Categorising tools for sustainability assessment

The three-pillar conception of (social, economic and environmental) sustainability, commonly represented by three intersecting circles with overall sustainability at the centre, has become ubiquitous. With a view of identifying the genesis and theoretical foundations of this conception, this paper reviews and discusses relevant historical sustainability literature. From this we find that there is no single point of origin of this three-pillar conception, but rather a gradual emergence from various critiques in the early academic literature of the economic status quo from both social and ecological perspectives on the one hand, and the quest to reconcile economic growth as a solution to social and ecological problems on the part of the United Nations on the other. The popular three circles diagram appears to have been first presented by Barbier (Environ Conserv 14:101, doi: 10.1017/s0376892900011449, 1987), albeit purposed towards developing nations with foci which differ from modern interpretations. The conceptualisation of three pillars seems to predate this, however. Nowhere have we found a theoretically rigorous description of the three pillars. This is thought to be in part due to the nature of the sustainability discourse arising from broadly different schools of thought historically. The absence of such a theoretically solid conception frustrates approaches towards a theoretically rigorous operationalisation of ‘sustainability’.

/pdf/three-pillars-of-sustainability-in-search-of-conceptual-3e124slsi3.pdf

Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins

Sustainability assessment is being increasingly viewed as an important tool to aid in the shift towards sustainability. However, this is a new and evolving concept and there remain very few examples of effective sustainability assessment processes implemented anywhere in the world. Sustainability assessment is often described as a process by which the implications of an initiative on sustainability are evaluated, where the initiative can be a proposed or existing policy, plan, programme, project, piece of legislation, or a current practice or activity. However, this generic definition covers a broad range of different processes, many of which have been described in the literature as 'sustainability assessment'. This article seeks to provide some clarification by reflecting on the different approaches described in the literature as being forms of sustainability assessment, and evaluating them in terms of their potential contributions to sustainability. Many of these are actually examples of 'integrated assessment', derived from environmental impact assessment (EIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA), but which have been extended to incorporate social and economic considerations as well as environmental ones, reflecting a 'triple bottom line' (TBL) approach to sustainability. These integrated assessment processes typically either seek to minimise 'unsustainability', or to achieve TBL objectives. Both aims may, or may not, result in sustainable practice. We present an alternative conception of sustainability assessment, with the more ambitious aim of seeking to determine whether or not an initiative is actually sustainable. We term such processes 'assessment for sustainability'. 'Assessment for sustainability' firstly requires that the concept of sustainability be well-defined. The article compares TBL approaches and principles-based approaches to developing such sustainability criteria, concluding that the latter are more appropriate, since they avoid many of the inherent limitations of the triple-bottom-line as a conception of sustainability.

Conceptualising sustainability assessment

Sustainability as a policy concept has its origin in the Brundtland Report of 1987. That document was concerned with the tension between the aspirations of mankind towards a better life on the one hand and the limitations imposed by nature on the other hand. In the course of time, the concept has been re-interpreted as encompassing three dimensions, namely social, economic and environmental. The paper argues that this change in meaning (a) obscures the real contradiction between the aims of welfare for all and environmental conservation; (b) risks diminishing the importance of the environmental dimension; and (c) separates social from economic aspects, which in reality are one and the same. It is proposed instead to return to the original meaning, where sustainability is concerned with the well-being of future generations and in particular with irreplaceable natural resources—as opposed to the gratification of present needs which we call well-being. A balance needs to be found between those two, but not by pretending they are three sides of the same coin. Although we use up natural resources at the expense of future generations, we also generate capital (including knowledge) which raises future well-being. A major question is to what extent the one compensates for the other. This debate centres around the problem of substitutability, which has been cast into a distinction between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ sustainability. It is argued that these two do not need to be in opposition but complement one another.

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/11/3436/pdf?y=1

What is Sustainability

In the last decade there has been increasing emphasis on the use of voluntary environmental protection tools such as corporate environmental reporting (CER) and environmental management systems (EMSs). There has been relatively little research, however, on the impact of these tools on the actual environmental performance of companies. This paper presents the findings of a survey of 40 companies operating in Western Australia to determine the extent to which the implementation of two voluntary instruments has influenced company environmental performance. The research considered four questions: To what extent have CER and EMSs influenced the environmental performance of companies operating in Western Australia? What are the characteristics of these influences? How does the influence of EMSs on environmental performance compare to that of CER? Have other external factors concurrently influenced environmental performance? In general, most respondents indicated that EMSs had influenced environmental management practices to some extent. On the other hand, CER was seen more as a public relations exercise and had less impact on company practices compared with EMSs. Other factors that influenced environmental performance included pressure from clients, senior management, the public and regulators; corporate culture; and cost savings.

/pdf/the-impact-of-voluntary-environmental-protection-instruments-4nvx2mat7b.pdf

The impact of voluntary environmental protection instruments on company environmental performance

This paper categorizes and reviews different approaches to environmental impact assessment (EIA) system evaluation. It then describes the application of Wood's (1995) ‘ideal’ EIA system evaluation criteria to the Republic of Maldives. Few of the criteria are actually met. Is the Maldivian EIA system therefore fundamentally flawed or deficient? Field observations suggest that this is not so and, while many improvements can be made, the system is quite locally appropriate. It is concluded that there are a number of factors contributing to the positive development of the Maldavian EIA system, and these should be added on to Wood's list as supplementary criteria appropriate to small developing countries.

/pdf/developing-and-evaluating-environmental-impact-assessment-3xu35cwv4v.pdf

Developing and evaluating environmental impact assessment systems for small developing countries

Two surveys were conducted recently of environmental impact assessment (EIA) practitioners in Western Australia. The first investigated the pressure on proponents to produce good quality environmental impact statements (EIS) and the second sought to understand what factors influence the level and quality of science during EIA. Available time and financial resources were found to be important determinants in both surveys. The two main influencing factors identified by EIA practitioners in both surveys, however, were public or community pressure and the expectations of EIA regulators. The latter are expressed in EIS guidelines, published EIA guidance documents, verbal and written communication between regulators and proponents during EIA, and in legally binding compliance requirements. The results highlight the value of public involvement in EIA and in having clear and accountable procedures.

/pdf/practitioner-perspectives-on-what-influences-eia-quality-2cu0j43sh7.pdf

David Annandale

Papers

Conceptualising sustainability assessment

Conceptualising sustainability assessment

The impact of voluntary environmental protection instruments on company environmental performance

Developing and evaluating environmental impact assessment systems for small developing countries

Practitioner perspectives on what influences EIA quality