Sustainability and sustainable development: a taxonomy in the field of literature

Abstracts

O termo sustentabilidade é muito discutido, existindo uma variedade de pesquisas sobre o assunto. Sem uma definição única, há um conjunto de pesquisas e estudos que consideram os termos sustentabilidade e desenvolvimento sustentável como sinônimos e há outro conjunto que não. A presente pesquisa selecionou cento e três artigos relevantes, em um período de vinte e oito anos, com o objetivo de analisar o tema sustentabilidade, caracterizando o estágio em que se encontra, lacunas e desafios para futuras contribuições. Os assuntos abordados são diversos, como discussões nas esferas ambientais, econômicas e sociais, crescimento e limites, padrões de vida, uso de recursos, indicadores e índices, ferramentas, modelos de sustentabilidade; muitos são os debates e conceituações sobre o tema, mas sua aplicabilidade é rara. Entretanto, há um consenso sobre os desafios da sustentabilidade: integrar economia, ambiente, sociedade e as questões institucionais, considerar as consequências das ações do presente no futuro, conscientização e envolvimento da sociedade.

Triple Línea de base; Revisión de la Literatura; Sostenibilidad; Desarrollo sostenible

Sustainability and sustainable development: a taxonomy in the field of literature

Simone Sartori^I; Fernanda Latrônico da Silva^II; Lucila Maria de Souza Campos^III

^IDoctoral student, Department of Production Engineering and Systems, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil

^IIMaster's Degree student, Department of Production Engineering and Systems, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil

^IIIAssociate Professor, Department of Production Engineering and Systems, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil

ABSTRACT

The term sustainability is often discussed and there is a variety of research on the theme. Without unique definition, there are series of research and studies that consider the terms sustainability and sustainable development as synonymous and there are others which don't. This study selected 103 relevant articles within a period of 28 years, with the aim of analyzing the sustainability theme, characterizing the stage it is, the gaps and challenges for future contributions. The issues discussed are diverse, as discussions on the environmental, economic and social dimensions, growth and limits, living standards, use of resources, indicators and indices, tools, models of sustainability; there are many concepts and debates about sustainability, but its applicability is rare. However, there is a consensus on sustainability challenges: integrating economics, environment, society and institutional issues, considering the consequences of the actions of this in the future, awareness and involvement of society.

Keywords: Triple Bottom Line; Literature Review; Sustainability; Sustainable Development.

RESUMEN

Hay una variedad de investigaciones sobre el tema sustentabilidad. No existe una definición única, hay un conjunto de investigaciones y estudios que tengan en cuenta la sustentabilidad y el desarrollo sustentable términos indistintamente y no hay otro conjunto. Este estudio seleccionó 103 artículos pertinentes el período de 28 años con el objetivo de analizar el tema sustentabilidad, caracterización de la etapa en la que es y desafíos para las contribuciones futuras. Los temas tratados son diversos, como debates sobre crecimiento y límites, dimensiones ambiental, económico y social, nivel de vida, uso de los recursos, indicadores e índices, modelos de sustentabilidad. Hay muchos conceptos y debates sobre el tema, pero su aplicabilidad es raro. Sin embargo, existe un consenso sobre los desafíos de sustentabilidad: la integración economía, ambiente, sociedad y las cuestiones institucionales, considerar las consecuencias de las acciones de este en el futuro, la sensibilización y participación de la sociedad.

Palabra clave: Triple Línea de base; Revisión de la Literatura; Sostenibilidad; Desarrollo sostenible.

Introduction

The emergence of sustainable development (SD) as a political and social project of humanity has promoted the orientation of efforts in order to find ways for sustainable societies (SALAS-ZAPATA et al., 2011). Since then, there has been lot of literature devoted to the subject, and no doubt a blurring of focus.

A growing interest in sustainability (or SD) and, more recently, the approaches regarding strategies, cleaner production, pollution control, eco-efficiency, environmental management, social responsibility, industrial ecology, ethical investments, green economy, eco-design, reuse, sustainable consumption, zero waste (GLAVI; LUKMAN, 2007), among many other terms.

The approaches depend on the field of application (engineering, economics, management, ecology, etc.), in which each science tends to see only one side of the equation (CHICHILNISKY, 1996), however they are common, as they turn to sustainability (or SD). It is no coincidence that the concepts of sustainability and SD are still poorly understood (DOVERS; HANDMER, 1992), and in many cases, are treated as synonyms. But not all who research these concepts see them as such.

To Dovers and Handmer (1992) sustainability is the ability of a human system, natural or mixed, to resist or adapt to endogenous or exogenous change indefinitely, and, in addition, SD is a way of intentional change and improvement that keeps or increases this attribute of the system meeting the needs of the population. In a first perspective, SD is the way to achieve sustainability, that is, sustainability is the ultimate long-term goal.

For Elkington (1994), creator of the term Triple Bottom Line, sustainability is the balance between the three pillars: environmental, economic and social. The expectation that companies should gradually contribute to sustainability arises from the recognition that businesses need stable markets, and must have technical, financial and management skills necessary to enable the transition towards sustainable development (ELKINGTON, 2001). This is, therefore a second perspective, different from the first: SD is the goal to be achieved and sustainability is the process to achieve SD.

Regardless of the two perspectives, this research turns to sustainability. It is observed that there is now a variety of research and publications on the subject in order to address a way of understanding and explaining sustainability, be it as a process or an end goal. In this sense, it is important to have a clear notion of what is meant by sustainability or lack thereof (TISDELL, 1988).

