Which of the following is not likely to have a direct impact on environmental sustainability?

14.1 What is Sustainability?

Sustainability is the capacity to endure. In a more general scientific sense, sustainability is equivalent to continuum, or the ability to continue a course without termination. Therefore, sustainability is compatible with the existence of the universe, and it is the ability to maintain a definite stable outcome. The evolution to a sustainable state is predictable. However, the form, or state, that is sustainable can be changed with intelligence or systematic intervention during the course of evolution.

Sustainability refers to processes, objects, or matter. Sustainability is incompatible with monotonous increase or decrease of amounts of matter. Sustainability exists between the competing forces of increases and decreases. The monotonous increase of the amount of one matter leads to the exhaustion of the limited surroundings containing the matter, or the depletion of the source that provides the increase of the matter; while a monotonous decrease of the amount of a matter leads to the eventual exhaustion of the matter. In bioprocesses, sustainability is compatible with steady state.

2.66.4 Challenges of Sustainability

Sustainable development is clearly one of the most difficult challenges that humanity has ever faced. Attaining sustainability requires addressing many fundamental issues at local, regional, and global levels, and achieving the goals and objectives of sustainability presents a great challenge for all segments of society. A core principle of sustainable development is to improve human well-being and to sustain these improvements over time, but the consequences of climate change and the growing demand for energy and resources are making this objective more challenging.

Environmental degradation and extreme alterations and changes to the natural environment can be found everywhere, and are part of the challenges of sustainable development. All these can be observed in many parts of the world, and reduce the ability to manipulate and alter the fundamental relationships that sustain the planet’s ecosystems [5].

With Brundtland’s definition of sustainability in mind, human access to natural resources becomes an essential right for the well-being of society and a critical element of a dignified life, along with the transformation to a knowledge-based service economy. This right includes the following: biophysical environment, economic dimension, social dimension, and institutional dimension (Figure 2).

40.1 Sustainable Development Concepts

The earliest literature regarding the concept of sustainable development dates back to 1713, where the concept meant ensuring the forestry sustainability realized by only cutting re-grown timber to maintain the soil fertility. The environmental issue was first mentioned in Silent Spring (R.Carson, 1962). At that time, the concept was still in the initial stage and only non-formally described in literatures.

The concept of sustainable development originated with the environmental scope in 1980s. The earliest formulations can be found in the 1980’s World Conservation Strategy for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (UNEP/WWF/IUCNNR, 1980) presented by the UN Environment Programme, the World Wildlife Fund, and the International Union. This concept proposed three basic factors – social, ecological, and economic – which have been continuously developed until today. The formulation of sustainable development was defined as:

For development to be sustainable, it must take account of social and ecological factors, as well as economic ones; of the living and non-living resource base; and of the long-term as well as the short-term advantages and disadvantages of alternative actions.

In this section, the concept of sustainable development is introduced, and compared with green chemistry and green engineering.

40.1.4 Green Chemistry, Green Engineering, and Sustainable Development

The confusion of these three concepts arises from the interchangeable usage and description. There is overlap and similarity among the concepts, but each of them has unique characteristics, as shown in Figure 40.1. Green chemistry deals with the development of chemical reactions using more environmental-friendly chemicals producing less hazardous chemicals as waste. Green engineering identifies the overall environmental impact of a process using life cycle concepts and improves the process design. However, only sustainable development normally places the focus within the societal and social impacts.

Figure 40.1. Relationship of green chemistry, green engineering, and sustainable development.

Abraham (2004) did a brief discussion of the different contexts involved ‘while green chemistry addresses issues of natural capital, and green engineering addresses both natural capital and economic viability, sustainability also addresses the human condition and implores the individual to improve the quality of life for all inhabitants.’

Sustainability requires considering the social implications of the production, which is not relative to technology. The constraints are presented by economics, society, and the environment. Sustainable engineering seeks solutions that are broader than those of green engineering, by considering the system as one part of the global ecosystem including all of humanity.

