Sustainability DenitionsAn Analysis

Nikhat Waseem and Srinivas Kota

Abstract Every product or system that we consume or use affects our lives and the
environment during its production, consumption and disposal. Emissions and
wastes are generated which contaminate soil, water and air, the key life support
systems on earth. If these support systems will stop functioning in their natural
form, then survival and wellbeing of various living things will be endangered. Thus
a product or a system should be conceived based on the principles of sustainability.
There exist number of denitions on sustainability making it difcult to choose one
for application. So in this paper we aim to discuss the denitions of sustainability
from different contexts i.e., global and local, temporal and spatial, measurable and
non-measurable, and clear and ambiguous. From the analysis we found most of the
denitions are global, non-measurable and ambiguous. We need measurable and
clear denitions of sustainability to be used in various situations.

Keywords Sustainability
Denitions
Spatial
Temporal
Global
Local

Clear Ambiguous

1 Introduction

Sustainability can be perceived as an ability to sustain, or a state that can be con-

tinued for long at the same level. It is different from conservation, which calls for
preserving the ecosystem irrespective of human purpose [1]. The word,
Sustainable, rst appeared in 17th century (in www.etymonline.com) to mean
bearable or defensible, and only from 1965, the current meaning of capable of
being continued at a certain level is being used. During 197080 sustainability is
used to encompass environmental, economic and social dimensions. In 1987,
WCED combined sustainability with development to dene sustainable

N. Waseem
S. Kota (&)

Birla Institute of Technology and Science Pilani, Pilani, India
e-mail: Srinivas.kota@pilani.bits-pilani.ac.in

Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 361

A. Chakrabarti and D. Chakrabarti (eds.), Research into Design for Communities,
Volume 2, Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies 66,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-3521-0_31
362 N. Waseem and S. Kota

development [2]. In 1999, NRC coined the term sustainability science and further
Kates elaborated sustainability science in his seminal paper [3].
Meadows et al. in [4] cautioned that population growth and natural resource
depletion are constraining our future development. This was further stressed
recently in [5], since industrial revolution, thriving technological advances, and the
material well-being (one dimension of human well-being) has helped in exponential
increase of world population. Human creativity which lead to remarkable success in
many elds also resulted in many problems such as species extinction, degradation
of ecology, and numerous changes in climate, to name a few.
There are numerous denitions of sustainability [6], but still people are making
continuous attempts to clarify and aid in various eld such as business [7], policy
decisions [8], regulatory measures combining businesses and policies, research, and
human behavior towards more sustainable congurations. It is important to know
the meaning of sustainability in various contexts to evaluate the correctness of
deeds [9]. We should dene the word holistically and clearly before using the word.
Politics influences the way in which our future is going to be and it is important that
we manage our environment and resources to ensure human survival and the sus-
tainable progress. We should strive to ensure that we meet the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their needs. The
question is how would these impact product innovation, design, manufacturing and
marketing strategies? How about their impact on product development process?
The answers need thorough research.

2 Objectives and Methodology

The objective of this study is to know the evolution of research in the eld of
sustainability and identify the various contexts by conducting a review of deni-
tions of sustainability. Numerous denitions have been proposed till now on sus-
tainability concept. All these denitions are thoroughly analyzed to identify the
contexts and the various perspectives based on which these denitions were
proposed.

3 Literature Review

The literature search was started by typing sustainability denition in google.

Then the search was performed by using words such as sustainability, sustain-
ability denition rst and then later extended to collect the articles with sustain
and sustainable development. The search was performed with the following
publishers: Elsevier, Springer, Taylor and Francis, Emerald Group Publishing,
Science, PNAS. We got thousands of articles in each of these groups. Careful study
Sustainability DenitionsAn Analysis 363

