We believe in the alternative paradigm proposed by Pope Francis in the encyclical Laudato Si’ (LS):

“Ecological culture cannot be reduced to a series of urgent and partial responses to the immediate problems of pollution, environmental decay and the depletion of natural resources. There needs to be a distinctive way of looking at things, a way of thinking, policies, an educational programme, a lifestyle and a spirituality which together generate resistance to the assault of the technocratic paradigm. Otherwise, even the best ecological initiatives can find themselves caught up in the same globalized logic. To seek only a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate what is in reality interconnected and to mask the true and deepest problems of the global system” (LS 111).

“This new lifestyle and spirituality will enable the connection and enhancement of “an authentic humanity, calling for a new synthesis, seems to dwell in the midst of our technological culture, almost unnoticed, like a mist seeping gently beneath a closed door” (LS 112).

Recognising that everything is interconnected, we must look beyond the individual protagonists of our common home — natural elements, social bodies, economic agents — to the relationships between them. When these relationships are constructive and oriented towards the common good of both humanity and nature, sustainability emerges as a property we qualify with the adjective “relational”.

Relational sustainability(1) requires the richness of perspectives from diverse cultures.

• From European culture, we gain the ability to build balanced, ethical, and lasting human relationships based on trust, cooperation, and diversity. Relational sustainability is strengthened through public policies, solid institutions, social welfare systems, and active civic participation.

• From Latin American culture, we learn the balance and interconnection between humans, nature, and spirituality. The harmony of these elements sustains life, transcending the material and including the social, cultural, and environmental.(2) Well-being depends not only on individual or economic factors but also on the quality of connections with others, with nature, and with cultural traditions. It is essential to learn from the wisdom of the Earth, integrating it with divine and human wisdom, which reveals three great truths: that we are Earth; that knowledge arises from the interrelation of everything; and that there is an immanent sacredness that does not negate transcendence (cf. LS 9).

• From North American culture, we inherit a tradition of linking individual liberty with civic responsibility in pursuit of the common good — freedom understood not as an end in itself, but as the ground on which a just and flourishing society can be built together(3). This culture also contributes an entrepreneurial spirit that channels innovation, philanthropy, and generosity into strengthening relationships rather than merely infrastructure or technology. Its historical experience as a living laboratory of diverse ethnicities, religions, and worldviews shows that unity can emerge from diversity without collapsing into uniformity.

• From African culture, rooted in the wisdom of Ubuntu — the interconnectedness of all beings — we are enriched by a deeply communal vision that preserves harmony among people, generations, and nature, recognising that each individual is part of a greater whole. The land is understood not as property but as life itself, carrying ancestral history and sustaining future generations. Water is held sacred, the lifeblood of the continent, while forests are revered as the ancestors' breath, sustaining not only ecosystems but culture, medicine, and spirituality. This vision entrusts ecological leadership to women, elders, and youth alike.

• From Asian culture, we achieve interdependence and respect for natural cycles. Based on traditions from Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism, it teaches the concept of “interbeing,” where individual well-being is linked to collective and environmental balance, considering not only the protagonists on the global stage but also the dynamic relationships between them.

• From the cultures of Oceania come two distinct voices. The first is that of Australian Indigenous peoples, custodians of the oldest continuous living cultures on the planet, whose ancient wisdom includes Dadirri — an Indigenous concept from the Ngangikurungkurr people meaning deep, contemplative listening and inner, still awareness. It fosters harmony with nature and others through patience, reverence, and presence. The second is that of the Pasifika peoples, whose seafaring mastery humanised the vast Pacific. For them, the ocean is not a divider but a seamless, generative fabric of identity — a motherland sustaining belonging wherever one lives.

Cross-cultural incubation allows for the unique blending and mixing of perspectives that ultimately creates something closer to the truth than any single culture could offer on its own.

Complexity is not solved but inhabited, lived, and transformed. Change depends on people who are aware of these interconnections, inspired, committed, and trained in sustainability and cooperation. Building relationships oriented toward the common good—between humanity and the cosmos,(4) individuals and communities—will allow sustainability to emerge as a relational property.

Constructive relationships generate relational goods,(5) which are qualities of connection with intrinsic value generated by prioritising the common good(6) in relationships. Sustainability implies not exceeding the planet’s capacity to regenerate resources and metabolise waste. In other words, sustainability is a noun, and relational is its adjective.

Relational sustainability is the practical complement to integral ecology. While integral ecology offers a conceptual and ethical vision of the interconnection between humanity and nature, relational sustainability translates it into concrete actions to transform our relationships with the environment, promoting just and harmonious coexistence. It is like a coin with two sides: integral ecology as the vision and relational sustainability as the mission, whose value is measured in the human labour that materialises it.

“Sustainable development” is not enough; growth must encompass all dimensions. It is crucial to focus on the relationships that enable sustainability in its environmental,(7) social,(8) and economic(9) dimensions, without relying exclusively on GDP growth. This must be complemented with other indicators that value social capital as a true asset based on values and community ties. Interrelational well-being indicators must be developed that transcend economic metrics and encompass social, environmental, and cultural dimensions. This includes establishing complementary indicators of well-being, reflecting social cohesion and environmental integrity. Relational sustainability should be operationalised through community-based initiatives, education systems, and policy reforms.

Relational sustainability does not compete with approaches such as the circular economy, the doughnut economy, or happy degrowth but integrates them into a framework that prioritises the connections between human and natural systems. Its purpose is to strengthen collaborative networks, such as energy communities, solidarity consumption groups, and business alliances, demonstrating how quality relationships generate common goods and sustainability.

To advance toward integral well-being, dialogue between disciplines and practices is essential, developing common languages and indicators that measure not only material outcomes but also the quality of human relationships. Transdisciplinary(10) is the fundamental method of relational sustainability. This approach unites perspectives from various disciplines and knowledge from diverse cultures to address the complexity of interconnected systems, without creating a new discipline but fostering dialogue among them.

Above all, we need Wisdom, which is practical and experiential knowledge that transcends technical and academic knowledge. It is the ability to appreciate life and truth, manifesting in the interrelation of the divine, the human, and the cosmic. It does not belong to a single science, culture, or religion but emerges from the dialogue between knowledges. It is vital to integrate natural and human sciences with ancestral wisdom and spiritualities to address the ecological crisis from a holistic perspective.

The triple wisdom—divine, human, and cosmic—reflects the interconnection of all that exists. Divine wisdom is a gift of infinite love; human wisdom arises from reason and love; and cosmic wisdom is expressed in the vitality of the Earth. The integration of these forms of wisdom is essential for a relational sustainability that cares for our Common Home.

(1) Relational sustainability was conceived by Luca Fiorani on 13 May 2021. It was first proposed here: L. Fiorani, ‘La sostenibile concretezza dell’amare’, Città Nuova, LXV, 7, 2021, pp. 52–54. It was then published here: L. Fiorani, Happy Planet, Città Nuova, Rome, Italy, 2021, pp. 126–130.

In its relational aspect, this proposal is inspired by the thought of Chiara Lubich (1920-2008), a multifaceted personality of the Italian 20th century who founded the Focolare Movement and made universal brotherhood one of its key messages. In one of her writings, she says: “The progress of man is closely linked to the progress of the environment in which he lives and by which he is conditioned. […] If […] the end of man is not economic interest, selfishness, but love for others and nature, with his contribution the earth will be transfigured until it becomes a paradise on earth”. (quoted in L. Fiorani, ‘Il contributo di EcoOne alla riflessione ecologica’, in “Nuova Umanità” XXXIV, 199, 2012, pp. 49-51).

The first version of the manifesto was drafted on 19 October 2024 by Paolo Cipolli, Luca Fiorani, Alberto Frassineti, João Francisco Giovani, Ana Helena Pinto and Marco Sanchioni in Castel Gandolfo.

The second version was drafted on 14 March 2025 by Luca Fiorani, with contributions by:

• from Argentina: Mariela Borgnia, Adrián Burset, Isabel Gatti, María Alejandra Herrero

• from Brazil: Edison Barbieri, Aurora Franca Souza

• from Mexico: Lucas Cerviño

• from Uruguay: María Florencia Decarlini

Joined by:

• from Bolivia: Miguel Delgado

• from Chile: Myriam Quiñones

• from Colombia: Edimer Pardo

• from Paraguay: Luis Navarro

• from Peru: Sandy Isla

This version was drafted by Luca Fiorani, with contributions by:

• Augustine Doronila (Asia and Oceania)

• John Karifa Kamara (Africa)

• John Mundell (North America)

(2) Relational sustainability is akin to what Laudato Si calls “liberating sobriety” and resonates with the concept of buen vivir (good life) found in the Bolivian and Ecuadorian constitutions. This vision emphasises “a full and dignified life, a harmonious existence that includes cognitive, social, environmental, economic, political and cultural dimensions, all of which are interrelated and interdependent”.

(3) The words of the Preamble to the United States Constitution, although not always faithfully honoured throughout its history, remain a beacon that can contribute to relational sustainability for all: “We the People…in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…”.

(4) In this regard, it is interesting to cite Miguel Panao’s effort to overcome anthropocentric and physiocentric views by emphasising not the actors in the relationship but the relationship itself with the concept of Communiocentrism (M. Oliveira Panão, What Is the Relation with Nature of a Self-giving Person? Proceedings of the International Meeting ‘Relationality: Between Environmental Awareness and Societal Challenges’, L. Fiorani, Z. Román, V. Falcioni, F. Geremia (editors), ENEA, Rome, 2017, pp. 35-48). In this context, there is a need for a language change, still unbalanced in the sense that the protagonist is the human person.

(5) According to Gui, “Relational goods are interpersonal relationships of quality that have a value in which to invest” (B. Gui, On “Relational Goods”: Strategic Implications of Investment in Relationships, International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 23-10/11, 1996, pp. 260-278).

(6) According to Maritain, the common goods are “the good human life of the multitude, of a multitude of people; it is their community in living well; it is, therefore, common to the whole and the parts” (J. Maritain, La personne et le bien commune, Desclée de Brouwer, Bruges, Belgium, 1946).

(7) Environmental dimension: humanity must not exceed the limits set by the earth’s capacity to renew resources and eliminate pollutants (why not include this principle in the constitutions of countries, following the example of the Earth Charter approved by UNESCO?)

(8) Social dimension: we must build increasingly just societies; it is unacceptable, for example, that 10% of the world’s population owns more than 50% of its wealth and that the Mediterranean continues to be the grave of desperate people, including children, fleeing war, persecution and poverty.

(9) Economic dimension: we must pursue the authentic well-being of all the peoples of the planet, ensuring that every person has the goods that allow them to satisfy a good quality of life (primarily, but not exclusively, water, food, clothing...) and not the unrestrained consumerism that culminates in the culture of waste.

(10) Transdisciplinarity, introduced in 1970 by the Swiss philosopher Jean Piaget (1896-1980) has been axiomatised since 1985 by the Romanian physicist Basarab Nicolescu (cf. B. Nicolescu Transdisciplinarity: Theory and Practice, Hampton, New York, US, 2008).