Introduction

For much of the past few decades, state and local governments have led in making sustainability operational. Federal policies have lagged far behind. Since the early 1990s, the idea of sustainability has taken root in hundreds of state and local communities in the United States and around the world. These governments are natural laboratories for sustainability as they are responsible for development issues and are closer to the nexus of sustainability and quality of life. What happens at their level is an important measure of public support for sustainability.

On a global scale, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) was established in 1990 by more than 200 local governments from 43 countries at the World Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future. In 2003, the council expanded and revised its mission, charter, and name to reflect challenges faced by local governments. The new ICLEI–Local Governments for Sustainability includes more than 450 local governments, representing 300 million people in 63 countries. Today, its web site (http://www.iclei.org) provides invaluable information on best urban practices in topics such as planning for sustainable development, energy efficiency, transportation, green building, land use management, environmental management, and education.

Since 2005 the online resource SustainLane has also surveyed and ranked the 50 most populous US cities on the basis of sustainability (http://www.sustainlane.com/us-city-rankings). The city top-ranked by SustainLane in 2006 and 2008 was Portland, Oregon, which ranked above other cities in planning for clean technology, green building development, overall quality of life, and in planning and management for sustainability. The concept of sustainability has also been growing in small- and medium-size cities and a number of different regions in the US (Weiss 2009).

In parallel with growing support for sustainability at state and local levels, several major international firms are beginning to embrace sustainability principles and practices:

  • In May 2005, the General Electric Company launched its program of “ecomagination,” asserting that “things that are good for the environment are also good for business.” GE was embarking on this initiative “not because it is trendy or moral, but because it will accelerate [economic] growth” (Sullivan and Schiafo 2005). In 2007, GE set a goal of generating $20 billion in revenue from ecomagination products by 2010.

  • In similar fashion, the giant retail-goods manufacturer Proctor & Gamble set a goal in 2007 of gaining $20 billion in 5 years from innovative and sustainable products such as Tide Coldwater; 2 years later the firm raised its goal to $50 billion by 2012 (Winston 2009). In October 2010, P&G went further, announcing a new sustainability vision aiming to reach 5 billion consumers over the next 5 years, or roughly a billion more than the firm’s present number of consumers. The vision is equally ambitious in aiming to use 100% renewable or recycled materials for all of its products and packaging and to achieve zero consumer waste entering landfills. In order to meet those goals, P&G has established a set of benchmarks including renewable materials accounting for 25% of product/packaging materials, and for the firm’s plants to rely on renewable power for 30% of its energy use.

  • In the retail world, UK retailer Marks & Spencer (M&S) has set the goal of becoming the world’s most sustainable major retailer by 2015. In 2007, M&S launched its “Plan A: Doing the Right Thing” (“because there is no Plan B”), a business-wide £200 million “eco-plan.” M&S has made significant strides on its five goals of becoming carbon-neutral, sending no waste to landfill, extending sustainable sourcing, setting new standards in ethical trading, and helping customers and employees live a healthier lifestyle. Plan A began with 100 specific goals and in 2010 added 80 more (Marks & Spencer 2010a). M&S has reported that all the £50 million ($73 million) earned by Plan A activities in 2009 were invested back into the company and that by 2010 it had achieved 62 of its original 100 specific goals (Marks & Spencer 2010b).

  • Among the many companies that have now adopted new management and technical strategies to advance sustainability, Walmart stands out for aggressively applying life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches to managing its global supply chain. In 2006, Walmart launched its Sustainability 360 program and established explicit goals to use 100% renewable energy sources, create zero waste, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and sell products that “sustain our resources and the environment.”

These examples showcase businesses that have begun to see the goal of sustainability as a strategy for managing the rising cost of energy and material use and promoting competitiveness and innovation. A 2002 PricewaterhouseCoopers survey of industry stated that “companies that fail to become sustainable—that ignore the risks associated with ethics, governance and the triple bottom line of economic, environmental and social issues—are courting disaster” (PricewaterhouseCoopers 2002). Since then sustainability strategies have been incorporated into the management principles of dozens of Fortune 500 companies, with more of these firms based in Europe and Asia than in the United States.