The term sustainability is used, but little explained. It is of conceptual in nature, misunderstood (EKINS et al., 2003). It is a fashion accessory (HASNA, 2010) or common sense (MOLDAN et al., 2012). There is an inconsistent interpretation and application, high degree of ambiguity of the concept, including an incomplete understanding of the problems of poverty, environmental degradation and the role of economic growth (LÉLÉ, 1991; MORI; CHRISTODOULOU, 2012; SLIMANE, 2012). And the situation has not improved so far, it remains a popular and brilliant slogan (SLIMANE, 2012).

In this context, this study aims to examine the literature on the topic of sustainability in order to characterize it and set the stage it is in, as well as analyze gaps and challenges in order to bring contributions for future research.

This article, besides this introduction consists of the sections: ii) Methodological Procedures; iii) Literature Review; iv) Results; and v) Conclusions.

Methodological Procedures

Based on the goals of the work, we carried out the definition of the criteria for selecting journals, the collection of articles, the sorting of articles, content analysis and presentation of results.

For the literature review, we proceeded to search for keywords, them and their variations being: environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, social sustainability, indicators, definitions, green, performance mesurement, indices, organization, business, firm, industry,sustainable development, environment management systems, ISO 14031, measures, cleaner production and sustainable development.

We selected databases available on the CAPES Journal Portal to compose the database, selecting those with the potential to collaborate with the research topic in question, these being: Engineering Village, Elsevier, ISI Science Direct, Scopus and Wiley.

The software used to import the publications selected in the databases searched was EndNote X6^®. Upon completion of the search of the 18 keywords on the 6 databases, 13,928 publications were selected. Among these publications, the repeated articles were removed, leaving 7,346 publications. Analyzing the alignment of the titles with the objective of the research, 250 articles remained.

These 250 articles were submitted to analysis of the alignment of the abstract and keywords relating to the research goal, therefore, leaving 141 articles with aligned titles, abstracts and keywords. And, in the last selection, the bibliographic portfolio for content analysis totaled 103 articles with total text alignment, freely available in the databases.

Next, we proceeded to read the full content of the articles. They were analyzed according to (Figure 1): (I) authors and year; (ii) study on foundations or applied studies; (iii) the dimensions of environmental, economic and social sustainability (ELKINGTON, 1994; SEURING 2013); (iv) individual, global or regional scale (RAMOS; CAEIRO, 2010; TODOROV; MARINOVA, 2011); and (v) emphasis - in the sense of the purpose of the article. Concomitant to content analysis, were analyzed gaps raised by the authors, therefore, presented in the form of challenges in one of the following items. With this purpose, it is important to mention that the items listed in the Figure mentioned allow for an initial reference on the topic of sustainability, but do not exhaust the countless possibilities that exist.

Literature Review

Sustainable Development and Sustainability

Emerged in the 1980s, the term SD emerged from the relationship between preserving the planet and meeting human needs (IUCN, 1980). The Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) explains the same term simply as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". This definition is lasting because it is flexible and open to interpretation (PRUGH; ASSADOURIAN, 2003).

In essence, SD is multi-dimensional, incorporating different aspects of society, seeking environmental protection and maintenance of natural capital to achieve economic prosperity and equity for present and future generations (KELLY et al., 2004).

For other researchers, SD is seen as: the maintenance of essential ecological processes, preservation of genetic diversity and sustainable use of species and ecosystems (TISDELL, 1988); equal opportunities for future generations (CHICHILNISKY, 1996), a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, orientation of technological and institutional change are made according to the future, considering present needs (HOVE, 2009).

What we now call SD has evolved as an integrating concept, an umbrella under which a set of inter-related issues can be gathered. This is a variable process of change that seeks the ultimate goal of sustainability itself. In the same context, sustainability is the ability of a human, natural or mixed system to resist or adapt to endogenous or exogenous change indefinitely (DOVERS; HANDMER, 1992), represented as a goal or end point (HOVE, 2009). Therefore, to achieve sustainability, sustainable development is required (PRUG; ASSADOURIAN, 2003).

The concept of DS remains contested because of the different positions taken in relation to what can be considered fair (TODOROV; MARINOVA, 2009). It is so broad and generally applicable that its vagueness makes it dead and open to conflicting interpretations (DOVERS; HANDMER, 1992). It does not explicitly embrace future thoughts. In turn, almost all published definitions of the concept of SD are based on principles of sustainability, for example, long-term perspective, fundamental importance of local conditions, understanding the nonlinear evolution of environmental and human systems (MOLDAN et al., 2012).

Thus, the term sustainability appeared regarding renewable resources and has been adopted by the ecological movement. The concept refers to the existence of the ecological conditions necessary to support human life at a specific level of wellness through future generations, and this is ecological sustainability and not sustainable development (LÉLÉ, 1991).

According to Ayres (2008), sustainability is a normative concept about how humans should act in relation to nature, and how they are responsible for each other and future generations. In this context, it is noted that sustainability is conducive to economic growth based on social justice and the efficient use of natural resources (LOZANO, 2012).

Often, sustainability is seen at two different levels: weak sustainability or strong sustainability. Weak sustainability can be interpreted as the extension of economic welfare (NEUMAYER, 2003), therefore, the economic capital produced by current generations can compensate for loss of natural capital for future generations (FIORINO, 2011). Therefore, in weak sustainability it is required that the value of natural capital is preserved, for example, in the case of non-renewable resources, the extraction should be compensated by investment in renewable resource substitutes of equal value (eg, wind farms to replace fossil fuels in electricity generation).

