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.

---

[1] http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2009/08/31/debunking-notion-triple-bottom-line , http://www.businessethics.ca/3bl/triple_bottom_line_abstract.html[2] www.auqa.edu.au/files/auditmanuals/audit_manual_v6.0_final.doc[3] www.auqa.edu.au/files/auditmanuals/audit_manual_v6.0_final.doc[4] Ibid.[5] Ibid.[6] Ibid.[7] http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2009/08/31/debunking-notion-triple-bottom-line[8] Ibid.[9] Ibid.[10] Ibid.[11] http://www.healthcaredevelopmentmagazine.com/article/creating-a-triple-bottom-line-in-your-medical-group-for-social-economic-and-environmental-sustainability.html[12] Ibid.

Picture from http://www.tnvacation.com/sustainable/toolbox/

Social Accountability and E-Learning Businesses

In 2004 Harvard University started its A.L.M. and since its inception, has been wo

rking to make its Masters in Liberal Arts (A.L.M) degree more accessible through a combination of online and on-campus courses.[1] Indeed, Harvard University has for the last few years been pushing for more online course options through its ‘Extension School’.[2] Harvard University is not the only college expanding into online education, sometimes called e-learning. E-learning is defined simply as “the acquisition of knowledge and skill using electronic technologies such as [the] computer”.[3]

According to the New York Times, online course offerings have been around for nearly twenty years, but “enrollment has soared in recent years as more universities increase their offerings. More than 4.6 million college students (about one in four) were taking at least one online course in 2008”.[4] No one is questioning that online education is an attractive alternative to a more traditional college experience. Working professionals certainly have gained a great deal due to the flexibility and ease of such systems, but what about the sustainability or triple bottom line (TBL) accountability of online education? As colleges race to earn accolades concerning their social accountability[5] and online enrollment continues to outpace traditional enrollment in the US[6], online institutions of higher learning are uniquely suited to make a lasting change to our educational landscape and provide a cost effective quality education that is consistent with a triple bottom line future.

A combined survey conducted by the Princeton Review and EcoAmerica found in 2008 that “63% of college applicants would use a college’s environmental commitment as a reason to choose” a school.[7] Since then the Princeton Review, a popular admissions consulting company famous for its annual rankings of colleges, added a ‘green rating’ for the colleges it reviews. As the competition among traditional college rages over sustainable rankings from the Princeton Review are online colleges being overlooked? While relatively little research has been done on this topic in the US,

the Stockholm Environmental Institute (SEI) and the UK's Open University Design Innovation Group (DIG) have both released some relevant studies. These studies attempt to quantify the environmental impact that higher education has and the "potential of the Internet and other elearning methods to radically reduce energy consumption and emissions."[8] The UK study found that distance learning courses “consumed nearly 90% less energy and produced 85% fewer CO2 emissions than conventional campus university courses.”[9]

One of the big differences between traditional and online colleges is how much transportation. The DIG study found a 92% reduction in "travel-related environmental impact" for those enrolled in online classes. In general traditional colleges use amazing quantities of energy. According to the EPA, “U.S. colleges spend more than $2 billion annually on energy costs—and more than 30% of that is wasted.”[10] In contrast, online education "involves very little additional impact compared to that arising from general living and consuming."[11]

Additionally, paper usage is significantly decreased through online education. On average, a person in the U.S. will use about “700 pounds of paper products per person each year”.[12] Online courses use very little paper, the DIG study found that "electronic delivery of distance courses more than halves paper and print consumption."[13]

[14]

Clare Kaufman, in her article ‘Seven Ways to Save the World with Your College Degree’, adds that online education also “promotes large-scale conversations”. When talking about an established online class, “it can be scaled to serve large numbers of students with negligible impact on the resources consumed.”[15] Through economies of scale, the average cost per unit falls as the scale of output is increased. Similar to being able to serve large audiences, Ms. Kaufman believes that online education increases civic responsibility. According to the Sloan Consortium, “73% of Chief Academic Officers report that online education reaches students not served by face-to-face programs, and cite improved student access as their top reason for offering online courses and programs.”[16] This is important if the US as a country seeks to raise the overall level of education and ‘open the minds of students to become the leaders of tomorrow’.[17]

Like many institutions of higher learning, be it Harvard University or an online university, the challenges are similar. Like startup companies, both Harvard and other online colleges have to adapt into the changes that the internet has brought. While the efforts of traditional universities to make their campuses more sustainable and therefore attractive to college applicants is noteworthy and long overdue. They will still have far to go to reach the same eco-friendly and socially accountable standing of online colleges. More research needs to be done in this field. Specifically more studies in the United States need to be done that focus on this shift toward online education and what it means. Is part of the reason that people are pursuing online degrees with such intensity because they are more sustainable than their traditional counterparts? Whatever the reasons, online enrollment has not leveled off and is not slowing down. Neither is the need to socially responsible alternatives and triple bottom line accountability to help reduce energy usage and green house gas emissions. Although enrolling in online career training may not seem as environmentally friendly as buying a hybrid car or recycling your shampoo bottles, “the ease, flexibility and convenience of online education can make being green -- and earning green -- easier than you could ever have imagined.”[18]