The indispensable nature of sustainability was recognized by the European Union (EU) in 2000 when it made sustainability the goal of its Lisbon Strategy, aiming “to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion” (European Council 2000). The European Council declared that clear and stable objectives for sustainable development will present significant economic opportunities, which “has the potential to unleash a new wave of technology innovation, generating growth and employment” (Larsson et al. 2002). Today this view of sustainability as an economic strategy is becoming more widespread in industry. After examining sustainability initiatives in energy and manufacturing at 30 large corporations, a 2009 study published in the Harvard Business Review concluded that “sustainability is a mother lode of organizational and technological innovations that yield both bottom-line and top-line returns” and that “there is no alternative to sustainable development” (Nidumolu et al. 2009).

Given progress toward sustainability in Europe and at state and local government levels and in the business community in the United States, why has the concept of sustainability been so difficult to advance in the US federal government and what drivers are operating today to change this? Can the goal of sustainability become a more integral part of US national policy? How can science and innovation advance sustainable solutions? And what role can the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) play in moving the United States to the next level of environmental protection with a focus on sustainability? Use of a conceptual pressure–state–response model described in the following sections sheds light on these questions.

Pressure–State–Response Model Leads to Sustainability

Making sustainability operational in the federal government has been limited by a number of factors largely related to fears of adding economic burdens to business and society. The current debate on regulating GHGs and climate change is a good example of divergent views on the economic impacts of climate change (Hecht 2009). However, notwithstanding the debate on climate change, sustainability is now being recognized as a possible source of innovation in business and government. This recognition has been driven by a number of social, economic, and environmental factors.

Beginning in 2007, I started to sketch out factors exerting pressures on business strategies and government policies to move toward sustainability (Hecht 2007). I used a conceptual systems model (Fig. 1) often called a “pressure–state–response model,” which identifies how social, economic, and environmental stressors (Box 1) were shaping business strategies and government policies by their effects on four stakeholder groups (Boxes 2, 3, 4, and 5): Risk Managers and Insurers, Policy Makers and Regulators, Financial Investors, and the UN and Global Society. The result was to move business strategies and government policies toward sustainability (Boxes 6, 7, and 8).

Fig. 1
figure 1

A conceptual pressure–state–response model

Full size image

Expanding this diagram to comprehensively model a real system Fig. 1 would show many positive and negative impacts affecting each rectangle. Conflicts between state and federal policies regulating GHG emissions would be seen as prominent positive feedback that has moved federal policies toward sustainability. Such conflicts led to the 2007 US Supreme Court case disputing whether the Clean Air Act gives the USEPA the authority to regulate carbon dioxide gas as a pollutant. The several states that had initiated the lawsuit argued that The USEPA has such authority, while the USEPA under the George W. Bush administration opposed such an interpretation. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the states, the USEPA under the Obama administration announced it will apply the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions.

This figure would become very complicated if it depicted all the relevant positive and negative feedbacks. For example, rising GHG emissions—a result of current business strategies and government policies—are affecting insurance practices, ­corporate strategies, and government policies. Investors and financial managers reacting to climate risks are encouraging companies to reduce their carbon footprint. Government feedback is both positive (as it sets targets for emissions reduction or GHG intensity) and negative (as it resists certain business and international pressures).

Global environmental, economic, and social pressures are among the major drivers of this model (Box 1). The world’s nations now use resources equivalent to 1.5 planets like earth to support their populations and economies. Drawing on UN scenarios, the Global Footprint Network suggests that if current trends in population and consumption continue, by the 2030s we will need the equivalent of two earths to support the world’s population. The ecosystem will be under even more pressure by 2050 when global population will reach about nine billion, some 30% higher than in 2000. Shortages and deterioration of natural resources and the impacts of climate change will increasingly limit our ability to attain or maintain sustainable economic growth (Global Footprint Network 2010).

These pressures on the planet date back far before the recognitions of environmental problems that led to the creation of the USEPA and the calling of the World Environmental summits of 1972, 1992, and 2002. In the early 1970s, environmental protection was largely focused on addressing issues related to industrial emissions and occupational safety: environmental challenges were highly visible and easy to understand. Congress addressed the obvious problems of air and land pollution and water contamination through media-specific environmental laws; consequently our air and water are cleaner, many damaging industrial waste sites have been restored, and we are producing less hazardous waste.

New pressures are now threatening the well-being and resilience of both human society and the natural environment. These pressures include growth in population and the economy, resulting in increased use of energy and materials and significant changes in land use. These not only drive climate change but also threaten biodiversity and integrity of vital natural resources such as clean air and water, soil, forests, and wetlands.

