Dinkum Journal of Social Innovations (DJSI)

Publication History

Submitted: August 02, 2023
Accepted: September 20, 2023
Published: September 01, 2023

Identification

D-0082

Citation

Munira Akter (2023). A Step towards Socio-Ecology and Sustainability. Dinkum Journal of Social Innovations, 2(09):551-556.

Copyright

© 2023 DJSI. All rights reserved

A Step towards Socio-Ecology and SustainabilityReview Article

Munira Akter 1* 

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Dhaka; munira-akter2721@du.ac.bd

            *  Correspondence: munira-akter2721@du.ac.bd

Abstract: The acceleration of global climate change, a decline in biodiversity, a rise in water pollution, and the depletion of fisheries are just a few examples of environmental issues that have gotten worse over time. Environmental issues have gotten worse despite the continued efforts of the sustainable development initiative. Many environmental and social scientists have pondered and argued over the nebulous but undeniably desirable concept of sustainability. We contend that conventional notions of sustainability and the associated idea of sustainable development are enmeshed in a “pre-analytic vision” that normalizes capitalist social relations, closes off crucial inquiries about economic growth, and consequently restricts the potential for an integrative socio-ecological analysis. Environmental sociology’s theoretical and empirical research, which examines the relationships between social, historical, and environmental factors and the tendencies and characteristics of the prevailing economic system, offers crucial insights into how to solve the problems mentioned previously.

Keywords: sustainability, sociology, ecosystem, economy

  1. INTRODUCTION

Many natural and social scientists have examined and contested the prominent concept of sustainability in environmental study. Over the past few decades, extraordinary efforts have been undertaken to formalize sustainability and set environmental targets. For instance, academics have conducted national and international conferences since the 1970s to talk about the connection between economic expansion, physical constraints, and environmental sustainability. The acceleration of global climate change, a decline in biodiversity, a rise in water pollution, and the depletion of fisheries are just a few examples of environmental issues that have gotten worse over time. Environmental issues have gotten worse despite the continued efforts of the sustainable development initiative [1-3]. There is a sizable body of scholarly literature on sustainability. Various scientific sustainability and sustainable development assessments and indicators, such as the Ecological Footprint [4], Environmental Sustainability Index [5], Global Scenarios Group [6, 7], and Genuine Progress Indicator [8], are used in this research. Just a handful of the well-known initiatives aiming at promoting sustainability goals and sustainability research include these instruments and measures. The varied assessments draw attention to the complexity of interactions within and between social and natural systems as well as the variety of ecological settings. Numerous theoretical presumptions, scientific ideas, and concerns about the social implications of sustainability have led to the prominence of various research initiatives [9,10]. Furthermore, there have been arguments and divergent interpretations of sustainability and sustainable development [11, 12]. We contend that many prevalent ideas of sustainability—and the associated idea of sustainable development—are trapped in a “pre-analytic vision” that normalizes capitalist social structures, excludes crucial inquiries into economic growth, and obstructs socio-ecological analysis. The first conceptual framework and underlying presumptions for studying a certain occurrence are provided by a pre-analytic vision [13].

