the “four spheres” framework for sustainability

e c o l o g i c a l c o m p l e x i t y 3 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 2 8 5 – 2 9 2

Viewpoint

The ‘‘Four Spheres’’ framework for sustainability

Martin O’Connor a,b,*aUniversite de Versailles St-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ), FrancebCentre d’Economie et d’Ethique pour l’Environnement et le Developpement, C3ED—UMR No. 063, UVSQ et IRD,

47 boulevard Vauban, 78047 Guyancourt Cedex, France

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:

Complexity

Deliberation

Economy

Environment

Ethics

Governance

Multi-criteria evaluation

Politics

Social dimension

Sustainability

Triple bottom line

a b s t r a c t

This paper presents in a synthetic way, a complex systems perspective on sustainability that

highlights systems integrity and ethical integrity as complements. Sustainability is char-

acterised as coevolution of economic, social and environmental systems respecting a

dynamic ‘‘triple bottom line’’—the simultaneous satisfaction of quality/performance goals

pertaining to each of the three spheres. The theme of system regulation and governance

leads to demarcation of a fourth fundamental category of organisation, the political sphere

whose role is regulation of the economic and social spheres and thus of relations with (and

within) the environmental sphere. Perspectives for the application of this ‘‘Tetrahedral

Model’’ in sustainability science and policy analyses are outlined, relating to the ‘‘four

capitals’’ and to the question of monetary evaluation of changes in social and environ-

mental domains. The paper concludes by making a link between the triple bottom line,

complexity and deliberation in sustainability politics.

# 2007 Published by Elsevier B.V.

avai lab le at www.sc iencedi rec t .com

journal homepage: ht tp : / /www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /ecocom

1. Sustainability and the ‘‘Four Spheres’’

The systems approach to sustainability (Passet, 1979) high-

lights the interdependence of three ‘‘spheres’’ or classes of

system: the economic, the social and the environmental. This

is an asymmetric interdependence: economic production,

exchange, transport and consumption activities are

embedded within the social sphere (with its affective,

symbolic and material dimensions); human community

(including the ‘‘economic’’) is embedded as a component of

biophysical processes within the biosphere.

The economic sphere, often the principal focus of develop-

ment policy discourses and indicators, thus depends for its

viability on the vitality of the social and environmental spheres.

In economics jargon, environmental assets are now considered

‘‘natural capital’’ that is both limited and fragile. A similar

* Tel.: +33 1 39 25 53 75; fax: +33 1 39 25 53 00.E-mail address: [email protected].

1476-945X/$ – see front matter # 2007 Published by Elsevier B.V.doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.02.002

argument may be made for the social sphere, where cultural

forms, symbolic bonds and community infrastructures are

identified as ‘‘social capital’’ upon which economic perfor-

mance completely depends. To the extent that activity of ‘‘the

economy’’ has ‘‘negative impacts’’ on social and environmental

systems, it may be that the economic activity is undermining

the conditions for long run sustainability. It follows that an

essential component of governance for sustainability must be

the regulation of the economic sphere in relation to the two

other spheres, so as to ensure a respect for conditions of natural

and social system integrity upon which long-run economic

activity depends. However this is only one facet of the overall

governance challenge. Achieving sustainability would mean a

process of co-evolution respecting a ‘‘triple bottom line’’, that is,

the simultaneous respect for (or satisfaction of) quality/

performance goals pertaining to each of the three spheres.

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.02.002

Fig. 1 – Governance for sustainability: the ‘‘Four Spheres’’.


This ‘‘triple bottom line’’ as a normative reference point

proposed by and for a society, is a complex quality criterion. It

affirms that economic activity, while having its specific

imperatives (innovation, competitive search for profits, etc.)

and a certain organizational autonomy, must be nonetheless

‘‘in the service of’’ the wider social sphere; it presumes that

society’s purposes or values include environmental sustain-

ability; finally it presumes that the biophysical environment

does hold the potentialities for some meaningful sort of long-

run sustaining of economy and society. This means that

prospects of and policy norms for sustainability cannot be

defined for the three spheres separately. On the contrary,

analyses of the challenges of governance for sustainability

must propose a characterization not only of principles of

performance and quality in each sphere, but also of the basis

for regulating the interactions between the three spheres.