Today, government and business leaders cannot easily ignore economic and social statistics such as the 2.9 billion people living on less than $2 a day, and the 2.5 billion people having no access to proper sanitation. Many social stressors affect those at the “bottom of the economic pyramid”—the four billion people in developing countries with annual incomes under $3,000. While the individual income of these four billion is very low, together they have purchasing power of $5 trillion (Hammond et al. 2007). The distress of the world’s less fortunate people affects not only the stability of nations but also business operations and opportunities, with the result that international firms operating in many developing nations must find ways to address issues involving social and economic well-being in order to maintain what they call their “license to operate.” Unilever’s global operations appear to demonstrate such concerns: Business Week has suggested that the whole world constitutes “Unilever’s laboratory” because in Brazil the global conglomerate operates a free community laundry, provides financing for drip irrigation, and recycles seventeen tons of waste; in Bangladesh it funds a floating hospital; in Ghana it teaches sustainable practices to deprived communities; in India it helps women start micro-enterprises; and globally it discloses how much carbon dioxide and hazardous waste its factories produce (Business Week 2007).

The health of the environment and its ecosystems both affect and are affected by the behavior of business and government. While the full costs of the loss and degradation of ecosystem services—including access to clean water and sanitation—are difficult to measure, the available evidence demonstrates that the costs are substantial and growing: the 2005 United Nations Millennium Ecosystem Assessment determined that fifteen of the twenty-four significant ecosystem services are being degraded or used unsustainably (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Program 2005). Many of the losses in ecosystem services are a consequence of actions taken to increase the supply of other societal services, especially food production. These trade-offs often shift the costs of ecosystem degradation from one group of people to another; the greatest costs will likely be borne by future generations.

For the past decade, external pressures on the environment and awareness of its impacts have been growing. The economic recession since 2008 has created additional stress on business and has also been giving some firms (and Congress) an excuse to oppose any new regulation on climate change as an untimely extra burden on the economy. Such a position is very shortsighted, for the long-term picture without energetic intervention is more threatening: the combined impact on society of continuing population growth, urban development, and increased use of materials and energy is dramatic. Now more than ever, new business strategies and government policies promoting sustainability are needed. The many stressors included in Box 1 impact activities in Boxes 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Risk Mangers and Insurers (Box 2)

Risk managers are paid for avoiding costly problems and the insurance industry has quickly come to understand that unsustainable development is costly. Floods, droughts, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornados are the expected sources of most major insurance losses. Because changes in the frequency of such events are critical in anticipating risk, effective techniques to understand and evaluate future risk are essential to the viability of insurance firms.

A number of insurers have been leaders in the study of natural catastrophes. Aiming to describe the new risk landscape, insurers such as Swiss Re operate extensive research programs on the early detection and assessment of environmental and health risks, while Munich Re publishes an annual review of disasters and catastrophes and has set up a foundation to support sharing knowledge bearing on risk.

Munich Re, Swiss Re, and other major insurance and reinsurance firms are bringing new attention to issues of environmental sustainability. In reacting to expected pressures from climate change, these firms have adjusted their rate structures and called for government action. In addition, insurance firms now commonly offer businesses the option of reducing their insurance premiums by adopting innovative “green” programs based on improving their risk profile and commitment to sustainability. But the insurance industry cannot address the challenges of climate change on its own. Government regulations are clearly needed.

Regulations and Policy (Box 3)

A combination of environment regulations and business standards is impacting how businesses think about sustainability. EU countries began a GHG cap-and-trade program in 2003. The impact of this approach is getting mixed reviews: from 2007 to 2009 emissions significantly dropped, but the decline may be due largely to the concurrent economic recession. In areas other than climate change, the EU has set new standards on addressing the growing amounts of wastes and toxic chemicals in the environment. The EU has also enacted several directives with important global environmental implications, including directives for the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), and Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH). RoHS and WEEE, designed to tackle the rapidly increasing waste stream of electrical and electronic equipment, complement EU action on landfills and incineration of waste. The REACH regulation gives industries greater responsibility to manage risks from chemicals and to provide related safety information; it requires manufacturers and importers to gather information on the properties of substances, which will help them to manage the substances safely and to register the information in a central database.

From a sustainability perspective, the EU directives regulate product inputs rather than outputs, manage materials rather than waste, promote use of LCA and cradle-to-grave management, apply green engineering and green chemistry principles, shift the burden of proof to industry, and measure and manage future financial risk and liabilities. Combined with pressures from insurers and risk managers, these directives advance the movement toward sustainability.