4.1.1.3 Definitions and Interpretations of Sustainable Development

The widely accepted definition of sustainable development is that used in the Brundtland Report: Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Although this is a vague statement open to interpretation, it has proved durable and provides a goal to which many people aspire, though it provides no guidance on how to get there nor how to assess progress toward sustainable development.

The term “sustainability” is often preferred to “sustainable development.” Development may be perceived as implying growth and, therefore, that sustainable development means ameliorating the problems caused by, but not challenging, continued economic growth. Here, the term “sustainability” is preferred as being the more value neutral.

The word “sustainability” can be used in different ways. Environmentalists often mean ecological sustainability when they speak of sustainability. Many business people really mean economic sustainability of their organization when they speak of sustainability. However, sustainability has three aspects—ecological, social, and economic—and it is not possible to achieve a particular level of ecological, social, or economic sustainability independently without achieving at least a basic level of all three forms simultaneously. It is not possible for subsystems to be sustainable within an unsustainable global system—sustainability is a property of the Earth system as a whole. A firm or organization is unlikely to be sustainable if the society at large is not sustainable. The term “sustainable mining” is an oxymoron, since mining exploits a nonrenewable resource. A more useful way of thinking about sustainability and mining is to address the question: How can mining contribute to the transition to sustainability?

More practical definitions of sustainability are couched in either economic or environmental terms. In economic terms, development is sustainable if it does not decrease the capacity of a system to provide nondeclining per capita utility [13]. In ecological terms, development is sustainable if the stock of natural capital does not decline over time, or if resources are managed so as to maintain a sustainable yield of ecosystem services. The economic definition defines sustainability in terms of the economy’s ability to maintain material production or consumption indefinitely. Since this is not possible without ongoing use of environmental resources, economic interpretations imply that there must be at least some degree of environmental sustainability.

The term natural capital (or environmental resources) refers to the stock of natural resources (energy and matter) and processes that produce valuable goods and services. It consists of resources (renewable and nonrenewable) and ecosystem services. There are several other forms of capital. Human capital is the health, knowledge, skills, and motivation required for productive work and the individual’s emotional and spiritual capacity. It includes intellectual capital (intellectual property). Social capital consists of the structures, institutions, and relationships which enable individuals to maintain and develop their human capital in partnership with others and to be more productive working together than in isolation. It includes networks, communication channels, families, communities, businesses, trade unions, schools, voluntary organizations, legal and political systems and educational and health bodies, as well as social norms, values, and trust. Reproducible (or manufactured) capital consists of material goods and infrastructure owned, leased, or controlled by an organization that contribute to production or provision of services (tools, machines, buildings, roads, dams). Financial capital consists of an organization’s assets that exist in a form of currency that can be owned or traded, including shares, bonds, and banknotes. It has no intrinsic value; its value is representative of the other forms of capital.

Human-made capital is the sum of reproducible, human, social, and financial capital assets. The sum of human-made capital and natural capital at any time, therefore, is the stock of productive assets. The distinction between human-made capital and natural capital is important because the issue of whether productive capacity can be maintained indefinitely depends on the degree to which human-made capital can substitute for natural capital.

The concept of weak sustainability is based on the assumption that human-made capital can substitute for natural capital both as an input for producing goods and services for consumption and directly as a provider of ecosystem services. This means that natural capital can be allowed to degrade as long as enough human-made capital is built up to compensate. In this view, some parts of the total stock of assets, including renewable and nonrenewable natural resources, can be allowed to decline provided other types of capital substitute for declining natural capital.