---

[1] http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/10/a-century-of-everyday-learning/[2] http://www.extension.harvard.edu/2010-11/programs/management/overview/ , http://www.ehow.com/about_5201979_harvard-extension-history.html[3] http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?lextype=3&search=e-learning[4] http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/learningondemand.pdf , http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/college-degrees-without-going-to-class/?scp=2&sq=Room%20for%20debate&st=cse[5] http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/27/colleges-race-to-earn-most-sustainable-campus-honor/[6] http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/college-degrees-without-going-to-class/?scp=2&sq=Room%20for%20debate&st=cse[7] http://cleantechnica.com/2008/07/27/colleges-race-to-earn-most-sustainable-campus-honor/[8] http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Distance-learning-courses-consume-nearly-90--less-energy-and-produced-85--fewer-CO2-emissions/374094/[9] Wilkinson A, Hill MR, Gollan P. The Sustainability Debate. International Journal of Operations and Production Management 2001; 21(12): 1492-1502 Mirsa, Krisha B. Handbook of PerformabilityEngineering. http://books.google.com/books?id=cPgXg3GIMAsC&pg=PA871&dq=distance+learning+courses+consumed+nearly+90%25+less+energy+and+produced+85%25+fewer+CO2+emissions+than+conventional+campus+university+courses.&hl=en&ei=7vCBTKr0F8GBlAeHysGSDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=distance%20learning%20courses%20consumed%20nearly%2090%25%20less%20energy%20and%20produced%2085%25%20fewer%20CO2%20emissions%20than%20conventional%20campus%20university%20courses.&f=false[10] http://www.distance-education.org/Articles/Going-Green--Why-Distance-Education-is-Better-for-the-Environment-46.html[11] Ibid.[12] http://www.tappi.org/paperu/all_about_paper/faq.htm[13] http://www.worldwidelearn.com/education-advisor/indepth/save-world-online.php[14] http://www.worldwidelearn.com/education-advisor/indepth/save-world-online.php[15] Ibid.[16] Ibid.[17] Ibid.[18] http://encarta.degreesandtraining.com/articles.jsp?article=featured_be_green_earn_green

Picture at beginning from http://thecollegesolutionblog.com/2009/09/09/the-secrets-of-getting-into-harvard/

Triple Bottom Line definitions and challenges!

The dictionary of sustainable management defines triple bottom line as the “addition of social and environmental values to the traditional economic measures of a corporation or organization's success.”[1] Fundamentally, a triple bottom line (TBL) accounting system “attempts to describe the social and environmental impact of an organization's activities, in a measurable way, to its economic performance in order to show improvement or to make evaluation more in-depth.”[2] With this definition as a guide, this paper will examine the significance of each prong of the triple bottom line sword, as well as look at some challenges these prongs face toward further integration into the business system.

Fishing around the world has personified prosperity and provided livelihoods for millions over the centuries. Especially in America the whaling industry prompted significant growth for New Englanders for so many years. However because of mismanagement and unsustainable harvesting patterns the whaling industry is all but exhausted in North America.[3] While still a powerful symbol of American prosperity in the 19^th century it also “represents the shortsightedness of businessmen whose thirst for profit made their enterprise unsustainable”[4] The fishing industry exemplifies some powerful ways in which a triple bottom line system of accounting is prudent, if not necessary, for sustainable development.

Profit

‘Traditional’ profit could be defined as the “surplus remaining after total costs are deducted from total revenue, and the basis on which tax is computed and dividend is paid.”[5] A triple bottom line definition of profit is therefore different from traditional accounting definitions of profit. As part of the triple bottom line approach to accounting, "profit" is seen as the real economic benefit enjoyed by the host society. Put differently, ‘triple bottom line profit’ is the real economic impact the organization has on its economic environment. Despite the broad nature of this definition, it is still sometimes narrowly understood to mean the ‘internal profits’ of a given organization. While internal profits of a company may still be a fundamental starting point for a company or institution looking to implement a triple bottom line system, it is never-the-less a small piece of the whole picture. It is important not to think of profit, from a triple bottom line point of view, as simply the traditional understandings of corporate accounting with a smattering of social and environmental impacts. Unless triple bottom line ‘profit’ is viewed concurrently with the other prongs of social and environmental profit, the overall holistic nature of a ‘triple bottom line’ system is not complete.

Planet

Sometimes referred to as natural capital, the planet or environmental aspect of the triple bottom line involves responsible stewardship through sustainable environmental best practices. A company seeking to operate under an effective triple bottom line system endeavors to benefit the natural order as much as possible. At the very least TBL entity should observe the Hippocratic Oath as much as possible and attempt to ‘do no harm,’[6] thereby curtailing environmental impact as much as possible. Among other things, an entity striving for TBL success will find ways to reduce its ‘ecological footprint’. This can be accomplished by careful management of energy and non-renewable resource consumption as well as reducing waste and reducing or eliminating toxins and other harmful agents. One such strategy for effective stewardship of natural capital is called “Cradle to grave”.[7] Proposed by William McDonough the cradle to grave philosophy champions the use and understanding of life cycle assessment of products. The objective of such a philosophy is ultimately to determine and quantify what the ‘true’ environmental cost is for a given product. This includes everything from the growth and harvesting of raw materials any manufacturing and distribution and finally to the eventual disposal and/or consumption of a given product.

