Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry related to this topic through the link below:
Check Note
Ver. Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 1539 2022-08-11 15:10:59 |
2 format -2 word(s) 1537 2022-08-12 04:18:03 |
History of Terms Sustainable and Sustainability
Upload a video

The terms sustainable and sustainability are currently often used in scientific journals, including Energies. There are cases where these terms are defined or operationalized, but more often they are not. This is problematic, as there are reportedly hundreds of (different) definitions and operationalizations (in terms of standards or goals) of sustainability. This large number has its roots in history. Many current definitions and operationalizations of sustainability are social constructs. As these constructs vary, there can be variation in the characterization of specific ways to provide energy as sustainable or not sustainable. There are also definitions of sustainability that have emerged from the sciences. These definitions can also lead to differences in the characterization of specific ways to provide energy as sustainable or not sustainable. 

sustainable sustainability definitions
Contributor :
View Times: 77
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 12 Aug 2022
Table of Contents

    1. Introduction

    Salas-Zapata et al. [1] studied the usage of the terms sustainable and sustainability in scientific publications (found in the Science Direct and EBSCO databases for the year 2013). They noted that these terms were often (in more than 90% of the publications) not defined. In Energies, there are examples of sustainable and sustainability being defined or operationalized, but apparently more often they apparently are not. The absence of definitions or operationalizations is remarkable, as there are reportedly hundreds of (different) definitions and operationalizations (in terms of standards or goals) of sustainable and sustainability [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. The large number of definitions and operationalizations has its roots in history.

