lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1838–1846

Contents lists avai

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally

Rodrigo Lozano*

B.R.A.S.S. Research Centre, Cardiff University, 55 Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3AT, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 12 July 2007Received in revised form 25 February 2008Accepted 26 February 2008Available online 18 April 2008

Keywords:Sustainable developmentSustainabilityGraphical representationsVenn diagramConcentric circles

* Tel.: þ44 (0) 29 20 876562, 7981900984 (mobileE-mail address: lozanorosr@cardiff.ac.uk.URL: http://www.brass.cardiff.ac.uk

0959-6526/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008

a b s t r a c t

Sustainability has arisen as an alternative to the dominant socio-economic paradigm (DSP). However, it isstill a difficult concept for many to fully understand. To help to communicate it and make it more tangiblevisual representations have been used. Three of the most used, and critiqued, sustainability represen-tations are: (1) a Venn diagram, i.e. three circles that inter-connect, where the resulting overlap thatrepresents sustainability can be misleading; (2) three concentric circles, the inner circle representingeconomic aspects, the middle social aspects, and the outer environmental aspects; and (3) the PlanningHexagon, showing the relationships among economy, environment, the individual, group norms, tech-nical skills, and legal and planning systems. Each has been useful in helping to engage the general publicand raising sustainability awareness. However, they all suffer from being highly anthropocentric, com-partmentalised, and lacking completeness and continuity. These drawbacks have reduced their accep-tance and use by more advanced sustainability scholars, researchers and practitioners. This paperpresents an innovative attempt to represent sustainability in three dimensions which show the complexand dynamic equilibria among economic, environmental and social aspects, and the short-, long- andlonger-term perspectives.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

During the last 30 years, there have been unprecedented ad-vances in development and industrialisation, with results such asincrease of up to 20 years in life expectancy in developing countries,infant mortality rates have halved, literacy rates have risen, foodproduction and consumption have increased faster than populationrates, incomes have improved, and there has been a spread indemocratically elected governments [1–4]. However, it is in-creasingly recognised that such activities have been detrimental toeconomic, environmental, and social aspects. This has raised con-cerns that the resulting damage to the earth’s environment andquality of life for future generations will be irreparable [1–3,5,6]. Inaddition, conventional scientific traditions based on reductionisticcause–effect relationships are failing to explain and address thecomplex dynamic inter-relations among economic, environmental,and social aspects, and the time perspective [7–9]. The concept ofSustainable Development (SD) has appeared as an alternative tohelp understand and restore the equilibria among these.

Although the roots SD concept can be traced back to the conceptof Sustainable Societies which appeared in 1974 [10], it was theBrundtland Report [3] which brought it to the mainstream

); fax: þ44 (0) 29 20 876061.

All rights reserved.

international political agenda by creating a simple definition thatbecame widely quoted worldwide [6]. The WCED’s [3] defines SDas: ‘‘.development that meets the needs of the present withoutcompromising the ability of future generations to meet their ownneeds’’ [3].

Many other authors have sought to define SD, with at least 70different definitions that were compiled by 1992 [11]. Some defi-nitions have focused only on environmental sustainability, e.g. seeRefs. [12–21], principally through the use of natural resourceswithout going beyond their carrying capacities and the productionof pollutants without passing the biodegradation limits of receivingsystem. These definitions have been usually developed by scientistsfrom countries and seldom consider the importance of social as-pects (e.g. human rights, corruption, poverty, illiteracy, and childmortality) and their inter-relations with economic and environ-mental aspects. In societies and countries where the basic humanneeds, such as food, shelter and security, have not been fulfilled theenvironmental sustainability is often neglected.

It is possible to separate the different SD definitions into thefollowing categories: (1) conventional economists’ perspective; (2)non-environmental degradation perspective; (3) integrationalperspective, i.e. encompassing the economic, environmental, andsocial aspects; (4) inter-generational perspective; and (5) holisticperspective. In some cases the boundaries between perspectivesmay be blurred.

In the conventional economists’ perspective, sustainabilitysuggests a steady state [22], with normative characteristics,

Fig. 1. Graphical representation of sustainability using a Venn diagram. Source:adapted from Refs. [2,40,48–50].

Fig. 3. Sustainability representation using non-concentric adjacent circles. Source:adapted from Refs. [18,49,50].