Unfortunately, current methods for the disposal of non-degradable or toxic products are largely borne by governments, the natural environment, as well as by the residents near the disposal site and elsewhere. This means that the local population the society and government as well as the natural environment are all directly affected by the disposal of such products. From a triple bottom line point of view this is precisely the reason why the societal and environmental impacts of production need to be factored into the overall ‘profit’. A TBL approach for an enterprise that produces and markets a product which will create a waste problem should be held accountable by society. Therefore, triple bottom line accounting indicates that it would be more equitable for companies and organizations that manufacture and sell problematic products to bear the cost of disposal. Ultimately, ecologically destructive practices, such as overfishing as well as other unsustainable business practices, should be avoided as part of a triple bottom line approach.

People

Sometimes referred to as human capital, the people prong of the triple bottom line pertains to equitable business practices toward all stakeholders that have a ‘stake’ in the company. Entities pursuing a triple bottom line often conceive a ‘reciprocal social structure’ in which the well-being of all stakeholder interests are interdependent. Among other things a TBL enterprise seeks to benefit all of its constituencies or stakeholders. The stakeholder is an individual, group, organization, or system who affects or can be affected by an organization's actions. Fair trade agricultural practices are an example of a possible socially equitable feature of a triple bottom line system. Ideally, triple bottom line entities would not use child labor, would maintain a safe work environment and would not otherwise exploit a community or its labor force. Triple bottom line business may also seek to contribute to the strength and growth of the community or communities they work in or otherwise affect.

Quantifying the people and planet prongs of the TBL accounting system is relatively new and has not been standardized. Organizations like The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has developed guidelines to enable corporations and NGOs to comparably report on the social and environmental impact of a business and offers one of the world’s most compelling examples of sustainability reporting.[8]

Challenges

Along with the difficulty inherent in any potential financial or organizational change, the people, planet and profit prongs of the triple bottom line accounting method have their own challenges toward implementation. As it stands, the biggest challenge may well be the lack of a necessary understanding of life cycle assessment as well as sufficient standards that would help businesses and executives more toward a TBL future. Institutions like the Global Reporting Initiative certainly seem to be on the right track and may well, one day, be the hallmark of triple bottom line and sustainability reporting. These challenges do not seem insurmountable. Enormous strides have been taken in just the last few years in terms of the understanding and prevalence of alternatives to more traditional accounting and business methods like TBL. There are also no signs that these trends will slow down in the near future, quite the opposite in fact. More and more people are speculating that a way toward recovery may well be through TBL.

A recent article written January 8^th 2010 stated that “there is a strong argument that triple bottom line or building sustainable businesses creates more profitable and successful business.” Indeed, pursuing environmental and social objectives doesn't have to be at the expense of financial objectives and often is reinforcing.[9] A report in April 2009 by Alling Henning Associates Inc. (AHA) examined why some banking institutions were prospering despite recent economic instability and scandal. They found that “financial institutions that commit to corporate social responsibility, back up their pledge with actions and communicate their position clearly are uniquely prepared to build and protect their brands—and even prosper—during market downturns.”[10] Unlike traditional institutions that are driven by profit alone. The banks examined by AHA found that, despite challenges, these triple-bottom-line banks and credit unions offer innovative and underexplored ways of measuring success—ways that not only help people and the planet, but also foster the long-term success and profitability of a company and therefore touch on all three of the prongs of a TBL company.

---

[1] http://www.sustainabilitydictionary.com/t/triple_bottom_line.php[2] http://www.sustainabilitydictionary.com/t/triple_bottom_line.php[3] http://books.google.com/books?id=pYyqRxTeMe4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=what+is+triple+bottom+line&source=bl&ots=9_V9JHWrHT&sig=26JkYpGjVDyIc32IxTJ4Xl7xVF4&hl=en&ei=V96WTMHDNIWglAeFlrymCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q&f=false. Page, ix[4][4] Ibid. page, ix[5] http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/profit.html[6] http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html[7] http://www.mcdonough.com/writings/cradle_to_cradle-alt.htm[8] www.globalreporting.org/[9] http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2010/01/08/why-triple-bottom-line-matters-more-ever[10] http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:u3lqdni5VbgJ:www.aha-writers.com/download/AHA_Market_Insights_0409.pdf+triple+bottom+line+and+business+application&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjPLR5C7cCsTX8NoDYsneneFLf9kjgojWbdFEbE9sAhTWGbzhPziiZ3DQF_3PirBG-EbNur_y8AgqTNObiG9ANuH9feNRpuWnLiBfOnyjlt4d9ptfUZuZRpjNHrTxEwBoj1Vqz5&sig=AHIEtbTDEh7Qx08Dk_rLGUVFJkG8o0lwLw

Picture from http://www.matternetwork.com/2010/3/editorial-emergence-triple-bottom-line.cfm