A historical, scientific & systems theoretical clarification of the term and phenomenon

If you are familiar with Earth System Science (systems theory, ecosystem dynamics and basic thermodynamics) and you don't feel indoctrinated or confused by the numerous current attempts to define the sustainability agenda, you can probably go straight to the section on The 8 Sustainability Principles. Otherwise, I recommend reading the entire article, as I will begin by setting the scene in systems view of life and do a bit of brushing up on some of the history of the idea of sustainability.

By now, we all know that as a human civilisation we must be sustainable. Most of us also know that we are not, and we can't move fast enough to become so. It is urgent and paramount. This is true on an individual level, on a societal level, and on a global level. Therefore, we must undergo a sustainable transition across sectors and borders. This requires system transformation on an unprecedented scale, which calls not only for change management but for a different and more effective style of change management, based on a broader and deeper set of competencies than we have historically associated with the leadership task.

So, what "new" competencies are particularly relevant for leading an effective development towards true sustainability? We will explore that in a later article. However, one thing is certain and crucial: if we, as leaders, want to contribute effectively to sustainability, we must first and foremost have an operational, evidence-based and universal definition of sustainability that can be implemented in strategic processes and serve as right aim.

As Benjamin Franklin said;

"If you are failing to plan, you are planning to fail."

We need a strategy, and it primarily consists of well-defined and sufficient objectives, in the right sequence, with adequately ambitious timelines and realistic resource allocation.

What does it mean for objectives to be well-defined? Here, we have the well-known SMART Goals framework to help us establish well thought out targets, but this approach cannot help us ensure that we measure the right things. Identifying and establishing the right indicators first requires an understanding of the phenomenon to be measured. And we know how it works with goals and indicators in organisations. We get more of what we measure. Therefore, it is crucial that we measure the right things and not just measure the wrong things correctly. As Russell Ackoff rightly says:

"The righter we do the wrong thing, the wronger we become. When we make a mistake doing the wrong thing and correct it, we become wronger. When we make a mistake doing the right thing and correct it, we become righter. Therefore, it is better to do the right thing wrong than the wrong thing right. Most of our current problems are the result of policymakers and managers busting a gut to do the wrong thing right. Getting the right thing wrong is better than putting the wrong thing right."

Therefore, as leaders of sustainable development, we must begin with a humble curiosity about the phenomenon itself in a Socratic spirit. If we do not understand the phenomenon, we cannot grasp it; and without a concept of the phenomenon, we cannot work with it in a qualified manner that is consistent with how things truly connect.

For the phenomenon is real, very real! Regardless of how we think, talk or work with it, sustainability–and the lack thereof–are real phenomena in the world. Whether sustainability is present or not does not depend on political decisions, language or calculation methods, but on how we interact with the real world. The principles that govern the conditions for sustainability are unwavering natural laws, whether we understand and use them or not. The question is not whether sustainability and the lack thereof are real, but whether we have a genuine concept that corresponds with reality.

"The major problems in the world are the result of the difference between how nature works and the way people think." – Gregory Bateson

These connections are crucial–the close link between the precision of our concepts in relation to the state of reality. This is where social construction comes into play, not as a rejection of an ‘objective’ reality, but as an acknowledgment that we are social and communicative beings. We create meaning and opinions through language, stories, interactions, learning and imagination, and that these meaning-making processes are deeply influenced by our language.

Hence the social-constructionist mantra, ‘Words create worlds.’ This does not mean that we can say whatever we imagine and it will become real. Instead, it means that the words we use shape our thoughts, imagination and perception of what is possible. This, in turn, affects how we act in the world and how we interact with it, which again influences the co-creation of the world between cognitive actors and elements–within the laws of nature, of course. None of us can deny or escape these laws. Whether we understand them or not, we are subject to them, as are all processes on Earth, whether they occur in nature, society or technology. This is the limit of what can be socially constructed.

