Sustainable development is a widely contested concept which has increasingly gained global attention. While it can be interpreted in many different ways due to the term’s “problematic vagueness and ambiguity” (Connelly, 2007), the most commonly accepted definition is “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Despite various different interpretations, it is generally recognised that in order to achieve sustainability, it is necessary to balance the three pillars of sustainable development: social progress, economic growth and environmental protection. It presents them as interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars, and only through balancing these factors can true sustainability be achieved, so if any one pillar is weak then the system as a whole is unsustainable. The claim that the three pillars are inherently in tension is an important debate because it is disputed whether they can be balanced equally and whether true sustainability can eventually be achieved, depending upon how it is defined and interpreted. While some would argue the pillars are not in tension because the concept involves combining social, economic and environmental aims and ensures they are balanced equally, others would argue that, in reality, they are in tension because the pillars are not given equal priority in the planning process due to the conflict of interest between what they are trying to achieve.
Since the publication of the ‘Our Common Future’ report in 1987 and the development of Agenda 21 at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, sustainable development has become a widely accepted concept. It established a major political turning point for the concept (Mebratu, 1998), because it addressed the need to make society, the economy and the environment more sustainable for future generations. It can be argued that the three pillars are not in tension because they are “equal, mutually interacting dimensions” (Lehtonen, 2004) and priority is not given to any of the pillars. The ‘Our Common Future’ report supports this and suggests that social, economic and environmental issues had to be “resolved simultaneously and in a mutually reinforcing way” (Robinson, 2004). Therefore, because the three pillars are dependent on each other, they are not in tension.
In this sense, the way to achieve sustainability is to change society’s view on sustainable development. According to Robinson (2004), “there must be a radical shift in attitudes, individual behaviour and politics” to ensure that the three-pillar model approach is integrated into policy-making decisions. For example, the provision of public transport shows that social policies can have positive impacts on the environment, like reducing pollution (Lehtonen, 2004). Development that takes place needs to integrate social, economic and environmental issues and recognise the long-term impact it will have on the opportunities for future generations. For this to happen, it is generally accepted that over time, there will need to be a change in policy and lifestyle which is certainly possible within the current social and economic structures (Hopwood et al, 2005). The three pillars are interrelated, despite being fundamentally different, which means that they all depend on each other to achieve sustainability, and therefore, they are not in tension.
National strategies are key to implementing sustainable development and the UK is committed to ensuring that social, economic and environmental aims are met. Successive governments have agreed that an important objective for the UK is to become more sustainable. The Government’s 1999 strategy, ‘A Better Quality of Life’, showed that sustainability is central to policy making, incorporating social, economic and environmental aims (Porter and Hunt, 2005). Moreover, the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy, ‘Securing the Future’, once more showed how the UK aimed to achieve a sustainable economy, live within environmental limits and ensure a strong, healthy and just society. Therefore, the three pillars are not in tension because the government is committed to ensuring they are all given equal priority within the national strategy.
Planning plays a key role in achieving sustainable development within the UK (Porter and Hunt, 2005). Proposals with a clearly defined vision that fully integrate social, economic and environmental goals will ensure that they are not in tension. Birmingham’s Eastside regeneration is an “exemplar for sustainable urban living in the UK” (Porter and Hunt, 2005). It has a redevelopment strategy that has shown how the pillars of sustainability are addressed in the regeneration decision-making process. Birmingham City Council has set out plans for the development with social, economic and environmental sustainability aims that have been implemented in the project through public transport improvements, creation of jobs and use of sustainable energy, proving that the three pillars can be integrated into one project and not be in tension.
From this, it can be argued that the three pillars of sustainable development are not inherently in tension because national strategies and recent redevelopment projects have been able to integrate social, economic and environmental aims, without prioritising one pillar over another.
On the other hand, it can be claimed that the three pillars of sustainable development are inherently in tension as, although the aim is ideally to balance social, economic and environmental interests, it is very difficult to do due to constraints which limit what can actually be achieved. There is a contradiction between achieving growth and development at the same time as social, economic and environmental sustainability with it being argued that trying to achieve sustainable development is trying to “achieve the impossible” (Robinson, 2004). Environmental concerns are often ignored in favour of prioritising economic development, and while it is necessary to focus on the economy, this means that social justice and environmental protection are neglected in its favour. In reality, the environment should be considered as more important than social and economic development because “humanity can have neither an economy nor social well-being without the environment” (Dawe and Ryan, 2003). However, since this is so difficult to achieve, trade-offs are often made between the three pillars due to their unavoidably conflicting interests.
