Criticism of Triple Bottom Line: TBL (With Special Reference to Sustainability)

Abstract

With the effects of inclusive economic predicament of 2008, the obstinate problems of importunate poverty and environmental change have focused the attention towards maintaining the sustainability by establishing balance in the triple bottom line (TBL). In this paper, we have tried to critically examine the philosophy of triple bottom line and it’s relevance in maintaining the sustainability. The process of maintaining sustainability in the TBL is undoubtedly facilitated by the citizenship behaviour of companies (Henriques et al. Routledge, London, 2013). Yet the triple bottom line philosophy is being accepted by different researchers because they consider TBL is one of the concepts evaluating and improving the sustainability. Critics are typically “slow to praise and quick to criticize” (Mish and Scammon, J Public Policy Market 29:12–26, 2010) with this the critics of TBL argue on its practicality and validity. One of the critical studies of TBL regarded it as intrinsically ambiguous because it is unable to convey its exact meaning (Norman and MacDonald, Bus Ethics Q 14:243–262, 2004). Triple Bottom Line a framework of sustainability to examine the social, environmental and economic impact of company was recalled by Elikington it's originator despite rapid growth in the area of sustainability extending up over one million dollar in a year as he realized that TBL was not meeting the purpose for which it was created. After comprehensive understanding and building upon the available literature, this paper criticizes TBL and reveals that this philosophy is not based on the real concept, nothing is new, unique and innovative in it. It only explains the already existing concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and a sustainability measurement tool.