When you wonder about the definition of the terms "sustainable" and "sustainability," and review what others have accomplished in this regard, you quickly experience the swirls of an ongoing debate. Definers of sustainability include:
- The British government
- Closer to home, the Washington State Department of Ecology
- Sustainable Measures, a consultant in Connecticut
- The U.S. National Park Service
- U.S. Forest Service scientists
- The Center for Sustainable Systems within the School of Natural Resources & Environment at the University of Michigan
Plus a large cast that includes Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and hundreds of service vendors, not-for-profit organizations, corporations, and public-sector entities.
Some tired wanderers collect other people's definitions instead or in addition to their own. I can empathize with Andy Duncan of Oregon State University; he headlines his article "The definition of sustainability depends on who is speaking." To quote:
"Why is it important to have a common definition of sustainability? What will we gain?" said Denise Lach, a sociology professor at Oregon State University who is co-director of the university’s Center for Water and Environmental Sustainability. "I think the arguments over abstract definitions are masking the real work that’s getting done and needs to get done.
"Sustainability is like love and democracy—multiple meanings, not always perfectly realized, but always struggled for, at least by most of us. I think we do agree, basically, on what it is. We disagree when we must make specific choices in our lives. I think the major questions are: Who does not want a sustainable society? Why?"
"The word is just a symbol, a key to open the door to a room full of growth and development issues," said John Van Sickle, a scientist with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency research laboratory in Corvallis, Ore.
Even if nailing down a widely accepted definition of sustainability is desirable, perhaps difficulty in doing that at this time is exactly what we should expect. Some claim the worldwide focus on the term is nothing less than the "toddler stage" of a major shift in the trajectory of life on the planet.
In the absence of consensus to get rid of the term or replace it with a better one, it will pervade our conversations, for better or worse. I've read declarations that define "sustainability" in terms of ecological health and social justice, continued growth and far-reaching technological innovation. I've also found mimimalist definitions that state the equivalent of "If it doesn't cause any damage to the environment, it must be sustainable." Those are usually brought forward by people who go on to criticize that approach as less than helpful.
In the green marketing context, "sustainability" (to my mind) implies that a basic, desirable, balanced state of the environment is not only definable, but that it also is clearly visible when that state is not present. I'm not sure that is true. Maybe it never was, and "sustainability" as an ideal comes to us from an earlier time or a simpler frame of mind, when we could imagine that human activities had not completely altered our world. Maybe we could leave "sustainability" aside and figure out what another frequently used term means to us, our societies, and the people and companies we work for: environment.
Maybe environment as a term is part of our problems. Ask the people around you, check the dictionaries, or look up references in articles and magazines. Almost immediately, you discover the notion that the environment "is what surrounds us" or "the world we are in" or "the background of our lives and activities." When using "environment," the idea of separation is always close. If the environment is what surrounds me, where does it stop and where do I begin? If I am not the environment, how do I relate to it? Does my customer's environment differ from mine? Is "environment" a shared notion, or does it mean different things to people in diverse cultures and countries?
These are not abstract questions. After all, when we work on environmental marketing communications, the idea is that a company's products, services, business practices, ideas, or values are of benefit to the environment and the societies that exist within it. Often, we connect those benefits to the qualities of air, water, and soil, and to the well being of people and animals. Is that the best way to go about it, or would it be more helpful to verify what we mean when we say "environment"?
"Environment" is everything in the world that connects to us and touches our bodies and minds in any way, known or unknown, visible or invisible, loved or unloved.
Will that work, or do you have another idea? Please let me know if you do!
Comments