Scientific consensus on sustainability: the case of The Natural Step

The Natural Step (TNS) is internationally promoted as the basis of a scientific consensus on sustainability. TNS appears potentially consensual because it argues from a position of summary trends that are scientifically informed. However, comparison with other sustainability principles shows that this appearance is unjustified. Firstly, this is because sustainability principles vary widely in their implications and purpose. Secondly, TNS is ambiguous in its approach to risk assessment and controversial in its implied proposal for zero growth in the physical parameters of the human economy, biodegradable material excepted. Two concepts from the sociology of science are used to account for international corporate and public uptake of TNS, despite its ambiguity and highly precautionary message. These are the boundary object and anchoring devices. TNS illustrates how operationalization of sustainability theories unavoidably involves value judgements relating to the choice of features to be sustained, despite any scientific content that those theories may have. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

[1]  Norman Kaplan,et al.  The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations , 1974 .

[2]  J. Lovelock.  The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth , 1988 .

[3]  B. Latour.  The pasteurization of France , 1988 .

[4]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[5]  A. Webster.  Science, Technology and Society , 1991 .

[6]  D. A. Munro.  Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living , 1991 .

[7]  Michael Jacobs,et al.  The Green Economy: Environment, Sustainable Development and the Politics of the Future , 1992 .

[8]  A. Webster.  Science, Technology and Society: New Directions , 1991 .

[9]  T. Power.  For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future , 1993 .

[10]  P Ekins,et al.  The Environmental Sustainability of Economic Processes: a Framework for Analysis , 1994 .

[11]  John Holmberg,et al.  Socio-Ecological Principles and Indicators for Sustainability , 1995 .

[12]  S. L. Star.  The Cultures of Computing , 1995 .

[13]  J. Hills,et al.  Damage from the impacts of small asteroids , 1996 .

[14]  John Holmberg,et al.  Socio-ecological Indicators for Sustainability. , 1996 .

[15]  Herman E. Daly,et al.  Environmental Sustainability: Universal and Non‐Negotiable , 1996 .

[16]  Environmental Change: The Evolving Ecosphere , 1997 .

[17]  John Holmberg,et al.  A compass for sustainable development , 1997 .

[18]  Berit Mattsson,et al.  The feasibility of including sustainability in LCA for product development , 1998 .

[19]  Francis Harvey,et al.  Boundary Objects and the Social Construction of GIS Technology , 1998 .

[20]  Simon Shackley,et al.  Anchoring Devices in Science for Policy , 1998 .

[21]  J. Spray,et al.  Evidence for a late Triassic multiple impact event on Earth , 1998, Nature.