Concepts of Strong Comparability and Commensurability versus ...

Remigijus Ciegis, Dainora Grundey
Vilnius University, Lithuania
remigijus.ciegis@vukhf.lt; dainora.grundey@vukhf.lt
Economic Competition and the Sustainability
Paradigm: Concepts of Strong Comparability
and Commensurability versus Concepts of
Strong and Weak Sustainability
Keywords
sustainability, comparability, commensurability, strong
sustainability, weak sustainability, economic competition.
1. Introduction
Sustainable development philosophy, based upon the
relationship harmonization of people, society and nature, (which
should act as the future guarantee of the world’s population), agrees
that the priority should be given to real income growth. But it also
emphasizes that the latter growth might be unsustainable, if it is
achieved by the huge costs of environmental damage. By giving
considerable attention to environment, the sustainable development
concept – approach, enabling the on-going improvements of today’s
life quality, achieved by utilizing natural resources with less
intensity, and reserving the scope of resources or even amplifying
them for the future generations, has a better ability to disclose the
comprehension of natural and artificially created functions (to people
and all living-forms of the Earth).
It should be noted that sustainable ecological development
requires a qualitatively new economics, acknowledging biosphere
evolution processes and limitations, and preserving the balance of
economic and ecological systems. And we must to evaluate our path
to sustainability. But it is a very complex task, because every society
can be described as comprising of four dimensions:
• economic,
• social,
77

• environmental and
• institutional.
Each of these dimensions is a complex evolving entity in its own
right. The co-evolution of the economy in its natural and
anthropogenic environment must be discussed too. In this context,
the economic, social, environmental and institutional sustainability
of economy must be defined by criteria, which could be derived from
alternative economic theories.
The main attention in the article is drawn to the analysis of
scientific concepts, which can be useful to assess sustainable
development. Therefore, the research object of the article is the
concepts of strong comparability and commensurability and strong
and weak sustainability, which are critically investigated in the
article.
In order to fulfil the main research objective, the following
research tasks had to be accomplished:
• to present the essence of the sustainability concept in
economics;
• to analyse the role of strong comparability and
commensurability concepts in the evaluation of sustainability;
• to identify the role of capital factor in strong and weak
sustainability concepts;
• to investigate the correlation between the human capital and
other types of capital in economics;
• to distinguish the linkage between sustainability and economic
competition in the context of human versus ecological
sustainability in corporations.
The methods of the research. Logic abstraction, which
encompasses generalisations on theoretical systems analysis of the
problems of sustainable consumption and production, according to
the conclusions and reasoning of scientists from other countries.
2. The essence of sustainability in economics
Huge contrasts between developed and under-developed
countries and the obvious connection between poverty and
environmental protection problems inspired Brundtland Commission
report “Our Common Future” (1987) with specific nominative
content of sustainability concept. The core of arguments lies in fair
78

distribution of natural resources among different generations, as
well as among the current generation of first, second and third world
population and founding the positive consensus between dimensions
of economic and social development.
It can be noted that the definition of sustainable development
used in the report “Our Common Future” was, in fact, a specific
turn-point from the previously dominating attitude “growth or
environment” towards a possibility of – which is the essential
contribution of Brundtland Commission report – complementing
each other – economic growth and environment (Ciegis, 2004).
Most scientists admit that the ecological sustainability concept
is clearer and more explicit than the sustainable development
definition. Sustainability can be defined as “interrelationship
between dynamic, human economic systems, where: (1) the human
existence can last infinitely, (2) human individuals can thrive and (3)
human cultures can evolve. But the effects of human activity should
remain restrained to a limit not to endanger the diversity, complexity
and functionality of ecological life-support systems” (Costanza et al,
1991). Therefore, to be sustainable means: 1) every process to be
ecologically safe (following the ecological compatibility condition);
and 2) every process should provide the society with the appropriate
amount of production (following the economic compatibility
condition).
The sustainable development can be viewed as the process,
comprising of two stages. In Stage One, the global human society
develops towards sustainability; while in Stage Two, the society
further evolves not breaking the defined limits of sustainability. On
the other hand, the society confronts such a huge variety of shortterm
needs and long-term objectives on a global scale that it seems
unjust to propose the one and only universally feasible way of
sustainable development or to anticipate that the plan of sustainable
economic behaviour is going to be prepared. Besides, the transition
to sustainability might acquire different trajectories in wealthy and
poor countries. Sustainability cannot be obtained once and for all.
Every society will shape its sustainability after its own scenario in
time and space, but none of them would guarantee absolute
sustainability. After all, sustainability is not something fixed or the
destination to be reached. It is a mobile goal, changing in accordance
79

with knowledge, skills, individual and social values and given
priorities.
It could be added that sustainability is more of a nominative
ethical principle for further social development, discussing not
about what it is, but what should be. It should also foresee the need
for the constant critique of human activity and activity algorithm,
which allows sustainable development to view as ethical ideal
(Kothari, 1994). It is necessary to emphasise that the ethical
dimension of sustainable development is receiving more and more
attention in economic and management literature (see H. Daly and J.
Cobb (1989), J. R. Engel and J. G. Engel (1990), S. Rockefeller and
J. Elder (1992), D. Brown (1994), J. R. Engel and J. Denny-Hugher
(1994), H. Skolimowski (1990)).
Appropriate evaluation of capital is quite essential to the
sustainability approach. As shown by D. Pearce and R. Turner
(1991), in order to secure society sustainable development it is
essential to preserve constant resources of nature’s capital (Kn). It
is still not clear how all supplies of natural resources can be
characterized by a single digital constant (Kn).
We inevitably approach the nature’s capital evaluating problem
when the attempt is made to use the criterion of “constant nature’s
capital”. There are two theoretical ways to measure the nature’s
capital: to analyse the physical amount of nature’s capital or to
evaluate this capital in monetary units. To use the first method, we
should have tools to exercise the summing up of physical supplies
but the lack of them disables us to calculate the physical quantities of
different (unequal) origin. This argument could be a strong invitation
to apply monetary expression in identifying nature’s capital constant.
But usually we do experience difficulties in the process of
calculating “the right price” for nature’s equity, which is not traded
in markets; here we face the fundamental problem of sustainability
to: we do not hold any methods of how future generations would
evaluate certain components of natural resources. It is clear that
applying the monetary evaluation of nature’s capital another problem
arises – that of sharp price take-off in case of nature’s capital
decreasing power. This problem is fortified by general problem of
resource economy: it is possible to have a theoretically optimal
solution, which could evoke unsustainable consequences of
environmental protection at the same time.
80

The above-stated arguments permit us to conclude that the
definition of “nature’s capital”, serving as a useful metaphor for
attracting attention to the significant of sustainable development,
cannot be used as a practical instrument for scientific and political
efforts to secure development with an ecologically sustainable
content.
In the economics, sustainable development is most often
described as the need to maintain permanent income for humankind,
generate from non-declining capital stock (Hicksian income).
(Spangenberg, 2005) Thus in this perception at least constant stocks
of human, man-made, natural and social capital (Serageldin, 1997)
are considered a necessary and often sufficient criterion of
sustainable development (Pearce et al., 1990; Pearce, Atkinson,
1993, Pearce, Barbier, 2000). Much of the economic debate has risen
about the question whether each capital stock has to be maintained
independently (Daly, 1991a), or whether the sum of all four capital
stocks has to be non-declining (Pearce, Turner, 1991).
3. The role of strong comparability and
commensurability concepts in sustainable
development
Sustainable development, as entity having four dimensions, the
economic, social, environmental, and institutional one, is system of
tremendous complexity. But this level of complexity is beyond the
scope of current economic theories, mostly dependent on
assumptions of strong commensurability or at least strong
comparability. As shown by Spangenberg (2005), the mentioned
dispute assumes strong comparability (i.e. the existence of a
common characteristic like for instance ‘utility’) and focuses on the
question of strong or weak commensurability, i.e. the existence of a
common unit of measurement, like monetary value. Strong
commensurability implies substitutability, but it is an open question
in the economic discourse to which degree the different forms of
capital can be substituted against each other, and to which degree
they are complimentary. And due to the incommensurability of all
four capital stocks, real substitution is hardly imaginable. In total, the
weakness of strong commensurability, postulating the validity of the
economic logic and numeraire outside the economic system, is
81

obvious and has been broadly discussed (for instance, in Ecological
Economics, 1998).
It should be mentioned that indeed market value is one criterion
amongst other, which can be applied (with all the methodological
difficulties known) to all four capital stocks to assess their economic
sustainability. And from scientific point of view, there cannot be
such a thing as one comprehensive measure or index of
sustainability. On other side, the understanding of capital stocks as
dynamic systems and their interactions as essential for sustainable
development can help to extend the perspective and to she new light
on some on these controversies.
But, as mentioned by Spangenberg (2005), not only the
assumption of strong commensurability is the problem; it begins
already when assuming strong comparability (combined with strong
or weak commensurability). The sustainability criteria imply that the
same characteristic is decisive for the sustainability of all four
dimensions. However, as far s we know there is no common factor
decisive for social cohesion, human satisfaction and the integrity of
ecosystems. These criteria, at least as crucial to sustainable
development as monetary value have to be monitored with their own
yardsticks, and must be measured accordingly. And an economic
theory insisting on strong comparability remains helpless when
trying to understand economically relevant environmental and social
processes.
4. The strong and weak sustainability concepts and
the capital factor: an introduction
Interpretations of strong and weak sustainability can also be
justified by studying the possibilities of substituting supplies of
nature’s and economic capital or complementing each other.
Strong sustainability requires both types of capital not to
decrease for the benefit of one of significant indicators. In other
words, according to the law of strong sustainability, the aggregate
physical quantity of nature’s capital or general nature’s capital
(despite its type) and its value should not decrease and should be
preserved for future generations. (In a more stringent version of very
strong sustainability stationary limitations should be already defined
in the macro-economic level (Daly, 1991)). In addition, according to
82

criteria of strong sustainability, a supposition is made that nature’s
and economic capital are complementary in the production process
rather than substituting (Costanza, Daly, 1992). Actually, it is
recognised that some natural resources and services cannot be totally
substituted as these forms of nature’s capital supply vital services for
all life-supporting environmental systems.
The version of weak sustainability is more acceptable for
dominating economic theories, oriented towards securing the status
where “wealth does not decrease in the time lag” (Pearce, 1993). (In
case we apply a more narrow approach of very weak sustainability,
then productivity potential of common economy would resume
untouched to ensure constant consumption per person in a given time
(Solow, 1986)). The version of weak sustainability contains (making
an unrealistic assumption about the perfect substitution of nature’s
and man-made capital) the sum of the forms of both capital –
nature’s and economic capital – or any other aggregated unit of
measurement (for example, the “green” GNP), and requires that it
not decline all the time. So there is orientation to the stock of the
capital, which we are living for the future generations, expecting that
this capital stocks must be not lesser as have our generation (Pearce,
Atkinson, 1993).
In fact, the foundation of weak sustainability was made by
Hartwick (1977; 1978) and his proposed idea of compensation,
elaborating on nature’s capital and its loss, which should be
compensated by the additional man-made capital or by the
combination of man-made capital and nature’s capital. If we mark
the letters K t , H t and R t as resources of physical, human and nature’s
capital respectively in time period t, the net value of changes in
general capital stock will acquire the following expression:
N dKt
dHt
dRt
I
t
= + +
dt dt dt
If
I
N
t
= 0, then the country reserves its general capital stock
and it is capable of securing its consumption level. This result was
named after J. Hartwick as “the Hartwick law". It postulates that
economic growth can be considered “sustainable”, if the level of
investment is higher than the value of extracted resources,
constituting the scarcity rent, i.e. if I > 0.
N
t
83

When we speak about “weak” and “strong” sustainability, it
must be noticed, that “weak” sustainability with its narrow version of
sustainability started to use, when it was noticed that “strong”
sustainability is impossible to use in practice. Tietenberg (1984)
defined sustainability as “relentless utility”. Then, applying the
concept of “weak” sustainability, sustainability might denote
securing people’s welfare in order it could thrive or at least would
remain stable. Considering such interpretation of sustainability, it
equals the prerequisite to ensure people’s wealth not to decrease in
the period of time.
As of today, all these debates about weak sustainability tend to
focus on increasing the stock of man-made capital and the degree to
which other capital stocks maybe reduced for this behalf (OECD,
2001). As shown by Spangenberg (2005), in other words, sustained
growth is – often implicitly – assumed to be part of the concept of
sustainable development of the economy by most authors, and only
small fraction of ecological economists disagrees. On other hand,
substitution between different capital stocks as discussed by
economists mainly refers to the function of these capitals as
production factors. If under changing factor constellations the
product is equivalent (often in monetary terms), substitution is
considered possible. Unfortunately, this analysis refers only to one
criterion; utility production measured in monetary terms, and
completely neglects all other aspects of the economic sphere and the
unavoidable interaction of all four capital stocks (i.e. the trade offs
that occur to other functions of the respective capital stocks). In this
situation, instead of simple substitution decision following a single
criterion, a systematic or intuitive multi-criteria assessment of trade
offs would be (and in real life is) performed.
5. Strong versus weak sustainability: an in-depth
focus
First, we need some definitions of capital. What is capital?
It's our stock of productive wealth - that which generates a flow of
services. There are at least three kinds of capital:
• man-made capital (Km) - all the tools, machines, buildings,
technologies and infrastructure that enhance productivity;
84

• human or social capital (Kh) - the skills and knowledge of the
workforce;
• natural capital (Kn) - the earth and its living systems.
Weak sustainability is about maintaining total capital stock
(K = Km + Kn + Kh) without regard to proportions, with one kind of
capital being substitutable for another. While it heeds the Hicksian
call for limiting consumption to the "interest" or flow of services
produced by that capital stock, weak sustainability aggregates all
capital together. There is no "special role" for natural capital. This is
a key tenet of the neoclassical paradigm where Nature is just a sector
of the economy for which other sectors can substitute. Weak
sustainability advocates would acknowledge that natural capital is
indeed depreciating (e.g. that we're losing arable land, topsoil,
fisheries; we're depleting groundwater, polluting watersheds, etc.),
but they subtract this depreciation from total investment in the
economy.
Sometimes an equation can make something crystal clear,
even for those who dislike math. The so-called genuine savings rule
developed by Kirk Hamilton (Hamilton, 1994) relies upon the
comparison between investment (in man-made capital) and the
combined values of resource depletion and pollution. If S = 0, then
investment in man-made capital is more than compensating for the
losses of natural capital driven by resource depletion and pollution.
If S > 0, then the economy is weakly sustainable. This is
equivalent to: if I > r + p, given:
S = savings = I - r - p, where:
I = investment in man-made capital
r = resource depletion
p = total cost of pollution
Weak sustainability is achieved so long as we invest more
than the combined depreciation of natural capital and man-made
capital. S > 0 so long as investment [in man-made capital] exceeds
depreciation of natural capital. Robert Solow of MIT is the most
prominent advocate of weak sustainability in this country.
According to the concept of weak sustainability, if you're
running out of one kind of fish, you can just substitute another.
(That’s actually a quote from Robert Solow!) Our economies can
convert most of the world’s environment into man-made artefacts
and we would be as well off. A Starbucks coffee shop can substitute
85

for a wetland. Beautiful music from a CD ROM can substitute for
our disappearing songbirds. A more educated populace can substitute
for a dwindling supply of arable land and fertile soil. It's all part of
the everything-is-substitutable, everything-has-a-price world of
neoclassical economics.
Here follows a bit of a digression on the subject of
environmentally adjusted national accounts (EANA's). Some of
what you see in the equation for weak sustainability above (the terms
r and p) refer to the aggregate monetized values for environmental
degradation. Of course, this is an abstraction in the above equation,
but it has long been suggested that the cost of our environmental ills
should be subtracted from our measures of economic welfare.
Environmental economists and others have long been aware of this
“green critique” of GNP as a measure of economic welfare. Many
environmental economists are working on the full integration of
environmental costs and benefits into the national income accounts
themselves, particularly given that GNP is used as a target of
economic policy. The best and most recent example of this kind of
alternative indicator is the Genuine Progress Indicator, GPI. GPI
attempts to add up the goods and services consumed in the economy
whether or not money changes hands. Thus, it adds the value of
household work and parenting and volunteer work. Then it subtracts
out the three categories of expense: defensive expenditures (which
compensate for past costs), social costs, and the depreciation of
environmental assets.
Strong Sustainability = Environmental Sustainability:
Kn(t+1) > Kn(t). Strong sustainability means treating natural capital
(Kn) separately - on the assumption that we cannot substitute manmade
capital for it. To put it in layman's terms, strong sustainability
rejects the idea that our built infrastructure adequately compensates
future generations for ecological losses. Man-made capital cannot,
regardless of price, replace the services and amenities provided by
nature - most especially life-support services, like protection from
UV radiation, climate regulation, the food chain, the balance
between alkalinity and acidity, the storage, movement and
purification of water, etc. Many economists (and other unknowing
advocates of “weak” sustainability) are suggesting that any feature of
the natural world can be traded for something else. Nature cannot,
like other inputs to production, really be managed according to its
86

marginal product. Its viability must be protected. If impaired, the
unique services of ecological systems have no substitute; and
irreversible harm or collapse can ensue.
The threat of irreversibility is enough for the strong
sustainability advocate to favour a more precautionary approach to
drawing the line on humankind's use of the environment. The
precautionary principle says that where there are threats of serious or
irreversible damage, we should not wait for full scientific consensus
or proof that monetized benefits exceed monetized costs before
taking action to ensure that the environment is protected.
In addition, to the overarching operation of the second law
of thermodynamics, we have many other examples of irreversibility.
There is no known way of removing greenhouse gases from the
atmosphere or of restoring lost plant and animal species. Neither, at a
certain point, will fishing boats be an adequate substitute for fish.
Nor will sawmills function without their natural complement - trees.
A rainforest cannot be regenerated once deforestation depletes the
soil and eliminates the seed. Although it is theoretically possible to
tear up asphalt poured into parking lots and roads, it is highly
unlikely that we'll ever reverse decisions to urbanize and suburbanize
and bring back the open space, forests and farmlands we have lost to
urban sprawl. For strong sustainability advocates, the spectre of
irreversibility puts much of the environmental debate on a different
playing field.
They believe we should think much more carefully before
closing off options to future generations.
We are loosely and abstractly calling all of these ecological
life support assets and services “natural capital”. Although not
everyone will like this term, the ecological economists first used it as
a way of pointing out the tremendous wealth of the earth and its
living systems. You might also think of this in terms of carrying
capacity. To not deplete the natural capital that we leave to future
societies, the scale (size) of the economy should be within carrying
capacity. Carrying capacity is the uppermost limit on the number of
species an ecosystem or habitat can sustain, given the supply and
availability of nutrients.
How do we determine this? Fundamentally, one can use
something like either “life cycle analysis” (tracing the environmental
effects of a product from its origins through its consumption, and
87

disposal or re-use) or “input-output analysis” (tracing inter-industry
exchanges within a regional economy), focussing again on those two
essential functions - the source and sink functions of the
environment.
There are lots of ways to get at violations either on the
source or sink side. I‘ll suggest a few here. Ecological footprint
analysis, which originated in Canada, is an example of a carrying
capacity calculation. A recent analysis by Asa Jansson of Sweden's
Institute of Ecological Economics looked at the amount of wetlands
that would be needed to assimilate the nitrogen emissions of the 85
million people in the Baltic Sea drainage basin. (Jansson, 1996).
The answer comes out to be some 3-9 times the present available
area of wetlands. Even more dramatically, on a planetary scale,
another calculation cited by David Orr at the Oberlin Environmental
Studies Center in Ohio involves looking at what happens when we
extend our American lifestyle to the rest of the world‘s 5.7 billion
people. We come up about 3 planets short.
There are several principles for guiding an economy to a
scale that is within carrying capacity. The first has to do with the
“source” of the economic process: harvesting rates for renewable
resources should not exceed regeneration rates. This principle can be
applied to our relationships to managed resources: activities like
over-foresting, over-fishing, over-grazing, depleting groundwater
aquifers faster than their recharge rates, etc.
Frequently this principle has been interpreted in the
quantitative terms of maximum sustained yield (MSY), simply
chopping forests at their growth rates. Some ecologists have objected
to the single-minded focus on yielding one output from an ecosystem
- whether it is fish or forests; and that is because MSY has always
been more of a quantitative measure; and, as such, has been
somewhat inadequate to depict the requirements of sustaining a
managed resource or a more natural ecosystem. More and more, we
see ecological economics interpreting sustainability in broader,
qualitative terms: in terms of an ecosystem's health, its
resilience, its ability to withstand stress.
In their words: The physical basis for the productivity and
diversity of nature must not be systematically deteriorated. This
means: the productive surfaces of nature must not be diminished in
quality or quantity ... because our health and prosperity depend on
88

the capacity of nature to re-concentrate and restructure wastes into
resources (Robert, 1994).
At the other end of the economy‘s digestive system, the
strong sustainability principle is: waste emissions should not exceed
the assimilative capacity of the environment. This is the “sink
function” discussed earlier. Thomas Malthus’ premonition of limits
to growth based on finite inputs may need to be restated. What is
posing limits to human activity is more the availability of “sinks” or
ecosystem functions to assimilate our emissions.
In recent decades, we have had lots of measures of
unsustainability - the build-up of toxic chemicals in our soils,
sediments and organisms, loss or arable land and groundwater
depletion, greenhouse gases, losses of biodiversity at levels ranging
from species to ecosystems. All of this information tells us about
unsustainability.
Sustainable development may not require its own new set of
indicators so much as it may require paying attention to existing
evidence that we've exceeded the assimilative capacity of the
environment.
6. Concept of human capital: the antecedents
The formal concept of human capital was developed in the
1960s by a group of economists associated with the University of
Chicago (see Becker, 1964) although the idea that investment in
education has a long-term economic and social payoff for the
individual and society at large goes back to Adam Smith if not
earlier.
Human capital is defined as the aggregation of investments
in such areas as education, health, on-the-job-training, and migration
that enhance an individual’s productivity in the labour market, and
also in non-market activities.
Some definitions of human capital (e.g Laroche, Merette, and
Ruggeri, 1999) include the innate abilities as well as the knowledge
and skills that individuals acquire throughout their lifetimes. It is
argued that since the number of skills individuals acquire through
their lifetime depends partly on their initial abilities, this potential is
an important aspect of the human capital concept.
Laroche, Merette, and Ruggeri (1999) identify five aspects or
89

