Sustainable Technology of 3660

79 / 100

Sustainable Technology of 3660 ?

It seems like you might be thinking of the Dell Precision 3660 Tower Workstation. While the “3660” likely refers to the model number, Dell emphasizes sustainability in its design and manufacturing. Here’s how:

Eco-conscious Design: Dell aims to minimize the environmental impact of its products throughout their lifecycle, from design to recycling.
Recycled and Renewable Materials: They use recycled and renewable materials in packaging and are working towards increasing this percentage.
Energy Efficiency: The 3660 is designed with energy efficiency in mind, contributing to lower power consumption during use.
EPEAT Registration: Dell Precision workstations, including the 3660, are EPEAT registered, meaning they meet strict environmental criteria.
Responsible Recycling: Dell promotes responsible recycling practices to minimize waste and recover valuable materials.

If you’re interested in learning more about Dell’s sustainability initiatives, you can visit their website or check out their environmental data sheets for specific products.

What is Sustainable Technology of 3660 ?

You’re asking a great question that gets at the heart of how technology can be both powerful and responsible! Here’s a breakdown of the sustainable technology aspects of the Dell Precision 3660:

1. Eco-Conscious Design:

Lifecycle Approach: Dell considers the environmental impact of the 3660 throughout its entire life, from the initial design and manufacturing to its eventual recycling. This means they’re thinking about energy use, material choices, and waste reduction at every stage.
EPEAT Registered: The 3660 is EPEAT registered. This is a big deal because EPEAT is a global ecolabel that verifies products meet strict environmental performance criteria. It covers things like energy efficiency, material selection, and end-of-life management.

2. Materials and Packaging:

Recycled and Renewable Content: Dell is actively working to increase the use of recycled and renewable materials in their products and packaging. This helps conserve resources and reduce reliance on virgin materials.
Responsible Packaging: They’re moving towards using 100% recycled or renewable materials in their packaging by 2030. This reduces waste and promotes a circular economy.

3. Energy Efficiency:

Efficient Components: The 3660 is designed with energy-efficient components to minimize power consumption during use. This not only lowers operating costs but also reduces the environmental impact associated with energy generation.
Advanced Cooling: Improved cooling systems help the 3660 run efficiently and prevent overheating, which can prolong the lifespan of the components.

4. Responsible Recycling:

E-waste Recycling: Dell encourages responsible recycling of their products (and even those from other brands) to minimize electronic waste and recover valuable materials. This helps prevent hazardous substances from ending up in landfills.

In essence, the sustainable technology of the Dell Precision 3660 is a combination of:

Thoughtful design: Minimizing environmental impact from the start.
Material choices: Using recycled and renewable resources.
Energy efficiency: Reducing power consumption.
Responsible end-of-life management: Promoting recycling and reducing waste.

By focusing on these areas, Dell aims to create powerful workstations like the 3660 that are also environmentally responsible.

Who is required Sustainable Technology of 3660 ?

That’s a really insightful question! It’s not just about having sustainable technology, it’s about who needs it and why. Here’s a breakdown of who benefits most from the sustainable technology in the Dell Precision 3660:

1. Businesses and Organizations with Sustainability Goals:

Reducing Environmental Footprint: Companies with commitments to lowering their carbon emissions and environmental impact find the 3660 aligns with their goals. It helps them reduce energy consumption, use less virgin material, and contribute to responsible e-waste management.
EPEAT and other certifications: Organizations seeking EPEAT-registered products or those adhering to specific sustainability standards will find the 3660 a good fit.
Brand Image: Increasingly, consumers and clients prefer to work with environmentally conscious businesses. Using sustainable technology like the 3660 enhances a company’s brand image and reputation.

2. Environmentally Conscious Individuals:

Personal Values: People who prioritize sustainability in their personal lives often seek out eco-friendly technology for their work or home offices.
Reducing Impact: By choosing the 3660, individuals can minimize their environmental footprint and contribute to a more sustainable future.

3. IT Departments:

Lower Operating Costs: Energy-efficient technology can lead to lower electricity bills, saving money for the organization.
Easier Recycling: Dell’s focus on responsible recycling can simplify end-of-life management for IT departments.

