in oduc ion
Ana Delicado
Nuno Domingos
Luís de Sousa
edi o s
12 he di e se wo lds o sus ainabili y
In 2015 ics elec ed sus ainabili y as one o he h ee main s a egic pilla s,
seeking o unde s and he socioecological, socioeconomic, echno-scien i ic,
and go e nance dynamics ha p eside o e ans o ma ions and ansi ions
o mo e sus ainable, esilien , and wellbeing-p omo ing socie ies, by s udying
he p ac ices, ins i u ions, p ocesses, and public policies ha a ec , posi i ely
o nega i ely, hese ansi ions. ics has a long adi ion o pe o ming esea ch
on he social aspec s o en i onmen al sus ainabili y, mos ly based on he
wo k o esea che s om di e en a eas wi hin he social sciences. In he
1990s i pa ne ed wi h isc e-iul o c ea e Obse a – The Obse a o y o
En i onmen and Socie y, which pionee ed he i s la ge scale public opinion
su eys in Po ugal on en i onmen al pe cep ions, a i udes, and beha iou s.
Sus ainabili y is a he co e o o he scien i ic ac i i ies, such as pos g adua e
aining (PhD P og amme in Clima e Change and Sus ainable De elopmen
Policies, summe schools), public consul a ions (Wo ld Wide Views on
Clima e and Ene gy in 2015) and ou each.
Sus ainabili y is a concep ha has gained p ominence in he pas h ee
decades, especially ollowing he 1992 Uni ed Na ions Rio Con e ence. The
mos commonly used meaning o sus ainable de elopmen s ems om he
B un land Repo (1987), and de ines i as “de elopmen ha mee s he needs
o he p esen wi hou comp omising he abili y o u u e gene a ions o mee
hei own needs”.
The concep has en e ed public deba e and he poli ical agenda o na ional
go e nmen s, in e -go e nmen al ( he un) and sup ana ional ( he Eu opean
Union) o ganiza ions, business companies, ci il socie y o ganiza ions, and
e en academia, wi hou a consensus necessa ily exis ing o e i s meaning.
Sus ainabili y has been used o classi y a ple ho a o di e en , and a imes
con adic o y, p ac ices, om co po a e social esponsibili y o gene a ing
alue o sha eholde s, om g een economy o an icapi alis ic de-g ow h,
om gi ing p io i y o he needs o dep i ed popula ions o p ese ing he
esou ces o u u e gene a ions.
Al hough concep ual discussions end o ocus on he ecological
dimension, sus ainabili y encompasses ou in e dependen pilla s o equal
impo ance: socio-cul u al, economic, en i onmen al, and go e nance. The
no ion o pilla s may no be he mos adequa e o unde s and he dynamics
o he concep , since he implemen a ion p ocess may highligh di e en
combina ions o hese dimensions. No su p isingly, he 17 Sus ainable
De elopmen Goals, de ined by he Uni ed Na ions in 2015, include a wide
in oduc ion 13
ange o objec i es, such as ending po e y and p omo ing good heal h, quali y
educa ion, gende equali y, enewable ene gy, building e ec i e, accoun able,
and inclusi e ins i u ions a all le els o go e nmen , employmen , sus ainable
ci ies, esponsible consump ion, and peace and jus ice. The e a e o be pu sued
h ough an in eg a ed app oach by aking in o conside a ion “ he deep
in e connec ions and many c oss-cu ing elemen s ac oss he new Goals and
a ge s” (un ga, a/ es/70/1, 25 Sep embe 2015, “T ans o ming ou wo ld:
he 2030 Agenda o Sus ainable De elopmen ”, pa ag aph 17).
G ounded on epis emological deba es and empi ical case s udies, many
ques ions can be aised in o de o p oblema ize esea ch on sus ainabili y:
How do di e en social ac o s de ine sus ainabili y? Wha in e es s and
powe s uggles lie benea h con lic ing de ini ions? How can p og ess
owa d achie ing sus ainabili y goals be measu ed and compa ed? A e sdg
Goals and a ge s o be achie ed a he same pace by all s a e pa ies o is
he e oom o a di e en ia ed me hod o implemen a ion? Is p og ess made
o a se ies o go e nmen al decisions ha ha e o ake in o accoun a ious
socie al p io i ies? Wha a e he oppo uni y cos s a ached o hese goals
and a ge s and a e he e alue ade-o s? Wha challenges a e aced in he
ansi ion o mo e sus ainable socie ies in di e en domains, such as ene gy,
ood, and anspo a ion? How does public policy add ess sus ainabili y in
bo h discou se and p ac ice? How do social and demog aphic ends a ec
sus ainable de elopmen ? How do he ou pilla s ha b oadly de ined he
concep o sus ainable de elopmen ela e o each o he ? Can en i onmen al
sus ainabili y be socially un ai ? Wha is he connec ion be ween sus ainabili y
policies and he scale o poli ical in e en ion? How local is sus ainabili y? Can
solid sus ainabili y policies be de eloped in a con ex o s a e compe i ion?