Significant Misunderstandings

The IPCC report from autumn 2022 was the first in the series that no longer debated whether climate change is real or human-made, but simply addressed data on whether we are succeeding in the transition towards sustainability. The overwhelming conclusion of the report was, unfortunately, disheartening: we are not. On the contrary, we are ‘maladapting,’ as the report put it. This means we are either doing the wrong things or doing the right things in the wrong way, or insufficiently. It indicates we are collectively off track, pointing to a significant leadership failure. This suggests that leaders are generally still not competent enough to make qualified decisions about what is actually needed to create effective sustainable development.

Whether sustainability is in your job description or you are "just" a citizen, sustainability is a concept you are increasingly confronted with and asked to relate to–especially as a leader. Whether you are a country person like me, who learned frugality and outdoor life from childhood, or you were born in the city and never have taken an animal's life, you must have also wondered why we seemingly can't figure out how to practise sustainability effectively, neither at the societal level, corporate level, nor at home.

It is clear that this is largely due to poorly designed and inadequate systems–no longer fit for purpose and definitely not fit for the future. But we are part of these out-of-date systems and their maintenance and reproduction. It is all of us who must redesign and change these systems, or at least take part in it to an extent that corresponds with our degree of influence. And all change, as we know, starts locally. So, if we are to succeed in becoming sustainable as a civilisation, we all have a role to play. We must all be part of the solution.

For our well-meaning local actions to amount to sustainability globally, it requires a reasonably common understanding of the phenomenon–otherwise, we cannot coordinate our actions and resources effectively. We risk working against each other. So far, we must, unfortunately, conclude that this is an unfortunate but widespread circumstance–in spite of good intentions.

When I am asked, Why are we not succeeding with sustainability? - Why haven't we come further? - Why are our leaders failing? - Why aren't our leaders more skilled? - Why does there seem to be so much incompetence? - The abundance of answers line up. But when you look past the obvious ones, like vested interests, cultural differences, paradigm dogmas, political ideology, power incentives, corruption, analysis paralysis, and the overwhelm related to the degree of complexity–well, then it is clear that widespread misinformation and misunderstandings bear an extraordinarily large part of the blame.

We could also call this the knowledge gap. Along with the skill gap, the will gap, the ethical gap, the technology gap and the resource gap, the knowledge gap goes a long way in explaining the reasons for our failures. And the knowledge gap may even be the central factor that informs the other factors.

If we want to avoid failing in the future, we must humbly relate to history and go about things differently from how we have done in the past. We must also clarify some widespread misunderstandings. We must start by bridging the knowledge gap. Therefore, I will now attempt a relatively brief outline of some significant misunderstandings, issues, and inadequacies regarding some crucial points in recent history, since the sustainability movement took shape and gained momentum around the UN's first Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972:

The Club of Rome published Limits to Growth on a Finite Planet in 1972 after the research group's formation in 1958. This was the first time science seriously questioned the possibility of continued (material) growth on a physically bounded planet. Since then, economic ideas about degrowth, prosperity without growth, and ecological economics have emerged.

The misunderstanding in this context has been the idea that we lack knowledge or data to act appropriately in relation to climate change and the sustainability crisis. This is, and has not been, the case.

In this publication, the researchers projected a series of scenarios based on data regarding greenhouse gas emissions from industry and society. The scenario they deemed most likely does not significantly differ from the development we have witnessed and the course we are currently on. This misunderstanding has been fuelled and maintained by an effective and well-financed oil lobby, which has systematically employed "researchers" to spread "fake news" and publicly contradict the growing body of evidence that has continuously shown human-caused climate change as a consequence of greenhouse gas emissions in society. This misinformation tactic has misled and delayed qualified action on climate for over 40 years.

