Harald Heinrichs · Pim Martens Gerd Michelsen · Arnim Wiek Editors

1.1.2 Just Outcomes
Outcomes refer to the specific differences and distributions over a population in the 
attainment of some material measure, such as wealth, income, education, tax bur-
den, etc. In this view, the fairness of a process is only as important as the fairness of 
the outcomes it creates. Just outcomes can be defined in various ways, ranging from 
“equality” to more broad understandings of “equity.” Equality refers to a strict 
requirement for equal distributions of some goods, while equity adapts to specific 
circumstances, conditions, histories, needs, etc. Generally, an appeal to equity refers 
to focusing resources toward those not already better off. Equity, in the words of 
urban planning scholar Susan Fainstein, “refers to a distribution of both material 
and nonmaterial benefits derived from public policy that does not favor those who 
are already better off at the beginning” (
2010
, pp. 35–36).
Even among scholars and activists who focus on outcomes, there are a wide 
range of views of what are just distributions of outcomes which deviate from pure 
equality. For instance, “sufficientists” feel that just distributions of goods are those 
that provide the minimum necessary for a productive life for everyone – having 
more than necessary is not a problem, so long as others have enough. Another 
approach to distributive justice is that of “communitarians” which starts from the 
conceptualization of society as a community in which people produce a variety of 
goods that differ in terms of the social meaning members of society attach to them. 
Given these differing meanings, there can be no single and just criterion by which 
all goods are to be distributed. Rather, each good should be distributed in a way cor-
responding to the social meaning of that good. According to Walzer, regular (rela-
tively unimportant) goods can be distributed through the free market, where 
distribution is determined by individuals’ ability and willingness to pay. In contrast, 
goods to which a particular society ascribes a distinct social meaning “deserve” 
their own distributive sphere. Distributing such “special” goods would require a 
distributive principle different from market exchange, ranging, for example, from 
equality to distribution based on need (Trappenburg 
2000
). For example, many soci-
eties consider access to medical care too important to leave to the free market and 
provide care for everyone free of charge.
Ideas about just outcomes resonate clearly with various normative elements of 
sustainability. Strong arguments have been made that sustainability practice must 
strive for just distributions of outcomes and social equity (Gibson 
2006
; Dobson 
1999
).