Nachhaltigkeitsverständnis

1. Preamble

The following paper presents the perspectives on sustainability at the Kassel Institute for Sustainability (KIS), addressing (prospective) students and lecturers at the University of Kassel, as well as other stakeholders of KIS. To this end, the paper first provides a brief and semi-chronological overview of the broad spectrum of existing approaches and theories on sustainability and, subsequently, explains KIS’ position within this array of schools of thought. Lastly, the paper formulates the implications of KIS’ conception of sustainability for (future) students and lecturers at the University of Kassel. This includes a statement on how KIS aspires to navigate the differences between individual understandings of sustainability.

2. Overview of the Concept of Sustainability

The term sustainability and its understanding are characterised by imprecision, ambiguity, and, in some cases, contradictions. The environmental economist David W. Pearce therefore speaks of a ‘gallery of definitions’ of sustainability. This diversity arises from the evolution of the concept, which is often traced to the Brundtland report Our Common Future (1987), though its earliest references date back to the 18th century. The  Brundtland report famously proposes sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” and thus puts forward the ideas of intra- and intergenerational equity.

Another widely-recognized approach to sustainability is the triple bottom line (also known as ‘the three ps’ of  ‘people, planet, profit’), which considers environmental, social, and financial outcomes. Economists have further distinguished two versions of the triple bottom line: weak sustainability and strong sustainability. Weak sustainability permits mutual substitution of natural capital with social or economic capital. In contrast, strong sustainability will neither allow for substitution, nor allow compensation or discounting of capital over time.    
            Subsequent approaches adopted a(n) (eco)systems perspective and introduced greater complexity to definitions of sustainability. In this context, for instance, the notion of resilience, i.e. a system’s ability to self-organize and adapt to change, was included. Thus, the definition of sustainability as ‘the capacity to create, test, and maintain adaptive capability’ manifested. 

At the turn of the millennium, the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) and the Helmholtz Association published the Integrative Concept of Sustainable Development (Integratives Konzept Nachhaltiger Entwicklung, 2001), which tries to operationalize sustainability. It defines three main goals of sustainable development, namely securing human existence, maintaining society’s productive potential, and preserving options for development and actions. Subsequently, the Integrative Concept of Sustainable Development derives heuristic rules to achieve these goals.            
            Another approach to defining sustainability is related to the concept of ecosystem services, linking human-wellbeing to the more-than human environment. Against this backdrop, sustainability is perceived as the preservation of benefits that ecosystems provide for humans. This concept is frequently criticized for its unidirectionality, viewing ecosystems solely as support to humans and not vice versa.

More recent frameworks of sustainability emphasize the planetary level. This is evidenced by the notion of planetary boundaries (2009), i.e. critical thresholds for Earth system processes, beyond which the risk of environmental destruction increases significantly. Accordingly, sustainability is understood as ‘living within planetary boundaries’, which results in a safe spacefor humanity. 
             The idea of doughnut economics combines the notion of planetary boundaries with the concept of social foundations, which represent the needs of human societies. More precisely, the doughnutdelineates the space between the planetary boundaries (the means of the planet) and the social foundations (the needs of humanity). Hence, sustainability is understood as ‘living within the doughnut’, which leads to and preserves a safe and just space for humanity. 

In 2015, the United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development with 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This marked a shift from the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)––an agenda set in 2000 for the year 2015––toward a broader global sustainability agenda that also holds Global North countries accountable for their decisions. KIS appreciates and refers to the 17 SDGs in its work, but does not simply assume their validity. Instead, we consider synergies and contradictions within the SDGs and subject both the SDGs and the concept of sustainability to a critical review, particularly against the backdrop of alternative concepts from the Global South.