  1. LITERATURE REVIEW

The post-second world war era is when contemporary conceptions of sustainability and sustainable development first appear [14]. The institutional structure, significance, and practical implementation of these ideas were all affected by this period in world history, particularly in light of growing concern about the extreme inequality between states [11–16]. Particularly, in significant discussions and arguments on economic growth, the United Nations and other international organizations, such the World Bank, helped define what was meant by sustainable development. The ideas were adopted into assessments of the world political-economic system by development studies and development economics academics. Modernization theory and development theory have both emerged as the top social science frameworks for analyzing and solving “Third World” issues [1]. These theoretical stances had a strong neoclassical economic theory foundation, which had various ramifications for the definitions of development and underdevelopment as well as the policies they informed [14]. One of the central tenets of neoclassical theory is that markets self-regulate (i.e., market equilibrium will produce optimal utility) and that rational actors make cost-benefit choices that will maximize utility. Economic growth (or the expansion of market-based economic activity with a resulting increase in gross domestic product) will have positive effects on all spheres of society. Neoclassical economics-based development theorists maintained that unleashing capital in regions of the world where it had not yet fully established itself was what was fundamentally required for social growth in the formerly colonized cultures. The potential for growth and economic efficiency would rise as a result. They argued that encouraging such behavior through policies would have the desired results, advancing these regions into new, more significant “stages” of economic growth and advancing the development of “mature” civilizations [17]. The Bretton Woods institutions—the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund—as well as the United Nations have been instrumental in advancing industrial capitalism. Many of the initial planning and funding for development initiatives around the world came from these organizations, and this funding is still being provided today [1]. The second half of the 20th century saw an increase in social awareness of environmental issues, many of which could be directly attributed to the globalization of industrial capitalism. Some organizations, like the United Nations, started to think that funding and development models might need to take environmental concerns into account. As a result, U.N. projects have played a significant role in the mainstreaming of the idea of sustainable development [18]. Stockholm, Sweden hosted the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. This was the first of a series of conferences on development and the environment that the UN organized over the following 40 years. These conferences were organized in order to investigate the expanding environmental effects around the globe and to work toward the creation of new international legislative frameworks that may better manage the escalating environmental and social issues brought on by capitalist expansion. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), whose goal is “to provide leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, educating, and enabling nations and peoples to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations,” was established as a result of the initial Stockholm conference [19]. This comment gave a sneak peek at how people often conceptualize sustainable development. The United Nations held a number of conferences during the following 40 years, including the well-known Rio Summit or Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, which had “sustainable development” as its main focus. Out of the ideas of Agenda 21, the Commission on Sustainable Development was founded in 1992 [20,21]. The U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), often known as the Brundtland Commission, was established in 1983 and produced the most well-known concept of sustainable development. “Development that meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” is how sustainable development is defined in the 1987 report of the WCED, “Our Common Future” [22]. Thus, the UN has been advocating a model of development that incorporates a concept of sustainability for more than 40 years. The goals of economic growth started to take ecological issues into consideration throughout this process, which might be referred to as the “greening” of development theory [23]. The new development model made an effort to address the physical issues connected to environmental deterioration, but little to no adjustment was made in the emphasis on economic growth. The U.N. approach to sustainability is frequently criticized for simply adding the word “sustainable” to the conventional economic development model in order to progress the neo-liberal period [15,18]. It has been argued that the sustainability initiatives and programs developed under the auspices of the United Nations have been nothing more than hollow efforts and platitudes for addressing ecological concerns, despite the fact that the Brundlandt Report [22] does begin to address fundamental ecological and social concerns and can be commended for some of its inclusive language and creative vision [11,23,24]. The sustainable development concept has drawn criticism for allegedly failing to take ecological realities and the interconnectedness of humans and the rest of nature into account [25]. As was mentioned, the development project arose from a series of historical events that led to a description of the idea that is primarily a scheme to broaden the scope and size of global capitalism. Resolutions and humanitarian objectives, which are central to the UN’s role, were frequently set in the backdrop of accelerating industrialization, which led to eventual global economic growth and modernization. Since multinational businesses have become major contributors to the strategy, goals, and practices outlined for attaining sustainable development, many people regard U.N. summits as important channels through which this has occurred [11,24]. There has been a significant increase in research on the types and scope of environmental degradation since the 1950s, when the “Great Acceleration” in human disruption of Earth systems began [26]. The environmental movement gained traction in the 1960s and 1970s and called for significant social reforms. Limits to expansion [29], Blueprint for Survival [30], Silent Spring [27], The Closing Circle [28], and others provided analyses that showed how societal dynamics, especially economic expansion, led to environmental concerns. Due to growing social pressure, several rich nations established environmental restrictions and legislation in an effort to reduce extreme forms of damage. In general, mainstream economics and policy, which mostly adhere to the neoclassical economic paradigm, view nature as a component of the economy. According to this perspective, the macroeconomic system takes precedence over ecosystems as the main subject of study. Everything, even biophysical nature, is subject to the macro-economy’s dynamics [31]. This viewpoint has a long history in economic theory, dating back to the classical economists who believed that nature offered “free gifts” and continuing up to the current day, when some modern economists contend that everything in nature can be replaced with the use of technology. For instance, Robert Solow, an economist who won the Nobel Prize, asserted that “there is in principle no ‘problem'” if it is very simple to replace other elements for natural resources. Natural resource depletion is merely an event rather than a catastrophe because the planet can, in fact, survive without them [32]. At best, “weak sustainability” is used to describe such ideas of limitless substitutability and denial of ecological constraints. Each of these notions puts out a similar idea, centered on social, economic, and environmental aspects of sustainability. These are viewed as workable and realistic methods for assessing and accomplishing this crucial socio-ecological objective. Traditional sustainability strategies like the triple bottom line/three pillars or the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations are insufficient from an environmental sociological standpoint. Sociologists who study the environment believe that human systems are part of the wider Earth system. Furthermore, it is believed that economic systems are socio-historical creations that resulted from particular social interactions within the broader biophysical universe. By not naturalizing the capitalist economic system, pre-analytical thinking that so often taints sustainability studies and sustainable development initiatives is avoided. Environmental sociologists thus promote a research agenda that starts to evaluate the significance of diverse social institutions that are essential for comprehending sustainability. Examining the dynamic interactions in socio-ecological systems is a key emphasis of many perspectives in environmental sociology. We will briefly discuss three important theoretical perspectives, including human ecology, the treadmill of production, and social metabolic analysis, and highlight the benefits that environmental sociology may provide to sustainability science. The human ecology tradition offers significant conceptions and methods that serve as a foundation for an integrated socio-ecological method for achieving sustainability while avoiding tendencies within social and economic studies toward human exemptionalism. In contrast to the dominant sociological theories of the time, human ecology theorists and researchers assert that society is integrated into the larger ecological complex, which is made up of reciprocal linkages between the population, organizations, environment, and technology.