Moreover, even if there were a lack of knowledge, it would not be an excuse to delay action on climate change. When dealing with such extensive and potentially catastrophic issues as the climate crisis, one should (especially as a leader) always act based on the precautionary principle. This principle dictates that if there is doubt about the situation, one should act in the least risky way and therefore proactively–better sooner than later, and better overdo safety measures than minimise them. The precautionary principle reverses the burden of proof, so you do not need data to prove danger in order to be cautious. A lack of data, in itself, is a reason to act cautiously. Better safe than sorry.

The exact origins of the precautionary principles are debated, but as a political concept, it too originated in Sweden where a domestic statute (the Environmental Protection Act of 1969) introduced the concept of environmentally hazardous activities for which the burden of proof was reversed.

The Brundtland Report, also known as Our Common Future, was published by the UN in 1987 and introduced the much-criticised, yet widely adopted political agenda of "sustainable development." The report contains a very famous quote that has been used repeatedly across sectors and countries to define sustainability: "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs."

The commendable aspect of this statement is its long-term perspective and noble intention. However, the misunderstanding in this context is the belief that this sentence can serve as an operational and universal definition of sustainability. It cannot. At best, it describes the core criterion for the process of sustainable development, which is quite different from defining sustainability as a phenomenon.

Nonetheless, it is often used as a definition of sustainability. As such, we must at least acknowledge that it is a very abstract description in the form of a political statement of intent. Or perhaps a philosophical definition of sustainability.

Such an abstract description requires a great deal of translation work to be applied in local situations, not to mention the operationalisation in business strategies and specific contexts. Here, a significant divergence is introduced between individual cases regarding their interpretation and implementation, which will be guided by the values and meaning-making factors prevailing in the culture of the present forum. This Brundtland description is very open to these various (often convenient) interpretations.

The Paris Agreement in 2015 resulted in us finally getting something operational and not abstract. We acquired a measurement system (the 17 overarching Sustainable Development Goals and 231 specific indicators) for sustainable development across nations. This was a long-awaited and necessary concretisation (in the form of a translation) of the declaration of intent in the Brundtland Report. There is much to commend about the mobilisation that the SDGs have helped to create, but here I will focus on a few shortcomings and some misuse.

The misunderstanding associated with the SDGs relates to a category confusion, where this measurement system is often used as a definition of sustainability as a phenomenon. It is not. It is an indicator system or goal system, if you will. It is "just" seventeen, albeit very significant, goals that could be agreed upon politically. They stem from a diplomatic process (informed by science) rather than a scientific process.

And as a measurement system, they are often misused. For example, they were developed for nations and state administrations, not for business strategies, where they are often applied. Here, a lot of cherry-picking combined with greenwashing typically takes place, where a company selects 1-3 different SDGs, initiates a few often quite limited in scope CSR projects, and exaggerates their impact to create the appearance that sustainability permeates everything they do. Then they claim to be sustainable or to be doing what they can to become sustainable.

No, be cautious here–sustainable development is not a communications exercise. There is a long way from starting a limited development effort with sustainability to designing and implementing a completely sustainable business model. Likewise, there is a considerable distance to travel from having realised a sustainable business model to achieving a fully sustainable company.

There is thus a difference between being in sustainable development–that is, on the way to sustainability–and actually being sustainable. Doing less bad rarely means doing good–let alone doing enough. This is a difference that makes a difference. Being on the way can be far from the goal.

Finally, it is overall not possible to make a complete and comprehensive definition of sustainability by merely setting goals. It simply cannot be done to capture such a complex phenomenon as sustainability in a "positive description"–by which I mean, by establishing what we need to achieve. Why not? Because the list of goals and associated measures is nearly endless. We will not have achieved sustainability even if all organisations and societies in all countries lived up to the 17 SDGs.

In fact, we would likely still be far away from achieving sustainability. The list of 17 goals is far from complete; it simply represents what could be agreed upon politically. Hence, it also contains internal inconsistencies in terms of setting a coherent direction.

Most recently (from this year), the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is being rolled out as a regulatory requirement within the EU, effective for most larger companies. It offers a framework for reporting on sustainability that involves a double materiality analysis in relation to what they call the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS)–a set of ESG areas relevant to sustainability combined with general requirements and principles of reporting.

