The concept of sustainability and particularly of sustainable development figure among the most ambiguous and controversial in the literature (Gallopín, 2003, p. 7).
The vagueness in defining the sustainability, as expressed above, has led to lot of confusion and numerous definitions of these concepts. Therefore, in order to summarize the basic elements of these concepts Gallopín (2003) have reviewed a variety of perspectives on
these concepts and defined them using a systems perspective (Figure 5.7), which is given below.
Figure 5.7: Systems Perspective
(Source: Gallopín, 2003)
Sustainability is a property of a system open to interactions with its external world. It is not a fixed state of constancy, but a dynamic preservation of the essential identity of the system amidst permanent change. A small number of generic attributes may provide the foundations of sustainability. (Gallopín, 2003, p. 35)
Gallopín (2003)argues that the important point regarding the concept of sustainability is not to create change but to avert the damage to the sources of replenishment that can help the system to recuperate from the ‘unavoidable disturbances’ that it is exposed to. When discussing about the sustainability related to a system it is important to make it clear if the interest is about the ‘sustainability of the system itself’ or ‘sustainability of the output(s) of the system’ as both not necessarily means the same and the implications can be different for these cases.
Sustainable development is described more commonly by the definition of Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987):
Sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those needs of the future. Far from requiring the cessation of economic growth, it recognises that the problems of poverty and under-development cannot be solved unless we have a new era of growth in which developing countries play a large role and reap large benefits.
Gallopín (2003) states that sustainable development means change and it is not a state like sustainability instead it is a process of change that can improve the system in a sustainable manner. This transformation of the system can be either to improve the system or to improve the output or to improve both.
5.5.1.1 Corporate Sustainability
Similar to the concept of sustainability the definition of corporate sustainability is confusing and sometimes misleading (Ivory & MacKay, 2012). Montiel (2008) present a review of various definitions of the corporate sustainability and corporate social responsibility concepts in literature. Ivory and MacKay (2012) explored the evolution of corporate sustainability and critically reviewed the literatures that exist.
However, triple bottom line (TBL) namely Economic, Environmental and Social (Elkington, 1997, 1998) approach become one of the very famous sustainability approach in the business world due to its simplicity. As per this approach sustainability requires the reconciliation of environmental, social and economic demands. Adams (2006) states that the three pillars of sustainability are not mutually exclusive but mutually reinforcing as expressed in Figure 5.8using three overlapping ellipses. Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) also argues that corporate sustainability can be seen as three components such as business case (economic), the natural case (environmental), and the societal case (social) and all of this three need to be meet in order to sustain. Boyle et al. (2003), describes the sustainability in the context of energy sector, as energy sources which are not substantially depleted by regular usage, not polluting or creating other hazards to the environment in major scale, not involving any social injustice or health hazards to the people.
Figure 5.8: Three Pillars of Sustainability
(Source: Adams, 2006)
Ivory and MacKay (2012) conclude that corporate sustainability can be classified into two categories namely ‘sustainability business’ and ‘sustainable business’, where (p.1):
A ‘sustainability business’ focuses on the business contribution to global SD [sustainable development] while a ‘sustainable business’ focuses on the business’ own sustainable development: that is its own survival and success.
For instance, as per this classification the above description of Boyle et al. (2003) falls into the ‘sustainable business’ category. Garvare and Johansson (2010) have portrayed the business sustainable development and ‘global sustainable development’ processes with the stakeholder influence in a figure, where they term it as organisational sustainability and global sustainability respectively.
Figure 5.9: Global Sustainability and Organisational Sustainability
(Source: Garvare & Johansson, 2010)
However, in long run the business which focus only on the organisational sustainability or the business that focus only on global sustainability cannot succeed. Johansson (2008) states that organisational sustainability can be achieved by meeting the important stakeholders concerns; but it does not mean that global sustainability is promoted unless all the interested parties concerns are addressed. As global and organisational sustainability become more and more interconnected, it is difficult for the business to succeed with anyone preference stated above, so there is a need for a balanced approach. Cheung (2011) articulates such a balanced business as sustainable company and that it should include, “an explicit objective to reduce their negative economic, social and environmental externalities, but in a manner that increases the wealth of the corporation” (p.162). Due to the balanced perspective offered between the global and organisational sustainability by the following ‘corporate sustainability’ definition, it has been adopted in this study.
Corporate sustainability is a multi-faceted concept that recognizes the importance of corporate growth and profitability on one hand, and also requires the corporation to pursue societal goals on the other hand, specifically those relating to sustainable development(Cheung, 2011, p. 162).