Daniel Suchenski 蛋蛋的西游记 a story of Sustainability: A Quality Toolbox: Triple Bottom Line and the future of sustainability reporting

Sustainability, while it may sometimes seem like just another fad for the times, has and will continue to be an essential guiding principle for the future. Consistent with the holistic approach inherent within in sustainability, success of such a triple bottom line can only be accomplished with the combined efforts of governments, communities, businesses and individuals. While it is easy for entities to choose a couple of ‘green’ projects to work on, such an approach often is narrow in focus and makes little lasting change toward the triple bottom line approach. Defining sustainability as part of the existing organizational culture and infrastructure is a much more balanced approach that has a greater chance of sticking. Assuming that sustainability is a concept, indeed a way of life for the future, that we cannot ignore, what metrics are in the global toolbox for implementing triple bottom line accounting?

According to Wayne Norman and Chris MacDonald, authors of “Getting to the Bottom of the ‘Triple Bottom Line’” the “closest tool might be the ADRI (i.e., Approach, Deployment, Results and Improvement) method offered in the Australian Business Excellence Program.”[1] The ADRI method has traditionally been used in Australia within the field of higher education. Specifically, The Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) is an authority when it comes to using ADRI. AUQA is

Australia

’s national “quality agency for higher education.”[2] It is responsible for: “quality audits of higher education institutions and accreditation authorities; reporting on performance and outcomes; assisting in quality enhancement; advising on quality assurance; and liaising internationally with quality agencies in other jurisdictions”[3] all in an effort to enhance Australian higher education.

AUQA utilizes, as its foremost starting point for audit, “each organization’s own objectives and does not impose an externally prescribed set of standards upon auditees.”[4] Because AUQA wants to work within the framework of a given institution the analysis is intended to consider “the extent to which institutions are meeting these objectives, and how institutions monitor and improve their performance. AUQA also takes into account the requirements of relevant external reference points established to guide institutions in setting their objectives.”[5] AUQA views this as the superior way of reaching objectives. Specifically, this approach “recognizes the auditee’s autonomy in setting its objectives and in implementing processes to achieve them within some overarching parameters, such as criteria set by agreed national or sectoral guidelines.”[6] Using such an auditing metric may also be applicable for greater adoption of triple bottom line accounting.

Norman and MacDonald have postulated that a crossover system using ADRI could work if an organization prepared a written approach to each of the three responsibilities ingrained in a triple bottom line system using the criteria posited in the ADRI method. After that, the company would present a “detailed action plan for the deployment of the approach for a given fiscal year. At the start of the year, it would select the metrics that would be used to determine the results that would indicate how effectively the approach and deployment were working.”[7] In the end, the “expected outcomes or improvement associated with the approach and deployment would be postulated and committed to paper.”[8]

The use of trained independent observers and assessors would need to be present and verify the quality of the results in such a scenario. However, it should possible to use the ADRI approach for all three components of the triple bottom line approach – people, planet and profit. The ADRI “can be scored using the methodology in the Australian Business Excellence Framework. Each of the three components would receive a score based on how the documented outcomes compare to the scoped activity.”[9] Additionally, since compiled scores would represent unit less numbers, “it would be possible to add the three scores and obtain a single measure of sustainability for the organization. It is also possible to score the lagging indicators (results) and add those scores to the final score.”[10]

Be it a single visionary leader or a team or informed executives, triple bottom line objectives and sustainable operations can be achieved within the context of appropriate leadership. Continued research into what leading companies are doing will show that it is possible to develop and implement a triple bottom line plan that can be integrated into a company’s guiding principles and strategic initiatives.[11] For example, a strategic goal of “improving efficiency in the Supply Chain Management Cycle can lead to a sustainability goal of working with suppliers to reduce package waste and an objective of using certified paper suppliers.”[12] Planning organizational change for a triple bottom line approach around a strategic planning process will yield better results and an increased chance for sustained growth.

Norman and MacDonald’s discussion is but one avenue toward making a triple bottom line a reality for the future. Other forms of accounting, auditing, reporting or benchmarking will need to be developed or adapted to adjust to changing business models and a more informed populous. As we develop our toolbox for accessing sustainable development ADRI may well be key in being able to refocus organizational culture and existing infrastructure. Only time will tell.