The push for sustainability assessment as a crucial instrument in advancing towards a more sustainable society is gaining momentum. The Western Australian State Sustainability Strategy (Consultation Draft) underscores its commitment to implementing comprehensive sustainability assessment processes in the region. Envisioning a future where “sustainability assessment forms the basis of all government decisions and is embedded into all levels of government activity” (Government of Western Australia 2002, p41), it reflects a pioneering approach. While still an emerging concept, effective examples of sustainability assessment processes implemented globally remain scarce.
This paradigm shift signals a transformative trajectory in governance methodologies, indicating a shift towards integrating sustainability considerations in decision-making across various government levels.
In this blog, we have discussed the Tripple Bottom Line Objectives Approach and the Principle-Based Approach for sustainability assessment.
Sustainability Assessment
The concept of ‘evaluating for sustainability’ suggests that sustainability represents a societal condition, or more pragmatically, a series of societal conditions characterised by specific attributes or circumstances outlined by sustainability criteria. In the words of Dr Karl-Henrik Robert from The Natural Step, “When the global society is sustainable, pollution will no longer increase, nature will no longer be impoverished through physical degradation, and within that frame, human needs will be met globally” (The Natural Step 2001, p10). The ‘assessment for sustainability’ process is undertaken to ascertain whether an initiative embodies these sustainability characteristics and aligns with the established sustainability criteria. The successful alignment would render the initiative sustainable.
The Triple Bottom Line Objectives Approach: A Critical Examination
In revisiting the triple bottom line (TBL) objectives-led integrated assessment approach for sustainability, this section explores its potential as a framework for evaluating conditions of sustainability. Initially introduced by Jenny Pope in 2003, this approach integrates environmental, social, and economic goals, aiming to ascertain whether it truly encapsulates the essence of sustainability.
1) Relationship between TBL Objectives and Sustainability:
The analysis begins by dissecting the connection between TBL objectives and sustainability. While the TBL approach views sustainability as the simultaneous achievement of environmental, social, and economic goals, an alternative perspective starts with the aspiration of sustainability as a societal state. Recent debates in Western Australia highlighted the need to incorporate principles of intra- and intergenerational equity to truly define sustainability, steering away from a simplistic view based solely on achieving TBL objectives.
2) Challenges of TBL Objectives-led Assessment:
Critically assessing the suitability of TBL objectives for sustainability evaluation, it’s imperative to acknowledge that a mere set of environmental, social, and economic goals doesn’t inherently define sustainability. The debate in Western Australia emphasized the importance of considering fundamental principles like meeting the basic needs of current and future generations, beyond a mere checklist of TBL objectives.
3) Limitations of TBL as a Concept:
Practical experiences, particularly in the UK, indicate challenges in developing a consistent set of TBL objectives that genuinely define sustainability. The TBL concept’s inherent difficulty lies in starting with separate considerations—environmental, social, and economic—and attempting to integrate them. This process often emphasizes competing interests, making integration challenging and promoting trade-offs, a concern voiced by sustainability scholars.
4) Reductionist Nature of TBL:
Moreover, the TBL approach can be seen as reductionist by dividing sustainability into three pillars, This reductionism runs the risk of oversimplifying the holistic concept of sustainability, especially if the interrelations between the pillars are not comprehensively understood. Critics argue that sustainability, reduced to separate factors, may fall short of embodying the holistic essence of the concept.
5) The Call for Alternative Approaches:
Considering the challenges and limitations outlined, it becomes evident that defining holistic sustainability from a TBL starting point is both difficult and possibly inappropriate. The reductionist nature, potential trade-offs, and the inability to grasp the interconnectedness of the three pillars underscore the need for alternative approaches, which will be explored in the subsequent section.
Thus, while TBL objectives-led assessment theoretically holds potential, its practical application reveals significant shortcomings. Alternative frameworks may offer more comprehensive and nuanced perspectives for assessing and defining sustainability.
Sustainability Assessment: Principles-Based Approaches
In response to the limitations of the triple bottom line (TBL) framework in defining sustainability for assessment purposes, several alternatives have been proposed. These alternatives focus on deriving sustainability criteria or conditions from principles, aiming to overcome the challenges associated with TBL goals. Three prominent principles-based approaches are discussed below:
1) Gibson’s Principles-Based Approach:
Gibson (2001) advocates a departure from the conventional TBL ‘three pillar’ approach and proposes a principles-based method. Unlike TBL, Gibson’s model starts by identifying key changes needed in human arrangements for long-term viability and well-being. Emphasizing interconnections over potential conflicts, this approach aims to address sustainability by aligning with fundamental changes rather than traditional categories. Gibson’s method aims to avoid the pitfalls of TBL, focusing on holistic sustainability rather than segmented goals.
2) Sadler’s Sustainability Principles:
Sadler (1999) explores the potential use of indicators to define sustainability criteria. He suggests establishing ‘benchmark principles’ robust enough to evaluate the sustainability contours of development proposals. Sadler’s approach includes both supply-side and demand-side strong sustainability principles. The supply-side principles focus on avoiding irreversible changes, minimizing impacts on critical resources, and conserving natural capital. The demand-side principles incorporate the precautionary principle in decision-making and address structural causes of ecological unsustainability.
3) George’s Sustainability Criteria:
George (1999, 2001) bases his sustainability criteria on the principles of intra- and intergenerational equity. His criteria include aspects such as community involvement, publication of planning documents, and compliance with international agreements. George distinguishes between strong and weak sustainability, applying the precautionary principle to determine which should be employed in specific cases. His criteria cover local, national, and global impacts, emphasizing the conservation of natural capital and intergenerational equity.
Proposed Sets of Principles-Based Sustainability Criteria:
George’s Sustainability Criteria (George 1999; 2001):
1) Local and regional intra-generational equity
2) National intra-generational equity
3) Trans-national intra-generational equity
4) Global intra-generational equity
5) Intergenerational equity
Sadler’s Sustainability Principles (Sadler 1999):
-
Supply-Side Principles:
1) Avoid irreversible changes.
2) No or minimal impact on critical resources and ecological functions.
3) No net loss or deterioration of natural capital.
4) Renewable resources deplete at a rate equal to regeneration.
5) Non-renewable resources depletion at a rate equal to replacement.
6) Waste emissions within environmental capacity.
7) Conserve biological diversity.
-
Demand-Side Principles:
1) Precaution in individual decisions
2) Address structural causes of ecological unsustainability.
The Natural Step System Conditions:
1) Substances from the earth’s crust must not systematically decrease in nature.
2) Substances produced by society must not systematically increase in nature.
4) The productivity and diversity of nature must not be systematically deteriorated.
5) Basic human needs must be met everywhere.
Principles-based sustainability assessment, as advocated by Gibson, Sadler, and George, offers an alternative to the TBL framework. These approaches emphasize interconnections, interdependencies, and key changes needed for long-term viability. While each approach has unique criteria, the common thread lies in the principles of intra- and intergenerational equity, providing a foundation for defining sustainability in diverse contexts. The practical application of these criteria involves a case-by-case analysis, considering potential impacts, significance, and acceptability thresholds to assess initiatives against sustainability principles. The development of assessment processes based on these criteria requires clear definitions of sustainability, acceptability limits, and context-specific considerations.
For more information, stay tuned to our website.
Recent Comments