Sustainable Development: Lost Meaning and Opportunity?

The term Sustainable Development has been used in many different contexts and consequently has come to represent many different ideas. The purpose of this paper was to explore the underlying meaning of the term Sustainable Development, and to assess the dominant ethic behind such meaning. Through this exploration, we uncovered a change in the semantic meaning of the term, and described what that meaning entails. The term Sustainable Development had the potential, we argue, to stimulate discursive engagement with respect to the future development of society within an ethical framework based around the values of inclusivity, diversity, and integration. The importance of philosophical context within which the term is used influences the definitional process of meaning, and has been simulated into the language of the dominant scientific-economic paradigm. We go on to explore how this meaning change has come about. In doing so we looked to the Enlightenment period and the resulting philosophies to explore the foundations of meaning, and then to the work of Jürgen Habermas to explain how the scientific-economic paradigm came to dominate the meaning of Sustainable Development.

[1]  M. Redclift.  The meaning of sustainable development , 1992 .

[2]  S. Hart.  A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm , 1995 .

[3]  Maurice Strong.  Where on Earth Are We Going , 2000 .

[4]  E. Barbier.  The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development , 1987, Environmental Conservation.

[5]  J. Habermas.  Theory of Communicative Action , 1981 .

[6]  Thomas Burger,et al.  Social Systems and the Evolution of Action Theory.@@@The Evolution of Societies. , 1978 .

[7]  Ulrich Beyerlin,et al.  The Concept of Sustainable Development , 1996 .

[8]  Jean Garner Stead,et al.  Can Humankind Change the Economic Myth? Paradigm Shifts Necessary for Ecologically Sustainable Business , 1994 .

[9]  D. Meadows,et al.  The limits to growth. A report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind. , 1972 .

[10]  T. Gladwin,et al.  Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development: Implications for Management Theory and Research , 1995 .

[11]  M. Kingwell.  THE WORLD WE WANT Restoring Citizenship in a Fractured Age , 2001 .

[12]  Daniel C. Esty.  A Term’s Limits , 2001 .

[13]  C. Mitcham.  The concept of sustainable development: its origins and ambivalence , 1995 .

[14]  Clive Hamilton,et al.  Dualism and sustainability , 2002 .

[15]  H. Innis.  The Bias of Communication , 1964 .

[16]  Mary Midgley,et al.  Science as Salvation: A Modern Myth and Its Meaning , 1992 .

[17]  Christopher French Hilary Brown Lester R. Flavin.  State of the world 2000 , 2000 .

[18]  Stephen B. Goldberg,et al.  Getting Disputes Resolved: Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict , 1993 .

[19]  Mats Alvesson,et al.  Organizations As Rhetoric: Knowledge‐Intensive Firms And The Struggle With Ambiguity , 1993 .

[20]  Gene Bazan.  Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth , 1997 .

[21]  J. Habermas.  The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and the Rationalization of Society , 1986 .

[22]  S. Lele.  Sustainable development: A critical review , 1991 .

[23]  M. Alvesson.  Doing critical management research , 2000 .

[24]  Jean Garner Stead,et al.  Eco-Enterprise Strategy: Standing for Sustainability , 2000 .

[25]  Jürgen Habermas,et al.  Toward A Rational Society , 1970 .

[26]  T. Lawson.  Economics and Reality , 1997 .

[27]  Fritjof Capra,et al.  The Tao of Physics , 1975 .

[28]  M. Alvesson.  Communication, Power And Organization , 1996 .