As you could already see in the previous chapters, there is no unified definition of the term sustainability. In addition, there are various models that describe the principle of sustainability differently. Sustainability is therefore an extremely ambiguous term and anything but a precise expression. It is precisely through the everyday use of the word and its popular usage that the term can lose its significance and, in the worst case, develop into a “exhausted word shell”(13).

• Tip: To be even more specific about what state you want to achieve and how, instead of using the term sustainability, use precise goals or supplement it by naming a model or strategy. Listen carefully to your counterpart as soon as the word is used and check which principles and strategies are hidden behind it. For example, you can find out whether a company that calls itself “sustainable” has an ecocentric focus (see strong sustainability) and prioritizes the area of ecology, or whether it has a more anthropocentric focus(see weak sustainability) and, for example, prioritizes the area of environmental protection. Natural capital substituted by economic chapter.

Due to its ambiguity and complexity, the term sustainability also runs the risk of being perceived as too scientific. The many different strategies and models alone show that it takes an intensive study of the term to be able to understand and implement it. Not only can this seem too taxing, but many people lack access to sustainable development education in the first place, which means they may never or rarely come into contact with the discourse. Again, it can help to name and describe specific goals and strategies.