Frameworks Without Ground: A Critical Review of Sustainability Concept Development and Its Limits for Alternative Economic Thought

Sustainable development discourse has operated for over three decades under an unresolved foundational tension: the Brundtland Commission's canonical 1987 definition accommodated continued economic growth as a political condition of international consensus, while the ecological systems that definition was designed to protect have continued to deteriorate. By 2023, six of nine quantified planetary boundaries had been transgressed. This paper conducts a thematic review of seventeen papers spanning the bibliometric, normative-ecological, and political-economic traditions within sustainability research, identifying four structural problems that the field has not resolved: the causal gap between knowledge production and measurable outcomes; the paradigm-replacement problem concerning neoclassical economics; the foundational dependency of the entire literature on Planetary Boundaries evidence it does not independently validate; and the Global South absence problem. The review finds that alternative economic frameworks — Doughnut Economics, post-growth theory, ecological economics, and capabilities-based approaches — have reached theoretical maturity and demonstrated governance operationalizability, but have been developed exclusively in and for high-income, post-industrial economies. The paper argues that the Global South is not a representational gap to be corrected by inclusive citation practice, but the site where existing frameworks' deepest assumptions about the relationship between economic growth, human development, and ecological constraint are most consequentially tested. It proposes a theoretical reconstruction of post-growth and doughnut economics frameworks that engages the specific political economy of Southern developmental contexts — marked by unmet social foundations, constrained fiscal and institutional capacity, colonial resource extraction histories, and asymmetric international financial architecture — as the condition for producing a genuinely global alternative economics of sustainability.

Sustainable Development, Doughnut Economics, Post-Growth Theory, Planetary Boundaries, Global South, Ecological Economics, Sustainability Justice, Economic Paradigm

1. Cattaneo, C., Hanbury Lemos, M.M., Humpert, V., Montlleo, M., Tello, E., & Demaria, F. (2025). Ecological economics into action: Lessons from the Barcelona City doughnut. Ecological Economics, 108667. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Crisan, G.-A., Belciu, A., & Popescu, M.E. (2025). Digital transformation — one step further to a sustainable economy: The bibliometric analysis. Sustainability, 17(4), 1477. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Dhiman, R., Miteff, S., Wang, Y., Ma, S.-C., Amirikas, R., & Fabian, B. (2024). Artificial intelligence and sustainability — a review. Analytics, 3(1), 8. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Diaz-Balterio, L., González-Pachón, J., & Romero, C. (2017). Measuring systems sustainability with multi-criteria methods: A critical review. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(2), 607–616. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Diesendorf, M., Davies, G., Wiedmann, T., Spangenberg, J.H., & Hail, S. (2024). Sustainability scientists' critique of neoclassical economics. Global Sustainability, 7, e20. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Downing, A.S., Chang, M., Kuiper, J.J., Campenni, M., Häyhä, T., Cornell, S., Svedin, U., & Mooij, W. (2020). Learning from generations of sustainability concepts. Environmental Research Letters, 15(8), 083002. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Fanning, A.L. & Raworth, K. (2023). Countries' environmental pressures exceed their social shortfalls. Nature Sustainability (updated empirical doughnut assessment). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. In, S.Y., Lee, Y.J., & Eccles, R.G. (2023). Looking back and looking forward: A scientometric analysis of the evolution of corporate sustainability research over 47 years. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 31(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Leal Filho, W., Will, M., Shiel, C., Paço, A., Farinha, C.S., Lovren, V.O., et al. (2021). Towards a common future: Revising the evolution of university-based sustainability research literature. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 28(5), 390–401. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Li, X., & Wei, F. (2023). What Confucian eco-ethics can teach us about solving the dilemma of interpreting the concept of sustainability. Religions, 14(9), 1216. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Martins, N. (2022). Sustainability and development through the humanistic lens of Schumacher and Sen. [Journal details per original publication]. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. McCauley, D., Quintavalla, A., Prifti, K., Binder, C., Broddén, F., & van den Brink, H. (2024). Sustainability justice: A systematic review of emergent trends and themes. Sustainability Science, 19. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W.W. (1972). The limits to growth. Universe Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Miraute Coca, L.-C., & Pîslaru, M. (2024). Definition of sustainability — bibliometric analysis of the most highlighted papers. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 18(1). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Olawumi, T.O., & Chan, D.W.M. (2018). A scientometric review of global research on sustainability and sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 231–250. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Quental, N., & Lourenço, J.M. (2011). References, authors, journals and scientific disciplines underlying the sustainable development literature: A citation analysis. Scientometrics, 88(2), 361–383. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Raworth, K. (2012). A safe and just space for humanity: Can we live within the doughnut? Oxfam Discussion Paper. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Random House Business. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S.E., Donges, J.F., et al. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances, 9(37), eadh2458. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Schouwenburg, H. (2019). De geboorte van het concept duurzaamheid. Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis, 132(3). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M., et al. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223), 1259855. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Velenturf, A.P.M., & Purnell, P. (2021). Principles for a sustainable circular economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, 844–857. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Yang, K.H., & Thoo, A.C. (2022). An exploration of trends and future directions in sustainability performance: A bibliometric analysis of Scopus database. F1000Research, 11, 864. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Investigating the Performance of Colour Oxide on the PS/CNSO Oil Paint Production
• Real-Time Fabric Defect Detection Using a Lightweight Deformable YOLO Network
• Recent Trends in the Stock Market: An Analytical Study of Market Dynamics, Investor Behaviour, and Technological Influence
• Evaluation of Structural Dynamics and Equilibrium State, with Case Study of Large Cantilever Projection for a 10- Storey Reinforced Concrete Building in Lagos, Nigeria.
• Multi-Criteria Evaluation of AI-Based Adaptive Learning Platforms in Global Higher Education: A Fuzzy AHP Perspective