R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1838–1846 1839

and implying efficiency, i.e. the choice of a feasible level of con-sumption [23]. According to Goldin and Winters [22] economistshave neither the theoretical nor the empirical tools to predict theimpact of economic activities on the environment. This perspectivesees SD as no more than an element of a desirable developmentpath [23]. It also confuses sustainability with economic viability, i.e.sustained growth and self-sufficiency [24]. Such perspective hasvery limited scope, neglecting the impacts of economic activitiesupon the environment and societies of today, and certainly in thefuture. It attempts to simplify into economic terms natural andsocial phenomena. Bartelmus [25] stated that the value of the en-vironment cannot be expressed in monetary terms. Equally, thevalue of societies and their individuals cannot be put in monetaryterms. It is not possible to price the life of a human being, even ifcorporations and governments try to through compensation sys-tems, e.g. the use of Pareto principle to changes in accidents andfatalities [26].

The non-environmental degradation perspective, with envi-ronmental economics as its main discipline, came as an alternativeway to consider industrialisation’s negative effects on the envi-ronment. Two of the key authors of this group include Daly [27] andCostanza [13]. The definitions in this group converge in remarkingthat resources are scarce, consumption cannot be continued in-definitely, natural resources should be used without surpassing

Fig. 2. Graphical representation of sustainability using concentric circles. Source:adapted from Ref. [48].

their carrying capacities, and environmental capital should not bedepleted [10,13–17,19–21,27–32]. In the majority of the cases, SDhas primarily environmental connotations, e.g. see Refs. [12–17,19–22,29,32,33]. Such connotations, in many cases come from in-dividuals or groups from developed countries and do not considerthe importance of social aspects, such as the interrelation betweenthe environment and human rights, corruption, poverty, illiteracy,child mortality, and epidemics, amongst many others. A validargument to consider in relation to this is that when any individualsand societies have not fulfilled their basic needs the long-termsafeguarding of the environment becomes relatively unimportant,at least in the short-term. This perspective also fails to address theinter-relations among the aspects. This is in part explained by dif-ficulties in analysing social systems [34].

Within the integrational perspective the key characteristic is theintegration of economic, environmental, and social aspects, and therelations among them [2,5,30,33,35]. The following quote is a keyexample of this perspective: ‘‘Sustainable Development involves thesimultaneous pursuit of economic prosperity, environmental quality,and social equity’’ [35]. There are many overlaps among the aspects[33], but they are not necessarily balanced [30]. This perspective is,comparatively, more complete than the previous two. Nevertheless,it lacks continuity, the interactions among the short-, long-, andlonger-term, focusing mainly on current activities.

The inter-generational perspective main focus is on the timeperspective, by taking into consideration the long-term effects oftoday’s decisions, as the Brundtland Report [3] indicates of

Fig. 4. The systems of SD underscoring the relationships among the local, national andglobal levels and underscoring the need to integrate the social, economic and theenvironmental in a more holistic manner. Source: adapted from Refs. [2,40].

Fig. 5. The Planning Hexagon: relations among economic/money trade, individual/personal beliefs, group norms/culture society, technical/administrative skills, legal/politicalsystems, and physical/biological sources. Source: adapted from Refs. [51,52].

Fig. 6. Equalizing and merging economic, environmental, and social aspects (1Vd ).

R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1838–18461840

satisfying the needs of today’s societies without compromising theneeds of tomorrow’s societies. Some of the authors taking thisperspective include Goldin and Winters [22], the WCED [3], Hodgeet al. [36], Langer and Schon [30], Stavins et al. [23], Hussey et al.[37],Reinhardt [32], Bhaskar and Glyn [38], Atkinson [12], Diesendorf[33], and Stavins et al. [23]. Although this perspective’s forte is itsfocus on continuity, in some cases it does not explicitly integrate theother aspects. Sometimes this perspective is critiqued as being toobroad and vague, and difficult to ground in practical activities [11].

The holistic perspective explicitly combines the integrationaland inter-generational perspectives. Some of the authors takingthis perspective include Elsen [39], Lozano-Ros [40], and Lozano[24,41]. This perspective proposes two dynamic and simultaneousequilibria: the first one amongst economic, environmental andsocial aspects,1 and the second amongst the temporal aspects, i.e.short-, long- and longer-term perspectives.

