Figure 1: The sustainability pentagon
| Quality Management and Safety Engineering (BSc) - MST 326 Sustainability, including Corporate Social Responsibility. |
The World Commission on Environment and Development suggested the following definition of Sustainable Development (Brundtland Commission Report 1987) [1]:
"Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
and that it should be seen as a balance of four factors (Table 1):
| Triple E | Triple P |
| Economic | Profit |
| Environmental | Planet |
| Equity (social factors) | People |
| Governance | Governance |
In Sustainability considerations for end-of-life fibre-reinforced plastic boats, we said "Sustainability is defined in many ways, but here we choose to use a balance of technical, economic, environmental, social, and governance (TEESG) issues, being 5E (engineering, economy, environment, equity and enforcement) or Fit for 5 Purposes (F45P) being performance, profit, planet, people and policy respectively". At the 2025 International Conference on Manufacturing Advanced Composites (University of Warwick, 10 April 2025) we introduced the sustainability pentagon (Figure 1), substituting prosperity for profit!
The five parameters need to be considered in the context of the United Nations 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG/Figure 2).
In practice, the governance factor rarely features directly in the analysis, and sustainability is thus commonly referred to as triple bottom line accounting (3BL). Economic factors are perhaps the most easily measured (e.g. gross domestic product or return-on-investment). Environmental concerns can be quantified using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) although access to validated databases may not be straightforward. The social factors are usually assessed qualitatively - Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, first presented in his book "Motivation and Personality" [2] may be a useful framework for a more quantitative analysis. As a lower need is satisfied, then other needs assume a higher priority:
Dresner [3] has presented a particularly cogent analysis:
"Conventional cost-benefit analysis appears unable to deal with the implications of thinking about sustainable development ... Basing ethical decisions on economic value seems by its nature to skew decisions so as to favour the interests of wealthy people in the present day. The interests of the poor, future generations and other species are all discounted by the approach. The problem lies not simply in the practice of cost benefit analysis, but is a really a result of the utilitarian ethical framework of mainstream economics" [page 120].
"Any operational definition of sustainability is ultimately based on more or less arbitrary decisions about the extent to which new knowledge and technology will be able to substitute for various [depleted] natural resources [in the future]. Yet it is fundamentally impossible to predict with any accuracy what future technologies will be available" [p167]. "It is reasonable to suppose that the growth model of capitalism cannot continue indefinitely" [p172].
"Sustainability is an idea which combines postmodern pessimism about the domination of nature [by mankind] with almost enlightenment optimism about the possibility to reform human institutions" [p164]. "In a world where environmental limits are already being exceeded, any movement to allow improvements in the condition of the poor majority is going to require the rich minority to reduce their consumption of environmental space still more drastically than even the need for physical sustainability would imply" [p170]. "It might not be too cynical to draw the conclusion that people are all in favour of sustainability only so long as it does not involve any personal inconvenience ... Consumerism is an addiction that most people afflicted with do not want to be cured of" [p171].
This poses the problem of measuring the "sustainability" of any particular set of circumstances. A fully Quantitative Life Cycle Analysis would address the balanced requirements arising from economic, environmental and social issues. However, there are a diverse set of issues addressed by different bodies and no agreed weighting, such that each analyst can produce results favourable to the case they wish to make. For example, the sources analysed in the Table below undertake very different analyses for sustainability criteria.
In March 2005, the UK Government published Securing the Future: Delivering UK Sustainable Development Strategy [4] aiming "to enable all people throughout the world to satisfy their basic needs and enjoy a better quality of life without compromising the quality of life of future generations". However, a key conclusion was that "if it becomes apparent that certain indicators need to be improved to ensure our monitoring is effective then if it is practicable to establish a revised indicator, we will do so. However it should be noted that there are considerable economic, statistical, scientific, and practical constraints to embarking on new data collection".
