sustainability

Editorial
Sustainability through the Lens of Environmental
Sociology: An Introduction
Md Saidul Islam
Division of Sociology, Nanyang Technological University Singapore, 14 Nanyang Drive, Singapore 637332,
Singapore; [email protected]; Tel.: +65-6592-1519

Academic Editor: Marc A. Rosen

Received: 10 March 2017; Accepted: 15 March 2017; Published: 22 March 2017

Abstract: Our planet is undergoing radical environmental and social changes. Sustainability has now
been put into question by, for example, our consumption patterns, loss of biodiversity, depletion of
resources, and exploitative power relations. With apparent ecological and social limits to globalization
and development, current levels of consumption are known to be unsustainable, inequitable,
and inaccessible to the majority of humans. Understanding and achieving sustainability is a crucial
matter at a time when our planet is in peril—environmentally, economically, socially, and politically.
Since its official inception in the 1970s, environmental sociology has provided a powerful lens to
understanding the challenges, possibilities, and modes of sustainability. This editorial, accompanying
the Special Issue on “sustainability through the Lens of Environmental Sociology”, first highlights
the evolution of environmental sociology as a distinct field of inquiry, focusing on how it addresses
the environmental challenges of our time. It then adumbrates the rich theoretical traditions of
environmental sociology, and finally examines sustainability through the lens of environmental
sociology, referring to various case studies and empirical analyses.

Keywords: environmentalism; environmental sociology; ecological modernization; treadmill of

production; the earth day; green movement; environmental certification; global agro-food system

1. Introduction: Environmental Sociology as a Field of Inquiry

Environmental sociology is the study of how social and ecological systems interact with one
another. Both social and ecological systems are very complex and vast on their own, and together
the complexity grows. The interaction between social and ecological systems might seem clear when
we think about the way our society is built. However, due to the complexity of the interaction,
the development of separate disciplines, such as ‘sociology’ focusing on social relationships alone and
‘ecology’ based on environmental relationships without relating to society, bifurcation in intuitions
and disciplinary bias, the profound relationships between society and the environment were hardly
mentioned for a long period of time. Over time, as Gould and Lewis stated, “The increasing urgency
of the negative impacts of social systems on ecosystems created both the social space and social need
for the emergence of environmental sociology” [1] (p. 3). Environmental sociology is a subfield in
sociology despite the fact that it also has roots in ecology. The roots are not equally split between
sociology and ecology and environmental sociologists are not required to know the natural sciences
in ecology. Gould and Lewis describe the core of environmental sociology: its “special focus is on
how social systems are organized and change in response to the natural world, just as the changes
they produce in the natural world force them to further respond and change” [1] (p. 3). This editorial,
accompanying the Special Issue “sustainability through the Lens of Environmental Sociology”, will first
provide a brief sketch on the social and institutional trajectories in which environmental sociology
emerged as a distinct field of inquiry.

Sustainability 2017, 9, 474; doi:10.3390/su9030474 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2017, 9, 474 2 of 11