characteristics of human capital that merit attention. They are as
follows:
• human capital is a non-tradeable good embodied in human
beings, although the flow of services generated by human capital
is marketed;
• individuals, particularly the young, do not always control the
channel or pace by which they acquire human capital;
• human capital has a qualitative as well as a quantitative aspect
reflecting the quality of the educational inputs;
• human capital can be either general in nature or specific to a firm
or sector; and
• human capital generates individual and social externalities.
Based on the Brundtland definition of sustainable
development, a general working definition of sustainable human
capital in health would be that the health needs of the current
population are being met without compromising the ability of the next
generation to meet its needs. Equally, a general working definition of
sustainable human capital in education would be that the education
needs of current population are being met without compromising the
ability of the next generation to meet its needs.
However, there is a major difference between natural
capital, to which the sustainability concept originally applied, and
human capital. Natural capital is finite and non-reproducible while
human capital is infinite and reproducible. From this angle, the
concern about the depletion of natural resources and the degradation
of eco-systems from the perspective of future generations, which is
what motivated the development of the concept of sustainability,
does not apply in exactly the same manner to human capital.
We run down natural resources by exploiting them and use
the eco-systems (air, water, land, etc.) in the production process. We
cannot accumulate natural capital (although the measured
economically feasible natural resource component of natural capital
can be augmented though technological change, new discoveries, and
higher relative prices). On the other hand, we accumulate educational
human capital by educating the population and accumulate human
capital in the health area through medical and public health advances
that increase the overall health of the population. Of course, we can in
principle run down these two types of human capital through failure to
make the appropriate investments but we do not do so in the normal
90

course of the production process, as is the case for natural capital.
Despite the above differences between natural and human
capital in terms of their reproducibility and exploitability, the concept
of sustainability does have relevance for human capital. By tracking
single indicators and aggregate indices of the human capital in the
education and health areas, one can gauge their direction of change.
The rest of this paper develops a set of indicators that would
constitute human capital in the education and health areas and
develops an operational definition of sustainability.
7. Linkages between human capital and other types of
capital
7.1 Human capital and natural capital
There are complex two-way linkages between natural
capital, defined as natural resources and the world’s ecosystems, and
human capital, defined to include education and health. First let us
enumerate some of the impacts of human capital on natural capital.
• A population with high knowledge and skill levels can expand the
natural capital base by finding additional resources, exploiting
more efficiently the existing resource base with new techniques,
and developing substitutes for resources in short supply.
• A population with high knowledge and skill levels has the
ability to develop technologies to address environmental
problems threatening the world’s ecosystems.
• More indirectly, human capital accumulation increases national
income which provides the resources to address environmental
problems, in many cases even with current technologies.
• A healthy population, particularly if it is growing in size, will
consume more non- renewable natural resources, resulting in the
depletion of existing stocks. It may also increase pressure on the
environment, through pollution of the air, water and land and
through the destruction of plant and animal species.
• A healthy population, particularly if it is growing, can extract
more resources from the natural resource base.
Natural capital is the sine qua non for the reproduction of
human capital. For example,
• Natural resources are essential for the sustenance and shelter of
the population.
91

• Ecosystems are essential for the survival of life on this planet and
therefore are essential for the health of human beings.
Health and education human capital indicators can illustrate
well the linkages between natural and human capital. For example, an
accumulation of educational capital in the field of solar energy may
make this energy source more cost effective and reduce use of fossil
fuels, contributing to a reduction in CO2 emissions and hence in
global warming.
7.2 Human capital and economic capital
Just as there are complex relationships between human and
natural capital, so too there are similar reciprocal relationships
between human capital and economic capital, defined as physical
assets (machinery and equipment, structures, housing, consumer
durables). First let us enumerate some of the impacts of human capital
on physical capital.
• A population with high knowledge and skill levels has the
ability to develop technologies to produce better capital goods.
• More indirectly, human capital accumulation increases national
income which increases demand for capital goods.
• A healthy population, particularly if it is growing, can produce
more capital goods.
• Physical capital has a very positive effect on human capital in the
education and health areas.
• New technologies are generally embodied in capital goods so new
medical equipment (e.g. magnetic resonance imaging - MRI) can
improve health status and raise life expectancy.
• Education and training does not take place in a vacuum, but
requires building and equipment, which is part of physical capital.
Health and education human capital indicators can illustrate
well the linkages between economic and human capital. For example,
an accumulation of educational capital in the field of computer science
can foster the production of more economic capital as computers
become more powerful and useful and contribute to productivity
growth.
7.3 Indicators of Human Capital in the Education Area
In the education area, it is suggested that the average
educational attainment of the working age population (or labour
92

force) be adopted as the first summary indicator of the sustainability
of human capital in the education area. Additional years of education
normally produce more knowledgeable and skilled workers, so a
situation where average educational attainment is declining is not
consistent with the sustainability of human capital. It is true that years
of education has certain characteristics of an input indicator rather
than an outcome indicator of human capital and that the effectiveness
of a certain number of years of schooling may vary across countries
and over time due to differences or changes in educational quality.
But the problems associated with adopting an input indicator such as
educational attainment as a proxy for sustainable human capital are
much less severe than would be the case if a true input indicator such
as educational expenditures was adopted.
The advantages of the use of years of average education
attainment as an indicator of trends in human capital sustainability
include its transparency; its wide availability over space in CEEC
from the national level to census tracts as well as internationally for
almost all countries and over time for many decades; and its
accessibility from a large number of sources, including censuses,
household surveys, and administrative records.
As already noted, one disadvantage of average educational
attainment as an indicator of human capital sustainability is the
possibility of declining quality in educational credentials. A high
school diploma in 2005 may or may not represent the acquisition of
as much knowledge as it did 50 years ago.
The second proposed indicator of human capital in the
education area is the standardized test results for literacy and
numeracy such as the International Adult Literacy surveys pioneered
by Statistics Canada and the OECD. A decline in the test scores of
the working population (or labour force) would indicate a fall in the
average quality of human capital and hence an unsustainable situation.
The advantage of literacy tests is that they represent a true
outcome indicator of human capital quality over both time and space.
Disadvantages include the lack of historical data for Canada; the
small number of countries for which comparable data are available;
the limited possibilities for disaggregation of the population because
of small sample size; and the high cost of obtaining the data.
7.4 Indicators of human capital in the healthcare sector
93

