word but I think the word “sustainability” can help to change things.

The term "sustainability" seems to have achieved a life of its own, as the new "Flavor of the Month" replacing the old stalwarts of TQM, and TEQM, and does anyone remember "Reengineering"? While a noble concept, the term actually means different things to different folks, and even though, we now have international organizations eschewing sustainability reporting via its complex metrics (GRI 4.0, IIRC, SASB and GISR) and a growing set of diverse followers - from manufacturers, the food and financial industries, to service providers, much of what some organizations actually report in their glossy reports is some nice PR, and nothing more. Don't get me wrong - a number of the energy giants have gone to great lengths to report openly and honestly their sustainability metrics, and they should be commended, but others are actually performing the "window dressing" many fund managers perform routinely to shore up their investors' portfolios.

Case in point - the big cola giants, Coca Cola and Pepsi - spend tremendous marketing PR ro toute their sustainability efforts in conserving the precious water they use in their products, yet it wasn't until recently, that both companies pledged to remove a certain bromide-based chemical in their formularies after being gently nudged to do so. And let's not forget that Pepsi's Mountain Dew is a dentist cash cow for the number of cavities it creates for its young consumers.

How sustainable is that? So, in my armchair quarterback view, if a company wants to tout its real sustainability efforts, they should first perform a serious vetting process of the aspects of their businesses to determine which ones need to be addressed that impact ES&G issues the most - then I might feel more warm and fuzzy with their published values.

Indeed, the term ‘sustainable’ is being (mis-)used increasingly basically to suggest that it’s less damaging than current practices. But does that make it sustainable? I don’t think so. For instance, the term ‘sustainable agriculture’ presents a ‘contradictio in terminis’. Current food production systems have some inherent unsustainability dimensions, which calls for a transformation in the way we produce food. Let me elaborate a bit along this example (but applicable to many other sectors) to state my case. Why food production systems need to transform on the longer term becomes clear when you look at the impacts. Current global food production (agriculture, bio-industry and fisheries):

- Occupies 25% of all habitable land,

- Is responsible for about 70% of global fresh water consumption (i.e. almost 3000 Km3/y),

- for 80% of deforestation,

- for some 30% of greenhouse gas emissions,

- it is a strong contributor to biodiversity loss,

- has expanded global anthropogenic nitrogen fixation, needed to sustain agriculture, to levels that exceed those of natural N-fixation (this presents a dangerous biogeochemical experiment; ref. Gijzen HJ, Mulder A (2001) The nitrogen cycle out of balance. Water 21, August 2001,38-40)

- causes the exhaustion of phosphorous (at current consumption rate, reserves could be depleted before the end of this century),

- reduces marine fish stocks, and damages marine ecosystems, and

-represents the single largest non-point source pollution globally (pesticides, fertilizer), affecting both human and ecosystem health

This calls for a transition towards ‘New Food’. While our food production systems have essentially remained the same since the domestication of plants and animals some 10-12,000 years ago, I predict that the 21st century will see a transformational shift towards ‘new food’ production methods that are efficient, upscalable and have low environmental and ecosystem impacts.

The upcoming transition from the MDG era to a new agenda beyond 2015 (Post-2015) presents a unique opportunity to look again at the concept of sustainable development. What we need is a global long term vision of a sustainable world in which, by mid century, 9 billion people can live thriving, peaceful and healthy lives and livelihoods, while safeguarding the Earth’s life support system, on which the welfare of current and future generations depends (a slight adaptation of the Brundtland definition). This vision for a sustainable future needs to recognize and balance basic needs for people and planet, for example:

People’s needs: Planet needs:

Eradicate poverty and hunger balance nutrient and hydrological cycles

Universal quality education pollution abatement

Gender equality biodiversity

Clean air, water, soil ecosystem services

Energy climate stability

Peace and security deforestation

The function of a long term vision would be to ensure that approaches and solutions proposed for the medium term (Post-2015) will seek transformational, rather than incremental change and outcomes.

I understand that sustainability is a group of actions to "not kill the goose that lays golden eggs."

Let me add this bit of anecdotal supplemental information as it may have some merit to explain the "sustainability" conundrum: During past work, I had the opportunity to research the competency level of some so-called Chief Sustainability Officers(CSOs), a term coined by some to elevate up-and-coming managers in this space to a corporate seat, hence the C---O acronym.

In my research of these CSOs and similar officers of service organizations wishing to capitalize monetarily on the sustainability bandwagon, I noted that many of these folks' backgrounds weren't even remotely related to anything in classic environmental, health and safety, or even quality, but more like marketing, publishing, consultants versed as change agents, or other non-environmentally related backgrounds.

For some of them, they relied on their hired consultants to provide them the metrics they needed to justify their "CSO" role, but were ill-equipped to add any substantive value of their own because of their non-environmental background.

So, in some cases, what they are providing as true sustainability metrics, are actually only a fraction of what their organizations could provide if they relied upon seasoned EHS and EMS professionals to help them in their quest.

Gabriele: perhaps this is the problem that produces ecological marketing.

Federico,

I don't have a crystal ball, so I can't answer that. What I rely on instead, is anecdotal evidence from my own research. I welcome any of you to read up on articles of mine both critiquing the recent CSO rush, and asking pointed questions to several CSOs willing to be interviewed about their jobs. Key among what I found is that none of my interviewees or any related reports on the topic included ISO 14001 in their discussion or analyses. One stated that it was too complicated to follow; another, we really didn't factor that in - we let the consultants decide.

I'll put it in a different perspective: would you want to e taught how to be a better fighter pilot by a Top Gun instructor who had just received their amateur pilot's license, or would you prefer a seasoned veteran who had "been there, done that"? Unfortunately, we are being spoon fed way too much "sustainability" by the neophyte Top Gun instructors.

I expected responses along the lines that the use of 'sustainable' for various systems might be considered to be economically sustainable, but are generally unsustainable in terms of inputs and outputs such as energy, fertilizers, etc.

I also expected people to consider different 'types' of sustainability, such as environmental, agricultural, social and economic sustainability.

Each of these (and others) uses the term 'sustainable' in variety of ways.

There are examples where sustainable is apparently used correctly, viz. "A sustainable fishery has sufficient spawning fish to produce the next generation, while allowing fishing to take place."

We also have examples such as "Sustainability is about ensuring our houses are designed, constructed and function in ways that don’t compromise the quality of the natural environment, now or in the future."

In agriculture, sustainable can be understood as an "ecosystem approach to agriculture." Whilst the tenets of most efficient use of resources, and sustaining the economic viability of farm operations, etc., are at the forefront, by definition, such systems are still not sustainable as they still rely on inputs and there are outputs that at least have to be balanced with these in the long term to be sustainable.