Environmental sociology became an officially recognized subfield in sociology as late as 1976 [1].
In the late 1800s, environmental sociology was not a part of sociology at all, but in the early 1900s
there were two sociologists who started to talk about the relationship between humans and nature,
Henry Thomas Buckle and Ellsworth Huntington. According to Buckle, human society is a product
of natural forces and his theory of social change made quite an impact on the intellectual circles in
the 19th century [2]. Huntington, on the other hand, tried to establish a connection between climate
and health, energy, and metal processes such as intelligence, genius and willpower. He used his
theories to try to explain the rise and fall of ancient societies such as Rome, connecting the fall of
the kingdom to changes in the climate. This has been questioned by, for example, Sorokin, who says
that the correlations are fictive and that he overestimated the role of the geographical environment.
However, he agrees that the geography has an impact on every social constellation. During this
time, many sociologists applied Darwinism and the concept of “evolution” and “natural selection”
to the human context, and the most prominent social Darwinist was an English social philosopher,
Herbert Spencer. He opposed any suggestion that society could be transformed through education or
social reform. Instead he believed that it is better to leave it alone and we will change as time goes
on. Spencer also had a disciple, Sumner, who thought that we do not only fight with other species in
nature, but also in society; however, these theories were largely rejected later on [1,2].
Between the years of 1955 and 1975, it was more evident that the sociological literature became
more and more modern, and there are sociologists in particular that stand out during these two decades,
David H. Smith, Alex Inkeles and Daniel Lerner. According to Smith and Inkeles, many individual
members of certain communities were physiologically trapped in the past and they had problems
doing what modern citizens could do, such as keeping to a fixed schedule, observing abstract rules,
adopting multiple roles, and empathizing with others; this resulted in many developing nations failing
to be a part of the modern world in the 1960s. Humans are not born knowing all these qualities,
but through life experience and education we can obtain them. In his book The Passing of Traditional
Society, Lerner discussed that the key to modernity is the media; they have the power to establish
a physiological openness among the population [3]. One reason why the environmental aspect of
sociology did not take off was an apprehension that it would take the focus away from the debate that
many sociologists thought was more important—class. Even when no one could close their eyes from
the environmental issues they were facing, they still said that it was class-related problems that were
the cause of the issues, instead of using environmental reasons [2].
There are three important founders of classical sociological theories: Émile Durkheim, Max Weber
and Karl Marx. Émile Durkheim is least likely to be recognized as an environmental sociologist.
Émile Durkheim stated that social facts are more important than physical and environmental
facts. He put very little effort in the environmental part of sociology and insisted that social
facts “are consequently the proper field of sociology” [2] (p. 6). Max Weber, on the other hand,
took environmental sociology into account. He connected economy, science, government and industries
with geographical attributes. The third one, Karl Marx, was the one who has provoked the most
widespread response from present-day environmental commentators. Marx has affected modern-day
environmental sociology the most. He only touched the subject in his work, but many of his ideas later
became the starting point for modern theories of the environment. Marx and his colleague, Friedrich
Engels, believed that the class conflict did not profit any side of the conflict; instead it alienates people
from their work and from nature. This was obvious in the industrial revolution when it was more
profitable to use the land for industries rather than agriculture, which forced rural workers to give
up their lands and move to cities that were polluted and crowded. Marx and Engels were convinced
that capitalism was to blame for these events that eventually led to a bad state for the whole society.
They wanted to make the gap between nature and people smaller and reinstate the bond between
them, but did not know how to establish it. Marx talked about the “humanization of nature” which
he said will give humans a better understanding of nature and how we can co-exist in a way that
benefits both the environment and us. He even pointed out specific environmental issues and saw
Sustainability 2017, 9, 474 3 of 11

the importance of ecological sustainability. Both Marx and Engels were pro-organic agriculture since
they saw the danger in taking away all the nutrients in the soil and using chemicals to get more crops.
They suggested that to stop pollution from fertilizers, farmers could use recycled human waste from
the city instead [2].
None of these three founders—Durkheim, Weber and Marx—spoke directly about environmental
sociology, but they were all talking about it indirectly, as they were talking about humans and nature.
It was not a single discovery that made environmental sociology a field of inquiry; it was more like a
movement driven by political reasons for social reform. Various publications of books and reports
during the 1970s drew more intellectual and public attention towards environmental issues and
problems. When sociologists first started discussing environmental issues and problems in the 1970s,
they applied social theories to the environmental issues; soon a distinct field of study began to emerge.
They made a distinction between two parts, one of which studied the interaction between the society
and the environment, and the other which dealt more with environmental issues. This separation
today is not very clear as both parts often go under the umbrella of environmental sociology [2].
The term “environmental sociology” was first used in 1971 by Samuel Klausner in his book On Man
in His Environment [4]. Riley Dunlap came across Klausner´s book and the term several years later
and he is considered one of the founders of this field. He focused mostly on the relationship between
modern industrial societies and the physical environments they inhabit. According to many, Earth Day
in 1970 was the debut of the modern environmental movement. It all started as a small proposal for
national awareness on the environment, but soon, it had grown into a much larger event, with many
participants around the world. “Earth Day 1970” symbolizes “Day 1” of the new environmentalism and
it is widely used in the American mass media [2]. It was during this time that environmental sociology
became an officially recognized subfield in sociology and the environmental issues started getting
more attention on a political level. Sociologists started to incorporate formal niches for environmental
sociology, as the Rural Sociological Society´s Natural Resource Research Group was formed in 1960s,
the Society for the Social Problem started a group in 1973 and the American Sociological Association´s
Environment and Technology group was formed in 1976. Also, among the population, it became a
bigger and bigger topic and due to several environmental crises, such as the energy crises in the early
1970s and the Love Canal incident in 1978, and people became more aware of environmental issues
and problems. Political actions were also made, both on national and international levels; notable
among them was the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in
1972 [1]. Later on, the Global Environmental Change Programme was established in the UK and the
Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997. Further, in the 1990s, environmental sociology was being taught all
over the world [2].
Today’s world is facing a lot of different problems related to economic growth and environmental
protection, and environmental sociology provides key tools to understand them. The “21 issues for the
21st century” is a list made by the United Nations Environmental program (UNEP) that proposes a
sustainable earth through keeping the global environment under review and bringing emerging issues
to the attention of governments and the international community for action. The problems are divided
into five different main issues: cross-cutting issues, land issues, water issues, climate-change issues
and development issues. All of the issues are ranked by the UNEP Foresight panel which includes
22 distinguished members of the scientific community from 16 developing and industrialized countries.
The issue ranked number one is the cross-cutting issue: Aligning Governance to the Challenges
of Global Sustainability. Many governments do not have the capacity to support environmental
actions on a global level, but without governments’ support it is going to be hard for the world to
solve the environmental issues that lie ahead. Some other issues posing sustainability challenges on
the list include: new challenges for ensuring food safety and food security for nine billion people,
new challenges for climate change mitigation and adaptation, managing the unintended consequences
and changing the face of waste, solving the impending scarcity of strategic minerals and avoiding
Sustainability 2017, 9, 474 4 of 11