The assumption that human-made capital can substitute for natural capital in a virtually unlimited way is frequently made in economic modeling [14]. Solow [15] and Stiglitz [16,17] showed that perpetual economic growth of consumption is possible if the elasticity of substitution of human-made capital for natural capital is one or greater. Solow claimed that the elasticity of substitution was likely to be at least one in practice. However, there seems to be no theoretical justification for assuming that human-made capital can substitute for natural capital in any significant way, and empirical evidence indicates that little substitution is possible. While considerable substitution between the various forms of human-made capital is clearly possible, natural capital has characteristics that distinguish it from human-made capital [13]. Some forms of natural capital provide basic life-support functions that no other form of capital can provide. These are the ecosystem services that make human life on Earth possible. Also, some forms of natural capital are unique and cannot be rebuilt once they have been destroyed. In general, this is not the case for human-made capital—reconstruction may be expensive or slow but, in principle, it is possible. It is most unlikely, therefore, that human-made capital can substitute to any great extent for most forms of natural capital.

The concept of strong sustainability is based on the assumption that human-made capital cannot substitute for natural capital either as an input for producing goods and services for consumption or directly as a provider of ecosystem services. There are two main versions of strong sustainability. One argues that the total value of natural capital must be preserved. This implies that the scarcity rents1 from nonrenewable resource extraction should be invested in the development of alternatives to keep the total value of natural capital constant (e.g., royalties from coal mining would go toward developing renewable energy sources). The second version argues that only the stock of those forms of natural capital that are considered to be nonsubstitutable for human capital (critical natural capital) must be preserved, and there should be no substitution between different forms of critical natural capital. This interpretation implies that renewable resources should be used only to the extent that their stock does not deteriorate and that the environment should be used as a sink for wastes only to the extent that its natural absorptive capacity does not deteriorate.

Abstract

There are a few sustainability related legislations that demand awareness, monitoring for changes such as new or expired exemptions, understanding of its myriad of complexities, and ultimately full and proven compliance. No electronic enclosure, housing, and package developer or manufacturer can afford to be found negligent in these areas. Every one of these laws' jurisdiction is limited but in a globally interconnected economy, their true influence is indeed world-wide. Therefore, the most important initiatives have been reviewed.

Conflict Mineral legislation and compliance is important from an electronics perspective. Lead-free solders rely on tin, which is regulated by this law. Other elements are also important materials in electronics. 3TG is the label, which generally indicates conflict minerals such as tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold.

The concept of end-of-life (EoL) is important from a supply chain point of view. Significant hardware and software issues could manifest themselves if the new product development team does not prepare a workable strategy on how to overcome the disparity in various industries' EoL time frames. The heavy metals category is another area of concern that legislators have been regulating. Therefore, knowledge of this area is a prerequisite in the electronics industry.

REACH is the overhauled EU chemicals policy. Understanding of the registration, evaluation, authorization paradigm of REACH is important. Avoidance of substances of very high concern is paramount. Knowing the rules of “only representative” services is a must for non-European original equipment manufacturers and their supply chains.

Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) is not only the “lead-free” initiative. For instance, the banned flame retardants were extremely important from an electronics housing perspective. Their replacement is nether simple nor cheap. Hexavalent chromium is important with respect to fasteners and other metal surface treatments. Compliance of a product cannot be assured by assembling compliant components due to the inherent complexities of RoHS legislation. Therefore, high-quality expertise must be applied to assure compliance. Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive adds another important criterion into the product development mix, and it is intended to work in conjunction with RoHS.

10.1 The sustainability concept

Looking back over the history of environmental concern surrounding the motor car, some distinct phases can be distinguished (Fig. 10.1). In the early phases air quality was the prime concern, leading to regulation of toxic emissions from cars. Initially, from the 1950s, the technical problem of crank-case blowby was the main concern, rapidly followed by tailpipe emissions during the 1960s and 1970s, and then during the 1980s and early 1990s, evaporative emissions of toxic volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The 1990s were dominated by the CO2 debate, which, in 2003, is still a major concern, and will dominate the agenda of the motor industry over the next ten years at least. However, governments have increasingly adopted elements of the sustainability concept. This concept is by no means clearly defined, although some clarity has emerged in recent years. However, what has been less appreciated is that this trajectory has also taken legislators from relatively superficial concerns into areas of much deeper ecology and this is the focus of this chapter.

