Page 35 - Materials Chemistry, Second Edition

30 2. Sustainability, sustainable development, and business sustainability

about the presence of misleading meanings of business sustainability (De Simone and Popoff,
1997 as cited in Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002). For this reason, the overview comprehends also
some of the main critiques to the different concept directions.

2.3.2.1 Triple bottom line
The concept of triple bottom line was created by John Elkington, an expert in corporate
responsibility and sustainable development, in 1997. It rises from the need for a new defini-
tion of added value, which goes beyond economic value and comprehends the environmental
and social costs and benefits that business brings to society. The idea is also known as “3P”,
standing for “people, planet, profit”, or “win-win-win” strategy, since it tries to combine
together social, environmental, and economic stakes supporting the ability of business to
manage them all (Elkington, 2004).
On the triple bottom line, Dyllick and Hockerts (2002) affirm that economic Business
Sustainability, which requires contemporaneously enough liquidity and financial returns
for investors, does not satisfy long-term sustainability alone. The satisfaction of ecological
and social business sustainability is also needed. Additionally, the two authors specify that
ecological business sustainability binds firms to use natural resources at a degree below their
recreation or substitute development and to produce waste at a level below the ecosystem
absorption capacity. Similarly, social business sustainability is related to human and social
capital enhancement from the company toward the different stakeholder groups. Moreover,
despite the presence of trade-offs between the groups, the community can count on a common
value system.
Elkington identifies seven revolutions for moving to sustainable capitalism including:

(i) free and competitive markets;
(ii) a global shift in human and societal values;
(iii) transparency through global reporting and disclosure;
(iv) life-cycle technology making firms responsible for the product “from cradle to grave”;
(v) partnerships with different organizations based on cooperation and mutual trust;
(vi) a combination of two apparently opposite time conceptions: one as fast as possible to
manage properly a global market and one based on a long-term time horizon essential
for sustainability; and
(vii) a corporate governance including stakeholders.
The triple bottom line approach has been criticized by several authors. Firstly, Gray and
Milne (2002) warn about the fact that, in the case of trade-off between the three bottom lines,
the financial aspect is given more importance than the others. It means that environmental
and social issues are subordinated to their ability to bring business profit. Nevertheless,
according to some authors, corporate economic sustainability should always be prioritized
since, if a firm is not able to stay in business, it cannot even contribute to the external
societal well-being (Labuschagne et al., 2005). Furthermore, McDonough and Braungart
(2002) criticize the triple bottom line as an “end-of-the-pipe” measure for business sustain-
ability, since it provides companies with strategies to minimize their negative impact instead
of designing a sustainable process and product from the beginning, avoiding negative
effects at all.