Business Ethics Quarterly · 2004 · 1.1K citations · 0 references
BusinessAccountancyAccountingCorporate ReportingCorporate Social ResponsibilityEnvironmental AccountingCorporate Responsibility ReportingCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingCorporate SustainabilitySocial ReportingSocial ResponsibilitySustainability Reporting
The paper critically examines the Triple Bottom Line concept, aiming to clarify its claims and assess its validity. The authors distill specific, assessable claims from the TBL rhetoric and use them to argue that its purported novelty is unfounded while its sound aspects are not new. They conclude that the TBL adds little to corporate social responsibility, is misleading, and can serve as a smokescreen that allows firms to avoid genuine social and environmental reporting.
Abstract: In this paper, we examine critically the notion of “Triple Bottom Line” accounting. We begin by asking just what it is that supporters of the Triple Bottom Line idea advocate, and attempt to distil specific, assessable claims from the vague, diverse, and sometimes contradictory uses of the Triple Bottom Line rhetoric. We then use these claims as a basis upon which to argue (a) that what is sound about the idea of a Triple Bottom Line is not novel, and (b) that what is novel about the idea is not sound. We argue on both conceptual and practical grounds that the Triple Bottom Line is an unhelpful addition to current discussions of corporate social responsibility. Finally, we argue that the Triple Bottom Line paradigm cannot be rescued simply by attenuating its claims: the rhetoric is badly misleading, and may in fact provide a smokescreen behind which firms can avoid truly effective social and environmental reporting and performance.