Soc Indic Res (2012) 107:1935 DOI 10.

1007/s11205-011-9824-7

The PEARL Model of Sustainable Development

Mert Bilgin

Accepted: 5 October 2009 / Published online: 17 March 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract This paper addresses perception (P), environment (E), action (A), relationship (R), and locality (L) as the social indicators of sustainable development (SD), the capital letters of which label the PEARL model. The paper refers to PEARL with regard to three aspects to elaborate the promises and limits of the model. Theoretically; it discusses comprehensiveness of the model. Pedagogically; it focuses on how the PEARL might facilitate learning, teaching and recalling fundaments of SD. Practically; it searches whether the model is appropriate for indexing and assessment. The PEARL brings out the signicance of perceptions for SD and promises pedagogical contribution. The model, within this sense, appears as a qualitative understanding of SD which proposes a schematic framework to facilitate teaching and learning of its content. The analysis also points to likelihood of a quantitative PEARL index that is appropriate for assessment and measurement for individuals, institutions and regions. Keywords Sustainable development Social and environmental wellbeing Social responsibility Qualitative modelling

1 Introduction Contemporary understanding of SD includes various dimensions interrelated with social, economic, cultural, environmental and institutional concerns (Welford 1997, 1998; Decleris 2000; Isenmann 2003, pp. 143158; Finger 2008, pp. 3457). Different connotations, attributed to the concept of time and space, diversify its meaning (Bell and Morse 2001, pp. 291309; Bell and Morse 2005, pp. 3738). If it is not possible to disconnect sustainability from integrated systems, comprising humans and nature, then the human component related to politics, economy and culture should promote, or at least not weaken, the natural component related to ecosystem, biodiversity, biogeochemical cycles and vice versa (Cabezas et al. 2005, pp. 455456). For a global sustainable system, subsystems have to
M. Bilgin (&) Department of Political Science and International Relations, Bahc es ehir University, Istanbul, Turkey e-mail: mert.bilgin@bahcesehir.edu.tr

123

20

M. Bilgin

maintain their survival and evolution, while their inter-linkages must enable a permanent co-evolution (Spangenberg 2001, pp. 184201, 2005, pp. 4764). Therefore, minimum conditions of any scenario for integrated sustainability has to cover not only economic growth, but also a variety of components such as domestic consumption levels (i.e. the standard of living), labour productivity, average working hours, total resource consumption (by key categories) and resource productivity (Bockermann et al. 2005, pp. 192193). The consumption aspect of SD is highly signicant because it denes the productive systems and shapes the societal understanding of ecology as it can be seen from certain micro-economic derbaum 2001, pp. 179197; Stagl and OHara analyses (Ropke 2001, pp. 127145; So 2002, pp. 7588; Fuchs and Lorek 2005, pp. 261288; Kronenberg 2007, pp. 557566). The PEARL, within this context, is an attempt to combine these trans-disciplinary issues by the help of a verbal schematic framework and a set of hypotheses intertwining capital letters of ve selected fundaments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Perception. Environment. Action. Relationship. Locality.

The model is based on the assumption that SD, which is comprised of ecological, social, cultural, political and economic capitals, may be expressed through human related activities in terms of perception and environment friendliness on the one hand, their balanced commitments to action, relationship and locality, on the other (Fig. 1). Figure 1 illustrates the PEARL model by showing that ecological, social, cultural, political and economic capitals of SD are intertwined functions of perception, environment, action, relationship and locality. Each of these functions is assumed to be equally important to selected fundaments. The rst fundament (perception) refers to a state of what is being perceived as an outcome of the mental processes, signs and symbols which together create meanings and values aroused by a symbiotic relationship between internal and external factors. The deviation of the perception from reality might cause negative effects on SD. Especially
Fig. 1 The Pearl Model
Perception

Ecological Capital Locality

Social Capital Environment

Sustainable Economicl Development Capital Political Capital Relationship

Cultural Capital

Action

123

The PEARL Model of Sustainable Development

21

when this divergence is created by false information or by the abuse of the internal motives of the perceiver without his/her knowledge. If relevant for the purpose, this fundament might include basic principles of marketing that also start by the same initial P. Within this sense, the P of the PEARL signies that conventional principles of marketing (product, price, promotion, place, person) are signicant and should not contradict with perception friendliness (as the 6th P) nor shall they underestimate environment, action, relationship and locality. The second fundament (environment) refers to ecology in broad sense. It also embraces the general milieu which includes the connectedness between nature and humans. The third fundament (action) goes beyond corporate social responsibility projects and includes every collaborative initiative which contributes to SD at individual, institutional and regional levels. The fourth fundament (relationship) focuses on environment oriented action on diverse aspects of governance carried out by different actors and stake holders (including rms, governments, NGOs, local authorities, volunteers etc.). The fth fundament, (locality) emphasizes the contribution of localities and indigenous knowledge to individuals, institutions and societies. It also indicates the signicance of understanding and implementing local norms and values in individual and managerial decisions for sustainability.

2 The Limits and Promises of the PEARL Different SD approaches are useful according to case specic issues. Each approach has an appropriate time and place, but in most cases both (quantitative and qualitative) approaches will generally be required to address different aspects of a problem and to answer questions which the other approach cannot answer as well or cannot answer at all (Carvalho and White 1997, p. v). The PEARL refers to current era characterized by a controversy between human activities and sustainability of structures and values which are important to improve quality of life. Undoubtedly, the model, just like every other one, has many questions that it can not deal with. Yet it may be helpful: 1. To implement SD as a corporate strategy which offers competitive advantage: The deviation of hard/strong sustainability, which implies that renewable resources must not be drawn down faster than they can be renewed, from soft/weak sustainability, which accepts that certain resources can be depleted as long as others can substitute them over time, shows how practical restrictions force institutions to monitor more feasible approaches (Krueger and Agyeman 2005, pp. 410417). Nevertheless, corporations, even individuals, tend to consider social and environmental responsibilities as additional costs which do not create desirable levels of benets. The PEARL model introduces a corporate strategy which shows that it may be possible to productively combine going ethical and going green and implement this combination as an institutional philosophy. 2. To facilitate learning, teaching and recalling sustainable development: The Brundtland Report (UNWCED 1987) made SD one of the most signicant cornerstones of contemporary development theory by putting the relation between economy and the environment in practice. Throughout late 1980 and 1990s, development notion gained a conceptual enrichment (Bardhan 1997). SD notion attained a scientic maturity (Cooper and Vargas 2004). Nevertheless conceptual, contextual and theoretical enrichment of SD has also created elusiveness of SD discourse as shown by recent studies (Phillis and Andriantiatsaholiniaina 2001, pp. 435456). This complex

123

22

M. Bilgin

structure becomes problematic especially for new learners, who are deprived of technical notions, and for non-academic institutions, which are either unaware or unwilling to learn and implement sustainability. Managers in capitalist institutions and government departments (and people in the SD industry) know about some aspects of environmental management, and accept that some areas of corporate social responsibility have become part of the equation, but they generally have not read or been educated in the areacertainly not in any critical senseand depend upon a limited and controlled discourse for their own conceptions (Springett 2003, p. 83). This inadequacy cannot be explained only by individual or institutional unwillingness based on budgetary constraints. The economic system is driving business in a predominantly unsustainable direction yet the vague meaning of sustainability for business as an impediment still deserves further interest (Boron and Murray 2004, pp. 6573). Therefore, it is necessary to attain a comprehensive structure that harmonizes the quest for economic growth with environmental, cultural and socioeconomic concerns within a single framework. The PEARL model embraces contemporary sustainability criteria by combining the capital initials of chosen fundaments within a meaningful word; where by P refers to Perception; E to Environment; A to Action; R to Relationship; and L to Locality. This syntax anchoring provides a comprehensive structure that is easy to understand, teach and recall. 3. To introduce perception friendliness as a new sustainable development criterion without making the rhetoric more complex: Issues of perceptions are signicant, though neglected to a certain extent, criteria of SD. Information based on false perceptions and manipulative images create at least two negative consequences that decelerate the rise of SD as a common understanding. First, corporations can gain ecological reputation by using false perceptions and manipulative images throughout their advertisement and public relations activities. Second, individuals might make decisions of buying, deciding and voting by following false perceptions and manipulative images and undermine the real effect of this act on SD. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the use of false information and manipulative images as factors that hamper SD. This adoption might create further enrichment of SD which has already become a complex notion for new learners and non-professionals. The PEARL model embeds perception friendliness as a new criterion of SD within a structure appropriate for syntax anchoring which at the end serves for pedagogical concerns as well. 4. To propose a structure appropriate for assessment and indexing at individual, institutional and regional levels of analyses: There are many indexes (DJSI 2003; ESI 2005; SF 2003) which aim to assess the sustainability of regions, corporations and concerned institutions. These indexes are not thought for individual assessment, nor is there a model or an index applied at individual, institutional and regional systemic levels of analyses through the same framework. The values of the PEARL model may be transformed into tangible criteria to attain quantitative indicators. If this applies, it may be possible to make an ordinary individual to evaluate his/her standing with regard to SD through the same framework that might assess SD at corporate and regional levels of analyses. 5. To offer a exible understanding of SD which might help contribute to sustainable development without endangering their main scope of activity: The PEARL assumes that corporations pursue economic growth and suggest that their activities fall in SD criteria in terms of ve aspects: (1) Institutional behaviours on the basis of being perception friendly; (2) Environmental and general milieu on the basis of being

123

The PEARL Model of Sustainable Development

23

environment friendly; (3) Corporate responsibility for social projects on the basis of being action committed; (4) Efciency through governance on the basis of being relationship oriented; (5) Regional responsiveness on the basis of being locality committed. The fundaments of P and E are indispensable principles; while commitments to A, R and L are also indispensable, but may acquire different weights according to market realities and public demands. This exibility offers paths to individuals and institutions whose daily activities necessarily contradict with certain SD principles. That is to say, an institution or an individual that creates a negative effect on fundament P or E (e.g. carbon foot print to go to work) might invest in fundaments A, R and L in order to balance its activities and acquire a high rating from a possible index.

