A holistic approach to sustainability based on pluralism stewardship
Environmental Ethics 21 (1):23-42 (1999)
| Abstract | In this paper, we advance a holistic ecological approach based on a three-compartment model. This approach favors policy initiatives that lie at the intersection of the three major areas of concern common to most environmental controversies: environmental protection, provision of basic human needs, and advancing economic welfare. In support of this approach, we propose a “pluralistic stewardship”integrating core elements of anthropocentrism, biocentrism, and ecocentrism. After presenting the basics of our model, we then explain why it is important to identify and promote a holistic ecological approach to sustainability. Here we employ the economic concept of path dependence, emphasizing that there exist multiple paths society can follow in environmental ethics and policy but once one has been chosen, implicitly or explicitly, there may be little opportunity to reverse such choices | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,679 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMarcel Van Marrewijk, Iris Wuisman, Wim De Cleyn, Joanna Timmers, Virgilio Panapanaan & Lassi Linnanen (2004). A Phase-Wise Development Approach to Business Excellence: Towards an Innovative, Stakeholder-Oriented Assessment Tool for Organizational Excellence and CSR. Journal of Business Ethics 55 (2).
Sungchul Choi & Alex Ng (2011). Environmental and Economic Dimensions of Sustainability and Price Effects on Consumer Responses. Journal of Business Ethics 104 (2):269-282.
Ronald Sandler (2003). The External Goods Approach to Environmental Virtue Ethics. Environmental Ethics 25 (3):279-293.
Laura Westra (1997). Why Norton's Approach is Insufficient for Environmental Ethics. Environmental Ethics 19 (3):279-297.
Laura Westra (1997). Why Norton's Approach is Insufficient for Environmental Ethics. Environmental Ethics 19 (3):279-297.
Robert Ayres, Jeroen van den Berrgh & John Gowdy (2001). Strong Versus Weak Sustainability: Economics, Natural Sciences, and Consilience. Environmental Ethics 23 (2):155-168.
Laura Westra (2009). Why Norton's Approach is Insufficient for Environmental Ethics. In Ben A. Minteer (ed.), Nature in Common?: Environmental Ethics and the Contested Foundations of Environmental Policy. Temple University Press.
Catherine M. Roach, Tim I. Hollis, Brian E. McLaren & Dean L. Y. Bavington (2006). Ducks, Bogs, and Guns: A Case Study of Stewardship Ethics in Newfoundland. Ethics and the Environment 11 (1):43-70.
John Gowdy (2001). Strong Versus Weak Sustainability. Environmental Ethics 23 (2):155-168.
Ray Grizzle (1999). A Holistic Approach to Sustainability Based on Pluralism Stewardship. Environmental Ethics 21 (1):23-42.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads1 ( #274,830 of 549,078 )Recent downloads (6 months)0How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
