“Sustainable Development” (SD) is an expression frequently used by ecologists, media and politicians, but it does not always carry the same concise meaning. The EEA (1998) stated in 1998 that over 300 definitions of SD had been given, many of them inappropriate, as the outcome of different visions, values scales, interests and ideologies. In this way, SD becomes a non-operative ‘chewing gum concept’ that everybody can adapt in his own convenience (Bermejo, 2005, p.24) The Brundtland Report (1987) states the most widely accepted definition of SD as “the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The worldwide commitment on the acceptance of this definition constitutes a milestone in itself.

1. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: TOWARDS A MORE
OPERATIONAL CONCEPT?
Alejo Etchart (1,986 words). October 2008
“Sustainable Development” (SD) is an expression frequently used by ecologists,
media and politicians, but it does not always carry the same concise meaning. The EEA
(1998) stated in 1998 that over 300 definitions of SD had been given, many of them
inappropriate, as the outcome of different visions, values scales, interests and
ideologies. In this way, SD becomes a non-operative ‘chewing gum concept’ that
everybody can adapt in his own convenience (Bermejo, 2005, p.24)
The Brundtland Report (1987) states the most widely accepted definition of SD as
“the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs”. The worldwide commitment on the
acceptance of this definition constitutes a milestone in itself. The report not only defines
SD, but also details the implications that it carries, referring to:
- The fields involved in it, also called “the three pillars”: Social, Economic
and Environmental.
SD not only regards the care and protection of the environment; nor
only the economical progress that is respectful with the environment, but
it must also bear social aspects, looking for the progress to tackle the
problem of world’s poverty.
- The priority needs to be satisfied: the essential ones.
The Strategic Imperatives listed in Brundtland report (Chapter 2)
do mention “meeting the essential needs for jobs, food, energy, water
and sanitation”. It does not mention aspirations as an imperative. As per
the aspirations, it says that “SD requires meeting the basic needs of all
and extending to all the opportunity of satisfying their aspirations for a
better living”. There is a difference: human needs are an objective to be
satisfied through development; meeting aspirations would be ideal, but
not something included in the definition. In Chapter 1, part II, we can
also read that SD “seeks to meet the needs and aspirations (…)”, without
being contradictory with the definition, as far as to seek means try to get
or reach, rather than will or must.
Many documents can be found that do not meet the definition provided in
Brundtland report. Of special relevance for its importance in the development of Europe
since the early nineties is Maastricht Treaty (1992), chapter 2. It does not state a
definition of SD directly, but it does so indirectly by precisely avoiding it, as Susan
Baker argues (Lafferty, 2000). She criticizes this shortcoming of the Treaty, and
expresses her opinion that the confusing use of different terminology -“sustainable
growth”, “sustainable progress” and “sustainable development”:
- is not accidental;
- favours the inconsistency of SD promotion;

2. - makes it possible for the UE to adopt strategies based in the old strategy
of economic development based on growth disregarding environmental
considerations; and
- gives uncertainty to the policy objectives.
She also says that the amendments of the EEC foundational Rome Treaty (1957)
made in the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) re-establish the importance of SD, yet leaving the
Maastricht Treaty semantic confusion unresolved.
Roberto Bermejo (2005, p.27) thinks that Maastricht Treaty indirectly defines SD
as “a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and
non-inflationary growth respecting the environment”, and also criticizes this approach
saying that:
- only the economical and the environmental pillars of SD are referred to,
not mentioning the social one;
- the economical scope is dominant, with a detailed specification , while
the environmental reference is limited to a vague “respect”;
- it does not refer to basic needs satisfaction;
- there is no reference to big structural reforms, and therefore the strategic
planning is not contemplated; and
- promotes an endless growth, contradicting not only the Brundtland
Report, but also a large economical tradition and the common sense.
The World Business Council for SD (WBCSD) approaches SD from the business
side. In its document The Business Case for SD (2002), SD is defined as “forms of
progress that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs”. There is a subtle difference with Brundtland’s
definition by saying “forms of progress” instead of “development”. This difference
could be due to the aim of the authors of avoiding the repetition of a word defined
within the definition, but it can also be interpreted as an intentional way to add a very
significant shade of meaning. It says that there are “studies that suggest that overall
economic growth benefit the poor”. No bibliographic support is given to this statement,
which is contradicted by other authors, like Rodrik (2000), who reflects that in some
developing countries the growth resulted in greater inequality -Chile, China and Poland,
for example.
The WBCSD considers the open markets as the best media, and businesses as
main actors, to achieve the global sustainability. Therefore, they work to build an open
international market, free from distorting subsidies and barriers, and from national
governments which occupy a position that should be met by businesses in trying to
satisfy people’s needs. Nevertheless, they claim for more taxes on things that should be
discouraged (waste, pollution) and less in those that should be encouraged (jobs), so that
market prices reflect the true environmental cost of goods and services, sending to the
consumers the right signals to make intelligent decisions that will not be perceived
otherwise because what consumers want is “performance, value, safety and reliability
ahead of environment, social issues and aesthetics”.
The WBCSD is conscious that the pressure that our current level of consumption
is making on the Earth, and proposes “de-materialization” as the way to achieve “eco-