was undertaken to collect the relevant articles (which has a denition of any of the
above terms).
Different ideas exist about sustainable development in various domains and
solutions are developed without understanding the holistic meaning of sustain-
ability across these domains and creating problems across the whole society [10].
What humans choose to sustain within this system depends upon what they value
[11]. Understanding the state of the art will help in identifying the gaps for a holistic
denition of sustainability.
Elkington, proposed the triangular concept of people, planet and prot [12] for
sustainable development. The focus in sustainability is manifold due to varied
people having diversied desires over different times, places, and contexts [1].
Sustainability is not understood properly due to inconsistency and ambiguity in
denitions and the real meaning is distorted [13]. Dening sustainability has
become ultimately a societal choice about what to develop and sustain, and for how
long [14]. There is a need to consider objective and subjective interactions among
nature, society, and humans [15]. Martens [16] points this as multiple interpre-
tations and uncontrollable because of multiple interests, lack of structure and
uncertainty in structure. Another issue is the vagueness in the direction of sus-
tainability [17]. Sustainability should be meaningful but, as we require various
solutions from it, it will inevitably be vague and disputed [18]. To use sustainability
in practice, properties, spatial, temporal aspects and their interrelationships must be
further detailed [5].

4 Analysis

4.1 Number of Denitions

We have identied the following perspectives: limits, three pillar, sustain, human
welfare, and sustainable development. Here sustain and limits are taken as different
perspectives. The reason being that limit implies the threshold of consumption while
sustain implies the continuation. In the human welfare perspective all the denitions
talk exclusively about the human well-being like quality-of-life or sustenance of
prosperity. Sustainable Development is the classication in which main emphasis is
providing guidelines for development in such a way that sustenance is ensured.
The denitions are analyzed from these different perspectives by plotting the
number of denitions in each perspective. From Fig. 1, we can see that the highest
frequency is of the three pillar concept of sustainability i.e. economy, environment
and society. It is followed by human welfare. Denitions on the keyword sustain,
sustainable development are followed next. Overall it shows that people are moving
towards a more holistic approach, three pillar, rather than only focusing on limits,
sustenance. Description of these perspectives used in classication are given in
Table 1.
364 N. Waseem and S. Kota

40 36
30
20 15
10 10
10 5
0
Limits Human Welfare Three Pillar Sustain Sustainable
Development

Fig. 1 Denitions in each perspective

Table 1 List of perspectives identied in denitions

Perspectives Description
Limits The threshold of consumption
Three pillar Environment, social and economic
Sustain To keep in existence, maintain, continue
Human welfare Ensuring a certain universally acceptable quality of life
Sustainable development Development approach such that sustainability is ensured

4.2 Chronological Analysis of Denitions

All these different perspective denitions are plotted chronologically (Fig. 2). We
can see that denitions based on three pillar are spread across the timespan. The
interest was on limits and sustainable development initially and then during
19872000, all the perspectives were used. From year 2000 onwards the interest
was more on human welfare and sustain.

4.3 Analysis of Denitions Based on Different Contexts

The following contexts which are described in Table 2 were identied during the
analysis and all the denitions were analyzed with respect to these contexts to see
which are more prevalent and what these indicate with respect to the implementable
solutions for sustainability.

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

Limits Human Welfare Three Pillar Sustain Sustainable Development

Fig. 2 Arrangement of published denitions (chronologically, 19722015)

Sustainability DenitionsAn Analysis 365

Table 2 Description of contexts identied during the analysis

Vague: multiple interpretation Clear: one interpretation
Non-measureable: no evaluation possible to Measurable: evaluation possible to identify
identify the extent of the extent of sustainability
sustainability
Local: relating to a particular area Global: relating to the whole world
Spatial: equity among various regions Temporal: equity among various times

Table 3 References for denitions in each of the perspective

Perspective References
Limit [4, 1921, 8]
Human welfare [2236]
Three pillar [2, 12, 15, 19, 21, 33, 34, 3764]
Sustain [1, 16, 20, 34, 6570]
Sustainable development [7180]

Table 3 consists of the perspectives and the references of the denitions in each
of these perspectives. The denitions should be clear, measurable, connect local to
global contexts and consider spatial and temporal contexts.
The gures, Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 shows the number of denitions that consider
different contexts.