In contrast, strong sustainability is a paradigm of non-substitutability, in which there are natural systems that cannot be eroded or destroyed without compromising the interests of future generations (FIORINO, 2011). Therefore, in strong sustainability it is required that a subset of the total natural capital is preserved in physical terms, so that their functions remain intact.

If the existence of sustainability depends on their socioeconomic and environmental relationship, it can be seen as a major subject and addressed in different ways. Ignacy Sachs (2002), for example, used eight types of sustainability (social, economic, ecological, spatial, territorial, cultural, national and international policy) to display the dimensions of what is called eco-development.

In the business, it became more convenient to think of sustainability as a "triple bottom line". Environmental sustainability is defined as the dematerialization of economic activity, since a decrease in material processing can reduce the pressure on natural systems and expand the provision of environmental services to the economy. Economic sustainability is the maintenance of natural capital, which is a necessary condition in order to avoid economic degrowth (BARTELMUS, 2003). And the approach to social sustainability refers to social homogeneity, fair income and access to goods, services and employment (LEHTONEN, 2004).

Sustainability is discussed as a state in which three types of interests (or conflicts) are met (or resolved) simultaneously: (i) the interests of the current generation to improve their actual life conditions (economic sustainability), (ii) the search for an equalization of living conditions between rich and poor (social sustainability), and (iii) the interests of future generations that are not committed to meeting the needs of the current generation (environmental sustainability) (HORBACH, 2005).

Within the above context, there is a lack of consensus on the terms SD and sustainability. This is due to the fact that sustainability is used to describe the processes and activities (for example, sustainable finance, sustainable business, among others). In other cases, the activities aim to be sustainable, such as sustainable tourism, sustainable agriculture or sustainable buildings. Therefore, SD mainly focuses on people and their well-being (MOLDAN et al., 2012).

Although there are several understandings, sustainability and SD aim to pass on to future generations a stock of capital that is at least as large as our own generation has inherited from previous generations (GAUSSIN et al., 2013). Concomitantly, they are about collective choices and values. Because the values, politics and our understanding of the Earth and its systems will evolve, and the notions of what is sustainable will never be static (PRUGH; ASSADOURIAN, 2003).

Results

Characteristics of Sustainability

In order to understand what is being studied and proposed on sustainability, there are many efforts that present, through studies on foundations or applied studies, objectives and challenges that seek to answer the concerns of today: how to achieve sustainability.

According to Figure 1 the following key features involve:

i) conceptualizations and discussions on environmental, economic and societal spheres, environmental change, environmental policies, growth and boundaries, economic degrowth, strong or weak sustainability, poverty and living standards, causes and resource scarcity, planning and communication;

ii) development, use and evaluation of indicators and indices;

iii) cities, regions and countries, the manufacturing sector, economic systems, industries, universities and scientific academies, supply chain and investment projects, production systems;

iv) reviews of methodologies, performance evaluation, use of tools, sustainability models;

v) search for causality between environmental, economic and social dimensions;

vi) long-term perspectives, time series, forecasting, sustainometrics;

vii) identification of challenges.

The numerous discussions and conceptualizations exist due to the plurality of purpose in characterizing and measuring sustainability. An important step in reducing this confusion is the acceptance of distinctions in terminology, data and methods (PARRIS; KATES, 2003), which in turn, the real situation may be evaluated by considering the particular characteristics of each region.

In this context, sustainability occurs on several levels: global, regional and local. What is sustainable at a regional level is not necessarily sustainable nationally. This discrepancy is due to the geographical transfer mechanisms through the negative consequences of a country or region to other countries or regions (SLIMANE 2012). The regions do not use the same indicators for the same subject, the data are not uniformly collected (VAN ZEIJL-ROZEMA et al., 2011). Therefore, decisions may be ineffective or even counterproductive if not considering the characteristics of each region.

Most governments are engaged to sustainability, but for a better policy development it is interesting to know the causality between the pillars of sustainability. A first plausible mechanism is that environmental performance leads to changes in financial performance. Or, the direction of causality can be reversed: profitable companies can afford to invest in environmental performance. But improving the environmental performance of a company can lead to economic improvement, and not necessarily an increase in cost (AMBEC; LANOIE, 2008). The causal patterns between the pillars of sustainability are quite sensitive to the characteristics of countries that are grouped, suggesting to avoid generalizations across heterogeneous countries (HOSSEINI; KANEKO, 2011).

Expanded readings on social sustainability indicate the need to rely less on objective data and evidence to encourage changes in human perspectives on environmental issues. This is not a call to abandon environmental science, but a suggestion for its practitioners to work alongside social scientists in order to explore how residents interpret and incorporate concerns of the places in which they live and the world around them (VALLANCE et al., 2011). As the debate on sustainability becomes more widespread and socially complex, more is being appropriated by different social forces that start to define the meaning that best expresses their values ​​and interests (LIMA, 2003).

Aggeri et al. (2005) indicate that the sudden and massive involvement of large companies in the sustainability discourse raises some contradictory debates: it is a new discourse to speak of things that companies were already doing previously in social and environmental protection; companies always exercised their responsibility towards society; and, finally, the positioning of companies is a mechanical response to a number of external pressures (new social and environmental regulations, criticizing from the civil society, etc.).

