Corporate acceptance of "sustainability" has certainly increased since the Brundtland Report of 1987 which defined sustainable development, and the 1992 Earth Summit, where industrialized nations' companies were represented by CEOs. Exposed to the theory of "sustainable development", the CEOs and the Business Council for Sustainable Development that year took steps in the direction of translating theory into practical application.

The first achievement was setting up an emissions measurement system that was open to inspection. The CEO who announced the system — now 18 years back — said in his speech: "The effect of this is to say to you: don't trust us, track us!" — a mighty brave move toward social transparency.

The result over the years has been generally progressive. Sustainability in corporate terms means — and must mean — sustaining the company's business mission (economic) while sustaining its social responsibilities (starting with environment but considerably broader, including CSR basics, philanthropy and the like).

Added to this, at least in the U.S., has been the impact of political drivers toward carbon reduction. So, to get back to the question of how do you define (and thereby encourage) sustainability, I have tried within the business community contacts that I have as advisor and author to put "sustainability" into corporate terms. While this may not be "generally accepted," I have proposed basing "corporate sustainability" on the successful management of three interdependent business factors: financial/economic, social/environmental, and political/government.

My view is you can't just push social. To motivate companies to "get with the program," pragmatic considerations must mix with social concern. My book Corporate Greening (Amazon.com) digs into this and shows how 40 companies are aware and engaged toward this outcome: sustainability is not charity, it is current competitive management.