Developing sustainability indicators – The need for radical transparency.

• Development of sustainability indicators is dominated by the mechanistic worldview. • The mechanistic worldview reduces complexity and exaggerates accuracy. • Sustainability becomes framed as a technical rather than political endeavour. • Radical transparency is needed to embrace complexity and admit inaccuracies. • It also engages stakeholders by reframing sustainability as a political project. There is a strong impetus to adopt sustainability targets and measures across primary industries. Measuring sustainability demands the development of indicators. Conventional approaches to the development of sustainability indicators (SIs) are technocratic, which thwarts the open and critical development of SIs. Specifically, the technocratic approach: precludes debate concerning the implicit values that guide indicator development and selection; fails to recognise areas where SIs cannot be developed for measuring crucial socioecological functions; and reduces complexity and embellishes certainty. To address these shortcomings, we argue that radical transparency is required. This would involve the following actions: making explicit the values and moral imperatives used to determine what is to be sustained and for whom; opening for critical examination the processes and tools used to weigh and prioritize indicators against each other and create aggregate scores; providing information about the types of expertise involved in the development and the limitations of this expertise; and making candid the 'gaps' where it is necessary, but difficult, or even impossible, to develop quantitative SIs; removing bias against, and accepting the use of qualitative approaches where appropriate. Examples of these forms of transparency are provided from the development of an indigenous sustainability indicator suite, though radical transparency is viewed as a universal solution to the problems of the technocratic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]