Does sus ainabili y suppo a Wes e n pe spec i e o de elopmen ?
The de ini ion o he scope o he esea ch objec is a dispu ed ma e . One
o he mos dynamic esea ch issues on sus ainabili y is i s ich concep ual
deba e. The s uggle o an in elligible and comp ehensi e concep is
undamen al o i s unde s anding and measu emen as well as i s policy
and poli ical implica ions. In a scien i ic ield in which applied esea ch is
pa icula ly cen al, he concep ual and me hodological cons uc acqui es
signi ican social, economic, and poli ical ele ance.
Fo his olume, we ha e sough con ibu ions ha p oblema ize he concep
o sus ainabili y on heo e ical, me hodological, and empi ical g ounds. We
aimed a chap e s ha , based on di e en esea ch p ojec s and disciplina y
14 he di e se wo lds o sus ainabili y
adi ions, s ike a balance be ween ele an , c i ical, and audacious gene al
heo e ical ques ions and deba es and empi ical da a (quan i a i e and
quali a i e).
he e e -g owing wo ld o sus ainabili y
A g oup o au onomous uni e ses o issues and p oblems ha e p og essi ely
eme ged om he de elopmen o sus ainabili y s udies and policies in
he las decades. I s ele ance e lec s he idea ha , unde s ood as a global
phenomenon, sus ainabili y depends on a se o in e dependencies ha mus
be me in o de o achie e balanced objec i es and policies, as he bene i s
o en i onmen al o economic sus ainabili y a e no linea ly ela ed o o he
sus ainabili y goals.
Take he example o he ill-de ined wo ld o social sus ainabili y. The un’s
de ini ion o social sus ainabili y includes p inciples and goals ha o e lap
wi h i s own ins i u ional policies on human igh s, labou policies, educa ion,
gende , p o ec ion o child en, p o ec ion o mino i y g oups, and p o ec ion
o indigenous communi ies. Howe e , he un concei es he economic
sphe e and speci ically he ac i i ies o companies as he p i ileged uni e ses
h ough which social sus ainabili y is achie ed: “Social sus ainabili y is abou
iden i ying and managing business impac s, bo h posi i e and nega i e, on
people. The quali y o a company’s ela ionships and engagemen wi h i s
s akeholde s is c i ical. Di ec ly o indi ec ly, companies a ec wha happens
o employees, wo ke s in he alue chain, cus ome s and local communi ies,
and i is impo an o manage p oac i ely”.1
As an economic uni , he company ac s in he na ional space, subjec o
no ms de ined wi hin he na ion-s a e, bu in many dimensions i is also an
in e na ional ac o .2 Companies, especially la ge ones wi h a mul ina ional
1 h ps://www.unglobalcompac .o g/wha -is-gc/ou -wo k/social accessed 10/7/2018).
2 In addi ion o complying wi h na ional laws, he company mus espec in e na ional law and
con en ions, such as hose o he Human Righ s Con en ion (In e na ional Bill o Human Righ s,
Human Righ s T ansla ed), and he con en ions o he In e na ional Labo O ganiza ion. The Guiding
P inciples on Business and Human Righ s is one o he mos equen ly ci ed documen s as a means o
aming social sus ainabili y policies, encou aging companies o comply wi h laws and objec i es, and
epo ing p oblems on he g ound o ins i u ions such as he Global Repo ing Ini ia i e and Business
and Human Righ s Resou ce Cen e .
in oduc ion 15
na u e, a e expec ed o play a leading ole in p omo ing social sus ainabili y,
pa icula ly in na ional con ex s whe e human igh s and labou igh s
iola ions a e ecu en .3 The un ecommends ha companies mus in e ene
in he supply chain decision-making by ac ing on a di e se se o a eas:
heal h, educa ion, housing condi ions, a i ma i e ac ion, labou igh s, and
communi y sus ainabili y. Companies mus commi o hese ecommenda ions
and be moni o ed by expe s. Failu e o comply wi h co po a e esponsibili y
policies o complacency wi h in ac ions has economic consequences o
businesses: lowe p oduc i i y, loss o b and alue, boyco campaigns,
lawsui s, go e nmen ac ions, and bad en i onmen wi h he compe i ion.
