Sustainability: The Three-Spheres Framework For Incompatibility

I. Introduction

What is sustainability? There is a Native American (n.d.) proverb which says: ‘When the last tree has been cut down, the last fish caught, the last river poisoned, only then will we realize that one cannot eat money’. Defining sustainability is a challenge itself, achieving it is even more arduous but what it is certain is the consequence of not acting sustainable. For too long the main goal of western countries has been profit, ignoring the extended list of benefits deriving from acting sustainable. The sustainability topic offers a wide range of arguments to discuss but in this paper only few of them are reviewed. Firstly, the 'three-legged stool ' model as a way of conceptualizing sustainability and its stability will be

The topic however, has been discussed by O’Connor (2006) who has proposed a “Four Spheres” framework for sustainability. He argues that the respect of the triple bottom line model requires the simultaneous satisfaction of targets of both economy, society and environment, which is not always easy to accomplish. Conflicts and incompatibility could emerge when decisions are to be made. The need for resolution brings to theorize a fourth sphere, the political sphere, which will act like an arbiter between the three pillars’ claims and principles. The author suggests that the governance sphere should be based on institutional arrangements. However, the study seems to be a theoretical structure without enough pragmatism, which makes it difficult to apply to

Sustainability and business, the triple bottom line.

When a company adopts sustainability principles, as Milne and Gray (2012) stated, it means that it will start to subordinate its production to environmental and social values. This commitment can be communicated through the adoption of the triple bottom line, a term firstly coined by Elkington (1994), which indicates a new accounting framework that not only includes the financial success of a business but also its environmental and social responsibility.

What needs to be stressed is the ethical aspect of acting sustainable, which is particularly important for companies that operate in certain dangerous sectors. For example, mineral industries could decide to act sustainable in order to avoid or reduce harms caused to local population (Bond, 2014). A relevant episode is that showed by Savitz and Weber (2006) about what happened in 2002 in Kerala. A protest against the Pepsi industry, accused of water over exploitation, brought the company to improve the sustainability of its project. Even if the accusation was not true, since the business had not caused the water shortage, Pepsi’s managers decided to enhance their technology. Not only, they wanted to continue their business, but they did realize that reducing environmental impacts was possible. Therefore, the company created ponds for recharging aquifers and developed the community