I think the big takeaway, and the point of us reading about the different theoretical approaches to sustainability, is that there is no “right” formula to address sustainability. There are frameworks that offer us at least a start pointing, but each has it’s own strengths and weaknesses and the best possible approach to sustainability would be to use a combination of the theoretical approaches discussed in this chapter.
The framework that I believe is “best” is the Sustainability Helix framework. Although I really liked the Natural Step (and it would’ve been my second choice), ultimately I chose the Sustainability Helix because it is (1) prescriptive in nature, providing strategies to move forward to the next stage and (2) encourages growth. As I said in my first blog, I highly value growth, and what ultimately drew me to this approach is that it offered manageable steps so that an organization, at any stage in the sustainability continuum, would be able to improve upon itself. I also liked that it was business-friendly, offering guided solutions at each level of the corporation–from the product to corporate culture to management. I think it is important to think of sustainability at every stage, from production to waste. I also like that this framework, although not as explicitly stated as the Social Return on Investment framework, does take a focus on social issues on a more microlevel. One thing I’ve begun to think about from class discussions is that environmental sustainability is just one component of sustainability, and I’ve begun to think about other components such as culture and people and how these are equally important to the concept of sustainability.
If I could change anything about this approach, however, I would impose the four fundamental system conditions taken from the Natural Step framework into each of the prescriptive goals for each stage. While I really liked both the Natural Step and Cradle to Cradle frameworks, I thought the Natural Step framework was a more practical and achievable framework than the Cradle to Cradle framework. While the Cradle to Cradle framework calls for deep-rooted, systematic changes, the Natural Step takes a more practical approach to what businesses can realistically achieve in their day to day practices. Both, however, capitalize on the cyclical component of nature–what the Cradle to Cradle framework calls “waste equals food” and what the Natural Step framework includes in stabilizing the resources and waste we produce.
Some honorable mentions include:
- Total Beauty – the drawback of this framework to me, in my opinion, is that it could be more prescriptive in nature, offering a more practical application for businesses
- The Natural Step – I talked about this before, but I think it offers a very practical solution to what we can currently do to at least maintain our ecosystem
- Cradle to Cradle – for me this framework failed in that it seemed to call for too extreme a change to expect for practical application; while I love the drive and push that this framework gives, I think applying this would lead to burnout
- Life Cycle Analysis – the reading pointed this out, but this just doesn’t seem practical for business to be able to conduct