By Austin Snedden, Ranching Contributor, Valley Ag Voice
The word “sustainability” has been co-opted to mean something different than its literal definition, and neo-sustainability has short changed the role of economics. Modern sustainability is often illustrated as a three-legged stool with every leg being equally important to keeping the stool upright. The three legs of the sustainability stool are said to represent the social element, the environmental element, and the economic element. This illustration shows an abundant lack of knowledge of economics, or more likely, an under appreciation of economic science. The problem comes when this philosophy is used to shape policy regarding business.
Economic science and theory is very complex and multi-dimensional, and as many of us in business know, the complexity of economics can be very challenging and even ruthless in real life. I will explain how the analogy of three-legged stool is faulty and can be damaging in what it means to true sustainability. The fact of the matter is, economics alone is already a multi-legged stool of which each leg is essential, so when balancing the delicate legs of the economic stool, we are barraged with what third party groups interpret as necessities for the social and environmental legs. The reality is, economics don’t exist without social and environmental aspects. I would contest that economics is more of a social and environmental science than anything else, it is based on demand (social), labor (social), and natural resources (environmental). The fact that all these things have to be monitored to achieve sustainable economics, makes the two additional third party legs of social and environmental not only unnecessary, but often damaging to the true meaning of sustainability.
Let’s look at a cattle ranch that has the goal of prolonged production (formerly known as sustainability), the goal is to create revenue for years to come. Revenue is dependent on demand (social), long term demand is dependent on beef that makes a consumer satisfied (also social) and willing to purchase again. Revenue is also dependent on production, production is dependent on labor (social), long term labor is dependent on quality of life acknowledgment (social) that results in long term retention of labor. Production is also dependent on natural resources (environmental), long term production is dependent on balancing natural resources (environmental). Long term production is dependent on stocking rate that balances forage availability, water availability, and animal health — all environmental.
So when talking about economics in agriculture, I am spending most of my time addressing social and environmental concepts. Apparently, the social engineers that look to shape or infringe on the private sector have designed this concept of the three-legged stool out of ignorance of economics or more likely on purpose to forward an agenda. They are trying to infer that economics is synonymous with revenue, when that is a grossly over simplistic and incomplete view of economics. Following economic inputs alone is in itself a self-balancing stool. If you are striving for true sustainable economics, you are already weighing these social and environmental factors. Make sure that you don’t fall victim to a contrived need of letting third parties and government agencies beat you over the head with the “legs” of the stool that are a figment of their imagination.