4. Industries with Specific Sustainability Concerns:

Government and Public Sector: Many government agencies have strict environmental procurement policies, making EPEAT-registered products like the 3660 a requirement.
Education: Schools and universities are increasingly focused on sustainability and may prefer eco-friendly technology for their campuses.

In essence, anyone who cares about the environment and wants to reduce their impact can benefit from the sustainable technology in the Dell Precision 3660. It’s a win-win: powerful performance with a smaller environmental footprint.

When is required Sustainable Technology of 3660 ?

You’re thinking about the right timing for sustainable technology! Here’s when the sustainable features of the Dell Precision 3660 are most relevant:

1. During Procurement/Purchasing:

Meeting Sustainability Goals: When organizations are setting procurement policies or making purchasing decisions, that’s the key time to consider the 3660’s EPEAT registration and other eco-friendly attributes. This ensures that sustainability is factored into the initial selection process.
RFPs and Tenders: When responding to requests for proposals (RFPs) or tenders, highlighting the sustainable aspects of the 3660 can give businesses a competitive edge, especially if the client values environmental responsibility.

2. During Use:

Energy Savings: The energy-efficient design of the 3660 provides ongoing benefits throughout its use. Lower power consumption translates to reduced electricity bills and a smaller carbon footprint.
Long-Term Cost Reduction: By choosing a durable and efficient machine, businesses can potentially extend its lifespan, reducing the need for frequent replacements and minimizing overall costs.

3. At End-of-Life:

Responsible Disposal: When it’s time to retire the 3660, Dell’s emphasis on responsible recycling becomes crucial. This helps ensure that the materials are recovered and that hazardous substances are handled properly, preventing environmental harm.
E-waste Management: For IT departments, the ease of recycling and the availability of Dell’s recycling programs can simplify e-waste management and ensure compliance with regulations.

4. Ongoing Sustainability Initiatives:

Reporting and Tracking: The environmental data sheets and other information provided by Dell can be valuable for organizations tracking their sustainability progress and reporting on their environmental impact.
Demonstrating Commitment: Using sustainable technology like the 3660 helps businesses demonstrate their commitment to environmental responsibility to stakeholders, including customers, employees, and investors.

In short, the need for the sustainable technology in the Dell Precision 3660 is relevant throughout the entire lifecycle of the product, from the initial purchase to its eventual recycling. It’s not just a one-time consideration but an ongoing benefit that contributes to a more sustainable approach to technology.

https://www.youtube.com/@bernardmarr

COURTESY : NPTEL-NOC IITM

Where is required Sustainable Technology of 3660 ?

You’re asking a great question that really highlights the broad applicability of sustainable technology! Here’s a look at where the sustainable features of the Dell Precision 3660 are particularly valuable:

1. Industries with Strong Environmental Focus:

Renewable Energy: Companies in solar, wind, and other renewable energy sectors often prioritize sustainability throughout their operations, including their technology choices.
Environmental Consulting: Firms specializing in environmental impact assessments and sustainability solutions need to “walk the talk” by using eco-friendly technology.
Government and Public Sector: Many government agencies have strict environmental procurement policies and are increasingly focused on reducing their carbon footprint.

2. Organizations with Sustainability Initiatives:

Large Corporations: Companies with ambitious sustainability goals often integrate eco-friendly technology into their overall strategy.
Non-profit Organizations: Environmental and social justice organizations often prioritize sustainability in their operations and seek out eco-conscious technology.
Educational Institutions: Schools and universities are increasingly focused on sustainability and may prefer eco-friendly technology for their campuses.

3. Businesses Seeking Cost Savings:

Energy-intensive Industries: Companies with high energy consumption (e.g., manufacturing, data centers) can benefit from the 3660’s energy efficiency to reduce operating costs.
Organizations with Tight Budgets: By choosing a durable and efficient machine, businesses can potentially extend its lifespan, reducing the need for frequent replacements and minimizing overall costs.

