Talk:Triple bottom line

It might be good to start the article with a statement about where the term Triple bottom line orginates from. This is what I found at [1]:

"The phrase was coined by John Elkington, co-founder of the business consultancy SustainAbility, in his 1998 book 'Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business'. In its broadest sense, the triple bottom line captures the spectrum of values that organizations must embrace - economic, environmental and social. In practical terms, triple bottom line accounting means expanding the traditional company reporting framework to take into account not just financial outcomes but also environmental and social performance."

There is no clear definition of the Triple Bottom Line (3BL) concept. Here's the following which I am translating from Ukrainian from a newsletter of this resource: http://www.corporate-citizen.org.ua:

Companies should take measures not only to create economical added value, but also be constantly aware of the social and ecological "added value", which they are creating or destroying.The 'people, planet and profits' formula, first used by Shell in their first social responsibility report, is now wiedly used in business.

Reporting TBL is more important than individual outcomes

It's interesting that all of the arguments against TBL listed in the article focus on the net value above the bottom line (i.e. 'profit' in the case of the financial bottom line), not on the importance of the reporting itself.

It is okay, utilizing agreed upon reasoning and justifications (which are always situational and dynamic), for particular entities to display deficits within certain bottom lines (e.g. the Red Cross showing no profit, or an oil company in 2005 showing a net deficit in greenhouse gas emissions), however availability of this information to shareholders, contributors, members of voluntary organizations, the general public, etc., to enable informed decision making (just as in financial reporting), is the crux of TBL.

"Arguments Against": Food for Thought or Discussion

From the article's "Arguments Against" section: "Effectiveness. It is observed that concern for social and environmental matters is rare in poor societies (a hungry person would rather eat the whale than photograph it). As a society becomes richer its citizens develop an increasing desire for a clean environment and protected wildlife, and both the willingness and financial ability to contribute to this and to a compassionate society. Indeed support for the concept of the 'Triple Bottom Line' itself is said to be an example of the choices available to the citizens of a society made wealthy by businesses attending to business. Thus by unencumbered attention to business alone, Adam Smith's Invisible Hand will ensure that business contributes most effectively to the improvement of all areas of society, social and environmental as well as economic."

While there is obviously some truth to this, what I believe this argument overlooks is that the mentioned "richness" (and clean-ness, and willingness and financial ability) of developed, rich nations is often secured by, and possibly dependent upon, resources coming from lesser-developed nations. For one thing, these resources may be less depleted than in a longer-developed rich nation; for another, the need within the poorer nations may be such that they will sell their labor, resources, and productive capacity cheaply. Though this often desperate, highly competitive market participation on the part of poorer nations benefits rich nations in terms of cheaper raw materials and consumer goods (and provides jobs in the poorer nations), it very frequently contributes to the poor social and environmental conditions in the poorer nations. So aren't these social and environmental "conditions" in the poorer nations often the "externalized costs" of the richer nations? I don't believer this figured into Adam Smith's thinking... or am I wrong?--Joel Russ 22:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism might be good, if the Nation does not only take care of its own people first, but also of its own nature. Nationalism is often helpful in the absence of proper laws dealing with globalisation, multi-national companies, carelessness or intentional damage.

Article's quality

I think this article contains some outdated notions. for example:

1) some of the "arguments against" miss the point on TBL: a) the problem with "force businesses to take responsibilities outside their area of expertise" or "business should not be expected to take on concerns outside its core expertise." is that every business does take responsibilities outside their area of expertise. Business have the responsibility to keep their books in order, and they can do it with an in house or external accountant. Same goes for being socially and environmentally responsible: there a guidelines, and certifications available to help a business choose the best way to minimize its impact on the environment and there are also VERY traditional standards to help business decide what constitutes fair working standards. TBL proposes an EXTENSION of these responsibilities related to non-core activities. It does not propose that businesses replace their core competency with profit + how to be good to the environment + how to be fair to workers. it is asking businesses to be good to the environment + be fair to workers in your pursue of profit. b) "it makes it difficult for businesses to recognize the benefits of using TBL for the company, itself" TBL is not about benefiting the company itself - it is about benefiting the world we live in. it looks to bring some responsibility for the common good into the character of the corporation.

2) the "Arguments in favor" section doesnt mention the major traditional economists who have sided with TBL. it mentions TBL as an idea of the fringe "green party" crowd.