Acco ding o his app oach o social sus ainabili y, poo wo king condi ions,
o ced labou , insu icien emune a ion, lack o espec o ade union igh s
and eedom o associa ion and collec i e ba gaining, gende disc imina ion,
child labou , and seg ega ion o mino i ies and he disabled migh be
de imen al o business.
This ideal ype o esponsible company, ac ing in a global economic space,
is con on ed wi h agendas o o he poli ical and social uni s: ansna ional
poli ical and economic blocs, na ions, egions, and ci ies. The un
ecommenda ions sugges ha companies, in acco dance wi h in e na ional
con en ions, should challenge poli ical and social models and cul u al and
eligious amewo ks ha c ea e obs acles o social sus ainabili y goals.
The e o e, he ineluc able p ocess o globaliza ion is assumed along wi h he
inabili y o s a es, pa icula ly in unde de eloped coun ies, o ensu e espec
o human, labou , women’s and mino i y igh s, and he inabili y o s a e
ins i u ions o gua an ee a ee ci il socie y, which in mos cases p o es o be
weak.
I he “plane ” is he scale om which social sus ainabili y issues a e
de ined, esea ch, policies, and ins i u ions mus deal wi h he eme gence
o a plane a y socie y. I is as a unc ion o his plane a y socie y ha global
objec i es, which a e undamen al o c ea ing a socially sus ainable daily
li e, a e o be conside ed. The concep ion o he plane as a whole is key o
c ea ing ci izenship dynamics ha s and beyond hose his o ically de ined
by na ion-s a es. This is e en mo e impo an because a eas as c i ical as
po e y, inequali y, access o educa ion, gende equali y, and he inclusion o
3 In his ega d companies should consul documen s such as Mee ing he Responsibili y o Respec in
Si ua ion o Con lic ing Legal Requi emen s and con o m o in e na ional s anda ds.

16 he di e se wo lds o sus ainabili y
mino i ies demand global solu ions Howe e , he emission o ins i u ional
esponsibili y o achie ing social sus ainabili y goals o he co po a e sphe e
e eals some o he weaknesses o his global ep esen a ion.
In his olume he chap e s ha di ec ly add ess he issue o social
sus ainabili y, o ha do so indi ec ly, a e signi ican ly conce ned abou he
e ec s o public policies, o he absence he eo . This ce ainly does no mean
ha case s udies loca ed a na ional o e en a smalle scales igno e global
dimensions. None heless, i is on a na ional scale ha many o he a icles in
his olume ocus, in es iga ing he e ec s o educa ional, ag icul u al, labou ,
de elopmen , and scien i ic policies. Be ween hese case s udies and a globally
de ised agenda he e seems o be an ins i u ional gap. In he Eu opean Union
mos o he na ional ins i u ions conce ned wi h social sus ainabili y ha e
been deeply a ec ed by economic globaliza ion. The ins i u ional amewo k
p o ided by he eu ins i u ions o ackle he p og essi e inabili y o na ional
social p o ec ion sys ems is eeble and a guably less de eloped han he
ins i u ional ne wo k ha p omo es and egula es economic exchanges.
The esea ch ocus on s a e ins i u ions ans e sal o he a ious case
s udies p esen ed in his collec i e olume seems o sugges ha he na ion-
s a e emains he locus whe e mos policies and measu es o cu b si ua ions o
social unsus ainabili y a e de eloped and implemen ed. In eu membe s a es,
public ins i u ions, unlike companies, espond o democ a ically elec ed
go e nmen s, which in i sel is no a gua an ee o e iciency o p o ec ion
agains global p oblems, bu g an s legi imacy o poli ical ac ion and
makes poli ical decisions and ou comes subjec o sc u iny. Assuming ha
i is undamen al o achie e global social sus ainabili y and a pos -na ional
wo ld iew, as sugges ed by global p og ammes such as hose p esen in he
sdgs, i is no clea wha he ins i u ional scales a e, a a Eu opean le el and
beyond, o which hese goals a icula e.