Martinet and Reynaud (2004) contribute to understanding the role that organizations can play in society. According to the authors, companies would shift between two extremes: one financial and one sustainable. The financial extreme encourages a short-term horizon, standardizing growth models, which seeks the control and submission to formal procedures. Now the sustainable extreme, opposing the financial end, aims at the long term, the development of internal abilities, the concern with the social management of employees and the concern with the ecological impact given the activities of the organization. Thus, thinking strategically and making decisions means stopping to aim only for economic return and seeking to incorporate other dimensions, because the development process is not constant or stable over time and space (GUIMARÃES; FEICHAS, 2009).

Despite the many debates associated with sustainability, many studies turn to the operationalization by means of indicators and indices. To conceptualize phenomena and highlight trends, indicators and sustainability indices simplify and quantify. Given this function, they must be developed for specific proposals, that is, that adequately represents the sustainability of a region (SICHE et al., 2008).

Briefly, it is possible to note the trajectory of studies around sustainability according to the emphasis given in Table 1. Until the early 1990s, SD was a part of development studies, environmental, urban and regional planning, human impact on the use of land resources (renewable and finite), environmental changes (TOLBA, 1984; TISDELL, 1988; STEDMAN; HILL, 1992; REDCLIFT, 1992; SOLOW, 1993; AYRES, 1996). This is due to the support of international agencies such as the United Nations Conference on Environment in 1972, the Brundtland Commission with the Brundtland Report in 1987, the Montreal Protocol in 1989.

Academic initiatives gain strength with debates about what is SD and sustainability (LÉLÉ, 1991; MITCHAM, 1995; MEBRATU, 1998; PARRIS; KATES 2003). Concomitantly, sustainability is characterized by dimensions (KAIVO-OJA, 1999; FOXON et al, 1999; LEHTONEN, 2004; DEMPSEY, 2011).

In the business world, sustainability was introduced by the concept of sustainable management, specifically in how companies produce their products and services, maintain and improve human and natural resources, according to the approach by authors Isaksson and Steimle (2009), Fauzi et al. (2010), Gaussin et al. (2013), Porter and Derry (2012), Urban and Govender (2012), among others.

Another moment of this trajectory is the need for a quantitative assessment of sustainability (EPSTEIN; ROY, 2001; LINTON; YEOMANS, 2002; CABEZAS; FATH, 2002; TODOROV; MARINOVA, 2011). In this context, evolution has brought many forms of sustainability assessment, such as: indicators and indices (TYTECA, 1999; HUETINGA; REIJNDERSB, 2004; MOLDAN et al., 2012; HAK et al., 2012; DAHL, 2012; Singh et al., 2012), environmental tools (HOLLAND, 2003; GAUSSIN et al., 2013), frameworks for organizational analysis (BITHAS; CHRISTOFAKIS, 2006; AMBEC; LANOIE, 2008; ISAKSSON; STEIMLE, 2009).

For the reasons above, sustainability has gradual steps in the process of understanding and positioning the subject, but there are not necessarily boundaries between one approach and another. Moreover, the trajectory can observe many challenges to be overcome. Thus, the first step is to recognize them and develop ways to try to solve them (HUESEMANN, 2004).

What are the challenges of sustainability?

Many are the problems that hinder progress towards sustainability and sustainable development. The challenges are often related to the following criteria (REID et al., 2010): (i) the need for global coordination; (ii) relevance to decision makers; and (iii) leverage. Overcoming these initial challenges collaborates with forecasts of future environmental conditions and their consequences for people.

After analyzing the content of the articles, there are several challenges to sustainability:

1. Implementing environmental protection standards;

2. Capturing the external impacts of activities beyond the local level;

3. Recognizing social sustainability;

4. Human development;

5. Eradication of poverty;

6. Balanced production and consumption;

7. Promotion of education;

8. Development and maintenance of environmental resources;

9. Efficiency in resource allocation;

10. Cooperation among stakeholders, governments and the civil society;

11. Publicly available sustainability methodologies and indicators;

12. Use of complementary indicators on assessments;

13. Use holistic approaches;

14. Indicators for measuring the consumption of resources;

15. Population awareness;

16. Using a standard benchmark between countries;

17. Reconciling local objectives with the overall objectives;

18. Applied research that bring practical results;

19. Balance between the pillars of sustainability;

20. Dynamic sustainability indicators;

21. Pointers directed toward business and local systems;

22. Public participation in planning;

23. Participation of science and technology.

There has been little analysis of sustainable applications and what kind of results can be expected. But there seems to be a consensus on the challenges of sustainability: integrating economy, environment and society, as well as institutional issues; considering the consequences of the actions of the present in the future; awareness and involvement of society.

In terms of development, it does not mean that society should reach a certain specific state or follow a particular path. On the contrary, the important thing are the factors that influence the evolution of society, so that it maintains characteristics that are considered desirable to the current and future well-being (SILVA NETO; BASSO, 2010).

Conclusions

Sustainability has been defined from a long historical process, as well as the awareness of environmental problems, economic crises and social inequalities. Because it is a complex and ongoing concept, different approaches that attempt to understand and explain sustainability arise. In this context, this study analyzed the sustainability theme, mapping significant works on the subject, characterizing and identifying challenges.

