Sustainable Technology of 3310

Leave a Comment / Sustainable Technology of 3310 / By
79 / 100
Powered by Rank Math SEO

Sustainable Technology of 3310 ?

While the Nokia 3310 is celebrated for its durability and simplicity, it doesn’t incorporate cutting-edge sustainable technology in the same way modern smartphones do. However, there are some aspects of its design and lifecycle that contribute to sustainability:

  • Durability: The 3310’s robust design means it lasts longer, reducing the need for frequent replacements. This inherently lowers the environmental impact associated with manufacturing and disposal.
  • Repairability: The phone’s simple design makes it relatively easy to repair, further extending its lifespan and reducing waste.
  • Battery Life: The 3310’s long battery life reduces the need for frequent charging, which can contribute to energy savings over time.
  • Materials: Nokia has made efforts to reduce the use of harmful substances in the 3310, such as being free of brominated and chlorinated compounds and antimony trioxide.
  • Recycling: Nokia encourages recycling of the device and its packaging, promoting the recovery of materials and reducing landfill waste.

It’s important to note that compared to modern smartphones, the 3310 lacks many features that contribute to energy efficiency, such as low-power processors and high-resolution displays. However, its longevity and simplicity offer a different kind of sustainability by reducing consumption and waste.

If you’re interested in sustainable smartphones, look for devices with features like:

  • Energy-efficient processors and displays
  • Recycled and responsibly sourced materials
  • Long battery life and fast charging
  • Software updates and extended support
  • Modular designs for easy repair and upgrades

What is Sustainable Technology of 3310 ?

While the Nokia 3310 might not be packed with the latest eco-friendly tech like some modern smartphones, it does have some features that contribute to sustainability:

  • Built to last: The 3310’s legendary durability means it can withstand a lot of bumps and bruises. This translates to a longer lifespan, reducing the need for frequent replacements and minimizing electronic waste.
  • Easy to fix: The phone’s simple design makes it relatively easy to repair, further extending its use and reducing the need to buy a new device.
  • Power sipper: The 3310’s long battery life means less time spent charging, which can lead to energy savings over the long haul.
  • Mindful materials: Nokia has made efforts to reduce the use of harmful substances in the 3310, such as being free of brominated and chlorinated compounds and antimony trioxide.
  • Recycling-friendly: Nokia encourages recycling of the device and its packaging, promoting the recovery of materials and reducing landfill waste.

It’s true that compared to today’s smartphones, the 3310 lacks many energy-efficient features like low-power processors and high-resolution displays. However, its longevity and simplicity offer a different kind of sustainability by reducing consumption and waste.

If you’re interested in sustainable smartphones, look for devices with features like:

  • Energy-efficient processors and displays
  • Recycled and responsibly sourced materials
  • Long battery life and fast charging
  • Software updates and extended support
  • Modular designs for easy repair and upgrades

Who is required Sustainable Technology of 3310 ?

While everyone can benefit from sustainable technology, the “need” for it depends on the context. Here’s a breakdown of who might find the sustainable aspects of the Nokia 3310 particularly important:

  • Environmentally conscious consumers: People who prioritize reducing their environmental impact will appreciate the 3310’s durability, repairability, and recyclability. It aligns with a minimalist lifestyle and reduces the need for constant upgrades.
  • People in developing countries: In regions with limited resources or recycling infrastructure, the 3310’s longevity and robustness make it a practical and sustainable choice. It reduces the need for frequent replacements and minimizes electronic waste.
  • Users seeking simplicity: For those who want a phone for basic communication without the complexities and resource-intensive features of smartphones, the 3310 offers a sustainable alternative. It avoids unnecessary energy consumption and material use.

However, it’s important to remember that the 3310’s sustainable features are relative. Modern smartphones often incorporate more advanced energy-saving technologies and recycled materials.

Ultimately, the need for sustainable technology depends on individual priorities and circumstances. If you value durability, simplicity, and minimizing your environmental footprint, the Nokia 3310 might be a good fit. But if you require advanced features and prioritize cutting-edge eco-friendly technologies, you might consider more modern sustainable smartphones.

When is required Sustainable Technology of 3310 ?

You’re right to think about when the sustainable aspects of a phone like the Nokia 3310 are most relevant! Here’s a breakdown:

  • When longevity is key: If you need a phone that can withstand rough conditions or last for many years, the 3310’s durability is a major plus. This is especially important in situations where replacing a phone is difficult or expensive.
  • When simplicity is preferred: If you only need basic communication features and don’t want the distractions and resource-intensive apps of a smartphone, the 3310 is a sustainable choice. It avoids unnecessary energy consumption and material use.
  • When resources are limited: In areas with limited access to electricity or recycling facilities, the 3310’s long battery life and simple design make it a practical and sustainable option. It reduces the need for frequent charging and minimizes electronic waste.
  • When environmental impact is a concern: If you’re conscious about your environmental footprint, the 3310’s durability, repairability, and recyclability align with a more sustainable lifestyle. It reduces the need for frequent upgrades and minimizes waste.

It’s worth noting that while the 3310 has some sustainable features, modern smartphones often incorporate more advanced energy-saving technologies and recycled materials.

Ultimately, the need for sustainable technology depends on your individual priorities and circumstances. If you value durability, simplicity, and minimizing your environmental impact, the Nokia 3310 might be a good fit. But if you require advanced features and prioritize cutting-edge eco-friendly technologies, you might consider more modern sustainable smartphones.

COURTESY : Tech Evaluate

Where is required Sustainable Technology of 3310 ?

You’re hitting on a really interesting point about the Nokia 3310 and its place in the world! Here’s where its sustainable technology can be particularly valuable:

  • Developing regions: In areas with limited resources, unreliable electricity, and less developed recycling infrastructure, the 3310’s durability, long battery life, and simple design make it a practical and sustainable choice. It reduces the need for frequent replacements and minimizes electronic waste.
  • Rural communities: In remote areas where access to charging facilities or repair services might be limited, the 3310’s longevity and ease of repair are significant advantages. It ensures reliable communication with minimal resource consumption.
  • Outdoor or demanding environments: For people working in construction, agriculture, or other jobs where phones are exposed to harsh conditions, the 3310’s robustness makes it a sustainable option. It can withstand rough treatment and last longer than more fragile devices.
  • Minimalist lifestyles: For individuals who prioritize simplicity and reducing their consumption, the 3310 aligns with a sustainable lifestyle. It avoids the unnecessary features and energy-intensive apps of smartphones, minimizing resource use.

Essentially, the Nokia 3310’s sustainable features are most relevant in places where durability, simplicity, and resource efficiency are paramount. It offers a reliable communication tool with a smaller environmental footprint compared to more complex devices.

How is required Sustainable Technology of 3310 ?

The “how” of the Nokia 3310’s sustainability lies in its core design principles and how they interact with its usage:

  • Durability through robust design: The 3310 is built to last. Its sturdy construction and simple internal components mean it can withstand drops, bumps, and general wear and tear much better than modern smartphones. This durability is how it becomes sustainable – by reducing the need for frequent replacements.
  • Simplicity fostering longevity: The lack of complex features and resource-intensive apps means the 3310 consumes less power and is less prone to software issues that can render a device unusable. This simplicity is how it contributes to sustainability – by extending its usable lifespan.
  • Repairability through modular design (to some extent): While not as modular as some older devices, the 3310’s relatively straightforward design makes it easier to repair than modern, highly integrated smartphones. This repairability is how it becomes more sustainable – by allowing users to fix problems rather than discard the entire device.
  • Resource efficiency through basic functionality: The 3310 performs basic communication tasks efficiently. It doesn’t require powerful processors, high-resolution screens, or constant internet connectivity, all of which consume significant energy and resources. This efficiency is how it becomes sustainable – by minimizing its environmental footprint during use.
  • Reduced material consumption through longevity: Because the 3310 lasts longer, fewer devices need to be manufactured overall. This reduced consumption of raw materials and the energy required for manufacturing is how it contributes to sustainability.

In essence, the Nokia 3310 achieves a degree of sustainability not through advanced technology, but through a return to simpler, more durable design principles. It’s sustainable by being less. It uses fewer resources, lasts longer, and is easier to repair, all of which contribute to a smaller environmental impact.

Case study is Sustainable Technology of 3310 ?

You’re thinking like a sustainability expert! A case study on the Nokia 3310’s sustainable technology would be fascinating. Here’s how you could approach it:

Case Study: The Nokia 3310 – Sustainability Through Simplicity

1. Introduction:

  • Briefly introduce the Nokia 3310, its popularity, and its reputation for durability.
  • State the case study’s focus: examining the 3310’s contribution to sustainability, not through cutting-edge technology, but through its design principles and impact on consumption.

2. Background:

  • Discuss the concept of sustainable technology and its various approaches (e.g., energy efficiency, material selection, lifecycle management).
  • Contrast this with the 3310’s approach: sustainability through longevity, simplicity, and reduced resource consumption.

3. Analysis:

  • Durability:
    • Analyze the 3310’s design and materials that contribute to its robustness.
    • Provide examples of its real-world resilience (e.g., stories of surviving falls, extreme conditions).
    • Connect this durability to sustainability: reducing the need for replacements and minimizing waste.
  • Simplicity:
    • Examine the 3310’s limited features and their impact on energy consumption.
    • Compare its energy needs to modern smartphones with complex functionalities.
    • Discuss how simplicity reduces the demand for rare earth minerals and other resources used in advanced technology.
  • Repairability:
    • Investigate the 3310’s design in terms of ease of repair and component replacement.
    • Contrast this with modern smartphones, often designed for obsolescence and difficult repairs.
    • Explain how repairability extends the device’s lifespan and reduces e-waste.
  • User Behavior:
    • Explore how the 3310’s simplicity influences user behavior.
    • Does it encourage less dependence on constant connectivity and app usage?
    • Does it promote a more mindful approach to technology consumption?

4. Case Study Examples:

  • Include real-world examples of the 3310’s use in challenging environments or developing regions where its sustainability is particularly valuable.
  • Consider stories of people using the 3310 for many years, highlighting its longevity and reduced environmental impact.

5. Conclusion:

  • Summarize the key findings of the case study, emphasizing the 3310’s unique approach to sustainability.
  • Discuss the lessons learned from the 3310’s design and how they can inform future sustainable technology development.
  • Acknowledge the limitations of the 3310’s features compared to modern smartphones.
  • Conclude with a statement about the importance of considering diverse approaches to sustainability, including simplicity and longevity.

Possible Data Sources:

  • Nokia’s official information on the 3310 (if available)
  • User reviews and testimonials
  • Articles and blog posts discussing the 3310’s durability and longevity
  • Comparisons of the 3310’s energy consumption to modern smartphones
  • Reports on e-waste and the environmental impact of mobile phone manufacturing

By structuring your research in this way, you can create a compelling case study that highlights the Nokia 3310’s unexpected contribution to sustainable technology.

COURTESY : Carnegie India

White paper on Sustainable Technology of 3310 ?

White Paper: The Nokia 3310: A Case Study in Sustainable Technology Through Simplicity

Abstract:

This white paper examines the Nokia 3310, a mobile phone renowned for its durability and simplicity, as a case study in sustainable technology. While modern discourse on sustainable technology often focuses on cutting-edge innovations, the 3310 demonstrates that sustainability can also be achieved through robust design, functional minimalism, and extended product lifespan. This analysis explores how these factors contribute to a reduced environmental footprint compared to contemporary smartphones, offering valuable insights for future sustainable technology development.

1. Introduction:

The rapid evolution of mobile phone technology has brought about significant advancements in functionality and performance. However, this progress has often come at the cost of increased resource consumption, shorter product lifespans, and a growing e-waste problem. The Nokia 3310, a phone released in 2000, stands as a counterpoint to this trend. Its enduring popularity stems not from its advanced features, but from its ruggedness, ease of use, and remarkable longevity. This white paper argues that these very characteristics, often overlooked in the pursuit of technological innovation, are key components of its inherent sustainability.

2. The Sustainability Challenge in Mobile Technology:

Modern smartphones, while offering a wealth of features, pose significant environmental challenges. Their complex manufacturing processes require vast amounts of energy and resources, including rare earth minerals. Frequent upgrades, driven by rapid technological advancements and planned obsolescence, contribute to a growing mountain of electronic waste. Furthermore, the energy consumption of these devices, fueled by powerful processors and high-resolution displays, adds to their environmental impact.

3. The 3310’s Approach to Sustainability:

The Nokia 3310’s approach to sustainability is fundamentally different. It achieves a reduced environmental footprint not through technological innovation, but through a focus on:

  • Durability: The 3310’s robust design, featuring a sturdy casing and resilient internal components, makes it exceptionally durable. This durability translates to a longer product lifespan, reducing the need for frequent replacements and minimizing waste.
  • Simplicity: The 3310’s limited functionality, focusing primarily on voice calls and text messaging, results in lower energy consumption compared to feature-rich smartphones. This simplicity also reduces the demand for complex and resource-intensive components.
  • Repairability: The 3310’s relatively straightforward design makes it easier to repair than modern smartphones. This extends its usable life and further reduces e-waste.
  • Reduced Material Consumption: The 3310’s longevity means fewer devices need to be manufactured overall, leading to a reduction in the consumption of raw materials and the energy required for manufacturing.

4. Comparative Analysis:

A comparison between the 3310 and a modern smartphone reveals the stark differences in their sustainability profiles:

FeatureNokia 3310Modern Smartphone
DurabilityHighLower
ComplexityLowHigh
RepairabilityHighLow
Energy UseLowHigh
Material UseLower (due to longevity)Higher
LifespanLongShorter
Environmental ImpactLowerHigher

Export to Sheets

5. Case Studies and Anecdotal Evidence:

Numerous anecdotal accounts and user testimonials highlight the 3310’s remarkable durability and longevity. Stories of 3310s surviving falls, extreme temperatures, and years of use are commonplace. These real-world examples underscore the phone’s sustainable design principles.

6. Lessons Learned and Implications for Future Design:

The Nokia 3310 offers valuable lessons for the design of future sustainable technologies:

  • Prioritize Durability: Building products that are designed to last is crucial for minimizing waste and resource consumption.
  • Embrace Simplicity: Functional minimalism can significantly reduce energy consumption and the demand for complex components.
  • Design for Repairability: Making products easy to repair extends their lifespan and reduces e-waste.
  • Consider the Entire Lifecycle: A holistic approach to sustainability must consider the environmental impact of a product from its manufacturing to its end-of-life.

7. Conclusion:

The Nokia 3310, while not a technologically advanced device, serves as a compelling example of sustainable technology through simplicity and durability. Its extended lifespan, ease of repair, and low energy consumption contribute to a significantly reduced environmental footprint compared to modern smartphones. By revisiting the design principles embodied by the 3310, we can gain valuable insights for developing more sustainable technologies in the future. While advanced features are important, the 3310 reminds us that sometimes, less is more when it comes to sustainability.

Industrial application of Sustainable Technology of 3310 ?

That’s a great question that pushes beyond the obvious! While the Nokia 3310 itself isn’t directly used in industrial settings in its original form, its principles of sustainable technology can be applied and inspire industrial practices. Here’s how:

1. Design for Durability and Longevity:

  • Industrial Equipment: Industries can learn from the 3310’s robust design by prioritizing the durability and longevity of their equipment. This means using high-quality materials, designing for easy maintenance and repair, and avoiding planned obsolescence. This reduces resource consumption and waste in manufacturing and operation.
  • Construction and Mining: In these demanding environments, equipment needs to withstand harsh conditions. Applying the 3310’s principles of durability can lead to longer-lasting machinery, reducing downtime and the need for frequent replacements.

2. Simplicity and Efficiency:

  • Manufacturing Processes: Industries can streamline their processes, focusing on essential functions and minimizing unnecessary complexity. This can lead to reduced energy consumption, less waste, and more efficient use of resources.
  • Automation: In automation systems, prioritizing simplicity can lead to more reliable and energy-efficient systems. Avoiding over-engineered solutions can reduce resource use and maintenance needs.

3. Repairability and Modular Design:

  • Industrial Machinery: Designing industrial equipment with modular components and easy repair in mind can significantly extend its lifespan. This reduces the need for complete replacements and minimizes waste.
  • Electronics in Manufacturing: In factories and other industrial settings, electronic components are essential. Designing these systems for repairability can reduce downtime and the environmental impact of frequent replacements.

4. Resource Efficiency and Waste Reduction:

  • Supply Chain Management: Industries can adopt practices that minimize waste and optimize resource use throughout their supply chains. This includes using recycled materials, reducing packaging, and implementing closed-loop systems.
  • Manufacturing Processes: Implementing lean manufacturing principles and minimizing waste in production processes can reduce the environmental impact of industrial operations.

5. Inspiration for Sustainable Product Design:

  • Consumer Goods: The 3310’s success demonstrates that consumers value durable and reliable products. Industries can apply this lesson to design and manufacture more sustainable consumer goods that last longer and require less frequent replacement.
  • Electronics Industry: The 3310’s example can inspire electronics manufacturers to prioritize durability, repairability, and energy efficiency in their designs, moving away from planned obsolescence.

It’s important to note:

  • The 3310’s sustainability is relative. Modern industrial equipment often incorporates more advanced energy-saving technologies.
  • Industrial applications require careful consideration of safety, performance, and cost-effectiveness, in addition to sustainability.

While the Nokia 3310 might seem like a simple phone, its principles of sustainability can have a significant impact on industrial practices when applied thoughtfully. By prioritizing durability, simplicity, repairability, and resource efficiency, industries can move towards a more sustainable future.

Research and development of Sustainable Technology of 3310 ?

You’re asking about a fascinating area where the past can inform the future! While the Nokia 3310 itself isn’t the subject of current R&D, its principles of sustainable technology are absolutely relevant to ongoing research and development. Here’s how:

1. Material Science and Sustainable Materials:

  • Research Focus: Scientists are exploring new materials that are more durable, recyclable, and have a lower environmental impact than those used in traditional electronics. This includes bio-based plastics, recycled metals, and materials that require less energy to produce.
  • 3310 Inspiration: The 3310’s longevity highlights the value of durable materials. Research in this area aims to create materials that can be used in future devices to extend their lifespan and reduce waste.

2. Design for Durability and Repairability:

  • Research Focus: Engineers are developing new design methodologies that prioritize durability and ease of repair. This includes modular designs that allow for easy component replacement, as well as techniques for strengthening devices against physical damage.
  • 3310 Inspiration: The 3310’s robust design and relative ease of repair serve as a model for how devices can be made more sustainable by extending their usable life.

3. Energy Efficiency and Low-Power Technologies:

  • Research Focus: Researchers are constantly working on improving the energy efficiency of electronic devices. This includes developing low-power processors, more efficient displays, and better battery technology.
  • 3310 Inspiration: The 3310’s long battery life, achieved through its simplicity and limited functionality, highlights the importance of energy efficiency in sustainable technology.

4. Sustainable Manufacturing Processes:

  • Research Focus: Scientists and engineers are developing manufacturing processes that reduce waste, use less energy, and minimize the use of harmful chemicals. This includes techniques for recycling and reusing materials, as well as closed-loop manufacturing systems.
  • 3310 Inspiration: The 3310’s longevity reduces the need for frequent manufacturing, which in turn reduces the environmental impact of production. This principle inspires research into more sustainable manufacturing processes.

5. Circular Economy and Product Lifecycle Management:

  • Research Focus: Researchers are exploring ways to create a circular economy for electronics, where devices are designed to be easily disassembled, recycled, and reused. This includes developing systems for collecting and processing e-waste, as well as designing products with end-of-life in mind.
  • 3310 Inspiration: The 3310’s repairability and recyclability, though basic, align with the principles of a circular economy. Research in this area aims to create more sophisticated systems for managing the entire lifecycle of electronic devices.

6. User Behavior and Sustainable Consumption:

  • Research Focus: Social scientists are studying how user behavior influences the sustainability of technology. This includes exploring ways to encourage more mindful consumption, promote repair over replacement, and raise awareness about the environmental impact of electronics.
  • 3310 Inspiration: The 3310’s simplicity and longevity can be seen as promoting a more mindful approach to technology use. Research in this area seeks to understand how to encourage similar behavior with more advanced devices.

In essence, while the Nokia 3310 is a product of its time, its core principles of durability, simplicity, and longevity are highly relevant to ongoing research and development in sustainable technology. By studying these principles and applying them to new technologies, researchers are working to create a more sustainable future for electronics.

COURTESY : RBC

References

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Purvis, Ben; Mao, Yong; Robinson, Darren (2019). “Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins”. Sustainability Science. 14 (3): 681–695. Bibcode:2019SuSc…14..681P. doi:10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5. ISSN 1862-4065.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Ramsey, Jeffry L. (2015). “On Not Defining Sustainability”. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 28 (6): 1075–1087. Bibcode:2015JAEE…28.1075R. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9578-3. ISSN 1187-7863. S2CID 146790960.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Kotzé, Louis J.; Kim, Rakhyun E.; Burdon, Peter; du Toit, Louise; Glass, Lisa-Maria; Kashwan, Prakash; Liverman, Diana; Montesano, Francesco S.; Rantala, Salla (2022). “Planetary Integrity”. In Sénit, Carole-Anne; Biermann, Frank; Hickmann, Thomas (eds.). The Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals: Transforming Governance Through Global Goals?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 140–171. doi:10.1017/9781009082945.007. ISBN 978-1-316-51429-0.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Bosselmann, Klaus (2010). “Losing the Forest for the Trees: Environmental Reductionism in the Law”. Sustainability. 2 (8): 2424–2448. doi:10.3390/su2082424. hdl:10535/6499. ISSN 2071-1050.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 International License
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Berg, Christian (2020). Sustainable action: overcoming the barriers. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-57873-1. OCLC 1124780147.
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b c “Sustainability”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
  7. ^ “Sustainable Development”. UNESCO. 3 August 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
  8. ^ Jump up to:a b Kuhlman, Tom; Farrington, John (2010). “What is Sustainability?”. Sustainability. 2 (11): 3436–3448. doi:10.3390/su2113436. ISSN 2071-1050.
  9. ^ Nelson, Anitra (31 January 2024). “Degrowth as a Concept and Practice: Introduction”. The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
  10. ^ Jump up to:a b c d UNEP (2011) Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth, A Report of the Working Group on Decoupling to the International Resource Panel. Fischer-Kowalski, M., Swilling, M., von Weizsäcker, E.U., Ren, Y., Moriguchi, Y., Crane, W., Krausmann, F., Eisenmenger, N., Giljum, S., Hennicke, P., Romero Lankao, P., Siriban Manalang, A., Sewerin, S.
  11. ^ Jump up to:a b c Vadén, T.; Lähde, V.; Majava, A.; Järvensivu, P.; Toivanen, T.; Hakala, E.; Eronen, J.T. (2020). “Decoupling for ecological sustainability: A categorisation and review of research literature”. Environmental Science & Policy. 112: 236–244. Bibcode:2020ESPol.112..236V. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.016. PMC 7330600. PMID 32834777.
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Parrique T., Barth J., Briens F., C. Kerschner, Kraus-Polk A., Kuokkanen A., Spangenberg J.H., 2019. Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. European Environmental Bureau.
  13. ^ Parrique, T., Barth, J., Briens, F., Kerschner, C., Kraus-Polk, A., Kuokkanen, A., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2019). Decoupling debunked. Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability. A study edited by the European Environment Bureau EEB.
  14. ^ Hardyment, Richard (2024). Measuring Good Business: Making Sense of Environmental, Social & Governance Data. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 9781032601199.
  15. ^ Bell, Simon; Morse, Stephen (2012). Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?. Abington: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-84407-299-6.
  16. ^ Jump up to:a b c Howes, Michael; Wortley, Liana; Potts, Ruth; Dedekorkut-Howes, Aysin; Serrao-Neumann, Silvia; Davidson, Julie; Smith, Timothy; Nunn, Patrick (2017). “Environmental Sustainability: A Case of Policy Implementation Failure?”. Sustainability. 9 (2): 165. doi:10.3390/su9020165. hdl:10453/90953. ISSN 2071-1050.
  17. ^ Jump up to:a b Kinsley, M. and Lovins, L.H. (September 1997). “Paying for Growth, Prospering from Development.” Archived 17 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved 15 June 2009.
  18. ^ Jump up to:a b Sustainable Shrinkage: Envisioning a Smaller, Stronger Economy Archived 11 April 2016 at the Wayback Machine. Thesolutionsjournal.com. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  19. ^ Apetrei, Cristina I.; Caniglia, Guido; von Wehrden, Henrik; Lang, Daniel J. (1 May 2021). “Just another buzzword? A systematic literature review of knowledge-related concepts in sustainability science”. Global Environmental Change. 68: 102222. Bibcode:2021GEC….6802222A. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102222. ISSN 0959-3780.
  20. ^ Jump up to:a b c Benson, Melinda Harm; Craig, Robin Kundis (2014). “End of Sustainability”. Society & Natural Resources. 27 (7): 777–782. Bibcode:2014SNatR..27..777B. doi:10.1080/08941920.2014.901467. ISSN 0894-1920. S2CID 67783261.
  21. ^ Jump up to:a b c Stockholm+50: Unlocking a Better Future. Stockholm Environment Institute (Report). 18 May 2022. doi:10.51414/sei2022.011. S2CID 248881465.
  22. ^ Jump up to:a b Scoones, Ian (2016). “The Politics of Sustainability and Development”. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 41 (1): 293–319. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-090039. ISSN 1543-5938. S2CID 156534921.
  23. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i Harrington, Lisa M. Butler (2016). “Sustainability Theory and Conceptual Considerations: A Review of Key Ideas for Sustainability, and the Rural Context”. Papers in Applied Geography. 2 (4): 365–382. Bibcode:2016PAGeo…2..365H. doi:10.1080/23754931.2016.1239222. ISSN 2375-4931. S2CID 132458202.
  24. ^ Jump up to:a b c d United Nations General Assembly (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment.
  25. ^ United Nations General Assembly (20 March 1987). “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future; Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment; Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development; Paragraph 1″. United Nations General Assembly. Retrieved 1 March 2010.
  26. ^ “University of Alberta: What is sustainability?” (PDF). mcgill.ca. Retrieved 13 August 2022.
  27. ^ Jump up to:a b Halliday, Mike (21 November 2016). “How sustainable is sustainability?”. Oxford College of Procurement and Supply. Retrieved 12 July 2022.
  28. ^ Harper, Douglas. “sustain”. Online Etymology Dictionary.
  29. ^ Onions, Charles, T. (ed) (1964). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 2095.
