Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Delimitating Sustainability and Its Dimensions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mapping Sustainability Measurement

Part of the book series: Sustainable Development Goals Series ((SDGS))

  • 85 Accesses

Abstract

The definition of sustainability provided by the Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) constitutes the starting point of the underlying analysis. In so doing, we adhere to a pragmatic view of sustainability, in which people and their socio-economic well-being, pursued in harmony with the natural environment, stay at the centre. In this view, we recognize the existence of interdependences between the three dimensions, without any strict judgement on any kind of hierarchical relationship between them. The latter is subject to a normative assessment—which we deem to avoid.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The earliest references to the concept of sustainable development date back to the beginning of the eighteenth century. At that time, it was referred to assuring forestry sustainability (Mannan, 2012).

  2. 2.

    We treat the term “sustainability” as synonym of “sustainable development”, although we are aware of some distinct features staying behind both, as discussed, e.g., in Dresner (2002), Purvis et al. (2019).

  3. 3.

    The approach adopted here is in line with the anthropocentric perspective of sustainability, according to which the needs and wants of people are central. This is in contrast with the ecocentric view, which places the natural environment at the centre and subordinates both economic and social aspects to it (Toman, 1994).

  4. 4.

    There are also attempts to extend this setting to render it four- or even five-dimensional, by referring to cultural, political, or institutional aspects (Clement et al., 2014; Spangenberg et al., 2002; Turcu 2012). Moreover, the three dimensions are sometimes dubbed with alternative concepts. For instance, some experts refer to the three Ps of people, planet, and profit, with profit being also sometimes replaced by prosperity (European Commission, 2002; Seghezzo, 2009). Finally, the term “dimensions” is often interchangeably used with “pillars”, “components”, “stool legs”, and “perspectives” (Purvis et al., 2019).

  5. 5.

    The three dimensions of the triple bottom line are often—especially in the corporate context—referred to as profit, people, and planet (Elkington, 1998). However, there are variations of the framework that use different dimensions or emphasize different aspects of sustainability.

  6. 6.

    For an in-depth analysis of trade-offs in the field of corporate sustainability, see, for example, Hahn et al. (2010), Haffar and Searcy (2017), Hahn et al. (2018).

  7. 7.

    The term “governance” is typically used in a broader setting to refer to all kinds of activities of governments as well as processes regulating societal interactions (Meadowcroft et al., 2005). This approach underlines the close links between economic sustainability understanding at all levels of aggregation, going from the global to the individual level.

  8. 8.

    As mentioned, there are different competing views on social sustainability. They may diverge in some aspects from the one adopted here, which is, however, based on a broad screening of the relevant literature. For example, Barbier and Burgess (2021) classify issues of equity and reduced poverty under the economic dimension, which instead fall under social dimension in the approach adopted here. The social dimension includes the goals of social justice, good governance, and social stability, which strongly overlap with our conceptualization of social sustainability, with the difference that we follow the broader consensus and consider here equity and inequality issues as well.