4. Sectors with Specific Sustainability Concerns:

Healthcare: Hospitals and clinics generate significant amounts of e-waste, making responsible recycling practices crucial.
Finance: Financial institutions are increasingly aware of their environmental impact and are seeking ways to reduce their carbon footprint.
Technology Companies: Even tech companies themselves are under pressure to adopt sustainable practices and reduce the environmental impact of their products.

5. Anywhere that Values Environmental Responsibility:

Small Businesses: Even small businesses can make a difference by choosing sustainable technology.
Home Offices: Individuals working from home can also contribute to a more sustainable future by opting for eco-friendly devices.

In essence, the need for sustainable technology like that found in the Dell Precision 3660 is relevant across a wide range of industries and organizations. It’s not limited to a specific sector but rather applies to anyone who wants to reduce their environmental impact and contribute to a more sustainable future.

How is required Sustainable Technology of 3660 ?

You’re getting to the core of how sustainability becomes a practical necessity! Here’s how the sustainable technology of the Dell Precision 3660 is required in different situations:

1. Compliance with Regulations and Standards:

EPEAT Registration: In many government and public sector procurements, EPEAT registration is a mandatory requirement. The 3660’s EPEAT status makes it eligible for these purchases.
Energy Efficiency Standards: Some regions have regulations on energy consumption for electronic devices. The 3660’s energy-efficient design helps organizations comply with these standards.
E-waste Regulations: Many countries have laws regarding the proper disposal and recycling of electronic waste. Dell’s commitment to responsible recycling helps organizations meet these requirements.

2. Meeting Corporate Sustainability Goals:

Environmental Targets: Companies with public commitments to reducing their environmental footprint often require their technology purchases to align with those goals. The 3660’s sustainable features help them achieve these targets.
Sustainability Reporting: Organizations that report on their environmental performance need data on the sustainability aspects of their operations, including their technology. The 3660’s environmental data sheets provide this information.

3. Responding to Stakeholder Expectations:

Customer Demand: Increasingly, consumers prefer to buy products from companies that are environmentally responsible. Businesses that use sustainable technology like the 3660 can meet this demand.
Investor Pressure: Investors are increasingly considering environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors when making investment decisions. Companies that demonstrate a commitment to sustainability, including through their technology choices, can attract more investment.
Employee Engagement: Employees, especially younger generations, are more likely to work for companies that align with their values, including environmental responsibility. Using sustainable technology can help attract and retain talent.

4. Achieving Long-Term Cost Savings:

Energy Efficiency: While the initial cost of sustainable technology might be slightly higher, the long-term energy savings can offset this cost. This is especially important for organizations with high energy consumption.
Reduced Waste: By extending the lifespan of technology and promoting responsible recycling, businesses can reduce waste disposal costs and minimize the need for frequent replacements.

In essence, the sustainable technology of the Dell Precision 3660 is required when:

Legal or regulatory requirements mandate it.
Organizational sustainability goals necessitate it.
Stakeholder expectations demand it.
Long-term cost savings are a priority.

It’s not just about being environmentally friendly; it’s also about meeting practical needs and ensuring long-term viability.

Case study is Sustainable Technology of 3660 ?

Let’s create a hypothetical case study to illustrate the value of the sustainable technology in the Dell Precision 3660. Since we don’t have access to real-world case studies with specific data on the 3660, this will be a plausible scenario.

Case Study: GreenTech Solutions – Implementing Sustainable Workstations

Background:

GreenTech Solutions, an environmental consulting firm, recently won a major contract to conduct a large-scale environmental impact assessment for a proposed renewable energy project. They needed to upgrade their workstations to handle the demanding data analysis, modeling, and reporting required for the project. GreenTech also has a strong commitment to sustainability, both internally and in the services they provide to clients.

Challenge:

GreenTech needed powerful workstations to handle the project’s technical requirements, but they also wanted to minimize their environmental footprint. They were looking for a solution that balanced performance, sustainability, and cost-effectiveness.

Solution:

GreenTech chose the Dell Precision 3660 Tower Workstations for their project. The 3660 offered the necessary processing power, memory, and graphics capabilities to run the required software. Crucially, it also aligned with GreenTech’s sustainability goals due to its:

EPEAT Registration: Meeting their requirement for environmentally preferable products.
Energy Efficiency: Reducing their energy consumption and associated carbon emissions.
Recycled and Renewable Materials: Minimizing their reliance on virgin resources.
Responsible Recycling Program: Ensuring proper end-of-life management of the workstations.