electronic waste. All of the issues listed have one thing in common: they have become issues because
of the way humans use the natural environment [5].
One challenge we find in today’s society is the correlation between social and environmental
vulnerability. This gives different countries different capabilities to cope with environmental disasters
depending on economic and political factors. In history, it is mostly the developed countries that
contributed to the anthropogenic environmental problems and issues since they were the first to
build large-scale factories and their inhabitants had more money to purchase cars, indulge in mass
consumption, and lead lifestyles that harmed the environment. The environmental problems caused
by these anthropogenic factors are not only affecting these developed countries but rather the contrary:
developing countries are often more exposed to disasters derived largely from human impacts.
Developing countries are often more environmentally vulnerable. They are not only afflicted and
affected by disasters from human activity, but also by natural disasters such as earthquakes, typhoons,
tsunamis and extreme dry periods. Their lack of infrastructure, poor governmental establishment
and tight economy make it harder for them to cope with these problems; rather, these factors damage
these countries even more, making it even harder to recover from future disasters, and they end
up in a vicious circle. The consumption patterns in the world lead to an increasing and unending
demand. Developed countries, where the demand often comes from, put pressure on the developing
countries to drain their natural resources. This can ruin their environment and lead to a massive
loss of biodiversity, but not all developing countries will prioritize environmental protection over
economic growth. The resources move from the developing countries to more affluent ones, leading
to a core-periphery dynamics where the assets move from countries in the periphery into the core,
while political pressure moves in the reverse direction [6]. The developed countries take advantage of
more environmentally vulnerable countries. It not only forces the poor countries to drain their natural
resources but also leads to higher emissions of greenhouse gases, thus speeding up global warming.
For this to stop, demand needs to decrease. However, to decrease demand is hard since it is often
correlated with economic development, something all countries strive for. Countries need to find a
way to achieve development without necessarily having to increase demand.
There are many problems regarding the human impact on the environment such as the dilemma
and tension between the economy and the environment, increasing demand and environmental
vulnerability. Environmental sociology is a tool we can use to understand the complexity of the
problems and find solutions, thus making sustainable development a reality and not just a dream.
This is necessary if we are going to continue living on this earth and live together with other species in
a harmonious manner.

2. Theoretical Traditions in Environmental Sociology

Environmental sociology is largely oriented towards the reciprocal relationship between the
environment and the larger society. This relationship is problematized and conceptualized, and hence
needs a reestablishment of social theories in order to better understand these issues. As a sub-field
of sociology, environmental sociology employs various theoretical traditions in order to analyze and
fathom the concerns raised in this discipline. Some of these traditions originate from the Marxist
perspective, which are discussed and reintroduced as neo-Marxist theories. Similarly, neoliberalism
theories in environmental sociology attempt to understand problems without contesting the economic
and political structure. Symbolic interactionism theories discuss how meanings received from social
interactions can influence and interpret the relationships between human society and the environment.
There are several theories under each tradition that are discussed in further detail below.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 474 5 of 11