Although it is common to find the terms Sustainable De-velopment and Sustainability used interchangeably, they are in-herently different. Reid [6], Lozano-Ros [40], and Martin [42] statethat the difference lies in SD being the journey, path or process to

1 Stakeholder participation is part of the social aspects.

achieve sustainability, i.e. the ‘‘.capacity for continuance into thelong-term future’’ [42] or the ideal dynamic state.

2. Envisioning sustainability

Different authors have appealed to the use of images, graphicalrepresentations, and models to help explain, raise awareness, andincrease understanding and diffusion rates of complex concepts, asin the case of sustainability [12]. The use of images can improvelearning and understanding of new or complex concepts, such assustainability, especially when images are carefully selected andconstructed to complement written text and not substitute it [43–47]. In many cases, images are easier to remember than non-imagedata. They can also help to make the text more compact or concise,concrete, coherent, comprehensible, correspondent and codeable[sic] [43,44]. Visual representations can help to communicate,generalise and make more tangible concepts that are difficult toexpress clearly and succinctly with words, such as sustainability.However, even those professionally designed may not be perfect,instead of helping in the learning and understanding processes,they may have the opposite impact [44].

Among the different sustainability graphical representationsused two stand out: (1) the Venn diagram (see Fig. 1) [2,40,48–50],

Fig. 7. Integrating the economic, environmental, and social aspects to achieve full interrelatedness (2Vd ).

Fig. 8. Transformation towards the First Tier Sustainability Equilibrium. Interactions among economic, environmental, and social aspects from the Venn diagram (FTSE).

Fig. 9. Continuous interrelatedness among economic, environmental, and social aspects through concentric circles (1CC ).

R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1838–1846 1841

where the union created by the overlap among the three compo-nents of economy, environment and society are designed to rep-resent sustainability; and (2) concentric circles, where the outercircle represents the natural environment, the middle one repre-sents society, and the inner one represents economic aspects (seeFig. 2) [48]. Some authors propose a model with embedded circles

but no concentricity or common middle point, e.g. Refs. [18,49,50](see Fig. 3). These representations are mainly based on the inte-grational perspective.

Dalal-Clayton and Bass [2] complement the Venn diagram rep-resentation by adding local, national, and global perspectives,which encompass four societal influences: politics, peace and

Fig. 10. Transformation towards the First Tier Sustainability Equilibrium. Interactions among economic, environmental, and social aspects from concentric circles (FTSE).

Fig. 11. Intergenerational sustainability, designed to safeguard the rights and abilities of future generations to also meet their needs. Source: adapted from Ref. [40].

R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1838–18461842

security, cultural values, and institutional and administrativearrangements. Lozano-Ros [40] incorporates technology as anadditional societal factor (see Fig. 4).

Another lesser known graphical model is the Planning Hexagon[51,52] (see Fig. 5), which is designed to model the relationshipsamong economy, environment, the individual, group norms, tech-nical skills, as well as legal and planning systems.

These representations provide basic sustainability un-derstanding, especially of the interaction of the three aspects. Theyare helpful in raising awareness for the general public. However,they suffer from different drawbacks.

In the Venn diagram sustainability is represented by the over-lapping area of the three circles, shown as ‘full’ (F) in Fig. 1. Theareas lying outside of this are considered either as partial sustain-ability (P), the union of two circles, or not at all related to

Fig. 12. The Natural Step framework funnel. Adapted from Ref. [62].

sustainability. This implies that sustainability is only those aspectswhere the three aspects are united. This is flawed since it considerssustainability to be compartmentalised and disregards the inter-connectedness within and among the three aspects. Another flawof this representation is being a mere snapshot of a moment intime, which lacks the ability to represent the dynamic processes ofchange over time.

The concentric circles model, Fig. 2, depicts a large circle orsystem, ‘the natural environment’, with a subsystem ‘society’,which has a further subsystem, ‘the economy’. Here, society isa part of nature, and the economy is a part of society. Nonetheless,the delimiting of the three aspects by the use of circles does notreally reflect the complex inter-connectedness that actually existsamong them. An example of such interrelatedness is presented byHart [53] who argues that a conflict appears when a populationstarts invading natural reserves to obtain food and other short-termsubsistence resources, such as fire-wood. In this case, humans take

Fig. 13. Integrating the time dimension into the first tier equilibrium (3D-Sust).

