Both domains have specific and common aspects regarding sustainability. The world economic crisis of 2008 illustrates vividly the need for economic sustainability. The environmental and climatic concerns related to global warming are more alarming because they, particularly the latter, raise survival issues relating to the near future. They are not just a question of standard of life.

All areas of sustainability involve a conceptual issue. The question is: what will be the impact of economic, and other human, activities on society and the world? And what about the future? Considering generations to come should be an essential criterion.

This question is gaining significance as the prospects of falling welfare and the struggle for long run survival appear to become more realistic. By virtue of its basic principles, social democracy is outstandingly well suited for adopting policies to ensure sustainable welfare.

For example in many instances the Tea Party representatives in the US seem to clearly disregard such concerns. But the comparison is of limited use and what matters most is to transform the conceptual position into concrete policies-and implement them.

What should be the main elements of such effective sustainability policies? Here are a couple of points relating to the environment and global warming that should be considered.

It is important to achieve a correct measurement of the scale of problems at hand and the trade offs involved, as well as a thorough assessment of the alternatives.

For example, it is necessary to identify clearly and objectively the exact role of different energy forms in terms of global warming. Also, in addition to the possibilities of other renewables, such as solar and wind energy, can there be definitively harmless, smaller, technologically different nuclear energy production machinery? The trade offs between economic activities and environmental and global warming concerns too need to be measured as accurately as possible. This will facilitate devising solutions that provide both safety and increased productivity. An example being a comprehensive transformation of the production process in terms of materials, type and quantity of energy. Usually such transformation would involve relatively long time periods and higher costs.

The necessary public sector support to producers can be provided to ensure the transformation. If this transformation is taken up at a sufficiently large scale and across a large number of sectors, it will have a positive job creating impact and open new fields of research and economic activity. A matching increase relating to these changes would need to be achieved in training and education. Such green transformation can thereby contribute to achieving a sustainable welfare increase.

On the other hand, this green production transformation also needs to be accompanied by a number of changes in life patterns. This has two reasons. One is that the production process changes involved are likely to necessitate new patterns in transportation or housing for example. The other is that knowledge available so far indicates that some global warming – estimated to be of the order of 2 degrees Centigrade – might be inevitable. Measures would only limit the additional increases. Hence adaptive changes in life patterns are called for.

Scientific and technological progress is a highly significant factor in terms of contributing to sustainability. Extraordinary new possibilities in terms of safe, clean, abundant, high quality production and new products are created through fields such as materials science, nanotechnology, biotechnology, supermicroelectronics, Information and Communication Technologies.

Obviously, caution is needed for such developments as well, but provided this caution is thoroughly exercised, science and technology can bring a huge contribution to the solution of the sustainability problems in the environmental and global warming areas. It would contribute significantly to the aforementioned green transformation of production through. For example, as it becomes increasingly possible to shape chemical contents of products, to a higher degree, new forms of material will be created.

Or, nanotechnology will contribute to solving outstanding problems in solar energy and electric vehicles. Such use of science and technology should not be considered a technical problem only. It is an economic policy question as well. Having an effective public policy with also the related support to researchers and producers is essential. With it, the development and use of the corresponding science and technology means for reducing environmental damage and global warming and preventing monopoly or  abuse of use of intangible resources situations harming this process can be ensured.

The European Union has a critical role to play in the environment and global warming fields. Its corresponding legislation and mechanisms – not that the resources devoted to this domain are significant – are crucial.

For example, in the case of Turkey, EU policy contributes to the adoption of better legislation in these fields in the course of the accession process. Though, the scope of such progress remains deficient notably because of poor implementation and very serious persisting problems. On the other hand, the scale of the environmental and global warming problems for Europe, and the world, is rising.

Alongside further improvements in legislation, a more common approach to the energy domain at ground level is needed. This will entail a higher degree of share of sovereignty. As illustrated in a different field, i.e. the economic crisis of the eurozone, refraining from achieving a deeper union can seriously harm sustainability. And, sharing further sovereignty in Europe, where this is clearly needed, will provide a valuable example to the world in such a crucial policy area.

To conclude, in the field of the environment and global warming, the policy scope and instruments aimed at sustainability need to apply to and bring together different economic sectors and policy areas. These include the economy, countries, disciplines, and also to extend to adapting to new patterns of life.

This column is  part of the Sustainability in the Good Society Online Debate jointly run by Social Europe Journal, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung London Office and Compass.

It is impossible to develop a policy response to this evidence on the basis of trying to ‘sustain’ current economic activity – including the Western levels of resource consumption that this economic activity is built on. Questions such as how much do we need to change and how fast are open to being answered by empirical evidence. However, there is no doubt that we do need to make deep changes to our economies.

At the global climate change negotiations in Durban, the world’s richest countries are resisting attempts to curtail their polluting activity. For as long as the current recession lasts, many governments are willing to postpone change in favour of short-term GDP growth and employment growth – even if that means dirty forms of resource extraction (e.g. oil from tar sands and gas from ‘fracking’). The problem is that potentially irreversible changes to the planet’s climate cannot be so easily postponed. The jobs that might be created are, at best, temporary. And the loss of life and livelihoods in developing countries as a direct result of climate change is happening now.

These problems are a clear reminder of the dilemma posed for social democrats.

In brief, it is worth considering three ‘sacred cows’ of traditional social democratic economic policy that may need to be genetically modified to become sustainable:

1. Achieving full employment through GDP growth is probably impossible in a resource-constrained world. Therefore, new mechanisms must be explored to make this possible, including properly rewarding work in the home by parents and carers, and using the voluntary sector as a source of meaningful, socially useful activity for people who are currently unemployed.

2. The role of trade unions in protecting workers and their jobs is vital, but they too need to accept that some forms of unsustainable employment have to come to an end. It will be very challenging for trade unions to explain this to their members; who are also often social democratic voters. Strong social welfare systems and state intervention to foster alternative sources of employment will be essential for this transition to occur.

3. The post-second world war consensus of a high level of material consumption by everyone in society is probably impossible in a resource-constrained world. Therefore promoting more efficient forms of consumption (e.g. digital goods versus material goods; collective consumption) should be a priority in a reorganised economy.

On this last point about consumption, there is a risk of ‘sustainability’ being caricatured as ecologically-imposed frugality, with most people being reduced to material poverty in order to avoid excess use of the world’s resources. While avoiding a blasé optimism that technology will solve the crisis and permit everyone to live in luxury, it is nonetheless possible to advocate continuing improvement in most people’s material wellbeing, using less resources.

For the sake of a simple analysis, one can suggest that there are three levels of material wellbeing. The bottom layer is composed of basic human needs such as shelter, education, health care, etc. The top layer is composed of luxuries, such as (at an extreme) shopping weekends to cities on far continents. In the middle is a layer of comfort that makes a very significant contribution to quality of life for most people in the modern world. We should focus on the middle layer.

As we take difficult steps to change our economies, we should also ensure that we win the argument that a radically transformed economy can maintain and enhance most people’s level of material comfort. That is, the increased cost (if not elimination) of unsustainable luxuries need not automatically result in frugality for all.

Many of the comforts of the modern age can be enjoyed without necessitating the inefficient mass ownership (or production) of material goods. For example, music, television, cinema and literature can all be enjoyed in digital formats that take a fraction of the resources required for the production and distribution of the same goods in pre-digital formats, complete with packaging. As well as material comforts, the middle layer includes personal development, appreciation of culture, access to knowledge to get control over personal health and fitness, etc. These things go beyond the basics layer, but do not have to require a high level of resource consumption to provide.

People’s access to such material comforts could be greatly increased if the mechanism for their distribution and the remuneration of their creators were changed from the current market mechanisms (often dominated by major corporations). For example, rather than fighting a losing battle against the illegal downloading of music, an alternative mechanism could be developed to combine free access to music with more collective forms of remuneration for artists and recording studios based on actual consumption (e.g. repeated listening) to their music – similar to the mechanisms that exist to pay them each time a song is played on the radio. That would give everyone in society equal access to a digital cornucopia of music, cinema and literature to enjoy; while still providing the creators with fair reward for their work.

Moving to more collective forms of consumption generally can provide higher quality of life to more people – for example, cinemas, public parks and libraries are more resource-efficient than countless home entertainment systems, private lawns and the online purchase of books shipped halfway across the planet.

We perhaps take for granted the collective consumption of education and care in our schools and hospitals. Yet, the collective consumption of education is particularly important to our personal and cultural development. Local collective consumption of shared DIY tools, laundrette facilities and other communal resources can also build communities through increased interpersonal interaction.

The more egalitarian human relationships that collective consumption implies should strike a chord with deep social democratic principles and be at the heart of moving towards sustainable economics.

This column is  part of the Sustainability in the Good Society Online Debate jointly run by Social Europe Journal, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung London Office and Compass.

So why is the red green alliance weaker in Finland in comparison to Sweden and Germany? The culture of consensus in the political system and the weaker parliamentary position of the social democrats are possible explanations. During the era of welfare state expansion the Nordic countries were typically characterised as ‘social democratic’. From the 1960s onwards Finland took many steps towards the ‘Nordic standard of development’, but the welfare state expansion was not primarily based on the parliamentary position of the social democratic party. The tripartite political exchange and the social corporatism in the labour market between the labour market organisations and the state shaped the Finnish social model. Secondly, the agrarian Centre Party and the social democrats were competing over dominance in the political system. Still today, the support of the social democrats is weaker in Finland compared to other Nordic countries. This practically means that Finnish left-wing parties and the greens are quite far away from a parliamentary majority. In the current consensual political system it is not functional or politically wise to try to build a parliamentary red green political bloc.

Secondly, the weak red green political alliance can also be traced back to different voter profiles and identity politics of the greens and the social democrats. The Finnish Green League is very popular among the young, urban and well-educated electorate. The social democratic electorate is older, there are more blue-collar workers and social democrats have more support outside the biggest cities. My analysis is that in principle many greens and social democrats share the same core values (social justice and internationalism, for example), but young greens and urban centre-right liberals often have similar educational backgrounds and they live in the same kind of social milieu. At the moment the centre-right National Coalition Party is not directly challenging the Finnish welfare model, which makes it easier to build a political project around liberal blue green politics. The blue green trend is very visible in the city councils of the biggest Finnish cities like in Helsinki or Turku. At the national level green politics tends to be more left liberal.

There are, of course, also disagreements on policy issues. The social democrats are typically close to the trade unions, they emphasise the importance of wage labour institution for society, and strongly support existing earnings-based social security systems. The greens, on the other hand, tend to strongly support basic income and they often criticise labour unions for not having done enough to help the urban 20-somethings who do precarious work as interns, researchers or freelancers. The social democrats emphasise that the Finnish corporatist model and the comprehensive incomes policy agreements have kept the pay inequalities in check and that basic income would only respond to the needs of a minority of Finns. Secondly, the greens and social democrats have found it difficult to find a common understanding about tax policy. There prevails a trade off between social justice and ecological sustainability that needs to be solved in order to make red green politics work. At the moment environmental taxation is regressive, but Finnish social democrats have historically supported progressive taxation.

The case of Finland demonstrates that it can be difficult to integrate the positions of the traditional labour movement and the environmental movement. In Finland building a red green political project will require lots of open-minded thinking from both red and green sides. In the coming years and decades we must manage the transition towards a green and low carbon economy in a socially just way. This is the task for red green politics. Markets will not produce social justice – nor will they clean up after themselves.

This column is  part of the Sustainability in the Good Society Online Debate jointly run by Social Europe Journal, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung London Office and Compass.

The “three pillars” obscure the real relationship between the economic, the social, and the environmental.  They are not equals.  “The environment” is the physical reality all life depends on.  “The social” is about one of the species within the environment, our own, organising itself.  “The economic” is in turn one sub-set of the social.  Each is nested within the next: economic within social within environmental.

Apart from misrepresenting the reality, the “three pillars” picture has encouraged people to say “we need a balance” between economic, social, and environmental.  What that means in practice is that instead of pursuing sustainability, and forms of development which are sustainable, we get the pursuit of development which is semi-sustainable, to some extent aimed at keeping within environmental limits, but not doing so in any way which is really serious.

We should be aiming at development which combines economic, social, and environmental aims, not at development which compromises between them.  Why shouldn’t we have development which is both environmentally sustainable and delivers good things for society?  The outlook is unnecessarily grim if we can’t imagine such a combination, but always insist that one objective can only be pursued at the expense of one or both of the other two – the natural “trade-off” mindset of economists.

Although many such trade-off choices exist in the short run, in the long run if economic activity is not sustainable, it won’t be sustained, which means it cannot continue, and will defeat and destroy itself.  And if economic activity can’t deliver for society, there is little point in it (as we see at the moment with the many socially useless financial transactions which take place).

Basic pictures are important.  The “sustainable development community” has lived with the three pillars for too long.  It is time to move on to a more realistic and inspiring view.

This column is  part of the Sustainability in the Good Society Online Debate jointly run by Social Europe Journal, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung London Office and Compass.

Today, the predominance of finance and financial priorities in business and politics – what is called financialisation – poses a threat to sustainability in three ways. First, and as we have come to know at great cost, finance-dominated economies are more prone to severe economic crises and recessions. Secondly, an ever greater share of economic activity concentrated in finance means that less money is invested in the productivity of the real economy. In consequence, our economies grow and develop much slower. Thirdly, when finance dictates business strategies as it does today and investment in productivity is on the return, labour markets too take a hit. Job creation is stifled and precarious work is the name of the day. Hence, financialisation goes hand in hand with increasing numbers of working poor in unattractive service sectors.

But, first and foremost, what is financialisation? In short, it is what has been happening to our economies and in corporations over the last 30 years or more.

Financialisation captures our present situation of financial markets determining the state of the overall economy, and of financial demands dictating company behaviour. It means that developments in interest rates, bond spreads and stock prices increasingly shape economic cycles and that financial concerns, and those who voice them, are ever more influential in setting corporate strategies. It is the predominance of financial activities over production of goods and services. And it can be vividly seen in the growing dominance of the financial industry in the total sum of economic activity.

In the 1970’s profits in the financial sector averaged 15-20 percent of overall profits in the US. In the first ten years of this millennium, the figure was 35-40 percent. And that has happened in a period, when total corporate profits have been rising as a share of US GDP.

Financialisation has become today’s face of capitalism through changes in all parts of the economy. At the company level, it is linked to the ‘shareholder value’ approach to corporate governance. It encourages financialisation of the company by maintaining that the purpose of its existence is to maximise the value of its shares rather than its long-term profits. Inherent in this logic, the company is seen as a bundle of assets that generate different returns on investments, and the company’s purpose becomes to increase profits in the short-term by manipulating such assets through mergers, acquisitions, sell-offs and the like.

In relation to investment, financialisation is linked to deregulatory reforms of the investment chains, creating so-called dis-intermediation between owners of capital and the final destination of their investment. Coupled with market liberalisation, this has allowed financial operators to operate in a vast investment universe, involving investment and trade not only in real assets, such as debt and equity, but also in market expectations and risks in the form of a plethora of derivative products such as different options, futures and swaps.

From making up more or less the same amount as global GDP in 1980, financial assets reached the value of 212 trillion dollars or the same as 3,4 times global GDP by the end of 2010. Financial transactions equalled 15 times global GDP in 1990. Today it is more than 74 times. And the trade in financial activities is increasing 50 percent faster than trade in other goods and services.

In politics and policy-making as well as in relation to the overall state of the economy, the story of financialistaion is almost too well known. In Europe politicians have spent most of their time and tools over the last three years trying to satisfy ‘the markets’ and not much else. And in the US, it was the rumour of a possible downgrade of the US economy by one single credit rating agency that almost turned the weak recovery into a new recession in the first days of August 2011.

Well, back to sustainability.

As noted, finance dominated economies are more prone to economic crises and recessions. Researchers have found 148 examples of financial meltdowns since 1870, where a country’s economy has decreased by 10 percent or more. Through the last decades, such crises have become more and more frequent – from the savings and loans crisis in the US in the 1980s, Japan’s lost decade in the 1990s, over the Swedish, Mexican and Argentinian crises to the great financial crisis in South East Asia starting in 1997, the dot.com crisis and the Great Recession that we are still in today.

According to the IMF, financial crises on average last 18 months longer than other recessions, and it takes almost 3 years to recover pre-recession output levels. As professors Reinhart and Rogoff have shown, government debt has on average increased by 86 percent after severe financial crises. And employment? It falls far behind… just how much is something we are still learning today. Think about youth unemployment in a country like Spain and the figures (closing in on 50 percent) are incomprehensible.

But economic and social sustainability is about more than the costs of crises. It is, fundamentally, about ensuring some kind of progress for all. Here again, financialisation is a threat.

The most important factors in ensuring economic development and labour markets that provide growing opportunities is investment in education and production (or what economists call capital formation). But as more money has poured into finance, it has been lacking in the latter. Indeed, from the 1990s onwards – when financialisation really took off – investment in the real economy has been on the retreat. There are several reasons for this. But one clearly stands out: the impatience and short-term orientations of financial investors.

When there is no substantial investment in the productivity of the real economy, there is nothing that can ‘trickle down’ to ordinary workers. Hence, the economy becomes more and more polarised – with inequality reaching levels not seen since 1928 in the US, as a witness to this – and the single most dominant job creation are precarious service sectors jobs. Indeed, in a new EU-study it has been found that in the last two years this pattern has been strengthened: job destruction has been greatest in high- and middle-income jobs, while most new activity has been in lower-paid employment of the temporary and part-time kind.

If we are ever again to see a positive and sustainable circle of economic development and social progress we must see an end to financialisation.

This column is  part of the Sustainability in the Good Society Online Debate jointly run by Social Europe Journal, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung London Office and Compass.

Dark patches of nothingness, those were areas where everything seemed possible once again. Nothing was pre-defined, pre-thought, standardised and issued as a rule. This darkness was absolute freedom.

The knowledge era, however, is relentless and totally hates black holes. If one is identified, legions of knowledge warriors are organised and asked to begin the debate-battle. First a grid of known concepts and
methods will be stretched over the darkness. Then the spaces between the grids are filled with the experience from the past: Ready, steady, go for the occupation of unidentified terrain.

We have invaded our world, where everything is infused by theory and knowledge, and takes us the view and the air to breathe. Suddenly we realise that all of our knowledge and experience doesn’t help us discover or understand the lively world which is hidden under the noosphere. On the contrary. The whole knowledge seems to prevent life from developing in an healthy direction. Our indicators are definitely not perfect.

Our knowledge seems to help with self-perception, but it doesn’t work for our self-awareness. Because the road towards self-awareness would lead into a healing catharsis, accompanied with a loving self-acceptance of all my personal failures and a complete rebirth: Out into a free and unknown world to be discovered and made fruitful for everyone.

We residents of the knowledge age live in a state of pseudo-catharsis. Everyone screams, “I already know.” But none of us really understand. The pain and remorse are missing an therefore also the purification. For “The Good Society Project” to be successful and make a real difference, they should firstly not ask for more knowledge, economy, sustainability and progress. They should calm down in order to breathe and to have a clear look into the suffering hearts: the human heart, the heart of Europe and the heart of the social democratic idea.

They suffer because they have been injured. Over and over again. The bad news: the injuries hurt, they make you insecure and afraid. The good news: the permanent braking has kept their heart alive. The hearts are more alive than ever before. And they’re damn strong.

But what is their song? Is it a song of despair, of self-pity and hatred? There is a chorus that intones a variety of melodies. And every melody wants to be heard.

They are united by the harmony of disappointment: the new world of the 21st century – a disappointment. The new community of the 21st century – a disappointment. The new human being of the 21st century – a disappointment. All pictures, sung with much heart and soul, have become pale and vanished. Because they have not kept up with the expectations of life.

We Europeans, in particular we Germans, find ourselves in the catacombs of our own known-world image. Caught in the same old game of illusionary “truth-mania”, always searching for the best “truth-bargain”: “now this is really the ultimate final truth!” But all this will turn into a big bang too. Because: it’s an illusion!

So the hearts are mourning: „why should we continue to look for another idea? Why should we fight for anything? Europe: a burnout continent. It is not stress that has overwhelmed us. We have not done enough grieving. We humans are much too fast for our souls. They need some time to catch up with us and our running systems. As long as all systems are running, our work will be incomplete. Because we are soulless people doing soulless things. Guess, what will be at the end?

If you really want a change for the social democratic idea in the 21st century: Stop talking around and start going out to meet the catharsis (the conservatives won’t – they are much more afraid of this then you!) and start mourning. Mourn for your old view of the world. Mourn for the people and their hopes. Mourn for the waterloo of the old Europe. And maybe then you will notice your red heart beating inside you and start singing the song of love like Prince Hookon did in the darkest hours of his country: “tonight the streets are filled with love. We face a choice. We cannot undo what happened. But we can decide what it does to us as a society and as individuals. We can decide that no one must stand alone. We can choose to stand together. ”

Because that’s the actual melody of the social democratic heart, buried deep under the terms of justice and redistribution, rise and participation: “We can choose to stand together.”

And we can choose to see life not as a battlefield, people not as opponents, but as partners in a developing community. People are currently not looking for a new programme already written for the new world. They are looking for a companionship and community in which they can discover the new truth – not a predefined one.

Therefore: Don’t be a Pseudot. Discover your heart in red, make peace and come in contact with life.

And then restart the debate once again with a strong and lively heart, big enough for the revolutionary power of the continent.

This column is  part of the Sustainability in the Good Society Online Debate jointly run by Social Europe Journal, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung London Office and Compass.

The rapid urbanization of the 20th century has seen most cities develop in an unsustainable and unacceptable manner.  European cities have certainly developed in such a way and the effect that the American car culture has had, can be seen clearly. It’s key concepts of classification and separation have created sprawling urban areas with expensive and complex infrastructure and public transportation. The urban extremes are now exaggerated even more as some areas or districts flourish and prosper, as others nearby are completely rundown. Unemployment, social isolation and poverty are on the rise and new urbanites experience greater difficulty in adjusting to this challenging environment.

The most demanding and challenging issues of the future generations will be those dealing with the environment, climate and food resources. Global warming is becoming ever more apparent and the extreme consumption of our energy resources is largely at fault.  We must realize however, that even the complete reformation of our energy consumption with renewable sources will not suffice. We must in conjunction, completely reassess our urban ways of living and ask compelling questions regarding our social behavior.

Cities have become the driving force of the western economies.  They are the source of employment with most of the largest and influential companies at its core.  They are also the centers of most of the world´s greatest educational institutes so it is not without reason that we should expect the solutions to most of mankind’s problems  to materialize in this melting pot.  Dynamic and effective cities, built on the ideas of sustainability can have an effect reaching far out to the surrounding rural areas, strengthening and increasing the public’s quality of life.

A city’s development is usually a good indicator of the level of culture and character of the society it is built in.  Therefore we should strive for a more humane and diverse urban environment with varying public and private spaces built around people instead of the car.  These are things we need to consider:

1. All three essential factors of sustainability; the environmental, economic and social factors need to be addressed in all new urban developments.
2. Emphasis should be put on derelict and run-down areas where the focus must not only be put on economic factors but also environmental and social.
3. Older districts need protection with stimulation and revitalization.
4. Infrastructure needs to be re-evaluated and modernized for greater efficiency.
5. Public transportation must be strengthened to an even greater extent and solutions focusing on pedestrians and cyclists need to be in the foreground.
6. Greatly increase the use of renewable energy at the expense of fossil fuel by educating and encouraging the population as well as increasing economic incentives.
7. “Green” urban businesses need to be supported and investments in such encouraged. Perhaps with temporary financial incentives and lower energy prices.
8. Better standards for the political administration need to be in place by advancing public education and the encouragement of greater public participation.