While sustainable development was successful in helping to shape global attitudes towards social, economic and environmental issues, it prompted international debate due to its “dangerously vague” (Mebratu, 1998) definition. The term’s ‘constructive ambiguity’ means it can be manipulated for political opportunity, leading to an “increasing level of frustration” (Mebratu, 1998), with some claiming that it would become no more than a “catchphrase”. Many national and international strategies focus on only one pillar at a time, meaning that there is no international organisation that is working on balancing all three simultaneously and the sustainability problem as a whole. For example, while the UN attempts to improve all three pillars, it has made limited impact due to its constrained budget and lengthy decision-making process. As a result, it mainly focuses on the economic sustainability pillar since most member states view economic growth as more important, particularly developing nations.
With consumer demand constantly rising, compromises are often made between the conflicting aims of economic growth and environmental protection. In areas such as energy and housing, it is becoming increasingly clear that it is not possible to give equal priority to social, economic and environmental sustainability aims, and as a result, demand increases will be in tension with environmental protection aims. It would be seen as undemocratic to compromise economic prosperity, so increases in demand are inevitable and must be fulfilled. While people want to protect the environment as far as possible, this tends to be regarded as negotiable as social and economic development are seen as more important to sustain. Therefore, while it is clear that there is need for balance and to adjust the levels of consumer demand to reduce environmental problems, it is clear that this will not happen any time soon as society is not willing to compromise, and so the environmental pillar is overlooked. According to Robinson (2004), “continuation of current trends is ultimately unsustainable”, but even so, the different demands of the three pillars that come into conflict will need to be negotiated.
Furthermore, policy makers do not consider the three pillars equally when making decisions and so they are competing for priority in the planning process. The ‘property conflict’ (Campbell, 1996) between the social and economic pillars involves competing claims on property between different groups, such as landlords and tenants or young professionals and long-term residents. The tension between public interest and private gain can be seen within the housing market in UK as government intervention is needed to ensure the public is benefitting from property development, but the private sector resists it to gain profit. Similarly, the ‘resource conflict’ (Campbell, 1996) between the economic and environmental pillars involves society needing to regulate the exploitation of nature and its resources for present and future demands, but resisting taking action in favour of further economic development. The tension can be seen in greenbelt planning in the UK as land is needed for development, but the environment needs to be managed at the same time to ensure sustainability. Finally, the ‘development conflict’ (Campbell, 1996) between the social and environmental pillars involves the difficulty of how to increase social equity and protect the environment at the same time, regardless of the state of the economy. The tension can be seen on an international basis, such as the Paris Agreement on Climate Change 2016, as the gap between rich and poor nations which could be widened through efforts to protect the environment as it hinders economic growth.
While the ultimate goal of sustainable development is to achieve balance across the three pillars, it is very challenging to put into practice due to the conflicting objectives (Lehtonen, 2004). As a result, an “adaptive process of tradeoffs” (Mebratu, 1998) must be in place, meaning that certain pillars may need to be compromised in favour of others. Sustainability must act as an integrating concept if it is to have any impact, however, the integration of the pillars has remained weak within policy making. In the UK, the planning process tries to include social, economic, and environmental considerations as far as possible, but inevitably compromises are made between the pillars. Although the government is making greater efforts to improve policy integration, it is clear that they have had difficulty in bringing the pillars together into one successful strategy (Meadowcroft, 2007) because they are in tension.
Therefore, the three pillars of sustainable development are inherently in tension because it is too difficult to balance social, economic and environmental interests equally. Conflicts between these aims mean that compromises are made.
Overall, the argument that the three pillars of sustainable development are inherently in tension seems to be more convincing because achieving true sustainability, which prioritises social, economic and environmental interests equally, is too difficult. While governments are aiming to integrate the pillars into national strategies and planning processes, these aims are often conflicting, meaning that compromises need to be made. The scale of the problem that needs to be overcome is too big to see progress instantly, especially as society is unwilling to give up economic growth in favour of environmental protection. It has been recognised that “sustainability is a process, not an end-state” (Robinson, 2004), which has the potential to come into fruition over time. However, ensuring that sustainable development can fully take place is a complex process because it will need to take place in an intergenerational timeframe, and therefore it will take a long time to put into practice. The concept can be seen as more aspirational than practical because it is so difficult to implement in the planning process and in policy making, and trade-offs are necessary to avoid conflicts of interest. It is constantly being manipulated for political gain, which ultimately could be detrimental to its credibility. Therefore, the claim that the three pillars of sustainable development are inherently in tension is valid because it is almost impossible to give equal priority to social, economic and environmental goals for as long as it is not taken seriously as a pressing issue.