Advertisement

Which sustainability suits you?

  • R. BoonenEmail author
  • S. Aerts
  • J. De Tavernier

Abstract

When talking about ‘sustainability’ in theory, people often refer to the triple P-concept, where People, Planet and Profit are three pillars of equal value. In practice, these three terms are very often used against each other to prove one’s right, depending on one’s worldview. If one is looking to sustainable solutions for different problems, it is very important to understand how others see the world and evaluate things. One way to analyze different worldviews is by dividing them by focusing either on their ontological status (reductionism versus holism) or on the epistemological status (subjective versus objective). Combining these two gives us four different worldviews: personal-egocentric (subjective-reductionist), culturalsocial (subjective-holistic), ecological (objective-holistic) and technical (objective-reductionist). For each of those four worldviews, a 3P-ranking can be made. In a personal-egocentric worldview, Profit is the main goal because it pleases the People. Planet is often used within the limits of promoting the other P’s, as becomes illustrative in the green-washing by companies. In a cultural-social worldview, People as individuals, as a group or as a species are the major concern, followed by Planet as a necessary biotope for man. Profit is used to make sure that both Planet and People are protected. In an ecological worldview, the Planet as ecosystem is the most important thing, which can only be saved by People and where Profit is the trigger to let People behave in a Planet-saving way. In a technical worldview, mostly People, Planet and Profit are considered as independent entities. This implies that different people have different desires and act different in the same circumstances in order to reach their individual ‘sustainable’ solution.

Keywords

triple-P-concept worldviews sustainability 

References

  1. Casimir, G. and Dutilh, C. (2003). Sustainability: a gender studies perspective. International Journal of Consumer Studies 27: 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Davidson, M.D. (2009). Acceptable Risk to Future Generations. In: Asveld, L. and Roeser, S. (eds) The Ethics of Technological Risk. Earthscan, London, 77–91.Google Scholar
  3. Hueting, R. and Reijnders, L. (2004). Broad sustainability contra sustainability: the proper contribution of sustainability indicators. Ecological Economics 50: 249–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Knippenberg, L.W.J., Hermans, F.L.P. and Haarmann, W.M.F. (2006). Towards assessment for sustainability. In: Van Latesteijn, H. (ed.) The organization of innovation and transition (Transforum Working Paper nr. 2). Transforum, Zoetermeer, 62–86.Google Scholar
  5. Olesen, I., Groen, A.F. and Gjerde, B. (2000). Definition of animal breeding goals for sustainable production systems. Journal of Animal Science 78: 570–582.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Sriskandarajah, N. and Bawden, R. (1994). Farming as a human activity: An alternative world view. In: ‘Seminars on Achieving Results by Cooperation Within Environmental Protection and Agriculture’, Kookola, Finland.Google Scholar
  7. Van Latesteijn, H.C. and Andeweg, K. (2011). The need for a new agro innovation system. In: Van Latesteijn, H.C. and Andeweg, K. (eds.) The TransForum Model: Transforming Agro Innovation Toward Sustainable Development. Springer, Dordrecht, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. WCED (1987). ‘Our Common Future’ Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Published as Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427, Development and International Co-operation: Environment. United Nations, 374 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Wageningen Academic Publishers 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Science, Technology and EthicsLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations