The Purushu Arie’s Sustainability Sequence (PASS) framework prioritises sustainability as a sequential process: systemic (primary), structural (secondary), and personal (tertiary).

At the systemic tier (primary), foundational priorities – such as policy reforms and economic restructuring – create the prerequisite conditions for structural changes to take root. These structural changes (secondary) influence industries and institutions to adopt sustainable practices, forming the groundwork for meaningful personal actions (tertiary), such as shifts in consumer behaviour or lifestyle choices.

By integrating these layers in a systematic sequence, the PASS framework redefines how individuals, organisations, and systems can collectively drive meaningful and enduring change. Rather than treating the challenges of sustainability as simultaneous, the PASS framework approaches them sequentially. It recognises that addressing systemic barriers first creates the foundational conditions necessary for structural and personal actions to thrive, thereby ensuring that subsequent efforts are more impactful and sustainable. This approach acknowledges that true sustainability can only be achieved when foundational shifts in systems are realised first, creating a strong foundation for further progress.

Introduction

Sustainability is often defined through three interconnected dimensions: environmental, social, and economic. Achieving a truly comprehensive and impactful approach to sustainability, however, requires more than addressing these dimensions in isolation.

Most current sustainability models, such as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) and Circular Economy, treat actions and priorities as simultaneous rather than sequential. These models acknowledge the interrelatedness of the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability, but often fail to address the need for a clear sequence in which actions should be implemented. For instance, the Triple Bottom Line, proposed by Elkington (1997), encourages simultaneous attention to economic, social, and environmental factors without a prioritised order. Similarly, Circular Economy models advocate for systemic changes like recycling and resource efficiency alongside economic and social innovations, but do not suggest a structured sequence of actions (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). While these models provide valuable frameworks for sustainability, they do not necessarily account for the complexities that emerge when systemic reforms, structural changes, and personal actions are treated as parallel rather than sequential.

Complexities of Treating Systemic Reforms, Structural Changes, and Personal Actions as Parallel Processes

Addressing large-scale societal issues often involves a combination of systemic reforms, structural changes, and individual actions. While these components are essential, treating them as parallel processes rather than sequential efforts can introduce significant complexities that hinder progress.

Dilution of Focus and Resources

Simultaneous efforts across all levels can dilute focus and strain resources. Systemic reforms, requiring long-term planning and execution, may compete with individual and structural initiatives for attention and funding. This fragmented approach can result in inefficiencies and suboptimal outcomes, as seen in the fragmented strategies for achieving climate goals (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017).

Contradictory Goals and Fragmentation

Systemic reforms and personal actions often have divergent timelines and objectives, creating contradictions in efforts. For instance, while structural changes might focus on developing sustainable infrastructure, individual actions might emphasise short-term solutions like reducing personal waste. This misalignment can hinder progress by creating friction between stakeholders, as observed in the disconnect between grassroots initiatives and global policy frameworks (Meadows, 2008).

Accountability and Responsibility Challenges

When all levels of action are pursued in parallel, accountability becomes fragmented. Governments and corporations may shift blame to individuals for insufficient personal actions, while individuals critique systemic inertia. This “blame game” not only slows progress but also erodes public trust, making collective action more challenging (Porter & Kramer, 2011).

Inequities in Outcomes

Parallel approaches risk exacerbating social inequities. Personal actions often rely on individual resources – such as wealth, time, and knowledge – which are unequally distributed. Structural changes and systemic reforms, if not prioritised, fail to address these underlying inequities, as seen in cases where sustainable initiatives disproportionately benefit privileged groups (Raworth, 2017).

Slower Momentum for Systemic Change

Efforts at systemic reform can lose urgency when personal actions create a false impression of sufficient progress. This phenomenon is particularly evident in sustainability movements, where individual actions like recycling are celebrated but fail to address systemic issues like industrial waste management (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Such misaligned timelines and narratives can stall broader reform efforts.

Psychological and Social Impacts

The emphasis on personal responsibility, without clear systemic support, can lead to individual burnout and apathy. Overwhelmed by the scale of issues, many individuals disengage from action altogether, further complicating efforts for collective change. Moreover, a lack of clarity on the sequence of actions can deepen polarization among stakeholders, as seen in debates surrounding climate justice and energy equity (Heffron & McCauley, 2018).

Treating systemic reforms, structural changes, and personal actions as parallel rather than sequential processes risks inefficiency, misalignment, and inequity.

