1.1. INTRODUCTION
The term sustainability appeared in the early 1970s as the rapid growth of the human race and the environmental degradation associated with increased consumption of resources raised concerns. Finding a way for consent between environment, advancement and well-being of the worldâs poor was discussed in the United Nationâs 1972 Stockholm Conference. âSustainable developmentâ was presented by Ward and Dubos (1972). Others argue that the notion is not necessarily modern: Gibson, Hassan, Holtz, Tansey, and Whitelaw (2010) imply that the concept of sustainability, as an old wisdom, has been around since the dawn of time in most communities. Conversely, the discussion surrounding the origins of the terms (i.e. sustainable development, sustainability) presents contrasting â at times contradicting â information found in the diverse and wide range of literature resources.
The definition of sustainability given by the Brundtland Commission, formally known as the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), was a turning point for government policy makers, scientists, politicians, sociologists and economists. âThe development that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needsâ (Brundtland, 1987) is a definition for sustainability that challenged the traditional ways of doing business, changed the interpretation of the word development, and helped scientists and practitioners to understand not only the environmental impacts but also the social and economic effects of projects as the human race interacts with its surroundings. The report also contains two key concepts: the concept of âneedsâ, in particular the essential needs of the worldâs poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organisation on the environmentâs ability to meet present and future needs.
Society, economy and the environment, as the three pillars of sustainability, pose three characteristics: independency, inter-relation/inter-connection and equality. Based on these characteristics, an alternative definition for sustainable development is stated as the path to balance social, economic and environmental needs. From a series of reports, including those resulting from the Rio Summit (UNCED, 1992), Mitchell, May, and McDonald (1995) identify four principles, underlining that developing in a sustainable manner goes beyond environmental aspects. These principles are: equity, futurity, environment and public participation. Collin and Collin (2010) state: âThe protection of the environment is at the forefront of sustainable development, and this can be accomplished only through collaborative decisions, increased regulations and each individual becoming a steward of the environment on a personal and global levelâ, which implies that a sustainable future is in the hands of all of us, and the responsibility is shared, not left to politicians and policy decision makers. Since that time, the importance of sustainable development has continued to grow, transforming and adapting according to the social, environmental, economic and geopolitical conditions in different jurisdictions. Sustainability has become a primary and essential area of concern for many politicians, academics and members of communities. A community of practice has also developed, as shown by bibliometric indicators such as annual conference proceedings, journal publications per year on sustainability, and university and college degrees and certificates offered around the world related to sustainability. In the past few decades, significant international conferences have taken place with a variety of objectives, such as finding sustainability assessment guidelines, forging agreements amongst governments, setting targets for sustainability and so on.
The growth of sustainable development will depend on advancing three elements of the assessment framework: unification of criteria; common definitions for guidelines, processes and methodologies; and adequate implementation of concepts to develop best practices. As sustainable development evolves, sustainable assessment will likely move towards more pro-active approaches, such as involving decision makers in the very early stages of projects that have sustainability targets.
Progress has been made in sustainability assessment. The number of tools, methodologies and processes for assessing sustainability is in the hundreds. Finding the appropriate assessment instrument is critical to match theory with practice, and to have successful outcomes in improving sustainability. Although the existing mechanisms for assessment offer useful alternatives for academics and practitioners, clear answers to questions remain to be found regarding what measures are important and how they can be quantified, especially for social and economic dimensions.
1.2. FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERIC APPROACHES AND FRAMEWORKS
Different approaches have been taken by practitioners and researchers to promote sustainability principles, particularly with respect to environmental issues, including energy consumption, pollution of different resources (terrestrial, aquatic and atmospheric), conservation of flora and fauna, and conservation of historical artefacts. Each of these approaches contributes to preservation of the environmental status quo; however, they only address one part of the problem. Peter S. Brandon and Patricia Lombardi (2011) identify a series of fundamental and generic approaches aimed at assisting sustainable development: the natural step, the concept of community capital, the ecological footprint, monetary (capital) approach, the driving force-state-response model, issues or theme-based frameworks, accounting frameworks and frameworks of assessment methods tool kits. Additionally, the authors propose a new holistic and integrated framework based on the Dooyeweerdâs Theory of the âCosmonomic Idea of Realityâ (Dooyeweerd, 1968, 1979). Other frameworks have also emerged and gained momentum; among others, the steady-state economy and circular economy, which has been refined and developed by the following schools of thought: cradle to cradle (C2C), natural capitalism, performance economy, biomimicry, blue economy, regenerative design and industrial ecology. And, more frameworks and approaches will continue to be developed as the concept and area of knowledge of sustainability is a dynamic evolving matter rather than static.
1.2.1. Steady-State Economy
The concept of steady-state economy considers the economy as an open sub-system of a finite and non-growing ecosystem, the natural environment (Daly, 1980, 2007). An economy in a steady state imports resources from nature that are transformed and manufactured into goods while pollution and waste are the throughput of the process (Daly, 1992). Nature provides two sources of wealth: mineral resources and solar energy. In the steady-state economy, recycling of material resources is possible only by using some energy resources and additional material resources, but energy resources cannot be recycled at all (Daly, 1980). Moreover, while mineral resources can be extracted at any chosen rate, solar energy is at a rate beyond human control; as a result, it is the mineral stock that constitutes the scarcity factor (Daly, 1992). With the aim of stopping and preventing further growth, the proponent of the steady-state economy framework, Herman Daly, considers it necessary to establish three institutions in addition to the current market economy: stabilise the population, correct inequality and stabilise the level of capital (Daly, 1980). While addressing that growth is at the centre of the steady-state economy, consumption (rate and exhaustion) of mineral resources is not prevented, but only postponed, as Daly (1980) points out, âa steady state economy cannot last forever, but neither can a growing economy or a declining economyâ. Consequently, Kotler (2015) states that Herman Daly and his ââecological economicsâ community have advocated that long-term sustainability requires the transition to a steady-state economy in which GDP remains more or less constantâ.
1.2.2. Circular Economy and Other Schools of Thought
The concept of circular economy evolved upon and encompasses principles from various schools of thought: C2C, natural capitalism, performance economy, biomimicry, blue economy, regenerative design and industrial ecology (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2015a). Figure 1.1 is a graphic representation of the outline of circular economy. According to the Ellen Macarthur Foundation, âthe circular economy concept has deep-rooted origins and cannot be traced back to one single date or authorâ. A circular economy (or economy in loops) or âself-replenishing economyâ is ârestorative and regenerative by designâ (Ellen Macarthur Foundation, 2015b; Stahel & Reday-Mulvey, 1982). The opposite of an open-ended economy that does not tend to recycle and treats the environment as a waste reservoir (Pearce & Turner, 1989), the circular economy considers that systems should work like organisms, processing biological or technical nutrients that can be fed back into...
