The idea of sustainability is intrinsically normative. Thus, understanding the role of normativity in sustainability discourses is crucial for further developing sustainability science. In this article, we analyze three important documents that aim to advance sustainability and explore how they organize norms in relation to sustainability. The three documents are: the Pope’s Encyclical Laudato Si’, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. We show that understanding the role of different types of norms in the three documents can help understand normative features of both scientific and non-scientific sustainability discourses. We present the diverse system of norms in a model that interrelates three different levels: macro, meso, and micro. Our model highlights how several processes affect the normative orientation of nations and societies at the meso-level in different ways. For instance, individual ethical norms at the micro-level, such as personal responsibility, may help decelerate unsustainable consumerism at the aggregate meso-level. We also show that techno-scientific norms at the macro-level representing global indicators for sustainability may accelerate innovations. We suggest that our model can help better organize normative features of sustainability discourses and, therefore, to contribute to the further development of sustainability science.

This article discusses the role of language in the collaboration between science, policy, and society. Combining computational methods of corpus linguistics (manifold learning) with sociological field theories, we analyze approximately 30,000 articles that were published in the field of transdisciplinary sustainability studies. We show that the field oscillates between deliberative and technocratic vocabularies and can therefore be characterized as a transversal field. We conclude that researchers who collaborate in science–society interstices are thrown into a semantic pluralism that cannot be boiled down to a common language. For transdisciplinary research practice and corresponding science policies, this involves trade-offs between generating a homogenous language and a collaborative appeal; between creating a stable creole and a situated semantic plurality. A corresponding theoretical viewpoint and science policy approach should be based on a pluralist view on the science–society–policy interplay.