The EU is also now moving ahead on regulating the use of nanomaterials. Its NanoSustain project aims to develop innovative solutions for the sustainable design, use, recycling, and final treatment of nanotechnology-based products. These goals will be achieved by comprehensively gathering data, generating relevant missing data, and evaluating and validating data for specific nanoproducts or product groups based on their potential threat to human and environmental health hazards and to impacts that may occur after their production. NanoSustain will set the stage for the development of new sustainable products and industrial applications and hence for making the European nanotechnology industry more competitive. A new EU rule—part of a 397-page cosmetics regulation approved in November 2009 by the EU Council—will require cosmetics manufacturers to list any nanoparticles contained in products marketed within the EU.

In the United States, the USEPA is confronting a host of issues related to climate change, economic growth, demographics and aging, urban development and redevelopment, energy and material use, non-point sources of pollution, ecosystem destruction, and new chemical and biological risks. In response to 2008 Congressional appropriations (H.R. 2764; Public Law 110-161), the USEPA has issued the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. Intended to collect accurate and timely emissions data to inform future policy decisions, the rule requires large US sources and suppliers to report GHG emissions. Under the rule, suppliers of fossil fuels or industrial GHGs, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions are required to submit annual reports to the USEPA.

While Congress debates the content and scope of national legislation on GHGs, this USEPA reporting system will provide a better understanding of the sources of GHGs and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions. In addition to new efforts to regulate emissions, the USEPA has come to recognize that, while regulating dangerous pollution and toxics certainly remains a necessary and vital task, eliminating the use of toxic materials altogether is a better, more sustainable approach. It is therefore not surprising that as pressures grow and new risks are identified, USEPA programs have been inching toward life cycle analysis, green chemistry, green design, green engineering, smart growth, and industrial ecology.

Environmental regulators are not alone in responding to growing social pressures on business. Disclosure requirements for industry have been strengthened significantly in recent years. Significant pressure for transparency in business operations has come from the Financial Accounts Standards Board (FASB) of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). In December 2006, FASB issued FIN 47, an interpretation of its Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations Standards, which has prodded firms that had been slow to record obligations for the anticipated expenses of retiring physical assets in an environmentally safe and sound manner. The FASB accounting procedures require firms to identify assets such as building sites, mines, chemical plants, and nuclear power facilities that may cause long-term environmental damage and which the firms may be legally required to restore to their original conditions. Firms are now clearly required to recognize those future obligations as they purchase, construct, and use their physical assets. The FASB accounting procedures also require that firms estimate the potential risk and liability of operating facilities that produce environmentally dangerous products. Such procedures reinforce the movement toward more sustainable management practices by reducing long-term risk.

Finance and Investors (Box 4)

Environmental and social pressures are also pushing bankers, pension fund managers, and individual investors toward more sustainable and socially responsible investing. As the availability and quality of natural resources are under mounting threat, commodities and public goods such as food, clean air, and water are becoming increasing scarce. The financial sector has the potential and the instruments to play a vital catalytic role for the conservation and value enhancement of natural resources (Alms and Schanz 2008). For example, banks that adhere to the Equator Principles must assess the social and environmental impacts of projects that they finance. Influenced by actions and pressures from groups like the activist Rainforest Action Network, Citigroup has gone beyond the Equator Principles by committing to refuse funding for projects that could result in illegal logging, other environmental damage, or harm to indigenous people. Such actions demonstrate the potential power of social pressures on business. Reacting to rising business and public pressures on climate change, the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) in January 2010 voted to require firms to provide information to investors about risks to their businesses associated with climate change.

Changing perspectives on Wall Street and among pension fund managers and millions of institutional and individual investors are also evident in the growth of socially responsible mutual funds and from the evolving definition of fiduciary responsibility to include environmental risk and performance. The 2007 Fiduciary Guide to Toxic Chemical Risk, one of an increasing number of reports about chemicals, foods, and other products, noted the “growing concern about the impact on human health of relatively small amounts of chemicals in everyday products.” The Guide notes that some of the largest law firms in the world have “definitely concluded that considering environmental, social, and governance issues is at the core of Fiduciary Duty of Prudence and that fiduciaries have an affirmative duty to consider toxic chemical issues that impact corporate risk, returns and shareholder values (Ambachtsheer et al. 2007).” If Fig. 1 were designed to capture all the positive and negative feedbacks in the system, then this new interpretation of fiduciary responsibility would be seen as a positive feedback of the changing risk landscape.

