Global Strategies Forum

Visit Other Web Forums What Do We Really Mean by “Sustainable”? by Bruce Lloyd NOTICE: Essays and comments posted on World Future Society Web Forums are the intellectual property of the authors, who retain full responsibility for and rights to their content. For permission to publish, distribute copies, use excerpts, etc., please contact the author. There are few words that are more widely used—and misused—today than the word “Sustainability.” It can be found in virtually every corporate annual report and there are now even “Sustainable Banking Awards.” All this is certainly a step in the right direction. But there is “an elephant in the room” that is rarely—if ever—discussed. Put simply, the core question: Is the current global market system itself sustainable?  Although there are an increasing number of books and general articles that raise fundamental concerns about sustainability, most of those do not consider that core question. Many other publications continue to ignore this central issues altogether. Technically the market system is extremely effective in driving innovation. But the real challenge is whether the social and individual implications of these changes are moving in a truly sustainable direction and, if not, what are the implications on the system itself.  A valuable role for futurists is to identify unsustainable trends. What are the trends that cannot be sustained at current levels and growth rates? We need to be able to identify the relevance of these trends, as well help with the exploration of alternative solutions? Below are some of the critical ones that we face today and that are likely to be increasingly important for the rest of 21st century: The increasing rich–poor gap, within and between countries just isn’t sustainable, and current trends appear to show the situation to be getting worse ….?  (In some parts of the world people have to feed their families for a year on what others spend on a hat for a day out at Royal Ascot!) Expectations driving the system are based on poor becoming richer—but this is just not sustainable beyond a certain point. In other words it is just not possible to begin to envisage a world where the standards and behaviour patterns of the rich are available and used by all. If the average number of flights per person in the UK was applied by China by 2020 the implication is over a tenfold increase in air traffic during the next decade or so—a trend that is just not sustainable. And this point assumes that there is no UK increase over that period—and it doesn’t make any allowance for the significant differential (probably itself a factor of 10)  in air travel activity between those in the top 10% income bracket in the UK and those in the bottom 10%. Even within the UK the trends and expectation patterns are not sustainable. These figures are made even worse if the material standards of the most affluent (top 1%) continue to be used as the aspirational objective for the other 99% of the population, even within the UK? The increasing use of non renewable resources. It is just not sustainable for the whole world to reach the material level of economic prosperity of the richest 10% … This would imply something like a 100-fold increase in the amount of air traffic in the next 50 years? Other dimensions, such as carbon dioxide levels, pollution and congestion trends are not sustainable, largely arising from the other points mentioned above. (No doubt there are also other trends?) If the term sustainability is to be really taken seriously in the context of the next 20-50-100 years, a radical change in personal and organisational priorities (i.e., in what we mean by the quality of life) will be needed … and the sooner we start thinking (and acting) about these the better.  I do not have any religious agenda in this analysis, but I can see the problems over sustainability inevitably requiring a much greater emphasis on a non materially driven agenda in the years ahead, which could easily create potentially problematic democracy/management issues from the increasing division between those who accept this new sustainable agenda, and those who are still deeply committed to the old, but unsustainable, materialist agenda. These issues need to be central to The Club of Rome’s programme A New Path for World Development arising from the theme of their recent conference Strategies for a Sustainable Planet. And they have become particularly relevant in the context of the recent financial crisis. In retrospect not enough questions were asked about the sustainability of various developments in that sector and not enough are being asked about wider aspects sustainability in our increasingly global society. But what do we really mean by sustainable? Exploring this vital issue is probably the most critical job for futurists in the years/decades ahead.  About the Author:          Dr. Bruce Lloyd, Emeritus Professor of Strategic Management, London South Bank University, UK Reader's Comments: Enter yours CONSERVATION ON THE FARM On the farm my father pointed at sustainability using the term "conservation." It asks if this practice can be sustained for a thousand years and continue to yield good results. Paul Jacobs PJacobs289@aol.com SUSTAINABILITY AND GROWTH To see growth based on "sustainable" trends is a Malthusian view of growth. It may be the fashionable concern of the day but it leads to self-defeating conclusions. Gene Kasper genoman45@yahoo.com MEANING OF “SUSTAINABLE” Many years ago, I was introduced to the following definition by a nun from India. It struck a chord with me in its clarity and simplicity and I’ve been using it ever since. I have found that I can apply this definition in many discussions and it still works. Sustainable = socially just, environmentally sound and economically viable. Barbara Maidment, director Margaret River Business Centre info@margaretriverbusiness.com THRIVING INSTEAD OF SUSTAINING I have stopped using the term sustainable and talk about the goal being a world that thrives. Russ Volckmann, PhD russ@leadcoach.com CLARITY NEEDED ON SUSTAINABILITY QUESTION I would be quite glad to know exactly what you are asking. No one appears to actually know what it means. It seems to be bandied around with nothing to back it up? Marie Gorinski marie.gorinski@wanganui.govt.nz SUSTAINABILITY OR ADAPTABILITY? Sustainability should be definable if we give it a time limit. Failing this, we should instead be addressing Adaptability as inferred from the evolutionary process. James Fong jamesfong@gmaritime.com