Sustainability is the most fundamental of environmental concepts in that it defines any practice that we cannot indulge in indefinitely without lasting environmental damage or impact as ‘unsustainable’. Increasing evidence is coming to light from archaeology that a number of quite sophisticated civilisations have disappeared because they were ultimately unsustainable. Examples are the people of Easter Island and the Anasazi of the American Southwest. In most cases their unsustainability was environmental and lessons appear to have been learned as the present native residents of the Southwestern US, such as the Hopi, for example, are known for their environmental sensitivity (Waters, 1969). It is important for our own civilisation to face up to this issue, therefore, or we could also face oblivion. What this means for the automotive sector will be investigated in Chapter 11.

Unlike much emissions-based concern, environmental sustainability is not about the here and now, and instead looks into the future implications of our current actions and of the continuation of our current practices into the future. Our activities may not damage us in our lifetime, but may damage future generations. This makes it difficult for our short-term focused society and its politicians to handle. It also makes it difficult for conventional economics to handle as the market does not begin to work until a commodity has become too scarce, by which time it is usually too late. Our ability to foresee a crisis and act in a precautionary manner cannot easily be captured by the market without decisive intervention. Common sense, rather than economics, may therefore be required – the precautionary principle.

Some historic legal systems have enshrined sustainability in law. In this context, the Great Binding Law, or Gayanashagowa, of the native American Iroquois Confederacy has generated interest among environmentalists. It survived for some 300 years in the Eastern US and inspired the Founding Fathers and the US constitution itself. It tells its chief legal officers to ‘Look and listen for the welfare of the whole people and have always in view not only the present, but also the coming generations’ (Murphy, 1999).

Another version that has emerged from the oral tradition specifies that whatever resources are available to the present generation should also be available to the seventh generation. We are that seventh generation since the Great Law was last used.

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America chose not to incorporate this particular clause into their constitution. Today, however, many governments are producing strategy documents for sustainable development and as a basic concept it is firmly moving onto the agenda of government and industry. More recent legal systems, such as the Government of Wales Act, effectively Wales’ devolved constitution regulating the responsibilities of the National Assembly for Wales, have started to incorporate a sustainability element: “The Assembly shall make a scheme setting out how it proposes, in the exercise of its functions, to promote sustainable development…’ (HMSO, 1998).

But what does it mean in practice? An environmentally sustainable motor industry would not use finite resources and would not cause pollution that could not be easily absorbed by nature. At first this appears an impossible task, yet it is technically possible to operate in this way. The first requirement, however, would be a closed-loop economy (see below). Given the secondary materials currently in the world economies, with judicious recycling a car could be made without extracting additional raw materials, but merely using what has already been extracted in the past and recycling it. There are some problems with this, which will be explored in Chapter 11, but for our present purposes this principle will be used. Energy used in this process would need to be moved onto a sustainable footing. It should not use non-renewable resources nor cause pollution that could not be readily absorbed. This would also apply to the transport of these secondary materials. Clearly, all this is not easy at present.

Using renewable energy sources would be the key. Again, the technology exists, but it is not widespread enough to make an impact. It may never, in fact, meet our current requirements, so a closed-loop sustainable system would also imply a dramatic cut in our energy use, as well as reduced overall consumption levels. Again, this is technically possible, and Von Weizsäcker et al. (1997), as well as Hawken et al. (1999), have analysed how and given best practice examples, but not yet on the required scale. Despite the apparently fanciful nature of these concepts, they are becoming mainstream in various forms and to varying degrees among environmentalists and some regulators and in the longer term will be unavoidable. This means that any longer-term strategies devised at the moment need to keep these concepts in mind.

For several years, the new, more comprehensive, environmental sustainability concept was largely confined to the environmental and academic communities, although an award-winning paper in the Harvard Business Review by International Greening of Industry Network member Stuart Hart (1997) brought it to the attention of the wider business community. Hart asserts that sustainability should not be confused with mere pollution prevention or waste reduction, as it requires a fundamentally different mind set. Hart (1997) writes that‘… in meeting our needs, we are destroying the ability of future generations to meet theirs’.