Results:

Improved Performance: The 3660 workstations significantly improved the efficiency of GreenTech’s data analysis and modeling, allowing them to complete the project on time and within budget.
Reduced Energy Costs: The energy-efficient design of the 3660s led to a noticeable reduction in GreenTech’s electricity bills. While precise figures are hypothetical in this case study, let’s assume a 15% decrease in energy consumption related to workstations.
Enhanced Brand Image: GreenTech’s use of sustainable technology enhanced their reputation as an environmentally responsible company. This was a positive factor with their client and helped them secure future contracts.
Positive Employee Feedback: GreenTech’s employees appreciated the company’s commitment to sustainability, which boosted morale and engagement.
Reduced Environmental Impact: By choosing EPEAT-registered and energy-efficient workstations, GreenTech reduced their overall environmental footprint, contributing to their own sustainability goals and those of their clients.

Conclusion:

The Dell Precision 3660 proved to be an excellent choice for GreenTech Solutions. It provided the necessary performance for their demanding project while also aligning with their commitment to sustainability. The case study demonstrates how sustainable technology can be a win-win, offering both practical benefits and environmental advantages. While the specific numbers are illustrative, they represent the types of positive outcomes a company can expect when choosing sustainable technology.

COURTESY : Bernard Marr

White paper on Sustainable Technology of 3660 ?

I can’t directly create a formal white paper with official Dell branding and data (as I’m an AI and don’t have access to their internal resources). However, I can give you a structured outline and content suggestions for what a white paper on the sustainable technology of the Dell Precision 3660 could contain. You could then use this as a starting point for your own research or if you’re working with Dell, request they provide an official document.

Title: The Dell Precision 3660: Powering Performance, Embracing Sustainability

Abstract:

Briefly introduce the Dell Precision 3660 as a high-performance workstation.
State the increasing importance of sustainable technology in today’s business environment.
Highlight the key sustainable features of the 3660 and their benefits.
Briefly mention target audiences (e.g., businesses, IT professionals, environmentally conscious users).

1. Introduction:

Set the context: The growing need for powerful workstations in various industries.
The challenge: Balancing performance with environmental responsibility.
Introduce the Dell Precision 3660 as a solution that addresses this challenge.
Thesis statement: The 3660 demonstrates Dell’s commitment to sustainable technology by integrating eco-conscious design, energy efficiency, and responsible end-of-life management.

2. Eco-Conscious Design:

Lifecycle Assessment: Discuss Dell’s approach to considering the environmental impact of the 3660 throughout its entire lifecycle.
Material Selection: Detail the use of recycled and renewable materials in the workstation and its packaging. Include specific percentages if available.
EPEAT Registration: Explain the significance of EPEAT and the specific criteria the 3660 meets. Mention the tier (Gold, Silver, Bronze) if applicable.
Design for Durability: Discuss how the 3660 is designed for longevity, reducing the need for frequent replacements.

3. Energy Efficiency:

Component Selection: Describe the energy-efficient components used in the 3660 (e.g., processors, memory, storage).
Power Management: Explain any power management features that help reduce energy consumption.
Thermal Design: Discuss the cooling system and how it contributes to energy efficiency.
Energy Star Compliance (if applicable): Mention any Energy Star certifications.
Benchmarking/Performance Data: Include any data comparing the 3660’s energy consumption to previous models or competitors (if available).

4. Responsible End-of-Life Management:

Recycling Programs: Describe Dell’s recycling programs and how customers can responsibly dispose of their 3660 workstations.
E-waste Reduction: Explain how Dell minimizes e-waste through its recycling initiatives.
Material Recovery: Discuss the recovery of valuable materials from recycled workstations.

5. Benefits of Sustainable Technology:

Environmental Benefits: Reduced carbon footprint, conservation of resources, minimized e-waste.
Business Benefits: Lower operating costs (energy savings), enhanced brand image, meeting sustainability goals, compliance with regulations.
Social Benefits: Contributing to a more sustainable future, demonstrating corporate social responsibility.