As a well planned city needs to take our cultural identities into account, it also needs to contain superior new architecture in diverse and active public spaces which will in return enrich people’s lives and create respect for conserving the history of the past generations.  The residents of such a city are also more likely to leave behind a better city for future generations.

As citizens we need to take measures and prepare for a slower lifestyle, where most things will be on a smaller scale.  We should be ready to: work closer to our home, live closer to our neighbors, eat local food and in general utilize more local products and services than we do today. If we are to succeed in deflating this global, economic bubble we have created, without sacrificing general prosperity, we certainly need to reconsider our use of natural resources as well as any other limited resource we have become dependent on.

All of us in the developed parts of the world and not least the „better off“ parts of our societies, will have to forfeit our ever growing demands for wealth and financial gain. We must all be ready to adopt simpler, more environmentally friendly lifestyles and accept this fact so that it may enrich our lives.  We must stop considering ourselves as consumers, focused on short term gain. We are citizens with great responsibilities where we must protect the rights of the more impoverished areas both locally and globally and take actions to greatly increase their prosperity.

The uncontrolled urban development we have witnessed in the past 100 years can not continue in this fashion.  Sustainability has to become the prerequisite for all urban planning, starting now.  We have to invest heavily in our education and the development of innovative new resources and technologies and in all likelihood accept that our unyielding demand for economic growth is unrealistic.  Strong and healthy European cities with strong and healthy citizens are imperative for successfully dealing with any economic or social challenge we may face in years to come. This must be our goal.

This column is  part of the Sustainability in the Good Society Online Debate jointly run by Social Europe Journal, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung London Office and Compass.

Economic development is most commonly measured in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and its growth or regression is predominantly expressed in percentage change instead of absolute terms. This infers that a constant GDP growth rate actually reflects an exponential absolute GDP growth. In other words, constant absolute GDP growth is translated as decreasing rates of growth. In this light, aiming for a constant GDP growth rate clearly cannot be sustainable as it would lead to ever-increasing absolute GDP growth, reinforcing the imbalances between the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainability.

Now, of course, GDP can grow through many different factors: consumption, investment, lower imports and higher exports or alternatively an increase in value added, derived from transforming input goods, labour and capital, into products and services. This however, avoids a very crucial part of economic activity today which is the use of resources or natural capital, which remain unaccounted for in traditional economics. It is, however, a key element of achieving environmental sustainability to decouple natural resource use from economic activity, because resource abstraction and use causes severe environmental damage, impacting humans and ecosphere alike.

In a first step, decoupling will come through increased resource efficiency, leading to lower rates of resource intensity per unit of GDP. Yet even if we achieve higher resource efficiency and lower the resource intensity of economic activity, this does not necessarily translate into absolute decoupling or an absolute reduction of resource use from economic growth.

In some countries, accelerated demographic growth creates a momentum for continued high levels of resource use. Other drivers are income related, implying that households with a higher income will tend to use more natural resources. And some are simply cost-driven: the so-called rebound-effect describes situations where higher resource efficiency leads to lower costs per unit consumed, which can eventually entail higher resource use, not only nullifying the potential savings, but even increasing the absolute level of resource use. Therefore, next to regulation targeting production, consumer behaviour is increasingly seen as a key step towards achieving environmental and social sustainability. The key message here is that more is not always better, i.e. that the ability to consume more cannot be a measure for progress.

This is a fundamental paradigm shift. We must acknowledge that we won’t be able to simply shift from one input to another, substituting more environmentally harmful inputs and processes with less harmful, i.e. switching from fossil-fuel powered cars to electric vehicles. The pressure caused both by behavioural routines and the global demographic trend compels us to understand that we need to cut back resource use in absolute terms.

Cutting back on resource use does not necessarily mean abandoning the idea of progress and growth altogether, but it requires a shift in the interpretation of what progress and growth will mean.

Growth is not simply limited to measuring GDP units; growth can be measured in many other ways, including, alongside the economic dimension of sustainability, also its environmental and social pillars. The discussion on measuring wealth, happiness or simply progress – subsumed under the slogan ‘Beyond GDP’ has led to the development of many alternative measurements. Each one of those has a different focus, different approaches, but also shortcomings.

Unfortunately, there is no simple right or wrong. None of the measurements is perfect or free from flaws, including the GDP. An indicator can only measure what it is made for and will only be able to quantify what is quantifiable.

Instead of hoping for one ‘perfect’ index to measure all ‘real’ progress of society, we need to understand that a precondition of finding an appropriate measurement is to define what our understanding of progress actually is. Once we can agree on the goals and their hierarchy, then we will be able to find measurements which will deliver guidance for sustainable policies.