Limits
6 5 5
4 3
2 2 2
2 1
0 0
0
measurable

clear
global

local

measurable

temporal
ambiguous

spaal

temporal &
spaal
non-

Fig. 3 No. of denitions of limits perspective in different contexts

Human welfare
15 10 10
10 7 8 8
5 5 5
5 2
0
measurable

measurable

clear
global

local

temporal
ambiguous

spaal

temporal &
spaal
non-

Fig. 4 No. of denitions of Human welfare perspective in different contexts

366 N. Waseem and S. Kota

Three Pillar
40 29 33
26 22
30
20 10 14
7 3
10 0
0

temporal &
measurable
local

clear

spaal
ambiguous

temporal
global

measurable

spaal
non-
Fig. 5 No. of denitions of Three Pillar perspective in different contexts

Sustain
15 10
10 7 8
5 5
5 3 2
0 0
0
measurable
global

local

measurable

clear

temporal
ambiguous

spaal

temporal &
spaal
non-

Fig. 6 No. of denitions of Sustain perspective in different contexts

Sustainable Development
15 10
10 8 8
5 5
5 2 1 1
0
0
measurable

measurable

clear
global

local

temporal

temporal &
ambiguous

spaal

spaal
non-

Fig. 7 No. of denitions of Sustainable Development perspective in different contexts

It is clear from Fig. 3, that all the denitions in limits perspective are
non-measurable, ambiguous. More number of denitions are concentrating on local
and spatial.
It is evident from Fig. 4, that most of the denitions in human welfare per-
spective are non-measurable, global and considering temporal and spatial equity.
Half of the denitions are ambiguous.
It can be inferred from Fig. 5, that most of the denitions in three pillar per-
spective are non-measurable, global, ambiguous and considering spatial equity.
Some of the denitions are local and considering spatial and temporal equity.
Sustainability DenitionsAn Analysis 367

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Clear

temporal
Global

Local

Measurable

Measurable

Ambiguous

spaal

temporal &
Spaal
Non-
Limits Human Welfare Three Pillar Sustain Sustainable Development

Fig. 8 No. of denitions in all ve perspectives in different contexts

It is clear from Fig. 6, that all the denitions in sustain perspective are
non-measurable, most are global and ambiguous. Half of the denitions are con-
centrating on temporal or temporal and spatial equity.
From Fig. 7, we can say that all the denitions in sustainable development
perspective are non-measurable, most are global and considering temporal and
spatial equity. Half of the denitions are clear or ambiguous.
From Fig. 8, it is clear that most of the denitions are non-measureable,
ambiguous and global in context. Half of the denitions are considering temporal
and spatial equity, but without clarity and measurement it will be difcult to
implement in real.

4.4 Discussion

The need to analyse various denitions from different perspectives giving the
relationship and characterization of sustainability to acquire, apply, transform and
recombine knowledge so as to create new knowledge is emphasized from this work.
This characterization will help identify the different components of sustainability
and these components will help in building the categorization of sustainability
indicators once the vast list of indicators are categorized; then appropriate assess-
ment procedure is initiated. In the following articles: [5, 13, 8184] authors
reviewed around ten denitions of the sustainability. These authors have done very
illustrative and rational analysis of denitions in isolation (only some categories) or
couple of denitions grouped together. So the research presented here is the latest
work apart from [18] which was done much earlier. The work presented here
analyses the extensive list of the denitions proposed by individuals, organizations
and governments in various perspectives. These existing denitions broadly lack
the implementation perspective, without that it is very difcult to measure and
realize the sustainability.
368 N. Waseem and S. Kota

5 Conclusion

The analysis indicate that most denitions are non-measurable, ambiguous and
global in context. This indicate the collective mindset of authors. Most of them are
referring to the balance between society, natural capital and economy. This is
evident by the highest number of denitions in the category of three pillar. Now the
question arises, how that balance will be achieved, when there are different types of
societies, natural capital and economies. The dynamics are very complex and has
multiple levels of hierarchy and hundreds of classications. So expressing in few
sentences that a particular decision is sustainable is impossible. In future work,
denitions in different domains like in transport, agriculture, life sciences etc. will
be collected and analyzed to identify any commonality in a hope that it will help in
developing generalized measures for sustainability. The developed measures should
be insulated from these varied societies, economies and politicization.