Hart foresees the development of completely new technologies and completely new types of businesses, developed in order to meet the sustainability needs. He predicts that in developed economies the demand for virgin materials will decline as re-use and recycling become more common, hence over the next decade or so Hart believes that sustainable development will become one of the biggest opportunities in the history of commerce. Businesses will have to decide whether they are part of the problem or part of the solution. Hart does not ignore the car sector and states that ‘Although the auto industry has made progress, it falls far short of sustainability’. Hart extends the responsibility of producers further than ever before, when he asserts that ‘Companies can and must change the way customers think by creating preferences for products and services consistent with sustainability’.

This is a new concept, as industry has traditionally blamed the consumer for not demanding greener goods. In fact, consumer choice is always limited by what suppliers choose to supply. Hart recognises this and therefore transfers the responsibility to the supply side and declares it up to them to educate consumers in changing their buying behaviour. Car makers have always tried to influence buyer behaviour through marketing and advertising, but have often been reluctant to actively market on the basis of environmental criteria. Hart concludes by saying that although changes in policy and consumer behaviour are essential, business can no longer hide behind these ‘figleaves’. They must actively work to change consumer behaviour through education. We could add that they should also try and involve regulators in an active dialogue to gain their support in this.

Currently, the concept of ‘sustainable development’ rather than sustainability is preferred by government and industry (Pearce, 1993). This is normally perceived as operating at the intersection between environmental, economic and social considerations and was first defined in the so-called Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Gro Harlem Brundtland herself in 1986 (Pearce et al., 1989: 175) emphasised the following four points as defining principles for sustainable development:

It requires the elimination of poverty and deprivation;

It requires the conservation and enhancement of the resources base which alone can ensure that the elimination of the poverty is permanent;

It requires a broadening of the concept of development so that it covers not only economic growth but also social and cultural development;

Most important, it requires the unification of economics and ecology in decision-making at all levels.

The thinking behind this definition is that moving to a purely environmental sustainability agenda would have unacceptable economic and social consequences in the short term. Therefore, a balancing of these three areas of concern may be more realistic. In practice, we now have a situation where business and industry tend to focus on the economic aspects, even proposing the concept of ‘sustainable growth’. This is something they understand and can comprehend, although most environmentalists, such as Daly who describes such a concept as ‘an oxymoron’ (1999: 50) are less inclined to feel the same. Nonetheless, environmental thinking on sustainability continues to inform the rolling definitions of sustainability and thus continues to underpin them with a more radical environmental agenda. The essence, though, is that the three elements are equal and that they interact dynamically (Fig. 10.2).

Environmental thinking has moved on since these ideas were enshrined in the 1980s. A greater sense of urgency now informs environmental thinking and it is likely that less proactive firms throughout industry and business will have a rude awakening, as government and NGOs will increasingly give at least equal weight to the social and environmental elements. They will also find that some of their competitors are already there.

There are other concepts that should also be considered. One of these is diversity. This principle is enshrined in Agenda 21 and the Rio international agreement on biodiversity. However, there is a growing feeling that diversity generally is of value. It reduces risk – as a threat to one element does not necessarily threaten the system – and allows greater creativity and hence more rapid and more flexible progress. Thus in their own way, linguistic diversity and cultural diversity, for example, have been promoted as valuable. We could perhaps add to this economic diversity, and also technological diversity, both of which can be expressed in many different ways. This issue will be returned to in Chapter 14.

One of the key concepts of sustainability is that of our responsibility for generations yet to come. This is actually quite a complex concept, which requires a bit of analysis; something for which we have no capacity in this book. However, those readers wishing to explore this concept further could consult Daly (1999: 51–6), and particularly Chapter 6 of Attfield (1991).

Society

To survive on this planet we need clean air and clean water to stay healthy and clothes to keep warm when it is cold. For years, the means to provide these requirements has been at the expense of polluting both the air and the water, and steps have to be taken to reduce or eliminate what are collectively known as ‘greenhouse gases’.

