The Triple Bottom Line: A Critical Review from a Transdisciplinary Perspective

Abstract

The triple bottom line (TBL) has reformed management discourse by making sustainability part of the business agenda, yet increasingly the TBL has evolved into a proxy for sustainability, often visually depicted as the mutual maximization of economic, social and environmental dimensions. We use a sentiment analysis to show that the extant literature views the TBL favorably and uncritically, with only 8% of academic studies invoking the term negatively. Next, based on extant management literature, we show that two core assumptions underpin the TBL metaphor: win–win and firm‐level sustainability. Then we employ a transdisciplinary comparative analysis to contrast these assumptions with two ecological perspectives: strong sustainability and nested hierarchy. By drawing extensively from the literature of ecologically grounded sciences, our study contributes a critical evaluation of the TBL paradigm of sustainability.

Business model based on strong sustainability: Insights from an empirical study

“…Some claim that neither the TBM nor the SBM can fully encompass the imperative of adapting economic and business activities to the requirements of environmental sustainability. They contend that the TBM is not sustainable per se and that balancing economic, social, and environmental sustainability does not suffice either (Isil & Hernke, 2017;Roland & Landua, 2015). This "weak environmental sustainability" is fallible because it does not consider biogeochemical cycles in the natural ecosystem processes (Ekins, Simon, Deutsch, Folke, & De Groot, 2003), which might cause a situation in which economies appear to be sustainable even though they deplete natural resources and damage ecosystems (Ayres, Van den Berrgh, & Gowdy, 2001).…”

Co‐creation for sustainable development: The bounds of NGO contributions to inclusive business

“…Overall, this paper argues that the expectations the inclusive business approach places on NGO partnerships may be excessive. The proposition of simultaneously achieving empowerment and profitability is ambitious and contentious (Barkemeyer, Holt, Preuss, & Tsang, ; Hahn, Figge, Pinkse, & Preuss, ; Isil & Hernke, ), and we still have scant understanding of whether diverse partnerships really can broker such deals. Inclusive business is a predominantly macrolevel and mesolevel literature that has advanced a rather abstract view of these partnerships (Arora & Romijn, ; Chatterjee, ).…”

Commodifying Biodiversity: Socioeconomic Approaches to Wildlife Human Coexistence

“…Rather than fundamentally challenging the way we view or conduct business, sustainability frameworks often provide the guidance to overcome marginal sustainability challenges, developing "eco-efficiencies" to justify business-as-usual practices. Likewise, the corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature largely ignores that businesses are self-interest forces of power that tend to shape sustainability in their favor (Isil and Hernke 2017). However altruistic, these frameworks often lack the ability to capture direct impact and value creation of the firm in social, financial, and environmental ways.…”