Date post: | 02-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | padlah-riyadi-se-ak-ca-mm |
View: | 228 times |
Download: | 1 times |
of 63
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
1/63
T R I P L E B O T T O M L I N E
M E A S U R E M E N T A N DREPORTING IN AUSTRALIA
Making it Tangible
Dahle Suggett and Ben Goodsir
TRIPLE
BOTTOMLINE
MEASU
REMENTANDREPORTING
IN
AUSTRALIA
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
2/63
This study was funded by:
Prime Ministers Community Business Partnership
Suite 2, Level 12
3 Spring Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Website: www.partnership.zip.com.au
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources
20 Allara Street
Canberra ACT 2601
Website: www.industry.gov.au
This study was prepared by:
The Allen Consulting Group
Level 4, 128 Exhibition Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
Website: www.allenconsult.com.au
ISBN: 0-9578337-2-5
Environment Australia
John Gorton Building
King Edward Terrace
Parkes ACT 2600
Website: www.ea.gov.au
Cisco Systems
80 Pacific Highway
North Sydney, NSW 2060
Website: www.cisco.com.au
Commonwealth of Australia 2002
Information presented in this document may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes or to provide wider dissemination for public
response, subject to inclusion of acknowledgment of the source and provided no commercial usage or sale of the material occurs. Reproduction for purposes
other than those given above requires written permission from Prime Ministers Community Business Partnership, Environment Australia, and Department of
Industry, Tourism and Resources.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Commonwealth.
While reasonabl e efforts have been made to e nsure that the content s of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsi-
bility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the
use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.
Reference to any company, product or service in this booklet should not be taken as Commonwealth endorsement of that company, product or service.
Design and printing by DPA Document Printing Australia www.dpa.com.au
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
3/63
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
4/63
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
This project was funded and supported by a range of public-sector departmentsand private-sector organisations, with the Prime Ministers Community
Business Partnership as the main sponsor. Its purpose was to explore current
strands of thought and action in Australian companies about triple bottom line
measurement and reporting, and to document existing and emerging practices.
An international perspective was also included with input from companies in the
United Kingdom.
The project sought to draw on the everyday experience of companies and
record their sense of priorities, benefits and challenges. We did not necessarily
want the study to mount a case for adopting triple bottom line reporting, rather to
portray companies thinking and experiences so more companies could develop a
critical understanding of the questions to be considered and the business benefits
to be gained.
The Prime Ministers Community Business Partnership, in particular, has an
objective to encourage strong and active collaboration between the community
and business sectors to achieve mutual goals, develop creative solutions to region-
al and local problems, and to strengthen community ties. In exploring business
practices in triple bottom line measurement and reporting we were able to take a
further step towards that goal.
The project partners were:
The Prime Ministers Community Business Partnership, Commonwealth
Government: Geraldine Skinner and Amanda Steele;
Environment Australia, Commonwealth Government: Judith Kendrick; David
Saywell; Alex Fearnside; and Anne Close;
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, Commonwealth Government:
Bob Bennett; Andrew Harvey; and Jo Arnold;
Cisco Systems:Kip Cole and Katherine Baddeley;
The Business Council of Australia:Steven Munchenberg;
Shell Australia:John Simpson;
The Body Shop:Chris Childs;
Westpac Investment Management:Shaun Mays.
The Allen Consulting Group undertook the research led by Dahle Suggett, with
Ben Goodsir, Dr Steve Hadfield Dodds, Troy Hey and Dr Sasha Courville.
On behalf of the project partners, I wish to thank the many executives from
Austral ian and British companies and organisations who contributed their
thoughts, time and resources to assisting in this project.
Geraldine Skinner
Chief Executive Officer
Community Business Partnership
Foreword
iii
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
5/63
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
6/63
Foreword iii
Index of Companies vii
Executive Summary viii
Chapter One
Definitions, Context and Drivers 1
Introduction 2
Triple bottom line defined 2
How triple bottom line works 6
Reshaping business priorities: Drivers of change 9Conclusion 16
Chapter Two
Triple Bottom Line: A Work in Progress 17
Introduction 18
The current foundations 18
Taking the next steps 19
Evolution of reporting 21
Wait and see 22
Packaging information for community right to know 26
Stakeholder alignment as the starting point 30
Guided by sustainability principles 37
Culturally and philosophically driven operations 45
Conclusion 48
Chapter Three
Indicators and Assessment 51
Introduction 52
Performance indicators 52
Environmental indicators 54
Social indicators 63
Economic indicators 79
Partnering with third parties and disclosure 82
Conclusion 84
Table of Contents
v
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
7/63
Chapter Four
Determining The Value 85
Introduction 86
Benefits: Looking for the value added 86
Measuring benefits 91
Challenges to implementation 93
Management improvement versus external accountability 93
Off-the-shelf indicators versus company- or sector-owned indicators 96
Global or national versus local reporting 97
Benchmarks versus snapshots 100
Conclusion 101
Chapter Five
Conclusion: Strategies for Achieving Greater Clarity 103
Introduction 104
Role of government 104
Meeting interest group and consumer needs 105
Relationship with industry associations and codes of practice 106
Conclusion 107
Appendix A
Research Methodology 108
Consultation List 110
Other Organisations Cited in the Document 112
Forums Where Triple Bottom Line Issues
Have Been Explored 112
Appendix B
Standards, Guidelines and Other UsefulResource Material 113
Table of Contents (continued)
vi
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
8/63
Chapter Two
AMP Ltd
ANZ Banking Group Ltd
AXA Asia Pacific
British Airports Corporation
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
Co-operative Bank UK
Fosters Brewing Group Ltd
Leighton Holdings Ltd
Medibank Private Ltd
MIM Holding LtdOrica Ltd
Qantas Airways Ltd
Rio Tinto Ltd
Shell International Ltd
Telstra Corporation Ltd
The Body Shop
Unilever plc
Visy Industries
Wesfarmers Ltd
WestpacBanking Corporation
WMC Resources LimitedWoolworths Ltd
Chapter Three
Alcoa World Alumina Australia
BP Australia Ltd
Co-operative Bank UK
Diageo
Fosters Brewing Group Ltd
Normandy Mining Ltd
Orica Ltd
Rio Tinto Ltd
Telstra Corporation Ltd
The Body Shop
Unilever plc
Visy Industries
Wesfarmers Ltd
WestpacBanking Corporation
WMC Resources Limited
Chapter Four
AMP Ltd
BHP Billiton Ltd
British Airports Corporation
Cable and Wireless Optus
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
Co-operative Bank UK
Fosters Brewing Group Ltd
Henry Walker Eltin Group Ltd
Incitec Ltd
Normandy Mining Ltd
Rio Tinto Ltd
Shell Australia Ltd
Unilever plc
Visy Industries
Wesfarmers Ltd
WestpacBanking Corporation
WMC Resources Limited
Index of Companies
vii
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
9/63
Transparency and accountability for economic, environmental and social cor-porate performance are the core notions embedded in the triple bottom line.
While relatively few companies formally issue triple bottom line reports in
Australia, a groundswell of interest is now evident across Australian business. The
next few years will see a increase in business planning and reporting to take
account of this new sense of accountability although practices will vary widely
according to the sector and context of the company.
This research examined the views and practices of 29 Australian companies
and seven overseas companies, as well as consulted with a range of industry bodies
and non-government organisations. An important objective was to look behind
the big ideas to illustrate current practices for measuring and reporting corporate
performance and to explain the benefits and challenges that companies identify.