6. Case Studies (Optional):

Include real-world examples (if available) of organizations that have benefited from using the sustainable technology in Dell Precision workstations. (As mentioned before, I can’t provide real-world case studies, but this is where they would go in a formal white paper.)

7. Conclusion:

Reiterate the key sustainable features and benefits of the Dell Precision 3660.
Emphasize Dell’s commitment to sustainable technology.
Call to action: Encourage readers to choose the 3660 for their workstation needs.

8. Appendix (Optional):

Include any supporting data, specifications, or certifications.

Remember to cite any sources you use and to tailor the content to your specific audience. If you’re working with Dell, they are the best source for official data and branding.

Industrial application of Sustainable Technology of 3660 ?

You’re right to focus on industrial applications! That’s where the rubber meets the road for sustainable tech. Here’s how the Dell Precision 3660’s sustainable features can be particularly valuable in industrial settings:

1. Manufacturing:

Energy-Efficient Design: Manufacturing facilities often have high energy demands. The 3660’s energy efficiency can contribute to reducing overall energy consumption and lowering operating costs in these environments.
Durability and Reliability: Industrial settings require robust and reliable equipment. The 3660 is designed for durability, ensuring that it can withstand the demands of a manufacturing environment, reducing downtime and the need for replacements.
EPEAT Registration: Many manufacturers are increasingly focused on sustainability and may require EPEAT-registered products for their operations. The 3660’s EPEAT status makes it a suitable choice for these companies.

2. Engineering and Design:

Powerful Performance: Engineers and designers often work with demanding software for CAD, simulation, and modeling. The 3660 provides the necessary performance to run these applications efficiently, while its sustainable features minimize its environmental impact.
Long-Term Cost Savings: Engineering firms often have long-term projects. The 3660’s energy efficiency and durability can lead to significant cost savings over the lifespan of the workstation.

3. Oil and Gas:

Remote Locations: Oil and gas operations often take place in remote locations where access to resources and recycling facilities may be limited. The 3660’s durability and long lifespan can be particularly valuable in these settings.
Environmental Regulations: The oil and gas industry is subject to strict environmental regulations. The 3660’s sustainable features can help companies comply with these regulations and reduce their environmental footprint.

4. Research and Development:

Data-Intensive Tasks: R&D often involves data-intensive tasks such as simulations, analysis, and modeling. The 3660’s powerful performance enables researchers to carry out these tasks efficiently while its sustainable features align with the growing focus on environmental responsibility in research institutions.

5. Any Industry with Sustainability Goals:

Reducing Carbon Footprint: Many industries are setting ambitious goals to reduce their carbon footprint. The 3660’s energy efficiency and responsible recycling contribute to achieving these targets.
Meeting Stakeholder Expectations: Customers, investors, and employees are increasingly expecting businesses to be environmentally responsible. Using sustainable technology like the 3660 can help companies meet these expectations.

In summary, the sustainable technology of the Dell Precision 3660 is valuable in any industrial application where:

Energy efficiency is important for cost savings and reducing environmental impact.
Durability and reliability are crucial for long-term performance.
Compliance with environmental regulations is required.
Organizations have sustainability goals and want to demonstrate their commitment to environmental responsibility.

By choosing the 3660, industrial users can benefit from a powerful and reliable workstation that also helps them achieve their sustainability objectives.

Research and development of Sustainable Technology of 3660 ?

You’re asking about the cutting edge of sustainable tech in workstations! While specific R&D details are usually kept confidential, I can point you towards the likely areas of focus for the Dell Precision 3660 and similar workstations:

1. Advanced Materials:

Increased Recycled Content: R&D is likely focused on increasing the percentage of recycled plastics and metals used in the 3660’s construction. This involves sourcing high-quality recycled materials and developing processes to ensure they meet performance standards.
Bio-based Plastics: Research into using plastics derived from renewable resources (like sugarcane or corn) is an ongoing area. This reduces reliance on fossil fuels and can be compostable in some cases.
Sustainable Packaging: Dell is likely exploring even more innovative packaging materials that are fully recyclable or compostable, minimizing waste and environmental impact.

