Sustainability frameworks: Past, present, and future

In modern society, we often see sustainability as the ideal our system needs to achieve, such as a net-zero-emission world or a fully circular economy. However, in the 20+ years I have dabbled in this space along with the issues I have had, I have learned that we need to turn sustainability from a reductionist ideal into a way of living.

You see, over the years, I have repeatedly noticed a disconnect that became difficult to ignore: sometimes we frantically try to "save the world" while our personal lives are heading toward a cliff, while other times we proceed with some clever solution only to realize that it has made things worse.

In essence, we have been building a sustainable future based on unsustainable individuals and practices. But to understand this better, it would help to know how sustainability has been conceived in the past and present.

The past (sustainability 1.0): The rise of ecology

Historically, the Indigenous people built their way of life based on a deep understanding of the ecology, but the same cannot be said about the Europeans, who saw the world as a resource to be exploited.

However, because history is largely written by the victors, the earlier frameworks on sustainability tend to be based on the European perspective.

As far as we know, the first semblance of a sustainability framework emerged in the 1700s, when a German mining administrator, Hans Carl von Carlowitz, advocated for harvesting wood at a speed nature can regenerate from. He is thought to be the father of sustainable yield forestry, who also coined the term “Nachhaltigkeit,” which translates to “sustainable” in English.

However, as the world became increasingly industrialized later, this led to systemic environmental degradation, which fueled the environmental movement (particularly in the mid-20th century). The first sustainability framework thus extends from forestry to ecology in general — forcing us to reevaluate how we should structure our large-scale systems.

The present (sustainability 2.0): From ecology to sustainable development

By the 1980s, along with the concurrent development in the social justice movement, leaders in the field have realized that even if the ecology were to remain intact, the world would still not be able to function with rampant social issues and poverty.

Accordingly, these leaders began to formulate a framework that balances the need for both development and ecology. This then culminated in the now well-known Three Pillars of Sustainable Development (i.e., environment, society, and economy), which was further popularized by the United Nations’ 1987 Brundtland report.

Figure 1: Wikimedia Common (Visualization of pillars of sustainability)

(In a business context, these same pillars are often reworded as Planet, People, and Profit — a framework also known as the 3Ps or the Triple Bottom Line.)

In the early 21st century, nations began to adopt development goals based on this expanded framework. This began with the eight Millennium Development Goals adopted in 2000, and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals adopted in 2015.

Figure 2: Wikimedia Common (Sustainable Development Goals)

The future (sustainability 3.0): From sustainable development to sustainability

At this point, nearly everything you encounter about sustainability — be it circular economy, gender equality, regenerative agriculture or Inner Development Goals — is really about the things we need to uphold the Three Pillars of Sustainable Development. However, what many don’t realize is that sustainable development is just a fraction of sustainability.

To see how, you just have to think about the entities around you that are heading toward chaos in some way. This may involve, for example:

• A food addict who is eating their way toward chronic diseases
• A successful professional who is spiritually bankrupt or facing a mid-life crisis
• A group whose faulty ideology prevents them from seeing truth and solving problems
• An institution whose toxic culture is impeding it from functioning

In each of these cases, many would agree that an element of unsustainability is at play, but these cases are generally ignored within our current confines of sustainability.

Why? Because our current sustainability frameworks are centered around macrostructures, and elements pertaining to individuals’ inputs are conspicuously carved out of the equation. The problem with this approach is that individuals actually form the basis of our world — and implosions in our world often don’t start from the top but from some tiny component.

As a result, we have a hollow system that seems solid at the top but is fragile everywhere else, with business and unsustainable practices continuing as usual: our eco-friendly products increase while our ecology continues to worsen, and our medical system advances while chronic diseases continue to soar.

Obviously, all of these call for a new way of thinking about sustainability — an approach to sustainability that focuses on all human endeavors. Under this framework, unsustainability is tackled not only at the top but at all levels, and people who adhere to this philosophy are henceforth referred to as “sustainabilitists.”

In other words, these sustainabilitists don’t view sustainability as a toolkit for UN compliance — but as a master criterion for carrying out everything humans engage in. They seek to refine their habits, lifestyles and methods to avoid impending collapses — so that they can help themselves, their groups and their communities become more long-lasting.

However, in order for them to achieve all of those lofty goals, their personal health needs to be first and foremost quite sustainable. This means that they need to be constantly honing in on their health sustainability — so that they can prevent a localized health issue from turning into a vicious cycle.

Figure 3: Circle of Health Sustainability

Beyond that, they also need to zoom out and realize that their health sustainability is only one of the factors. Indeed, they need to work on satisfying all aspects of their personal sustainability as well.

Figure 4: Circle of Personal Sustainability

But even then, they still need to zoom out further and realize that the world is bigger than themselves. That is, they need to align their actions to uphold systemic sustainability at all levels.

Figure 5: Circle of Systemic Sustainability

If they can do so, they would have naturally ushered sustainability to its final form—a framework that shifts from ecology and sustainable development to everything we do.

How would this framework affect us?

Compared with the current models, which are top-down, unactionable and reductionistic, the sustainabilitist’s framework is bottom-up, actionable and holistic. There is a reason why it focuses on starting at the ground level and moving up — because doing so would transform us into people who truly live and breathe sustainability.

For example, when you are in the field working on your health sustainability every day, you would become more aware of habits that can bring about your impending collapse. Its multi-dimensional nature will condition you to seek solutions that balance all factors — instead of settling for clever fixes that satisfy one aspect at the expense of another.

Similarly, as you transition to focus on all aspects of personal sustainability, you may become more aware of the difference between treating symptoms and treating root causes. You may begin to understand the full consequences of a decision better, and you may develop a sharper sense for spotting pseudo-solutions or false ideologies.

In other words, you would begin to acquire the firsthand experience needed to tackle sustainability issues — rather than being an outside spectator who subtly perpetuates unsustainability.

Rebuilding sustainability from within

The journey from our reactive past to a sustainable future requires a paradigm shift: it requires us to embrace sustainability not as an out-of-touch theory but as a daily practice, and it requires us to operate through a holistic lens rather than being reductionistic.

The problem with the existing frameworks is that they have it exactly backward, since sustainability for the sake of development will not alter our identities and habits. However, by embracing the sustainabilitist’s way by seeing sustainability as a way of being, we may be able to propagate this quality to ourselves, our community and our greater surroundings.

illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Track the real‑world impact behind the sustainability headlines. illuminem’s Data Hub™ offers transparent performance data and climate targets of companies driving the transition.