Sustainability is characterized as a principle applicable to systems. Open systems, to interact with society and nature, involving industrial systems (transportation, manufacturing, energy etc.), social systems (urbanization, mobility, communication, etc.) and natural systems (soil, air, water and biotic systems etc.), including flows of information, goods, materials, waste. That is, sustainability involves an interaction with dynamic systems that are constantly changing and require proactive measures.

In this research, few works that meet pro-activity were found, amongst them: analysis of the dynamic behavior in complex and ecological systems (CABEZAS; FATH, 2002); use of forecasting in sustainability (LINTON; YEOMANS, 2002); development of strategies for sustainability (MARSHALL; BROWN, 2003; MOORE; MANRING, 2009); green engineering projects (ANASTAS, 2003); environmental requirements (SÃO-JOSÉ et al., 2007); education for sustainability (STABLES, 2009).

We conclude that the field of sustainability is emerging, characterized by a wide variety of subjects from different areas and with different frameworks. However, with a high and increasing number of papers published on the subject, many are the challenges for future works: the need for applied research that bring practical results; finding a balance at the Triple Bottom Line; indices and/or indicators to assess long-term sustainability; goal alignment with the identified indicators.

For the purposes of this study, one should take into account the established delimitations: articles restricted to the CAPES Portal database; the keywords used in the search of publications; and the fact that only works of the type article were considered. As suggestions for future studies, we highlight the possibility of deepening the analysis, including the use of clusters to analyze work in common.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for financial support, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions.