3 Structure of the PEARL Model Amongst the many models and indexes, some of which will be mentioned in the last section, Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) can be considered as one of the most developed in content, and deserves to be chosen as a point of reference and comparison to the PEARL model. Table 1 indicates that the structure of the PEARL is appropriate to embrace 76 data sets and all the variables of ESI, which in its current form, does not consider perception friendliness as a criterion of SD. The PEARL comprises of elds of analysis, contents, indicators, variables and methods of assessment as shown in Table 1. Production, marketing, psychology, psychiatry and communication are the primary inter-disciplinary contents of fundament P. Individual, institutional and societal levels constitute the components to evaluate the characteristics of the used language in terms of its being communicative and/or dominative. The aim is to detect the deviations of perceptions from realities. Identication of false information, disinformation and external manipulation on sub-conscious imprints as well as the quality of individual value judgment and misperceptions through discourse analyses, surveys, tests and experiments constitute the methodology of measurement. Environment, ecology and economy are primary inter-disciplinary contents of fundament E. Environmental systems and reduction of environmental stresses are two components leading to two indicators: (1) Effects on air quality, biodiversity, land, water quality and quantity; (2) Contribution to reducing air pollution, ecosystem stress, waste and consumption pressures and water stress. The ways how an individual or a corporation affects these indicators match up with the variables. Measurement of this component depends on quantitative and qualitative data processes. Effect or contribution to relevant variable, lab analyses on air, water soil qualities and quality changes are examples of quantitative assessment. Fundament A embraces business administration, global and international relations, public administration and sociology as inter-disciplinary features. Reduction of human vulnerability and contribution to societal progress are two basic components. Two main indicators are: (1) Contribution to environmental health, basic human sustenance, alleviation of environment related natural disaster vulnerability; (2) Relevant social responsibility projects. The variables are linked to effect on or contribution through social responsibility initiatives and projects. The inter-disciplinary contents of fundament R can be stated as corporate social responsibility, marketing, public relations and governance. The components are: (1) Social

123

24

Table 1 The PEARL Model Indicators Variables Method of assessment

123
1, 2 & 3. Effects on perception pollution. Percentage of dominative language through out the promotion of the discourse. False information and disinformation. External manipulation on subconscious imprints and individual value judgment. Misperceptions. Effect or contribution to relevant variable. Identifying false information, disinformation and external manipulation on sub-conscious imprints and individual value judgment. General causes of misperceptions. (Discourse analysis, surveys, tests and experiments). Quantitative and qualitative data process. Effect or contribution to relevant variable. (Lab analyses on air, water soil qualities and quality changes). 1. Effects on air quality, biodiversity, land, water quality and quantity. 2. Contribution to reducing air pollution, ecosystem stress, waste and consumption pressures, water stress. 1. Contribution to environmental health, basic human sustenance, alleviation of environment related natural disaster vulnerability. 2. Relevant social responsibility projects. Effect on or contribution to relevant variable. 1. Effect or contribution to relevant variable. 2. Independent surveys and eld studies.

Fundaments

Primary interdisciplinary contents

Components

Perception.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. Individual. Production. 2. Targeted segments. Marketing. 3. Society. Psychology. Psychiatry. Communication.

Environment.

1. Environment. 2. Ecology. 3. Economy.

1. Environmental systems. 2. Reducing environmental stresses.

Action.

1. Business administration. 2. International relations. 3. Public administration.

1. Reducing human vulnerability. 2. Contribution to societal progress.

M. Bilgin

Table 1 continued Indicators Variables Method of assessment

Fundaments

Primary interdisciplinary contents Effect on or contribution to relevant variable. 1 & 2. Effect or contribution to relevant variable. 3. Independent surveys and eld studies.

Components

The PEARL Model of Sustainable Development

Relationship.

1. Contribution to environmental 1. Corporate social 1. Social and governance, eco-efciency, institutional responsibility. sector responsiveness, capacity. 2. Marketing. contribution to science and 3. Public relations. 2. Global stewardship. technology. 3. Relationship 4. Governance. 2. Participation in international marketing collaborative efforts, orientation (RMO). contribution to reduction of 4. Governance. greenhouse gas emissions, transboundary environmental pressures. 3-4. Long term buyerseller relationship, long term institution-society relationship. Effect on or contribution to relevant variable.

Locality.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. The use of local values 1. Respect to local Sociology. regarding goods and services, values (cultural and Anthropology. respect to local values social). Development. Cultural studies. 2. Contribution to local throughout marketing activities. 2. Contribution to local modes of as an idiosyncratic Micro-nance. life. productive space. 3. Contribution to local 2 & 3. Cooperation with local as to integrate it with actors. global economy without endangering sustainability. All PEARL indicators.

Independent surveys, tests, interviews, local information, eld studies.

PEARL All disciplines MODELING. included.

All PEARL components.

All PEARL variables.

Data processing through PEARL.

25

123

26

M. Bilgin

and institutional capacity; (2) Global stewardship; (3) Relationship marketing orientation; and (4) Governance. The indicators which correspond to the variables can be stated as: (1) Contribution to environmental governance; (2) Eco-efciency; (3) Sector responsiveness; (4) Contribution to science and technology; (5) Participation in international collaborative efforts; 6- Contribution to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; (7) Transboundary environmental pressures; (8) Long term buyerseller relationship; and (9) Long term institution-society relationship. Assessment of the effects on relevant variables is used for measurement along with independent surveys and eld studies. Sociology, anthropology, development, micro-nance and cultural studies constitute the inter-disciplinary contents of locality. Reduction of human vulnerability and contribution to societal progress are the two components where as the indicators are: (1) Contribution to environmental health, basic human sustenance, alleviation of environment related natural disaster vulnerability and; (2) Relevant social responsibility projects. Independent surveys, tests, interviews, local analyses and other relevant eld studies are taught for measurement of this fundament.