Care was taken to avoid a didactic approach to how corporations should or should
not behave. Instead, the focus has been on understanding the business logic for
companies practices. This enables other companies to benchmark their experi-
ence and identify tangible options for adoption. It also enables government and
other interested corporate stakeholders to better understand the business ratio-
nale and see where they might work with companies.
Triple bottom line has clearly caught the imagination of many companies
and others in the community. Triple bottom line, a phrase coined in the 1980s,
encapsulates the three major dimensions of sustainability economic, social and
environmental and proposes that a companys performance and impact can and
should be measured and communicated to stakeholders. Many companies are
searching for ways to understand the boundaries of their non-market accountabil-
ities and responsibilities and to engage with those stakeholders that matter to their
business. Triple bottom line presents one approach for companies to consider.
Core characteristics
The core characteristics that companies display when embracing triple bottom
line are: accepting accountability and being transparent probably the most
powerful ideas embodied in the triple bottom line and fundemental to good gover-
nance; integrated planning and operations where a companys contributions
to economic prosperity, environmental quality and social well-being are reflected
in strategic planning and management systems; a commitment to stakeholder
engagement; and multi-dimensional measurement and reporting.
In practice, companies indicate that there is no right way to identify, measure
and report on non-financial inputs or outcomes. Moreover, businesses prefer
approaches that grow out of their own priorities and commercial logic. Some
companies incorporate elements of internationally recognised reporting frame-
works such as the Global Reporting Initiative, The Institute of Social and Ethical
Accountabilitys standard and others listed in Appendix B.
Groundswell of interestbut few public reportsto date
Study portrays thebusiness logic thatunderpins companiesapproaches to triple
bottom line
Three major dimensionsof sustainability
Characteristics:
accountability,transparency, integratedplanning and operations,stakeholder engagement,multi-dimensionalmeasurementand reporting
No right way: not aprecise measurementtechnology
Executive Summary
viii
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
10/63
The motivation for greater company transparency and accountability is con-
siderable. Companies throughout the world are experiencing unprecedented
challenges. Forces are reshaping the context for business success as companies
face increased global competition and the imperative of adapting to technological
change. The pursuit of sustainable development meeting the needs of the pre-
sent without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their ownneeds is endorsed by the Business Council of Australia as an important, legiti-
mate and fundamental aspect of business responsibilities. As business structures
and activities in the post-industrial era will barely resemble those of earlier peri-
ods, so too will business responsibilities and accountabilities be transformed.
Against this background, there are more immediate pressures that focus atten-
tion on the nature and quality of the relationship between business and society at
large. Simply put, companies are now asked by many more stakeholders for infor-
mation about their impacts on the environment, the economy and the society, and
to attest to the ethical conduct and sound governance of their business.
Companies are faced with deciding whether to resist these questions, or respondwith available data, or whether to seize the opportunity to gain deeper insight into
the impact of their own practices, as well as to become truly transparent and
accountable.
Triple bottom line measuring and reporting:a work in progress
F
ive broad categories capture the current diverse state of play in performance
measurement and reporting in Australia. (Some British companies were also
included to illustrate the additional dimensions that will probably develop in
Australian companies over the next few years.) All these practices are valid and the
categories are not judgemental. The five categories are more to show the varied
business rationales and interpretation of community expectations for triple
bottom line measuring and reporting.
1. Wait and see is the category where companies are satisfied with their
present approaches to communication and accountability, such as Fosters and
Woolworths. Either a change is not a business priority and not on the radar,
or there is a sense of potential benefit, but it is far too early to proceed without
understanding more about the context and the directions for the rest of business.
2. Other companies make a commitment to their stakeholders to be open and
transparent, observing the community right to know principle and endorsing
the notion of greater accountability to the community for their performance.
To meet this commitment they assemble and package internal information for
an external audience. This information reveals the standards they seek to meet,
how well they perform against those standards and a description of their activ-
ities. Some companies in this area are international leaders in environmental
reporting such as Wesfarmers and Orica. They continue to develop their data
collection, reporting and verification approaches, but do not see that a change
in approach to embrace social or economic dimensions to the same extent
would necessarily yield additional business benefits.
Unprecedented challengesin a globally competitiveenvironment
Choices forAustralian companies:resist communitypressure or benefitfrom transparency
Five main categories ofcompanies: wait and see,packaging informationfor community rightto know, stakeholderalignment, endorsing coreprinciples and a holistic
cultural perspective
ix
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
11/63
3. A few companies have started from scratch and systematically seek alignment
between stakeholders expectations and corporate strategy. This approach
requires establishing new management systems and is a long and often
resource-intensive approach. WMC is an example of a company that seeks to
continue to develop in this direction and a number of other companies have
embarked on the first steps, such as Westpac, and others are poised to go downthis track, such as ANZ.
4. A few companies, mostly international, such as Rio Tinto and Shell, shape their
response to stakeholder expectations into principles that guide their business
activity: sustainability principles or partnership principles for example. This
approach is directed at embedding these principles into management practices
again an intense and, for some, a problematic journey. AMP has recently initi-
ated processes to proceed in this direction.
5. Finally, some companies, mostly in private ownership, define their business
purpose and their commitment to sustainability values and accountability as
fully integrated their business success depends on this cultural perspective.The Body Shop is the often-quoted example and the Cooperative Bank in the
United Kingdom, but also Visy Industries in Australia embraces this holistic
approach.
Developing indicators and assessment
Developing high-quality indicators is an enormous challenge, and there is noone easy or correct way to develop and report them. While some companiesare successfully adopting the Global Reporting Initiative and other frameworks,
others take a more eclectic approach where they review indicators used by other
companies and adopt the most appropriate from various sources.
In general, companies develop indicators that are most relevant to the issues
they face and the concerns of key stakeholders, but, perhaps more importantly,
they are choosing indicators that are useful for informing strategic decisions with-
in the business the extent to which environmental and social factors are
integrated into management decisions does however vary. Within this context, sev-
eral indicators are comparable within and across industry sectors: the common
environmental ones tend to be the amount of energy consumed and its origin,
resource and material usage, emissions, and effluents and waste management; the
common social indicators relate to health and safety and community involvement;
and economic indicators beyond financial results are, for example, taxation paid
and estimates of wealth created by the company.
While companies have adopted a variety of qualitative and quantitative
approaches to measure their performance, there are several common main features
such as: the mix of input, output and outcome measures; the use of performance
targets; and benchmarking practices and verification processes (see Box E.1).
Designing indicatorsto inform strategicmanagement
x
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
12/63
Creating value
Uncovering the value creation of triple bottom line or making the businesscase operates at two levels. There is a soft but nevertheless compelling busi-ness case that concerns management and performance improvement through the
use of data, reputation enhancement, market differentiation and greater social
legitimacy or the securing of the licence to operate. Companies are adamant
about the value of these benefits, especially when triple bottom line is part of
a more holistic view of corporate citizenship and sustainability. Identifying more
tangible financial benefits shareholder value, revenue, access to capital andmarket growth is not yet settled. Positive links between sustainable development
and financial results are being identified in research so, again, if triple bottom line
reporting is truly reflective of a companys adherence to sustainable development
practices, more tangible financial benefits should become apparent.
In the minds of Australian businesses, triple bottom line measurement and
reporting is not a precise measurement technology; it is more a clever concept for
establishing a new vision for a range of corporate responsibilities.
