Part III – Social Pillar
The Social Pillar of sustainable development is the least studied of the three sustainable development pillars. This lack of academic focus is perhaps two fold. First, because the social pillar is about our relationship with each other which can be a Pandora’s box of difficult issues such as race, ethnicity, and class. Secondly, it is often assumed that numerous other disciplines cover social relationships including politics, psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology, history etc.
The fact that social factors are relative further complicates their study. What is fair for you may not be fair to me or what is culturally acceptable to me may not be so for you. Despite these drawbacks, today there is more attention on the social pillar and its multi-dimensional character compared to the early years of sustainable development discourse when most research was focused on the economic and environmental pillars.
Very simply put, the social pillar is about our well-being not only as individuals but more so as part of various collectives. A collective is any group with which you feel a belonging. It is often understood as family, ethnic group, professional group, or more abstract groups such as a nation or country. Your collective can be any grouping that resonates for you.
The fundamental sustainability principle of inter-generational equity is most alive and tangible under this pillar. This is because our well being today needs the community and the well being of future generations needs our responsible behavior. This principle adds a time dimension to our sense of social belonging even when our immediate attention is naturally on the present.
Social well-being pivots on two equally important factors: access and equity. Access to what improves our well-being is critical but not enough by itself. It needs to be equitable so that no one feels left behind. Equitable access grows the overall social well-being
Education and health are two frequently used indicators of the social pillar and together help animate the equitable access principle. Social well being needs broad based access to education and health. Education helps us learn and use information that helps us make more sustainable choices individually and collectively. Health services give us the ability to take care of ourselves and our collective. Their provision is best integrated along the three pillars of sustainability. That is education covers the social, environmental and economic impacts of our daily individual and collective choices and health services enable us to better understand the health impacts of our social, environmental and economic decisions.
These two indicators not only tell us about our success, and failure, in addressing social sustainability but also ensure the sustainability of the other two pillars. For example, the economic pillar factors expand, or restrict, access to health and education (lack of money, lack of schools, lack of teachers, cost of schools). Similarly, the environment pillar factors affect health (environmental pollution) and education (effect of heat waves on learning). The social pillar is then our reality goggles.
The above factors flourish in a social system of transparency and accountability in decision making. This is the governance aspect of sustainability. Some consider governance the fourth pillar of sustainability. But in my teaching and writing, I include governance under the social pillar because governance systems are social constructs and require social decisions.
The type of governance system also determines how society ensures compliance with the agreed sustainability standards. In a society of open debates and inclusive participation accountability is inherent. The best part of this formula is that accountability on decisions and their impacts is not just for those in leadership positions (public or private sector) but also for all of us in a society.
This political side of the social pillar has a down side: the extent to which discounting becomes possible. Discounting is an economics concept and means postponing action today at the expense of future social, economic and environmental wellbeing. Discounting is what allows what is unsustainable in the medium and long-term. As such it works against the fundamental sustainability principle of inter-generational equity, which demands that we keep the needs of the future generations in mind as we make our choices today. I believe democracy makes it more difficult to discount. Democracies are open to a multitude of views, they are inclusive and are oriented more to bottom up decision making rather than top down. There isn’t enough research on this topic, but here is an interesting and relevant article.
Another challenge with the social pillar is its relative nature. Scientific facts determine our decisions under the environmental pillar. For example we know about scientific thresholds such as the impact of higher than 350 ppm of CO2 on atmospheric balance. Although not as clearcut, the economic pillar also benefits from measurements such as purchasing power or economic growth. The social pillar does not work in the same clear cut way. What we consider poor in New York City may seem quite well off in Nairobi. Access to basic education may be a welcome policy priority in a community in Delhi while education less than a college degree will not help you much in Dublin. Our perceptions of “good life” change from person to person as well as location to location. Perhaps this relativity is what makes the social pillar a bigger challenge for the engineering students, because they are more comfortable with hard facts and science.
The social pillar demands that the engineering students ask difficult questions. When you design your brilliant new gadget or app, you need to consider its possible impact on society at large as well as its various collectives and individuals. You need to ask question such as:
- Did I look beyond the profitability of the gadget?
- Did I consider whether it is inherently biased on gender, race, or ethnicity?
- Does it have an impact on equality? Will it make people more or less equal? Is it likely to deepen the existing inequalities or flatten them?
- Does the gadget or the new platform increase or decrease health or education?
The engineering school teaches the future engineer to carefully assess the economic profitability of a new gadget. But professors often forget, or don’t consider it important, to teach their students social and environmental responsibility. If the engineer had seen from the start the racial bias in face recognition would s/he have developed the technology differently? If the engineer knew the impact of social media on racism or ethnic bias would they have designed it differently?
These are difficult and engaging questions on which most engineering schools provide little or no education. Engineers graduate knowing how to gauge the profitability but are allowed to be calloused on the social and environmental impacts.
Leave a Reply