4 Comprehensiveness of the PEARL 4.1 Fundament P Contemporary market economies are characterized by a total engagement to add sign value to the use of goods, services and social interaction. On the one hand, this type of value making can be criticized because it might obscure people to make rational buying, voting and judgment decisions due to manipulation of their desires (George 2004, pp. 365377). On the other hand, replacement or enrichment of real experience by signication cannot be totally rejected as a dominative mechanism. Signication may also be liberatory for consumers when the signs allow them to create their peculiar symbolic worlds (Firat and Venkatesh 1995, pp. 239267). Furthermore, the positive use of conscious and unconscious imprints may create better responses to consumer or voter demands and help to attain more effective communication as described by Leiss et al. (1990). Yet symbolic values are questionable for their effects that jeopardize the notion of SD. The mainstreamed castigation of merely symbolic eco-politics and the rm resolve of advanced consumer democracies to defend the core principles of democratic consumer capitalism take place with a fundamental transformation of the ways in which late-modern societies frame and process their environmental problems, but also for the exhaustion of authentic eco-politics which, by implication, renders the critique of merely symbolic politics questionable hdorn 2007, p. 251). (Blu Within this context, the PEARL model suggests that not the sign value (as it may be an indicator of status, freedom, aesthetics or any other individual meaning) but how this sign value is obtained out of articial image building creates social externalities, which contradict with the core idea of sustainability. It puts forward that false information and psychological manoeuvres throughout promotion activities create negative externalities that hamper sustainability at regional and global levels. The strategy of modern advertising is persuasion through logical reasoning, irrationally through inating desire, in postmodern advertising it operates through seducing, exciting and hypnotizing (Yakhlef 1999, ve psychological p. 141). False information as well as irresponsible, obsessive or na manoeuvres based on manipulation of sub-conscious imprints for articial seducing, exciting and hypnotizing, (which is dominative language for this article) should not be

123

The PEARL Model of Sustainable Development

27

ignored in terms of their effects on sustainability. The PEARL, indeed, puts forward perception friendliness as the fth P of basic marketing principles (in addition to product, price, promotion, place and person) in order to balance these kinds of manoeuvres. It suggests that the perceived values should be coming from the exact qualities and quantities of what is being perceived. The use of dominative language in marketing makes conspicuous consumption a thoroughly expressive activity and highly problematic for actors with ambitions to design a rd 2005, p. 324). There are at least three sustainable future (Dobers and Strannega remarkable effects of dominative language: (1) Messages and signals which take the advantage of unconscious cultural archetypes and subconscious imprints limit individual freedom in case of people, who are, somehow, unable or unwilling to judge the motives of psychological manoeuvres; (2) When individuals pay too much attention on perceived values obtained out of false information or psychological manipulation, they tend to ignore the effects of the concerned good or service on nature and on other sustainability values; (3) ve professionals Psychological manoeuvres carried out by irresponsible, obsessive or na have direct negative effects upon society, as individuals might implement similar strategies to manipulate others. Therefore, manipulation of perceptions can be stated as amongst one of the most signicant factors that impede the rise of eco-synchronous society, which, according to Hay, refers to unfolding of the self as well as his/her awareness to get sync with nature and become more sustainable (Hay 2005, pp. 311323, 2006, pp. 115). Regarding institutions; perception friendliness may be implemented as a proactive strategy not only to keep the loyalty of the concerned marketing segments, but also to sustain a real corporate culture and confront the global price competition. There are at least three reasons that appeal for more attention on being perception friendly in addition to three concerns for sustainability as mentioned above: First; some surveys show that when consumers in mature market economies gather knowledge about persuasion agents goals and tactics they develop skills to cope with them. Misleading and deceptive persuasion attempts strengthen the resistance of the consumer against external environments to minimize their cognitive efforts and protect their existing attitudes (Friestad and Wright 1994, pp. 131). Second; communicative language is essential for corporations and institutions not only as a means of increasing corporate reliability, but also as a means of keeping their corporate cultures real rather than pseudo. Corporations and institutions using dominative language tend to suffer from pseudo-corporate culture, which manifests itself strongly as perceptions obtained out of images, but weakly as realities. Individuals workplace behaviours are functions of all different cultures simultaneously (Karahanna et al. 2005, pp. 120) and this milieu distorts the corporate culture if the concerned institution promotes dominative language. Third; globalization facilitates not only the spread of images, but also goods and services regardless of where and how they are being produced. Corporations will likely feel the necessity of reducing their investment in psychological manoeuvres and transform their gains into price advantages supported by perception and environment friendliness as well as commitments to action, relationship and locality. Indeed, fundament P is not only a signicant criterion of SD, which has remained out of sight up to now, but also a forthcoming decisive factor in global competition. 4.2 Fundament E The PEARL implements its second fundament, environment, with regard to its conventional understanding of ecology on the one hand, in terms of its connectedness with perceptions on the other.

123

28

M. Bilgin

1. Regarding conventional understanding of ecology: Environment is, and naturally shall be, the most fundamental concern of sustainability. Just like other models, the PEARL considers environment as a core value because ecological initiatives are still insufcient when compared with the urgency of the problems on the one hand, to the scope of industrial activities on the other. The most signicant problems that ask for immediate answers can be categorized in terms of unsafe and scarce drinking water and inadequate sanitation, indoor and local air pollution, food security, and global warming.

1- Unsafe and scarce drinking water and inadequate sanitation (1 billion people do not have access to adequate supplies of clean water, and that 3 million people die every year of water-borne diseases. Around 90 per cent of malaria cases in the world are attributable to environmental factors). 2- Indoor and local air pollution. It is estimated that 2 million people die every year as a result of exposure to indoor pollution. Local pollution also poses a health hazard in many large cities, and increased urbanization may lead to even greater health problems caused by environmental factors. 3- Food security (healthy food and long-term security of supply). Organic chemicals and heavy metals that persist in the environment and accumulate through the food chain may have adverse effects on human health, leading to cancer, reduced fertility and neurological damage. Security of supply depends on conserving soil productivity and protecting genetic diversity, as well as on how the resources are used. 4- Global warming. Climate and weather affect human health in many ways. Storms, hurricanes and oods kill thousands of people every year and increase the risk of contaminated water (Jagland 2001). Recent studies show that we are running out of land and water resources also in regions which are assumed to be not menaced up to now (WWF 2002). In fact, global environmental degradation is inclined to create hazardous effects on future generations almost in all of the countries. That is to say, SD models should consider, as PEARL aims to do, these environmental problems, evaluate human effect on ecology and attempt to develop measures to sustain an ecologic balance. 2. Regarding the relation between environment and perceptions: It must be emphasized that global competition makes world system contradict with the idea of SD (Carvalho 2001, pp. 6173). Being environmental friendly is a matter of investment which brings additional costs. These costs are not considered as an investment for competitive strategy or a part of corporate social responsibility because actors, who do not invest in environment and allocate their resources for image building, think that they will acquire better short term results through dominative language. Perception management, for instance, promises more sales for branded goods and services when compared with their identical twins with less brand equities (Srinivasan et al. 2005, pp. 1,4331,448) whether be them more or less ecological friendly. There are not empirical studies, at least up to my knowledge despite my efforts, which show how false information and manipulative marketing are creating negative effects on sustainability. Yet many cases, which of course do not fall in this category, indicate that individuals, who are not aware of marketing techniques, are open to confusions when making their preferences. They think that the products and services with higher brand equities offer better qualities. To exemplify; upgrading Geo Prizm to a Toyota Corolla, should not matter under normal conditions because the Corolla is the identical

123

The PEARL Model of Sustainable Development

29

twin of Prizm, made by the same manufacturing facility in Fremont, Calif; only the name and the brand image is different: However, people think that the quality of Corolla is higher than Prizm as they pay more for the brand value (Rigoglioso 2006). Another classical example is Coke. Coca Colas diet elixir proves better results than Diet Pepsi throughout blind taste tests in contrast to branded taste tests in which Diet Pepsi is more preferred (Rigoglioso 2006). Similar deviations are possible in every aspect of life. The link of perceptions to SD becomes more striking when we think that some reputations might be obtained not from personal identication with brands as shown by the above examples, but from false information or dominative marketing techniques which, for some scholars, are being applied in all areas of human endeavours from industry to religion; from commerce to politics and it is also widely accepted that similar psychological and behavioural principles govern voting and buying (OCass and Pecotich 2005, pp. 406413). Therefore, not only the environment, but also the link of perceptions to environmental consequences shall be considered as a signicant part of SD. 4.3 Fundaments A, R and L The PEARL suggests that action, relationship and locality are important areas to include within sustainability notion as the third, fourth and fth fundaments, along with perception and environment friendliness which were the rst and the second ones. It is necessary to concentrate on sustainable livelihoods and well-being, rather than well-having, and long term environmental sustainability, rather than short term projects, all capable of linking the social and environmental to human equity (Hopwood et al. 2005, pp. 3852). We all accept that contemporary understanding of sustainability shall be multidimensional and trans-disciplinary to integrate economic growth with environmental, social and cultural concerns (Cabezas et al. 2005, pp. 455456). Nevertheless economic, competitive and informative restraints limit the ability of actors to attribute equal weights to all of these criteria. Some concerned actors are not able to decrease the negative effects of their legal activities on perceptions and environment in order to cope with competition. Commitments to A, R and L help the PEARL to integrate economic growth with environmental, social and cultural aspects and become responsive to societal demands within a trans-disciplinary and a comprehensive approach. It allows actors, which by denition cannot raise their environment and perception friendliness above a certain degree, to balance their negative effects and prove their contribution to sustainability. Within this sense, action includes not only environment and perception friendly activities but also other social responsibility projects that are not directly related to the main eld of business or profession, but contribute to SD directly or indirectly. Public demand for social responsibility commitments such as better climate change, labour standards, human rights etc. has started to grow and supported calls for increased selfregulation on the part of rms and institutions (Muller 2006, pp. 189198). The third fundament of the PEARL model, action, therefore, goes beyond corporate social responsibility projects and matches with the fourth fundament; that is to say relationship among diverse parties including individuals. The PEARL brings out commitment to relationship as the fourth fundament. Relationship signies governance which is necessary for SD to balance social, political and economic concerns with environment distresses. It identies the ways how an institution may consolidate its reputation, efciency and brand value by creating a reciprocal

123

30

M. Bilgin

connectedness with concerned parties including stakeholders and localities. Firms, states, government branches and other institutions need to cooperate with their stake holders in order to increase the efciency of their activities. This is why sustainability management derbaum 2004, pp. 4160) and localnecessitates more governance with stakeholders (So ities (Joyce 2008). Locality is the fth and the nal, though not the least important, fundament; the signicance of which is highly appreciated for global sustainability. A local political ecology is explicitly developed from an agenda set by local people, and that includes longterm advocacy work (Batterbury and Bebbington 1999, p. 285). The local aspect of SD for the PEARL model is interrelated to the global system. This is why the fth fundament of the PEARL includes mainly, but not limited to, three subjects: (1) The contribution of localities and indigenous knowledge to individuals, institutions and societies (e.g. ecotourism, primitive but sustainable ways of production etc.); (2) The signicance of understanding and implementing local norms and values in individual and managerial decisions (e.g. the case of global actors searching for local branches); (3) The need for localities as disconnected spaces for global sustainability. The third aspect of locality envisages a sort of intactness or disconnection, yet certain degree of articulation with the global system is indispensable, as the contrary would condemn people who are born local to remain local (Bilgin 2007, pp. 445465). Therefore, the PEARL takes locality, not as closed communities but as an idiosyncratic way of life, which comprises indigenous or regional production and integrates with the global market.

