In the end there may be as many definitions of sustainability and sustainable development as there are groups trying to define it. As early as 1996 you could find as many as 300 documented definitions of sustainability and sustainable development (Dobson, 1996). Currently a search in google for the question "what is sustainable development?" yields 61 million results. There is now a vast literature on sustainable development that we will not attempt to review here. In brief, most definitions include the following elements:
The theoretical framework for sustainable development evolved between 1972 and 1992 through a series of international conferences and initiatives (Drexhage & Murphy, 2010).
Although it the phrase "sustainable development" did not originate at the 1987 World Commission on World Environment and Development, it was popularized in the report from this Commission, more popularly known as the Brundtland Report, and its definition of sustainable development is widely quoted in the literature: "Development that meets the needs of current generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED, 1987, p. 45). As Drexhage and Murphy point out, in turn the Brundtland Report provided the momentum for the landmark 1992 Rio Summit that laid the foundation for the global institutionalization of sustainable development.
Since the Brundtland Report and the Rio Summit, the concept of sustainable development has made a transition to a concept that now enjoys rather widespread, but not universal, support. The concept of sustainable development has been adopted as a policy goal by many institutions, governments, businesses, and civil society. This widespread adoption of sustainable development as a guiding principle is due, in no small part, to its conceptual flexibility. As a concept, its malleability allows it to be rather open, dynamic, and evolving, and applicable to a variety of situations across space and time. Its openness allows participants at multiple levels and across sectors and institutions to reinterpret it for their particular situation (Kates, Parris, & Leiserowitz, 2005). It is a phrase that can be adopted by various stakeholders for their own purposes. While this may be seen as a strength, it can also be a liability because numerous usages and interpretations of sustainable development have led to confusion and compromised implementation (Drexhage & Murphy, 2010, p. 9).
As many critics have reported, the term sustainable development suffers from an inherent definitional ambiguity or vagueness. Its lack of clarity has enabled sustainable development to become a catch-all concept for special interest groups, and this has resulted in a rather incoherent and sprawling use of the term. In this regard it is important to understand that despite its significance in the development discourse, the usage and adoption of the term sustainable development in essence represents a compromise between growth and conservation. Some have called sustainable development an oxymoron: fundamentally contradictory and irreconcilable (Kates et al., 2005, p. 20). As Du Pisani (2006) points out, sustainable development is an inherently contradictory term because from a "puristic" point of view, you can't have both genuine development and genuine sustainability.
One should be struck by the fact that here is a call for 'economic growth' that is 'sustainable'. One has to ask if it is possible to have an increase in economic activity (growth) without having increases in the rates of consumption of non-renewable resources? If so, under what conditions can this happen? (Bartlett, 2006, p. 27)
In fact, this term continues the notions of growth from past development discourses and adapted them to a changing world situation in which looming ecological crises and the growing gap between rich and poor challenged traditional approaches. As a compromise, it will never satisfy all stakeholders.
From the outset sustainable development was open to criticism from both the political left and right with some arguing that it goes too far, and others that it does not go far enough. According to Drexage and Murphy (2010), the predominant view of most governments and businesses is that sustainable development is continued economic growth made more environmentally sensitive in order to raise living standards globally and break the link between poverty and environmental degradation. In this view growth is seen as a key part of the solution to alleviating poverty, and markets and technology will produce a richer world that is more ecologically stable (Hopwood et al., 2005). Others see the emphasis on capitalism-friendly approaches as incompatible with sustainable development. (Gadotti, 2004). Some question if sustainable development should continue to support economic growth at all, given the physical limits of the global ecosystem. Others suggest that the concept does not give enough attention to the linkages between poverty, the poor and the environment. Some accused the business community of using the concept to make their environmentally practices appear green. Others argued that sustainable development does not go far enough to address required lifestyle, consumption, and behavioral changes that are needed. (Drexage & Murphy, 2010; Gadotti, 2004; Hopwood et al., 2005).
The concept has also become synonymous for some with particular political agendas: in that those most vocal in support of sustainable development often come with political agendas that, at least in North America, are often associated with the left wing of the political spectrum. On the other hand, many developing countries see sustainable development as an ideology developed by developed countries for the purpose of imposing stricter conditions and rules on development aid and international trade.
And yet, despite all these detractors, one could argue that sustainable development might be the only 'paradigm' of development left standing. With the recent fiscal and financial crises, and the loss of faith in the pure economic growth model of the Washington Consensus, there is renewed interest in the potential of sustainable development as an effective framework and tool to address these core structural challenges (Drexhage & Murphy, 2010, p. 11).
In this regard by the early 1990s it seems to have replaced previously popular terms such as "growth" and "modernization" in the discourse about development. Far from being a passing fad, it has seemingly become the dominant paradigm in development discourse, and its usage has crossed into multiple disciplines and fields of inquiry (Estes, 1993). However, for the purposes of this inquiry, we will adopt the following working definition of sustainable development that was developed by this Switzerland-based project derived from a semantic analysis of the original Brundtland definition. We found this particular definition to be particularly well conceived and cogent:
Sustainable development means ensuring dignified living conditions with regard to human rights by creating and maintaining the widest possible range of options for freely defining life plans. The principle of fairness among and between present and future generations should be taken into account in the use of environmental, economic and social resources.
Putting these needs into practice entails comprehensive protection of biodiversity in terms of ecosystem, species and genetic diversity, all of which are the vital foundations of life (MONET Project, 2001).