UN, World Bank, NGOs, and Global Society (Box 5)

The lower rectangle in the center of Fig. 1 includes pressures coming from the international community that are impacting the convergence of business and government toward sustainability. Since 1972 the United Nations has been at the center of championing environmental and social issues by collecting data, encouraging national reporting, organizing world conferences and summits, and fostering international agreements. The UN-rooted activities have focused global attention on a suite of social and environmental issues that are increasingly affecting business strategies and government policies. While UN conferences may not lead to concrete and binding actions, they have elevated public debate on strategic issues and exerted significant pressure for member governments to take action.

The World Bank similarly provides a variety of lending and advisory services to support the energy, transport, water, and information, and communication technology sectors in client countries. The World Bank actions are outlined by the Sustainable Infrastructure Action Plan (SIAP) and the Infrastructure Recovery and Assets Platform (INFRA). In 2009, support for infrastructure represented 38% of all World Bank commitments (World Bank Group 2008).

Concurrent with the growth of UN activities has been the increase in non-­government organizations focusing on environmental and social issues. Today these organizations are key partners with government and business in efforts to bring clean water, sanitation, clean energy, and medical care to billions of people around the world. Non-government organizations are also exerting considerable pressure on business by using modern satellite and Internet technology. For example, GeoEye has become one of the major global providers of real-time satellite data for business sectors seeking information on illegal logging and mining (http://www.geoeye.com/CorpSite).

Convergence of Business Strategies and Government Policies (Boxes 6, 7, and 8)

The conceptual systems model shown and described above is in many ways a variant of a pressure–state–response model. In this model, human activities exert pressures on the environment (such as pollution, land use change, or increased demand for livestock products). These result in changes in the environment (e.g., changes in pollutant levels, habitat diversity, and livestock production) which in turn impact economic, social, and environmental conditions. How society responds to these changes is reflected in business strategies and practices and government policies that are slowly converging on sustainability. This convergence reflects a new understanding that innovation and sustainable practices can boost the economy.

Analyzing business stressors and responses to the recession, Winston (2009) highlights four key factors that can accelerate movement toward sustainable practices. He argues that businesses must (1) get lean and generate immediate ­bottom-line savings by reducing energy use and waste; (2) get smart by using value-chain data to cut costs, reduce risks, and focus innovation efforts; (3) get creative by posing heretical questions that force companies to find solutions to tomorrow’s challenges today; and (4) get engaged by giving employees ownership of environmental goals and the tools to act on them. Winston argues that green initiatives can ratchet up a company’s resource efficiency, creativity, and employee motivation. He concludes that sustainability is at the very core of recovery: no company or society, he insists, can last unless it cares for all of its human, financial, and environmental resources and capital (Winston 2009).

Dozens of companies (like P&G, Walmart, GE, and others discussed in the previous section) are now evolving their business models by setting sustainability goals and metrics and reporting annually on progress toward those goals. Some companies are taking regulatory actions that go beyond existing federal guidelines. For example, Walmart has set a standard for lead in toys that is 85% lower than required by US regulations. Winston (2009) notes that Toys “R” Us, Target, and Sears have phased out products containing certain chemicals (such as BPA or phthalates) that studies indicate are dangerous to human health.

All of the above suggest a new economic model that Lubin and Esty (2010) call the “Sustainability Imperative.” The key point here is that sustainable management is not a threat to the economy but a necessary force for innovation and competiveness. If in fact politics is all about money, then sustainability should drive economic development and accelerate this business–government convergence. This will still take time since long-standing conflicts between business and government over the economic impacts of regulations and policies continue. The price to be paid by industries releasing GHGs remains today the major test case for this convergence.

The pressures of the recession and projections of future energy and resource needs clearly strengthen the argument for a different way of managing our economy. Along with social and economic factors, these pressures in turn influence federal policy, which today is putting greater attention on ways to achieve a “green economy.” This means more efficient operations in government management as well as in advancing science, technology, and innovation.

In sum, because of domestic and international environmental, economic, and social pressures, federal policy is now overcoming past resistance to the concept of sustainability. Can the goal of sustainability now become a more integral part of US national policy? And how can science and innovation advance sustainable solutions? This challenge for the USEPA and other agencies is discussed in the next section.