Each sphere being interdependent (one way and another)

with the others, a variety of claims will be made about the

roles that are, or should be (or should not be) played by one

sphere relative to the others. These ‘‘claims’’ (or exactions, or

pressures, etc.) may be in conflict and incompatible, and these

conflicts must somehow be resolved. Speaking of choice,

conflict resolution and governance implies agency, and so we

are led to postulate a fourth category of organisation, the

political sphere, which is constituted through the emergence

within society of conventions, rules and institutional frame-

works for the regulation of the economic and social spheres

and, indirectly, the environmental sphere. This leads to a

systems model of ‘‘Four Spheres’’, here named the tetrahedral

model of sustainability (see tables and diagrammatic pre-

sentation below). Analyses for sustainability must focus

attention on the interfaces, the interactions and the inter-

dependencies between the economic, social and environ-

mental spheres, on the characterization of principles of

performance and quality in each sphere, and on the principles

of rights, respect or responsibility proposed for one sphere in

relation to another. The political sphere has the role of the

‘‘referee’’ that arbitrates in relation to the different – and often

incompatible – claims made by the actors of the social and

economic sphere for themselves and with regard to the other

spheres (including the environmental sphere).

If we consider interfaces between each pair of ‘‘spheres’’

(that is, two different ‘types’ of organization), then with the

four spheres there are six pairings. In Fig. 1, these are

portrayed as the ‘‘edges’’ of the tetrahedron. We may also

use a simple 4 � 4 matrix array to present the facets of

analysis, as in Table 1, in which the diagonal cells evoke

performance concepts and criteria that relate principally to a

single organizational form, and the off diagonal cells signal

performance concepts and criteria arising as ‘‘interferences’’

of two organizational forms.

The interface aspects can be characterized through

investigation of the ‘‘claims’’ or ‘‘demands’’ made by each

sphere relative to the others. Systems analyses focus on the

roles, services or behavior that is needed of, expected of, or

sought by one sphere from each of the other spheres, in order

to permit its ‘‘good functioning’’. This requires not just

biophysical and economic modeling but also analyses with

explicit anthropological, symbolic and moral dimensions that

highlight the reasons, meanings, principles and purposes

attached to these demands or expectations. In particular, in

explaining the functioning of the political sphere, it is

necessary to investigate the justifications emanating from

the social and economic sphere for this or that principle of

need, respect or responsibility for any one sphere in relation to

another.

In reality, of course, many issues involve ‘‘cumulative

causation’’ with the interference of all four organizational

forms. In a fundamental sense, it is meaningless to treat any

sphere or interface in isolation from the others (e.g., the

economic and political are inseparable from the social, and the

economic cannot exist without the environmental, etc.). The

restriction to a pair-wise classification of interfaces is didactic

but artificial. For analytical purposes, it is convenient to

highlight as complementary: (1) descriptions centred on the

internal functioning of each sphere having a degree of

autonomy relative to the other spheres; (2) descriptions of

interactions between two spheres. Through following a

sequence of binary links, we can build up examples of ‘‘causal

pathways’’ of influence ramifying through the whole system. In

Table 2, we present some of the distinctive features of the four

spheres and their six interfaces. The rest of this short paper

discusses, with reference to existing themes in the literature,

some options and conventions for application of this ‘‘Tetra-

hedral Model’’ in sustainability science and policy analyses.

2. Systems science and societal choices

Since the 1980s, scientific fields such as ecological economics

and model-based integrated environmental assessment (IEA)

have addressed the interdependencies between the economic

and environmental spheres, characterised on the interface by,

on the one hand, environmental pressures and, on the other

hand, environmental functions/services. Governance on this

interface seeks to ensure a double performance criterion: (1)

economic welfare through production of economic goods and

services as emphasised in traditional economics, and (2) the

permanence of an ecological welfare base through assuring

Table 1 – The Four Spheres and their interfaces

e c o l o g i c a l c o m p l e x i t y 3 ( 2 0 0 6 ) 2 8 5 – 2 9 2 287

maintenance of environmental functions. For integrated

analyses of sustainability challenges, societal options can be

framed in a comparative scenario context for the exploration

of the ‘‘ecological-economic space of opportunities’’ for

society into the future. This means to explore, within the

limits of what might be feasible, a range of alternative

evolutions that, on various societal grounds, might be judged

as more or less desirable, or undesirable.