2.1. Neo-Marxist Theories

2.1.1. Metabolic Rift

Metabolic rift is an important neo-Marxist theory as explained by John B. Foster and Karl Marx.
It describes how society and ecology should not be classified as two different entities. Instead,
they should be seen as one metabolism as one cannot function without the other. The theory explains
that man started to view society and ecology as two separate entities with the rise of the capitalist
system, creating a “rift” between humans and earth [7]. Marx discusses how capitalism has disrupted
the “metabolic interaction between man and the earth, i.e., it prevents the return to the soil of its
constituent elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing” (p. 379). Through our
growing patterns of consumption, man starts to only care about the product and forgets that nature is
the root to all the resources going into making the products that we consume. The capitalist system
places much emphasis on the process of production, rather than the source of factors of production.
Man begins to lose touch with nature, and sees no problem in further exploiting the ecological system
for natural resources in order to produce what society demands for.
Marx, as cited in Foster [7] (p. 380), also discusses how the “long-distance trade in food and
clothing made the problem of the alienation of the constituent elements of the soil that much more of
an ‘irreparable rift’”. In today’s globalized economy, a large proportion of food and clothing are being
produced in peripheral countries such as Brazil and China, before being shipped to core countries such
as the USA for consumption. This distancing between the location of production and consumption
further alienates humans’ relationship with the goods (p. 380). Human beings do not take into
consideration the factors of production, such as the process of it, as well as the extraction of natural
resources during their consumption of goods. This further enables humans to lose “touch” and their
relationship with nature, resulting in the “irreparable rift” between society and the ecological system.

2.1.2. Treadmill of Production

The treadmill of production theory, propounded by Allan Schnaiberg in his book The Environment:
From Surplus to Scarcity [8], suggests a never-ending cycle of production is the central characteristic
of the capitalistic mode of production [9]. Human societies are dependent on flows of energy
from nature, and hence Schnaiberg argues that this energy can only be transformed, and that each
transformation is in itself a degradation [10]. The treadmill of production depicts the two dialectic
processes of societal-environmental interaction: withdrawals and additions. Withdrawals from the
environment are raw materials that are extracted from nature in order to transform them into economic
goods, while additions are pollutive or toxic waste that is returned to the natural world. Capitalism
generates profit through consumerism, with advertisements and marketing constantly driving human
consumption to a grotesque level to generate profit [1,10]. Basic supply and demand predict that
with increased demand, supply will increase to match that level, which results in the rising rate of
the production process. That production process results in the exponential rate of both withdrawals
and additions which rapidly depletes raw materials from nature and dumps toxic waste back into
it. Hence, treadmill theory predicts environmental destruction with the current trend of human
activities. This treadmill is unsustainable as the carrying capacity and resources on this planet are
finite, while humans’ wants are infinite [6].
On top of ecological destruction, there is also the innate contradiction of capitalism as
highlighted by Marx: exploitations of labor. However, social institutions are rooted and embedded
in capitalism [1,6,10], and hence they seek only to strengthen and reinforce the capitalist ideology.
For example, labor unions are in favor of the treadmill as it creates jobs for the workers, and governments
prioritize economic growth over environmental protection [6]. Hence, without a radical change to
the economic and political structure of the world system, the treadmill of production will not cease.
Critics of this theory are convinced that capitalism will be able to adapt to consider environmental
problems without radical changes, and that this theory is based too heavily on a materialist approach [1].
Sustainability 2017, 9, 474 6 of 11

Others critics argued that treadmill of production is too pessimistic and it will discourage individuals
from environmental efforts.

2.1.3. World Systems Theory

Immanuel Wallerstein’s world systems theory was built on Marxist foundations, and emerged as
a reaction and counter to modernization theory, by arguing that colonialism is one of the main causes
of underdevelopment in the third world. Like Karl Marx, Wallerstein believed that capitalism is based
on a system of exploitation, to achieve maximization of profit. However, it is seen as neo-Marxist as
the world systems theory rejects the notion that capitalism only occurs in nation-states, and argues
instead that it encompasses the entire world into an economy. Wallerstein presents three positions
inside this world system: the core, the periphery and the semi-periphery. Labor and surplus are
commoditized and extracted from the periphery to the core, which creates an unequal exchange
of resources. The semi-periphery stands in the middle, being an exploiter as well as an exploited
country [11]. This ultimately creates a global stratified system that works based on rationalization
and commoditization as the driving forces behind this exploitative relationship. The environment can
be subject to commoditization, with land being one example. A further theory of unequal ecological
exchange builds on Wallerstein’s world systems theory, as it contends that more developed countries
and their high consumption-based environmental costs are redistributed to less developed countries,
which results in environmental degradation and disasters [12].
Through extensive agricultural practices that benefit the cores, environmental damage can occur
in the periphery. One example is the Hamburger Connection, where deforestation happens in order to
give rise to cattle ranching. Much of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil has been cleared for pastures,
and this has been a practice for decades. Brazil was seen as the world’s top exporter of beef in 2003,
and it was exported to developed countries for their consumption in fast food restaurants [13]. The land
is hence seen as a commodity for exchange value, in order to raise cattle for the growing consumption
of beef in developed countries. This creates an unequal ecological exchange because the core reaps
the benefits of the beef product, while Brazil as a semi-periphery is exploited for the land that they
own. Extensive environmental damage is the cost suffered by the periphery for the interest of the
core countries, and this exemplifies how it occurs in the modern capitalist world system as proposed
by Wallerstein.

2.2. Neoliberalism Theories

2.2.1. Risk Society

According to Beck, as cited in Adam, Beck and Van Loon [14] (p. 5), a risk society can be
understood as “a particular mode of organization as a response to new challenges enforced upon the
world by technologies and practices”. Present society is said to be fraught with risks as a result of
modernization where there has been a rapid increase in the advancement and employment of new
technologies. While such technologies have brought about increased convenience, productivity and
benefits, they are not without risks. Risks are defined as “a systematic way of dealing with hazards
and insecurities induced in and introduced by modernization itself” [15] (p. 21). Beck, as cited in
Matten [16], argues that while potential threats have always existed in society, such as natural disasters,
the difference between threats and risks is that risks are a result of human decisions. Giddens has
coined such risks as “manufactured risks” and believes that people today tend to focus their concerns
on manufactured risks as a result of their actions over external risks. In particular, there have been
rising anxieties and debate on the kind of environmental issues and problems brought about by the
risk society due to new technologies in the field of nuclear, chemical and genetic industries, which have
generated environmental hazards that creates risks in modern society [17,18].
Sustainability 2017, 9, 474 7 of 11

An example of a manufactured risk in society is the use of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is a
welcomed alternative source of energy as it is deemed to be the most environmentally friendly in terms
of its lower greenhouse gas emissions as compared to other forms, such as coal or electricity. However,
there are environmental risks that accompany it. Environmental impacts and nuclear accidents such as
radioactive waste produced from nuclear energy have impactful consequences on the environment
and the health of individuals [19]. The Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986 shows how manufactured
risks translated into actual environmental hazards and damage. It is evident that nuclear energy is
a risk because no one is able to fully understand the kind of far-reaching consequences it can have
in the event of an accident. Based on the Chernobyl nuclear accident alone, over 300,000 people had
to be evacuated and resettled after the accident as the area surrounding the nuclear power plant was
deemed to be unsuitable for living. A study has shown that the increase in reported cases of thyroid
cancer was linked to the high levels of radioiodine exposure during the Chernobyl accident [20].
In terms of environmental damage, over 200,000 square kilometers of Europe was contaminated from
the release of radionuclides [21]. The danger here is that as Beck has claimed, there is no form of
insurance against the kind of risks that emerge out of risk societies, yet societies continue to take
deliberate risks in the name of modernization. Another clear example would be the Fukushima nuclear
disaster in Japan. Although past experiences such as the nuclear accident in Chernobyl have shown
the far-reaching consequences of nuclear accidents, society continues to create human-induced risks by
investing in nuclear technology. Modern societies continue to take risks in the name of modernization
and profit-making, despite the fact that that political institutions lack the competence to manage risks
that accompany new technologies [16].

