Assistant Professor of Geography, Govt. Girls College, Baran, Rajasthan
JournalRNIMJ
Volume / Issue2 / 2
Pages49–58
Published03 Apr 2026
Paper ID10.64127/rnimj.2026v2i2006
Views / Downloads31 / 12
Article summary
Abstract
Sustainable development has become the prevailing paradigm for resolving the
interrelated problems of environmental degradation, economic growth and social equity,
yet its dominant conceptual representation the three-pillar model of economy, society
and environment rests on remarkably thin theoretical foundations. This paper argues
that the ubiquity of the three-pillar conception has been achieved at the cost of analytical
precision, and that this deficiency is the principal obstacle to rigorous operationalisation
of sustainability in indicators and policy. Drawing on an integrative review of
development theory, ecological economics and sustainability science, the paper traces
the conceptual lineage of sustainable development from modernisation, dependency,
world-systems and globalisation theories through the Brundtland formulation to the
Sustainable Development Goals. It then subjects the three-pillar model to critical
examination, showing that its conventional depiction as three intersecting or free
standing domains encodes an implicit assumption of substitutability between natural,
produced and human capital the position known in ecological economics as weak
sustainability which is inconsistent with the biophysical premises the model is invoked
to defend. The paper’s contribution is a reconstruction of the three pillars as a nested
hierarchy of constraint, in which the economy is a subsystem of society and society a
subsystem of the biosphere, formalised through a capital-stock account that
distinguishes substitutable from critical natural capital. Three propositions are derived
and their implications for indicator design examined, using systems-based indicator
frameworks as the point of application. The paper concludes that sustainable
development is not an environmental agenda appended to a growth agenda but a
constrained-optimisation problem, and that framing it otherwise permits trade-offs that
the concept was formulated to prevent.
Keywords
sustainable development goalsenvironmental protectionthree pillarsweak and strong sustainabilitynatural capitalsustainability indicators
Citation record
How to cite this article
Puneet Yadav, Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Rohit Kumar (2026). Environment and Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Framework. ResearchNext International Multidisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 49–58. https://www.researchnextjournal.com/article/rnimj22aj26007/environment-and-sustainable-development-a-theoretical-framework
Puneet Yadav, Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Rohit Kumar. “Environment and Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Framework.” ResearchNext International Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, 2026, pp. 49–58. https://www.researchnextjournal.com/article/rnimj22aj26007/environment-and-sustainable-development-a-theoretical-framework
Puneet Yadav, Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Rohit Kumar. “Environment and Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Framework.” ResearchNext International Multidisciplinary Journal 2, no. 2 (2026): 49–58. https://www.researchnextjournal.com/article/rnimj22aj26007/environment-and-sustainable-development-a-theoretical-framework
Puneet Yadav, Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Rohit Kumar (2026) ‘Environment and Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Framework’, ResearchNext International Multidisciplinary Journal, 2(2), pp. 49–58. Available at: https://www.researchnextjournal.com/article/rnimj22aj26007/environment-and-sustainable-development-a-theoretical-framework.
Puneet Yadav, Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Rohit Kumar, “Environment and Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Framework,” ResearchNext International Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 49–58, 2026. https://www.researchnextjournal.com/article/rnimj22aj26007/environment-and-sustainable-development-a-theoretical-framework.
Puneet Yadav, Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Rohit Kumar. Environment and Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Framework. ResearchNext International Multidisciplinary Journal. 2026;2(2):49–58. https://www.researchnextjournal.com/article/rnimj22aj26007/environment-and-sustainable-development-a-theoretical-framework.
Puneet Yadav, Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Rohit Kumar. Environment and Sustainable Development: A Theoretical Framework. ResearchNext International Multidisciplinary Journal 2026, 2 (2), 49–58. https://www.researchnextjournal.com/article/rnimj22aj26007/environment-and-sustainable-development-a-theoretical-framework.
The author(s) declare that no specific funding was received for this work.
Conflict of Interest
The author(s) declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to this work.
Ethical Approval
The author(s) declare that ethical approval was not applicable to this work.
Data Availability
The author(s) declare that data sharing is not applicable, as no datasets were generated or analysed for this work.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the conception, research, preparation, review and final approval of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the work.
AI-use Declaration
AI tools were used only for language editing. The author(s) reviewed and verified the final content and remain responsible for its accuracy and integrity.
Editorial record
Publisher's Note
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The views, content, and claims expressed in this article are solely the responsibility of the author(s). The publisher and editors accept no legal liability for any errors, copyright infringement, or loss or damage arising from its use.
Barbier, E. B. (1987). The concept of sustainable economic development. Environmental Conservation, 14(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892900011449
Berke, P. R., & Conroy, M. M. (2000). Are we planning for sustainable development? Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360008976081
Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for sustainable development: Theory, method, applications. International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Brundtland Commission. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
Costanza, R., & Daly, H. E. (1992). Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology, 6(1), 37–46.
Daly, H. E. (1990). Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 2(1), 1–6.
Diesendorf, M. (2000). Sustainability and sustainable development. In D. Dunphy, J. Benveniste, A. Griffiths, & P. Sutton (Eds.), Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the 21st century (pp. 19–37). Allen & Unwin.
Evers, B. A. (2017). Why adopt the Sustainable Development Goals? The Case for Sustainability, 9(12), 1–10.
Giddings, B., Hopwood, B., & O’Brien, G. (2002). Environment, economy and society: Fitting them together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10(4), 187–196. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/sd.199
Gray, R. (2010). Is accounting for sustainability actually accounting for sustainability… and how would we know? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(1), 47–62.
Hák, T., Janoušková, S., & Moldan, B. (2016). Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators. Ecological Indicators, 60, 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.003
Hartwick, J. M. (1977). Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from exhaustible resources. American Economic Review, 67(5), 972–974.
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.244
Jacobs, M. (1991). The green economy: Environment, sustainable development and the politics of the future. Pluto Press.
Kohn, J., Gowdy, J., & Van der Straaten, J. (Eds.). (2001). Sustainability in action: Sectoral and regional case studies. Edward Elgar.
Kothari, R. (1990). Environment, technology and ethics. In J. R. Engel & J. G. Engel (Eds.), Ethics of environment and development: Global challenge, international response (pp. 27–49). University of Arizona Press.
Lyle, J. T. (1985). Designing for human ecosystems: Landscape, land use, and natural resources. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. W. (1972). The limits to growth. Universe Books.
Neumayer, E. (2003). Weak versus strong sustainability: Exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms (2nd ed.). Edward Elgar.
Pearce, D. W., & Atkinson, G. D. (1993). Capital theory and the measurement of sustainable development: An indicator of weak sustainability. Ecological Economics, 8(2), 103–108.
Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: In search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
Reyes, G. E. (2001). Four main theories of development: Modernization, dependency, world-systems, and globalization. Nómadas, 4(4), 1–26.
Scopelliti, M., Cicia, G., Del Giudice, T., et al. (2018). The debate on sustainable development: A review of the literature. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 21(3–4), 1–19.
Solow, R. M. (1974). Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources. Review of Economic Studies, 41, 29–45.
Tipps, D. C. (1973). Modernization theory and the comparative study of societies: A critical perspective. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 15(2), 199–226.
Ukaga, O., Maser, C., & Reichenbach, M. (Eds.). (2011). Sustainable development: Principles, frameworks, and case studies. CRC Press.
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press.
