Sustainability as a “magic concept”

Abstract

Sustainability studies have not been able to come up with a consensus conceptualization of “sustainability,” despite many attempts. This article asks what this conceptual confusion means. I do this through a (conceptual history) vertical analysis, and horizontal (discourse) analysis of the current use of the term. It finds that sustainability is a perfect fit for what Hupe and Pollit have called a “magic concept,” in that it is; broad, has a positive normative charge, imply consensus or at least the possibility of overcoming current conflicts, and has global marketability (2011: 643). This has both positive and negative effects: On the one hand, the popularity of the concept of sustainability has enabled an overarching discourse on the responsible use of natural resources. On the other hand, the concept is vulnerable to various strategic misuses, ranging from corporate greenwashing to Luddite passions. Based on a vertical analysis of the history of sustainability, this vagueness is not a coincidence: It was part of a political bargain at its birth, where environmental concerns were grafted onto an older discourse on “development” during the writing of the 1987 Brundtland report. Based on a horizontal analysis, this vagueness is now inherent to the concept and cannot be abandoned without losing the very magic qualities that make sustainability such a rallying point. This finding points to the conclusion that we should be cautious about how sustainability is wielded.
 Received: 03 February 2021Accepted: 01 March 2021

Clarifying the Concept of Corporate Sustainability and Providing Convergence for Its Definition

“…According to the Brundtland report-the first document that introduced the "sustainable development" concept [12]-businesses are said to have a crucial role in managing the impact of population in ecosystems, resources, food security, and sustainable economies in order to decrease the pressure society places on the environment (WCED), 1987. As reported by many authors [1,[13][14][15][16], the origin of the corporate sustainability concept is often linked to the Brundtland report's definition of "sustainable development" as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability for future generations to meet their own needs". Despite the popularity of the Brundtland's definition, its efficacy in giving practical guidance to organizations has often been questioned.…”

“…It is critical to observe that despite the proliferation of remarkable studies on the concept of corporate sustainability, conclusions remain that the concept is elusive and unclear. Jeremy Caradonna, the most read author on sustainability [14], sees this broadness as enriching the debate and offering different perspectives. However, trying to solve the conceptual issue by joining increasingly different debates and by creating own unique definitions unquestionably increases confusion [34].…”

“…The literature on the conceptual history of "sustainability" is relatively small, but it shows a general agreement regarding its roots [14]. The origin of the sustainability discourse can be traced back to the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe, when economists started to write about the risks of forest depletion and the impact of population growth [35].…”

“…The origin of the sustainability discourse can be traced back to the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe, when economists started to write about the risks of forest depletion and the impact of population growth [35]. At the start of the 19th century, the protectionist and conservationist movement born in the United States, began to pay heed to the preservation of nature, as a result of the raise of romanticism, which brought attention to the appreciation of natural beauty [14]. It was only after the second world war that environmental considerations were regarded as necessary for the survival of society [36].…”

“…documenting the damage of pesticides on the environment, is said to have kickstarted the post war environmentalist movement [14]. The new generation of environmental activists no longer viewed the world as divided into the two distinct domains of human and nature, but rather as deeply interconnected [38].…”