Now a days, we often come across the terms Triple Bottom Line or PPP (People, Planet, Profit) which are actually synonymous to the terms equitable balance among the economic, environmental and societal fundamentals.
The concept is very novel but the problem with them is they have become some fancy terms, on which everybody believes but no body or very few practice them. The issue with the concept is that the three factors are considered in the same level or they are given same priority. Now corporations or individuals are so engaged with the economic aspect that they often find it amusing to have the economic aspect in the same level of priority with environment and society. Thus the seriousness towards the concept diminishes and it becomes a theoretical concept which is just used in classrooms.
So, in order to eliminate the above issue, the concept needs to be modified a bit. Using a building construction as an analogy, the following model is developed. The economic value or factor is to be taken as a roof which protects you from all the external factors. The pillars supporting this roof are the environmental and societal value or factors. Now the more economic value you need, i.e. thicker the roof, thicker the pillars you require i.e. more environmental or societal value are required.
Ø EcV> (EnV = SV)
· The priority of economic value is higher than the two
· There is indifference of priorities between the remaining two or priorities will be set as per the situation
Ø EnV and SV are two pillars which support EcV
Ø The arrow represents that on Increasing EcV means the pillars need to be made stronger and thicker i.e. others need to be increased
Your opinion is very apt to the current situation of using these jargons (triple bottom line, sustainabilty etc.) for just getting publicity, but I feel there is scope of intersection of these three aspects which you can cover by some modifications in your suggested model, and also can you mention some examples or small case studies to substantiate your opinion.
ReplyDeleteI don't fully comprehend this model so I'll keep my eye out for additional explanations, innovations and enhancements.
ReplyDeleteSome initial thoughts and comments:
I run a triple bottom line (TBL) business and the goal is NOT to balance people, planet, profit.
Our business goals are to take care of people (vendors, customers, community, employees), while restoring (or at least not harming) the ecological systems, by making enough money to keep our tribal business entity thriving long-term (500+ years).
A typical corporation is working to maximize shareholder return within certain social and ecological constraints. The constraints are usually laws and customs that set the low bar.
The system goals are one of the greatest leverage points for system behavior. It is clear to me from reading these two system descriptions that the resulting activities of these two entities would be vastly different given their goals and driving purposes.
I like Saurav's attempt to make the simplistic "people, profit, planet" more complex. I agree that, in practice, the emphasis on each of the three components is rarely equal.
ReplyDeleteI have found that different parts of the model are emphasized in different parts of the world.
In the West, "sustainability" often means "green business" or profit and planet. In Asia, where people are more aware of social issues, such as poverty and worker conditions in factories, the emphasis is on profit and people.