Most recent definitions of sustainability highlight the notions of (environmental) justice, transformation, and relationships. They subscribe to the relational and transformative turn in sustainability science and/or are moving away from anthropocentrism toward a multispecies perspective, broadening the scope of discussions on addressing the biodiversity crisis to ensure climate justice while transitioning to sustainable futures. The relational turn perceives entities not as separate but as deeply entangled and continuously co-evolving. Approaches in line with the relational turn see perpetual states of ‘becoming’ and relations between the world’s entities as well as between inner and outer worlds.        
            The transformative turn in sustainability science argues that established ways of ‘doing’ science fail to respond to current crises, and that, therefore, new ways of researching and teaching are urgently needed. Moreover, the transformative turn considers incremental changes within the system no longer appropriate; instead, fundamental systemic changes are required.

             
Overall, sustainability can be defined as:

• intra- and intergenerational equity within planetary boundaries or 

• just and empathetic i) intra- and intergenerational, ii) intra- and interindividual, iii) human- and other-than-human relationships. These relationships can be mediated by numerous factors, e.g. emotional affects, values, knowledge, formal and informal (institutional) structures, etc. 

3. The Positions on Sustainability at KIS

At KIS, we embrace a notion of sustainability that is moving beyond traditional definitions to a more holistic and action-oriented approach.  We aim to establish and further a definition of sustainability that

• Is normative and future-oriented

• Integrates justice across space and time and between humans and other-than-humans

• Recognizes that, in line with transdisciplinary transformative sustainability science, sustainability must be (locally) co-defined, co-framed, and co-created

• Is inter- and transdisciplinary beyond social and ecological dimensions, including conventional and alternative branches of economics, the humanities, technical sciences, psychology, etc. 

• Considers the relational and transformative turns in sustainability science and in the sustainability debate

• Acknowledges the connection of outer (systems, governance, power structures, behaviors, demographics, etc.) and inner (individual and collective mindsets, values, worldviews and paradigms, and associated cognitive, emotional and relational inner qualities) dimensions of sustainability 

• Engages with postcolonial, postcategorial, postgrowth- and postanthropecentrism-related questions

• Is critical of, and sometimes incompatible with:

  • the possibility of continuous “green” growth,

  • the possibility to substitute,

  • the possibility to discount, and 

  • the possibility to compensate for the destruction of ecological capital. 

As the concept of sustainability evolved, ‘sustainability science’ emerged (which differs from sustainability research). At KIS, we approach sustainability science as a normative, inter- and transdisciplinary, and solution-oriented scientific program. Sustainability science integrates insights from (among others) natural sciences, economics, engineering, social sciences, and humanities to understand complex socio-technical-ecological systems and to drive societal transformation where everyone is an agent of change. Ultimately, sustainability science is a social learning process. At KIS, we think that universities play a crucial role in facilitating transformative and social learning. 

This understanding of sustainability has theoretical and practical implications for research and teaching and on the organizational level. We invite all KIS members, lecturers, students, and those who are interested to actively and critically engage with the concept of sustainability in order to enhance its further development, implementation and operationalization in the theory, practice, and teaching of sustainability science and research.

4. Implication for Lecturers and Students

We at KIS acknowledge diverse perspectives on the topic of sustainability and are open for a plurality of views. KIS aims to facilitate a dialogue between these diverse standpoints by offering a space and the instruments—one of which is this paper—to enter this dialogue. With the help of this paper, KIS wants to encourage lecturers and students to develop and reflect on their own understanding of sustainability. The paper contributes to enabling them to critically observe and understand the viewpoints in the academic community or of other members of society, and to evaluate how (different) social, economic, political, educational or environmental programs relate to sustainability. With this paper, lecturers and students are able to recognize and become critically aware of the different perspectives on sustainability and sustainability transformation across various media and academic discourses. Lecturers, in particular, have access to tools that can help them position themselves in terms of epistemic worldviews. They can outline the evolution of some of the more established perspectives on sustainability, and understand that there is no single definition of “sustainability” or “transformation”, but a diversity of cultures and narratives of sustainability and transformation, within which equity, intent, and values play an increasingly significant role.