Fig. 14. Disequilibrium in the time dimension. Lack of long-term perspective.

2 It should be noted that in many occasions the term development is used toindicate economic growth, even though they are inherently different. The formerbeing improvements in well beings, quality of life and the environment, the latterbeing an increase in GNP/GDP.

3 I would like to thank Prof. Peattie for making me reflect upon this particulartopic. The reflections have helped clarify many of my deep thoughts about thecircles and helped me to arrive at an interesting way of ‘seeing’ their interactions.

R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1838–1846 1843

resources from the environment, breaking out of the social ‘circle’.It might be argued that in a sustainable society there would be noneed to take resources outside of natural resources that are‘‘assigned’’ for the use of the social system, but this implies thatthere are sufficient resources with no external factors (e.g. climatedisasters, or political and military conflicts) leading to reductions insupply for the subsistence of a society. This has proven to be evermore difficult, especially in recent decades when economic andsocial activities are increasingly expanding and destroying thenatural environment throughout the entire Earth; in the processhumans, with a population of over 6.3 billion, are rapidly over-whelming the natural environment’s carrying capacities [54–56].This helps to show that the concentric circles model is highly an-thropocentric, implying that economy is at the centre of sustain-ability; typical in Western countries. This conflicts with the idea ofbalance among the three components. As with the Venn diagram itcompartmentalises each of the aspects and lacks the dynamics ofprocess change over time.

The Planning Hexagon provides explicit relationships amongeconomy, environment, the individual, group norms, technicalskills, and legal and planning systems; opposite to the previouswhere the last four elements are included in the social aspects. Aswith the other representations it compartmentalises the relation-ships, and does not address the dynamic time dimensions. As withthe Venn diagram and concentric circles, the Planning Hexagon canalso be considered to belong to the integrational perspective.

It is evident that these approaches seek to illustrate the complexconcept of sustainability in a simple manner through graphicalrepresentations. Each representation has its strengths, such as easeof understanding and power of depiction to reach the generalpublic. However, they all suffer from issues of scale; being centredon one point in time, being highly anthropocentric and compart-mentalised; and lacking conceptual coherence, inter-connectedness among the aspects, completeness, trans-disciplin-arity, and dynamic time dimensions. These drawbacks havereduced their acceptance and use by more advanced sustainabilityscholars, researchers and practitioners.

Representing the sustainability concept fully and accuratelythrough graphical means is more difficult than it appears, but it isalso clearly an important task to achieve. The following sectionfocuses on an innovative attempt to represent sustainability inthree dimensions, which is aimed to show the complex anddynamic equilibria among economic, environmental and socialaspects, and the short-, long- and longer-term.

3. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally

Useful tools for envisaging concepts rarely arrive fully formed;usually they are developed though an evolutionary process. The

following paragraphs explain the mental process that the authorwent through to develop a new way of envisioning the vastness andcomplexity of sustainability.

Modern societies that follow the dominant socio-economicparadigm (DSP), neo-liberal capitalism, are based on the impor-tance and centrality of economic aspects, and a tergiversated ‘FreeTrade’, which are raping the Earth for natural resources and soci-eties [2,54,57]. History has shown that capitalism has not beenalone in these processes. Socialism and communism also dis-regarded the impacts of industrialisation on the environment, asthe Aral Sea’s shrinking dimensions and increasing salinity bearwitness [58,59]. In all cases, the central importance has been givento economic aspects, under the names of development2 andindustrialisation, while impacting or disregarding the environmentand societies. This is shown in the left side of Fig. 6, which could beconsidered as a precursor of the Venn diagram and concentriccircles models.