In contrast, the PASS framework emphasises the foundational priority of addressing systemic inequities first, recognising that systemic reforms create the necessary conditions for effective structural changes and personal actions. By tackling systemic issues, the framework reinforces and enables the subsequent implementation of structural reforms, which in turn empower personal actions to drive meaningful, long-term sustainability. By building on established models like the Triple Bottom Line and Circular Economy, the PASS framework offers a more holistic and actionable roadmap that goes beyond simultaneous action, positioning long-term systemic change as the critical starting point.

Purushu Arie’s Sustainability Sequence (PASS)

The Purushu Arie’s Sustainability Sequence (PASS) is structured into three interconnected steps: systemic (primary), structural (secondary), and personal (tertiary). Each step represents a critical stage of influence, where changes at one step enable and reinforce the next, creating a cohesive pathway for sustainable development.

1. Systemic Priorities (Primary: The Essential Prerequisites for Sustainability)

Systemic priorities form the foundational step in achieving sustainability, addressing deep-rooted societal inequalities and economic imbalances that hinder sustainable practices. These priorities include equitable policies, governance reforms, and wealth redistribution – critical changes that lay the groundwork for effective structural and personal actions. By addressing the root causes of environmental and social challenges, systemic change creates a ripple effect, setting the stage for long-term sustainability.

For instance, policies that prioritise renewable energy funding can reduce the cost of eco-conscious products, making them more accessible and driving their widespread adoption. Such systemic changes not only influence industries but also empower individuals by creating the conditions for eco-conscious consumption to thrive.

Addressing systemic inequalities – such as unequal access to resources and power imbalances – is crucial for shifting unsustainable practices. Without these foundational changes, efforts to alter consumer behavior or industrial practices will likely fall short. As noted by Niinimäki (2017) and Muthu (2018), systemic issues like socio-economic inequality and resource distribution often perpetuate the over-exploitation of resources and marginalisation in global supply chains. To achieve substantial and enduring sustainability, these systemic issues must be addressed through governance reforms, social justice policies, and equitable resource distribution. Sachs (2012) reinforces this by stating that without addressing these systemic priorities first, changes at the structural and personal levels are unlikely to succeed.

2. Structural Priorities (Secondary: Implementing Sustainable Systems)

Structural priorities represent the next step in Purushu Arie’s Sustainability Sequence, following the foundational systemic changes. These priorities focus on translating systemic reforms into actionable practices within both formal and informal institutional frameworks. They are crucial for making sustainability initiatives feasible, scalable, and operational within organisations, industries, and broader societal contexts.

Why Structural Priorities Follow Systemic Changes: Structural priorities depend on the foundational reforms established at the systemic level, such as policies, regulations, and economic shifts, to be effectively implemented. For example, industries’ commitments to reduce carbon emissions often rely on systemic measures like carbon pricing or renewable energy subsidies. Structural priorities bridge the gap between abstract policy reforms and practical applications, embedding these principles within industries and organisational practices. This transformation helps turn broad environmental goals into tangible outcomes.

Structural priorities involve both formal institutional reforms and informal collective actions. On the institutional side, these reforms include transitioning to circular economies, adopting sustainable manufacturing processes, and upholding ethical labour standards. On the other hand, grassroots movements and community-based initiatives complement these formal changes by spreading sustainability practices more widely. Together, these efforts ensure sustainability becomes operational across industries and communities.

A critical component of structural priorities is the shift towards a circular economy, where resource consumption is minimised through recycling, reuse, and sustainable sourcing (Fletcher, 2014). At this level, organisations must adopt eco-friendly materials, implement energy-efficient production processes, and strengthen corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives. Additionally, ensuring corporate transparency, fair treatment of workers, and equitable resource distribution in global supply chains are essential to ensure industries contribute positively to sustainable development (Cline, 2012; Zhan & Zhang, 2019). These actions help organisations operationalise sustainability and catalyse broader shifts towards responsible industry-wide practices (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017).

In summary, structural priorities are critical in moving sustainability from policy to practice. By translating systemic reforms into actionable steps within industries and organisations, these priorities are vital in driving large-scale, transformative change.

3. Personal Priorities (Tertiary: Adopting a Sustainable Lifestyle)

Personal priorities, the final step of Purushu Arie’s Sustainability Sequence, focus on individual actions like conscious consumption, waste reduction, and lifestyle choices. While these actions are essential for driving sustainability, their effectiveness is amplified when supported by systemic and structural changes. As the tertiary component in the sequence, personal priorities build on the foundation laid by systemic and structural reforms to achieve their full potential.

Why Personal Actions Are Tertiary: Personal priorities are placed last in the sequence because their impact is limited without the foundational support from systemic and structural changes. For instance, consumers may wish to buy eco-friendly products, but their ability to make sustainable choices is often constrained by availability and affordability – factors shaped by systemic policies and structural frameworks. Personal actions gain greater momentum when embedded within an ecosystem of equity and feasibility established by prior levels.

While personal responsibility plays a crucial role in sustainability, it becomes meaningful only when reinforced by systemic and structural frameworks. Without the enabling environment created by these earlier levels, individual actions lack the scalability and long-term impact required for genuine change.

At the individual level, personal sustainability is reflected in conscious consumer choices and lifestyle changes, such as adopting resource-conserving behaviors, reducing waste, and improving energy efficiency (Joy et al., 2012). Consumers can also influence sustainability by choosing eco-friendly products, reducing overall consumption, and supporting companies that prioritize sustainable practices. These shifts in consumer demand can, in turn, push corporate practices and policy decisions towards greater sustainability (Cline, 2012).

Although personal actions alone cannot resolve broader systemic and structural challenges, they can accelerate change by signaling demand for more sustainable products and services. In this way, personal priorities complement systemic and structural reforms, providing the consumer-driven push that reinforces the broader momentum for sustainability (Cline, 2012; Joy et al., 2012).

Interdependence of Priorities in the Sequential Framework

The Purushu Arie’s Sequence of Sustainability integrates systemic, structural, and personal priorities into an interdependent framework where each step plays a critical role. Rather than ranking these steps hierarchically, the sequence highlights their interconnectedness and the importance of addressing priorities in a logical order. This interdependence creates a dynamic feedback loop where each level strengthens the others, fostering a scalable and holistic approach to sustainability (Meadows, 2008; Swyngedouw, 2005).

Systemic-Structural Linkages

Systemic priorities, such as equitable policies and economic restructuring, provide the foundation for structural changes. For instance, systemic interventions like carbon pricing encourage industries to adopt sustainable technologies, linking systemic frameworks with practical outcomes (Porter & Kramer, 2011).

Structural changes, in turn, validate systemic reforms by demonstrating their feasibility and effectiveness. This cyclical relationship reinforces the need for robust policies that drive sustainable development (Folke et al., 2010).

Structural-Personal Synergy  

Structural priorities bridge the gap between systemic reforms and individual actions. For example, transparent supply chains and ethical sourcing empower consumers to make informed choices (Bocken et al., 2016). As demand for sustainable products grows, industries scale up innovation, further reinforcing structural changes.

This synergy demonstrates how accessible and affordable eco-friendly options encourage individual adoption, creating a feedback loop that accelerates systemic and structural reforms.

Personal-Systemic Interactions

While personal actions are tertiary, they influence systemic change through collective consumer behaviour. For example, widespread demand for sustainable products can drive legislative changes, such as stricter environmental regulations or subsidies for renewable energy (Allen & Wright, 2013).

This mutual reinforcement ensures that systemic frameworks support sustainable behaviours while individual actions create public pressure for systemic reform. Ethical fashion movements exemplify this dynamic, where consumer demand has led to enhanced transparency and environmental standards (UN, 2015).

Balancing the Priorities

The interplay of systemic, structural, and personal priorities is essential for meaningful sustainability. Systemic reforms provide the foundation, structural changes translate them into actionable frameworks, and personal actions amplify their impact. This interdependence ensures that no priority operates in isolation.

Only through the combined efforts of all three levels can scalable and impactful sustainability be achieved (Elkington, 1997; UN, 2015).

Key Implications of the Sequence

The Purushu Arie Sustainability Sequence (PASS) framework redefines the path to sustainability by prioritising a structured and interconnected approach. Systemic reforms are positioned as the foundation of the sequence, recognising that meaningful sustainability begins with addressing the underlying inequities within institutions and social structures. Research highlights that systemic inequalities are significant barriers to sustainability, as they exacerbate resource exploitation and environmental degradation (Raworth, 2017). By tackling these inequities, the framework establishes an enabling environment where subsequent structural and personal actions can achieve greater impact. The sequential nature of the framework prevents the fragmentation of efforts, ensuring that foundational changes are in place before broader sustainability goals are pursued (Meadows, 2008).

Secondly, the sequence enhances resource allocation and impact by prioritising actions that yield the greatest leverage. Studies on leverage points in systems thinking suggest that directing resources to transformative interventions – such as policy reforms or institutional restructuring – creates ripple effects that improve sustainability outcomes at every level (Meadows, 1999). By aligning actions in a sequential order, the PASS framework avoids redundant or competing efforts, enabling a coordinated and scalable approach to sustainable development.