The good thing about the CSRD is that it finally offers a standard for how to report on sustainability, providing a framework of relevant topic areas within which to conduct the double materiality analysis. This analysis serves as a kind of two-way impact assessment: the impact of the (changing) environment on the company's financial performance and the impact of the company's operations on the changing environment. The ESG framework nestled within the ESRS is likely to become the default standard for how we conceptualise and communicate sustainability in the future. It is beneficial that we have a shared approach to this.

The misunderstanding and shortcoming regarding the CSRD is that the ESRS framework, like most ESG performance and indicator systems, simply consists of a set of topic areas. These areas are overwhelmingly good and nearly cover the environmental aspects of sustainability, but not completely. When it comes to the social aspects of sustainability, quite a few elements and perspectives are missing. Additionally, that framework offers no boundary conditions, thresholds or limits to rein in the level of impact across the different ESG topics. It largely depends on the self-assessment by the companies themselves in terms of identifying and evaluating the degree of relevance and significance of the various impacts. This can lead to cherry picking and highlighting good performance while less favourable performance may be kept out of the limelight by being deemed less relevant.

So while there are shared standards for topics and form, there are still no shared standards for thresholds, which is really what we need. Once again, we have a comprehensive yet incomplete system for conceptualising, measuring, communicating and understanding the full scope of sustainability. As such, the CSRD and ESRS does not work as a valid definition of sustainability.

To achieve a complete definition of sustainability that is universal, operational, and evidence-based, we must approach it differently. It starts with the systemic perspective.

The Systemic Perspective

It is often the case that even a professional and strategic dialogue about sustainability starts with the question: "What is sustainability to you?" Here, the process is already off track. Although the question is undoubtedly well-intentioned and positively contributes to facilitating emotional involvement and broadening ownership of the process and agenda, something inappropriate occurs when we start with the individual, who often is not an expert on sustainability. We subjectivise it, and we relativise it. Too often, we allow each other to be entitled to our own opinions and conceptualisations about what sustainability is. While each of us is undoubtedly the only expert on what constitutes sustainability in our lives, this perspective is not the most relevant when we talk about the strategic management of businesses changes towards sustainability or transition governance of system changes towards sustainability at the societal level.

Admittedly, society is made up of individuals, and change can grow from the bottom up. However, that does not mean it is the most effective or qualified approach when we face a serious, technical, urgent, and complex challenge like the sustainability crisis. In Denmark, we have a fine democratic tradition where everyone can be heard, and everyone often has an opinion about most things. But when we ask individuals for opinions on complicated areas where experts with more qualified insights actually exist, we do not only delay the process; it often leads to less qualified decisions and resulting resource waste and inadequate or insufficient results.

This often leads to unwanted spill-over effects. By subjectivising and relativising the phenomenon, we often reduce (oversimplify) and fragment it. At best, this leads to an incomplete picture, but it often brings about downright misunderstandings. We all have blind spots in our thinking and perception. As individuals and cultures, we become blind to our blind spots. This reinforces biases and strengthens a certain focus while washing out the whole picture.

Simplification may be necessary, but oversimplification leads to reductionism, which in turn leads to suboptimisation. A good example of this is when we reduce sustainability to being primarily about climate change, and then again reduce climate change to being only about managing CO2 emissions, and then reduce that to being about the transport sector. I also call this the Carbon Tunnel Vision Syndrome.

For too long, we have allowed different sectors, businesses, and individuals to have their own take on what sustainability is, and each time, it is equivalent to reinventing the wheel in a poorer version that is not quite round and is full of holes. This is because we have politicised something that is actually scientifically and universally necessary for life on Earth. Something that is ancient wisdom has been turned into a matter of opinion, whose relevance can be debated and whose priority can be neglected. This is misguided social construction.

