Sustainability, Valuing and Balancing the Foundations of

We often hear that if an organisation, product or service is not financially viable (basically meaning profitable) then sustainability cannot be achieved. All other aspects are considered as secondary to this financial criterion. This is very much an economic view of sustainability but is misplaced because financial viability is seen as the core foundation of sustainability, with social and environmental issues being distinctly relegated to second and third place in importance. Whenever this approach is encountered it is important to clarify the impartiality of the originator to better understand if they have a conflict of interest which might be unduly influencing their position. An example of this might be if the originator is having or has had previous projects partly or fully funded by organisations which have profit as a key business driver or is retained as a consultant to similar organisations.

Sustainability encompasses all three core foundations (Environmental, Economic, Social), each often as important as the other, and each influencing the other in various ways due to their interconnectedness. Separating out the easy-to-understand issue of financial viability / profitability detracts from better understanding how a range of different issues are engaged with and valued.

Valuing and balancing the issues and tensions which can exist within and between the foundations in an equitable and transparent way is a key factor in understanding what is meant by sustainability. If the natural environment cannot be maintained in a beneficial, which includes resilient, condition then even if financial viability and profits are adequately positive for an organisation there is little benefit to most of the local and wider community, being humans and wildlife, in living in a degraded non-resilient environment.

The externalities of industrial activity are routinely dismissed or ignored within accounting practices and tax disincentives, so greater values are often applied to profits and profit margins. The negative impacts of the industrial processes are absorbed by society, through taxation as a whole, yet the profits gained are retained by a small minority of individuals and shareholders. This is not a balanced interpretation of the meaning of equitable or beneficial to the majority. Profits, depending on how socially responsible they are, can drive and reinforce negative environmental and social impacts, which cannot be considered an approach that is on the pathway to sustainability.

Nature, left to its own devices will be self-balancing and sustainable, however, we clearly want humans and wildlife to survive and prosper. This latter term in the sustainability context means focusing on health and well-being, but also including financial ‘prosperity’ as it impacts on health and well-being, within a beneficial-positive environment, so it is a challenging balancing act which is needed.

The foundation of sustainability will include social aspiration, which must be appropriate to costs involved in achieving these aspirations and the impact the aspirations can have on the environment, including the often many externalities which arise from achieving and maintaining the aspirations. A good example can be a desire to have a first-class sports surface. For some situations this is a realistic financial aspiration, yet for many it isn’t, although it doesn’t mean that the aspiration is one that can be shown to be a on a pathway to sustainability (which might be due to significant overarching negative environmental and social impacts). By contrast a first-class sports surface might encourage greater participation and engagement, improving social aspects of health and well-being, encourage more sustainable practices in accessing the site (through ‘greener’ transport methods), is maintained in accordance with a greater range of the principles of sustainability, positively impacting the environment, and is financially ‘stable’. Considering this as a whole, this might then make the surface and site to be more appropriately designated as being on a sustainability pathway.

Balancing the perceived needs of a natural environment with a man-made ‘pristine’ environment also needs to be reflected on. There are many negative impacts from creating and maintaining a ‘pristine’ environment. Sustainability looks at the long-term.

What are the implications and consequences of today’s actions and plans on the long-term environmental, social and economic foundations of sustainability? This consideration is not a financial viability / profit focused issue, which is short termism, but is a much greater question that considers all the contrasting impacts, tensions and outcomes, as well as value decisions. Trying to achieve an appropriate balance (if even that is the right word to use) is a considerable challenge, which will change over time as society, perceptions and priorities change.