References

1. Kajikawa, Y.: Research core and framework of sustainability science. Sustain. Sci. 3,
215239 (2008)
2. World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford
University Press, Oxford (1987)
3. Kates, R.W., et. al.: Sustainability science. Science 292(5517), 641642 (2001)
4. Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., Behrens, W.: The Limits to Growth. Universe
Books, New York (1972)
5. Wu, J.: Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in
changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol. 28, 9991023 (2013)
6. Marshall, J.D., Toffel, M.W.: Framing the elusive concept of sustainability: a sustainability
hierarchy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39, 673682 (2005)
7. Berns, M., Townsend, A., Khayat, Z., Balagopal, B., Reeves, M., Hopkins, M., and
Kruschwitz, N.: The business of sustainability. What it means to managers now. MIT Sloan
Manag. Rev. 211. (2009)
8. National Resource Council: Sustainability and the US EPA. National Academies Press,
Washington, D.C. (2011)
9. Ramsey, J.L.: On not dening sustainability. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 28(6), 10751087
(2015)
10. Kemp, R., Martens, P.: Sustainable development: how to manage something that is subjective
and never can be achieved. Sustainability 3(2), 514 (2007)
11. Chapman, J.: Emotionally Durable Design, 3rd edn. Earthscan, Washington, D.C. (2011)
12. Elkington, J.: Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century
business. Environ. Qual. Manag. 8(1), 3751 (1998)
13. Johnston, P., Everard, M., Santill, D., Karl-Henrik, R.: Reclaiming the denition of
sustainability. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 14(1), 6066 (2007)
14. Parris, T.M., Kates, R.W.: Characterizing a sustainability transition: goals, targets, trends, and
driving forces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100(14), 80688073 (2003)
15. Sumi, A.: On several issues regarding efforts toward a sustainable society. Sustain. Sci. 2(1),
6776 (2007)
16. Martens, P.: Sustainability: science or ction. Sustainability 2(1), 3641 (2006)
Sustainability DenitionsAn Analysis 369

17. Hay, L.: The sustainability cycle and loop: models for a more unied understanding of
sustainability. J. Environ. Manag. 133, 232257 (2014)
18. Jacobs, M.: Sustainable development, capital substitution and economic humility: a response
to Beckerman. Environ. Values 4(1), 5768 (1995)
19. Munasinghe, M.: Environmental economics and biodiversity management in developing
countries. Ambio, J. Hum. Environ. 22(2), 126135 (1993)
20. Carpenter, R.: Limitations in measuring ecosystem sustainability. In: A Sustainable World:
Dening and Measuring Sustainable Development. In: Trzyna, T. (ed.) Published for IUCN
by California Institute for Public Affairs, Sacramento (1995)
21. Catton, W.: Carrying capacity and the limits to freedom. In: Social Ecology Session 1, XI
World Congress of Sociology, New Delhi (1986)
22. Allen, R.: How to Save the World. Summarizing the World Conservation Strategy. Kogan
Page, London (1980)
23. Clark, W., Munn, R.: Sustainable Development of the Biosphere. Cambridge University Press
(1986)
24. Haveman, R.: Thoughts on the Sustainable Development Concept and the Environmental
Effects of Economic Policy. OECD seminar on The Economics of Environmental Issues,
Paris. Paper No. 5. September 25 (1989)
25. Norgaard. R.: Sustainability of the Economics of Assuring Assets for Future Generations.
World Bank, Asia Regional Ofce, Working Paper Series, 832 (1992)
26. Munro, D.: Sustainability: rhetoric or reality. In: T. Trzyna, (ed.) A Sustainable World:
Dening and Measuring Sustainable Development. Sacramento: Published for IUCN by
California Institute for Public Affairs (1995)
27. Choucri. N.: Global System for Sustainable Development Research TDP-MIT. Unpublished
notes. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT (1997)
28. Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., Brown, C.: The social dimension of sustainable
development: dening urban social sustainability. Sustain. Dev. 19, 289300 (2011)
29. Seager, T.P., Melton, J., Eighmy, T.T.: Working towards sustainable science and engineering:
introduction to the special issue on highway infrastructure. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 42(3),
205207 (2004)
30. Dobson, A.: Justice and the Environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)
31. Sotherton, D., Chappells, H., Van, V.B. (eds.) Sustainable Consumption: The Implications of
Changing Infrastructures of Provision. Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham (2004)
32. Newton, L.H.: Ethics and SustainabilitySustainable Development and the Moral Life.
Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ (2003)
33. Pearce, D., Markandya, A., Barbier, E.: Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan
Publications Ltd., London (1989)
34. Pearce, D.: Blueprint 3. CSERGE. Earthscan Publications, London (1993)
35. Repetto, R.: Paying the Price: Pesticide Subsidies in Developing Countries. World Resources
Institute, Washington, D.C. (1985)
36. Norton, B.: Ethics and sustainable development: an adaptive approach to environmental
choice. In: Atkinson, G., Dietz, S., Neumayer, E. (eds.) Handbook of sustainable
development, pp. 2744. Cheltenham (2007)
37. Repetto, R.: World Enough and Time. Yale University Press, New Haven (1986)
38. Barbier, E.: The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development. Environ. Conserv. 14(2),
101110 (1987)
39. Goodland, R., Ledec, G.: Neoclassical economics and principles of sustainable development.
Ecol. Model. 38(1), 1946 (1987)
40. Redclift, M.: Sustainable Development. Methuen, London (1987)
41. Tolba, M.: Sustainable DevelopmentConstraints and Opportunities. Butterworth, London
(1987)
42. Brown, D.R.: Evaluating institutional sustainability in development programmes: beyond
dollars and cents. J. Int. Dev. 10(1), 5569 (1998)
370 N. Waseem and S. Kota

