Across decades of contemporary discussion on sustainable development, a core debate has concerned the relationship between the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability. In recent years, a debate on economic growth versus degrowth has been going on discussing whether economic growth can be sustainable in environmental terms and whether economic degrowth can be sustainable in social terms. This conceptual and theoretical article has used the Sustainability Window, or ‘SuWi’ method, to theoretically determine the sustainable window of economies, as upper and lower bounds of future change in GDP, that could be deemed in line with environmental and social sustainability. All theoretically possible scenario paths of development are considered by combining the economic, environmental, and social dimensions, with the environmental and social productivities of GDP. In moving to sustainability analysis through SuWi it is noted that only four of the logically possible scenario paths could be considered theoretically 'sustainable’, and only if adhering to strict conditions. Two of the hypothesised scenarios involve economic growth and two of economic degrowth. The approach, including calculation formulas, has many potential uses in providing analysis and support to 21st century sustainability policymaking, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

“De-[Constructing] Growth” is offered as a deeper and more useful conceptualization that avoids the negative connotations of, and resistance to, “degrowth” by decoupling profit from unsustainable consumption, production, and inequality.

This transdisciplinary review of research about international cooperation on social and environmental change builds the case for replacing Sustainable Development as the dominant framework for an era of increasing crises and disasters. The review is the output of an intentional exploration of recent studies in multiple subject areas, based on the authors’ decades of work in related fields since the Rio Earth Summit 30 years ago (rather than a keyword search of databases). It summarizes the research which documents failure to progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Consequently, the extensive scholarship critiquing the conceptual framework behind those ‘Global Goals’, and the economic ideology they arose from and support, is used to explain that failure. Although the pandemic set back the SDGs, it further revealed the inappropriate strategy behind those goals. This suggests the Global Goals constitute an ‘own-goal’ scored against people and nature. From this conclusion, alternative frameworks for organizing action on social and environmental issues become more important and are therefore briefly reviewed. It is argued that such a future framework must relate a new eco-social contract between citizen and state, and engage existing organizations and capabilities that are relevant to an increasingly disrupted world. Therefore, the case is made for considering an upgraded form of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) as an overarching framework. The proposed upgrades include detaching from economic ideologies, and recognizing that a wider metadisaster from climate chaos may reduce the future availability of external support. Therefore, self-reliant resilience and locally-led adaptation are identified as important to the future of DRM. Some options for professionals continuing to use the term sustainability, such as this journal, are discussed.