References

  • Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity and poverty. Crown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain, P. G., Kroonenberg, P. M., Johansson, L. -O., Milfont, T. L., Crimston, C., Kurz, T., Bushina, E., Calligaro, C., Demarque, C., Guan, Y., & Park, J. (2019). Public views of the Sustainable Development Goals across countries. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), 819–825. Springer Nature.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier, E. B., & Burgess, J. C. (2021). Economics of the SDGs: Putting the sustainable development goals into practice. Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier, E. B. (1987). The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental Conservation, 14(2), 101–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbier, E. B., & Markandya, A. (2012). A new blueprint for a green economy. Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boar, A., Bastida, R., & Marimon, F. (2020). A systematic literature review. Relationships between the sharing economy, sustainability and Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainability, 12(17), 6744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, K., & Moir, S. (2012). Sustainable construction relative to a conceptual analysis of sustainable development. In ZEMCH 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, R., Terlau, W., Kiy, M., & Gehringer, A. (2023). Makroökonomie (6th ed.). Vahlen-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, R., Kiy, M., & Terlau, W. (2014). Nachhaltigkeitsökonomie. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derissen, S., Quaas, M. F., & Baumgärtner, S. (2011). The relationship between resilience and sustainability of ecological-economic systems. Ecological Economics, 70(6), 1121–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How societies choose to fail or survive. Viking Penguin/Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dresner, S. (2002). The principles of sustainability. Earthscan Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. (2006). Governance for Sustainability. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14(6), 522–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espiner, S., Orchiston, C., & Higham, J. (2017). Resilience and sustainability: A complementary relationship? Towards a practical conceptual model for the sustainability–resilience nexus in tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 25(10), 1385–1400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002). The world summit on sustainable development. People, planet, prosperity. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Talluri, S. (2019). Editorial design and management of sustainable and resilient supply chains. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 66(1), 2–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O’Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society: Fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10(4), 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodland, R. (1995). The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haffar, M., & Searcy, C. (2017). Classification of trade-offs encountered in the practice of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 140, 495–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinske, J., & Preuss, L. (2010). Trade-offs in corporate sustainability: You can’t have your cake and eat it. Business Strategy and the Environment, 19(4), 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., Figge, F., Pinske, J., & Preuss, L. (2018). A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 235–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamrin, R. D. (1983). A renewable resource economy. Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, J., & Sandbrook, R. (1992). Sustainable development: What is to be done? In J. Homberg (Ed.), Policies for a small planet (pp. 19–38). Earthscan Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN and WWF. (1980). World conservation strategy: Living resource conservation for sustainable development (Vol. 1). IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littig, B., & Grießler, E. (2005). Social sustainability: A catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8, 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannan, S. (2012). Sustainable development. In S. Mannan (Eds.), Lees' loss prevention in the process industries (4th ed., pp. 2507–2521). Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markandya, A., & Pearce, D. W. (1988). Natural environments and the social rate of discount. Project Appraisal, 3(1), 2–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. P. (2001, November). The social dimension of sustainable development. In Speech at the conference on the European social agenda and EUI’s international partners (pp. 20–21).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadowcroft, J., Farrel, K. N., & Spangenberg, J. (2005). Developing a framework for sustainability governance in the European Union. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1/2), 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. Universe Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moldan, B., Janouskova, S., & Hak, T. (2012). How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators, 17, 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison-Saunders, A., & Pope, J. (2013). Conceptualising and managing trade-offs in sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 38, 54–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naciti, V., Cesaroni, F., & Pulejo, L. (2022). Corporate governance and sustainability: A review of existing literature. Journal of Management and Governance, 26, 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Negri, M., Cagno, E., Colicchia, C., & Sarkis, J. (2021). Integrating sustainability and resilience in the supply chain: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30, 2859–2886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2001). OECD environmental strategy for the first decade of the 21st century. OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitelis, C. N. (2013). Towards a more ‘ethically correct’ governance for economic sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 655–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14, 681–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rai, S. S., Rai, S., & Singh, N. K. (2021). Organizational resilience and social-economic sustainability: COVID-19 perspective. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 12006–12023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarkis, J., Cohen, M. J., Dewick, P., & Schröder, P. (2020). A brave new world: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for transitioning to sustainable supply and production. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seghezzo, L. (2009). The five dimensions of sustainability. Environmental Politics, 18(4), 539–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikdar, S. K., Sengupta, D., & Mukherjee, R. (2017). Measuring progress towards sustainability. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg, J. H., Pfahl, S., & Deller, K. (2002). Towards indicators for institutional sustainability: Lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21. Ecological Indicators, 2, 61–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toman, M. A. (1994). Economics and ‘sustainability’: balancing trade-offs and imperatives. Land Economics, 70(4), 399–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turcu, C. (2012). Re-thinking sustainability indicators: Local perspectives of urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (1992). Development and the environment. In World Development Report 1992. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cologne University of Applied Sciences, Cologne, Germany

    Agnieszka Gehringer & Susann Kowalski

Authors
  1. Agnieszka Gehringer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susann Kowalski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Agnieszka Gehringer .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gehringer, A., Kowalski, S. (2023). Delimitating Sustainability and Its Dimensions. In: Mapping Sustainability Measurement. Sustainable Development Goals Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47382-1_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation