Sustainability is still used in a very vague form and we are fare away from any universally accepted definition as everybody seems to incorporate some of his personal hopes and fears into this term.
The 2005 UN World Summit has undertaken a first approach by addressing the "three "interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars" economic development, social
development and environmental protection, which should be reconciliated.
However, the problem begins when it comes to the actual reconciliation process and the breaking down of these three principles. Because the just so recital of dimensions, components or pillars of sustainability will not help in our everyday economic and social activity as we
a) still have not reached any agreement about the exact form and impact of the single aspects of sustainability and
b) do not have any unifying concept of sustainability that integrates and synthesizes the single components in a practical and everyday-usable form.
The underlying problem is that - probably due to the increasing fragmentation of science - we are missing a scientific concept of sustainability that builds upon natural/biological needs rather than political or post-modern cultural sentiments. Maybe some early sustainability-thinkers like Konrad Lorenz could serve as a first basis and starting ground. To my view, any viable (sustainable) concept of sustainability has to reflect upon our more compulsive aspects of our cultural activities and try to compensate for our social and ecological excesses.
However, such a concept will only prevail if it does not work as an either-or, as a bad compromise or even as a sacrifice - as our still persisting consuming mentality still will not bear such challenges. So we have to come up with innovative concepts who are thinking sustainability in terms of OTHER/BETTER/NEW, for example like Porter & Kramer with their concept of „Shared Value“ or Michael Braungart with his concept of „Cradle 2 Cradle“.
