Position on the Concept of Sustainability

¶ … sustainability and reviews the implications and impact of various sustainability modes, all of which appear to be positive. To begin this review requires coming to an understanding of what sustainability is. As the Interface (2008) website describes it, "Sustainability can be many different things -- a motto, an ideal, a way to do business, a way to live your life or a call to action." Because this seems an appropriate way to view the many aspects of sustainability, this paper adopts this viewpoint as well.

Raven (2002) discusses how we got to this point facing the difficult challenges of human sustainability. Over the course of 400 generations, or about 10,000 years, the human population has grown from several million to over 6 billion. Humans continue to depend on a series of ancient, genetically and socially determined habits and attitudes which seem dysfunctionally inappropriate for modern society. As a consequence then, we must adopt new ways of thinking that will serve our descendants well in a world that will be crowded beyond imagining.

Raven quotes troubling statistics: over the past half century, we have lost a fifth of the world's topsoil, a fifth of its agricultural land, and a third of its forests. We continue to suffer irreversible loss of biodiversity, with the rate of species extinction climbing every year. Raven poses the question of what we must contribute to be able to improve the world in the face of such stark challenges (2002).

The Interface website also offers a definition of sustainability that has gained at least general acceptance. It can be traced to 1987 United Nations Conference, and describes sustainability in the context of development: "Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." (Report of the Brundtland Commission, "Our Common Future," 1987, section 1). The Sustainability Store offers a host of recent definitions. Sustainability means:

Renewing resources at a rate equal to or greater than the rate at which they are consumed.

Creating an economic system that provides for quality of life while renewing the environment and its resources.

Living a life of dignity in harmony with nature (Aebi-Magee, 2010).

No matter which definition one selects there are commonalities among them, including an outward, future-facing focus. Perhaps that observation is the key to understanding sustainability, embracing a perspective that takes us outside ourselves in both time and space.

One of the more interesting perspectives on sustainability examines the global energy crisis within the context of human energy. Nicholls (2006) comments that in the face of the twenty-first century's prolonged and excessive stress, rapidly increasing rate of change, and 24/7 pressure, he believes that human energy is facing the very real risk of total burnout. He argues that we are burning human energy at a rate far in excess of our ability to generate new energy. He further points out that the signs are unmistakable in every workplace and community: stress-generated illness, road rage, crime and violence, depression, suicide, divorce and so on. Nicholls argues that the solution is involvement in activities about which one is passionate. He concludes that, by all means, let us develop greater global sustainability, but suggests that we make a pronounced effort to promote our passionate interests in order to sustain human energy.

PepsiCo provides a more traditional context in which to explore human sustainability. PepsiCo asserts on its website that, as an industry leader, they have a responsibility to help develop solutions to key global challenges, such as obesity. They focus on initiatives involving products they make, encouraging people to make informed choices and live healthier, and on key policies and partnerships to help address global nutrition challenges (PepsiCo, 2011).

This paper also reviewed sustainability from a marketing perspective. Whiteman (1999) describes how human behavior is influenced by a variety of communication media. She notes that companies and policy makers have increasingly turned to the deployment of spin doctors, i.e. propagandists, public relations experts, and marketers, to effectively project their message and market their side of the environmental debate. She voices concern that the messages of scientific experts can become overshadowed or manipulated. Whiteman therefore argues for the mobilization of marketing efforts among environmental scientists and academics. She makes the case for marketing for social and environmental change, which marketing shares the same fundamentals as the marketing of consumer packaged goods. Whiteman suggest the use of guerilla marketing tactics to promote a sustainability agenda.

The ability to advance sustainable human development is at least in part dependent on being able to set goals and track progress. The Global Footprint Network (2011) identifies two indicators that are useful for monitoring the human development initiative. The first indicator, ecological footprint data, reveal that given current population and available land area, an ecological footprint of less than 1.8 global hectares per person makes a country's resource demands globally replicable.

The other measurement, the United Nations' human development index (HDI) -- which measures a country's average achievements in the areas of health, knowledge, and standard of living -- tells us that an HDI higher than 0.8 is considered "high human development." Combining these two indicators produces clear minimum conditions for sustainable human development, and shows how much more progress needs to take place. In spite of growing commitments to sustainable development, most countries today do not meet both minimum requirements. As individuals, organizations, countries and regions work to advance sustainability and human development, decision makers need data and metrics to be able to set goals and track progress. Measures such as the ecological footprint and the HDI are critical to setting targets and managing development projects (Global Footprint Network, 2011).

Our investigation paper, Airlines Strict Policies: Beneficial or Not, also argues in favor of business sustainability. Even though many airlines have policies that frustrate and alienate customers, they cannot escape the very real limitations of customer satisfaction failures. As the competition for airline travel dollars gets fiercer, companies who cannot compete on the basis of providing a quality travel experience may well find themselves in a Darwinian selection quandary. This is an appropriate outcome, their customer-unfriendly service does not meet the requirements for a sustainable business model.