Browse
Engage
Research
In one of my previous blogs, I spoke about environmental sustainability as an oxymoron. The so-called "Google recognition index" now registers more than 3,240,000 hits for this term.
Although lagging far behind this "one-third of actual sustainability" term, there are the new terms being promoted on the Internet — water sustainability (65,100 hits) and energy sustainability (154,000 hits). One has to wonder if the term sustainability is becoming a cliche. It is being applied to so many terms that it is in danger of becoming meaningless.
Let's take a look at the use of the term, "energy sustainability."
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has started an energy sustainability interest group (pdf). "The electric sector faces unique challenges in balancing the social benefits of providing reliable electricity with environmental impact." Four goals are stated:
• Create a forum for a sustainable energy future
• Discover strategic value in sustainable business practices
• Exchange best practices
• Solve sustainable energy challenges collaboratively.
These goals points out the way the terms can be used: sustainability, energy sustainability, sustainable energy and sustainable company. "The group also provides the industry with opportunities to work on a common, industrywide definition of sustainability and a mechanism for reshaping that definition as the concept evolves over time." Is this what we want -- every sector coming up with its own definition of sustainability and allowing the term to evolve over time?
Sustainability is all about perspective. We can take the perspective of the companies that supply us with electricity or we can take the perspective of the organizations that are using that electricity. Energy is only a part of the sustainability footprint of the users.
A recruiter promoting a client called a person a "pioneer in energy sustainability." Is the person part of the EPRI working group or does the person just practice energy efficiency and conservation? Why do we need to call this energy sustainability? Maybe the recruiter would argue the differentiation associated in sustaining the energy sources.
Some might say that I am a bit too sensitive about trying to reconcile the many different ways that sustainability is being used on the Internet. After posting my blog on "defining sustainability," another blogger was wondering why sustainability is so hard to define. I guess the blogger had not read my previous blog. Many of us like to complain about this definition problem without proposing what we can do about it.
It would be easy to get all wrapped up in a sustainability definition campaign. However, too much precious time has already been wasted doing this. It might be interesting to see how the Xerox Corporation has dealt with people xeroxing reports. Does Google get upset with someone "googling" using another search engine? The lack of a clear definition is not the problem. The creation of a sustainability cliche is much more damaging. Energy sustainability and water sustainability will be right up there with paper bag sustainability and disposable diaper sustainability. What sustainability term do you want to launch? Before you know it, you'll be getting thousands of Google hits for that time.
Robert B. Pojasek, Ph.D., is the practice leader for Business Sustainability at First Environment Inc. and an internationally recognized authority on the topic of business sustainability and process improvement.
Agreed also
Although I call myself a sustainability professional,
sustainability seems to be minimizing human impact.
But 3rd world people seem to want to move toward a first world lifestyle which has impacts - but more than 3rd world ? Hopefully first world efforts to reduce impacts and 2nd/3rd world efforts to strive for "more" can somehow balance improved lives, increasing resource efficiency and decreased impact. I guess that's moving toward sustainability.
What is the Google recognition index?
Do you mean Google noted people searched for "sustainability" 3,240,000 times?
Macro versus Micro sustainability
To me, sustainability is recognizing the need of all stakeholders, whether it be people, animals, insects, or mother earth in general.
We all ascribe a certain important to cutting down a tree or polluting a stream. Sustainability should ascribe an open and transparent way to both place values on our choices and allow the open inspection of values.
My greater interest these days is the "sustainable economy". I see the U.S. Federal Government offering tax incentives and bonuses to individuals and organizations that promote sustainability.
However, our overall economic picture is not sustainable. We won't be able to continue to do good things here in the U.S. and abroad if we don't maintain a strong economy.
Excessive borrowing, excessive printing of money, favoritism for corporate cronies and washington insiders will inhibit our ability to do good things now and in the future.
We should be looking at "macro sustainablity", sustainability of world economies, as well as "micro sustainability" which I would define as actions of individual governments, associations and individuals.
Currrent our "macro sustainability" is not a pretty picture. We have global warming, global habitat destruction, and companies like China and India poised to take on America's unsustainable ways. These macro problems have not really been dealt with particularly well.
Sustainable-washing?
I think the real point of this piece points toward the same trend that started with green. Companies and individuals that water down the meaning of sustainable by doing less than what is expected. Making claims of being sustainable with no backing to show proof of the claim.
The resume example above is classic. Resumes are always puffed up versions of ourselves, much like online profiles. Sure, it is all based in truth, but are we really all experts in our field? Expert has been watered down by folks that have no formal training or even a verifiable track record of success.
Using caution in accepting "sustainable" claims will help weed out the pretenders from those truly making an effort and succeeding.
Websearch Sustainability
Google may give us a window on what people are saying, but its something to applaud.
That lots of folks are using the word in different ways points out that we are getting partial understanding of the concept. We are evolving. I see many entrances that folks use to enter the Sustainability tent. At some point, you "get" that its not one thing, its everything.
I agreed that "Sustainability is all about perspective." Its systems thinking and understanding that everything is connected, then acting on it.
Agreed
I agree with "not quite Yet". The word green is being overused now a days. You hear the word green being used for high MPG vehicles which still burn gasoline. I guess it's to be expected though. Actions always speak louder then words so as long as the trend continues I could care less about terminology.
Mathew
On the Other Hand...
You are both correct for similar reasons, as both terms are being co-opted by various interests. Regarding sustainability though, one only needs to go to the The American Heritage® Dictionary definition to see that sustainability is truly a subjective, perspective based word:
[Middle English sustenen, from Old French sustenir, from Latin sustin?re, sub-, from below; see sub–, + ten?re, to hold.]
(transitive verb: -tained, -tain·ing, -tains.)
To keep in existence; maintain.
To supply or provide for.
To support from below; keep from falling or sinking.
To support the spirits, vitality, or resolution of; encourage.
To bear up under; withstand
To experience or suffer
To affirm the validity of.
To prove or corroborate; confirm.
To keep up.
Of course, its meaning changes altogether if used as a noun or adjective. I often choose terms such as "optimize" as a creative substitute...
What is important is that the term is finding its way into the corporate and community "lexicon" and that is what truly matters. It's up to long time practitioners like myself and Robert to continue to press forward and embrace this time and foster real organizational change that benefits communities, the environment, and organizational growth.
Dave Meyer
dmeyer@seeds-global.com
Not quite yet
I think that "green" stands a much better chance of becoming diluted than "sustainability." Too few people really have a handle on the fully encompassing meaning of sustainability. Too many see it as a feature: sustainability = technology that helps us be more efficient, rather than an a complete notion of balance that can (and most likely has to) change culture and lifestyle.
I do think that these terms should begin to be verified--which only allows for the opportunity of another niche market within the greater landscape of environmental stewardship. Whether they are private companies who release reports, non-profits, or government supported groups having someone to ratify a company's claim of "green" would skim through the market of those trying to ride the environmental wave vs. those who truly are making things better.
T. Caine
Intercon