The definition of goals needs to be clear and realistic, therefore also stating our priorities. Aiming for diverging or conflicting goals in parallel efforts will only result in failure and disappointment. Harmonising and pacifying terms such as ‘green growth’ or ‘green jobs’ create an illusion that we will be able to achieve everything simultaneously without making difficult choices. This requires visionary leadership which is frequently lacking in today’s policy-making environment.

This column is  part of the Sustainability in the Good Society Online Debate jointly run by Social Europe Journal, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung London Office and Compass.

Today, we are using 1.5 times the amount the planet has to offer. But, there remain people that are suffering from hunger and lacking access to water and electricity. As a matter of fact, the poorest and most vulnerable countries take the largest hit from environmental deterioration. They too are the least responsible for it.

Geographically, the South is being disadvantaged by the industrialisation of the North. The vulnerability is twofold: the countries most at risk are the most dependent on natural resources. E.g. many indigenous people who live in ecosystems, such as small island states, arctic regions and high altitudes, are especially susceptible to the effects of climate change. The economic and ecological interdependence thus created a systemic imbalance at different levels that needs to be corrected.

The access to clean drinking water is a human right and shall be guaranteed in the coming years. The same is valid for the access to electricity, due to its crucial role in development. As the recently published UNDP Human Development report highlights, we need to address the interlinkages between sustainable and equitable progress. The aspirations of those less affluent need to be fully taken into account in achieving greater environmental sustainability. The concept of distributive justice as inter- and intragenerational equity needs to become part of mainstream thinking.

By the mid-21st century, we expect the global population to reach 9 billion. 9 billion people on a planet with shrinking resources. Therefore it is an essential global challenge to use natural resources in a sustainable, fair and efficient way within the next decade.

The European Union is responding to this challenge with its Resource Efficiency Roadmap. Its vision for 2050 includes growth of the European economy in a way that respects planetary boundaries and resource constraints. To be more specific, the overfishing of seas, the overconsumption of natural resources and our impact on ecosystems shall be decreased drastically. Furthermore, the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of land shall be halted. Simultaneously, the quality of water and air, climate protection and our overall ecological footprint shall be improved considerably.

In order to make this vision become reality, we need to involve all stakeholders: Governments shall commit to ambitious national resource efficiency targets; industries need to realise that sustainable business is the way forward and consumers shall make sustainable choices.

Last but not least, we shall take the crisis as a chance and pave the way for a sustainable future. We need to replace the myth of perpetual growth and the associated increase in consumption with a new concept of ”good life for all” and its measurement beyond GDP which shall be the new guarantor of prosperity and jobs.

This column is  part of the Sustainability in the Good Society Online Debate jointly run by Social Europe Journal, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung London Office and Compass.

Accepting principles of environmental sustainability is only a first step. Social democracy needs to embrace the proposal of the corporate responsibility movement to change the face of capitalism. CSR is less content than form: it is the process whereby stakeholder expectations are integrated throughout the organization and are practised in relationships rather than offer direct and cause-oriented impact to contribute to sustainable development. Instead of incorporating certain socially good principles into business operations it is a new form of organizing stakeholders around a common goal of value production. It is a paradigm change in management philosophy as well as business & economic strategy; an attempt to bridge the gap between 21st century post-industrialist late-modernity and the birth of modernity in the 17th century.

Corporations are not transmission belts between shareholders and consumers to deliver value and receive profits in exchange. Corporations are the most important players in the web of interactions that form the social fabric of our times; value is defined in more complex ways and by the stakeholders of the very social fabric they are part of; they need to manage complex relationships to aspire for the respect of its identity and thus value proposition by all stakeholder groups. It is not suprising that corporations, as we know them, do not operate according to 21st century principles. Corporations maintain a dual world: they are the last resorts of enlightened absolutism — the political and social system of the age of enlightenment and early modernity.

Stakeholder relations within corporations are not guided by 21st century principles of liberal democracy, value pluralism, and interactive media culture. Political decisions are made by a selected few, there is no universal suffrage nor elections involving an, even limited, variety of stakeholders in matters of selecting government, there are no checks and balances that guarantee the unbiased nature of the different branches of power within the corporation. Value based rights and freedoms are not mitigated by democratic and bureocratic processess that guarantee the modus vivendi between the stakeholders of corporations with mutually exclusive sets of values nor are the process of changing the modus vivendi in place should the community wish to choose a different strategy to follow.