  30. ^ “Sustainability Theories”. World Ocean Review. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
  31. ^ Compare: “sustainability”. Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) The English-language word had a legal technical sense from 1835 and a resource-management connotation from 1953.
  32. ^ “Hans Carl von Carlowitz and Sustainability”. Environment and Society Portal. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
  33. ^ Dresden, SLUB. “Sylvicultura Oeconomica, Oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung Zur Wilden Baum-Zucht”. digital.slub-dresden.de (in German). Retrieved 28 March 2022.
  34. ^ Von Carlowitz, H.C. & Rohr, V. (1732) Sylvicultura Oeconomica, oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung zur Wilden Baum Zucht, Leipzig; translated from German as cited in Friederich, Simon; Symons, Jonathan (15 November 2022). “Operationalising sustainability? Why sustainability fails as an investment criterion for safeguarding the future”. Global Policy. 14: 1758–5899.13160. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.13160. ISSN 1758-5880. S2CID 253560289.
  35. ^ Basler, Ernst (1972). Strategy of Progress: Environmental Pollution, Habitat Scarcity and Future Research (originally, Strategie des Fortschritts: Umweltbelastung Lebensraumverknappung and Zukunftsforshung). BLV Publishing Company.
  36. ^ Gadgil, M.; Berkes, F. (1991). “Traditional Resource Management Systems”. Resource Management and Optimization. 8: 127–141.
  37. ^ “Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 16 September 2005, 60/1. 2005 World Summit Outcome” (PDF). United Nations General Assembly. 2005. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
  38. ^ Barbier, Edward B. (July 1987). “The Concept of Sustainable Economic Development”. Environmental Conservation. 14 (2): 101–110. Bibcode:1987EnvCo..14..101B. doi:10.1017/S0376892900011449. ISSN 1469-4387.
  39. ^ Jump up to:a b Bosselmann, K. (2022) Chapter 2: A normative approach to environmental governance: sustainability at the apex of environmental law, Research Handbook on Fundamental Concepts of Environmental Law, edited by Douglas Fisher
  40. ^ Jump up to:a b “Agenda 21” (PDF). United Nations Conference on Environment & Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992. 1992. Retrieved 17 January 2022.
  41. ^ Jump up to:a b c d United Nations (2015) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1 Archived 28 November 2020 at the Wayback Machine)
  42. ^ Scott Cato, M. (2009). Green Economics. London: Earthscan, pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-1-84407-571-3.
  43. ^ Jump up to:a b Obrecht, Andreas; Pham-Truffert, Myriam; Spehn, Eva; Payne, Davnah; Altermatt, Florian; Fischer, Manuel; Passarello, Cristian; Moersberger, Hannah; Schelske, Oliver; Guntern, Jodok; Prescott, Graham (5 February 2021). “Achieving the SDGs with Biodiversity”. Swiss Academies Factsheet. Vol. 16, no. 1. doi:10.5281/zenodo.4457298.
  44. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Raskin, P.; Banuri, T.; Gallopín, G.; Gutman, P.; Hammond, A.; Kates, R.; Swart, R. (2002). Great transition: the promise and lure of the times ahead. Boston: Stockholm Environment Institute. ISBN 0-9712418-1-3. OCLC 49987854.
  45. ^ Ekins, Paul; Zenghelis, Dimitri (2021). “The costs and benefits of environmental sustainability”. Sustainability Science. 16 (3): 949–965. Bibcode:2021SuSc…16..949E. doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00910-5. PMC 7960882. PMID 33747239.
  46. ^ William L. Thomas, ed. (1956). Man’s role in changing the face of the earth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-79604-3. OCLC 276231.
  47. ^ Carson, Rachel (2002) [1st. Pub. Houghton Mifflin, 1962]. Silent Spring. Mariner Books. ISBN 978-0-618-24906-0.
  48. ^ Arrhenius, Svante (1896). “XXXI. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground”. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science. 41 (251): 237–276. doi:10.1080/14786449608620846. ISSN 1941-5982.
  49. ^ Jump up to:a b c UN (1973) Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, A/CONF.48/14/Rev.1, Stockholm, 5–16 June 1972
  50. ^ UNEP (2021). “Making Peace With Nature”. UNEP – UN Environment Programme. Retrieved 30 March 2022.
  51. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Ripple, William J.; Wolf, Christopher; Newsome, Thomas M.; Galetti, Mauro; Alamgir, Mohammed; Crist, Eileen; Mahmoud, Mahmoud I.; Laurance, William F.; 15,364 scientist signatories from 184 countries (2017). “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice”. BioScience. 67 (12): 1026–1028. doi:10.1093/biosci/bix125. hdl:11336/71342. ISSN 0006-3568.
  52. ^ Crutzen, Paul J. (2002). “Geology of mankind”. Nature. 415 (6867): 23. Bibcode:2002Natur.415…23C. doi:10.1038/415023a. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 11780095. S2CID 9743349.
  53. ^ Jump up to:a b Wilhelm Krull, ed. (2000). Zukunftsstreit (in German). Weilerwist: Velbrück Wissenschaft. ISBN 3-934730-17-5. OCLC 52639118.
  54. ^ Redclift, Michael (2005). “Sustainable development (1987-2005): an oxymoron comes of age”. Sustainable Development. 13 (4): 212–227. doi:10.1002/sd.281. ISSN 0968-0802.
  55. ^ Daly, Herman E. (1996). Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development (PDF). Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-4708-2. OCLC 33946953.
  56. ^ United Nations (2017) Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017, Work of the Statistical Commission pertaining to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/71/313)
  57. ^ “UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative”. UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
  58. ^ PEP (2016) Poverty-Environment Partnership Joint Paper | June 2016 Getting to Zero – A Poverty, Environment and Climate Call to Action for the Sustainable Development Goals
  59. ^ Boyer, Robert H. W.; Peterson, Nicole D.; Arora, Poonam; Caldwell, Kevin (2016). “Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward”. Sustainability. 8 (9): 878. doi:10.3390/su8090878.
  60. ^ Doğu, Feriha Urfalı; Aras, Lerzan (2019). “Measuring Social Sustainability with the Developed MCSA Model: Güzelyurt Case”. Sustainability. 11 (9): 2503. doi:10.3390/su11092503. ISSN 2071-1050.
  61. ^ Davidson, Mark (2010). “Social Sustainability and the City: Social sustainability and city”. Geography Compass. 4 (7): 872–880. doi:10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00339.x.
  62. ^ Missimer, Merlina; Robèrt, Karl-Henrik; Broman, Göran (2017). “A strategic approach to social sustainability – Part 2: a principle-based definition”. Journal of Cleaner Production. 140: 42–52. Bibcode:2017JCPro.140…42M. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.059.