5 Some Empirical Analyses and Assessment of the PEARL In a recent study, Bilgin (2009) indicated that although applications of a number of companies such as Bosch, BP and GE prove extensive commitment to SD, they lack the holistic understanding of the PEARL model. Bosch, BP and GE, which respectively express SD on the basis of corporate culture, environmental commitment and social responsibility, skip at least three signicant fundaments covered by the PEARL model. Regarding country approaches; selected developed countries (sampled by the US, Canada, Europe and Japan) are mainly concerned with the perceived value of their goods and services (Bilgin 2006). They make massive investments in perception management and consider environment only within corporate social responsibility projects so far as additional commitments contribute to their brand values. Increasing costs, however, do not only limit projects which are supposed to contribute to SD, but also offer competitive advantage to goods and services of certain rapidly developing countries (sampled by Chinese and local Indian) which do not invest in perceived value and environment as much as the others to gain cost advantages. The PEARL model indicates how these applications miss certain fundaments of SD and highlights areas of investment to balance the negative consequences on SD (Bilgin 2009). These analyses show the possible contributions of the PEARL model. It is also necessary to elaborate to what extent the model is appropriate for measurement. Models shall not be out of quantitative assessment. Neither the scope of the problems nor the validity of solutions can be recognized without measurement. SD studies necessitate connectedness between qualitative and quantitative approaches (White 2002, p. 511). The lack of clarity [in certain cases] about the core themes of -sustainable development- has generally resulted in a reliance on management concepts and languagefor example, reference was made a number of times to the precept if it cant be measured, it cant be managed (Springett

123

The PEARL Model of Sustainable Development

31

2003, p. 82). It is, therefore, necessary to examine the PEARL model in order to understand to what extent it is appropriate for measurement. This elaboration might also help showing whether the normative fundaments of this model can be transformed into quantitative indicators which allow a PEARL index of SD. Assessment of the PEARL brings out certain difculties, as well as practical solutions, depending on the fundament. Fundament P embraces individual, targeted segments and society as the components at three levels of analyses. These components correspond to two indicators, which can respectively be stated as respect to preference freedom and contribution to sound value judgment. The variables that may facilitate implementation and assessment of these indicators may be obtained out of surveys and discourse analyses measuring the types and degrees of false information and external manipulation on subconscious imprints. Assessment of fundament E is quite achievable. Measurement of environmental indicators has become one of the most geared up methods of different SD indexes. There are many models which implement quantitative methods to weigh different variables. Pilot environmental performance index (WEF 2002), index of environmental friendliness Consultants 2001), Dow Jones sustain(Statistics Finland 2003), eco-indicator 99 (Pre ability index (DJSI 2003) are few of the many alternatives as stated by Krajnc and Glavic (2005, p. 192). Meanwhile, ESI appears as a benchmark which integrates ve broad categories, 76 data setstracking natural resource endowments, past and present pollution levels, environmental management efforts, and the capacity of a society to improve its environmental performanceinto 21 indicators of environmental sustainability. 1- Environmental Systems (1- air quality, 2- biodiversity, 3- land, 4- water quality, 5water quantity) 2- Reducing Environmental Stresses (6- reducing air pollution, 7reducing ecosystem stress, 8- reducing population pressure, 9- reducing waste and consumption pressures, 10- reducing water stress, 11- natural resource management) 3- Reducing Human Vulnerability to Environmental Stresses (12- environmental health, 13- basic human sustenance, 14- reducing environment related natural disaster vulnerability) 4- Societal and Institutional Capacity to Respond to Environmental Challenges (15- environmental governance, 16- eco efciency, 17- private sector responsiveness, 18- Science and technology) 5- Global Stewardship (19participation in international collaborative efforts, 20- greenhouse gas emissions, 21reducing transboundary environmental pressures (Esty et al. 2005, p. 14). In fact, ESI is one of the most developed indexes in terms of comprehensiveness and can be referred as a benchmark in order to conclude whether the PEARL might include these quantitative fundaments through a structure that is easier to understand, adopt and implement. The ESI category of environmental systems is measurable by variables such as urban population weighted to NO2 and SO2 with regard to air quality and by number of amphibian species and national biodiversity index with regard to biodiversity and selected ecological clusters. The category of reducing environmental stresses is measurable on the basis of variables such as anthropogenic NOx, SO2 emissions per populated land area, total fertility rate and ecological footprint per capita. Furthermore, ESI generates socio-political variables such as corruption measure as well as civil and political liberties under environmental governance; energy efciency under eco-efciency, number of ISO 14001 certied companies per million dollars in GDP under private sector responsiveness; innovation index under science and technology and so on. The fth category (global stewardship) states participation in international environmental agreements, carbon emissions per capita, SO2 exports etc. as variables of relevant indicators.