    2. A Very Brief History of the Terms Sustainable and Sustainability

    Old definitions of sustainability refer to an equilibrium relation of humans with the environment [11]. In 1713, H.C. von Carlowitz, active in German forestry, suggested sustainable use (nachhaltende Nutzung) of forestry resources: not to harvest more wood than is added to the forest stock of wood by the growth of trees [11][12]. Since then, the application of this type of sustainable use to forestry has been geographically widened [12]. In the 19th century, economists discussed the stationary state: an equilibrium between, on the one hand, the environment and, on the other hand, the economy [13]. The economist D. Ricardo felt that the stationary state was ultimately inevitable [13], and the economist J.S. Mill stated: ’I sincerely hope for the sake of posterity that they (the people) will be content to be stationary, long before necessity compels them to it´ [14]. In 1973, H.E. Daly [15] revived this with his publication of Toward a steady state economy, using ´steady state´ as a modern equivalent of ´stationary´. The focus of the terms sustainable and sustainability on an equilibrium relation between humans and the environment remained until 1980, when the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) published the World Conservation Strategy. Living resource conservation for sustainable development, advocating the conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity [16].
    Definitions of sustainability exclusively regarding the relation between humans and their environment have persisted in the scientific literature since 1980. In the 1980s, operationalizations of sustainability in terms of environmental utilization space within boundaries were introduced [17]. By now, a considerable number of operationalizations using sustainability-related boundaries have been published [18]. An influential example thereof is the safe operation space for humankind [19]. This space is defined within planetary boundaries as global environmental limits to avoid risking collapses of ecosystems [19]. The environmental issues for which planetary boundaries have been proposed are in Box 1. The safe operating space for humankind [19] has been applied in ‘absolute sustainability assessments’ [20].
    Box 1. Environmental issues for which planetary boundaries, leading to a safe operating space for humankind, have been proposed [19][21].
    Climate change: atmospheric CO2 concentration; energy imbalance at top of atmosphere.
    Ozone layer depletion.
    Atmospheric aerosol loading.
    Ocean acidification.
    Fresh surface water and groundwater consumption.
    Land system change: amount of forested land remaining.
    Biogeochemical flows impacting phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N) cycles.
    Change of biosphere integrity.
    Novel entities: hazardous human-made chemicals, plastics (tentative)
    As can be seen in Box 1, no boundary has been proposed for the usage of agricultural soils or for mineral resources generated in slow geological processes, whereas both are important for the functioning of current societies [22]. This is in line with the focus of the safe operating space for humanity on preventing the collapse of ecosystems [23].
    Agricultural soils and resources generated in slow geological processes are included when sustainability is defined as conserving natural capital for transferal to generations living in the future [22][24]. So defined, sustainability is a characteristic of a steady-state economy [25]. Currently, natural capital is defined as the stock of environmental assets from which products and services can be derived that are useful to humankind, now and in the future. It comprises natural resources (e.g., fossil carbon compounds), ecosystems, generating ecosystem services, and the physical environment providing, e.g., wind for wind power [22]. Daly [26] and Ekins et al. [27] have stated that when the creation of substituting renewables at least equals the depletion rate of natural resources generated in slow geological processes, this can be considered to be conserving natural capital. However, it has also been argued that to conserve natural capital for transferal to generations living in the future, depletion of resources generated by slow geological processes should be near-zero [22].
    In the 1980s, besides environmental matters, other elements were also included in definitions and operationalizations of sustainability. For instance, Solow [28] defined sustainability as conserving the sum of natural capital (monetarized natural resources) and manufactured capital per capita. However, the most important change concerning the inclusion of matters other than the environmental came in 1987 with the publication of Our Common Future [29]. This addressed environmental, economic, and social concerns. In Our Common Future, it was stated that `sustainable development meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs´. This definition is a social construct: a result of deliberations in the committee authoring Our Common Future.
    Our Common Future has started a proliferation of definitions and operationalizations (in terms of standards and goals) of sustainable and sustainability that are social constructs (outcomes of social interactions such as deliberations and negotiations). Such constructs often include environmental, social, and economic elements. Whereas the definition in Our Common Future is general, operationalizations are often specific; they refer to or instance specific ways to provide energy (e.g., hydropower), specific activities (e.g., coal mining) or specific products (e.g., biofuels) [30][31][32]. It may occur that environmental issues are not included. The paper of Dauenhauer et al. [33], who evaluated the sustainability of community-based photovoltaic projects in Malawi, is an illustration thereof.
    An important operationalization, including environmental, social, and economic elements, is found in the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. The most recent set of these goals is set for the year 2030 and numbers seventeen, covering a variety of environmental, social, and economic issues. For energy the goal (number 7) is specified as: ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. Specified goals under this heading are in Box 2. The history of Sustainable Development Goal 7 (which may be framed as sustainable energy development) has been outlined by Gunnarsdottir et al. [34].
    Box 2. Energy goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [35].
    By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services.
    By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
    By 2030, double the global rate of improvement of energy efficiency.
    Many operationalizations of sustainability and sustainable development as social constructs (sustainability standards, sustainability goals, sustainable development goals) have emerged from companies and groups of companies [30][36][37][38][39][40]. They tend to diverge due to the variety of social contexts from which they emerge. Oil and gas companies have formulated divergent sustainability goals [36][41][42][43]. The Mining Association of Canada developed the Towards Sustainable Mining (TSM) standard, applying it e.g., to tar, sand and coal mining. The TSM standard has been adapted by several mining organizations in countries outside Canada [44][45][46]. The Minerals Council of Australia developed its own Enduring Value sustainability standard for mining, including coal mining [45].
    Non-governmental organizations have also developed (diverging) sustainability standards, for instance for biofuels [10][38][46] and energy in buildings, the latter linked to different definitions of sustainability [7][9]. Governments of countries have been active in the establishment of mandatory and voluntary sustainability standards, the implementation and adaptation of sustainable development goals and the characterization of activities and products as (un)sustainable [32][38][47][48]. They also have developed sustainable development plans for specific parts of the energy sector such as coal mining [49][50]. The outcomes of these government activities diverge [32][38][47][48][49][50]. There are variable definitions of sustainable cities [51]. City governments have developed or adapted sustainable development goals in divergent ways [32][47] and have been active in the fields of sustainable building standards and of sustainable energy action plans, with variable operationalizations of sustainability goals [52][53].
    Furthermore, operationalizations of sustainability as a social construct have emerged from international organizations of stakeholders and experts [54]. Examples of such organizations are the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels [55], The Forest Stewardship Council (relevant to forest-derived biofuels) [56] and the Hydropower Sustainability Council [57]. Another example in this category is the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform [58], which operationalizes sustainability in terms of safe, reliable, and efficient. Sustainability goals for geothermal energy have emerged from a project involving experts and stakeholder groups in Iceland, New Zealand and Kenya [59].
    All in all, the variations as to social contexts in which definitions and operationalizations of sustainability and sustainable have been constructed have led to variations in definitions, standards, and goals.


