Sustainable Defined: Part II
August 14, 2013The two most common definitions of sustainability—from the Brundtland Commission and the subsequent “triple bottom line” –must be understood in context. Once they are, it is possible to see how well they form the basis for a design framework. Both definitions are about sustainable development; the former addressing international policy and the latter forming the basis for corporate social responsibility.
The definition from the 1987 Brundtland Commission of the United Nations, titled “Our Common Future,” is probably the most widely quoted:
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:
1. the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and
2. the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.
The full 247 page report can be found here: Our Common Future
The “two key concepts” make it clear that this definition is about establishing development policies that are fair and global, establishing steps toward a “progressive transformation of economy and society.” The report proposes that physical transformations that protect and preserve global resources can be approached in ways that are not specific to any social organization (capitalist, socialist etc.)
As a designer however, it is hard to find guidance from such a definition. What is “need” when we are asked by a client to find a design solution? The definition seems to be used in reports simply to validate that all nations have agreed, in concept, that current practices are not sustainable, and therefore need to be better. At that point, in most cases, the technocratic approach of managing current practices more efficiently begins to drive the design process.
As architects serving clients, we step outside our own culture at our own risk. We have codes and regulations and institutions that operate a certain way, representing the health and welfare of the population we belong to, and enforced by laws that are not easily changed. This is probably why the biggest leaps forward are in the areas of least regulation, or where dramatic new technology, high (like energy management software) and low (like green roofs) can be applied to existing practices to achieve positive effects without significantly affecting the social institutions inside.
In the next post, I will take up the question of performance metrics in the triple bottom line model, and how well these measure the progressive transformation of economy and society.
← Sustainable Defined: Part I Sustainable Defined: Part III The Triple Bottom Line →