The first indicator proposed as a proxy for the sustainability
of human capital in the health area is the Health-Adjusted Life
Expectancy (HALE) of the total population (calculation of a HALE
for only the working age population or labour force poses statistical
problems). A decline in the HALE would be an indication that the size
of the current population may not be sustainable. Such a situation has
recently developed in Russia.
The HALE is a classic summary outcome indicator. Its great
strength is that it captures the impact on the population of all the
determinants of health. One disadvantage is that unlike life
expectancy, it is relatively difficult to calculate as it requires detailed
data on health status to make the disability or health adjustment.
Therefore it may not be available for long time periods and on a
consistent basis for a large number of countries.
However, as trends in the HALE appear similar to that of
overall life expectancy, for periods and countries where the HALE is
not available, overall life expectancy may possibly be used as an
approximation. Data on overall life expectancy are available for
almost all countries for long time periods.
The second indicator proposed to track the sustainability of
health component of human capital is self-reported overall health
status. Like the HALE, a decline in health status of the working age
population of labour force indicates deterioration in the ability of this
population to engage in economic production and hence represents a
decline in human capital and a trend toward unsustainability.
Self-reported health status is an outcome indicator. Research
shows that it is an excellent indicator of the true health status of
individuals. The proportion of the population who rate their health as
very good or good approximates the proportion who in fact have few
health problems. One disadvantage of self-reported health status is
that this information requires health surveys of the population so
there may be limitations on the availability of comparable data over
time and across space.
8. CASE STUDY 1. Human capital and sustainability:
sustainable livelihood and rural development
8.1 Sustainable livelihoods: putting people at the centre of
development
94

The word ‘livelihood’ can be used in many different ways.
The following definition captures the broad notion of livelihoods
understood here: “A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets
(including both material and social resources) and activities
required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it
can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or
enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while
not undermining the natural resource base” (DFID, 1999, p.1).
The livelihoods approach is a way of thinking about the
objectives, scope and priorities for development. A specific
livelihoods framework and objectives have been developed to assist
with implementation, but the approach goes beyond these. In essence
it is a way of putting people at the centre of development, thereby
increasing the effectiveness of development assistance. This set of
Guidance Sheets attempts to summarise and share emerging thinking
on the sustainable livelihoods approach. It does not offer definitive
answers and guidelines. Instead, it is intended to stimulate readers to
reflect on the approach and make their own contributions to its
further development.
Abbreviations:
H – Human capital S – Social Capital
N – Natural Capital P – Physical Capital
F – Financial Capital
Vulnerability
context
Livelihood assets
H
S
N
P F
i
n
fl
u
e
n
c
e
&
a
c
c
e
s
s
Transforming
structures and
processes
Livelihood
strategies
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
a
c
i
e
v
e
Livelihood
outcomes
Source: adapted from Chambers, R. and G. Conway (1992) Sustainable rural
livelihoods: Practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296.
Brighton: IDS.
Figure 1. Sustainable livelihoods framework
8.2 The sustainable livelihoods framework
95

The framework, which is presented in schematic form
(Figure 1), has been developed to help understand and analyse the
livelihoods of the poor. It is also useful in assessing the effectiveness
of existing efforts to reduce poverty. Like all frameworks, it is a
simplification; the full diversity and richness of livelihoods can be
understood only by qualitative and participatory analysis at a local
level.
The framework does not attempt to provide an exact
representation of reality. It does, however, endeavour to provide a
way of thinking about the livelihoods of poor people that will
stimulate debate and reflection, thereby improving performance in
poverty reduction. In its simplest form, the framework views people
as operating in a context of vulnerability. Within this context, they
have access to certain assets or poverty reducing factors. These gain
their meaning and value through the prevailing social, institutional
and organisational environment. This environment also influences
the livelihood strategies – ways of combining and using assets – that
are open to people in pursuit of beneficial livelihood outcomes that
meet their own livelihood objectives.
The livelihoods approach puts people at the centre of
development. This focus on people is equally important at higher
levels (when thinking about the achievement of objectives such as
poverty reduction, economic reform or sustainable development) as
it is at the micro or community level (where in many cases it is
already well entrenched).
At a practical level, this means that the approach:
• starts with an analysis of people’s livelihoods and how these
have been changing over time;
• fully involves people and respects their views;
• focuses on the impact of different policy and institutional
arrangements upon people/households and upon the dimensions
of poverty they define (rather than on resources or overall output
per se);
• stresses the importance of influencing these policies and
institutional arrangements so they promote the agenda of the
poor (a key step is political participation by poor people
themselves);
96

• works to support people to achieve their own livelihood goals
(though taking into account considerations regarding
sustainability).
Sustainable poverty reduction will be achieved only if
external support (i.e. support from outside the household) works with
people in a way that is congruent with their current livelihood
strategies, social environments and ability to adapt.
People – rather than the resources they use or the
governments that serve them – are the priority concern. Adhering to
this principle may well translate into providing support to resource
management or good governance (for example). But it is the
underlying motivation of supporting people’s livelihoods that should
determine the shape of the support and provide the basis for
evaluating its success.
8.3 Integrated rural development: towards sustainable livelihood
One of the early ‘criticisms’ that has been levelled at the
livelihoods approach is that it is too similar to the failed integrated
rural development (IRD) approaches of the 1970s. It is easy to see
where this reflection is coming from; the two approaches share much
in common. But the sustainable livelihoods approach endeavours to
build upon the strengths of IRD (especially the recognition of the
need for broad-based support in rural areas) without falling into the
traps that caused IRD’s downfall. In particular, the livelihoods
approach does not aim to establish integrated programmes in rural
areas.
While recognising the importance to rural poverty reduction
of a wide range of factors it will target just a few core areas (with the
help of thorough analysis of existing livelihoods and a bottom-up
planning process) so that activities remain manageable. The
livelihoods approach will also address macro level and institutional
factors where these are a major constraint. IRD, by contrast was
forced to operate within a hostile macro-economic and institutional
environment, dominated and often heavily distorted by government.
Table 1 juxtaposes the two approaches and suggests where some of
the main differences lie.
97

Table 1. Integrated rural development versus sustainable livelihoods
Dimensional
criteria
Starting
point
Concepts of
poverty
Problem
analysis
Sectoral
scope
Level of
operation
Partner
organisation
Project
management
structure
Integrated rural development
(1970s)
Structures, areas
Holistic, multi-dimensional;
Recommendation domains
suggest uniformity (an
operational simplification)
Undertaken by planning unit
in short period of time,
viewed as conclusive
Multi-sectoral, single plan
Sector involvement
established at outset
Local, area based
National and local
governments
Dedicated project
management unit, external to
government
Sustainable livelihoods (late
1990s)
People and their existing
strengths and constraints
Multi-dimensional, complex,
local;
Embraces the concepts of risk
and variability
Inclusive process, iterative
and incomplete
Multi-sectoral, many plans
Small number of entry points;
Sectoral involvement evolves
with project
Both policy and field level,
clear links between the two
Local and national
governments
NGOs, civil society
organisations, private sector
Project within partner
organisation
Coordination
(between
sectors)
Integrated execution
(donor-driven)
Driven by shared objectives,
benefits of co-ordination
identified by those involved
Sustainability Not explicitly considered Multiple dimensions;
Core concern
Source: DFID, 1999, p. 10.
9. CASE STUDY 2. Economic competitiveness:
human versus ecological sustainability in corporations
9.1 From rejection to compliance
Concerns about developing social capital, too, can explain
why companies may wish to support local community participation
in corporate decision-making. Social capital is fundamental to the
successful working of the new organisational forms such as the
network organisation and communities of practice. Companies are
98