  63. ^ Boyer, Robert; Peterson, Nicole; Arora, Poonam; Caldwell, Kevin (2016). “Five Approaches to Social Sustainability and an Integrated Way Forward”. Sustainability. 8 (9): 878. doi:10.3390/su8090878. ISSN 2071-1050.
  64. ^ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
  65. ^ Liam Magee; Andy Scerri; Paul James; James A. Thom; Lin Padgham; Sarah Hickmott; Hepu Deng; Felicity Cahill (2013). “Reframing social sustainability reporting: Towards an engaged approach”. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 15 (1): 225–243. Bibcode:2013EDSus..15..225M. doi:10.1007/s10668-012-9384-2. S2CID 153452740.
  66. ^ Cohen, J. E. (2006). “Human Population: The Next Half Century.”. In Kennedy, D. (ed.). Science Magazine’s State of the Planet 2006-7. London: Island Press. pp. 13–21. ISBN 9781597266246.
  67. ^ Jump up to:a b c Aggarwal, Dhruvak; Esquivel, Nhilce; Hocquet, Robin; Martin, Kristiina; Mungo, Carol; Nazareth, Anisha; Nikam, Jaee; Odenyo, Javan; Ravindran, Bhuvan; Kurinji, L. S.; Shawoo, Zoha; Yamada, Kohei (28 April 2022). Charting a youth vision for a just and sustainable future (PDF) (Report). Stockholm Environment Institute. doi:10.51414/sei2022.010.
  68. ^ “The Regional Institute – WACOSS Housing and Sustainable Communities Indicators Project”. www.regional.org.au. 2012. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
  69. ^ Virtanen, Pirjo Kristiina; Siragusa, Laura; Guttorm, Hanna (2020). “Introduction: toward more inclusive definitions of sustainability”. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 43: 77–82. Bibcode:2020COES…43…77V. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2020.04.003. S2CID 219663803.
  70. ^ “Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development”. United Cities and Local Governments. Archived from the original on 3 October 2013.
  71. ^ James, Paul; Magee, Liam (2016). “Domains of Sustainability”. In Farazmand, Ali (ed.). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Cham: Springer International Publishing. pp. 1–17. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2760-1. ISBN 978-3-319-31816-5. Retrieved 28 March 2022.
  72. ^ Jump up to:a b Robert U. Ayres & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh & John M. Gowdy, 1998. “Viewpoint: Weak versus Strong Sustainability“, Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 98-103/3, Tinbergen Institute.
  73. ^ Pearce, David W.; Atkinson, Giles D. (1993). “Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: an indicator of “weak” sustainability”. Ecological Economics. 8 (2): 103–108. Bibcode:1993EcoEc…8..103P. doi:10.1016/0921-8009(93)90039-9.
  74. ^ Ayres, Robert; van den Berrgh, Jeroen; Gowdy, John (2001). “Strong versus Weak Sustainability”. Environmental Ethics. 23 (2): 155–168. doi:10.5840/enviroethics200123225. ISSN 0163-4275.
  75. ^ Cabeza Gutés, Maite (1996). “The concept of weak sustainability”. Ecological Economics. 17 (3): 147–156. Bibcode:1996EcoEc..17..147C. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(96)80003-6.
  76. ^ Bosselmann, Klaus (2017). The principle of sustainability: transforming law and governance (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-4724-8128-3. OCLC 951915998.
  77. ^ Jump up to:a b WEF (2020) Nature Risk Rising: Why the Crisis Engulfing Nature Matters for Business and the Economy New Nature Economy, World Economic Forum in collaboration with PwC
  78. ^ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
  79. ^ Jump up to:a b Hardyment, Richard (2 February 2024). Measuring Good Business. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003457732. ISBN 978-1-003-45773-2.
  80. ^ Jump up to:a b Bell, Simon and Morse, Stephen 2008. Sustainability Indicators. Measuring the Immeasurable? 2nd edn. London: Earthscan. ISBN 978-1-84407-299-6.
  81. ^ Dalal-Clayton, Barry and Sadler, Barry 2009. Sustainability Appraisal: A Sourcebook and Reference Guide to International Experience. London: Earthscan. ISBN 978-1-84407-357-3.[page needed]
  82. ^ Hak, T. et al. 2007. Sustainability Indicators, SCOPE 67. Island Press, London. [1] Archived 2011-12-18 at the Wayback Machine
  83. ^ Wackernagel, Mathis; Lin, David; Evans, Mikel; Hanscom, Laurel; Raven, Peter (2019). “Defying the Footprint Oracle: Implications of Country Resource Trends”. Sustainability. 11 (7): 2164. doi:10.3390/su11072164.
  84. ^ “Sustainable Development visualized”. Sustainability concepts. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
  85. ^ Jump up to:a b Steffen, Will; Rockström, Johan; Cornell, Sarah; Fetzer, Ingo; Biggs, Oonsie; Folke, Carl; Reyers, Belinda (15 January 2015). “Planetary Boundaries – an update”. Stockholm Resilience Centre. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
  86. ^ “Ten years of nine planetary boundaries”. Stockholm Resilience Centre. November 2019. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
  87. ^ Persson, Linn; Carney Almroth, Bethanie M.; Collins, Christopher D.; Cornell, Sarah; de Wit, Cynthia A.; Diamond, Miriam L.; Fantke, Peter; Hassellöv, Martin; MacLeod, Matthew; Ryberg, Morten W.; Søgaard Jørgensen, Peter (1 February 2022). “Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities”. Environmental Science & Technology. 56 (3): 1510–1521. Bibcode:2022EnST…56.1510P. doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c04158. ISSN 0013-936X. PMC 8811958. PMID 35038861.
  88. ^ Ehrlich, P.R.; Holden, J.P. (1974). “Human Population and the global environment”. American Scientist. Vol. 62, no. 3. pp. 282–292.
  89. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Wiedmann, Thomas; Lenzen, Manfred; Keyßer, Lorenz T.; Steinberger, Julia K. (2020). “Scientists’ warning on affluence”. Nature Communications. 11 (1): 3107. Bibcode:2020NatCo..11.3107W. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-16941-y. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 7305220. PMID 32561753. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  90. ^ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis (PDF). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
  91. ^ TEEB (2010), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB
  92. ^ Jump up to:a b c Jaeger, William K. (2005). Environmental economics for tree huggers and other skeptics. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 978-1-4416-0111-7. OCLC 232157655.
  93. ^ Groth, Christian (2014). Lecture notes in Economic Growth, (mimeo), Chapter 8: Choice of social discount rate. Copenhagen University.
  94. ^ UNEP, FAO (2020). UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. 48p.
  95. ^ Raworth, Kate (2017). Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. London: Random House. ISBN 978-1-84794-138-1. OCLC 974194745.
