Principles of Sustainable Development
Many sources have detailed why our current course is not sustainable. And a number of sources have described what a future sustainable society might look like. But charting a course from the problem to a more favorable outcome is murkier. Principles that provide a foundation for the transition are required. That’s where VSJF comes in. A literature review drawing from environmental sociology, ecological economics, environmental history, industrial ecology, government reports, non-governmental organizations, and other sustainable development advocates, reveals an interconnected core of ostensible and repeated principles that define sustainable development. Social and environmental justice stresses the need to promote opportunity and equity within our society, between societies, between generations, and between species. Ecological modernization refers to the transformation of societal institutions (e.g., the economy) via changes in values, "radical resource productivity", biomimicry, and a "cradle-to-cradle" economy. Stewardship of the natural environment invokes Aldo Leopold’s well known concept of the land ethic to stress the need to maintain the stability of our life support system in perpetuity. Taken together, sustainable development is a bequest- the collective will that we leave to future generations. These principles inform the particular programs that VSJF has developed.
A. Social and Environmental Justice
Environmental inequality/justice focuses on the whether certain segments of society are disproportionately impacted by environmental burdens (e.g., toxic waste facility siting) or have been denied access to resources. The question "are some groups disproportionately exposed to toxic wastes?" has for the most part been answered in the affirmative with studies demonstrating a statistical relationship between poor and minority communities and locally unwanted land uses, the location of transfer, storage and disposal facilities as well as other environmental hazards (UCC, 1987; Bullard, 1990; Mohai and Bryant, 1992; Bullard, 1993; Mohai, 1995; Pollock et al., 1995; Hurley, 1995; Boer et al., 1997; Ringquist, 1997; Hird and Reese, 1998; Downey, 1998; Mitchell et al., 1999; Daniels and Friedman, 1999; Taylor, 2000; Szasz and Meuser, 2000; Gottlieb, 2001; Pellow, 2000; Pellow et al., 2001; Pellow and Park, 2002).
• Opportunity/Equity: In the context of social and environmental justice, most definitions of sustainable development talk about preserving meaningful choices—that is, leaving as many opportunities for the future as we have today. The concern is with both current and future generations; developed and underdeveloped countries (e.g., the Natural Step’s notion that resources should be “used fairly and efficiently in order to meet basic human needs worldwide”); and humans and non-human species (WCED, 1987; Hawken, 1993; Kinlaw, 1993; Common, 1995; Elkington, 1998; Hempel, 1999; Berke and Conroy, 2000; Gottlieb, 2001; McNeill, 2000; Moffatt et al. 2001; Agyeman, et al., 2002; Evans, 2002).
B. Stewardship of the Natural Environment
Aldo Leopold long ago suggested that “we abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us” (1989: viii). As a result of our obsession with growth and economic health we “have lost the capacity to remain healthy”(1989: ix). Economic growth for the sake of securing maximum exchange values exerts tremendous impacts on the natural environment and society and is ultimately self-defeating. As a unifying principle or metanarrative underlying sustainable development, Leopold’s well-known land ethic is meant to invoke ethical responsibilities to the natural environment (e.g., in order for stewardship rather than despoliation to be the bequest we leave to future generations, we need to live within the constraints and possibilities that nature provides). It serves as a precursor to the development of bioregionalism, deep ecology, and the valuation of natural services (i.e., ecological economics). Leopold taught that “an ethic, ecologically is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for existence” (1989: 202). He writes that all ethics rest on the premise that the individual is part of a larger community of interdependent parts: “The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land”(1989: 204). Leopold’s philosophy culminates in the well-known mantra: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise”(1989: 224).
• Resilience/Limits: Definitions of sustainable development stress the need to maintain structural integrity (ecological and societal) in the midst of anthropogenic disturbance. This requires that "development must be undertaken within the known or probable limits of the earth’s nonrenewable resources and the limits that its ecosystems can tolerate from human intervention” ( Kinlaw, 1993). A necessary corollary is the precautionary principle: "where reasonable doubts are raised about the risks or the impact of a development proposal, unless it is demonstrated that a significant impact will not happen, measures should be taken to safeguard against such an event" (Moffatt et al., 2001: 5; Hempel, 1999).
• Stewardship: Many sources (see especially Schnaiberg and Gould, 1994) suggest that increased levels of additions of waste to and withdrawals of resources and energy from ecosystems foster ecological disorganization. Consequently, ecological systems and biodiversity need to be protected by ensuring that "the manufacturing, financial, agricultural, and building processes of development are undertaken in ways that demonstrate full stewardship of what is used and what is produced" (Kinlaw, 1993; Hempel, 1999). This can also be restated as the "polluter pays principle." A further corollary is "the proximity principle", that is, environmental problems should be solved as near as possible to their sources (Moffatt et al., 2001: 6).