  1. CONCLUSION

Social justice is a requirement for robust socio-ecological systems. The relationships and interactions between institutional dynamics and their ecological effects can be made clearer by using environmental sociology theories. They challenge mechanistic, functionalist assessments founded on a pre-analytic vision that naturalizes the economic system. Societies with higher levels of equity have better chances of being resilient and sustainable from a socio-ecological perspective. Under these circumstances, people and communities engage in social behavior that prioritizes sustainability and equity with the goal of promoting social and human growth as well as improving welfare and dignity for all. Instead, the economy is firmly ingrained in society and is required to respect natural boundaries, which can lead to a profound change in both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of how mankind interacts with the Earth system. Better addressing environmental change, reducing the stress humans impose on ecosystems, and fostering socio-ecological sustainability are the objectives.

REFERENCES

  1. Oláh, J., Aburumman, N., Popp, J., Khan, M. A., Haddad, H., & Kitukutha, N. (2020). Impact of Industry 4.0 on environmental sustainability. Sustainability, 12(11), 4674.
  2. Jeswani, H. K., Chilvers, A., & Azapagic, A. (2020). Environmental sustainability of biofuels: a review. Proceedings of the Royal Society A, 476(2243), 20200351.
  3. Amankwah-Amoah, J. (2020). Stepping up and stepping out of COVID-19: New challenges for environmental sustainability policies in the global airline industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 271, 123000.
  4. Kour, D., Rana, K. L., Yadav, A. N., Yadav, N., Kumar, M., Kumar, V., … & Saxena, A. K. (2020). Microbial biofertilizers: Bioresources and eco-friendly technologies for agricultural and environmental sustainability. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology, 23, 101487.
  5. Chege, S. M., & Wang, D. (2020). The influence of technology innovation on SME performance through environmental sustainability practices in Kenya. Technology in Society, 60, 101210.
  6. Umar, M., Ji, X., Kirikkaleli, D., & Xu, Q. (2020). COP21 Roadmap: Do innovation, financial development, and transportation infrastructure matter for environmental sustainability in China?. Journal of environmental management, 271, 111026.
  7. Kirikkaleli, D., & Adebayo, T. S. (2021). Do renewable energy consumption and financial development matter for environmental sustainability? New global evidence. Sustainable Development, 29(4), 583-594.
  8. Vesal, M., Siahtiri, V., & O’Cass, A. (2021). Strengthening B2B brands by signalling environmental sustainability and managing customer relationships. Industrial Marketing Management, 92, 321-331.
  9. Kasayanond, A., Umam, R., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2019). Environmental sustainability and its growth in Malaysia by elaborating the green economy and environmental efficiency. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 9(5), 465-473.
  10. Zhang, D., & Chen, Y. (2021). Evaluation on urban environmental sustainability and coupling coordination among its dimensions: A case study of Shandong Province, China. Sustainable Cities and Society, 75, 103351.
  11. Shahzad, M., Qu, Y., Javed, S. A., Zafar, A. U., & Rehman, S. U. (2020). Relation of environment sustainability to CSR and green innovation: A case of Pakistani manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, 119938.
  12. Panda, T. K., Kumar, A., Jakhar, S., Luthra, S., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Kazancoglu, I., & Nayak, S. S. (2020). Social and environmental sustainability model on consumers’ altruism, green purchase intention, green brand loyalty and evangelism. Journal of Cleaner production, 243, 118575.
  13. Amankwah‐Amoah, J., Danso, A., & Adomako, S. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation, environmental sustainability and new venture performance: Does stakeholder integration matter?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 79-87.
  14. Ashraf, S., Ali, Q., Zahir, Z. A., Ashraf, S., & Asghar, H. N. (2019). Phytoremediation: Environmentally sustainable way for reclamation of heavy metal polluted soils. Ecotoxicology and environmental safety, 174, 714-727.
  15. Ma, Y., & Liu, Y. (2019). Turning food waste to energy and resources towards a great environmental and economic sustainability: An innovative integrated biological approach. Biotechnology Advances, 37(7), 107414.