What we need is a recognition of the necessity of a complete, universal, evidence-based, and operational definition of sustainability that corresponds with the actual phenomenon. A definition that is so simple that we can all understand it, remember it, and work with it in effective cooperation. One common definition for our one common planet.

This should actually be quite logical. Scientifically, Earth is indeed one interconnected system. Therefore, we should understand and work with sustainability for the whole system. Thus, sustainability as a scientific phenomenon is the same for everyone on Earth, regardless of industry, nationality, or religion. Sustainability is a real phenomenon in the world; therefore we approach it best scientifically.

This is what the discipline and research area of Earth System Science is all about, and we would do well by each other and our shared home if we all took a bit of time to understand the basics of Earth System Science, taught it in primary school and constituted it in our laws and regulations.

That said, there must certainly be room (in an informal or private setting) to discuss what sustainability is for the individual, but it may not be the most appropriate conversation in the workplace–at least not in a strategic context. It is certainly important for the individual leader and the quality of their leadership that their practice and existence are sustainable–in the sense that the practice is competent enough to endure over time. And that the individual human being leads a life that is healthy and balanced enough to be resilient over time.

Every leader knows that there is often a lack of support and recognition for leaders, while cross-pressures, stress, and competition are everyday elements. No doubt, leaders need psychological, emotional, and physical health to continue being (good) leaders. However, this individual form of "sustainability" I prefer to refer to as “The Art of Living" or “Livingability”–precisely to avoid muddying the picture, allowing us to create a distinction and reserve the term "sustainability" as a more "objective" term that describes a particular state in a living system (which the human body and the individual can be part of). Thus, I do not use it to describe a subjective experience or a condition at the individual level. This distinction is very useful (if not crucial) when we want to develop sustainability in society at large.

Before we then define sustainability at the system level, we need to understand Earth as a system composed of subsystems.

But what exactly is a system?

A system is, in short, any defined domain where actors/agents can be identified, who have relationships and interact within some form of boundary/barrier (which can be more or less permeable or more or less physical).

We can thus define systems by drawing boundaries both within and across "the physical world" (biosphere), "the social world" (sociosphere), and "the technical world” (technosphere)– the three major sub-systems of the Earth system. Naturally, in reality, there is only one interconnected world, so these linguistic distinctions are often imprecise, although they can be helpful.

A good boundary drawing corresponds to a significant and relevant distinction in reality. In systems theory, "the three worlds" are described as three domains or spheres that are best understood as nested subsystems in a natural hierarchy. Although they are interconnected, and all systems are subject to the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry, it is important (especially in a change management perspective) to create a distinction because the evolutionary processes and factors for change in the three subsystems are different.

It can be helpful to note that the biosphere and sociosphere constitute living systems, where biological processes are of crucial importance, while the technosphere is, to some extent, freed from this. Furthermore, it is worth noting that everything in the technosphere (including the economic system) is man-made (the definition of technology–it is everything we have created) and, therefore, a product of social construction.

This means that everything in the technosphere could be different. It could be, or could have been, redesigned if the creators and re-creators decided so. Therefore, almost everything in the technosphere can also be optimised, which is significant when we talk about sustainable development and transition. The same does not apply to the biosphere, where most things are already quite optimised through 3.8 billion years of evolution (context-specific iteration over generations).

We can, therefore, look at the biological solutions in nature as a gene-based database of solutions that work optimally on Earth. Nature does not produce waste but breaks down and reuses all resources efficiently. We believe we have an efficient economy, but we are far from it. We have what Herman Daly called uneconomic growth. Our economy is, at best, efficient at consuming and wasting resources or locking them in synthetic materials in the technosphere, which cannot be broken down and reintegrated into the ecological cycles. The market economy is effective at maximising financial profit within existing constraints. The issue is that constraints on the market are too loose and misguided–evident since it is profitable to be unsustainable, or possible to be profitable and unsustainable at the same time. A well-designed economic system would ensure that it would only be possible to be profitable if you were sustainable.