References

• AGGERI, F. et al.Organiser le développement durable: Expériences des entreprises pionnières et formation de règles d'action collective Paris: Librairie Vuibert, 2005.
• ALSHUWAIKHAT, H.M. Strategic environmental assessment can help solve environmental impact assessment failures in developing countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v.25, n.4, p.307-317, 2005.
• ALSHUWAIKHAT, H.M.; ABUBAKAR, I. An integrated approach to achieving campus sustainability: assessment of the current campus environmental management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.16, n.16, p.1777-1785, 2008.
• AMBEC, S.; LANOIE, P. Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview. The Academy of Management Perspectives Archive, v.22, n.4, p.45-62, 2008.
• ANAND, S.; SEN, A. Human Development and Economic Sustainability. World Development, v.8, n.12, p.2029-2049, 2000.
• ANASTAS, P.T. Green engineering and sustainability. Environmental Science and Technology, v.37, n.23, 2003.
• AYRES, R.U. Statistical measures of unsustainability. Ecological Economics, v.16, n.3, p.239-255, 1996.
• AYRES, R.U. Sustainability economics: Where do we stand? Ecological Economics, v.67, n.2, p.281-310, 2008.
• BARTELMUS, P. Dematerialization and capital maintenance: two sides of the sustainability coin. Ecological Economics, v.46, n.1, p.61-81, 2003.
• BAUMGARTNER, R.J. Critical perspectives of sustainable development research and practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.19, n.8, p.783-786, 2011.
• BAUMGÄRTNER, S.; QUAAS, M. What is sustainability economics? Ecological Economics, v.69, n.3, p.445-450, 2010.
• BINA, O.; VAZ, S.G. Humans, environment and economies: From vicious relationships to virtuous responsibility. Ecological Economics, v.72, n.0, p.170-178, 2011.
• BITHAS, K.P.; CHRISTOFAKIS, M. Environmentally sustainable cities. Critical review and operational conditions. Sustainable Development, v.14, n.3, p.177-189, 2006.
• BOCKSTALLERA,C.; GIRARDIN, P. How to validate environmental indicators. Agricultural Systems, v.76, p.639-653, 2003.
• CABEZAS, H. et al. Simulated experiments with complex sustainable systems: Ecology and technology. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, v.44, n.3, p.279-291, 2005a.
• CABEZAS, H. et al. Sustainable systems theory: ecological and other aspects. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.13, n.5, p.455-467, 2005b.
• CABEZAS, H.; FATH, B.D. Towards a theory of sustainable systems. Fluid Phase Equilibria, v.194-197, n.0, p.3-14, 2002.
• CAPES. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Portal periódicos CAPES Disponível em: <http://www.peridodicos.capes.org.br/>. Acesso: 05 abr 2012.
• CHICHILNISKY, G. An axiomatic approach to sustainable development. Social Choice and Welfare, v.13, n.2, p.231-257, 1996.
• DAHL, A.L. Achievements and gaps in indicators for sustainability. Ecological Indicators, v.17, p.4-19, 2012.
• DARNALL, N.; JOLLEY, G.J.; HANDFIELD, R. Environmental management systems and green supply chain management: complements for sustainability? Business Strategy and the Environment, v.17, n.1, p.30-45, 2008.
• DEMPSEY, N. et al. The Social Dimension of Sustainable Development: Defining Urban Social Sustainability. Sustainable Development, v.19, n.5, p.289-300, 2011.
• DOVERS, S.R.; HANDMER, J.W. Uncertainty, sustainability and change. Global Environmental Change, v.2, n.4, p.262-276, 1992.
• EKINS, P. et al. A Framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecological Economics, v.44, n.2-3, p.165-185, 2003.
• EKINS, P. Environmental sustainability: From environmental valuation to the sustainability gap. Progress in Physical Geography, v.35, n.5, p.629-651, 2011.
• ELKINGTON, J. Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, v.36, n.2, p.90-100, 1994.
• ELKINGTON, J. Canibais com garfo e faca São Paulo: Makron Books, 2001.
• ELLIOT, S. Transdisciplinary perspectives on environmental sustainability: A resource base and framework for it-enabled business transformation. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, v.35, n.1, p.197-236, 2011.
• ELLIS, M.; GUNTON, T.; RUTHERFORD, M. A methodology for evaluating environmental planning systems: A case study of Canada. Journal of Environmental Management, v.91, n.6, p.1268-1277, 2010.
• EPSTEIN, M.J.; ROY, M.J. Sustainability in Action: Identifying and Measuring the Key Performance Drivers. Long Range Planning, v.34, p.585-604, 2001.
• FARLA, J. et al. Sustainability transitions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, n.79, p.991-998, 2012.
• FAUZI, H.; SVENSSON, G.; RAHMAN, A.A. Triple Bottom Line as Sustainable Corporate Performance : A Proposition for the Future. Games, v.2, n.5, p.1-15, 2010.
• FIORINO, D.J. Explaining national environmental performance: Approaches, evidence, and implications. Policy Sciences, v.44, n.4, p.367-389, 2011.
• FOXON, T.J. et al. Useful indicators of urban sustainability: Some methodological issues. Local Environment, v.4, n.2, p.148-149, 1999.
• GASPARATOS, A.; EL-HARAM, M.; HORNER, M. A critical review of reductionist approaches for assessing the progress towards sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v.8, n.4-5, p.286-311, 2008.
• GAUSSIN, M. et al Assessing the environmental footprint of manufactured products: A survey of current literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 2011. In press.
• GILJUM, S. et al. A comprehensive set of resource use indicators from the micro to the macro level. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, v.5, n.3, p.300-308, 2011.
• GLAVIC, P.; LUKMAN, R. Review of sustainability terms and their definitions. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.15, p.1875-1885, 2007.
• GNÈGNÈ, Y. Adjusted net saving and welfare change. Ecological Economics, v.68, n.4, p.1127-139, 2009.
• GOODLAND, R. The concept of environmental sustainability. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, v.26, p.1-24, 1995.
• GRAYMORE, M.L.; SIPE, N.G.; RICKSON, R.E. Regional sustainability: How useful are current tools of sustainability assessment at the regional scale? Ecological Economics, v.67, n.3, p.362-372, 2008.
• GUIMARÃES, R.P.; FEICHAS, S.Q. Desafios na contrução de indicadores de sustentabilidade. Ambiente & Sociedade, v.12, n.2, p.307-323, 2009.
• HAK, T.; KOVANDA, J.; WEINZETTEL, J. A method to assess the relevance of sustainability indicators: Application to the indicator set of the Czech Republic's Sustainable Development Strategy. Ecological Indicators, v.17, p.46-57, 2012.
• HASNA, A.M. A review of sustainability assessment methods in engineering. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic & Social Sustainability, v.5, 2008.
