Skip to main content

Strong Sustainability as a Frame for Sustainability Communication

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

The term sustainability has enjoyed great success, but at the cost of overextending its meaning to the point of trivialization. There is such an overabundance of definitions, concepts, models and political strategies that it is not clear anymore whether the terms ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ still bear any meaning. The theory outlined in this chapter counters these tendencies by identifying more precisely the normative field that constitutes the very core of the sustainability concept, while avoiding a too narrow understanding. It points out the ethical presuppositions as well as the requirements for a theoretical framework of a consistent and discursively justified concept of sustainability. This rectifies the vagueness of the term as currently used and offers new possibilities for sustainability communication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the international discourse on sustainability there are only a few approaches that attempt a philosophical and normative analysis from the point of view of inter- and intragenerational justice (see among others, Dobson 2003; Norton 2005). A thorough presentation of these approaches, involving a comparison with the theory of strong sustainability, would go beyond the scope of this chapter.

References

  • Biesecker, A., & Hofmeister, S. (2009). Starke Nachhaltigkeit fordert eine Ökonomie der (Re)Produktivität. In T. von Egan-Krieger, J. Schultz, P. P. Thapa, & L. Voget (Eds.), Die Greifswalder Theorie starker Nachhaltigkeit: Ausbau, Anwendung und Kritik (pp. 169–192). Marburg: Metropolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H. E. (1997). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Boston, MA: Beacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, A. (2003). Citizenship and the environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Faber, M., & Manstetten, R. (1998). Produktion, Konsum und Dienste in der Natur: Eine Theorie der Fonds. In F. Schweitzer & G. Silverberg (Eds.), Selbstorganisation (pp. 209–236). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurt, H. (1987). Equality as a moral ideal. Ethics, 98, 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gowdy, J., & McDaniel, C. (1999). The physical destruction of Nauru: An example of weak sustainability. Land Economics, 75, 333–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grey, W. (1996). Possible persons and the problem of posterity. Environmental Values, 5, 161–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. (2009). Konzepte nachhaltiger Entwicklung vergleichen – aber wie? Diskursebenen und Vergleichsmaßstäbe. In T. von Egan-Krieger, J. Schultz, P. Thapa, & L. Voget (Eds.), Die Greifswalder Theorie starker Nachhaltigkeit. Ausbau, Anwendung und Kritik. Marburg: Metropolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1992). Faktizität und Geltung. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Held, M., & Nutzinger, H. G. (Eds.). (2001). Nachhaltiges Naturkapital: Ökonomik und zukunftsfähige Entwicklung. Frankfurt/M/New York: Campus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muraca, B. (2010). Denken im Grenzgebiet: prozessphilosophische Grundlagen einer Theorie starker Nachhaltigkeit. Freiburg/München: Alber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, B. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (2001). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott, K. (2004a). Noch einmal: Diskursethik. In N. Gottschalk-Mazouz (Ed.), Perspektiven der Diskursethik (pp. 143–173). Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott, K. (2004b). Essential components of future ethics. In R. Döring & M. Rühs (Eds.), Ökonomische Rationalität und praktische Vernunft: Gerechtigkeit, ökologische Ökonomie und Naturschutz (pp. 83–108). Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott, K. (2009). On substantiating the concept of strong sustainability. In R. Döring (Ed.), Sustainability, natural capital and nature conservation (pp. 49–72). Marburg: Metropolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott, K., & Döring, R. (2008). Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhaltigkeit. Marburg: Metropolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ott, K. & Voget, L. (2007). Ethical dimension of education for sustainable development. Education for Sustainable Development, 1. Retrieved 18 Dec 2009, from http://www.bne-portal.de/coremedia/generator/pm/en/Issue__001/Downloads/01__Contributions/Ott__Voget.pdf.

  • Paech, N. (2006). Nachhaltigkeitsprinzipien jenseits des Drei-Säulen-Paradigmas. Natur und Kultur, 7, 42–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parfit, D. (1987). Reasons and persons. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge, E. (1990). On the rights on future generations. In D. Scherer (Ed.), Upstream/downstream: Issues in ethics (pp. 40–66). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potthast, T. (2005). Umweltforschung und das Problem epistemisch-moralischer Hybride. In S. Baumgärtner & C. Becker (Eds.), Wissenschaftsphilosophie interdisziplinärer Umweltforschung (pp. 87–100). Marburg: Metropolis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1973). A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tugendhat, E. (1993). Vorlesungen über Ethik. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unnerstall, H. (1999). Rechte zukünftiger Generationen. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Egan-Krieger, T. (2005). Theorie der Nachhaltigkeit und die deutsche Waldwirtschaft der Zukunft. Diploma thesis, Greifswald University, Greifswald.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Egan-Krieger, T., Schultz, J., Thapa, P. T., & Voget, L. (Eds.). (2009). Die Greifswalder Theorie starker Nachhaltigkeit. Marburg: Metropolis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konrad Ott .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ott, K., Muraca, B., Baatz, C. (2011). Strong Sustainability as a Frame for Sustainability Communication. In: Godemann, J., Michelsen, G. (eds) Sustainability Communication. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1697-1_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics