Pages

September 7, 2012

Single vs. Triple Bottom Line

There's a house in my neighborhood that has a great front yard with beautiful flowers. You pass by and you can't help but admire them. As you do though, you might just get sprayed by the water sprinklers that reach over the short fence. Or you might step through the puddle forming on the sidewalk and even the muddy grass next to it, because the sprinklers have been on since early morning.

After getting myself or my shoes wet, my appreciation of these flowers changes. Knowing the sprinklers are on most of the day makes me admire them that much less. Are they still beautiful considering the disregard of the sidewalk and the water wastage? It's a matter of opinion, but even someone who appreciates their beauty can't ignore the negative affects. They're real, annoying and resource-intensive.

I've been using this example a lot over the last month to explain the mentality behind single versus triple bottom line. Profit matters just the way the beauty of those flowers matters. The question is are we accounting for all the factors that make that profit possible? We know the positives of wealth production. What are the negatives? Who are the people affected? How is our environment changed?

After answering those questions, is the profit as meaningful as it was before accounting for these people and planet factors? That's the key question each one of us has to answer for ourselves. The answer is neither right or wrong, it simply reveals the guiding force behind our local and global decisions.

It's hard to account for factors that aren't readily visible, especially when profit is involved. But just like in the case of the flowers, the impact on people and planet is real, whether we notice it or not. Triple bottom line is simply a way to consider those factors. If our decisions change because of it, then we know how we feel about those flowers.