Modeling normativity in sustainability: a comparison of the sustainable development goals, the Paris agreement, and the papal encyclical

The idea of sustainability is intrinsically normative. Thus, understanding the role of normativity in sustainability discourses is crucial for further developing sustainability science. In this article, we analyze three important documents that aim to advance sustainability and explore how they organize norms in relation to sustainability. The three documents are: the Pope’s Encyclical Laudato Si’, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. We show that understanding the role of different types of norms in the three documents can help understand normative features of both scientific and non-scientific sustainability discourses. We present the diverse system of norms in a model that interrelates three different levels: macro, meso, and micro. Our model highlights how several processes affect the normative orientation of nations and societies at the meso-level in different ways. For instance, individual ethical norms at the micro-level, such as personal responsibility, may help decelerate unsustainable consumerism at the aggregate meso-level. We also show that techno-scientific norms at the macro-level representing global indicators for sustainability may accelerate innovations. We suggest that our model can help better organize normative features of sustainability discourses and, therefore, to contribute to the further development of sustainability science.

[1]  Anne Jerneck,et al.  Structuring sustainability science , 2011 .

[2]  H. Simon,et al.  Near decomposability and the speed of evolution , 2002 .

[3]  J. Sachs,et al.  The age of sustainable development , 2016 .

[4]  E. Sarriot,et al.  Community Health Systems as Complex Adaptive Systems: Ontology and Praxis Lessons from an Urban Health Experience with Demonstrated Sustainability , 2015 .

[5]  Peter Carnau.  Nachhaltigkeitsethik : Normativer Gestaltungsansatz für eine global zukunftsfähige Entwicklung in Theorie und Praxis , 2011 .

[6]  I. Stengers,et al.  The Challenge of Complexity: Unfolding the Ethics of Science.: In Memoriam Ilya Prigogine , 2004 .

[7]  E. Ostrom.  A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas , 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  W. McCulloch.  The heterarchy of values determined by the topology of nervous nets. , 1945, The Bulletin of mathematical biophysics.

[9]  Louis Lebel,et al.  Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Scale and Cross-scale Dynamics Scale and Cross-Scale Dynamics: Governance and Information in a Multilevel World , 2006 .

[10]  Craig R. Allen,et al.  Panarchy: Theory and Application , 2014, Ecosystems.

[11]  Camaren Peter,et al.  Linking Complexity and Sustainability Theories: Implications for Modeling Sustainability Transitions , 2014 .

[12]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  The emergence of post-normal science , 1993 .

[13]  C. S. Holling.  Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems , 2001, Ecosystems.

[14]  Jon Walker,et al.  A Complexity Approach to Sustainability - Theory and Application , 2011, Series on Complexity Science.

[15]  J. A. EASTERBROOK,et al.  Cybernetics and Management , 1960, Nature.

[16]  T. Dedeurwaerdere,et al.  A Pragmatist Approach to Transdisciplinarity in Sustainability Research: From Complex Systems Theory to Reflexive Science , 2015 .

[17]  E. Ostrom,et al.  Aligning Key Concepts for Global Change Policy: Robustness, Resilience, and Sustainability , 2013 .

[18]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[19]  E. Ostrom.  A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems , 2009, Science.

[20]  Stafford Beer,et al.  Cybernetics and Management. , 1960 .

[21]  Science and religion in dialogue over the global commons , 2015 .

[22]  Andreas Kläy,et al.  Rethinking science for sustainable development: Reflexive interaction for a paradigm transformation , 2015 .

[23]  O. Geden.  The Paris Agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policymaking , 2016 .

[24]  Elspeth Oppermann,et al.  The discourse of adaptation to climate change and the UK Climate Impacts Programme: De-scribing the problematization of adaptation , 2011 .

[25]  H. Francis,et al.  ENCYCLICAL LETTER LAUDATO SI' OF THE HOLY Father FRANCIS: ON CARE FOR Our COMMON HOME , 2016 .

[26]  F. Geels.  The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms , 2011 .

[27]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Drivers, "Slow" Variables, "Fast" Variables, Shocks, and Resilience , 2012 .

[28]  O. Parodi,et al.  Sustainable Development : Relationships to Culture, Knowledge and Ethics , 2011 .

[29]  J. Holland.  Signals and Boundaries: Building Blocks for Complex Adaptive Systems , 2012 .

[30]  F. Geels.  From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory , 2004 .

[31]  Stephanie Perkiss,et al.  Social Accounting into Action: Religion as ‘Moral Source’ , 2017 .

[32]  W. Salomons,et al.  Research, part of a Special Feature on A Systems Approach for Sustainable Development in Coastal Zones Nitrogen Source Apportionment for the Catchment, Estuary, and Adjacent Coastal Waters of the River Scheldt , 2012 .

[33]  K. Ott,et al.  The quality of sustainability science: a philosophical perspective , 2011 .

[34]  F. Geels,et al.  Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways , 2007 .

[35]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  Complexity - A Guided Tour , 2009 .

[36]  H. Putnam.  The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays , 2002 .

[37]  Daniel J. Lang,et al.  Acknowledging temporal diversity in sustainability transformations at the nexus of interconnected systems , 2017 .

[38]  HERBERT A. SIMON,et al.  The Architecture of Complexity , 1991 .

[39]  Thaddeus R. Miller,et al.  The future of sustainability science: a solutions-oriented research agenda , 2013, Sustainability Science.