There is no pluralistic value system within present corporate stakeholder relations: centrally determined values proposed by one stakeholder group, shareholders, and accepted by another, management, dominate stakeholder relations. These values are enforced by powers of authority controlled by a limited number of members. Moral decisions are based on judgements meted out by holders of authority positions without having engaged in an equal and domination free rational discourse. Moral decisions are context independent and serve one purpose the wellbeing of the aristocracy of corporate absolutism: the management. There is no interactive media: messaging is based on „one-to-many” channels, the flow of information is tightly controlled and centralized, web is used as a platform not as a concept, and the most imprtant role of communication is to disseminate messages from stakeholders of power to subordinate stakeholders in lack of information. Stakeholders have to live in a dual world: they live in 21st century late modernity/ liberal democracy outside the realm of corporate life whereas they live in 17th century enlightened absolutism in several of their stakeholder relations.

Effective policies & clear vision guided politics may force companies to re-examine and re-define their corporate identities. Corporations need to realize that they are corporate communities and not royal houses. Borders of corporations are not where the walls of the royal castle ends: out there beyond the moat of corporate headquarters there is not a world of power and hopeless subjects to be dominated by the share rule of the marketing sword and sales gun. Moral hazard is not the only vice to overcome. Companies are corporate communities comprising a multitude of stakeholders. These stakeholders have values, interests, and emotions; they are ready to enter into the political community of the corporation if their identity is not requested to be dissolved. The guiding principle of social democracy may be that all stakeholders are created equal. They should enjoy the same rights as stakeholders that they enjoy as citizens. They should be treated equal in their stakeholder roles and identities: they should be able to express themselves freely, their stakeholder dignity is to be defended. Their stakeholder rights and freedoms as well as their means of excercising these rights and freedoms need to be upheld. In order to get rid of the burden of absolutism stakeholders need to be allowed to take advantage of the value plurastic nature of their now extended public space. A system of checks and balances should be inacted to govern corporate communities. We need to have ample incentives and regulatory practices in place pushing corporate governance to apply forms of collaborative governance: more open forms of decision making that involve as many stakeholders as possible need to be developed.

Social democrats need not only become green they should begin to make others operate more sustainably. But this is only the first step. We also need to make a biggers step and ammend our economic value system that is based on growth theory. We need to redefine our economic modell increasing the capacity of the economy to satisfy the well-being rather than the wants of the members of society. We need to rethink the model of economic growth enabled by increases in productivity, lowering inputs (labor, capital, material, energy) and thus increasing demand for goods and services. Social democrats need to understand what the Stiglitz commission has said & what NEF in London is teaching: GDP/GNP is not a good enough metrics to drive our systems. We need to rethink progress in terms of people’s well-being and in bringing related measurement issues to the fore. We need to embrace a vision that views well-being or flourishing as the goal of human societies and our policies need to be reworked to assist our human systems help achieve that goal. Also, we need to be mindful of the limited resources that are available.

A set of national well-being accounts should be created which covers the main components of individual wellbeing – life satisfaction and personal development – as well as a range of components of well-being including engagement, meaningfulness, trust, and measures of ill-being, such as stress and depression. Indicators should include social and ecological well-being – how we feel about and how engaged we are with the society and the environment. The main goal of social democrats should be to create a well-being economy: balanced and fair employment, meaningful work, exponentially progressive and environmental taxation. The Stiglitz commission, OECD work, or Mr. Cameron’s statement last November to measure the nation”s wellbeing as well as its wealth is only the beginning. People ask why is the metrics so impartant? Why not work on policies right away? Well-being accounts are important because without knowing what and how to measure we are unable to see whether our policies contribute to social progress or not. Policies that are based on well-being accounts may offer a way out of the current crisis more than GDP drivven measures of doing more of the same. NEF’s proposals for a 21 hour working week, brave regulation of the banking sector, localism projects are all interesting policy avenues to explore for a politics that wants to tackle inequality and enhance social justice.

Most of our elected officials are from the baby boom generation. They have gone to school in the seventies or earlier, have had their relevant first experience in busienss or politics in the ninetees, and their leadership experiences around the turn of the century. Although most of them see the problems that we as societies are facing, their experience, learning, and skillset is deeply rooted in the old paradigm. The successes that elevated them to the place they are stem from a totally diffent social, economic and political environment. Baby boomers and (older) generation X-ers are heirs to the old paradigm while a growing number of their voters are from a totally different mindset, consumption pattern, and identity. Generation Y-ers and Generation Z-ers (now in their mid teens) thrive on open communication, they are media and information savvy, are ready to blend collaboration, networking and interdependence to achieve goals, and have WLB amd climate change among their top values.

Social democrats  should follow the advise Gus O’Donnel, the UK head of civil service in his speech at the hearing of the all-parliamentary group for wellbeing, put forward: „If you treasure it, measure it.” We may add: And if you measure it, you might as well follow it. In times of crises conservatives will re-imagine the past and offer security based on the legitimation of history and the status quo ante way of doing things. Progressives need to imagine the future. A tough job but much more rewarding. Both in terms of social progress and election opportunities.

This column is  part of the Sustainability in the Good Society Online Debate jointly run by Social Europe Journal, the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung London Office and Compass.