increasingly dependent on employees who can work cooperatively
and contribute to the social capital of the organisation (Sagawa and
Segal, 2000). Yet the dangers of “over-embedding” (Adler and
Kwon, 2002), where the build up of social capital within the
organisation means mistrust of external stakeholders, or external
experts, are also increasingly recognised.
Table 2. Human versus ecological sustainability in
companies
Levels Human sustainability Ecological sustainability
Level 1: Rejection Employees and
The environment is
subcontractors exploited. regarded as a free good to
Community concerns are be exploited.
rejected outright.
Level 2: Non- IR a major issue with the Environmental risks, costs,
Responsiveness emphasis on cost of labour. opportunities and
Financial
and imperatives are seen as
technological factors irrelevant.
exclude broader social
concerns. Training agenda
focuses on technical and
supervisory training.
Level 3:
Compliance
Level 4: Efficiency
Level 5: Strategic
Pro-activity
Level 6: The
Sustaining
Corporation
HR functions such as IR,
training, TQM are
instituted but with little
integration between them.
Technical and supervisory
training augmented with
interpersonal skills
training. Teamwork
encouraged for valueadding
as well as costsaving
purposes. External
stakeholder relations
developed for business
benefits.
Intellectual and social
capital are used to develop
strategic advantage
through innovation in
products/services.
Key goals both inside and
outside the firm are the
pursuit of equity and
human welfare and
potential.
Ecological issues likely to
attract strong litigation or
strong community action
are addressed.
ISO 14000 integrated with
TQM and OH&S systems
or other systematic
approaches with the aim of
achieving eco-efficiencies.
Sales of byproducts.
Proactive environmental
strategies are seen as a
source of competitive
advantage.
The firm works with
society towards ecological
renewal.
99

Source: adapted after Benn and Dunphy, 2005, p. 99.
In this context, the principles of industrial ecology, of
community, interconnectedness and cooperation, can be seen as a
model for the way forward for corporation wishing to move towards
sustainability (Ehrenfeld, 2000). They provide a framework for new
levels of resource productivity and generate new strategic directions.
Our developmental model (Table 2) indicates how human and
ecological sustainability are interrelated developments along this
path. At each step of the way, new human capabilities or
characteristics of the organisation enable further progression of
ecological sustainability.
According to the developmental model shown in Table 2,
the organisations most in need of change are those in the rejection
and non-responsive phases. Because expenditure on personal and
professional development is kept to a minimum and the community
concerns are rejected completely, firms in the rejection phase remain
ignorant of the benefits of progressing along the sustainability
spectrum. In the non- responsive organisation, financial factors so
dominate corporate decision-making that often both the human
resource and environment factors are taken for granted, usually with
the exception of industrial relations issues. Management
policymaking of the non-responsive organisation focuses on
ensuring that the workforce is easily moulded to the corporate will in
order to derive maximum financial return. Barbara Ehrenreich’s
work Nickel and Dimed (2000) provides us with graphic descriptions
of the human resources (HR) and occupational health and safety
(OH&S) policies of many such organisations.
For organisations like this, to move to compliance requires
cultural change. Compliance is not just a matter of changing policies
and values. It involves enlisting the commitment of all employees
and building practical procedures which everyone in the organisation
can understand. Moving to a risk-free, ongoing position of
compliance is not possible without this commitment.
Approaches to organisational change are seen as ‘soft’
(associated with adaptive strategies, cultural changes, continuous
improvement, empowerment, and social goals) or ‘hard’ (associated
with rational strategies, structural change, radical transformation,
leadership and command, and economic goals) (Stace and Dunphy
100

2001, p. 14). Since moving to compliance is dependent upon both
hard and soft variables of change, the human resource function is
crucial. A major barrier to the organisational learning required for
the change may be that employees see the natural environment as a
technical issue and difficult to understand. Attaining compliance
with environmental laws may require new technical solutions or
programs being implemented to enable cleaner production
techniques and improved worker health and safety. These often
include operating within specific, technical considerations such as
development consents or specified standards, eliminating hazardous
operations, waste disposal, water quality and planning requirements
for new developments. Consequently, ongoing HR support may be
required if these measures are to be successfully introduced and
maintained. Having encountered this difficulty, management at
KLM, for instance, have developed an awareness-raising course and
have instigated a regular staff information day.
9.2 Moving to the efficiency phase
In the shift to the next stage of efficiency, human resource
management becomes resource management (Gollan, 2000). Specific
targets include how to identify cost inefficiencies and how to
develop ‘natural capitalism’ by increasing resource productivity and
operational efficiency (Lovins, Lovins and Hawken, 1999). These
authors (1999) have described natural capitalism as profiting from
increasing the productivity of natural resources, closing materials
loops and eliminating waste, shifting to biologically inspired
production models, providing customers with efficient solutions, and
reinvesting in natural capital. For many corporations, improving
performance in terms of efficiency enables and justifies shifting
along the spectrum of ecological sustainability. But improving
corporate performance in terms of cost, such as by reducing energy
use and waste to landfill, is highly reliant on company-wide
awareness and educational programs. These in turn rely on human
resource and quality management systems, on communication and
motivation strategies. In general, developing eco-efficiency requires
a number of human resource management measures to be
implemented such as highly organised knowledge management and
transfer systems, re-organisation of line managers to take more
responsibility for both reputational and technical risk areas and
101

change agent development in order to facilitate incremental change.
However, efficiency initiatives alone will not generate the
competitive advantage required for long-term high performance. The
already lean and trim organisation will need to leverage other
sources of competitive advantage such as their symbolic capital
(Dunphy et al, 2003; McIntosh et al, 1998). Their reputation, their
capability to communicate meaningfully with internal and external
stakeholders and their ability to develop intangible assets such as the
tacit knowledge of long-term employees becomes more important.
Panasonic is a case in point here.
9.3 The strategic phase
Lovins, Lovins and Hawken (1999) have argued that if
firms persist with the win-win business logic of natural capitalism,
they can gain a commanding and strategic competitive advantage. It
needs to be recognised, however, that building this perspective into
an organisation requires the development of innovative capacity.
A firm in the strategic phase will have the capability and
learning capacity to recognise and develop the skills and
organisational culture necessary to innovate inline with the new
business standards set by ecological modernisation (Hoffman, 1997;
Mol and Sonnenfeld, 2000). Hewlett-Packard’s Environmental
Strategies and Solutions program, for instance, showed that
sustainability can offer companies a strategic competitive advantage
(Preston, 2001). The firm based the program on the premise that the
planet is a closed system which will eventually face limits, placing
the firm in a new social and economic situation. In other words, the
firm strategically scoped the challenges of a new business
environment, developing strategies which would transform potential
environmental liabilities such as climate change, resource exhaustion
and the energy crisis into competitive advantage (Preston, 2001, p.
29).
More generally, movement to this phase requires
management to formulate a strategy which anticipates and scopes
future issues and intended impacts of company operations, products
and services (Roome, 1992). In another approach to increasing
ecological sustainability through developing human capability, the
firm can then focus on redesigning products, processes and service
layouts to gain strategic business advantage.
102

