�鶹��Ѱ�����

The College of Engineering and Applied Sciences at the �鶹��Ѱ����� has a strategic vision statement which reads as follows:��Engineering sustainable solutions to improve the quality of life in our state, nation and world��(1). When looking deeper at how to quantify the progress on this vision statement, the question arises: what counts as a sustainable solution? As our society progresses towards more sustainable development movements, we see the words ‘green’ or ‘sustainability’ used often by institutions, companies and industries. Since the definition of sustainability is vague, it becomes susceptible to getting reduced to a buzz word instead of an indication of measurable action. This ambiguity limits the ability to create effective regulations or hold organizations accountable. Addressing this challenge requires both a stronger overarching definition of sustainability and more specific interpretations tailored to individual professions. A broad definition can establish shared goals and ethical boundaries, while discipline specific frameworks translate those goals into actionable practices. Without this two level approach, sustainability remains difficult to implement in the workplace. Therefore, alongside defining sustainability more clearly, we must prioritize educating students and young professionals to understand how to apply it within the unique constraints and responsibilities of their fields.����

In 1987 the UN defined sustainable development as��“meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (2) There could be many interpretations to what is considered ‘meeting human needs’. This could be measured by human health, or by standard of living, considering access to electricity, transportation, or specific goods and services. An approach based on fundamental demographic metrics may also be used, evaluating child mortality and life expectancy. The extent to which we have achieved this goal of ‘meeting human needs’ will vary significantly depending on which approach is taken to measure it. This definition is vague and does not outline the goals of sustainable development, leaving it vulnerable to political or corporate misuse, and at risk to “become an ideological slogan rather than a crucial public policy tool.” (3) The current UN definition includes human needs for the present and future, which is important since the purpose of sustainable development is to create a better future by reducing harmful development. While sustainable development is concerned with human needs in both the present and future, including this statement in the definition enlarges the scope and opens the door for a wide variety of interpretations, therefore reducing its usefulness as terms of national and international consensus (4). Additionally, the definition involves meeting the needs of the ‘common good’, but what should be considered the common good is not uniform across every industry or company. “What is good for the west side of town may be viewed as a detriment to the east.” (5) Since the definition itself and the methods to quantify it are all up to interpretation, it loses its value as a guiding principle of sustainable development.

Our modern day society needs a clear definition of sustainability that can act as a baseline to guide regulations which will hold institutions and companies accountable to follow through on sustainable development commitments. Additionally, companies and employees need clearer guidelines or protocols to be able to consider the far-reaching impacts that their work has on people and the environment, making it easier to understand if the work is considered sustainable.������

One case study that illustrates the complexity of designing sustainably is electric vehicle battery production. In this example, human welfare is a casualty of ‘sustainable development’ regarding the cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Cobalt is a critical mineral in lithium-ion batteries which are used in electric vehicles, and due to the growing green energy transition, the demand for cobalt is increasing. Electric vehicles are more energy efficient, and produce no direct exhaust emissions, making them a focal point of sustainable development. The batteries are unique, complex, and require an extensive production process, relying on specialized minerals like lithium and cobalt. Southern Congo contains almost half the world's known supply of cobalt (6) and many Congolese have taken jobs in the mining industry, making cobalt mining a major pillar of the economy in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).����

The DRC is a place with extreme poverty. According to the World Bank, an estimated 73.5% of Congolese people lived on less than $2.15 a day in 2024 (7). Many people work informally trying to make ends meet and when cobalt demand started to increase, there were hopes that the mineral could help the nation pull out of poverty (8). In reality, due to greed from more developed countries and the lack of push back from the DRC economy, serious human welfare concerns have risen from the demand for Cobalt. Industrial mines have few safety regulations and allocate poverty wages. Driven by the “irresistible temptation” to make money by any means possible in the Congo, families have been forced out of their properties and moved into homes with leaking roofs and no electricity or bathrooms. With minimal attempts at regulations, women and children still work in mines for long hours and in unsafe conditions especially in small-scale artisanal mining operations.��

This evidence of human welfare problems in the DRC is largely based on human stories rather than quantifiable data, making the impact more challenging to assess. For something to be classified as sustainable development, we need to look at the impact it is making on people and communities, not only the environment. This distinction is what makes the electric vehicle and battery production process a good example of a technology that might not meet all the qualifications of sustainable innovation when looking at the full production process. This connects to the question of the “common good” and who gets included in that group. Manion states, “Of all the difficulties that surround the attempt to calculate the economic value of a human life … one of the most problematic is a moral one — when and how, if ever, is it ethical to place a price on a human life?” (9) While social impacts are harder to quantify than environmental ones, they represent serious harms that cannot be ignored. Cobalt mining in the DRC highlights the ethical complexity of sustainable development. Evaluating these impacts cannot fall on individual engineers or designers alone, training and formal evaluation strategies are needed. Only by accounting for both human and environmental consequences can we determine whether technological progress is truly sustainable.��

One challenge that arises when discussing what sustainable development looks like is that�� modern societies tend to prioritize mobility, convenience, and consumption, which conflict with sustainability goals of conservation (10). The challenge is crafting an achievable sustainability definition that describes how sustainable development fits into our society and does not leave as much up to interpretation. Other challenges preventing climate-change related action include some psychological barriers. This includes the fact that people naturally prioritize immediate benefits over future benefits because future results and outcomes are uncertain (11). Sustainable development requires actions over a long period of time. Because of that, it is difficult for short term personal interest or political changes to not undermine climate change goals (12). Even with mechanisms such as environmental laws, independent advisory bodies, international agreements, and long-term policy commitments, lasting progress ultimately depends on how well professionals are educated and trained to meaningfully integrate sustainability into their everyday work.

