The three fundamental criticisms of the Triple Bottom Line approach: An empirical study to link sustainability reports in companies based in the Asia-Pacific region and TBL shortcomings

Abstract

There is increasing evidence suggesting that environmental and social criteria are impacting the market in complex ways. The corporate world has demonstrated a willingness to respond to public pressure for improved performance on noneconomic issues by embracing Triple Bottom Line (TBL) principles. TBL reporting has been institutionalized as a way of thinking for corporate sustainability. However, institutions are constantly changing and improving, while TBL has been fairly conservative in its approach to change. The more balanced focus on the economic, the environmental and the social has provided a framework for institutions and markets around the world who want to focus indicators towards a sustainable future. This paper presents a criticism of the TBL approach that adds to the limited information on the pervasiveness of this approach.

What Drives the Implementation of Industry 4.0? The Role of Opportunities and Challenges in the Context of Sustainability

“…Their integration and combination complies with the Triple Bottom Line concept of sustainability [114]. Creating sustainable industrial value requires manufacturers to pursue all three dimensions simultaneously [115]. Therefore, we recommend managers to consider Industry 4.0-related benefits comprehensively to create a solid foundation of sustainable long-term success and viability.…”

The ethics of an all-inclusive plan: An investigation of social sustainability in the case of all-inclusive resorts, Jamaica

“…Sridhar and Jones (2013) challenge TBL rhetoric, claiming that it is so misleading that it might provide a smokescreen behind which firms can truly avoid effective social and environmental performance. Norman and MacDonald (2004) criticise the TBL from a uniformity and lack of practicality viewpoint, as they note that social issues are subjective, and hence cannot be objectively assessed in the same way as the profit bottom line, which has a common unit of measurement.…”

The citizen goes shopping : a framework for the assessment and optimization of production from the perspective of society

“…They include high profile cases of food biotechnology industry's opposition to disclosure of genetic modification data to European and US food consumers, electronics industry's secrecy on labor conditions at subcontracted offshore factories, and industrial lobbying for the criminalization of unauthorized whistle-blower investigations of animal welfare in factory farms. Widespread avoidance of reporting negative data on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index led Sridhar and Jones to wonder whether the few highly-transparent firms become reluctant to publicize low CSR performances in order to avoid appear worse than non-transparent firms (Sridhar and Jones 2012). suppliers. Therefore, information on uncertified production is sporadic in time because it typically refers to major events and major corporations; spatially scattered because of its diverse sources; and it is vulnerable to manipulation by all types of interest parties because it is not institutionalized.…”

“…11 Communication of misleadingly positive information happens either by withholding negative information or by misreporting. Examples are "weak or unsubstantiated selfdeclared label claims" (Atkinson 2014) and misleading claims that are communicated through selective reporting in CSR reports and indices (Porter and Kramer 2006;Ten Kate 2011;Sridhar and Jones 2012), and also through advertisements. In the context of environmental concerns these practices are usually termed as 'greenwashing ' (Laufer 2003;Ramus 2005;Lyon and Maxwell 2011;Delmas and Burbano 2011;Lynes 2015).…”

“…Relevantly, Bush and Oosterveer concluded that "What these results ultimately show is that the emergence of any quality standard is not the predetermined reflection of a rational or scientific process, but instead a negotiated process open to social dynamics within and external to the supply chain" (Bush and Oosterveer 2015). Subjective aspects of noncomprehensive assessments such as Triple Bottom Line-based ones include the selection of assessment criteria (Porter and Kramer 2006;Ten Kate 2011;Sridhar and Jones 2012). Mayer and Stirling (2004) nail the relevance of criteria selection to the meaning of generated information by remarking that "Those who choose the questions determine the answers" of ethical assessments.…”