The Tetrahedral Model (Fig. 1) may, in this regard, be

construed as the articulation of two complementary axes that

together, portray ‘‘the problem of social choice’’.

� T
he first axis, feasibility, is the ‘‘edge’’ composed of the
interdependent ecological and economic spheres. This is the

realm of systems science and integrated economy-environ-

ment modelling.

� T
he second axis, desirability, is the ‘‘edge’’ composed by the
interference of the political and social spheres. This signifies

the governance problem of institutional arrangements for

coordination of the actors in society with their disparate

interests and preoccupations.

The advantage of this framing is that it highlights the

fundamental complementarity of, on the one hand, systems

analyses with natural sciences foundations and, on the other

hand, social sciences and humanities for the characterisation of

what is good, justand acceptable (includingfor whom and why).

As another illustration of the ‘‘interference’’ of societal

with economic-environmental systems science considera-

tions, we can consider the ‘‘social demand’’ for respect of the

environment as it emergence in principles and practices of

corporate social responsibility (CSR). Since the 1970s, in the

face of concerns expressed in the social sphere for justice and

environmental quality in development, actors in the economic

sphere have been subjected to new societal demands to

demonstrate respect for the natural environment and for the

integrity and viability of communities. In effect, governance

concepts have been promulgated from the political sphere

under the heading of CSR that propose a ‘‘triple bottom line’’ in

industrial and commercial practice. For example, in the words

of the European Commission (EC, 2001):

‘‘By expressing their Social Responsibility, companies are

affirming their role in social and territorial cohesion, quality

and environment. Through production, employment rela-

tions, and their investments, companies are able to

influence employment, the quality of jobs and the quality

of industrial relations, including respecting fundamental

rights, equal opportunities, non-discrimination, the quality

of goods and services, health and the environment’’.

This means, substantively, that companies (as actors in the

economic sphere) are required to demonstrate that their

operations are respectful of environmental and social concerns.

It also means, procedurally, that companies are being required,

individually and collectively, to develop new forms of dialogue

with an enlarged spectrum of stakeholders as a basis for their

reporting, strategy definition and decision-making.

Actions for ‘‘CSR’’ address (as the term itself implies) the

social–economic interface but also, indirectly, the economic–

environmental and the social–environmental interfaces. This

happens through the intermediary of the political sphere; and

this highlights that there is more often an indirect link

between the political and environmental spheres than there is

direct ‘‘governance’’ of the environment. The movement from

the political sphere towards the environmental sphere would

consist, in a formal sense, of the ‘‘supply’’ of public policy

aiming to influence the functioning of environmental sys-

tems. Environmental management actions may seek, for

example, to regulate the conditions of access to ‘‘natural

capital’’ as a factor of production of economic goods and

services, to ensure the long-term maintenance (or enhance-

ment) of environmental functions; or in any other way to

promote a ‘‘respect for’’ environment. But, this supply of

environmental governance is mediated by economic and

societal actors. As regards the movement in the opposite

Table 2 – The tetrahedral model for sustainability studies

Component Elements of characterization

The three spheres The ‘‘three spheres’’ . . .

Economic Economic self-organisation, e.g., markets, performance imperatives such as efficiency, growth (K. Marx:

‘‘accumulate, accumulate, its the law and the prophets’’, etc.) governing production, transport and

consumption activities

Social Social self-organisation, notably forms of collective identity and the frameworks of meaning (symbols,

culture, etc.) and of relationships (networks, memberships, etc.) through which people situate

themselves in human communities and within the biophysical world

Environmental Environmental self-organisation, e.g., the dynamic structures of physical and biological activity including

atmosphere and ocean circulation, water and nutrient cycles, living organisms from the virus up to

the scale of the biosphere

The fourth sphere . . . and the institutional arrangements for their governance . . .

Political The governance dimension of organisation is constituted through the emergence of conventions and

procedures for the regulation of each sphere in relation to the others, in order to assure the simultaneous

respect for (or satisfaction of) quality/performance goals pertaining to all three spheres. This is the sphere of

arbitrage amongst diverse principles and claims of interest, achieved de facto or by design through force and

institutional arrangements ranging from town and county councils through national government structures

to international agencies of the United Nations

Policy domains The three domains of governance/regulation

Political, economic Pol to Econ: supply of ‘‘economic policy’’ or ‘‘governance’’ of the economic domain

Econ to Pol: demands (with accompanying arguments, reasons, principles) made on government by

economic actors concerning ‘‘the economy’’ and with regard to the social and environmental spheres

Political) environmental Pol to Env: supply of ‘‘environmental policy’’. Environmental management for sustainability may seek: first,

the contribution of ‘‘natural capital’’ to economic welfare as a factor of production of economic goods and

services; second, the permanence of the ecological welfare base through maintenance of environmental

functions; and third, ‘‘respect for’’ environment

[The Env-to-Pol linkage is presumed to be ‘‘mute’’ because non-human nature does not voice demands

directly in any political forum.]

Political, social Pol to Soci: supply of ‘‘social policy’’ which may seek, in various ways, to mobilise society for the needs

of the economic and/or to promote and ensure respect for specified forms of community (etc.)

Soci to Pol: demands (with accompanying arguments, reasons, principles) made on government concerning

civil society, the community (etc.) and with regard to economic and environmental spheres

Systems interfaces Characterisation of the interfaces of the three spheres

Environmental, economic The economic sphere seeks the ‘‘services’’ of ‘‘natural capital’’ to economic welfare as a factor of

production; this engenders ‘‘environmental pressures’’ and ‘‘impacts’’ on environmental functioning

and (future) services, including (sometimes disruptive) feedback effects on economy and community

Economic, social The economic sphere seeks the ‘‘services’’ of ‘‘human capital’’ (and also of ‘‘social capital’’) to economic

welfare; this signifies, on the one hand (sought-after) opportunities for wealth, revenues, goods and services

but, on the other hand, exploitation and perturbation of existing community forms. For the Social sphere,

the economic is a means and not an end, and the question is whether ‘‘opportunities’’ provided by the

economic are nourishing or perturbing of the affirmed values and forms of community

Social, environmental This is the domain of environmental values and the matrix of ‘‘culture’’ that determines the ‘‘meanings of

nature’’ or the spectrum of ‘‘environmental functions’’ identified by/for a society, e.g., nature as a cosmology,

roles as a ‘‘source’’ of well being or wealth, perceived quality of landscape. This is therefore the

material-symbolic space of meanings that (among other things) permits members of society to articulate

‘‘risks’’ and to affirm values: sustainability of what, why and for whom (e.g., productive land uses,

biodiversity conservation, reverence for nature; rights and duties of the current generation to

consume natural capital relative to rights/duties of respect towards future generations . . .)


sense, from the environmental sphere towards the political

sphere, non-human nature does not voice demands directly in

political forums. Rather, societal demands ‘‘on behalf of the

environment’’ are relayed through other interfaces, notably

via the environmental–social then social–political interfaces,

or the environmental–economic then economic–political

interfaces.

3. The four capitals

Up to this point, the argument has been developed as if the

distinction between economic, social and environmental

spheres is plain and clear. It is not as simple as that. The

economic, social, political and environmental dimensions of

human activity are inter-penetrating and the boundaries

between them are ‘‘fuzzy’’ (in the sense of ‘belonging’ in fuzzy

set theory). Reasoning in terms of governance activity (the

political sphere) addressing a ‘‘triple bottom line’’ (of

sustainability for the social, environmental and economic

spheres) requires us to specify conventions for making the

distinctions between the ‘‘economic’’ and the ‘‘social’’

spheres, between the ‘‘economic’’ and ‘‘environmental’’

spheres, between the ‘‘social’’ and the ‘‘political’’ spheres,

and so on. These questions have long histories in metaphysics,

philosophy and the social sciences. Two specific strands of the

question will be considered here, relating to the concept of

‘‘capital’’ in sustainability analysis and to the uses of


monetary evaluation of changes in social and environmental

domains.