The first step (1) in the quest for sustainability would be help toequalize the importance and integrate the three aspects, where the‘relative’ importance and impact of the economic aspects should beequal to that of the environmental and social ones. In other words,to pass from the conventional economics perspective to the inte-grational one. Two different trajectories are proposed depending onthe model used: Venn or concentric circles. To avoid further con-fusions, the morphology of the circles is used with the followingnote of caution3: most of the literature does not state what thecircles represent. Usually they are referred to as aspects, di-mensions or pillars. Do they represent economic, environmentaland social capitals? Or do they represent the impacts that each hasupon the other two? This author is inclined to believe that theyrepresent a difference between the capitals and the impacts thatthe other circles have upon a particular circle. For example theeconomic circle should be the sum of all the different economicaspects, e.g. sales, profits, and revenues, among others, minus thenegative impacts the economic activities have, in the short- andlong-term, upon the natural environmental and social spheres.Some examples negative impacts include natural disasters, epi-demics, union strikes, corporate greed’s deforestation of tropicalrainforests to replace them with mono-cultures, and the globaldevastation created by the military industry that continues toenrich some through fostering wars.

The first trajectory is comprised of three steps. The first step(1Vd ) depicts the change towards more balanced influence andpower of the three aspects, i.e. reducing that of the economic as-pects while increasing those of the environmental and social as-pects (Fig. 6). In the graphical representation this is reflected bymaking the circles have the same area. The aspects must be in-tegrated to reflect achievement of sustainability as the interactionof the three, as in the Venn diagram (Fig. 1). The second step (2Vd )is to further unite the three aspects (see Fig. 7) to reflect that theeconomic, environmental and social aspects are interacting. Oncethis has been achieved, the circles need to continuously rotate sothat the different parts of each aspect are dynamic contact with allthe issues in the other two aspects. This means that each part isinter-connected to others in the same and the other aspects (e.g.carbon emissions are connected with energy which in turn isconnected to production, and so on). The further fusing of the

R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1838–18461844

circles results in the First Tier Sustainability Equilibrium (FTSE), seeFig. 8.

The second trajectory results from the concentric circles model.It should be noted that Hart [18] proposed progressing from theVenn diagram to the three concentric circles, but this shows littleinteraction among the aspects and no longitudinal perspective. Thiswould indicate retrogression to a time in history where economicactivities had little impact on society and the environment, one thatdoes not represent the status of modern societies. It also does notdifferentiate about economic activities that improve the environ-ment or society and those which reduce them. In this trajectory theeconomic aspects expand and inter-connect with the social sub-system, where the economic aspects are related to social ones(1CC ) and go beyond economic theories that disregard the effect ofsocial aspects upon economic ones. In the graphical representationthis is equivalent to enlarging the economic circle and spinning itcontinuously so that each of its parts is in contact with each of thesocial aspects (Fig. 9). An example of this is profits, which are notdirectly linked to personnel. Typically, in calculating profits, thedifferent costs are subtracted from revenues. One of the costs is thatof labour; a problem with this is that labour is just another part ofthe equation and disregards motivation, culture and human needsamongst others. In many cases employees are considered to be li-abilities instead of assets [60].

Similarly, the social aspects, including the economic ones, ex-pand and rotate in ways that interact with all dimensions of thenatural environment. As a result each aspect is interrelated withevery part of the other two aspects. In the representation this couldbe viewed as only one circle, which is composed the dynamic in-teractions of all three primary dimensions. This creates the First TierSustainability Equilibrium (FTSE), see Fig. 10.

As discussed, the Venn and concentric circles representationslack the ability to show the dynamic time dimensions. They appearonly as snapshots, not fully representing sustainability. To addressthis, the time perspective, also referred to as the inter-generationalaspect [3], is incorporated, into the three spinning circles. Thismeans moving from the integrational towards the inter-genera-tional perspective. Fig. 11 shows an example of a prior attempt toshow this perspective. However, this does not show the in-terrelatedness of each aspect with the others, as in the case of theVenn diagram.

Another representation aiming to include the time perspectiveis offered by the Natural Step (TNS) framework [61], presented inFig. 12. The framework works in four phases: the first phase,awareness, involves aligning around a common understanding ofsustainability and the ‘whole-systems’ context. The second phase,baseline mapping, is designed to provide an analysis of today’sactivities and how they relate to sustainability principles. The third

Fig. 15. Two Tiered Sustainability Equilibria (TTSE). Interactions between the First Tier SustaSecond Tier Sustainability Equilibrium, i.e. the short-, long- and longer-terms.

phase creates a vision of how a sustainable society would look like.From this vision a strategy and action plans can be developed.These are based on ‘‘backcasting’’ from principles. Phase 4 consistsof advising and supporting the execution of specific initiatives byproviding appropriate training, techniques, and tools for imple-mentation, followed by measuring progress towards goals andsuggesting modifications as needed [61,62]. The funnel providesa comprehensive framework on how to move towards SustainableSocieties through backcasting. However, as a representation, it doesnot portray the interactions of economic, environmental and socialaspects. Furthermore, it implies that sustainability can be achieved,while as previously mentioned, it is an ideal dynamic state.