Adopting more transparent and accountable practices must be built on a busi-
ness case that is widely discussed and understood in the company. To achieve
enduring benefits companies need to own their own approach, one that is built
on well-conducted research and rigorous execution. Changes of this sort need to
be well integrated into core management systems including planning, operations,
employee relations, and management appraisal and reward systems.
In looking forward, many companies believe there is a role for government that
includes facilitating discussion, especially around the characteristics of an envi-
ronmental, social and economic vision for Australia what are the communitys
environmental, social and economic goals that should inform business objectives?
There are many current regulatory and administrative instruments that already
include public consultation and reporting (such as the National Pollutant
Inventory). As a first step, the impact of these should be considered in the light of
triple bottom line expectations.
Soft benefits throughuseful data, licence tooperate and reputation.Extent of financial benefitsnot agreed
Not a precisemeasurement technology
Companies need toown the process toreap the benefits
Government andindustry bodies havea role in facilitation
xi
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
Main features of performance measures adopted by companies include:
input measures are the least difficult to develop and hence are the most common, whereas outcomes measures are rare;
performance targets are used to varying degrees. Most do not set targets but compare incremental performance improvements
over time, and set short to medium-term targets (objectives) and assess performance against these. A few companies set
aspirational targets and measure performance against these over the long term;
few companies explicitly link performance measures with the social, environmental or economic impact of the measured processes
or events;
while there are few opportunities for companies to benchmark performance against key competitors (except in the resource sector)
some companies are benchmarking against legal licence limits (that is, emissions and so on);
indicators are verified in a variety of ways, the most common are external verification and systems incorporating external input.
There are several leading companies verifying indicators based on feedback from readers and program recipients. While
environmental indicators are increasingly externally verified, this is more difficult for social indicators; and
leading companies enable data to be disaggregated to the local level and customised through web-based reporting. A few
companies are going live with their data, which challenges the status of the more static traditional paper based reporting.
Source: The Allen Consulting Group
BOX E.1 MAIN FEATURES OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
13/63
Industry groups have an important role in taking triple bottom-line thinking
further. There is no one-size-fits-all approach but most industry sectors are well
placed to develop approaches that suit groups of like-minded companies such
as occurred with the chemical and minerals industries in developing codes of
practice in the 1990s.
The findings of this review are reported as follows: Chapter 1 provides definitions of the terms used in this field of discussion, an
overview of the main forces or drivers for companies paying attention to triple
bottom line considerations and a visual map to aid a conceptual understand-
ing of the varied elements.
Chapter 2 portrays the highly diverse state of play by presenting 20 case
studies (16 Australian and four British) of companies thinking and practices
grouped into five broad developmental categories. This essentially addresses
the why and how dimensions.
Chapter 3analyses the environmental, social and economic measurement and
reporting techniques employed by companies in their current practices. Chapter 4discusses the business case and the implementation challenges that
companies face in determining their triple bottom line activity and the benefits
that they anticipate.
Chapter 5raises some strategies that may be employed in further clarifying the
way that companies could best meet the new community expectations.
xii
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
14/63
1
S N A P S H O T
CHAPTER 1
Definitions, Context
and Drivers
Characteristics
Triple bottom line is a clever term for highlight-
ing the non-market and non-financial areas
of corporate performance and responsibility:
environmental, social and economic. The core
characteristics of triple bottom line include:
accepting accountability: triple bottom
line is founded on the assumption that
companies are accountable not only to
shareholders for generating returns but also
to stakeholders;
being transparent: companies have an
obligation, within commercial limits, to be
transparent about their activities and
impacts beyond financial performance;
integrated planning and operations: fora company to contribute to economic
prosperity (including returns to sharehold-
ers), environmental quality and social
well-being it is necessary that these dimen-
sions be reflected in strategic planning;
committed to stakeholder engagement:
interacting with internal and external stake-
holders is a process that informs business
objectives and is developed from a base of
rigorous research and dialogue; and
multi-dimensional measurement and report-
ing: systematic analysis and verification
of economic, environmental and social
performance, together with structured com-
munication on the results, is most often the
main mechanism for making concrete what
a company stands for, how it behaves and
how it delivers on its promises.
Context and drivers: Reshaping
business priorities
Community and employee expectations: the
traditional relationship between business
and society is being reshaped and this is
altering our common understanding of
business responsibilities.
Scrutiny related to socially responsible
investment: the recent growth of socially
responsible investment in the United
Kingdom is indicative of what companies
might experience in Australia over the next
few years.
Reputation-ranking industry: there is con-
siderable public interest in more generalised
reputation-ranking and this is also drivingmany companies to collect the data for the
reports they are being asked to produce.
Changing voice of the not-for-profit sector:
the not-for-profit sector is attracting interest
worldwide and, in particular, the Australian
sector is changing its interface with govern-
ment, the community and industry.
Regulation and certification: there are few
regulatory requirements in Australia that
aim to increase or improve corporate disclo-
sure on their social and environmental
behaviour. The more dominant influence on
corporate behaviour, particularly for social
issues, is self-regulation and third-party
regulation (certification).
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
15/63
The focus on howand why
One concept amongmany describingthe balance betweenshareholder value addedand societal value added
2
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
Introduction
Triple bottom line is a clever term for highlighting the importance of non-market and non-financial areas of corporate performance and responsibility.This chapter explains the characteristics, drivers and benefits of triple bottom line
measurement and reporting, and its relationship to other key concepts in the
expanding lexicon for describing wider corporate responsibilities.
Triple bottom line defined
All companies consulted for this study are searching for ways to understand theboundaries of their non-market role and the non-financial outcomes forwhich they are accountable. However, there is no single or correct response.
Variations among companies occur according to industry sector whether there
is exposure through a brand, a service or operations company structure, size,
corporate philosophy or even management disposition. A few actively use the term
triple bottom line to delineate those boundaries, while others prefer to describe
their approaches in terms of corporate citizenship, or being a good neighbour, or
they refer to their sustainability principles or commitments to the community.
Triple bottom line measurement and reporting represents one important
process to assist companies in this search; just one part of the mosaic of corporate
change strategies for embracing more than traditional market signals. The triple
bottom line, as discussed in this study, is also a relatively concrete and observable
process. As a result, drawing on the practices that are observable in companies is
a pragmatic way to define triple bottom line and to assist others in developing a
better understanding of the processes and benefits.
Triple bottom line
The term was coined by John Elkington in the early 1980s:
The triple bottom line focuses corporations not just on the economic value
they add, but also on the environmental and social value they add and
destroy. At its narrowest, the term triple bottom line is used as a framework
for measuring and reporting corporate performance against economic,
social and environmental parameters.
Elkington, J. (1980). The Ecology of Tomorrows World
Economic performance encompasses issues conventionally reported in a compa-
nys annual financial report, but also considers matters such as: the ratio of market
capitalisation to book value, investments in human capital and research and
development, wages and benefits paid, community development initiatives, and
the value and location of outsourced goods and services.
Environmental performance includes factors such as: the amount of energy
consumed and its origin, resource and material usage, emissions, effluents and
waste management, land use and management of habitats.
Social performance addresses interactions between an organisation and its
community. It includes such issues as: employee relations, health and safety, ratioof wages to cost of living, non-discrimination, Indigenous rights, impact of com-
munity involvement and customer satisfaction.
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
16/63
The contribution of the term is in conveying a strategic idea in a simple way: a
company enhances short and long term value through successfully managing its
economic, environmental and social performance and impact so as to create
greater opportunities and reduce risks. Not only does the company derive value
but the companys wider influence also delivers community benefits. The three
spheres of activity are measurable and their contribution to organisational andcommunity value should be communicated to internal and external audiences
who have a stake in the results.