Economic analysis since the 1970s, responding to poverty

and environmental concerns, proposed the framing of

sustainability requirements in terms of the maintenance of

‘‘four capitals’’—the economic, natural, social and human

capitals. Because this ‘‘four capitals’’ model has widespread

currency as a sort of halfway house between economics and

systems science, it is useful to determine how it can be related

to the four spheres of our Tetrahedral Model. In effect, three of

the capitals are, in the economist’s jargon, ‘‘funds’’ corre-

sponding to the three spheres—the economic (built capital),

the environmental (natural capital: land, water and the

biosphere) and the social (social capital as communities and

networks of meaning and shared identity). Human capital, by

contrast, is not associated with any single organisational type.

Rather it is a constituent within each of the four spheres, that

is, a building block for each of the four organisational forms. It

mediates between the economic, environmental and social

spheres (see Fig. 2) and is also a constitutive element of the

fourth (political) sphere: the individual as political actor (voter,

citizen, stakeholder, etc.). The political sphere – which has the

role of ‘‘referee’’ that arbitrates on claims made by the actors

of the social and economic sphere for themselves and with

regard to the environment – has no ‘‘fund’’ or class of capital

specifically associated with it.

The terms ‘‘strong sustainability’’ and ‘‘strong criterion of

sustainability’’ refer, since the 1980s, to the guideline of

maintenance (non-negative change) in the ‘‘stock’’ of natural

capital and, by generalisation, of the other ‘‘funds’’ (social and

human capitals). A simple formulation of strong sustainability

refers to natural capital in aggregate terms, separate from

manufactured capital, and requires non-negative change in

the ‘‘natural capital stock’’ through time. However, there is no

meaningful way of aggregating the grand diversity of natural

resources, environmental services and ecosystems (etc.) so as

to quantify this rule. A more operational approach can be

obtained through introducing the concept of ‘critical natural

capital’ referring to specific environmental resources or

system capacities that perform important welfare support

(or other) functions and for which no substitute in terms of

manufactured, human and social capital exist. Strong sustain-

ability is then framed in terms of the requirement for

maintenance of these environmental capacities or functions,

meaning maintenance of the integrity of the environment

Fig. 2 – Human capital in the four capital model. The four

capitals are the ‘‘FUNDS’’ of the ‘‘three spheres’’ plus

‘‘human capital’’ which is the ‘‘go-between’’ of the three.

(which, in this sense, is considered loosely as a ‘‘fund’’ or a

‘‘capital stock’’ in the economist’s sense, without however

presuming being able to make an aggregate valuation of this

stock). Policy applications will then proceed by specifying of

environmental standards or thresholds below which the

environmental function is not maintained, or there is a

significant risk of it being lost or impaired (etc.). Once targets

are set, cost-effectiveness analyses can be elaborated by

exploring the least-economic-cost way of achieving the

defined norm. This gives an operational meaning to the

notion of ‘‘economic costs for respecting the integrity of the

environment’’ on the interface of the economic and environ-

mental spheres (Faucheux and O’Connor, 2001, 2003).

Returning to our wider Four Spheres framework, a general-

isation of the strong sustainability criterion to require

maintenance of social capital can be proposed formally as a

matter of analogy with this treatment of natural capital. And,

as in the case of natural capital, it rapidly becomes clear that it

is hardly meaningful to quantify an absolute value for the

‘‘fund’’ of social capital. Rather, what is important is to identify

significant changes in the capacities of communities and

societies, and to explore the costs or constraints on economic

activity associated with assuring their integrity through time.

In this way, the framework is established for evaluating

‘‘economic costs for respecting the integrity of social capital’’,

on the interface of the economic and social spheres.

