Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur eleifend tortor nec augue pretium
Sustainability is one of the most consequential words used in business and society today. Yet the word now carries two distinct meanings which are increasingly conflated. While they are both manifestly important, the relationship and interconnection between them is rarely considered, which is to the detriment of both.
From the early days, we practitioners have recognised ‘sustainability’ as meeting the needs today without compromising the ability to meet the needs of tomorrow. Society is limited by planetary boundaries, above which its life support systems become destabilised, including challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss. It also depends upon social foundations without which it cannot function, including access to affordable food and housing.
We now know that, for many of these constraints, the headroom between today’s reality and the physical limitations is small and getting smaller.
As public consciousness has developed, the spotlight of organisational and public discourse has rightly shifted between different constraints: from biodiversity to climate change mitigation to community social value. Much of the profession’s work in these areas has focussed on quantification and understanding, and arguably in some cases we are only now beginning to see meaningful outcomes.
As a result, many non-specialists now view the term ‘sustainability’ as synonymous with carbon accounting, biodiversity measurement and social value tracking, which they often perceive as having no tangible benefit. This is uncomfortable but an important point to recognise.
For many colleagues that we seek to influence, this narrower interpretation of the word carries baggage, and often the prevailing sentiment is negative. Sustainability advisors and programmes are frequently viewed as overheads which, although necessary for regulatory and reputational purposes, are costly and do not deliver real benefit to their organisations.
At the same time, there is currently a shift within industry to focus on what is now often described as ‘business sustainability’ or ‘corporate sustainability’. This second, broader, meaning of the word ‘sustainability’ is now starting to gain traction in some sectors.
Society chooses how to allocate its resources and planetary headroom between competing activities such as food production, housing development and infrastructure engineering. In the UK at least, many of these decisions are made directly by a democratically elected government such as through direct regulation or the local planning process. Other choices are made indirectly through supply chains and organisational investors or informally through consumer behaviour. As resources become more constrained and societal expectations continue to evolve, industries face increasing pressure to deliver within tighter environmental, social and economic boundaries.
For any industry or individual business to be sustainable in its broadest sense, i.e. to endure and remain resilient over time, they must find a way to deliver their products and services while operating within the resources and headroom which society allocates to them and (crucially) to remain financially viable while doing so.
For many colleagues who have traditionally viewed ‘sustainability’ only as a cost to their business, this second concept is different. It is intuitive, commercially relevant and positively supports them. However, there is a danger that it is seen as entirely separate from the first.
This dual meaning can unintentionally create tensions between individual sustainability initiatives (such as carbon reduction or biodiversity net gain) and the wider sustainability of businesses or industries, often to the detriment of both.
It is imperative that we practitioners communicate that both concepts are intrinsically linked. In one sense the first, narrower meaning of ‘sustainability’ is simply a subset of the broader concept.
For business sustainability to be addressed correctly, organisations need to ensure that the key resources, ecosystem services, and workforce that they require to operate will continue to be available. Businesses cannot make correct, balanced investment and operational decisions without a detailed understanding of their environmental and social impacts. Furthermore, initiatives such as carbon reduction and social value betterment matter to their clients and are therefore a real commercial concern.
Correspondingly, business sustainability is absolutely fundamental to society meeting its needs sustainably. Without financially viability, businesses operating within environmental and social constraints will soon be replaced by those who do not. The basic needs of society cannot be met without long-term resilience and endurance in key industrial sectors.
Overall, there is currently a growing disconnect between two distinct uses of the word ‘sustainability’. The narrower interpretation has come to dominate organisational and public discourse, often sacrificing sufficient consideration of the wider conditions required for long-term resilience and endurance. Meanwhile, the broader meaning regarding business sustainability is now gaining traction in industry, but there is danger that the importance of environmental and social pillars of the sustainability framework upon which long-term success ultimately depends will be diminished.
Both meanings are important and deeply interconnected. Rather than allowing them to be positioned in opposition to each other, it is incumbent on us as practitioners to effectively communicate how they relate and promote them both, to the benefit of both business and society.
Elisabeth Mclaughlin is a business sustainability lead at STRABAG UK
Paul Howlett leads the infrastructure sustainability team at STRABAG UK
