IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/jeapmx/v08y2006i03ns1464333206002517.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond The Pillars: Sustainability Assessment As A Framework For Effective Integration Of Social, Economic And Ecological Considerations In Significant Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • ROBERT B. GIBSON

    (Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo, Canada)

Abstract

Sustainability is an essentially integrative concept. It seems reasonable, then, to design sustainability assessment as an essentially integrative process and framework for decision-making on undertakings that may have lasting effects.The realm of sustainability has often been depicted as the intersection of social, economic and ecological interests and initiatives. Accordingly, many approaches to sustainability oriented assessments — at the project as well as strategic level — have begun by addressing the social, economic and ecological considerations separately and have then struggled with how to integrate the separate findings. The problem is exacerbated by the generally separate training of experts in the three fields, the habitual collection of data separately under the three categories and the common division of government mandates into separate social, economic and ecological bodies. The combined effect is not merely an absence of integrative expertise, data and authority but an entrenched tendency to neglect the interdependence of these factors. The three pillars or triple bottom line approach also appears to encourage an emphasis on balancing and making trade-offs, which may often be necessary but which should always be the last resort, not the assumed task, in sustainability assessment.There are, however, important concerns underlying advocacy and application of some three pillar, limited integration approaches. Most significant are well-grounded fears that integrated, sustainability-based assessments may facilitate continued or even renewed neglect of traditionally under valued considerations, especially the protection of ecological systems and functions. This problem needs to be addressed thoughtfully in judgements about how integration is to be done.One possible solution is to take sustainability as an essentially integrative concept and to design sustainability assessment more aggressively as an integrative process. This would entail a package of regime and process design features, centred on ones that.• build sustainability assessment into a larger overall governance regime that is designed to respect interconnections among issues, objectives, actions and effects, though the full interrelated set of activities from broad agenda setting to results monitoring and response;.• design assessment processes with an iterative conception-to-resurrection agenda, aiming to maximise multiple, reinforcing net benefits through selection, design and adaptive implementation of the most desirable option for every significant strategic or project level undertaking;.• redefine the driving objectives and consequent evaluation and decision criteria to avoid the three conventional categories, to ensure attention to usually neglected sustainability requirements and to focus attention on the achievement of multiple, mutually reinforcing gains;.• establish explicit basic rules that discourage trade-offs to the extent possible while guiding the decision-making on those that are unavoidable;.• provide means of combining, specifying and complementing these generic criteria and trade-off rules with attention to case- and context-specific concerns, objectives, priorities and possibilities;.• provide integrative, sustainability-centred guidance, methods and tools to help meet the key practical demands of assessment work, including identifying key cross-cutting issues and linkages among factors, judging the significance of predicted effects, and weighing overall options and implications; and.• ensure that the decision-making process facilitates public scrutiny and encourages effective public participation.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert B. Gibson, 2006. "Beyond The Pillars: Sustainability Assessment As A Framework For Effective Integration Of Social, Economic And Ecological Considerations In Significant Decision-Making," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 8(03), pages 259-280.
  • Handle: RePEc:wsi:jeapmx:v:08:y:2006:i:03:n:s1464333206002517
    DOI: 10.1142/S1464333206002517
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1464333206002517
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S1464333206002517?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. CHEN, Helen S.Y., 2020. "Designing Sustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains," OSF Preprints m82ar, Center for Open Science.
    2. Denise Ravet, 2011. "Lean production: the link between supply chain and sustainable development in an international environment," Post-Print hal-00691666, HAL.
    3. Mara Del Baldo, 2012. "Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance in Italian SMEs: the experience of some “spirited businesses”," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 16(1), pages 1-36, February.
    4. Michael Howes & Liana Wortley & Ruth Potts & Aysin Dedekorkut-Howes & Silvia Serrao-Neumann & Julie Davidson & Timothy Smith & Patrick Nunn, 2017. "Environmental Sustainability: A Case of Policy Implementation Failure?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    6. Chin-Shan Lu & Kuo-Chung Shang & Chi-Chang Lin, 2016. "Examining sustainability performance at ports: port managers’ perspectives on developing sustainable supply chains," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(8), pages 909-927, November.
    7. Kebede, Yohannes, 1993. "The Limits to Common Resource Management: The Bypassed Commons or Commons without Tragedy," MPRA Paper 662, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 May 1993.
    8. John Stanley & Janet Stanley, 2023. "Improving Appraisal Methodology for Land Use Transport Measures to Reduce Risk of Social Exclusion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-18, August.
    9. Nora Mzavanadze, 2009. "Building A Framework For National Sustainable Development Assessment And Application For Lithuania: Sustainability In Transition," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(01), pages 97-130.
    10. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    11. Isin Ceti̇n, 2017. "Accounting Requirements And Records On Bank Subscribed Capital Compliance With European Directives," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1, pages 52-68, February.
    12. Jean-Michel Sahuta & Sandrine Boulerne & Medhi Mili & Frédéric Teulon, 2014. "What Relation Exists Between Corporate Social Responsibility (Csr) And Longevity Of Firms?," Working Papers 2014-248, Department of Research, Ipag Business School.
    13. Alba Rocio Gutierrez Garzon & Pete Bettinger & Jacek Siry & Bin Mei & Jesse Abrams, 2019. "The Terms Foresters and Planners in the United States Use to Infer Sustainability in Forest Management Plans: A Survey Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Shehu Folaranmi Gbolahan Yusuf & Oluwabunmi Oluwaseun Popoola & Lindokhule Gwala & Thinandavha Nesengani, 2021. "Promoting University–Community Alliances in the Experiential Learning Activities of Agricultural Extension Postgraduate Students at the University of Fort Hare, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-18, September.
    15. Filipa Correia & Philipp Erfruth & Julie Bryhn, 2018. "The 2030 Agenda: The roadmap to GlobALLizaton," Working Papers 156, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
    16. Choy Yee Keong, 2005. "Sustainable Development—An Institutional Enclave (with Special Reference to the Bakun Dam–Induced Development Strategy in Malaysia)," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 951-971, December.
    17. Anthony Bennett, 1998. "Sustainable public/private partnerships for public service delivery," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 22(3), pages 193-199, August.
    18. Smith, Joyotee & Scherr, Sara J., 2003. "Capturing the Value of Forest Carbon for Local Livelihoods," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(12), pages 2143-2160, December.
    19. Buys, Piet & Chomitz, Ken & Dasgupta, Susmita & Deichmann, Uwe & Larsen, Bjorn & Meisner, Craig & Nygard, Jostein & Pandey, Kiran & Pinnoi, Nat & Wheeler, David, 2006. "The economics of decentralized poverty-environment programs: An application for Lao PDR," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 28(7), pages 811-824, October.
    20. Lisa Knoche, 2014. "Nachhaltigkeit in Unternehmen und Organisationen - Umweltmanagementsysteme als Instrument zur ökologischen Prägung der Organisationskultur," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 67(17), pages 29-37, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wsi:jeapmx:v:08:y:2006:i:03:n:s1464333206002517. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/jeapm/jeapm.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.