The word 'sustainable' seems to be creep up in all manner of discussion these days, but not necessarily everywhere. Surveys have revealed that public awareness of sustainable development is very low. Also, international bureaucracies and most politicians tend to misinterpret the term; for example, 'sustained economic growth,' 'sustainable economic growth' and 'sustainable development' are often used as interchangeable synonyms.
Others say that the term is so difficult to quantify as to be meaningless. How can we know when we've arrived at such a point? One could point to 'sustainable economic growth' (which means growth without boom or bust periods), 'sustainable aviation' (which means a doubling passenger numbers) or 'sustainable communities' (building as many new homes as possible). But these terms are oxymorons; they actually deliver the opposite of what is claimed.
Actual sustainable development — simultaneous social, environmental, and economic progress — has, however, emerged as a central structural concept for many organisations. There are ministries of sustainable development (e.g. in France and Sweden), national plans and international summits to measure such progress. Leading businesses, too, have embraced the concept of looking at the 'triple bottom line.' On paper, and in policy terms, much has happened, but the concept of sustainable development is still subject to criticism.
Some argue that the attempt to balance social, environmental and economic concerns is really a way to avoid making difficult choices, or an excuse for pretending there are no trade-offs and that everything can be win-win.