Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins

The three-pillar conception of (social, economic and environmental) sustainability, commonly represented by three intersecting circles with overall sustainability at the centre, has become ubiquitous. With a view of identifying the genesis and theoretical foundations of this conception, this paper reviews and discusses relevant historical sustainability literature. From this we find that there is no single point of origin of this three-pillar conception, but rather a gradual emergence from various critiques in the early academic literature of the economic status quo from both social and ecological perspectives on the one hand, and the quest to reconcile economic growth as a solution to social and ecological problems on the part of the United Nations on the other. The popular three circles diagram appears to have been first presented by Barbier (Environ Conserv 14:101, doi: 10.1017/s0376892900011449, 1987), albeit purposed towards developing nations with foci which differ from modern interpretations. The conceptualisation of three pillars seems to predate this, however. Nowhere have we found a theoretically rigorous description of the three pillars. This is thought to be in part due to the nature of the sustainability discourse arising from broadly different schools of thought historically. The absence of such a theoretically solid conception frustrates approaches towards a theoretically rigorous operationalisation of ‘sustainability’

‘God was a rotten plumber’: Common sense, moral economy and ‘financing water for all’

This paper presents a fresh approach to empirical moral economy through a case study of ‘financing water for all’ in global water governance. The period 2007–2011 can be understood as a process of purposive, collective re-making that occurred as the professional sphere’s various actors deployed, resisted and realigned distinct constellations of ‘moral common sense’ around the socio-politically fraught issue of paying for water. The research found that global water governance actors demonstrated significant agency to transform the moral economy by disabling and enabling particular forms of moral common sense with specific socio-political outcomes in mind. Namely, to normalize paying for water by shifting the degree of acceptability of contentious financial instruments, economic mechanisms and governance strategies: water pricing and tariffs, cost recovery, and private sector participation. The ascendance of new forms of moral common sense around the social object of paying for water enabled a shift away from impasse in the politics of ‘financing water for all’, particularly in regards to the association between free (or cheap) water, and moral and human rights to water. Indeed, the new constellation of moral common senses can be understood as having ‘made sense’ of paying for water as a means of realizing rights to water, for self and others. This in turn appeared to enable the re-legitimization of the private sector as a water governance actor