A better way to graphically incorporate the time perspective isto project the FTSE with no deviation through time, which would beequivalent to ‘exploding’ it into the third dimension (3D-Sust), thuscreating a perfect cylinder (Fig. 13). When there are deviations the3D-Sust changes its shape from a cylinder to two types of cones.The first one is when too much emphasis is put on the present, e.g.using discounting methods, and little or no attention is given to theneeds of tomorrow, then, instead of a cylinder, the shape takes theform of a cone with its wider side in the present (Fig. 14). In anextreme case this would make the 3D-Sust regress to the FTSE. Thesecond is when too much emphasis is put on the future but limitedemphasis is given to satisfying today’s needs, then the cone wouldhave its wider base in the future.

The final step involves the interactions of both equilibria intoa Two Tiered Sustainability Equilibria (TTSE). This is achieved byinter-relating the FTSE in dynamic change processes through time,passing from the inter-generational to the holistic perspective. Inthis case the FTSE may not be the same today and in the future. Inthe TTSE all aspects including the time perspective interrelate, forexample the economic aspects of today with the economic aspectsof the future, but also with the environmental aspects of thepresent and the future, as well as with the social aspects of thepresent and the future. These interactions occur with all the otheraspects of the present and the long-term, which make the cylindersuffer a metamorphosis into a doughnut shape by imploding in thedirection of the time axis (Fig. 15), for this to occur time needs tobend. In the TTSE sustainability issues lie inside the doughnut andare in perennial movement inter-relating with other issues, con-tinuously rotating in the two axes shown in the figure. This is aimedat helping to represent sustainability more clearly and completely.

4. Conclusions

Modern ideologies that rely on short-term economic profits, andscientific traditions based on reductionistic cause–effect relation-ships are failing to explain and address the complex dynamic inter-

inability Equilibrium, i.e. among economic, environmental, and social aspects; and the

R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1838–1846 1845

relations among economic, environmental, and social aspects andthe time perspective. The concepts of Sustainable Development(SD) and sustainability have appeared as alternatives to help tounderstand, address and reduce current, and potentially future,economic disparities, environmental degradation, and social ail-ments. However, these concepts are still unfamiliar to, or are mis-understood by many individuals and societies worldwide. In orderto achieve real change it is necessary to facilitate greater awarenessand understanding within and throughout societies.

Although graphical representations, such as the Venn diagram,concentric circles, and the Sustainability Hexagon, can help thegeneral public grasp the different aspects of SD and sustainability,they suffer from several drawbacks, such as the depiction of sus-tainability as a steady state, a lack of full integration and in-terrelatedness amongst the different aspects, and a lack ofconsideration of the dynamic time perspectives. These drawbackshave been recognised by a number of sustainability scholars, re-searchers and practitioners, who have challenged their accuracyand power to depict sustainability.

This author proposes a new way of depicting sustainability, theTwo Tiered Sustainability Equilibria (TTSE), where the issues in eachaspect (economic, environmental and social), interact with eachother, with issues in other aspects, and through time. The TTSE showsthe complex inter-linkages and inter-relations between the First andSecond Tier Sustainability Equilibria. It is hoped that the TTSE visualmodel will help people to more effectively understand that in orderfor us to achieve societal sustainability we must use holistic, con-tinuous and interrelated phenomena amongst economic, environ-mental, and social aspects, and that each of our decisions hasimplications for all of the aspects today and in the future. This authorwelcomes your feedback and suggestions for further improvements.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to Miss Frances Hines, Prof.Don Huisingh, Prof. Francisco Lozano and Prof. Ken Peattie for theircritiques and comments, and excellent recommendations for waysto improve this document.

References

[1] Carley M, Christie I. Managing sustainable development. 2nd ed. London:Earthscan Publications Ltd; 2000. p. 322.