• Investing in natural capital: Investing in natural capital, as described in Natural Capitalism, is an example of stewardship. A fundamental assumption is that humans are not exempt from the laws of nature. Consequently human health and welfare is seen to rest on the services providing by ecosystems. Reinvestments in sustaining, restoring, and expanding stocks of natural capital, are seen as necessary for the earth to produce ecosystem services and natural resources (Hawken et al., 1999: 11).
C. Ecological Modernization
Ecological modernization is another branch of the larger sustainable development concept- the branch dealing with technological changes in production and consumption (e.g., radical resource productivity (waste equals food), life cycle analysis, industrial ecology, biomimicry, resource recovery and reuse, dematerialization, resource conservation and clean production) and with the integration of environmental concerns into societal institutions (e.g., corporate membership in the Natural Step or ISO-14000 certification; the passage of environmental laws and treaties). See Mol and Sonnenfeld (2000) for a detailed explanation of ecological modernization, a theory of the restructuring of industrial societies along sustainable lines. Natural evolution has yielded a multitude of examples that can inform everything from how to organize social systems (e.g., lessons derived from the studies of E.O. Wilson on social structures of ants) to the rapidly emerging science of biomimicry, through which technologies are created to mimic the principles evolved through millennia of evolution. Scientists are unlocking the nature of networks and the principles of complexity. This area of research is revealing ways that order emerges from chaos. This domain has powerful implications for economic and other human systems. Insights derived from the study of complexity suggest innovative ways for humans to reconfigure their social and economic activities. These new models align with how natural systems remain viable and vigorous despite powerful disruptions. Humans know enough now to understand the magnitude of damage being caused by our economic pursuits that do not account for social and environmental costs.
• The triple bottom line: The “triple bottom line” concept refers to the concept of measuring a businesses performance based on three criteria-- profitability, social equity, and environmental health. It is generally used to assess the complete impact of a business. A growing number of business success stories (e.g. Anderson, 1998) demonstrate that such integration offers a significant competitive advantage, often exceeding expectations and projections of the designers. This advantage takes place through innovative product and service designs that eliminate inefficiencies and waste disposal costs inherent in many conventional business operations. This integration provides a new vehicle to stimulate design ideas that offer the best route for businesses to successfully compete in a world where raw materials are increasingly scarce. For example, a recent study comparing 652 U.S. manufacturing firms between 1987-1996 found evidence “of a real association between lower pollution and higher financial performance. We also show that a firm’s environmental performance relative to its industry is associated with higher financial performance” (King and Lenox, 2001: 106).
• "Radical resource productivity": Hawken et al. suggest, “Nearly all environmental and social harm is an artifact of the uneconomically wasteful use of human and natural resources,” particularly in industrialized countries (1999: 10). Radical resource productivity helps to achieve the first three elements—opportunity/equity; resilience/limits; and stewardship—by slowing resource depletion at the withdrawal level, lowering pollution at the addition level, and by providing “a basis to increase worldwide employment with meaningful jobs”(Hawken et al., 1999: 10). Moffatt et al., emphasize the “Sustainable yield of renewable resources;” the “Exploitation of non-renewables only with a closed cycle;” and that “Waste should not exceed assimilative capacity”.
• "Service and flow economy": Moffatt et al. describe the need to restructure our economic systems to “reflect human needs not greed” (2001: 4). Hawken et al. talk about a “service economy wherein consumers obtain services by leasing or renting goods rather that buying them outright” ( 1999: 16); and a value shift from seeing the “acquisition of goods as a measure of affluence to an economy where the continuous receipt of quality, utility, and performance promotes well being”(1999: 10). The onus is placed on corporations to take care of their products from “cradle-to-cradle”, that is, to “Create objects of durability and long-term utility whose ultimate use or disposition will not be harmful to future generations” (Hawken, 1993; Hawken et al., 1999).
• Biomimicry: Are there any ways of sustaining ourselves so that withdrawals from ecosystems are renewable and additions to ecosystems are biodegradable? Benyus and Hawken et al. answer in the affirmative. They identify cases demonstrating that “redesigning industrial systems on biological lines that change the nature of industrial processes and materials” enables “the constant reuse of materials in continuous closed cycles”(Hawken et al., 1999: 10). For example, Eco Machines use plants, bacteria, snails and fish to naturally treat wastewater.