2. Energy Efficiency Optimization:

Next-Gen Components: Continuous improvement in processor, memory, and storage technology leads to greater performance per watt. R&D focuses on integrating these new components into the 3660 while maintaining or improving overall energy efficiency.
Smart Power Management: Developing more sophisticated power management software and hardware that dynamically adjusts energy consumption based on workload demands. This could involve AI-powered optimization.
Improved Cooling Solutions: Research into more efficient cooling systems (both air and liquid) that dissipate heat effectively while using less energy. This is crucial for both performance and energy efficiency.

3. Circular Economy and End-of-Life Management:

Design for Disassembly: Designing the 3660 for easier disassembly to facilitate recycling and component reuse. This involves using fewer types of materials and snap-fit components where possible.
Closed-Loop Recycling: Working with recycling partners to create closed-loop systems where materials from recycled workstations are used to manufacture new ones.
Product Take-Back and Refurbishment Programs: Expanding and improving programs that allow customers to easily return old equipment for recycling or refurbishment, extending the product lifespan.

4. Carbon Footprint Reduction:

Supply Chain Optimization: Analyzing and reducing the carbon footprint associated with the 3660’s manufacturing and transportation. This could involve working with suppliers to adopt more sustainable practices.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): Conducting detailed LCAs to identify the environmental hotspots in the 3660’s lifecycle and prioritize areas for improvement.

5. Integration of Sustainable Technologies:

Renewable Energy Integration: Exploring ways to integrate renewable energy sources into the 3660’s power supply, such as solar panels or other on-site generation.
Carbon Offsetting: Investing in carbon offsetting projects to compensate for the emissions associated with the 3660’s manufacturing and use.

It’s important to remember that R&D in sustainable technology is an ongoing process. Dell and other manufacturers are constantly looking for new ways to reduce the environmental impact of their products while maintaining performance and reliability.

If you’re interested in the latest developments, I recommend checking Dell’s sustainability reports and news releases, as well as industry publications focused on sustainable IT.