4. Values, evaluation and the frontiers ofmonetization

The language of costs recalls the ongoing debates, whose

precursors go back more than a century, about the role and

limits of monetary valuation techniques in such domains as

human health, education and environmental quality and,

more specifically, for estimating the ‘‘impacts’’ of activities in

the economic sphere on social and environmental systems.

We may introduce the concept of a Monetization Frontier

whose role is to signal thresholds or limits beyond which

assessing trade-offs, choices or the consequences of choices

on the basis of monetary measures alone is of questionable

pertinence. These limits or thresholds may exist for two main

reasons: either the estimation is scientifically very difficult

(due to uncertainties, complexities, non-linearities, etc.), or

the implication of a trade-off is deemed morally inappropriate

(Faucheux and O’Connor, 2001).

This concept of a Monetization Frontier (or, more exactly, a

set of frontiers) functions as a demarcation line separating

phenomena attributed to the economic sphere from phenom-

ena attributed to, respectively, the environmental and social

spheres. In the language of the four capitals, it allows the

demarcation between distinct zones of wealth and commu-

nities of interest considered as non-substitutable and com-

plementary:

� In
the case of natural capital we identify, on one side of the
Monetization Frontier, resources and assets that are valued

within the conventional logic of the economic sphere, that

is, from the point of view of their potential conversion into

commercially priced goods and services (trees into wood


products, for example); and, on the other side, assets that

are valued from the point of view of their permanent roles in

the bio/natural sphere as in situ services as sites, scenery,

scientific interest and ecological life-support in complement

to economic sphere activity.

� In
the case of social capital we may consider, on one side, the
potential of societal assets as factors of production for

economic wealth creation; but, on the other side, we

designate the contours of the social sphere by specifying

the classes of community spanning (present humanity,

future humanity and non-human communities) meriting to

be sustained.

The demarcations between economic and, respectively,

natural and social capitals are thus directly correlated with the

two main axes along which a ‘‘frontier of monetization’’ may

be identified, as suggested in Fig. 3:

� T
he first relates to physical system complexity and, prima
facie with reference to the environmental sphere, concerns

matters of scale and aggregation. Physical and ecological

systems have an autonomy and existence in large measure

independent of human actions. Although vulnerable to

modification under human influence, they are partly

exogenous and pre-existing. This has as one corollary, in

particular where the physical and temporal scales of the

systems under scrutiny are very large (e.g., climate and

marine ecosystems, irreversible genetic and toxic chemical

transformations), the scientific uncertainties about system

dynamics, process interdependencies and (hence) what may

come to pass ‘‘in the longer term’’ are inevitably high. The

definition of relative opportunity costs, as required for

monetary valuation estimates, becomes difficult and some-

times arbitrary.

� T
he second relates to ethical appropriateness and, with
primary reference to the social sphere, concerns the kinds of

value involved. All technology choice, land use, infrastruc-

ture investment and territorial governance (etc.) decisions

have ethical components. These are seen, in some cases, in

questions of present-day fairness (as in north–south redis-

tribution) and in the equity issues relating to future

generations (the opportunities afforded to them and to

Fig. 3 – The Moneti

the dangers and burdens we have imposed), and also in

debates about the moral acceptability and social justifica-

tions for intervening in the genetic integrity of organisms,

destroying habitats of endangered species (and so on).

Where cultural or ethical convictions are fundamental, and

where the values of nature in question involve notions of

respect (for self and for others), of justice and honour,

cultural identity (and so on), then assessment problems take

the form more of arbitration between different principles,

forms of life, forms of community (etc.) to sustain or respect,

than of a comparison of monetary values as in economic

optimisation.

This didactic concept of a Monetization Frontier allows us

to approach questions of policy evaluation and of the ‘‘social

demand’’ for sustainability expressed as principles of respect

for economic, environmental and social/cultural values, in a

rigorous way with a multiple criteria perspective integrating

systems function and ethical commitment aspects. Private

and public policy, investment and stewardship decisions

respond to the various demands made by actors from the

social and the economic spheres, towards the political sphere:

� c

za

laims about what should be respected and sustained (in the

economic, social and environmental spheres),

� a
ccompanied by propositions of reasons why these things
should be respected and sustained.