3. efficiency”, by de-linking goods and services from the use of nature. The ways to
achieve de-materialization are
- knowledge instead of material flows;
- customization, not to offer customers more than what hey want;
- close production loops, so that every output returns to the natural system or is
used as an input to other product;
- service extension, to promote leasing rather than buying; and
- enhancing products’ and service’s functionality.
Daly and Townsend (1993) thinks that de-materialization is an unachievable
concept, since a growth that pretends to satisfy the needs of the world’s poor must be
based on things needed by the poor, which are not precisely information services but
material things such as foods and clothes.
The document concludes that the expansion of the purchasing power to
developing countries involves a huge potential for the companies that are able to adapt
to the emerging markets with a proper sustainability management.
C. Sneddon and others, in SD in a post-Brundtland World (2006), is on the
opposite side of Maastricht Treaty, as it tries to expand (instead of to shorten) the
concept of SD. It promotes the addition of new notions to the concept of SD, in order to
make it operative in our days by filling it with a more powerful political and practical
meaning. Yet, it applauds the importance of Brundtland’s definition as a history maker
that has gained a worldwide convention, establishing the environment as a critical issue
and starting an explosion of work on development and sustainability. Therefore,
Sneddon tries a middle path, calling for serious calls for radical changes in order to
achieve Brundtland’s three pillars of SD while still thinking possible the necessary
reform of our current institutions, though reformed to be more efficient.
This document gathers critical appraisals to SD concept coming from
- Socio-cultural fields: SD is “a tale” that developed economies tell to
ourselves in an attempt to disregard the needs and aspirations of the world’s
poor.
- Ecological sciences: SD is an unforgivable anthropocentric concept,
“unable to dissolve the false barriers between the human sphere of economic and
social activities and the ecological sphere that sustains these activities”.
Sneddon states that the most critical sector of the SD mistrust the state-dominated
institution to be able to promote the change.
The authors say that the Ecological Economics Science has introduced so many
and relevant innovations in last years, providing links between economics and ecology
(through new indicators, concepts and valuations), that it is possible and convenient to
refine Brundtland’s broad vision of SD into a more specific agenda. Facts prove that the
Brundtland’s assumption that equity problems could be solved by growth have proved
to be wrong, as inequity has grown together with the economy –contradicting again the
diagnosis of the studies referred by the WBCSD.
Regarding the sphere of political decisions, the authors think that the economic
globalization (and subsequently the ecological one) makes necessary the reduction of

4. national sovereignties (that constitute the scope of Brundtland Report’s Strategic
Imperatives in chapter 2) in favour of a trans-national authority.
IIED’s Steve Bass, in his document A New Era in SD (2007), argues an approach
that aligns with the authors of Sustainable Development in a post-Brundtland World in
the sense that a conceptual change is needed. The reality shows that the world is far
from following a SD. Economic growth is currently being thought rather an “inviolable
principle” than a way to alleviate poverty or environmental degradation. He can see
fundamental 3 relevant paradoxes in our world, namely
- the permanence of the economical paradigm as the way to solve the
problems that it has caused itself;
- the world’s very poor performance in achieving SD co-exist with a
general climate that recognizes the importance of Sustainable Development, yet
continues taking resources from the future instead of creating resilience for it;
and
- lack of action in these years, “when it is most needed”.
So, SD remains as a virtual rather than as an operational concept. Though the
concept has been generally assumed among institutions and is being caught by the
public, the progress towards SD has been inadequate, the causes for unsustainability
remain and neither institutions, businesses nor individuals feel urgency to act.
Bass thinks that the world’s priority for the next 20 years is to tackle the structural
problems that distort developmental and environmental scenes, “focusing on key
injustices and environmental tipping points, notably climate change”. The sentence in
quotation marks comes to mean a change of the concept defined in Brundtland Report,
because now it is the economic pillar the one which is subordinated to the Social and
Environmental ones. In this sense, it promotes a change in the SD concept, which is also
the main purpose of the Sneddon’s work.
As a conclusion, a change would be good to make SD operational, as promoted
directly by Sneddon and indirectly by Bass, in order to alter the threatening path that
our world is following, thus preventing such relevant omission as the one committed in
Maastricht from happening again. Although the implications of the WSCSD´s approach
to the social pillar of SD are not clear, its confidence in already existing institutions
(businesses and consumers attitudes, met in the market) can contribute to create a more
realistic and operational concept of SD, provided that the necessary changes are
effectively made, in order to internalize as much and many as possible of the
environmental costs and reflect them in the final price of goods and services.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

5. - Rodrik, D, “Growth versus poverty reduction: a hollo debate” (2000). Finance
Development, volume 37, Number 4.
- Bermejo, R. (2005:24), “La gran transición hacia la sostenibilidad”, 354pg. Los
Libros de la Catarata.
- (Brundtland Report) World Commission on Environment and Development
(WCED) (1987): “Our Common Future”, 400 pg, Oxford.
- Daly, H.E. el al. (1993). “Sustainable Growth: An Impossibility Theorem, from
Valuing the Earth”. Economics, Ecology, Ethics, p.267
- EEA (European Environment Agency) (1998); “Making Susttainability
Accountable”, Newsletter December 17th
- Lafferty W.M., Meadowcroft J.R. “Implementing Sustainable Development:
Strategies and Initiatives in High Consumption Societies” (2000). Oxford
University Press, 2000, p.311
- Maastricht Treaty- Treaty on European Unity, Art. G (EEC Treaty Art. 2,
amended), extract in http://www.wcl.american.edu/environment/iel/sup4.cfm
- Sneddon C. et al., “Sustainable Development in a post-Brundtland World”
(2006), Ecological Economics. Extracted pages 253–268 in
http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc
_view&gid=142