Double Take on the Triple Bottom Line

I’m fascinated with the extent to which context flavors the meaning one attaches to content. Consider the Triple Bottom Line – the relations among a business’s net effects on people, planet and profits. About a year ago, a post to this blog discussed the usual view. I’ve copied the post below. Take a minute to read Walking the (Triple Bottom) Line, and to look at the graphic included within the post.

==========

Walking the (Triple Bottom) Line

From:  21 September 2011


When I first heard the term “Triple Bottom Line” I said something like “uh oh… another way for managers to claim a bonus without making their numbers.” Happily, I was wrong.


Sustainability guru John Elkington’s concept of a Triple Bottom Line provides the most used framework for discussing Sustainability. Elkington proposed that businesses should measure and report Return on Assets Deployed information for natural (ecological) assets deployed and for social assets deployed, as well as the usual financial assets (capital) deployed figures. The three “bottom lines” represent the business’s net effects on planet, people and profit. This is obviously a more comprehensive view. Perhaps more significant is the implication that the business should show positive results which indicate enhancement to the environment and society, beyond doing no harm.


Andrew Savitz and Karl Weber’s book, The Triple Bottom Line, extends Elkington’s idea by representing the three “bottom lines” as intersecting circles. The areas of intersection are termed “sweet spots”, meaning synergetic opportunities. For example, when power efficiency is improved, profits are improved due to lower power cost, while the environment benefits through reduced carbon dioxide emissions. So, improvements in the planet and people “bottom lines” are not necessarily at the expense of the profit “bottom line”.

Triple Bottom Line

Let’s look at this using a zoom lens, like a camera.

First, zoom out to the wide screen macro view. Consider the entire planet, all of humanity, and the entirety of world industry, where “industry” includes manufacturing, mining, agriculture, forestry and any other activity the produces commercial “stuff” (goods, not services). Humanity currently consists of about 6.8 billion of us, expected to grow to 9.5 or 10 billion by 2050. Many are very poor. Almost all want to become richer and consume more, which is happening. So, the total demand for commercial “stuff” continues to increase.


However, the earth isn’t getting any bigger. The sum total of natural resources isn’t growing either. Nor is the space available for waste disposal. The natural world is under duress, and increasing demand for “stuff” is going to increase that pressure. So, the ecological “bottom line” improves when environmental impact decreases, while the social “bottom line” improves when the welfare of humanity improves.


It is for industry to resolve these two: to create value, in the form of the “stuff” that rising prosperity demands, while also enhancing the natural environment upon which humanity relies. And, in doing so, to earn sufficient profits to keep the improvement process going. That’s the big picture view of what Sustainable Development is all about.


Now, let’s zoom all the way in, to a micro view. Consider a smaller manufacturing firm striving to survive and prosper in a global economy. To improve all three “bottom lines” while also enjoying the benefits of doing so requires a well thought out plan of systematic actions, sustained over time. The Getting Started tab in the
www.JeraSustainableDevelopment.com website provides the information you need to get going.


==========


3P GraphicNow, look at the graphic to the right. In the context of this graphic, industry (manufacturing, plus agriculture and mining – businesses that produce “stuff”) is located between the natural world and humanity, while it interfaces with both.  Environmentalists endeavor to limit industry’s effects on the natural world, while humanity relies on industry for the “stuff” of sustenance and affluence, and for the ability to pay for it. Industry is in the middle, charged with reconciling the other two. This is the Sustainable Development point of view.


How Sustainability Can Save Business
, a recent article on the Huffington Post, takes this view further. Take a look at: www.huffingtonpost.ca/jim-harris/can-environmentalism-save_b_1889781.html. After you read the Huffington Post article, scroll all the way down to see the readers’ comments. Point of view really affects perceptions of the Triple Bottom Line.


Thoughtful comments are always appreciated.


…  Chuck Harrington
(Chuck@JeraSustainableDevelopment.com

Image Credits: Upper – Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Creative Commons; Lower – Jera.

 

One thought on “Double Take on the Triple Bottom Line

  1. Pingback: Unilever – A Case Study in Sustainability | Jera Sustainability Blog

Comments are closed.