    1. Salas-Zapata, W.A.; Rios-Osorio, L.A.; Cardona-Arias, J.A. Methodological characteristics of sustainability science. A systematic review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2017, 19, 1127–1140.
    2. Schubert, R.; Blasch, J. Sustainability standards for bioenergy–a means to reduce climate change risks? Energy Policy 2010, 38, 2797–2805.
    3. Stupak, I.; Lattimore, B.; Titus, B.D.; Smith, C.T. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest fuel production and harvesting: A review of current standards for sustainable forest management. Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 3287–3308.
    4. Contreras, J.L.; MacManis, C.R. Intellectual property landscape of material sustainability standards. Colum. Sci. Technol. Law Rev. 2013, 14, 485–510.
    5. Ramsey, J.L. On not defining sustainability. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2015, 28, 1075–1087.
    6. Englund, O.; Berndes, G. How do sustainability standards consider biodiversity? WIREs Energy Environ. 2015, 4, 26–50.
    7. Shaikh, P.H.; Mohd, M.B.; Sahito, A.A.; Nallagownden, P.; Elamvazuthi, I.; Shaikh, M.S. Building energy for sustainable development in Malaysia: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 75, 1392–1403.
    8. Roosaie, S.; Nawari, N.; Kibert, C.J. Sustainability and resilience: A review of definitions, relationships, and their integration into a combined building assessment framework. Build. Environ. 2019, 154, 132–144.
    9. Zimmermann, R.K.; Skjelmose, O.; Jensen, K.G.; Jensen, K.K.; Birgisdottir, H. Categorizing building certification systems according to the definition of sustainable building. IOP Conf. Series Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 471, 092060.
    10. Higgins, V.; Richards, C. Framing sustainability: Alternative standard schemes for sustainable palm oil and the South-South trade. J. Rural Stud. 2019, 65, 126–134.
    11. Grober, U. Sustainability: A Cultural History; Green Books: Totness, UK, 2012.
    12. Wiersum, K.F. 200 years of sustainability in forestry: Lessons from history. Environ. Manag. 1995, 19, 321–329.
    13. Barber, W.J. A History of Economic Thought; Weslyan University Press: Middletown, CT, USA, 2009.
    14. Mill, J.S. Principles of Political Economy 1848; Appleton and Company: New York, NY, USA, 1884.
    15. Daly, H.E. Toward a Steady State Economy; Freeman: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1973.
    16. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (together with UNEP and WWF). World Conservation Strategy. Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development; International Union for the Conservation of Nature: Gland, Switzerland, 1980.
    17. Opschoor, J.B. Ecospace and the rise and fall of throughput intensity. Ecol. Econ. 1995, 15, 137–140.
    18. Vea, I.B.; Ryberg, M.; Richardson, K.; Hauschild, M.Z. A framework to define environmental sustainability boundaries and a review of current approaches. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 103003.
    19. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Cornell, S.E.; Fetzer, I.; Bennett, E.M.; Biggs, R.; Carpenter, S.R.; de Vries, W.; de Wit, C.A.; et al. Planetary boundaries guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 2015, 347, 1259855.
    20. Bjorn, A.; Chandrakumar, C.; Boulay, A.; Doka, G.; Fang, K.; Gondran, N.; Hauschild, M.Z.; Kerkhof, A.; King, H.; Margni, M.; et al. Review of life-cycle methods for absolute sustainability assessment and their application. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 25, 0830001.
    21. Persson, L.; Almroth, B.M.C.; Collins, C.D.; Cornell, S.; de Wit, C.A.; Diamon, M.L.; Frantke, P.; Hassellöv, M.; MacLeod, M.; Ryberg, M.R.; et al. Outside the safe operating space of the planetary boundary for novel entities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 1510–1521.
    22. Reijnders, L. Substitution, natural capital and sustainability. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2021, 18, 115–142.
    23. Steffen, W.; Richardson, K.; Rockström, J.; Schellnhuber, H.J.; Dube, O.P.; Dutreuil, S.; Lenton, T.M.; Lubchenko, J. The emergence and evolution of Earth system science. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2020, 1, 54–63.
    24. Goodland, R. The concept of environmental sustainability. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Systemat. 1995, 26, 1–24.
    25. Goodland, R.; Daly, H. Environmental sustainability: Universal and non-negotiable. Ecol. Appl. 1996, 6, 1002–1017.
    26. Daly, H.E. Towards some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 1990, 2, 97–102.
    27. Ekins, P.; Simon, S.; Deutsch, L.; Folke, C.; De Groot, R. A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 44, 165–185.
    28. Solow, R.M. On the intergenerational allocation of natural resources. Scand. J. Econ. 1986, 88, 141–149.
    29. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1987.
    30. Alhaddi, H. Triple bottom line and sustainability: A literature review. Bus. Manag. Stud. 2015, 1, 6–10.
    31. Caradonna, J.L. Routledge Handbook of the History of Sustainability; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2017.
    32. Reijnders, L. Sustainability-related indicators developed for governments. In Routledge Handbook of Sustainability Indicators; Bell, S., Morse, S., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2018; pp. 308–320.
