What Happened to the ‘Development’ in Sustainable Development? Business Guidelines Two Decades After Brundtland

Over twenty years ago ‘Our Common Future’ presented a conceptualization and explanation of the concept of sustainable development. Since then numerous alternative definitions of the concept have been offered, of which at least some are exclusive to each other. At the same time, the role of business in the transition to sustainable development has increasingly received attention. Bringing these two trends in sustainable development together, this paper returns to the Brundtland version of the concept to examine to what extent the original principles of sustainable development are still embedded within key business guidelines, namely the UN Global Compact, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the ICC Business Charter for Sustainable Development, the CAUX Principles, the Global Sullivan Principles and the CERES Principles. The findings suggest that these business guidelines tend to emphasize environmental rather than social aspects of sustainable development, in particular to the detriment of the original Brundtland prioritization of the needs of the poorest. Furthermore, the attention to environmental aspects stresses win-win situations and has a clear managerialist focus; whereas more conceptual environmental issues concerning systems interdependencies, critical thresholds or systemic limits to growth find little attention. The normative codes and principles targeted at the private sector thus not only add another voice to the multiple discourses on sustainable development but also contribute to a reinterpretation of the original agenda set by Brundtland towards conceptualizations of sustainable development around the needs of industrialised rather than developing countries. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Evidence and Spatial Planning for Sustainable Development: A Model for Spatially Allocating Material Flows

The aspiration the spatial planning should act as the main coordinating function for the transition to a sustainable society is grounded on the assumption that it is capable of incorporating both a strong evidence base of environmental accounting for policy, coupled with opportunities for open, deliberative decision-making. While there are a number of increasingly sophisticated methods (such as material flow analysis and ecological footprinting) that can be used to longitudinally determine the impact of policy, there are fewer that can provide a robust spatial assessment of sustainability policy. In this paper, we introduce the Spatial Allocation of Material Flow Analysis (SAMFA) model, which uses the concept of socio-economic metabolism to extrapolate the impact of local consumption patterns that may occur as a result of the local spatial planning process at multiple spatial levels. The initial application the SAMFA model is based on County Kildare in the Republic of Ireland, through spatial temporal simulation and visualisation of construction material flows and associated energy use in the housing sector. Thus, while we focus on an Ireland case study, the model is applicable to spatial planning and sustainability research more generally. Through the development and evaluation of alternative scenarios, the model appears to be successful in its prediction of the cumulative resource and energy impacts arising from consumption and development patterns. This leads to some important insights in relation to the differential spatial distribution of disaggregated allocation of material balance and energy use, for example that rural areas have greater resource accumulation (and are therefore in a sense “less sustainable”) than urban areas, confirming that rural housing in Ireland is both more material and energy intensive. This therefore has the potential to identify hotspots of higher material and energy use, which can be addressed through targeted planning initiatives or focussed community engagement. Furthermore, due to the ability of the model to allow manipulation of different policy criteria (increased density, urban conservation etc), it can also act as an effective basis for multi-stakeholder engagement.

Environmental Education and Education for Sustainable Development

This article attempts a broad characterization of environmental education (EE) and education for sustainable development (ESD), and includes a short overview of the history of the field, key debates, the main approaches to ESD and EE, and a look toward the future. However, such a brief account should not be considered to be fully comprehensive, and can only be considered to provide a broad overview of the field from the authors’ perspectives

Promoting Dignity for All: Human Rights Approaches in the Post-2015 Climate Change, Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Frameworks

This article takes as its starting point the potentially negative human rights implications that the effects of climate change, disasters and development practices can have on individuals and communities. It argues that key international instruments, including the post-2015 successors to the Kyoto Protocol, Hyogo Framework for Action on disaster risk reduction and the Millennium Development Goals, appear to be moving towards an express acknowledgment of the relevance of international human rights law as an important mechanism to minimise potential harms that may arise. This raises the question as to the appropriate role of the UN human rights monitoring and accountability mechanisms in identifying the relevant rights-holders and duty-bearers. The article therefore provides an examination of the linkages between climate change and international human rights law, as well as discussion of the human rights considerations and accountability mechanisms for disasters and sustainable development. The article concludes by arguing that despite differential understandings between disciplines as to the meaning of key terms such as ‘vulnerability’ and ‘resilience’, international human rights law provides a comprehensive basis for promoting international and national accountability. It follows that a greater level of coordination and coherence between the human rights approaches of the various post-2015 legal and policy frameworks is warranted as a means of promoting the dignity of those most affected by climate change, disasters and developmental activities.

Sustainable Technoscientific Development and the Innovator Citizen

Sustainable development could provide a critical foil for individual
and especially collective reflection on the normative
direction, ends and means employed by societies, particularly
around the economy, its technology and resource-intensive
orientation and configuration with ecosystems. However,
although sustainable development is a constitutional objective
of the EU, its implementation in strategies and policies reveals
a much narrower meaning. By framing sustainable development
as ecological modernisation on the basis of technoscientific
innovation, and by imagining citizens as entrepreneurs in a
knowledge-based European economy, openings for democratic
experimentation and social innovation are limited and even
forestalled. In addition, the disruptive and transformational
potential of citizenship is stymied. Still, sustainable development
has resonance within citizenship and human rights
discourses that provide important resources for the fashioning
of common understanding. These are valuable supplements to
the repertoire of European citizenship that could help to embed
sustainable development in the social fabric and generate
alternative imaginaries and futures of a sustainable Europe.

The Cost of Sustainability Capital and the Creation of Sustainable Value by Companies

We develop and apply a valuation methodology to calculate the cost of sustainability capital, and, eventually, sustainable value creation of companies. Sustainable development posits that decisions must take into account all forms of capital rather than just economic capital. We develop a methodology that allows calculation of the costs that are associated with the use of different forms of capital. Our methodology borrows the idea from financial economics that the return on capital has to cover the cost of capital. Capital costs are determined as opportunity costs, that is, the forgone returns that would have been created by alternative investments. We apply and extend the logic of opportunity costs to the valuation not only of economic capital but also of other forms of capital. This allows (a) integrated analysis of use of different forms of capital based on a value-based aggregation of different forms of capital, (b) determination of the opportunity cost of a bundle of different forms of capital used in a company, called cost of sustainability capital, (c) calculation of sustainability efficiency of companies, and (d) calculation of sustainable value creation, that is, the value above the cost of sustainability capital. By expanding the well-established logic of the valuation of economic capital in financial markets to cover other forms of capital, we provide a methodology that allows determination of the most efficient allocation of sustainability capital for sustainable value creation in companies. We demonstrate the practicability of the methodology by the valuation of the sustainability performance of British Petroleum (BP).