In late 2012 The Conference Board posted a summary analysis of 94 Canadian corporate sustainability reports. The firms hailed from widely varied industries such as finance, mining, communications and retail and food. What did these sustainability reports have in common? Not as much as one might expect. Only 22% of the 585 performance indicators reported were used by more than three corporations. Over half of these performance indicators were used only once.
The report’s concluding statement that “Sustainability is complex, ambiguous, and does not have a clear endpoint.” is really only accurate if one tries to accept all of the 585 measures as valid and defining elements of sustainability. Sustainability, in fact, has a very clear endpoint and that is to never reach an endpoint. Simply put, “sustainability” is the ability to continue a given set of activities indefinitely.
Quantitatively, sustainability is maintaining a depletion to replenishment ratio that is below 1. Complexity and ambiguity are only introduced to this calculation by our present inability to quantify the denominator or supply aspect of the equation. For example, a firm cannot credibly claim that its “employee’s travel-related carbon footprint is sustainable” because this firm doesn’t know what the relevant environmental systems’ carrying capacity is.
We cannot expect firms to calculate the impossible but we can strive for greater intellectual rigor and honesty when we define and utilize terms like “sustainability” in the corporate strategic planning process. “Sustainability” certainly belongs at the aspirational vision statement-level of a guiding plan but may not be as useful at the mission statement and subordinate levels.































