43. Norgaard, R.: Sustainable development: a co-evolutionary view. Futures 26(6), 606620
(1988)
44. Barbier, E.: Economics, Natural Resource Scarcity and Development. Earthscan Publications
Ltd., London (1989)
45. Nijkamp, P. (Ed.): Economy and Ecology: Towards Sustainable Development. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, The Netherlands (1989)
46. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: On Integrating Environment and
Economics, issues papers. OECD, Paris (1990)
47. McCormick, J.: Reclaiming Paradise. Indiana University Press, Bloomington (1991)
48. Braat, L.: The predictive meaning of sustainability indicators. In: Onno, K., Harman, V. (eds.)
In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development. Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Netherlands (1991)
49. Strong, M.: Required Global changes: close linkages between environment and development.
In: Uner, K. (ed.) Change: Threat or Opportunity. United Nations, New York (1992)
50. World Bank: World Development Report 1992: Development and the Environment. Oxford
University Press, New York (1992)
51. Holmberg, J. (ed.) Making Development Sustainable. Island Press, Washington, D.C. (1992)
52. IUCN, IUCNs Commission on Environmental Strategies Working Group on Strategies for
Sustainability: Guide to Preparing and Implementing National Sustainable Development
Strategies and Other Multi-Sectoral Environment and Development Strategies. IUCN
Secretariat and the Environmental Planning Group of the International Institute for
Environment and Development, pre-publication draft (1993)
53. Kato, S.: Salzburg Seminar on Environment and Diplomacy. Working Group on Sustainable
Development. Manuscript on le at Salzburg Seminar, Salzburg Austria. September 310
(1994)
54. Breitmeier, H.: Sustainable Development: Criteria and Indicators: Workshop #3. IIASA.
Manuscript on le at IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria. July 18. (1995)
55. Hossain, K.: Evolving principles of sustainable development and good governance. In:
Ginther, K., Denters, E., Waart, P.J.I.M. (eds.) Sustainable Development and Good
Governance, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA (1995)
56. Koehler, D.A., Hecht, A.D.: Sustainability, wellbeing, and environmental protection:
perspectives and recommendations from an environmental protection agency forum.
Sustainability 2(2), 2228 (2006)
57. Hay, J., Mimura, N.: Supporting climate change vulnerability and adaptation assessments in
the Asia-Pacic region: an example of sustainability science. Sustain. Sci. 1(1), 2335 (2006)
58. Lele, S., Norgaard, R.B.: Sustainability and the scientists burden. Conserv. Biol. 10, 354365
(1996)
59. Hauff, V.M., Wilderer, P.A.: Industrial Ecology: engineered representation of sustainability.
Sustain. Sci. 3(1), 103115 (2008)
60. Birdsall, S.: Measuring student teachers understandings and self-awareness of sustainability.
Environ. Educ. Res. 20(6), 814835 (2014)
61. Isaksson, R.B., Garvare, R., Johnson, M.: The crippled bottom linemeasuring and
managing sustainability. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 64(3), 334355 (2015)
62. Harwood, R.R.: A history of sustainable agriculture. In: Edwards, C.A., Lal, R., Madden, P.,
Miller, R.H., House, G. (eds.) Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Soil and Water Conservation
Society, pp. 319. Ankeny, Iowa (1990)
63. World Business Council for Sustainable Development: Corporate Social Responsibility:
Making Good Business Sense, pp. 119 (2000)
64. Pirages, D.C.: A social design for sustainable growth. In: The Sustainable Society
Implications for Limited Growth. New York (1977)
65. Conway, G., Barbier, E.: After the green revolution: sustainable and equitable agricultural
development. Futures 20(6), 651670 (1988)
66. Markandya, A., Pearce, D.: Natural environments and the social rate of discount. Project
Appraisal. 3(1), 212 (1988)
Sustainability DenitionsAn Analysis 371