A third implication concerns the transition from symbolic to meaningful personal actions. Existing literature critiques the limited impact of individual behavioural changes when pursued in isolation, emphasising the need for systemic and structural support to amplify their effects (Shove, 2010). Within the PASS framework, personal actions are embedded within a larger context of systemic reforms, transforming individual behaviour into a cohesive demand for broader change. This approach aligns with findings that personal accountability becomes more impactful when linked to systemic enablers such as infrastructure and policy reforms (Stern, 2000).

Fourth, the framework challenges the hierarchical valuation of actions by emphasising their interdependence. Although the sequence prioritises systemic reforms, it does not diminish the importance of structural or personal actions. The interrelationship between these stages reflects broader sustainability models, such as the Triple Bottom Line, which advocate for balancing social, environmental, and economic dimensions (Elkington, 1997). PASS builds on this principle by illustrating how systemic reforms create the conditions for structural changes, which further empower personal actions, fostering a feedback loop that amplifies progress across all levels.

Finally, the framework advances equity and resilience by situating systemic reforms at the core of sustainability efforts. Addressing systemic inequities early in the sequence aligns with principles of just transition, which call for sustainability strategies that prioritise social justice and inclusivity (Heffron & McCauley, 2018). By embedding equity into its foundation, the PASS framework ensures that sustainability is not only environmentally robust but also socially transformative. This holistic approach fosters long-term resilience, recognising that inclusive systemic reforms are prerequisites for achieving meaningful and equitable sustainability outcomes.

Existing Frameworks in Sustainability

Sustainability frameworks address complex and multifaceted environmental, social, and economic challenges across industries. These models typically emphasise the interconnectedness of ecological, social, and economic factors, offering comprehensive approaches to sustainability. Notable frameworks include:

Triple Bottom Line (TBL)

Introduced by John Elkington (1997), the TBL highlights three key pillars: People, Planet, and Profit. It encourages organisations to evaluate their success not only financially but also in social and environmental terms.

Strengths: The TBL provides a holistic framework for corporate responsibility.

Limitations: It has been critiqued for fostering a “trade-off” mentality, whereby economic factors are often prioritised over social and environmental considerations (Meyer, 2009).

Circular Economy

Popularised by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the Circular Economy advocates for reducing, reusing, and recycling resources, promoting a closed-loop system (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017).

Strengths: This model challenges the traditional linear production model and seeks to minimise waste.

Limitations: The implementation of circular systems is constrained by technological, regulatory, and infrastructural challenges (Bocken et al., 2016).

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Adopted by the United Nations in 2015, the SDGs consist of 17 goals aimed at eradicating poverty, promoting equity, and protecting the environment by 2030 (United Nations, 2015).

Strengths: The SDGs offer a universally recognised framework with measurable targets for global sustainability.

Limitations: Criticism of the SDGs includes their broad scope, lack of enforceability, and insufficient attention to systemic inequalities (Sachs, 2012).

Purushu Arie’s Sustainability Sequence: A Holistic Approach

Purushu Arie’s Sustainability Sequence (PASS) refines existing frameworks by offering a multi-layered approach that foregrounds systemic inequality, integrates industry and governance reforms, and addresses personal actions within a sequenced process.

Key differences and improvements over existing models include:

Focus on Systemic Inequality

Unlike the TBL and SDGs, which often overlook the structural causes of sustainability challenges, PASS explicitly recognises economic inequality as a critical barrier to sustainable consumption (Niinimäki, 2017; Muthu, 2018).

Improvement: By addressing systemic inequality, PASS ensures that sustainability efforts are rooted in equity, making the model more inclusive and equitable.

Integration of Industry and Governance

While the Circular Economy focuses primarily on resource efficiency and product life cycle, PASS incorporates governance and industry reforms, including ethical labour practices, responsible sourcing, and sustainable production (Joy et al., 2012; Zhan & Zhang, 2019).

Improvement: This integration provides a more holistic approach, ensuring that sustainability is not only confined to product design but is embedded throughout the production process.

Layered Approach to Personal Impact

Many sustainability frameworks overemphasise the role of consumer behaviour (Cline, 2012). In contrast, PASS stresses that individual actions can only be meaningful when supported by broader systemic and structural reforms.

Improvement: The sequenced, layered approach ensures that individual efforts can lead to tangible change, as they are aligned with structural and systemic reforms.

