This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.

Unclaimed
Don Clifton
University of South Australia

Basic Info

Basic Info is private.

Honors and Awards

The user has no records in this section


Career Timeline

The user has no records in this section.


Short Biography

The user biography is not available.
Following
Followers
Co Authors
The list of users this user is following is empty.
Following: 0 users

Feed

Book chapter
Published: 11 September 2014 in The International Society of Business, Economics, and Ethics Book Series
Reads 0
Downloads 0

What does it mean to live sustainably at the local level? How can we assess whether our local behaviors to try and live sustainably make sense when looked at in the broader global setting? In this chapter, we use Ecological Footprint Analysis to help find answers to these questions. A series of tests are presented that assess local Footprint Analysis data in terms of a global sustainability goal. The South Australian setting is used as a case study. The discussion also explores how the standard Footprint Analysis data presents an overly optimistic picture of humanity’s use of the Earth’s renewable natural resources and argues for an alternate view of these data. The alternate data show that the extent to which humanity is exploiting the Earth’s renewable natural resources in excess of what it is safe to do is much greater than the standard data reveal. This has significant implications for how we assess local sustainability in the global context.

ACS Style

Don Clifton. Making Sense of Local Sustainability. The International Society of Business, Economics, and Ethics Book Series 2014, 135 -153.

AMA Style

Don Clifton. Making Sense of Local Sustainability. The International Society of Business, Economics, and Ethics Book Series. 2014; ():135-153.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Don Clifton. 2014. "Making Sense of Local Sustainability." The International Society of Business, Economics, and Ethics Book Series , no. : 135-153.

Journal article
Published: 11 April 2012 in Sustainability
Reads 0
Downloads 0

This paper questions why, despite the sustainable development concept having been prominent at an international level for well over 20 years, there is little to show by way of a transition to a sustainable world. Instead, in many ways, the situation is deteriorating. The paper critiques the mainstream sustainable development approach as advocated by business, and as is prominent in the political sphere, to consider if this is itself a key problem. The paper concludes that it is. Rather than helping society achieve needed change, this approach can create a false sense of progress that acts as a barrier to the more decisive action that is necessary to address the underlying drivers of humanity's unsustainable behaviours. Further, the paper proposes that the very act of pursuing mainstream sustainable development makes a sustainable world harder to achieve. A way forward for the business sector is proposed by it embracing a more transformational sustainable world approach in both its internal activities and in its advocacy in the broader public and political space.

ACS Style

Don Clifton. Sustainable Business: Are We Heading in the Right Direction? Sustainability 2012, 4, 586 -603.

AMA Style

Don Clifton. Sustainable Business: Are We Heading in the Right Direction? Sustainability. 2012; 4 (4):586-603.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Don Clifton. 2012. "Sustainable Business: Are We Heading in the Right Direction?" Sustainability 4, no. 4: 586-603.

Conference paper
Published: 01 November 2011 in Proceedings of The 1st World Sustainability Forum
Reads 0
Downloads 0

Sustainable development (SustD) – meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs – has become a major issue of focus for business, government, and society generally, at local, national, and international levels. Evidence abounds of the increasing extent to which the business sector is embracing the SustD concept – the UN Global Compact (http://www.unglobalcompact.org/), the work of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (http://www.wbcsd.org/), the Equator Principles for the banking sector (http://www.equator-principles.com/), and the increasing uptake of sustainability reporting (http://www.globalreporting.org/) are just a few examples. But the current mainstream SustD narrative, as it is formulated in business and political circles, is only one approach to how humanity might go about living sustainably. But is it the one most likely to see a sustainable world come about? Are we really heading in the right direction? This paper critiques the current dominant SustD approach using socio-ecological resilience theory, and the Ecological Footprint measure in conjunction with the I=PAT identity. It considers current and future Ecological Footprint trends, and how key SustD strategies directed towards human population numbers, economic growth, and technology solutions, interact to progress or retard the achievement of a sustainable world. Socio-ecological resilience theory is used to explore the extent to which mainstream SustD either builds resilient societies and ecosystems, or undermines resilience leaving society vulnerable to broad-scale social and ecosystem collapse. The paper argues that mainstream SustD is challenging to believe as credible. Rather than helping society achieve needed change, this approach instead creates a false sense of progress that acts as a barrier to the more decisive action that is necessary to address the underlying drivers of humanity\'s unsustainable behaviours. Further, some of the core technology strategies advocated by this approach, and on which the business sector focuses its sustainability efforts, are shown to have flow-on effects that can work against the very objectives they seek to achieve. The paper concludes that the business sector has the power and influence to drive needed change, and can do so by embracing a more transformational sustainable world approach in both its internal activities and in its advocacy in the broader public and political space. Although focusing on the business sector, the findings of this critique are equally relevant to other social actors in their pursuit of sustainable world outcomes including governments, religious organisations, educational institutions, NGOs, communities, and individuals. What is needed is for business, political, and community leaders to take a stand and rally together to drive needed change.

ACS Style

Don Clifton. Sustainable Business: Are we heading in the right direction? Proceedings of The 1st World Sustainability Forum 2011, 1 .

AMA Style

Don Clifton. Sustainable Business: Are we heading in the right direction? Proceedings of The 1st World Sustainability Forum. 2011; ():1.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Don Clifton. 2011. "Sustainable Business: Are we heading in the right direction?" Proceedings of The 1st World Sustainability Forum , no. : 1.

Journal article
Published: 30 June 2010 in Journal of Business Ethics
Reads 0
Downloads 0

This article considers the stakeholder approach (SHA) to organisational management through the lens of what it means for humans to live sustainably on the Earth (that is, for there to be a sustainable world). In particular, the article considers if the SHA, as it is presented in mainstream academic and management literature, is supportive of corporate practices that advance the achievement of a sustainable world. The analysis shows the SHA to have significant failings in this regard when viewed against key sustainable world criteria, with issues of concern evident from the normative core of the SHA through to is practical application in the management setting.

ACS Style

Don Clifton; Azlan Amran. The Stakeholder Approach: A Sustainability Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics 2010, 98, 121 -136.

AMA Style

Don Clifton, Azlan Amran. The Stakeholder Approach: A Sustainability Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. 2010; 98 (1):121-136.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Don Clifton; Azlan Amran. 2010. "The Stakeholder Approach: A Sustainability Perspective." Journal of Business Ethics 98, no. 1: 121-136.