COURTESY : Voith Group

References

^ 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
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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
^ 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.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b ^c “Sustainability”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
^ “Sustainable Development”. UNESCO. 3 August 2015. Retrieved 20 January 2022.
^ 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.
^ Nelson, Anitra (31 January 2024). “Degrowth as a Concept and Practice: Introduction”. The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Hardyment, Richard (2024). Measuring Good Business: Making Sense of Environmental, Social & Governance Data. Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 9781032601199.
^ Bell, Simon; Morse, Stephen (2012). Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable?. Abington: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-84407-299-6.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ “University of Alberta: What is sustainability?” (PDF). mcgill.ca. Retrieved 13 August 2022.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Halliday, Mike (21 November 2016). “How sustainable is sustainability?”. Oxford College of Procurement and Supply. Retrieved 12 July 2022.
^ Harper, Douglas. “sustain”. Online Etymology Dictionary.
^ Onions, Charles, T. (ed) (1964). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 2095.
^ “Sustainability Theories”. World Ocean Review. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
^ 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.
^ “Hans Carl von Carlowitz and Sustainability”. Environment and Society Portal. Retrieved 20 June 2019.
^ Dresden, SLUB. “Sylvicultura Oeconomica, Oder Haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung Zur Wilden Baum-Zucht”. digital.slub-dresden.de (in German). Retrieved 28 March 2022.
^ 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.
^ Basler, Ernst (1972). Strategy of Progress: Environmental Pollution, Habitat Scarcity and Future Research (originally, Strategie des Fortschritts: Umweltbelastung Lebensraumverknappung and Zukunftsforshung). BLV Publishing Company.
^ Gadgil, M.; Berkes, F. (1991). “Traditional Resource Management Systems”. Resource Management and Optimization. 8: 127–141.
^ “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.
^ 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.
^ 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
^ 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.
^ 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)
^ Scott Cato, M. (2009). Green Economics. London: Earthscan, pp. 36–37. ISBN 978-1-84407-571-3.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Carson, Rachel (2002) [1st. Pub. Houghton Mifflin, 1962]. Silent Spring. Mariner Books. ISBN 978-0-618-24906-0.
^ 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.
^ 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
^ UNEP (2021). “Making Peace With Nature”. UNEP – UN Environment Programme. Retrieved 30 March 2022.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Jump up to:^a ^b Wilhelm Krull, ed. (2000). Zukunftsstreit (in German). Weilerwist: Velbrück Wissenschaft. ISBN 3-934730-17-5. OCLC 52639118.
^ 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.
^ Daly, Herman E. (1996). Beyond growth: the economics of sustainable development (PDF). Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN 0-8070-4708-2. OCLC 33946953.
^ 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)
^ “UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative”. UN Environment | UNDP-UN Environment Poverty-Environment Initiative. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
^ 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
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ “The Regional Institute – WACOSS Housing and Sustainable Communities Indicators Project”. www.regional.org.au. 2012. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
^ 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.
^ “Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development”. United Cities and Local Governments. Archived from the original on 3 October 2013.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ Bosselmann, Klaus (2017). The principle of sustainability: transforming law and governance (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-4724-8128-3. OCLC 951915998.
^ 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
^ James, Paul; with Magee, Liam; Scerri, Andy; Steger, Manfred B. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of Sustainability. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315765747.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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]}
^ Hak, T. et al. 2007. Sustainability Indicators, SCOPE 67. Island Press, London. [1] Archived 2011-12-18 at the Wayback Machine
^ 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.
^ “Sustainable Development visualized”. Sustainability concepts. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
^ 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.
^ “Ten years of nine planetary boundaries”. Stockholm Resilience Centre. November 2019. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
^ 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.
^ Ehrlich, P.R.; Holden, J.P. (1974). “Human Population and the global environment”. American Scientist. Vol. 62, no. 3. pp. 282–292.
^ 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
^ Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis (PDF). Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
^ TEEB (2010), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB
^ 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.
^ Groth, Christian (2014). Lecture notes in Economic Growth, (mimeo), Chapter 8: Choice of social discount rate. Copenhagen University.
^ UNEP, FAO (2020). UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. 48p.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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
^ European Environment Agency. (2019). Sustainability transitions: policy and practice. LU: Publications Office. doi:10.2800/641030. ISBN 9789294800862.
^ 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.
^ Kuenkel, Petra (2019). Stewarding Sustainability Transformations: An Emerging Theory and Practice of SDG Implementation. Cham: Springer. ISBN 978-3-030-03691-1. OCLC 1080190654.
^ 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
^ Smith, E. T. (23 January 2024). “Practising Commoning”. The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved 23 February 2024.
^ 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.
^ Pigou, Arthur Cecil (1932). The Economics of Welfare (PDF) (4th ed.). London: Macmillan.
^ Jaeger, William K. (2005). Environmental economics for tree huggers and other skeptics. Washington, DC: Island Press. ISBN 978-1-4416-0111-7. OCLC 232157655.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ “The Nobel Prize: Women Who Changed the World”. thenobelprize.org. Retrieved 31 March 2022.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ “About Us”. Sustainable Business Institute. Archived from the original on 17 May 2009.
^ “About the WBCSD”. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Archived from the original on 9 September 2007. Retrieved 1 April 2009.
^ “Supply Chain Sustainability | UN Global Compact”. www.unglobalcompact.org. Retrieved 4 May 2022.
^ “”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.
^ “The Statement — Interfaith Climate”. www.interfaithclimate.org. Retrieved 13 August 2022.
^ 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.
^ Gambino, Megan (15 March 2012). “Is it Too Late for Sustainable Development?”. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved 12 January 2022.
^ 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.
^ Watson, Bruce (20 August 2016). “The troubling evolution of corporate greenwashing”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 18 October 2016.
^ “The Troubling Evolution Of Large Scale Corporate Greenwashing”. www.bloomberg.ca. BNN Bloomberg. 18 August 2018.
^ “The Troubling Evolution Of Large Scale Corporate Greenwashing”. The Conversation. 18 August 2011.
^ 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.