A caution is that the financial accounting image of the bottom line should not
be taken literally. A triple bottom line is not a quest for a new bottom-line metric
but rather an approach to management and performance assessment that stresses
the importance and interdependence of economic, environmental and social per-
formance. However, the relevant dimensions of corporate performance are not
always neatly divided into these three categories, with some companies already
talking about a fourth pillar in corporate governance and ethics. Triple bottom line
is therefore best seen as a metaphor that encapsulates the task of managing, mea-suring and publicly reporting multi-dimensional corporate performance.
Triple bottom line also needs to be understood in relation to other related con-
cepts about the role and responsibilities of the corporation and its performance.
While there are many conceptual frameworks that seek to redefine the role and
responsibilities of business, three related concepts that regularly arise in discus-
sion with companies are: sustainable development, corporate social responsibility
and good corporate citizenship, and stakeholder engagement.
Sustainable development
Economic development, social development and environmental protection areinterdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable develop-
ment. The definition of sustainable development adopted by the Bruntland
Commission is:
Development seeking to meet the needs of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
The World Commission on Environment and
Development, Our Common Future, 1987.
This definition has been widely accepted and incorporated into the commitments
of most major business organisations around the world. The Business Council of
Australia endorses this definition and commits to excellence in the management
of the financial, environmental and social dimensions of all activities, products
and services.
The World Business Council for Sustainability (WBSCD) regards eco-efficiency
which combines environmental and economic performance and corporate
social responsibility as the core business contributions to sustainability.
Adopting a way of measuring and reporting progress towards sustainability
through a triple bottom line approach is clearly of benefit to the business itself and
to those audiences who are seeking to evaluate progress.
An approach tomanagement andperformance assessment;a metaphor rather thana new accounting metric
A fourth pillar: governance
and ethics
Sustainable development;corporate socialresponsibility andcorporate citizenship; andstakeholder engagementare complementary notcompeting concepts
3
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
17/63
Corporate social responsibility and good corporate citizenship
According to the WBCSD, corporate social responsibility concerns the continuing
commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic develop-
ment while improving the quality of life of the workforce, their families, as well as
the local community and society at large.1 Being socially responsible means going
beyond compliance with legal expectations to investing in better management of
environmental impact, employee well-being and community benefits. A major
mechanism in achieving this is identifying and responding to stakeholders expec-
tations and incorporating this understanding into corporate values, business
strategies and measurement of the outcomes of company performance.
Importantly, this calls for an integrated approach to management; one where
wider social, environmental and economic responsibilities impact on the strategic
planning of the company and not only serve as add-ons in a defensive strategy.
Stakeholder engagement
The WBCSD provides a long list of stakeholders for business to take into account
including: trade unions, churches, Indigenous peoples, interest groups, not-for-profit
organisations, government and non-government organisations, and academics.
Another way of defining stakeholders is to see some as primary stakeholders
(those who exert a direct economic influence on the company and, in turn, are
directly influenced by the companys performance) and secondary stakeholders
(those who have a less direct relationship with the economic base of the company,
but have significant expectations).2 Primary stakeholders would be customers,
suppliers, employees, creditors, investors and shareholders. Secondary stakehold-
ers would include media, government, local communities, interest groups,
not-for-profit organisations and the general public. In some companies, inputfrom their primary and secondary stakeholders is the basis for: planning to deliver
on the triple bottom line; understanding stakeholders expectations and how to
meet them; and how to measure and report on performance outcomes.
The idea of stakeholder engagement is not about exposure to narrow interest
groups as some businesses fear. Rather, stakeholder engagement can become a
core management strategy for enhancing and sustaining the shareholder and soci-
etal wealth-creating capacity of the enterprise.3
Not an either or
The core role of business is generating and distributing wealth. The expanding size
and impact of corporations in the globalised economy has, however, reconfigured
their role and responsibilities to embrace additional environmental and social
visions. The new paradigm for delivering on these wider responsibilities that are
embedded in concepts such as sustainable development or good corporate citi-
zenship is not an either or of financial performance or environmental excellence
or social responsibility. Rather, the new paradigm is about and also.
Primary andsecondary stakeholders:understanding andmeeting theirexpectations;measuring andreporting on outcomes
4
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
1 Watts, P. and Lord Holme (1998). Meeting Changing Expectations: Corporate Social Responsibility,
World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland.2 Post, J. (2000). Meeting the Challenge of Global Corporate Citizenship, Boston College for Corporate
Community Relations, Boston College, MA.
3 Post J., Preston, L., and Sachs S. (Forthcoming). Redefining the Corporation: Stakeholder Management
and Organisational Wealth, Stanford University Press.
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
18/63
As BP Australia said:
In the oil industry, concern for the environment and societal development
does not mean that people have become tired of demanding cheap, reliable
and safe energy. No, it means they want all that andenergy, which is clean,
has a creditable provenance and delivers a positive legacy.
Fliedner, I. (2000)4
The considerable challenge that this presents for business is to deliver equally well
on all dimensions: to remain globally competitive and to be environmentally and
socially responsible and accountable.
Triple bottom line: Core characteristics
What are the observable characteristics of triple bottom line? In its widest sense,
triple bottom line is a philosophy that guides overall corporate performance. In a
narrower sense and the one that applies in this study it refers to the approaches
adopted for measuring and reporting on business performance beyond the finan-cial dimension and towards an integrated view of business processes and impacts
in environmental, social and economic (including financial) domains. While strat-
egy and management practices feature to some extent in this study, the focus
concerns why companies might consider publicly reporting on non-financial
matters and how that is being achieved.
The following points represent the essential behaviours and attitudes that are
manifest in those companies that seek to manage and report according to the idea
of the triple bottom line.
Accepting accountability:triple bottom line is founded on the assumption that
companies are accountable not only to shareholders for generating returns but
also to stakeholders for contributing, within their context and capabilities, to
sustainable development. Endorsing this notion of accountability most often
features in the vision or core beliefs of a company.
Being transparent:companies also have an obligation, within commercial lim-
its, to be transparent about their activities and impacts beyond financial
performance. Recognising the legitimacy of stakeholders right to know and
disclosing multi-dimensional results and impacts is a powerful idea embodied
in the triple bottom line and is most often reflected in the core beliefs of a
company, its dialogue practices with stakeholders and in the actual content of
its public reporting. Transparency is essential for sound governance.
Integrated planning and operations:for a company to contribute to economic
prosperity (including returns to shareholders), environmental quality and
social well-being requires all these dimensions to be reflected in strategic
planning, the range of operational management systems and reward schemes.
In other words, building these economic, environmental and social considera-
tions into the core processes that drive a company is a precondition for
measuring and reporting according to the triple bottom line.
Commercially competitiveas well as socially andenvironmentallyresponsible
Core characteristics:
accountability;
being transparent;
integrated planningand operations;
stakeholderengagement; and
multi-dimensionalmeasurement andreporting.
5
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
4 Fliedner, I ., Stakeholder Reporting in BP: In Search of the Triple Bottom Line , Presentation, Centre for
Corporate Public Affairs, Melbourne 16th August 2001.
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
19/63
Committed to stakeholder engagement:interacting with internal and external
stakeholders is a process that informs business objectives and is developed
from a base of rigorous research and dialogue. A commitment to considering
stakeholders perspectives and to developing strategies for engagement is
embraced as a core business strategy that adds value.
Multi-dimensional measurement and reporting:systematic analysis and veri-
fication of economic, environmental and social performance, together with
structured communication on the results, is most often the main mechanism
for making concrete what a company stands for, how it behaves and how it
delivers on its promises.
A triple bottom line report: The content
As well as the rich variety of new and traditional communication methods that
companies already have at their disposal (for example, community advisory
panels, stakeholder dialogue, performance disclosure on a website and pamphlets),
the role of a triple bottom line report is to focus on greater transparency and
accountability across all major aspects of company performance and impact.
The content of those reports typically comprises:
multi-dimensional performance and outcomes information: economic,
environmental and social;
descriptions of corporate management principles and practices: including
values, vision and strategy; stakeholder identification; governance and
ethical dimensions;
systematic assessment or measurement of the impacts of company performance;
a basis for identifying benchmarks and assessing trends; and
third-party input, verification or assurance.
How triple bottom line works
There are many entry points to a triple bottom line approach to measurementand reporting company performance. Figure 1.1 provides a visual frameworkof triple bottom line to illustrate how business decisions are sequenced, where
tools for assisting business processes might be applicable and where information
flows could occur.
Subsequent chapters describe the drivers for change in a number of compa-nies, their business case for embracing triple bottom line, and the strategies and
techniques employed for measurement and reporting. While there is great varia-
tion among companies, it is possible to show a theoretical sequence of planning
and implementing triple bottom line. The framework below offers a way to under-
stand where a company may currently be focusing attention and where it wishes to
be in the future.
The stem and centre circles of the framework illustrates a simple linear
sequence in decision-making. The outer circles provide examples of the tools or
content that may be applied to those decision-making stages. The outer down-
ward-pointing arrows are illustrative of the many possible feedback loops forcommunication and engagement.
The focus onaccountabilityand transparencyis a powerful driverof the content
Great variation amongcompanies, but also atypical planning sequence
6
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
20/63
It is also possible with Figure 1.1 to consider points of interaction or interven-
tion by specific stakeholders such as investors, business groups, government,
interest groups and the not-for-profit sector. Their influence could be seen
laterally: industry bodies for example, frequently take a role in developing codes
of conduct and defining issues companies face, whereas they do not advise on
management systems.
A visual framework
In order to improve economic, environmental and social performance, and to
communicate this to internal and external stakeholders, there are a number of
steps that a company would go through, represented in the centre column of inner
circles. This is shown in a linear format to ensure simplicity but, in reality, moving
between the different stages is an iterative process.
Company business strategyis located in an environmental, economic and social
(and political) context. It signals the strategic direction a business adopts, the val-
ues it upholds, the medium and long term objectives, and is supplemented by the
business plan for the short term. A fully developed triple bottom line approach
would have objectives that range over all the dimensions, as well as the core finan-
cial and commercial goals. It would have tools and systematic processes to
determine the values and specific expectations of shareholders.
Strategy and values in anenvironmental, economicand social context
7
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
Source: The Allen Consulting Group
FIGURE 1.1 TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE VISUAL FRAMEWORK
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
21/63
Management systemsare often proprietary to individual companies, as they are
a source of competitive advantage, and vary in the degree of formality and detail.
Irrespective of the nature of the management systems, a triple bottom line mea-
surement and reporting process arises from and feeds back into the management
or business systems of the company: strategic planning, human resource manage-
ment, information management, environmental management and communityinvolvement are some key areas.
Indicators function as a measuring stick, by which companies can evaluate
how they are accomplishing explicit goals. Indicators also need to be placed within
a wider context of key economic, environmental and social issues and objectives.
Indicators should simply communicate complex information about performance
to an audience who wants to understand more about the company or make deci-
sions on the basis of that information.
Key contextual issues, relevant to individual companies or wider industry
sectors, are often identified and formalised through the development of codes of
conductor sets of principles. These are sets of issues that are considered importantto address in the context of that industry sector, such as in the case of the
Australian Minerals Industry Environmental Code of Conduct, the gaming indus-
trys Responsible Gaming Code or the Australian Bankers Associations Banking
Code. This could also comprise a network of international associations represent-
ing business, non-governmental organisations, trade unions and the United
Nations, such as in the case of the Global Compact. Issues faced by companies
that are not formally translated into codes are also highly relevant, such as agricul-
tural production techniques and salinity.
There are a number of possibilities for assessment. Where the company
has developed its own set of issues and indicators, the assessment process is
performed in-house. To ensure greater transparency, independent verification of
the results could be obtained. Furthermore, if a widely accepted set of issues or a
code were available and relevant, the company could be audited or inspected
against these criteria through an independent third-party system. Systems such as
Social Accountability Internationals SA 8000 standard based on ILO labour con-
ventions or eco-labelling function in this way. Some triple bottom line tools, such
as ISO 14001 or the Building Greenhouse Rating Scheme, can either be used simply
as internal tools for improving performance and management systems or as tools
for external communication to stakeholders through an optional independent
verification and certification process.
Certification systems will become increasingly popular as market-based regu-
latory tools. Questions then arise of who will monitor the monitors. The most
sophisticated certification systems also have accreditation systems, whereby the
certification body is accredited to a higher level organisation that oversees the
integrity of its operations (for example, JASANZ is a body in Australia that accred-
its many certification bodies).
Reportingcan be directed to external stakeholders and regulators, to internal
audiences, and serve in management improvement. While the reporting process
will vary depending on the target audience, a main goal is to move towards closer
alignment of values between external and internal stakeholders and decision-
makers. This engagement is most appropriate during the stages of identifying coreissues to address and at the assessment stage to ensure that the results are credible
and transparent. With respect to the internal feedback loop (as outlined in Figure 1),
Triple bottom linereporting arises fromand feeds back intomanagement systems
Indicators simplycommunicate complexinformation on outcomes
Sectoral issues,often translated intocodes, are a further
performance parameter
Assessment technologiesare in-house or
externally set
Reporting is alignedbetween stakeholders andbusiness decision-makers
8
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
22/63
this integrates the results into the companys management system with the goal of
improving performance against economic, environmental and social benchmarks.
This is also important as a lever for cultural change within the company.
Reshaping business priorities:Drivers of change
Companies throughout the world are facing unprecedented challenges. Forcesare reshaping the context for business success in Australia, as elsewhere, withcompanies facing more global competition and the imperative of adapting to
technological change. The knowledge economy highlights the importance of tacit
knowledge or the know-how of employees so that the intellectual capital of a
company is increasingly a key competitive factor. As well, the pursuit of sustain-
able development meeting the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs is a principle endorsed byall major business organisations, including the Business Council of Australia, as an
important and legitimate aspect of business responsibility.
Against the background of the global business environment, there are addi-
tional features of the business context that are directed more at the nature and
quality of the relationship between business and society: heightened community
(and employees) expectations of business performance and responsibility in
Australia, scrutiny arising from the growth of socially responsible investment, the
rise in importance of corporate reputation and the growth of a reputation-ranking
industry, the changing voice of the not-for-profit sector, and the shifting role of
regulation and certification. These are themes raised in consultations for this
review that may explain the growing interest in the triple bottom line.
Community and employee expectations
The traditional relationship between business and society is being reshaped and
this is altering our common understanding of business responsibilities. This is par-
ticularly the case in Australia where changes in government functions have altered
the position of Australian industry from being highly protected and regulated to
one that is called on to be a partner with government and the community in serv-
ing a wider range of areas for the public good. Many areas of service provision and
economic activity are now privatised, and public companies and the not-for-profitsector are active in areas of the economy previously reserved for government.
Business in Australia, unlike the United States, is not use to this level of visibility
and accountability.5
Also, intense global competition has refocused business strategy and relations
with employees. Most companies report that improving relationships with
employees and meeting their expectations is a strong for some the most powerful
driver for changing corporate activity to better serve a social role. A study of the
benefits of greater corporate community involvement revealed that meeting
employee expectations was one of the most important and new drivers of change. 6
Business success redefined
Australian business morevisible and accountable
Employees bring theirvalues to the workplace
9
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
5 See a discussion with business and community leaders in Dilemmas in Competitiveness, Citizenship
and Community(2000).The Cranlana Programme, the Myer Foundation, Melbourne.
6 Centre for Corporate Public Affairs in conjunction with the Business Council of Australia (2000)
Corporate Community Involvement: Establishing the Business Case.
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
23/63
Consultations with companies in this review support this conclusion. Companies
tie the need for culture change and for competing as the employer of choice, to
being seen by employees as meeting community expectations. Younger employees,
in particular, are seeking a workplace environment that brings community and
personal values to the foreground.
Young employees are championing the cause of a triple bottom line
approach bottom up from a variety of disciplines: marketing; investor
relations; human relations; and product development.
Industry body, The Allen Consulting Group Consultations
Community standards have lifted for environmental and consumer protection,
and economic growth is challenged with creating gaps between the haves and the
have-nots. There is a rising concern for ethics and values and ethical hypernorms
such as transparency, disclosure and responsibility for managing risk, which now
impinge on all business activity.7
Data consistently demonstrate growing community expectations for sociallyresponsible company performance. For example:
a recent survey found that the majority of Australians (90 per cent) want large
companies to go beyond a one-dimensional role of making profits, and con-
tribute more broadly to social and environmental goals. A worldwide survey of
over 25,000 average citizens in 23 countries showed that Australians had the
highest expectations of companies.8 Environmental concerns for 71 per cent of
Australians related to both global as well as domestic environmental problems;
citizens are expressing their views about corporate behaviour in many different
forms, including as investors, consumers, employees and community advo-
cates. A recent British study demonstrated the impact of company reputation
on consumer purchasing, with good companies being rewarded and poor com-
panies being penalised 17 per cent of the population boycotted a companys
product on ethical grounds, 19 per cent had chosen a product/service because
of a companys ethical reputation and 28 per cent had done both;9
similarly, a study in 2000 for the inaugural conference of the Ethical Investment
Association found that 7585 per cent of people had purchased products on the
basis of social and environmental attributes in the previous year;10 and
other Australian studies have found that around 60 per cent of all consumer
decisions are made with an awareness of environmental impacts, and 73 per
cent of consumers state that they would change brands, given equivalent qual-
ity, to support a product associated with a good cause.11
Business is at times sceptical of the strength of these sorts of findings regarding
everyday actions such as purchasing decisions flowing from corporate reputation.
Irrespective, companies do realise that their social context has altered and that
the taken-for-granted link between business success and perceived community
The majority wantAustralian business to gobeyond making profits
The taken-for-grantedlink between financialsuccess and reputationhas been broken
10
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
7 Post, James, (2000). Meeting the Challenge of Global Corporate Citizenship, Boston College, Centre
for Corporate Community Relations, Boston, MA.
8 Environics International Ltd, The Millennium Poll on Corporate Social Responsibility, Executive
Briefing, 1999. Website: www.environics.net/eil/millennium/MPExecBrief.pdf9 MORI, www.mori.com/consumer/index.shtml
10 Presentation by KPMG, Ethical Investment Association Conference, Sydney Stock Exchange, May 2000.
11 State Chamber of Commerce NSW (2001) Taking the First Steps: An Overview of Corporate Social
Responsibility in Australia, The Common Good Program.
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
24/63
benefit has been broken for many in the community. Being a financially successful
company is no longer a guarantee of community (or government) support.
The search for legitimacy and a good reputation is occupying the minds of
many company leaders. Business is uncertain about what negative community
pressure might lead to greater regulation is a concern for some sectors such as
banking or gaming, consumer backlash for the service sector, or constraints ondevelopment for the resource sector or the telecommunications sector.
Scrutiny related to socially responsible investment
While socially responsible investment (SRI) is still a very small part of the market in
Australia, there has been considerable growth in the United Kingdom and Canada
over the past 18 months. This growth will most likely be replicated in Australia.
Major firms such as Challenger, Westpac, Rothschild and AMP have been releasing
new investment products and developing instruments for analysis of company
performance. On the demand side, some superannuation trusts, in particular,
have entered the SRI market and others are exploring their options.
A recent baseline study issued by the federal government concluded that there
are $10.5 billion in socially responsible assets in Australia. 12 SRI managed funds
grew by 86 per cent between 2000 and 2001, 12 times that of managed funds as a
whole. Since 1996, SRI managed funds assets in this country have achieved a
growth rate of over 500 per cent.
The international experience in SRI is important in understanding its potential
impact on companies in Australia. The market is mature in the United States, but
Australian developments in SRI do not appear to be moving in the same direction.13
Although the dollars in the United States that are reported to be invested according
to ethical criteria is high one in every eight dollars under professional manage-ment anecdotal evidence does suggest minimal influence on companies. There
is a longstanding emphasis on exclusions for gambling, alcohol and tobacco.
While criteria such as the environment are well represented, others such as women
in management are very new and only included in relatively boutique vehicles. The
Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index is expanding and evidence of performance
demonstrates an equal if not better outcome than for conventional investment.
The recent growth of socially responsible investment in the United Kingdom is,
however, more indicative of what companies might experience in Australia over
the next few years. Screened investment in the United Kingdom grew by almost
380 per cent from $A1.9 billion to $A7.2 billion between 1994 and 2000.14
In the United Kingdom, contemporary values feature more significantly; for
example, human rights, the environment, employment practices and community
involvement. In particular, the government is a strong advocate for socially
responsible investment as part of its program to promote corporate social respon-
sibility, and an infrastructure for screening companies is rapidly building to service
this form of investment. SRI is newsworthy and companies are subject to a vastly
The mature US marketis mainly due to theexclusion of sin stocks
UK growth is indicativeof the future of sociallyresponsible investment
in Australia
11
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
12 Ethical Investment Association (2001) Socially Responsible Investment in Australia 2001:
Benchmarking Survey (http://www.ea.gov.au).13 For a discussion of the nature of the market in Australia, see The Allen Consulting Group (2000).
Socially Responsible Investment in Australia.
14 Greene, D. (2001). A Capital Idea. Realising Value from Environmental and Social Performance,
Commonwealth Government, Australia.
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
25/63
increased number of surveys and the like wanting to access data on companys
environmental and social performance. Indeed, the impact of the screening
devices seems of greater importance in companies minds than the potential flow
of capital:
I used to spend 5 per cent of my time answering questions, now it is
50 per cent.
Resource company, United Kingdom.
The Allen Consulting Group Consultation
I can show you 20 surveys that I have received in the past few months all
from organisations serving socially responsible investment. Its an explosion.
Consumer goods company, United Kingdom.