Se e al au ho s in his book ha e oiced hei conce n abou he agueness
o he de ini ion o social sus ainabili y, which is some imes oo abs ac , wide,
di icul o measu e, and ha d o a icula e wi h o he o ms o sus ainabili y
and/o he lack o p ope ins i u ions o add ess i .4
These concep ual, me hodological, and policy ambigui ies a e also common
o o he dimensions o sus ainabili y, such as go e nance sus ainabili y. In 2013
a High Le el Panel o Eminen Pe sons was con ened by he Uni ed Na ions o
4 On he eebleness o he concep see Bos öm (2012).
in oduc ion 17
ecommend new goals and a ge s a e 2015, when he o iginal mdgs we e se
o expi e. The Repo o he Sec e a y-Gene al’s High-Le el Panel O Eminen
Pe sons On he Pos -2015 De elopmen Agenda was in o med by a b oad
consul a i e p ocess unde he aegis o di e en un agencies and ne wo ks,
and included he iews o bo h decision-make s and a a ie y o s akeholde s
(businesses, he scien i ic and academic, and csos o all quad an s). Al hough
he Panel’s wo k was mean o ake s ock o he achie emen s o he Millennium
De elopmen Goals (mdgs) o e he pas 13 yea s, wi h a ocus on po e y,
hunge , wa e , sani a ion, educa ion, and heal hca e, he new de elopmen
agenda had a di e en app oach o sus ainabili y.
The mdgs ell sho o in eg a ing he economic, social, and en i onmen al
dimensions o sus ainable de elopmen . Poli ical he o ic, backed by
academia, was now shi ing he a en ion o good go e nance, de ined in
e ms o ins i u ional capaci y, ule o law, accoun abili y, anspa ency, and
wide public pa icipa ion in policymaking (un 1999; Callahan 2007) as a
p econdi ion o sus ainable de elopmen . Sus ainable de elopmen was no
longe ega ded solely in e ms o economic g ow h, social inclusion, and
en i onmen al sus ainabili y, bu was la gely dependen on he pe o mance
o ins i u ions, decision-making p ocesses, and ci izen y. In his line, a s and-
alone goal on good go e nance and e ec i e ins i u ions, including wo a ge s
ela ed o he igh agains co up ion, was in oduced in he inal epo o he
panel o expe s.5
This new app oach o sus ainabili y was inally ansla ed in o he Uni ed
Na ions Gene al Assembly Resolu ion adop ed on 25 Sep embe 2015
(a/ es/70/1) en i led “T ans o ming ou Wo ld: he 2030 Agenda o Sus ainable
De elopmen ” ha came in o o ce on Janua y 1, 2016. The signa o y s a es
ag eed o adop measu es aimed a P omo ing Peace ul and Inclusi e Socie ies
o Sus ainable De elopmen , P o ide Access o Jus ice o All and Build E ec i e,
Accoun able and Inclusi e Ins i u ions a All Le els (he eina e , sdg16).
sdg16 was ega ded as an impo an enable o he igh s and policy
a ge s embodied in he o he sdgs, bu he o mula ion o i s a ge s was
o e ambi ious, uzzy, and also con es ed du ing he nego ia ions. Some
coun ies ea ed ha he implemen a ion o his goal migh lead o s ic e
5 A New Global Pa ne ship: E adica e Po e y and T ans o m Economies h ough Sus ainable
De elopmen – The Repo o he High-Le el Panel o Eminen Pe sons on he Pos -2015 De elop men
Agenda, New Yo k: un publica ions. A ailable online: h ps://www.un.o g/sg/si es/www.un.o g.sg/ iles/
iles/HLP_P2015_Repo .pd (accessed 23-2-2018).
18 he di e se wo lds o sus ainabili y
aid condi ionali y in coun ies ha a e al eady acing eno mous di icul ies
in mee ing he o he goals. O he s ea ed ha he associa ion o he e m
“peace ul socie ies” wi h he good go e nance agenda unde sdg16 could lead
o a si ua ion in which de elopmen aid is used o ad ance coun ies’ na ional
secu i y agendas (un Ch onicle, 2014).
The adop ion o a new app oach o sus ainable de elopmen had
implica ions in e ms o esou ce alloca ion in e nally o he un De elopmen
Sys em. Acco ding o he Dalbe g Repo (2017), al hough mos un en i ies
see hemsel es as mul i ask, wo king ac oss a a ie y o sdgs, he i s six
sdgs (on po e y, hunge , heal h, educa ion, gende , and clean wa e and
sani a ion) and sdg16 (on peace, jus ice, and s ong ins i u ions) “ha e he
highes alloca ions o expendi u e and pe sonnel while he en i onmen al
and sus ainabili y sdgs (7, 12, 13, 14, 15) ha e he lowes alloca ions”
(2017, 5).