2.2.2. Ecological Modernization

Mol and Spaargaren’s ecological modernization aims to resolve environmental issues without
forsaking modernization, through the use of new technologies from more modernization instead
of drastically reforming society [2]. Hence, this theory attempts to take a middle stance between
pessimistic environmentalists pushing for de-industrialization and capitalists who would rather
ignore the issue of the environmental crisis altogether. Ecological modernization assumes that
capitalism is flexible enough to self-regulate, craft solutions and evolve towards “sustainable
capitalism” [1,6]. Huber posits that the development of an industrial society occurs in three stages:
the industrial breakthrough, the construction of the industrial society and superindustrialization.
Superindustrialization refers to the final stage where an “ecological switchover of the industrial
system” happens, where environmentally friendly technologies are developed [22].
Another key point of ecological modernization theory is reflexive modernization, whereby a
capitalist society re-examines its circumstances and develops a heightened awareness of environmental
problems. Thus, consumers will push institutions such as governments and corporations for change
towards a green society [6]. However, critics claim that any improvements made from pressure
are not real, and are attained through misreporting [2]. In addition, ecological modernization
theorists are criticized for being over-optimistic about the potential of technology, forgetting that
‘clean’ technologies such as nuclear power were once lauded until their more undesirable features
and risks were discovered. Ecological modernization theory also disregards the political-economic
dimension characterizing environmental processes, assuming that social and political forces will align
for the sake of environmental conservation [1,2,6].

2.3. Symbolic Interactionism Theories

Naturework
The idea of naturework was first explored in Gary Alan Fine’s book Morel Tales: The Culture of
Mushrooming [23]. In this book, Fine studies how Americans assign meaning to the natural world that
they live in. “Nature” always has been in unquestionable existence, but Fine argues that the meanings
Sustainability 2017, 9, 474 8 of 11

we give to the natural environment are culturally grounded. This implies that there can be no nature
if we detach it from culture and he terms the cultural construction and interpretation “naturework”.
Fine illustrates his point by dabbling in the field of mushrooming. Fine examined present-day concerns
of nature, environment and culture and how we give meaning to the first two. Mushroomers practice
naturework by giving names to their fungi, assigning different values to different types of mushrooms
and giving a gender identification to the mushrooms. In his opinion, the mushroomers adopt the
“humanist” view of nature by making use of nature to meet the needs of humans. The other two views
are the “protectionist” view that nature should be left untouched and the “organic” view that humans
have no need to control themselves in exploiting nature compared to any other living thing as humans
are also a part of nature.
The concept of “naturework” talks about how human beings adjust their behaviors and attitudes
around socially constructed symbols [6,23]. Humans structure and revolve their actions and
relationship with nature based on meanings that they assign to nature themselves. For example,
human beings have constructed a social meaning for farm animals (e.g., pigs and cows) as animals
raised for food. Thus, society does not see a problem with raising animals for food and the use
of inhumane methods on animals in order to produce sufficient livestock for human consumption.
In comparison, when human beings claim that they need a break from work and escape the city for
a holiday by joining farm stays, they claim that they are being “in nature” and would never treat
the farm animals in an exploitative manner. Through this example, it shows how human beings
renegotiate the meanings of nature, and perceive nature as a source of relaxation instead of a natural
resource for human consumption. This showcases the concept of naturework and how human beings
entail the capacity to shape their behaviors and relationships with nature around social meanings [6].
In addition, by “enframing” nature as a separate entity to society (human beings), it creates the
perception of distance and separation between society and nature. Thus, society does not develop a
sense of accountability towards nature, allowing society to develop a power relation over nature to
result in the exploitation of nature through technology [24].

3. Sustainability through the Lens of Environmental Sociology

The powerful lens provided by environmental sociology is important not only to understand the
current environmental problems and challenges, but also to devise solutions for a sustainable earth.
This Special Issue of Sustainability provides an environmental sociology approach to understanding
and achieving the widely used notion of “sustainability”, focusing on, among other topics, the inherent
discursive formations of environmental sociology, conceptual tools and paradoxes, competing theories
and practices, and their complex implications on our society at large.
Some papers in this Special Issue have solid conceptual and theoretical contributions to the
study of sustainability. Longo and his colleagues, for example, problematized the prevailing notion
of sustainability and sustainable development as mired in a “pre-analytic vision” that naturalizes
capitalist social relations and closes off important questions regarding economic growth. To overcome
this problem with the sustainability discourse, the authors highlight how several environmental
sociology perspectives—such as human ecology, the treadmill of production, and metabolic
analysis—can serve as the basis for a more integrative “socio-ecological conception” and can help
advance the field of sustainability science [25]. To better understand and theorize sustainability in
a post-natural age, Arias-Maldonado, on the other hand, suggested that environmental sociology
should incorporate and reconsider the “anthropocenic turn” in its fold for a realistic understanding
of sustainability. The anthropocene, as he explains, is a scientific notion, grounded in geology and
Earth-system science, which plausibly suggests that human beings have colonized nature to a degree
that has irreversibly altered the functioning of planetary systems, and, consequently, social and natural
systems have become “coupled”. Elucidating the consequences of the “anthropocenic turn” for
sustainability studies, his paper explores the related notions of hybridity and relational agency as key
aspects of a renewed view of nature [26].
Sustainability 2017, 9, 474 9 of 11