    33. Dauenhauer, P.M.; Frame, D.; Eales, A.; Strachan, S.; Galloway, S.; Buckland, H. Sustainability evaluation of community-based, solar photovoltaic projects in Malawi. Energy Sustain. Soc. 2020, 10, 12.
    34. Gunnarsdottir, I.; Davidsdottir, B.; Worrell, E.; Sigurgeirsdottir, S. Sustainable energy development: History of the concept and emerging themes. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 141, 110770.
    35. United Nations Statistical Commission. Global Indicator Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and Targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; E/CN.3/2020/2; United Nations Statistical Commission: New York, NY, USA, 2020; p. 21.
    36. Schneider, J.; Ghettas, S.; Brown, M.; Martyniuk, J.; Alsheri, W.; Merdaci, N.; Trojan, A. Towards sustainability in the oil and gas sector: Benchmark of environmental, health and safety efforts. J. Environ. Sustain. 2013, 3, 103–117.
    37. Axon, S.; James, D. The UN Sustainable Development Goals: How can sustainable chemistry contribute? A view from the chemical industry. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 2018, 13, 140–145.
    38. Lambin, E.F.; Thorlakson, T. Sustainability standards: Interactions between private actors, civil society and governments. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2018, 43, 369–393.
    39. Van Zanten, J.A.; van Tulder, R. Multinational enterprises and the Sustainable Development Goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement. J. Int. Bus. Policy 2020, 1, 208–233.
    40. Mio, C.; Constantini, A.; Panfilo, S. Performance measurement tools for sustainable business: A systematic literature review of the sustainability balanced scorecard. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2022, 29, 367–384.
    41. Shell Sustainability Report 2021. Available online: https// (accessed on 22 April 2022).
    42. BP Sustainability Report 2021. Available online: (accessed on 23 April 2022).
    43. ExxonMobil. Sustainability Report 2021. Available online: (accessed on 23 April 2022).
    44. Mining Association of Canada. Towards Sustainable Mining. Available online: (accessed on 5 April 2022).
    45. Tost, M.; Hitch, M.; Chandurkar, V.; Moser, P.; Feiel, S. The state of environmental sustainability considerations in mining. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 969–977.
    46. Ruokonen, E. Preconditions for successful implementation of a Finnish standard for sustainable mining. Extract. Ind. Soc. 2020, 7, 611–620.
    47. Morita, K.; Okitasari, M.; Masuda, H. Analysis of national and national and local governance systems to achieve sustainable development goals: Case studies of Japan and Indonesia. Sustain. Sci. 2020, 15, 179–202.
    48. Mayr, S.; Hollaus, B.; Madner, V. Palm oil, the RED II and WTO law: EU sustainable biofuel policy tangled up in green. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 2021, 30, 233–248.
    49. Indian Ministry of Coal. Sustainable Development for Coal Sector. 2021. Available online: (accessed on 3 April 2022).
    50. Pactwa, K.; Wozniak, J.; Strempski, A. Sustainable mining-the challenge of Polish mines. Resour. Policy 2021, 74, 101269.
    51. Gallopin, G.C. Cities, sustainability, and complex dissipative systems: A perspective. Front. Sustain. Cities 2020, 2, 533491.
    52. Tang, Z.; Ng, S.T. Sustainable building development in China- a system thinking study. Procedia Engin. 2014, 85, 493–500.
    53. Schenone, C.; Delponte, I. Renewable energy sources in local sustainable energy action plans (SEAPs): Analysis and outcomes. Energy Policy 2021, 156, 112475.
    54. Meemken, E.; Barrett, C.B.; Michelson, H.C.; Qaim, M.; Reardon TSellare, J. Sustainability standards in global agrifood supply chains. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 758–765.
    55. Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels. Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Biofuels Production; EPFL Energy Center: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2010.
    56. Forest Stewardship Council. Available online: (accessed on 2 April 2022).
    57. Hydropower Sustainability Council. Hydropower Sustainability Standard. Available online: (accessed on 7 April 2022).
    58. Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform. Available online: (accessed on 5 April 2022).
    59. Shortall, R.; Davidsdottir, B.; Axelsson, G. A sustainability assessment framework for geothermal energy projects: Development in Iceland, New Zealand and Kenya. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 50, 372–407.
    Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to :
    View Times: 77
    Revisions: 2 times (View History)
    Update Date: 12 Aug 2022
    Table of Contents


      Are you sure you want to delete?

      Video Upload Options

      Do you have a full video?
      If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
      Reijnders, L. History of Terms Sustainable and Sustainability. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 30 January 2023).
      Reijnders L. History of Terms Sustainable and Sustainability. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed January 30, 2023.
      Reijnders, Lucas. "History of Terms Sustainable and Sustainability," Encyclopedia, (accessed January 30, 2023).
      Reijnders, L. (2022, August 11). History of Terms Sustainable and Sustainability. In Encyclopedia.
      Reijnders, Lucas. ''History of Terms Sustainable and Sustainability.'' Encyclopedia. Web. 11 August, 2022.