Howe e , he majo challenge o his new app oach, and in pa icula o
he achie emen o sdg16 a ge goals, will be el a he implemen a ion
le el. Le us lea e aside he choice o indica o s and sui able me ics o assess
p og ess in he implemen a ion o a ge goals. Since he end o Wo ld Wa ii,
dono s ha e been expe imen ing wi h go e nance e o m e o s o imp o e
he quali y o ins i u ions and legal sys ems in de eloping coun ies. They ha e
done so by in es ing subs an ially in democ acy and human igh s p omo ion,
echnical assis ance p ojec s o ins i u ional capaci y de elopmen , and by
se ing benchma ks and impo ing bes p ac ice models om ab oad, and
ye p og ess has been scan . Coun ies known o hei sys ema ic abuses
o powe and dis espec o human igh s, o no ha ing pa icipa o y and
accoun able go e nmen s, o ha ing unp edic able and a bi a y iscal
capaci y and adminis a i e decisions, o ha ing es ic ed eedoms and
access o in o ma ion, and o no ha ing ai and p edic able ule o law
a e also known o displaying poo inclusi e and sus ainable de elopmen
eco ds. Al hough some au ho i a ian o hyb id egimes ha ha e op ed o
echnoc a ic go e nmen solu ions a e known o display com o able g ow h
a es and social p og ess, which may gene a e posi i e egime public suppo ,
his does no necessa ily mean ha he bene i s o de elopmen a e being
sha ed and equally enjoyed by hose wi h he leas oice. G ow h-enhancing
policies may su e om a edis ibu i e bias and exace ba e a he han
mi iga e po e y and social exclusion. I sdg16 is o wo k as an enable o
sus ainable de elopmen and a ca alyze o a p o ound social ans o ma ion,
in oduc ion 19
poli ical commi men and g ass- oo in ol emen is needed o achie e he
a ge goals se unde sdg16, so ha his whole p ocess does no end up
being a me e emp y he o ic moulded by echnoc a ic quick- ixes lacking eal
applicabili y and impac .
s uc u e o his book
This book is di ided in o h ee sec ions. The i s comp ises h ee chap e s
ha help o se he scene by add essing he main heo e ical and empi ical
challenges acing he concep o sus ainabili y. The second sec ion b ings
oge he chap e s ha discuss eme ging agendas in a ious sus ainabili y-
ela ed issues such as he ci cula economy, goods insecu i y, clima e change
adap a ion, go e nance, and he ole awa ded o non-humans. The hi d
add esses ansi ions o sus ainabili y in ields such as ag icul u e, ene gy
consump ion, ood p ac ices, digi al media, and good go e nance.
Chap e 1, by Luísa Schmid and João Gue a, se s ou o analyse social
a che ypes, he disc epancies be ween discou ses and p ac ices, and he
slippage ac o s ha ha e cha ac e ized sus ainable de elopmen , looking
a some indica o s ha e lec he dynamics o global (un)sus ainabili y and
making an o e all assessmen o sus ainabili y oday as a key p og amma ic
concep o ans o ming socie y. The au ho s seek o iden i y he condi ions
ha will make sus ainabili y possible in he c i ical ci cums ances acing
humani y in hese ea ly decades o he wen y- i s cen u y.
João Gue a and Luiz B i o Lou enço, in chap e 2, p esen he 2030 Agenda
and i s 17 Sus ainable De elopmen Goals, p o iding an o e all app aisal o
hei implemen a ion. The au ho s explo e he a ailable da abase o sdg Index
and Dashboa ds 2017, c ossed by Human De elopmen Index and income
a e age o coun ies, as well as mo e conc e e and diach onic in o ma ion,
ga he ed mos ly om he Wo ld Bank da abank.
The inal chap e in his sec ion, au ho ed by João Mou a o e al., add esses
he al e na i es aiming a adically changing ou p esen ac ions in o de o
a ain di e en , mo e sus ainable, u u es. The chap e explo es he concep ual
o igins, ole and scope o hese al e na i es agains he backd op o he deba e
on wide ansi ions owa d sus ainabili y. I sys emizes di e se p oposals o
socio-poli ical mo emen s embodying al e na i es owa d sus ainabili y, as
well as some o he esul ing on- he-g ound p ac ices.