Skip to main content
About HEC About HEC
Summer School Summer School
Faculty & Research Faculty & Research
Master’s programs Master’s programs
Bachelor Programs Bachelor Programs
MBA Programs MBA Programs
PhD Program PhD Program
Executive Education Executive Education
HEC Online HEC Online
About HEC
Overview Overview
Who
We Are
Who
We Are
Egalité des chances Egalité des chances
HEC Talents HEC Talents
International International
Campus
Life
Campus
Life
Sustainability Sustainability
Diversity
& Inclusion
Diversity
& Inclusion
Stories Stories
The HEC
Foundation
The HEC
Foundation
Summer School
Youth Programs Youth Programs
Summer programs Summer programs
Online Programs Online Programs
Faculty & Research
Overview Overview
Faculty Directory Faculty Directory
Departments Departments
Centers Centers
Chairs Chairs
Grants Grants
Knowledge@HEC Knowledge@HEC
Master’s programs
Master in
Management
Master in
Management
Master's
Programs
Master's
Programs
Double Degree
Programs
Double Degree
Programs
Bachelor
Programs
Bachelor
Programs
Summer
Programs
Summer
Programs
Exchange
students
Exchange
students
Student
Life
Student
Life
Our
Difference
Our
Difference
Bachelor Programs
Overview Overview
Course content Course content
Admissions Admissions
Fees and Financing Fees and Financing
MBA Programs
MBA MBA
Executive MBA Executive MBA
TRIUM EMBA TRIUM EMBA
PhD Program
Overview Overview
HEC Difference HEC Difference
Program details Program details
Research areas Research areas
HEC Community HEC Community
Placement Placement
Job Market Job Market
Admissions Admissions
Financing Financing
Executive Education
Home Home
About us About us
Management topics Management topics
Open Programs Open Programs
Custom Programs Custom Programs
Events/News Events/News
Contacts Contacts
HEC Online
Overview Overview
Degree Program Degree Program
Executive certificates Executive certificates
MOOCs MOOCs
Summer Programs Summer Programs
Youth programs Youth programs

What is the “Triple Bottom Line”?

Executive Factsheet

The “triple bottom line” stands for the idea that firms’ performance should not be assessed in merely economic terms, but along three dimensions: social, environmental, and economic (the “three Ps”, for People, Planet, and Profit). 

Since its inception 25 years ago, this idea has permeated into business practice. Yet, it has not been spared from criticism – most recently even expressed by its very inventor John Elkington

Download the PDF: What is the “Triple Bottom Line”?

 

What is the “triple bottom line”? (1)  


The term “triple bottom line” (often abbreviated to “TBL” or “3BL”) was first coined in 1994 by John Elkington, business writer and founder of the management consultancy SustainAbility. Elkington claimed that the traditional measure of corporate success – its net income, i.e. the “bottom line” of its profit and loss account – gives an insufficient picture of a firm’s actual value: A company can well be financially successful, yet harm the social or ecological environment in which it is embedded. 

Elkington thus suggested expanding our way of evaluating corporate performance by, metaphorically speaking, adding two further “bottom lines” to the original one. Instead of measuring only their economic bottom line, companies should also report on a social bottom line, i.e. on their contribution to social equity and welfare, as well as on an environmental bottom line, i.e. on their ecological impact. The three “bottom lines” – social, environmental, and ecological – are sometimes also referred to as the “three Ps”: People, Planet, and Profit. 


What aspirations lie behind the introduction of the triple bottom line?


When introducing the concept of triple bottom line reporting, Elkington had high expectations. He argued that the triple bottom line could trigger a veritable system change towards a truly sustainable form of capitalism. His hope was that the unaccounted side effects of business activity – what economists call “externalities” – would stepwise become incorporated into our way of assessing and managing firm's performance. 

Business firms would then compete with one other based on their actual value to society, rather than only with respect to their financial performance. 


Has the triple bottom line found its way into business practice? 

The answer is yes. The idea that firm performance should not only be measured in financial terms, is now widely accepted in the corporate world. The following points illustrate this:

  • The Global Reporting Initiative, which is the most prominent CSR reporting framework (currently being used by 75% of the world’s 250 largest corporations by revenue and 63% of the national top 100 firms) requires firms to report on economic, environmental and social metrics.
GRI application

Source: The KPMG Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting 2017. 

 

  • The triple bottom line principle has also been adopted by some of investors, who increasingly consider Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) data when making their investment decisions. Taking the example of the U.S., total assets under management using ESG investment strategies were $11.6 trillion at the start of 2018 – i.e., one in four dollars. This represents a sharp increase (+274%) from 2016, when the amount was just $3 trillion (one in eight dollars).(2) 
Assuet under management

Source: Reference (3). Data from U.S. SIF Trends Report 2018. 


 

  • The idea also infused corporate sustainability benchmarks such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSI), which measure companies’ performance based on economic, environmental, and social criteria. 

 

Has the triple bottom line proven its worth? 


Thanks to the generalization of triple bottom line accounting practices, the underlying idea,  that corporate value is not reducible to its financial performance has successfully disseminated within the corporate world. However, it is also clear that the triple bottom line has failed to fulfill the lofty hopes that its founder initially placed on it. 

Ever since its inception, the concept of the triple bottom line has also attracted a fair amount of criticism, especially concerning: 

  • The concept’s presumed lack of originality and distinctiveness as compared to previous attempts to broaden the understanding and measurement of firm performance; 
  • The impossibility of measuring the social and environmental bottom lines in a similar, way than  that used in the calculation of the financial bottom line (i.e., of obtaining some kind of “net sum” of the socio-environmental harms and benefits generated by a firm); 
    The concept’s vagueness concerning the relative weighting of the three bottom lines, leading to the fact that the financial one de facto prevails over the two others. 

In a recent Harvard Business Review article, Elkington himself admits that triple bottom line accounting practices have not succeeded in counteracting corporations’ narrow profit-orientation, and thus failed to alter capitalism as he hoped for. In view of our world’s continued environmental degradation, he publicly “recalls” his concept, and urging for an accelerated and more radical transformation of our way of doing business.(3)  

 

REFERECENCES

1- Elkington, J. (2013). Enter the triple bottom line. In: The triple bottom line (pp. 23-38). Routledge.

2- Connaker, A., & Madsbjerg, S. (2019). The State of Socially Responsible Investing. Harvard Business Review. Digital article. Accessed July 17, 2019. https://hbr.org/2019/01/the-state-of-socially-responsible-investing.&nb…;

3- Elkington, J. (2018). 25 Years Ago I Coined the Phrase “Triple Bottom Line.” Here’s Why It’s Time to Rethink It. Harvard Business Review. Digital article. Accessed July 17, 2019. https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-….

 

Discover the Inclusive and Social Business Certificate

Discover the Master on Sustainability and Social Innovation

More about the Movement for Social*Business Impact