In other words, profitability needs to be tied closer to socio-environmental sustainability. If we had an efficient societal economy, it would function like the economy in nature does–it would be an ecological economy–that is what "circular economy" is about–but we will save that for another article.

*Model by Mikkel Pilgaard inspired by the works of Fritjof Capra, Bruno Latour, Tomas Björkman & Herman Daly amongst others.*

Unsustainability & The Sustainability Challenge

We need to go through some of the most crucial cycles on Earth to get an idea of the dynamics and processes in the system and the challenges associated with them. All cycles in the biosphere (which is the sphere on the Earth's surface where there is life) are driven by the sun. The sun's energy is primarily absorbed by plants through photosynthesis in the green chloroplasts in the leaves, which capture CO2 from the atmosphere and water from the soil, and combine this via photosynthesis to create glucose–a sugar substance that is the primary energy source for all living beings.

Plants manage to more or less create energy out of light and thin air, just with the addition of some water, which can drive protein synthesis and cell division, turning the sugar into protein and fat–nutrients and energy sources for herbivores and omnivores. Animals then digest and excrete the excess biological mass, which is broken down in the soil by fungi and bacteria, serving as nutrients for new plants to grow. Some of this organic biomass sediments over time and becomes crude oil under pressure in the subsoil. This cycle just keeps going; it is regenerative, ingenius, and crucial for all life.

Some predators regulate other herbivores in the ecosystem so that they do not consume all the plants. They hunt the herbivores until the population of herbivores (and thereby the predators' food source) in the ecosystem becomes too small, and then the predators begin to die from a lack of food. Subsequently, the herbivore population grows again, providing a food source for predators, whose population then grows again. Thus, most ecosystems self-regulate in cycles, creating a dynamic balance over time.

All animals help shape ecosystems by influencing and co-designing their niches, but we humans have a unique ability (the basis for this lies beyond the scope of this article) to be system architects to a degree where, through the use of imagination and natural resources, we have been able to create technologies and tools that have allowed us to build a society that, through the expansion of the technosphere, has become a civilisation–a huge social system within the biosphere.

Although our civilisation is clearly dependent on the biosphere's natural resources, we have now reached a point where the technosphere has grown so large that all man-made materials now weigh more than all the biomass (all living things) on Earth. Among other things, this is why our current geological period (the Anthropocene epoch) is named after us humans–the species that is now the largest factor for Earth's fate.

The technosphere has grown exponentially since industrialisation. The primary driver of this tremendous development has been fossil fuels, which we have extracted from the subsoil and burned in engines to drive energy turbines, vehicles, and production machinery in an intensive agricultural and production apparatus. This has, in addition to pollution and waste, released greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, creating a barrier that retains more and more of the solar radiation from the Earth's surface–radiation that would otherwise flow out of the atmosphere and balance the temperature in the biosphere.

Instead, we now have a rising temperature, as the energy entering the biosphere from the sun cannot escape quickly enough, while new energy is constantly being added from the sun. Additionally, there is heat from the combustion of fossil energy sources (as it is an exothermic reaction) and human activity. Thus, heat upon heat under an increasingly tighter lid. The result is that the Earth is now a system condensed with too much energy and activity–well on its way to overheating. This leads not only to climate change and ecosystem collapse but also to burnout, stress, and well-being epidemics in social systems.

The primary unsustainable dynamic at play in our time is that more and more people are demanding and consuming more and more natural resources, and we are doing it at a pace where ecosystems cannot regenerate the natural resources quickly enough to keep up with consumption. As a result, fewer and fewer natural resources are available, while the ecosystem services we benefit from are being disrupted or declining in capacity. Overall, this creates a smaller and smaller operating space for human civilisation, and this contraction leads us into a funnel where the space of possibilities in the future becomes narrower.