123

32

M. Bilgin

All of these variables can be clustered at least within one of the PEARL fundaments; where as the PEARL broadens and deepens the quality of quantitative analysis by including false information and manipulative marketing as well. Fundament E of the PEARL model consists of environmental systems and reducing environmental stresses as the components. The rst component refers to indicators such as the effect of the concerned institution on air quality, biodiversity, land, water quality and water quantity. The second component embraces contribution to reducing air pollution, ecosystem stress, waste and consumption pressures, water stress etc. as indicators. Commitments to A, R and L necessitate direct market analyses whereby market goes beyond mere understanding of consumer behaviour and embraces responsiveness and connectedness to concerned actors and structures. Assessment of these commitments may be sustained either through institutional analyses carried out by individual means or by the help of relevant organizations. Together with their corresponding variables, contribution to environmental health, basic human sustenance, and alleviation of environment related natural disaster vulnerability are the indicators of the rst component. The second component comprises of relevant social responsibility projects as indicators. Fundament R includes ESI components of social and institutional capacity and global stewardship on the one hand, embraces its specic component entitled relationship marketing orientation on the other. Contribution to environmental governance, eco-efciency, sector responsiveness, support to science and technology can be stated as the indicators of the rst component. Participation in international collaborative efforts, contribution to reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and transboundary environmental pressures are the indicators of the second component. The third component embraces long term buyer seller relationship and long term institution-society relationship as indicators. The fth fundament, that is to say L, employs respect to local values and contribution to local as a disconnected social space. The indicators can be measured through a cluster of: the use of local values regarding goods and services, respect to local values throughout marketing activities, contributing to perpetuation of local modes of life, and cooperation with local actors. This analysis shows that: (1) the PEARL model can embrace indicators set by WEF, Consultants, DJSI and ESI; (2) broaden the context by Statistics Finland, eco-indicator; Pre introducing new criteria because fundament P is absent in all of the existing models; and (3) is appropriate for quantitative assessment and indexing.

6 Conclusion The way how we dene, measure and assess SD at different scales is a very important issue and of relevance to individuals, businesses and policy makers. The PEARL addresses perception, environment, action, relationship and locality as social values and intertwines SD notion with individual level of choices in terms of actions such as buying, voting and communicating. Theoretically; the PEARL locates perception as a new criterion of SD and combines the motives and consequences of individual choices, such as consuming and voting, with market strategies. It shows the signicance of institutional integrity for SD and draws attention that the use of false and misleading information, as well as some manipulative techniques of marketing, is not compatible with the idea of sustainability. Pedagogically; the model is comprehensive enough to include institutional behaviours on the basis of being perception friendly; environmental and general milieu on the basis of

123

The PEARL Model of Sustainable Development

33

being environment friendly; corporate responsibility for social projects on the basis of being action committed; efciency through governance on the basis of being relationship oriented; and nally, regional responsiveness on the basis of being locality committed. This comprehensive structure is summarized through the word the PEARL, which is expected to facilitate learning and recalling the content. Practically; the PEARL offers a qualitative understanding. The indicators are a mix of objective, subjective, measurable and self-reporting variables and there is a need for further analyses on the interaction between perceptions and other SD fundaments. The issues of data availability, comparability and standardisation appear as the challenges to quantify the qualitative structure of the model. Yet the comparative study with regard to existing indexes showed that the PEARL fundaments and variables were appropriate for quantitative analysis.

References
Bardhan, P. (1997). The role of governance in economic development. Paris: OECD Development Centre. Batterbury, S. P. J., & Bebbington, A. J. (1999). Environmental histories, access to resources and landscape change: an introduction. Land Degradation & Development, 10(4), 279288. Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2001). Breaking through the glass ceiling: Who really cares about sustainability indicators? Local Environment, 6, 291309. Bell, S., & Morse, S. (2005). Delivering sustainability therapy in sustainable development projects. Journal of Environmental Management, 75(1), 3751. Bilgin, M. (2006). On civilized plurality: Mapping the clash of civilizations within the market. Futures, 38(3), 247260. Bilgin, M. (2007). Signicance of indigenous locality for global sustainable development. In N. P. Rabindra & O. Schwarz-Herion (Eds.), Sustainable development: Issues and perspectives (pp. 445465). New Delhi: D. K. Printworld. Bilgin, M. (2009). The PEARL Model: Gaining competitive advantage through sustainable development. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(3), 545554. hdorn, I. (2007). Sustaining the unsustainable: Symbolic politics and the politics of simulation. EnviBlu ronmental Politics, 16(2), 251275. Bockermann, A., Meyer, B., Omann, I., & Spangenberg, J. H. (2005). Modelling sustainability: Comparing an econometric (PANTA RHEI) and a systems dynamics model (SuE). Journal of Policy Modeling, 27(2), 189210. Boron, S., & Murray, K. (2004). Bridging the unsustainability gap: A framework for sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 12(2), 6573. Cabezas, H. C., Pawlowski, C. W., Mayer, A. L., & Hoagland, N. T. (2005). Sustainable systems theory: Ecological and other aspects. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(5), 455467. Carvalho, G. O. (2001). Sustainable development: Is it achievable within the existing international political economy context? Sustainable Development, 9(2), 6173. Carvalho, S., & White, H. (1997). Combining the quantitative and qualitative approaches to poverty measurement and analysis. World Bank technical paper, 366, Washington. http://129.3.20.41/eps/dev/ papers/0505/0505003.pdf, Accessed 11 April 2007. Cooper, P. J., & Vargas, C. M. (2004). Implementing sustainable development: From global policy to local action. Lanham: Roweld Publishers. Decleris, M. (2000). The law of sustainable development: General principles. Report produced for the European Commission. Luxembourg: Ofce for ofcial publications of the European Communities http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/law/pdf/sustlaw.pdf, Accessed 12 April 2007. rd, L. (2005). Design, lifestyles and sustainability: Aesthetic consumption in a world Dobers, P., & Strannega of abundance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(5), 324336. Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes, (DJSI). (2003). Dow Jones sustainability world indexes guide, version 5.0. http://www.sustainability-index.com, Accessed 7 May 2006. ESI. (2005). Summary for policymakers. SEDAC, Columbia University http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/ esi/ESI2005_policysummary.pdf, Accessed 7 May 2006.