[2] Dalal-Clayton B, Bass S. Sustainable development strategies. 1st ed. London:Earthscan Publications Ltd; 2002. p. 358.

[3] WCED. Our common future. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.[4] Korten DC. When corporations rule the world. 2nd ed. Bloomfield,

Connecticut: Kumarian Press Inc.; 2001.[5] Cairns Jr J. Will the real sustainability concept please stand up? Ethics in

Science and Environmental Politics 2004:49–52.[6] Reid D. Sustainable development. An introductory guide. 1st ed. London:

Earthscan Publications Ltd; 1995. p. 254.[7] Roorda N. AISHE: auditing instrument for sustainable higher education. Dutch

Committee for Sustainable Higher Education; 2001.[8] Rosner WJ. Mental models for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production

1995;3(1–2):107–21.[9] Senge PM. The fifth discipline. The art & practice of the learning organization.

London: Random House Business Books; 1999.[10] Dresner S. The principles of sustainability. 1st ed. London: Earthscan

Publications Ltd; 2002. p. 200.[11] Kirkby J, O’Keefe P, Timberlake L. The Earthscan reader in sustainable

development. 1st ed. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd; 1995. p. 371.[12] Atkinson G. Measuring corporate sustainability. Journal of Environmental

Planning and Management 2000;43(2):235–52.[13] Costanza R. Ecological economics. The science and management of

sustainability. New York: Columbia University Press; 1991. p. 525.[14] Currie-Alder B. Barriers to sustainability: problems inhibiting the success of

SANREM-Ecuador; 1997.[15] Dobers P, Wolff R. Competing with ‘soft’ issues – from managing the

environment to sustainable business strategies. Business Strategy and theEnvironment 2000;9:143–50.

[16] Doppelt B. Leading change toward sustainability. A change-management guidefor business, government and civil society. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing; 2003.

[17] Fadeeva Z. Promise of sustainability collaboration–potential fulfilled? Journalof Cleaner Production 2004;13:165–74.

[18] Hart M. A better view of a sustainable community [Web-page] [accessed 07.12.05]. Available from: http://www.sustainablemeasures.com/Sustainability/ABetterView.html; 2000.

[19] Miller GT. Living in the environment. 12th ed. Belmont, California: ThomsonLearning, Inc; 2002.

[20] Rees WE. An ecological economics perspective on sustainability and prospectsfor ending poverty. Population and Environment 2002;24(1):15–46.

[21] Reinhardt F. Sustainability and the firm. Interfaces 2000;30(3):26–41.[22] Goldin I, Winters LA, editors. The economics of sustainable development.

OECD Cambridge University Press; 1995.[23] Stavins RN, Wagner AF, Wagner G. Interpreting sustainability in economic

terms: dynamic efficiency plus intergenerational equity. Economic Letters2003;79:339–43.

[24] Lozano R. Developing collaborative and sustainable organisations. Journal ofCleaner Production 2008;16(4):499–509.

[25] Bartelmus P. Sustainable development – paradigm or paranoia?. WuppertalInstitute; 1999.

[26] Mishan EJ. Evaluation of life and limb: a theoretical approach. The Journal ofPolitical Economy 1971;79(4):687–705.

[27] Daly HE. Sustainable development: definitions, principles, policies.Washington, DC: World Bank; 2002.

[28] Fullan M. The change leader. Educational Leadership 2002:16–20.[29] Hart S. Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business

Review 2000:66–76.[30] Langer ME, Schon A. Enhancing corporate sustainability. A framework

based evaluation tools for sustainable development. Vienna:Forschungsschwerpunkt Nachhaltigkeit und Umweltmanagement,Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien; 2003.

[31] Murcott S, Appendix A. Definitions of sustainable development [webpage][accessed 19.06.03]. Available from: http://www.sustainableliving.org/appen-a.htm; 1997.

[32] Reinhardt F. Sustainability and the firm. Zurich: University of Zurich; 2004.[33] Diesendorf M. Sustainability and sustainable development. In: Dunphy D,

Benveniste J, Griffiths A, Sutton P, editors. Sustainability: the corporatechallenge of the 21st century. Sydney: Allen & Unwin; 2000. p. 19–37.