It is akin to constantly withdrawing more from the account than we generate in income, and this "degenerative development" cannot continue. The longer we wait, the more pressured we become. For businesses especially, it is a race of attrition that is already well underway. If we want to survive and be part of the future (as individuals, nations, institutions, and businesses), we must adapt in time to be able to operate and live within the limits of the funnel–reducing our consumption so that it does not exceed the Earth's carrying capacity. Then we can achieve a sustainable situation–a dynamic equilibrium where income and expenses match.

It is a given that some nations and organisations must compensate for others that do not fully succeed in balancing their accounts. After this, a regenerative development can begin, where we can build resources and create real wealth with more than enough for everyone–a lush and diverse life can thrive and grow on Earth far into the future.

Often, the sustainable transition is talked about as a necessary evil, and the sustainable future is painted as an undesirable scenario full of deficiencies and deprivations, where we can no longer eat steaks and drive fun cars. However, the reality is that sustainable development is an opportunity–not just to survive but to create the world we long for–full of everything we really want, such as cleaner and healthier environments and workplaces; peace, security, and more free time; abundant healthy food and clean drinking water; justice and meaningful work; less suffering and stress as well as a social contract for supply security across generations.

Model by Mikkel Pilgaard inspired by Paul Hawken and adapted from a model by Professor Karl-Henrik Robért at BTH & The Natural Step and another model from Christian Daniel Wahl - the latter originally adapted from Ethan Roland (2018) and inspired by work of Bill Reed (2006).

Naturally, we cannot become sustainable and create that world overnight. But we can start with the important first steps in the right direction. Steering development toward this outlined vision will not happen by chance. If we are to succeed in reaching the goal, we must first and foremost have the right course and, at a minimum, ensure real sustainability at the system level across societies and nations–for the entire biosphere, the entire Earth. This requires more than just a sense of where we are going together; it requires a clear direction and a sufficiently clear destination. We must, as leaders, be able to set a course toward a vision and a series of supporting objectives that are framed by an evidence-based definition of sustainability.

Model by Mikkel Pilgaard w. inspiration from Paul Hawken from a model by Professors Karl-Henrik Robèrt and Gōran Broman at BTH & The Natural Step and another model from Christian Daniel Wahl - the latter originally adapted from Ethan Roland (2018) and inspired by work of Bill Reed (2006).

The 8 Sustainability Principles

The only universal and evidence-based definition for sustainability that exists is based on the system understanding described above. It is a consensus achieved through over 30 years of research and practice across sectors and disciplines. It is part of the FSSD (Framework for Strategic Sustainable Development) toolkit and is better known as The Natural Step, which is the name of the global NGO working to spread the knowledge and use of this definition.

The scientific definition of sustainability is broadly that a system is sustainable if it is resilient over time. This means the system must possess adaptive capacity–its ability to adapt to changes. This applies to both ecosystems and social systems. However, for the definition to be operational, we need to be more specific about what it means for ecosystems and social systems to possess adaptive capacity. In the scientific process, one always seeks to approximate the most complete and simultaneously minimal description when defining a phenomenon. When it comes to the phenomenon of sustainability, it is a negative definition; that is, a definition indicating what we should not do rather than what we should do.

It turns out that there are only three ways we can undermine the adaptive capacity in ecosystems, while there are just five ways we can undermine the adaptive capacity in social systems. Thus, the most precise and complete description of sustainability is a negative definition based on eight sustainability principles that we must respect if we want to achieve sustainability at the system level. Each principle has a theme and a description of the criteria for when a system respects the principle.

*Model adapted by Mikkel Pilgaard from the works of professor Karl-Henrik Robèrt at BTH & The Natural Step.*

Science states that a living system is sustainable if it is resilient over time. To be resilient over time, a system must possess adaptive capacity–the ability to adapt to changes over time. This applies when all eight sustainability principles are respected simultaneously–or rather, when none of them are systematically violated.