  96. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Berg, Christian (2017). “Shaping the Future Sustainably – Types of Barriers and Tentative Action Principles (chapter in: Future Scenarios of Global Cooperation—Practices and Challenges)”. Global Dialogues (14). Centre For Global Cooperation Research (KHK/GCR21), Nora Dahlhaus and Daniela Weißkopf (eds.). doi:10.14282/2198-0403-GD-14. ISSN 2198-0403.
  97. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Pickering, Jonathan; Hickmann, Thomas; Bäckstrand, Karin; Kalfagianni, Agni; Bloomfield, Michael; Mert, Ayşem; Ransan-Cooper, Hedda; Lo, Alex Y. (2022). “Democratising sustainability transformations: Assessing the transformative potential of democratic practices in environmental governance”. Earth System Governance. 11: 100131. Bibcode:2022ESGov..1100131P. doi:10.1016/j.esg.2021.100131.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  98. ^ European Environment Agency. (2019). Sustainability transitions: policy and practice. LU: Publications Office. doi:10.2800/641030. ISBN 9789294800862.
  99. ^ Noura Guimarães, Lucas (2020). “Introduction”. The regulation and policy of Latin American energy transitions. Elsevier. pp. xxix–xxxviii. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-819521-5.00026-7. ISBN 978-0-12-819521-5. S2CID 241093198.
  100. ^ Kuenkel, Petra (2019). Stewarding Sustainability Transformations: An Emerging Theory and Practice of SDG Implementation. Cham: Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-03691-1. OCLC 1080190654.
  101. ^ Fletcher, Charles; Ripple, William J.; Newsome, Thomas; Barnard, Phoebe; Beamer, Kamanamaikalani; Behl, Aishwarya; Bowen, Jay; Cooney, Michael; Crist, Eileen; Field, Christopher; Hiser, Krista; Karl, David M.; King, David A.; Mann, Michael E.; McGregor, Davianna P.; Mora, Camilo; Oreskes, Naomi; Wilson, Michael (4 April 2024). “Earth at risk: An urgent call to end the age of destruction and forge a just and sustainable future”. PNAS Nexus. 3 (4): pgae106. doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae106. PMC 10986754. PMID 38566756. Retrieved 4 April 2024.  Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  102. ^ Smith, E. T. (23 January 2024). “Practising Commoning”. The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
  103. ^ Jump up to:a b Haberl, Helmut; Wiedenhofer, Dominik; Virág, Doris; Kalt, Gerald; Plank, Barbara; Brockway, Paul; Fishman, Tomer; Hausknost, Daniel; Krausmann, Fridolin; Leon-Gruchalski, Bartholomäus; Mayer, Andreas (2020). “A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights”. Environmental Research Letters. 15 (6): 065003. Bibcode:2020ERL….15f5003H. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a. ISSN 1748-9326. S2CID 216453887.
  104. ^ Pigou, Arthur Cecil (1932). The Economics of Welfare (PDF) (4th ed.). London: Macmillan.
  105. ^ Jaeger, William K. (2005). Environmental economics for tree huggers and other skeptics. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 978-1-4416-0111-7. OCLC 232157655.
  106. ^ Roger Perman; Yue Ma; Michael Common; David Maddison; James Mcgilvray (2011). Natural resource and environmental economics (4th ed.). Harlow, Essex: Pearson Addison Wesley. ISBN 978-0-321-41753-4. OCLC 704557307.
  107. ^ Jump up to:a b Anderies, John M.; Janssen, Marco A. (16 October 2012). “Elinor Ostrom (1933–2012): Pioneer in the Interdisciplinary Science of Coupled Social-Ecological Systems”. PLOS Biology. 10 (10): e1001405. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001405. ISSN 1544-9173. PMC 3473022.
  108. ^ “The Nobel Prize: Women Who Changed the World”. thenobelprize.org. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
  109. ^ Ghisellini, Patrizia; Cialani, Catia; Ulgiati, Sergio (15 February 2016). “A review on circular economy: the expected transition to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems”. Journal of Cleaner Production. Towards Post Fossil Carbon Societies: Regenerative and Preventative Eco-Industrial Development. 114: 11–32. Bibcode:2016JCPro.114…11G. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.007. ISSN 0959-6526.
  110. ^ Nobre, Gustavo Cattelan; Tavares, Elaine (10 September 2021). “The quest for a circular economy final definition: A scientific perspective”. Journal of Cleaner Production. 314: 127973. Bibcode:2021JCPro.31427973N. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127973. ISSN 0959-6526.
  111. ^ Zhexembayeva, N. (May 2007). “Becoming Sustainable: Tools and Resources for Successful Organizational Transformation”. Center for Business as an Agent of World Benefit. Case Western University. Archived from the original on 13 June 2010.
  112. ^ “About Us”. Sustainable Business Institute. Archived from the original on 17 May 2009.
  113. ^ “About the WBCSD”. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Archived from the original on 9 September 2007. Retrieved 1 April 2009.
  114. ^ “Supply Chain Sustainability | UN Global Compact”. www.unglobalcompact.org. Retrieved 4 May 2022.
  115. ^ “”Statement of Faith and Spiritual Leaders on the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 in Paris in December 2015″” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 December 2015. Retrieved 21 March 2022.
  116. ^ “The Statement — Interfaith Climate”. www.interfaithclimate.org. Retrieved 13 August 2022.
  117. ^ McDilda, Diane Gow (2007). The everything green living book: easy ways to conserve energy, protect your family’s health, and help save the environment. Avon, Mass.: Adams Media. ISBN 978-1-59869-425-3. OCLC 124074971.
  118. ^ Gambino, Megan (15 March 2012). “Is it Too Late for Sustainable Development?”. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
  119. ^ Blühdorn (2017). “Post-capitalism, post-growth, post-consumerism? Eco-political hopes beyond sustainability”. Global Discourse. 7 (1): 42–61. doi:10.1080/23269995.2017.1300415. ISSN 2043-7897.
  120. ^ Watson, Bruce (20 August 2016). “The troubling evolution of corporate greenwashing”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 18 October 2016.
  121. ^ “The Troubling Evolution Of Large Scale Corporate Greenwashing”. www.bloomberg.ca. BNN Bloomberg. 18 August 2018.
  122. ^ “The Troubling Evolution Of Large Scale Corporate Greenwashing”. The Conversation. 18 August 2011.
  123. ^ Ebrahimi Sirizi, Mohammad; Taghavi Zirvani, Esmaeil; Esmailzadeh, Abdulsalam; Khosravian, Jafar; Ahmadi, Reyhaneh; Mijani, Naeim; Soltannia, Reyhaneh; Jokar Arsanjani, Jamal (19 October 2023). “A scenario-based multi-criteria decision-making approach for allocation of pistachio processing facilities: A case study of Zarand, Iran”. Sustainability. 15 (20): 15054. doi:10.3390/su152015054. ISSN 2071-1050.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Translate »