Sustainability at the USEPA: Promoting Sustainability Science and Innovation

The enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1970 formally established as a national goal the creation and maintenance of “conditions under which [humans] and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, ­economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans” [emphasis added]. This language is remarkably similar to the UN-sponsored Brundtland Report’s definition of “sustainable development” 17 years later (UN General Assembly 1987). Implementing this goal and policy begs a number of practical questions such as “What kind of regulations, policies, strategies, and practices are needed to advance sustainability?” and “How will such changes impact economic development?” These questions have often led to conflict between business and government over regulatory policies and their implementation, including policies aimed at reducing pollutants and GHG emissions (Hecht 2009).

For much of its history, the USEPA has wrestled with how to define the optimum regulatory framework for implementing sustainability policies. Many USEPA administrators have inched the agency forward, adapting to changing environmental issues and slowly moving to make sustainability a key element of environmental policy (Grossarth and Hecht 2007).

One historic effort by the USEPA to promote sustainability came in its 1993 report to Congress, “Sustainable Development and the Environmental Protection Agency.” Prompted by international events such as the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, Congress was “interested in USEPA’s effort to explore the concept of sustainable development.” In particular, the committee was interested in how environmental concerns can be best incorporated in national, State, and local development and economic planning and decision-making processes (USEPA 1993).

Acknowledging that the USEPA “has not employed the concept of sustainability explicitly in an overall policy framework or programmatic objective,” the 1993 report saw the problem as a consequence of a number of concerns including the “minor role that sustainability plays in USEPA’s statutory authority”—a factor that remains highly relevant today. The Report to Congress also noted that “the full scope of planning and implementation of sustainable development policies extended well beyond the purview of USEPA.”

While this is obviously true, the role that the USEPA can play in organizing and integrating its own programs is a more practical challenge. Today almost every federal agency is wrestling with how to make sustainability operational. Consequently, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy has expanded the goal of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources to include Sustainability (CENRS). Major thrusts of the broadened CENRS are to coordinate across federal agencies and to promote the use of sustainability science in advancing a greener or more sustainable economic growth (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/nstc/committees/cenrs).

In its 1993 report to Congress, the USEPA concluded that the concept of sustainable development “provides a useful framework for discussion of the Nation’s long-term environment and economic priorities, although these concepts have not been developed yet to the extent that they provide a basis for EPA’s operational planning” (USEPA 1993). The 1993 report failed to recognize the important role that USEPA science and technology could play in achieving sustainability.

Ten years later, the Office of Research and Development (ORD) under the ­leadership of Paul Gilman launched a renewed effort on sustainability. The ­independent-minded Gilman knew that the task of advancing sustainability was not going to be easy. His political advisor and communications director confirmed this, stating in 2003 that the concept of sustainability had “no political traction.” Fortunately, this atmosphere slowly changed and by the end of 2007, the same political appointee assured me that it was “OK to talk about sustainability.” Gilman’s vision was to move ORD research beyond its decades-long focus on supporting regulatory development through risk assessment and management, which had gained currency during the 1990s, as the USEPA faced and had to prioritize a large set of responsibilities and as advanced technology allowed for improved detection of potentially toxic chemicals.

Paul Anastas, USEPA’s Assistant Administrator for Research and Development from 2009 to early 2012 and a widely respected researcher and author on green chemistry, vigorously promoted ORD’s research programs to address sustainability declaring that USEPA science and research must inform, enable, and empower sustainable solutions to the challenges posed to human health and the environment. He emphasized that understanding problems is important and essential, but the only reason to understand a problem deeply is to empower its solution. A diagnosis alone is not a cure, Anastas insisted: we must facilitate solutions to the environmental problems we face.

ORD has moved through five phases, each aimed at advancing sustainability science and innovation. In the mid-1990s, it promoted its “Pollution Prevention Research Strategy” aimed “at implementing a program for systematic research and development activities to carry pollution prevention into the twenty-first century and toward the realization of sustainable development.” A key objective of this research program was to improve and develop genetic tools and methodologies such as LCA, which today is a major decision support tool in industry and government. Recognizing the importance of consumer and public support for sustainability, the strategy pioneered new efforts to “develop economic, social, and behavioral tools to improve environmental policies and programs.” (http://www.epa.gov/ord/htm/documents/p2.pdf).