• HASNA, A.M. Sustainability classifications in engineering: discipline and approach. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, v.3, n.4, p.258-276, 2010.
• HOVE, H. Critiquing Sustainable Development: A Meaningful Way of Mediating the Development Impasse? Undercurrent, v.1, n.1, 2004.
• HOLLAND, L. Can the principle of the ecological footprint be applied to measure the environmental sustainability of business? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, v.10, n.4, p.224-232, 2003.
• HORBACH, J. Indicator systems for sustainable innovation Physica-Verlag, 1şEd., 213p., 2005.
• HOSSEINI, H.M; KANEKO, S. Dynamic sustainability assessment of countries at the macro level: A principal component analysis. Ecological Indicators, v.11, n.3, p.811-823, 2011.
• HOSSEINI, H.M; KANEKO, S. Causality between pillars of sustainable development: Global stylized facts or regional phenomena?. Ecological Indicators, v.14, n.1, p.197-201, 2012.
• HUESEMANN, M.H. The failure of eco-efficiency to guarantee sustainability: Future challenges for industrial ecology. Environmental Progress, v.23, n.4, p.264-210, 2004.
• HUETING, R.; REIJNDERS, L. Broad sustainability contra sustainability: the proper construction of sustainability indicators. Ecological Economics, v.50, n.3-4, p.249-260, 2004
• ISAKSSON, R.; STEIMLE, U. What does GRI-reporting tell us about corporate sustainability? TQM Journal, v 21, n.2, p.168-181, 2009.
• ISLAM, S.M.; CLARKE, M.F. The welfare economics of measuring sustainability: a new approach based on social choice theory and systems analysis. Sustainable Development, v.13, n.5, p.282-296, 2005.
• IUCN, UNEP, WWF. The World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Gland, Switzerland, 1980.
• JAMES, M.; CARD, K. Factors contributing to institutions achieving environmental sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, v.13, n.2, p.166-176, 2012.
• JIA, J.S. et al. Ecological footprint simulation and prediction by ARIMA model - A case study in Henan Province of China. Ecological Indicators, v.10, p.538-544, 2010.
• KAIVO-OJA, J. Alternative scenarios of social development: is analytical sustainability policy analysis possible? How? Sustainable Development, v.7, n.3, p.140-150, 1999.
• KELLY, R.; SIRR, L.; RATCLIFFE, R. Futures thinking to achieve sustainable development at local level in Ireland . Foresight, v.6, n.2, p.80-90, 2004.
• KRAJNC, D.; GLAVIČ, P. How to compare companies on relevant dimensions of sustainability. Ecological Economics, v.55, n.4, p.551-563, 2005.
• KUOSMANEN, T.; KUOSMANEN, N. How not to measure sustainable value (and how one might). Ecological Economics, v.69, n.2, p.235-243, 2009.
• LABUSCHAGNE, C.; BRENT, A.C.; VAN ERCK, R.G. Assessing the sustainability performances of industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.13, n.4, p.373-385, 2005.
• LANGFORD, R. Environmental performance indicators: Key features of some recent proposals. Sustainable Development and Planning, v.2, p.409-418, 2008.
• LEHTONEN, M. The environmental-social interface of sustainable development: capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecological Economics, v.49, n.2, p.199-214, 2004.
• LÉLÉ, S.M. Sustainable development: A critical review. World Development, v.19, n.6, p.607-621, 1991.
• LIMA, G.C. O discurso da sutentabilidade e suas implicações para a educação. Ambiente & Sociedade, v.6, n.2, p.99-119, 2003.
• LIN, T. et al. Using a network framework to quantitatively select ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators, v.9, n.6, p.1114-1120, 2009.
• LINTON, J.D.; YEOMANS, J.S. The role of forecasting in sustainability. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, n.70, p.21-38, 2002.
• LINTOTT, J. Environmental accounting: useful to whom and for what? Ecological Economics, v.16, n.3, p.179-190, 1996.
• LOCKWOOD, C. Building the green way. Harvard Business Review, v.84, n.6, p.129, 2006.
• LOU, H.H. et al. Sustainability assessment of industrial systems. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Research, v.43, n.15, p.4233-4242, 2004.
• LOZANO, R. Towards better embedding sustainability into companies' systems: an analysis of voluntary corporate initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.25, n.0, p.14-26, 2012.
• MANDERSON, A.K. A systems based framework to examine the multi-contextural application of the sustainability concept. Environment, Development and Sustainability, n.8, p.85-97, 2006.
• MANNBERG, M.; WIHLBORG, E. Communicative planning - Friend or foe? Obstacle and opportunities for implementing sustainable development locally. Sustainable Development, v.16, n.1, p.35-43, 2008.
• MARSHALL, R.S.; BROWN, D. The Strategy of Sustainability: A Systems Perspective on Environmental Initiatives. California Management Review, v.46, n.1, p.101-126, 2003.
• MARTENS, P.; RAZA, M. Is Globalisation Sustainable? Sustainability, n.2, p.280-293, 2010.
• MARTINET, A.; REYNAUD, E. Stratégies d'Entreprise et Écologie. Paris: Econômica, 165p., 2004.
• MAUERHOFER, V. 3-D Sustainability: An approach for priority setting in situation of conflicting interests towards a Sustainable Development. Ecological Economics, v.64, n.3, p.496-506, 2008.
• MAYER, A.L. Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems. Environment International, v.34, n.2, p.277-291, 2008.
• MEBRATU, D. Sustainability and sustainable development: Historical and conceptual review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v.18, n.6, p.493-520,1998.
• MISSIMER, M. et al. Exploring the possibility of a systematic and generic approach to social sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.18, n.10-11, p.1107-1112, 2010.
• MITCHAM, C. The concept of sustainable development: its origins and ambivalence. Technology in Society, v.17, n.3, p.311-326, 1995.
• MOLDAN, B.; JANOUAKOVÁ, S.; HÁK, T. How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecological Indicators, v.17, p. 4-13, 2012.
• MOORE,S.B.; MANRING, S.L. Strategy development in small and medium sized enterprises for sustainability and increased value creation. Journal of Cleaner Production, n.17, p.276-282, 2009.
• MORI, K.; CHRISTODOULOU, A. Review of sustainability indices and indicators: Towards a new City Sustainability Index (CSI). Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v.32, n.1, p.94-106, 2012.
• NESS, B. et al. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, v.60, n.3, p.498-508, 2007.
• NEUMAYER, E. The determinants of aid allocation by regional multilateral development banks and united nations agencies. International Studies Quarterly, v.47, n.1, p.101-122, 2003.
