Why Social Sustainability is often an afterthought in the Sustainability Mix
An edit of my latest academic exploration, along with a teaser of my research plans
Sustainability is often broken down into three pillars: economic, environmental, and social sustainability, however, in their article Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward, the authors (Boyer et al. 2016) note a distinct lack of interdisciplinary research centred on the social variable, which makes it challenging for sustainability advocates to make sense of it. They set out to analyse how social sustainability has been effectively researched and applied, to establish five proven approaches to social sustainability, which scholars and practitioners could take forward, to approach the social pillar with greater strategic consideration as part of the sustainability mix.
Sustainability Pillars: 3 P’s, 3 E’s, Triple Bottom Line
The sustainability pillars (economic, environmental and social) are sometimes referred to as the 3 P’s — prosperity, planet people, the 3 E’s — economy, ecology, and equity, or the triple bottom line. While all of these acronyms and definitions appear to place people, equity, and social sustainability on the same level of importance as money and nature, Boyer et al. (2016) identify that the social pillar has a reputation for chaos, with diverse and context specific goals, that can be challenging to analyse, in contrast to economic and environmental progress, so much so, that scholars and practitioners seem inclined to steer away from the social pillar altogether or leave it as an afterthought behind the other two.
Social Sustainability at Dancing Rabbit Eco Village
During their research, Boyer et al. (2016) explore Dancing Rabbit Eco Village, an intentional community (IC) whose residents have broken away from traditional social, environmental, and economic systems to live a more sustainable life within a community environment. This is a great demonstration of how personal agency is used to exercise freedom of choice, against the grain of normal social structures. To avoid chaos and conflict, villagers at Dancing Rabbit build their personal development skills, to enable them to collaborate effectively between themselves and with co-operatives. This enables the community to thrive, without the financial capital that typical households (outside the IC) need to meet their basic needs.
By examining how scholars in urban planning, geography, anthropology, and business management have dealt with social sustainability, Boyer et al. (2016) created five approaches that future scholars and practitioners can take forwards to integrate social sustainability more intentionally into future sustainability plans. The author’s mutual objective was to synthesize literature related to the social pillar of sustainability and in doing so, advance an interdisciplinary conversation about its roots and potential remedies to the greatest crises of our time.
Approach 1 to Social Sustainability
The first approach identified is for social sustainability to act as a standalone pillar, alongside the economic and environmental pillar but without interacting with either. This requires exclusive metrics or indices that carry meaning independent of economic growth or environmental progress. The potential risks to this approach are that social sustainability becomes relegated to social issues, and assumes that there is no impact from one pillar to another (Boyer et al. 2016).
Approach 2 to Social Sustainability
The second approach to social sustainability is one where it’s treated as a balanced constraint alongside the other sustainability pillars. Boyer et al. (2016) cite non-profits as most likely to use this approach — so instead of purely economic results, they would consider the net impact on all of society and the environment as well as the bottom line. In another example, the authors share a case in Loreto Bay National Park, which was a marine protected area that suffered from overfishing. At first the staff were only concerned with environmental and economic issues, yet following discussions with the fishermen they were able to garner a better understand of the fishermen’s motives and values, which helped to shift their vision of sustainability, to integrate social values and relationships in the wider mix.
Approach 3 to Social Sustainability
The third approach is one where social sustainability forms the foundation upon which the economic and environmental pillars are built. The authors bring this to life with the Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage example, which is rooted in the villagers emotional and physiological needs.
Approach 4 to Social Sustainability
The fourth approach that researchers take is to view social issues at the root of all environmental and economic issues, which requires attention on social issues, relationships, and institutions first. They provide the example from Japan, that we touched on earlier, where a shift in social practice (lighter or heavier work attire based on the seasons) resulted in a positive environmental change.
Approach 5 to Social Sustainability
The fifth and final approach to social sustainability, identified by Boyer et al. (2016) is one that sees significant overlap between social, economic and environmental pillars, which are wholly dependent upon in local experience.
In Conclusion & My Own Research Plans
This article has helped to move forward my understanding of why the social pillar of sustainability has largely been relegated to the back of the room since the topic came into public consciousness in 1987 (Boyer et al. 2016).
During a recent visit to O.U.R Ecovillage on Vancouver Island, I learned about the impact of eco-villages on the social sustainability of their wider communities. Brandy Gallagher, OUR Ecovillage founder, mentioned what an incredible impact the Los Angeles Eco-village had on reducing violent crime in the local area. Boyer et al. (2016) even allude to the idea that the Los Angeles Eco-village was formed with the intention of addressing wider social tensions.
I am keen to build on this to learn from communities that are putting social sustainability first, to imagine what a difference could be made if the corporate world were to shift their priorities — toward positively impacting the lives of current and future generations.
What if social sustainability was embedded into your company mission or values? Would employees feel less anxious about future lockdowns, or impending recession? Is there a business case for improving lives?
While the authors took a Critical Theory approach to their research, I resonate deeply with Constructivism, to get to the root of societal problems through personal experience and intend to spend time in community to adapt my way of thinking.
Of the five approaches to social sustainability proposed by Boyer et al. (2016), I am inclined to take Approach Four, to place a focus on social issues and relationships first, with anticipation that these efforts will positively impact our economic and environmental sustainability goals.
References
Boyer, R., Peterson, N., Arora, P., & Caldwell, K. (2016). Five approaches to social sustainability and an integrated way forward. Sustainability, 8(9), 878. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090878
Reed, M. I. (1997). In praise of duality and dualism: Rethinking agency and structure in organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 18(1), 21–42.