*Model adapted by Mikkel Pilgaard from the works of Ph.D. Merlina Missimer, Professor Gōran Broman & Professor Karl-Henrik Robèrt at BTH.*

Organisations are complex socio-technical systems that influence and depend on ecosystems. Therefore, an organisational system (company or society) is sustainable if it (and its products and value chains) respects all eight sustainability principles all around, all the time–throughout its entire lifetime. This is also what we call a lifecycle perspective. If one or more principles are violated somewhere in the organisation, in the product's lifecycle, or in the value chain, then it is not yet sustainable–if it happens systematically, as a consequence of structures. If it happens occasionally, as an accident to a lesser extent, the system can still be sustainable over time because it is the persistent and thus systematic undermining of living systems' adaptive capacity that creates unsustainability. For a system to systematically violate a sustainability principle means that the measure causing the violation of the principle must be culturally institutionalised or structurally installed and not occur as an exception.

*Model by Mikkel Pilgaard adapted from the works of Ph.D. Merlina Missimer, Professor Gōran Broman & Professor Karl-Henrik Robèrt at BTH.*

A dear child has many names

As should now be apparent, understanding unsustainability helps us understand what sustainability is and how we can create sustainable systems. For a sustainable system is simply one that is not unsustainable – one that does not undermine the adaptive capacity that ensures resilience over time. Adaptive capacity is just another word for regenerativity; for when we respect the eight sustainability principles, we make way for the natural regenerative processes to flow freely in both ecosystems and social systems. Healthy systems regenerate themselves over time through a circular economy – that is what living systems do when they are not undermined.

Thus, sustainability, regenerativity, circularity, and health are four sides of the same coin – life on planet Earth. That is what it is about. Sustainability is the phenomenon; regenerativity is the process; circularity is the pattern, and health is both the condition and the reward. Therefore, it is unfortunate to talk about these concepts as different or conflicting – they are rather each other's prerequisites. But in a development perspective and especially in a management perspective, we are best served by having an operational, universal, and evidence-based definition for the overall phenomenon we want to contribute to and achieve.

This is what I have argued for in this article. I hope it is now clear to you–and you have you have now been handed over the eight sustainability principles, which you can apply both descriptively and prescriptively. As definition, for analysis, as success criteria, design specifications, and boundary conditions for vision and goals, as well as for qualifying decisions, follow-up, and progress indicators. It is now up to you to translate them into practice so that the systems you are part of can create real value on the bottom line – in a broad and long term perspective.

Practical integration

So, how do you more specifically work with this definition of sustainability (The 8 SP’s as boundary conditions) in practicality? - how do we operationalize effectively? - Well, you can do so in several and quite simple ways (not necessarily meaning easy). For example:

You can and should use the principles as a pair of octagonal glasses to analyse society and its components and evaluate whether processes, services, structures, and products are sustainable.

You can and should apply the principles as design criteria in innovation processes and in product and service development, or as specifications and requirements for delivery towards subcontractors.
You can and should use them as an outer frame for strategic processes, where they can define vision, mission, and goals as well as concrete initiatives and actions.

And there are many more possibilities. It is just a matter of getting started.

Exactly how they are best applied in (design and management) praxis, I unfold in several of my other existing articles and coming ones - all of which you will also be able to find here on our Knowledge Hub page.

If you want sparring, references, or advice on this, you are very welcome to contact me at mikkel@estuary.agency. Likewise, if you have additions, criticism, and/or contributions to the subject area, I am always in the process of collecting data and developing theories, tools, models, and narratives. In this context, I am very happy to hear your constructive feedback, experience, or knowledge.

I am always happy to share my experiences, methods, and knowledge on the journey towards our most significant shared mission of this century. So please don’t hesitate to get in touch, and let’s explore potentials and opportunities together. We each have a role to play, and our success depends on collaboration – and time is of the essence.

“The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The next best time is today.” — Chinese proverb.

May the wind be in your back and the sun in your face…

Written by

What is sustainability, actually?