[34] Salzmann O, Ionescu-Somers A, Steger U. The business case for corporatesustainability – review of the literature and research options. IMS/CSM;2003.

[35] Elkington J. Cannibals with forks. Oxford: Capstone Publishing Limited; 2002.[36] Hodge RA, Hardi P, Bell DVJ. Seeing change through the lens of sustain-

ability. Costar Rica: The International Institute for Sustainable Development;1999.

[37] Hussey DM, Kirsop PL, Meissen RE. Global reporting initiative guidelines: anevaluation of sustainable development metrics for industry. EnvironmentalQuality Management 2001:1–20.

[38] Bhaskar V, Glyn A. The north the south and the environment. Ecologicalconstraints and the global economy. 1st ed. London: Earthscan PublicationsLimited; 1995. p. 263.

[39] Elsen A. Sustainable development research at the University of Amsterdam.Amsterdam: United Nations Environment Programme; 1998. p. 64.

[40] Lozano-Ros R. Sustainable development in higher education. Incorporation,assessment and reporting of sustainable development in higher educationinstitutions, in IIIEE. Lund: Lund University; 2003.

[41] Lozano R. Collaboration as a pathway for sustainability. SustainableDevelopment 2007;16(6):370–81.

[42] Martin S. Sustainability, systems thinking and professional practice.Worcester: University College, Worcester; 2003.

[43] Schnotz W. Towards an integrated view of learning from text and visualdisplays. Educational Psychology Review 2002;14(1):101–20.

[44] Carney RN, Levin JR. Pictorial illustrations still improve students’ learningfrom text. Educational Psychology Review 2002;14(1):5–26.

[45] Hilligoss S, Howard T. Visual communication a writer’s guide. 2nd ed. NewYork: Longman; 2002.

[46] Stokes S. Visual literacy in teaching and learning: a literature review.Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education 2001;1(1).

[47] Sankey M. Visual and multiple representations in learning materials: an issueof literacy. University of Southern Queensland; 2003.

[48] Mitchell C. Integrating sustainability in chemical engineering practice andeducation. Transactions of the Institution for Chemical Engineering 2000;78(B):237–42.

[49] Mebratu D. Sustainability and sustainable development: historical andconceptual review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1998;18:493–520.

[50] Peattie K. Environmental marketing management. Meeting the greenchallenge. London: Financial Times. Pitman Publishing; 1995.

[51] Benson DE. Move ahead with the past for wildlife and nature conservation. In:Transactions of the 2002 North American Wildlife and Natural ResourcesConference Washington, DC; 2002. p. 161–77.

[52] Benson DE, Darracq EG. Integrating multiple contexts for environmentaleducation. In: Field R, Field R, Warren RJ, Okarma H, Seivert PR, editors.Wildlife, land, and people: priorities for the 21st century. Proceedings of thesecond international wildlife management congress. Godollo, Hungary: TheWildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA; 2001.

[53] Hart S. Beyond greening: strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard BusinessReview 1997;75(1):66–76.

R. Lozano / Journal of Cleaner Production 16 (2008) 1838–18461846

[54] Dyllick T, Hockerts K. Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability.Business Strategy and the Environment 2002;11:130–41.

[55] Ehrenfeld JR. Eco-efficiency. Philosophy, theory, and tools. Journal of IndustrialEcology 2005;9(4):6–8.

[56] Henriques A, Richardson J, editors. The triple bottom line. Does it all add up?London: Earthscan; 2005.

[57] Durphy D, Griffiths A, Benn S. Organizational change for corporatesustainability. London: Routledge; 2003.

[58] Micklin PP. The Aral Sea problem. Proceedings of ICE Civil-Engineering 1994;102:114–21.

[59] Waltham T, Sholji I. The demise of the Aral Sea – an environmental disaster.Geology Today 2001;17(6):218–24.

[60] Drucker P. They’re not employees, They’re People. Harvard Business Review2002:71–7.

[61] Robert K-H. Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do theyrelate to a general framework for sustainable development, and to each other?Journal of Cleaner Production 2000;8:243–54.

[62] The Natural Step New Zealand. The Natural Step Framework [accessed 15.02.08]. Available from: Implementation methodology http://www.naturalstep.org.nz/tns-f-implementation.asp 2007.