67. Vavrousek, J.: Salzburg Seminar on Environment and Diplomacy. Working Group on
Sustainable Development. Manuscript on le at Salzburg Seminar, Salzburg Austria.
September 310 (1994)
68. Matson, P., et. al.: Grand challenges in sustainability science symposium presentations,
AAAS 2007 annual meeting, 17 February, San Francisco, CA (2007)
69. Maude, A.: A sustainable view of sustainability. Geography 99(1), 4052 (2014)
70. World Bank: Development and the Environment, World Development Report 1992. Oxford
University Press, New York (1992)
71. Radermacher, W.: Indicators, Green accounting and environment statistics-information
requirements for sustainable development. Int. Stat. Rev. 67, 339354 (1999)
72. Allaby, M.: MacMillan Dictionary of the Environment, 3rd edn. MacMillan Press Ltd.,
London (1988)
73. IUCN, WWF and UNEP.: The World Conservation Strategy. Gland, Switzerland (1980)
74. Pearce, D.: Optimal prices for sustainable development. In: Collard, D., Pearce, D., Ulph, D.
(eds.) Economics, Growth and Sustainable Environment. MacMillan, London (1988)
75. Pezzey, J.: Economic Analysis of Sustainable Growth and Sustainable Development. World
Bank Environment Department, Working Paper No. 15. Washington, D.C. (1989)
76. Costanza, R., Wainger, L.: Ecological economics, mending the earth. North Atlantic Books,
Berkeley (1991)
77. Schultink. G.: Evaluation of sustainable development alternatives: relevant concepts, resource
assessment, approaches and comparative spatial indicators. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 41, 203224
(1992)
78. United Nations Statistical Ofce: SNA Draft Handbook on Integrated Environmental and
Economic Accounting. UN Publications, New York (1992)
79. Winograd, M.: Environmental indicators for latin america and the caribbean in a sustainable
world: dening and measuring sustainable development. In: Trzyna, T. (ed.) Published for
IUCN by California Institute for Public Affairs, Sacramento (1995)
80. Australian Government: National Strategy for ecologically sustainable development.
Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra (1992)
81. Marrewijk, M.V.: Concepts and denitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: between
agency and communion. J. Bus. Ethics 44(23), 95105 (2003)
82. Morelli, J.: Environmental sustainability: a denition for environmental professionals.
J. Environ. Sustain. 1(1), Article 2 (2011)
83. Glavic, P., Lukman, R.: Review of sustainability terms and their denitions. J. Clean. Prod. 15
(18), 18751885 (2007)
84. McKenzie, S.: Social Sustainability: Towards Some Denitions, Working Paper Series.
No 27. Hawke Research Institute. University of South Australia (2004)