Holistic and Interconnected Change  

PASS views sustainability as a dynamic, interconnected system, where progress in one domain (e.g., economic equity) catalyses advancements in others (e.g., environmental protection).

Improvement: This interconnected perspective ensures that sustainability initiatives work synergistically across sectors.

Conclusion

The Purushu Arie’s Sustainability Sequence (PASS) framework offers a comprehensive and interconnected approach to achieving holistic sustainable development. By prioritising systemic reforms, such as policy changes and addressing economic inequality, it establishes the groundwork for structural shifts within industries and ensures that personal actions, like eco-conscious consumption, align with larger sustainability efforts.

Unlike existing models that often treat these priorities as isolated, simultaneous, or parallel, PASS frames them as a sequence where systemic priorities enable structural changes, which in turn facilitate personal actions. This progressive approach provides a clear and dynamic roadmap for scaling sustainability, connecting systemic, structural, and personal priorities into a unified pathway for long-term impact. In doing so, it paves the way for a more inclusive, equitable, and effective model of sustainable development.

References

1. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2013) Towards the Circular Economy Vol. 1: Economic and Business Rationale for an Accelerated Transition.

2. Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P, Bocken NM, Hultink EJ (2017) The circular economy – A new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production 143:757-768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.048

3. Heffron RJ, McCauley D (2018) The concept of energy justice: Across disciplines, debates, and boundaries. Energy Policy 105:658-667.

4. Meadows DH (2008) Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Chelsea Green Publishing.

5. Porter ME, Kramer MR (2011) Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review 89(1-2):62-77.

6. Raworth K (2017) Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Chelsea Green Publishing.

7. Bocken NM, Bakker E, Pauw ID (2016) Product design and business model strategies for a circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology 20(3):308-320. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12219

8. Bocken NM, Short SW (2014) Towards a circular economy: Corporate management and sustainability. In: Corporate sustainability (pp. 132-144). Springer.

9. Cline WR (2008) Global warming and agriculture: The impacts of climate change on food production and agriculture. Peterson Institute for International Economics.

10. Cline WR (2012) The economics of climate change: The contribution of economics to understanding climate change and its policy responses. Peterson Institute for International Economics.

11. Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone Publishing.

12. Elkington J (2004) Enter the triple bottom line. In: Haugh AT, Neumeyer SA (eds) Sustainable development: The business opportunities (pp. 64-84). Palgrave Macmillan.

13. Fletcher K (2014) Sustainable fashion and textiles: Design journeys. Earthscan.

14. Geissdoerfer M, Savaget P (2018) Business model innovation for sustainable development: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Cleaner Production 199:1063-1075. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.101

15. Joy A, Sherry JF, Venkatesh A, Wang J, Chan R (2012) Fast fashion, sustainability, and the ethical appeal of luxury brands. Fashion Theory 16(3):273-295. https://doi.org/10.2752/175174112X13369646208098

16. Joy L, Zhang J (2012) Corporate responsibility and sustainable development: The role of governance and ethical practices in fashion. Business and Society Review 117(3):317-332.

17. Meyer A (2009) The triple bottom line: How today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social, and environmental success—and how you can too. Wiley.

18. Muthu SS (2018) Sustainability in the textile and apparel industry: A case study approach. Springer.

19. Muthu SS (2018) Sustainability in fashion and textiles: A comprehensive overview. Woodhead Publishing.

20. Niinimäki K (2017) Fashion in a circular economy. In: Niinimäki K (ed) Sustainable fashion and textiles: Design journeys (pp. 215-234). Earthscan.

21. Sachs JD (2012) The age of sustainable development. Columbia University Press.

22. Shove E (2010) Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A 42(6):1273-1285.

23. Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues 56(3):407-424.

24. Swyngedouw E (2005) Governance in Rescaling: Reaching for the Global in the Age of the Local. Political Geography 24(2):129-153.

25. Zhan Y, Zhang L (2019) Sustainability in fashion: A critical review. Fashion and Sustainability 1(1):1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42771-019-00002-7

26. Zhan W, Zhang D (2019) Sustainability in global supply chains: Ethical sourcing and production in the fashion industry. Journal of Business Ethics 155(3):553-567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3501-9

27. Meadows DH (1999) Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute.

28. United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/

29. McKinsey & Company (2021) The Net-Zero Transition: What It Would Cost, What It Could Bring. McKinsey Global Institute.

30. Allen DK, Wright LD (2013) From the Grassroots to the Global: The Role of Consumer Behavior in Sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Development 21(3):45-57.