Proposals for environmental protection or the mainte-

nance of ‘‘critical natural capital’’ will often be justified by

systems-type arguments of the need for these environmental

functions as a pre-condition for economic (and social)

sustainability. But they will also, very often, be justified in

terms of ethical or environmentalist attitudes that affirm a

duty or desire for respect of the existence of the environmental

features in question, and/or of the forms of community

(human and otherwise) supported by these environments. In

other words, the ethical appropriateness considerations

(signalled along the horizontal axis of Fig. 3), which relate to

moral and cultural determinants of the pertinence of

monetary valuations, are as much pertinent for the environ-

mental as for the social sphere.

tion Frontier.


5. Conclusions: the passage from analysis todeliberation

Within a sustainability framework, any strategic assessment

therefore needs to make reference to two sets of principles—

‘‘systems integrity’’ and ‘‘ethical integrity’’. The systems

integrity concern can be translated, in general terms, as the

principle of maintenance of the ‘‘four capitals’’. A necessary

complement is added by considerations along ethical planes,

namely the application of a principle of respect for multiple

classes of community. This ‘‘social dimension’’ of sustain-

ability performance assessment is given operational definition

through a sort of ‘‘ethical appropriateness’’ test, epitomised by

expressions such as ‘‘save the whales’’ or ‘‘you don’t sell your

own grandmother’’—declarations that point to something

other than a purely economic/utilitarian motive for the

respect of systems integrity, whether in the environmental

or social domain.

But principles of respect are not panaceas. On the contrary,

there arise, in every sustainability policy domain, difficult

questions of fairness in the distribution of opportunities,

benefits, costs and risks within each community of interest.

This suggests a two-tiered framework for the articulation of

performance goals or criteria with reference to diverse

stakeholder communities.

� T
he primary level of analysis would specify obligations of
respect for the stakeholder classes or communities given

standing—in other words, identification of the classes of

community meriting respect and of the forms or norms for

expression of that respect. (Given the ‘monopoly’ presence

of the present generation, it is up to today’s policymakers

and citizens to affirm duties towards – or, by proxy, the

‘entitlements’ of – future generations, endangered species

and ecosystems, vulnerable peoples, etc.)

� T
he second level of analysis would address fairness or
unfairness in access to services, distribution of opportu-

nities, vulnerability, stresses and risks (etc.) within each

class.

Questions of which principles, values or classes of

community are to be sustained, or of what criterion of

fairness or justice to apply, are often controversial and difficult

to resolve. Social and environmental dimensions of evaluation

analysis are always interlinked, because there are always

asymmetries of need and of access to environmental benefits

(and of exposure to harms or risks) between different classes

of stakeholders. Very often, a plurality of reasonable con-

siderations can be put forward, which cannot all simulta-

neously be respected. This is the meaning of the question that

might have been made this short paper’s title: Sustainability of

what, for whom and why? In some situations, qualitative

considerations such as non-violence and poverty alleviation

can provide benchmarks for respect of specific classes of

system or community, or sectors within any given commu-

nity. Indicators may be selected that signal when a community

(human or non-human) is in danger, and directions to move

away from danger (viz., reduce the community’s vulnerabil-

ity). But, very often, there is not a societal consensus on the

distribution of sustainability.

In such conditions of controversy, more information (in the

systems science and even social science modes) does not

necessarily lead closer to resolution of ‘‘what should be

done?’’. On the contrary, sustainability policy must often

address situations characterised by complexity, which, for our

purposes, can be evoked through three considerations that

reinforce and interfere with each other:

� S
cientific knowledge advising of irreducible uncertainties
and/or irreversibilities associated with courses of action.

� P
lurality of value systems, political and moral convictions,
and justification criteria within society.

� H
igh decision stakes including economic interests and
strategic security concerns for nations or ethnic minorities

(etc.), and also consequences of environmental change for

public health, organism integrity and future economic

possibilities.