The Allen Consulting Group Consultation
In Australia, recent amendments to the Australian Financial Services Reform
Act will increase the disclosure of the extent to which superannuation funds and
investment managers incorporate environmental and social issues in their invest-
ment decisions, and this will inevitably increase discussion of the parameters of
socially responsible performance. Under the Socially Responsible Investment
disclosure requirements of the Financial Services Reform Act 2001, the Product
Disclosure Statement for financial products that have an investment component
will be required to state the extent to which labour standards, environmental,
social or ethical considerations are taken into account in the selection, retention
or realisation of the investment. As occurred in the United Kingdom under a simi-
lar requirement, this will produce a ripple effect not only in the investment
community but also throughout listed companies as organisations classify and
record their socially responsible activities.
Shareholder democracy is also becoming more prominent in Australia. As more
and more Australians become shareowners (Australians are reputedly the highest
direct and indirect owner of shares), they are beginning to look more closely at the
actions of the companies they invest in.15 Interest groups are also recognising that
introducing shareholder resolutions at company annual general meetings is a
mechanism to call management attention to issue. The Corporations Law 249D
was amended in 1998 to allow at least 100 registered shareholders to call a general
meeting of the company. The union campaign against Rio Tintos labour relations
practices was reputedly the first to be conducted through shareholders at their
Annual General Meeting.
Environmental and social risk assessment
Also, more generally, there are reports of increasing pressure from lenders, insurers
and investors on companies to improve their performance, although the current
influence appears to be low. Banks and insurance companies increasingly recog-
nise the importance of good environmental management to reduce their future
risks and some banks overseas have begun to look more closely at environmental
management when considering business loans. Most have implemented
environmental risk criteria as part of their corporate and project lending activities.
Additional scrutiny of
companies performanceand reputation is thecurrent major impactof socially responsibleinvestment
Pressure fromshareholder democracy
Increasing pressure fromlender and insurers
12
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
15 Address Richard Humphry, CEO and MD, Australian Stock Exchange, Annual Oration, Australian
Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, Melbourne July, 2001.
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
26/63
Currently though, environmental assessments tend to be once only and are not
monitored for the duration of the loan period, although this is expected to change
over time.16
Overall, the extent of detailed investment analyst scrutiny of companies envi-
ronmental and social performance (other than for socially responsible investment
purposes) is thought to be very low in Australia especially in a climate of eco-nomic and corporate instability. For example, a recent survey of 25 Australian
stockbrokers found that their key concern when analysing and recommending
a company to clients was its financial performance. Some did indicate that they
provide an ethical analysis if a client requests or if the company actively markets
itself as an ethical company.17 Even in the United Kingdom, where the profile of
the issues is much higher, the trend is similar. One survey found 9 per cent of
analysts saw environmental and social issues as important non-financial indica-
tors, compared with 20 per cent of investors and 23 per cent of journalists.18
Those companies advocating a higher standard of environmental and social
performance hope that the investment market learns to differentiate betweencompanies on these criteria.
Reputation-ranking industry
There is considerable public interest in more generalised reputation ranking and
this is also driving many companies to collect the data for the reports they are
being asked to produce. Many large Australian companies endorse the notion of
stakeholder scrutiny and the obligation of the company to make information freely
available in a transparent and accessible form, endorsing the notion of communi-
ty right to know. Rio Tinto, WMC, Telstra, Shell and National Australia Bank are
examples of companies with external stakeholder forums. Many large companiesalso see that surveys by external parties are a new and legitimate technique for
assessing companies.
The more recent surveys such as the Good Reputation Indexappearing for the
second time in 2001 in The Age and Sydney Morning Herald raises a number of
important issues for companies. While more traditional conventions for ranking
each companies reputation, such as by the global business press Fortune 500in
the United States, the Most Admired Companies for Asian Business or Business
Review Weeklyspolls draw on business to business reviews, the second wave of
reputation assessment draws on community or stakeholder attitudes across a new
set of criteria. Often, the sources for advice are stakeholder groups that are not
supportive of industry and the relationship can be oppositional and combative.
Whereas earlier reputation reviews were structured around conventional busi-
ness indicators such as leadership, product quality, service standards, investment
strategy and community relations, the newer features of a good reputation have
a different focus. Second-wave reviews might include items such as employee
relations, respect for diversity, community involvement, and environmental
programs and ethics, thus reflecting the changing profile of corporate reputation
as an intangible resource (see Box 1.1).
Data are needed forsurveys that rankcorporate reputations
First-wave reviews wereconventional businesssuccess indicators;second-wave reviews aremore combative and focuson stakeholder interests
13
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
16 PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2001). The Role of Australias Financial Sector in Sustainability.17 The Allen Consulting Group Stockbroker Survey (2000). This involved a national survey of
25 mainstream stockbrokers, the results were based on a 40 per cent response rate.
18 Data from Investing in the Futurequoted in press release for Business in the Community, London,
24 May 2001.
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
27/63
Westpac refers to the emerging concept of corporate reputation as:
The net perceptual representation of our past actions and future prospects;
it represents our appeal to all our stakeholders.
Purcell, N. (2001)19
The media clearly believe that there is public interest in corporate reputations,and companies are increasingly sensitive about appearing in the front pages of
newspapers rather than only in the business pages. Companies anticipate that the
number of second-wave reputation surveys will increase, and are confronting the
requests for data and the implications of this on their reputations.
The changing voice of the notforprofit sector
The not-for-profit sector is attracting interest worldwide and, in particular, the
Australian sector is changing its interface with government, the community and
industry.20 It is now the recipient of considerable funds to deliver services to the
community on behalf of government. The sector is in partnership with many
Australian companies to assist them in their community involvement endeavours,
and it continues to recruit people who have a strong sense for serving the public
good and pursuing a sustainable and cohesive Australian society.
Not surprisingly, the voice of this sector is growing in its profile in the
Australian community. Moreover, the language of the triple bottom line is increas-
ingly being used across the sector to describe companies social responsibilities. As
companies come to this sector to strike partnerships and alliances and seek assis-
tance in developing sustainable environmental and social activities, they will find
many organisations, like The Smith Family or the Brotherhood of St. Lawrence,
well versed in the varied dimensions of corporate performance.
The not- for-profit sectoris well versed in thenew dimensions ofthe corporate sector
14
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
19 Purcell, N. Managing New Accountabilities, Corporate Public Affairs, vol. 11, no. 2, 2001, Centre For
Corporate Public Affairs, p. 26.
20 Lyons, M. (2001). The Third Sector: The Contribution of Non-profit and Cooperative Enterprises in
Australia , Allen and Unwin, Sydney.
Source: The Allen Consulting Group
2nd WAVE REVIEWERS: SUPPORTIVE AND OPPOSITIONAL STAKEHOLDERS
Corporate governance Corporate citizenship Disclosure and reporting
Environmental performance Ethics Sustainability
Employee relations Stakeholder involvement
1st WAVE REVIEWERS: BUSINESS TO BUSINESS PEERS
Quality of management Quality of products and services Financial soundness
Attraction of talent Use of corporate assets Business acumen
Community responsibility
BOX 1.1 EXAMPLES OF REPUTATION CRITERIA
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
28/63
The experience and concern of some major not-for-profit organisations is that
companies do not understand what the key social concerns are for Australian people:
Australian companies want to be socially responsible but many do not
know how to go about it because they do not know what the key concerns
are of the Australian public. In this context it is hard to develop a structured
sustainable approach.
The Smith Family, The Allen Consulting Group Consultations
Many interest groups and organisations are interested in having deep dialogue
with companies to assist them in identifying public concerns:
We are interested in having conversations with business to, amongst other
things, build trust between the two parties so that we can work productive-
ly together and address shared problems.