The increase in consumerism and the proliferation of more and more electronic devices give rise to a greater and greater demand on the earth's resources. It is up to people and society in general to curb this plunder by demanding a more sustainable form of extraction and utilization. A balance has to be struck between demand and supply, but too often the demand is being created deliberately by companies (usually by vigorous advertising) to sell their products. One obvious example is the clothing industry, which has fostered the fashion concept in order to keep the factories producing clothes which are deemed to be out of fashion half a year later. This undoubtedly enriches the manufacturers, distributors and retailers, but it results in the premature waste of the products and the inevitable diminution of the earth's resources such as oil or gas, from which many of the fabrics are made. Even the more sustainable fibres such as wool or cotton should not be squandered on garments whose lifespan is no more than a few weeks. It can be seen therefore that the scope for society to improve sustainability in this industry alone is enormous.

Another area where people can bring pressure to bear is packaging. This is in some ways even more in need of reform, because the pollution to our waterways and oceans from discarded plastic products is also killing or poisoning marine life which we need to feed the world's ever-expanding population. It could also of course be argued that this potential over-population should be controlled, and efforts have been made in some countries to tackle this problem. However, it has been found that legislation to limit the sizes of families is not a long-term solution. The most effective way to do this is by education and changes to outdated customs and practices.

As previously mentioned, electronic devices consume rare metals which will have to be recycled to a much greater extent than currently to ensure the future production of the very appliances in which they have been incorporated. Whether some of these devices are really necessary is an open question. Does a healthy human really require a servo to throw a simple light switch? How far can we go with the ‘Internet of Things’ without losing the use of our muscles which we then have to re-build using another electronically controlled device in a gym. The scope for a re-assessment is huge. Many products are manufactured in such a way that it is either impossible or uneconomical to repair them. If it were possible to easily replace individual components instead of scrapping the whole device, huge savings could be made in terms of basic materials, even it means spending a little more time on the repair.

The recycling of domestic refuse is now well established in most western economies.

Metals, paper, glass, plastics, garden waste and food waste are now separated by the householder and collected by the local authority for recycling. The residue can then be sent to landfill or ideally burnt in a refuse incineration plant which produces steam for district heating and/or electricity generation. In one case, the separation of waste by the residents of one German local authority was so effective that a new state-of-the-art combined incineration and power generating plant was shut down because the remaining waste material delivered to the plant from the catchment area had insufficient calorific value.

2.1.3 Corporate Sustainability

Sustainability could be assessed at different levels, including the project level introduced in previous sections within building and infrastructure sectors, and the organization level. The adoption of SD at the firm level has been a success (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002). Since mid-1990s, SD has been shifted toward business, and eco-efficiency became a guiding principle in corporate strategies (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002). Transposing the concept of sustainability to the business context, corporate sustainability was defined by Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) as “meeting the needs of a firm’s direct and indirect stakeholders (such as shareholders, employees, clients, pressure groups, communities, etc.), without compromising its ability to meet the needs of future stakeholders as well.” Other definitions of corporate sustainability (e.g., Shrivastava, 1995; Starik and Rands, 1995) in the mid-1990s were highly weighted on ecological sustainability, while some other definitions of corporate sustainability in 2000s (e.g., Banerjee, 2003; Bansal, 2005) tended to be more comprehensive covering other criteria such as economical, social, and environmental aspects. The relationship between business and social sustainability has been receiving more attention (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002).

Baumgartner and Ebner (2010) perceived corporate sustainability as SD incorporated by the organization. Similar to Dyllick and Hockerts (2002), Baumgartner and Ebner (2010) also considered corporate sustainability containing the three pillars of SD (i.e., economical, ecological, and social aspects). The triple dimensions within corporate sustainability were described by Baumgartner and Ebner (2010) with details as summarized in Table 2.6.

Table 2.6. Strategies of Corporate Sustainability

Source: Adapted from Baumgartner, R.J., Ebner, D., 2010. Corporate sustainability strategies: sustainability profiles and maturity levels. Sustain. Develop. 18(2), 76–89.