123

34

M. Bilgin

Esty, D. C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T., & De Sherbinin, A. (2005). Environmental sustainability index: Benchmarking national environmental stewardship. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/esi/ESI2005_Main_Report.pdf, Accessed 6 May 2006. Finger, M. (2008). Which governance for sustainable development. In J. Park, K. Conca, & M. Finger (Eds.), The crisis of global environmental governance (pp. 3457). Oxon: Routledge. Firat, F. A., & Venkatesh, A. (1995). Liberatory postmodernism and the reenchantment of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 239267. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 131. Fuchs, D. A., & Lorek, S. (2005). Sustainable consumption governance: A history of promises and failures. Journal of Consumer Policy, 28(3), 261288. George, D. (2004). Are unpreferred preferences weak in symbolic content?. Review of Social Economy, LXII (3), 365377. Hay, R. (2005). Becoming ecosynchronous, part 1: The root causes of our unsustainable way of life. Sustainable Development, 13(5), 311325. Hay, R. (2006). Becoming ecosynchronous, part 2: Achieving sustainable development via personal development. Sustainable Development, 14(1), 115. Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & OBrien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 3852. Isenmann, R. (2003). Industrial ecology: Shedding more light on its perspective of understanding nature as model. Sustainable Development, 11(3), 143158. Jagland, T. (2001). Everything connects. Our planet http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/122/jagland.html, Accessed 16 May 2007. Joyce, S. D. (2008). Keep the world green just by buying locally. Sustainable Living, 6 August 2006 http://archive.recordonline.com/archive/2006/08/06/news-sustain06-08-06.html, Accessed 15 April 2008. Karahanna, E., Evaristo, J. R., & Srite, M. (2005). Levels of culture and individual behaviour: An integrative perspective. Journal of Global Information Management, 13(2), 120. , P. (2005). A model for integrated assessment of sustainable development. Resources, Krajnc, D., & Glavic Conservation and Recycling, 43(2), 189208. Kronenberg, J. (2007). Making consumption reasonable. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(6), 557566. Krueger, R., & Agyeman, J. (2005). Sustainability schizophrenia or actually existing sustainabilities? toward a broader understanding of the politics and promise of local sustainability in the US. Geoforum, 36(4), 410417. Leiss, W., Kline, S., & Jhally, S. (1990). Social communication in advertising. London: Routledge. Muller, A. (2006). Global Versus Local CSR Strategies. European Management Journal, 24(23), 189198. OCass, A., & Pecotich, A. (2005). The dynamics of voter behaviour and inuence processes in electoral markets: a consumer behaviour perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 406413. Phillis, Y. A., & Andriantiatsaholiniaina, L. A. (2001). Sustainability: An ill-dened concept and its assessment using fuzzy logic. Ecological Economics, 37(3), 435456. Consultants. (2001). The Eco-indicator 99a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment Pre http://www.pre.nl/, Accessed 6 June 2007. Rigoglioso, M. (2006). Calculating the dollar value of brand equity. SGSB research paper http://www.gsb. stanford.edu/news/research/mktg_srinivasan_brandequity.shtml, Accessed 17 July 2007. Ropke, I. (2001). The environmental impact of changing consumption patterns: A survey. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 15(2), 127145. derbaum, P. (2001). Political economic person, ideological orientation and institutional change: On So competition between schemes of interpretation in economics. Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, 12(3), 179197. derbaum, P. (2004). Decision processes and decision-making in relation to sustainable development and So democracywhere do we stand? Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, 14, 4160. Spangenberg, J. H. (2001). Investing in sustainable development: The reproduction of manmade, human, natural and social capital. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 4(2), 184201. Spangenberg, J. H. (2005). Economic sustainability of the economy: Concepts and indicators. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(12), 4764. Springett, D. (2003). Business conceptions of sustainable development: A perspective from critical theory. Business Strategy and the Environment, 12(2), 7186. Srinivasan, V. S., Park, C. S., & Chang, D. R. (2005). An approach to the measurement, analysis, and prediction of brand equity and its sources. Management Science, 51(9), 14331448.

123

The PEARL Model of Sustainable Development

35

Stagl, S., & OHara, S. (2002). Motivating factors and barriers to sustainable consumer behaviour. International Journal of Agricultural Resources Governance and Ecology, 2(1), 7588. Statistics Finland. (2003). Index of environmental friendliness http://www.stat./tk/yr/ye22_en.html, Accessed 5 July 2007. UNWCED. (1987). Our common future, Brundtland commission report. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Welford, R. J. (Ed.). (1997). Hijacking environmentalism: Corporate responses to sustainable development. London: Earthscan. Welford, R. J. (1998). Corporate environmental management, technology and sustainable development: Postmodern perspectives and the need for a critical research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7(1), 112. White, H. (2002). Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in poverty analysis. World Development, 30(3), 511522. World Economic Forum (WEF) (2002). Pilot environmental performance index, an initiative of the global leaders of tomorrow environment task force, annual meeting http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicato rs/ESI/EPI2002_11FEB02.pdf, Accessed 3 October 2007. WWF. (2002). Living planet report. Gland: WWF International http://www.wwf.org.uk/-lelibrary/-pdf/ livingplanet2002.pdf, Accessed 19 February 2007. Yakhlef, A. (1999). Mapping the consumer-subject in advertising. Consumption Markets and Culture, 3(2), 129144.

123