This pioneering work was later transferred into the ORD “Sustainability Research Strategy” which attempted to make sustainability an integrating concept across its programs. It used the concept of living laboratories (regional and state projects) to transfer sustainability concepts to users. It began such transfer through its Collaborative Science and Technology Network for Sustainability (CNS) program and by funding scores of CNS projects that connected diverse sets of partners including universities, federal agencies, and local governments. It also began research to focus on metrics, decision support tools, and technology development.

In a third phase from 2005 to 2007, ORD continued its move toward a more systems-based approach as it developed a sustainability research strategy that focused on systems management. Toward this end, ORD transitioned its Pollution Prevention and New Technologies research program into the Science and Technology for Sustainability (STS) research program. In a fourth phase from 2007 to 2010, ORD responding to guidance from its Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) began to apply sustainability research to particular areas of national significance, selecting the goal of sustainable biofuels as an initial area of emphasis.

Today ORD is aiming to make sustainability its “true north.” Toward this goal, it is developing research linkages and themes around transdisciplinary research and systems analysis (Fiksel et al. 2009). Making sustainability operational will require realignment of USEPA science into a more systems-oriented approach and acknowledgement of the need for developing models that advance the concept of resilience—the capacity for an enterprise to survive, adapt, and grow in the face of turbulent change (Fiksel 2006). In a complex, connected, and uncertain world, resilience will enable human systems to cope successfully with continual waves of change.

In the USEPA and across ORD, making sustainability operational will require an integrated organizational management strategy so that science and management can reinforce each other and lead to a more innovative regulatory and policy framework. ORD has already taken initial steps toward this type of transformation and has asked the National Academies of Sciences to consider how to incorporate the theme of sustainability into all of USEPA’s activities. An ad hoc committee under the NRC’s STS program has prepared a consensus report addressing several central questions:

  • What should be the operational framework for sustainability for USEPA?

  • How can the USEPA decision-making process rooted for more than two decades in the risk assessment/risk management paradigm be integrated into this new sustainability framework?

  • What scientific and analytical tools are needed to support the framework?

  • What set of strategic metrics and indicators should the USEPA build to determine if sustainable approaches are or are not being employed successfully?

  • Which assessment techniques and accounting protocols should the USEPA adopt to inform ongoing efforts to improve its sustainability practices and procedures?

The NRC study aims to help the USEPA overcome its stove-piped and fragmented organization. NRC panel member Terry Davies describes the challenges USEPA faces, noting that the laws and the agency focus on pollution control, whereas the emphasis needs to be on prevention. Summing up his preliminary remarks to the NAS committee, Davies said what the agency needs is a global perspective, a fast response time, a focus on products rather than waste, a foundation of science rather than law, a sympathetic approach to economic growth, an anticipatory rather than reactionary stance, a system for self-evaluation, and a renewed emphasis on data.

One of the major challenges for moving sustainability forward and making USEPA an agency committed to sustainability has been the question of how this regulatory agency created to address pollution control could evolve over 40 years and undertake activities to address new problems resulting from population increases, urbanization, and global economic growth. The USEPA has made substantial progress over the decades in addressing obvious and highly visible pollution issues. But in many cases, the USEPA has been reactive to issues rather than getting out in front of them. The sustainability challenge is in effect anticipating future problems, seeing them in an integrated manner, and using all available tools to address them.

Developing sustainable solutions to existing and future environmental and human health problems raises complex scientific and technological issues that cannot be addressed using traditional approaches. If the USEPA is to solve these challenging problems, it must employ integrated systems thinking that complements traditional single-discipline approaches. In all aspects of our work, from problem identification and definition to research design and implementation, ORD must involve the widest span of disciplines to bring different perspectives to the table.

Need for a National Sustainability Policy

While many federal agency reports deal with a range of sustainability issues, there is no government-wide management strategy that focuses on key national issues related to sustainability. “Measuring the Green Economy,” a new Department of Commerce baseline report published with contributions from many agencies, begins to advance a collective strategy to accelerate the green economy (US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistical Administration 2010). Data in this report reveal that green products and services comprised only 1–2% of the total business economy in 2007 and the economy has between 1.8 and 2.4 million green jobs—indicating that we have a long way to go to achieve a green economy. The modest numbers in the Commerce report are a starting point for the use of the well-defined metrics necessary for measuring future growth in green sectors of the economy. National policy is essential for promoting renewable energies, regulating GHGs, and adapting to climate change, which are evolving and cross-cutting dimensions that affect virtually all federal agencies.