Other papers applied various tools of environmental sociology in addressing various

environmental issues and problems affecting societies and communities around the world. Islam and
his colleagues, for example, applied the treadmill of production theory and environmental governance
to understand the causes and consequences of trans-boundary haze pollution in Southeast Asia and
proposed sustainability through a plural coexistence framework [27]; Hui-Ting Tang and Yuh-Ming
Ling, assembling disparate information across time, space and discipline in their paper, aim to build a
clear and concise synthesis of sustainable urban development not only to serve as an essential reference
for decision- and policy-makers, but also to encourage more strategically organized sustainability
efforts [28]. Sustainability with “academic ecohealth” literature, focusing on existing engagements
and future prospects [29]; certified organic farming, posing a “metabolic rift” similar to conventional
agriculture [30]; hybrid arrangements and governance as a form of “ecological modernization” in
understanding the complexity of climate governance and energy efficiency in US cities [31]; and the
extent to which forms of certification in global agro-food value chains guarantee sustainability [32]
are among the key case studies in this Special Issue that advance our understanding of sustainability
through the lens of environmental sociology.
Two papers clearly signal towards methodological innovations within environmental sociology
in understanding and addressing today’s sustainability challenges. Mark Brown made a large-scale
textual and discourse analysis to show how multinational corporations manage and naturalize
“nature-business” through developing a vocabulary and a “grammar” which enables them to manage
natural spaces in the same way that they are able to manage their own far-flung business operations [33].
Sing Chew and Daniel Sarabia, on the other hand, suggest a robust historical analysis of nature-culture
relations, focusing on early globalization dating back 5000 years, climate change and system crisis.
They believe a long-term tracing of the socioeconomic and political processes of the making of the
modern world will allow us to have a more incisive understanding of the current trajectory of world
development and transformations [34].
Papers published in this issue thus focus on how sustainable development has been understood
through different theoretical lenses in environmental sociology, such as ecological modernization,
policy/reformist sustainable development, and critical structural approaches (such as the treadmill
of production, ecological Marxism, metabolic rift theory, etc.). Also, review papers and original
manuscripts draw on how sustainable development has been practiced in, or by, various stakeholders,
such as states, corporations, and local communities, for various ends, through the use of specific
case studies, showing, for example, the discursive shifts, dynamic formations, and diverse contours
of sustainable development. The lens of environmental sociology on sustainability in this Special
Issue has therefore been expressed through conceptual and theoretical contributions, methodological
innovations, and critical analyses of various cases around the world.

Acknowledgments: The author thanks the editorial team of the Sustainability journal for inviting him to guest-edit
the Special Issue of “Sustainability through the Lens of Environmental Sociology”. The author acknowledges the
contribution of his students of the Environmental Sociology course in finding materials, generating debates and
helping during the writing phase.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Gould, K.A.; Lewis, T.L. (Eds.) Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology; Oxford University Press: New York,
NY, USA; Oxford, UK, 2009.
2. Hannigan, J. Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructivist Perspective, 2nd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY,
USA, 2006.
3. Lerner, D. The Passing of Traditional Society, 1st ed.; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1964.
4. Klausner, S. On Man in His Environment, 1st ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1971.
5. United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). 21 Issues for the 21st Century; United Nations Environmental
Program: Nairobi, Kenya, 2012.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 474 10 of 11