• NIJKAMP, P.; VAN DEN BERGH, J.M. Environmental and Resource Management. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, p.4580-4585, 2001.
• PARKIN, S.; SOMMER, F.; UREN, S. Sustainable development: understanding the concept and practical challenge. Engineering Sustainability, v.156, n.3, p.169-171, 2003.
• PARRIS, T.M.; KATES, R.W. Characterizing and measuring sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, v.28, p.559-586, 2003.
• PLASS, N.; KALTENEGGER, I. Strategic and practical implications in decision making and planning for sustainability. Indoor and Built Environment, v.16, n.3, p.204-215, 2007.
• PORTER,T.; DERRY, R. Ustainability and business in a complex world. Business and Society Review, n.117, p.133-53, 2012.
• PRUGH, T.; ASSADOURIAN, E. What is sustainability, anyway? World Watch, v.16, n.5, p.10-21, 2003.
• RAMOS, T.B.; CAEIRO, S. Meta-performance evaluation of sustainability indicators.EcologicalIndicators, v.10, n.2, p.157-166, 2010.
• REDCLIFT, M. Sustainable development and global environmental change: implications of a changing agenda. Global Environmental Change, v.2, n.1, p.32-42, 1992.
• REID, W.V. et al. Earth System Science for Global Sustainability: Grand Challenges. Environment and Development, v.330, n.6006, p.916-917, 2010.
• ROBINSON, J. et al. Envisioning sustainability: Recent progress in the use of participatory backcasting approaches for sustainability research. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, n.78, p.756-768, 2011.
• SÁ DE ABREU, M.C. How to Define an Environmental Policy to Improve Corporate Sustainability in Developing Countries. Business Strategy and the Environment, n.18, p.542-556, 2009.
• SACHS, I. Caminhos para o desenvolvimento sustentável. 2şEd.: Rio de Janeiro: Garamond., 2002, 96p.
• SAISANA, M.; SALTELLI, A.; TARANTOLA, S. Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society,v.168, n.2, p.307-323, 2005.
• SALAS-ZAPATA, W.; RÍOS-OSORIO, L.; CASTILLO, J.A.D. La ciencia emergente de la sustentabilidad: de la práctica científica hac ia la constitución de una ciencia. Interciencia, v.2, n.9, 2011.
• SAN-JOSÉ, J.T. et al. Approach to the quantification of the sustainable value in industrial buildings. Building and Environment, v.42, n.11, p.3916-3923, 2007.
• SARKIS, J.; MEADE, L.; PRESLEY, A. An activity based management methodology for evaluating business processes for environmental sustainability. Business Process Management Journal, v.12, n.6, p.751-769, 2006.
• SARTORIUS, C. Second-order sustainability - conditions for the development of sustainable innovations in a dynamic environment. Ecological Economics, n.58, p.268-286, 2006.
• SCHNEIDER, F.; KALLIS, G.; MARTINEZ-ALIER, J. Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue. Journal of Cleaner Production, v.18, n.6, p.511-518, 2010.
• SEURING, S.; SCHRADER, C.; FREIMANN, J. Business Strategy at the Base of the Pyramid. Business Strategy and the Environment, v.21, n.5, p.281-298, 2013.
• SHASTRI, Y. et al. Is sustainability achievable? Exploring the limits of sustainability with model systems. Environmental Science and Technology, v.42, n.17, p.6710-6716, 2008.
• SICHE, J.R. et al. Sustainability of nations by indices: Comparative study between environmental sustainability index, ecological footprint and the emergy performance indices. Ecological Economics, v.66, n.4, p.628-637, 2008.
• SILVA NETO, B.; BASSO, D. A ciência e o desenvolvimento sustentável: para além do positivismo e da pós-modernidade. Ambiente & Sociedade, v.3, n.2, p.443-454, 2010.
• SINGH, R.K. et al. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, v.15, n.1, p.281-299, 2012.
• SLIMANE, M. Role and relationship between leadership and sustainable development to release social, human, and cultural dimension. Social and Behavioral Sciences, v. 41, p.92-99, 2012.
• SOLOW, R. An almost practical step toward sustainability. Resources Policy, v.19, n.3, p.162-172, 1993.
• SPANGENBERG, J.H. Economic sustainability of the economy: Concepts and indicators. International Journal of Sustainable Development, v.8, n.1-2, p.47-64, 2005.
• SPANGENBERG, J.H.; OMANN, I. Assessing social sustainability: Social sustainability and its multicriteria assessment in a sustainability scenario for Germany. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, v.1, n.4, p.318-348, 2006.
• STABLES, K. Educating for environmental sustainability and educating for creativity: Actively compatible or missed opportunities? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, v.19, n.2, p.199-219, 2009.
• STEDMAN, B.J.; HILL, T. Introduction to the special issue: Perspectives on sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v.12, p.1-9, 1992.
• TAINTER, J.A. Social complexity and sustainability. Ecological Complexity, v.3, n.2, p.91-103, 2006.
• TISDELL, C. Sustainable development: differing perspectives of ecologists and economists, and relevance to LDCs. World Development, v.16, n.3, p.373-384, 1988.
• TODOROV, V,; MARINOVA, D. Modelling sustainability. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, v.1, n.7, p.1397-1408, 2011.
• TOLBA, M. K. Profiting from the Environment. The Environmentalist, v.4, n1, p.23-28, 1984.
• TOSUN, J.; KNILL, C. Economy and Sustainability How Economic Integration Stimulates Stringent Environmental Regulations. Games, v.1, n.4, p1-17, 2009.
• TSENG, M.L; DIVINAGRACIA, L.; DIVINAGRACIA, R. Evaluating firm's sustainable production indicators in uncertainty. Computers & Industrial Engineering, v.57, n.4, p.1393-1403, 2009.
• TYTECA, D. Sustainability Indicators at the Firm Level. Journal of Industrial Ecology, v.2, n.4, p.61-77, 1999.
• UDO, V. E.; JANSSON, P. M. Bridging the gaps for global sustainable development: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, v.90, n.12, p.3700-3707, 2009.
• URBAN, B.; GOVENDER, D.P. Empirical Evidence on Environmental Management Practices. Engineering Economics, v.23, n.2, p.209-215, 2012.
• VALLANCE, S.; PERKINS, H.C.; DIXON, J.E. What is social sustainability? A clarification of concepts. Geoforum, v.42, n.3, p.342-348, 2011.
• VAN ZEIJL-ROZEMA, A.; FERRAGUTO, L.; CARATTI, P. Comparing region-specific sustainability assessments through indicator systems: Feasible or not? Ecological Economics, v.70, n.3, p.475-486, 2011.
• WCED. Our common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
• ZIDANSEK, A. Sustainable development and happiness in nations. Energy, v.32, n.6, p.891-897, 2007.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  08 May 2014
• Date of issue
  Mar 2014

History

• Received
  03 Sept 2012
• Accepted
  24 Sept 2013