The Sustainable Development Education Working Group of the Royal Academy of Engineering has recently published Engineering for Sustainable Development: Guiding Principles [5] with Twelve Guiding Principles of Engineering for Sustainable Development:
In the 1960s, Paul Ehrlich [6, 7] proposed a simple equation to analyse the sustainability issues:
I = C x P x T
where I represents the total environmental impact, C is the typical consumption per capita within the bounds of the study, P is the human population and T is a measure of technological environmental impact per unit of consumption.
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
The role business plays in creating a sustainable society is a very current issue (perhaps the fastest growing management discipline of 2007). The UK Government has an "ambitious vision for UK businesses to consider the economic, social and environmental impacts of their activities, wherever they operate in the world". They define CSR as "the business contribution to our sustainable development goals. Essentially it is about how business takes account of its economic, social and environmental impacts in the way it operates – maximising the benefits and minimising the downsides". Their website connects to information about how they help make that vision a reality.
Since 1993, the Best Practice Club (a professional network) has been facilitating learning and shared experience opportunities to their members to identify and adopt best business practice.
Environmental protection during military activities
Countries have different reporting responsibilities in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),
but there are zero mandatory reporting requirements for military emissions and their ability to track their emissions lags behind other sectors.[8].
When asked in June 2025, “How do military CO₂ emissions compare with commercial shipping and civil aviation?“,
perplexity.ai (references checked and renumbered) responded:
Military CO₂ Emissions Compared to Commercial Shipping and Civil Aviation
Overview of Emissions by Sector
- Military: Estimated at 2,050–2,750 million tonnes CO₂ equivalent (MtCO₂e) annually,
accounting for 1–5% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [9, 10].- Commercial Shipping: Estimated at 858 million tonnes of CO₂ in 2022,
representing nearly 3% of global CO₂ emissions [11, 12].- Civil Aviation: Emitted about 950 million tonnes of CO₂ in 2023,
accounting for 2–2.5% of global CO₂ emissions [11, 13, 14].Table 2: Direct Comparison
Sector Annual CO₂ Emissions (approx.) Share of Global CO₂ Emissions Military 2,050–2,750 MtCO₂e 1–5% Commercial Shipping 858 MtCO₂ (2022) ~3% Civil Aviation 950 MtCO₂ (2023) 2–2.5%
- The military’s estimated emissions are broad due to limited transparency and reporting,
but at the upper end (2,750 MtCO₂e), they are greater than those from either shipping or aviation individually [9, 10].- Commercial shipping and civil aviation each produce emissions in the range of 850–950 MtCO₂ per year,
with shipping slightly lower than aviation in recent years, though both sectors are significant contributors [11, 13, 14].- Combined, shipping and aviation account for about 5% of global CO₂ emissions,
comparable to the upper estimate for military emissions [10, 12].Key Insights
- Military emissions are significant,
potentially rivaling or exceeding those of either global shipping or aviation alone, especially at the higher end of estimates [9, 10].- Reporting gaps: Military emissions are often underreported or not fully accounted for in global climate frameworks,
making precise comparisons challenging [10].- Growth trends: Shipping and aviation emissions are projected to rise without stronger regulation,
with shipping alone potentially responsible for up to 17% of global CO₂ emissions by 2050 if left unchecked [12].- Per capita: The U.S. military, for example, emits more per staff member than any other national sector,
underscoring the outsized impact of military operations [10].Summary
Military CO₂ emissions are on par with, or potentially greater than, those from commercial shipping or civil aviation when viewed globally. All three sectors are major contributors to climate change, but the military’s emissions remain less visible due to reporting practices and political sensitivities. Improved transparency and regulation in all sectors are essential for effective climate action [9, 10, 12].
Neimark et al [15] have reviewed confrontng militry greenhouse gas emissions with links to seminalpapers. In [9], the authors assumed that military sources of data on carbon emissions are reliable, even though lack of transparency can mean this is not the case". The data above do not take account of the broader impacts of war. Such impacts include [9, 16]:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have a joint doctrine (NATO - STANAG 7141) for environmental protection during their military activities. They recognise that their work is compromised by climate change and have an Action Plan [17] that sets out their fourfold commitments to address the climate crisis:
References
Recommended further reading for sustainable development
URLs for sustainable development