Modeling normativity in sustainability: a comparison of the sustainable development goals, the Paris agreement, and the papal encyclical

Abstract

The idea of sustainability is intrinsically normative. Thus, understanding the role of normativity in sustainability discourses is crucial for further developing sustainability science. In this article, we analyze three important documents that aim to advance sustainability and explore how they organize norms in relation to sustainability. The three documents are: the Pope’s Encyclical Laudato Si’, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. We show that understanding the role of different types of norms in the three documents can help understand normative features of both scientific and non-scientific sustainability discourses. We present the diverse system of norms in a model that interrelates three different levels: macro, meso, and micro. Our model highlights how several processes affect the normative orientation of nations and societies at the meso-level in different ways. For instance, individual ethical norms at the micro-level, such as personal responsibility, may help decelerate unsustainable consumerism at the aggregate meso-level. We also show that techno-scientific norms at the macro-level representing global indicators for sustainability may accelerate innovations. We suggest that our model can help better organize normative features of sustainability discourses and, therefore, to contribute to the further development of sustainability science.

How can science support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development? Four tasks to tackle the normative dimension of sustainability

“…Rather than trying to (unsuccessfully) outsource these questions, science must find a way of addressing them and incorporating them in a systematic and reflexive way (Ison 2008;and Miller et al 2008;Mitchell et al 2015;Ziegler and Ott 2011). Although some researchers have already argued, often persuasively, for such a reorientation in science (Grunwald 2015; Miller et al 2014;Popa et al 2015;Schmieg et al 2018;Wiesmann and Messerli 2007), debate within the sustainability science community has been very limited, leading to misunderstandings with regard to the relation between facts and values, the relation between objectivity and subjectivity, and the roles these aspects play in the practice of scientific enquiry.…”

“…So far, the literature contains few inquiries into sustainability values, compared to the wealth of research on social-ecological systems dynamics. Therefore, from our perspective, mapping, inquiring into, and explaining ethical values and principles of sustainable development-as well as of stakeholders' normative assumptions, worldviews and power relations-should be a key object of future sustainability research (Christen and Schmidt, 2012;Miller et al 2014;Schmieg et al 2018;Ziegler and Ott 2011). Strengthening the analysis of values means, in particular, a better integration of the disciplinary perspectives of the social sciences and humanities into sustainability sciences.…”

“…We argue that at the most basic level, engagement with the mandate of the 2030 Agenda-and, indeed, with sustainable development more broadly-necessarily entails a systematic reflection on how to deal with the Agenda's inherently normative nature and the latent assumptions that inform sustainable development (Ziegler and Ott 2011). Two interrelated normative questions or issues need to be tackled by science for sustainable development: first, how is the normative dimension of the 2030 Agenda articulated and what values and norms define the concept of sustainability (Schmieg et al 2018)? And second, what are the normative assumptions that define what it means to do "good science", and what are appropriate roles for scientists in this regard (Pohl et al 2010;Ravetz and Funtowicz 2015)?…”

Archetype analysis in sustainability research: methodological portfolio and analytical frontiers

“…The concept of sustainability is a paradigm for thinking about a world in which basic human needs and aspirations are met without degrading the natural environment, now and in the future (United Nations 2015). By recognizing problematic development pathways related to the (over)use, unequal access to, and (mis)management of land, water, species, and other natural resources, the concept essentially links earth system dynamics with normative assumptions, values, and power relations (Reid et al 2010, Schmieg et al 2018. This link facilitates reasoning about what kind of development is considered as more desirable and the ways to achieve such development, thereby providing the foundation for the Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations 2015).…”

New Science Institutions for Global Sustainability

“…For an increasing number of researchers engaged in science for sustainability, the responsibility of science lies not only in understanding the causes and consequences of unsustainability, but also in contributing to sustainability transformations (Chapter 7). This transformative aim of science for sustainability makes that matters of fact become inseparable from matters of concern (Latour, 2004;Schmieg et al, 2017;van Poeck, Goeminne, & Vandenabeele, 2016). Science for sustainability is directly concerned with action and interventions for sustainability transformations, moving beyond a linear idea of scientific knowledge informing decision-making and rather attending to the co-production of knowledge and societal change (Norström et al, 2020;West et al, 2019;Wyborn et al, 2019).…”