In other words, innovation, business concept redesign, and
human sustainability can be readily linked in a dynamic relationship
aimed at delivering long-term business advantage. Importantly, such
qualities enable the corporation to be more responsive to the external
drivers of change. An organisation geared to innovation is ready to
take up government incentives for ecological modernisation. That is,
it can readily translate social and moral issues into market issues and
can exploit the potentially huge market that ecological sustainability,
in particular, represents. But more than that, such an organisation
can more critically reflect on the possibilities of new relationships
between nature, society and technology that will mark a new, more
sustainable age (Hajer, 1995).
9.4 The sustaining organisation
In order to develop to the stage of the truly responsible and
responsive organisation the firm will need to make the transition to
an organisation that functions as an instrument for the fulfilment of
human needs and the support and renewal of the biosphere. It will
need to develop a codified set of values that are able to be
internalised in all employees. We argue that the skills necessary for
such an organisation will be process-based and include higher order
skills of personal resilience, self-confidence, adaption and learning,
empathy, communication and influence, coaching, negotiation and
conflict resolution. The truly sustaining organisation will attempt to
use its influence so that society as a whole will progress toward a
more equitable position both between and within generations.
9.5 Tensions between human and ecological sustainability
This paper has attempted to draw out the synergies between
human and ecological sustainability, arguing for an integrated
perspective on corporate sustainability. But are, as many critics have
argued, both normative and business cases for integration flawed?
Does attempting the simultaneous achievement of human and
environmental sustainability inevitably mean a trade-off?
In terms of ideology, for instance, there are tensions
between human sustainability which focuses on the development of
employee and community capability, and the ideals of the
‘ecocentric’ organisation or strong sustainability (Kearins et al,
2003; Shrivastava, 1995). Underpinning sustainability with features
103

associated with development of human capability encourages a
technological fix or mechanistic approach to sustainability. Such an
anthropocentric approach puts humans outside the realm of the
natural world. It restricts the development of the interconnectedness
and reciprocity associated with a more ecocentric perspective
(Shrivastava, 1995).
Stepwise approaches based on the human journey metaphor
can lead to acceptance of imperfection in implementation or weak
sustainability (Kearins et al, 2003).
At an operational level, there is evidence that while a
humanistic approach and investment in employee development
produces stakeholder benefits, the extra costs of training and other
forms of human resource development may also cause companies to
reduce money spent in replacing beyond end-of-pipe with pollution
prevention environmental management systems. They may rely on
increased employee skills alone to bring about change. At a strategic
level, an emphasis on the principles of natural capitalism (Lovins,
Lovins and Hawken, 1997) is technocentric, shutting out the ‘people
element’ of the organisation and the capacity to change. Achieving
environmental sustainability, for instance, may also require an
overemphasis on Taylorist principles and lead to intensive, rather
than sustainable work systems (Doherty, Forslin and Shani, 2002).
Further tensions at the strategic planning level may arise in
association with the unbounded nature of environmental risk (Beck,
1992) and the fact that the social perpetrators of the risk may be far
distant from the effects (Beck, 1992; 1999).
10. Conclusions
1. To be sustainable means: 1) every process to be ecologically
safe (following the ecological compatibility condition); and 2)
every process should provide the society with the appropriate
amount of production (following the economic compatibility
condition).
2. Sustainability is more of a nominative ethical principle for
further social development, discussing not about what it is, but
what should be.
104

3. It is possible to have a theoretically optimal solution, which
could evoke unsustainable consequences of environmental
protection at the same time.
4. As in the economics, sustainable development is most often
described as the need to maintain permanent income for
humankind, generate from non-declining capital stock (Hicksian
income), much of the economic debate has risen about the
question whether each capital stock has to be maintained
independently, or whether the sum of all four capital stocks of
human, man-made, natural and social capital has to be nondeclining.
5. This dispute assumes strong comparability (i.e. the existence of
a common characteristic like for instance ‘utility’) and focuses
on the question of strong or weak commensurability.
6. Interpretations of strong and weak sustainability can be justified
by studying the possibilities of substituting supplies of nature’s
and economic capital or complementing each other.
7. According to the law of strong sustainability, the aggregate
physical quantity of nature’s capital or general nature’s capital
(despite its type) and its value should not decrease and should be
preserved for future generations.
8. The version of weak sustainability contains (making an
unrealistic assumption about the perfect substitution of nature’s
and man-made capital) the sum of the forms of both capital –
nature’s and economic capital – or any other aggregated unit of
measurement (for example, the “green” GNP), and requires that
it not decline all the time.
9. Instead of simple substitution decision following a single
criterion, a systematic or intuitive multi-criteria assessment of
trade offs would be (and in real life is) performed.
10. Our major motivation in applying the phase model to
sustainability issues is to examine the relationship between
human resource management and corporate citizenship (human
sustainability) and ecological sustainability, areas of
management which are usually studied in isolation.
11. Environmental sustainability can only be effectively created
through first building the human capabilities of the organisation
- no amount of technical capacity can by itself ensure corporate
sustainability.
105

11. Comprehension check
1. Present the essence of strong comparability and
commensurability.
2. Present the essence of strong and weak sustainability.
3. What are the forms of capital, discussed in the chapter?
What is the correlation between human capital and
sustainability?
4. How human factor and sustainability concept could
function in business organisations?
5. Select a business company of your choice and discuss,
which level of human sustainability vs. ecological
sustainability it is in. Determine the descriptive criteria to
prove your analysis and evaluate their impact on company’s
competitive advantage in the market.
6. Write a report-discussion (7-10 pages long) on Thomas
Kuhn‘s (1962) and Paul Feyerabend‘s (1962) works on
incommensurability, presenting criticism and strong
arguments for the sustainability paradigm.
12. Supplementary reading
1. Neumayer, Eric. (2004). Weak versus Strong Sustainability:
Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. 2 nd edition. -
Edward Elgar Publishing.
2. Fullan, Michael. (2004). Leadership & Sustainability: System
Thinkers in Action. - Corwin Press.
3. Mosley, Layna. (2002). Global Capital and National
Governments. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Journals on environmental/ ecological issues:
4.1. International Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology (IJEST), http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/ijest/index.htm
4.2. Ecosystems, http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/springer/10021/index.htm
106

4.3. Environment, Development and Sustainability,
http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/springer/envi/index.asp
4.4. International Journal of Sustainable Development,
http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/inderscience/ijsd/index.htm
4.5. Virtual Journal of Environmental Sustainability,
http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/elsevier/sustainability/index.htm
4.6. World review of Science, Technology and Sustainable
Development,
http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/inderscience/wrstsd/
4.7. ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS: The Transdisciplinary
Journal of the International Society for Ecological
Economics (ISEE), http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/elsevier/ecolecon/index.htm
4.8. Environmental and Resource Economics,
http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/springer/eare/index.asp
4.9. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies,
http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/springer/10018/index.htm
4.10. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS: Integrating Monitoring,
Assessment and Management, http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/elsevier/ecolind/index.htm
4.11. Ecological Modelling, http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/elsevier/ecolmodel/index.htm
4.12. Environmental Management, http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/springer/00267/index.asp
4.13. Environmental Protection, http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/stevens/ep/index.htm
4.14. International Journal of Environmental Technology and
Management,
http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/inderscience/ijetm/index.htm
4.15. Journal of Environmental Management,
http://www.environmentalexpert.com/magazine/elsevier/jenvman/index.htm
107

