“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
The definition of sustainability expressed in the 1987 Brundtland Report is the one that has become widespread in recent years with a very broad interpretation. It has entered political discourse, corporate strategies, advertising campaigns, and school textbooks. Yet, just as the word “sustainability” was becoming familiar, its meaning gradually narrowed, as if it had been locked inside a green box labeled: ENVIRONMENT.
But sustainability, if taken seriously, is not just an ecological issue. Rather, it concerns overall well-being, the balance between the material and immaterial dimensions of life, between the present and the future, between individuals and communities. In other words, it is a question of development model.
Beyond the Brundtland definition
But sustainability, if taken seriously, is not just an ecological issue. Rather, it concerns overall well-being, the balance between the material and immaterial dimensions of life, between the present and the future, between individuals and communities. In other words, it is a question of development model.
Beyond the Brundtland definition
The classic starting point is therefore the definition given by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 and the document that followed it, entitled “Our Common Future”: sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
A powerful definition, but also deliberately open-ended. It refers to “needs” but does not specify them; it evokes harmony between generations but does not go into detail about the variables that make up well-being.
For years, this definition served as a beacon: it pointed the way without describing the path. And so, in practice, sustainability has often been interpreted as an environmental issue to be addressed alongside economic development, almost as a corrective variable. First we grow, then we “fix” the environment. An approach that today shows all its limitations.
From GDP to well-being: the cultural shift
A powerful definition, but also deliberately open-ended. It refers to “needs” but does not specify them; it evokes harmony between generations but does not go into detail about the variables that make up well-being.
For years, this definition served as a beacon: it pointed the way without describing the path. And so, in practice, sustainability has often been interpreted as an environmental issue to be addressed alongside economic development, almost as a corrective variable. First we grow, then we “fix” the environment. An approach that today shows all its limitations.
From GDP to well-being: the cultural shift
The first real shock came with the financial crisis of 2007-2009. The collapse of GDP in many Western countries called into question the very idea that gross domestic product is a measure of well-being. In 2007, French President Nicolas Sarkozy commissioned a committee of scholars, including Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, together with economist Jean-Paul Fitoussi, to answer a simple and revolutionary question: does GDP really measure people's well-being?
The answer is well known: no. Or, at least, it does not measure it completely. GDP tells us how much is produced and how much is spent, but it does not tell us how people live. It says nothing about the quality of the environment, social relations, health, education, or inequalities.
This reflection gave rise to the “Beyond GDP” paradigm. In 2011, the OECD developed a more articulated conceptual framework: well-being is divided into two broad dimensions, material life conditions and quality of life. This is a decisive cultural shift, because it recognizes that well-being is not just about income, but also health, the environment, relationships, leisure time, security, and personal satisfaction.
Above all, a fundamental concept emerges: to be sustainable over time, well-being must be based on four “stocks” of capital: natural, human, economic, and social. If one of these is depleted, overall well-being cannot last.
The answer is well known: no. Or, at least, it does not measure it completely. GDP tells us how much is produced and how much is spent, but it does not tell us how people live. It says nothing about the quality of the environment, social relations, health, education, or inequalities.
This reflection gave rise to the “Beyond GDP” paradigm. In 2011, the OECD developed a more articulated conceptual framework: well-being is divided into two broad dimensions, material life conditions and quality of life. This is a decisive cultural shift, because it recognizes that well-being is not just about income, but also health, the environment, relationships, leisure time, security, and personal satisfaction.
Above all, a fundamental concept emerges: to be sustainable over time, well-being must be based on four “stocks” of capital: natural, human, economic, and social. If one of these is depleted, overall well-being cannot last.
Sustainability as a balance between the present and the future
As the Simone Cesaretti Ets Foundation has believed since 2007 (and it is no coincidence that this is the thesis underlying its founding statute), the sustainability of well-being can be imagined as a balance: on the one hand, equity between people living today, and on the other, equity between generations. Only if the balance remains in equilibrium can the system hold.
In concrete terms, this means three things. First: finding a balance between material conditions and quality of life. Second: reducing inequalities, because a deeply unequal society is not sustainable. Third: investing in the future, i.e., regenerating natural, human, economic, and social capital.
Sustainability, therefore, is not an accessory variable. It is the way in which the entire development process is organized.
What is a development model really?
When we talk about development, we often confuse the term with economic growth. But they are not the same thing. Growth is a quantitative increase in GDP. Development is a qualitative change in the economic and social system.
In macroeconomics, a country's GDP can be described with a simple equation: household consumption, business investment, public spending, exports minus imports. This formula is not just an accounting exercise: it is a snapshot of the structure of an economy.
If consumption is geared towards poor-quality goods or products that destroy the environment, the development model will be fragile. If investments focus on speculative activities rather than culture, research, infrastructure, or human capital, future well-being will be compromised. If public spending does not reduce inequalities, society will become unstable.
