IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aes/icafee/v4y2015p394-405.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainability concept: we agree to disagree

Author

Listed:
  • Andrei Radutu

    (Department of Agro-Food and Environmental Economics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies)

  • Paul Poleanschi

    (Department of Agro-Food and Environmental Economics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies)

Abstract

Sustainability (S) and Sustainable Development (SD) are two inter-related concepts, which describe the way a society is developing, towards a better and more durable life for its citizens. Sustainable Development Indicators (SDIs) represent an agreed way of measuring the attained level of sustainability and are applied mostly to the three main dimensions of the SD: economic, social and environmental. Various arguments were developed over the years, arguing which of the three dimensions is more relevant to the sustainability and sustainable development, leading eventually to several lists of SDIs. By comparing these SDI, this paper intends to explore the effect driven by the emphasis put by states and organizations into any of these particular dimensions, and to observe if the SDIs lead to unity of effort or if they are subject to disagreement.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrei Radutu & Paul Poleanschi, 2015. "Sustainability concept: we agree to disagree," International Conference on Competitiveness of Agro-food and Environmental Economy Proceedings, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 4, pages 394-405.
    • Handle: RePEc:aes:icafee:v:4:y:2015:p:394-405
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cafee.ase.ro/wp-content/upload/2015edition/file2015(45).pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kean Birch & Les Levidow & Theo Papaioannou, 2010. "Sustainable Capital ? The Neoliberalization of Nature and Knowledge in the European “Knowledge-based Bio-economy”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 2(9), pages 1-21, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aleksandra Jezierska-Thöle & Roman Rudnicki & Łukasz Wiśniewski & Marta Gwiaździńska-Goraj & Mirosław Biczkowski, 2021. "The Agri-Environment-Climate Measure as an Element of the Bioeconomy in Poland—A Spatial Study," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Zubović, Jovan & Jeločnik, Marko & Subić, Jonel, 2015. "Can Human Resources Induce Sustainability In Business? Modeling, Testing And Correlating Hr Index And Company’S Business Results," Economics of Agriculture, Institute of Agricultural Economics, vol. 62(2), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Hiedanpää, Juha & Ramcilovik-Suominen, Sabaheta & Salo, Matti, 2023. "Neoliberal pathways to the bioeconomy: Forest land use institutions in Chile, Finland, and Laos," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. Stefano Ponte & Kean Birch, 2014. "Guest Editorial," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(2), pages 271-279, February.
    5. Ruhet Genç & Eda Aylin Genç, 2017. "Promotion of Social Inclusion through New Steps in Tourism," Acta Universitatis Danubius. OEconomica, Danubius University of Galati, issue 13(3), pages 194-201, JUNE.
    6. Joana Ramanauskaitė, 2021. "The Role of Incumbent Actors in Sustainability Transitions: A Case of LITHUANIA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Patricia A. Henríquez-Piskulich & Constanza Schapheer & Nicolas J. Vereecken & Cristian Villagra, 2021. "Agroecological Strategies to Safeguard Insect Pollinators in Biodiversity Hotspots: Chile as a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-31, June.
    8. Leandro Javier Llorente-González & Xavier Vence, 2019. "Decoupling or ‘Decaffing’? The Underlying Conceptualization of Circular Economy in the European Union Monitoring Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-21, September.
    9. Sophie Urmetzer & Michael P. Schlaile & Kristina B. Bogner & Matthias Mueller & Andreas Pyka, 2018. "Exploring the Dedicated Knowledge Base of a Transformation towards a Sustainable Bioeconomy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, May.
    10. Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent, 2019. "Bio-Informed Emerging Technologies and Their Relation to the Sustainability Aims of Biomimicry," Environmental Values, , vol. 28(5), pages 551-571, October.
    11. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    12. Weiss, Gerhard & Hansen, Eric & Ludvig, Alice & Nybakk, Erlend & Toppinen, Anne, 2021. "Innovation governance in the forest sector: Reviewing concepts, trends and gaps," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    13. Heimann, Tobias, 2019. "Bioeconomy and SDGs: Does the Bioeconomy Support the Achievement of the SDGs?," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 225998, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    14. Alexandra Zbuchea & Florina Pînzaru & Mihail Busu & Sergiu-Octavian Stan & Alina Bârgăoanu, 2019. "Sustainable Knowledge Management and Its Impact on the Performances of Biotechnology Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, January.
    15. Kean Birch, 2016. "Emergent Imaginaries and Fragmented Policy Frameworks in the Canadian Bio-Economy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    16. Lühmann, Malte & Vogelpohl, Thomas, 2023. "The bioeconomy in Germany: A failing political project?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    17. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    18. Baka, Jennifer & Bailis, Robert, 2014. "Wasteland energy-scapes: A comparative energy flow analysis of India's biofuel and biomass economies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 8-17.
    19. Jim Philp, 2021. "Biotechnologies to Bridge the Schism in the Bioeconomy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    20. Pengcheng Xiang & Yiming Wang & Qing Deng, 2017. "Inclusive Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Regeneration in a Natural Disaster Vulnerability Context: A Case Study of Chongqing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-13, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aes:icafee:v:4:y:2015:p:394-405. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Elena Preda (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aseeero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.