13. References
1. Adler, P., Kwon, S. (2002). Social Capital: Prospects for a
new concept, Academy of Management Review. 27 (1), p.
17–40.
2. Beck, U. (1992). The Risk Society. Sage Publications:
London.
3. Beck, U. (1999). World Risk Society. Polity Press:
Cambridge.
4. Becker, G. (1964). Human Capital: A Theoretical and
Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education,
National Bureau of Economic Research
5. Benn, S., Dunphy, D. (2005). Human And Ecological
Factors: A Systematic Approach To Corporate
Sustainability. In: Sustainability and Social Science: Round
Table Proceedings, Sydney: University of Technology, p.
95-124.
6. Brown D. A. (1994). The ethical dimensions of the United
Nations program on environment and development. Earth
Ethics Research Group.
7. Ciegis R. (2004). Ekonomika ir aplinka: subalansuotos
plėtros valdymas. Kaunas, Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto
leidykla.
8. Costanza R., Daly H. E, Bartholomew J. A. (1991). Goals,
agenda and policy recommendations for ecological
economics. In: Costanza R. (Ed.), Ecological Economics:
The Science and Management of Sustainability. New York.
9. Costanza R., Daly H. E. (1992). Natural capital and
sustainable development, Conservation Biology. Nr. 6. P.
37-46.
10. Daly H. E. (1991). Elements of environmental
macroeconomics. In: Ecological Economics. The Science
and Management of Sustainability. ed. R. Costanza. New
York. P. 32-46.
108

11. Daly H. E. (1991a). Steady-State Economics. Second
Edition with new Essays. Covelo/Washington, D. C., Island
Press.
12. Daly H. E., Cobb J. B. (1989). For the Common Good:
Redirecting the Economy Toward Community, the
Environment and Sustainable Future. Boston.
13. DFID. (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets.
April Issue, p.1-10.
14. Doherty, P., Forslin, J. and Shani, A. (2002). Creating
Sustainable Work Systems. Routledge: London.
15. Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A. and Benn, S. (2003).
Organisational Change for Corporate Sustainability. –
London: Routledge.
16. Ecological Economics. (1998). Special issue on the Value
of Ecosystem Services, Ecological Economics. No 25, p.1-
142.
17. Ehrenreich, B. (2001). Nickel and Dimed: on (not) getting
by in America. Metropolitan Books: New York.
18. Engel J. R., Denny-Hugher. (1994). Advancing ethics for
living sustainably: Report of the IUCN ethics workshop,
April 1993, Indiana National Lakeshore, USA, Sacramento.
19. Engel J. R., Engel J. G. (1990). Ethics of environment and
development: Global challenge, international response.
London.
20. Gollan, P. (2000). Human Resources, Capabilities and
Sustainability. In D. Dunphy, J. Benveniste, A. Griffiths
and P. Sutton (Eds), Sustainability: the Corporate
Challenge of the 21stCentury, Angus and Robertson:
Sydney.
21. Hajer, M. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse.
Clarendon Press: Oxford.
22. Hamilton, Kirk. (1994). Green Adjustments to GDP,
Resources Policy.
23. Hartwick J. M. (1977). Intergenerational equity and the
investing of rents from exhaustible resources, American
Economic Review, No 67, p. 972-974.
24. Hartwick J. M. (1978). Substitution among Exhaustible
Resources and Intergenerational Equity, Review of
Economic Studies, No 45, p. 347-354.
109

110
25. Hoffman, A. (1997). From Heresy to Dogma. The New
Lexington Press: San Francisco.
26. Jansson, A. (1996). „The Ecological Footprint for Waste
Assimilation of the Human Population in the Baltic Sea
Drainage Basin“, Paper presented to the International
Society for Ecological Economics, Boston, MA, August,
1996.
27. Kearins, K., Milne, M. & Walton, S. (2003), August 3–6.
The business journey to sustainability: destination not
defined! In: Problematising Sustainability Symposium.
Academy of Management Conference, Seattle USA.
28. Kothari R. (1994). Environment, technology and ethics. In:
Gruen L., Jamieson D. (Eds). Reflecting on Nature:
Readings in Environmental Philosophy. New York, p.228-
237.
29. Laroche, Mireille, Marcel Merette, G.C. Ruggeri. (1999).
On the Concept and Dimensions of Human Capital in a
Knowledge-Based Economy Context, Canadian Public
Policy, Vol. XXV, No. 1, p. 87-100.
30. Lovins A., Lovins L. and Hawken, P. (1999). A road map
for natural capitalism. Harvard Business Review May–June,
p. 145–158.
31. McIntosh, M., Leipziger, D., Jones, K. and Coleman, G.
(1998). Corporate Citizenship, Financial Times
Management: London.
32. Mol, A. and Sonnenfeld, D. (2000). Ecological
modernisation around the world: an introduction.
Environmental Politics. 9 (1), p. 3–16.
33. OECD, Ed. (2001). Analytical Report on Sustainable
Development SG / SD (2001) 1-14. -Paris, OECD.
34. Our Common Future. (1987). World Commission on
Environment and Development.
35. Ozkaynak, B., Devine, P., Rigby, D. (2004).
Operationalising Strong Sustainability: Definitions,
Methodologies and Outcomes, Environmental Values 13
(2004), p. 279–303.
36. Pearce D. W. (1993). Economic Values and the Natural
World. London.

37. Pearce D. W., Atkinson G. D. (1993). Capital theory and
the measure of sustainable development: An indicator of
"weak" sustainability, Ecological Economics, No 8, p. 103-
108.
38. Pearce D. W., Barbier E. (2000). Blueprint for a
Sustainable Economy. -London, Earthscan.
39. Pearce D. W., Barbier E., Markandya A. (1990).
Sustainable Development. -London, Earthscan.
40. Pearce D. W., Turner R. K. (1990). Economics of Natural
Resources and the Environment. Baltimore.
41. Preston, L. (2001). Sustainability at Hewlett-Packard: from
theory to practice. California Management Review 43(3), p.
26–38.
42. Robert, Karl-Henrik. (1994). „Socio-ecological Principles
for a Sustainable Society“. Paper presented to conference of
International Society of Ecological Economics, Costa Rica.
43. Rockefeller S. C., Elder J. C. (1992). Spirit and nature:
Why the environment is a religious issue. Boston.
44. Roome, N. (1992). Developing environmental management
strategies, Business Strategy and the Environment 1, p. 11–
24.
45. Sagawa, S. and Segal, E. (2000). Common interest,
common good: creating value through business and social
sector partnerships. California Management Review. Winter
42 (2), p. 105–123.
46. Serageldin I. Ed. (1997). Expanding the Measure of Wealth:
Indicators of Environmentally Sustainable Development.
Washington, D. C.: The World Bank.
47. Shrivastava, P. (1995). Ecocentric management for a risk
society. The Academy of Management Review. 20, p. 118–
137.
48. Skolimowski H. (1990). Reverence for life. In: J. R. Engel,
J. G. Engel (Eds.), Ethics of environment and development:
Global challenge, international response. London, p.97-
103.
49. Solow R. M. (1986). On the intergenerational allocation of
exhaustible resources, Scandinavian Journal of Economics,
No 88 (2), p.141- 156.
111

50. Spangenberg J. H. (2005). The economic sustainability of
the economy: Assessing the sustainability of a complex
system by applying orientor theory. In: Paper presented to
the 2 nd Conference on Integrative Approaches Towards
Sustainability, Jurmala, Latvia 11–14 May.
51. Stace, D. and Dunphy, D. (2001). Beyond the Boundaries.
McGraw Hill: Roseville.
52. Tietenberg T. (1984). Environmental and Natural Resource
Economics. Glenview, IL.
112