In other words, the development model is the structure of the process of change. And sustainability concerns precisely this structure, not just the final results.
In concrete terms, this means three things. First: finding a balance between material conditions and quality of life. Second: reducing inequalities, because a deeply unequal society is not sustainable. Third: investing in the future, i.e., regenerating natural, human, economic, and social capital.
Sustainability, therefore, is not an accessory variable. It is the way in which the entire development process is organized.
What is a development model really?
When we talk about development, we often confuse the term with economic growth. But they are not the same thing. Growth is a quantitative increase in GDP. Development is a qualitative change in the economic and social system.
In macroeconomics, a country's GDP can be described with a simple equation: household consumption, business investment, public spending, exports minus imports. This formula is not just an accounting exercise: it is a snapshot of the structure of an economy.
If consumption is geared towards poor-quality goods or products that destroy the environment, the development model will be fragile. If investments focus on speculative activities rather than culture, research, infrastructure, or human capital, future well-being will be compromised. If public spending does not reduce inequalities, society will become unstable.
In other words, the development model is the structure of the process of change. And sustainability concerns precisely this structure, not just the final results.
Agenda 2030: goals as indicators of change
With the United Nations' Agenda 2030, the message becomes even clearer. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals are not just targets to be achieved. They are indicators of a more profound change.
For example, Goal 2, on food security, is not just a sectoral goal. It is proof that the development model has changed. Unless the economic and social model is changed, world hunger will never be eliminated. The same applies to inequality, gender equality, education, health, energy, and decent work.
With the United Nations' Agenda 2030, the message becomes even clearer. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals are not just targets to be achieved. They are indicators of a more profound change.
For example, Goal 2, on food security, is not just a sectoral goal. It is proof that the development model has changed. Unless the economic and social model is changed, world hunger will never be eliminated. The same applies to inequality, gender equality, education, health, energy, and decent work.
Sustainable well-being: an integrated vision
The shift from GDP to well-being represents a paradigm shift. Well-being includes dimensions that cannot be quantified: the beauty of a landscape, the quality of relationships, a sense of belonging to a community, security, mental health.
A week's vacation in an unspoiled place can generate enormous well-being, but it does not enter into GDP statistics except for the expenditure incurred. Yet, for the person experiencing it, that well-being is real, concrete, transformative.
This forces us to review our metrics and priorities. A society that grows economically but destroys territories, creates inequalities, marginalizes young people, and impoverishes social relationships is not a sustainable society, even if GDP increases.
The shift from GDP to well-being represents a paradigm shift. Well-being includes dimensions that cannot be quantified: the beauty of a landscape, the quality of relationships, a sense of belonging to a community, security, mental health.
A week's vacation in an unspoiled place can generate enormous well-being, but it does not enter into GDP statistics except for the expenditure incurred. Yet, for the person experiencing it, that well-being is real, concrete, transformative.
This forces us to review our metrics and priorities. A society that grows economically but destroys territories, creates inequalities, marginalizes young people, and impoverishes social relationships is not a sustainable society, even if GDP increases.
A cultural challenge even before an economic one
As the Simone Cesaretti Ets Foundation hopes, sustainable well-being is not a utopia, but requires a profound cultural change. It means moving from an idea of development based on quantitative accumulation to a vision centered on quality of life and equity.
It also means recognizing that well-being cannot be built at the expense of anyone: neither those living today nor those who will come tomorrow. Sustainability is, after all, a question of justice in time and space.
The point is not simply to “do less damage to the environment.” The point is to rethink the entire model of development so that it produces widespread, lasting, and shared well-being. Sustainability that concerns not only nature, but also relationships, the economy, culture, and quality of life.
When you look at sustainability in this way, the word ceases to be a slogan and becomes a project again. Not a fad, but an evolutionary direction. Not a sacrifice, but a more intelligent and lasting form of well-being. And at that point, utopia ceases to be an unattainable dream and becomes an operational horizon, an open construction site where the economy, society, and the environment stop competing and finally begin to cooperate.
As the Simone Cesaretti Ets Foundation hopes, sustainable well-being is not a utopia, but requires a profound cultural change. It means moving from an idea of development based on quantitative accumulation to a vision centered on quality of life and equity.
It also means recognizing that well-being cannot be built at the expense of anyone: neither those living today nor those who will come tomorrow. Sustainability is, after all, a question of justice in time and space.
The point is not simply to “do less damage to the environment.” The point is to rethink the entire model of development so that it produces widespread, lasting, and shared well-being. Sustainability that concerns not only nature, but also relationships, the economy, culture, and quality of life.
When you look at sustainability in this way, the word ceases to be a slogan and becomes a project again. Not a fad, but an evolutionary direction. Not a sacrifice, but a more intelligent and lasting form of well-being. And at that point, utopia ceases to be an unattainable dream and becomes an operational horizon, an open construction site where the economy, society, and the environment stop competing and finally begin to cooperate.