Editorial , Sustainability – The Future of Survival


Vol 29, Issue-3, July-September, 2021

Abstract: We are living in an unequal world. This inequity is created partly by nature and partly by us. With the growth of civilizations, different nations have moved on the ladder at a different pace and it has resulted in unequal rights on both natural and man-made resources. A part of this inequity has come from the way the world is designed by nature. One cannot decide where to be born, which society, faith and religion to follow and the resources to have access to. This is given by nature. If you are born in a land locked nation in an arid zone of Africa, you are bound to be in extreme poverty. Of course, your desire to see the sunnier days in life, to overcome this poverty trap is through your education, migration and entrepreneurial efforts. Growth and modernization of civilization have led to the formation of greater human civilization over centuries but even this growth has brought further inequity in society. In the process of development and growth, nations have fought wars, made pacts and invested globally to have access to resources. Innovation in science and technology has built greater demand for these finite resources.Download View

References :

Beekman, V. (2004). Sustainable development and future generations. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 17, 3-22.
Bond, S. (2005). The global challenge of sustainable consumption. Consumer Policy Review, 15, 38-45.
Castro, C. J. (2004). Sustainable development: mainstream and critical perspectives. Organization & Environment, 17, 195-226.
Daniels, P. L. (2003). Buddhist economics and the environment: material flow analysis and the moderation of society’s metabolism. International Journal of Social Economics, 30, 8-34.
Faucheaux, S., Muir, E. and O’Connor, M. (1997). Neoclassical natural capital land theory and “weak” indicators for sustainability. Land Economics, 73, 528-552.
Fuller, D. A. and Gillett, P. L. (1999). Sustainable marketing: strategies playing in the background. American Marketing Association Conference Proceedings, 10, 222-224.
Goldstein, D. (2002). Theoretical perspectives on strategic environmental management. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12, 495-524.
Lyon, T. P., Maxwell, J.W. (1999). Corporate environmental strategies as tools to influence regulation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 8, 189-196.
Magee, B. (2001). The story of philosophy. New York, New York: A Dorling Kindersley Book. Melloan, G. (2002). ‘Limits to growth,’ A dumb theory that refuses to die. Wall Street Journal, New York, A13. Mirvis, P.H. (1994). Environmentalism in progressive businesses. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7, 82-101.
Osterhus, T. L. (1997). Pro-social consumer influence strategies: when and how do they work? Journal of Marketing, 61, 16-30.
Ottman, J. A. (2003). Green marketing. In-Business, 25, 31-34.
Roberts, P. and Hills, P. (2002). Sustainable development analysis and policy in east and west – the cases of Hong Kong and Scotland. Sustainable Development, 10, 117-121.
Rosen, S. (2000). The philosopher’s handbook essential readings from Plato to Kant. New York: Random House Publishing. Ryan, P. (2003). Sustainability partnerships: eco-strategy theory in practice? Management of Environmental Quality, 14, 256-287.