6. Islam, M.S. Development, Power and the Environment: Neoliberal Paradox in the Age of Vulnerability; Routledge:
New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2013.
7. Foster, J.B. Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology. Am. J. Sociol.
1999, 105, 366–405. [CrossRef]
8. Allan, S. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1980.
9. Islam, M.S.; Hossain, M.I. Social Justice in the Globalization of Production Labor, Gender, and the Environment
Nexus; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2015.
10. Barbosa, L.C. Theories of Environmental Sociology. In Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology;
Kenneth, A.G., Tammy, L.L., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009.
11. Wallerstein, I. The modern World System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy
in the Sixteenth Century; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1974.
12. Jorgenson, A.K. Unequal Ecological Exchange and Environmental Degradation: A Theoretical Proposition
and Cross-National Study of Deforestation, 1990–2000. Rural Sociol. 2006, 71, 685–712. [CrossRef]
13. Kaimowitz, D.; Benoit, M.; Sven, W.; Pablo, P. Hamburger Connection Fuels Amazon Destruction; Center for
International Forest Research: Bangor, Indonesia, 2004.
14. Adam, B.; Ulrich, B.; Van Loon, J. (Eds.) The Risk Society and Beyond: Critical Issues for Social Theory;
Sage Publications: London, UK, 2000.
15. Beck, U. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity; Sage Publications: London, UK, 1992.
16. Matten, D. The impact of the risk society thesis on environmental politics and management in a globalizing
economy—Principles, proficiency, perspectives. J. Risk Res. 2004, 7, 377–398. [CrossRef]
17. McGrail, S. Anthony Giddens on the Rise of Futures Thinking and Risk Management. Desperately Seeking
Sustainability. Available online: http://www.facilitatingsustainability.net/?p=2620 (accessed on 4 October 2016).
18. Dunlap, R.E. Sociological Theory and the Environment: Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights;
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers: Lanham, MD, USA, 2002.
19. Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy. Available online: http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/pros-and-
cons-of-nuclear-energy.php (accessed on 4 October 2016).
20. Nuclear Energy Institute. Fact Sheets. Chernobyl Accident and Its Consequences. 2015.
Available online: https://www.nei.org/master-document-folder/backgrounders/fact-sheets/chernobyl-
accident-and-its-consequences (accessed on 4 October 2016).
21. World Health Organization. Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident. Available online: http://www.who.
int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index1.html (accessed on 4 October 2016).
22. Huber, J. Die Verlorene Unschuld der Okologie. Neue Technologien und Superindustrielle Entwicklung;
Fisher: Frankfurt/Main, Germany, 1982.
23. Fine, G.A. Morel Tales: The Culture of Mushrooming; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1998.
24. Heidegger, M. The Question Concerning Technology, and Other Essays; Harper Torchbooks: New York,
NY, USA, 1977.
25. Longo, S.B.; Clark, B.; Shriver, T.E.; Clausen, R. Sustainability and Environmental Sociology: Putting the
Economy in its Place and Moving Toward an Integrative Socio-Ecology. Sustainability 2016, 8, 437. [CrossRef]
26. Arias-Maldonado, M. The Anthropocenic Turn: Theorizing Sustainability in a Postnatural Age. Sustainability
2016, 8, 10. [CrossRef]
27. Islam, M.S.; Yap, H.P.; Shrutika, M. Trans-Boundary Haze Pollution in Southeast Asia: Sustainability through
Plural Environmental Governance. Sustainability 2016, 8, 499. [CrossRef]
28. Tang, H.-T.; Lee, Y.-M. The Making of Sustainable Urban Development: A Synthesis Framework.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 492. [CrossRef]
29. Aryn, L.; Gregor, W. Sustainability within the Academic EcoHealth Literature: Existing Engagement and
Future Prospects. Sustainability 2016, 8, 202. [CrossRef]
30. McGee, J.A.; Camila, A. Sustaining without Changing: The Metabolic Rift of Certified Organic Farming.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 115. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2017, 9, 474 11 of 11

31. Galli, A.M.; Dana, R.F. Hybrid Arrangements as a Form of Ecological Modernization: The Case of the US
Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grants. Sustainability 2016, 8, 88. [CrossRef]
32. Mol, A.P.J.; Peter, O. Certification of Markets, Markets of Certificates: Tracing Sustainability in Global
Agro-Food Value Chains. Sustainability 2015, 7, 12258–12278. [CrossRef]
33. Brown, M. Managing Nature–Business as Usual: Resource Extraction Companies and Their Representations
of Natural Landscapes. Sustainability 2015, 7, 15900–15922. [CrossRef]
34. Chew, S.C.; Daniel, S. Nature–Culture Relations: Early Globalization, Climate Changes, and System Crisis.
Sustainability 2016, 8, 78. [CrossRef]

© 2017 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).