The challenge in implementing sustainability is not a lack of moral consensus on its importance, but the difficulty of translating a broad concept into practical workplace applications across diverse fields. Sustainability means slightly different things in different contexts, making it hard to define in a way that is both clear and universally applicable. While a general definition is needed, it must be complemented by more specific guidance tailored to individual industries and roles. A single set of rigid rules is insufficient, as professionals in engineering, policy, and business face different constraints and objectives, meaning sustainable practice will look different in each case. As a result, many employees lack the training needed to effectively incorporate sustainability into their work. To address this, education and professional development must focus on helping individuals understand how sustainability applies within their specific field, enabling them to navigate its complexities in practice.��

Teaching sustainability must focus on skills needed to turn technical knowledge into practical solutions. Students need to be taught how to operate with the goal of sustainability in the workplace by teaching the topic using an interdisciplinary approach. Technical knowledge should be coupled with communication skills and training on how to apply sustainable practice to a real project (13).

The University of Nebraska Lincoln has developed a unique program to teach sustainability called the Partners in Pollution Prevention (P3) program. This course is geared towards upper-level undergraduate engineering and environmental scientists. Level 1 is technical theory and methodology behind sustainability that is taught through classroom activities. Level 2 is pragmatics of business, where students learn how to understand the culture of business and how to communicate and become better advocates. Students are taught to turn technical sustainability data or ideas into clear, persuasive messages for business audiences. Finally, level 3 is practice, where students apply what they have learned in the field. Students conduct sustainability projects at actual business enterprises with varying levels of intensity where they work as active team members in a business (14). This multilevel structure of teaching shows the different aspects of knowledge that is needed to apply sustainability in industry.����

Training undergraduates can have ripple effects throughout companies. “In focus groups, businesses indicated that they were eager to hire students who had already developed expertise and experience in sustainability so that they could learn from, rather than be expected to teach, their new hires.” (15) If we can train young professionals about not only the technical aspects of sustainability but the strategies to apply that knowledge to real world projects we can also train existing professionals in the industry. Today, many businesses struggle to effectively integrate sustainable practice into the workplace, “Through the stakeholder focus groups, the P3 program learned that businesses were concerned that sustainability would be an add-on duty and cost, taking resources away from production, profits, and basic compliance, and would not be integrated across all business functions.” (16) Training people to work sustainably will be the key to improving and educating others on sustainable business practices. Technical training alone is not enough, students need to understand how to keep sustainability as a priority while navigating real-world projects.��

By continuing to explore unique teaching approaches like the P3 program, we can prepare a generation of professionals who understand how to work sustainably within their fields. As this knowledge spreads, so will a clearer understanding of how sustainability must be defined and applied across different industries and professions. This foundation would enable us to establish long term sustainable practices in our society.

References

1 �鶹��Ѱ�����, College of Engineering & Applied Science, “Strategic Vision,” accessed March 22, 2026,��/��Բ����Ա������Բ�/���������Dz�

2 United Nations, “Sustainability.”

3 Manion, “Ethics, Engineering and Sustainable Development”, 40.

4 D. Birnbacher and M. Thorseth, eds.,��The Politics of Sustainability: Philosophical Perspectives (London: Routledge, 2015), introduction, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315721200��

5 S. A. Hawkey, V. Nelsen, and B. I. Dvorak, “Using a Multilevel Approach to Teach Sustainability to Undergraduates,” in��Teaching Sustainability / Teaching Sustainably, ed. Bart A. Bartels (London: Routledge, 2012), chap. 16, 198.

6 Niarchos, “The Dark Side of Congo’s Cobalt Rush.”

7 World Bank, “Democratic Republic of Congo Poverty and Equity Brief : October 2024”

8 Niarchos, “The Dark Side of Congo’s Cobalt Rush.”

9 Manion, “Ethics, Engineering and Sustainable Development”, 45.

10�� D. Birnbacher and M. Thorseth, eds.,��The Politics of Sustainability: Philosophical Perspectives (London: Routledge, 2015), chap. 9,����

11 Birnbacher and Thorseth,��Politics of Sustainability, chap. 9.

12 Birnbacher and Thorseth,��Politics of Sustainability, chap. 9.

13 Douglas Klahr, “Sustainability for Everyone: Trespassing Disciplinary Boundaries,” in��Teaching Sustainability / Teaching Sustainably (New York: Routledge, 2012).��

14 Stacey A. Hawkey, Valdeen Nelsen, and Bruce I. Dvorak, “Using a Multilevel Approach to Teach Sustainability to Undergraduates,” in��Teaching Sustainability / Teaching Sustainably, (London: Routledge, 2012).

15 Hawkey, Nelsen, and Dvorak, “Using a Multilevel Approach,” chap. 9, 123.��

16�� Hawkey, Nelsen, and Dvorak, “Using a Multilevel Approach,” chap. 9, 121.