These features – characteristic of what Funtowicz and

Ravetz (1990, 1994) call ‘‘post-normal’’ situations, or what

Rittel (1982) and others have termed ‘‘wicked problems’’, of

what O’Connor (2002) refers to as ‘‘impossible’’ social choice

dilemmas – make it difficult to formulate and justify simple

rules of action. Apparently simple desiderata such as

‘‘maximum net benefit’’ (with monetary cost-benefit ana-

lysis) or ‘‘avoid risks’’ (with the precautionary principle) fall

down because, either they do not adequately address the

decision issues (viz., they do not furnish a clear ‘‘counsel’’

about what to do), or the way that they do this does not have

plausibility or acceptability to key stakeholders. There is no

clear bridge between knowledge and right action. This

does not mean that a reasoned use of a scientific knowledge

base for policy is impossible. What it means is that,

if reasoned basis for action is to be established for ‘‘post-

normal’’, ‘‘wicked’’ or ‘‘impossible’’ problems, then knowl-

edge and reasoning must be employed in a deliberative

way.

In the Four Spheres model, a deliberative political

process is very fundamentally necessary as the process of

exploring and building a future together. Sustainability

politics are about mobilising resources in perspectives of

respect and reconciliation across several axes and over the

long term (O’Connor, 1995; Martinez-Alier et al., 1999). In

addressing the multiple bottom lines, the challenge is to

work with a permanent ‘‘argumentation’’ between the

several contradictory positions. In the words of Rittel

(1982), an analyst needs to be like a ‘‘midwife of problems’’,

helping to raise into visibility, ‘‘questions and issues

towards which you can assume different positions, and

with the evidence gathered and arguments built for and

against these different positions’’. Collective action is like

the decision to build a boat in order, as Rittel puts it, to

‘‘embark on the risk together’’. By accepting the dilemmas of

evaluating performance against multiple bottom lines of

systems integrity and ethical engagement, explored across

economic, social and environmental spheres that are

coevolving through time, we admit the complexities – both

scientific and moral – of sustainability questions, at the

same time as defining clear roles for science, human

science, economics, and political process.


r e f e r e n c e s

EC, 2001. EU CSR Green Paper: Promoting a EuropeanFramework for Corporate Social Responsibility.COM (2001) 366 Final, European Commission,Brussels.

Faucheux, S., O’Connor, M., 2001. Natural capital, the greenednational product and the monetization frontier. In: vanIerland, E., van der Straaten, J., Vollebergh, H. (Eds.),Economic Growth and Valuation of the Environment.Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 225–274.

Faucheux, S., O’Connor, M., 2003. Le Capital Naturel et laDemande Sociale pour les Biens et les ServicesEnvironnementaux. In: Leveque, C., van der Leeuw, S.(Eds.), Quelles Natures Voulons-nous? Pour une approchesocio-ecologique du chanp de l’environnement. Elsevier,Paris, pp. 86–109.

Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., 1990. Uncertainty and Quality inScience for Policy. Kluwer Academic Press,Dordrecht.

Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., 1994. The worth of a songbird:ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecol. Econ.10, 197–207.

Martinez-Alier, J., Munda, G., O’Neill, J., 1999. Commensurabilityand compensability in ecological economics. In: O’Connor,M., Spash, C.L. (Eds.), Valuation and the Environment:Theory, Method and Practice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,UK, pp. 37–59.

O’Connor, M., 1995. La Reciprocite Introuvable: L’utilitarisme deJohn Stuart Mill et la recherche d’une ethique pour lasoutenabilite. Economie Appliquee 48, 271–304.

O’Connor, M., 2002. Social costs and sustainability. In: Bromley,D.H., Paavola, J. (Eds.), Economics, Ethics andEnvironmental Policy: Contested Choices. BlackwellPublishing, Oxford, UK/Malden, MA, USA, pp. 181–202.

Passet, R., 1979/1996. L’Economique et le Vivant. Payot, Paris(2nd edition 1996, Economica, Paris).

Rittel, H., 1982. Systems analysis of the ‘first and secondgenerations’. In: Laconte, P., Gibson, J., Rapoport, A. (Eds.),Human and Energy Factors in Urban Planning. NATOAdvanced Study Institutes Series, Martinus Nijhoff, TheHague, pp. 35–63.

the “four spheres” framework for sustainability

Documents