  16. Isensee, C., Teuteberg, F., Griese, K. M., & Topi, C. (2020). The relationship between organizational culture, sustainability, and digitalization in SMEs: A systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 122944.
  17. Nishant, R., Kennedy, M., & Corbett, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence for sustainability: Challenges, opportunities, and a research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 53, 102104.
  18. Scoones, I., Stirling, A., Abrol, D., Atela, J., Charli-Joseph, L., Eakin, H., … & Yang, L. (2020). Transformations to sustainability: combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 65-75.
  19. Mousavi, S., Bossink, B., & van Vliet, M. (2019). Microfoundations of companies’ dynamic capabilities for environmentally sustainable innovation: Case study insights from high‐tech innovation in science‐based companies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 366-387.
  20. Vanham, D., Leip, A., Galli, A., Kastner, T., Bruckner, M., Uwizeye, A., … & Hoekstra, A. Y. (2019). Environmental footprint family to address local to planetary sustainability and deliver on the SDGs. Science of the Total Environment, 693, 133642
  21. Khan, S. A. R., Sharif, A., Golpîra, H., & Kumar, A. (2019). A green ideology in Asian emerging economies: From environmental policy and sustainable development. Sustainable development, 27(6), 1063-1075.
  22. Md. Hossain Harisl & Md. Faisal (2023). Socio-cultural effects of Eco-tourism in Everest Region. Dinkum Journal of Social Innovations, 2(08):464-478.
  23. McGranahan, G., Songsore, J., & Kjellén, M. (2021). Sustainability, poverty and urban environmental transitions. In The Earthscan reader in sustainable cities (pp. 107-133). Routledge.
  24. Khan, S. A. R., Zhang, Y., Kumar, A., Zavadskas, E., & Streimikiene, D. (2020). Measuring the impact of renewable energy, public health expenditure, logistics, and environmental performance on sustainable economic growth. Sustainable development, 28(4), 833-843.
  25. Severo, E. A., De Guimarães, J. C. F., & Dellarmelin, M. L. (2021). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on environmental awareness, sustainable consumption and social responsibility: Evidence from generations in Brazil and Portugal. Journal of cleaner production, 286, 124947.
  26. Abbas, J. (2020). Impact of total quality management on corporate sustainability through the mediating effect of knowledge management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244, 118806.
  27. Vadén, T., Lähde, V., Majava, A., Järvensivu, P., Toivanen, T., Hakala, E., & Eronen, J. T. (2020). Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature. Environmental science & policy, 112, 236-244.
  28. Geels, F. W. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: A review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Current opinion in environmental sustainability, 39, 187-201.
  29. Arora, N. K. (2019). Impact of climate change on agriculture production and its sustainable solutions. Environmental Sustainability, 2(2), 95-96.
  30. Yong, J. Y., Yusliza, M. Y., Ramayah, T., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Sehnem, S., & Mani, V. (2020). Pathways towards sustainability in manufacturing organizations: Empirical evidence on the role of green human resource management. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(1), 212-228.
  31. Naciti, V. (2019). Corporate governance and board of directors: The effect of a board composition on firm sustainability performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 237, 117727.
  32. Kumar, S. (2022). A quest for sustainium (sustainability Premium): review of sustainable bonds. Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Journal, 26(2), 1-18.
  33. Asadi, S., Pourhashemi, S. O., Nilashi, M., Abdullah, R., Samad, S., Yadegaridehkordi, E., & Razali, N. S. (2020). Investigating influence of green innovation on sustainability performance: A case on Malaysian hotel industry. Journal of cleaner production, 258, 120860.

Publication History

Submitted: August 02, 2023
Accepted: September 20, 2023
Published: September 01, 2023

Identification

D-0082

Citation

Munira Akter (2023). A Step towards Socio-Ecology and Sustainability. Dinkum Journal of Social Innovations, 2(09):551-556.

Copyright

© 2023 DJSI. All rights reserved