The St James Ethics Centre, The Allen Consulting Group Consultations
When asked what they would expect from companies who seek to measure and
report on the social dimensions of their performance, the Australian Council of
Social Services (ACOSS) similarly sees an opportunity for building trust and two-
way relationships:
Triple bottom line reporting and stakeholder relationship building should
be genuinely reflective. Reporting needs to be based on evidence and there
needs to be assurance that the results will be acted on; reporting needs to be
part of an ongoing two-way relationship.
ACOSS, The Allen Consulting Group Consultations
Certification: peer and customer pressure
An important influence on corporate behaviour and public reporting, particularly
for social issues, is self-regulation and third-party regulation through certification.
Certification systems (for example, ISO 14001, Greenhouse Certification Program,
Forest Stewardship Council and Social Accountability International) routinely
comprise a set of rules, principles or guidelines, and a monitoring and reporting
mechanism. In that sense, they are logically linked to triple bottom line reporting,
providing important substantive information and verification.
Certification schemes can create incentives for companies to improve their
social and/or environmental performance by rewarding successful companies
with a mechanism for differentiation in the market or, alternatively, through peer
pressure to conform to commonly accepted and explicit standards. They can also
provide consumers or industrial customers with a mechanism for making
informed purchasing decisions.
Certification has appeared in almost every major international industry target-
ed by environmentalists and human rights activists, including the chemical,
coffee, forest products, oil, mining, nuclear power and transportation sectors.
Certification is also increasingly prevalent in the apparel, diamond, footwear, and
toy industries, to name a few. A recent inventory by the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) listed 246 codes of corporate conduct.
Dialogue is needed tobuild trust between sectorsthrough accountabilityand transparency
Certification providesan incentive anda framework formeasurementand verification
15
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
29/63
Conclusion
Triple bottom line is not a precise measurement or accounting technology buta way of thinking about the integrated nature of business planning and perfor-mance across environmental, social and economic dimensions. The focus in this
study is on the measurement and reporting practices of triple bottom line rather
than the underpinning business philosophy. The intention is to provide insight
into current practices, particularly in Australian companies, and practical advice
for those wishing to go forward. The current environment for Australian business
is complex, with strong commercial pressures as well as social drivers for change.
While each company perceives these pressures in their own way according to sector,
location or size, there are increasingly common understandings emerging, pro-
pelled by the interest from government, community and the not-for profit sectors.
The drivers of change for corporate communication and reporting discussed
here were drawn from consultations and there would, of course, be others that
could be mentioned. The intention has been to illustrate those pressures that are
currently top of mind for Australian business in setting a context for understand-
ing triple bottom line measurement and reporting.
A way of thinking aboutintegrated planningand performance
16
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
30/63
17
S N A P S H O T
CHAPTER 2
Triple Bottom Line Reporting:
A Work in Progress
Understanding the real world for companies
Beyond the annual report, other popular
mechanisms for communicating with stake-
holders include: community or stakeholder
consultation panels, local letterbox drops of
flyers on environmental initiatives, regularnewsletters to employees and their families, and
regular communication with politicians and
non-government organisations on matters of
interest to them.
The challenge for companies is in establishing
what would be gained by extending these
options to include more structured, targeted
and reflective information in a triple bottom
line report.
Taking the next steps
Very few Australian companies have produced
stand-alone or substantial environment and/or
social reports. Of the top 50 companies listed in
Australia ten have produced environmental
reports half of these companies are in the
resource sector. Six of the top 50 companies
have produced social reports.
Rationales and approaches differ
In general, there appear to be five broad
categories that capture the evolution of triple
bottom line management, reporting and infor-
mation distribution. While these distinctions are
not mutually exclusive they are indicative of the
primary approach of enterprises and provide a
useful way to illustrate the different rationales
and emphases.
Wait and seeis where companies are mostly
satisfied with their present approaches to
communication and accountability. Either a
change is not a business priority and not on
the radar or, there is a sense of potential
benefits, but it is far too early to proceed
without understanding more about the
context and the directions for the rest
of business.
Other companies make a commitment to
their community to be open and transparent
observing the community right to know
principle and endorsing the notion of
greater accountability to the community for
their performance. To meet this commitment
they assemble and package internal
information for an external audience.
A few companies start from scratch and
systematically ask stakeholders what they
want to know about the company. The
information they then generate is driven by
the goal of aligning with stakeholders
expectations.
A few companies, mostly international,
shape their response to stakeholder
expectations into principlesthat guide their
business activity sustainability principles
or partnership principles for example.
Finally, some companies, often in private
ownership, define their business purpose
and their commitment to sustainability
values and accountability as fully integrated
their business success depends on this
cultural perspective.
Conclusion
Reporting that is oriented to triple bottom line
characteristics has a range of seemingly
common features including: the scope and
presentation of information; reference to
management systems and commitments; the
extent to which stakeholders are identified and
social, economic and environmental impacts
and benchmarks are identified; and the
engagement of third parties to develop and
monitor reports.
8/10/2019 Triple Bottom Line in Market Tangiable.
31/63
Introduction
This chapter seeks to portray the current thinking and experiences of a range ofAustralian and British companies that are grappling with the idea or practiceof triple bottom line measurement and reporting. There is wide variation and each
case study tells a different story due to sector, size, location or simply management
culture. The common thread is that they recognise the changing status of business
and the new challenges that this presents.
Many companies are quick to point out that the range of communication chan-
nels they have available for discussing company performance is already wide and
they prefer to exercise their choice of medium to fit the purpose and audience. On
the other hand, many companies are looking for something additional that facili-
tates a deeper engagement with stakeholders and the issues that matter to them.
The current foundations
The vast majority of company annual reports in Australia routinely includeshort descriptive coverage of environment and safety, our people, and sup-porting our community. These themes supplement coverage of corporate strategy,
business achievements and corporate governance that, in turn, support the direc-
tors report, financial report, governance accountabilities and stock exchange and
shareholder information. The values or broad aspirations of a company are usual-
ly covered in the managing directors or chairmans report. Many global companies
operating in Australia also issue a version of an annual report without the direc-
tors and financial reports.
Beyond the annual report, other popular mechanisms for communicating with
stakeholders include: occasional publications on social, employee or environmen-
tal activities; community or stakeholder consultation panels; local letterbox drops
of flyers on environmental initiatives; regular newsletters to employees and their
families; regular communication with politicians and non-government organisa-
tions on matters of interest to them; and so on. Some of these approaches are
specifically geared to achieving transparency and accountability goals, while oth-
ers lean towards one-way communication and managing stakeholders
expectations rather than dialogue and engagement.
Companies are not always confident in their approach to communication. The
Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has found that the majority ofAustralias top 100 companies have introduced environmental initiatives such as
recycling programs and energy saving initiatives, but many have not taken this
process a step further to report on their broader environmental performance and
impacts.21 Companies that do not report publicly indicate they are unaware of the
potential audience that would be interested in such behaviour and furthermore
they are unsure of the most effective way of reporting it as much of it is not con-
sidered appropriate in the annual report.
Environmental andsocial descriptions arefamiliar content forannual reports
A rich set ofcommunication mediaused by companies
Evidence of a lack of
confidence in reporting orpromoting environmentalinitiatives
18
Triple Bottom Line Measurement and Reporting in Australia: Making it Tangible
21 Australian Conservation Foundation (2000).A Different Look at the Performance of Australias Top
100 Companies (www.acfonline.org.au/camp