Two executive orders—one issued by President George W. Bush and the other by President Barack Obama—have attempted to make sustainability operational in managing government buildings and other facilities. In January 2007, President Bush signed Executive Order 13423, “Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management,” which sets goals in the areas of energy efficiency, acquisitions, renewable energy, toxics reductions, recycling, sustainable buildings, electronics stewardship, vehicle fleets, and water conservation. This Order explicitly directs heads of federal agencies to implement sustainable practices in these areas, and specifies that “sustainable” means “creat[ing] and maintain[ing] conditions, under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans” (Bush 2007).

In 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13514, “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance,” which directs each federal agency to appoint a sustainability czar to oversee efforts to reduce GHGs and enhance energy efficiency (Obama 2009). Managing federal facilities is a narrower and thus easier task than creating sustainability polices that many agencies would manage under the constraints of federal statutes.

The collective impact of federal policies is only now leading to recognition that sustainability is an integrating concept, tool, and objective that calls for coordinating policies affecting land, water, and air policies must be coordinated. For example, a successful national energy policy is not based on technology alone, but also on effective management of policies affecting land, water, and air. Policies and regulations must be linked to create sustainable national strategies. And we need a national sustainability policy taking into account both national and international issues.

To serve in much the same way that the annual National Security Strategy guides federal policies in the security area, we need a National Sustainability Strategy (NSS). The 2010 National Security Strategy lays out a strategic approach for advancing American interests, including the security of the American people, a growing US economy, support for our values, and an international order that can address twenty-first century challenges. In an analogous fashion, the NSS would serve as a strategic outline for achieving a greener economy through a convergence of business practices and federal policies and regulations. The NSS should define long-term goals and define a set of indicators or metrics to measure results. It should parallel the National Intelligence Council’s role in anticipating and preparing for future challenges. For example, the NIC’s “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World” looks at how key global trends might impact world events in the coming 15 years (http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html).

Most federal agencies are reassessing their roles in advancing sustainability. The USEPA will obviously play a critical role in achieving these goals but the issues extend beyond the USEPA with its environmental regulatory focus to nearly all federal agencies—hence the need for a coordinated national strategy. For example, the USEPA’s work in the water area is heavily dependent upon activities of the US Geological Survey and state agencies. The success of endangered species protection programs relies on collaboration among the Department of the Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, the USEPA, the states, and many non-government organizations. The effectiveness of climate change programs depends on USEPA collaboration with the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration in the Department of Commerce and with the states. The USEPA should be one of several federal agencies helping us move toward a new environmental management approach that is better suited to the complex and urgent environmental problems of today and the future (Fiksel et al. 2009). At its core the agency must embrace and institutionalize sustainability.

Conclusions

This paper has reviewed why has the concept of sustainability been so difficult to advance in the US federal government and how new environmental, economic, and social drivers are operating to better define sustainability and to make it operational in business and in government. Much of the business world now sees sustainability as a means to reduce long-term risk, reduce costs, and enhance competitiveness. Many government leaders now see sustainability as essential to domestic well-being, economic growth, and international security as it relates to poverty and social unrest, food security, energy use, and availability of material resources. Advances in science and technology are essential to promote innovation and sustainable solutions. Public understanding and support is also crucial if sustainability is to become operational. Only with effective federal coordination of these vital and interacting elements—green business strategies, regulations and policies, science and technology, and public support—can we achieve sustainability.

Moving toward sustainability will require overcoming bureaucratic stovepipes and fostering coordination within and across agencies and between government and business. For the USEPA this means using science not only to fulfill its mandate to develop and enforce regulations to protect human health and the environment but also to move beyond the current regulatory framework in order to develop and implement a more integrated, systems-based, and cross-media approach to address environmental management.

A promising approach to making sustainability operational in the United States would be the creation of an annual NSS that would define long-term goals and better inform the public about the emerging global sustainability issues and how to effectively deal with them. Like the National Security Strategy, the NSS would outline a coordinated national strategy to achieve crucial short- and long-term national goals—in this case, that of a more sustainable economy. The strategy should define a set of indicators or metrics to measure results and parallel what the National Intelligence Council does in anticipating and preparing for future challenges. More than ever, it is “OK to talk about sustainability.”